Zone1 What makes Christianity different from other religions?

[Paradoxical#1]

I meant to ask you more about your book — specifically how tightly you connect indoctrination with religion. Because to me, that feels a bit narrow.

Religion seems more like a vehicle than a root cause. The psychology behind belief — the need for certainty, identity, and belonging — feels broader, more social. You can see the same mechanics in political ideologies, nationalism, even brand loyalty.

So I’d be curious whether your take is more historical, or if you dive into the underlying cognitive scaffolding too.

I have put the book, which is finished, on the back burner due to just not having the time to format it for print. But yes, it goes into the history of indoctrination and starts with the cavemen having to put a child in fear, or he might die. Fear is the number one control tactic, and look for that whenever a politician or pastor speaks. It (fear) is hardwired into our system because those that did not have the emotion of fear or less of it perished from the elements or doing dangerous things that his caveman dad told him not to.

Would people believe the bible story is the word of god if they didn't ingeniously add the fear factor? They tried that and people shrugged their shoulders thinking "Why should I believe? There's no downside to not believing that elder or person in authority is telling me the truth." But when you enter in eternal punishment or banishment or retribution, then the emotional hot button of fear kicks in. The brain is like it's almost on autopilot from ancient memes and tells itself, "What if they are right, and I don't believe? I'll be tortured like they were in the Middle Ages but this time by a real devil and hell. I'll believe because it saves me from that."

 

[forkup]

I have put the book, which is finished, on the back burner due to just not having the time to format it for print. But yes, it goes into the history of indoctrination and starts with the cavemen having to put a child in fear, or he might die. Fear is the number one control tactic, and look for that whenever a politician or pastor speaks. It (fear) is hardwired into our system because those that did not have the emotion of fear or less of it perished from the elements or doing dangerous things that his caveman dad told him not to.

Would people believe the bible story is the word of god if they didn't ingeniously add the fear factor? They tried that and people shrugged their shoulders thinking "Why should I believe? There's no downside to not believing that elder or person in authority is telling me the truth." But when you enter in eternal punishment or banishment or retribution, then the emotional hot button of fear kicks in. The brain is like it's almost on autopilot from ancient memes and tells itself, "What if they are right, and I don't believe? I'll be tortured like they were in the Middle Ages but this time by a real devil and hell. I'll believe because it saves me from that."

I’m curious how broadly you’re using the word “fear” here. Are you mostly talking about fear of death or damnation — or do you include more social forms too, like fear of exclusion or rejection?

Because to me, that second kind — the fear of not belonging — often does more to keep people in line than hell ever did. It’s quieter, but it runs deeper. Just wondering if that fits into the way you frame it.

 

[forkup]

Rabbis offer great advice when they recommend that the bible be studied, not read.

I get that rabbis encourage study to engage deeply with the text, but I wonder—does that process sometimes risk becoming a way to interpret the Bible so that belief stays intact? It feels like it could open the door to confirmation bias, where the focus shifts from honest questioning to preserving faith. How do you see that balance?

For example, the Bible and the Torah contain clear, unambiguous rules about how to keep slaves. To me, no amount of study, historical context, or reinterpretation should make that acceptable—even to those rabbis, I presume

 

[ding]

I get that rabbis encourage study to engage deeply with the text, but I wonder—does that process sometimes risk becoming a way to interpret the Bible so that belief stays intact? It feels like it could open the door to confirmation bias, where the focus shifts from honest questioning to preserving faith. How do you see that balance?

For example, the Bible and the Torah contain clear, unambiguous rules about how to keep slaves. To me, no amount of study, historical context, or reinterpretation should make that acceptable—even to those rabbis, I presume

The Jewish faith is predicated on the belief that they were chosen to follow God’s laws. That successful behaviors naturally lead to success and failed behaviors naturally lead to failure. I’m guessing you never got that from reading it.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

I’m curious how broadly you’re using the word “fear” here. Are you mostly talking about fear of death or damnation — or do you include more social forms too, like fear of exclusion or rejection?

Because to me, that second kind — the fear of not belonging — often does more to keep people in line than hell ever did. It’s quieter, but it runs deeper. Just wondering if that fits into the way you frame it.

There was a CNN Director named Charles Chester who crowed to an undercover reporter that they were instrumental in Trump losing in 2020 because they skillfully framed Covid deaths as being the fault of Trump. I was flabbergasted and searched to find the outrage by Democrats and even Republicans or the other TV stations and nothing. Why? It's because they all know it is the truth. FEAR is the number one selling point of anything.

