From time to time I like to highlight how people believe all sorts of wrong things because they overemphasize and generalize their personal anecdotal experiences. Here is one simple, seemingly unimportant example:
I’ve never known a man to wear his cowboy hat indoors. I’m not saying it’s impossible, I’m just saying it smells fake.
I think that Oscar has never attended the Pennsylvania Farm Show or an indoor Rodeo (see the picture?). He’s probably also never heard of the Cowboy Church. He didn’t even google it to read the AI response or the first result. Or consider these old photos and the discussion on wearing hats indoors in the comment section. It takes about a minute of total elapsed time to find these examples.
Indeed, so powerful is his own experience over actual reality that when someone pointed out his error…
Seems wearing a cowboy hat indoors is quite popular and accepted.
…he responded by questioning that too:
Accepted by what? The script?
It’s not so much that Oscar is wrong—we are all wrong about lots of things—it is that he’s Not Even Trying to find the truth. Neither was, apparently, Surfdumb, a former commenter to this blog. Moreover, when truth was pointed out and he had another opportunity to accept or confirm it, he instead doubled-down and actively resisted it!
In one of my last discussions before I permanently left Sigma Frame last year, I wrote about how anecdotes are not very relevant, against the claim that had been made there. The purpose of this was to note how much Sigma Frame’s Manospherian and Red Pill principles rely on the weakest form of evidence: anecdotes. Considering that Red Pill proponents place anecdotal evidence over other forms of evidence, the Red Pill principles are inherently suspect on epistemological grounds.
One of my most relevant articles is “Habitually Being Wrong” because it highlights how supremely confident Red Pillers are in confidently expressing things that are false. It’s part of a series of articles on dishonesty in the Manosphere, which includes:
“Everyone’s a Genius”
“Absolutely Mystified”
“It’s Always Someone Else’s Problem”
“Anonymity and Plagiarism”
“Deti on Hypocrisy”
“Sectarianism”
“The Living Voice”
“Ambiguity in the Bible”
“1 Corinthians 14:34-35” (footnote 1)
Whether something as innocent and unimportant as Cowboy Hats or as serious as judging all women with broad brush strokes, the Red Pill isn’t factually accurate. This is especially jarring for Red Pillers to hear, as Red Pill wisdom is often alternatively—and ironically—called Red Pill truth.
Last year I wrote “Hypergamy is a Myth.” There, I noted that the popular anecdotal belief that women are hypergamous—and uniquely so—is a Red Pill myth. It is unsupported by research. Yet, based on their personal anecdotes, they (still) believe it like it is a divine truth.
If a person wants to find truth, they have to be open to it. It really is that simple, as a concept. But in actual practice it is surprisingly quite difficult for a person to set aside their preconceptions. All Oscar had to do to check his belief was perform a Google search, but so confident was he in the validity of his own “lived experience” that he couldn’t even do that much.
Over at “The AI Apocalypse Begins,” Bruce Charlton is concerned with how AI is making damnation even easier:
We inhabit a quantitative world in terms of the spiritual war. As CS Lewis explained, from the demonic POV, it is not easy to get a Man to choose damnation, because salvation has been made so easy for us; and can happen at the last moment (which moment I, unlike CSL, believe comes After mortal death).
Therefore, the demons will never stop in their work of corrupting this world, and piling on the inducements to damnation. For them, an increased quantity of self-damned souls is the aim.
AI is not a neutral technology – nothing is neutral, and truth be told nothing ever was neutral, although it sometimes seemed so. All is intentional, all technologies are downstream from the intent of Beings.
Yet what difference will AI make if professing Christians already can’t even be bothered to engage in even minimal effort to ensure that what they believe is true? Making it harder to find the truth isn’t going to matter if no one is trying to find the truth in the first place. After all, truth was arguably more common before—not after—the internet made truth more accessible. Access to the truth is not the primary issue. The truth is there and easily accessible, but people don’t want to find it.
Fundamentally, Christians and non-Christians are going to need to have a direct experience with Christ in order to change their approach to truth. God can—and will—penetrate even the strongest of Satan’s deceptions, so I’m not overly concerned with how much AI is going to increase the deceptions in this age. As most people are already lost by an act of their own will, I doubt that AI will move the needle much at all.
