You must log in or register to comment.
I have an in-law that’s a teacher, and she says it’s fucking crazy how radicalized some kids are. Her coworkers have dealt with 11 year old boys straight up telling female teachers they don’t have to listen to them because they’re women.
They’re apparently always talking about shithead influencers like Andrew Tate too, and the ones that aren’t down the pipeline are definitely still heavily exposed to the ideas. Real disturbing shit.
Hoo boy there’s a little tidbit I’d rather not know
I’m hoping that it’s just the gen z/alpha version of an edgy atheist phase that they outgrow. For what it’s worth she also says a lot of kids are way more chill about LGBT students, including being respectful of pronouns.
My experience with teenage atheists is that they usually remain atheists into adulthood.
They (hopefully) outgrow the edgy part, though, was my point.
I think you might have picked the wrong topic, then. Atheism tends to be sincere and not just edgy.
I’m an atheist and that’s why I specified the edgy part.
Ah so you have a black friend so it’s fine.
Atheism isn’t edgy, it is a lack of belief. If you mean anticlericalism, then that’s an entirely different thing.
But if they are edgy misogynists in their teens and then they outgrow the edgy part…
… Then we’ll still have a bunch of misogynists on our hand, but now their beliefs are sincere rather than performative.
It was an internet comment, not a thesis.
Really hard to take a niche religious belief seriously without a large dedicated community of fellow practitioners.
Like, if you’re not regularly going to a church, there’s no peer network or social reproduction. You might become “spiritual”, but it’s going to be some religion you invented in your own head that’s divorced from any other formal setting. As likely as a non-athletic teenager suddenly becoming a baseball professional.
Organized religion is as much about the organization as the religion.
At least for atheism there’s a non-edgy, civilized version. For whatever this is, I don’t think you can make it more palatable without just throwing out the entire mindset
Us former edgy atheists didn’t go back to church (mostly)
It’s probably not an uncommon thing for us adult atheists to have been curious children and edgy teenagers.
Yeah but reminds me of 21 jump street (film). Asshole bullies will just use “why you hate my gay friend?” as the new excuse to pick a fight.
We really should have taken the criticisms of television a million times more seriously. Also environmental concerns, but, i digress.
I really think the left have lost a whole ass generation and don’t even realize it.
Nah, some of have been calling out right wing propaganda and the impact it’s having on the political scene for a while now. And it’s not just teens. Right wing propaganda has infested the left as well, to the point where you still have people repeating confirmed propaganda from the 2016 election because they’ve internalized it and can’t let it go.
It’s not that the left has bad messaging or unpopular ideas, it’s that there are a ton of cynics under the big tent. Cynics who actively poison outreach efforts because they are intellectually lazy, but love their own farts.
It’s not that the left has bad messaging or unpopular ideas
Good ideas, but terrible messaging. For example, imagine you wanted to sell Appalachia on the idea that the coal market is in decline so we should look at expanding other market sectors in the region so the entire region doesn’t increasingly resemble dead mine towns as time goes on. What’s the single worst possible way you could try to express that idea to those people?
“I’m going to put a lot of coal companies and coal miners out of business” - Hillary Clinton, 2016.
Hillary Clinton
left
As far as the US goes, Democrats are basically the best you get that has any chance of winning an election and she was their choice for 2016. I even held my nose and voted for her in the general (but not in the primary).
I won’t argue that progressives and the like shouldn’t be trying to either drag the party leftward or organize at a scale that they can actually win elections at some levels without needing the name Democrat behind them.
They have, they’re just now waking up and realizing there are actual stakes involved and thr right has a 50 year headstart.
The way I see it, the left had a good go and had the right on the ropes and lost it in the last 15 - 20 years. Not 50.
I saw a systematic push to pretty much remove the left from the internet and weight the algorithms towards right wing issues while vilifying the left as pompous know it all’s and out of touch with the regular man. Which is crazy because 15 years ago most people would have agreed with so many of the values that are vilified today.
