I'm in a subreddit called r/spirituality, which, as you can probably imagine, is a mixed bag of wisdom, bullshit, and schizophrenic people being encouraged in their delusions instead of advised to get help. The nice thing is that unlike in a high-demand religion, nobody can require me to believe anything I don't want to. About a month ago, someone made this simple post:

Title: "The idea that a person who treated others horribly (or was a horrible person in general) gets a clean slate once they leave the earth feels like a slap in the face to the people who had to deal with them in life"

Body: "​Like that person gets to be okay wherever they are with no punishment but I still have to deal with the scars from their treatment for the rest of my life? They get to be at peace but I don’t? That’s messed up"

That was it. I don't know what specifically they had in mind as the source of this idea, but I've heard it mostly from near-death experience accounts, and I agreed with this person's sentiment a thousand percent. So I said, "Agreed. And the claim from some NDEs that good and evil aren't real disgusts me to my core. I don't think anyone deserves to suffer forever for causing a finite amount of harm, but they should face consequences before they go on to eternal bliss." Notice that I didn't say this claim isn't true, because I don't know that, but it disgusts me to my core regardless.

So then someone was like, "​I feel like I have missed some thing that everyone else has read up on or seen!?!

"People do face consequences in the after life, it's mostly just karma though. I dont know what this stuff about people just 'going on to bliss' is but that sounds pretty sensational. As far as I know it's a fair bit more complicated than that, if you want to know more read the Tibetan book of living and dying, that gives a decent outline of the process of dying even if it isn't exactly right(or maybe I just don't remember dying that well... both times)

'Good and Evil' isn't real, at least not really. It's literally entirely subjective. I happen to be one of those NDE people lmfao."

By "going on to bliss," I was referring to the majority of NDE accounts, where people just feel infinite love from the universe or higher power and don't feel judged by it for anything they've ever done, which is a really beautiful concept for normal people who are doing their best, but not so much for assholes who devote their lives to making the world a worse place. They also often talk about how we plan out our entire lives before we come here, and we're just like actors playing roles, and everything that happens here ceased to matter as soon as we die. Some people report "hellish" NDEs, but there seems to be no correlation between having those and doing anything to deserve them. Anyway, I felt like if this person responding to me really had an NDE, they should have told me exactly how it was explained to them. Merely repeating the claim that disgusted me to my core and signing off with "lmfao" wasn't very persuasive. It seemed downright douchey to me at the time, though it's not as bad in context now that I'm looking at it with fresh eyes.

So I said, "​So I could literally say Hitler did nothing wrong, and my subjective opinion would be entirely valid? Surely you can understand why I have a huge problem with that." Notice that even now, I didn't insist that this premise, abhorrent though it is, wasn't true. I should have picked a more creative example, though. We're all sick of everyone comparing everything to Hitler. I should have picked a different genocidal dictator, like Pol Pot, Théoneste Bagosora, or Benjamin Netanyahu.

The person didn't respond for several days, so when they did, and up until just now when I revisited this conversation, I thought they were a second person getting on my ass. They said, "​Morality is entirely subjective. So basically, humans aren't as important as we think. We aren't the centre of the universe or anything even close. The universe is full of life.

"What is nice to me is not necessarily nice to a cat, a cow, a slime mold, another person. Every living thing is unique and has its own needs, desires, preferences etc.

"So with all that in mind, morality is completely and utterly subjective. There is no moral code passed down from God, LOVE is the main unifying force of reality, BUT what is love to one thing is not necessarily recieved as love by another thing. For example, let's say the sun loves the world, but in the process it burns your face off. Do you see what I'm getting at?

"I know people are terrified by this concept and a lot of people struggle with it, but it doesn't actually change anything, not really. Because if humans have a general consensus on morality then we can apply it generally, and we do."

