And this shows that those opposed to Israel’s actions in Gaza are not antisemitic (ignoring the eventual neonazi assholes), they are opposed to a government that is committing genocide. Especially a government that governs a people THAT SHOULD KNOE BETTER.
I have no problems at all with Jews and I’m sure that, given people who really want peace, a good treaty can be made where both the Palestinians and the Israelites can peacefully coexist, that would be awesome.
However, right now saying even something like that is somehow antisemitic. If anything, I find that sort of behavior antisemitic, because it is so transparent that it pushes more people to the far right and into the hands of neo Nazis.
Stop the genocide, stop the war, withdraw ALL Israeli forces immediately and unconditionally. Then put in a peace keeping force comprised of multiple countries in that same area, and make sure they all work towards peace.
Israel jews are a different breed than the holocaust survivors. Germany paid reparations to Israel and barely, if any, actually made it to the actual survivors. They’re generally not a good people. But I have seen protests and legit compassion from them to know that it’s always the loudest voices that are most often heard.
People like me get no love from anyone because I want the Jewish people to have Israel as their country, and I want to help protect the rights of Israelis. I also want the same for Palestinians.
People who perpetuate genocide against anyone shouldn’t be tolerated by civilized societies. The fact that mass killings exist in any form in human history is not a role model for the future.
How is what I am describing one-state? The reasonable path forward, which limits bloodshed and violence, is supporting both Israel’s and Palestine’s right to exist.
Yeah. Before that there were a Greek guy named Alexander, before that there assyrians. Let’s give it back to them. Oh wait, there were since guys from deeper Africa before them… The concept of countries or nations is utterly stupid.
Sorry, reality doesn’t agree with your assertion. Also, your mask is slipping.
Hamas announced its acceptance Monday of an Egyptian-Qatari cease-fire proposal, but Israel said the deal did not meet its “core demands” and that it was pushing ahead with an assault on the southern Gaza city of Rafah. source
There’s just one small flaw in your plan. Hamas has widespread support in Palestine and is not interested in peace, only in the destruction of Israel.
If you end the war you just go back to the previous situation where Hamas will continue to persistently launch rockets at Israel and execute more terror attacks, not peace.
No, I’m not commenting on Israels methods which clearly could be better, to put it mildly. That doesn’t mean it’s logical to dream there can ever be peace with jihadists
Maybe it has such support because of Israel actions. I bet after the Netanjahu war crimes it will have 99%. Hell survivors probably will KoS anyone who even remotely resembles someone from Israel and will pass this tradition on generations to come.
I can understand why you’d think that coming from a position of logic, but no, it’s Islam.
You’re right, it’ll probably go from >50% to 99%. And probably few of them will ever acknowledge that their religion and support of Hamas is what led to this tragedy.
So what you want to just murder them all? Clean up the place? There are certain historical figures from ww2 Germany and Russia that figured out all the methods, bells and whistles.
Where do you live? Was it always the country it is now? How would your government react to constant bombardment from a fanatical religious neighbour that wanted to wipe your country off the map to get into paradise?
Probably not digging mass graves everywhere. It would be lots of foundational work. Cultural assimilation. Economic warfare. Coca Cola. Replacing the leaders.
Violence is easiest and quickest but is also stupid and has opposite effect, unless of course we go all the way to a complete wipe out. Stalin way.
At this point there is no half measures. You have to go all the way, total wipeout. Those people will not forgive Israel in hundred years. It makes no sense to start genocide but not finish it. That would be pure madness and random convulsions of some blind, shortsighted idiot.
Hell, I would grab a grenade launcher myself at this point if I was in their shoes. This stuff is the worst possible way to handle it.
They could throw a nuke there and it wouldn’t be far off from the mess it is now.
Result is everyone hates them, people are all radicalised against them. Bombings inside Israel will probably continue nevertheless. Nothing is solved but there is a gargantuan pile of problems added.
I suspect the goal was populism all along. And this guy is a psychopath.
Clearly because he wants to eliminate the jihadist terrorist organisation. I’m not claiming that’s the right decision but I understand it. But it seems a lot of Israelis don’t support him.
But just because Netanyahu is no longer interested in peace doesn’t automatically make Hamas a peaceful group. The group that performs suicide bombings, uses human shields, beheads civilians, would stone you to death for drawing a picture of the prophet. They are not looking for peace no matter how much you downvote
First of all if Israel, having such a strong military and industrial base, were not a piece of rotten evil, it could make a huge difference in the Middle-East.
But instead of actually working toward that end Israelis decided to put a kinda similar image and exploit it. Simultaneously having a narrative of “we tried, but they just don’t want to live happily” in their propaganda and even believing that themselves.
First of all if Israel, having such a strong military and industrial base, were not a piece of rotten evil, it could make a huge difference in the Middle-East.
