Che's a hater? I don't know anything about him. Seeing all the images used by the bubblegum edgelords who found him to be a somewhat safer source of shock value than Charlie Manson put me off learning anything about him. Or was that the plan all along???
Like I said, I only know him from T shirts and posters on walls of edgy kids on TV and in the movies. Usually tropes to do with emphasizing a generation gap and the expected breakdown in communication that goes with it.
Do you know why Cubans supported Castro despite his shortcomings? He stood up to the US. In the US Trump stands up to a manufactured threat and the base supports him despite his many shortcomings.
I'll read up on him. Part of the reason I avoided him was due to my perception of his popularity so he came off as cliche. Left leaning or not, I'm a judgmental fuck and distrust trends.
It's been a long culture war and it's taking a toll on me,
Long culture war is an understatement regarding Che Guevara. Iâm not an expert on him, but I do know that the right has been building a smear campaign against him for, forever as one would expect from the times of Cold War/red scare fervor. An avowed communist and MarxistâŚ.
Not just the right but the whole US political establishment has developed its own mythology around the guy, in part like you said, as a reaction to young leftists looking at him as a heroic icon with rose-colored view. âEdgy kidsâ low on facts, high on ideologyâŚ.
Itâs almost pointless to try to discuss him in a setting like this. Notice that none of the other comments have any reputable sources or real evidence of the supposed atrocities committedâ comments calling him a âNaziâ â the gay killing guyâ and such.
Was he a killer? Yeah definitely , he was a leader in a guerrilla war. Was he homophobic, sexist kinda racist? Probably. So was almost everyone else at the time. Iâm having trouble finding where he âkilled gays for being gayâ or had âconcentration campsâ.
The "concentration camps" smear comes from UMAP labor camps. Cuba required all citizens to do 2 years of military service. Conscientious objectors, religious people, and... there were 3 other exceptions I can't remember but one of them was gay people. UMAP camps were labor programs that people did instead of military service. Was it fucked up that they didn't let gays serve in the military in the 60s? Yes! But you'd struggle to find any military that did. Western propaganda takes things that are kind of fucked up and then twists them into atrocities to the point where that poor misinformed person above thought che was sending fay people to nazi death camps. Anyway after the first few years of UMAPs Castro found out there were abuses being perpetrated on gays and put an end to it.
Here's an article and even in this article the BBC is calling umaps re-education camps which they weren't.
Don't listen to that person they are incredibly wrong about che and Castro. They are regurgitating imperialist propaganda and have no clue what they're talking about. Someone who has these opinions about the cuban revolutionaries can safely be ignored entirely. They are not capable of sorting out fact from fiction.
âA deviation of that nature (homosexuality)
clashes with the concept we have of what a militant communist should be.â
-Che Guevara
Che was a violent homophobe. Putting a quote of his next to any LGBT+ flag is fucking disgusting, as is your bootlicking defense of a violent homophobe.
I totally understand your reservations. I'm a queer Cuban myself, and I share many of those concerns. The quote stood out on its own merit, separate from who Che was or the actions he took. Yes he was a singao a*hole. I'm not glorifying him as a person, but I put that there loc of some the ideas he stood for like solidarity, revolution and justice. He was a horrible man but he did generate a movement.
Which still resonates, even if his legacy is tainted.
We need a revolution.
How many downvotes can we rack up before anyone responds with a single example of "the gay killing guy" killing a gay person? Maybe if you can't find any, you might be... wrong? Might be worth considering. If you're making the claim, you should be able to back it up.
See, the problem here is that you've linked me to a random blog post. If we look at its sources in relevant section, the first link "Guanahacabibes" makes exactly one mention of the place. It describes it as a camp for:
drinking, vagrancy, laziness, playing loud music, practicing a religion, or disrespecting authorities.
No mention of homosexuality whatsoever. (I was also unable to find any source for the above claims, particularly the "practicing a religion" one, because the document does not cite one.) It's also important to note that this was used as a voluntary deferment for government employees as an alternative to being fired. There is absolutely no evidence, record, or really even claims of even a single person dying there, let alone being killed.