It is not just the fear of death and damnation. It is the fear of loss. And, of course, it is the fear of not belonging. If you were in a small tribe and didn't follow the rules set down by the tribal chieftain, you were banished to the wilderness or killed. Then you did not belong to any tribe. You were alone to try to survive on your own without the protection of other tribal members. This would lead to death or at a minimum extreme hardship of having to build your own shelter, hunt for your own food without a weapon and the loss of "love" which included sex with the tribal members and the acceptance of your tribal members into the family. This is why very few people today will break away from their family, church or political group.

 

[ding]

FEAR is the number one selling point of anything.

Only if one is a moron. For everyone else it is logic and truth.

 

[ding]

I’m curious how broadly you’re using the word “fear” here. Are you mostly talking about fear of death or damnation — or do you include more social forms too, like fear of exclusion or rejection?

Because to me, that second kind — the fear of not belonging — often does more to keep people in line than hell ever did. It’s quieter, but it runs deeper. Just wondering if that fits into the way you frame it.

One would have to be pretty insecure to be afraid of not fitting in. It wouldn’t have even crossed my mind to make such an argument. I can only assume that’s the kind of argument that insecure people would make because they are fearful of not fitting in.

That my friend, is logic.

 

[Meriweather]

I get that rabbis encourage study to engage deeply with the text, but I wonder—does that process sometimes risk becoming a way to interpret the Bible so that belief stays intact? It feels like it could open the door to confirmation bias, where the focus shifts from honest questioning to preserving faith. How do you see that balance?

Grin. Are you suggesting people read the Bible, instead of studying the Bible, so that they lose belief? (I have a quirky sense of humor. Of course, you're not.) To address your question, no it doesn't open the door to confirmation bias, it simply opens scripture. The reason for study is to answer questions, which leads to more questions, which leads to more answers.... One adage most dear to me is: A conclusion is the point where one stops thinking.

I honestly don't see this as "preserving faith" but understanding faith, and the people and the times in which each book was written.

For example, the Bible and the Torah contain clear, unambiguous rules about how to keep slaves. To me, no amount of study, historical context, or reinterpretation should make that acceptable—even to those rabbis, I presume

When we see the word "slave" we immediately picture the South in the nineteenth century. We imagine people kidnapped and sold into slavery, some were often whipped. What is not pictured is that even in the South's heyday (and in every other culture) only one-quarter of the population were slave owners. Seventy-five percent of the people did not own slaves.

In Biblical times, the term 'bondsman' more accurately describes what was taking place. The bondman became a part of the household and was treated as such, provided with clothing, food, and shelter. Yes, the father (master) of the household could discipline/punish anyone in his household, but the bondsman, like the rest of the household had rights. While the people were held to account by the master of the household, the master was held accountable by leaders of the tribe/society. Even alien slaves had a right to their own property, which they could work and use its profits as they chose. In other words, they could buy their own freedom. Most became a bondsman because they had debts they could not pay. (Remember in those times, they could not declare bankruptcy or apply for welfare.) The Master paid his debts, and the bondsman became more of an indentured servant. Also, say a master and his servant or bondsman were away and could not make it home before nightfall. If there was only one blanket or cloak between them, the blanket or cloak went to the bondsman.

Thieves, when caught, became a bondsman to repay the cost or amount stolen. Consider how we imprison thieves. What would you prefer--to be imprisoned or to be taken into a household, which you became a member of, to work off the amount you had stolen.

Jews of Biblical times would have been horrified by Southern slavery in the the nineteenth century. That's not to say they were all good masters of their entire household in Biblical times. Some, obviously, were not, and laws were enforced to keep those in line.

Another point I find interesting, is that a father could sell a daughter into another household, with hopes a marriage occurring for her. If matrimony did not occur, she could ask to return to her father's household. However, a daughter could not sell herself into another household, it had to be the father.

No, I am not defending slavery, and I haven't a doubt that some fathers (masters) could be just as cruel then to members of their households as some still are today. However, in our times bankruptcy and welfare are how we resolve economic matters where people find themselves in debt. In those days, such economic calamities were resolved by working (becoming a bondsman) for the person who could repay what was owed.

