Which one of your views gets you labeled as "the other"?
Broadly speaking, you probably agree with the large majority of the views commonly attributed to whichever group you identify with - what are the exceptions? Something that if you mention without a caveat immediately makes people jump to conclusions or even attack you?
I think that gender dysphoria is a mental illness, as it causes mental distress if not alleviated with transition, but that it's not shameful to have it any more than it's shameful to have autism, conversion therapy has been scientifically proven not to work, and just as people with diabetes manage their condition with insulin, transition is the best way to manage it so people with it can live happy lives.
As a trans person yes, absolutely the anguish we feel for not being comfortable in our bodies is 100% mental illness. And people get upset because we see mental illness as a bad thing, a personal failure, instead of a condition to be treated.
Doctors have decided that transitioning, while it doesn't fix the problem of people not being born as their preferred gender, is much healthier treatment for the individual and society so that we can try to live happier lives where we get to feel as comfortable as cis people naturally feel.
I think that's the general consensus.
I seem to constantly interact with people decrying the 'transmedicalist perspective'
That people take issue with this point of view speaks to a general stigma around 'mental illness' as a category. Some strides have been made but we're still not where I'd like us to be.
Yes, gender dysphoria is a psychological condition. Yes, in many cases acceptance of identified gender and medical transition can reduce the suffering caused by the condition. It's not like there's been resounding success/better 'patient' outcomes for the alternatives.
It's just such an obvious line of reasoning to me that I have a hard time understanding how some people don't grok it, unless they've been poisoned by shitty preachers.
yeah it's a body dysphoria. there are lots of types of them.
That Lemmy can be just as bigoted, hostile, and close-minded as the sites it set out to replace; it drives out views which aren't in line with the gestalt majority. This thread, then, mostly gets answers which are on the mildest end because those who actually hold opinions out of step with the majority know damn well not to speak up, or, well... be immediately othered.
Turns out that people are assholes regardless of platform
in my experience that's especially true of certain instances, but not others. mostly along ideological lines.
Yeahs and people are on good behavior in posts like this. The “lemmy” doesn’t come out as much.
Care to provide specific examples? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just curious as to what things about this place that you consider to be "bigoted". Because my experience has been that the opinions that aren't tolerated here are themselves the bigoted opinions.
This is a tautology. All you are saying here is 'anything i declared bigoted shouldn't be tolerated'.
other people may not agree with your interpretation of bigoted. I see all sorts of hateful bigoted crap on here, it's just about what group it's targeting. I got banned from Autism community because I pointed out their bigoted hatred of 'normies' was messed up and many members there had a weird superiority complex about autism.
Yep. Basically this. And to bring it back around to OP's question:
...well, it feels like this is a great example. Suggest that the fediverse has a bit of a bigotry problem, and you immediately get hit with an implication that no, everything is fine, if you're not happy then you must actually be the bigot!
Look back on my profile at the recent comment where I mentioned Johnny Depp being a disgusting drunk rapist who groomed a woman half his age and sued her for defaming him when she spoke about the backlash she received for speaking out against his domestic abuse.
Lol what?? So they're bigoted against what in this case?
women. its called misogyny and its everywhere
Oh man, to test this, just go somewhere and defend women. You'll be destroyed.
gender war bullshit is bullshit.
lemmy is full of anti-men threads. there was a massive one a few days ago with 100s of comments. is that pro-woman?
I don't know, personally I'm against anti-whatever nonsense. I'm not in any camp, but I will point out my gendered life experiences, because the often go against the popular grain of gender essentialism that many people are conceptual wedded to.
I don't hate AI. It's fine. I don't love it either, but it's neat and often useful.
Just gonna vent a little, don't mind me. I don't hate AI. I hate how it's being used. In a vacuum, AI is fine. But we don't live in a vacuum, we live in a capitalist hellscape where everyone saw how AI was going to be abused even before corporations started jumping on every chance they got to do so. Now we're stuck in the timeline where the public consensus is that using AI for any reason at all is seen as fundamentally unethical. People are zealously anti-AI and the nail is only getting pounded in further with new reasons to hate it appearing every other day. And it didn't have to be this way. Photography didn't try to pass itself off as painting, it had time to develop into its own art form. But AI didn't. Out the gate, it was being used deceptively, and continuously became worse. People want to abolish AI as a whole, but it isn't the problem. The problems run way deeper. Our world is a sinking boat and AI is showing us where all the leaks are. Lack of education, lack of access to mental health professionals, those in power using every chance they get to screw over the working class by cutting every corner. Any new technology in any form that can be used to exploit people, WILL be used to exploit people. The hate on AI may be justified but it's too generalized and unfocused to bring about any meaningful change. There needs to be regulation, but I fear that any laws that are passed will only benefit the rich and horrible.
You're fine with companies stealing other people's work?
As far as I know, the jury is still out on whether that is infringing (not stealing). Based on my understanding, AI is transformative and would fall under fair use. That being said, claiming fair use and then selling the output is problematic to me.
Every single model should be open weights and uncensored. I wouldn't have any issue with companies adding value or supplying the compute to run the model.
They don’t even have to sell it, company valuation increases alone are evidence of piracy
In this particular case I'm okay with it but I don't see it as stealing. Human artists are influenced by the art of other artists the same way. It's only stealing if you're selling copies of the original piece as your own. I wouldn't have any problem with someone copying my entire photography portfolio to train an AI to generate pictures with my style because it takes nothing away from me. Just sell them as your own then instead of claiming they were taken by me.
I don't like neopronouns
never heard this term until today. Thanks.
A neopronoun is any gendered pronoun that isn't she, he, or they! The history of neopronouns in English goes back a couple hundred years- though the term "neopronoun" itself wasn't coined until recently- and they can range from pre-existing terms like "it" to something made up for one's own personal use. The more you know!
I"m just glad i got out of school before people started throwing protests about being called 'xe'
Drag is disappointed in you. Drag likes to be referred to as Drag.
I think violence should be the last resort, not the first, when speaking of revolution.
My sincerest wish is that you're correct. And to see it come true, of course.
There's also a cadre is society that wants people to ignore any other viable strategies in favor of theirs, because they're too close-minded to ever consider an alternative.
Just because you want to hit people over the head until they agree with you doesn't mean that's the only solution. It's just the only solution that doesn't require you to think about the consequences of your actions.
It's also the solution that is immediate and immediately gratifying to the emotions of those who have it, who are under the impression that they can impose their 'truth' on others with violence and force.
ICE is literally kidnapping people because they have darker skin. Peaceful protest only works when the other side cares about what you think.
Don't worry, I'm sure they'll come for you last due to your white privilege.
