Factory? Hell nah, we home brew in this household

I believe that something resembling religion will reappear in society (American society, I mean) in the future, maybe even the near future. Political substitutes for religion have given meaning to people’s lives, i.e made them feel apart of something greater, but they have not provided them with physical community, a path toward self-improvement, a guide for how to manage interpersonal relations (Apart from “don’t offend people”, in the case of progressivism, I guess?), or any compelling reason not to be afraid of death.

Traditional religion’s staying power came not from oppressive power structures or whatever people think these days, but because of all of that. Just having an oppressive power structure and none of the other stuff has generally led to religions/philosophies dying out within a few generations, like Nazism or communism. Both of those had their time to shine, completely ruined the societies they took over, and are now viewed as jokes by most people today. Meanwhile Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc, which offer way more than ideology ever has, have been around for millennia and are on track to stay around for millennia more.

Homo Evolutis

I think using a political philosophy or a common enemy to unite a society is more harmful than it is good, since those things will inevitably be held sacred, and it becomes impossible to think rationally about them. Religious people are able to disagree on things like economics because the things that they hold sacred are supernatural sky gods, instead of things which are of this world (Americans are an exception due to the polarization of the two-party system and the compelling force of American Civil Religion, which makes freedom, democracy, and the Constitution into sacred things), but people who hold a political ideology like Marxism or Liberalism to be sacred (Tons of people, many of them on this very website) cannot tolerate disagreement and will ignore facts that might disprove their ideology. This is manageable when it involves nothing more than a sky god, but when it involves the very basics of how society should operate, it gets bad, quickly, which is how you get thousands of dead dissenters and a permanently stagnant society. Using a common enemy is even worse since it leads to an irrational hatred of said enemy that drives people to do horrible things to eachother, with the most infamous example being the Holocaust. The Nazis also held their political ideals to be more sacred than their religious beliefs, coincidentally.

What are you trying to achieve with this pointless aggression?

Some people in the tech community just seem to have this weird superiority complex for some reason. They think they’re smarter than everyone else and look down on the normies, meaning they come off… Like this guy. It’s like they put all of their skill points into INT and none of them into WIS.

Some dude thinking his pet snail is dead, only to throw it in the trash and forget about it, and then wake up to a snailpocalypse a week later is pretty funny to think about

Season 2 does get better. Episode 1 is mostly for recap purposes. The low budget for season 2 does really show during one of the arcs but if you can ignore it, then the story is great. Season 2 isn’t like season 1, where there’s one overarching antagonist. Instead, Iwanaga goes around solving different cases over a few multi-episode arcs. The format is basically the same though, and there’s still lots of talking.

“Then who’s vice-president, Jerry Lewis?”

How do these people function in their daily lives? Do they have service dogs or something who bark every time someone makes a joke?

People who didn’t like the first season’s pacing probably have had their attention spans whittled down to nothing. I loved the first season. Iwanaga is such a great protagonist and I loved the themes explored in her battles against the main antagonist and in her attempts to solve the other cases.

In/Spectre Season 2’s OP, Yotogibanashi, doesn’t get nearly enough attention, much like the show itself.

The USA is a union of states. The House of Representatives is where the people are represented proportionally. The reason why we have the Senate is so that the smaller states don’t get fucked over by the more populous ones, because again, the states are legally equal under the union. I do think FPTP and the electoral college are stupid though.

I have always believed in taking bits and stuff from everyone and leaving the negative that doesn’t benefit me as a person bc I too have to adapt in society.

And I find that while some of what Andrew Tate says has positive effects on society, most of what he says is negative and that it outweighs the positives, and his target demographic, teenage boys, are biologically incapable of comprehending nuance due to their undeveloped brains, and are therefore way too stupid to be trusted to only take the good and leave the bad. Therefore, Andrew Tate and people like him should be ostracized by society.

Men ought to have higher aspirations than owning a Bugatti and fucking a lot of hoes. Andrew Tate does not promote any such aspirations. A society where young men only care about sex and supercars is a society on the fast track to collapse.

I’m in and out and I always say thank you when I’m done, since I personally like it when customers get out of my store as soon as possible.

Because he’s a degenerate scam artist who influences young men to do things which are harmful for society. Society needs standards.

Please if he helps young men go to the gym and improve mental health then what’s the problem

That’s not what Andrew Tate did. Andrew Tate tells men that they are worthless unless they’re wealthy, strong, and promiscuous like him, and then extracts money from them so they can attend his “hustle university” and learn surface-level Investipedia knowledge from a moderator on the Andrew Tate discord server.

People like this should absolutely be ostracized. Being mistreated by society does not give any of us an excuse to be fucking stupid.

I don’t give a shit, Andrew Tate is not how you solve this issue.

Who are you to say he is a bad role model?

Andrew Tate’s entire schtick is being a misogynistic chimpanzee wearing the skin of a man and bragging about how wealthy and sexually successful he is. Anybody who believes this manchild to be a good role model ought to be treated as a laughingstock, much like the man himself. Andrew Tate and people like him capturing the minds of the youth, or young people living a meaningless and depressive existence with no role models or aspirations at all, has direct negative effects on society, and therefore me as well. Therefore, I will continue to tell people to stop following shitty role models like him and to get good ones, because I wanna live in a society where people actually have standards for how they conduct themselves, instead of a society dominated by people like Andrew Tate.

“Sir, we must burn down the world’s forests and destroy everyone’s economic assets.”

“Are you sure that this is the way to go about solving inflation?”

“Inflation?”

If men have no positive role models and no framework through which to interact with their emotions and their place in the world, they will find horrible role models like Andrew Tate and come up with crude and self-serving frameworks through which to view the world. Since people find religion cringe for some reason nowadays, personal philosophy and virtue ethics are now our only good option.