 

[forkup]

There was a CNN Director named Charles Chester who crowed to an undercover reporter that they were instrumental in Trump losing in 2020 because they skillfully framed Covid deaths as being the fault of Trump. I was flabbergasted and searched to find the outrage by Democrats and even Republicans or the other TV stations and nothing. Why? It's because they all know it is the truth. FEAR is the number one selling point of anything.

It is not just the fear of death and damnation. It is the fear of loss. And, of course, it is the fear of not belonging. If you were in a small tribe and didn't follow the rules set down by the tribal chieftain, you were banished to the wilderness or killed. Then you did not belong to any tribe. You were alone to try to survive on your own without the protection of other tribal members. This would lead to death or at a minimum extreme hardship of having to build your own shelter, hunt for your own food without a weapon and the loss of "love" which included sex with the tribal members and the acceptance of your tribal members into the family. This is why very few people today will break away from their family, church or political group.

There was a CNN Director named Charles Chester who crowed to an undercover reporter that they were instrumental in Trump losing in 2020 because they skillfully framed Covid deaths as being the fault of Trump. I was flabbergasted and searched to find the outrage by Democrats and even Republicans or the other TV stations and nothing. Why? It's because they all know it is the truth. FEAR is the number one selling point of anything.

CNN staffer says network ‘trying to help’ Black Lives Matter in secretly recorded video

Project Veritas continued to cause headaches for CNN on Thursday when it published another secretly recorded video featuring network technical director Charles Chester discussing how his employer manipulates coverage to fits its liberal agenda.

www.foxnews.com

WATCH: Project Veritas’ James O’Keefe breaks down the footage of CNN staffer admitting outlet spreads propaganda

Following the bombshell revelations regarding CNN’s alleged bias in the 2020 election exposed by Project Veritas on Tuesday, CEO and founder James O’Keefe joined Sean Hannity on Fox News.

thepostmillennial.com

Project Veritas: CNN Director Admits 'Our Focus Was to Get Trump Out'

A Project Veritas video revealed CNN Technical Director Charlie Chester admitting his company's focus on removing Donald Trump from office.

www.breitbart.com

Project Veritas Exposes CNN’s Technical Director, Admits Network Engaged In Anti-Trump ‘Propaganda’

Project Veritas has released undercover footage of CNN's Technical Director Charlie Chester admitting the network engaged in anti-Trump "propaganda" and

nationalfile.com

It does look like the story was reported — especially in partisan-leaning outlets. But I’m still left wondering: how does this really tie into the broader point about indoctrination? To me, it reads more as a case of media bias or editorial framing — which is absolutely worth scrutinizing — but that feels different from systemic, long-term indoctrination in the psychological sense.


I’m not saying media doesn’t shape belief — it clearly does, especially in polarized environments like the U.S. But that happens across the spectrum. And honestly, I think we’re all vulnerable to narratives that confirm what we already half-suspect — myself included.


That’s partly why I approach the Charlie Chester footage with some caution. For one, he was not an editorial executive, but a technical director — not someone deciding what went on air. And more importantly, the clips were recorded by Project Veritas using an undercover female operative posing as a date — a known tactic of theirs (NPR breakdown).


He likely thought he was in a social setting, trying to impress someone — and people often exaggerate in those contexts. Combine that with Veritas’s long history of selectively editing footage to support their agenda — a criticism well-documented by both independent fact-checkers and mainstream media (Wikipedia summary of controversies, NYT coverage, Columbia Journalism Review) — and it becomes hard for me to take the clip at face value.


That doesn’t mean what he said wasn’t troubling — just that I’m skeptical of the method, context, and framing. It feels less like clear proof of indoctrination, and more like a story that happens to align with an existing narrative. And that’s exactly why I think all of us — no matter our views — should be careful about what we count as evidence.

It is not just the fear of death and damnation. It is the fear of loss. And, of course, it is the fear of not belonging. If you were in a small tribe and didn't follow the rules set down by the tribal chieftain, you were banished to the wilderness or killed. Then you did not belong to any tribe. You were alone to try to survive on your own without the protection of other tribal members. This would lead to death or at a minimum extreme hardship of having to build your own shelter, hunt for your own food without a weapon and the loss of "love" which included sex with the tribal members and the acceptance of your tribal members into the family. This is why very few people today will break away from their family, church or political group.

I agree that fear of death or damnation is only part of it. The deeper fear is often social: fear of being cast out, losing your place, your group, your identity. We’re wired to survive in tribes, and stepping outside of one — whether it’s family, religion, or politics — can feel like emotional exile. You’re not just losing belief, you’re risking belonging. And that’s a powerful disincentive.


