Reporter: "Mr. Putin, how is it possible that you got 132% of the vote?"
Putin: "It is merely the byproduct of our superiour domestic mathematical sciences. The numbers are simply greater than the ones produced by foreign-made axioms. Do think of all of the great achievements our mathematicians have done over centuries, such as proving the Poincaré conjecture."
Reporter: (gasp) "Your ballot results were tabulated by Grigori Perelman?"
Putin: "No, we looked at his qualifications but we figured he was out of our reach, unfortunately. We had the results tabulated by some other weird mathematician with a massive case of cabin fever. We saved a lot of taxpayer money this way."
You see, only 39% of the population voted. 95% of the people who voted, voted for Putin. So if you extrapolate that out to the entire population, you get 37% + 95% = 132%. With math like that you can’t lose!
Despite being accused of ignoring Texas laws which require parental involvement before such interventions, Cameron County District Attorney Rene Garza told a hearing Wednesday that his office was gathering further evidence against Murray, rather than deciding to drop the charges.
If the law protects you, it will be ignored and the people who ignore it will face no consequences for their lawlessness. The law is for hurting you, and only laws that hurt you count.
i cant stop laughing at the idea of the grown ass adults asking a 10 year old boy if be wanted to hurt himself whilenin handcuffs so they put him in a turtle suit and solitary his ass
So they say they don’t perform autopsies, and the warden was surprised they wanted the body. Either they’re lying about the autopsy or there’s some sick fuck just cutting up bodies and taking parts as souvenirs.
Kind of sad to see the number of people celebrating his injury. His actions are reprehensible, but he has be sentenced and should be able to carry out that sentence without the threat of violence and death. This is partially the reason people who go to prison come out worse than when they went in.
Agreed. I understand the flippancy with him in particular, but prisons should not be a place where your life is in danger. Think of the other inmates, not just him. There are lots of inmates who can be reformed, but living in an environment that is so dangerous makes that much less likely. Sucks all around.
Going out in public should not be a place where your life is in danger, either, but this shitbird saw to it that it wasn’t. Come find me when cops are consistently held accountable to respecting human life.
This is kinda where I’m coming from on this. There are still tons of cases of cops blatantly and aggressively violating people’s rights, up to and including killing them. They never show remorse until they suffer consequences. Until there is consistent accountability, and cops actually consider the full ramifications of their actions, I won’t be upset by the ones that might suffer some harsher punishments for their crimes.
I don't think it's appropriate to put a "but" after "people should feel safe in prison". It implies that there are people who do not deserve safety while incarcerated.
We’re talking about a cop. He’s not people to start with but especially with what he’s done.
He doesn’t deserve safety as he is part of the reason why so many people suffer in prisons and have their lives ruined. I will do nothing other than cheer as every ounce of his life is shredded in front of him until his life is as empty as he made Chauvins.
But that’s a revenge fantasy. And cops are still people. What we want is “harm reduction”. Harm reduction was accomplished when his gun, badge and freedom were taken away, and (hopefully) a message was sent to other police officers to cause them to think twice before murdering people.
They don’t have to be happy about the situation, they just have to ask themselves honestly if more prison stabbings is a good thing or a bad thing, and maybe explain why they trust inmates to make the judgement of who does and does not get stabbed.
The whole argument literally has no more depth than “Fuck that guy”. I feel like these people would be justifying drunk drivers if Chauvin had been run down by one.
all our prisons should be like the norway prisons but even then, if you’re a cop like him, it’s kinda fair and i’m gonna be pretty happy hearing about it
I agree. But I'm also thrilled to see that prisons are equal-opportunity shitholes for the demographics the powers try to imprison, and their own lackeys. Maybe this will shed enough light on how terrible prisons are that Americans collectively give a shit and try to fix them?
Maybe this will shed enough light on how terrible prisons are that Americans collectively give a shit and try to fix them?
That would be brilliant, but I just can’t see it happening. The right have consistently opposed any kind of reform and clearly want the prison system to punish people through rape, abuse and violence.
They’d obvious love to get one of their favourite state executioners out of that situation, but they’re not going to fix the system for millions of people – most of whom are poor, part of a minority group and therefore undesirables – to make it happen.
I’m not gonna celebrate, but i’m not gonna mourn either. This whole chain of events happened because he deliberately chose to abuse another human being while in a position of authority
Absolutely. Don't get me wrong, I don't feel bad for him at all. I do feel bad for the good people who are incarcerated who are victims of our prison system.
“Good people” who were incarcerated? Unless you’re trying to carve out that actual innocent people were incarcerated I don’t think the general prison population were good people. Now, I say that with the caveat that plenty of people get screwed by overzealous prosecutors, minimum sentence rules, or whatever, or that prison is warehousing people and has fuckall to do with actual reform. But you generally don’t wind up in prison if you’re a good person.
It’s worth mourning that someone in the custody of the state isn’t being protected from attack. For every evil cop getting stabbed there’s a ton more people (some of whom are innocent) who are subject to the same negligence and cruelty in the system.
That’s literally what happened when he murdered his victim though. Maybe the cruelty he’s facing will be a wake-up call to all the other criminals with a badge out there.