Myself, I don't think "Humans aren't the center of the universe" (which I agree with) automatically translates to "Genocide isn't evil because it doesn't bother slime molds." And I'm pretty sure the preference to avoid pain and death is almost universal among organisms with the capacity to have preferences. And although I'm open to the possibility that the sun possesses some degree of consciousness beyond our understanding, it was a very strange example to use because I'm pretty sure it heats the world through automated nuclear fusion, not any kind of agency. Maybe one could argue that the laws of physics are some kind of agency beyond our understanding, but my point remains that it can't choose to not heat the world until its fuel runs out in a few billion years, long after we're extinct anyway. I didn't want to be a jerk and nit-pick everything this person said, though, so I focused on the last part, which I found most disturbing, and I concluded with a point of agreement in the hope of not seeming too contentious. I said:

"​I mean, that general consensus has endorsed some horrific things over the years and can do so again any time it pleases. I don't want to live in a world where minorities are at the majority's mercy.

"I noticed that you sidestepped my question because you intuitively understand how messed up it would be to say that Hitler did nothing wrong, even though it logically follows from what you're saying, unless I'm still missing something.

"But I do like the idea that love is the unifying force of reality. I try to let it guide my actions. When I'm unkind to people, it's usually because they've pissed me off by being unkind to others. I know love is far more important than all the rules I was taught I had to obey to please God."

They said, "From Hitler's perspective or a die-hard nazi, they did nothing wrong. Sorry I forgot about that part"

As if "that part" wasn't my entire comment. But whatever. For a moment, I was impressed that this person had the courage and integrity to stand by the uncomfortable implications of their belief. And then I realized they hadn't actually said anything significant. No shit, of course evil people don't think they're doing anything wrong. That's not the important part. So, not wanting to play any more games, I followed up,​"And their perspective is as valid as anyone else's, yes or no?"

That was 18 days ago. That person hasn't gotten back to me yet. Look, I wasn't trying to be a jerk, and I have no malice toward this person. I just want people to be consistent with their worldviews. If the implications of your own beliefs are too uncomfortable for you to admit, then either your beliefs need to change or you do. And yes, maybe this person did get their belief straight from the divine during an NDE or two, in which case they can't just toss it aside, but I must admit I'm skeptical of that because in that case, I don't think I should have been able to outsmart them so easily. Oh well.

Now, in fairness, here's another response someone gave me that I liked much better, particularly because I believe many (not all) NDEs are valid and want them to make sense: "​Perhaps they mean something like 'there isn't a sort of 'moral laws' that the Universe enforces like a cosmic Judge', but rather more that the consequences of actions to others are mirrored back not because of how they were judged but just as they actually landed, and that it is up to us to decide how that should affect our doings. That said, this is a dangerous form of language to describe the matter with because it ambiguates between the idea of no set moral rules or values and the idea of irrelevancy of moral cognition - and the latter is, indeed, a serious problem."

I understand that distinction in a vague, abstract way. I'd probably need to be high to understand it on a deeper level. I'm good with it for now.

For Valentine's Day, I attended a rally against the Epstein files coverup, then helped give out clothes to homeless people at Pioneer Park. Today, I've been busy with a higher-than-average-paying work project. The downside of working whenever I want is that I have to decide when to take a break and when to make more money. It's absolutely worth it, though. As a result, however, right now I just want to watch cartoons and not write a blog post. So here's something cool I watched yesterday: an interview with the man I used to believe was the Antichrist. (Blame my parents.) Okay, maybe he still is a war criminal, but so are most US presidents. I wonder how differently I'd feel about him if I lived through his administration again. He had more class, more intelligence, and more basic decency in the dirt under his fingernails than his successor could manifest in a hundred years. He wasn't best friends with a child sex trafficker, either. But if he had done one one-hundredth of the things his successor has done, my parents who don't care about anything his successor has done would have had fatal brain aneurysms. Anyway, it was great to hear him spreading hope. Rebellions are built on hope. Hell, it was great just to hear from a leader who can speak in coherent sentences and answer questions without calling the interviewer names.