Looks at history... Yes, you're right, peaceful revolution is the absolute most likely scenario here. Musk, Nadela, Huang, Pinchai, Andresen, Thiel, et all are 100% going to surrender power and wealth. It's not like they have a company like palantir working to stop any dissidence to develop at all. In the past decade, the single most effective advocate for healthcare in the US was the dude who offed Bryan Thompson.
But don't worry, we know your white privilege makes you benefit wonderfully from the status quo.
I believe privately owned cars and on-street parking should be banned in cities, except for very few regulated exceptions, and replaced with municipal car sharing.
I’m a Democrat who values the 2nd amendment and doesn’t think we should just ban guns in the U.S. Stronger regulations and safety measures? Sure, absolutely. But I do think people should have the right to own and use firearms for recreation, hunting, personal protection, etc.
I think you'll find that most people by a wide margin agree that prohibition of anything generally doesn't work, and what they are looking for is regulations and enforcement.
There are a lot of vocal anti gun nuts out there though.
Where I live, mentioning you own, or would like to own a gun, gets you labeled as a fascist Nazi/proto murderer. That's regardless of all your other beliefs or political positions.
And there's a fair amount of 2a absolutists out there too.
I had someone straight-faced say that Jeff Bezos should be able to buy a nuke (you can imagine the trajectory of the conversation that led to this, it wasn't a non-sequitor).
I know plenty of people on the Left who want to ban guns, European-style. They think anyone who owns one is partially psychopathic and have a fetish about killing things. You're right, they're probably in the minority, but I question by just how much. I don't think they're as fringe as some people would like to believe.
Personal firearms ownership is legal in Europe.
My understanding was that it’s only legal under highly restricted conditions. If you’re just Joe Schmoe, you’re not going to be able to get a firearm just because you have no criminal history and no evidence of mental illness.
Yes but if you're looking for a total firearms ban, Europe is a bad example. They have a long history of participation in hunting and shooting sports.
I agree up to the point where the amendment is pointed at as disallowing reasonable regulation. If that's the case, end 2A. But my goal is regulation, not abolishment. If 2A folks (mainly the Supreme Court here) can accept regulation existing in parallel with 2A, then I'm happy.
I'm mainly thinking about preventing school shootings and domestic violence and murder, so restrictions of some sort on mental health / violent history.
Having children is borderline unethical given the capitalist hellscape they will be born into, the relatively high likelihood that they will not be able to live to old age due to risk of large parts of the planet becoming uninhabitable with climate change, and considering that reduced birth rates is the most ethical path to a lower population on the planet, which, though technically not a strict requirement of a greener future, certainly makes it a lot easier.
No shade for any kids living today or parents who choose to have them despite the above. I understand why people do it and I don't blame anyone for it. But it is worth pointing out that current birth rates in most countries are not sustainable, and the seemingly constant fearmongering about falling birthrates in places where it's low needs to go away. Yes, it's bad for the economy if the new generation is smaller than their parents. That's a problem with the system and its design (one of many), and not at all a rationale for having kids.
I will be honest, I held this same view for many years and still agree with it on the face of it but there were two things that people said to me that softened my view.
Obviously these weren’t the only factors but they both really resonated with me. My first dragon slayers is due this month
The trick here I think is parenting in a way that passes along whatever good you may have to your child. Unfortunately (or fortunately, in some cases) the moral compass and general ethics of the parents don't always translate to the kid. How to do that effectively is a whole other psychological debate. Either way, congrats and best of luck!
The trouble is, if all the considerate people who don’t want kids don’t have kids, the only people left will be the kids of the kids that did want kids.
Isolationism. I completely reject the idea that my country's (the US) military interventionism is in any way driven by benevolence, or makes life better either for Americans (outside of war profiteers) or for the people of the country we're fucking with.
This is really controversial on here, for some reason. The fact that I want to leave other countries alone and focus on investing in schools and hospitals and public transit instead of bombs and tanks (I don't even really care if it's being spent domestically or abroad, so long as it's being spent on good things instead of bad things) causes a bunch of people to call me a "tankie" and say that I'm just as bad as a fascist. All because I say shit like, that I don't want to start shit with North Korea. I don't even give a shit about North Korea. Like, I just watched how Afghanistan played out and went, "You know, we probably shouldn't do shit like that again," and supposedly left-leaning people really, really hate me for it. It's genuinely bizarre. I even got attacked once for defending Biden pulling out of Afghanistan! People just love sticking our nose in other countries' business, for reasons I can't even begin to understand.
Probably being an absolutist instead of considering case-by-case leaves room for criticism.
In your example, Biden pulling out of Afghanistan. Was it wrong to intervene in the first place, probably? But pulling out at that point caused the deaths of western allies and handed victory to the Taliban, causing millions to suffer eg. women can’t get jobs and single-mother families starve to death… and it was entirely foreseeable.
I would argue that Humanitarian Intervention should be excluded, and certain UN-led actions (although the bureaucracy has certainly led to interventions occurring after mass deaths, unfortunately).
That's a completely ridiculous and absurd position. They did not "hand victory to the Taliban," the Taliban won victory over 20 years of fighting and the withdrawal merely acknowledged that fact, a fact which Americans seem to have deluded themselves into thinking was anything but inevitable, and they really didn't like their delusions being shattered. The embargo, not the withdrawal, is what's caused most of the suffering. As the band Flobots said in 2007, "We already lost the wars they keep waging." Somehow, in spite of over another decade of accomplishing absolutely nothing, people seem, if anything, more willing to keep fighting the pointless, hopeless battle.
What is the alternative to the withdrawal? Please, provide an answer to that question. Do you think if we stayed there another 20 years, then we could leave and our puppet regime wouldn't instantly collapse? Or should we have just stayed there inevitably, even sending our grandchildren to go fight in that stupid pointless war?
The only thing that you said that's correct is that on day 1 of the war, we should not have gone in. But on day 2, we also should've left. On day 3 we should have left. On day 300 we should've left. On day, what was it even, 7000? On day 7000, we absolutely, 10000% should've left. What possible reason could you use to justify delaying it further? What could we do in another 300 days that we couldn't do in 7000? At that point, you're just arguing for making it a permanent war of conquest.
Your problem, and the problem of everyone who thinks like you, is that you're incapable of facing reality and accepting that sometimes good decisions are painful. When an alcoholic decides to go clean, what do you think that first day is like? Is it pleasant? Of course not. They may be irritable, they may have to have awkward conversations or confrontations with their drinking buddies, they may even lose friendships over it! But it's still the right decision, the important thing is that they stopped. This is the same way. Yes, the immediate effects of pulling out may have been unpleasant, but you have to be very short-sighted to not recognize it as an obviously correct and necessary decision. Y'all just see the unpleasantness and say, "Everything's been shitty since I decided to quit, I should just have another drink."
