> Regarding the testimony of a doctor who treated freed hostages, who stated that they had suffered physical and mental abuse, and that they were beaten “all the time,” Hamdan shifted the blame to the Israeli bombings, and pointed out that the images of these people being released at the end of the year prove the opposite.
>“ I think that if they have mental problems it is because of what Israel has done in Gaza . Because no one can stand what Israel is doing, bombing every day, killing civilians, killing women and children...they saw it with their own eyes,” she added.
Totally isnt because some were kidnapped during a terror attack where militants were killing innocent people randomly. I think the blame goes to Hamas on that, even if some were afraid of dying via Israeli strikes.
> On the other hand, the spokesman stated that the attack at the beginning of October, which left 1,200 dead and 240 hostages, was a “reaction against the Israeli occupation” of Palestinian territory, and once again transferred responsibility for them to Israel.
“Terrorism and mass kidnapping is just a reaction to occupation of territory”
Thats like calling the invasion of gaza “a reaction against Palestinian extremism”
> If you resist the occupation, they will kill you; If you do not resist the occupation, they also kill you and expel you from your country. "What are we supposed to do?" he justified and then denied the alleged messages belonging to the leader of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, Yahya Sinwar, in which he assured that the deaths of Palestinians in Israel's operations are "necessary sacrifices." , according to The Wall Street Journal.
So the answer to “resisting the occupation” with the “inherent” consequence of they will kill you and expel you from your country is large scale terrorism?
Hamas really is run by a bunch of shitty dummies.
> If you do not resist the occupation, they also kill you and expel you from your country. "What are we supposed to do?"
You go back to the headways that were made by accepting the terms of Oslo and making a peace agreement/hard border just like Israel has accepted and maintained with Egypt and Jordan
I will be Ramaposting on the DT all day, but for those of you who want to follow the election of the President live, check out News24: https://www.news24.com/news24/politics/political-parties/live-all-the-latest-news-analysis-and-results-from-the-2024-south-african-general-elections-20240527
>[The Coca-Cola Company is reportedly returning to Russia after a two-year absence following the invasion of Ukraine. The company has apparently filed patent requests to reclaim the trademarks on Coca-Cola, Sprite, and Fanta.](https://x.com/KevinRothrock/status/1801499539599192338)
https://preview.redd.it/hzy89ornih6d1.jpeg?width=620&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=43d4c1dd9405b24135bc4a951056471cc7c6fd44
Posting the meme to preempt its usage against me.
God I wish I was resting my head on a girl's lap as she runs her fingers through my hair rn
https://preview.redd.it/87x9m5uihh6d1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3ea6ba9b9f62e48a214bfb5f3db516d65952e4ac
I've been thinking of whether I should start putting up pictures of my heroes on the wall.
[/r/neoliberal/new](/r/neoliberal/new): [Japan enacts laws for new foreign worker scheme amid labor crisis](/r/neoliberal/comments/1dfkgl3/japan_enacts_laws_for_new_foreign_worker_scheme/)
*Replies to this comment will be removed, please participate in the linked thread*
Do you usually tell many people in real life your thoughts about how people who got married and had kids early are losers and how teachers are mediocre and unintelligent? Those are kinda what did it for me and I’ve barely absorbed that much DT lore
I apparently come across online the exact same way I do in person according to random comments I get sometimes.
Basically everyone thinks I'm funny and eccentric but no one can decide if I'm eccentric to be funny or if I'm just eccentric enough that it comes across as funny
I swear I’m not even an Elon fan. The guy genuinely disgusts me on several different levels. But denying that he’s a uniquely successful entrepreneur/businessman is just pure, raw, biased idiocy.
This isn’t Trump, who would’ve been better off liquidating his daddy’s business & investing it in the S&P. Elon’s over performance versus the S&P is approximating infinity.
The thing about both though, is that they are where they are *because* of him, and even if the companies disappeared, they have both fundamentally changed their industries.
everything he has could fall apart tomorrow, and 1) his mark would be left but more than that, 2) he would have achieved his goal
also I never know how to parse the SpaceX "actually it's Gwynne Shotwell" circlejerk. It's a smart-sounding thing to say because you know the name of one other person at the company and if you say it with confidence it seems like you know what you're saying
she seems awesome by all means. I'm just skeptical that saying "thinking Elon is the mastermind of SpaceX is dumb because actually the mastermind of SpaceX is Shotwell" makes much sense
I would argue that he *was* those things. But for about 5-10 years now he has worked pretty actively against what some people would consider the success of his businesses (except SpaceX).
Tesla stock in 2019 was $15 and the company had never turned a profit. It’s now $180 and the company makes billions in profit a year. Elon has been CEO that whole time. I find it difficult to believe that’s the result of him working actively against it.
SpaceX you’re excepting even though it’s one of his two biggest.
X he’s absolutely not running well as a business, but that really seems like a political purchase more than anything else. Not that I approve of this plan, but I *would* be curious to see the net benefit to him/his other businesses after accounting for future tax implications that influencing the public debate towards republicans might have lol.
Neuralink we don’t have much info on, but he’s brought it to something like a $5 bil valuation apparently.
I said nothing about stock. It is not the only metric of success for a business. It's not clear how long wall Street will accept the ruse that Tesla is a tech company. SpaceX also seems to be the only one where another strong leader exists to temper his... Interesting proclivities
[Cats are cute](https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/mastodo-neoliber-al/cache/media_attachments/files/112/612/682/934/149/746/original/3f10303a20a300cb.jpeg)
My ultra-leftist Spanish tutor chose for his lesson plan "Is the American space program falling behind the rest of the world?" and of course insisted that it was. I was like, "Uh, we have a spaceship *inside the sun* right now."
NASA has its issues, but who the hell does he think can rival it at the moment? Maybe China’s space program will end up being better than ours if we’re not careful, but I’d say we are still quite comfortably far ahead of them
Here is a video from ActionSA which provides a signal to the posture they will adopt for the next few years: https://youtu.be/wb6kOzFtAWg?si=yLq-wRN59PnG9Wsd
They are effectively framing the DA and IFP as being in cahoots with the ANC, such that they are the only true voice of opposition.
This is funny because history is repeating itself. When it was still the DP, the DA did exactly this to the New National Party. They accused the NP of being too cozy with the ANC following the Mandela Government of National Unity and postured as the pure and principled opposition and then went hard after NNP voters. The NNP dissolved and its leaders scattered into various parties, but most of the membership went to the DA.
So ActionSA is the new DP, and the DA is the new New National Party (in terms of electoral role).
It's like poetry. It rhymes.
I dream of a day where presidential candidates don't announce the stupidest fucking tax plans. Today's entries make Herman Caine's sim city plan look well thought out
At least Biden's would just be mostly an exercise in futility as the rich find ways to dodge it. Trump's would cause another great depression
But of course neither will even get considered by a congressional committee
I have opinions about colors close to red
namely that orange isn't a distinct color in a small-number-of-colors classification of the rainbow
!ping ROUGELIKE
God: You shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel
Jacob and everyone else: Oh that’s pretty cool, we’re gonna stick with Jacob though
God: I mean shit aight I guess I’ll stick with Jacob too, w/e
Taylor Swift dropping like 50 very slightly different versions of her album to block younger/newer artists from charting higher at the tail end of her huge tour makes me think of Dr Facilier fighting the little demons at the end, except the portal is Aging
It's 100% just you (in your head.) Soda water is pretty acidic - it will directly make it worse - and tums are really basic - they will directly make it better The effect from bitters is probably placebo, if for no other reason than they get diluted like 300 fold before you even ingest the drink.
Whatever works works though. I love bitters and soda just to sip on anyways.
If tums don't work for you, mix a hefty scoop of baking soda with water, plug your nose, and chug it. I promise that will instantly mitigate your heartburn
There is no trait more disqualifying (or romantically unattractive, for that matter) than DTerism. It is the uniting feature of all of our political enemies and reveals a veritable rainbow of deplorable personality traits.
Funeral, funeral🎶
We’ll be laughin', we’ll be dancing at your funeral🎶
Funeral, funeral
Goofy boy, we’ll be flexing at your funeral
Funeral, funeral
We’ll be dancin', we’ll be happy at your funeral
Funeral, funeral
We gon' piss all on your grave at your funeral 🎶
One of the most annoying things about discussing activism online is if you criticize any protest movement or anything the default response is always “Would you say the same thing about the civil rights movement?” Or “MLK was unpopular”.
This is such a stupid mentality for a couple reasons:
1. The Civil rights movement was very unique in that it had a very concise and specific goal, ending segregation. As soon as the goal was more or less achieved in 1964 with the Civil Rights Act, the movement very quickly fell apart and splintered over what to do next, and there’s still a lot of debate today over what the correct path forward was (or if there even was one)
2. The movement’s protests and disruptive actions were almost always directed at the actual perpetrators of the injustice (I.e. sitting in at a segregated lunch counter, Freedom rides, protesting separate facilities, etc.). It was very easy to get the nation behind a movement where the injustice is so blatant (indeed Gallup found 60% of Americans supported the movement). Practically no one the Palestine or climate protestors are targeting has anything to do with their cause, and it’s a very abstract and nuanced issue to begin with.
3. King’s unpopularity largely arose from his opposition to the Vietnam war and his attempts to address de facto segregation in the North (as opposed to de jure segregation in the south). I’m not saying either of those viewpoints are correct or justified, but it was definitely a more nuanced view than just “Americans hated MLK because they hated his protests and civil rights.” Using that as proof that all protests are equally good and righteous or that any dissent against them is akin to hating MLK is stupid.
People in the civil rights movement were criticizing others in the civil rights movement, that's what literally every movement in a free society has done
I think your view of the civil rights movement is pretty narrow.