But on a personal level, I’ve come to fear believing something for bad reasons more than I fear not belonging. That wasn’t always easy — but I gave up that struggle a long time ago. I’d rather be alone with honest uncertainty than surrounded by people at the cost of my own clarity. For me, that’s where real peace comes from

 

[Paradoxical#1]

CNN staffer says network ‘trying to help’ Black Lives Matter in secretly recorded video

Project Veritas continued to cause headaches for CNN on Thursday when it published another secretly recorded video featuring network technical director Charles Chester discussing how his employer manipulates coverage to fits its liberal agenda.

www.foxnews.com

WATCH: Project Veritas’ James O’Keefe breaks down the footage of CNN staffer admitting outlet spreads propaganda

Following the bombshell revelations regarding CNN’s alleged bias in the 2020 election exposed by Project Veritas on Tuesday, CEO and founder James O’Keefe joined Sean Hannity on Fox News.

thepostmillennial.com

Project Veritas: CNN Director Admits 'Our Focus Was to Get Trump Out'

A Project Veritas video revealed CNN Technical Director Charlie Chester admitting his company's focus on removing Donald Trump from office.

www.breitbart.com

Project Veritas Exposes CNN’s Technical Director, Admits Network Engaged In Anti-Trump ‘Propaganda’

Project Veritas has released undercover footage of CNN's Technical Director Charlie Chester admitting the network engaged in anti-Trump "propaganda" and

nationalfile.com

It does look like the story was reported — especially in partisan-leaning outlets. But I’m still left wondering: how does this really tie into the broader point about indoctrination? To me, it reads more as a case of media bias or editorial framing — which is absolutely worth scrutinizing — but that feels different from systemic, long-term indoctrination in the psychological sense.


I’m not saying media doesn’t shape belief — it clearly does, especially in polarized environments like the U.S. But that happens across the spectrum. And honestly, I think we’re all vulnerable to narratives that confirm what we already half-suspect — myself included.


That’s partly why I approach the Charlie Chester footage with some caution. For one, he was not an editorial executive, but a technical director — not someone deciding what went on air. And more importantly, the clips were recorded by Project Veritas using an undercover female operative posing as a date — a known tactic of theirs (NPR breakdown).


He likely thought he was in a social setting, trying to impress someone — and people often exaggerate in those contexts. Combine that with Veritas’s long history of selectively editing footage to support their agenda — a criticism well-documented by both independent fact-checkers and mainstream media (Wikipedia summary of controversies, NYT coverage, Columbia Journalism Review) — and it becomes hard for me to take the clip at face value.


That doesn’t mean what he said wasn’t troubling — just that I’m skeptical of the method, context, and framing. It feels less like clear proof of indoctrination, and more like a story that happens to align with an existing narrative. And that’s exactly why I think all of us — no matter our views — should be careful about what we count as evidence.



I agree that fear of death or damnation is only part of it. The deeper fear is often social: fear of being cast out, losing your place, your group, your identity. We’re wired to survive in tribes, and stepping outside of one — whether it’s family, religion, or politics — can feel like emotional exile. You’re not just losing belief, you’re risking belonging. And that’s a powerful disincentive.


But on a personal level, I’ve come to fear believing something for bad reasons more than I fear not belonging. That wasn’t always easy — but I gave up that struggle a long time ago. I’d rather be alone with honest uncertainty than surrounded by people at the cost of my own clarity. For me, that’s where real peace comes from

You appear to be an outlier in this psychological indoctrination and understand the manipulation tactics that are used and avoid them. The Charlie Chester story applies to my thesis because even though he was just a technical director, he still worked there, had a director position and undoubtedly talked with the rest of the CNN higher ups. If you disagree with his statement that FEAR SELLS and CNN used it to indoctrinate people and that Covid fear was not a factor in Trump losing, just let me know.

I see you found some articles that the story was covered and cite the far left Wiki as a source claiming they altered videos. Even if that were true, what evidence does anyone have that THIS video is false or that CNN, liars that they are, are above using fear to indoctrinate and persuade people to vote Democrat when every damn anchor rails against Trump and conservative positions. They are not a newsgroup. They are the propaganda arm of the Democrats.