Canadian sub reddits is a perfect example. One day accounts started showing up and laying into anyone looking to do discuss politics. And then hammered them over and over. Then a new sub showed up specifically for left leaning Canadians that drew the ones who didn’t want confrontation towards. At the same time the moderation team started recruiting and low and behold were hammered with right wing applications until they have what is essentially moderators from the r/The_Donald. Now there’s multiple Canadian sub reddits and almost all are heavy right leaning to the point you can’t post even moderate stuff. It all has to be headlines like “Lookie what these brown fellas are doing now”.
Crazy times. Even saw voices that were kind of cool become social pariahs as online users seemed to unanimously agree that “science guy 1” was faking it and pompous and “science guy 2” was also a giant piece of shit. We’re not even leftists but were people who would convince people to think critically and question even your own views. Could not let those channels and people grow. We all had to read about their vocal fry every time they posted a video. Decimated engagement for every voice the left tended to enjoy and who acted as lightning rods for different ideas and values such as common sense and logic were knee capped by the denizens of these newly seized territories who all unanimously agreed that these people were annoying. And since we’re social creatures, if you have 1000 voices saying someone is annoying and 10 say “what the fuck is going on in this comment section” we all tend to really focus on the annoying bits wondering about it ourselves until its just a truth. Meanwhile middle aged Comedian with views like “Students are shitting in litter boxes” and “Maybe wearing masks will kill you” were amplified.
Internet was a new frontier and seems like groups that had resources really seized on the opportunity to take back territory so they could relay a foundation that was pro their own cause. I think the left had a big part in helping without realizing it because they just didn’t care to see what was happening. Like a death by 10 000 paper cuts.
30 years ago rightwing talk radio was in full swing, already influencing huge swaths of America with their formulated, repeated talking points (something “the left” or even the Democratic party still can’t do), Rush Limbaugh had a TV show on one of the 4 major networks. For sure everything has picked up recently but they’ve been at this for decades, what we’re seeing now is the result of all the groundwork they’ve laid.
It’s a long listen but worth checking out How Conservatism Won by Robert Evans. He lays out in a clear concise way “how a consortium of rich failsons got together to fund a network of right wing think tanks and shift American culture in a fun new direction. (note: it was not actually fun at all).” They’ve been very successful and those think tanks are now pipelines used to funnel ideological purists into powerful positions like our current Supreme Court.
I tell people as often as I can, especially my trans and bipoc friends; now is the time. Get a couple guns (a long one and a short one) and learn how to use them. Learn some basic first aid, you really just need to know how to stabilize someone. Start networking with like-minded people in your communities. The police will not protect us, they’ve proven they’ll happily club senior citizens to the ground and shoot any protesters in the face with rubber bullets while escorting a rightwing murderer to safety.
Iran was a secular, liberal state until almost 1980 when they (mostly legitimately) elected an Islamist theocracy; it could happen here.
edit: tl;dr the shadowy cabals the rightwing says are behind everything is classic projection again, they’re controlled by shadowy cabals of rich people
edit edit: it’s worth remembering that one of the primary ghouls/traitors responsible for the attempted overthrow of our government on J6 was Roger Stone, the same traitorous ratfucker who began his career working for Nixon and has a fucking Nixon tattoo on his back. It’s really impossible to overstate just how fuckin’ bad these people are and they’re winning.
Her coworkers have dealt with 11 year old boys straight up telling female teachers they don’t have to listen to them because they’re women.
That’s hardly new. Obnoxious pre-teens finding any excuse to rebel are just a hazard of middle school life.
Andrew Tate’s brand of misogyny is the thing YouTube loves to promote in between Spider-Man Vaccinating Pregnant Elsa and Hysterical Child Unboxing videos. But if it wasn’t him, it could just as easily be Blink-182 lyrics or kids immitating what they saw in a Caillou episode.
I just found out the lady who cuts my dogs hair is a groomer. You just never know who you’re dealing with I guess.
:D*
*emoticon used because the joke is funny NOT because of the implications of what the joke meant. Results may vary restrictions apply call your lawyer before making bold statements have a nice day
This emoticon caused uneven tire wear! I’m suing!
Sir please calm down we told you to get our one-year alignment guarantee
WHAT? Y’all are driving your cars around on Lemmy rotors/axels/wheels? Lemmy isn’t strong enough, this is not its intended use!
