Of all the Christians to put shade on I wouldn’t have thrown Paul in the lot. Paul seemed like a pretty down to earth person from everything I read, he was basically a riches to rags semi militant hobo hippie. Now Peter…

Some of the most Christian acting people I have known were Jews, Muslims, and Atheists.

…Win?

Jokes aside, if you don’t believe in god and end up going to heaven because you were actually a good person that would be a win in my book, but I would imagine the atheist in this event would be eternally upset that they were wrong in their actual premise. Joke is more funny if you ended up in a non-Christian afterlife.

That’s the thing, looking at the company they don’t work “normal labor” jobs. Infosys is into info tech, consulting, and outsourcing services and looking at their acquisition history I get the impression they buy up smaller companies and consolidate their work into their product. Basically they make websites and tools that your company buys for $100k to analyze and optimize workflow, but the site doesn’t work well and they never fix it. After 2 years enough time has passed that the higher ups don’t feel embarrassed retiring the software and buying something else. Also, rather than just coding themselves they code with AI or buy other companies that already wrote the code and put it into their own product.

At the end of the day they aren’t “working,” they are being available. They are the shitty guy who is answering a work call on a Saturday while they are supposed to be watching their kid’s ball game. They are the person who has to step out of the movie theater because they are getting an urgent work call at 10 pm on Friday. They are the person who flies back from their vacation two days early because the boss wants to ask about sales numbers. This is how Executive suite types say they work 16 hour days 7 days a week, they count every hour of the day as work because they are available, not because they were being productive that entire time.

I don’t know, I feel like that’s a bit of a stretch. If god exists, creation is because of them, and early humans and faith are shaped by them, then the concept of a god who purports themselves as objectively good despite subjective proof otherwise doesn’t seem unlikely. The idea that god might not be good in the way we think good should be is relatively modern and prior to the last 100-200 years god was good because everything prior said so. For fucks sake most people couldn’t read and just trusted the guy in robes to tell them what to think.

So yeah, just like me trimming a plant and putting it in rooting hormone 1000 times, I think an all powerful and knowable god could theoretically always inevitably result in Christianity if they wanted, the bar isn’t that high when the majority of the species lifetime is dismally stupid.

Also, your argument is inherently flawed if you think the contrast of a good god must be an evil one. Concepts of good and evil have fluctuated wildly over the centuries, both in location and sentiment. If god made everything and said they are good then at best good to us doesn’t mean the same thing as good means to them and trying to frame the argument in that is meaningless.

At the end of the day you get to decide if you believe in god or not, if you do believe in god you can still decide whether you like “god” and want to follow it; however, making the logical leap that god doesn’t exist because they aren’t good by your definition is fundamentally flawed.

If you’ve never seen it I recommend you watch the movie, “The Man from Earth.” It’s a short “indy-esque” movie and, without too many spoilers, focuses on a man who claims he is a prehistoric man who just never died. In his long life span he says he traveled to India and studied with the Buddah and while returning west began to spread the Buddah’s teachings, in time people began to call him Jesus.

Really interesting movie, lots of great thought experiment stuff, but it does make an interesting point that the literal teachings of Jesus are so different from the old testament teachings that one almost wonders how they could come from the same source.

Also I don’t think it’s even worth examining a flawed deity in the context of Christianity, because it’s clearly something they made up. “Whats that, lord? Go kill the people we don’t like and steal their land and take their virgins as war brides? Well if God says so 🤷”

Well that’s part of the problem, the people in the situation are flawed as well. A biblical reference that comes to mind is First Samuel 15:3 in which god instructs the Israelites to kill all of the Amalekites including men, women, infants, nursing children, ox, sheep, camel, and donkey. In the story Saul actually sins and disobeys god by not killing everything he is instructed to kill as fucked up as that is.

When discussing god with atheists it often comes down to a point similar to this, “God can’t be real because if god existed they wouldn’t allow XYZ.” In reality we have no reason to assume as much.

If there is a god that entity could be flawed and faulty while still being omniscient and omnipotent. We assume that a being with human sentiments and unlimited knowledge would have to be a good being, but that’s not necessarily so. It’s entirely possible that if god exists it views us similarly to how we view ants and simply just doesn’t share the concerns or beliefs we feel are naturally just and fair.