Even the government we propped up told us to leave! How can you possibly justify continuing the occupation? And how can I possibly view you as anything but a warmongering imperialist for taking that stance? You're talking about murdering people! Do you even realize that?
Yawn.
If a Taliban victory was inevitable, this is yeah totally true. The “rip off the bandaid” approach.
The question of how long it takes to peacefully handover power in a colony is an interesting one. It can be an absurd amount of time, may never be 100%, or it may never be peaceful, if resentment persists. I think it is possible, but we may differ there.
It’s certainly hard to justify the long-term cost to American life, expenditure, energy and focus to attempt beneficial cultural change on the other side of the world.
Unsurprisingly perhaps, some things are actually better in Afghanistan, since 2021. Definite evidence that war is in fact, worse, generally, than even a very dickish government. Looking at the data, I might come down on your side, it’s tough.
WHO Health data overview for the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan
Oh, I absolutely support "attempting beneficial cultural change on the other side of the world." Go write a book, sing a song, make a movie, you can still do that, right now, nothing's stopping you!
What I oppose is drone striking weddings halfway across the globe, kicking in doors and screaming at people in a language they don't speak, classifying every "military aged male" as an enemy combatant even if they're just a bystander to falsify your casualty reports, abducting innocent people indefinitely to secret torture dungeons without charge or trial, and that sort of thing. You know, things like, "forced rectal feeding without medical necessity."
Like, have you looked into what the war actually, physically looked like for people? "Attempting beneficial cultural change," what the hell are you talking about? Even if it wasn't an extreme whitewashing of the situation, you don't impose "beneficial" cultural change as an occupying force, at gunpoint! The only thing we did was make them hate us more.
By the way, do you know how we finally got bin Laden? It was by using a fake vaccination campaign to collect blood samples in Pakistan. You wanna talk about humanitarianism, do you have any idea how many people could die, how many preventable diseases we could fail to eradicate, if people in developing countries mistrust vaccination drives because the CIA uses them as cover? But you know, at least our lust for revenge was satisfied. (Speaking of, the US also promoted anti-vax conspiracy theories in the Philippines, during COVID, to keep them from relying on Chinese vaccines.)
We Americans used to at least try not to look for "foreign monsters abroad". I was raised on that sort of old fashioned idea. Do you ever feel like an impossible person from a land that never existed?
I remember growing up in the 90's and it being fairly common to think that there were no real enemies out in the world, that all the conflicts were over. "The end of history," gets mocked a lot, but the idea of putting conflict behind us and working together towards a common cause of advancing together is something I really miss.
But if that period of relative peace had continued, then people would've started asking questions about why we're still dumping more money into our military than the next 9 countries combined when the USSR no longer exists (to quote Terminator 2, "They're our friends now") and China such a big trading partner that nobody would dream of rocking the boat. And if people started asking those questions, it'd be real bad news for the war profiteers who make bank off that spending. And so it all went out the window, starting with the "war on terror," and now the government's trying to make us see everybody as a threat.
And so we can't have nice things, like healthcare, we all have to tighten our belts so that we can make more tanks. I remember when that was seen as right-wing.
It still is a right wing position, but the trouble is not right or left specifically, it's that the empire is overextended with its military obligations, the dollar has been badly debased, the US pays more in debt than its GDP, and despite all our spending, the US couldn't possibly meet all of its military obligations if more than one big thing happened at a time. The dollar is still the world reserve currency, but only because there's not yet a credible replacement.
The sad fact is that instead of minding our business, America wanted to be an empire - and empires have a pretty standard lifecycle. I don't think it's a question of if, but when, it goes the way of Spain and GB.
In my personal case, especially among the people I hang with here, my positive attitude toward generative AI seems like one of the major ones. Many people really don't seem to like it when someone mentions enjoying using these tools.
Hey, props for separating your question and response, though.
I bet you even use Windows when you use AI.
I hope you didn't bet much. Just goes to show how one shouldn't make assumptions based on tiny bits of unrelated information.
That having a better education is directly tied to income levels, so talking down to 'idiots' is actually some bougie bullshit.
Lemmy is a website full of people who are left-populists on paper, but hate the population.
The average Lemmite should never be in charge of anything that their IT degree doesn't qualify them for.
Lemmy wants the baby without the labor pains.
"Destroy Capitalism!"
"But what about the millions who will die in the ensuing chaos!?!"
"Well dont do it that way!"
"Which way then?"
"DESTROY CAPITALISM!"
Yeah the system is fucked and definitely needs change, but its either gradual or violent and as someone who came up with rough crowds in rough places. Most people arent cut out for when the actual violence starts.
practical and pragmatic reforms are boring. good policy making is boring.
hence why nobody gets excited by it. it's much more exciting to sit around daydream about the revolution than get involved in community or political groups or read public policy white papers that report the cause and effect of policies in a complex manner.
I used to work in public policy. It was really cool, until you realize nobody gives a fuck about making the world better. especially the politicans. all they can about is riling people up emotionally.
Damn, this shit goes all the way to the places where people signed up for boring policy work and can make a difference?
no, the policy nerds just want to to do good work. but good work isn't politically viable. they also typically aren't ideological because they are evidence-driven.
the politicians don't care about it, all they want is soundbytes to ragebait their voters. they want the 'evidence' to proof D is good, R is bad. or vice versa.
From my experience, that's giving the average lemmite way to much credit.
You're not entirely wrong but their are outliers like me! I graduated top of my class from a boogie High School (the most expensive in CT) I dropped out of college and now work as a dishwasher, its the most fun I've had in my past decade of employment from various companies, and the best paying? Why does that happen? I'm being paid $18/hr to wash dishes, its my dream job (no customer interactions) I studied CS in college and I'm very literate in all computer related tech (Fuck AI)
throwing away opportunity is a lot easier than having none at all.
I think trans athletes should be able to compete only in their assigned gender at birth category, if the sport is gender-segregated.
Yeah, I got into a discussion on this topic and my suggestion is that sports split on other categories, not just gender. Boxing already does weight classes, which is good, more sports should do that. Can't we have sports for people under 5'8"? I'm sure there's lots of shortkings who'd love to compete seriously in a league where there height wasnt an detriment.
This approach seemed to offend both sides of the trans sports debate.
and we divide a lot of youth sports by age categories, and often kids who are more/less developed get bumped into the more appropriate age bracket. it's bullshit (and dangerous) to have a 12 year old who is 150 lbs and in puberty playing with other 12 year olds who are 100 and pre pubescent.