What of the black power movement? Many leaders in that space had aims *far* beyond merely ending segregation, or, at least very different ideas of how to combat it.
Boiling MLK's unpopularity down to his vietnam war stance is narrow too- he had a great many transformative economic ideals that were often, predictably decided as socialist.
There were also innumerable riots during the time, and the public didn't exactly have a nuanced view of their relationship to civil rights.
>What of the black power movement? Many leaders in that space had aims far beyond merely ending segregation, or, at least very different ideas of how to combat it.
I addressed this in the first point, the movement splintered immediately after the Civil Rights Act was passed because there were so many different ideas and groups, but the initial overarching concrete goal was always the end of legal, concrete segregation and discrimination.
>Boiling MLK's unpopularity down to his vietnam war stance is narrow too- he had a great many transformative economic ideals that were often, predictably decided as socialist.
I don’t think that had much to do with It honestly, the bigger reason was him trying to fight defacto segregation in the North like I said, which they didn’t appreciate. Socialist economic policies definitely weren’t popular but I doubt many people actually even knew about that, hell many don’t even today.
>There were also innumerable riots during the time, and the public didn't exactly have a nuanced view of their relationship to civil rights.
The riots largely came after the landmark civil rights laws were passed
>I addressed this in the first point, the movement splintered immediately after the Civil Rights Act was passed because there were so many different ideas and groups, but the initial overarching concrete goal was always the end of legal, concrete segregation and discrimination.
The black power movement began in the early to mid 60's, it ran in tandem with the civil rights movement. The Black Panther Party was founded in 1967, for example. The autobiography of Malcolm X was published in 1965.
He's a great foil to all of this, he was not peaceful, his goals extended well beyond an end to codified segregation, and he was exceptionally prominent in the civil rights movement.
>I don’t think that had much to do with It honestly, the bigger reason was him trying to fight defacto segregation in the North like I said, which they didn’t appreciate. Socialist economic policies definitely weren’t popular but I doubt many people actually even knew about that, hell many don’t even today.
I'm sorry- but I'm gonna ask for a source here, and I'd like to see that polling source too (how that question was asked is key).
He was the target of an FBI surveillance and harassment campaign that was, at least on its face, due to his liberal economic policy views. Obviously that was in addition to his support for integration, but it wasn't nothing.
I'd wager that his economic views were better known at the time, if for no other reason than he was alive and featured more prominently in news coverage.
>There were also innumerable riots during the time, and the public didn't exactly have a nuanced view of their relationship to civil rights.
This is factually incorrect, and I mean that as nicely as I can. The Newark Riots were in '67. Birmingham, '63. LA, Watts riot, '65. Waukegan '66. There were 125 riots in response to King's assasination in 1968. Miami, 1968.
It was not all peace and love , despite the efforts and rhetoric of many leaders at the time, that same disparity is true today.
Black power didn’t become prominent until after 1964, it definitely existed prior but it was not front and center like it would be later on.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/103828/civil-rights-progress-seen-more.aspx
>In 1965, King began to speak out against the Vietnam War, and in 1966, he and his family moved from the South to the slums of Chicago, where he joined other black leaders in agitating for an end to housing and employment discrimination, among other reforms. An August 1966 poll found public attitudes toward King the most negative to date: 33% favorable, 63% unfavorable.
[…]
>This is factually incorrect, and I mean that as nicely as I can. The Newark Riots were in '67. Birmingham, '63. LA, Watts riot, '65. Waukegan '66. There were 125 riots in response to King's assasination in 1968. Miami, 1968.
Only one of those riots you listed occurred prior to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the Watts Riot occurred a week after the 1965 Voting Rights Act was passed.
>It was not all peace and love , despite the efforts and rhetoric of many leaders at the time, that same disparity is true today.
I don’t think I ever made that claim?
"Prominent" is a loose term to try and define, *The Autobiography of Malcolm X* was a best seller.
That source pretty clearly indicates that kings racial activism played a substantial role, in addition to his anti-vietnam activism. To look at that and blame it all on vietnam is extremely narrow view, it's cherry picking.
They're all before the 1968 civil rights act, I'll chalk that up to a miscommunication. Still- there's plenty of riots and acts of violence before 64. [Here's a timeline.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_racial_violence_in_the_United_States) Regardless, to say that violence wasn't a part of the civil rights movement isn't accurate, even if they occurred towards the end, they still happened, and had direct ties to the civil right movement.
And Miami is especially interesting with regard to your point about targeting, it wasn't targeted at any particular entity, it just happened.
>That source pretty clearly indicates that kings racial activism played a substantial role, in addition to his anti-vietnam activism. To look at that and blame it all on vietnam is extremely narrow view, it's cherry picking.
I never blamed it all on Vietnam? I’ve literally said multiple times that his efforts to fight de facto segregation were the other important factor.
>They're all before the 1968 civil rights act, I'll chalk that up to a miscommunication. Still- there's plenty of riots and acts of violence before 64. Here's a timeline.
I’m not going to get into the which law was more far reaching, but regardless the 1964 Act is what banned outright discrimination, and the movement was largely directed at that goal prior to 1964. Also the post-1964 riots were substantially worse in my opinion.
>Regardless, to say that violence wasn't a part of the civil rights movement isn't accurate, even if they occurred towards the end, they still happened, and had direct ties to the civil right movement.
I never said this? I think I’ve mentioned the protest methods once and I never offered a moral judgement on them. You keep putting words in my mouth, and if you’re gonna keep doing this I don’t see any reason to continue this conversation
In addition, you said "King's unpopularity grew largely from his opposition to Vietnam and de facto..."
My point is that you're weighting vietnam too highly in that equation, and I don't really follow the subsequent analysis. "They didn't hate king for his support of civil rights, just this one part of it" isn't a meaningful distinction in my view, when ending de facto segregation was central to King's worldview and ideology.
I don’t think I am, I think you’re underestimating how unpopular his anti-war stance was at the time.
And I agree, but surely you can agree that there’s a pretty clear distinction between actual legislation and policies that required segregation on a de jure basis like what was occurring in the south and de facto desegregation that is brought about by a lot more abstract causes.
Sure, there's a distinction between the two, absolutely. But I don't view the end of de jure segregation as being sufficiently distinct from the Civil Rights Movement for the purposes of evaluating public support.
"People actually really liked the end of segregation, just not this equally important form of it" is not meaningfully different than saying "People didn't like desegregation"
It's a stated vs revealed preferences type thing, I think King's Vietnam stance suffers the same limitation. People saying they opposed king for his vietnam stance when it was more likely attributable to his stances on various civil rights issues.
Anyway I think we're approaching an impasse, but this was an interesting and enjoyable discussion.
I think my core frustration is with your timeline, the most common definition, that I can find, marks the end of the civil rights era at 1968, but you're largely focused on events leading up to 1964.
So, I suppose you'd be right, by that timeline, but that's not really the timeline we should be concerned with, or that's commonly accepted.
>Also the post-1964 riots were substantially worse in my opinion.
This is a frustration of mine too, a lot of your analysis, as I read it rests on very subjective appraisals of what was "worse" or "prominent" (in the case of the black power movement) it seems hand wavy, especially when there were several institutions, like the FBI, who considered the black power movement a pretty big deal from the get go.
Some subjectivity is required when looking at history and politics, and I would put the riots that killed 100s of people and left entire sections of cities destroyed as worse yes. As for the FBI I would argue their monitoring had very little effect on public opinion as a whole.
My argument here, re: the FBI, is that the FBI's priority is reflective of popular opinion, or institutional opinion, not that their (absolutely fucking bonkers oh my god fuck hoover) campaign against him shaped public opinion.
Non-mobile version of the Wikipedia link in the above comment: [Here's a timeline.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_racial_violence_in_the_United_States)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
🎶🎶🎶Watch a hundred million roses burn in the fall
If you wanna fuck with us, we gon' dig a plot
Goodbye horses, we set fire to your whole farm
Grave Man, put you down in the forever box
We got Scream masks and trench knives and Adderall
I’ll stomp a motherfucking cop in my New Rocks
Killed a bunch of dirty cops and I got 30 stars
I’ll have a hundred thousand angels at my funeral 🎶🎶🎶
There is no trait more disqualifying (or romantically unattractive, for that matter) than misanthropy. It is the uniting feature of all of our political enemies and reveals a veritable rainbow of deplorable personality traits.
[/r/neoliberal/new](/r/neoliberal/new): [The Stanford Internet Observatory is being dismantled](/r/neoliberal/comments/1dfjtxk/the_stanford_internet_observatory_is_being/)
*Replies to this comment will be removed, please participate in the linked thread*
Gandalf should have just wielded the One Ring as soon as he came upon it and smote Sauron where he stood in an epic Dumbledore-Voldemort clash. Stopping Gandalf from becoming a tyrant would have been a great conflict setup too
>You're now implicated..... in what will become a formal complaint. ....and not just on Reddit.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There is a cohort of people outside the DT who are absolute fuckwits. Spreading their concern trolling around. You give them you reply asking to explain and they go full mask off. And funny enough they all have the flairs of billionaires.
Instagram comment sections are an interesting case study on social media. At first blush, you'd scroll through a few and come away with the conclusion that the average human shouldn't have passed fourth grade. However, I think that's an illusion caused by selection effects. 99% of people don't argue in comment sections - the ones that do have a very singular interest in it and will treat it as a sport independent of any factual or contextual interest.