Indoctrination is easy. Just have TV anchors and politicians repeat a lie often enough to put people in fear of loss of (fill in the blanks) and you convince them. Teslas being burned by crazies for no reason other than he worked for Trump. People assaulting ICE officers because TV anchors and politicians are claiming they are deporting innocent "immigrants" when the truth is that Democrats DEPEND on illegal aliens for their jobs and income to the cities and more legislators.

We live in one big indoctrination machine now at warp speed with 24/7 hate and fear rantings by the Democrats and their sycophant media anchors.

 

[forkup]

Grin. Are you suggesting people read the Bible, instead of studying the Bible, so that they lose belief? (I have a quirky sense of humor. Of course, you're not.) To address your question, no it doesn't open the door to confirmation bias, it simply opens scripture. The reason for study is to answer questions, which leads to more questions, which leads to more answers.... One adage most dear to me is: A conclusion is the point where one stops thinking.

I honestly don't see this as "preserving faith" but understanding faith, and the people and the times in which each book was written.

I’m suggesting that if a book claims divine inspiration — even indirectly through those “inspired by God” — and still includes rules for slavery, then it’s not up to the reader to rationalize that away after the fact. God has some explaining to do.
Because when you start reaching for historical context or metaphor to soften something so morally clear, that’s not “understanding faith” — that’s justifying what you already believe.

When we see the word "slave" we immediately picture the South in the nineteenth century. We imagine people kidnapped and sold into slavery, some were often whipped. What is not pictured is that even in the South's heyday (and in every other culture) only one-quarter of the population were slave owners. Seventy-five percent of the people did not own slaves.

In Biblical times, the term 'bondsman' more accurately describes what was taking place. The bondman became a part of the household and was treated as such, provided with clothing, food, and shelter. Yes, the father (master) of the household could discipline/punish anyone in his household, but the bondsman, like the rest of the household had rights. While the people were held to account by the master of the household, the master was held accountable by leaders of the tribe/society. Even alien slaves had a right to their own property, which they could work and use its profits as they chose. In other words, they could buy their own freedom. Most became a bondsman because they had debts they could not pay. (Remember in those times, they could not declare bankruptcy or apply for welfare.) The Master paid his debts, and the bondsman became more of an indentured servant. Also, say a master and his servant or bondsman were away and could not make it home before nightfall. If there was only one blanket or cloak between them, the blanket or cloak went to the bondsman.

Thieves, when caught, became a bondsman to repay the cost or amount stolen. Consider how we imprison thieves. What would you prefer--to be imprisoned or to be taken into a household, which you became a member of, to work off the amount you had stolen.

Jews of Biblical times would have been horrified by Southern slavery in the the nineteenth century. That's not to say they were all good masters of their entire household in Biblical times. Some, obviously, were not, and laws were enforced to keep those in line.

Another point I find interesting, is that a father could sell a daughter into another household, with hopes a marriage occurring for her. If matrimony did not occur, she could ask to return to her father's household. However, a daughter could not sell herself into another household, it had to be the father.

No, I am not defending slavery, and I haven't a doubt that some fathers (masters) could be just as cruel then to members of their households as some still are today. However, in our times bankruptcy and welfare are how we resolve economic matters where people find themselves in debt. In those days, such economic calamities were resolved by working (becoming a bondsman) for the person who could repay what was owed.

You’re doing a lot of explaining here, but some of it doesn’t quite match what the Bible actually says. For example, there’s nothing forbidding whipping slaves — in fact, the Bible regulates it, implying it was allowed (Exodus 21:20-21). The restriction is more about not killing them, not about forbidding harsh treatment.


Also, slaves weren’t treated as equals. The Bible clearly distinguishes between Israelite slaves and foreign slaves, with different rules applying (Leviticus 25). So calling all slavery just “bondservants” or “members of the household” glosses over the fact that they were still property under the law.


So how do you justify describing biblical slavery as “simply bondsmen” — servants with rights — when the text itself draws clear lines of ownership, control, and legal inequality? It feels like you’re doing exactly what you say you don't do. Using confirmation bias: focusing only on parts that support your narrative, and ignoring the harsher realities present in the text.

 

[ding]

I’m suggesting that if a book claims divine inspiration — even indirectly through those “inspired by God” — and still includes rules for slavery, then it’s not up to the reader to rationalize that away after the fact. God has some explaining to do.
Because when you start reaching for historical context or metaphor to soften something so morally clear, that’s not “understanding faith” — that’s justifying what you already believe.

