seraph

Balance














( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

The world’s largest religious group nearly lost one of its most celebrated icons. It’s going to get rebuilt no matter the cost. And it will be financed by the faithful, not just the Church. Obviously.

This is how it works, this is how it’s always worked. There’s nothing to be surprised about and all the wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth about the injustice of it all is a bit gratuitous, given how obvious the situation is. It’s a bit dim to push the issue.

Zimbabwe was mentioned—all its ills and need and such. We’re lucky to be living in a relatively benign age. We’ve almost got it *too* good. If this were hundreds of years ago (say, a thousand), and somehow, in some twisted way, Zimbabwe (or whatever Bantu people occupied that area at the time, “Zimbabwe” being a modern invention) were the key to rebuilding the cathedral, the place would have been pillaged, its people enslaved, or just put to the sword entirely with nary a peep about it from the rest of the world. We all know why, use your cynicism—you’re so good at it the rest of the time.

A lot has changed today but attitudes aren’t much different. The world may have a politically well-defined left in some key theatres but it’s also got a very entrenched conservative element. While the Notre Dame issue isn’t a particularly political one on the face of it, religious groups tend to think very conservatively about their faith and its sacred objects. Obviously.

If this were the Kaaba it’d be no different. Even if this were the Statue of Liberty Americans coast to coast would be throwing money at it. People love symbols that seem so much greater than themselves. It’s an identification with the unreal and it’s a form of ignorance (subject<-—>object relationship, etc), but identity as a phenomenon is pervasive (and not all of it’s bad), and the meaningful recognition of its ills is of interest to only a minority.

My deepest condolences and wishing you the strength to endure.

Posted by Endless
@seraph

yo, have you considered that there might be some political motivation in letting the thing burn so much before doing anything?

it feels weird the slow response to such important building, right there in paris, where the Yellow Jackets protest are happening, Idk might be a tin foil hat, but is kinda fishy to me.

No idea. The slow response might have been due to difficulty getting to the site. This was mentioned during coverage. But we can’t be sure.

As for politics and all the attendant motives, anything is possible. If you look at what’s probable, though, you might be better served.

And even if it were politically motivated, it wouldn’t have been the first time. It would only confirm the norm: government at large is corrupt as a matter of course (as it has always been), and if change is necessary it will happen in its good time, after which we’ll experience a correction in the other direction. Life is a zero-sum game: for every good there is a corresponding evil, and life provides all the players necessary to maintain the balance, as it always has.

Posted by Effortless

Posted by seraph

Posted by Effortless

Posted by seraph

Posted by Effortless
https://www.citizenfreepress.com/breaking/notre-dame-worker-says-fire-was-deliberately-set/

You might might be right (and sometimes people are right inspite of themselves), but this is not a credible source.

https://www.citizenfreepress.com/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/citizen-free-press/

So the ideal sources are CNN and MSNBC?

Hahahaha, get treetrunked.

Provisionally I’ll take mainstream over ideologically unrestrained.

Anyway,

Posted by Effortless
Hey, let's place some bets, you chickenbutters.

I will bet you a thousand bucks that it was muslims who did this.

Take me up on it, I triple dog dare you.

Here’s the problem. If you claim muslims a hundred times (which is usually your default position), and you’re only right the hundred and first time, do you think you’re still entitled to the money?

Are you right because you’re looking at the situation reasonably and disinterestedly, or are you just right in spite of yourself?

I’ll hang on to the money.

You are a leftist kitty who can't handle reality,

Plain and simple.

Put your money where your mouth is.

click to expand

I don’t identify with any ideology. I can only come to conclusions based on a reasonable reading of the evidence. If we don’t know, then we don’t know, and I won’t speculate. I’m not invested enough to care to speculate in the first place.

And since I don’t speak “ill-mannered treetrunkhead”, I can’t really add anything more.





(Don’t bet more than you’re able to pay.)

