God(&gods)( in the material world, but also) in the world of Idea(l)s(, and probably other worlds inaccessible to humans as well) :

Unless the creatures, overall, would prefer to have never existed in the first place, then the Creator isn’t evil and should be praised(, that’s only one reason, for example an other one would be our search for Absolute/Greatness/Good/…)

I don’t entirely agree with my comment either, because there’s multiple interpretation of Hell.
One of them is interesting, it says that if our consciousness survives after our death, our mind will finally think clearly, we’ll remember our past better than if it happened today, and we’ll be overwhelmed by shame, this hell would be created by ourselves.
Another one would talk about a real place, but not in the afterlife but right here, on Earth(, it combines perfectly with this talk of afterlife if you believe in reincarnation), and says that if we all live our lives ‘searching for’/‘aiming at’ God, then our descendants/reincarnations will live in Paradise(, or in Hell if we don’t).
There’re other interpretations, as well as the thought that we’re not free since we’re determined, so God decided before our birth whether we would end up in Hell or in Paradise, a thought discussed in the Middle-Ages and rejected in favor of free-will(, i don’t think Spinoza would disagree with the conclusion that God predestined us for Hell, if he believed in Hell).
Obviously, the most common explanation is that police(wo)men didn’t existed back then, God-fearing people was the equivalent of virtuous people, even when nobody can see/stop them.

They merely said that being separated from God means suffering, while following H…er.im means walking towards the establishment of H…er.is Kingdom/City unto Earth. They talked more about Hell as a state than as a physical place, but, well… who cares nowadays, right ? Parabola never taught us anything about the real world, the spirit doesn’t exist, and morals are relative, they were simply naive ignorants who never had anything to teach us, embrace modernity and reject 100% of the past.

anyone who worships God is also good by default, and of course this logic follows that anyone that doesn’t worship God is evil by default.

If that was the case they wouldn’t put an emphasis on hypocrites.

Justice≠Revenge, otherwise Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and the rest, would be justified.
If every evil was stopped though it would be the end of ‘our trip’/‘any possible progress’.

deleted by creator

It’d be weird as an investigative journalist supportive of whistleblowers like him not to be in favor of free speech. He recently talked about Russel Brand, apparently not a leftist anymore as well according to some people.

People here may disagree, but in an ideal world, fascists or capitalists should be allowed to debate because in these ideal conditions their falseness would be efficiently deconstructed, the public failure of their arguments would serve as a useful reminder for the rest of us.
In my opinion, the u.s.s.r. would have made a mistake by banning anti-communist parties in this ideal world ; however, in the real world, such foreign agents would have perhaps been too powerful/financed/‘able to corrupt’, the u.s.s.r. already had enough vital threats to survive through in its first decades. If they enabled the conditions for an ~annual debate repeating the demonstration of the errors of capitalism, including with western authors, that would have been beneficial for them(, i’m aware that reality is more difficult, it’s just a thought).

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

I’ve never read that one, it’s much better than the communist manifesto i.m.h.o., even if it’s a bit too short to take into account any counter-argument, and it’d need an update almost 200 years later. I remember know that there’s obviously a difference between the bourgeoisie and the nobility, but there must exist some kind of word encompassing both the nobles from the past and the modern bourgeoisie/capitalists. Anyway, here’s a relevant quote i liked :

The bourgeoisie annihilated the power of the aristocracy, the nobility, by abolishing the entailment of estates – in other words, by making landed property subject to purchase and sale, and by doing away with the special privileges of the nobility. It destroyed the power of the guildmasters by abolishing guilds and handicraft privileges. In their place, it put competition – that is, a state of society in which everyone has the right to enter into any branch of industry, the only obstacle being a lack of the necessary capital.

And, unrelated :

** — 14 — What will this new social order have to be like ?**
Above all, it will have to take the control of industry and of all branches of production out of the hands of mutually competing individuals, and instead institute a system in which all these branches of production are operated by society as a whole – that is, for the common account, according to a common plan, and with the participation of all members of society.
It will, in other words, abolish competition and replace it with association.
Moreover, since the management of industry by individuals necessarily implies private property, and since competition is in reality merely the manner and form in which the control of industry by private property owners expresses itself, it follows that private property cannot be separated from competition and the individual management of industry. Private property must, therefore, be abolished and in its place must come the common utilization of all instruments of production and the distribution of all products according to common agreement – in a word, what is called the communal ownership of goods.
In fact, the abolition of private property is, doubtless, the shortest and most significant way to characterize the revolution in the whole social order which has been made necessary by the development of industry – and for this reason it is rightly advanced by communists as their main demand.

— 15 — Was not the abolition of private property possible at an earlier time ?
No. Every change in the social order, every revolution in property relations, is the necessary consequence of the creation of new forces of production which no longer fit into the old property relations.
Private property has not always existed.
When, towards the end of the Middle Ages, there arose a new mode of production which could not be carried on under the then existing feudal and guild forms of property, this manufacture, which had outgrown the old property relations, created a new property form, private property. And for manufacture and the earliest stage of development of big industry, private property was the only possible property form; the social order based on it was the only possible social order.
So long as it is not possible to produce so much that there is enough for all, with more left over for expanding the social capital and extending the forces of production – so long as this is not possible, there must always be a ruling class directing the use of society’s productive forces, and a poor, oppressed class. How these classes are constituted depends on the stage of development.
The agrarian Middle Ages give us the baron and the serf; the cities of the later Middle Ages show us the guildmaster and the journeyman and the day laborer; the 17th century has its manufacturing workers; the 19th has big factory owners and proletarians.
It is clear that, up to now, the forces of production have never been developed to the point where enough could be developed for all, and that private property has become a fetter and a barrier in relation to the further development of the forces of production.
Now, however, the development of big industry has ushered in a new period. Capital and the forces of production have been expanded to an unprecedented extent, and the means are at hand to multiply them without limit in the near future. Moreover, the forces of production have been concentrated in the hands of a few bourgeois, while the great mass of the people are more and more falling into the proletariat, their situation becoming more wretched and intolerable in proportion to the increase of wealth of the bourgeoisie. And finally, these mighty and easily extended forces of production have so far outgrown private property and the bourgeoisie, that they threaten at any moment to unleash the most violent disturbances of the social order. Now, under these conditions, the abolition of private property has become not only possible but absolutely necessary.