It comes down to motivation and choice. Following Christ is about the choice to do so, the motivation to actually want what Christ has to offer. Most people simply do not want what Christ has to offer, including a great many Christians (as the 2020 lockdowns showed). People want a Christ who offers whatever they want Christ to offer. To wit:
It’s about motivation, not primarily about being deceived. After all, the truth isn’t hard to determine…
…it’s just hard to accept…. especially if you don’t even try.
Yet what difference will AI make if professing Christians already can’t even be bothered to engage in even minimal effort to ensure that what they believe is true? Making it harder to find the truth isn’t going to matter if no one is trying to find the truth in the first place. After all, truth was arguably more common before—not after—the internet made truth more accessible. Access to the truth is not the primary issue. The truth is there and easily accessible, but people don’t want to find it.
i remember NBC Nightly News doing a segment on ”the World Wide Web Internet” in late ’95 and hearing the same promises of ”everyone will be super-intelligent in the future now” yet i knew like radio, films, and TV before it was going to be (MAINLY) for Entertainment(including porn in that as films and CableTV did before it ) NOT learning mainly, it’s like when you essentially said some time ago ”when they dumb down learning those that are more intelligent(higher i.q.)are harmed the least and still are at the top.”
Access to the truth is not the primary issue. The truth is there and easily accessible, but people don’t want to find it.
Do you know who I’m primarily thinking of here? The same guy who is “way too busy” to find information on what he later accuses others of “lying or being gibberish of” after he forgets he “realized it was real” to try to garner more sympathy and mob support, before that, also!
when they dumb down learning those that are more intelligent(higher i.q.)are harmed the least and still are at the top.
This is an excellent summary.
I know one teacher who has said that Common Core math is great for his gifted students. They like how much more difficult and challenging (in a good way) that it is compared to what came before it: they learn more from it. But the opposite is true of the worst students. Those students would be better served by the older mathematics curriculum.
I grew up in the “country” the “sticks”
Actual REAL cowboys who do work in the stock and pen with the horses are allowed to wear their hat indoors. Its not a “Law” or “Red Pill”
Its just understood all the dust, potential vermin, and farm dust (potential contamination) allows this. Its understood in the sticks
With that said, 99% of guys who wear cowboy hats today dont “ranch” dont “work on a farm” and dont have a “tractor” and dont ride a horse to work and are not “moving cattle up the Goodnight-Loving trail”
So, yes……. guys who “think” they are cowboys now believe they get to wear their hats indoors and an actual “suburban” or “pretend cowboy” takes it off as he should.
Also….and maybe on topic with this.
When I was attending church in a Salvation Army Uniform, I would politely ask people who did come into God’s House to remove their baseball caps.
I was told to “stop” this and Jesus wanted people to “come as they are” and some were saying I was being a “Legalist” and a “Pharisee”
Okay.
Let’s suppose that I was.
These same people go on and on and on about how “there is no respect today” and “manners” and “people do what they want”
If we are to have a reverence and respect for who dwells in This House, you take your hat off. A poor homeless man cannot afford “fine clothing” and may indeed smell but is in church, yes, should be welcomed with a “come as you are”
We cannot say and should never expect a homeless man to have otherwise.
Even back in the 1930’s, the poor had “church pants” and a “church shirt” to wear on Sundays. They had EXPECTATIONS.
I would argue to these people who called me a Pharisee and “I was judgmental”
“So, why bother with the Uniform? We should come as we are. There is expectations from us , the members to model, uplift and show actions our respect for who dwells here, we should be inspiring others to step up in reverence”
More is expected from members of a church, and we should of course not be throwing people out or judging….but we also should have expectations of guests and visitors to This House.
Take your ballcap off.
Lastmod,
As you alluded to, hats used to be worn indoors in public, but not in certain other settings. You took off your hat at the dinner table, in church, when visiting someone’s private household, if you were visiting a government official, or in the presence of a woman. It was a matter of formal respect.
As shown in the pictures above and below, whether you wore a cowboy hat in the sticks or another style of hat common in the city, I believe this etiquette for hats was not dramatically different. These days farmers (in the North) wear caps more often than cowboy hats, but I still see both of them being worn in the same contexts, like at the Farm Show:
…
Most modern social situations are informal even when they are private or official, including visiting a friend’s house, going on dates, or interactions with government officials. It is quite common for hats of all types to be worn indoors simply because so much of society has abandoned formality. The examples cited in the OP, including the linked music video, simply reflect the wider trend.
