Legend Tripping, ‘Mean Girls’ Style: Two Girls Stab Third 19 Times To Please ‘Slender Man’

PIC: MD170, Artist Unknown (CC)

PIC: MD170, Artist Unknown (CC)

Two unnamed 12 year-old girls nearly succeeded in murdering a third the morning after a slumber party, all part of a plan to become ‘proxies’ of The Slender Man and live in his mansion in the forest. The Slender Man is basically an overblown internet meme: This is like sacrificing your best friend to Trollface.

Back in my day when we tied onions to our belts we did our legend tripping the old fashioned way: Wholesome activities like trespassing to chase ghosts and visit the sites of supposed murders and suicides. Ah, you kids today with your doges and pokey-men and what-have-you…

WAUKESHA, Wis. (AP) — Prosecutors say two 12-year-old southeastern Wisconsin girls stabbed their 12-year-old friend nearly to death in the woods to please a mythological creature they learned about online.

Both girls were charged as adults with first-degree attempted homicide Monday in Waukesha County Circuit Court; they each face up to 60 years in prison if convicted. A court commissioner set bail at $500,000 cash per child. According to a criminal complaint, the girls had been planning to kill their friend for months and finally made the attempt in a park on Saturday morning, after a slumber party.

One of the girls told a detective they were trying to become “proxies” of Slender Man, a mythological demon-like character they learned about on creepypasta.wikia.com, a website about horror stories and legends. They planned to run away to the demon’s forest mansion after the slaying, the complaint said.

“I recognize their young ages but it’s still unbelievable,” Court Commissioner Thomas Pieper said during one of the girls’ initial court appearances Monday.

The victim suffered 19 stab wounds; one missed a major artery near her heart by a millimeter, doctors told police. She was in stable condition Monday. The court documents did not provide her name.

via 12-year-old Wisconsin girls charged in stabbing.

, , , , ,

  • Anarchy Pony

    They couldn’t just say slender man in the mirror three times in a row?

    • Oginikwe

      I’m more afraid of Obese Man.

      • Andrew

        I won’t hurt you.

        • Echar Lailoken

          Maybe not on purpose. What if you accidentally step on his foot?

          • Andrew

            I’m surprisingly agile for a big fat guy.

          • JamieMehmetril

            like
            Jacqueline implied I’m taken by surprise that a mom can earn $8130 in 1 month
            on the computer . see post F­i­s­c­a­l­p­o­s­t­.­C­O­M­

  • http://www.libertysingularity.com matty

    jeeeeez : |

  • BuzzCoastin

    Any loss of identity prompts people to seek reassurance and rediscovery of themselves by testing, and even by violence. Today, the electric revolution, the wired planet, and the information environment involve everybody in everybody to the point of individual extinction.
    McLuhan, 1970ish

    • Andrew

      Anattā.

      • BuzzCoastin

        the Buddhist concept of no permanent self
        would actually be helpful here
        since the all involving wired whirled
        tends to highlight lack personhood

  • Ted Heistman

    This is really disturbing, obviously. Nicolet national Forest is awesome, though. I don’t find it creepy at all. It really seems to have good spirits.

    I think these girls are ruined. Something about them is broken. I don’t think its worth bothering to fix people like this. Its not safe to have them out in public. Maybe there is hope for the less dominant one. I really think a quick execution would be the most humane but that is not the mindset of the developed world.

    I actually can’t think of anything more disturbing than children committing random, seemingly meaningless acts of murder.

    • Ted Heistman

      As it stands, they will probably spend the next several decades providing job security for correctional workers and mental health professionals.

    • z@ch

      I used to think you were misunderstood and some posters gave you a hard time for your beliefs. However this took some serious gall for you to post, in my opinion. That you could actually feel that a twelve year old girl is ruined, broken, and deserving execution makes me really question who deserves those descriptors. You are saying murdering kids is a good way to teach kids not to have fucked up lives. Also nice work on the homely comment. Who knows, maybe if people didn’t judge little girls on hotness factor at 12 they would grow up more well adjusted.

      • Ted Heistman

        I guess I empathize more with the victim. You for whatever reason empathize more with the attackers. I just picture what it would be like to be that girl invited to a slumber party with her friends and then suddenly they violently stab her 19 times and leave her for dead. I don’t think these girls have a right to do that to anyone ever again. They forfeited their freedom. Personally I would rather be dead than spend 60 years in a cage, so that was empathy there as well. I have little pity for violent criminals, I will admit. These girls are predators. We can speculate as to why but the fact remains they are too dangerous to have out in public

        • Oginikwe

          Well, there is no doubt that both of them will have a psych work-up. We still have the McNaughton rule (except maybe in Texas), and the whole basis for that is if they knew right from wrong. We’ll see.
          Echar recently posted a video featuring an interview with Richard Walter of the Vidocq Society and one of the things he pointed out in that interview is that “I don’t care” is a very dangerous phrase to hear from bad actors.

          • Ted Heistman

            Every murderer was 12 years old at one time.

            Often toddlers can be very aggressive, but their lack of strength prevents them from doing too much damage. 12 is not that young. Especially for girls. Normal 12 year olds have strong inhibitions against maiming and killing others. These are young psychopaths.

          • Oginikwe

            Sorry. I didn’t realize you were a developmental psychologist.

          • Ted Heistman

            Oh so you aren’t an arm chair psychologist also? What are your qualifications?

      • Joe Crowe

        I’m not sure why they are ruined and broken, but there is clearly something wrong with these girls if they are killing their friends.

        How many more have to die? Were these sharp objects registered with the government? Is there a published list of knife-owners. The logical thing to do would be to ban knives. Since mental illness is sometimes genetic, perhaps if these children were detected as ‘defective’ much sooner, like at birth, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Perhaps the parents are fine, but should not have been allowed to produce offspring. If their behavior can be blamed on the parents, they should be allowed to go free. Maybe we can indict ‘society’? How many lives must be ruined before we have sensible knife control legislation?

        Amirite?

        • Oginikwe

          No.
          They didn’t kill her: they tried to kill her but were unsuccessful. She’s recovering in the hospital.
          The rest is just an exercise in a ridiculous attempt at satire.

          • Joe Crowe

            I’m very glad to hear she’s recovering, actually.

            It was ridiculous satire. Satire and sarcasm is dangerous. Sometimes people don’t see such things as ridiculous sarcasm and then it becomes their politics. Not my intention.

        • z@ch

          NO you are not right ;) Yes there is something definitely wrong. Most likely many more have to die, even though this girl didn’t. Don’t immediately jump to blaming the parents for a kids fucked up life, a lot of parents try really hard, some don’t. Point is, lets not call for the execution of children before we even have a trial or find out the true details. Also lets not ever execute kids trial or no

  • Ted Heistman
    • Ted Heistman

      The short haired one looks to be enjoying the attention.