I consider football the second most boring sport ever invented, but I've always enjoyed Super Bowl parties for the camaraderie, the food, and the funny commercials. This year, I would have gotten extra enjoyment from the halftime show that was successfully engineered to piss off racist conservative snowflakes. It pissed them off so much that the late Charlie Kirk's racist organization is putting on an alternate show, which was pathetic enough before they announced that Kid Rock was headlining it, which is exactly what liberals said they would do as a joke to make fun of them. Yes, conservatives are now officially a parody of themselves. This also serves as a reminder that the world is no worse off for not having Charlie Kirk in it. Don't come after me for being honest. Did you catch the leaked Zoom call of his widow giggling and gloating about merch sales two weeks after his death? I felt more grief when I stepped on a snail.

Alas, this year I was not invited to a Super Bowl party, possibly because my social circle has shifted from college students to people who have children in high school, and it doesn't stream anywhere for free, and I'm not patriotic enough to buy a Peacock subscription just for that. Still, I expect I'll have a delightful evening watching cartoons and listening to music. I've found that if I just tell myself a day is a holiday, it feels like one. I have simple pleasures. I have my new studio apartment to myself, I've partially adapted to the traffic noise, and in tangential but also exciting news, I now only take about forty minutes to fall asleep at night instead of two hours or more, possibly because I have space to not sit on my bed all day and make my brain associate it with activities besides sleep. Anyway, I'm sure people will be even less inclined than usual to take time out of their day to read my blog, and that's just one more reason why I'm disinclined to take time out of my day to write it, so here's the weekly post to keep up my streak, and now I'm done. I hope one of the teams that's playing today wins.

My uncle, to his credit, is someone with whom I can discuss political and religious topics that his sister just ignores. We respect each other's differences, and I try not to get into arguments. Still, I get frustrated that he identifies as a libertarian and still makes excuses for every illegal, unconstitutional, and blatantly authoritarian thing the orange jackass does. I thought we should, at a minimum, agree that it's unacceptable for the Trump regime to execute a protester in broad daylight, lie its ass off about what happened as if we didn't have eyes, and then backtrack and claim that he brought it on himself by legally carrying a firearm at a protest. I swear to God I wasn't trying to start an argument when I texted him. I thought this was the most obvious common ground in the history of the world. Even Republicans are pissed. Do you know how evil you have to be for people who take free school lunches away from children to decide you've crossed a line?

He said that yes, he was concerned about it, but we need to look at both sides of the story and not jump to conclusions. He sent me a Facebook post that, in contrast with his own typically nuanced remarks, was a deranged partisan screed about how yes, Alex Pretti's death was unfortunate, but he brought it on himself by being an activist and "illegally" interfering with law enforcement officers who are just trying to protect us, and the media is doing a propaganda campaign to make him look good because of Trump Derangement Syndrome. I skimmed after that, but I'd lost interest after reading that stupid cliche that morons to dismiss any criticism of their cult leader by people who know right from wrong. There was also some fearmongering about the minuscule fraction of a percent of undocumented immigrants who have murdered people and some condescending crap about how Alex Pretti and Laken Riley (whose parents hate it when right-wingers politicize her death) were both made in the image of God.

I told my uncle that this guy had lost me at "Trump Derangement Syndrome." My uncle said that the left loses him whenever they say "fascist" or "Nazi" (which I hadn't done yet). At that point, I got a little frustrated at his inability to see what's right in front of him despite ostensibly not trusting the government in the first place, and a bit of snark may have crept into my tone as I agreed that ICE agents aren't Nazis because the Nazis didn't hide their faces. I mean, where is the lie? And how the flaming French filigreed fuck is a libertarian okay with government agents hiding their faces? Of course, it would be unfair to single him out because most people in the comments sections of Reason magazine are more than okay with it, and they can't all be bots.

He sent me another Facebook post, and he hasn't responded to my response to it, which is fine as long as he's thinking about it, which is unlikely. I feel like discussing that post here because I enjoy dissecting other people's words, and the first post isn't worth my time. This is from someone named Rabbi Mark N. Wildes.