He killed a man in a horrific and truly awful way. He had PLENTY of time to feel regret for his actions while he was fucking doing them and everyone was screaming at him that he was killing someone. He is now suffering under the exact same system that has destroyed so many lives. Lives he had a hand in destroying previously due to being a cop.
He had plenty of chances. Fuck him. I hope he suffers everyday for the rest of his miserable life.
I refuse to give that disgusting piece of shit the same respect that I give to people. He didn’t do it for others? Fuck giving it to him.
These are all just emotional arguments & virtue signaling. You don’t have to respect him or like that he gets to live in jail while GF is dead. Wanting the justice system to function correctly and put Chauvin in jail just to turn around and celebrate it’s failures when he is shanked in jail is hypocritical.
I literally do not care. He is a cop. You’re asking me to give a fuck about the life of a ‘human’ who doesn’t care about anyone elses. I’m not doing that.
Yes, prison reform is badly needed. No, prisons shouldn’t be hell-pits of torture and suffering, and no, having them be that way doesn’t fix anything.
All of that is granted. A functioning civilisation gives up the emotional satisfaction of vengeance and vendetta, in exchange for the streets not being ankle-deep in blood all the time, and on the whole that’s a very good bargain.
But in the case of people who abuse and subvert the very system that facilitates that exchange?
lolno.jpg
It’s paradox-of-tolerance stuff. We don’t have to give a shit about the welfare of abusive cops, any more than we have to extend tolerance and kindness to nazis.
Write a bunch of depressing novels about alcoholics hurting each other and get hailed as a great writer. -Dostoyevsky
You know what his novels needed? Micheal Bay and Quentin Tarantino to rework them. Crime and Punishment would have been so much better with an epic ax fighting scene followed by a horse carriage chase that causes explosions.
Wrong hill to die on IMO. He’s the embodiment of violence as punishment built into the system.
I followed the trial closely. I saw, repeatedly, from a dozen different angles, him hear Floyd beg for his life, telling him that he couldn’t breathe, and in response, Chauvin leaned more into his knee and grinded it, intentionally inflicting pain and making it harder to get air.
Live by the sword, (almost) die by the sword.
I’ll celebrate it. Fuck the system, and fuck this monster in particular.
Celebrating? Who is celebrating? I offered him the exact same thoughts and prayers that every political leader offers after a mass shooting at a school. Should I have given him twice as many thoughts and fucking prayers!? Would that make it better?
Should be, but this is the environment he helped create and uphold. If it’s only the folk in protective custody for whom prison stabbing and rape jokes are out of bounds, go fuck yourself. Go spend this energy on every off color remark about prisoners, not just the ones about pigs.
Lol it absolutely is not sad, it is justice served hot and fresh with a side of gravy. He does not deserve any pity or mercy and should have been executed instead of imprisoned in the first place.
Hopefully the next inmate will slice his throat or hit a major artery.
“In 2005, Transport Canada, a federal agency, decided to do something about it. Starting in 2007, it declared, all passenger vehicles sold in Canada would require an engine immobilizer, a basic anti-theft device that uses an electronic signature in the key to unlock the engine. If the key isn’t present, the car can’t be started. This prevents hot wiring and other old-school, brute force methods of stealing cars.”
It’s one thing to not do pride jerseys anymore. It’s a whole other level of fucked up that they are banning fucking tape. This is basically saying they do not want any openly LGBTQ players or allies of them.
That’s not at all what they’re saying. This is the fault of the Twitter crowd who harassed the league about players who didn’t want to wear the jersey’s in warm ups.
Twitter made such a massive deal about 2-3 players not wearing the jersey and turned what was supposed to be a great thing for the lgbtq community, with hundreds of players wearing them proudly into a shit storm of negativity.
Unfortunately, this put the league in a really impossible spot. Either they allow the terrier mob to blow the situation way out of proportion with negativity surrounding these inclusivity celebrations or they would have to mandate players wear them and punish them for not wearing them.
That would likely lead to problems with the union, possible issues with the next CBA and possibly lost season(s).
What we should learn from this, I think, is to just ignore people who have dumb beliefs and celebrate the ones who have it right.
Instead of making fringe players like provorov or Reimer the entirety of the publicity and the story and amplifying them, we should be talking about the actual GOATs proudly wearing them and turning it into a positive thing for the league.
Amplify the fact that the best of the best players in the world want everyone to feel included.
I feel bad for the league, they obviously wanted to do these things, they did them for years, until it turned into really really bad press for the league.
A few players cause massive public relations nightmare for being bigots, and your conclusion is to get mad at the public and not the bigots? That’s a terrible conclusion.
More like the NHL tried to do an inclusive event, but 2 or 3 players were able to spit on the whole thing, and the NHL allowed them to very visibly undermine it, justifiably calling the whole thing into question. If the NHL allows that, then I’m sure they aren’t as progressive as they’d like to appear.
If it was truly only 2 or 3 players, I doubt there’d be much pushback from the union for taking action after making them all look bad. This kind of thing only works if literally everyone participates. If those players refused, they shouldn’t have been let on the ice at the very least. Being willing to do that would say way more for the NHL’s support for the LGBT community than wearing rainbow jerseys.