I don’t disagree with any particular point - Christo-fascism is on the rise and it’s terrifying - but specifically the nazis were very much anti-church and thus anti-ten commandments lol
No, no, he is right. Republican and Nazi are the same side of the coin.
To quote Hitler “We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity… in fact our movement is Christian.”
Speech in Passau 27 October 1928Republican and nazi are the same side of the coin
No argument here
Not to weigh in on one side or the other but the Nazis claimed a lot of things.
That they were socialists, that Poland had attacked Germany…
I wouldn’t rely on what they said.Hitler also told a lot of people they were part of the movement. Then the Night of The Long Knives happened. He was meth addict willing to say whatever he needed to say.
Wow that sounds really familiar.
Yup.
The Nazis were very much Christian. Claiming otherwise is distorting the facts.
The nazi party espoused its own distinct, schismatic form of Christianity as it repressed Catholics and Protestants across the country. I am NO defender of the church but to act like churches/institutions weren’t attacked during that era is revisionist history. They were absolutely repressed, if certainly nowhere near as severely as Judaism was (which “repressed” doesn’t even come close to covering).
So, they were attacking other religious sects and churches that were different than their specific version of Christianity?
That sounds like Christianity to me.
Just because it wasn’t the form of Christianity we recognize today, doesn’t mean it wasn’t a valid religious movement. Sure, it specifically helped the Nazi party, but all the pieces of the puzzle to create their christo-fascist state were there for them to put together.
And they used Christianity to do it. Saying otherwise is being disingenuous and revisionist. They espoused Christianity. They espoused the teachings of Jesus. They claimed moral superiority just like every other religion does.
Sure, they used it to attack other religions to set theirs up as the state religion, but that doesn’t make it less like Christianity. Just a form that doesn’t exist today.
Repressing other religions is a cornerstone of most religions, including Christianity. To say otherwise is invoking apologetics.
Look we can be flippant about how evil organized religion is or we can discuss history. We can’t just vacillate between the two and expect a productive discussion. Major Christian institutions were attacked by the nazi party/hitler. This is historical fact. Whether or not they branded themselves as Christian or even were Christian doesn’t change that fact. They went after both Catholic and Protestant institutions across the country. Many clergy were arrested and/or killed. This is history, not another proxy battle for “church bad.”
I mean the nazi party had “socialist” in its name. Would it not be pretty reductionist of me to say “they were socialist”?
I am Orthodox Christian and you are right
Give one good reason why the Nazis started with the Jews and not the millions of other groups that are much further separated from their idea of the Übermench.
I’ll give you one. Because Nazis were Christians, and they hate the Jews for not accepting Jesus as their messiah.
I didn’t say nazis weren’t christians. I think this conversation simply isn’t lending itself to a nuanced discussion unfortunately, people are getting too incensed over it. Nazis are bad. Republicans are installing Christo-fascism and it’s a huge problem. All of these things I agree with. I am just talking about the relationship of the 3rd reich and christianity, which is not as simple as you want it to be. It’s a fascinating, if dark, subject. You’d do well to go read about it tbh. It taught me a lot about institutions can be wielded like cudgels even against their own interests.
To understand nazis religion it is important to understand religion in germany.
Back in the day, and today is similar in former west Germany, Germany had a fairly even split between catholicism and protestantism.
So the nazi party taking a strong religious dogma either way would had been very harmful towards their objectives, as half the population could refuse to follow a catholic/protestant movement. That’s why their leader and the party didn’t really seemed to take a strong religious stance. But at the end they were linked to the conservative values that are associated with religion. And his allies, Spain and Italy. Both formed fascist dictatorships very linked with the Catholic church, being their countries homogeneous in that aspect. In fact Spanish dictatorship is often refered as national-catholicism, and Mussolini had full support from the Vatican and the Pope.
At the end fascism, in whichever form and name it takes, tend to link with conservative values that are usually also linked with religion. The nazi party being just an exception due Germany particular religion situation.
Very good overview
fear of imaginary things, eg: god, is always more potent than any fear of living breathing mortal men, no matter how monstrous they are.
