Does anyone else find the absolute irony that with the rate of Christianity dropping in the mainstream people are...

Does anyone else find the absolute irony that with the rate of Christianity dropping in the mainstream people are developing a victim complex now more than ever?

Other urls found in this thread:

time.com/4715679/santas-husband-book-harper-design/
youtube.com/watch?v=u1xrNaTO1bI
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

if youre talking about the willful ignorance of those who think that WASPs control the country and are out to get them then yeah, most reasonable people would agree.

WHITE CHRISTIAN MALES WANT TO HACK OFF YOUR CLITORIS IN TRUMP'S AMERICA

sun's going down

better change my gender

Christianity has been replaced by liberal multiculturalism. They aren't that dissimilar really, which is why the transition has been so smooth.

what you're interpreting as a transition from one ideology to another is rather the diffusion of ideologies into multiple realities. This is happening because in order for ideologies to become predominant you need a majority of people to buy into a narrative and large narratives and generalizations can no longer apply to any reality

>thinking gender exists
You just triggered me, bigot

take the NRx pill- progressivism is protestantism

I never thought about it this way, but yeah, that is pretty funny.

That's because everyone thinks they are their own personal Jesus.

ZHE IS RISEN

Secularist liberals have a hole in their self where religion used to reside. They have filled it with post-structural Foucaultian ideology.

The deeper irony is that people like you have just as big a victim complex but completely fail to see it

Christianity is growing globally, not shrinking.

how is this ironic? seems to completely make sense

anyway sage for not Veeky Forums-related

>people like you

Grotesque assumption. "People like you" should castrate yourself and save the gene pool from pollution.

The abandonment of religion and tradition is always associated with the decline of civilization, order and social cohesion.

With third world peasant hordes, yes. But people are obviously talking about it decreasing in popularity among whites, since that's the only group that matters.

Christianity was always a semitic slave religion, as is its contemporary liberal egalitarian counterpart. If a belief system has the components of 1) moral universalism, and 2) nonbeliever as immoral heretic -- you can be assured this is a jew-imposed system. "You aren't a progressive?! You don't think equality exists?! So you don't believe in progress represented by tranny bathrooms, race replacement immigration, and glamorized sexual degeneracy promoted to children?!"

Welcome, you are the heretic of our new age and liberal multicultural religion, good sir.

the modern world is full of fucked up christian ideals (heresies you may call)

USA*

Like what

How can one castrate a self?

Like everything is about love, and to love one's neighbour,

But a really self-centred hedonistic and subjective version of "love" that earlier Christians would be disgusted by.

>just take it in the ass go.. I mean guy

Slave morality, said they. :^)

Dostoevsky writes about this basically.

We have no morality that surpasses Christian morality, instead we get bullshit bastardisations of Christianity which add up to Christianity without God.

Christianity and Secular Humanism are essentially the same thing, you just shave of the obviously supernatural elements and retain the ethical core.

I'm not a /pol/-tard with delusions of grandeur and paranoia that the Jews are out to get me, etc., etc., but I think we can all agree SJWs are a bit fucked in the head and are permeating mass media and culture.

sjw are neo-puritans/neo-protestants

Christians pretty much have the biggest victim complex today, they are becoming less powerful and they know it and are consumed by fear of stronger social forces which are gaining ground on them. Any interest group is going to view themselves as victims [truly or falsely] and structure their discourse around this but there's a real culture war and someone is losing.

>I'm not a /pol/-tard with delusions of grandeur and paranoia that the Jews are out to get me, etc., etc., but I think we can all agree SJWs are a bit fucked in the head and are permeating mass media and culture.
How does someone get "fucked in the head"? If you can't provide a purely materalist explanation without resorting to metaphysical notions like "evil" maybe it's all just in your head.
There's no good reason not to believe that the basic infrastructure of modern society isn't inducing mass psychosis and cancerous biological breakdown. The meat you eat is filled with hormones, agriculture is subject to all kinds of chemicals, the atmospheric composition is significantly different than throughout most of human evolution, all kinds of electrical waveforms transmitting through the air which we don't know the full biological effects of, etc, etc
Mass media/culture didn't create itself it somehow came into existence and has a genesis and is built on top of something.