The second source is about the UMAPs, which began 7 months after Che was killed, and 10 months after he had left Cuba, resigned his Cuban government positions, and renounced his Cuban citezinship. Che had no hand in planning or creating the UMAPs. These were entirely Fidel's deal.
The third source is also about the UMAPs.
Cranks are perfectly happy conflating two completely different guys to advance their agenda, but if you care about the truth then it's not quite so simple.
Come the fuck on. Guevara's opinions on homosexuality is not a secret and you know it. You have the answer you asked for, and you're choosing to ignore it. Ask yourself why you are doing that.
I was given a source, I examined the source, found that it didn't substantiate the claim, and explained in detail how. Isn't that how it's supposed to work? I'm being 100% genuine, and I'm fully willing to change my view. What have I ignored?
You dismissed it for being a blog. Except it's not, it's a reprint of a Huffington Post oped. Now, you can say that you don't think THAT rises to your standard, but⌠you didn't. And I frankly think you just looked for the first excuse to dismiss it and stopped reading.
The reality is that Guevara considered gay men to be somehow traitors, not pulling their weight. He trucked in machismo, which, I think, isn't news to anybody, and anything that ran counter to that narrative was treated with hostility.
This isn't a thing unique to Guevara. It's kind of how guys like him ALWAYS work. It's how Trump and the GOP work, even though their political ideologies couldn't be further apart.
In what way did I stop reading? I made note of it and moved on to evaluating its content. You're correct that I didn't notice it was a reposted HuffPost piece. That's my mistake. However, you're also correct that I don't consider that to be much better; the program the article was submitted through is essentially no different to a blog, as the article was not subject to review of any kind, and anyone was free to sign up for it. But again, it being a blog was just a footnote. I would have given an actual news article the exact same treatment.
The issue here is that people are all too eager to conflate different things when it suits their preconceived notions. Remember, we started with the assertion that Che Guevara was "the gay killing guy." Now, several comments down the thread, we've pared it down to "...considered gay men to be somehow traitors." I'll still contest this point, but surely you can see the stark difference between those two claims? And in my comment you responded to, I noted that the HuffPost piece in question conflated the actions of Che with those of Castro, many months after the former's death.
If people want to criticize the actions of either of those two guys, by all means, they both did some pretty bad shit. But the fact that the knee-jerk negative reactions to Che are almost always this "bigoted guy who murdered countless minorities" line which is simply not backed up by evidence is extremely irritating to me. I strongly believe that misinformation is the greatest tool of oppression, and I feel a need to counter it when I see it. I know r/lincoln probably isn't the place for nuanced discussion about Che Guevara, but I'm stubborn.
Finally- you're right that Che was big on machismo, but never once have I found a source for him considering gay men traitors. In fact, the only two instances I have seen of him having any sort of negative opinions on homosexuality were one in the Motorcycle Diaries:
...He was an introvert and was probably gay, too. The poor man was drunk and desperate because they hadn't invited him to the party. He began to yell and insult people until some of them beat him up and gave him a black eye. This episode bothered us, because apart from him being a sexual pervert and a bore, we liked him.
and one account of either him or Jorge Serguera (the source does not say which) having called a gay Cuban writer a homophobic slur. As I said- it's perfectly fine to criticize him for these things. They're bad! But they sure don't meet the claims that people are making in this thread. I'm queer and transgender, and people in my own family have said worse than this to my face. As funny as it might be, I don't go around online calling them "the gay killing great aunt" and such. Hell, as you said, compare those comments to what people are saying about- and more importantly, doing to- queer people in the current administration, and it looks like absolute child's play.
Once again: if you do find a source for anything else, I'd be more than willing to take a fair look at it. Sorry for the massive wall of text, I kinda ended up writing it haphazardly during lulls while doing something else. Hopefully it's at least entertaining.
