Comments by "Chompy the Beast" (@chompythebeast) on "ReligionForBreakfast"
channel.
-
116
-
68
-
42
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
@mansour9790 I don't want my food or my art from someone who refuses to participate in its growing or production and yet insists they get to be the richest one in the room regardless. "Owners" are nothing but middle-men at the top: A drain upon the system which adds nothing and which actually enriches the system only by being removed.
There should be neither incentive to own, nor indeed the option to do so, for "ownership" of the means of wealth is inherently theft. And yes, benefiting today from the genocide committed in the past by your country is an individual sin that we have simply collectivized and excused: Privilege is real, and those who simply take advantage of it rather than seeking to destroy the system that provided it are indeed guilty. In the end, we are all made victims and victimizers by global capitalism: That is why genuinely seeking its replacement is the only means available to wash away the sin of being forced to participate in it.
The systems of today are not the systems of a few hundred years ago, and they will not be the systems of the future, either. Expand your mind to what isn't, but which could be. That is the message of Jesus: He did not come to make excuses for the ruling classes as you do now, but to promise a better, a different tomorrow
12
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@brutusthebear9050 I'm not sure I understand your point about my making light of the "actually its a Republic" line being touted so often these days, because it's all over the zeitgeist right now, specifically coming from people who say it in order to argue for the erosion of any form of genuine 'representation'. It is said all too often, not by people trying to open their fellow citizens' eyes, but to actively excuse anti-democratic policies which are legitimately against the will of the people.
Bourgeois Republicanism is a liberal form of government, after all, and since the days of the American Revolution (and indeed well before), it has always been inherently classist in nature: A government by the bourgeoisie, for the bourgeoisie. Has there been any liberal republic born in the last two centuries which was anything else? The very same structure but dominated by workers or in a classless society would no longer even qualify as a liberal republic at all, but would be, quite intrinsically, anti-liberal in nature.
Democracy means many things in different contexts, of course, but we must remain focused not on hollow idealism, but upon material conditions. To my mind, in sheerly political (and not idealistic) terms, only the Tyranny of the Proletariat, as opposed to the present Tyranny of the Bourgeoisie, offers any promise of a genuine "rule of the people" in a manner separate from sheer "mob rule", itself a dusty concern for slave-owning Plato and his Philosopher Kings more than it is for the working class.
At any rate, the reason I left that reply is because this very thread is full of people talking about how, sure, the USA was founded for wealthy landowners, but how that's totally changed now, and American government is definitely not for the same class these days. That is, of course, demonstrably untrue. The same rules of class apply, and they will continue to dominate and hold back the will of the working class majority as long as class is allowed to exist at all. None of which is to say that the working class is politically infallible simply by virtue of their numbers, but rather by virtue of the scientific and once again demonstrable merits of a classless society
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sobertillnoon "Ruse", "Rude", "Rule", "Ruminate". There are many words where u is pronounced the long way rather than the short way. We have weird rules about silent e's affecting the length of our vowels, but clearly our vowels make multiple different sounds in English either way. And the upsilon is the parent of our modern u, it isn't really a different letter at all in a historical sense. So when working with historical documents, our English u makes more sense to most than using completely different dipthongs or letters that reflect English's quirks more than the source language's.
If you pronounce "English" "en-glish", then I'm curious what sort of accent you speak with: It's pronounced "ing-glish" by virtually ever native speaker I've ever heard, though maybe some dialects might do it differently. The en in "end" and "ensnare" are often pronounced the same, but you can also pronounce it "in-snare" and it would be just as regular.
Anyway, transliteration, like translation, is an art, not a hard science, so you're of course entitled to do it the way you prefer to
1
-
@sobertillnoon You accuse me of not understanding how silent vowels affect length as you ironically champion a transliteration that does exactly that, "oo". That isn't two o's, its the first lengthened by the second, just like the silent e in "rude". I clearly understand that in English we use separate letters to affect the length of our vowels in ways most languages do not: This is exactly why transliterations into English normally don't use them, preferring instead to use the serviceable syntax closest to the original language.
For the record, my degree is in philology. Granted, I am not a linguist, but I have engaged in translation and transliteration (from Greek, no less) a fairly great deal. This topic of conversation is elementary in that regard and my credentials aren't required, but I share them because you seem to forget the academic nature of this channel and the discourse that happens here. Because "But it makes no sense to transliterate something into A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT script and not follow basic rules and instead make new exceptions." describes the art of transliteration to a tee, and I agree with this sentiment, it's just that you don't seem to know the standard rules used in its execution.
Once again, feel free to translate Πολυκράτης however you like if seeing the unusual-in-English y in "Polykrates" rubs you the wrong way. He could just as easily be "Pahlickratees" if that's how you like it
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KarlKarsnark I agree that criticism is a thing an academic presents themselves to, that's kinda the whole point of the scientific method. But you haven't really criticized much, you've mostly just offered insults without really arguing against any of the conclusions with conclusions of your own.
For the record, these videos are meant to be surveys for a mass audience, not highly technical essays for a more niche academic crowd―it seems some of your problems with the content come more from the very format, which you ought to know is not unintentional. It's not like Andrew here isn't a working professor, he's just covering a lot of ground in these vids, hence "survey". He has other, more long-form content like interviews with experts in other vids if you genuinely believe that these videos are the extent of his knowledge on the subjects he covers: He's not like the unprofessional, uneducated content creators that typically weigh in in circles like these.
And frankly, that "what he was told to think in school", anti-intellectual tone just kinda makes it sound like you do your "research" on Facebook
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1