The NHL has shown this was just a PR stunt and doesn’t actually have the backs of its fans. Now, those 2-3 players have somehow forced a multi-billion dollar corporation to completely roll over and drop any pretense of support for the LGBT community in its entirety. I’m surprised they didn’t just fire them for causing such a headache and to help save face.
I dunno, if they get a ruling here with a big enough splash this might actually spread to them too.
It’ll all depend on if they can establish a solid enough case centered around the addictive nature of the content presentation algorithm, and getting it banned in favor of something like chronological content ordering.
Instead of having anti lgbt protests, or anti abortion protests, we should really start having anti religion protests. They are really a cancer to society.
The problem is they are still part of the same group.
If there is an anti lgbt protest organized by christians or muslims or whatever, sure im not saying 100% of all christians and muslims are there, but even if its 1% of the christians or muslims, these 1% are still in church with the rest of the christians or muslims, and the remaining 99% are not doing anything about it. They are not coning out and saying “That 1% of religious people are not a part of us”. They all care is about growing their religious groups, and anything else doesn’t matter.
First of all, I dont associate myself with people doing bad things to others. It’s really easy to do honestly. I recommend you to do it too.
Second, are you saying is ok for religious people to be antilgbt because other people are part of some group, by choice or not, that associates with people doing things you, or others, think is evil?
I used to have that really common thought of “I don’t care what you believe in. Just don’t try to push your opinion on me.”
No. It’s bullshit.
The very existence of religion is a psychological drain on society. We are all worse off the longer it stays around. There is no such thing as a good religious person and anyone who says they are religious I immediately distrust.
Yeah. It’s at the root of a lot of the problems with conservatives in the US. Religion trains people in believing because they were told to believe, and holding to these beliefs in the face of all suffering and hardship. It’s a gateway drug to conspiracy theories and paranoid delusions.
Yes, faith is in and off itself detrimental to our society. Religiosity is a strong detrimental force, a mind-virus, a meme that damages the ability to clearly perceive reality.
But just like people who are infected with an infectious virus aren’t bad, not all religious people are automatically bad people. I don’t think they are good because they are religious, but that doesn’t mean they are not good or not religious. So let us not fall into the same absolutist thoughts as the fervent deniers of secular goodness.
I have met good people who are Christian. They usually don’t cowl all their behavior behind god.
There you’re friends dad, who barely knows you, who helps you get your car running so his kid and friends can make it to a metal show. He didn’t like metal, but he kept it to himself other than saying it wasn’t his genre, which is a fair statement.
Why did he devote an afternoon and a couple trips to auto zone? Because all in all we were good kids. He wanted us to have fun, but to arrive (and ultimately) come home safe.
The comment you are responding to is reactionary in nature and surely the result of a great deal of pain and trauma at the hands of the sort of people they are referring to. In this case, I think it is ok to let someone express their emotions and assume that they don’t really mean for it to be a universal statement.
Why would you assume they don’t mean it to be universally applied?
The biggest religions in the world harbor the largest rings of pedophiles, bigots and oppressors of women and children that exist.
There are surely religious people that consider themselves good and act in a moral way, but their support of organizations that allow and defend such abhorrent values and behavior defies that.
As someone put further down “the good ones enable the bad ones”. So while you or I might not take the same stance in our own lives, I can absolutely understand why someone might not want anything to do with religion or religious people.
I’m trying to be charitable to the person who started this part of the thread. There are most definitely perfectly good religious people out there though they are involved with toxic organizations.
IRT the first part, I think so. Even if you’re a genuinely kind person, if you support an organization that practices cruelty, you are supporting cruelty.
IRT the second part, I wasn’t saying that, but would agree with that statement–people are often a victim of their cultures.
Religious people push their beliefs on people all the time, that's what it is made to do so people can concentrate power. If a religious person has kids, you can guess how they are going to think. The whole idea is just complete bullshit and so stupid that anybody with a capacity to think critically knows it is false. Only people incapable of self reflection or thinking actually believe it.
I’ve known extremely religious people that were very kind to everyone around them, only focused on doing good in the world, and never pushed their beliefs on anyone else. “Good” and “evil” are very reductive and simplistic terms. Good people can have beliefs that are not good for society and they are not completely defined by that. If we go to that absolute then there isn’t a good person that exists. Pretty much everyone harbors beliefs, irrespective of religion, that when examined may be detrimental to society, they just don’t know their own blind spots.
Well said. Though I will say that we need to stop giving religions passes for bigotry.
Churches in the US get huge tax breaks, can set up explicitly racist schools, or they can operate worse than the worst MLM. Some of the followers are somewhat to blame, but really it’s the organizations as a whole that need to be revisited.
Why should my tax dollars subsidize a church building where the pastor tells their congregation that people like me are an evil that should be purged from society? Why should they subsidize a pastor that has a private jet? Or a church that actively protects child abusers and/or wife beaters?
And frankly, it’s only certain religions that receive these sort of benefits. Any sort of native religion or niche religion won’t get half the benefits we give to multimillion dollar religions.
