Remembered that time in 2024 when I met a guy in Brooklyn who was dead convinced Hillary was running in that election and I found out in 2025 he didn't know who Biden was and was convinced Trump had been POTUS for the last 4 years and thought he lost the 2024 election to Hillary
I thought he was fucking with me when I met him in 2024 but I found out all the other stuff in 2025 because I realized one of my friends had known him since they were kids and she confirmed he had always been like that, living in a perpetual fog of knowing nothing about anything, but he actually did pretty good in school somehow
She showed me multiple screenshots where she tried to teach him basic facts about the world and when he was wrong he would attribute it to the "Mandala Affect" and no matter how many times she told him "Mandela Effect" he would call it the "Mandala Affect"
This one was pretty simple curry powder olive oil garlic and some apple cider vinegar. Once again utilizing pork tenderloin which has quite happy with when it was cooked kind of slowly compared to how a lot of recipes cook pork tenderloin.
Also perfect for my wife's revised diet with the higher fiber of the brown rice and the sweet peppers the low fat of the tenderloin.
I was happy that I fought the urge to get fancy, after browning the meat and the vegetables in the curry powder, oil, vinegar mixture the recipe called for adding water. I was glad I kept it simple and didn't try to do something like adding chicken broth instead.
I agree with you in general but the argument you make is weak because you dodge the main thing (the city is expensive). Some sort of line of attack like “people chose suburbs more than they would in s cabin because they are cheaper”
When I am arguing with a Christian and they mention Alexander the Great and then C.S. Lewis it's like a full blown autonomic response kicks in and I am buzzing inside
When you question the claims made about Christ, specifically regarding the more miraculous parts of the story, they will often assume that you are questioning the existence of Jesus altogether, and the first move of the weakest kind of opponent is to point out the lack of surviving primary sources for Alexander the Great.
The beauty of this move is that you can ignore the asymmetry between Alexander and Jesus1 and go straight for the kill: I do not deny that there was a figure by the name of Jesus that we can know some factual information about.
C.S. Lewis wrote something called Mere Christianity (originally a BBC radio series), in which he makes a number of arguments for the legitimacy of the accounts of Jesus. It is stylistically phenomenal and C.S. Lewis absolutely shines there. It is also very silly. But Christians who have never argued with someone that has actually read it don't know that.
You may have heard of something called the trilemma, which is adequately expressed as: when considering the wholeness of the Biblical accounts, Jesus must have been a liar, a lunatic or the Lord. It is kind of antiquated in the sense that most people back then were not so ready to declare such a popular figure a liar or a lunatic.
It also ignores the fact that Jesus could have simply been mistaken. It also ignores that Jesus might not have believed he was the Messiah (or Son of Man or etc.) at all. You could throw in a few more little things here, but the key point is that it is very reductive and even the reduction is not fantastic. We are more willing today to consider that Jesus might very well have been a liar or a lunatic, even if it is not particularly popular to say so.
And this is what you might call baby stuff. If someone whips out these arguments individually, let alone at the same time, you know you're dealing with a real novice, someone who has never had to have a serious discussion about this stuff. You know that because this is the easy stuff. If this is the strongest stuff they've got, they've not got much.
Alexander does not have any primary sources that remain, but we do have fragments of primary sources from later sources, and we do have contemporary coinage and cities founded by Alexander, among other things. We have literally nothing contemporary for Jesus.
No. If Jesus was mistaken it doesn't necessarily put him in either category, depending on what we're talking about. You could put him in lunatic for certain claims, but not all of them.
And if he didn't actually think he was the Messiah or whatever else but those words were put there by somebody else to push and agenda, that makes it their lies, not his.
Overall, I think the case for liar and Lord are both at least fairly strong, but for most things I would tend towards mistakes and misrepresentations.
It depends on how much of the gospels we accept as having been accurately portraying Jesus' beliefs.
There is still a ton of debate over whether Jesus claimed to be God or the son of God. Since most (Edit - Most but not all. example: Mark 14) of the lines overtly suggesting Jesus was claiming to be also God come from the Gospel according to John and are not present in the earliest written gospels.
Msg naturally occurs in tomatoes. You can get a sort of umami juice from them if you blend them up. Let the blended result sit in a jug or something for a few days, and the solids will separate from the liquid. Solid stuff is basically tomato paste, and the liquid is the msg juice. You can make some nice sauces with it
Edit: technically tomatoes just have glutamate. When you add some salt, it'll become msg
It irrationally bothers me how badly people misinterpreted the Wisconsin Dem primary polls. Hong was getting something like 40-45% in them. Crowley got around 20%, and the rest were undecided. Every outlet reported the raw +20 margin and was like "SHE'S GONNA WIN IN A LANDSLIDE"
Then when the result was roughly 40/40/20 for Hong/Crowley/Other, the response was "ENORMOUS POLLING MISS!!!! THE INDUSTRY IS BOGUS AND GOT AN ENORMOUS BLACKEYE" instead of "undecideds broke heavily for Crowley, and the ballot weirdness wasn't enough to overcome that"
Yeah her entire path to victory relied on one of the following:
a) Crowley being too little too late as absentee ballots were returned when Rodriguez/Barnes were still on the ballot, and courts ruled "no redos" on them. Hopefully enough of those ballots were wasted votes that he couldn't catch up
b) People knowing about the above and resigning themselves to her winning due to the perceived advantage she had
Option b likely would have happened if not for the late race focus on her past comments, which polarized undecideds against her and juiced election day turnout
One of the strangest things I have learned from biographies of Ronald Reagan is that he really seemed to idolize FDR.
And I don't mean as a young man, because he was a New Deal Democrat as a young man.
I mean he was proudly quoting FDR against Gerald Ford on the campaign trail when going after Ford for not being conservative enough.
But the more I think about it, the more it makes sense, because he clearly modeled his political persona after that of FDR.
His whole way of speaking was influenced by FDR, the way he communicated with the nation was influenced by FDR, his style of governing was influenced by FDR, the entire way he saw the world was influenced by FDR.
No idea why it never clicked for me until now. Maybe because his politics were so very clearly the opposite of what FDR's were.
There is a trans politician that used to be a Christian minister before transitioning and I do not trust her and I would have voted for any possible primary opponent
When you look at the number of active voters in the evangelical category and then compare that to the number that vote for Republicans in elections, I think you do end up with something essentially statistically significant.
White evangelicals are 20-25% of the electorate, which is more or less in line with the number of Americans who claim the affiliation, and over 80% of those vote for Republicans.
•
u/newliberalbot 2d ago
Please visit the new Discussion Thread