Sidewalker

To everyone left and right, the assassination of Charlie Cook is a tragedy, but to Trump, it’s a welcomed opportunity to invoke anger and deepen the divide in the “us/them” siege mentality he has created. He is exploiting the opportunity, for his two favorite things, money and revenge, he is raking in unorecedented donations and he’s vowing to go after “the radical left”, and “groups that contributed to this atrocity and other political violence”. This assassin played right into Trump’s little hands, and Trump will use his violent rhetoric to insure the violence increases, and that it is aimed at his opponents.

There has been a lot of condemnation of those who are cheering it, but frankly, I haven’t actually seen anyone cheering or gloating about this. There has certainly been nothing like the joyous celebrational way that Trump and his MAGA followers responded to the maniac who tried to kill Nancy Pelosi’s husband with a hammer, there has been no jubilant reveling with mocking conspiracies about nudity and gay lovers. The MAGA insistence that the left is cheering Charlie Kirk’s death is about like Trump’s assertion that he saw Muslims in the streets of New York cheering the 911 disaster, a typical MAGA lie to create outrage at the people they hate.

Biden, Obama, both Bush’s, Clinton, all of our previous presidents would be consoling the country and presenting a healing, unifying message, but Trump lacks the empathy to even understand anything less anger and hatred, and the only thing he knows how to express his vow to go after the "radical left.", he wants to be seen as a warrior, not a conciliator, he’s a populist, and populists dwell on anger, Trump crafts his follower’s rage like an artist, and he sees Charlie Kirks death as an opportunity, nothing more.

We are told “the radical left” killed Charlie Kirk, and Trump and his MAGA people are vowing violent revenge against the “groups” on the left who are responsible. This is all predictable, and it is a bald-faced lie. The assassin, Tyler Robinson was not a democrat, he has never had any affiliation with any left “groups”, he has registered as unaffiliated, hasn’t voted, but friends and neighbors say they thought he was an avowed Trump supporter. In 2017 he dressed as Trump for Halloween, and his grandmother has said that the entire family are Republican, and that they don’t even know a single democrat.

Tyler Robinson’s hatred and violence were developed in the pressure cooker of right-wing vitriol of their own self-created media echo chamber; he lived in lie-filled and toxic MAGA universe and that is what killed Charlie Kirk, the left had nothing to do with it.

This horrible act, and many others like it, are a direct result of the hate mongering and violent rhetoric that the right has been engaging in for years now. Trump and his far-right fascist allies have worked hard to empower and normalize a dangerous set of antisocial, anti-civil, retrograde and anti-democratic values and beliefs, creating an environment where political violence is seen as an acceptable way to accomplish ideological goals. His speech condemning the killing of Charlie Kirk, was the ultimate hypocrisy from the man who sent his followers on a murderous rampage into the capital on Jan 6th, calling them heroes, patriots, and of course pardoning all of them while characterizing their vicious attack as a day of love.

In the sharp difference in his response to the killing of Charlie Kirk and Melissa Hortman, he is explicitly encouraged the public to apply a partisan lens to the value of human life. He has excused right wing terrorism as justified because it is “fighting crime” and called on his base to avenge Kirk’s death with violence against the left. In context, it’s easy to see how right-wing extremists could reasonably expect political violence against the left to be appreciated and even pardoned.

The dramatic increase in political violence is a direct result of Trump’s vitriolic rhetoric and glorification of violence. That is what killed Charlie Kirk, it was not the “left”, it was Donald Trump and his MAGA movement.

I heard he was going to arrest people for hate speech now?

Yes, that and tattoos he doesn't like.

It's particularly problematic because he considers any speech that does not specifically complement him to be hate speech.

Rather than make government bigger, and grow it into a space that they will fuck up due to incompetence, wouldn't it be better to just buy the extended warranty?

Asking Americans if a line exists with your 1st Amendment.

Trump repealed the 1st Amendment; it no longer applies.

