anyways, if i have any other interesting things to say while i chip away at my paper ill post em under different tweets.

"didnt oppressed people try to find success?" "didnt women choose to stay with their husbands?" the systemic responsibility for individual plights being reframed as a personal failure to overcome adversity is a decidedly christian idea, and one waaaaay too many "ex-christians" still subscribe to.

that example, of a 14 year old boy being raised with daily devotionals intended to comfort and reassure his elders about the "divine tests" of hardship that being in a new environment naturally has for everyone, is how you end up with "but didnt homeless people do something wrong to end up homeless"

when i talk about people being raised in the church, being given NO time to explore the beliefs imposed on them and what they actually believe, and then those people raising kids with those values, and then those folks kids leaving the church with no clue their families worldview is christian? yeah.

that statement alone highlights, to me, the wild way we used to treat people going through what we consider today to be a time period in ones life for personal exploration and cognitive growth. the idea that at 14 this child was deemed not only smart but prepared enough for adult life is INSANE imo.

the paper im reading to write my paper is an analysis of a christian poem book called "meat out of the eater" that was hugely influential in the proliferation of divine suffering amongst the colonial populace. one mention is of a 14 year old boy on his way to harvard who wrote in his 1670s edition.

conservative proselytizing cannot maintain viability, because proselytizing is not a viable means of recruitment, and conservative recruitment has stagnated. proselytizing is an offer of in-group status at best, and a threat of out-group villainization at worse. the shaming tactic doesnt hold water.

but this give and take expectation is completely counterproductive to the core of conservative ideology. its goal is explicitly to conserve traditions, power dynamics, and material notions of who deserves what from whom. there is no material justification for an ideology based on feelings & vibes.

people eventually get annoyed with anyone whos peddling any sort of ideology to them. it doesnt matter if the belief is in religion or in politics. if something has material impacts on peoples lives, people are beginning to demand material reasons for supporting it. this is a natural give and take!

however, much like how the growing secularist population eventually got annoyed by evangelists and wholesale gave them the political cold shoulder, materialists are getting annoyed with immaterial justifications for things with material impacts. the pushing of conservatism is backfiring the same way

its a tried and true evangelical tactic akin to shaming people who play the blues, enjoy rock and roll, dance in discos, convene in goth clubs, organize lgtb youth clubs, and marry those of other religions. by perpetuating a sense of normalcy around bigotry, they proselytize their ideology to others

by vocalizing their hatred they are in-effect proselytizing a de facto conservative ideology to their peers. this out loud admission of ones beliefs through the shaming and ridicule of those deemed immoral is a way of shaming those who support minorities into silence while looking for allies.

theyve already got a man down on their side, a weak one but he counts, plus the hit to corporate america with marios brother. i think the public pressure dems could stir up by announcing a single-payer healthcare system as a countermeasure to republican funding blockage could be quite motivating.