      • Earthstar

        That’s an interesting surmise to draw from such a small portion of her face.

        • Ted Heistman

          She appears to be smirking, in all the pictures of her available online.

          • Earthstar

            oh. I’ve mostly been trying to avoid this story as much a possible.
            Maybe it’s some demon smirking through her.

          • Ted Heistman

            Its a waste of time, probably, but I used to live in the area.

          • Felix Ray

            Does she appear to you to be smirking in THIS picture?

        • Joe Crowe

          I was thinking that the long-haired one looked smug.

          • Adam’s Shadow

            She’s twelve; that’s their natural expression.

          • Joe Crowe

            In all seriousness, though it was a snap judgment, a jury could see things the same way, be it true or not. If it is true, that could be a sign that the girls are not quite fully cognitive of the seriousness of the situation and probably shouldn’t be tried as adults. I do have a hard time believing that even at the tender age of 12 that you are utterly unaware that stabbing someone to near death isn’t quite socially-acceptable behavior and can get you in ‘big trouble young lady’.

    • Oginikwe

      Good lord! They’re little girls! Where are the parents?

  • Earthstar

    Nobody recognizes the existence and influence of demons. And when things like this happen, people keep scratching their heads in confusion.

    • PrimateZero

      The problem is that people DO believe in the existence and influence of demons. That’s what has me scratching my head in confusion. Maybe we should teach are children some critical thinking skills, so they do go out and do something so heinously stupid.

      • Ted Heistman

        I think its a case of two homely, nascent Goth chicks spending all their time obsessing over morbid things. Not that they were simply duped.

        • PrimateZero

          Hey chief, these girls are 12 years old…they’re still babies. Kids at that age are pretty damn gullible. It’s bad enough we got “adults” who still believe in mythological creatures…but kids aren’t “fully cooked” yet. They see shit on the internet and think it’s “for real”.
          I’d be less sympathetic if they were two 20 year old “occult enthusiasts” who should know better. I can’t help thinking some real education on common sense and empathy would have helped these kids….that and some hugs from daddy.

          • Ted Heistman

            I think at least one of them has serious mental health issues and will need to be institutionalized. Brutal stabbings, don’t strike me as arising from simply being gullible. It was cold and premeditated also.

          • PrimateZero

            I agree that they must have some serious mental issues. I think most people who believe in demons, angels and spirits usually do have “mental issues”. I just still think that these two might be salvageable and we shouldn’t be tossing them out just yet….the key word here is “yet”.

          • Jin The Ninja

            lol. the irrationality of comparing religious thinking to ”mental illness” is astounding and quite ironic.

          • Andrew

            The comparison makes sense to me.

          • Jin The Ninja

            so you think all religious people are mentally ill?
            i’d accept that if you’d accept all people within a capitalist paradigm are mentally ill, due to the fact they must survive in a capitalist paradigm.

          • Andrew

            I don’t think making such a comparison is the same as saying all religious people are mentally ill. But I do believe all people in a strictly capitalist paradigm are mentally ill.

          • Jin The Ninja

            i read the implication as stating nearly unequivocally that most (75%) of people who acknowledge external spiritual forces are mentally ill. i find that quite a broad stroke. quite anti-intellectual as well since in saying that one must then discard all produced knowledge of the religious for it should be deemed un scientific, irrational, and delusional. newton was a spiritualist. pythagoras was a pagan. and so on and so forth.

            but yes i do agree with you here;)

          • Andrew

            I’m not a fundamentalist materialist, so I don’t rule out the possibility of “spiritual” forces, but I don’t believe in them either (at least not as how most people define “spiritual”). An anthropology professor I once knew defined spirituality as the relationship with things larger than oneself, so that an atheist materialist could be “spiritual.”

            A philosophy professor I know calls me an “intellectual,” though I don’t claim the label. I don’t believe any alleged religious “knowledge” is actual knowledge, and if that makes me “anti-intellectual” is some people views, then that’s their business. I’m less and less interested in arguing with people about how they define me in their own minds.

          • Jin The Ninja

            i never have thought at any time you were ‘anti-intellectual.’
            i also never meant to imply you were anti-intellectual in this instance. if it came across that way i apologise. not my intention.what i think is anti-intellectual, to clarify, is dismissing religious belief as ‘mental illness.’ as i said many scholars were religious, occultist, spiritualists- without their knowledge there would be no basis for modern science- if you call those scholars ‘mentally ill’ (again not saying YOU called them, only in response to the OP)- perhaps we should then discard their work as the product of the mentally ill.

            i think you perhaps have misunderstood me. i am not positioning myself as saying everyone SHOULD hold religious beliefs- no absolutely not. agnostic or atheist-people must have sovereignty over their own consciousness! i am saying that the atheist or agnostic must not marginalise religious/spiritual beliefs through the lens of mental illness! that is really all i am saying.

            i personally feel that i do not catergorise people according to my beliefs, but on their ‘words’ as it were. this was a case of some silly banter, maybe a smart-ass quip. i feel kind of hurt and dismissed to be honest, that you’d say i as arguing with you about whether you were something or not.

          • Andrew

            No need for an apology. The fact is I do usually dismiss religious thought, sometimes as metal illness. Not always, though. I didn’t mean to imply you were arguing with me, but that your criticism could be applied to me. Perhaps I am anti-intellectual sometimes.

          • Jin The Ninja

            but you see, those instances you decry religiousity as mental illness- i’d say 90% of the time i am inclined to agree with you;). i just hate the idea that simply based on a belief in the external, one is mentally ill. if so i give up on human history. lol

          • Andrew

            And see, I pretty much have given up on human history.

          • Joe Crowe

            You have the definition of insanity wrong. Capitalism does work. One can actually test it for oneself. 1) Exchange your labor for someone else’s money… or vice-versa (capitalism is versatile that way) and use it to buy stuff you want or need.

            See? It’s so cool. It is actually one of the most easily-reproducible and proven scientifically-designed social experiments ever devised. It works in every culture, time and place. Try it, if you don’t believe me. Wherever you are. Find a medium of exchange.

            Socialism is insanity. 1) Have a group of particularly gullible or intimidated people submit (or pretend to submit) their individual wills to the absolute authority of the fascist leaders of the collective who promises to use that authority for the ‘common good’. 2) Hide the bodies until you run out of space. 3) Blame the results on scapegoats du jour and ‘the right’. 4) Promise to ‘never forget’ then promptly ignore all historical results and evidence. 5) Repeat all errors for best results.