Then they wouldn’t be the US and EU’s middle East military base. Why do you think they have the money and weapons? To fight proxy wars and keep opec in check.
Religion is the biggest scourge against humans. Controlling behavior, brainwashing the young and stolen untold trillions of $$. Fuck religion. They all need to be labeled as cults and treated as harshly.
At the risk of interrupting the circlejerk here, most churches have tiny budgets that aren’t worth taxing, and run by clergy with very little pay. The other side of that is the established ones sit on land in the center of towns that has been in their hands for decades or centuries: they may not be able to afford the property taxes.
On the other hand, if you were thinking of modern televangelist millionaires, by all means tax their income. I don’t know where to draw the line and it’s probably good to be conservative about it, but some of these people really seem to have crossed it already
I think a better option would be stripping the tax exempt status from the ones that politik from the pulpit. Actually enforce the law we have now instead of being afraid of looking like we’re persecuting them. Hell, they all have that complex already anyway.
I dont think the churches that just sit and read a book are really deserving of a “flood”. I also wouldn’t call taxes a flood though, so I’m not opposed to that.
It’s very inline with the church’s teaching to pay taxes.
Mark 12:17 Then Jesus said to them, “Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and give to God the things that are God’s.” The men were amazed at what Jesus said.
There is no religious conflict at all with taxing churches.
This is in a thread about a sect of Christianity. I am not aware of another religion that uses the word church. The dictionary definition is christian house of worship. Jewish Synagogue. Islamic Mosque. Hindu Temple. Norse Hof. Greek and Roman temples.
Talking about taxing churches is about a tax on Christian houses of worship. There is no Christian religious rule against it, which means that it would be a stretch for anyone to claim that the government is violating the first amendment.
If you allow taxing churches you open the door for Republicans to just tax every church they disagree with, and I’m pretty sure you can figure out how that will go.
You are aware that the entire reason taxing churches was a big deal in the 18th century is that we’ve already seen what happens when taxing churches is made political, right?
Do you know this is a topic with historical precedence, in a situation in which it is laughably easy to predict what a certain party would do with this power?
I’d argue being a policy realist is an absolute necessity, rather than a “barrier for ideas.”
I am a volunteer climate lobbyist in a deeply red constituency, so I very much live a life bound by practicality.
My rep I lobby most often has solar panels and drives an EV and votes against climate change proposals unless we can sell them as “job creation” so he can sell them to his constituents.
The messy details absolutely take precedence over what we’d like.
IDK, if we’re comparing scourges against humanity I’d say “the rich” in general are worse, be they kings, CEOs, religious icons, politicians, or whatever. Their pursuit of money and the power to keep that money corrupts everything. They ruin everything from companies to countries and even religions (makes them even worse).
Really though, the most evil thing is cancer. It kills indiscriminately and tortures its victims the whole way. Even if you win, you never get the peace of knowing it’s truly gone. True evil.
Look at how much hate we’re getting. All of my posts about corporatism and GOP spouting nonsense getting blasted. This place is another spot for GOP, facism and the church to have a voice in the form of bots.
I’d have a hard time believing that Hitler was super cool with the people who worship a Jew as a god.
Hitler in his table talks: “The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science … Gradually the myths crumble. All that is left to prove that nature there is no frontier between the organic and inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light, but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.”
Good rule of thumb is to never underestimate Hitler’s ability to hate a group of people lol
Don’t have a hard time believing it. Christianity has indoctrinated most into believing Jesus was white. Just look at all these southern baptist molesters that want Trump as their new god.
I’m sorry, I’m genuinely not sure I understand your comment. Are you saying that because you believe Christian propaganda to be that powerful, you’re ready to believe that Hitler also fell for the same propaganda? I get why you’re ready to make that assumption, but I don’t think choosing to believe an assumption made out of heavy bias is appropriate in the face of evidence directly to the contrary. Hitler outright condemned the belief more than once
I didn’t say that at all. I’m saying Christianity isn’t about God. It’s about power, slavery, money, pedophilia. Same as with the elite now. Hitler was just a part of it. It’s all a big club.
Yuh if we’re gonna go that deep, the rock are responsible for the deep corruption running thru society, across all society’s ills around the world. I agree that american religion’s descent into facism-promotion is a symptom of that rather than a driving force.
And yet a lot of people are still religious so if you’re running around suggesting destroying the thing they love and feel positive about you might find they are unwilling to listen to anything you have to say. Right now I really would rather we focus on collective action over the climate than worry about whose version of faith is correct.
When this sorry undeserving species is all dead, alien archaeologists will learn how religion was the biggest, most successful device used by the powerful to sedate the poor and keep their interests driving everything (including destroying the habitability of the planet for short term luxury), from the early civilizations until the very end. Then they will find your comment on an HDD and fucking laugh at you, at all of our stupid asses.