I’ve known extremely religious people that were very kind to everyone around them, only focused on doing good in the world
Being religious is not a requirement for doing good in the world. If the religion did not exist these extremely religious people you know could continue to do good in the world while not simultaneously supporting organizations that enable corruption, abuse, dishonesty, violence, oppression, etc, etc…
If anyone is still believing in these hokey stories or exploitative organizations they are either willfully ignorant to the world around them, gullible rubes who are victims of a centuries old scam, or actively benefitting from that exploitation.
I stand by my statements. Religion is a virus. It’s a net negative in the world that stands in the way of all human progress.
I was responding to you saying “there’s no such thing as a good religious person”. I don’t really disagree with the rest of your perspective, yet your arguing as if you assume I do. I think it’s reductive and crass to judge someone on a single data point. That was my primary point.
As a gay person, I have a saying that is similar: “When I meet someone who says they are conservative, I know that I have just met someone who wants me to suffer.”
What is it you hate so much about religion? I could see disliking specific religious practices, but what problem does every religion share that makes you immediately distrust all religious people?
The conflation of personal belief with objective reality.
When someone tells me they are religious, they are saying the voices in their heads are more important than the voices in their ears. They are saying the vision in their mind’s eye is more important than the vision in their eyeballs.
When a schizophrenic tells us they are going to listen to the voices in their head, we should be worried. We should be worried even if their voices are currently telling them to be an upstanding member of society, because we don’t know what those voices will be saying tomorrow.
I couldnt agree more. I have totally underestimated how nutty religious people truly are. I used to think Christians are good neighbours and boring law abiding citizens, but when push comes to shove and you really need them it turns out that they are just nutcases who are very adept at playing the good neighbour role. At least that has been my experience. I just can’t trust adults who believe in fairy tales anymore.
I totally get what you’re saying, but that’s not at all what religion is. If someone is listening to voices in their head, they’re not religious. They’re just crazy. I know many religious people who do not “listen to voices in their head” and it’s my belief that you’ve had terrible encounters and experiences with people claiming to be religious. But to generalize is not a good thing. I’ve met very sane religious people that do not do the things you say, I think it’s unfair of you to make such a sweeping claim that anyone who claims to be religious is immediately a crazy person to you. That idea itself sounds crazy to me
To be fair, a large amount of Christians, including many at the church I used to attend in my younger days, will often recommend they “Ask God for advice” on big or troubling decisions or issues in their life, and those people will then say “God told me to do X” after they asked God for help.
So… I think there actually is a pretty fair amount of crazy religious types out there. The churches I’ve been to almost always had a big emphasis on getting to the point where you’re having a conversation with god, asking him for guidance, etc. I always interpreted that as being literal, and not a metaphor.
If someone is listening to voices in their head, they’re not religious. They’re just crazy.
I did not mean to claim religious people are “crazy.” What I described is “faith”, but without the virtuous connotations commonly ascribed to that concept.
Based on your comment, though, I would say I have accurately conveyed to you my state of mind upon hearing an individual proudly portray themselves as “religious” or “spiritual”. It is profoundly disturbing to hear someone readily admit a belief that their thoughts supersede reality.
I find the comparison between religion and schizophrenia to be a little over the top. There is a big difference between believing something that cannot be proven true, and having actual schizophrenic delusions.
Religious beliefs don’t inherently impair your ability to function. And clearly they have some emotional function or value given that peoples around the world created their own unique religions without fail.
I really don’t see why you care so much about what people believe as long as their beliefs aren’t hurting anyone else. You are creating a problem where there is none.
There is a big difference between believing something that cannot be proven true, and having actual schizophrenic delusions.
I would argue the former is the more worrying of the two. We all know not to trust the schizophrenic.
But religious people aren’t just saying “God Bless You” when we sneeze. They are telling us how to vote, whether to wear masks, vaccinate our children, shun our neighbors, annihilate nations, and they are doing this on the basis of entirely unsupported, yet strongly held personal belief.
You are creating a problem where there is none.
Any suggestion that there isn’t a problem is demonstrably false, and your claim that I am creating the problem is gaslighting. I’m not going to waste a bunch of time pointing at a bunch of lesser religiously-supported evils to prove it. I’m just going to take them as read, and skip to the end: religious zealots fly planes into buildings.
But religious people aren’t just saying “God Bless You” when we sneeze. They are telling us how to vote, whether to wear masks, vaccinate our children, shun our neighbors, annihilate nations, and they are doing this on the basis of entirely unsupported, yet strongly held personal belief.
Ah, so your problems with religion are actually problems with specific religious practices. Its almost like you should just hate those practices instead of directing your anger at a very broad concept.
Your justification for distrusting all religious people is a small minority of Christians and Muslims. Grow up and treat people like people
Ah, so your problems with religion are actually problems with specific religious practices.
Where did you get that idea? I don’t believe that is a valid conclusion raising from my arguments.
It’s almost like you should just hate those practices instead of directing your anger at a very broad concept.
My “anger at a very broad concept” should have been a clue that those specific harmful practices I mentioned were exemplar, and not an exhaustive list. Further examples could be drawn from every organized religion, as well as from any and all individual “spiritual” beliefs.