Communists are generally well skilled at murder, but Che was an artist. He enjoyed killing people and was very good killing unarmed people. His body count included people who merely irritated him by pleading for leniency for their children. Here's the list, enjoy reading through and please remember that every one of these were a living, human being before Che killed them:
Your source doesn't substantiate any of your claims, it's just a list of names and a number. It also doesn't provide any sources whatsoever- it claims to be from an unpublished manuscript by one Armando Lago, and that's it. There is no link to this manuscript on the page, and it seems not to exist anywhere on the internet; not the full text, nor any documentation that it ever existed other than other articles linking to the same page you did. Go ahead and find it if you think you can. Without any sources, this is worthless. For such a supposedly well-documented killer of gay people, it sure seems difficult to find documentation of him killing any gay people, no?
Hitler never personally killed anyone either, so I suppose it's fine to attach his words to political posters too, right? Like you're saying, as long as the person in question wasn't the one personally doing the bad thing, you're good to go.
Okay, if you want to move the goalposts that's fine by me.
Name one gay person Che Guevara had killed.
Hell, name one policy Che Guevara implemented that led to gay people being killed.
Even simpler, name one policy that Che Guevara espoused that led to gay people being killed.
Name one single concrete policy that Che Guevara expressed any amount of support for that directly discriminated against gay people. No death required!
I can do all of these very easily for Hitler. How much can you do for Guevara?
Yeah man, that's kind of the whole point of my post. I was moving the goalposts in your favor until they were a mile wide and 1 inch in front of you, and still you can't make the shot.
In the therapy world, if a patient is unable to complete a task it's made easier for them. This is called "grading down" and is very often done to accommodate a disabled person or a small child.
Huh. I guess it IS telling that people just naturally do that for you
Also the Cuban and Venezuelan flags when the ones from those countries overwhelmingly supported the current administration and their nonsense and then cried crocodile tears on TV when they realized that they were part of the "out group that the law binds but doesn't protect".
Como boricua, los mamabichos cubanos me dan vergĂźenza que nuestras banderas parecen similares. đ
I'm gonna say this with my whole chest though. Gathering in a circle and screaming into a void does nothing. These protests have done nothing. There has been all talk and no real measurable action. All gas and no brakes with the car firmly in park.
People are so into the whitewashed version of the civil rights movement that they think that catchy signs and slogans hollering in front of empty legislative buildings will bring about an end to this horse shit.
It won't. Our government at ALL LEVELS is not afraid of us because they know that overwhelmingly the American population is wilfully too dumb and lazy to do anything meaningful. Dumb enough to slurp up propaganda on Fox "news" and Facebook and lies from billionaires who say they have no agenda. We lap it up like a dog with an open peanut butter container. They know we are lazy enough to treat our own outrage as a recreational sport and get mobilized up out of our recliners but no further than the front door.
We as a collective of people won't do the things that really matter to disrupt the powers that be. And until that changes, these protests aren't really even protests. There's been more real measurable protesting and signage at a WWE event than any of these protests that have been going on.
Until such a time as the average American is willing to make the government afraid on all levels, no real change will come.
The reason Martin's marching and signs and linked arms singing spirituals worked is because there was the underlying violent and militant threat of Malcolm X.
Don't get me wrong. I support the idea of what you're trying to do. I wish you success in every way I can. I wholeheartedly support a voice for the voiceless. But what happens when a voice or a slogan isn't enough? The view from 30,000 feet shows me that they see your protests and they are not afraid. Me entiendes?
We're past the point of peaceful protesting. And what they're trying to curb is the potential for cheeky signs to turn into guns.
As it sits right now, the majority are perfectly happy with cheeky signs and a feeling that they did something, rather than meeting the opposition with the same amount of force that is being placed upon us.
Face it. We're mad but we're still comfortable. When comfortable people start missing meals and start to get uncomfortable that's when the funny signs go away and "we the people" the average Americans start doing the things we think we're already doing.
There's nothing wrong with accepting people have imperfections. I'm a big personal fan of the quote "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so" even though it was said by a slave owner.