The people who are "spiritual" are just hippies who want to be promiscuous and hedonist. 

You say that like it's a bad thing?

Nope. "System" implies codified standards. Show me a single, current, legal statute ,or Giov't sept policy, that currently expresses racism. That there are racist individuals within government, yes, I agree, but that is not systemic unless you can demonstrate it by current codified law or policy. That there are historic examples, I already knew there are. I am talking about today. 9/15/2025, since you allege we have a systemic issue today..

Go.

Now let's drill down and be a little more focused, again, AI can answer:

Is there systemic racism in the LDS church?

There is a history of systemic racism in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), particularly regarding its long-standing policies that restricted Black members from full participation. While the church has since reversed those policies and condemned racism, critics argue that the organization has not fully grappled with the legacy of its past, and some Black members report still facing discrimination in congregations. 

Historical context

1. Priesthood and temple ban (1852–1978): Beginning in 1852 under Brigham Young, the church prohibited men of Black African descent from being ordained to the priesthood and prevented both Black men and women from participating in temple ordinances, which are considered necessary for the highest level of salvation.
2. Discrimination and segregation: During this period, the church actively promoted and enforced racial segregation.
3. Interracial marriage was discouraged and even considered a sin by some leaders.
4. Church facilities, such as the Hotel Utah, banned Black guests.
5. Church-operated Brigham Young University (BYU) opposed school desegregation and, for a time, officially discouraged Black students from attending.
6. Racist justifications: For over a century, church leaders used several race-based explanations for these policies, which have since been disavowed.
7. Black skin was viewed as a mark of a divine curse, linking Black people to biblical figures like Cain and Ham.
8. Some leaders taught that Black people were "less valiant" in a pre-mortal life, resulting in their diminished earthly status.
9. The ban is reversed (1978): In 1978, the church's First Presidency announced that a revelation had been received to extend the priesthood to "all worthy male members... without regard for race or color." The restrictions on temple access for Black members were also lifted. 

Lingering and ongoing issues

1. Failure to apologize: The church has not issued a formal apology for its past racist policies and teachings, which is a source of frustration and hurt for many Black members.
2. Disavowal without explanation: While a 2013 essay disavowed racist theories for the ban, it also stated that there is no "clear insight" into the ban's origin. This leaves some members struggling to reconcile the past, as some continue to believe the ban was God's will.
3. Enduring prejudice: Despite official changes, some Black members and scholars report that discriminatory attitudes and opinions persist in some congregations.
4. In 2022, a BYU professor was criticized for dismissing and downplaying the harm of the ban in a speech.
5. A 2023 survey of former members found that issues of race were among the top three reasons for disaffiliation.
6. Outreach vs. accountability: While the church has increased its outreach efforts, including a partnership with the NAACP, critics argue that these actions do not fully address the systemic issues rooted in its history. 

Church's current stance

The modern Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints officially condemns racism. In 2020, leaders called on members to abandon prejudice, and the church has partnered with the NAACP on initiatives to promote racial harmony. However, the institutional denial of racism throughout much of its history and the lack of a formal apology continue to be sources of pain and frustration for many, leaving the issue unresolved for some members and observers. 

Nope. "System" implies codified standards. Show me a single, current, legal statute ,or Giov't sept policy, that currently expresses racism. That there are racist individuals within government, yes, I agree, but that is not systemic unless you can demonstrate it by current codified law or policy. That there are historic examples, I already knew there are. I am talking about today. 9/15/2025, since you allege we have a systemic issue today..

Go.

Oh pulease, you are just regurgitating white supremacist ideology, you have no intention of looking at facts, you are just trolling for other MAGA idiots, and you are just going to deny deny deny anyway, but what the hell, I'll let AI tell you what everybody knows.

Is there systemic racism in the us?