No, my distrust of religious people is not based solely on those few examples of harm that I have presented, but on the underlying philosophical model, which could be characterized as a preference for hypothesization over experimentation. This is a “content of character” question, not a condemnation of specific religions.
which could be characterized as a preference for hypothesization over experimentation.
This is an oversimplification of religion. There is a difference between someone’s religious beliefs, and how they approach logic in a real world situation. A religious person does not just always make a hypothesis and assume it to be true no matter what. They are capable of being normal functioning human beings and differentiating from fact and fiction outside of their religion. If they aren’t capable of this, then I agree its a problem. But its not a problem with religion, its a problem with the person.
So your problem is that people are believing things you disagree with because it gives them a sense of fulfillment and community without harming anyone else. It could not possibly be more clear that you are the problem.
And no, it is not gaslighting to point out why you are wrong about something. That’s a ridiculous tactic to avoid the tiniest bit of self reflection.
So your problem is that people are believing things you disagree with because it gives them a sense of fulfillment and community without harming anyone else. It could not possibly be more clear that you are the problem.
None of that arises from any part of my argument. Your stated conclusions are a product of your own mind and have nothing to do with anything I have said. Your argument is, thus, a strawman fallacy.
This is an oversimplification of religion.
It is the fundamental basis of religion. The common denominator. The sine qua non: the component without which the philosophical model in question could not be reasonably described as religious.
A religious person does not just always make a hypothesis and assume it to be true no matter what
Conceded.
They are capable of being normal functioning human beings and differentiating from fact and fiction outside of their religion.
The capability of distinguishing fact from fiction is meaningless in the circumstances where the individual deliberately intends to reject fact. In declaring themselves religious, they indicate that there are certain circumstances where they intend to do just that.
None of that arises from any part of my argument. Your stated conclusions are a product of your own mind and have nothing to do with anything I have said. Your argument is, thus, a strawman fallacy.
From what I can gather, it effectively is your argument. You dislike that people believe things that are not supported with evidence. I do not personally think it matters because they gain value from it and do not harm others in the process. What am I missing?
The capability of distinguishing fact from fiction is meaningless in the circumstances where the individual deliberately intends to reject fact.
I can’t disagree with that, but I just don’t see why it matters so much. If they seriously gain that much value from believing something, then let them.
I have presented no arguments suggesting they are harmless. I have not accepted your premise that they cause no harm. Indeed, I have provided a few examples of common, relatively minor harms, as well as references to the 9/11 attacks as non-exhaustive examples.
You acknowledged these harms when you strawmanned my position. You can’t rationally claim that no such harms exist, when you have directly acknowledged they do.
We can disagree on the prevalence of such harms: you have indicated a belief they are rare, and I have refused to waste my time producing an exhaustive list.
You say your problem is that they believe things that are unsupported. Is that all, or do you dislike that because you think it leads to practices you don’t like?
Such things do of course exist, but they don’t constitute the dislike for all religion. Religious beliefs differ wildly and it makes little sense to denounce all of them because some cause problems.
Earlier you said that it wasn’t any specific practices that caused you to dislike religion. So, I focused on your problem just with the unsupported beliefs. Now you again bring up specific practices you don’t like.
I don’t understand what you are even trying to say at this point.
Faith is a disease. In the faithful who aren’t currently hurting anyone, the disease is dormant. They are still infected, and given the right set of circumstances, they will cause harm. A particular variety of the faithful were not putting people at risk, until COVID came around and their faithful infections came to be known as “antivax” and “antimask”.
Trying to stop the “specific practices” without inoculating against faith is like trying to stop the spread of typhoid without innoculating Mary Mallon against the disease. The faithful are the cause and carriers, regardless of whether they are currently showing symptoms.
This makes slightly more sense to me although it is painfully overdramatic.
I could make an argument that any person under the right set of circumstances will cause harm. As far as I am aware, a religious person is not any more of a ticking time bomb than anyone else.
Blaming religion for these problems without tackling the underlying psychological issues is not going to help in any meaningful way. You just spread more hate and make the world a worse place, instead of approaching the situation with the slightest bit of empathy.
I see secular groups acting exactly the same way religious groups youve mentioned do. Its not a characteristic of religion or the lack thereof, its a characteristic of mentally unhealthy people.
If you care so much about these problems, then recognize that the world is not so black and white that you can always find an idea to make your enemy no matter the circumstances. The way to fix these problems is not to alienate massive groups of people because you think they might become bad one day. That’s a childish close-minded world view that only perpetuates the things you claim to hate so much.
I could make an argument that any person under the right set of circumstances will cause harm.
Indeed. However, for a faithless person, those circumstances must exist in objective reality. The faithful merely need to imagine the existence of their own triggers.
It’s a characteristic of mentally unhealthy people.
I do not concede that this is a symptom of mental illness. What I am talking about is an error in judgment, not a defect in the ability to reason.
I see secular groups acting exactly the same way religious groups youve mentioned do.
I’m not sure what groups you are referring to. Do these groups “conflate personal belief with objective reality”? If so, I would likely have the same criticism.
That’s a childish close-minded world view that only perpetuates the things you claim to hate so much.