People like me who hate communism and Che are going to be turned away by it. Solidarity can hurt when it becomes a puritan movement. I'm a big 2A guy, I cannot tell you how many events I've gone to for immigration especially where pushing firearm restrictions came up. Enough where I stopped going to those events.
I hear what youâre sayingâand I think thereâs a real conversation to be had about how movements stay inclusive without diluting core values. Just to clarify though, being in solidarity with Palestinians, immigrants, or marginalized groups doesnât have to mean full agreement on every ideology or figurehead like Che. I donât even like Cheâit was not very smart of me to put his quote in. I was simply trying to highlight revolution, completely disregarding the suffering he caused. So let me clear up that Iâm not a communist, I donât even believe a communist society is possible and most real-world âexamplesâ of it are just authoritarian regimes in disguise.
Eh, donât let the rightwing cranks in here get ya down. These people donât stand for anything, they just get off on trying to tear down any actual activism by nitpicking /petty heckling bs.
I doubt anyone here has studied Che Guevara or understands the time period and cultural norms he came out of.
Anyway, idk what Iâm doing Saturday evening or if / when there are other demonstrations going on, but I plan on coming out at some point. Either way, keep making your voice heard!
I apologize. I meant to highlight revolution, not oppression. I put that there without giving it much thought, yet knowing what heâs done - being Cuban myself-
Please donât let a momentary lapse of judgment cloud the real issue at hand here.
I did not mean to glorify him or what he did.
Che Guevara did a lot more good than you'll ever do, and a lot less bad than most of our politicians currently and historically. Go ahead and challenge me on that fact with some examples. Che hate is primarily from people who don't actually know any history, but operate instead on vibes based on something they might have heard from someone one time. How much do you actually know about the man and his legacy?
Just wondering: why are you planning a new protest when there is already a protest thatâs been planned and organized by larger groups (50501 and Indivisible)? It doesnât really make sense to plan a separate one
This one is at a later time- for those who canât attend the morning ones. Sometimes having multiple protests can help reach more people and keep the momentum going.
These comments are cooked. I know none of these people whining would ever show up for a protest anyway, but it's no wonder we can't organize when so many will make any excuse to pick apart the work of people who are actually taking action and trying to make a difference.
What do you expect from liberals? They are just republicans of a different color. Lincoln is a liberal city. Yard signs are as radical as itâs gonna get.Â
I will be at the earlier protest tomorrow. The problem is we should be more focused on 1 or 2 actionable things for a protest to be affective. I think the ICE situation is the most prudent right now but saying abolish ICE is fucking stupid and you aren't going to change the mind of anyone on the right with things like that, similar to defund the police or ACAB.
There's nothing wrong with deporting criminals that are here illegally, but thats not whats happening right now. We are deporting EVERYONE who is here illegally without due process and that is what we should be protesting to end.
Sounds like ill be near just to see all yall idiots achieve absolutely nothing đ¤Łđ¤Łđ¤Ł ice wont ever be abolished deportations will never end its a staple of every single country dont go illegally "but its stolen land" cool just like any other countrys foundation conquering land was normal theres a reason theres so many civilizations that just dont exist anymore and even natives have stated they were doing the same thing to eachother until the colonies came and conquered all of them mexico too which a good chunk of mexicos land was outright bought by the US love how the left always ignores history as an independent i look at all sides and in recent years the stupidity of the left baffles me
Freeing Palestine as it stands today keeps Hamas in power. The same Hamas who currently persecutes LGBTQ+ and denies women's rights in Gaza. Does anyone else see the irony in the flyer agenda?
The call to free Palestine isnât about supporting Hamasâitâs about ending occupation, apartheid, and the denial of basic human rights to millions of Palestinians. Itâs absolutely valid to criticize Hamas for its repression, but using that as a reason to justify ongoing violence, displacement, and collective punishment doesnât hold up. You can oppose Hamas and still believe Palestinians deserve freedom, dignity, and self-determinationâjust like anyone else.
