• FlyingCircus@lemmy.world
      4·
      23 hours ago

      Sorry, but Colorado can’t join because otherwise we’d have border gore. Exclaves are too messy, what can you do. 🤷🏼‍♂️

      • frog_brawler@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        22 hours ago

        So what you’re telling me is that Colorado is going to have to expand our northern borders in order to connect.

        • FlyingCircus@lemmy.world
          1·
          20 hours ago

          Or you could go west. Depends on if you want to fight cowboys in Wyoming and Nazis in Idaho, or Mormons in Utah and the mafia in Nevada.

          • frog_brawler@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            20 hours ago

            I just got here though. I’ll probably try to convert the Cowboys. I’d like to wage war with the Nazis in Idaho because, well… obvious reasons, but they’re too far away. The Mormons only get me to Nevada and then I’d have to deal with the Mafia after that. North seems the way to go… also, the fewest people that way. New Mexico will join us, they’re pretty blue also.

            • AlexLost@lemmy.world
              0·
              16 hours ago

              No way, mafia first. Business booms in blue places of tolerance where all are welcome and not well represented. Everyone in a position of power is a crook in red land

              • frog_brawler@lemmy.worldEnglish
                1·
                16 hours ago

                Coming out of Colorado Mafia can’t be first no matter what given the options provided. Mafia is second at best due to the Mormons in Utah.

                If the Mafia turns Nevada blue, then maybe west is the way to go.

    • downvote_hunter@midwest.socialEnglish
      5·
      1 day ago

      Sadly the part of Illinois South of I80 would prefer to not be included. Source: me. Grew up there, have some relatives that still live there. The number of times I’ve heard them refer to themselves as Forgottentoian is to many.

      • nickiwest@lemmy.world
        1·
        7 hours ago

        I grew up in southern Illinois as well. Can confirm.

        That’s where all of my most racist relatives live.

  • craigers@lemmy.world
    9·
    2 days ago

    As someone who lives in Wisconsin I’m thankful for bordering Illinois and Minnesota. Otherwise I don’t think we would’ve made the cut to get into the USC

  • KingPorkChop@lemmy.caEnglish
    91·
    2 days ago

    This Canadian says fuck no unless we export all the MAGA and purge all the handguns.

    I’ve been in parts of rural Oregon before. They grow them dumb and mean there. Some of the worst people I’ve ever met in my life were in rural Oregon.

    Way different than weird Portland.

    • DarkFuture@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4·
      2 days ago

      Californian here.

      It’s the same with California. Once you get out of population centers it doesn’t take too long before you’re in “I Fuck My Cousin” territory.

      • nickiwest@lemmy.world
        1·
        7 hours ago

        I think that might be true for basically every state. Rural areas are not that different across the country.

    • RogueAozame@programming.dev
      2·
      2 days ago

      I live in southern oregon and work in a conservative dominated industry. These people are actually insane. They are the embodiment of the memes and supposed strawmans about MAGA. Anytime somebody says conservatives don’t actually believe something stupid they should have to spend a month with these guys. The year has been infuriating watching these guys complain about how bad shits going and then blaming everything but what they voted for.

    • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
      1·
      2 days ago

      planning to expel all gop from office, and any of thier supporters. considering gop states already trying to expel Dem voters anyways.

      • Pennomi@lemmy.worldEnglish
        21·
        3 days ago

        Neither did Frodo Baggins, but he wouldn’t want to be associated with America either.

      • DontTreadOnBigfoot@lemmy.world
        214·
        3 days ago

        The general scholarly consensus is that he did in fact exist. The only thing really up for debate is what he did or didn’t do, and who he was or was not the son of.

        • Spice Hoarder@lemmy.zip
          4·
          2 days ago

          The current consensus has a lot of concessions baked in. These don’t exactly make it a purely secular stance. Such as the order of the gospels, the date of the earliest manuscript, and “non canon” manuscripts being dated as “later” just simply because that fits the Christian narrative. And in fact, this consensus is starting to change, or at least being challenged more frequently.

        • Sterile_Technique@lemmy.worldEnglish
          61·
          3 days ago

          I mean, there are probably at least dozens of people named “Jesus Christ” today. The name is only a fraction of the character… what he did or didn’t do is pretty damn important in the context of religious mythology. I don’t think anyone really cares if scholars agree that there was a dude named Jesus Christ in the timeframe / region of interest if he was just an average Joe. …or even a way-above-average Joe: his fame boils down to doing magic. Not tricks, but actual magic. So, what do scholars say about a guy named Jesus Christ who can make fish and bread appear out of thin air, perform alchemy on water to turn it into wine, or press the pause button on water displacement?