Nietszche predicted this. Christianity is inherently nihilistic. Our laws and morals being based on the Bible meant that if God was dead, we'd lose our values and be filled with angst and fear

>Nietszche predicted this.
Nietszches theory of victimology in no way can explain modern developments. He saw glorious wars as a means of transforming the human race into something stronger. All the wars of the 20th century just crippled us more.

>Christianity is inherently nihilistic.
Christianity is a humanism, nihilism would overturn itself, you can't be a nihilist and a Christian at the same time.

>Our laws and morals being based on the Bible meant that if God was dead, we'd lose our values and be filled with angst and fear
The weak are always filled with angst and fear. "Render unto caesar", etc, etc Christianity already legitimized secular law and power. Christianity isn't Islam, it wasn't initially in the business of trying to colonize the earth by force (ignoring later perversions).

This meme needs to die. The New Left was inspired by philosophers like Nietzsche who hated Christians, especially Protestants. SJWism is the antithesis of Puritanism.

>claims that christians have a victim complex
>proceeds to confirm their complaint about christianity losing social influence

>Christians pretty much have the biggest victim complex today
I don't really see any christian suicide bombers or online takeovers of communities by christians, if they're losing the culture wars it's pretty impressive how they're taking it in stride. You'd expect an open revolt or something.

Damnit I was going to post that. Are you me from another timeline?

And Nietzsche basically stands for everything the SJWs hate with his cult of master-morality and hatred of socialism. Do you think he was being disingenuous when he described his "blond beast"?

Nietzsches only academic legacy is his interpretative method which laid the foundations for revaluation and cultural relativism. Nietzsche stands for whatever you want him to.

>another pleb who misread Neetchee

SJWs don't really care about socialism. They do not care about economic inequality. And they definitely don't care about the working class from their Ivory Tower enclaves.

The Alt-Right and the New Left are mirror images of each other. Both hate Christianity. Both valorize violence. Both obsess over identity. This is not a coincidence. Both are the heirs of Nietzsche.

word salad

no, read dostoevsky

as a foreigner, I think the reason for this is affirmative action.
That is a benefit given to a minority because it has been victimized.
People want to be (perceived, not real) victims to get benefits of many kinds.
The worst example is upper middle class college educated white women from the most powerful country on earth who think they are victims and have a harder life than a man from Bulgaria.

It is a bit similar to people in the 1600s wanting to become/be declared minor nobles (for example, a great painter working for the court) in order to avoid paying taxes.

Some lighearted banter will do no harm. The return will be all the more powerful, besides this is nothing compared to what Christianity has gone through. Persecutions under the Romans, sack of Rome by Muslims, conquest of Iberia, crossiong of Pyrenees, fall of Constantinople, siege Viena... Few die hard atheits with agressive policy are irrelevant, they'll die out in a generation.

I'm a fucking psued can someone fill me in on the irony here.

>Christianity is a humanism, nihilism would overturn itself, you can't be a nihilist and a Christian at the same time.
Yes, and when you stop becoming Christian you become a nihilist.
Legitimacy is temporary. It's not the intention that matters but the consequence. The fact is that the modern society and its laws were based on the Bible and people ceasing to believe in God casts doubt on civilization and the foundation of who we are as humans and not beasts.

Beliefs make us strong. Only the strong are capable of forming their own beliefs, the weak believe whatever the society tells them to. If the foundation of our society is weakened, more people will be afraid than in a stable society.

Religion in the west has a better chance of dying out in a generation than secularism. You can't tape people's eyes shut once they've learned to see. If Christianity and faith in general wants to stick around as a cultural force, it needs to abandon its supernatural ties and adapt with western culture or risk becoming a relic of the past that tourists gawk at in the Vatican.

