Social Cooling (2017)

The quiet ones are conformists and they eventually conform to the extremists if that's all they see. Many people who think they are moderates probably aren't actually or won't be over time. There is no "radical centrism".

That's why I still think Bernie would've taken the Dems to victory in 2016. Extreme beats extreme. Hillary was just too normal.

I think the main one was "they (immigrants) took our jobs" (whereas I would argue USA was as successful as it was for as long as it was due to how long they benefited from influx of smart, hard-working immigrants who were willing to work for less than "born Americans").

The other ones about "non-whites are criminals", "marriage is a union between a man and a woman", "let me have my gun or I'll shoot you with it", "transgender people don't belong in sports" and similar, were mostly sideshow to stir the pot, but it was obvious people had to be careful before Trump not to get "cancelled" for some of those views, especially if they were in any somewhat public position (like an executive of a public company). And yes, today this seems to continue to happen in the other direction, but due to tribe mentality, one side is probably enjoying that today even if it's not really fair either.

Again, this is just looking from the sidelines somewhere in the non-EU part of Europe. And don't for a moment think I believe we've got it better over here: it's really much worse instead (we've had our Trump-like president in power for over 12 years now).

> What exactly do you think he meant here? I can't come up with any "opposite" that even remotely fits with what he said. My interpretation: God says gay people should be killed. You can't love God and deny any part of God's law. "So you love God. So, you must love his law." How else can that possibly be interpreted?

You're leaving out the context of Ms Rachel. Charlie is saying everything in response to her.

Let me go into extra detail here to explain what I think he meant:

"Ms Rachel is saying that she acts like this because God said 'Love your Neighbor,' and is acting as if that law is so important that we should always adopt the preferred pronouns of people around us. However, the best way to love your neighbor is to tell them the truth, and tell them what sex they are, rather than upholding their preferred pronouns, which I see as untrue to their sex. Secondly, one should not take these Mosaic laws from Leviticus as literal rules for modern day Christians to follow. Christ + his Apostles said that these Mosaic laws were applicable to the Jews (the direct descendents of Israel) in a covenant between them and God, which were only necessary before he arrived as Messiah, and now that he is there, he is fulfilling that covenant for all people, and the gentiles who convert to Christianity do not need to follow the Mosaic laws literally, but rather follow their moral intent as he teaches. Thus, if Ms Rachel really wants to take these laws so literally... she should look in the previous chapter where it says that gays should be stoned to death. I don't think that she would agree with stoning gays to death. So it's hypocritical of her to take these laws so literally."

----

Christian Context (from AI):

After Jesus’ resurrection, the early church—initially Jewish—grappled with whether Gentile (non-Jewish) converts needed to follow the Mosaic Law. This led to the pivotal Jerusalem Council (Acts 15, ~50 CE), where apostles like Peter and Paul decided:

- Gentiles were not required to follow Levitical laws like circumcision or kosher diets.

- They were asked to follow basic moral guidelines (e.g., avoiding idolatry, sexual immorality) to maintain fellowship with Jewish Christians.

Paul’s letters further clarify this shift:

- In Galatians 3:23-25, he describes the law as a “guardian” until Christ came, after which faith in Jesus supersedes the law’s role.

- In Romans 10:4, he says Christ is the “culmination of the law” for those who believe.

- However, moral principles (e.g., loving your neighbor, Leviticus 19:18) remain binding, as they’re reaffirmed in the New Testament (Romans 13:8-10).

----

^ So that's why "Love your neighbor" is still valid in Christianity, but stoning gays is not. This was decided in the Jerusalem Council, which all modern Christian sects inherit from. Charlie was using "stoning gays" as an example of something modern Christians do NOT believe in, even though it was a law of Moses, and is written in Leviticus.

Its not what he says that makes people think he encouraged and forced people towards political violence. He isn't just a guy saying mean things. He is one the most influential people pushing support for the political right wing, he influences masses of young and old people towards their campaign, he works with some of the most evil people in the nation and helps them theorycraft and spread their ideas and make it policy. All of this directly affects peoples lives. Thats why I laugh when he was killed and celebrate his death. Thats why I and many others openly say that he deserved what he got.

Please don't quote AI at me. If I want to read the output of a bullshit machine, I can do it myself.

One thing I didn't mention before is that it's really bizarre that Kirk cites Leviticus for "love your neighbor." It's true that Leviticus says this, but that's not what most Christians are going to think of when they think of that phrase. "Love your neighbor" is typically associated with Jesus. Jesus said nothing about gay people but he was very clear on loving your neighbor. Three of the four gospels have him saying that this is the second greatest commandment, behind loving God. This is not just one of hundreds of specific rules that got thrown away when the Messiah came. This is one of the two most fundamental rules in the religion, explicitly affirmed by that Messiah.

So it makes zero sense from a Christian perspective to say that "love your neighbor" is not to be taken literally because it's tucked in there next to the "kill gay people" law and all that stuff is just for Jews. And it makes zero sense to assume that "love your neighbor" is a reference to the old Mosaic laws rather than a reference to the literal words of the Son of God.

Your interpretation basically requires us to take everything Kirk said here as sarcastic. And I don't see the justification for that. It's not like "God's perfect law" is a phrase he's throwing back at her. If she had said "God's perfect law from Leviticus commands us to love our neighbor" then I could buy it, but she didn't.

So what's your reasoning for this interpretation? It seems to rest on the idea that Christians ignore Leviticus, so he can't have meant it seriously. But that's just not true in general. Christians typically follow some of those laws and ignore others, more or less arbitrarily (or more accurately, in a way that fits their beliefs about what's right and wrong). If you look up Christian writings about homosexuality, you will find many Christians citing Leviticus on this subject.

The justification for taking Kirk to mean the opposite of his literal words here seems to boil down to, he can't have actually meant that he believes this passage from his holy book, because if he did then that would mean he's a bad person, and implying that Kirk is a bad person leads to political violence.