Think of it more like the flu. If I caught the flu I might have a temperature, a sore throat, loss of appetite, and headaches. If you catch the flu you might get headaches, diarrhea, exhaustion, and a dry cough.
Fascism is built upon and characterised by the exploitation of the current fissures of a stressed society. It is unlikely to lead to gas chambers and Hugo Boss uniforms as they were part of the specific evolution of fascism in Germany after it was crippled by the loss of the first world war. Usually, there are all sorts of barriers to full blooded fascism that give it part of its local character too as it tries to morph into whatever conglomerate of memes that it can ride to power.
Right now in America the pressure for fascism is being built with the tacit support of a lot of evangelical christians. It is not the whole of the story. It is part of the conglomerate. So the pride flags come down and the ten commandments go up.
I agree with all of this I’m not entirely sure what kind of response is expected lol
I wasn’t trying to be argumentative just adding clarity. I hope.
Got it!
I heard some PhD types who had written papers on Hitlers rise one time explain it that even though we can draw parallels to Hitler’s rise. It in no way means we should expect another group like the Nazi’s to rise to power. They were saying hindsight can say Hitler rose to power because X,Y and Z. But it in no way means that X,Y and Z are what create a Nazi power or means another one is going to show up. That it’s wrong to take something like lists that detail the things that contribute to fascism and say its happening now so therefore the other party are the next Nazi power.
I think what the message was that X,Y and Z only shows what could have contributed to Nazi’s seizing power but when used with foresight its not accurate.
He’s not wrong, but he’s not right either. Those lists are meant to be paired with deep analysis of the ideology and an academic understanding of the terms used. When used correctly they are absolutely useful for predicting oppressive authoritarian regimes. Can they predict the second coming of Nazis? No, because that was a unique moment in history.
Political scientists who write their papers and books on ideology have been sounding the alarm bells about conservative and fundamentalist Christianity since the 2000’s. There’s been papers about wealth ministry and the GOP since at least the 90’s.
So yeah, the brief lists on the Internet are about as effective as a Hogwarts personality test, but that doesn’t mean the watchers aren’t screaming at you to pay attention.
See I don’t really follow this stuff to hard. But that’s what I found funny was what you said sort of. These guys were the guys who write papers and study the rise of fascists and especially a focus on the Nazi’s and their opinion the were bringing up was that its not a predictive tool. Its something that is useful to look backwards and hypothesis what lead to a rise but it doesn’t work looking forward as well and can often be used to be a pretty big political hammer regardless of accuracy and that we should be more careful with it.
That’s what I was saying. I guarantee you they keep a list as a reference. But they aren’t just xeroxing the list with checked boxes for their writing. Throwing the lists onto the Internet is the same thing as putting Fascist on a sign whenever the government installs a new traffic camera. That’s what has them upset.
And if they’re telling you there’s nothing to worry about with the current conservative movement they’re either bad at their job or part of the problem. Because every political science professor I know, even the conservative and libertarian ones, are telling anyone who will listen that we are dangerously close to voting ourselves out of a democracy.
Right, fascism molds itself to a particular condition and ground truth. There’s actually a decent body of work which holds that it is a historical form of autocratic politics, and that searching for it in modernity is problematic because of how fungible the core ideology is. You can always stop fascism by stopping autocracy, regardless of whether you positively identify it as such, so all autocratic movements should be treated with the same level of urgency as Nazis. Easy peasy, okie dokie.
The biggest problem with this is that a lot of leftists like autocracy as well. And I am convinced that’s where a lot of this rhetorical pearl clutching really comes from. A whole generation of left wing opposition is effectively null and void because it reduces to a very inconvenient “well our autocracy is different…”
I’ll be the first to admit that there is a huge overlap between evangelicals (who pushed this initiative) and racist/fascist pieces of shit - but the ten commandments in and of themselves have no link to nazi-ism. :p
but the ten commandments in and of themselves have no link to nazi-ism
Yeah nahhh, like the Buddhist symbol was co-opted by the Germans, the commandments are used as a dog whistle by fascists now.
If it was about being Christian they would have used the Beatitudes (words of Christ) not the commandments. If it was about being chest thumping American they’d put the cononsitiution there, speration of church and state etc.
