Hyper Politicalschism:

The dynamic in society when people unreasonably divide into segregated groups based on political orientation.

Usually more pronounced in times of great change and/or societal pressure.

The art of fence walking in a field of side steppers, hint, it is all in the zen.

These doublespeak portions in my media diet are outta hand, a worthy response will be required, did I even subscribe for this, internalize...

Triple speak being the reactive go to is out, obviously, how about gammaspeak or gamma response?

I like it, nerdy with that sci-fi tangent. But is it too vague, too much tangent, three wrongs don't... Maybe save it for nerd gatherings.

Halftalk could work, as metaphor to simplify and sort out the doublespeak. Done.

How would anyone even know this cryptic slang, fool?

They will know if the words are, said right.

Right. I think?

Dump internalized junk.

Halftalk:
1. The sorting and thinning comparison of doublespeak to reality.
2. Cutting to the chase.
3. Weeding out the BS.

Example uses:

We'll be havin none of that halvtalkery around here son.

We may have to use halvtalking to weed though this doublespeak.

That gamma response put those halvtalkers to shame (nerds).

Did y'all hear that halftalk on the porch last night.

There should be a law for that, it should be mandated

Crucial speech of authoritarians, draconian banter

No amount of yoga or bright clothing makes this endearing

Shadow play, Maddow preys for us all, mock gurus war call

Forgone solutions, marching illusions, contest missing

Starting line past, starting bell aghast, precocious sprinting

Destination unknown, explanation forgone, unconscious motion

Involuntary, solitary, veiled threaded inertia, guiding light

Praying for us or preying on us, don't ask don't tell

Scorned solutions piled in collusion, petitioning backtrack

Fork in the road, sweat of the toad, missing key chain, ask the rain

Pushing even-toed ungulates though sewing needles never goes well

Is science just another belief system? It appears so.

Creation stories have that hard to believe or fact-less quality that leave you depending on priests or arbitrators to get there.

Though the pages of these texts have plenty of good concepts that pan out in real life as well as documented history.

Any good arbiter of religious texts can explain the parts you don't comprehend in a way you may believe. Even though the words on their face are often cryptic or clearly false.

The more I learn about science the closer it comes to the same result. At a glance things add up well. But a deeper look reveals inherent flaws.

Reading through the pages of these texts there are plenty of good concepts, many work and some require teachers or arbitrators to get there.

Good teachers of science and the theories within can explain the parts you don't comprehend in a way you may believe. Even though the words on their face are often cryptic or clearly false.

In my opinion the big bang is hardly more credible than the creation stories. Same with many other accepted theories. In fact accepted theory is just the most accepted theory in much the same way as an accepted bible is the most accepted bible.

Both have fact, fiction and fable written into the compilation. Both have many useful teachings. Both require arbitrators or blind faith.

Especially in the case where the believer does not spend the time to go in depth and depends on scholars to decipher the texts.

This is a short story, not to meant to go in depth, I am sure some advocates of science as the one true way will disagree. I am coming from a tendency towards science and am not religious, though I indulge in some spiritual belief.

In my experience those who discredit neither are more wise and inclusive, better company and more discerning.

The reason I write this is because I see much derision of religious people lately and I see it as shallow and spiteful, even though I consider myself among the advocates of science.

Being a student of history I often find myself delving into religious texts and art, I find it beautiful, frightening and entirely amusing.

Having many religious friends and family in my life I find them entirely valid and largely to be good people undeserving of derision and in general accepting of science. The derision only serves to divide and segregate good people.

In the past I used to say that so much war has been done in the name of religion that it is bad. Though in recent context the same can be said for huge armies without religious ambitions. This is another reason I compare the two ideologies.

Tolerance and acceptance is the only sane path for me and is what I recommend. People who pick one or the other and mock their opposition are just divisive separatists in my opinion.

Fun fact: Big bang theory was formalized by a Belgian Catholic priest by the name of Georges Lemaître. Back in the days before the two were generally considered mutually exclusive.


“Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.

When we recognize our place in an immensity of light‐years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual.

So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.” ― Carl Sagan