Can you imagine the Manosphere’s reaction to a man taking off or tipping his hat every time a woman entered the room? “Goddess worship!” and “Beta simp!” they’ll cry.
No doubt there are still pockets where Oscar’s experience is valid, but the point is that his experience is not a rule. It’s incredibly easy—effortless—to show that it is common for men to wear cowboy hats indoors and that they’ve been doing so for over a hundred years. Frankly, it’s probably been occurring since the invention of the cowboy hat!
Peace,
DR
wrt hats – I suppose that many people who wear hats outdoors will continue to wear them indoors when it is practical; especially if it is cold indoors, or they need the shade (e.g. sun coming through a window).
wrt Current so-called AI and whether it will make a difference to the spiritual state of the world.
I would say for sure, and it has done so already. If we regard current-wave AI as one of the more recent (c. November 2022, as I recall) mega-strategies of totalitarian evil; then it is one of those Litmus Tests that people need to discern as of evil provenance and aims (like antiracism, feminism, the not-pandemic and not-vax) – or else they will be set off down a path towards spiritual corruption.
There are several-to-many people of whom I am aware who had apparently passed the previous major Litmus Tests, but have apparently failed this latest AI test.
*That* is the significance of AI in the grand scheme of things; and that is why current-wave AI has been worth the effort of the demonic overlords.
Well, apparently I am one of the several-to-many who have failed this latest test, unless I misunderstand what you mean by it. I can see the various flaws in AI, I understand it, its limitations, difficulties, and dangers, but I also view it as merely a tool, not inherently evil in the way that, say, bureaucracy is.
AI is software. It’s the output of human creativity. Bureaucracy is a process. It’s not the output of human creativity, but actual human behavior (which can be explicitly evil). They are different categories of things.
I typically use AI as an improved search engine. It’s much better at doing Bible lookups than I am. I can ask it to give me every verse that matches whatever filter I want, and it does what I want it to do. I have rarely found it to be in error when I’ve verified what it returns. It’s also quite good at doing Greek and Hebrew word studies.
This saves me a considerable amount of time.
Prior to the copier and computer eras, no one had access to all of the Bible’s manuscripts. Since then, virtually the entirety of knowledge of scriptures is now accessible from any cell phone. So while the internet has been largely a force for evil, it’s been indispensable for unlocking scripture through the identification and elimination of errors. You could say that the internet is mostly evil, and yet it’s brought about something that is quite clearly a good thing. I view AI in the same way.
Fundamentally, like all computer science, AI is just mathematics, and mathematics are amoral.
So, I struggle with your view, which appears to me to be a strict black-and-white abstraction.
“I struggle with your view, which appears to me to be a strict black-and-white abstraction.”
It’s not an abstraction, it is very simple and concrete – a matter of recognizing and choosing between sides in the spiritual war.
I think you struggle to understand what I am saying, because of metaphysical differences – which lead on to differences in understanding what Jesus did and said.
I don’t regard any of this as fatal in the end! As I’ve often said – the big decision comes after death, but it is us that make it – so that what we think/ believe etc in mortal life makes a difference – we carry it over.
We will be shown reality, and the truth after death. We will then *know* about Jesus, and what he offers us, and how to get it.
But of course, we can choose not to recognize/ acknowledge/ repent/ leave-behind our sins, not to believe what we are shown, or to reject Heaven and choose… something else – and from what we see in mortal life, which is all we have to work on, it seems that rejection is what many will do.
But anyone who really wants resurrected eternal life in Heaven – at that time when he is shown what it is – will surely do whatever it takes to get that.
That wanting seems by far the most important thing.
P.S – I think your recently expressed idea (which is the mainstream Protestant doctrine ) about the dead sleeping (awaiting “judgment”), and therefore being uncontactable, is nonsense.
Humans have “always” known that the dead are still “with us” in some real sense – this is a built-in (God given) fact of basic human knowledge, which we reject at peril of a kind of insanity.
We need to *understand* what this “presence” of the dead means and implies, not reject it outright.
Bruce,
I think your recently expressed idea (which is the mainstream Protestant doctrine ) about the dead sleeping (awaiting “judgment”), and therefore being uncontactable, is nonsense.