We know WHY they don’t use the Beatitudes, because theae fuckers are as close to being Christian as Hitler was to being Buddhist.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatitudes
Gandhi’s famous quote summarizes whats so wrong with Christians doing stupid shit like pinning 10 Commandments to the wall, they have little resemblance to Christ
I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ - Mohandas Gandhi
Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me.
Huh. Does this work… both ways?
I generally consider the (non-theist) Commandments to generally be generally good rules to live by.
I have to say the non-theist rules because several of them are about God and religion… Like, having no other gods before [him], not taking the Lord’s name in vain, the whole idols thing…
If you take all that theist stuff out, you basically get: don’t lie, steal, cheat, or kill, don’t covet others stuff, and respect your mother and father.
Pretty decent rules overall. At the very least, a good starting point.
Except it will depend on interpretation, and the “thou shall not desire” parts will be used to justify anti-communist paranoia.
Yeah, those are always on shaky ground with me.
It’s not just control over your actions at that point, it’s control over thoughts, and you can’t really police thoughts.
Plus there’s intrusive thoughts that we can’t really control. Things that just pop into our heads. Stuff we wouldn’t actually ever do, but the thought occurs to you anyways.
At the height of my depression from burnout, my brain was concocting inventive ways to take myself out. These were undesirable and unwanted thoughts. It usually happened when I was driving around, looking for a tree large enough that if I hit it head on fast enough, I’d be certain to perish. I could not stop thinking these things.
I got help and I’ve been in a much better place since then. The ideations have stopped. I recognized something needed to change because I didn’t want to think those things.
However, this is a pretty good example of the intrusive thoughts we cannot control that we probably shouldn’t encourage. My environment caused me to get so stressed and burned out, which led to such a profound depression that I couldn’t stop such things from going through my mind. We all have those intrusive thoughts and policing them is basically impossible. Having any rules to that effect is nonsense, in the same way that we don’t have rules to stop people from being offended.
Utter nonsense.
This is why I assert that the commandments are a good starting point. Not the end goal. There’s some good guidelines in there, but they’re hardly the final ruleset that you should adhere to.
*I tried to get a piped link, but it wouldn’t play, probably because youtube is blocking API accesses by third parties now?
Forcing them into schools despite everyone’s First Amendment rights is absolutely Christofascism which people (correctly) call Naziism as an allegory.
Words have meaning. And while it is absolutely and fundamentally wrong to impose religious bullshit on the education system (or anyone, really), no, you are moving the goal posts: The ten commandments have nothing to do with Nazis. You arguing against evangelical fundamentalists doing whatever has nothing to do whatsoever with my previous comment,
You are trying to pretend there is no context involved. You are the one inventing a different scenario than what is pictured so you can feel better about whatever it is that’s got you down.
whatever you need to tell yourself to not have to self-reflect the bullshit you are spouting…
The actual Commandments or the deliberate mistranslations?
Because the original flavor is very clearly a list of rules made to enable theocratic control and create a religious apartheid.
Because the original flavor is very clearly a list of rules made to enable theocratic control and create a religious apartheid.
I am pretty sure you are over-interpreting here. Theocratic control? Kinda, that’s the whole point of all the “holy books” - I mean whaddya expect? But apartheid is separating people based on (perceived) ethnicity - and the ten commandments do not even attempt to separate people based on religion. They are presented as rules for everyone, no distinction made.
I can’t believe that you managed to present such a stupid take, that I, a lifelong atheist who thinks all religion is stupid, has to defend the commandments… facepalm
Have you considered that maybe I know something you don’t?
Like, for example, the direct translations of the original texts.
Even what’s actually listed on Exodus as the Commandments.
Impossible, I’m sure.
Have you considered that maybe I know something you don’t?
Considered briefly, but as you decided not to share the alleged “apartheid” commandments, I dismissed that consideration as unlikely and yourself as a troll.
It’s not like they’re famously listed in one of the most read sections of the most published book of all time, lmao.
You can just say “I’m an intellectually lazy moron who started my nonsense with aggression and is now throwing a hissy fit because I can’t Google the text of Exodus.”
…said the little troll after referring the ssuper sspecial sseckrit translation that only it knows… Yeah, suck it, loser.