>The worst example is upper middle class college educated white women from the most powerful country on earth

So affirmative action benefits college educated white women? Bs. Seems to me that you are making a strawman excuse in order to hate on affirmative action.

Correlation isn't causation

How does believe in Jesas make you strong against what society tells you? Most Americans are Christians.

You gotta define your sentences first or you'll look like an edgy pseud.

What? I literally said Jesus is the society. Hence the rate of Christianity dropping will lead to more fear and angst because most people are weak and can't form their own beliefs.

Maybe I shouldn't have used the word strong. But if we assume for the sake of this discussion that strong means the lack of angst and fear, then either believing in God or forming your own beliefs would make you strong.

It's more of a socially instilled affirmative action. The less privilege points you have the more your opinion matters to others, and they are obliged to help you in some fashion.

My point is, insofar as victims are scared, being scared makes us feel like victims.

>help me, help me! I'm being persecuted by le ebil white christian man!
we get it, you have daddy issues

I always thought that the "War on Christmas" was more or less a meme, but I don't know any other way to interpret this.
time.com/4715679/santas-husband-book-harper-design/

>The less privilege points you have the more your opinion matters to others.

You gotta get off the Internet and look at real life. I guess that's why blacks always get more money for their schools, why flint Michigan was contaminated etc, because their not so privileged voice matters so much in society. Right?

Christians put god in our money, our pledge of allegiance, they tried to sneak in Jesus into schools. Don't pretend that Christians aren't trying to force people to accept Jesus.

Everyone wants to feel like they're the good guy in the story of their life.

It's a majority Christian country, so deal with it I guess?

I've visited Muslim-majority countries before and they will literally yell prayers out of a loudspeaker numerous times per day, trust me, you have nothing to complain about.

> It's a majority Christian country, so deal with it I guess?

So first you imply that Christians don't force their ideas onto others, now your argument is that they do, but others should just deal with it. Honest question, are you using your parents' ipad again faggot?

>I've visited Muslim-majority countries before and they will literally yell prayers out of a loudspeaker numerous times per day, trust me, you have nothing to complain about.
>other countries are shit. So we can get away with a lot of shit as long as we don't reach their level of shit.
>implying Christians don't go into corners here in the US and start preaching with microphones.

A non-believer cannot be a heretic because he is a non-believer.

Political correctness is good to the degree that we now have an awareness of
victimization and victimary mechanisms. But now this awareness supports attacks on
Christianity and its texts, which are the very inspiration of our modern concern for the victim.

Rather than becoming a god,
which I think is what happens when the victim is killed promptly, the victim whose execution
is postponed, for any reason whatever, has the opportunity to gain power over people, due to
his sacrality. I think the victim in this case eventually becomes what we call a "king." This,
by the way, would be a model for how representation evolves out of ritual. You have first the
spontaneous unanimity through the victim, then many sacrificial repetitions of this model,
and then, eventually, representation in the form of new offices, institutions, etc. So here you
have two types of representation: one in which the victim becomes what we call a "god";
another in which the victim's execution is delayed and, in many instances, the victim may be
smart enough to capitalize on the sacred powers ascribed to him. The latter is what we call a
"king," the origin of political power.

You know, there are two forms of totalitarianism. One tries to destroy the concern for victims
openly and directly. Its proponents basically attempt to kill as many victims for as little
reason as possible. Then there is the insidious totalitarianism. Communism in many of its
forms was insidious, but it will probably be replaced by ideologies still more insidious which
outflank the Gospel on the left, presenting themselves as better than the Gospel, trying to
show that the Gospels do not side with the victims, but demonize them. Some of these people
see themselves as super-Christians, but they are heirs of the predecessors of Marx who
thought they could achieve a new humanism. Feuerbach, for example. But they laid the
groundwork for a disrespect of truth. I think it would be helpful to study Feuerbach, who was
a primary agent of the transformation of Christianity into Marxism.