Humans have “always” known that the dead are still “with us” in some real sense – this is a built-in (God given) fact of basic human knowledge, which we reject at peril of a kind of insanity.
We need to *understand* what this “presence” of the dead means and implies, not reject it outright.
What you are expressing here is—not to put too fine a point on it—the first lie of Satan: that you will not really die. The notion that we transform to some other state of existence after death permeates pagan and secular thought throughout all of history.
But, the testimony of scripture stands in stark contrast to this. The Old Testament plainly teaches in many places that death is a state of total unconsciousness.
It is not ambiguous in the Hebrew scriptures:
It is not ambiguous in the Greek Septuagint (LXX):
Moreover, the pagan practice of interacting with the dead carried the death penalty (Deuteronomy 18:10-12; Leviticus 19:31; Leviticus 20:6,27; Isaiah 8:19; 1 Samuel 28).
So entrenched was this view in Hebrew thought that, by the first century AD in Palestine, there was even a Jewish sect—the Sadducees—that taught that there was not even a resurrection, let alone such a thing as an intermediate death-consciousness.
The first hint of a different understanding shows up in the (mostly Greek) deuterocanonicals/apocrypha, regarding (allegedly) prayers for the dead. But these were written during and after the Babylonian captivity. They reflected the influence of the pagan cultural understandings of a conscious afterlife. We see this in the Greek Septuagint, where the word for the grave in Hebrew “Sheol” was conflated with the Greek word “Hades.” Even though the Septuagint describes death as sleep, cultural Greeks in the Diaspora began to conflate the Greek notions of a conscious afterlife with Hebrew concept of the grave.
However, there is little-to-no direct historical evidence that the pagan view was common in first-century Palestine (it’s all an inference). It was largely a view held by some in the Greek-speaking Diaspora. Moreover, this belief in a conscious afterlife predates the work of Jesus, so it can’t have originated by a change that Jesus made to the fabric of reality.
The New Testament continues the Old Testament tradition, but because it was written in Greek, the terms it uses (e.g. Hades; Tartarus) were also interpreted in a Greek cultural context by later writers who were steeped in Greek philosophy. Eventually the Roman Catholic Church (late 4th century) adopted this Hellenistic understanding of the afterlife.
But not so the writers of the New Testament. The language of Jesus and the apostles is not very ambiguous at all:
As with the OT, the pagan practice of fellowship with the dead remained condemned (Acts 19:19; Galatians 5:19-21; Revelation 21:8).
Death is sleep—unconsciousness—in the grave awaiting final judgment and resurrection.
Paul wrote:
Look! I tell you a sacred secret: we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed. In a moment, in the blink of an eye, at the last trumpet, for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we will be changed.
John wrote:
And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened, and another book was opened, which is the book of life, and the dead were judged out of the things that were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, and death and the grave gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one, according to their works.
The writer of the fourth gospel, writing decades after the events described within the gospel, concurs:
And no one has gone up to heaven, but he who came down from heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven.
Possible literal evidence for the the dead being conscious is found in the Medium of Endor and the Transfiguration, but the circumstances of each don’t really support death-consciousness. The only direct, deductive evidence is based on how translators place a comma, but doing so contradicts the writer of the fourth gospel. You also have some explicit resurrections (Lazarus and the saints in Matthew 27), but none of these are generalizable. In fact, the latter—Matthew 27—specifically affirms that the dead sleep prior to resurrection. What limited evidence remains is all figurative, stories, visions, or the future (e.g. Genesis 4; Isaiah 14; Ezekiel 37; Luke 16; Revelation 6).
I’ve previously written about this topic here, where I reference a rather heavily philosophical discussion I had with Tyler Journeaux. For a much more detailed treatise on the subject, see here.
——————————————————————————————
I’ve been pondering our discussion on relativism, and this is illustrative. Hopefully I can explain myself—with greater clarity than comments—in a future post, but please be patient with me: I can take a long time meditating on an important subject before finally writing about it.
For now, I believe your belief in death consciousness is based (apparently) on your metaphysical assumptions, including your prior theological commitments (e.g. Lazarus) and what humans (of every religion, time, and place) have supposedly “always known.” It is not based on God’s explicit revelation which Jesus confirmed. This appears, to me, to be arbitrary, subjective, and ungrounded: rejecting what has already been revealed for something else.