Yes, numerous reports and data show the existence of systemic racism in the U.S., which is embedded in institutions and policies that lead to racial disparities in areas like housing, healthcare, the justice system, and education, despite some progress over time. The UN Human Rights Office confirmed that systemic racism continues through human rights violations like racial profiling and police killings. Studies and data from various sources document racial bias in mortgage approvals, home equity, wages, and the administration of justice. 

How Systemic Racism Manifests in U.S. Society:

Housing and Wealth: Data shows Black couples are significantly more likely to be denied a mortgage or home improvement loan than white couples, leading to a large wealth disparity. 

Justice System: Evidence indicates racial bias in the justice system, including higher rates of police stops, harsher sentencing for people of color, and racial disparities in incarceration. 

Healthcare: Racial and ethnic minority communities often rely on under-resourced, lower-quality safety-net healthcare providers, leading to inequities in access and quality of care. 

Education: Systemic racism impacts access to quality education, with disparities in school funding and educational outcomes for communities of color. 

Employment: A significant wage gap persists, with Black workers earning substantially less than white workers annually. 

Technology: Biased technology, such as facial recognition software that misidentifies people of color at higher rates, can exacerbate existing systemic racism. 

Historical Roots and Ongoing Impacts:

1. Systemic racism has historical roots in slavery, legalized apartheid, and discriminatory public policies designed to exclude and suppress communities of color. 

1. These historical injustices continue to shape American policymaking and influence the concentration of power and resources in society. 

1. The consequences of this structural racism create intergenerational disadvantages, trapping Black and other communities of color in cycles of poverty. 

Evidence and Authority:

1. The UN Human Rights Office has reported that systemic racism pervades the U.S. justice system. 

1. Academic literature and research consistently demonstrate the existence of racial discrimination and bias within U.S. institutions. 

1. Reports from organizations like McKinsey & Co. and data from sources like the U.S. Census Bureau provide further evidence of these racial disparities. 

Your turn, give us the Pavlovian white supremacist response now.

Go.

The Welcome sign at Epstein Island says: "Pedophilia is a social construct, so pedophiles don't exist"

is KKK some American religion too?

Yes

“God changes his appearance every second. Blessed is the man who can recognize him in all his disguises.” ― Nikos Kazantzakis, Zorba the Greek

I often think that's why people and I disagree in my definition of free will is very different. I honestly don't believe anybody can do anything they want to at any time.

Do you believe you aren't responsible for your actions?

Every human civilization in all times and places humans have been found to exist, has/had a legal and/or moral system that presumes/presumed we are responsible for the decisions we make; the presumption is that we should be held accountable for the choices we make.

Are you saying that all of the legal and moral systems of every civilization that has ever existed, were/are not valid?

So a religion to fantasy concepts. Same old rhyme. Might as well call it a systemic religion for all that nonsense reasoning.

Good point, all we have to do now is go to the KKK meetings and tell those good old boys that according to science, race is just a social construct, racism doesn't really exist, so you can all go home now.

Oh wait, that won't work, I forgot that it's the Klan that said racism doesn't exist in the first place.

Cool, and there's a bunch more points to be made.

Religion is a social construct, so religion doesn't exist.

Politics is a social construct, so politics doesn't exist.

And let's not forget Trump's three favorites:

Legal systems are social constructs, so my felonies don't exist.

Democracy is a social construct, so elections don't exist.

The Constitution is a social construct, so the Constitution doesn't exist.

It's really not all that complicated, it's actually very simple.

Yes, race is a social construct, and racism is a social response to that social construct.

That is how there is systemic racism

1 Corinthians 4:5

Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.

1 Corinthians 8:1-2 

Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.

1 Corinthians 13:9-10 

For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

John 16:12-13

"I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truths.

2 Timothy 2:9

Wherein I suffer trouble, as an evil doer, even unto bonds; but the word of God is not bound.

There is a very important difference.

Spirit unites and religion divides.