I find it strange that women so badly want participation in the male power of archaic
societies, for it is precisely their real superiority that women don't appear, for the most part,
as the primary agents of violence. If they want now to join the power games of the males, and
that is understandable, are they not losing their real moral superiority?

If anything my hypothesis is pro-woman. It is peculiar how people moved by new ideologies
want to be part of the power structure even retrospectively, and to be seen as responsible for
some of the horrors that have left their mark on us. This greed to participate in the violence of
men is incomprehensible to me.

Many observers think that because scapegoating becomes more and more
visible in them, the Gospels must approve of it, they must advocate some kind of scapegoat
religion. But to use a modern analogy from the history of France, this would be like saying
the pro-Dreyfus people were really the scapegoaters of Dreyfus. This is the mistake so many
theologians and biblical scholars have made regarding the mimetic scapegoat theory. They
simply do not understand the enormous difference that the representation of scapegoating
makes. They think only in terms of themes rather than a hidden, generative mechanism which
cannot appear in what it generates.

An example which I have been working on a little bit is Joan of Arc. The people who
put her on trial divinized her, or "demonized" her, in the sense of regarding her as a witch.
She was avowed to have supernatural powers and turned into a witch, whereas her
canonization by the church acknowledges another form of relationship to the supernatural
which is different from the demonized-divinized scapegoat. Now there is a form of
divinization reported in the Gospels, which is magical and mythical, for instance Herod
Antipas's belief in the resurrection of John the Baptist, and the divinization of Christ, which is
just the opposite. The Gospels seem so close to myth in a way, and yet they are poles apart.
This is a difficult problem because certain forms of monotheism move God so far away from
any involvement in the scapegoat mechanism that they view with suspicion any contact with
it in religious thought and symbolism. But I think the power and truth of Christianity is that it
completes the great forms of monotheism, as in Judaism and Islam, by witnessing to the God
who reveals himself to be the arch-scapegoat in order to liberate humankind.

Herod
murders John, divinizes him, but he never repents. Peter denies his association with Jesus and
later recognizes him as his risen lord, and Paul persecutes the followers of Christ before his
own revelatory experience. But both Peter and Paul repent. This is the main difference made
by the resurrection, as contrasted to human divinization or apotheosis: repentance.

I have come to be more positive about the word "sacrificial," so I would like first of all
to make a distinction between sacrifice as murder and sacrifice as renunciation. The latter is a
movement toward freedom from mimesis as potentially rivalrous acquisition and rivalry.
Well, I think a nonsacrificial reading, or a sacrificial one expressing genuine renunciation, is
found in many passages in the writings of the church fathers. It is not the only one, to be sure.
And then this reading is not mine first of all, it is Nietzsche's. Nietzsche was the first thinker
to see clearly that the singularity of Judeo-Christianity was that it rehabilitates victims that
myths would regard as justly immolated. Of course for Nietzsche this was a dreadful mistake
that first Judaism, then Christianity had inflicted on the world. Nietzsche chose violence rather than peace, he chose the texts that mistook the victim for a culprit. What he could not
see was the scapegoat mechanism.

No. In his book entitled The Antichrist it is clear that he considered Jesus honest and
sincere. Nietzsche thought it was wrong for
Christianity to speak of the innocence of the victim, not because sacrificial victims are really
guilty, but because societies need sacrifice. He saw the central religious issue as no one else
did. He understood that the gods and heroes immolated in pagan mythology were similar in
form to the killing of Christ. But he thought Christianity's witness to the innocence of Christ
was socially harmful and that the world needs the sacrifice of the victim as part of life's
eternal return, which includes destruction.
Nietzsche was the first to see this problem clearly, but he was perverse in choosing the
violent lie instead of the peaceful truth of the victim.