Peace,
DR
Sorry, just seen this (I really don’t like indented comments and replies – how are we supposed to navigate them?)
As you say it is all about metaphysical assumptions, which are what determine what counts as evidence and what it means. This is not something that distinguishes the two of us.
My assumption is that Jesus did what he did, it is a cosmic fact, an entirely new possibility; and in principle accessible to anyone at any time that came After he made this change in reality.
The OT and Jewish history are irrelevant to what Jesus did (or, no more relevant than any other), and usually very Misleading… Which may explain why ancient Jews seem to have been more resistant to the Good News of Christianity than most kinds of pagan.
Christianity is about resurrected eternal life in Heaven after death (i.e. biological death, death of the mortal body) – and the rest is pretty-much just explication of the terminology.
See my response here
I attended Sabbath with a Jewish roommate in college (late 1980s). He was very “culturally Jewish” but he did attend Temple now and then. I asked him offhand on Saturday “hey, could I come with you?”
He was actually floored. “Really? Ummmm..sure, I would love to have you as a guest at Sabbath!”
When we arrived (Rutland, Vermont) I was instructed that in order to enter “this holy place” I had to have my head covered. They gave me a yamika to wear. Then I was instructed that I had to sit upstairs with the women, because I was not a Jew. I sat upstairs with the women, I was politely greeted as a guest by them all. The women sat behind smoked glass to protect them in the upstairs area.
It was fascinating to watch. My roommate was asked to read from the Torah. It was all in Hebrew. After the Holiness we all met for refreshment, and the Rabbi even introduced himself. ASked me if I had any question. I had a few, and he said “Come, lets sit, let me explain why and show you what the Lord has done andwhy its important”
It was a great learning experience for me at that time. Something I did in college regularly back then. Just go and see” and “hey, step out of your comfort zone” kind of thing. Learn something.
What we have forgotten in modern protestant church (will not speak for catholic or orthodox) is that God IS holy. His place. His House is Holy and there are polite rules as a guest one still would have to uphold while visiting. There is decorum that an owner of a house might want of a guest and visitor. I wasnt a Jew, and they wanted me to see their Service and everyone was welcoming, but there were decorum rules, I as a guest had to follow in His house.
Now, protestants would argue, “but we have Jesus, he abolished the Law” and “He didnt care about any of that, he just wants people to come and hear the message”
Jesus was pretty upset at the disrespect “his Fathers house was given” in the Temple courts. He didnt break rules for the sake of breaking them. He accepted invitations to peoples homes.
Millions of Americans go every week in “God House” and treat it like a rental, or their portable living room. Eating, food and drink during the service. Members, who know better…….letting their daughters wear flip-flops and pajama bottoms with mid-riffs showing “Oh we cannot judge” and their sons wearing baseball caps and dont you dare say anything because “We cannot judge” statements…..but then throw out “This is Gods house !” when a new attendee sits in the wrong seat (cough…..reserved) and is told to move and is regulated to a place out of sight.
If Christians are going to claim “Holy” and “right living” and cannot even show a modicum of respect in “the most Highs House” well it explains a lot.
As for wearing hats indoors? I find it bothersome on a cultural standard. Cowboy or not. Even when I worked a nightclub in San Francisco….guys wearing baseball caps….and making a “stink” about it, like their freedoms were just put on the line.
The more annoying trend now is men wearing suits with sneakers…yes, clean and box fresh but it looks like you are a grown kid instead of man. But women think its hot…….so more will be doing this.
I ramble
[NOTE: This is a response to this original comment]
Bruce,
“I really don’t like indented comments and replies – how are we supposed to navigate them?”
I’d suggest getting an RSS reader.
Alternatively, I sometimes embed URLs to link comments together, which I’ve done here.
However, I will respond to you out-of-thread from now on. I read every comment posted here, so you can just make a new comment without hitting reply (to any specific comment) and I’ll take care of linking the comments together as necessary.
“The OT and Jewish history are irrelevant to what Jesus did”
Fair enough. Your perspective (re: here) is received and understood. Moving forward, I hope you don’t take my ongoing strong disagreement as if it were a personal attack.
Peace,
DR