At the end of the day god could be a giant toddler on the playground and while they are unfair and unjust you have the choice of either believing and following (assuming the Christian god) to go to heaven or not believing and following and burning in eternal torment.

This is all just a thought experiment, but the argument that god can’t exist because god isn’t good is inherently a flawed argument (not that you are explicitly making that argument, I’m just extrapolating off of what you posted, ie god might not be a good guy).

deleted by creator

Honestly didn’t know that Gelsinger was a bible thumper, after his time at Intel I figured he’d just retire and disappear.

a scholar at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte

Hahahahaha…wait, was that not a joke?

I was thinking that this was a relatively bullshit example, but the movie “The One” featuring Jet Li makes this an awesome example. On it’s face the impacts of one person likely aren’t even enough for one person to notice, but if you had someone with the knowledge and means to take advantage of this they could be incredibly powerful.

BTC loses a chunk of value it’s just Tuesday BTC.

All it needs is a start point to make it fairly accurate. If you’re not from the US the politics of the 1700’s and 1800’s are actually kind interesting unlike the slop we got after something like 1975. Hell, as a point of intrigue, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was at least “interesting.” At the time the parties maintained much of their core belief (Democrat = big Fed, Republican = small Fed), but the implementation was split by North vs South. This led to some interesting situations where anti big Fed Republicans in the north votes for big Fed regulations while pro big Fed Democrats in the south voted against big Fed regulations. US politics used to be interesting, hell even as recently as 2012 we had situations where Republicans were trying to find avenues for conservative value illegal immigrants as a means to bolster their ranks, but all that fell through because the existing rank and file couldn’t stomach illegal brown people taking jobs they didn’t want.

Now US politics seems to be Fascist vs not Fascist while there are no true alternatives.

Let me start by saying I’m 100% against fascism, but… we do have a terminology problem. The left overall has a messaging problem, “Oh Black lives matter, so that means White lives don’t?!?” Words do matter, but it’s because they matter that we have a problem. The left seems to ebb and flow on vibes (“Just because we say Black lives matter doesn’t mean other people’s lives don’t”) while the right seems so much more literal, but the subtext is maybe even more implied. For example, they might say “They [people not like us] are taking our jobs,” but what they really mean is that they are taking the jobs we want (office jobs, trade jobs, etc), but we don’t mind them working the jobs we don’t want (basic construction, farm hands, etc), all the while their vibe is wrong and that’s not really happening.

When you call someone or something fascist they probably won’t believe you because fascism equals Nazis which equals antisemitism in most of the common people’s view. I’ll assume that anyone who has found their way to Lemmy probably understands the difference, but at the same time many of this platform don’t seem able to understand that the common person doesn’t know the difference.

There is a big difference between systemic racism vs open bigotry. A bigot is much harder to turn from racism than a person who grew up in systemic racism. It still might take decades to turn someone who is systemically racist, but a bigot will likely take longer. The same applies to a fascist; like a systemic racist they might not understand that they are racist or what racism even is. Education or experience are the two avenues people escape those avenues, but it’s especially hard if you’re doing it alone and if you feel attacked by the terminology.

Fascist = Nazi = Jew hater

“Well, I don’t hate jews, I’m not a Nazi, so I’m not a fascist” -common Fascist

I’ve had plenty of discussions with Conservatives where I took the discussion to a rich vs poor direction or a a personal rights vs governed rights direction and they suddenly become liberals without acknowledging it.

Honestly it’s the same hurdle that the left has had for decades, just because you’re a leftist doesn’t mean you love Stalin and Mao. Messaging is important, one of the most recent persons to break that mold was Bernie Sanders who made it at least semi acceptable to be a Democratic Socialist.

Yeah I came to the same conclusion, either a student or at a workplace, either way depicting someone getting hung isn’t gonna fly even if it were Hitler himself. Cool shirt though.