Lol, it’s not a secret, it’s just been lied about and you’re too lazy and ignorant to read the actual text of Exodus.
Good luck with that 👍
I was unaware the translation was this far off base. Can you give more about this? I love hearing about how bastardized the Bible has become from the ages of playing telephone.
This is like the rambling of street person after a week long math binge. Like, are these a bunch of idioms that just lose meaning in translation? And what’s up with all the hate over yeast?
Yeah. It’s partly why I don’t care if those get posted!
Just insist on liturgical accuracy.
You’ve got racist/fascist pieces of shit who aren’t nazis? What are they, lazy? 😄
I suppose I shouldn’t expect any reading comprehension from the OP…
I’ll have you know my reading complimentions are many and varied!
Copy/Paste of an actual message I sent to my friend earlier today:
“You know if chemicals in rainwater were actually making frogs homosexual my family wouldn’t have such a problem every year with tadpoles in our swimming pool cover muck lol”
Because it’s not in rainwater, it’s in runoff from cities and dairy farms. The chemicals in question are basically synthetic estrogens and their metabolites and frogs are just more sensitive to those in the environment than mammals.
Really?
Can you provide sources?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4586825/
Frogs and other amphibians are actually incredibly sensitive to all manner of chemicals. Heavy metals, trace pharmaceutical contamination in human wastewater… They basically breathe water through their very thin skin and have delicate tissues overall. They provide unique issues for conservationists because they are usually the first water related species to collapse.
Humans have a history of being able to tolerate years and years of direct contact with arsenic, lead and various toxins. Your basic oil paint set from before 1950’s has a lifetimes worth of a modern person’s regular exposure. Frogs are a poor indicator of how humans react to anything.
Plant based estrogens don’t impact humans much. They do sheep… But only because they have four stomachs and can actually sort of process them. In humans they just slip through the system mostly untouched.
Thank you for answering them before I could get back to Lemmy.
Thank you very much for the link and your explanation.
I’m fond of this one in particular because “They’re putting chemicals in the water that turn the frogs gay!” is both one of the craziest sounding things Alex Jones has said, one that was literally memed on for years as THE example of how nuts he is and also one that’s technically true.
No prob! Science and frog conservation is cool.
So sensitive in fact that a really common type of pregnancy test basically involved exposing a particular type of frog to human female urine. The frog being so sensitive to the presence of certain hormones would begin to ovulate if the urine sample was from a pregnant woman.
Really interesting but a bit of a shit lot in life for the frog!
To be fair that’s an improvement over the previous test since you could reuse the frogs while you had to kill the rabbit. Even older ones involved peeing on grain. We’ve known that there was something different about the urine of women when they are pregnant for a shockingly long time, but couldn’t explain exactly what in any real detail until fairly recently.
I didn’t know about the grain or rabbit tests. At least the rabbits got off the hook when the frogs presented themselves as a better option, I suppose.
I’m not sure if what this person said is correct, but I can corroborate that there is some distant distant nugget of truth behind ‘the guvments makin da frogs gay!!’ that is actually an argument for better environmental protections
At the same time, Alex Jones has made a lot of women turn gay I’m sure and there’s no one investigating that …
Thanks for the laugh
That’s not true, I actually am trying to turn your kids gay because I know it makes you mad.
“Socsaaaaaaaaaaa!!”
And the best projectors.
Source: Wikipedia
Maybe tell these groomers that Zionism and White supremacy have broken every commandment except for commandment 1 (and one could argue the Trinity and atheism breaks that commandment depending on view of the debater).
Yes, well… gotta have prorititties.
TIL following the Ten Commandments makes you a Nazi
Putting it up at every classroom in the state does.
And I’m pretty sure that the people pushing for that don’t follow all ten. Like “thou shalt not covet”. Have you seen American society? Damn thing is built on coveting.
I doubt some of them have even read all ten.
Eleven. The Louisiana law, at least, specifies eleven commandments. They basically doubled-down on the coveting, ironically.
At most it makes you a Fascist, not a Nazi. There is a difference.
How is that different from putting pride flags in every classroom?