------ian doomsday fantasy is one of the major drivers of climate change. They have always viewed the world as disposable, indeed, the sooner disposed the better.
Maybe anti-religious people need to make an effort to understand how to better communicate their views as frankly many cone across as the same as bigots do.
I dunno if it’s actually possible (for me) to be honest and communicate evenly with the faithful. I cannot see their beliefs as anything other than wishful thinking and fantasy.
Not to say the religious are stupid, i don’t believe in binary smart/stupid in most cases. I know some very intelligent religious folks who have what i consider at best a blind spot for their belief.
I frankly believe it to be impossible. Any discussion where one side has “faith” to fall back on and calls poking holes in religion as an attack on that faith is fated to fail before you start
Don’t talk about their faith then. Talk about what needs to be done and if a member of an Abrahamic faith asks why remind them it’s what God told Adam to do. Genesis makes it clear humanity is to tend the earth not exterminate all life on it.
Well that is a good point. I’m not well versed in the Bible however, and i would hesitate to quote it even if i were. how would it sound to someone faithful to have someone without, quoting their faith at them? It would further require my reading the Bible with the express purpose of busting their chops, which wouldn’t feel good to me.
how would it sound to someone faithful to have someone without, quoting their faith at them? It would further require my reading the Bible with the express purpose of busting their chops, which wouldn’t feel good to me.
There’s a whole list of 8 points over what constitute a cult.
I don’t remember the whole thing, but it was something like : Cults don’t let you leave. If you do leave, your family and friends who are still in the cult will not speak to you. Cults control you in details. They make sure you are tired at the end of the day, too tired to think for yourself. Cults make you dependent financially. Once you are that deep in, leaving means starting over economically.
There’s more, but it is different from how most people experience mainstream religions (I mean there are pockets here and there that are very cultish, but really the religion as a whole is a different beast that just works differently than an actual cult).
I’ll gain an iota of respect for Frankie and Catholics when they unilaterally decide to stop donating money to this church until they purge all of the child rapists and reform their teachings on confessions so child rapists are no longer protected.
We’ve just changed the form of monarchal feudalism, it’s still very much alive. Just disguised as CEOs and Presidents in our present oligarchy. But they might as well be kings and queens. And an enormous amount of those people still manipulate religion as a means to holding on to power. We are a long way from strangling our last king or priest.
Yes, modern religion has many rules made by the dicks once they took over. Before the dicks rules were things like don’t steal shit, don’t fuck your neighbor’s wife, don’t murder people, don’t lie about shit, etc. The dicks were so bad that some other guy had to come along and say “seriously guys, stop being dicks”. But the dicks didn’t like that so they killed him.
And yet the golden rule usually doesn’t get written down until multiple generations after the religion is formed. Took almost a century for Christianity to bother.
Many religions are more “don’t be a dick to your fellow brothers in faith, but feel free to be a dick to others”. In-group out-group dynamics were historically quite important.
You know - “don’t murder”, but at the same time Deuteronomy says
10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves.
Also
(19) “You are not to lend at interest to your brother, no matter whether the loan is of money, food or anything else that can earn interest. 21 (20) To an outsider you may lend at interest, but to your brother you are not to lend at interest, so that Adonai your God will prosper you in everything you set out to do in the land you are entering in order to take possession of it.
You know - “don’t murder”, but at the same time Deuteronomy says
If you take each verse at face value, this is a problem and what you imply is true.
But the thing you quoted from Deuteronomy were instructions to the Israelites. It’s recorded history, not instruction. You can’t just point to a verse in the Bible (like Acts 8:8 "Saul, for his part, approved of his murder") and say “see? The Bible says to do bad things!”
And going deeper shows that the Mosaic Law (the laws in the old testament, excluding the ten commandments), part of which is in your second block quote, was superceded by the Law Covenant when Jesus died. Again, it was a law directed specifically at Jews of the time.
You can kinda think of the first five Bible books (called the Torah in Judaism) as a speed run of history. So much happens in terms of time covered in those five books.
Not everyone who considers Deuteronomy to be scripture is Christian. For example, basically any rabbi would disagree with you.
The Deuteronomic code is literally presented as instruction from Moses to Israel as a normative set of rules for israel to follow. Many of the rules in it are included in the traditional lists of the Torah’s 613 commandments.
I don’t know of similar commandments in the new testament, but it’s had its fair share of religious leaders inciting sectarian wars, pogroms, persecution, etc. For example, Pope Paul IV wrote a decree that forced the Jews of Rome into a ghetto in 1555, prevented them from owning property or working most skilled jobs. The Spanish Inquisition primarily targeted Jews and Muslims who converted to Christianity under threat of exile.
Not everyone who considers Deuteronomy to be scripture is Christian. For example, basically any rabbi would disagree with you.