At the very least, I don’t think OP deserves to be dragged like they were for what is to me a pretty reasonable take. In Lemmy, blocking someone acts like getting blocked on pretty much every platform, which is going to be confusing for many

I can agree that I understand the confusion and I also don’t think the OP deserves to get dragged for their initial post, but I think their opinion is fundamentally flawed and the reason they got dragged is mostly because they went in the comments trying to defend their opinion. The problem is that the term “Social Media” has gotten so hackneyed that multiple different things are all called Social Media and the rules of the most common version are expected in the others.

Growing up Social Media referred to Social Networks which are user-centric platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Myspace (I guess potentially TikTok) where you create an account which is central to your experience on the website. Connections on these platforms are made through creating individual friends lists and following specific users which makes it super easy to block someone in the manner described. Now basically everything is called Social Media, including forums and image boards. On an image board or forum you might have to create an account, but the experience was more defined by going through an index of posts not connected to your account. Places like Digg, Reddit, Tumblr, Pinterest, 4chan, and any random ass forum functioned pretty similarly to how blocking works on Lemmy. In most cases the blocked user can still see any public posts you make; they may not be able to search for your posts within their account or respond to your messages directly, but they typically could still see your posts and respond to other people in a thread (even your own). The only exception to this is if they posted on a forum (or subreddit/instance/board/blog) you moderated or otherwise controlled. In some cases Social Networks and image boards are similar, if you run a blog on Tumblr it functions more like a Social Network but if you only browse other people’s public blogs then it functions like an image board

The whole argument is basically “Why don’t forums work like social networks?”

Looking at the post you reference the person you talked to is a transgender person who moderates both LGBTQ+ and Transfem in Lemmy.blahaj.zone, they provide more than enough evidence of their minority status, but that wasn’t really needed. The question was what group was being harassed and thus this interaction would imply that the LGBTQ community is being harassed on Lemmy.

What I feel like you missed in your previous discussion is that the other person was talking about privacy in the context of being outed in the real world. The harassment being referred to was in the context of your real life identity being revealed or connected to your online conversation.

There’s no such thing. They are mutually exclusive. Take queer folk for example. We need privacy to be able to talk about our experiences without outing ourselves to the world. It’s especially important for queer kids, and folk that are still in the closet. If they don’t have privacy, they can’t be part of the community, because they open themselves to recognition and harassment in offline spaces.

Under this context they are looking for a feature similar to how Facebook (at least previously) allowed you to pick who could see your post as you were posting it. That way you could individually disallow specific people or groups from seeing them.

This doesn’t imply that the issue is that someone is being harassed on Lemmy and thus we need better blocking options. It’s really only an issue for someone who wants to dox themselves and still have private conversations, in which case Lemmy and most online forums can’t accomplish that natively across all instances/subreddits/groups. The only solution is to have a private instance with vetting and heavy moderation. If you don’t dox yourself you can generally avoid the whole issue here.

Based on this I think you’re making a different argument than what the block feature is or ever could be.

I’m sorry, but I feel like you need to support the statement “This comes from discussions I’ve had with minorities about the harassment they face on Lemmy and mastodon” a bit more. Your whole argument for limiting the speech of others is predicated on this statement.

I’m not saying that minorities couldn’t face harassment on Lemmy, but Lemmy is by far the most liberal and minority supportive online forum I have ever experienced. Part of the reason Lemmy is so niche is because it doesn’t have the mainstream attention other platforms have and is heavily moderated.

If you are engaging in an instance where harassment is occurring the moderators generally ban the person quickly. If the moderators of that instance aren’t doing their job people generally leave and the instance dies from lack of content (there just aren’t that many people on Lemmy). If someone follows you from a different instance to another the current instance moderators will likely ban them even if the one you met them on doesn’t. Finally, if they are direct messaging you you can block them, they can continue to message you but you won’t see their messages and neither will anyone else.

What minority group have you talked with that are receiving harassment and what extra protections were needed that aren’t already here?

How anyone can sympathise for him I don’t know

At the end of the day he is a human being, that’s why. I’m not trying to defend the guy, but fundamentally that’s what is supposed to divide the progressives/liberals vs the conservatives. The conservatives don’t care except when it’s their own while the progressives and liberals are supposed to care about all people supposedly.