Posted by Effortless

Posted by seraph

Posted by Effortless
https://www.citizenfreepress.com/breaking/notre-dame-worker-says-fire-was-deliberately-set/

You might might be right (and sometimes people are right inspite of themselves), but this is not a credible source.

https://www.citizenfreepress.com/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/citizen-free-press/

So the ideal sources are CNN and MSNBC?

Hahahaha, get treetrunked.

Provisionally I’ll take mainstream over ideologically unrestrained.

Anyway,

Posted by Effortless
Hey, let's place some bets, you chickenbutters.

I will bet you a thousand bucks that it was muslims who did this.

Take me up on it, I triple dog dare you.

click to expand

Here’s the problem. If you claim muslims a hundred times (which is usually your default position), and you’re only right the hundred and first time, do you think you’re still entitled to the money?

Are you right because you’re looking at the situation reasonably and disinterestedly, or are you just right in spite of yourself?

I’ll hang on to the money.

Posted by Effortless
https://www.citizenfreepress.com/breaking/notre-dame-worker-says-fire-was-deliberately-set/

You might might be right (and sometimes people are right inspite of themselves), but this is not a credible source.

https://www.citizenfreepress.com/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/citizen-free-press/

You might be right (or not.)

As for your article, check the date.

Posted by CancerOnTheCusp

Posted by seraph
I wonder if this will be spun politically into a metaphor for the state of Christendom in Europe.

If the response from "two certified parisian" is "don't care", maybe it is more than a metaphor.

click to expand

Maybe.

I’d imagine most Parisians are responding with a bit more respect, though. I’m one to always reach for the bigger picture and look past sentimentality, but I can’t just dismiss it. It means a great deal to so many, for better or worse.

The place has already been through plenty. That wasn’t the original spire anyway, it was a 19th century recreation. It’ll get a new one.
It’s all matter of time and money.

Edit:

A lot of time and money.

“A spokesman said the entire wooden frame of the cathedral would likely come down, and that the vault of the edifice could be threatened too.”

I wonder if this will be spun politically into a metaphor for the state of Christendom in Europe.

Posted by Hapis

Posted by seraph
They’re being bought off, and the government has the resources to do it. The upside is a lot of really nice people walking around, but driven by fear and desire writ large—material gain, status, and basically “better stuff.” Cultivating good civil behaviour, kindness toward others and so on is not something to be done for its own sake under this scheme; it’s a way to get things, and it’ll be a daddy figure authority that gives them to you. The State is your parent under this scheme more than ever.

The advantages of such a setup are obvious. Just don’t mind the man behind the curtain, and what this actually means for the development of a society at large.

You think that's a global phenomenon though, the move toward a daddy state?

click to expand

I see this as fundamentally different from a country that employs a sustainable (more or less) social safety net because it’s more equitable and it’s what most folks want and so on. I think it’s how these social schemes are tied to ideology that tell the real story. Interesting thread!

They’re being bought off, and the government has the resources to do it. The upside is a lot of really nice people walking around, but driven by fear and desire writ large—material gain, status, and basically “better stuff.” Cultivating good civil behaviour, kindness toward others and so on is not something to be done for its own sake under this scheme; it’s a way to get things, and it’ll be a daddy figure authority that gives them to you. The State is your parent under this scheme more than ever.

The advantages of such a setup are obvious. Just don’t mind the man behind the curtain, and what this actually means for the development of a society at large.

To China’s credit (puns!), they’ve managed to implement worse without totally imploding. They’ve turned their brand of open market communism into a successful operation that is characterized among other things by its social tolerability just as much as it is by the questionable, often repressive means used to achieve it.

It’s just a variation on certain mechanisms of traditional Chinese communism (mostly the Mao years.) Inform on your neighbours and get rewards, and so on. Except the Party philosophy is now couched in exhortations to be nice to each other (or else!)
New ways to stay in line.

The potential for using this system as a legal bludgeon, to exploit it against others, to encourage gang mentality, to create social division, and to perhaps create an entire class of chronically disenfranchised untouchables (in addition to what might already be there) is obvious.

And yes, to some degree that last part is pretty redolent of the social failures of modern democracy at large. Someone’s bound to mention it, anyway.