          • Jin The Ninja

            capitalism does not work in every place or every culture. in fact it is anti-thetical to many cultures, to work, it must be IMPOSED on a culture through imperialistic means. and i was the one who decried capitalism- get your posters straight.

          • Joe Crowe

            My bad. I didn’t know that you couldn’t trade a fish-hook for a papaya or that you would only do such a thing by force.

          • Jin The Ninja

            trading a fish hook for a papaya, is again, not a capitalist mode of exchange. why does one need to trade a papaya, when they grow on trees easily accessible to the community, why does one need to trade a fish hook within the same community where one is taught by his uncle to produce them, and in fact every family makes their own, and fishing boats are hereditary. barter historically NEVER occurred between people of the same community. total myth often repeated by those who aren’t aware of discipline called “anthropology.”

            i am referring to Capitalism, capital ‘C’, and the process wherein a western country goes into a non-western one and says,

            “by jesus, you MUST have mcdicks and a walmart in order to be free, refuse? die! democracy? nay! capitalism is democracy! american soldiers are here to show you the way! resistance is futile!”

            and the mention of drug culture- what are you the king of unrelated tangents? it is just crass.

            capitalism has been imposed by force on every culture that occupied land that were deemed productive by western forces.

            and this thread is probably not the best place to air your mythological anarcho-cap grievances. pick another, i’ll meet you there.

          • Joe Crowe

            What if fish hooks were the accepted medium of exchange and I couldn’t climb a papaya tree to save my skin? Could I give a fish hook to a really good climber if he or she would just be so kind as to climb the papaya tree and bring me down one? I would so do that.

            You’re speaking of cultural anthropology. I’m quite aware of it. Studying it is how I learned that fish-hooks were often a medium of exchange in many coastal cultures.

            You’re not speaking of capitalism… you’re speaking of colonialism.

            It was a bleak reference to the hippy subculture and its modern equivalent in which the proponents of socialism are typically those who are deriving benefits from capitalism that began in a charitable exchange and then became a unjust expectation, which has less to do with a critique of drug use in general (which exhibits my libertarian leanings), but of the disconnect between at least one subculture of those who favor capitalism and those who do not. I was not being crass, I was specifically asking you, armchair anthropologist, if you had a specific culture in mind. My response was snarky, perhaps, but not crass.

            Again it seems to me that you are speaking of colonialism and corruption, that is, base exploitation, which is a problem in any form of government.

            As far as airing my ‘mythological anarchy-cap grievances’, I remind you that you began the political bent of the conversation 18 hours ago with:

            “i’d accept that if you’d accept all people within a capitalist paradigm are mentally ill, due to the fact they must survive in a capitalist paradigm.”

            Considering the mission statement of this website, I don’t see a problem with discussing it here, other than that it is a huge digression from the topic at hand. I’m usually found on major corporate media sites and occasionally on minor political blogs. I got veered here by the strange slender-man thing. Slender man? That’s cray-cray!

            ‘Mythological anarcho-cap grievances’. You get a gold star for originality, at least. I like that.

          • Jin The Ninja

            if i couldn’t climb a tree or fish,or my community would provide it is i was too young/old infirm. again, barter almost never occured among communities. occasionally among strangers and travellers. there is no social value in barter between neighboors.

            you’re confused in that capitalism and colonialism are in fact extensions of imperialism and western hegemony. or conversely you could say imperialism is an extension of capitalism.

            this thread is inappropriate. i was referring to multiple past dialogues w/ andrew about economic theory. it was a bait/switch if you will. i don’t want to continue on this thread, but i am sure we’ll cross words again.

            http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/09/david-graeber-on-the-invention-of-money-%E2%80%93-notes-on-sex-adventure-monomaniacal-sociopathy-and-the-true-function-of-economics.html

            for the meantime.

          • Andrew

            I don’t so much have a problem with the kind of capitalism you’re talking about, my objection is to Finance Capitalism and usury/riba.

            Also, you’re not describing dictionary Socialism, but conflating State Capitalism and Fascism. There are different kinds of capitalism and different kinds of socialism, and it’s not helpful to lump them together because there are aspects of each that are good and aspects of each that are bad.

          • Joe Crowe

            Usury is a sin, according to the Holy Bible, which I believe in.
            I don’t really consider usury/interest loans ‘capitalism’ in that sense. I’m using the definition of capitalism as the fair (agreed-upon) exchange of goods and services.

            As far as ‘dictionary Socialism’… keep in mind that some of the dictionary people entered the field because part of the socialist agenda has ever been to influence propaganda and socialist philosophers believe that controlling language is a means to that end. Euphemisms are weapons to these people and they define everything and couch everything in polite propaganda-driven phrases and half-truths.

            A big for-instance: if you believe that society should reward good behavior in some way… you will be labelled as ‘hating the poor’, because to reward some people and not others creates ‘inequality’. Inequality has connotations that make it sound bad, even though the denotations of inequality are the basis for individuality, freedom, merit-based systems (when functioning properly), and justice.

          • Andrew

            I don’t agree that all or most socialists are more dishonest than all or most capitalists. Or vice versa. There’s always a struggle in communication to convey (i.e. control) meaning, and I buy (pun intended) Robert Trivers’ idea that deception is a necessary evolutionary survival tool. Euphemisms are weapons to a lot of people, as is conflation.

            Also, I believe your big for-instance is too simplistic. There are ways that good/”good” behavior is rewarded beside money, and often bad/”bad” behavior is rewarded by money. The problem with a property based meritocracy is that individuals who do not do what society wants (in this case work for those who have money) are economically ostracized to the point of death, which is exactly what socialism is (sometimes justly) accused of. The poor are not morally inferior to the rich, and should not be punished for losing that game. Making money is not the most meritorious activity, and we should not value it as such.

          • Joe Crowe

            Trivers also argues against such deception. As do I, as it seems to be merely a form of doublethink.

            I am not arguing that capitalism, socialism or any -ism is guaranteed to produce honesty. I am arguing that the nature of socialism itself is deceit and that in order to argue for socialism, one must practice, at the very least, self-deceit and in order to rise to the top of this pyramid scheme you have to also be willing to lie for the common good. I disagree completely that The Big Lie should be necessary to promote the general welfare, while socialist philosophers not only came up with the concept originally, but presently justify it in various ways and insist, if pressed that these deceptions are necessary. In order to reach the top of the capitalist ladder, one can remain still remain honest even if in this ‘non-perfect’ world dishonesty is often rewarded, sadly.

