p3n

The early Church is recorded as living that way:

"44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common; 45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. 46 ¶And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, " ( Acts 2:44-46 KJV).

However, tearing a political philosophy away from its associated worldview leads to trouble.

This is one of the things I find strange about the political parties in the U.S. the Republican party, which seems to claim the majority of members who claim to be Christians, largely espouse a capitalist economic system. Capitalism is much more congruent with a Darwinist world view than a Christian one.

Meanwhile, the Democrat party, at least the more progressive wing, espouse more of a socialist system but seemingly oppose Christianity and claim a world view more congruent with a capitalist system.

To be clear, aside from the part I quoted, I agreed with everything else in your post and thought it was an interesting take, but again I have to take issue with this:

as far as I’m aware, they don’t carry the clinical state-sponsored efficiency that is a hallmark of the Holocaust.

I'm not going to analyze every single atrocity since 1945, but the Cambodian genocide was certainly state-sponsored, efficient, and horrific:

"20,000 people passed through the Security Prison 21, one of the 196 prisons the Khmer Rouge operated,[4][28] and only seven adults survived.[29]"

"The executed were buried in mass graves. In order to save ammunition, the executions were often carried out using poison or improvised weapons such as sharpened bamboo sticks, hammers, machetes and axes.[6] ... In some cases the children and infants of adult victims were killed by having their heads bashed against the trunks of Chankiri trees, and then were thrown into the pits alongside their parents. The rationale was "to stop them growing up and taking revenge for their parents' deaths."

"People were imprisoned and tortured merely on suspicion of opposing the regime or because other prisoners gave their names under torture. Whole families (including women and children) ended up in prisons and were tortured because the Khmer Rouge feared that if they did not do this, their intended victims' relatives would seek revenge. Pol Pot said, "if you want to kill the grass, you also have to kill the roots".[169]"

"There are many accounts of torture in both the Security Prison 21 records and the documents of the trial; as told by the survivor Bou Meng in his book (written by Huy Vannak), tortures were so atrocious and heinous that the prisoners tried in every way to commit suicide, even using spoons, and their hands were constantly tied behind their back to prevent them from committing suicide "

"all medical experiments were systematically conducted without proper anesthetics.[173] A medic who worked inside S-21 said that a 17-year-old girl had her throat slit and her abdomen pierced before being beaten and put into water for an entire night. This procedure was repeated many times and carried out without anesthetics.[174] In a hospital of Kampong Cham province, child medics cut out the intestines of a living non-consenting person and joined their ends to study the healing process. The patient died after three days due to the "operation".[173]"

"Twenty-six-year-old John D. Dewhirst, a British tourist, was one of the youngest foreigners to die in the prison.[17] He was sailing with his New Zealand companion, Kerry Hamill, and their Canadian friend Stuart Glass when their boat drifted into Cambodian territory and was intercepted by Khmer patrol boats on August 13, 1978. Glass was killed during the arrest, while Dewhirst and Hamill were captured, blindfolded, and taken to shore. Both were executed after having been tortured for several months at Tuol Sleng. Witnesses reported that a foreigner was burned alive; initially, it was suggested that this might have been John Dewhirst, but a survivor would later identify Kerry Hamill as the victim of this particular act of brutality."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuol_Sleng_Genocide_Museum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_Fields

Israel is suddenly the state committing the closest thing we’ve seen to the Holocaust since the actual Holocaust.

I don't say this to excuse anything Israel is doing, but this is gross recency bias that is glossing over numerous genocides that have occurred since the Holocaust, including:

• 2020-2022: Tigray Genocide in Ethiopia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_in_Tigray (Est. 162,000 - 600,000 killed)
• 2003-2005: Darfur Genocide in Sudan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_genocide (Est. 98.000 - 500,000 killed)
• 1996-1997: Hutu Genocide in Zaire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacres_of_Hutus_during_the_First_Congo_War (Est. 200,000 - 233,000 killed)
• 1994: Tutsi Genocide in Rwanda https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_genocide (Est. 491,000 - 800,000 killed)
• 1987-1989: Isaaq Genocide in Somolia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaaq_genocide (Est. 50,000 - 200,000 killed)
• 1986-1989: Genocide in Kurdistan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anfal_campaign (Est. 50.000 - 182,000 killed)
• 1975-1979 Cambodian Genocide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide (Est. 1,386,734 - 3,000,000 killed)
• 1971-1979 Uganda Genocide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Republic_of_Uganda (Est. 100,000 - 500,000 killed)
• 1972 Ikiza Geneocide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikiza (Est. 80.000 - 300,000 killed)
• 1971 Bangladesh Genocide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_genocide (Est. 300,000 - 3,000,000 killed)