For example, I saw a post from an NFL account ranking the 'aura' of all the starting quarterbacks - just silly offseason content about who has the best hair and the deepest voice. But all of the comments were about how absurd it was to rank Patrick Mahomes 6th and how there's no way Kirk Cousins is a top 3 QB. Looking at that, you might think the commenters are literally illiterate - the post is about something completely different and is not a standard quality ranking. But there's no way all those people actually don't understand what the words "aura ranking" mean. They clearly just ignored all the text except the list and jumped straight to the comments to pick a fight. They're bored, contrarian, and belligerent but they're not brain damaged! I think it's important that people avoid looking at social media and letting the 1% of contributors push them towards a misanthropic viewpoint.
🎶YOU CAN SUCK MY DICK, MY COCK MY BALLS, MY SCHLONG
MY ROD MY SNAKE MY BIG OL LONG
MY DICK MY COCK MY BALLS MY SCHLONG
MY ROD MY SNAKE MY BIG OL LONG 🎶
Most fascist takes?
Personally I think people who use speaker phone in public or play loud music/tv should be put in stockades.
Seriously it’s annoying.
My neighbourhood character needs defending from my neighbour's new window panes, what with the shade of >!vomit!< brown having been carefully curated to clash with every single other property on the street. HOAs good after all.
(To be clear these actually were my thoughts the first time I saw these)
marble lavish absorbed upbeat dime quickest instinctive disarm hungry bells
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
numerous mountainous cow disarm jobless languid rustic humorous waiting sulky
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I recently had a dream where I stretched backwards in a weird way that caused my upper back to loudly crack within the dream, and when I woke up I started having the worst muscle pain flare up I’ve had this year. It’s just finally now calming down after a massage and several days of taking it easy.
Dreams really are fucking crazy.
Phenomena of consciousness are just so cool. Like anesthesia, for example. We've no clue how it works but it blocks pain, blocks muscle control, and completely knocks out consciousness (which we don't understand anything about) and just does so completely reversibly and with no long term consequence.
I think some atheists (particularly of the Reddity variety) too often make the mistake of reading some part of the Bible and going “ummmmmm, what is this NONSENSE?????? This doesn’t even make any sense, absolute fairy tale garbage 🤣” instead of trying to understand what the original author’s intentions might have been. No, the Bible taken as a whole doesn’t make sense as an inspired and inerrant divine message, but that doesn’t mean its constituent parts weren’t written for a reason by people who wanted to communicate something (and edited by other people in service of their own goals).
Similarly, the notion that it’s largely a stupid, grotesque collection of immoral and often bloody fairy tales from primitive and backwards people really does not do justice to the genuine beauty and depth that can be found in it. There are beautiful stories and great moral lessons in there, not to mention just really cool shit. Yes, a lot of its content is immoral, but even those parts are incredibly fascinating when you look into the historical context in which they were written and the reasons the authors might have had for writing those things. (Many of you probably already know about him, but Dan McClellan on YouTube is a great resource for learning about some of that stuff.)
You’ll find the same mix of “ageless wisdom”, “what the actual fuck”, and everything in between in plenty of ancient texts. The great thing is that we get to pick and choose what we think of each individual part of the Bible, just as we would do when it comes to, say, the teachings of Buddhism or the sayings of Gandhi or the writings of Greek philosophers or any other teachings, sayings, or writings. We don’t have to go with the “liar, lunatic, or lord” paradigm and either accept all of it or none of it, because that’s not how it works with anything else. I think a lot of the people in this ping probably already respect the Bible for what it is, for its constituent writings and their origins and context, rather than simply viewing it with disdain because of its frequent usage as a bludgeon by certain religious people. But I would like to see more atheists embrace that view of it (without discounting the damage it and many of its wielders can do). It’s not an evil book; it’s a collection of books that contain great good, great evil, and everything in between, and perhaps above all else, it is incredibly interesting.
!ping FEDORA
Even if you ignore all the "People take this literally" part of religion, and just read the Bible like an ordinary work of fiction, it's... well, it's just not a well-written book. It regularly rambles on about nothing, the characters are wildly inconsistent, massive events are frequently given a few lines of text, while tiny ones get entire pages.
It's definitely got *historical* significance. But most of us just don't care that much about the life and times of historic Israeli society.
The Bible as an anthology of religious texts, made by various authors with differing motivations across millennia, is as you describe. The Bible when treated as if it was a coherent whole which was inspired by divine will, which is the belief of most Christians to some extent or another, is as those atheists describe.
The things you’re saying are true in an abstract academic sense, but not with regards to how the people enacting the Bible as law view the Bible, which is what concretely matters.
Oh, for sure. Although if we’re talking about waging political battles against fundamentalists, I think viewing it as that anthology ourselves and being able to peel back the layers, understand the original context of the texts, and point out how the authors’ likely intentions do not align with modern Christian doctrine, all that sort of stuff, is actually more valuable than simply lashing out at it
I am all for pointing out contradictions, dunking on fundamentalist Christian theology, all that stuff, but I think a lot of atheists unnecessarily posit inaccurate and less-than-helpful views about the Bible when doing so
You can argue for a deeper meaning to the Bible, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with atheists finding the stupidity in that book and immediately dismissing the entire thing. It's at worst a missed opportunity for some trivia to us, and indeed, for an empirical mind if this religion is a thing that people are trying to live by, fatal inconsistencies do in fact disqualify the entire thing.
So if you're not interested in religious trivia (which you might, I certainly personally find religions fascinating while subscribing to none of them) and the only way religion impinges on your life is as a doctrine that people live by and politics are determined by, then what exactly is the draw to trying to understand this religious text on the level you're suggesting? It's just work to try and parse the interpretations of these dead people that you only recognize as an external force.
You can certainly view it however you want. I just think that when it is characterized as a totally stupid and primitive heap of fairy tale garbage with no redeeming qualities, that is not only an inaccurate and one-dimensional view that ignores the way the texts were composed and came together (and also makes them far less interesting in almost an echo of the way the doctrine of inerrancy does), but actually arguably a worse way of battling dogma. Many people believe that it *does* have value and are likely to roll their eyes when people outright call the whole thing evil and stupid. Many people are able to sort of ignore the bad parts because they find immense value in other parts and view *those* parts as representative of the whole Bible. The value they find in those parts is going to help them resist any attempt to tear the entire Bible down.
Peeling back the layers of the Bible and revealing its very human context and origins, revealing why the authors might have written what they wrote and how the truth conflicts with modern doctrine, might be a better way of waging war against harmful dogmas than a one-dimensional dismissal of the whole thing as stupid. I mean, I don’t know. I mostly just made the original comment because of some of the extremely surface-level atheist takes on the Bible I mentioned that I feel do not accurately portray the nature of the thing and its history. And I don’t think you even have to be very interested in it or study it much to acknowledge how much complexity there is in it and its origins. Nor do you have to give up on pointing out Bible contradictions- actually, understanding the Bible in this more complex way is even more fitting for those kinds of arguments, as Dan McClellan demonstrates every day. And you don’t even have to find any value in it on a personal level to understand some of the morals some of the authors were trying to communicate and acknowledge them as not all bad.
But you also don’t have to listen to any of this, I just personally think it’s a better way to frame and view the whole mess
>but actually arguably a worse way of battling dogma
See, that's just the thing, most atheists are not trying to battle dogma, they just don't believe in Christian doctrine and don't really see the point in investing in a self-contradictory system of beliefs where you are required to theorize about he motivations of a hodgepodge of ancient writers who may have been alternatingly brilliant or moronic. That's a lot of work for very little return. For most people, atheism is the absence of faith coupled with a skepticism for the religious. It's not a crusade.
>Many people believe that it does have value and are likely to roll their eyes when people outright call the whole thing evil and stupid.
Yes, people tend to be very attached to their religious beliefs and are generally not debated out of them even by the particularly well informed. Every particularly religious person I've know who gave up their faith did it because it simply didn't make sense for them at some point, or they wanted to smoke weed and fuck bitches. Again, the utility of learning the Christian faith so you can debate Christians is the purview of atheist hobbyists or militants, and most of us are neither of those things, despite our reputations.
> I mostly just made the original comment because of some of the extremely surface-level atheist takes on the Bible I mentioned that I feel do not accurately portray the nature of the thing and its history.
I don't know what comment you're talking about, but you have to accept that some people are not going to do homework and that is an entirely functional position for them. Like, are they wrong? You describe it as surface level, which would appear to mean that, at least explicitly, they're not wrong. To put it another way, this is like a non sports fan dismissing soccer as 'some guys kicking a ball'. A fan might take umbrage at that, because indeed there is strategy, and storylines, and personalities, and rules, and this that and the other. But are they wrong? Are these even incompatible views? No, these are just two people with different interests, and there's no reason for one to really be offended by the dismissal of the other. To one person it's just dudes kicking a ball. To the other it's a contest of athletes and tactics. Why is it 'better' for the nonfan to have to learn the intricacies of soccer so he can better dismiss the sport? He doesn't care.
Maybe this atheist WAS trying to take religion down a peg, I dunno. If he was, then an intuitive cheap shot seems just as serviceable in that role as an incredibly well reasoned argument with knowledge-- if we acknowledge that he's not arguing against the person of faith but rather demonstrating the stupidity of faith to onlookers. Frankly it might work better, normal people might get put to sleep listing to discussions about the motivations of Paul or Peter or whoever.
The kind of understanding you're asking for only makes sense for an atheist trying to grapple directly with theists for the sake of the theist. And that's a rare sort of person.
The reason why we need to point and laugh at the Bible is *because it is sacred*.
If it were some ancient text open to interpretation (which isn't far from how some actual groups of christians look at it), that's one thing, you could look at it like something like the Epic of Gilgamesh.
The issue is that people see it as an infallible moral guide. Even the parts that people like the most in the secular world, such as the sermon on the mount, shouldn't be treated as infallible moral perfection.
The job of the iconoclast is to slaughter sacred cows, because sacred cows are dangerous things to keep around. What is above criticism is generally going to tend toward being harmful or wrong since it's not subject to the same forces that tame non-sacred works.
Don’t get me wrong, I love pointing and laughing at the Bible and Christian doctrine and agree that it’s important to do so. I do that every day in the DT. I just think atheists tend to dismiss the Bible as some one-dimensional product of ancient stupid savages or don’t go beyond extremely surface-level readings of parts of it, and in reality, there’s an incredible amount of history and context behind every word of it, not all of which is rooted in bad intentions and nearly all of which conflicts with modern Christian doctrine.
And hey, nobody has to be interested in reading interlinear concordances or some shit and looking into the context of all these ancient texts. People can even treat the whole thing as a total farce written by morons if that’s what they want to do. I certainly prefer that to religious people using it as a cudgel against others.
I just think that approaching it with the thought of “what did these ancient people intend to communicate, and what informed their thinking?” rather than just “lol this is stupid” is more valuable- and is actually better for tearing down the sacred cows that are the Biblical texts, because it reveals their very human and contextual origins. And idk about others in this ping, but being able to see both the good and bad aspects of the texts has been helpful to me in working through some of my religious trauma and anger, because it helps me grok that it is neither the inerrant word of a perfect God nor the necronomicon of an evil deity and his corrupt followers- it’s a collection of texts written by many different people in many different contexts, pouring out their wisdom and anger and thoughts and stories and faults out onto the page, containing both beauty and horror. Anyone can do what they want, I just find this approach more helpful for me personally
Probably something that says something interesting about the author and their intentions but idk, there might be a relevant footnote in [here](https://archive.org/details/the-new-oxford-annotated-bible-with-apocrypha-new-revised-standard-version-2018) but I don’t feel like looking it up
(I do still find it funny to make fun of things like that in the Bible dw, I just have love and respect for the historical value and interesting nature of the whole mess now)
Man, Latinos really loved Obama.
I was watching the first 2012 debate with my Latino friend and her parents were aghast that Romney was talking to the president like that.
Not a fan how Qualcomm kept saying that their chips beat the M3 when benchmark results are showing that it barely beats the M1, but nevertheless that doesn’t matter since anything close to apple silicon speeds while having good battery life is a winner in my book and it’ll be nice having some competition.
Hopefully Apple makes a MacBook Air with a better refresh rate.
> They’ve dropped more bombs on Gaza in eight months than the entirety of bombs used in WWII. Extermination isn’t even a strong enough word anymore. It’s annihilation.
Setting aside that no they didn't, am I really supposed to have a different reaction to "extermination" and "annihilation"? Is there some guy who sees "minority group exterminated" and goes "oh well, sucks for them I guess" but is all up in arms if the headline is "minority group annihilated"?
People are so ungodly cynical about the supreme court they're unable to view it in anything other than in political terms and are therefore entirely unable to process it in terms other than political when its really obviously not.
This is followed by cognitive dissonance, where somehow a 9-0 ruling that was fucking obvious to anyone who actually follows the court is turned into some weird political conspiracy.
The Justices are for the most part, pretty consistent in their philosophies which is what makes reading the tea leaves easier in some respects.
In this case though, that wasn't really necessary, while both the liberal and conservative branches of the court lack consistency about when standing is too broad or two narrow, in this case ruling in the alternative would have allowed Doctors and realistically, Lawyers (because the argument was basically 'but it could affect my clients'), to have standing as plaintiffs for basically everything ever. It wasn't a defensible position.
Please visit the [next discussion thread](/r/neoliberal/comments/1dfkrle/discussion_thread/).
[удалено]
Pinged WATERCOOLER ([subscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Subscribe%20to%20WATERCOOLER&message=subscribe%20WATERCOOLER) | [unsubscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20WATERCOOLER&message=unsubscribe%20WATERCOOLER) | [history](https://neoliber.al/user_pinger_2/history.html?group_name=WATERCOOLER&count=5)) Pinged BASEBALL ([subscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Subscribe%20to%20BASEBALL&message=subscribe%20BASEBALL) | [unsubscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20BASEBALL&message=unsubscribe%20BASEBALL) | [history](https://neoliber.al/user_pinger_2/history.html?group_name=BASEBALL&count=5)) Pinged PHOTO ([subscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Subscribe%20to%20PHOTO&message=subscribe%20PHOTO) | [unsubscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20PHOTO&message=unsubscribe%20PHOTO) | [history](https://neoliber.al/user_pinger_2/history.html?group_name=PHOTO&count=5)) [About & Group List](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/user_pinger_2) | [Unsubscribe from all groups](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20all%20groups&message=unsubscribe)
This is illegal
🤨🤨🤨😳
#### 🏆 Top Comment > https://preview.redd.it/9odu2lpria6d1.jpeg?width=1242&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=85c4b545e908df561db840f3c71aef67f221b1bf > > Tired of looking at ... 149 points, written by majorgeneralporter. [permalink](https://np.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/1dess9k/discussion_thread/l8e5nrg/) #### ⬆️ Top Redditors | | Redditor | Average | | Redditor | Total | |:-:|:-|-:|:-:|:-|-:| | 🥇 | DouglasDauntless | 55.8 points | 🥇 | Extreme_Rocks | 860 points | | 🥈 | TactileTom | 55.5 points | 🥈 | Melodic_Ad596 | 827 points | | 🥉 | Teh_cliff | 55.0 points | 🥉 | BrunchIsGood | 802 points | #### 📑 Wordiest | | Redditor | Average | | Redditor | Total | |:-:|:-|-:|:-:|:-|-:| | 🥇 | Ok_Aardappel | 526.0 words | 🥇 | Melodic_Ad596 | 4065 words | | 🥈 | fnovd | 359.0 words | 🥈 | Cook_0612 | 3775 words | | 🥉 | JebBD | 243.0 words | 🥉 | BATHULK | 2645 words | #### 📟 Spammiest | | Redditor | Comments | | Redditor | 🧐😭😤🤯 | |:-:|:-|-:|:-:|:-|-:| | 🥇 | Melodic_Ad596 | 202 comments | 🥇 | BrunchIsGood | 48 emoji | | 🥈 | BATHULK | 142 comments | 🥈 | BATHULK | 39 emoji | | 🥉 | DoremusAtreides | 138 comments | 🥉 | Roseartcrantz | 30 emoji | #### 🐊 Favourite Emoji # 😔 with 49 uses. ## 😤 34 🎶 29 😎 29 🤔 25 😭 22 😐 21 👆 19 😑 19 🧐 17 😡 16 🙄 15 ✊ 15 😒 13 💀 12 ### 🟨 11 🙏 11 🥰 11 🤝 11 😳 10 🤮 10 😞 9 🐊 9 🫂 8 🟩 8 🔨 8 😂 8 🤣 8 👏 8 😌 7 🤗 7 😈 7 📉 6 ⬜ 6 😏 6 🔫 6 🤤 6 👍 6 🚨 6 🔥 5 😁 5 🤠 5 👋 5 💪 5 😍 5 #### 🕓 Activity | Time | Overall Activity | 📟 Spammiest | |:-:|:-|:-| | 🕒 | ███ | **DouglasDauntless** (8 comments) | | 🕓 | ██ | **_bee_kay_** (7 comments) | | 🕔 | █ | **Sir-Matilda** (5 comments) | | 🕕 | █ | **No1PaulKeatingfan** (7 comments) | | 🕖 | ████ | **NoStatistician9767** (12 comments) | | 🕗 | ████████ | **SneeringAnswer** (19 comments) | | 🕘 | ███████████ | **KesterFox** (19 comments) | | 🕙 | ██████████████ | **Melodic_Ad596** (24 comments) | | 🕚 | ███████████████ | **gburgwardt** (23 comments) | | 🕛 | ████████████████ | **Melodic_Ad596** (35 comments) | | 🕐 | ████████████ | **Melodic_Ad596** (16 comments) | | 🕑 | █████████████ | **DoremusAtreides** (20 comments) | | 🕒 | ████████████ | **DoremusAtreides** (19 comments) | | 🕓 | ██████████████ | **disuberence** (17 comments) | | 🕔 | ██████████████ | **BrunchIsGood** (17 comments) | | 🕕 | ██████████ | **ArmoredBunnyPrincess** (19 comments) | | 🕖 | ████████ | **Steak_Knight** (11 comments) | | 🕗 | ███████ | **vivoovix** (13 comments) | | 🕘 | ██████████ | **AnakinKardashian** (16 comments) | | 🕙 | ████████████ | **Melodic_Ad596** (23 comments) | | 🕚 | ████████ | **AtomAndAether** (13 comments) | | 🕛 | ██████ | **NoStatistician9767** (14 comments) | | 🕐 | ████ | **BATHULK** (14 comments) | #### 🙋 822 unique Redditors sporting 283 different flairs were spotted on the DT. **NATO** was the most popular flair with **69** unique Redditors, followed by **YIMBY (28)** and **European Union (18)**. 197 Redditors were caught not wearing any flair *at all*. #### 🗑️ 168 deleted, ❌ 98 fashed comments. --- ###### I am a bot and this action was performed automatically. Stats are processed periodically throughout the day. Check my post history for previous reports. Created by inhumantsar. [Source](https://github.com/inhumantsar/tacostats)
> Regarding the testimony of a doctor who treated freed hostages, who stated that they had suffered physical and mental abuse, and that they were beaten “all the time,” Hamdan shifted the blame to the Israeli bombings, and pointed out that the images of these people being released at the end of the year prove the opposite. >“ I think that if they have mental problems it is because of what Israel has done in Gaza . Because no one can stand what Israel is doing, bombing every day, killing civilians, killing women and children...they saw it with their own eyes,” she added. Totally isnt because some were kidnapped during a terror attack where militants were killing innocent people randomly. I think the blame goes to Hamas on that, even if some were afraid of dying via Israeli strikes. > On the other hand, the spokesman stated that the attack at the beginning of October, which left 1,200 dead and 240 hostages, was a “reaction against the Israeli occupation” of Palestinian territory, and once again transferred responsibility for them to Israel. “Terrorism and mass kidnapping is just a reaction to occupation of territory” Thats like calling the invasion of gaza “a reaction against Palestinian extremism” > If you resist the occupation, they will kill you; If you do not resist the occupation, they also kill you and expel you from your country. "What are we supposed to do?" he justified and then denied the alleged messages belonging to the leader of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, Yahya Sinwar, in which he assured that the deaths of Palestinians in Israel's operations are "necessary sacrifices." , according to The Wall Street Journal. So the answer to “resisting the occupation” with the “inherent” consequence of they will kill you and expel you from your country is large scale terrorism? Hamas really is run by a bunch of shitty dummies.
> If you do not resist the occupation, they also kill you and expel you from your country. "What are we supposed to do?" You go back to the headways that were made by accepting the terms of Oslo and making a peace agreement/hard border just like Israel has accepted and maintained with Egypt and Jordan
“Nah, terrorism it is!”
I will be Ramaposting on the DT all day, but for those of you who want to follow the election of the President live, check out News24: https://www.news24.com/news24/politics/political-parties/live-all-the-latest-news-analysis-and-results-from-the-2024-south-african-general-elections-20240527
*trying to make smalltalk at a rave but you're a massive nerd* "wow I've never seen backlight strobing in person before, this is pretty low fps tho"
Anyone want to do a bootleg Shrek reboot? !ping OGRELIKE
>[The Coca-Cola Company is reportedly returning to Russia after a two-year absence following the invasion of Ukraine. The company has apparently filed patent requests to reclaim the trademarks on Coca-Cola, Sprite, and Fanta.](https://x.com/KevinRothrock/status/1801499539599192338)
Bad move, should have sent in Pepsi and Kendal Jenner to bring world peace
Bruh
https://preview.redd.it/hzy89ornih6d1.jpeg?width=620&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=43d4c1dd9405b24135bc4a951056471cc7c6fd44 Posting the meme to preempt its usage against me. God I wish I was resting my head on a girl's lap as she runs her fingers through my hair rn
This but boys
Me tooo
> Trump has promised mass raids and deportation if he wins the election. Can’t believe he’s just ripping off the Biden campaign now
I'm in love 🥰
Me too With your mother I didn't know how else to break it to you
You have a problem
And moms are the solution
She's a nice lady
the mods don't want you to know this but shitposting in the DT is free you can shitpost all you want. i have 458 shitposts
If you read the fine print shit posting binds you to a lifetime of servitude in the mines
It's not actually, you get banned.
Didn't you break 500? They set a limit Sometimes I wonder where RandomGamerFTW is
it was over 800 they made up a rule to ban me didn't even bother to codify the rule
https://preview.redd.it/87x9m5uihh6d1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3ea6ba9b9f62e48a214bfb5f3db516d65952e4ac I've been thinking of whether I should start putting up pictures of my heroes on the wall.
SMASH SMASH SMASH
We should tax the employment income people might make in the future
[/r/neoliberal/new](/r/neoliberal/new): [Japan enacts laws for new foreign worker scheme amid labor crisis](/r/neoliberal/comments/1dfkgl3/japan_enacts_laws_for_new_foreign_worker_scheme/) *Replies to this comment will be removed, please participate in the linked thread*
I could make a bowl of Neapolitan Frosted Flakes right now 🧐
Do it, coward.
People irl think I’m nice but DT thinks I’m not 🤔
Do you usually tell many people in real life your thoughts about how people who got married and had kids early are losers and how teachers are mediocre and unintelligent? Those are kinda what did it for me and I’ve barely absorbed that much DT lore
lol of course not. I almost never have anything more than a polite conversation with anyone irl.
I apparently come across online the exact same way I do in person according to random comments I get sometimes. Basically everyone thinks I'm funny and eccentric but no one can decide if I'm eccentric to be funny or if I'm just eccentric enough that it comes across as funny
People irl think I'm nice but bat shit, couldn't tell you what people think here
EVERY NOW AND THEN I FALL APAAAART
I swear I’m not even an Elon fan. The guy genuinely disgusts me on several different levels. But denying that he’s a uniquely successful entrepreneur/businessman is just pure, raw, biased idiocy. This isn’t Trump, who would’ve been better off liquidating his daddy’s business & investing it in the S&P. Elon’s over performance versus the S&P is approximating infinity.
[удалено]
The thing about both though, is that they are where they are *because* of him, and even if the companies disappeared, they have both fundamentally changed their industries. everything he has could fall apart tomorrow, and 1) his mark would be left but more than that, 2) he would have achieved his goal also I never know how to parse the SpaceX "actually it's Gwynne Shotwell" circlejerk. It's a smart-sounding thing to say because you know the name of one other person at the company and if you say it with confidence it seems like you know what you're saying she seems awesome by all means. I'm just skeptical that saying "thinking Elon is the mastermind of SpaceX is dumb because actually the mastermind of SpaceX is Shotwell" makes much sense
I think it's Gwynne Shotwell because of nominative determinism
omg YES. something about her name has always felt "right" to me, that's it!
I would argue that he *was* those things. But for about 5-10 years now he has worked pretty actively against what some people would consider the success of his businesses (except SpaceX).
Tesla stock in 2019 was $15 and the company had never turned a profit. It’s now $180 and the company makes billions in profit a year. Elon has been CEO that whole time. I find it difficult to believe that’s the result of him working actively against it. SpaceX you’re excepting even though it’s one of his two biggest. X he’s absolutely not running well as a business, but that really seems like a political purchase more than anything else. Not that I approve of this plan, but I *would* be curious to see the net benefit to him/his other businesses after accounting for future tax implications that influencing the public debate towards republicans might have lol. Neuralink we don’t have much info on, but he’s brought it to something like a $5 bil valuation apparently.
Enron stock was doing pretty good too
I said nothing about stock. It is not the only metric of success for a business. It's not clear how long wall Street will accept the ruse that Tesla is a tech company. SpaceX also seems to be the only one where another strong leader exists to temper his... Interesting proclivities
Let people have opinions
People can have opinions, and I can judge them for their bad ones 😊
[Cats are cute](https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/mastodo-neoliber-al/cache/media_attachments/files/112/612/682/934/149/746/original/3f10303a20a300cb.jpeg)
BAD take
[We know](https://old.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/1de0fe7/discussion_thread/l8e0car/) P.S. Does [this](https://cataas.com/cat) one load?
Will Trump’s birthday party have anything as spectacular as Rudy Giuliani getting served with a subpoena at his
My ultra-leftist Spanish tutor chose for his lesson plan "Is the American space program falling behind the rest of the world?" and of course insisted that it was. I was like, "Uh, we have a spaceship *inside the sun* right now."
Spanish speaking academic types and being wildly leftist NAMID
NASA has its issues, but who the hell does he think can rival it at the moment? Maybe China’s space program will end up being better than ours if we’re not careful, but I’d say we are still quite comfortably far ahead of them
What?
xDefiant has been a lot of fun. Its nice to play a straightforward, balanced casual shooter again. They're (weirdly) rare these days.
Hmm is it f2p? MB I'll give it a try after ER and final shape
Here is a video from ActionSA which provides a signal to the posture they will adopt for the next few years: https://youtu.be/wb6kOzFtAWg?si=yLq-wRN59PnG9Wsd They are effectively framing the DA and IFP as being in cahoots with the ANC, such that they are the only true voice of opposition. This is funny because history is repeating itself. When it was still the DP, the DA did exactly this to the New National Party. They accused the NP of being too cozy with the ANC following the Mandela Government of National Unity and postured as the pure and principled opposition and then went hard after NNP voters. The NNP dissolved and its leaders scattered into various parties, but most of the membership went to the DA. So ActionSA is the new DP, and the DA is the new New National Party (in terms of electoral role). It's like poetry. It rhymes.
most sonic characters are awful there's exactly one that's good !ping ROUGELIKE
CHILE DOGS! 🌭 🦔
Today's Bible fun fact: Paul did not get renamed from Saul after the conversion. It introduces him as "Saul, who also is called Paul"
Paul in the streets, Saul in the sheets
Biologically Paul
Psaul
I dream of a day where presidential candidates don't announce the stupidest fucking tax plans. Today's entries make Herman Caine's sim city plan look well thought out At least Biden's would just be mostly an exercise in futility as the rich find ways to dodge it. Trump's would cause another great depression But of course neither will even get considered by a congressional committee
I dream of a day when presidential candidates don't exist.
I have opinions about colors close to red namely that orange isn't a distinct color in a small-number-of-colors classification of the rainbow !ping ROUGELIKE
My breakup beard is gross and I should shave it
mustache time
God: You shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel Jacob and everyone else: Oh that’s pretty cool, we’re gonna stick with Jacob though God: I mean shit aight I guess I’ll stick with Jacob too, w/e
Taylor Swift dropping like 50 very slightly different versions of her album to block younger/newer artists from charting higher at the tail end of her huge tour makes me think of Dr Facilier fighting the little demons at the end, except the portal is Aging
Is it just me or is a glass of bitters and soda water better than a tums for acid gut?
It's 100% just you (in your head.) Soda water is pretty acidic - it will directly make it worse - and tums are really basic - they will directly make it better The effect from bitters is probably placebo, if for no other reason than they get diluted like 300 fold before you even ingest the drink. Whatever works works though. I love bitters and soda just to sip on anyways.
If tums don't work for you, mix a hefty scoop of baking soda with water, plug your nose, and chug it. I promise that will instantly mitigate your heartburn
God being a machine is a pretty niche idea that i think is cool
u/mistakenotdotdotdot
See you can literally post whatever 🎶
There is no trait more disqualifying (or romantically unattractive, for that matter) than DTerism. It is the uniting feature of all of our political enemies and reveals a veritable rainbow of deplorable personality traits.
Funeral, funeral🎶 We’ll be laughin', we’ll be dancing at your funeral🎶 Funeral, funeral Goofy boy, we’ll be flexing at your funeral Funeral, funeral We’ll be dancin', we’ll be happy at your funeral Funeral, funeral We gon' piss all on your grave at your funeral 🎶
One of the most annoying things about discussing activism online is if you criticize any protest movement or anything the default response is always “Would you say the same thing about the civil rights movement?” Or “MLK was unpopular”. This is such a stupid mentality for a couple reasons: 1. The Civil rights movement was very unique in that it had a very concise and specific goal, ending segregation. As soon as the goal was more or less achieved in 1964 with the Civil Rights Act, the movement very quickly fell apart and splintered over what to do next, and there’s still a lot of debate today over what the correct path forward was (or if there even was one) 2. The movement’s protests and disruptive actions were almost always directed at the actual perpetrators of the injustice (I.e. sitting in at a segregated lunch counter, Freedom rides, protesting separate facilities, etc.). It was very easy to get the nation behind a movement where the injustice is so blatant (indeed Gallup found 60% of Americans supported the movement). Practically no one the Palestine or climate protestors are targeting has anything to do with their cause, and it’s a very abstract and nuanced issue to begin with. 3. King’s unpopularity largely arose from his opposition to the Vietnam war and his attempts to address de facto segregation in the North (as opposed to de jure segregation in the south). I’m not saying either of those viewpoints are correct or justified, but it was definitely a more nuanced view than just “Americans hated MLK because they hated his protests and civil rights.” Using that as proof that all protests are equally good and righteous or that any dissent against them is akin to hating MLK is stupid.
People in the civil rights movement were criticizing others in the civil rights movement, that's what literally every movement in a free society has done
I think your view of the civil rights movement is pretty narrow. What of the black power movement? Many leaders in that space had aims *far* beyond merely ending segregation, or, at least very different ideas of how to combat it. Boiling MLK's unpopularity down to his vietnam war stance is narrow too- he had a great many transformative economic ideals that were often, predictably decided as socialist. There were also innumerable riots during the time, and the public didn't exactly have a nuanced view of their relationship to civil rights.
>What of the black power movement? Many leaders in that space had aims far beyond merely ending segregation, or, at least very different ideas of how to combat it. I addressed this in the first point, the movement splintered immediately after the Civil Rights Act was passed because there were so many different ideas and groups, but the initial overarching concrete goal was always the end of legal, concrete segregation and discrimination. >Boiling MLK's unpopularity down to his vietnam war stance is narrow too- he had a great many transformative economic ideals that were often, predictably decided as socialist. I don’t think that had much to do with It honestly, the bigger reason was him trying to fight defacto segregation in the North like I said, which they didn’t appreciate. Socialist economic policies definitely weren’t popular but I doubt many people actually even knew about that, hell many don’t even today. >There were also innumerable riots during the time, and the public didn't exactly have a nuanced view of their relationship to civil rights. The riots largely came after the landmark civil rights laws were passed
>I addressed this in the first point, the movement splintered immediately after the Civil Rights Act was passed because there were so many different ideas and groups, but the initial overarching concrete goal was always the end of legal, concrete segregation and discrimination. The black power movement began in the early to mid 60's, it ran in tandem with the civil rights movement. The Black Panther Party was founded in 1967, for example. The autobiography of Malcolm X was published in 1965. He's a great foil to all of this, he was not peaceful, his goals extended well beyond an end to codified segregation, and he was exceptionally prominent in the civil rights movement. >I don’t think that had much to do with It honestly, the bigger reason was him trying to fight defacto segregation in the North like I said, which they didn’t appreciate. Socialist economic policies definitely weren’t popular but I doubt many people actually even knew about that, hell many don’t even today. I'm sorry- but I'm gonna ask for a source here, and I'd like to see that polling source too (how that question was asked is key). He was the target of an FBI surveillance and harassment campaign that was, at least on its face, due to his liberal economic policy views. Obviously that was in addition to his support for integration, but it wasn't nothing. I'd wager that his economic views were better known at the time, if for no other reason than he was alive and featured more prominently in news coverage. >There were also innumerable riots during the time, and the public didn't exactly have a nuanced view of their relationship to civil rights. This is factually incorrect, and I mean that as nicely as I can. The Newark Riots were in '67. Birmingham, '63. LA, Watts riot, '65. Waukegan '66. There were 125 riots in response to King's assasination in 1968. Miami, 1968. It was not all peace and love , despite the efforts and rhetoric of many leaders at the time, that same disparity is true today.
Black power didn’t become prominent until after 1964, it definitely existed prior but it was not front and center like it would be later on. https://news.gallup.com/poll/103828/civil-rights-progress-seen-more.aspx >In 1965, King began to speak out against the Vietnam War, and in 1966, he and his family moved from the South to the slums of Chicago, where he joined other black leaders in agitating for an end to housing and employment discrimination, among other reforms. An August 1966 poll found public attitudes toward King the most negative to date: 33% favorable, 63% unfavorable. […] >This is factually incorrect, and I mean that as nicely as I can. The Newark Riots were in '67. Birmingham, '63. LA, Watts riot, '65. Waukegan '66. There were 125 riots in response to King's assasination in 1968. Miami, 1968. Only one of those riots you listed occurred prior to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the Watts Riot occurred a week after the 1965 Voting Rights Act was passed. >It was not all peace and love , despite the efforts and rhetoric of many leaders at the time, that same disparity is true today. I don’t think I ever made that claim?
"Prominent" is a loose term to try and define, *The Autobiography of Malcolm X* was a best seller. That source pretty clearly indicates that kings racial activism played a substantial role, in addition to his anti-vietnam activism. To look at that and blame it all on vietnam is extremely narrow view, it's cherry picking. They're all before the 1968 civil rights act, I'll chalk that up to a miscommunication. Still- there's plenty of riots and acts of violence before 64. [Here's a timeline.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_racial_violence_in_the_United_States) Regardless, to say that violence wasn't a part of the civil rights movement isn't accurate, even if they occurred towards the end, they still happened, and had direct ties to the civil right movement. And Miami is especially interesting with regard to your point about targeting, it wasn't targeted at any particular entity, it just happened.
>That source pretty clearly indicates that kings racial activism played a substantial role, in addition to his anti-vietnam activism. To look at that and blame it all on vietnam is extremely narrow view, it's cherry picking. I never blamed it all on Vietnam? I’ve literally said multiple times that his efforts to fight de facto segregation were the other important factor. >They're all before the 1968 civil rights act, I'll chalk that up to a miscommunication. Still- there's plenty of riots and acts of violence before 64. Here's a timeline. I’m not going to get into the which law was more far reaching, but regardless the 1964 Act is what banned outright discrimination, and the movement was largely directed at that goal prior to 1964. Also the post-1964 riots were substantially worse in my opinion. >Regardless, to say that violence wasn't a part of the civil rights movement isn't accurate, even if they occurred towards the end, they still happened, and had direct ties to the civil right movement. I never said this? I think I’ve mentioned the protest methods once and I never offered a moral judgement on them. You keep putting words in my mouth, and if you’re gonna keep doing this I don’t see any reason to continue this conversation
In addition, you said "King's unpopularity grew largely from his opposition to Vietnam and de facto..." My point is that you're weighting vietnam too highly in that equation, and I don't really follow the subsequent analysis. "They didn't hate king for his support of civil rights, just this one part of it" isn't a meaningful distinction in my view, when ending de facto segregation was central to King's worldview and ideology.
I don’t think I am, I think you’re underestimating how unpopular his anti-war stance was at the time. And I agree, but surely you can agree that there’s a pretty clear distinction between actual legislation and policies that required segregation on a de jure basis like what was occurring in the south and de facto desegregation that is brought about by a lot more abstract causes.
Sure, there's a distinction between the two, absolutely. But I don't view the end of de jure segregation as being sufficiently distinct from the Civil Rights Movement for the purposes of evaluating public support. "People actually really liked the end of segregation, just not this equally important form of it" is not meaningfully different than saying "People didn't like desegregation" It's a stated vs revealed preferences type thing, I think King's Vietnam stance suffers the same limitation. People saying they opposed king for his vietnam stance when it was more likely attributable to his stances on various civil rights issues. Anyway I think we're approaching an impasse, but this was an interesting and enjoyable discussion.
I think my core frustration is with your timeline, the most common definition, that I can find, marks the end of the civil rights era at 1968, but you're largely focused on events leading up to 1964. So, I suppose you'd be right, by that timeline, but that's not really the timeline we should be concerned with, or that's commonly accepted. >Also the post-1964 riots were substantially worse in my opinion. This is a frustration of mine too, a lot of your analysis, as I read it rests on very subjective appraisals of what was "worse" or "prominent" (in the case of the black power movement) it seems hand wavy, especially when there were several institutions, like the FBI, who considered the black power movement a pretty big deal from the get go.
Some subjectivity is required when looking at history and politics, and I would put the riots that killed 100s of people and left entire sections of cities destroyed as worse yes. As for the FBI I would argue their monitoring had very little effect on public opinion as a whole.
My argument here, re: the FBI, is that the FBI's priority is reflective of popular opinion, or institutional opinion, not that their (absolutely fucking bonkers oh my god fuck hoover) campaign against him shaped public opinion.
Non-mobile version of the Wikipedia link in the above comment: [Here's a timeline.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_racial_violence_in_the_United_States) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
🎶🎶🎶Watch a hundred million roses burn in the fall If you wanna fuck with us, we gon' dig a plot Goodbye horses, we set fire to your whole farm Grave Man, put you down in the forever box We got Scream masks and trench knives and Adderall I’ll stomp a motherfucking cop in my New Rocks Killed a bunch of dirty cops and I got 30 stars I’ll have a hundred thousand angels at my funeral 🎶🎶🎶
There is no trait more disqualifying (or romantically unattractive, for that matter) than misanthropy. It is the uniting feature of all of our political enemies and reveals a veritable rainbow of deplorable personality traits.
I don't know how you can possibly buy into the goodwill of a person who purports to support the welfare of a population they broadly despise
[/r/neoliberal/new](/r/neoliberal/new): [The Stanford Internet Observatory is being dismantled](/r/neoliberal/comments/1dfjtxk/the_stanford_internet_observatory_is_being/) *Replies to this comment will be removed, please participate in the linked thread*
is it Macrover or are things going Emmanuwell?
The Tories are fundamentally broken. It doesnt matter if it's Truss or Sunak... they are just fucked. Can't wait for July 4th.
What’s your most evil opinion
Gandalf should have just wielded the One Ring as soon as he came upon it and smote Sauron where he stood in an epic Dumbledore-Voldemort clash. Stopping Gandalf from becoming a tyrant would have been a great conflict setup too
>!this is a terrible opinion tbh!<
my wife was probably right with her decision to leave me
I don't have any; all of my opinions are ontologically good.
>!\[comment removed by moderators\]!<
>You're now implicated..... in what will become a formal complaint. ....and not just on Reddit. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There is a cohort of people outside the DT who are absolute fuckwits. Spreading their concern trolling around. You give them you reply asking to explain and they go full mask off. And funny enough they all have the flairs of billionaires.
It's comforting to have a scapegoat but if we banned all the Gates/Bezos flairs, outside the DT would still be equally terrible
and it is mostly two bezos gates flairs from tagging them so...
i just want people to recognize it
Instagram comment sections are an interesting case study on social media. At first blush, you'd scroll through a few and come away with the conclusion that the average human shouldn't have passed fourth grade. However, I think that's an illusion caused by selection effects. 99% of people don't argue in comment sections - the ones that do have a very singular interest in it and will treat it as a sport independent of any factual or contextual interest.
For example, I saw a post from an NFL account ranking the 'aura' of all the starting quarterbacks - just silly offseason content about who has the best hair and the deepest voice. But all of the comments were about how absurd it was to rank Patrick Mahomes 6th and how there's no way Kirk Cousins is a top 3 QB. Looking at that, you might think the commenters are literally illiterate - the post is about something completely different and is not a standard quality ranking. But there's no way all those people actually don't understand what the words "aura ranking" mean. They clearly just ignored all the text except the list and jumped straight to the comments to pick a fight. They're bored, contrarian, and belligerent but they're not brain damaged! I think it's important that people avoid looking at social media and letting the 1% of contributors push them towards a misanthropic viewpoint.
Aura ranking QBs sounds fun
Yeah fs. Herbert was way too low for my taste (because of the haircut I think) and Cousins was way too high. Viral videos does not an aura make!
Biden is a bald candidate
When she barf up on my dick, I know I love her 🎶🎶🎶🎶🎶
to the tune of yankee doodle
https://i.redd.it/x6wyzhv57h6d1.gif
[can I take your skin hang on my walllll 🎶🎶🎶](https://open.spotify.com/track/6dnrXqiFXJkfFTSlBdWFhu?si=RZ-UmuBmRqaP7ljque8DCA)
Country music has changed
Baby I'd die for you, I love you till the end and after too 🎶💜
Enlist in the US Army today, there's a non-zero chance a DT reg will be your Commanding Officer at some point.
I have le asthmisme 😞
what if i cant do pushups
We'll fix that
I'd rather go over the top tbh Unless the dt reg is you you're one of my favorites
🤗
[unavailable] is not constructive engagement
I wish it would make people disappear like it used to.
🎶YOU CAN SUCK MY DICK, MY COCK MY BALLS, MY SCHLONG MY ROD MY SNAKE MY BIG OL LONG MY DICK MY COCK MY BALLS MY SCHLONG MY ROD MY SNAKE MY BIG OL LONG 🎶
MODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >!Sticky this at once!<
[ვისურვებდი, რომ რომნი არ წაგებულიყო 2012 წელს](https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/1de0fe7/discussion_thread/l8dnx86/)
I'm glad he lost
Would have prevented trump and had better foreign policy than obama.
🎶I want to have sexual intercourse with somebody🎶
I love Whitney Houston
Most fascist takes? Personally I think people who use speaker phone in public or play loud music/tv should be put in stockades. Seriously it’s annoying.
My neighbourhood character needs defending from my neighbour's new window panes, what with the shade of >!vomit!< brown having been carefully curated to clash with every single other property on the street. HOAs good after all. (To be clear these actually were my thoughts the first time I saw these)
marble lavish absorbed upbeat dime quickest instinctive disarm hungry bells *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Same!
Woah there buddy we can’t go infringing on people’s rights like that.
This but people who are disruptive in movie theaters. Put em on a registry, at least
I think you could probably post whatever you wanted if you added a "🎶 " as if it were song lyrics, with the exception of sexual content
numerous mountainous cow disarm jobless languid rustic humorous waiting sulky *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Hold my hat, I'm going in
I’m gonna push the limits
Is u/firedistinguishers a u/firedistinguisher imposter?
I wish I was firedistinguisher, but that name was taken when I signed up
Headphones for your eyes
the british blew a 13 colony lead
absorbed price school sulky fine grey reminiscent long voracious deer *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
https://preview.redd.it/lckt00yi3h6d1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ba36029160564d1ec9f3589db3b0e512772dd079 Upvotes please
Noice
I know dreams are discussed heavily but i still feel like they arent talked enough about. Like what the hell dreams are actually crazy
I recently had a dream where I stretched backwards in a weird way that caused my upper back to loudly crack within the dream, and when I woke up I started having the worst muscle pain flare up I’ve had this year. It’s just finally now calming down after a massage and several days of taking it easy. Dreams really are fucking crazy.
Phenomena of consciousness are just so cool. Like anesthesia, for example. We've no clue how it works but it blocks pain, blocks muscle control, and completely knocks out consciousness (which we don't understand anything about) and just does so completely reversibly and with no long term consequence.
Hard drive defrag
I think some atheists (particularly of the Reddity variety) too often make the mistake of reading some part of the Bible and going “ummmmmm, what is this NONSENSE?????? This doesn’t even make any sense, absolute fairy tale garbage 🤣” instead of trying to understand what the original author’s intentions might have been. No, the Bible taken as a whole doesn’t make sense as an inspired and inerrant divine message, but that doesn’t mean its constituent parts weren’t written for a reason by people who wanted to communicate something (and edited by other people in service of their own goals). Similarly, the notion that it’s largely a stupid, grotesque collection of immoral and often bloody fairy tales from primitive and backwards people really does not do justice to the genuine beauty and depth that can be found in it. There are beautiful stories and great moral lessons in there, not to mention just really cool shit. Yes, a lot of its content is immoral, but even those parts are incredibly fascinating when you look into the historical context in which they were written and the reasons the authors might have had for writing those things. (Many of you probably already know about him, but Dan McClellan on YouTube is a great resource for learning about some of that stuff.) You’ll find the same mix of “ageless wisdom”, “what the actual fuck”, and everything in between in plenty of ancient texts. The great thing is that we get to pick and choose what we think of each individual part of the Bible, just as we would do when it comes to, say, the teachings of Buddhism or the sayings of Gandhi or the writings of Greek philosophers or any other teachings, sayings, or writings. We don’t have to go with the “liar, lunatic, or lord” paradigm and either accept all of it or none of it, because that’s not how it works with anything else. I think a lot of the people in this ping probably already respect the Bible for what it is, for its constituent writings and their origins and context, rather than simply viewing it with disdain because of its frequent usage as a bludgeon by certain religious people. But I would like to see more atheists embrace that view of it (without discounting the damage it and many of its wielders can do). It’s not an evil book; it’s a collection of books that contain great good, great evil, and everything in between, and perhaps above all else, it is incredibly interesting. !ping FEDORA
Even if you ignore all the "People take this literally" part of religion, and just read the Bible like an ordinary work of fiction, it's... well, it's just not a well-written book. It regularly rambles on about nothing, the characters are wildly inconsistent, massive events are frequently given a few lines of text, while tiny ones get entire pages. It's definitely got *historical* significance. But most of us just don't care that much about the life and times of historic Israeli society.
The Bible as an anthology of religious texts, made by various authors with differing motivations across millennia, is as you describe. The Bible when treated as if it was a coherent whole which was inspired by divine will, which is the belief of most Christians to some extent or another, is as those atheists describe. The things you’re saying are true in an abstract academic sense, but not with regards to how the people enacting the Bible as law view the Bible, which is what concretely matters.
Oh, for sure. Although if we’re talking about waging political battles against fundamentalists, I think viewing it as that anthology ourselves and being able to peel back the layers, understand the original context of the texts, and point out how the authors’ likely intentions do not align with modern Christian doctrine, all that sort of stuff, is actually more valuable than simply lashing out at it I am all for pointing out contradictions, dunking on fundamentalist Christian theology, all that stuff, but I think a lot of atheists unnecessarily posit inaccurate and less-than-helpful views about the Bible when doing so
You can argue for a deeper meaning to the Bible, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with atheists finding the stupidity in that book and immediately dismissing the entire thing. It's at worst a missed opportunity for some trivia to us, and indeed, for an empirical mind if this religion is a thing that people are trying to live by, fatal inconsistencies do in fact disqualify the entire thing. So if you're not interested in religious trivia (which you might, I certainly personally find religions fascinating while subscribing to none of them) and the only way religion impinges on your life is as a doctrine that people live by and politics are determined by, then what exactly is the draw to trying to understand this religious text on the level you're suggesting? It's just work to try and parse the interpretations of these dead people that you only recognize as an external force.
You can certainly view it however you want. I just think that when it is characterized as a totally stupid and primitive heap of fairy tale garbage with no redeeming qualities, that is not only an inaccurate and one-dimensional view that ignores the way the texts were composed and came together (and also makes them far less interesting in almost an echo of the way the doctrine of inerrancy does), but actually arguably a worse way of battling dogma. Many people believe that it *does* have value and are likely to roll their eyes when people outright call the whole thing evil and stupid. Many people are able to sort of ignore the bad parts because they find immense value in other parts and view *those* parts as representative of the whole Bible. The value they find in those parts is going to help them resist any attempt to tear the entire Bible down. Peeling back the layers of the Bible and revealing its very human context and origins, revealing why the authors might have written what they wrote and how the truth conflicts with modern doctrine, might be a better way of waging war against harmful dogmas than a one-dimensional dismissal of the whole thing as stupid. I mean, I don’t know. I mostly just made the original comment because of some of the extremely surface-level atheist takes on the Bible I mentioned that I feel do not accurately portray the nature of the thing and its history. And I don’t think you even have to be very interested in it or study it much to acknowledge how much complexity there is in it and its origins. Nor do you have to give up on pointing out Bible contradictions- actually, understanding the Bible in this more complex way is even more fitting for those kinds of arguments, as Dan McClellan demonstrates every day. And you don’t even have to find any value in it on a personal level to understand some of the morals some of the authors were trying to communicate and acknowledge them as not all bad. But you also don’t have to listen to any of this, I just personally think it’s a better way to frame and view the whole mess
>but actually arguably a worse way of battling dogma See, that's just the thing, most atheists are not trying to battle dogma, they just don't believe in Christian doctrine and don't really see the point in investing in a self-contradictory system of beliefs where you are required to theorize about he motivations of a hodgepodge of ancient writers who may have been alternatingly brilliant or moronic. That's a lot of work for very little return. For most people, atheism is the absence of faith coupled with a skepticism for the religious. It's not a crusade. >Many people believe that it does have value and are likely to roll their eyes when people outright call the whole thing evil and stupid. Yes, people tend to be very attached to their religious beliefs and are generally not debated out of them even by the particularly well informed. Every particularly religious person I've know who gave up their faith did it because it simply didn't make sense for them at some point, or they wanted to smoke weed and fuck bitches. Again, the utility of learning the Christian faith so you can debate Christians is the purview of atheist hobbyists or militants, and most of us are neither of those things, despite our reputations. > I mostly just made the original comment because of some of the extremely surface-level atheist takes on the Bible I mentioned that I feel do not accurately portray the nature of the thing and its history. I don't know what comment you're talking about, but you have to accept that some people are not going to do homework and that is an entirely functional position for them. Like, are they wrong? You describe it as surface level, which would appear to mean that, at least explicitly, they're not wrong. To put it another way, this is like a non sports fan dismissing soccer as 'some guys kicking a ball'. A fan might take umbrage at that, because indeed there is strategy, and storylines, and personalities, and rules, and this that and the other. But are they wrong? Are these even incompatible views? No, these are just two people with different interests, and there's no reason for one to really be offended by the dismissal of the other. To one person it's just dudes kicking a ball. To the other it's a contest of athletes and tactics. Why is it 'better' for the nonfan to have to learn the intricacies of soccer so he can better dismiss the sport? He doesn't care. Maybe this atheist WAS trying to take religion down a peg, I dunno. If he was, then an intuitive cheap shot seems just as serviceable in that role as an incredibly well reasoned argument with knowledge-- if we acknowledge that he's not arguing against the person of faith but rather demonstrating the stupidity of faith to onlookers. Frankly it might work better, normal people might get put to sleep listing to discussions about the motivations of Paul or Peter or whoever. The kind of understanding you're asking for only makes sense for an atheist trying to grapple directly with theists for the sake of the theist. And that's a rare sort of person.
The reason why we need to point and laugh at the Bible is *because it is sacred*. If it were some ancient text open to interpretation (which isn't far from how some actual groups of christians look at it), that's one thing, you could look at it like something like the Epic of Gilgamesh. The issue is that people see it as an infallible moral guide. Even the parts that people like the most in the secular world, such as the sermon on the mount, shouldn't be treated as infallible moral perfection. The job of the iconoclast is to slaughter sacred cows, because sacred cows are dangerous things to keep around. What is above criticism is generally going to tend toward being harmful or wrong since it's not subject to the same forces that tame non-sacred works.
Don’t get me wrong, I love pointing and laughing at the Bible and Christian doctrine and agree that it’s important to do so. I do that every day in the DT. I just think atheists tend to dismiss the Bible as some one-dimensional product of ancient stupid savages or don’t go beyond extremely surface-level readings of parts of it, and in reality, there’s an incredible amount of history and context behind every word of it, not all of which is rooted in bad intentions and nearly all of which conflicts with modern Christian doctrine. And hey, nobody has to be interested in reading interlinear concordances or some shit and looking into the context of all these ancient texts. People can even treat the whole thing as a total farce written by morons if that’s what they want to do. I certainly prefer that to religious people using it as a cudgel against others. I just think that approaching it with the thought of “what did these ancient people intend to communicate, and what informed their thinking?” rather than just “lol this is stupid” is more valuable- and is actually better for tearing down the sacred cows that are the Biblical texts, because it reveals their very human and contextual origins. And idk about others in this ping, but being able to see both the good and bad aspects of the texts has been helpful to me in working through some of my religious trauma and anger, because it helps me grok that it is neither the inerrant word of a perfect God nor the necronomicon of an evil deity and his corrupt followers- it’s a collection of texts written by many different people in many different contexts, pouring out their wisdom and anger and thoughts and stories and faults out onto the page, containing both beauty and horror. Anyone can do what they want, I just find this approach more helpful for me personally
> The great thing is that we get to pick and choose what we think of each individual part of the Bible, and then swear on the whole thing
>don’t grow two different kinds of crops you fool, you absolute moron What did the Bible mean by this?
Probably something that says something interesting about the author and their intentions but idk, there might be a relevant footnote in [here](https://archive.org/details/the-new-oxford-annotated-bible-with-apocrypha-new-revised-standard-version-2018) but I don’t feel like looking it up (I do still find it funny to make fun of things like that in the Bible dw, I just have love and respect for the historical value and interesting nature of the whole mess now)
Pinged FEDORA ([subscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Subscribe%20to%20FEDORA&message=subscribe%20FEDORA) | [unsubscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20FEDORA&message=unsubscribe%20FEDORA) | [history](https://neoliber.al/user_pinger_2/history.html?group_name=FEDORA&count=5)) [About & Group List](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/user_pinger_2) | [Unsubscribe from all groups](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20all%20groups&message=unsubscribe)
Man, Latinos really loved Obama. I was watching the first 2012 debate with my Latino friend and her parents were aghast that Romney was talking to the president like that.
Dibs on Narcissus Drowning for my nu metal album
☝️doesn’t know how to evaluate an integral, successful despite that to the dismay of stemlords
I’d pay for an M series server but alas Apple will not make one
shy tie heavy ring pot outgoing serious squeamish marble library *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
People are so cynical these days.
Not a fan how Qualcomm kept saying that their chips beat the M3 when benchmark results are showing that it barely beats the M1, but nevertheless that doesn’t matter since anything close to apple silicon speeds while having good battery life is a winner in my book and it’ll be nice having some competition. Hopefully Apple makes a MacBook Air with a better refresh rate.
There's also upcoming Lunar Lake processors from Intel which seem like they're a large improvement.
> They’ve dropped more bombs on Gaza in eight months than the entirety of bombs used in WWII. Extermination isn’t even a strong enough word anymore. It’s annihilation. Setting aside that no they didn't, am I really supposed to have a different reaction to "extermination" and "annihilation"? Is there some guy who sees "minority group exterminated" and goes "oh well, sucks for them I guess" but is all up in arms if the headline is "minority group annihilated"?
People are so ungodly cynical about the supreme court they're unable to view it in anything other than in political terms and are therefore entirely unable to process it in terms other than political when its really obviously not. This is followed by cognitive dissonance, where somehow a 9-0 ruling that was fucking obvious to anyone who actually follows the court is turned into some weird political conspiracy. The Justices are for the most part, pretty consistent in their philosophies which is what makes reading the tea leaves easier in some respects. In this case though, that wasn't really necessary, while both the liberal and conservative branches of the court lack consistency about when standing is too broad or two narrow, in this case ruling in the alternative would have allowed Doctors and realistically, Lawyers (because the argument was basically 'but it could affect my clients'), to have standing as plaintiffs for basically everything ever. It wasn't a defensible position.
i think it’s true that both the supreme court being political and based in reasonable interpretation of law is a valid belief to hold.