            Herbert Marcuse (often called the father of the New Left), in “A Critique of Pure Tolerance” outlines the very same ‘survival tools’ that you are promoting here. He philosophizes (and I use the term loosely here) that the ends justifies the means and that any lie, deception, misrepresentation, false propaganda is a valuable survival mechanism. He asserts that all injustice, when acted upon those ‘in power’ are justifiable and therefore not injustices at all.

            Find a socialist who will admit (even to themselves) that stealing other people’s property (redistribution) is theft and I’ll believe that socialists are as honest as the next guy.

            You are absolutely incorrect when you say that capitalist principles require you to work for those who have money. I think that’s a common misconception. It is the socialist paradigm requires you to “Work! Work! Work!” (a proposed new slogan for democratic-socialism-communism, not my words) for the good of the state, without the capitalist benefit of having the potential for self-betterment, which essentially makes the state your slave driver. Under capitalism, if you own the means of production, you can produce your own goods and work for yourself. “Excess” property in such a situation does not have to go to waste or be horded ‘selfishly’. In fact, the opposite typically holds true. There are religious communities who live in just such a way.

            I am not in any way saying that the poor are morally inferior to the rich. I am saying that the acquisition of wealth should be done in a moral way. I submit that socialism is not the moral way of acquiring wealth, even with the understanding that capitalists might also acquire wealth in immoral ways (such as the GM company apparently lying to customers and knowingly giving a dangerous product).

            I agree that acquisition of money is in and of itself not a meritorious activity, yet isn’t the redistribution of wealth a prime component of socialist activity? To criticize capitalism for allowing for the freedom to make money is a bit simplistic. Capitalists are unfairly categorized as ‘against the poor’, but unfettered capitalism is the best chance for the poor to acquire wealth, freedom and autonomy without the immoral and societally-destructive mechanisms of socialism which include punishing the wealthy for their successes and rewarding the poor for their failures.

            That said, there are certain things that are rewarded or at least give advantages in capitalism that are not merit-based (physical beauty, athletic prowess, intellectual capacity). That is one of the truest critiques available. These advantages are also going to be given in most any form of society, however. The rewards may come in rewards besides money, granted, but they will arrive.

            Do you see something inherently evil in the poor being allowed to exchange labor for money? I often hear this decried as ‘exploitation’. I don’t see it that way, obviously. I see such opportunities for exchange as my best hope for improving my lot in life, or at least maintaining the lifestyle of my choosing.

            It is difficult to ignore that despite capitalism’s flaws, socialist concepts have also been tried and the results, at least in places where it fails, much worse, in terms of violence, real injustice and overall poverty as a matter of course. It’s such a broad statement. I can’t think of any society that was purely capitalist or purely socialist.

            I would bet my bottom dollar that we are misinterpreting about half of each other’s statements because of our own internal biases about the other’s positions. It’s a human flaw of mine I sincerely try to overcome. I also utterly reject the Marxist view that all thought processes must come through the lens of class. I believe that such biases exist, of course, but I also believe that any bias can be overcome with objectivity and that objectivity can be acquired by people of all classes if given the opportunity for self-assessment.

          • Jin The Ninja

            ethical capitalism is an oxymoron of the highest order. your reasoning is convoluted because of the inherent contradiction.

            you are conflating socialism, which is an umbrella term, with left-libertarianism which is against private property but FOR personal property. a left-libertarian is a socialist, but a socialist is not a left-libertarian. like a square and a rectangle.

            unless you can demonstrate an understanding of the nuances of socialism, as an umbrella term, and define the distinction between private and personal property- i just can’t take you seriously.

          • Joe Crowe

            You begin by making a clearly false statement. There is nothing unethical about a mutually-beneficial exchange.

            Correct that and then we’ll discuss the nuances of whether it is preferable to steal from individuals en masse or to steal from them on a case-by-case basis or if it is better to steal from groups of people (corporations) and pretend that force or the threat of force will not be necessary and also pretend that there is an essential difference between the two types of coercion. We’ll also pretend that there is a distinction between the authoritarianism/fascism model that results when a society is set up where a central authority/gov’t is given all the power or whether elites being given all of the power become the de facto authoritarians. I understand the nuances. I disagree as to the relevance of the nuances. Is that too nuanced a response? My analogy of these supposed nuances between state socialism and left-libertarian socialism is asking someone if they would prefer to die by the fire or die by the smoke or would they rather freeze to death in the water or to drown? If we are to stick to the geometrical equivalences, I would say the differences are even more nuanced than you say. It isn’t a square and a rectangle, it is two rectangles – one longer, one wider, but both encompassing the same total area.

            Both philosophies, left-libertarianist socialism and have a philosophical problem with a person getting paid to do work.

            Chomsky-following elitists can use these propaganda techniques all day long and pretend that force is not used in order to divest people of their property, but the threat of force will be necessary. I get that there is a distinction between intimidation and outright force, but this is another subtle nuance that is much like asking a coroner whether it was the dagger or the poison that killed the man. It is weaselly equivocation that displays a lack of seriousness.

          • Jin The Ninja

            that exchange is not based on equality, good will or compassion. so no. what i said is not false. it is based on oppression, inequality and holding wealth. your personal adaptation of biblical history is so skewed- and non-canonical i don’t have the patience to correct every absurdity in your last comment. but if you were to actually read something, instead of listening to your prosperity gospel pastor. you could figure it out for yourself.

            whatever else you said is sounding a lot like hysterical right wing pseudo-austrian rhetoric ( the same noise people on a roller coaster make). it’s just all so ridiculous. you’re not even making cogent points.

          • Joe Crowe

            Mao tell ya that?

            I’m making cogent points and that’s likely why you’re resorting to ad hominem attacks.

            I mowed a yard for money. I got paid the money. I could have not mowed the yard. The person who paid me could have mowed it himself. I could have saved up money to own the yard. He could have originally purchased the yard from money made from his landscaping business. There’s the equality argument.

            No one made me mow the yard. So much for oppression.

            I once was offered a landscaping job because someone knew my family was going through some hard times and we could use the extra money. The person paying me could have mowed the yard himself. Instead, he gave me an opportunity, as much out of compassion as out of a need for someone to get the weeds out of his azaleas. He also could have simply given me money that he had earned along the way – which is also compassionate charity. I prefer that he gave me the opportunity. That’s what I needed spiritually at the time. So there’s compassion.

            Any recommended reading, since you are clearly so well read? Mao? Marx? Lenin? Stalin? Trotsky? My russian is not quite up to par, camrade. Any recommended translations for now? I’m sure my version of Christianity isn’t quite orthodox. I was the bass player for Free Pussy Riot before all that went down so I never really got a chance for the state to distribute my spiritual guidance.

            What’s your favorite roller coaster? What are the amusement parks like there? What part of Russia did you say you came from?

