The megaphone guy for sure. Massive 'I've got something to say and I'm going to say it, even though you can't say anything these days' vibes.
Funny events in anti-woke world
- Thread starter Agema
- Start date
I see a lot of references to the World Economic Forum on those protest signs. The fact that so many idiots got convinced that the WEF is some secret shadow dictatorship is among the most funny things in anti woke world. If they're asked exactly how and why Charles Swab supposedly controls every single national and economic leader they don't have an answer. After all mister Swab is neither the richest nor the most charismatic person in the world so what exactly does he have over Musk, Trump, Lula, Macron or even Rutte that they all swear fealty to him?
Also to some extend those people all know that the idea of a secret dictatorship is ridiculous. That's why they all suddenly cling to the WEF as their buzzword rather than use more conventional terms like Iluminati or Bildenburg conference which would get them laughed out of the room.
Dealing with one of those in the family at the mo, they seem to bring up this heritage group as their only hope every time I see them lately too. Well, along with ominous references to Jewish ppl and the dark lord himself George Soros. Whole lotta sighs.
Seems they're just cutting out the middle man nowadays with all the talk of "the Jews." No need for quaint dog whistles, eh.
-
One small positive is being able to appreciate this man's passionate display of his righteous rebellion utilising the unmistakable tone of a used envelope being jotted down on during an impatient customer service call...
Have a lovely traditional christmas get together! I live really far away from everyone now and I've unplugged the phone! Wooo!
No-one can make me go to Christmas, they can try, I bloody dare them!
She brings unique experience, having started in business, moving to politics through her local chamber of commerce, eventually becoming a State Governor and then UN Ambassador. Her tenure as governor actively demonstrated a willingness to use the veto power of her office.
She converted to the same religion as her husband half a decade before running for office... why so cynical?
In general, there are Alt-Right GOP and normal GOP. The former has high levels of racists in its demographics than most other demos. I could see Nikki Halley being electable by the latter and not the former. Hence Agema's question.
All you have state here is not stuff that the Alt-Right really cares about. It's what old GOP would care about
Politicians who held down a job before moving into politics, then started at the lower levels and worked their way up, are hardly rarities.
Politicians have a long history of performative piety. Particularly in countries where religion is a big deal, it often represents not any significant faith, but a desire to be seen to fit in and make connections. How many declared non-religious are there in Congress? Approximately none, which is quite remarkable given that even about 15% of the over-60s are non-religious (higher in later generations). I severely doubt it's because atheists have some sort of innate aversion to politics. I am mindful of a friend of mine who was training as a lawyer in Georgia (US). She wasn't remotely religious, but she went to church because it was the smart decision to be seen by the community as the right sort of person.
In Haley's particular case, we might note that she converted after she married her husband: so clearly religion was no impediment to their relationship. It was, however, about the point she started getting involved in civic affairs. We might also consider that the US right wing tends to have particularly strong ideas about appropriate, traditional, American, religious belief - i.e. Christianity and to a slightly lesser extent Judaism, so there is much greater motivation to convert for political gain. Sikhism by contrast is distinctly "foreign", and consequently is significantly less trusted (although I expect it should do better than atheism and Islam).
She is the only person to ever exist with her general credentials. Precisely 3 other people have ever been UN Ambassador and a Governor in their lifetimes. 2 of those were born into prominent political legacies, the 3rd was the son of (effectively) a Citibank executive, and all 3 of them were in law and/or politics from the moment they graduated college. Nobody else in all of history has worked their way up to both those positions other than Nikki Haley.
To her husband! She was making connections to her family! I know people who did the same thing, got married and then converted later to be closer to their spouse and children, none of it was performance for the sake of politics. Approximately zero people in the history of the world have converted based on faith. There is no logic to finding belief in a religion before joining, that would basically require divine revelation. People join religions to be part of a community, she joined her husband's community.
And she married in 1996, converted in 1997, had her first child in 1998, and ran for office in 2004. If you actually think the motivation was politics rather than two recently married adults having a conversation about how they want to raise their future children, you're delusional. Every interfaith marriage has that conversation, the "we're different religions so what religion will our child be" talk, and many land on conversion to be one religion.
...you're genuinely saying nobody ever thinks what they're converting to is true?
Yes, but virtually all these jobs are interchangeable in the sense that you get a certain amount of the relevant experience. State governor / US Senator... whatevs. Ambassador to the UN is relatively minor, of course (everyone knows US ambassadors are mostly figureheads and its the central State Dept. doing the real work).
So why didn't her husband convert to Sikhism to achieve the same end, then?
Or perhaps they don't have any belief at all. They just pop along to the church, attend for a while, say the right stuff to the pastor and sorted. Or of course if they're rich enough they just pay for a good looking blonde pastor to come to them and proclaim them religious as preparation for their political ascent.
You're just going to have to forgive me for saying that a person who converts to another religion for their kids has a significant deficit of belief either in their old religion or the new one or both. (Although I would give a lot more leeway for conversions between denominations of the same faith.) It's a convenience, a superficial appearance.
No, I'm cynical, not delusional.
I'm well aware all the above happens and what you claim might be the case. I also think ambitious people of a profession who tend to be extraordinarily heavy on appearing the right way and extraordinarily light on honesty are apt to claim religion they don't really have any real attachment to. Especially when their words and behaviours seem to display very little of what their religion is supposed to teach.
No, I'm saying they don't convert because they believe it's true.
Pure speculation: they were trying to have kids, and thought the kids would fit in better with their peers as Christians.
She converted from a religion that worships one all-powerful all-knowing eternal God and advocates a life of piety towards God and service toward their community to another religion that also believes in one all-powerful all-knowing eternal God and advocates a life of piety towards God and service toward their community. It's not really that big of a jump.
Right. It was easier to fit in. For mummy and the kids.
Well gosh, perhaps you should pop over and tell the Sikhs they may as well convert to Christianity because it's pretty much the same thing.
This is such an extraordinarily strange notion. So... the membership of the religion is... completely unconnected with whether you actually think the metaphysical beliefs of that religion are real?
Depends on the religion. Jewish atheism is a thing.
Not a thing for Christianity though. Belief is very much a prerequisite
No, it isn't unconnected. It's just a different ordering of cause and effect then you're imagining. Do you think I am a Catholic because I believe the tenets of the Catholic Church, or do I believe those tenets because I am Catholic? Obviously, there's a bit of a circular relationship there, both directions are true at present, but how does one enter that closed circle? People born into a religious community are easy, we obviously begin with membership and are taught belief. Conversion is more complicated, but I still think the entry point is effectively the same. Do you imagine someone independently reached the conclusions of the Catholic faith, without experiencing any of the tradition, and then joined the Church because it's what they already believed? Seems unlikely to me. You go to a church to find faith and to practice it.
It was my experience growing up that for most kids, religion was just that thing mum and dad talked about and why you may have had to wear a funny hat on the weekend: or all the time in the case of the (I wanna say) Sikh lad in my high school years. Like reading that sentence of yours has left me with a profound relief at the level of human and cultural diversity I went to school with because I cannot fathom the logic of making my kids observe a religion just to fit in.
Are you ignoring the context of parents from different religions picking one of the two? The logic you cannot fathom isn't the logic.
No I’m not ignoring it. Because to me it shouldn’t have been an issue what religion they picked; I just find the calculated nature of choosing one not out of genuine faith or feeling of enlightenment but social standing to be fuckin’ weird.
You're a grown man, you can wear a funny hat any time you fucken well like.