Yes, but the thing you're missing is how much of USA culture is tied up in sports. Including college admissions through popular team sports. This topic hits a lot broader because it's about sports, and shitloads of money.
Hence nobody cares if there are trans people in niche sports with no money. For example, I mountain bike. Nobody cares, because mountain biking is increidbly niche and there zero money in and and there are like 13 NCAA mountain biking teams in the country... and if you win a competitive mtb race you win like $100.
But if it's Basketball... we're talking billions of dollars.
I come from a family of many female athletes. They aren't anti trans or religionous but they are anti-trans women in women's sports. They believe in a separate trans/non-gender category, but that's not a solution trans-advocates want. They want trans women to be in women's sports, and not men's sports. (and of course, nobody cares about trans men)
I think sports governing bodies should be able to determine this for themselves and their particular sport. But that's a little too pragmatic for a lot of folks.
But yeah, this gets you labeled an anti-trans bigot these days. Despite the fact practically speaking the particularities are involve really can't be generalized. In some cases there will be a unfair advantage, in others, not.
I think, and this may be a wild concept that bothers both sides of the discussion, that individual sports governing bodies (specific leagues, NCAA, etc) should be making the decisions and absolutely nobody in government should be involved.
People should be allowed to compete in sports, but it should be up to the individual sports governing body to decide how they slot people. And if there is an absolute ban in the league against use of hormones (aimed at preventing performance enhancing effects), then so be it. Those bans were in place prior to the trans people in sports discussion, I wouldn't say they are inherently biased. Take up the language of the rule with your local league to allow for medically necessary hormones for specific issues (including gender dysmorphia), but it is ultimately their prerogative on rules for their league. A senator doesn't need to weigh in.
But any poltician who so much as brings up trans people in sports should be immediately told to stay in their fucking lane.
Transgender ladies who are on oestrogen and testosterone blockers aren't any stronger or faster than cis ladies.
Gender-affirming care massively reduces the difference, but transwomen are still likely to be faster than AFAB women:
But what season you're born in also influences your strength and fitness:
So maybe it's not fair for all those poor summer babies to compete against unfairly blessed autumn athletes?
There's enough biological diversity that fairness is basically an illusion anyway. I don't care enough about sports to have a strong opinion. I think it's fine to say giving up competitive sports is a cost of gender transition. I might think it's also fine to let trans athletes compete except I would hate it if the women's league became the trans league or if poor young kids felt pressure to transition in order to compete at a higher level and get life-changing scholarships or even a professional career.
Is that a legitimate fear? Maybe not. At the end of the day, I rarely watch sports. I would support letting them compete and seeing if it is a problem before passing laws to fix issues that don't actually exist.
Yeah, I agree. This is a take I rarely see. And it's just... a choice lots of kids make regardless of their gender identity for lots of social or physical reasons. I've known people who had accidents, then pulled out of it for fear of permanent physical harm. Lots of people also would love to play, but physically are unable to due to a too much/too little body mass for that sport. You can't be a football offensive lineman if you weigh 120lbs and are 5'2". My nephew spent years training for baseball and was very good, but he physically wasn't large enough to be competitive, so he had to give it up.
The notion that one MUST be able to play competitive sports is so... bizarre to me. If they can compete, great. But if they are wiping the floor with their peers because of their physical advantages... they should probably be playing as a man w/ men. And that's not unprecedented. We had a few larger/stronger women play with boys when I was growing up and everyone was cool with it.
Gender affirming surgery for trans women often includes bone shaving in various locations because your skeleton does not substantially change in response to your hormones. Hormone treatment does not affect your skeleton.
Also, in the same way that it is easier for people who have lost weight to put that weight back on because they already have those extra fat cells, people who lose muscle mass will have an easier time gaining muscle back because they already have those extra muscle cells.
Of course, timing makes all the difference.
I hate being drunk as well as being around others who are drunk. So yeah, I'm real fun at parties.
We should have a party!
I hate hate hate that alcohol is a thing everywhere and I have to neglect several times even though people know me.
My anarchism.
Anarchism in general makes me the other when dealing with most people, but the specifics of my views on it also generally make me the other when dealing with most "anarchists." (I oppose any and all attempts to institute anarchism - I believe it will arise organically or not at all - and I similarly reject any and all stipulations regarding what sort of standards, norms or systems may, may not, must or must not be a part of an anarchistic society),
Hey friend. This is basically what I came to write. I consider myself a "dictionary anarchist" which to me just means a complete lack of hierarchy whether natural or imposed.
I don't think of it as a political philosophy but more just as a description of how I believe the world actually is when stripped of the systems we've laid on top of everything.
I also have no interest in figuring out or enforcing this belief on other people or groups.
I'm amazed and pleased. I almost never encounter anyone who shares my views, even among self-described 'anarchists."
Most of them carry around lists (figuratively at least) of all of the things that will be required and all of the things that will be prohibited in their "anarchism," antagonistically immune to the fact that by doing so, they've already stipulated institutionalized, hierarchical authority and thus proactively eliminated anarchism.
Very much yes.
My anarchism is rooted in my view that authority is a contrivance, and an ultimately unjustifiable one.
Tom lives alone on a desert island. That means that Tom, within the constraints necessarily imposed by simple reality (he can't, for instance, flap his arms and fly) enjoys complete freedom of choice.
The only way that that freedom can be constrained is if another person is introduced and that other person acts to constrain Tom's freedom.
So as you note, the state of affairs in which Tom's freedom is constrained beyond anything determined by simple reality is some additional element that's laid on top of the base state.
And as such, it's the thing that must be justified. Tom doesn't have to justify being free from constraint imposed by another - he already was so free, and would have remained so were it not for the fact that the other has chosen to try to introduce constraint.
Therefore, the introduction of constraint is the thing that must be justified
And there's no possible justification for it that doesn't ultimately establish a hierarchy by which the other person is seen to effectively be a superior being, such that their determination of what Tom may, may not, must or must not do is superior even to Tom's
If the tacit presumption of innate superiority isn't made, then any and all noninal justifications for authority over Tom's decisions fail, since any argument by which any other party might justify imposing their will on Tom is also an argument by which Tom might justify imposing his will on them, and any argument by which they might claim to be rightly free of the imposition of Tom's will is also an argument by which Tom might claim to be rightfully free of the imposition of their will upon him.
This is where and why institutionalized authority inevitably goes wrong, which in turn is why I'm an anarchist.
What do you think about Cheran in Mexico?
Without first hand knowledge, I couldn't say in any detail, but I expect that ambitious, greedy, power-hungry psychopaths are already angling for Council positions, from which they'll exercise tacit authority until such time as their positions and their authority can be institutionalized, at which point they'll become the new generation of corrupt officials.