Now I will dissect some of his words, mainly the ones I didn't like. I know some people will think it's anti-Semitic for me to argue with a Jew about Nazis, but those are mainly the same people who think it's anti-Semitic to criticize Israel for intentionally starving and shooting children, so I don't much care what they think. It's natural for Rabbi Wildes to have strong feelings about this topic, but that doesn't make his actual argument immune to criticism. He doesn't speak for all Jews, anyway.

Since when does the government get to determine what's moral or not? It's moot, though, because the Trump regime is blocking those investigations. I wonder why. He's not a fascist, and he has nothing to hide.

Yeah, the word "Holocaust" is probably overkill at this point, I can see why Rabbi Wildes would find it deeply troubling, and I have no desire to be insensitive about that. If his post ended here, I wouldn't have bothered to write my own post about it. But...

Oh, I'm sorry, is it deeply troubling to compare racist secret police who profile people, demand to see their papers, and detain them in inhumane conditions without due process to the Gestapo? Respectfully, are you shitting me?

The systematic genocide was preceded by years of propaganda and legal restrictions to dehumanize Jews and other minorities, not unlike what the Trump regime is constantly doing. The first example that comes to mind is the Department of Homeland Security's dystopian (and infantile) ICE recruitment ads about "dangerous illegals." The second example that comes to mind is all the other right-wing assholes who have been calling undocumented immigrants "illegals" for a long time, not to mention confidently and incorrectly asserting that constitutional rights like free speech and due process don't apply to non-citizens. The third example that comes to mind is Trump claiming multiple times that undocumented immigrants are "poisoning the blood of this country," which sounds like something straight from Hitler's mouth and would have disqualified him from office for life in any sane country, though in fairness, so would thousands of other things he's said and done. Honorable mention: his absurd fearmongering lie about legal Black immigrants eating people's pets in Ohio. Of course, right now I'm just focusing on his rabid xenophobia, not all his other fascist and authoritarian rhetoric that appealed so much to my small-government family.

Also, his DHS has already sent people to concentration camps, both abroad (El Salvador's Terrorism Confinement Centre) and at home (Alligator Alcatraz). The right wing's response to that is to argue over the exact definition of a concentration camp, which, as an Onion headline pointed out, is a sign of a healthy society. And far be it from me to claim more knowledge about the Holocaust than a Jew, but I'm not sure Rabbi Wildes is aware that genocide was Plan B. The Nazis' original strategy was mass deportations, but then they decided that was too hard. Huh. For no particular reason, I just remembered how the Trump regime has already said out loud that it's too hard to give everyone their constitutionally mandated due process before deporting them.

I regret having to make this personal, but I would be remiss not to point out that Rabbi Wildes is either inexcusably ignorant or intentionally deceitful, because it's very common knowledge at this point that many of the people harassed, abused, and detained by ICE and the DHS didn't violate the law either. Trump's fascist goons profile people based on skin color, accent, and/or location. The conservatives on the Supreme Court literally gave them permission to do that last year. Those who did violate the law are still entitled to be treated like human beings, and normal people - even my uncle, if memory serves me - overwhelmingly agree that those who violated the law to come here once upon a time but have contributed to the economy and not hurt anyone since then should be left alone. If ICE agents actually went after "the worst of the worst" instead of terrorizing communities and tearing families apart, nobody would hate them. But then I guess they'd have to arrest the president.

That reminds me of how the Trump regime prematurely rescinded the temporary protected status of refugees who were in the US legally and told them to get out. And how ICE agents kidnap people at their immigration hearings while they're in the process of immigrating legally. And how the Jackass-in-Chief is trying to ban birthright citizenship by overturning a constitutional amendment with an executive order.

I'm sorry, I don't understand why this part is in here. Is Rabbi Wildes implying that if the Nazis had just told Anne Frank's family to leave the country and given them a chance to leave the country, that would have been fine?

Why the hell do bootlickers think that putting the word "law" in proximity to some variant of the word "enforce" is a slam dunk argument? The Gestapo was tasked with enforcing the law too. This statement does not differentiate ICE from the Gestapo in any way. The law does not now and never has determined morality, and normal people whose moral compasses didn't stop developing when they were toddlers don't kiss law enforcement's ass just because it exists. Anyway, we all know that the convicted felon and adjudicated rapist who pardons violent insurrectionists and drug lords isn't interested in "enforcing the law" for its own sake. He just wants a private militia to terrorize "the enemy within" (or as most people call them, Americans) into submission, and promising to protect idiots who are scared of brown people is an effective way to get away with that. Until the private militia starts shooting white people, anyway.