          • Jin The Ninja

            not a maoist. and a fail right from the start.

          • Andrew

            I don’t use the “redistribution” meaning of socialism, but the “worker ownership of the means of production” definition. Similarly, I use the “private ownership of the means of production” definition of capitalism. (I see that my use of the terms is a bit different than Jin’s.) I’m in favor of a bit of both, and don’t think they have to contradict.

            Regarding redistribution, I think a monetary solution might be possible without taxation or coercion. Instead of the Fed printing debtmoney and putting it into circulation via loans (usury creating fiat money without backing it up with goods or services, Finance Capitalism creating inflation), why not put new promissory notes into circulation by just giving them to poor people? They’ll buy things they need, those who make the things they need will be fairly reimbursed, and new money will be backed up by real world value.

          • Joe Crowe

            I think your solution is at least novel. ‘Free money’ would create inflation, wouldn’t it? Also, what would keep some people (or in theory, everyone) from simply waiting until they get free money. It seems it would not only devalue currency but create disincentive for some. In the end, I think we’d be back at square one as some people make or do things that people are willing to part with their money for and others spend money on pursuits that are less financially rewarding.
            I’m being hyper-negative, perhaps. I certainly prefer what you suggest to simply taking what you want from other people, though.

          • Andrew

            I don’t think it would create inflation like interest and stock speculation debtmoney does because, as I said, the money would be backed up by the goods and services things the poor buy. I maintain there’d be far more economic equilibrium. Those who achieve more would be rewarded, while those who can’t wouldn’t be punished.

            Also, there’s nothing inherently wrong about pursuits that aren’t financially rewarding. If everybody’s needs are being met, what’s wrong with people doing other things? It’s actually more individualistic in my opinion.

          • Joe Crowe

            As to the first, you may be right. I am inclined to be devil’s advocate, though. I’m inclined to argue, too, apparently. Oh well – we all have our foibles.

            Here is a thought I had that is marginally un-capitalist, and I haven’t had a chance to really think it through. So I’ll throw it out here to the world. Since people begin their adult lives with varying backgrounds but are expected, at least in a mostly capitalist-minded society to immediately support themselves with such unequal chances of success… what if each received a flat amount of cashola for the first part of their adult lives… it could be used as a grant to start their own business, as funding for higher education to give them more skills, to help them pay the down payment on something to help avoid long-term high-interest debt that will haunt them all their lives. It smacks of socialism and I know that money has to come from somewhere… but I suppose this is near-identical to your idea of giving it to the poor, except with the added stipulation that the poor also be clearly poor through no fault of their own. Like I said, this is an idea that I got brainstorming on a more just situation in the world, but haven’t really weighed carefully. Destroy it. My skin’s thick.

            As to the second paragraph…. I am not arguing that everything one does must be in the pursuit of capital. I have plenty of hobbies that don’t help me acquire capital, but I do them for their own sake. I would not feel like a sellout if I were to get paid for doing most of these hobbies, however.

            When possible, however, I feel I should meet my own needs. If that means painting a clown on the side of building or painting letters on a shop window, that doesn’t mean I am no longer an artiste. It is okay to find some synergy with what you love and what you get paid for. It is also okay to do things that are distasteful in order to get meet your hierarchy of needs. Some jobs just suck, but they need doing. A reward system for doing them just seems preferable to some of the alternatives.

          • Jin The Ninja

            jesus and capitalism are diametrically opposed. ‘the poor’ are most often the social actors of the bible, and the ‘rich’ often the political ones, used in allegory to describe ways in which are bad to honour god. i personally go so far to say is that jesus was a libertarian. not a market libertarian, but a libertarian in the sense that peace, justice and community come first and hierarchical social values like money are useless in comparison to spiritual values (left-libertarian, the original definition of the term). so yes, the bible decries usury. it also decries the rich, kings, and the greedy. not forgiving debt is a mortal sin. and any monetary allusions you find in the bible regarding abundance are solely defined in terms of children/offspring, rich crops, and an abundant natural world. ‘corn’ is often used in the KJV. not gold, not ‘fishhooks.’ nowhere in the bible does it say ‘you must interact according to 20th century western market economics!’ – no, one acts according to jewish and later christian law. in which ‘debt’ and ‘money’ are accorded historical value- and accordingly are often mediated with babylonian laws of jubilee- like i mentioned, forgiveness of debts is god’s law. exchange of money is not.

          • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

            Well, I suppose if one considers literalism and absolutism in faith an indication of poor mental health…I think you might be right. On the other hand, an open mind on the subject, acknowledging possibility without falling into the rote of dogma, doesn’t seem all that unhealthy to me. It may be because I consider ‘certainty’ a malevolent force in human nature…a thing that transforms a mere thought into a rigid demand. I try to avoid absolute certainty, and leave a little room for “I could be wrong…”.

          • Number1Framer

            Her dad’s Instagram handle was/is “deadboy420″ and he posted pictures of her doodles of Slenderman online. Not alot to go on, but “deadboy420″ doesn’t sound like a handle a mature adult who has his shit together would use.

          • Joe Crowe

            Perhaps Daddy had nothing on which to base his morals. Deciding that the logical thing to do would be to satisfy his hedonistic pleasures in ways various and sundry, he had no time for these overgrown fetuses. Love, being an illogical and therefore unreasonable response did not fit into his schedule and was deemed a waste of precious time. Since only “children” believe in things they can not see.. like “souls”, it would be utterly illogical to waste any of his finite time worrying about an afterlife, or even worrying about how his children are raised. Odds are, Daddy wouldn’t live to see it and would merely resent the intrusions on his own (quite logical) plans to seek pleasure while he can. Life is short, you know.

            Perhaps not. Perhaps they have the best Daddy in the world but they learned from school that they do not have to listen to him (who merely represents a misogynistic, masculine and paternalistically patronizing element) and that they should ‘explore their feelings’ or some other socialist common core crap.

          • Adam’s Shadow

            “‘explore their feelings’ or some other socialist common core crap.”

            Common Core was developed almost totally by Student Achievement Partners, which is partially funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; as a matter of fact, Gates has been involved in public education reform for a long time, and he’s a big proponent of CC. So is Jeb Bush. Both of those guys must be socialists then. And there is nothing is Common Core about “exploring your feelings,” unless you count standardized tests as feelings.

            I don’t like the CC either, but if you think it’s socialist, then you have no idea what you’re talking about.

          • Joe Crowe

            Mao was also involved in public education reform, so was Hitler. Pick your poison. Involvement in education only tells us that they are involved in education. The people who completely

            Who are these SAPS at Student Achievement Partners?
            I won’t cherry-pick them all, but here’s one:

            Robert Reich – an ‘economist’ who wrote ‘Inequality for All’, in which he rails against wealth inequality and appeals to the middle class to give up their bourgoise (sic) instincts and engages them to try the socialist ideal of redistribution.

