Definitely, their userbase is infested by ultras, and their mods are not a comrades, mildly speaking. Also note how they are quite big sub but weren't touched by reddit cointelpro arm while tiny GenZhou was banned.
On the other hand, right now they are concentrated there and banning that place would be like sticking petard in it, it would explode all over the internet.
I'm tired so i will ignore all your strawmanning and other tricks and try to explain. Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny and Suetonius, they are the the closest you can get and the most objective as nonchristian sources (two of them openly hate christianity though rather perfunctory and ex officio than personally, and one admit nearly complete ignorance)
Suetonius: mentions that christians rioted, incited by "Chrestos" - in context of Nero persecution of christians. Pretty obviously not confirm Jesus historicity. Also interestingly enough, such rumour mill and greatly informed man like Suetonius did not know basically nothing about christianity even writing in II century.
Tacitus: in the same context, mentions christians being persecuted, and that Christ was the source of the name, who was harshly punished by Pilatus during Tiberius reign (crucifiction is not explicitly mentioned). Now that is the most straight up by the historian that is usually quite trustworthy. This is the mention that is supposed of being doctored. Or maybe not, since in the same paragraph he also call christianity "mischevious superstition" and straight up "evil", maybe we should believe him wholesalely. More straight up but a secondary source nonetheless - usually insufficient in face of lack of primary ones. Again not saying Jesus did not exist (which i didn't btw) but is still on the status of legendary character, shrouded in myth (which i said).
Pliny: letter to Trajan. He basically says christians worship Christ as a god then describe their ritual. Nothing about historicity.
Josephus: Ah yes, the testimonium flavianum. Devoted Jew (he was a farisee coming from aristocratic priesthood family if i remember correctly) writing something like that out of the blue and then not even mentioning any of this neither previously nor later. Sure.
Second time he mention the brother of Christ, Jacob (also known as James) which i mention in the first post, but still a third hand source for historicity of Jesus (though the entire meaning of the brother of Jesus is issue too by itself).
Again, all those are pointing out to the existence of Christ, founder/prophet/preacher/god/sect leader of christianity, but none of those allow to move him forward from the nebulous Christ legendary character cathgory to the flesh and blood Jesus. Which is something i say from the beginning, not that he definitely didn't exist.
Sources? Joseph, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny. Though the issue suddenly become very easy if you refuse those, but not as you would like to.
And don't sealion me when it was YOU who claimed absolute massive assumption about legendary character being absolutely historical. How about posting some actual sources other than those second hand ones that would confirm it?
Look at my answer to Salad and the saintly patience of Albigu trying to discuss with the strawman guy.
I am an atheist, so whatever else anyone wants to claim about Jesus doesn’t hurt my feelings at all.
Sure, but whatever you read about might (and i'm pretty certain that it does, considering the nature of debacle) come from the religious people being very invested in it.
Whether he was the messiah, a prophet, or the Son of God is an entirely different conversation, but he most certainly did exist as a historical figure.
Iirc there are two main evidences cited each time:
His brother Jacob - translation and uniqueness of the title suggest Jacob was his real brother, so that's one that mostly convince me, this is also the one disputed by catholic church
Mentions by Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus Flavius and Pliny - Josephus was ridiculously falsified by later christian scribes, and all of them don't even speak about Jesus, they speak about christians revering Jesus and all of them are secondary sources, all of them very brief, and most likely using the same unknown source, especially Tacitus and Suetonius seems very similar. While this is a point (though Taticus also show signs of being doctored, Suetonius in this case is more believable), it don't confirm the historicity of Jesus any more than Anonymous Gall confirm the historicity of Piast the Wheelwright or Saxo Grammaticus confirming historicity of Ragnar Lodbrok. Again, the argument premise is that all thee existed because Ivar the Boneless certainly had a father, Mieszko the First had great-great grandfather and christians had to have some preacher(s) at the start.
That is, legendary figures, or maybe semi-legendary, which people here seems to wrongly undertand as "nonhistorical". Those cathgories mean the person most likely did exist, but they got so shrouded in legends that it is impossible to certainly say the details. And it isn't even consensus, a lot of this is still disputed, hell some people even still dispute the absurd Josephus forgery as truth.
Claiming Buddha , Muhammad , Jesus didn’t exist at all because of religious persecution is ahistorical and nihilism
Nice strawman. I didn't even said Jesus didn't exist, not to mention Muhammad who was confirmed historical figure though Buddha is in pretty much same place as Jesus (i didn't studied Buddha historicity though so i refrain from anything further), i even agreed he most likely did, but he was very different figure, or maybe amalgam of figures, than in bible. I mean duh, when we take out the magic there not much left except the run of the mill apocalypse preacher who just got lucky and get made a central figure in religion that went and become wildly popular.
First of all, there is no real proof Jesus was historical, the best one is contested, especially by catholic church since it violates the later dogma about Mary being perpetual virgin.
Jesus remains legendary character like for example Ragnar Lodbrok or polish founder Piast the Wheelwright - there is very high probablity of such character existing, as evidenced by christians reffering to Jesus or by existence of historical people called sons of Lodbrok in the second case and the Piast dynasty in the third, but details are unclear and uncertain - legends.
In case of Jesus specifically, the sheer number of preachers in contemporary Judea was so high (it was period of social and religious turmoil after all) that the probability he really existed is basically 1, but for all we know the biblical Jesus might be single character or amalgam of many of them, sprinkled with magic later. I would call him "stochastic Jesus" - the "prohpet" card is played so many times that you can choose whatever you like especially that all those cards are nearly blank historically.
In other word, you believe in Barabbas theory, which not only fill a lot of nonsense in that scene but also make Jesus pretty based instead of just a run of the mill end times preacher?
Even from the theoretical point of view, this stance in OP isn't even really trotskyist, trots with all their faults are usually decently read in Marx and Engels and often Lenin, and this take blatantly goes contrary to all three of them who were pretty clear on the class roles in national liberation.
Bourgeoisie? They even supported nobility and monarchs in this.
It's barsoap, one of the most notorious lockheed left out there, and while i usually refrain from calling random people "feds" because internet is full of unpaid liberal idiots, this one does glow up pretty bright.
Definitely, their userbase is infested by ultras, and their mods are not a comrades, mildly speaking. Also note how they are quite big sub but weren't touched by reddit cointelpro arm while tiny GenZhou was banned.
On the other hand, right now they are concentrated there and banning that place would be like sticking petard in it, it would explode all over the internet.