Sure, but this thread is mostly about Christianity (the post is about the Pope and the Catholic Church).
The Deuteronomic code is literally presented as instruction from Moses to Israel as a normative set of rules for israel to follow.
Yes. I said basically this. I wrote: But the thing you quoted from Deuteronomy were instructions to the Israelites.
I don’t know of similar commandments in the new testament
Because there aren’t any like that.
had its fair share of religious leaders inciting sectarian wars, pogroms, persecution, etc. For example, Pope Paul IV wrote a decree that forced the Jews of Rome into a ghetto in 1555, prevented them from owning property or working most skilled jobs. The Spanish Inquisition primarily targeted Jews and Muslims who converted to Christianity under threat of exile.
And? Your next door neighbour can be a “Christian”, go to church every week, etc, but then find out he’s a regular thief and had murdered someone. Would you then conclude there must be a commandment somewhere in the Bible that condones stealing and murder? Or would you conclude that he didn’t follow the principles of the Bible he proclaimed to believe in?
Examples of people doing bad things in the name of the Bible is not evidence of anything against the Bible. It’s just an example of terrible people being manipulative, exploitative, and ultimately evil. Many people throughout history (and many alive today) have realized that many people are more willing to listen to and accept what you say when you claim it’s from the Bible. These people don’t care about the Bible, they just care that it’s a tool they can use for manipulation.
Examples of people doing bad things in the name of the Bible is not evidence of anything against the Bible.
Christianity, and catholicism more specifically, are more than just the Bible itself.
Religious teachings evolve over time based off of new reinterpretations of old passages, teachings from influential leaders, folk traditions that spring up, etc. Those are all part of the religion, too.
For example, most Christians would say that the serpent in the garden of eden is Satan. Yet Genesis doesn’t say anything about that, and the New Testament doesn’t explicitly say it either. Mostly, it’s a folk tradition some people found a couple verses you could squint at to support it.
And particularly in the case of Catholicism, there’s a world of difference between a pope issuing an official bull, and your neighbor being a catholic who happens to be a shitty person. There’s a huge difference between a random person teaching to be nice to your neighbor but shitty to outsiders, and for St Jerome to do that.
Christianity, and catholicism more specifically, are more than just the Bible itself.
Catholicism yes. Christianity, no. Christianity is literally based on the Bible and a “Christian” is a follower of Christ (it’s actually what the word means).
most Christians would say that the serpent in the garden of eden is Satan. Yet Genesis doesn’t say anything about that, and the New Testament doesn’t explicitly say it either.
Well, that’s not exactly correct. It’s true that in Genesis it doesn’t say “the snake in the garden that spoke to Eve was Satan”. However, Satan is referred to as “the father of the lie” and “the original serpent”. Satan is the only one to directly challenge God’s right to rule and the lie to Eve was the first challenge. It has nothing to do with folk tradition. There are other supporting scriptions also.
And particularly in the case of Catholicism, there’s a world of difference between a pope issuing an official bull, and your neighbor being a catholic who happens to be a shitty person.
Yes, there is a difference in the sense that the Pope has a huge and wide reaching audience and the neighbour is mostly a nobody. But that doesn’t matter when we’re talking about their conduct as it relates to “doing the right thing according to God”. Each person is accountable to God for their own behaviour and actions.
On the other hand, there’s an argument to be had about whether or not Catholicism should even be considered Christian anymore. There are so many doctrines and teachings that aren’t in the Bible, or flat out taken from other “pagan” religions (religious syncretism). Sometimes even going against teachings in the Bible.
Reference:
John 8:44 “You are from your father the Devil, and you wish to do the desires of your father. That one was a murderer when he began, and he did not stand fast in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks according to his own disposition, because he is a liar and the father of the lie.”
Revelation 12:9 “So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan”
And going deeper shows that the Mosaic Law (the laws in the old testament, excluding the ten commandments), part of which is in your second block quote, was superceded by the Law Covenant when Jesus died. Again, it was a law directed specifically at Jews of the time.
While rabbis don’t agree on much, the official line of all the denominations is that messianic Jews are Christians, not Jews.
Every “rabbi” that accepts that the Torah was superceded by Jesus is a messianic Jew, basically by definition. That makes them not a rabbi, but a Christian minister in cosplay.
I don’t disagree with you entirely I was pointing out that using absolutes with Jews is fraught with contradictions. I wasn’t necessarily trying to support the person you responded to. Even within the framework that they were rules to follow there is an extremely wide variety of interpretation. And while I agree with your messianic assessment, as an atheist Jew that remember a tiny amount, I also think gatekeeping a religion is sketchy territory. Most fundamentalists don’t believe any other sect is truly part of their religion, hard to draw lines using the perspectives of people that have a clear in group mentality. To me, if you say you’re a Jew, you’re a Jew, I have no reason to challenge the claim.