As well as :

Democracy would be wholly valueless to the proletariat if it were not immediately used as a means for putting through measures directed against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat.
(…)
The general co-operation of all members of society for the purpose of planned exploitation of the forces of production, the expansion of production to the point where it will satisfy the needs of all, the abolition of a situation in which the needs of some are satisfied at the expense of the needs of others, the complete liquidation of classes and their conflicts, the rounded development of the capacities of all members of society through the elimination of the present division of labor, through industrial education, through engaging in varying activities, through the participation by all in the enjoyments produced by all, through the combination of city and country – these are the main consequences of the abolition of private property.

I’m not sure about that, weren’t nobles/landlords capitalists by extracting a rent from the ‘working class’/laborers ?

Akchually(, edit : should have read the other comments before posting, they explained it better than i do in the following paragraph).
I.m.h.o., the Christ criticized their lack of respect towards God, because if they were really faithful they wouldn’t care about personal wealth in comparison to the Almighty, once you start serving the power of finance instead of God then you stop serving God, you can’t have two masters.
But “don’t do unto others what you wouldn’t want to be done unto you”, or prior to that “Thou shall not steal”, is already all that we need to condemn the parasitic practice of lucrative properties, they’ll gain money for “investing”, as if it was risky(, not in the case of interests, nor for rent, but if they want to take a risk with actions by selling them at a higher price, then don’t give them dividends that should belong to the workers, and/or eventually R&D and/or consumers), as well as salary differences, even companies with limited responsability have circumvented this concept of risk and, i mean, all the negative externalities should be enough to condemn the current application of neoliberalism(, not to say capitalism in general).
We oppose capitalism because it’s immoral, if we’re right then believers should have our back(, since morals/virtues are their domain). Since they don’t it’s either a mistake on our part or a lack of communist (counter-)propaganda.

Yeah, totally, they did what they could for n.a.t.o. to publicly acknowledge three times their demand from October 2021 to January 2022 but were ignored if i’m only relying on my memories. And they threatened Ukraine in the beginning of 2021 by amassing their troops at their borders but then retreated, so it wasn’t some kind of unprovoked invasion coming from nowhere, our heads of state were clearly aware of the russian demands but lied to their population as usual(, because we’re too stupid to be told the truth or sthg).
I’d have to find the sources here as well, but Ukraine already wrote in its constitution that joining the n.a.t.o. was a national priority, and as usual we’ll have to thank Eastern Galicia for that(, so it’s not a russian illusion about some imaginary threat, they possibly waited for V.Putin to step down before acting), and apparently european “partners” were much less insistant on Ukraine’s admission than americans(, confirmed in facts but i still kinda doubt it), the most famous warning about n.a.t.o. expansion dated back from the Munich security conference in 2007, but it can be found since 1991.

The opposite seems more truthful : the n.a.t.o. and e.u. were given every chances to welcome Russia, but they immediately took steps to establish their hegemony(, including the bombing of Yugoslavia, and the whole Middle-East), before “protecting protesters” in Lybia V.Putin already knew that we were the biggest liars on Earth, he saw what was hidden behind our lies and opposed Dmitry Medvedev(, almost every article from 2011 says that it was rare for him), who was ready to believe us one more time(, and quickly regretted his trust).
We(sterners) had more than one chance to be united in diversity, we still have this possibility now, instead we’re opposing everyone who doesn’t conform to our “values”. If we(sterners)'re not stopped then neo-colonialism won’t end and any country judged too diverse will be forced to conform. Also, Russia is considered too large/powerful and hence too difficult to control, thus a potential threat to western hegemony/“enforced peace”, allowing western hegemony may imply a smaller and/or less powerful Russia.
There’s more details on everything that Russia(, and even the u.s.s.r. before,) did in order to unite with the west, but we’re so certain of our moral&economic&military&… superiority that we won’t agree to any concession.
It’s a badly written comment, there’s only two arguments and i’d have to search in my computer folders for any sources i may have(, i remember that in the first years after Yeltsin resigned, V.Putin took many measures to unite with the west, and obtained such things as the NATO-Russia Council). I still think that there’s a lot of truth in writing that Russia had&‘will have’ to abandon its diversity in order to have a hope of uniting with the west(, in the sense of not being unfairly attacked by our politicians&medias since they’re probably too big to be integrated into the e.u. anyway, they could join n.a.t.o. but they would have to agree with our goal for hegemony and apparently prefer to suffer than being immoral).

If you agree that God gave us cancer, then you should normally agree as well that S.H…e gave us everything else.

lemmit.online has(had?) a bot taking content from any subreddit you want to, and then put it in a community with the same name.

I double-checked and you’re entirely right, i didn’t know that, i’ve heard many years ago that a single big lightning strike could power a large city for months(, while it’s indeed more a matter of minutes, if not less), and thought that it was a technological problem(, and that, e.g., flying devices anchored on the ground to either a portable infrastructure or a nationwide-extended network, could potentially make up for the unreliability and follow the storms, or even perhaps cause them one day).
Now i understand even better why solar power is preferred, thanks !