Voltaire explained that the problem lies in the institutionalization of religion. To become an institution a religion must "harden" into a fixed structure, they must command loyalty, be defended and kept "pure" so they can decide who's in the institution and who isn't. As a result, religions are just too divisive and quarrelsome and I don't believe for a second the founders would approve of what we have done and are doing in their names, none of them.

Religion has become a form of one-upmanship because of its dependence upon separating the "saved" from the "damned," the true believers from the heretics, the in-group from the out-group. We all need to listen to what the founders of our faiths had to say, stop talking about religion, and start listening to the Spirit that transcends the dogma.

Beneath the boastful contrasts and trifling quarrels there is the fellowship of internal life, it is a single life that cuts across ecclesiastical boundaries and makes us One. That is the Spirit that lurks beneath the external surface of all of our divisive religious doctrines, it is the Spirit that cannot be grasped in any fixed form, it isn't about what we do or believe, it is about what we are, and it establishes in us an intrinsic connection to all of life and to all of the forces of spirituality. That Spirit is common to every man, it takes as many forms as there are men perhaps, but we are connected to all men by it.

It does not matter what our background, faith or religion is, the Spirit is the voice of a higher state of consciousness, one that transcends religions, and when we transcend, we move beyond all dogma and differences.

We are all in this together, groping our way towards the future, in the direction of greater awareness and higher consciousness, towards understanding each other. More than anything else, we want to feel connected, we want to know we are part of something greater, and when we are very quiet and able to listen to the voice within, we can hear that Spirit telling us that we are not alone.

Hey man, I figured it out, weren't you zedvictor4 on Debate Art?

I just went over to debateart and copied a paragraph I wrote a long time ago about free will because I didn't feel like trying to rewrite it.

Cool, I didn't know we could still do that, thought Debate Art was gone, thanks.

Free Will is contradictory to an omniscient God and it's contradictory to life in general whether an omniscient God exists. Freedom is one thing. Free Will is another entirely. If we had free will then we could make whatever choices we want and follow through on them. We can't for all sorts of reasons money, attitude, upbringing, place of birth, type of government in our country. There's a reason psychology exist because people are predictable animals. We rarely if ever change and we rarely if ever step outside our comfort zone. You're freedom lets you to make choices in regards to what you eat, who you marry, if you have kids, in some way where you live and what you do. Free will to make any choice you want to, at any time, no matter what, does not exist. We are slaves to nature and nurture

Not sure, but it sounds like we define it differently.

It stopped working for me too.

I don't care what the Bible says.Thanks.

Does that bear on your belief that we do not have free will?

A lot of people can't seem to distinguish between free will and theism, I find that strange because I don't see why so many people, both Christians and atheists alike, equate believing in free will with believing in God.

Do you reject the existence of free will because you see it as a Christian concept?

Freedom and free will are not the same thing.

Of course not, a lot of people try to define free will away, which is not a valid argument. This isn’t one of those “I can’t choose to fly, therefore my will is not free” things, is it? That kind of semantic game has nothing to do with the actual free will debate.

We cannot do everything that we want. There are all kinds of restrictions on what we can and can't do.

Are you saying that when you make a decision, you did not have the freedom to choose otherwise, that consciously, you are a passive observer rather than a causal agent?

We are unable to control forces outside of ourselves. There is no free will.

I think it is reasonable to define free will broadly as the belief that the future is not beyond our control.

If so, then the free will debate is about whether we have the cognitive ability to conceive of future courses of action, deliberate about various reasons for choosing among them, determine our actions on the basis of such deliberation, and control our actions despite the presence of competing desires. If we can exercise these cognitive abilities to act without our actions being unreasonably compromised by external pressure, then we possess free will and it follows that human beings are morally responsible causal agents that can change our conduct for reasons that are not included in the purely physical causation which by definition, does not include intent, values and purpose.