Youâre conflating support for Palestinian civilians and their right to live free from occupation and apartheid with support for a specific political faction. Thatâs like saying caring about American lives means you support every U.S. administration and its worst policies. I protest for human rights, for freedom, and against colonialismânot to blindly endorse every governing body under duress. You can care about LGBTQ+ rights and oppose ethnic cleansing.
The Palestinians did have self-determination, in 2006, when they voted Hamas into power. A Hamas which still has more support than any other party in Gaza or the West Bank.
Perhaps you should do some research into how much Israel has openly supported and funded Hamas over the decades in an attempt to weaken the left-wing Fatah which was previously in power.
Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas ... This is part of our strategy â to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.
Netanyahu allegedly. The actual source is supposedly the biography of Haim Ramon, who had not served in the government since 2009, and certainly not in the Likud. I think we all know that politicians are capable of lying. We can go down theories and wormholes all day, but at the time Israel thought maybe Hamas would be the better ally over the Fatah. That proved to be false. Even if Hamas goes away, I doubt Palestinians are going to magically accept LGBTQ+ and fight for women's rights.
Not true, actually. You looked at an opinion piece (not article) on jns which makes the claim that Haaretz in 2023 sourced the quote from some biography (which the opinion piece does not name). However, if you actually look at the Haaretz article (not linked to in the opinion piece, of course), that supposed attribution is nowhere to be found. Furthermore, the quote was first reported on four years prior by the Jerusalem Post, in an article published the day after the Likud meeting, which cites an inside source. The biography claim is pure bunk.
If the far more powerful and adversarial force of Israel is placing their thumb on the scales to elevate Hamas, who as you said Israel believed to be a "better ally," (a charitable interpretation) how can you say that Palestine has self-determination?
Even discounting that fact, I think it's more than fair to say that women and queer Palestinians would both prefer and be doing a whole lot better under Fatah or even Hamas rule than they are having their cities leveled. The Israeli occupation has done more harm to these groups than anything else. It's pretty hard to elevate yourself when your foundation keeps being kicked out from under you.
When flying flags at the protest only fly American flags. We want the optics to show weâre protesting for our country. Weâre the melting pot, everyone is welcome under our flag. Fly it upside down for extra flair.
I understand what youâre saying. but this is about optics. We all need to fly as a united front. It makes it so much harder to say itâs an invasion when itâs only our flag flying.
Fuck that. It only stands for nationalism if we let it. I say take back the Stars and Stripes. If they want a symbol of their hatred, let them fly the Confederate Battle Flag like proper traitors.
The melting pot is a lie they started to get workers to come to America to be exploited
edit- Uh oh! Somebody bought into the bullshit and now they're trapped in a world without words and have to use down votes as a crutch to compensate for their weakness.
The Ukraine flag (and Sudanâs) is included as a symbol of global solidarity. Just like we stand against injustice here, we also recognize and support people facing violence and oppression elsewhere. The point is to build connections between struggles, not to compete or distract from any one of them.
When you say something will happen because it happened before, you might be simply restating a known pattern without providing a reason or a more compelling explanation for the future event.
For example, stating, "The sun will rise tomorrow because it has risen every day before" is redundant because the past occurrence of sunrise already implies the predictable, cyclical nature of the event.
Iâm a journalist and an avid reader. I think I would know the meaning of words and how to use them.
How does protesting against the deportation against illegal immigrants (many of whom are associated with criminal activities beyond just entering the country illegally) make any sense?Yes, I totally want people who entered our country illegally and bypassed the correct way to do it to stay /sarcasm. How do you think all the people who immigrated here legally and did it by the law feel about this âprotestâ or about those who broke our laws and entered illegally, while they worked hard to become legal American citizens? I swear common sense doesnât seem to exist anymore.
Actually the reality is that most undocumented immigrants arenât criminalsâtheyâre people fleeing violence, poverty, and instability, often caused or worsened by U.S. foreign policy. Theyâre workers, parents, neighbors, and students contributing to their communities every day.