That's not to say or imply I oppose the effort - if nothing else, they've gotten some breathing room. And hopefully the next time they throw off their tyrants, they'll remember how they got their start and reject authority in and of itself and entirely, rather than deluding themselves that it can be constrained.
From what I've read, they didn't overthrow the government to abolish rules, they did it to replace corrupt state rules with traditional community rules.
There is no campaigning allowed either for elections to the council, and no secret ballots.
Do you like Waiting for Godot?
Never seen it.
Off to see why I apparently should...
...Ah. I see.
That's a specific approach I've never seen before, though the broad strategy is tediously familiar.
"Pro-gun" - am left-of-center, anti-estsblishment, progressive US Democrat, people probably assume I'm far-right if I just say that no context
"反共" ("Anti-CCP") - Amongst Mainland Chinese, they'd probably look at me like the classroom "troublemaker", even my parents don't like me talking shit about CCP at home, we don't even live in China. Someone from a Chinese Lemmy instance probably assumed I was a white dude that hated China and Chinese people and asked why I "hated China". I had to use pinyin to type my response in Chinese, my native language, explaning I'm ethnic Chinese and born in mainland China and I only hate the party/government. Their response afterwards was quite "chill", very understanding. Amongst westerners, if I say I'm anti-CCP, they'd probably assume I'm a conservative lol, nah fam, fuck the rightwing radical lunatics and fuck tankies
Me prefering visual media over books - Lemmy seems to overwhelmingly like books better, for me, nah, partial aphantasia, hard to imagine things like someone elses thoughts, I can picture my memories quite well tho...
I'm a militant ethical vegan. I basically don't talk about it unless directly asked, because it's probably a fight otherwise.
Isn't that what "militant" implies?
No they use rocket propelled grenades.
maybe they mean they only argue and scream at themselves over their veganism?
I've dated a self-hating vegan before. She would like, get drunk, have a piece of cheese, and then go into a self loathing spiral.
Men aren't the enemy of feminism and equality. It doesn't matter what any man has done to you, being a bigot doesn't fix it.
There are real problems in the world that benefit from attention. And most people prefer to waste their energy being mad at made up shit designed to make them hate their neighbors.
I don't believe in the right to private property. This is completely non-discussable with family. I am very lucky to have friends more open to this sort of radicalism.
I also have some strong opinions about colonialism and reparations that don't get most Americans, especially not white suburban Americans that I an surrounded with, very excited.
Where do you draw the line on what counts as property? Surely people can have some things that are theirs?
So a common misconception about property is that private property means personal property. This couldn't be further from the truth. When leftists discuss private property we are referring specifically to property owned with the purpose of producing capital for the owner. This essentially means businesses. Your house is not private property it is personal property because you own it for personal use. This changes if you own 50 houses and extract rent from them. A hammer is personal property until you own hundreds of thousands of them and distribute them amongst laborers who use them to create economic value that you now "own". Communists want you to own things, we just don't want individuals or small groups to own production and have legal entitlement to the value of worker's labor.
Interesting perspective I haven't heard about before, thanks for sharing this food for thought!
I'm wondering if this can be extrapolated beyond physical things like the hammers and houses you mentioned. Would a rule of thumb like "one shouldn't be able to appropriate more resources than one can personally make use of" fit with your point of view?
E.g.: nobody should earn 3 million a year (thinking of the mozilla ceo here specifically lol, but I'm sure it's common among big businesses), not leaving the heater on if you're not home because (in most cases) someone else could have used that electricity or gas, selling or donating non-sentimental things you're surely not going to use it again so that someone else can get use/value out of it, etc. As ideals to strive for of course, not necessarily all hard-and-fast rules
When people talk about private property, they generally aren't talking about personal property: your desk, your refrigerator, your home. They mean private ownership of eg. farms, factories, cyclotrons
I keep getting downvoted because I advocate always voting left. Even if currently the democrats aren’t left wing, they are more left than Republicans. And if you keep voting for the most left candidate then over time they’ll keep shifting more and more left. Republicans will learn they’ll never win unless they start moving left so they’ll move left, then the Democrats will move more left.
Letting republicans win because the current democrat isn’t left enough is, IMHO, stupid.
Thank God…. I hate the edgy leftists who think they’re being morally righteous by not voting or wasting their votes voting 3rd party. These people also never work on voting reform either which is essential in escaping our 2 party systems.
Religion and spirituality, broadly considered, are not inherently evil. That organized religion can justify great evils is a function of human weakness, nothing more.
Then again, this is coupled with a 'there is no god but that we create ourselves/god has no material existence, but is no less powerful for that'' POV, which is admittedly a weird one that I've been pulling at for a bit. Nothing to do with the nature of our reality or first causes, everything to do with our relationship to reality.
Came here to comment on the religion part. Humans are biologically programmed to be in a tribe and we need an "other" and we need a bad guy. On its own religion could be a neutral or a good thing, but it fits that need for tribalism and a common enemy and feeling superior. It's the same mindset as nationalism or racism or when fans of sports teams riot and beat the shit out of each other for no reason. If religion never existed humanity would have just discovered some other way to segregate ourselves, feel superior, order each other around with arbitrary rules even the in group can't agree on, and isolate and kill those who don't comply. Add in manipulative people who are all too eager to hop into leadership roles and use them for their own power and selfish gain and you have pure evil, but it's the system, not the religion, that's a distraction.
I largely agree, but I don't think people actually need to have an "other" to hate. I suspect it's an easily activated community-level defense mechanism, if that makes sense. One that's easily a used by manipulative people.
I'm just trying to figure it if there's an evolutionarily-selected use for having manipulative power-seeking types in our populations, or if they truly are more analogous to a parasitic mutation of a more conventional personality type.
I can't say that I disagree with anything here. What bugs me about it is that at an idea at the core of many religions is that all us humans are of one kind, some particular expression of the universe (however that's conceptualized), and can/should act in that fashion, towards each other and the world around us.
But it's almost always turned into a footnote among a bunch of other bullshit that perpetuates tribalism, subjugation and violence. Going to use words that are easily poked apart, but I hope the idea comes across: we all contain something of the divine. It's a miracle we exist at all, and maybe it's possible we can all act like it and set aside meaningless divisions. One 'tribe', the world over, created by mutual recognition and respect rather than force and othering.
Literally all the bones are there, you just have to cast out the outdated divisive bullshit. But doing so also involves actively rejecting some ugly facts about humans as a group, which is, well, hard - to put it mildly.