            I assume you knew that, though.

          • Adam’s Shadow

            Where do you get your information that Robert Reich is a member of SAP? I have seen absolutely no indication that he is. And Bill Gates and Jeb Bush are not “cherry-picked”: they are both driving forces behind Common Core.

            “Mao was also involved in public education reform, so was Hitler.”
            So was every political leader ever since public education came into being, replacing the patronage or “if you’re filthy rich” system. What does that have to do with CC being socialist?

            And seriously, your argument is that CC is socialist or collectivist because it has “common” in the name? Pretty much every policy you don’t like is somehow magically “socialist,” isn’t it? Because there is “standardization” in every facet of modern life, and it’s not just the big, bad govt. responsible; there are workplace standards, social standards, Internet standards, etc. For example, a work schedule is corporate standardization; public nuisance laws are standardization; FDA and USDA regulations are standardization; speed limits are standardization. Fuck’em, they’re socialist.

            Medicare, Social Security, street repairs and infrastructure, public education, fire and rescue, worker’s comp, the VA, etc.: all of that stuff should just disappear then too, right? Because they’re just a few of the socialist policies in America. And don’t forget church potlucks: that is socialism in action.

          • Jin The Ninja

            just wanted to ride another point off your excellent potluck comment. re: the trading of fish hooks for papaya- well a potluck comes from a coast salish word anglicised into: ‘potlatch’- which is a big dinner every season where the richest people actually give all their possessions to those who need them. imagine that a tribal community not using barter as crowe insists, but actually using a gift economy. definitely socialism.

          • Joe Crowe

            Wrong. They are gifts, not stolen by the most powerful in the tribe. Such values are a beautiful way of doing things that socialism would make impossible and capitalism in no way interferes with.

          • Jin The Ninja

            um redistribution of wealth is definitively a socialist value.

            and capitalism requires a rich person to hoarde wealth. it is a cultural mechanism within west coast indigenous people who used potlach- to fairly and equitably distribute all goods.

            do you get it? the rich people had nothing by the end- and they were more highly esteemed for it. the system rewarded generosity not greed.

          • z@ch

            why can’t I upvote this a thousand times?

          • Jin The Ninja

            lol, i appreciate the vote regardless;)

          • Joe Crowe

            You are correct. My mistake. Robert Reich is not on that team.

            I wasn’t saying you were cherry-picking. I was saying that it wasn’t my intention to cherry pick.

            My point in bringing up Mao/Hitler’s association with education was to oppose your vague argument that implied that it wasn’t possible to be socialist so long as you were involved with education reform for a long time. Your argument wasn’t very strong there. I was not implying that being involved in education reform makes you a socialist.

            You’re posting so many straw men. I might miss a few.

            No, seriously, I am not arguing that CC is socialist because it has common in the name. That would actually be a socialist argument. Have you never read Marx? Mao? Chomsky?

            This argument has come full circle, then.

            No, I dislike plenty of arguments that aren’t socialist, but all arguments for socialism… I rightly despise.

            Yes. Most of what you cling to, from medicare to the VA should disappear. I mean, the VA was doing such a bang-up job taking care of our Veterans, but that’s not the only way it can be done. And the sooner the better.

            You are wrong about church potlucks. That is free association, which socialism utterly despises. Churches should only be allowed at all if they preach a gospel of ‘positive’ Christianity and serve as mouthpieces to the state. You know… for the common good. The individual will must submit to the collective.

            A church potluck isn’t socialism any more than charity is.

          • Adam’s Shadow

            “My point in bringing up Mao/Hitler’s association with education was to oppose your vague argument that implied that it wasn’t possible to be socialist so long as you were involved with education reform for a long time.”

            Not it wasn’t; my argument is simply that the Common Core isn’t socialist, mostly because you don’t actually know what socialism is.

            “I am not arguing that CC is socialist because it has common in the name. That would actually be a socialist argument. Have you never read Marx? Mao? Chomsky?”

            Why yes; yes, I have. How is this a socialist argument, by the way? Because only socialists engage in doublespeak? And if you weren’t trying to say CC is socialist because it has common in the name, then why did you say this: “That they are pushing for standardization is circumstantially evidence that they are collectivist-minded, though. It’s not called Individual Core, after all.”

            “A church potluck isn’t socialism any more than charity is.”

            Exactly. The fact that you have your ideological blinders on and can’t see the socialist elements in either is deeply, deeply ironic to me, if unsurprising.

            I get it; you don’t like socialism. Neither does most of Eastern Europe. Western and Northern Europe seem to like it just fine, though. And most people have no problem using the socialist programs here in the States, they just don’t call them that. So, you’re not collecting Social Security or Medicare, right? Or unemployment benefits or worker’s comp? Or used public roads, or been to a state or national park? And never will? I’m just guessing, because you’re anti-socialist.

          • PrimateZero

            Good luck Adam…I find it impossible to argue with some god-loving capitalist fundie who’s speaking out both sides of his ass. It’s rather exhausting.

          • Adam’s Shadow

            Thanks; honestly, this Joe Crow is a lot better than some of the other fundies I’ve argued with, mostly because he hasn’t told me I hate America and I’m going to hell yet.

            The weird, knee-jerk anti-socialism of the American right baffles a lot of people from other countries. For example, I’m half-Frisian and I have many relatives who live in the Netherlands, including an uncle who has dual Dutch and American citizenship; every time he visits the U.S. and he starts listening to talk radio, the news, and just random right-wingers frothing at the mouth about the evils of Obama’s socialist agenda, he’s like “what the fuck is wrong with these people? Obama’s not even close to a socialist, and the limited socialism in my country works fine.”

          • PrimateZero

            So what you’re saying is that if only these girls prayed in school and read the bible….they wouldn’t have done what they did? Or should Daddy have been a more god fearing person who believes in an after life because no one ever behaves decently unless they’re worried about getting punished when they die.
            So more schooling based on biblical principals and less socialism. You might be on to something because we all know religion never killed anyone.

          • Joe Crowe

            No. They could have done all those things and still screwed up. Human nature is pretty contradictory.

            No. Daddy could be quite a moral person and his kids still screwed up. Daddy being screwed up and passing on that screwed-upness onto his children is not helping matters, though. I don’t know much about their father. I was just speaking in generalities.

