Well, it's difficult to reliably study oral traditions in depth in history textbooks because... they aren't written down.
But the part about preachers trying to quote the Old Testament or problematic passages from the apostles literally to justify bad things is quite frequent.
I've read a few books about it, but I take the history of religion with a huge grain of salt (they have too many incentives to distort what happened). So, the only thing I can analyze is the present.
They'll say that it was in the Old Testament, that's why it doesn't count (and to be fair, the Old Testament had a lot more messed up stuff compared to the New Testament)
Edit: The New Testament has problematic passages here and here, whereas 95% of the Old Testament is painful to read sigh
I like it. No exceptions. Thou shall not believe in ghosts and angels. The end.
I wish they did so to be honest. Currently, they try to jump through many hoops of "reinterpretations," like mad lawyers trying desperately to find loopholes.
Morality is the biggest problem with religion in its current form. If there weren't moral concerns, religion would be much much more bearable to deal with.
The whole work/author should be thrown out. If an author can seamlessly put in blatant immorality, evilness, into the work how can we trust them to give actual moral lessons? If the author for example, supports/enables slavery, why would they not support things more subtly wrong? If we are charitable to god (I don't think we should be) and he doesn't support the blatant immorality the author put in the book then the author is directly going against the wishes of whatever deity is in question. How can we trust this author, how can we give them any credibility to speak for god?
Well, one might argue that there could still be value in archiving these texts and studying them in certain contexts. For example, some people study Nazi propaganda to understand the harmful techniques used, so we can recognize and avoid them in the future. We might do the same with harmful passages in religious texts.
We also study classical philosophers who held deeply flawed and indefensible moral views in some areas. But the difference is that we don't excuse those parts. Very few people treat Plato, Aristotle, and others as divine authorities.
Even in your example, it is more rational to not believe; I have no problem with that. But if someone decides to believe, are they always kind of irrational?
My problem is that there probably are degrees of irrationality, and it would be a bit oversimplifying to put everyone in the same basket.
If someone takes some time to legitimately think through things, looks at evidence, tries to examine counter-evidence, and ends up believing in the supernatural, that would be less problematic.
But when you look at it objectively, it's obvious that a significant percentage of believers haven't thought through things and rely on poor epistemology. Duration of thinking or length of reasoning isn't the only criterion to determine the quality of epistemology. There are some apologists who've written entire books, but it's so obvious that their reasoning is flawed, and you suspect whether they're even arguing in good faith.
Trying to lump the former in with the latter is kind of muddying the waters.
Of course, but I find the other extreme to be dangerous as well: saying "I don't believe in anything supernatural; angels are just natural phenomena not yet understood by science" doesn't sound that good at all. It seems like an easy way to avoid whether their beliefs are epistemically justified or not.
I know that it can be a bit overwhelming at times. Even if you're going to doctors or therapists, you still have to double-check what they are telling you, plan ahead your next session etc. and it can be difficult.
I hope that you're going to find the root causes to whatever bothers you
Courage, comrade!
One of the causes of mental health issues is bad physical circumstances. Some people manage to "smile their way through them," and if you can, more power to you. It can definitely be doable, but it's not something I would necessarily expect from you, so don't be too hard on yourself.
To fix bad physical circumstances, it can range from "nothing to do at all" to hoping to get lucky with "the right mental breakthroughs, the right ideas, the right resources, the right book, the right coach, the right online guide" that fit your current circumstances.
On the mental side, however, therapy is one of the main options, but it can get expensive really quickly depending on where you are. Group therapy kind of fixes the price issue, but can have more privacy concerns.
One-on-one text therapy is a bit underrated from what I've heard, but be careful. Many of the centralized online platforms that set it up can act in shady ways, like underpaying therapists or trying to cut corners by taking in unqualified people.
If you're on your own, your main tool will basically be your brain; you need to analyze and think logically about your situation and find how to fix it. Easier said than done. Books or online guides can be a helpful supplement.
Unfortunately, my comment is more vague than I would've liked, but it's difficult to recommend a specific thing without knowing exactly what you're going through, how you see the world, or your circumstances. There's no one-size-fits-all approach.
Ancaps don't want to tear down the state, they want to privatize it.
That saying has some weight to it.
And honestly, when you look at what actually happens when public services get restructured, it often feels less like liberation and more like reshuffling.
Like, sure. In theory, you could imagine worker co-ops, community health councils, or animal care collectives running things without top down control. And if those models were truly empowered, democratically managed, publicly accountable, and not dependent on profit, then maybe decentralization could mean something real. We already see glimpses of that in more socialist communities, mutual aid networks, and solidarity economies where people organize care, housing, and support outside both corporate markets and bureaucratic state systems.