Idk - this is all why I don't talk about my beliefs (such as they are) too much, and just try my best to act with the good stuff above in mind as much as possible.
I'm not at all religious now, but I was raised Christian. There's some awful, awful shit in the Bible, but Jesus was such a chill dude. If everyone acted like Jesus, the world would be an awesome place. He was just a hippie who drank wine and hung out with his bros and made friends with prostitutes and outcasts and condemned the church leaders who abused their positions. According to legend he was the legit son of God and yet when he was asked to judge sinners he was like yo dudes that's not my place only my dad can do that I'm not worthy and neither are any of you, maybe instead of worrying about what other people are doing you should deal with your own issues, ok? Can you imagine if people actually lived like that? I'm not as familiar with other religions, but from what I know other major prophets were pretty chill, cool dudes too. If people actually followed the prophets of their religions instead of being assholes, religion would be great. Instead we have poor people being exploited, women and children being abused, and the entire system is fucked and corrupted because of human nature run amok.
100%. It's why (when I take a look at things from my bottom-up god POV, which is a key stumbling point here re:implementation) I think a Christian movement that interprets the fucked system behind such outcomes as 'Satanic' corruptions to be cast aside would be interesting and possibly pretty cool. Or it'd just continue the cycle of fucked up shit with new window dressing, idk.
Satanic in quotes 'cause there's lots you can unpack with that term/figure, but you know, popular broad strokes version - evil force trying to keep us from what we can be. It's really just us getting in our own way IMO.
Yep
Truth of the matter is people who aren't religious always have a proxy for religion in their lives, which they irrationally worship.
And they are often prepared to justify evil towards others in defense of that proxy and use it to justify their social and moral superiority to those that don't hold to it the way they believe they do.
It's just how human beings are. But a lot of them are in rampant denial of it if you confront them over it.
People have passions about other things than Jeebus. They are often irrational and they tend to become attached to their pre-existing notions. These basic facts about humanity doesn't make their other passions a proxy for religion.
Typical cultist thinking. People's politics and thought processes are a religion like bald is a hair color.
so MAGA isn't a cult? the .ml users who are all rabid communists and think anyone who isn't are facist nazis, aren't a cult?
ok buddy
Religion and politics are oft intertwined that doesn't make them the same thing. In fact you might note that insofar as MAGA membership in a christian cult is highly correlated with being in a political cult.
Some of us aren't in any cult. Maybe that can be you one day.
sorry, what cult am I?
weird that you know so much about me.
I had figured you to be one of the hurr durr atheism is a type of religion hurr durr types which are almost always Christians or the flavor of agnostic that holds so many Christian beliefs that you might as well call them Christian in everything but name. Did I guess wrong?
sounds like you think there is such a thing as a 'true' atheist? and you are one and everyone else isn't?
sounds pretty cultist to me...
Bigotry and prejudice is always bad, even if it's not against a "protected class". Hating on white people, straight people, cis people, men, or anyone else for the way they were born, what their ancestors did makes the world a worse place. Heck, "white" itself is a nebulous concept that changes over time and is different depending on which racist you're talking to. Just because someone resembles your oppressor does not make them your enemy.
Kind of related, but I don't broadly judge categories of things. I was at a party recently and someone asked me if I liked anime, and I responded that I like some anime. Most of it I don't like, but that's not specific to anime. In my experience, roughly 80-90% of all media is somewhere between "garbage" and "mediocre", and it's the 10-20% at the top that I look for. A lot of my favorite bands happen to be metal, but I'm not going to like every band that uses distorted guitars.
Perhaps another way of phrasing it is that I usually find that the parameters which define genre are often separate from the parameters that determine my personal enjoyment.
My theory is that most people are more concerned with the social groups around media than the media itself.
what did they say after you said you liked anime?
Something along the lines of "well I actually don't like anime!". And started talking about how people expect him to be an anime fan, and how he lived in Japan for a while and liked manga a lot but not so much anime.
It was a a party with a lot of "alternative" people, most of whom probably would just say "yeah I like anime". I think the guy was expecting me to say that so that he could that he could then subvert expectations, but my more neutral response kind of derailed things.
I don't drink alcohol or do (other) drugs. I've been labeled boring.
I don't like being recreationally high. I have tried several times. I'll take cannabis to help me sleep when I have insomnia, so it's not just being anti-drug, I just don't like it. My son in law thinks weed is the greatest thing in the world. Sometimes I do it with him just to be social.
The last time I partook, I sat in a chair for the entirety of a documentary about that sub implosion trying to decide if I needed to go throw up and whether I could make it without bouncing off walls and possibly the floor. By the end, I barely managed to take my ass to the guest room and fall asleep.
On the other hand, alcohol helps me cope with social anxiety.
Yes, I've noticed the instant justification is a common response, too.
I'm glad the drugs help you, friend.
Ah I apologise, that was a snarky response. I'd just woken of and I was a bit cranky.
To be honest I had no idea what your response even meant so I could not take offense. :) I was mostly just supporting that not enjoying an altered state of mind is perfectly valid, but maybe that's not how my response came across.
Anyway, have a good day!
That we should renationalise all public services here in the UK. I genuinely believe that. I'm essentially a left of centre capitalist, but I believe private companies using shared national infrastructure for shareholder profit under the lie of 'competition' is bullshit.
Thames water was a clusterfuck
In America its still not ok to be an atheist. Truly weird that it is ok to be part of several different mutually exclusive cults who all believe things that if they were not connected to a proper religion would get you laughed at but if you don't have a cult its not ok.
on the coasts nobody cares. you must be talking about the south. the majority of the population in cities in atheist or non-practicing.
This honestly just isn't true 70% of the pop is still Christian.
Well I guess it's that I have a difficult time understanding trans folk. My belief is that we should be working towards accepting and loving our bodies regardless of how they are formed, with all of their flaws intact. I feel complicated towards cosmetic surgery as a result of this belief.
Obligatory caveat: I still love trans people, you're ALL valid and I continue to learn from you.
People that live as their chosen gender are happier. People who don't are much more likely to kill themselves. Hard to argue with that.
I mean yeah, hard agree, but Trans people ain't a monolith and I would like to learn more about them.
I would expand that to body modification in general. Tattoos, piercings, hair loss/removal treatments, shoe lifts, fake nails. Heck, you could even expand it to clothing and fashion.
For me it comes down to cost-benefit analysis. For me personally I find it pretty easy to change my mind, so that's usually "cheaper" than trying to change my body. Or you could say that I don't see much "benefit" to such changes to my appearance. To let go of my desire to appear a certain way, to stop caring about how others see me. Some might call that cis privelege, but I would argue it's something most cis people (at least in the US) struggle with too.