Where did I claim to “hate” anything at all? I believe the strongest criticism I made was “distrust”. I did once use the word “anger” in a description of my position, but I was directly quoting you at the time. You have inserted quite a lot of emotive concepts on my behalf that I have not actually expressed. I will renew my claims of “strawmen” and “gaslighting”.
Indeed. However, for a faithless person, those circumstances must exist in objective reality.
No, they do not. Anyone can justify any belief regardless of faith. I will admit faith is an easy target to justify horrible things, but its not at all the only way to justify things like that.
That’s just how people work. Instead of admitting their beliefs are wrong, they will do mental gymnastics to justify them. It is very possible to have incorrect reasoning without being religious.
The underlying problem is absolutely bad mental health. Not necessarily a mental illness, but bad mental health in general. Everyone has justified a belief with bad logic because its too difficult to admit you are wrong. I’ve done it and still occasionally catch myself doing it. I believe you’re doing it right now, although I’ll admit I don’t know you well enough to know for sure. I’m guessing you had some negative experience with religion and now justify your distaste for it by claiming religious people are more prone to doing horrible things.
I’m not sure what groups you are referring to. Do these groups “conflate personal belief with objective reality”?
Yes, the only difference is that their bad reasoning is not religious in nature. That’s why your problem should be people that do that, not religious people. They are not related.
Where did I claim to “hate” anything at all? I believe the strongest criticism I made was “distrust”.
Here I was using hate to refer to the examples you gave like anti vaccine and anti mask people. I’m assuming you do hate that, as you should.
No, they do not. Anyone can justify any belief regardless of faith. I will admit faith is an easy target to justify horrible things, but its not at all the only way to justify things like that.
Remember what “faith” means in this context: the conflation of personal belief with objective reality. The act of “Justify[ing] any belief” is an act of “faith”.
That’s just how people work. Instead of admitting their beliefs are wrong, they will do mental gymnastics to justify them.
That is how certain people work, not all people. You have identified a set of people who “conflate their personal beliefs with objective reality”.
The underlying problem is absolutely bad mental health. Not necessarily a mental illness, but bad mental health in general.
I don’t think so, but let’s check on it: is it a mental health issue when we use an incorrect order of operations in a mathematical statement? For example, x=1+2*3. Is the person who gets “7” mentally healthy? Is the person who gets “9” mentally unhealthy? What of the 3-year-old, who has not yet been taught numbers, and scribbles a stick image of a cat on the sheet?
An individual who does not comprehend the meaning of PEMDAS/BEDMAS is still capable of rational thought. The lack of knowledge will lead them to a fallacious conclusion, but their process of reaching that conclusion is still rational.
A deliberate refusal to accept and follow PEMDAS/BEDMAS rules is an error, but is not an indication of mental illness.
The knowledge that individual belief must be subordinate to objective reality is a philosophical model that not everyone has learned, but ignorance of that philosophy is certainly not indicative of a mental health condition.
I don’t think so, but let’s check on it: is it a mental health issue when we use an incorrect order of operations in a mathematical statement?
That is simple incorrect logic. What I’m talking about is emotions overriding logic.
Having faith in a religion is very different from justifying emotional reactions with bad logic. You are conflating your personal belief that they are the same with objective reality.
Everyone conflates personal belief with objective reality to varying degrees. A mentally healthy person can process their emotions well and recognize when they do so most of the time. A mentally unhealthy person will not recognize it because of their lack of emotional intelligence.
Again, I am not talking about a clinical condition that inhibits clear logic. I’m talking about the ability to process your emotions in a healthy way.
Every single person on earth has done this and will do it again.
From your link, emphasis mine:
An amygdala hijack is an automatic response. Your body takes action without any conscious input from you.
“Belief” is a “conscious input.” Conflating belief with objective reality is a conscious act, as is “declaration of an individual’s religiosity”. “Philosophy” is a consciously-developed worldview. As an unconscious response, “Amygdala hijack” is well outside the scope of these conscious, deliberate acts.
I have confined the scope of my discussion to the realm of consciousness, as it is only within this realm that we are capable of deliberate action. The unconscious realm does not interest me.
Yes, you do not consciously make the decision to give up rational thought to emotion. This does not detract from my argument.
Have you considered that an automatic response might have a large impact on what you believe? The reason people don’t see the lack of logic in their beliefs is because their emotions don’t allow it.
Even outside of this specific function, neocortex activity is inversely correlated with amygdala activity. The more emotionally attached to a belief they are, the more difficult it is to stop believing it.
I don’t see how you can just ignore this and pretend it has nothing to do with our conversation. It is literally the entire cause of the problems you’ve mentioned.
Have you considered that an automatic response might have a large impact on what you believe? The reason people don’t see the lack of logic in their beliefs is because their emotions don’t allow it.
I would say that you are overvaluing the effects of emotion on the initial decision, and you are ignoring their emotional response to their own rationalization.
There’s a video floating around of a guy who instinctively reacted to a threat by hiding behind his significant other. He reacted in fear. Now comes the rationalization phase: He tries to understand the act he instinctively performed. Rationalization is the act of applying his philosophical model to his actions. He evaluates his behavior against the expectations of his model.