the upholders of PC can find a strange kind of support in his writings. He was
entranced with violent differentiation. You know, in his own time he lashed out at those who
were among the first to embrace PC. He confused PC with authentic Christianity.

take the myth of Purusha in the Vedas: he was killed by a great crowd of sacrificers, and
out of this sacrifice the three great castes of India appeared. Now the myth does not tell you Purusha was guilty, but it
doesn't tell you he was innocent either -- and this is what the Gospels alone tell you, that
Jesus was innocent. "We were wrong," says the New Testament community, "to the extent
that we were involved in that."

that makes some sense

If you don't believe in hierarchy then you become like a sacred thing yourself. And since people ALSO became narcisists they take themselves too seriouly.. so everything becomes a chance to become a victim

I also think it's funny they like to suck Nietzsche's dick so much since Nietzsche was far from being a social relativist... he believed in better peoples, and christianity was something that needed to be destroyed for the ubermenschen to arise

>But now this awareness supports attacks on Christianity and its texts, which are the very inspiration of our modern concern for the victim.
So what? Is Rene implying that there's some contradiction here? What is supposed to be his point? Christianity might've been the inspiration, but that doesn't mean that it's a necessary condition. It's ironic at best.
>becoming a god, which I think is what happens when the victim is killed promptly
Perhaps a myrter, but why a god?
>the origin of political power.
It's hardly the origin.
>moral superiority
I don't want to spookpost, but c'mon now.

continued

>Violence is bad :(

I don't know much about Rene, but based on my understanding, I find his methodology to be the main problem. Isn't his mimesis/scapegoat theory just an empirical claim? Than what's the point in all the references to fiction? Please enlighten me girardfag.

>Christianity might've been the inspiration, but that doesn't mean that it's a necessary condition.
Christianity invented the innocence of the victim. Nobody gave a shit before, everyone was like: "Fuck that guy". Re-read the part about Nietzsche being mad at Christianity introducing this concept.
>Perhaps a myrter, but why a god?
Don't ask me, go ask every single culture why they worship the victim so much before taking its life, or why they would beat the shit out of depictions of gods ("Fuck that guy theology" again), the latter being another thing Nietzsche and Freud talked about before Girard.
>It's hardly the origin.
Read Homo Sacer by Agamben.
>I don't want to spookpost
You can. Feminists' violent fantasies undermine their supposed moral highground, it's spooks fighting each other within the same ideology and cranium, which business as usual for the Stirnerite.
>Violence is bad :(
Scapegoating accomplishes fuck all in regards to the causes of whichever crisis it alleges to solve.

Scapegoating is the way of the spooks. ;)
>Isn't his mimesis/scapegoat theory just an empirical claim? Than what's the point in all the references to fiction?
Girard moved from literary criticism to religious studies to history to social behavior. You can find similar things all over continental philosophy, writers are quite "mobile." Girard was perfectly aware of the challlenges and limits in researching this in a scientfic manner.

The Gospels hit the nail on the head by showing people that they can stop the scapegoating, Jesus teaches us the divine way of stopping to be spooked retards who punish the innocent over our own failings.

>Christianity invented the innocence of the victim. Nobody gave a shit before, everyone was like: "Fuck that guy".
That doesn't seem to tackle my point. 1. Would you say Christianty is a necessary condition for our modern concern for the victim. Why? 2. Why should we care about the victim anyway? (That second question is not an attack on Girard's position, but rather a manifestation of my ignorance on his position)
>Re-read the part about Nietzsche being mad at Christianity introducing this concept.
Maybe I'm being dense, but yeah Nietzsche and Christianity disagreed. But why should we choose the peaceful truth of the victim?
>go ask every single culture why they worship the victim so much before taking its life
This seems like an unjustified generalization. To pick a contemporary counter-example: surely ISIS doesn't worship the homoseksuals nor did there take a whole lot of worshipping place during the shoah. Maybe we're not on the same page about what 'worship' is. Are you perhaps referring to phenomena like the public exucution. In that case the homoseksuals are in a way worship, but when it comes to the shoah haben wir es nicht gewuƟt.
>Read Homo Sacer by Agamben.
I might, but my reading list as of now is rather long. I want to get a strong basis before tackling the contemporary theorists.
>Girard was perfectly aware of the challlenges and limits in researching this in a scientfic manner.
That's cool.
>Scapegoating accomplishes fuck all in regards to the causes of whichever crisis it alleges to solve.
>The Gospels hit the nail on the head by showing people that they can stop the scapegoating, Jesus teaches us the divine way of stopping to be spooked retards who punish the innocent over our own failings.
So it's a matter of efficiency? Efficiency ain't morally neutral. Now the real question should be: to what end ought we to be efficient. I don't think Jesus or Girard can answer that question. Doesn't the question of efficiency become trival, or at least secondairy, in the light of that question?

