This was actually really reasonable and didn't try to stand over you to show their dominance.

Gottem

/r/dune after they banned ai posts

These mods are wild. In my 4 experiences with mods, all have been negative and only one was professional. I'm sorry I judged you so harshly dwarf fortress mod -- you never know what you have until it's gone

Also why would your not being religious mean you don't have an answer to the morality question? It's a question for society, not just the religious. You were able to answer that Christian savages referred to all Christians enough to report it so what's the difference? Where does your ability to participate in discussions about religion in society stop?

I TOTALLY agree -- My grandmother was my best personal example. The problem isn't the majority or even a good amount of the believers and followers, it's what their money, respect and time gives to the power positions, which I believe are dubious and not in good faith. I've always been really interested in that dynamic -- Having a large group of 'moral' people that represent the majority of the group, but they create cover for those in power to abuse it in various ways. Really difficult to think of good answers and how to deal with it. I feel like something similar is going on with the police -- They're all culpable in a way to me just like the clergy with the 'thin blue line' If some other organization no one is super emotionally attached to harbored pedophiles or murderers, say Pepsi Co -- How would we feel about it versus Catholic Church or USA Police?

Do it

Humans are animals and lots of animals (most I believe) are gay https://www.dw.com/en/10-animal-species-that-show-how-being-gay-is-natural/g-39934832 It also appears to not be as socially based a thing as it is genetic as the twins studies proves. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8494487/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26572-largest-study-of-gay-brothers-homes-in-on-gay-genes/

Lol don't read the propaganda rags, you have to read from the propaganda origin, think tank blog posts https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Council

Tell them you're a sovereign redditor

/r/UnpopularPolitOpinion exists

That feels relevant and about us politics. Hmmmmmm

No

You too!

Thanks for the response. I think we're not too far off. The only thing I think that objectively makes the words different from each other is time. None of the banned slurs or non banned slurs started off banned, they were all commonplace to the degree that society had to change to accommodate it. Karen is so new it hasn't had time to go through the process naughty words go through to become unusable. This could happen, if the karens band together and advocate for change, while their opposers are still using it. Of course, you could also get into the question of choice, but I'm not sure how I feel about that. It is not a choice what gender, sexual orientation, or race you are. You choose to be a nazi or a karen, so those are different in that way. I don't really believe in the idea of free will though, so for me, that line is extremely blurry, but I understand the point people make with it.

I agree -- Racial and Gender discrimination is scoped at its highest level and isn't specific to races or genders. This is not true with other groupings though. The phantom limb syndrome people nor Karen's enjoy legal protection. If they seek to do so, there is a clear path other groups have taken to reach legal protection. E: to be clear, the flaw in your argument, is that Karens are neither a gender, race or sexual orientation.

I mean ... King Henry totally could have done that when he created the church to divorce his wife.

Or is it tencent? Or both? We may all need to critically think and be nice to one another to make it out of here

If the comments were really as innocuous as you all say, it's actually a really bad mark against the world and I don't think the truest answer is to just blame mods. People are becoming so afraid to even facilitate certain topics it looks like because of cancel culture and the reintroduction of public shaming. I could see if the comments were incendiary either way that would make you take stuff down for fear of personal reprisal or pain, but now it seems like a lot of people would just cut that out as soon as any discussion around it is had. To compound this no one will listen to each other and just screams their slogans and smirk that the other side can't seem to comprehend them. When asked to really lay it out with scrutiny applied, everyone, both sides, are most likely to just freak out that you're brainwashed or an idiot or whatever. Personally, I'm pretty heavy progressive liberalism but I want you all to measure and convince me of the merit of your thoughts. No one has really been able to do that in a satisfactory way and if I go look for it on the liberal side, not really any discussions like that happening outside or academia, and from what I've seen those are usually just one or two people writing a book, not two dissimilar groups fighting decently with their ideas. I hope we come out the other side of this and find a way we can spar our ideas without all this ugliness and distrust.

hey you too though go read the rest of the thread

If you spoke with those people and listened you would see it's not a lie though. A lie has intent -- You may think it's the wrong interpretation but that doesn't make the other person a liar. You're likely disagreeing over foundational definitions like what responsible really means. Either way I didn't understand what you meant originally because I thought you were talking about the general idea of not being emotional and heavy handed when trying to persuade others, so my bad.

I wouldn't say it's lying to choose your words and ideas. Think about a math teacher who simplifies a more complex idea so the students can understand and build upon it. Or a physics teacher not deep diving relativity before they understand Newton. You present yourself very differently every day to all different kinds of people. The way you would present the same idea to your boss, friends, parents, etc would all be different and often not include the same information. Is that immoral? If not, why not? Is it being aware of choosing your words -- the intent-- or something else?

Fair points. I guess I just never believed people woke up with the sole motive to just dump on another group of people. Any time I have done that sort of thing, if I see it is schadenfreude or worse, I feel bad about it. I guess in that way, my moral compass is uncompromising as I do find it ugly to organize your motives around ruining people's day. Flabbergasted and disgusted you're well written and sensible but choose to carry yourself in the world that way. Thanks for the chat even if it didn't end well. Good to get some new "from the horses mouth" perspective. E: and I'm sorry I hurt your feelings or betrayed how I presented myself with the let me Google that for you comment. I see it worked against my motive of getting you to be more pragmatic as we discussed earlier. Something to think about. Love you

I see a lifeguard manager, drunk on their own tiny power