The problem is “don’t be a dick” meant different things in different points in time. Now, enough time has elapsed that there are a huge amount of different iterations of “don’t be a dick” rules and people just pick and choose which rules suits them.
If you’re talking about all religions, I can’t speak to that. But if we’re talking about “Christians”, then that’s not the case. “Love your neighbour” and “Continue to love your enemies and to pray for those who persecute you” are pretty hard to interpret “differently”. There’s no excuse.
When the rules are laws, lawyers argue in front of judges and define the grey areas. They change the grey areas from time to time. We as a society have agreed to have a single interpretation of those rules.
In religion, when people don’t agree on the rules or how they should be interpreted, they can break apart and form their own religion. There is no governing body with the power to enforce the single interpretation.
Thus, people who missed the dont be a dick memo just find each other and pretend their interpretation of the thousands of years old text is more valid than the don’t be a dick crowd.
Calling religion the biggest scourge on humanity is a huge exageratrion. I’d probably say slavery is significantly worse, and human trafficking shows no signs of stopping. Capitalism is also clearly worse, and it’s the most impactful force today. A large reason religion, and specifically Christianity, has gotten worse in recent years is because of the influence of capitalism.
I’d elaborate a bit on my interpretation of what the fella said.
The religion in point - catholicism, and maybe we can generalize to all abrahamic religions, I’m not very familiar with other religions to speak of them, instill a way of thinking that doing wrong is all fine and well as long as you repent and ask for forgiveness. Sound sensible, right? Except we’re dealing with people here so they take it to mean that you can do all sorts of crap as long as you say you’re sorry. It got so bad at some point that the pope was selling indulgences. ‘Give me money and I’ll let you sin’.
They also instill a sort of moral superiority on the adherents to said religions versus the pagans.
So yeah, slavery is worse (and I’m counting human trafficking here as well - it’s the modern version), but is it not facilitated by the mindset instilled by religion? First - you see them as savages needing to be civilized - that’s the moral superiority talking - you enslave them, BUT you bring them to god as well, so there’s a load off your moral issues. Add to that the fact that even if you were wrong and did bad stuff, you didn’t ‘know’ any better, and it’s ok cause hellfire won’t get you because you repent, there’s your free ticket.
On the other hand, if you kidnap and force good christians into sexual slavery, you can be pretty sure that you most likely won’t get murdered / maimed while you’re raping because their moral teachings say to turn the other cheek instead of fighting back. And one of the 10 comandments is thou shalt not kill. Also a belief in sky-papa dishing out punishment in the afterlife makes people less inclined to seek vengeance (compounded with the previous point - thou shalt submit to being dehumanized by a fellow human without recourse).
This is an oversimplification to make a point, but sure, religion is seemingly not worse than other crap people are capable of but it sure sets the groundwork nicely. Sort of like you need to know a language before you can swear in it. A tool, but less like a hammer and more like a scythe. One good use, but so many other bad ones.
The messengers and the prophets will come to you and give you what belongs to you. You, in turn, give them what you have, and say to yourselves, 'When will they come and take what belongs to them?'
Jesus (but in a text buried in a jar for centuries after becoming punishable by death for just possessing it)
Modern day religion. In the past your faith was quite important and dictated morals. It’s unfortunate it’s been so twisted over the years. And by past I’m not just saying the 50s, but even back in the 1500s.
Everything has two sides to it. I think it was predominantly used more for good back in earlier civilizations, but I don’t think there’s a need for it today.
It’s much easier now in 2023 to be able to look back at how religion was used for thousands of years and criticize it. I’m an atheist myself and I think the necessity of religion was to learn from it and advanced society. Today I think we’re so advanced we no longer need it.
What? Look, I’m an atheist myself by choice but I’ve seen religion fix up a homeless man and through “God” he was able to get himself back on his feet and reenter society. I think reddit/Lemmy has too big of a hate on religion, but in the outside world it’s still the majority dominated beliefs.
Plus you can’t overgeneralize “religion” as there’s about 4000 of them. Buddhism is pretty dope if you read into it. Regardless, I think we will see a shift into more atheists/agnostic people in the future though.
Yea I don’t think I’m changing your opinion here. I think everything has two sides to it. I’m of the opinion of just let people live their lives. Shoving atheism down everyone’s throat is equally as annoying as shoving religion. Remember that religion ≠ Christianity. The Greeks gods are also pretty cool in my opinion.
It’s just human nature to “worship” something. Whether it be materialism or idealism. As I see it, there couldn’t have been an early world without religion because humans are just that way.
My mom isn’t going to be scammed by the Nigerian prince if she already knows it is a scam. That’s the importance of educating yourself.
Brain washed religous people ≠ religion. That’s my distinction. Just because people murder each other in Harry Potter doesn’t mean kids are going to interpret that to go on and be murderers.
