This is a sentiment often repeated by manosphere influencers and there’s no actual tangible evidence it exists and I think that’s the real issue.
This is why I feel there is such a disconnect. I just have to open TikTok to see this, so if researchers are not finding evidence then I’m very curious how that’s possible. Heck, you just need to look at the same masculinity influencer content they are talking about to see it, because it’s not just them making shit up from nothing - they will often use clips of misandrist women to get their point across. So they basically find the evidence for you.
Why has no one here said "links"?
People here just talk in circles instead of providing concrete support.
I see lots of people on the left type “punch a Nazi” online
"punch a Nazi" reads better than a more realistic "throw a feeble, limp-wristed nudge that hardly registers at a nazi that leads them to innocently ask whether you need their attention for something"
Unless the threat was public as a general statement to the public, it was directed only to the individual.
Until the individual publicized it, did the public know?
I don't believe it (or the rest) either: the wrathful, vengeful, genocidal god of the old testament (who would not measure up to any sensible notion of good or moral) fatally discredits the religion to me.
The passage is compelling, though.
By likening everyone (& yourself) to Jesus, it demands we treat them accordingly (like a golden rule by proxy).
It, moreover, indicates passive inaction (possibly including monasticism) is not enough, thus demanding positive engagement with the world.
As for rejecting the idea of hell, it's interesting to compare for reference the older Zoroastrian/Mazdayasna tradition that inspired/originated many of those ideas (duality of good & evil, god & devil, free will, divine justice, heaven & hell, guardian angel, archangels, immaculately conceived savior who resurrects the dead, final judgement) & was in some sense more benevolent & coherent about them.
They did not consider hell eternal: impure souls in the dark underworld are purified & reunited with the divine, a good god wouldn't allow eternal suffering, and when asha ultimately prevails over druj, hell ceases to exist & the universe is restored to a pure state.
Digression: Mazdayasna changed the negative impression Christianity gave me of religion.
Another difference is they don't consider belief a condition for a good afterlife, either: only good deeds for the right reasons (uphold truth, order, justice, no expectation of reward) seem to matter.
Mazdayasna impressed on me that ancient people can & have imagined better than the foul visions of the old testament, and they weren't all just brutal savages.
It disappoints me that their benevolent ideas struggle to survive.
31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
Then your section about "the right".
Then the rest
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
An act directed to a single person isn't an act intimidating or coercing the civil population.
In contrast, such an act directed at/broadcast to the general civil population does qualify as intimidation or coercion of the civil population.
A constitutional amendment requires approval by ²⁄₃ of each house of congress & ratification by ³⁄₄ of states.
Can you link to a resource stating when they had the supermajorities in congress to do that?
They thought since they do performative bullshit, politics is performative bullshit, so anyone they confirm into office also does only performative bullshit.
I like to insist on basic standards: "Please provide an agenda that explains why we're needed. Otherwise, I'll have to turn down this meeting. Thanks." and reply all.
Often, others will agree the lack of written preparation is a problem & follow suit.
If the agenda is simple & clear enough, I'll just answer in writing so we can cancel the meeting.
So breaking accessibility for the heck of it? How forward-thinking.