Thank you!

And if there are some things in your life that don't suck as badly as they could, you probably owe that to the USSR. Like if you're not (yet) forced to work 75 hours a week:

Soon: school shooters use drones for shootings

I mean, exactly half of those are actually true.

Now what? Depends

CW: Death, Hypocrisy

Don't call everyone you disagree with Hitler, simply because they are named Adolf Hitler and were the leader of the German "Third Reich", committed genocide and started a world war. So quick with the name calling, really /s (calling things by their true name, that is)

Advanced enough dialectics is indistinguishable from a curse and a blessing.

I'd join. Ads do nothing but damage to society. How much? Well they manipulate people to make suboptimal choices and waste at least as much as the advertisers budget (on average), or they would stop doing it. So it's at least 775 billion dollars per year. Rising annually. Enough to end world hunger and homelessness.

I can play devil's advocate too:

1 The Bible is not first and foremost a "historical documentary" in the modern sense. The very idea of a historical account striving for objective unbiased reality is fairly recent historically, and the Bible is meant to be a religious text that's trying to teach you something.

Yes people absolutely did write and read it as an historical account. You need to distinguish between multiple authors who did not sit in a writing room together and editors who collected the works. The reason why multiple reports were collected was to get at the truth. Long lists of names and events were included to establish historical credibility.

#2 The Biblical authors are aware there are contradictions.

Just no. Some of the authors wouldn't even have been aware of all the other authors.

#3 The Bible contradicts itself intentionally. It's an ancient Jewish way of teaching to have two rabbis take different stances, and argue publicly. Often, the truth of something is in the tension between two perspectives.

Yes, but using contradictions intentionally as a teaching device applies to the talmud(interpretation of the law), not to the tanach(biblical law). Contradictions in the tanach were seen as something that needs to be explained. And yes, some of them were explained, after the fact, as purposeful by theologians. But if we went to take a historically sound approach, we have to acknowledge, that they are a collection from many verbal sources separated by time and place. So it's far more likely that these unconnected sources contradict each other precisely because no written account has existed until then.

If contradictions in teaching had been a core part of Jewish theology beforehand, they would continue in writing. There would be many Toras. But the opposite happens: With the advent of the written word, correct word-for-word transmission of the written law immediately becomes absolutely central to the religion. So the conclusion is inevitable, that contradictions came first and ideology to explain them had to follow after the fact.

Verbal traditions can be contradictory, because contradictions are harder to notice. Once the verbal tradition is frozen as words on paper, the contradictions become obvious and ideology forms around them like a pearl froms around a speck of sand in an oyster, to protect the body of the teaching from the damage.

No, I think that's just you.