He could subscribe to a philosophical model where the sanctity of his body is greater than that of hers, in which case he could rationalize that his actions were good and proper. (He would then experience the emotion of “pride” that he followed his philosophical model correctly.)
He could subscribe to a philosophical model where he is expected to protect other people from harm. He would then rationalize that his actions were improper. (He would then experience the emotion of “shame” for falling short of his idealizes principles.)
(It is important to note that we are talking about a fraction of a second between the unconscious act and the rationalization of that act: the actor is feeling “pride” or “shame” at his action before his significant other has even realized what he has done. His initial, instantaneous reaction may not be controllable by his philosophical model. He might initially flinch behind her in fear, realize his error, and move to shield her from harm. Or, he might deliberately abandon her, and seek better protection from the perceived threat by fleeing. The point is that within fractions of a second, his actions are being influenced by his philosophical model. The “automatic response” you are talking stops being relevant as soon as this has occurred, and the philosophical model becomes the driving factor.)
In both cases, the initial act is identical, sparked by an unconscious, unintentional process. “Amygdala hijacking” may, indeed, be responsible for this initial act, but it is not responsible for the differing effects. The difference in outcomes is due to the conscious, philosophical model held by the actor. Philosophy plays a big part in driving emotion.
I am uninterested in discussing the conditions that are, by definition, outside of the will and control of the individual. My interest here extends only to those things we can consciously affect.
The difference in outcomes is due to the conscious, philosophical model held by the actor.
The outcome is whatever avoids the feeling of shame, unless the person is emotionally intelligent enough to recognize it happening. It absolutely can and will affect your logic.
The response is not just to physical threats, it is trying to avoid negative emotions. That may be the shame from recognizing your actions, or realizing your belief is illogical.
I would say that you are overvaluing the effects of emotion on the initial decision
Emotion is the initial decision. The rationalizations are just an attempt to pretend is reasonable.
That’s what I was just doing, but I guess I’ll expand upon it.
Remember all of the groups of people you mentioned earlier, like anti vaccine or anti mask people? Do you think it was a fully conscious decision to hold that belief? No, they did not sit down and logically come to the conclusion that vaccines or masks are bad. Chances are, they heard a story on Facebook about it that scared them into that belief.
They thought with their emotions instead of actual logic, because they aren’t in touch with their emotions enough to reliably differentiate between the two.
There was no conscious decision to conflate personal belief with reality. All of the examples you’ve given were not caused by a conscious decision at all. They were caused by unconscious emotional processes that they failed to recognize.
To say that things that happen without conscious input are irrelevant to this conversation is completely incorrect. The difference between a normal religious person and a religious person with the problematic beliefs you’ve mentioned is this unconscious process.
A normal person regardless of religiosity is mentally capable of recognizing that process. A mentally unhealthy person regardless of religiosity is not capable of this.
When you say that’s outside of the scope of this conversation, here’s what I hear:
I have nothing more of value to add to this conversation, so I will desperately try to end it while maintaining the illusion that my argument had any value in the first place.
Remember all of the groups of people you mentioned earlier, like anti vaccine or anti mask people? Do you think it was a fully conscious decision to hold that belief?
That is not an important question. Again, emotions are automatic responses. By definition, they are not controllable. There is no point in discussing them because we cannot directly affect them.
The only route through which we can affect emotional response is philosophy. We can’t affect the immediate response, but we can affect the rationalization process by focusing on a different philosophical model.
A philosophy that an individual’s personal beliefs are of greater importance than objective reality exacerbates the issues you discuss. A philosophy that rejects this mitigates your issues.
When you say that’s outside of the scope of this conversation, here’s what I hear:
I have nothing more of value to add to this conversation,
Your condescending tone aside, that is correct. You are diverting us away from a path of consciously affecting behavior and mindsets, and toward a path that, by definition, we cannot. You are knowingly choosing a dead-end road; I have nothing of value to add to your decision to follow that path, and I do not choose to walk it with you.
There is no point in discussing them because we cannot directly affect them.
There absolutely is a point in discussing things you can’t affect. Also, you can affect their power over your ability to reason if you are emotionally aware enough.
That is not an important question. Again, emotions are automatic responses.
It is. If part of the topic of this conversation is people that think with their emotions, it would tell you that emotions are absolutely related to this conversation. You brought those groups up as examples yourself.
The only route through which we can affect emotional response is philosophy.
Not true. You can learn to control your emotions to some extent without changing philosophy. Also, your philosophy is usually based on your emotions. Not the other way around. The belief that murder is bad comes from emotion. There is no argument to be made that a human life has value. We all agree its bad anyway though, because death causes negative emotions.
A philosophy that an individual’s personal beliefs are of greater importance than objective reality exacerbates the issues you discuss
No one believes their personal beliefs to be more important than objective reality. They believe their personal beliefs are objective reality. They do this because of their emotions. That’s why its important to discuss them.
You are knowingly choosing a dead-end road
It is a destination, not a dead end. The destination being the obvious conclusion that you have no reason to distrust all religious people.
I have nothing of value to add to your decision to follow that path, and I do not choose to walk it with you.
You had nothing of value to add to begin with. You literally just dislike religion for no reason.
Also, you can affect their power over your ability to reason if you are emotionally aware enough.