Or maybe it's what people always thought (right or wrong) but only feel they can speak out about now with impunity.

>"You aren't a progressive?! You don't think equality exists?! So you don't believe in progress represented by tranny bathrooms, race replacement immigration, and glamorized sexual degeneracy promoted to children?!"
I can agree with you that this is bad.

>But people are obviously talking about it decreasing in popularity among whites, since that's the only group that matters.
But I disagree with your attitude that this is "the only group that matters".
You and the liberals and feminists have a thing in common which makes you all detestable. Your views are both extreme.

Sadly, it seems that everyone expressing their viewpoints tend to float to extremes. What is wrong with this world?

Well Christianity is a slave faith, and somewhat stoic in observances so it makes sense that people disregarding it will bitch more.

Yeah man

>1. Would you say Christianty is a necessary condition for our modern concern for the victim. Why?
Invention, meet inventor.
>2. Why should we care about the victim anyway?
Because the victim's suffering doesn't have the power to solve the crisis, we're being fed fake news.
>ISIS doesn't worship the homoseksuals
Fundamentalists attribute all manner of supernatural, demonic powers to their enemies all the time.

I'm positive your skepsis makes you a devil in their eyes, and stoning you rewards them with many afterlife points, which makes you a choice victim and your fate an efficacious, potent ritual for the community.
>nor did there take a whole lot of worshipping place during the shoah
Here I redirect you again to Homo Sacer. Even today, /pol/'s antisemitism can't stop describing their favorite target as some omnipotent "master race" of evil geniuses. As you can see, Girard's models on sacredness, separation, otherness and violence are very fertile, adaptable and relevant today, which made him attractive.
>Are you perhaps referring to phenomena like the public exucution
Scapegoating indeed originates as ritual. Pogroms and mass arrests of Jews meant to feed them to the Holocaust machine happened in public too.
>to what end ought we to be efficient
To the end of not being a community of barely domesticated clinical retards. But if you want to argue in favor of senseless victimization, do go ahead, for some reason I suspect I'm terribile at doing that, and could use a copypasta or two on this topic.

>Fundamentalists attribute all manner of supernatural, demonic powers to their enemies all the time.
>I'm positive your skepsis makes you a devil in their eyes, and stoning you rewards them with many afterlife points, which makes you a choice victim and your fate an efficacious, potent ritual for the community.
> Even today, /pol/'s antisemitism can't stop describing their favorite target as some omnipotent "master race" of evil geniuses. As you can see, Girard's models on sacredness, separation, otherness and violence are very fertile, adaptable and relevant today, which made him attractive.
Scapegoating indeed originates as ritual. Pogroms and mass arrests of Jews meant to feed them to the Holocaust machine happened in public too.
OK, I think I now understand what you meant with 'worship' and think it is a legitimate point.
>Because the victim's suffering doesn't have the power to solve the crisis, we're being fed fake news.
Again your arguing for efficiency. Efficiency is veiled morality.
>To the end of not being a community of barely domesticated clinical retards.
Not only is that a vague position to begin with, more importantly you probably can give no sufficient reason for this particular end.
>could use a copypasta or two on this topic.
Have you read MacIntyre? His diagnosis of the contemporary moral landscape is that the competing theories about the foundation of morality are incommensurable. We have no rational way of finding the right conception of for example justice. I think the problem with sjw is rather that they depend so strongly on Rawlsian justice, without having any ground to stand on.