You’re doing a lot of explaining here, but some of it doesn’t quite match what the Bible actually says. For example, there’s nothing forbidding whipping slaves — in fact, the Bible regulates it, implying it was allowed (Exodus 21:20-21). The restriction is more about not killing them, not about forbidding harsh treatment.


Also, slaves weren’t treated as equals. The Bible clearly distinguishes between Israelite slaves and foreign slaves, with different rules applying (Leviticus 25). So calling all slavery just “bondservants” or “members of the household” glosses over the fact that they were still property under the law.


So how do you justify describing biblical slavery as “simply bondsmen” — servants with rights — when the text itself draws clear lines of ownership, control, and legal inequality? It feels like you’re doing exactly what you say you don't do. Using confirmation bias: focusing only on parts that support your narrative, and ignoring the harsher realities present in the text.

Doesn’t sound like you got much out of reading it. That’s a shame.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

I’m suggesting that if a book claims divine inspiration — even indirectly through those “inspired by God” — and still includes rules for slavery, then it’s not up to the reader to rationalize that away after the fact. God has some explaining to do.
Because when you start reaching for historical context or metaphor to soften something so morally clear, that’s not “understanding faith” — that’s justifying what you already believe.

You’re doing a lot of explaining here, but some of it doesn’t quite match what the Bible actually says. For example, there’s nothing forbidding whipping slaves — in fact, the Bible regulates it, implying it was allowed (Exodus 21:20-21). The restriction is more about not killing them, not about forbidding harsh treatment.


Also, slaves weren’t treated as equals. The Bible clearly distinguishes between Israelite slaves and foreign slaves, with different rules applying (Leviticus 25). So calling all slavery just “bondservants” or “members of the household” glosses over the fact that they were still property under the law.


So how do you justify describing biblical slavery as “simply bondsmen” — servants with rights — when the text itself draws clear lines of ownership, control, and legal inequality? It feels like you’re doing exactly what you say you don't do. Using confirmation bias: focusing only on parts that support your narrative, and ignoring the harsher realities present in the text.

Matt Dillahunty has a regular podcast on YouTube. He was a devout Baptist and now an agnostic atheist and has a show dedicated to reason and bible discussions. One of the topics that sets him off is when someone tries to justify slavery or somehow contend that it was the norm back then and there was no good way for god to stop it. He flips out when someone tries to say it wasn't immoral at the time. Callers get flummoxed when he asks them if they would own slaves and whip them, and they try not to answer, but when they do, Matt says that they are therefore more moral than the god they believe in.

Christians laughably claim that morals come from "God" and the poster you responded to set ME off when she tried to say that the Hammurabi code and other groups and humans who set forth moral codes and laws were still guided by "God" and used a quote from the non apostle to "verify" that claim.

Having been essentially raised by nuns in a Catholic school and frequently attending the church next door and being an altar boy I am keenly aware of the Catholic teachings, which have been softened over the past 50 years. Now they embrace LGTBQ even though their own OT says they are an abomination and deserve death. Divorce is no longer a NO NO, Marriage outside the church is accepted and women are no longer the property of men and to obey their man. Women that work are no longer frowned upon and they can even drive now.

Morals come from the consensus of society at the time and not from some fictional god.

 

[forkup]

You appear to be an outlier in this psychological indoctrination and understand the manipulation tactics that are used and avoid them. The Charlie Chester story applies to my thesis because even though he was just a technical director, he still worked there, had a director position and undoubtedly talked with the rest of the CNN higher ups. If you disagree with his statement that FEAR SELLS and CNN used it to indoctrinate people and that Covid fear was not a factor in Trump losing, just let me know.

I don’t disagree that fear sells — that’s absolutely true. I remember being struck by it the first time I visited the U.S. I come from a country where news programs don’t have commercials between segments. The way American news teases the next story before a break — always with something dramatic — made it obvious that they’re not selling information; they’re selling attention. And “grandma’s bake sale” won’t keep viewers hooked.


Now, on your larger point — yes, fear around COVID definitely played a role in how people perceived Trump. But what stood out to me is how the question is framed. And I want to be clear: this isn’t an attack, just an observation.


You didn’t ask whether the fear was warranted, or whether Trump’s handling of the pandemic deserved criticism. You framed it as: “Was COVID fear used to hurt Trump politically?” Which assumes the coverage was politically motivated from the start.