The people who should be ridiculed for the actions are the murderers, not the entire fanbase.
Dude I’ve literally been agreeing with you. From my first comment I don’t think there’s a place for religion in MODERN society. But at the same time, we wouldn’t have this current modern society if it weren’t for religion in the first place. Many early philosophers and scientists believed in “God” to some degree, despite questioning their faith, too. I’m not defending it today, but there was a time and place for it at some point. It’s archaic today, but that doesn’t mean there haven’t been good influences of it throughout history. Therefore I can’t say religion is all 100% bad. It’s original intentions weren’t that, but thousands of years of humans playing telephone through a book has led to its awful usage today.
Plus if my gram who is a god fearing woman is dying on her death bed, I’d rather her die peacefully with the lesser understanding of the universe than keep telling her that her beliefs are wrong and there’s no afterlife. I’m okay with the acceptance of no religion, but not everyone is completely prepared for that. Education is key and that’s why our current society is shifting towards more atheists than ever in human history.
That being said, as long as strong beliefs are held true by individuals, then even a “religion” of anti-religions could exist. May I introduce you to Pastafarianism lol, they worship the flying spaghetti monster to prove the point that “God” is not needed as a concept, but in doing so they’ve created a new religion, just one without a deity.
Religion has always been a cancer on humanity. We don’t need an imaginary sky daddy for morals. We would have got there (and likely much quicker and much better) without religion.
I’m not religious myself, but “God” played a role in at least trying to comprehend the world before science. Whatever we didn’t know was “God” until we did know. I don’t think modern society needs it, but our concept and understanding of the world and universe is so broad now that we don’t.
It’s dangerous now to label whatever we don’t know as “God” but earlier in humanity I think it’s part of the reason why some (not all) laws and morals were established in the first place.
Religion can fuel some truly abhorrent things, but at the same time I know people who have used religion and faith to pull themselves out of a really bad spot in life.
There can be a middle ground between admonishing all religious practices and dogmatic bible thumpers, and that starts with religion being a understood as a personal choice and how people interpret the religion being a reflection on their self and not the every religious person ever.
Without a future or desire to live, why would we have kids? Why are we listening to an 80 year old male virgin in a dress who represents a fairy tale and participated in covering up the rapes of children around the world?
I don't think Musk cares one way or another, it's too much to ask that he has principles. He just wants people to look up to him and mysteriously it's that group. So he'll gorgle their balls as long as they gorgle his.
No you are wrong. Musk constantly align himself with the Maga crowd, the anti liberal and anti woke. If he is not an extreme right totalitarian, he sure acts like one. Of course he is also a narcissist and without principles. But being without principles doesn’t mean being without opinions.
If that's the case, he did keep them well hidden until he started going totally off the rails (and left particularly hasn't liked that). Though there's a possibility he kept them hidden just with money.
When he needed to finance Tesla, he used all the environment arguments to gain public incentives and leverage for electric cars. Which was in line with leftist policies, but for Musk it was for his personal benefit.
Later we have seen that he is not really an environmentalist. Obstructing public transport projects and building rockets.
That he is a Trumpist began to become clear when he held 2 economy advisory postions under Trump, and he refused to leave them, when they were revealed to be nothing but instruments for Trump corruption.
He does everything a fascist would do, he fights unions vigorously, and he is proven racist and anti LGBT. Not a liberal minded person at all, and he believes fascists should be allowed to propagandize on Twitter.
FWIW the maga crowd is obviously down with being part of a cult of personality. It’s easy to stand in front of them, say edgy shit, and be showered with praise.
Spot on. Narcissists love right-leaning people because the latter tend to believe in a hierarchical societal structure. On the other hand, with left-leaning people, you need to keep your virtue on on a case-by-case basis.
You have to keep in mind Saudi Arabia are the real owners of Twitter, sure their interests are aligned with Musk generally but you’re missing some important context if you boil it all down to Musk.
I know Musk managed to get someone to foot half the bill for him, why they did that I have no idea. But you are right, they might absolutely have an agenda too.
People that are completely desensitized to that kind of stuff would probably not be very good at moderating it really.
Also this is a terrible job and I’d be very worried if a company was paying and enabling people who find that fun. It’s horrible, but trauma is the normal outcome.
Maybe they still have the content that got removed because of that, you might be able to train an AI just on that. That way they don’t need to manually check it, it’s already been done after all.
Exactly, and even if the content uploaded disagrees and request human oversight that is just one image that needs to be checked rather then all. Ai may even be able to blur parts of footage that are most brutal and extreme and create written transcripts of audio You dont need 4k resolution and hearable screaming to understand that someone is getting murderered or Raped.