            No. Cultures are still influenced by religion. Atheists within that culture are indirectly influenced by religious thought within that context. Also, religion aims to seek truth and truth exists outside of the context of religion. Truly God-fearing people have reached a higher level of enlightenment and do the right thing because it is the right thing, not because of mere reward and punishment. In fact, truly God-fearing people will do a very irrational thing: they have been known to martyr themselves in order that the right thing be done. They may be boddhisatvas in eastern philosophy who remain in a state of suffering in order to help others, even though they have ‘earned’ nirvana.

            Yes. More schooling based on biblical principals and less on socialism. I do not, however, want to imply that I want a state religion. There are certain values that align with biblical principles that socialists do not adhere to. That whole ‘thou shalt not steal’ thing is a good idea. Thou shalt not murder, might not have been a bad lesson for these girls to have learned, either. Can’t have the 10 commandments, though.

            And no socialists have ever killed anyone either? I contend that those who kill in the name of religion are often as not just useful idiots to some earthly authority. That doesn’t make religion a bad thing. It makes a good argument against the centralization of power and collectivity of thought… thus it is an excellent argument against socialism.

            Morals must come from somewhere, logic, reason, religion, philosophy, trial-and-error, or some combination of these. I contend that logic proceeds from this thing called consciousness, which is a fairly illogical thing that requires some explanation. Why do atheists believe that a mixture of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen and a few others suddenly begins to crave chocolate?

          • PrimateZero

            “Truly god fearing people have reached a higher level of enlightenment”….bullshit!
            “It makes a good argument against the centralization of power and collectivity of thought…thus it is an excellent argument against socialism.”….and against organized religion as well.
            Please stop confusing socialism with Stalinist communism.

          • Andrew

            Stalinist state capitalism.

          • Yarglad

            “some real education on common sense and empathy would have helped these kids….that and some hugs from daddy.”
            And some real education on the occult. That would work wonders on anyone.

  • Liam_McGonagle

    My first reaction was to try and call ‘bullsh*t’ on this. What kind of goofus kid:

    #A. Could really think this character is real?

    and

    Letter 2. Would want to win such a character’s approval?

    But when I saw that it happened in Waukesha, I thought to myself, “yeah, this just about makes sense now.”

    • Jin The Ninja

      well whatever minor meme he was before, he’s ‘real’ in a sense now…

      • Adam’s Shadow

        YES.

        Despite the tragedy, that this fictional character quite literally took on a life/existence of its own in such a dramatic fashion should be an important lesson for all occultists and reality programmers.

        • Ted Heistman

          If you buy their bullshit story, that is.

          • Adam’s Shadow

            I do; they’re kids after all. Young kids believe in and do stupid shit like this all the time. I’ve spent half a class explaining to an otherwise intelligent thirteen-year old that “Mermaids: the Evidence Found” was not a real documentary. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

          • Jin The Ninja

            it’s not as if western culture EVER uses false mythological constructions…er…..to promote consumerism and sociological unity….

            santa claus
            the tooth fairy
            the easter bunny
            shrek

            and whatever mythological basis these things MAY have had (dubiously) they have been so redacted, so edited, so over-wrought and used in perverse ways they actually resemble nothing of the original characters.

          • Adam’s Shadow

            Jesus.

            There, I said it.

          • Mr Grim

            I still like to think of the easter bunny as a potentially pagan thing, in a “connection to Eostre” and “eggs and hares as symbols of fertility” kinda way.

            It’s a small jump (ha! pun unintended, but what the heck) from hare to rabbit, after all, and makes a damn sight more sense than any dubious Xtianity / rebirth connection.

            That’s how I plan to explain it to my kids, anyway, should they ever ask, in a chocolate-induced burst of curiosity.

          • Jin The Ninja

            as i wrote ‘easter bunny’ i immediately said to myself ‘pagan fertility symbol’ – so yes totally agree with you. and it’s a great way to explain to kids. but i think it’s woefully misrepresented in pop culture in order to sell chocolate. though i probably could have thought of a better example…

          • InfvoCuernos

            Maybe that’s the link to chocolate on Valentine’s Day.

          • InfvoCuernos

            Don’t forget to add: the helpful policeman and the honest politician to the list of imaginary people.

          • Jin The Ninja

            also all great examples.

    • https://twitter.com/anti_euclidean ÿ

      Not too far away from Lake Geneva, Portal To Hell®, if I remember correctly.

  • Andrew

    I blame Freud.

  • Oginikwe

    What fresh hell is this?
    Who in the hell is the skinny guy?

    • Anarchy Pony

      Slender man is an internet meme created on Something Awful forums in a photoshop contest, that morphed into a sort of creepy modern myth that idiot pre teens think is real.

      • Oginikwe

        I followed you pretty good there, AP, up until “ponified easter egg on an ep of mlp:fim where it can be glimpsed lurking behind a bush.”

        Is this some kind of secret code? Where can I get the decoder ring?

        • Anarchy Pony

          There was an easter egg on an episode of my little pony wherein a version of slender man can be seen lurking behind a bush.

          • Oginikwe

            My little pony!? Isn’t that for six year olds?

          • Bluebird_of_Fastidiousness

            You’re thinking of a time before the internet.

          • Oginikwe

            There was no “My little pony” before the internet.

          • Joe Crowe

            My Little Pony was conceived prior to the internet becoming available to the general public, though (1986). There are now some grown men who are big fans of the show. They call themselves “Bronies”. I don’t grasp the appeal, but more power to them. While they are busy watching infantile cartoons, they’re not busy trying to strip me of my civil liberties.

          • Jin The Ninja

            bronies are fans of ‘my little pony: friendship is magic.’ not the original. and i highly doubt ‘bronies’ are trying to strip you of anything, much less your rights.

          • Joe Crowe

            I was only saying that the my pony franchise began long ago.
            That’s what I was saying. Bronies are living their lives, harming no one and pursuing happiness. They are NOT spending their time in destructive ways. So I fully support their pursuit of happiness. I may not agree that My Little Pony is magically awesome, but I will defend to the death a broney’s right to enjoy their favorite show.

          • Matt Staggs

            I’ve met a few IRL, and know that there’s one that posts here. I did plenty of stupid stuff when I was young. I went through a very long and severe goth phase. I least these guys are trying to be positive instead of cursing the world and sleeping until dusk. At the same time, they’ll catch as much crap as any other group of people, subculture or otherwise.

          • Andrew

            Bronies killed my grandfather in WWII.

          • Jin The Ninja

            sorry to hear about your loss.
            brown shirted bronies were a problem in the 1930s.
            we took care of them with a swift hoof to the balls.

          • Joe Crowe

            Maybe I need to learn more about these Bronies. These Neo-Bronies might be a resurgence.

          • Andrew

            BRONIESHIRTS!