This was the point where Rabbi Wildes really pissed me off. We know they're doing so inappropriately. We know their enforcement of the law has gone beyond their authority. We knew this for some time before they murdered Keith Porter, Renee Good, and Alex Pretti. Rabbi Wildes is not pressing the government to reign them in, and spoiler alert, he has no intention of doing so.

Gotta love it when conservatives shrug off human rights violations as "policy and implementation of policy." Surely he's aware that this attitude is a prerequisite to genocide? Again, I agree that what we're seeing right now isn't on par with the Holocaust, but genocide doesn't just pop up out of nowhere one day.

It sure isn't a condemnation, either. I read it as, "I actually have no problem with ICE's brutality, but I know I'll get torn to shreds if I admit that." Maybe it's unfair for me to cast such an aspersion on his character, but I don't know why else he'd go to such lengths to avoid saying that things we all know are wrong are wrong. And this is a guy who also seems on board with Israel's war crimes in Gaza, after all.

Like hell it is. A defense of moral clarity would have clearly explained that ICE's brutality is wrong, even though it's not the Holocaust.

I looked through Rabbi Wildes' post history. He hasn't done this, and I predict that he'll continue to not do this. He just wants to look like he has the moral high ground without having to do or say anything that makes him uncomfortable. But hey, at least he acknowledged that something happened, which is more than the leaders of my former religion have done. I thought Dallin Oaks had the courage to speak out on controversial issues and not care if he took heat for it, but it turns out that only applies to being a dick to gay people. As much as I detest Brigham Young, at least he would have had the correct response to the federal government sending secret police to Utah.

Now, to be clear, despite my initial snarky response, there isn't a 1:1 comparison between the original Nazis and the only administration in American history that had Nazi salutes at its inauguration. Hitler was more competent and more popular than Trump. Hitler understood that he needed to maintain the people's support by actually improving the economy, not making it worse and then gaslighting them that prices were going down and they weren't suffering. Trump faces far more resistance from his own people, and even with Congress and the Supreme Court sucking him off, the US system of government has more safeguards in place to prevent him from doing everything he wants. Also - and this is cold comfort, but also, I don't think Trump is really committed to his rabid xenophobia, because his only deep and abiding principle is to make himself as wealthy and powerful as he can. If he could have gotten elected by extolling diversity and praising the contributions of hard-working immigrants to our nation, he would have done that. He's a bigot, yes, but he's a narcissist first and a grifter just after that. And the backlash against his fascist goons' recent murders has already forced him to de-escalate just a little bit.

So I don't think the United States is actually going to have another Holocaust, and I wouldn't use the word "Holocaust" to describe what's going on now. I respect Rabbi Wildes' sentiment on that. However, I'm not interested in becoming complacent and seeing how far down that path we end up before these motherfuckers are voted out and prosecuted. Everything is not fine. We're not overreacting, we're underreacting. And whatever attitude you have now is most likely the same attitude you would have had in the early days of the Third Reich. If you make excuses for ICE, you would have done the same for the Gestapo. With the benefit of hindsight, you're sure you would have shown wisdom and moral courage in that moment, but now that you're in a similar moment, you tell yourself it's completely different so you don't have to do that. You're failing an open-book test with one true-or-false question. When this is over - and it will be - you may, with the benefit of hindsight that should be superfluous, try to pretend you were always against it. But you can't get away with that in the twenty-first century. So maybe just choose to do the right thing right now because you're a decent person.

P.S. As I mentioned to my uncle, who hasn't responded, the right wing's fearmongering bullshit about queer people being predators and "groomers," besides being a load of projection (I see a Trump supporter getting arrested for child porn every week), is also directly copied from the Nazi playbook.