How is that different from putting pride flags in every classroom?
1- this is not happening 2- flags are abstract representations, text of religious laws are specific (specific to a religion, which is another level of difference) 3- no government is mandating ‘pride flags’ 4- you already know all this, so the question is in bad faith
Bad faith question about pride flags = trolling.
I’ve seen enough evidence to be convinced that it absolutely IS happening.
Yes, there is no government mandate to do that, but it is happening nevertheless. There are tons of videos on YouTube of teachers explaining why it’s important to them. And while it’s true that LGBT doesn’t meet the definition of a traditional, organized religion, it does strike me as having quasi-religious character, as evidenced by the automatic assumption that anyone speaking out against it is acting in bad faith (i.e. committing blasphemy).
I think the word you’re looking for is culture. You know, the thing where people share ideas and traditions as a group.
And comparing symbols of individual acceptance that certain people are OK to exist with government mandated displays of religion mandated rules seems strange. Almost “both sides.” Almost bad faith.
Okay, culture works. But it nevertheless strikes me as odd that you keep using the word “bad faith”, because it implies that there IS a component of faith involved which you are accusing me of being in violation of. Hence I am going to maintain my position that LGBT has at least a quasi-religious character.
Also, I can’t help but notice that by saying “certain people are OK to exist”, you are elevating their right to exist over that of everyone else, i.e. you are creating in- and outgroups, those whose rights are worth protecting and those whose aren’t — something the Nazis knew a thing or two about.
Dude your mental gymnastics game is on point. You practicing for your fox news interview? Like you know words can have multiple definitions right? Bad faith has nothing to do with religion and you know that. Also to say that a historically persecuted group trying to be “ok to exist” somehow degrades others rights is complete bullshit. Explain how. You proposed the idea I want you to explain how someone’s right to exist peacefully somehow takes away from someone else’s right. I’ll wait. 🙄
Paragraph 1: “bad faith” is arguing or acting in an intellectually dishonest way. Like if I were to say this paragraph was written in bad faith, I might accuse you of knowing the term has nothing to do with religion yet still trying to shoehorn it into this whole “religion of LGBT” thing you have going.
Paragraph 2: wat
LGBT rights are human rights. If by “has a quasi-religious character” you mean that it is ideologically derived, then sure. Human rights are normative ideology. But to say that the idea of individual liberty and human rights are ideologically equivalent to watery tarts handing out swords, is to demonstrate an extremely profound ignorance of moral philosophy.
I’m assuming that you are actually asking this sincerely.
A pride flag is a symbol of acceptance. It’s saying that it’s okay to be gay. It’s not saying you have to be gay, it’s not saying you have to like that people are gay, just that it’s okay to be gay.
The ten commandments are rules. It’s not a message saying that it’s okay to be Christian, it’s saying that everyone must follow these rules.
The second one is authoritarian. It is restricting everybody, even those outside the group who created it. The first one is not authoritarian. Not giving orders to anybody, and not restricting people outside the group that created it.
I hope that actually answers the question.
A pride flag is a symbol of acceptance. It’s saying that it’s okay to be gay. It’s not saying you have to be gay, it’s not saying you have to like that people are gay, just that it’s okay to be gay.
Well, in the same way you could say that the Ten Commandments are just a symbol of respect. You don’t have to like them, you don’t even have to follow them, but it would be nicer if you did.
The first one is not authoritarian. Not giving orders to anybody, and not restricting people outside the group that created it.
Try seeing what happens when someone dares to remove the flag, or even just says in its presence that they don’t like gay people. I bet you the authoritarianism is going to show up real quick.
You mean see what happens when someone dares to remove the symbol of acceptance of an entire group?
It is like removing a sign that says “everybody welcome”. You do that because you think some people are not welcome.
What do you expect to happen?
Ah, the old paradox of tolerance strikes again.
Your comparison is invalid because clearly, the rainbow flag does NOT mean “everybody is welcome”. It means “everybody who agrees with us about who is welcome is welcome”.
Bro fr doesn’t even understand the point of the “paradox of tolerance” and thinks it’s a weapon in this argument lmao
That’s correct. If you’d just been invited into a tight-knit circle of friends, you wouldn’t say “I don’t like Joe. His nose is too big. I think he should be kicked out.” and expect to be allowed to stick around.