It’s a conscious state with reference to a future possibility that causes human decisions in order to bring about further states for the sake of values and purposes, and intents. Consciousness has causal influence due to its content, which usually involves a desire or intention and includes the ability to envision a future state and establish a strategy for attaining that state. A conscious state with reference to a future possibility, along with intents, values, and purposes are not reducible to the purely physical deterministic state.

When you say you don’t believe in free will, are you saying that you are not a causal agent, and therefore you are not responsible for your actions?

Almost every argument against Free Will presupposes determinism without establishing determinism as a fact. Determinism is not a conclusion of science, on the contrary, science has established that reality is not deterministic. The philosophical doctrine of determinism is nothing more than an archaic and failed concept that is unscientific and completely faith based.

The attempt to deny the self-evident experiential reality of human consciousness and the associated fact that we are morally responsible causal agents is a very extraordinary claim and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the unfounded and completely faith-based belief in determinism doesn’t constitute extraordinary evidence by any stretch of the imagination.

The strongest argument for the existence of free will is that we all observe it during every conscious moment, it is a fundamental and significant part of our experiential reality at all times, hence it is self-evident. Consequently, the denial of free will is necessarily a rejection of the very concept of empirical evidence, and the argument against Free Will becomes a rejection without “proof”, which eliminates induction as valid. These two aspects of the approach clearly reject the very basis of science and scientific knowledge, leaving nothing but detached abstractions that have nothing whatsoever to do with the real world.

Philosophy is concerned with saying something which is true or significant, science with doing something which is effective. Science is about the real world, grounded in perceiving and doing, the argument against Free Will is completely abstract and invalidates both perception and doing, it is a complete rejection of science as valid, and philosophically it amounts to a rejection of the very basis of truth and significance.

In the end, there is no valid basis upon which the rejection of Free Will can be said to be true of reality.

It's just baffling why more people didn't vote for Kamala. Wasn't she supposed to make America great? (no really)

Oh pulease, we both know the answer to that. Kamala is black and a woman, the majority of this country are too racist and/or misogynist to vote for a black woman, it's as simple as that.

Maga, Trump, the move towards fascism and away from democracy, it's all just the blowback reaction to our first black president. This country revealed who we really are, and I'm just disgusted by it all.

In less than two decades, I've gone from being ashamed to be a republican, to ashamed to be white, to ashamed to be an American. I changed political parties, can't really change the other two.

Because he was not a moral man? And who is of presidential pursuit? Thanks, but I already have a moral advisor, and he's been around a lot longer that any other moral advisor around, and so do y'all, whether y'all realize it and appreciate it, or not. We don't needs one in the presidency.

If, as you say, your so called "moral advisor" guides you to elect and support an immoral, lawless leader, then your moral advisor is shit.

Are you so morally bankrupt that you do not even know what a moral advisor is supposed to do? If it isn't guiding you to act morally and make moral decisions, then what? It isn't just a name you invoke to justify your immoral actions.

-> No, it didn't, the DoD was never deployed against the American people for political purposes.

But the DoW was, correct? And the only difference is a name change.

LOL, you really are dumber than a post.

Try reading out loud, slowly for comprehension, or maybe ask someone to read it to you this time.

This is the first time in history the US Military has been deployed against US citizens for political purposes; it is a dramatic and unprecedented difference.

So no, the astoundingly stupid statement that "the only difference is a name change" does not follow logically, it is just an astoundingly stupid statement.

You like to mislabel stupid posts as "rage bait", which is a comical misrepresentation, maybe you should try labeling posts as "See what a dumbshit I am bait" instead, at least it would be honest.

Rage Bait

You keep using that word.

"Zorba the Greek" has had a profound influence on me for something like 40 years.

I'm glad that Trump is changing the name of the DoD to the DoWar. It's honest.

The military did the exact same thing while being called the DOD. If you don't like it, then maybe abolish the military worldwide. Defense is a euphemism for war.

No, it didn't, the DoD was never deployed against the American people for political purposes.

What is the question?

What is the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything"