Sure, and that's terrible, but from a different perspective, most of these beliefs and behaviors you've identified would persist without religious institutions and their proponents formalizing them as policy. Religion can give people a way to justify a lot of the terrible beliefs that they had internalized anyway, because it's part of the dominant culture. But misogyny, racism, homophobia, transphobia, classism, xenophobia, and moral hypocrisy aren't caused by religion or religious beliefs, any more so than atheism or agnosticism causes people to be tolerant or accepting of others in spite of their differences. And that's a foundational premise to many of the criticisms of religion I see on Lemmy. But it's just objectively wrong. If you want to look at a historical example of the productive power of religion, look no further than the SCLC (Southern Christian Leadership Conference), which was one of, if not the most significant, political and religious organizations of the Civil Rights movement. It helped to organize people into a fighting force for real progressive change and it did so by way of lines of communication between black congregations across the country. For even more examples of religion as a tool of social progress, I recommend the wikipedia page on Liberation Theology.
There are plenty of valid complaints about (many) American religious institutions, but the constant shoe-horning in of complaints about religion in unrelated posts that I see on Lemmy comes across as bitter and myopic.
For anyone wondering, Chaya Raichik is the reactionary ghoul who runs Libs of TikTok. I actually had no idea this was a semi-famous person until you actually made a comment about them.
I'm waiting for the day Jimmy Wales gets fed up and sells Wikipedia to Amazon and every page has an Amazon link to "great products matching your interests." Can we have internet 2.0 now? One without companies and just all the weird people from the first internet who made shitty webcomics and shared waaaaaay too much about their personal lives.
This is a good example of an argument that fails by virtue of its foundational premises. Vaush's foundational premise for age of consent is tied to socioeconomic or material factors around power. In other words, the argument is founded on the premise that a child has less power than an adult so children can't consent to intimate relationships with adults. This ignores the much more intractable argument over psychological and emotional maturity and the significance of particular age-specific life milestones that help to shape a child into an adult - a fully self-accountable member of society. Socioeconomics have mitigating influence over those things, which implies that even under socialism or any kind of post-capitalist society, that a society would have good reason to maintain agent of consent laws. It also totalizes socioeconomic factors as the defining impetus for consent, but that is in and of itself a slippery slope because you could take it to a logical extreme and argue that people of color and white people shouldn't be allowed to be in relationships, because a person of color has less socioeconomic power in America than a white person, or even that men and women shouldn't be allowed to be in relationships at all because men have greater socioeconomic power than women, which would mean that everyone should only be allowed to date same-sex members of their own race.
I miss the weird edginess of the internet. The reality is that the internet was a place that kids got warned about being full of weirdos and dangerous types. And they weren't wrong. The thing is, that also made it interesting and full of fascinating content. And it was largely unregulated and uncensored because the people in power were too old to understand or care about it. Now with things like KOSA and the centralization of the internet around a few megaplatforms, there's less variety and creativity. The internet has become an endless soup of banal, milquetoast content. Vaguely appealing to everyone, but not greatly appealing to anyone.
You are also forbidden from fucking and, I would imagine, also masturbating. I think that's the most interesting question about the Jedi Order: do they let their weird virgin space cultists shoot rope as long as it's not into a person? I'd imagine not.
Hey, we’d like to guarantee your child a future of being one of the most important people in the galaxy, with all their needs met as we turn them into space wizards who fight evil.
According to a lot of "not movies" media, many people who were trained to be Jedi didn't make the cut. It's one of those things that required a combination of remarkable effort and sheer talent and most people who were potential Jedi just lacked the raw skill to be considered one. As such, the Jedi had a large support auxiliary of force sensitive attendants and custodians who basically took care of the grunt work of the Jedi order. They weren't true "Jedi Knights," but they were a part of the order. They just spent their time scrubbing toilets and doing paperwork rather than banging queens and dismembering enemies of the state with laser swords.
Part of me is glad that my continuing insistence that younger generations are dumber than I was at their age is not just me being an old man mad at kids for still having the youth that he squandered. A larger part of me is terrified at the prospect of a generation being continuously microdosed with levels of garbage entertainment and misinformation that would make George Orwell nauseous.
This is a good question. The answer is probably "a few years old" at the least. I went hunting for the UPC code on the back label and found this website, which indicates its last recorded scan was some time in 2021. It's likely this product is simply no longer manufactured and sold by them. Probably by virtue of a lack of demand or other considerations.
I had the attention span to sit down and play...maybe a quarter of GTA 5. If that. At this point, I don't want to have to figure out what I was supposed to do or where to go. I want like...10 to 15 minutes of gameplay I can put down and then do something else and then come back and have another 15 minutes that's equally self-contained. I just feel like GTA punishes you for trying to do that.
A snake can't sprint at you at 25 miles an hour and then rip you in half like a phone book as soon as it sees you. Nor would it. A panicked gorilla placed in a strange location like a mall will potentially kill anything in sight.
Sort of like reddit. There's less content, but also less comments just replying "lol, so true" to a political meme. That said, there's also, for some reason, more rape apologism than on reddit. Maybe it's because lemmy is even more male dominated than reddit was or is.
Sure, and that's terrible, but from a different perspective, most of these beliefs and behaviors you've identified would persist without religious institutions and their proponents formalizing them as policy. Religion can give people a way to justify a lot of the terrible beliefs that they had internalized anyway, because it's part of the dominant culture. But misogyny, racism, homophobia, transphobia, classism, xenophobia, and moral hypocrisy aren't caused by religion or religious beliefs, any more so than atheism or agnosticism causes people to be tolerant or accepting of others in spite of their differences. And that's a foundational premise to many of the criticisms of religion I see on Lemmy. But it's just objectively wrong. If you want to look at a historical example of the productive power of religion, look no further than the SCLC (Southern Christian Leadership Conference), which was one of, if not the most significant, political and religious organizations of the Civil Rights movement. It helped to organize people into a fighting force for real progressive change and it did so by way of lines of communication between black congregations across the country. For even more examples of religion as a tool of social progress, I recommend the wikipedia page on Liberation Theology.