Huge industries emerging in this field right now for everything from this type of social media moderation to helping fight CSAM more effectively so humans aren’t having to be a frontline for that type of material. This is one area I can really, really get behind AI on and see a very valid use case that isn’t just marketing hype like so many others. I know there’s some great stuff happening just based on my own field of employment and being close to a few things in the works this year.
Honestly I don’t see an issue with it. If they can tell the difference between an image that should be moderated and one that shouldn’t they can do the job and I seriously doubt the vast majority of people desensitized to that kind of content can’t tell the difference. That’s like the arguments that we shouldn’t make graphic games or movies because people won’t be able to tell the difference between them and reality. Not everyone can do every job and these people would be the perfect fit for it and we would spare others from getting hurt
It would be a highly unethical but interesting research to see if those people experience long-term consequences nevertheless. Or if being desensitizes really does give someone immunity.
Desensitized doesn’t necessarily mean somebody doesn’t have reactions to something. It just means they can compartmentalize those reactions and move forward and deal with the ramifications later.
EMTs, ER Doctors, and Nurses are largely desensitized to graphic trauma and can press through and get the job done. But that doesn’t mean that they don’t process those scenes later in both healthy and unhealthy ways (there’s a few study out there that show ER staff have higher rates of alcoholism and substance abuse rates than the general public).
Tramua is trauma, whether you’re desensitized or not.
Exactly. If they couldn’t tell the difference, then how could they know which content to seek out for their own enjoyment. It might not affect them much, if at all anymore, but they know what ‘it’ looks like.
Can you imagine them watching a cute cat video over and over and wondering why they aren’t getting the rush they must feel when watching gore.
I remember in the early days of the internet, i clicked a link on a forum and ended up watching a video of some guy being decapitated. I have never forgotten that image, 20+ years later, and i know i would be checking into a mental hospital if i had the job these facebook staff have had to do. But there are people who like this sort of stuff, and its not because they have forgotten what decapitation looks like.
It’s completely tame. There are far more sexual images in just about any direction. It’s only because people know there’s actual nakedness being advertised that anyone has a problem with it. And that’s just silly.
People are just mad that women have a new and effective way to monetize their inherent value (^edit^ as a human, in a way that men can’t compete as well with). they are mad because they either have moral objections, or want to deny said intrinsic value. Its a sad effect of people not loving themselves. Its also hilariously transparent when people get mad about things like this.
to be clear i mean inherent value as a human. Men’s inherent value isn’t questioned, so i didn’t mention it. I can see how you would think that how i meant it, and I’ll see about editing the comment so it doesn’t read that way.
She’s advertising her ability to titillate, not her personality or intrinsic value and self-worth. Even with your edit, you’re still equating the persona she adopts for her business with her value as a person.
The ability to titillate IS an intrinsic value, a human one at that. You’re probably just sour that you don’t feel you have that ability, so you want to deny the existence and power of the ability to titilate on a human value basis.
I don’t have any personal desire to do any sex work. But women who are less conventionally attractive or who don’t feel confident on camera are not any less valuable than those who do. You’re equating a woman’s value as a human to her sex appeal and that’s disgusting.
You don’t need to do sex work to be a human and appreciate the human experience of being titilated or titillating someone else. It’s a wonderful part of the human experience.
You keep insisting that you know what I’m talking about, for whatever fucking reason, and you’re consistently wrong. Why are you like this?
Stop putting your words in my mouth, they taste like shit
I said try to do better next time, not worse. If you really are as young as your posts make you seem, it’s wayyyy past your bedtime, slugger. Don’t forget to brush your teeth!
Queen Victoria and her husband (and also her cousin) Prince Albert popularized the custom of Christmas Trees in 1848 when Albert sent decorated trees to schools and army barracks around Windsor.
OnlyFans is generally a porn distribution platform, yes. It was created with wider intent, but was taken over by amateur porn makers. You basically sign up for free, then you subscribe to people you wanna jerk off to or whatever. some accounts are free, some are paid, most offer paid content on the side, like custom requests or old videos. I help one of my friends make content for her OF account here and there; I’m happy to answer questions you have about it.
I don’t really have questions about OF beyond getting context for the billboard. In the US I don’t see porn stars advertising in such everyday places. I have certainly seen billboards that are similar to the one shown in this article, but those are from companies with a big advertising budget like Victoria’s Secret, as you mention. I think porn stars are generally not wealthy enough to have a big advertising budget for billboards.
Average OF model makes less than $200 per month so I agree. (average model’s subscribers = 21, Average monthly rate = $7.20, OnlyFans keeps 20% profits).
However, when you look at where you CAN get to, the investment could be considered worthwhile, if you think it will increase subscriber count.
Someone in the top 1% of OF models (on income basis) can make over $6K per month
Someone in the top 0.1% makes over $100K per month (but thats like… literally Cardi B, Mia Khalifia, etc so good luck)
Billboards in the cheaper ranges are $2K -$6K, but can go to $20K/month in dense urban areas.