Again, I’m going to assume you’re being serious here and respond as if it’s a real conversation.
You say that the ten commandments are a sign of respect. A respect for whom or what?
Again, I’m going to assume you’re being serious here and respond as if it’s a real conversation.
I appreciate that, and I will do my best to honor that.
You say that the ten commandments are a sign of respect. A respect for whom or what?
They’re a sign of respect for and recognition of the essential humanity of others. No one likes to be lied to, stolen from, murdered, or envied. There is no exception made for rich and powerful people, nor for different races, creeds, or sexual orientations.
Yes, you can make the case that they also proscribe a requirement to believe in the Christian God, in which case I would say that’s no different than arguing that the pride flag is not saying that you have to be gay.
So the pride flag is necessary because, historically and very recently, non-straight people have been oppressed. Oppressed so badly that many kill themselves because of how they’re treated. It is a travesty that we treat other Americans this way just because they’re different.
Christians do not suffer like that. It’s literally impossible for Christians to suffer like that, as they make up the vast majority of the country. No one can possibly oppress a majority. Hurt their feelings, maybe, but not oppress.
I think if we are putting up religious tenets as a way of showing respect, we should put up the tenets of a religion that is actually oppressed in this country. One that is treated with hostility, and whose members are hated for no reason other than their beliefs. That would show them that we’re an accepting country, who actually follow Jesus’ values of loving our neighbors.
Calling you an asshole is not authoritarian
That’s true. It’s just childish and immature.
The impulse behind one act is inclusive, welcoming persecuted minorities. This is fundamentally egalitarian and strengthens society.
The other is intended as part of a drive for cultural hegemony where a specific ingroup is underlined as sovereign. A hierarchial society of a majority of innate winners and, importantly, subgoups of losers/outsiders (to be feared/hated) is the backbone of fascism.
Of course, a single piece of straw will not break society’s back and manifest fascism on its own but pressure towards it is created by an aggregation of such straw.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but there’s nothing in the Ten Commandments that is inherently unegalitarian.
There is no commandment that says “thou shalt steal from minorities” or “thou shalt give preferred treatment to the rich and powerful”. It does not create any in- or outgroups either — everyone is considered worthy of the same protection, and I don’t think I need to explain how not stealing, not killing, not lying, and not being envious of others strengthens society.
It seems to me that you are projecting an awful lot onto this text that isn’t actually there.
The first rule is that you literally can not have any god except for the Christian one.
Okay, how about Jesus’s rendition of the commandments as found in Matthew 19:18 (which basically drops the first three, and replaces the last two with “love your neighbor”)?
You’re wrong.
There, you’ve been corrected.
Why did you post a selfie?
We all know what Catholic fanatics look like, thank you.
The Bible and it’s mostly commendable teachings are an uncritically examined votive for a cargo cult that is being weaponised against America’s democracy. What the ten commandments are, or are not, is immaterial. The critical lesson is the hegemony of Christians over non-Christians and, most importantly, distilled to the naturalness/righteousness of hegemony/hierarchy.
It is a thin entering wedge that is intended to open up the possibility of inculcating children with divisive conceptions and undermining critical thinking.
Yes the ten commandments could be put up on the wall with egalitarian intentions but that is implicitly not the case with the MAGA movement.
Pride flags have never been used as a symbol of hate?
What’s with all that hate for Christianity then?
The majority of the followers of Christianity believe that being gay is a sin. We do not tolerate the intolerant.
That’s not what is said in the post.
No, but it is implied.
How do you miss all of the context like that?
What other context is there? It’s literally implying that hanging up a copy of the Ten Commandments will groom children into becoming Nazis.
The context, my dear daft friend, is forcing religion onto children in public, tax payer funded, schools.
Okay, how about a set of non-religious rules of ethics, or at least something all major religious groups can agree upon?
Don’t steal, don’t lie, don’t murder/use violence, don’t make any unwanted sexual advances, those seem general enough that everyone should be able to agree, no?
at least something all major religious groups can agree upon?
You don’t know much history I’m guessing.