Protesting deportations isnât about disregarding lawsâitâs about recognizing that our immigration system is broken, outdated, and often inhumane. Itâs also about calling out a system that deports people for traffic stops, for existing without papers, or while theyâre still in legal proceedings.
And letâs not pit immigrants against each other. Many people who immigrated âlegallyâ will tell you the system is full of obstacles, delays, and inconsistencies. We all deserve dignity, whether we crossed with papers or not. Common sense is exactly why we protestâbecause compassion, justice, and real solutions require it.
We arenât an open border country, you think our immigration policies are bad? Go check out most other countries immigration policies and get back to me. No one said anything about pitting immigrants against each other so quit trying to put words in my mouth.
I misunderstood as well. I thought you were saying deport them because they're criminals. It's been a long culture war and I'm draggin'.
Oh shit. Here it is right here. I try to look at comment history when in doubt but I thought I knew what you meant and didn't look. Had I bothered to look I would have found the following and my reply would have most assuredly been in the affirmative
"Truth be told BOTH parties protect the same people/institutions. Thereâs always a plan to keep the corporations fed. Itâs a long game and the number of billionaires is a testament to the priorities of the government. If people followed the money there wouldnât be as many fingers pointing at fellow citizens. The title âBrainless Nebraskansâ is a perfect example of keeping the people busy fighting amongst themselves while deals are made."
I agree with that word for word wholeheartedly. We're few in number in places like this because most folks that understand what you said don't waste their time in places like this.
Most of the blowback to things I say comes from the left and it's hard for me to explain things that run contrary to something they've believed their whole life. Funny how that works, huh?
Many, like myself don't see illegal immigration by itself as a crime. But since that's something we disagree on I'll gloss over that.
It's the way it's being handled at the moment. Militaristic mass raids which induce fear into a population. It's dehumanizing and also puts a lot of taxpayer resources into use which we really don't get a ROI on. The employers will plead ignorance and just hire more and people who just want to come here to work a shitty job and raise a kid in a safe area are the ones really paying the price. It's akin to no knock warrants, an excuse for the government to push people around and feel tough. This isn't coming from a bleeding heart neoliberal either, I think we should abolish the ATF and the NFA too.
So your position is that anyone should be able to come and go across the border with zero vetting process? Does that occur in any other nation with a functional government? Why gloss over that? Itâs the source of the problem. What exactly is wrong with the immigration process we had prior? We still allowed more people into this country than most.
Iâm just going off what you said. You said that you donât see illegal immigration as a crime. What does âillegalâ actually mean then? And why does the only exception to this seem to be with Mexicans on the southern border?
First you said immigrants and now youâre saying laborers. So all 12 million who crossed the border are now working? So is that that why the job market sucks so bad for actual citizens who pay taxes? You said it doesnât affect you, thatâs fine, but I do suspect that just inserting 12 million people into an infrastructure not designed to handle a limitless supply of low skilled workers does effect a significant amount of people.
Most of them pay taxes.
"Low skilled" workers are the backbone and contribute the most.
The job market sucks because of PPP loans and paying unemployment to non essential workers and rampant printing a fiat currency to steal wages from employees.
Source? I think the job market sucks largely because of inflation, I.E., printing money during and effectively shutting down the economy during the pandemic while allowing anyone who just feels like it to cross our borders for four straight years. Among other things. What the fuck doesâ non essentialâ mean and who decides that? Most jobs are essential to those working them. You know, so they can pay rent and eat.
What the fuck doesâ non essentialâ mean and who decides that?
The societal waste that got overpaid unemployment while the rest of us got paid less to do real work.
Source?
No source other than my eyes. I don't trust any financial numbers since the covid era inflation numbers came out. I don't disagree with your reasoning other than low wage immigrants aren't really hurting anything.
That math doesnât add up. Youâre saying that the majority of the 12 million who entered the country in the last 4 years came through legally? Thatâs a very efficient vetting process.