With the people I hang out with, i'm usually the only one without piercings to tattoos. Often I'm the only person with naturally colored hair (I do hope I go grey before losing it because it would be pretty cool to look like an old wizard, but if I lose my hair first I'll just embrace it).
At the same time, you could extend the conversation the other way to things like prosthetics. I just saw a meme on Lemmy yesterday about a closeted trans person who had a car accident with a moose and needed extensive surgery afterwords. So rather than restoring how they used to look they took the opportunity to fully transition. From my perspective, the opportunity cost of transitioning was lowered in that case.
I want to see humanity continue to pursue technology to reduce these costs though. People have been writing fiction for centuries about gender-swapping, even just for a couple of days. If there really was some magical pill that could swap your gender for a day or two, or was easily reversible, or if you could just transfer your brain between artificial bodies, I could see that leading to a lot more empathy in the world.
the thing is you won't/don't notice most trans people. they are living their lives not bothering anyone.
it's just the extremist nutbags that get attention and kind of paint a poor picture of trans folks. i've known some very miserable and shitty trans people who are hard to forget, but i met a lot more i odn't even remember because they never got in my face and bothered me or said crazy shit. but they are the same as any extremist/nutbag of any persuasion or identity who thinks anyone different than them is subhuman and they are the model for some master race.
Believing in facts and reality over ideology and idealism.
And as an extension of that, focusing what people do, not what they say they do or want to do.
(everyone hated that and took it personally)
the quickest way to lose friends and get people to hate you to is to point out people's actions.
especially when they are complaining about x y or z, and they do x y or z.
I get why the whole "colorblind" thing ended, but what we replaced it with is even worse.
I voted to leave the EU. I work in agriculture and the CAP just funds wealthy landowners and has incentivised the destruction of the environment.
I lost my job thanks to people like you.
Doing what?
I think we can all agree destruction of the environment is bad. Has it or the incentives gotten any better since, or was it optimistic?
The EU has weakened their green farming rules. The UK has strengthened theirs with replacement policy
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/eu-agrees-relax-green-rules-farming-subsidy-reform-2025-11-11/
So how have things been since you left?
The replacement ag policy is better, but it will take a long time to reverse 40 years of bad practices and transition to regenerative ag
One of the things people constantly disagree with me about is children. Specifically how hard it really is to raise one, and that everyone isn’t meant to have them.
Many people don’t understand that where children begin, you end. There isn’t going to be time for things you used to do on your own time, at your own leisure. There are no natural born parents, people that can function on little sleep and overwhelming circumstances. You give up peace, money, autonomy and you don’t stop parenting until you’re gone. There are a large number of people who feel like one day, they’ll become a parent and that will be their identity. Some people start their journey in parenthood wholeheartedly believing their child is an extension of themselves; not a developing, unique person that may or may not be completely different- like no one else in the family.
Having children is the most important job that you will ever have. You don’t get to quit when you realize that maybe you aren’t cut out for it. That’s why it’s important to know yourself, and work on your trauma and shortcomings before they bleed into your children. If you aren’t prepared to make sure they have the absolute best you can provide them in all aspects of life; why are you having them? If you aren’t ready to let your priorities fall to the wayside while you guide a tiny human into themselves, you aren’t prepared.
I'm a Christian who doesn't celebrate Christmas. You can imagine how that goes over with the family. But it's definitely a super pagan celebration. 🤷
That women are vastly more interested in sex than men. To the point that it becomes a core pillar of identity.
What do guys discuss on guys night? Cars, video games, work, local politics, their kids, sports and poker.
What do women discuss on girls' night? Men, penis sizes, relationships, sexual behavior/conquest.
I think women are very interested in sex, and pre-modern times the stereotype was that women were the horny gender.
But I think what you're describing is more about gendered social norms in conversation. The fact that (some) groups of men don't talk about sex that openly is because sexual prowess is tied up with social status and most men wouldn't feel comfortable discussing sexual problems, failing to satisfy their partners, not really enjoying sex or anything like that for fear it makes them less of a man. And because of that, guys talking about how much sex they're having, or how they tried this new thing and their lady went wild for it, kinda come across like they're bragging.
You're not entirely wrong but my point is actually that yes it is literally and directly true that it is more important to women than men. I say this from a lifetime of lived experience as a non binary person, I've spent my life in both groups.
It is so bad, when I'm with groups of women I often think to myself, is the only thing these people think about..... men? (edit: This also applies to bi and lesbian women... all they talk about is every chick they've fucked, how they were wronged by their partner, who they'd like to fuck, and the dynamics of their relationships and social drama)
I respect your experience, and I'm sure that is true for you. I'm not sure what country you're from, or what generation. These sorts of things are pretty dependent on a lot of different social factors outside of gender. My experience has been that, in terms of groups conversations being dominated by sex chat it goes gay men, lesbians, straight cis women, straight cis men. But its super socially dependant - most of the men I've spent time with are total nerds, maybe army guys or jocks are different? Living in Britain, France and Germany the norms around those sort of conversations have been very different, and I bet America and Japan are different again.
My bigger point was you can't infer how much something pre-occupies a person by how much they talk about it. I've know women who enjoyed talking about relationships and sex with friends, but were happily single and not that interested in it beyond gossip. While some guys would never discuss it directly but pretty much every decision and interest in their lives had come out of a desire to meet and impress women.
sex is social status for both men and women.
largely derived form the 'worth' of the sexual partner. low value partners are something to be ashamed of, high value ones are to be bragged about to peers.
I think when you really break down sexual behaviors and all that, there is very little difference in men vs women and sex. The major difference is the narrative they pursue and tell themselves about sex though. And very few people can separate out their behaviors from the narrative they tell themselves.
At this point I don't really have anyone I identify with.
Liberal here who detests people living off of the government making dependence on benefits permanent and I don't support open borders.
This doesn't mean I support removing food stamps and ICE's attrocities.
You're not a liberal. I have a friend who thinks exactly the same and votes Trump. Benefit fraud is extremely low and even people who have 3 jobs can still be eligible for benefits because wages are much too low.
I'm not a leftist. Very liberal. I never once said anything about fraud. The arguments about fraud are lies anyways. I work my ass off and am living paycheck to paycheck on a daily basis in the middle class.
My feelings on the benefits comes from working in CPS land for almost 20 years and seeing people that can do better but instead every kid is on SSI, family is on Section 8, they get maximum food stamps, do not work, and yet they tend to be some one the most unstable families.
Medicaid for all is something that should be a right as health care companies are parasites.
I'm not worried about a rise in crime when it comes to undocumented workers. Undocumented migrants tend to be less likely to engage in crime.