But so much of what passes for privatization doesn't move toward that kind of grassroots self management. Instead, it hands over public assets and responsibilities to entities that aren't answerable to communities, don't operate transparently, and prioritize stability or returns over participation. The state doesn't disappear. It just steps behind the curtain, guaranteeing contracts, absorbing risk, and bailing things out when they fail.
So yeah, maybe the goal isn't to abolish the state so much as to hide its role while keeping the machinery running for select interests. And if that's the case, then calling it private feels more like branding than reality.
Real small government wouldn't need backstops, guarantees, or constant intervention. But we rarely see that. What we usually see is the state staying deeply involved, just less accountable. Meanwhile, the kinds of truly democratic, community run alternatives, the ones that actually reduce reliance on centralized power, get ignored or underfunded, even though they show it's possible to do things differently.
Yeah, you're definitely onto something. On the surface, it often looks like the government is stepping back or shrinking. But from what I've seen, it's not always that simple.
A lot of the time, when a service gets "privatized" or moved out of direct government control, it doesn't actually become independent. It still runs on state funding, follows government-mandated rules, and relies on public contracts or guarantees. The state might not be running it day to day, but it's still paying for it, backing it, and ultimately responsible if things go wrong. So it's less like pulling back and more like shifting roles. It's as if the government goes from being the operator to the sponsor.
From a socialist angle, this is tricky because it makes accountability weaker. You no longer have clear government oversight, but the financial risk still falls on ordinary people. It's kind of a gray zone. Services aren't exactly private in practice, even if they're labeled that way. So calling it "small government" feels misleading. It's more like hidden government. The state is still there, still involved, but harder to track or hold accountable.
That said, I do think small government is possible in theory, even under capitalism. If you can imagine it, it's not impossible. But it would require consistency. You'd have to actually reduce involvement, cut spending, and walk away from guarantees, subsidies, and bailouts. Most so called small government pushes don't go that far. They just rebrand state functions and keep the safety net underneath. So maybe the issue isn't that small government can't exist, but that it rarely does in practice, because the system ends up protecting certain interests anyway.
So I wouldn't say everything just gets outsourced and downgraded. Sometimes it's more subtle than that. The machinery keeps running, but now it's behind a curtain.
It's actually odd that it's not taught as standard in schools, because it makes rote memorisation significantly easier.
I'm honestly surprised that even "elite"/top-tier universities like Oxford don't seem to teach it as well.
Given how much the school system loves the massive memorization of facts, you would think that they would love it, but nope.
Trouble is, I never remember to use it...
Funnily enough, memory palaces are still helpful for remembering to do something at a later time like turning off the lights before leaving the house. For example, I can just imagine a glowing light switch with wings gently floating beside the door, reminding me to flip it before I go.
IANAL, but to be pedantic, copyright mainly protects creative expression, not ideas, facts, systems, or methods of operation. So while someone can't copy your specific way of explaining a concept (the expression), they are generally free to use the underlying idea or information in their own work, as long as they don't replicate the original phrasing, structure, or other protectable elements.
By contrast, patents protect inventions; new and non-obvious processes, machines, manufactures, or compositions of matter. Where copyright arises automatically upon creation of a work, patents require a formal application and examination process. Patents offer stronger exclusivity (preventing others from even independently developing the same invention), but last much shorter (typically 20 years) compared to copyright, which lasts decades longer (often life of the author plus 70 years). In short: copyright covers how something is expressed; patents cover how something works or is invented.
So, you would also need to change the patent system to align with your proposal.
Ironically, copyright sucks at defending the small guys. If a small nobody has their work copied by Disney, they definitely won't win a copyright infringement lawsuit due to how expensive and long it will be; in fact, it might even be bad PR for them because they could be perceived as "that one litigious person" or even a copyright troll.
Whereas under a copyright-free system or a much more lax copyright system, people would be more attentive and wouldn't assume that "if they didn't sue, it probably means Disney is in the right."
And as you noticed, current copyright is absurd: it applies to things that are no longer even being sold, and it's overly complex, so almost no one knows what counts as "copyright infringement" or not.
Funnily enough, current copyright has nothing to do with attribution. The judges and the legal system don't give a crap about it: in fact, you're making their job easier because you're admitting to copying and even providing the source.
Copyright is a double-edged sword. It only "works" for them if:
Everyone is relentlessly enforcing copyright without leaving any non-copyrighted alternatives
The streamer would buy the rights to stream the music if copyright was enforced on them
Most of them aren't true and are very hard to prove.