That’s where I diverge. I think it’s possible — and in fact likely — that criticism of Trump’s pandemic response was both widespread and warranted. That doesn’t mean all media coverage was fair or neutral — but it also doesn’t mean every critical voice was driven by partisan intent.

I see you found some articles that the story was covered and cite the far left Wiki as a source claiming they altered videos. Even if that were true, what evidence does anyone have that THIS video is false or that CNN, liars that they are, are above using fear to indoctrinate and persuade people to vote Democrat when every damn anchor rails against Trump and conservative positions. They are not a newsgroup. They are the propaganda arm of the Democrats.

I never said I have evidence. What I said is that Veritas has a complicated history — one that makes me skeptical. Much in the same way I'm skeptical of anything that relies on emotionally charged claims but shaky sourcing.

That’s not me saying it’s false — it’s me saying I don’t know. And I’m okay with that.

Are you? That’s the deeper question here. Because being sure something is true without strong evidence is a different kind of bias — just one that happens to flatter your side.

Indoctrination is easy. Just have TV anchors and politicians repeat a lie often enough to put people in fear of loss of (fill in the blanks) and you convince them. Teslas being burned by crazies for no reason other than he worked for Trump. People assaulting ICE officers because TV anchors and politicians are claiming they are deporting innocent "immigrants" when the truth is that Democrats DEPEND on illegal aliens for their jobs and income to the cities and more legislators.

Just to be clear — no one should be burning cars or assaulting people. Full stop. That behavior is wrong, no matter what side you’re on.


That said, I think you’re oversimplifying when you say Musk is targeted just for “working with Trump.” He didn’t exactly take a quiet political stance — like Trump, he’s made a habit of being deliberately provocative and often needlessly antagonistic toward wide swaths of the public and the world. That kind of rhetoric tends to generate backlash — not justify it, but explain it.


Same goes for ICE. There’s a legitimate debate to be had about immigration enforcement and its abuses. Lumping all criticism into a fear campaign ignores the complexity — and turns every disagreement into indoctrination, which ironically sounds like its own kind of narrative control.

We live in one big indoctrination machine now at warp speed with 24/7 hate and fear rantings by the Democrats and their sycophant media anchors.

It’s interesting how you frame the “indoctrination machine” as something that only applies to one political party. From where I’m standing, it seems like both sides use fear and outrage when it suits them — the tactics just vary depending on the audience.

 

[forkup]

Matt Dillahunty has a regular podcast on YouTube. He was a devout Baptist and now an agnostic atheist and has a show dedicated to reason and bible discussions. One of the topics that sets him off is when someone tries to justify slavery or somehow contend that it was the norm back then and there was no good way for god to stop it. He flips out when someone tries to say it wasn't immoral at the time. Callers get flummoxed when he asks them if they would own slaves and whip them, and they try not to answer, but when they do, Matt says that they are therefore more moral than the god they believe in.

Christians laughably claim that morals come from "God" and the poster you responded to set ME off when she tried to say that the Hammurabi code and other groups and humans who set forth moral codes and laws were still guided by "God" and used a quote from the non apostle to "verify" that claim.

Having been essentially raised by nuns in a Catholic school and frequently attending the church next door and being an altar boy I am keenly aware of the Catholic teachings, which have been softened over the past 50 years. Now they embrace LGTBQ even though their own OT says they are an abomination and deserve death. Divorce is no longer a NO NO, Marriage outside the church is accepted and women are no longer the property of men and to obey their man. Women that work are no longer frowned upon and they can even drive now.

Morals come from the consensus of society at the time and not from some fictional god.

Yes, I completely agree. One of the clearest signs that the Bible isn’t divinely authored is how conveniently its “meaning” evolves over time.


Same book. Same God. But every generation seems to find a way to reinterpret it to match the values they already hold.


It’s not timeless morality — it’s retroactive justification. As if God meant it that way all along, and somehow every previous generation just misunderstood Him.

 

[Meriweather]

It feels like you’re doing exactly what you say you don't do.

Never mind then. We could have gone into parts where you still have questions, but that would not be productive when all that would be seen is "confirmation bias."

 

[ding]

Yes, I completely agree. One of the clearest signs that the Bible isn’t divinely authored is how conveniently its “meaning” evolves over time.


Same book. Same God. But every generation seems to find a way to reinterpret it to match the values they already hold.


It’s not timeless morality — it’s retroactive justification. As if God meant it that way all along, and somehow every previous generation just misunderstood Him.

Echo chamber much?