Not technically genocides, but also worth mentioning in the same vein:

• 1959-1961 Chinese Famine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine (Est. 15,000,000 - 55,000,000 killed)
• 1930-1953 Soviet Gulag: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag (Est. 1,500,000 - 1,700,000 killed)

So ya, other than those events, this is the closest thing to the Holocaust since the actual Holocaust.

They certainly don't have to work as much, or at all really. I recognize that there is an enormous gap between someone struggling to put food on the table and a billionaire, but it is also very easy to focus on work and increasing financial stability/independence at the detriment of more important things. It reminds of the song Cat's In The Cradle: https://youtu.be/5u-KWa3tL-0?list=RD5u-KWa3tL-0 (especially appropriate on Father's day weekend). My dad worked long hours when I was growing up, and I slept in a hallway/laundry room because he couldn't afford to rent a larger place, but he still made time for me and my siblings, and I wouldn't trade my childhood for literally all the money in the world.

Does that mean that people who are struggling to feed their family don't really need the money? No. Would it have been easier if my family had more money? Sure. But I have also noticed that peoples' lifestyles seem to grow to match their incomes, and it never seems like it is quite enough. There is always that next job or promotion or opportunity that will put you in a slightly better position and then finally it will be enough. Once basic needs met (air, water, food, shelter), I believe that money can start creating more problems for people than it solves. With tons of money comes tons of distractions, and temptations; there aren't any poor people on the Epstein list. Its easy for me to say they are horrible people and I would never engage in activities like that, but it also isn't an option for me. I can't honestly claim virtue for avoiding an evil that my situation in life doesn't allow for. Life seems much easier when nobody stops you from getting what you want, but I have to wonder if sometimes it is a blessing in disguise when they do...

With the focus of wealth inequality, I thought I'd just share this morbid reminder from the middle ages that there is no inequality in death. It will find everyone. No amount of money will let anyone escape it. Just something to consider when you are thinking about what to pursue in life. To that extent, I do feel somewhat sorry when I hear that a billionaire has died, because I know that they likely spent most of their life pursuing things that are ultimately worthless, and it makes me re-evaluate just what I am doing with mine.

Here is an easy way to tell: If someone wears a cross, that isn't a strong indication of faith. If a cross wears them, that's a pretty strong indication of faith.

The Weddell Sea, north of Antarctica, brought to you by the department of redundancy department.

Absolutely. What I'm saying is that all couples can apply for the same legal contract, call it a civil partnership license, civil union, joint household contract or something to that extent. Marriage licenses no longer exist.

I'm actually opposed to all state recognized marriages in the Unites States. I believe it violates the separation of church and state clause of the 1st Amendment. This is the same reason that people who (genuinely) oppose gay marriage oppose it.

If adult couples want to enter a legal contract joining their assets and income, then that should be available to everyone regardless of gender or sexual orientation, but that should also be separate from the religious covenant of marriage and associated ceremonies performed in a church.

So I'm opposed to state recognized gay marriage, but I'm also opposed to state recognized heterosexual marriages for the same reason.

Ya, maybe bills shouldn't be 1000+ pages so that people can actually know what is in them.

This is a concept that somehow software developers seem to grasp, but lawmakers don't?

Try submitting a pull request with 100,000 lines of code to the Linux kernel, or any other serious project. Nobody is going to review and accept it because that is a rediculous amount of code to change with a single PR. How much more important is a federal law than a software project? Yet one will have maintainers pour over it line by line while the other the "maintainers" don't even read.

I guess I didn't communicate my point effectively. I wasn't trying to nitpick semantics. I was trying to say that people don't think critically because they assume impartiality.

If the first thing people did when they looked at a study was to ask what possible biases or conflicts of interest the sponsors have, then conducting a meta-study concluding that biased studies are biased wouldn't be news to anyone.

There is no such thing as an impartial sponsor; some are more obviously biased than others, but the belief in a fictitious impartiality is part of the problem. It shouldn't take a meta-study for people to see am obvious conflict of interest.

I'm biased. You are biased. Everyone is biased.