          • Matt Staggs

            Yeah, he’s in Minecraft, too, as “Endermen.” I don’t have much time to play games lately, but I loved those guys in Minecraft. The fact that they just wandered around on their own stealing blocks and making weird little noises endeared them to me. Staring at them made them upset, and even more vocal. Fun game for all ages. Sad I never got around to making the pseudo-Aztec ziggurat with laval flowing down the steps that I had planned.

        • Joe Crowe

          Cracker Jacks™ maybe ?

          Easter eggs are little secret things you can find on computer games and movies. I don’t have a clue what ep of mlp:fim is.

      • Number1Framer

        This was before the video game was made I assume?

        • Anarchy Pony

          After I think. Like I said, it’s pervasive.

  • David Jeslis

    I read that one of the two girls said “it was weird that she felt no remorse”. I have not heard anyone mention anything about it, but were these girls on any kind of medication? It seems to me that the steadily increasing rate of seemingly random acts of violence by “remorseless” youths coincides with the increasing rate of antidepressant/ antianxiety prescriptions. I concede, 12 seems very young for such meds, but it seems very young for murder, as well.

    • Oginikwe

      You think twelve is young for those meds? Twelve is “old” for those meds. They start kids on that crap at five and six now. It’s really just unconscionable because we have no idea what those drugs do to developing brains. Unfortunately, we do know what Paxil does to a fetus, though . . .

  • Number1Framer

    I’m curious what socio-economic class the 2 girls fall into. Waukesha, WI is an upper class conservative stronghold (it’s no Mequon or Elm Grove, but still…), so I’m preemptively calling it ‘latchkey syndrome’ as mom and dad may have been electioneering for Walker’s bid this fall or drunk at the country club all day (both?). Maybe they’ll get off on an affluenza defense?

  • Gordon Klock

    Almost makes me wonder if an actual demon WAS involved, using the meme as a cover, considering the stupid pointlessness of it.

  • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

    I find it curious that the victim is characterized as a ‘friend’…with the connoted sense of being more than an acquaintance. It presumes a lot to call the victim of the murder a friend in any sense…because they clearly weren’t valued enough as a human being to preserve their life. The choice of words says something unpleasant about not only the psychological make up of the killers, but about the mentality of the observers/reporters of the crime. We apply our own notions about friendship, morality, closeness, humanity etc to situations that may need a more dispassionate examination if any ‘truth’ is to be found.

    • InfvoCuernos

      Absolutely agree with your take on the use of the term “friend” here. Another way to look at this, which I doubt the perpetrators intended, is the role of a sacrifice in ritual. The more important a sacrifice is to the practitioner, the more powerful the ritual. That is one of the lessons behind Abraham being asked to sacrifice his son to God(also a lesson about how fucked up that particular deity is).

  • Vei Lemara

    I cannot be the only one to look at this case and think that those girls need real mental help. They are twelve years old and should know by now that things like Slenderman don’t exist. Doesn’t it bother anyone else that they not only worship a fictional creature but went so far as to murder their own friend?

    • Joe Crowe

      The ‘friend’ lived, I am told. But I think most of us wouldn’t be here if we didn’t think that at least some of that news was disturbing.

      • Vei Lemara

        Ja, ja. She did live. I’ve talked personally with quite a few people about this and for the most part all I hear is that those two girls are “stupid”. I just threw down without really paying attention.

        • Matt Staggs

          You guys ever seen Peter Jackson’s film “Heavenly Creatures”? It’s about two girls who fall into a strange, passionate friendship/love affair that develops into a kind of folie a deux with fatal consequences. It is based on a true story. I’m not making excuses for what these two girls did, but I see some parallels. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-vUl-1FJ9E

  • Andrew

    > We must render even unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar.

    You know that was a reference to taxation, right?

    • Jin The Ninja

      no he doesn’t. i think that is the problem at its face.

  • Jin The Ninja

    okay you’re seriously embarrassing yourself here. you need to actually READ the bible, and not repeat prosperity gospel talking points verbatim,

    Matthew 20 is NOT about capitalism. how can something written in 2 AD be about 20th century market economics-A,
    but B- it is a PARABLE. did you even READ it?! no. obviously not, because if you DID you’d know it was ABOUT how god treats men on the entry to heaven. as equals. a righteous man may be righteous his entire life, but when he goes to heaven, he is treated the SAME as the man who repented his evil ways even if for 1 DAY. it says so in the first line. a parable- is a story which is a moral lesson- it isn’t at all about the man hiring dudes to pick his grapes, it’s discussing how god treats all men who are righteous and repentant no matter how long they do so. all sins will be forgiven if one asks and all that.

    and i HATE to break it to you, but we are NOT equal in the law or under capitalism. race, gender, class and sexuality are divisions used to oppress. so even if matt 20 was about paying your worker like a cheap asshole, in this world we’re not equal- and even in that you pay the workers who worked all day the SAME as those who worked an hour. i could say that means we should pay CEOS the same as a part time cleaner. how does that sound?

    solomon- was also a great sorcerer, a polytheist who venerate asherah alongside el, hadad and yahweh. and a leader of a people. yes, he was ‘rich’ but he also ruled an entire land. perhaps a poor example for your meaning. a great esoteric character, occult saint, and archetypal magi, but nothing to do with capitalism.

    jesus was a ‘carpenter’- mentioned never by jesus himself- referred to by others only twice in the entire new testament (or 3 times i can’t remember)- sometimes this is understood as a way to fill in the time gap between his birth and his preaching (a narrative technique)- it is also read as a metaphor- meaning a carpenter- one who physically builds- was building a congregation of god. finally, if we are to interpret it literally- it actually is CONTRARY to your point!
    he GAVE up his job! meaning money was MEANINGLESS. he drew his followers mainly from the poor and the infirm! are you even reading the same NEW TESTAMENT!?

    i completely disagree with all your latter points, and there is absolutely zero textual evidence that suggests you are correct. in fact a much stronger case can still be made for the inverse. i could limit myself to the new testament only, and come away 100s of good citations. include psalms and that number doubles ( lift up the poor, rich with corn, righteous is the poor, do not as the rich man et al).

  • Joe Crowe

    To all: Thanks for the conversation.

    • Matt Staggs

      Come on back any time! We’re trying like hell to make this a place for good conversation. Passionate, at times, but civil.

21
More in Legend Tripping, Memes, Murder, Slender Man, The Enderpening
Children’s Ministry Rents Billboard Advertising With Adolf Hitler
Children’s Ministry Rents Billboard Advertising With Adolf Hitler

Life Savers Ministry (Trigger warning: Music auto-play embedded in site.) looks like a diverse, racially-inclusive organization ministering to children from all walks of life, but particularly those living in the projects. By...

Close