“Emotions” are the unconscious responses. “Emotional awareness” is the conscious aspect. You are describing a philosophical model against which to evaluate the emotional reaction. You are restating my arguments.
The belief that murder is bad comes from emotion
Rejected. Plenty of societies justify killing for everything from self defense to promoting a master race to appeasing the gods. The emotional response to such killings are based on the philosophical model of the individual. The emotion follows the philosophy, it does not guide it.
The destination being the obvious conclusion that you have no reason to distrust all religious people.
It seems important that you be right. I have already conceded that I have nothing to add to that aspect of the conversation. You won.
Now, do you wish to continue the journey anywhere else, or are you happy where you arrived?
Emotional awareness" is the conscious aspect. You are describing a philosophical model in which to evaluate the emotional reaction.
No, I am describing emotional awareness. The ability to understand your emotions and limit their effect on your reasoning is not a philosophical model.
Plenty of societies justify killing for everything from self defense to promoting a master race to appeasing the gods. The emotional response to such killings are based on the philosophical model of the individual. The emotion follows the philosophy, it does not guide it.
This is a surprisingly good argument, but it does not prove the conclusion you came to. Its more of an exception to what I said. It demonstrates that emotional responses can be impacted by philosophy. It does not demonstrate that this is always how it works, or even most of the time.
It seems important that you be right.
Yes, my goal in this argument was in fact to prove I am right. I do not like hateful views with no reasoning behind them.
Now, do you wish to continue the journey anywhere else, or are you happy where you arrived?
I’m not particularly happy because you are going to continue believing hateful nonsense, but at least I tried. I should’ve expected as much anyway, given that I’m arguing with people on the internet.
The discussion is apparently over now because you won’t continue it. But that doesn’t stop you from naming fallacies at me I guess.
We’ve had quite a long conversation, and you have yet to provide a half decent argument for your distrust of religious people. Therefore, hateful nonsense. I can’t misrepresent your argument when I’m not even actually representing it. I’m just describing what I think it essentially boils down to. Its hateful nonsense.
Again, correcting you is not gaslighting. You are literally just wrong.
I did not personally attack you. I have worded things in passive aggressive ways throughout this conversation, but that’s about it. If you are referring specifically to the “hateful nonsense” part, that’s again just a description of your belief.
Are you actually done now? Or will you keep saying random words hoping something works.
I think it is somewhat hard to change my outlook at this point. My reasoning is that truly devout religious people have been infected with a mind virus. They may be nice people or pretend to be nice people, but there is also the mind virus, which is ultimately not trust worthy. In general, if hard decisions need to be made by a third party that potentially have a big impact on my life I’d not fully trust a religious person.
In daily life I am very friendly with a bunch of religious people, but I mistrust the religious part of them.
Like I’ve definitely raised my voice with my kids but couldn’t imagine a world where I ever would call them stupid. That is just trash parenting and amazing that anyone would do that to their offspring.
Ya, I think the study is mostly aimed at the negativity and denigration of the child. While I almost never raise my voice and would absolutely never call my children “stupid”, there are times where a raised voice helps break though to the child. It’s also good when you leave such a raised voice for imminent situations. For example, kid starts reaching for something dangerous, a shout will stop them cold, especially when they aren’t used to dad shouting.
Oooh yeah. My parents gently raised me and a shout from one of them was immediately understood not as them being angry but them being scared. By contrast we had some friends who were just incessantly yelled at in anger all the time. The difference was stark in how willing to accept advice, correction and trust in the experience of adults was. When you are essentially just told to obey and then yelled at you don’t really grasp the underlying principles that advantage you later because at any point that anger could just be you hitting a parent’s pet peeve. It’s also really hard to respect someone who doesn’t respect you back.
We grew up pretty damn straightlaced. By contrast our yelled at peers ended up by and large going completely off the rails once nobody was in a position to force them to obey and about half of them went really far astray.
I think it’s more yelling as habitual, not yelling when it’s sometimes necessary. No one is saying not to yell at your child to stop them from putting their hand on a stove. It’s yelling at them when they leave their legos out that is the problem.
I think it also depends highly on the circumstances, if your child did something very very bad (hit bother with a hammer say) then youd actually be derelict in your duties as a parent not to yell at them (and ground them, etc) in that situation. Going too soft on them when they really go off the rails can be just as bad or worse than being too hard on them.
Yep. If you are calm and reasonable most of the time, then yelling actually remains an effective tool rather than desensitizing the child to it and/or causing them the damage this post is about.
In my house, I’m pretty chill but we have no problem being loud when playing or joking. We have a bunch of pets too, so it can be chaotic. But when my serious big voice comes out, everything freezes and gets figured out pretty quickly. Usually. Lol.
Reddit did a good job making sure that “proud boys” returned very homosexual content in a Google search before Jan 6th. They took that back by… attempting a coup. Pretty hefty uno reverse card in the world of SEO if I’m being honest, it was a bold move and it payed off. SEO-wise, anyways.
There is a Swiss professional soccer club called “Young Boys” and it sounds like some sketchy gay nightclub. Even funnier is that their stadium is called “Wankdorf Stadium”
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.