When the country with the largest land mass, and fourth largest population on the world, needs help from a hermit peninsula with 1800s level of industrialization.
US sanctions against China are absolutely minimal. There is a lot of room to escalate. But apart from that, I don’t think that’s what’s happening. NK has nothing but weapons. Old and shitty ones, sure. But most of them can explode.
I find that Americans that usually say this kind of thing are staunch Sanders supporters. The same Sanders that continuously blocked the bill with quite a few other non-Republicans in that cohort.
We watch such bills abroad too because they’re international. There’s no sides and parties to it, just an example of how dumb American politics is as a whole. Don’t worry, I’m sure the Republicans are dumbest if that makes you feel better. But it is important to scratch a bit deeper below social media’s handpicked articles and comments, lest you end up becoming the same as those you oppose without realising it.
There’s slightly more to it than that in politics and voting, but sure. Let’s go with it being a single party’s decision over everything else if that suits the rhetoric everyone wants to hear. Life’s easy focusing on just one of many things anyway.
It wasn’t symbolic. He was (arg. rightfully) opposed to other parts in the propositions. This is laughable? What is the implication? You can read it directly on his site as well as those of other democrats and independents who ultimately contributed towards the bills not passing. These are the sources, so I doubt they’re implying anything.
If I’m personally implying anything, it is that many Americans seem to not do the above. When they make a statement, it’s based on a single component of a much larger picture, as though that single component is the entire picture. However, looking up information rather than being fed information socially would resolve this. Unfortunately, pekple tend to fall for argumentum ad populum quite easily. Additionally, pride rejects the claim that oneself has fallen to fallacy.
Here, I’d say the point is the point at which they face legal consequences to what specific immediate end.
Harriet Tubman faced death as a consequence for directly freeing slaves, after suffering enslavement and terrible ongoing physical abuse that left her permanently brain damaged.
Greta taking things to the level of Civil Disobedience faces a slap on the wrist for the somewhat less impactful goal of delaying oil tankers for a while.
Greta is known for speaking loudly and publicly about climate change. Her level of effort and commitment is commendable, though I’m still not sure why she is held above the chorus of many many others saying the same stuff.
However elevating her to the level of people who faced literal torture and death seems to be a bit much, in some ways diminishing the efforts of those that did risk everything. I can see how some folks might roll their eyes when people start comparing efforts of protesters largely doing safe protests with low risk versus people who risked and sometimes gave everything for immediate dramatic result.
Seventy four lashes for not wearing a piece of cloth on one’s head. That will permanently scar her entire back of her body. I hope terrible things happen to those that tortured her.
her punishment was a 2500 SEK fine? They’ve just told the entire country that we can pay the equivalent of a new bicycle to block oil tankers, this is amazing.
Where the hell do you get a new bicycle for 2500 SEK? I paid 2 or 3 times that for a midrange bike (in Estonia, admittedly). 2500 SEK is good used bike territory.
Eh maybe if you only want to cycle slowly around town, sure. For me, a bicycle is more for exercise than transportation.
It’s kinda the same as saying 8k EUR gets you a new car. I mean yeah, it’s technically true, it gets you a Dacia Sandero, but most people will still go for something they can actually enjoy.
what? this is a standard bike that anyone here would consider a proper bicycle, perfectly usable.
Like, the netherlands (where almost everyone rides a bike on the regular) is known for largely consisting of this kind of bike, it’s all you need and buying something more expensive just poses a risk of theft or damage.
Difference in cycling cultures I suppose. Around here this would be considered an old lady bike. It’s great for slowly cruising around the city, but I just wouldn’t feel comfortable at high speeds, or on trails, etc. I prefer to get everywhere fast like a bat out of hell (an ADHD trait, going anything but my full speed, full-on anaerobic on my commute even, feels wrong and tedious) and need a single bicycle to work on roads, streets and trails, so I got this low-mid range hybrid. This is the most common type of bike here (well actually now fatbikes are more common, but that’s a stupid trend. And I suppose full-on mountain bikes are very popular too).
Well, you’re right, this is a bike meant for transportation, not sports. Still counts as a bike though, so original comment is right too. Everybody in the Netherlands and Belgium has one of these (and if you wanna do cyclocross or bmx or fast road cycling, you have a second, third, … bike)
I spy a disturbing lack of racks and baskets and places to attach packs to go grocery shopping on your hybrid though. ;) Many city people don’t own a car (or only use it for taking their sports bike out of the city), so I guess they use their gas money for that. I wouldn’t know, I’m a one (utility) bike only person as well.
That’s what THAT bike is for. A good bike can be used to actually get to places in time. Hence why I didn’t know people under 60 get those in other countries.
I’m just saying it’s weird to call the bare minimum “the price of a new X” in a comparison.
euronews.com
Top