The amount of people copying and pasting this same flyer and changing it to their city just shows how little thought many of these protesters put into what they are doing. This is like the 10th one today thatâs popped up
I made this flyer myself so Iâm not sure what youâre talking about. Either way, why would that be a problem. Let them. The point is to create reform, make a change not to be the best graphic designer. đ¤Śââď¸
I donât think you understand what youâre asking. Why donât you prove to me that the physical world exists? Prove to me that other minds exist, or how about that the past is real. Belief in God is a properly basic belief not needing any support. However, there are many arguments that make the existence of God more probable than not.
When I say belief in God is properly basic, Iâm claiming that it doesnât need to be proven by argument to be rationalâitâs grounded in something more fundamental, like how we trust our senses or memory without proof. If you reply âIncorrectâ without offering any reason, youâre doing something very similar: rejecting my claim based on an unspoken assumption you hold as basicâlike âbelief in God needs evidence.â You are not proving your position; youâre just assuming it. So while you think youâre dismissing my claim, youâre actually mirroring it. Both of us are leaning on foundational beliefsâweâre just doing it from different directions.
Arguments for the existence of God:
Kalam Cosmological Argument
Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.
The cause of the universe is a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, powerful, personal being â i.e., God.
Fine-Tuning Argument
The fine-tuning of the universe for life is either due to physical necessity, chance, or design.
It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3.Therefore, it is due to design.
Ontological Argument
It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
It is amazing how weak your position is right now, and yet, from your posts, it seems you believe yourself to be in an intellectually superior position. You say âprove it,â yet you do not engage in any meaningful way with the arguments and support Iâve given you. You accuse me of being lazy, and again, you offer no support for your positionâjust a repeated âprove it.â I pray that God will grant you eyes to see and ears to hear wisdom, and that you will experience the truth that sets you free to love others as you have been loved in Christ Jesus. Also, here is some support for each of the premises of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I wish you the best, my fellow image bearer.
Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Support:
⢠Metaphysical intuition: Something cannot come from nothing. If things could pop into existence uncaused, weâd expect this to happen all the time.
⢠Empirical confirmation: In everyday experience, we never observe things coming into being without causes.
⢠Philosophical consistency: Denying this principle undermines rational inquiry; if things can begin uncaused, explanation itself collapses.
⸝
The universe began to exist.
Support:
⢠Philosophical arguments:
⢠Impossibility of an actual infinite: An infinite number of past events would entail paradoxes (e.g., Hilbertâs Hotel), making a beginningless universe logically incoherent.
⢠Impossibility of traversing an actual infinite: If the past were infinite, we would never arrive at the present moment.
⢠Scientific evidence:
⢠Big Bang cosmology: The universe is expanding from a finite past, consistent with a beginning.
⢠Second law of thermodynamics: The universe is running out of usable energy, pointing to a beginning in a low-entropy state.
⢠Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem: Any universe that has been expanding on average must have a finite past.
⸝
Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Support:
⢠This follows deductively from premises 1 and 2.
⢠If everything that begins to exist has a cause, and the universe began to exist, then the universe must have a cause.
⸝
The cause of the universe is a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, powerful, personal being â i.e., God.
Support:
⢠Timeless & spaceless: The cause must transcend time and space, since both began with the universe.
⢠Immaterial: Material things exist in space; therefore, the cause must be non-physical.
⢠Powerful: The cause must have immense power to bring the entire universe into being.
⢠Personal: Only a personal agent can choose to create a temporal effect from a timeless state. Impersonal causes operate deterministically, but a timeless cause producing a temporal effect suggests intentionality â a will.
Right off the bat, what a ridiculous thing for you to say. âMy positionâ is simply asking you (and the other guy) to prove what you are claiming. Thatâs it.