 

[Paradoxical#1]

I don’t disagree that fear sells — that’s absolutely true. I remember being struck by it the first time I visited the U.S. I come from a country where news programs don’t have commercials between segments. The way American news teases the next story before a break — always with something dramatic — made it obvious that they’re not selling information; they’re selling attention. And “grandma’s bake sale” won’t keep viewers hooked.


Now, on your larger point — yes, fear around COVID definitely played a role in how people perceived Trump. But what stood out to me is how the question is framed. And I want to be clear: this isn’t an attack, just an observation.


You didn’t ask whether the fear was warranted, or whether Trump’s handling of the pandemic deserved criticism. You framed it as: “Was COVID fear used to hurt Trump politically?” Which assumes the coverage was politically motivated from the start.


That’s where I diverge. I think it’s possible — and in fact likely — that criticism of Trump’s pandemic response was both widespread and warranted. That doesn’t mean all media coverage was fair or neutral — but it also doesn’t mean every critical voice was driven by partisan intent.




Just to be clear — no one should be burning cars or assaulting people. Full stop. That behavior is wrong, no matter what side you’re on.


That said, I think you’re oversimplifying when you say Musk is targeted just for “working with Trump.” He didn’t exactly take a quiet political stance — like Trump, he’s made a habit of being deliberately provocative and often needlessly antagonistic toward wide swaths of the public. That kind of rhetoric tends to generate backlash — not justify it, but explain it.


Same goes for ICE. There’s a legitimate debate to be had about immigration enforcement and its abuses. Lumping all criticism into a fear campaign ignores the complexity — and turns every disagreement into indoctrination, which ironically sounds like its own kind of narrative control.

It’s interesting how you frame the “indoctrination machine” as something that only applies to one political party. From where I’m standing, it seems like both sides use fear and outrage when it suits them — the tactics just vary depending on the audience.

Before I came to this site I debated the resident leftists about Covid, the deaths attributed to it, vaccines, masks, lockdowns etc. extensively. People forget that it was TRUMP who pushed for approval of the vaccine which was then rolled out at lightning speed and that Pfizer had it ready before the election but didn't want to announce it because they hated Trump and still do. Then they say he was against masks when he was against forced mask wearing as was I. Studies since then have shown that masks do not work, If cigarette smoke goes through them which it does, so does Covid virions. There is no evidence that deaths were reduced because of rampant mask wearing, and states that did not mandated them fared no worse when compared with population density than those that did not. Trump spent billions to give regular hospitals extra money to treat the uninsured, and we paid lavishly for the vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna. So, just how did Trump handle Covid poorly?

Regarding ICE, this is yet ANOTHER gaslighting indoctrination tactic. Yes, there may have been a handful of innocent people arrested. They are targeting criminals, and 99.9% of those arrested have been people with a criminal record. You don't ask a known criminal illegal alien if he wants to be deported,. You don't play nice. Thus, you prove my point that we live in an indoctrination chamber when we are made to believe we are targeting innocent farm working immigrants. 360 people were arrested at that pot farm, some of them young kids and some were rapists and thugs. The owner donates to Democrats. They weren't picking strawberries.

BOTH sides use indoctrination. Individual humans use it to control their spouses and friends. Everyone does it. From my view, the Democrats have mastered the art of fear, guilt, shaming and everything with them is a lie that they are more moral when in fact they want illegals here for the government jobs and dependency.

 

[Meriweather]

Doesn’t sound like you got much out of reading it. That’s a shame.

It is. There is quite a bit of additional Hebrew writing that ties in explanations with specific scriptures, but it is lengthy and can be tedious. I probably did a poor job summarizing, but I also think as a firm conclusion has already been made, why bother with any more study.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

Yes, I completely agree. One of the clearest signs that the Bible isn’t divinely authored is how conveniently its “meaning” evolves over time.


Same book. Same God. But every generation seems to find a way to reinterpret it to match the values they already hold.


It’s not timeless morality — it’s retroactive justification. As if God meant it that way all along, and somehow every previous generation just misunderstood Him.

For the record, I witnessed this in my own family in how my mom was a devout Catholic who was taught a women's place was in the home and to have many children and obey her man. Conveniently, my father was a devout Catholic and loved those rules and lorded over her like a military general berating her for anything and everything, all in accordance with biblical teachings that a woman (or slave) was much less than a male and their property.

She accepted these rules because people in authority taught her that this was what "God" wanted.