I'm worried about Conservative undocumented men and their sons coming across the border, refusing to assimilate, bringing that machisimo bullshit, and being drunkards and bastards to their families. Also seen from CPS land.
So let's not make assumptions about what makes a liberal. You being presumptuous makes me think you might be an all or nothing tankie.
First, those benefits are for their children, who don't choose that life. Alimentation is correlated with success across all dimensions when it comes to children. Poor nutrition is correlated with poverty and not being on government assistance. Second, those folks you're talking about will not magically and permanently change and become educated and social contributors because the government took away their benefits. Third, if you're focused on fraud, waste, and abuse from federal programs that benefit poor people, you're spending dollars chasing dimes. The majority of the fraud, waste, and abuse you're looking for comes from our military budget, the largest in human history, greater than the entire rest of the world combined, and comes from a chronic lack of oversight and accountability. Also your position on this issue is quite conservative.
I'm not talking about disability because of true disability (which the money is quite low to be honest). I'm talking about every child has adhd and is receiving $800/mo.
My other issue with government dependence is this. What happens when your government is corrupt and halts your benefits or ties your benefits to obedience?
And to be honest, there is a bunch of welfare fraud. Mostly white conservatives are the ones who abuse them but want to gate keep.
Your problem is with the medical community, if what you're saying is true and not just a right wing talking point. If someone's too fucked up to work, it's my privilege and my pleasure to pay the fourteen cents a month or whatever to make sure they can still feed themselves. It's the human thing to do.
Not sure where you're getting your information but this happens all the time and people are negatively affected by it in various tragic and inhumane ways. I'm not sure what you expect people to do though.
But there isn't.
You obviously don't know what liberal means. It means progressive, empathetic, leftist. We're not talking about fiscally/economically liberal.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberalism
Ok tankie.
Look everybody, it's an Other!
I'd love for you to explain what "open borders" actually means to you, because I've never been able to get a clear answer. Can you name a liberal in national politics who does support "open borders"?
Angela Merkel.
OK, and how exactly did she support open borders? And again, what does open borders even mean?
I am a socialist in a "small" party in rural most conservative not fascist state of my nation. Soo the answer is: yes
But ironicly talking with 60+ about the topics they all agree and say they would vote for me but then between 20 year olds and gen X, complete disagreement (eventhough what i want to change is what they are complaining about) And its not just policies just my lifestyle is mocked in all kinds of ways and im just like...cooking from stratch for example used to be the way of life here...about which these villagers (intended) constantly say "city people dont know how to XYZ" but then them buying soup stocks and plastic packed meat from the supermarket instead of the butcher/cutting up the meat yourself and doing it yourself.
Its a real mystery to me. But i guess you cant argue with stupid
Maybe calling people stupid is part of it?
People like to vote for relatable candidates. Someone that represents them. If I were a local “villager”, I’d also probably expect someone to know what cooking from scratch is.
I’m bullish on open borders. Not lack of sovereignty, and all fully documented. But if people are emigrating/immigrating “illegally”, there’s only one real solution. Tightening borders only benefits the well-off and slavers. Poor people are well aware it is possible to be poor in an MEDC. And mostly colder.
On here
i dunno man, sounds kinda gay.
Which is great.
I don't identify myself with any side in politics. Why pick a side when every side is shit.
The thing that spurred me into paying more attention to things politically, was the thought that, you can't complain if you don't vote. If you're upset with the system, but do nothing, even the bare fucking minimum of showing up and voting, then your complaint really doesn't matter.
You can also just pick and choose what you want from each and every side, and leave what you don't like on the table.
Like a buffet.
But people tend to get really really angry at you when you do this, and label you whatever side they hate most.
I don't think AI is the devil. Liberals/leftists are frightening lately over this topic, in a way that is increasingly difficult to construe as anything other than garden-variety technophobia and anti-intellectualism.
People jump to crazy conclusions when they learn why I never had children. They think I'm a eugenicist because I made a decision for myself even though I specifically don't give a fuck what others do.
Liberals/leftists get strangely aggressive about wanting a cure for my genetic disorder. This apparently also makes me a eugenicist.
I'm all for healthcare "rationing", that is cost-effectiveness analysis for both public and insurance-funded healthcare and setting a cap that will exclude even some evidence-based interventions.
Why though?
Why I think so or why it gets me weird looks?
Healthcare is expensive. For public healthcare, it's always a balancing act between how much to tax, and how to distribute taxed funds. I don't want sky-high taxes (already live in Finland, not exactly a tax haven); and 100k€ spent on e.g. education is better than 100k€ on a treatment that will likely give someone a year more of life.
For insurance, same, I just don't want to pay as much as "truly full coverage" would cost. I'm fine dying if a year of keeping me alive would cost over 50-100k$ to the shared pool, whatever it was, and would want to share the pool with others who feel like me. I wouldn't grudge more costly premium plans for other people though.
Any Abrahamic religion that's practiced is someone participating in a fraud, most of the time without cognizance of it. I got outside that system some time back, and have never been better off since.
By the way, all three Abrahamic religions are owned by the Popes of Rome.
Some of us see how much damage magical thinking has done to humanity and the planet, I guess.
I don't "blame God," because that would be like blaming Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.
And no I'm not just talking about man made religion, I'm talking about magical thinking.
It's all man made, btw, but I honestly don't feel like having that conversation with you today.
Sorry mate, I just find it important to believe true things.
It has a lot to do with religious folks labeling themselves as an oppressed minority while being an overwhelming majority with tremendous power worldwide, especially in political leadership. For Christians, it's an immediate reflex response to what religious folks don't recognize is blasphemy, bringing up religion as the answer to a question nobody asked. I recognize that I just posted an America-default comment.
You're forgetting the fact that many Christian sects are minorities and often sects hate/persecute each other, especially historically. Christianity comes in about 45,000 flavors. And many of them are radically different from each other.
And if you're not a member of one of those specific groups they all look pretty much the same, and express the behavior I described in my comment. They may use their "minority" status as a predicate to making war with each other, but that wasn't what I was talking about.
Do all Asian people look the same to you too?
A belief system isn't the same as a race, you jackass. People have control over what they believe. I'm well within my rights to discriminate against idiots for believing in fairy tales and attempting to persecute anyone who doesn't believe the same fairly tales.
Considering the death toll religion has wrecked across history I think it's fair to dislike the practice in the modern day. Like, don't get me wrong I really care about the canon of my favourite stories but I'd never launch a crusade over someone elses fan fic of it.
As Carlin said “when it comes to bullshit you have to stand in awe of religion.”
They pay no taxes, diddle kids, murdered millions…and you fucking show up to put MORE money in the collection plate‽ madness