If the dystopia you're talking about does happen for whatever reason, a lot of streamers might switch to playing no music, rely on environmental sounds like bird songs, use non-copyrighted music, or generate their own music via AI.
The only real winners with the status quo are the law firms and lawyers imo.
I have no doubt that some companies benefit from the current system in some circumstances, but it's a double-edged sword for sure.
It's way worse than other illegitimate forms of property.
If a corporation obtains a factory through dubious means, you can still attempt to have some very limited amount of empathy for them, because at least physical resources are limited.
With intellectual property none of this applies, ideas are not scarce. If I think of an idea, I don't prevent you from thinking the same idea. If I play a Nintendo game on my hard drive, Nintendo doesn't lose a copy of the same game on their end (you might argue it's bad that ideas aren't scarce though, and honestly, they might have deserved to lose their copy of the game)
Equating all copyright infringement to physical theft is just fallacious.
Please note that many other asshole things would still be very bad and asshole-ish, even if there were no copyright laws. For example, if I printed Pokémon Trading Cards and claimed that the Pokémon Company printed them, it would definitely be fraud and deception.
We can also punish a lack of citations or attribution through culture without turning it into a criminal penalty.
It might sound weird, but copyright might not benefit a lot of big companies as much as you think in all circumstances. If a Twitch streamer plays a copyrighted song on Twitch and it gets muted in the VOD, does it really directly benefit the label? Not really, they're losing an opportunity for free advertising. Don't forget that music and information are not scarce; if I listen to a piece of music on my hard drive, it doesn't prevent you from listening to the same music on your computer.
The "legitimate intent" of copyright, increasing the odds that original artists get paid, can be achieved without copyright laws, whether in a capitalist or socialist economy.
For example, in a capitalist context, artists could rely more heavily on direct patronage, live performances, commissions, or crowdfunding models that already thrive today despite and sometimes because of the limitations of traditional copyright enforcement. Platforms like Patreon, Bandcamp, or Substack show that audiences are often willing to support creators voluntarily when they feel a personal connection or see clear value.
In a socialist framework, creative work could be socially funded through public institutions, cooperatives, or community supported grants, ensuring artists are compensated not by artificial scarcity or legal monopolies, but by collective recognition of their contribution to culture.
Moreover, the idea that copying inherently harms creators assumes that exposure and sharing don't generate value which, in the digital age, is increasingly untrue. Viral sharing can launch careers, build fanbases, and create demand for authentic experiences that can't be copied: concerts, signed prints, behind the scenes access, or personalized interactions.
So copyright was never a fair deal. It restricted creativity, harmed sharing, and only pretended to help the public. Now, when information spreads easily and attention is what matters, it's just an outdated tool for control.
Excellent question. If you dig a little, you will find three main justifications from their side for borders:
Avoiding crime. They are afraid that criminals from other countries might cross the border to commit "bad scary things." Some engage in fearmongering by mentioning "terrorists."
Protecting jobs. They worry that immigrants will arrive in large numbers and "steal" jobs from native residents.
Avoiding people who do not assimilate. They fear that many immigrants will come in, speak the national language poorly, and refuse to respect the culture.
I have tried to keep a soft tone, but quite frankly, I find these arguments quite bigoted, as well as factually incorrect. All of them have been thoroughly debunked, time and time again.
Research consistently shows immigrants do not increase crime rates, and in many cases, contribute to their decline.
Economically, immigrants fill essential labor gaps, pay taxes, and stimulate demand, often creating more jobs than they take.
Cultural diversity enriches societies, and most immigrants make genuine efforts to learn the language and adapt over time.
These fears are rooted more in prejudice and misinformation than in verifiable evidence.
Kagi is the best paid one.
I've read that some people love Yandex and Qwant as well.
Google is definitely censored for sure, but did you try using search operators? They can help you find some non-controversial things.
It's wrong. Religious texts do change due to translations and having multiple editions (even in the same language), but they change at a far slower rate than they would in non-written form.
If a reformer tried to argue that practices such as animal sacrifices were not Islamic, for example, scholars would just point to one or two verses and they would be shut down.
The only reason sacred texts seem to "evolve" at times is because believers find alternative ways to interpret them when the teachings are morally troubling and universally condemned, something possible even if the text doesn't change much.
Memorizing word-for-word was possible using techniques such as mnemonics or poetry, but it was difficult for extremely long passages without effort, and regular review was needed to avoid forgetting them.