Thread theme:

youtube.com/watch?v=u1xrNaTO1bI

>tl;dr "c'mon, man!"

great post quality

>muh anti-anti-sjw meme

Literally the most whiny faggots of all are the anti-anti-sjws.

>The New Left was inspired by philosophers like Nietzsche

The new left was inspired perhaps by a selective bastardization of Nietzsche. How he is used though in practice is basically neo-puritanical though.

>alt-right
>hates Christianity

That generalization just doesn't hold sorry.

no u!
But seriously, what's your problem? I'm just trying to be critical and understand what he's saying. Apparently that was needed because there seem to be some rather naive assumptions about morality in there.

>It is a bit similar to people in the 1600s wanting to become/be declared minor nobles (for example, a great painter working for the court) in order to avoid paying taxes.

I like this observation.

Not him but Girard starts from anthropology. He's examined nearly every single culture and history in the world, I ain't bullshittin' you. He then goes on to look at literature and sees that the great artists implicitly understood the principles of mimetic desire and sacrificial violence.

He's saying these principles are present in all of our cultures and in all of our great works of art.
> Violence is bad :(
Bait but he's going beyond Nietzsche, Freud and the oedipal complex. It's quite impressive but only if you actually read him.

Not that guy but, Christianity isn't the necessary condition...all of human cultures function on the same principles. You name it, there's mimetic desire and escalating mimetic violence and then a sacrificial victim and then the founding of a new culture. Christianity, and the old testament, are the ones that are most self-aware of these principles. Girard basically says at this point if we're not Christianity we will devolve into a global civil war. That's the apocalypse that Christianity predicts. It's a social civil war.

I'm not really sure that guy fully understands Girard. I don't think anyone worships the victim. But the victim is definitely endowed with a lot of importance for the community, which stands against the victim.

It's not a question of efficiency, Christianity (which completes the OT) simply lays it all out. The same principles are there as say in Mayan paganism, only that Christianity is self-aware and makes the leap to show that the victim is innocent. The innocence of the victim is why we don't take paganism seriously any more.

If you accept that sacrifices do nothing to get what you want (a bountiful harvest, misc. forms of protection) you've absorbed Judeo-Christian morality. Girard, like Dostoevsky, think this cannot be surpassed because it is the truth laid out to bare. We're mindless idiot scumbags killing things to no effect unless we have Christianity.

Not the same user, but I'm having trouble following your responses.

The victim is what binds the community together. People come together against something.

In this sense I think Girard does Hegel better than Hegel. He completely synthesizes all of western philosophy. The only argument against Girard, and Girard even points this out, is that people say "This is too simple. It can't be true." And there's like one butthurt Guattarian who will try to say, "We haven't found any evidence of sacrifice in this tiny Micronesian proto-buddhist area of Bhutan" or whatever. It's embarrasingly desperate.

But really Girard is incredibly accurate. Just look at how marketers, shills function on the internet. Look at internet memes. Look at how threads get bumped. It's all there in Girard.

Also, let us summon PETER THIEL for some discussion...Hello, Peter? Are you lurking?

>a wild girardfag appears

Kekkus Maximus. Yes, I'm here. Was just thinking about the quality of the Catholic/Christian threads on Veeky Forums these days. I haven't been haunting the boards too much but this place keeps calling me back, there's nowhere else like it. Cool thread gents.

>But really Girard is incredibly accurate. Just look at how marketers, shills function on the internet. Look at internet memes. Look at how threads get bumped. It's all there in Girard.
Isn't this better explained with evolution theorie? I'm not an expert, but theory of memes (I'm not kidding) seems to cover it as good as it gets. See Dannett etc.
But I gotta go now. I'll respond to the rest in a few hours.