          • Jesus_666@lemmy.worldEnglish
            132·
            2 days ago

            Unlikely.

            What is reasonably likely is that there was a person named Yeshwa ben Yosef, born a few years before 0CE, died somewhere around 30CE, who preached and started a Judaism-based cult and who might’ve been a carpenter. He most likely had a reputation for miracles, which is mentioned in non-Christian sources which have no reason to glorify him. (Do note that modern cult leaders and televangelists also often have such reputations.) He was also probably crucified, although probably not for the reasons given in the Bible.

            Things like his conception without sex or him being a fish copying machine have no evidence. It’s not even sure if he claimed to be the son of God or the Messiah; apparently he did probably have an end-times cult and did probably assume that he’d get to run the world after divine rule is instituted globally.

            So yeah, he probably was some dude who started a cult (which wasn’t even that unusual at the time), was good enough at preaching to get a major audience, and was probably executed because sooner important people considered him a political threat. His cult survived him and people started embellishing his life just a tiny little bit.

          • accideath@feddit.orgEnglish
            4·
            2 days ago

            Afaik, scholars say, some dude named Jesus probably lived about 2000 years ago and did do some preaching and possibly was crucified. There is of course no evidence of divine relations or acts of magic. The evidence being him being mentioned briefly in non-christian (roman) writings of the time.

          • alcibiades@sh.itjust.works
            11·
            2 days ago

            The main takeaway from Jesus is his message. It’s important to note that people’s beliefs form their own reality. For example when Jesus did the whole fishes and loaves thing, he probably didn’t multiply all that food. But the people listening to him believed in him and found it in themselves to share their food with the people who didn’t have any. So it seemed like a miracle. When Jesus “healed lepers” it’s because he treated them like people. A lot of the homeless are literally crazy because people ignore them, but if you take the effort to treat them like real people, then they act like normal people.

            However, I agree there isn’t a way to explain the resurrection. But that’s the difference between Christians and non-Christians. You don’t have to believe in the resurrection and that’s a perfectly valid standpoint. But I really think it’s an injustice to treat Jesus as a magic man when he really just wanted everyone to love each other. The people around him believed he was really the son of God and maybe that’s simply because they had never received the unconditional love and respect Jesus would show them.

        • Supervisor194@lemmy.world
          41·
          2 days ago

          The general scholarly consensus is that he did in fact exist. The only thing really up for debate is what he did or didn’t do, and who he was or was not the son of.

          To say that a thing existed - oh, except all these other things attributed to the thing are just bullshit, so you can ignore them - really does preclude the actual existence of the thing. Nobody cares if Jesus of Nazareth, the prehistoric huckster but otherwise normal human “existed.” So did Rudy of Nazareth, but he was a used chariot salesman, and he didn’t get lionized into mythology.

        • BlackDragon@slrpnk.netEnglish
          41·
          2 days ago

          Yeah obviously this extremely important religious leader who was famously executed existed—that’s why we have exactly 0 written record from anyone who ever claimed to have met anyone who ever claimed to have met him. That’s why practically all the documentation of his life and deeds comes from decades after his high profile execution. Because he very definitely existed.

        • edible_funk@lemmy.world
          1·
          2 days ago

          It’s a little more complicated. There were a bunch of messianic cults at the time so it’s likely a bunch of stories about multiple leaders were eventually all attributed to Jesus. And while there isn’t any definitive proof the man existed, there’s enough reasonable evidence that a guy called Yeshua from Nazareth existed that led a messianic cult, and more there’s nothing that disputes the evidence of a man existing. But that’s like saying we have evidence a guy called Bob from Newport existed, it was a common name. Anyway it’s more there’s nothing disproving his existence so there’s no reason to think a guy didn’t exist.

      • cynar@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        2 days ago

        The biblical jesus didn’t exist. There’s evidence that a Jesus existed, and was notable enough to piss off the Roman administration.

        A lot of the biblical stories are older than jesus however, so he has a lot of existing “lore” tacked on to him. He was likely a nomadic wise/holy man who built up a bit of a following and was then crucified.

        • ozymandias@sh.itjust.works
          1·
          1 day ago

          there’s one mention of a jesus that fits, in roman records. one time, one person, wrote a name down.
          could that be a real person or maybe a story about a person?
          not just biblical stories predated jesus, but the entire story is exactly the same as Zoroaster.
          from the exact same region, exact same people, “first recorded in the mid-6th century BCE”.
          some people just made a reboot of Zoroastrianism… probably the romans, on purpose, to make their combo-religion to govern all romans (catholicism)
          jesus did not exist at all