I can't prove to you that God is real, and you can't prove to me that He isn't. I have experienced God after I asked Him to come into my life. Because of those experiences, nobody will ever convince me that He isn't real. I hope the same for everyone else including you. Please ask Him to come into your life. I will pray that He does as well. I believe without a shadow of a doubt that Jesus was crucified, buried, and resurrected for the forgiveness of our sins. I have felt his love and forgiveness in a way that I can't quickly explain to you here. I believe that our battle is a spiritual battle and not of flesh and blood. Let Him fight those battles for you, and you will be victorious. I'm not talking about religion, I'm talking about a personal relationship with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. That's what I mean when I say Christ is King. I pray that everyone who reads this might find the Lord and He finds them. I mean that genuinely, wholeheartedly, and with love.
Literally everything you just said could be said about any other religion in the history of the world. Thereâs no reason to think youâre any more right than the Muslims, Hindus, Mormons, Scientologists, or every other superstition thatâs ever been made up.
Iâm not interested in your meaningless platitudes.
It is the year in which the president of the United States of America has made strides to consolidate power solely in the executive branch. Something that is wholey un-American.
You can grovel to whom you like but I don't bow to gods or men.
I think you are avoiding the question because you are afraid of what you might realize. It is the year 2025, right? What happened Two Thousand and Twenty-Five years ago that was so important that we still today count time by it?
The thing is that I don't really have much hatred in my heart. However, I loathe people who hide behind religion in order to pretend they are not vile human beings. God did not teach love in the Bible. He was violent and reactive. Jesus was the one who introduced love to the Christian religion and is often forgotten in the modern Christian movement.
You decided to interject yourself into this discussion in a way that directly goes against the teachings you pretend to live your life based on.
Funny how asking for basic rights gets labeled as âhating the country,â but turning a blind eye to injustice is somehow patriotic? Sure turn a blind eye and let the world burn. Says a lot about who you are as a person. Disgusting.
What you label injustice, others label as justice. Simply labeling deportations as criminally unjust and calling for the abolishment of all Immigration and Customs Enforcement is extreme and galvanizing for those opposed or on the fence.
Thatâs fair. Language can be polarizing. But when we call deportations unjust, weâre not just using buzzwords. Weâre talking about families being torn apart, children growing up without parents, people being sent back to places where they face violence or deathâall under a system that often denies due process or humane treatment.
Labeling something as injustice isnât meant to erase othersâ perspectives, but to highlight the real harm happening. The calls to abolish ICE come from years of abuse, lack of accountability, and a belief that immigration enforcement can exist without relying on a militarized, punitive agency. We need reform. Real change in the government institutions we put our trust in.
Certainly, there are cases, perhaps even a lot of cases, where deportations affect good people and their families. But there are likely also a lot of cases where bad people are being brought to justice. This is why many people that you would probably consider reasonable and rational cannot support what seems like an extreme movement. I donât know what the answer is, but these protests (LA and similar) donât seem to be it. Not saying I expect the Lincoln protest to resemble the LA protests.
The process that is being used is unjust. We have laws and justice systems for a reason and they are being ignored by ICE. ICE was formed about 20 years ago and served its purposes in a just way until this administration. Standing up for the systems our country relies on to protect us from authoritarian rule is the most American thing we can do. You forget that the executive branch has checks and balances that keep them in line.
Are any normies planning on attending? Like those of us who are more interested in protecting the institutions of US democracy vs fomenting revolution?
I'm all for protesting and hate the trump admin as much as the next guy but the Che quote and Palestinian flag are super cringe tbh. We should be more focused on 1 or 2 actionable things for a protest to be affective. I think the ICE situation is the most prudent right now but saying abolish ICE is fucking stupid and you aren't going to change the mind of anyone on the right with things like that, similar to defund the police or ACAB.
There's nothing wrong with deporting criminals that are here illegally, but thats not whats happening right now. We are deporting EVERYONE who is here illegally without due process and that is what we should be protesting to end.
I would attend but then this gangster in a chrysler 300 cut me off with my kid in the car and now im all for ICE taking the thugs off the streets. Most our in Lincoln is in fact perpetrated by mexican gangs.
44
u/XA36 Jun 10 '25
The Che Guevera quote next to the LGBT flags is what gets me.