Between MacIntyre and Girard, combined with the truly soul-destroying bleeding edge of continental phil these days (whether it's the state of progressivist inquisitions at school, or the kind of ultra-nihilism espoused by Negarestani, Land, etc)...it jut makes Thomist/Christian apologetics more appealing and persuasive, to my mind. After all of the darkness and the misery, the worse things get, the more theology starts to make sense, the more attractive it becomes.

Philosophy really is the greatest story ever told. Even when it's bleak as fuck. Which it often is.

Veeky Forums omnia vinces

>the memes are always dankest before the dawn

>He's examined nearly every single culture and history in the world

That just leads me to believe he glosses over way too much and has an embarrassingly shallow understanding of a lot of it.

>Again your arguing for efficiency. Efficiency is veiled morality.
>Not only is that a vague position to begin with, more importantly you probably can give no sufficient reason for this particular end.
It's not a vague position to think there's something strange with persecuting able-bodied, innocent citizens as a cure for societal ills, however frequent might it be across cultures or history.
>Have you read MacIntyre?
Hold on here. MacIntyre is a Catholic as much as Girard.

And he, like Girard, does NOT advocate scapegoating bullshit, however descriptive and not normative their opus may be.

Scott M. Thomas writes:
>Girard and MacIntyre both agree that liberal modernity has exaggerated the extent of individual autonomy in the social construction of identity.
Now give me your best pro-victimization copypasta.

>Isn't this better explained with evolution theorie?
Girard never moves against evolutionary thinking. Empirical observation about competition over limited resources and imitation being in both humans and animals are at his core.

>truly soul-destroying bleeding edge of continental phil these days
I believe the Agamben of Homo Sacer is a profoundly religious man that happened to read Foucault, Debord and the other Frenchmen, and agree with them over how State and corporation alike have built a whole politics over body and soul, displaying a control over them the likes of which the world had never before seen.

We cannot go back to ancient texts and expect to find a fully detailed manual on how to confront genetic engineering or the newer comatose states that present-day technology creates.

Technology got us into this mess far more than edgy continental philosophers. It doesn't wait for anyone. It doesn't ask for permission to intrude into our lives. It did a number of them last century.

Then do go ahead and refute him. The Girard Reader is an human-sized overview of his rather voluminous corpus.

I don't think Girard is immune to criticism, BTW. I simply view him like many other great thinkers: fallible human beings with good ideas that can be starting points for something even better.

fucking shit...it worked...it really worked

>I think the problem with sjw is rather that they depend so strongly on Rawlsian justice, without having any ground to stand on.
They are the bastard children of Rawls and Nietzsche.

>b-but it's contradictory
Exactly.

Life's too short not to be beholden to quasi-magical rules of summoning.

Not so much interested in refuting him, just responding to your particular comment. My point is that you seem to be really overstating his case because you're a fanboy.

Anthropologists have apparently criticized Girard but I imagine most just don't care much about him. The degree of difference between sub-types within a given culture is usually so pervasive that experts that specialize in that narrow area can barely grapple with it all.

As such, very broad generalizations quickly become platitudinous, to the point of embarrassment.

If Girard thinks he has critically examined every single culture and history in the world then I would think he needs his head checked.

They scream now that they hurt others. With good teachers, anything can be learned.

You probably had to do it to ask that question.

>muh anti-anti-anti-sjw meme
Literally the most whiny faggots of all are the anti-anti-anti-sjws.

>WHITE CHRISTIAN MALES WANT TO HACK OFF YOUR CLITORIS IN TRUMP'S AMERICA
I'm a white Christian male, and I LOVE clitoris.

This. People need something to believe in. We all have a religion. When we don't have a traditional one like Christianity (which I am not one), we go to other religions like egalitarianism, multiculturalism, etc.