Edit because this blew up far more than I expected and multiple people have asked for me to elaborate, here's a copy of my elaboration with follow up questions encouraged:
It's a messy topic and it's late here (I'm a bit sleepy), so feel free to ask follow up questions.
The short version of it is that Judeo-Christian is almost always used in one of two harmful ways:
1) To try and give more credibility and weight to something that is purely Christian by claiming that it's part of Judaism as well when it's not (like the above example, because Judaism explicitly permits abortions) 2) To try and talk about broader groupings of related faiths while ignoring the many other Abrahamic faiths (the proper term, though that one more often hurts the lesser known groups, don't use it unless you also know it applies to groups like the Baháʼí, which I'll admit even I know next to nothing about, but it's valid here because all I'm doing is naming their religious family)
Because many (cough most cough) teach a bastardized form of Judaism through the lens of Christianity, and because that's the only exposure many get to our faith... they get skewed harmful and hurtful ideas about us.
Some highlight examples: * We don't have an established afterlife (we don't say there isn't one, we just have zero information on it if there is) * We don't seek "eternal reward", the reward for our faith is being a better person than we were the day before * We have forgiveness baked into our faith, and no it doesn't require animal sacrifice (it requires you to actually ask the person you wronged...) * We thoroughly encourage arguing any topic with anyone (right time and place of course), and that includes picking a fight with God if you think they're wrong about something (you have a 99.9% chance of being wrong... but we commend the effort and every once in a while someone wins the argument) * We have a rule, Pikuach Nefesh, roughly meaning that life is the highest commandment. Your well being takes precedence over your faith, if it would hurt you or others to be observant than you are exempt from that requirement. It's unacceptable to hurt others for your faith, and for yourself it's frowned upon * We actively discourage conversion, it's allowed but it's not a trivial process. We don't want people to become Jews, we just want people to be better.
@Rabbit Cohen @just adrienne Hey Rabbit, thanks again for the wonderful source post... sorry if this has resulted in spam upon you waking up, hope I'm representing well as I tackle these endless comments lol
It's a messy topic and it's late here (I'm a bit sleepy), so feel free to ask follow up questions.
The short version of it is that Judeo-Christian is almost always used in one of two harmful ways:
1) To try and give more credibility and weight to something that is purely Christian by claiming that it's part of Judaism as well when it's not (like the above example, because Judaism explicitly permits abortions) 2) To try and talk about broader groupings of related faiths while ignoring the many other Abrahamic faiths (the proper term, though that one more often hurts the lesser known groups, don't use it unless you also know it applies to groups like the Baháʼí, which I'll admit even I know next to nothing about, but it's valid here because all I'm doing is naming their religious family)
Because many (cough most cough) teach a bastardized form of Judaism through the lens of Christianity, and because that's the only exposure many get to our faith... they get skewed harmful and hurtful ideas about us.
Some highlight examples: * We don't have an established afterlife (we don't say there isn't one, we just have zero information on it if there is) * We don't seek "eternal reward", the reward for our faith is being a better person than we were the day before * We have forgiveness baked into our faith, and no it doesn't require animal sacrifice (it requires you to actually ask the person you wronged...) * We thoroughly encourage arguing any topic with anyone (right time and place of course), and that includes picking a fight with God if you think they're wrong about something (you have a 99.9% chance of being wrong... but we commend the effort and every once in a while someone wins the argument) * We have a rule, Pikuach Nefesh, roughly meaning that life is the highest commandment. Your well being takes precedence over your faith, if it would hurt you or others to be observant than you are exempt from that requirement. It's unacceptable to hurt others for your faith, and for yourself it's frowned upon * We actively discourage conversion, it's allowed but it's not a trivial process. We don't want people to become Jews, we just want people to be better.
@a13cui my understanding is that it was a replacement for "Christian values" after 1945. The older term having come to mean plain fascism. And that the new term was promoted by people trying to whitewash their long standing Jew-hatred.
when is abortion permitted? Pikuach Nefesh sounds like it wouldn't be ok to kill an unborn baby (not trying to start an argument, but a genuine question)
@foo (A) when it's a person is a philosophical/religious argument, Judaism says at birth (B) Pikuach Nefesh is specifically what permits it, abortion is permitted when it would cause harm to carry to term. It explicitly includes mental and economic health in that (if it would cause mental distress, if it would interfere with your ability to care for yourself or your family) @A13cui :perl: :opensuse:
@𐪅𐪀𐪈 𐪑𐪁𐪉 Not remotely a counter argument. For one equating Israel with Judaism is an anti-semitic (blood and soil, or just thinking a regional government is authoritative of a worldwide culture) or Zionist take (despised by non-zionists like myself as they are colonizers who think Israel can do no wrong).
Also, it's in the blog section talking about America. It's also precisely the wrong usage (it's calling America Judeo-Christian... it's just christian if anything). On top of that, internalized bigotry is a thing in minority groups.
@scottmatter Sidenote: I understand why the combination would be complete trash in the topic of abortion. Anyone trying that might deserve a kick to the shin.
@WahbAllat the guy who wrote this article is like 1% as clever as he thinks he is. Just the same old boring right wing bigotry we've all heard a million times before
@M_U @A13cui :perl: :opensuse: Judaism is both a religion and a cultural/"ethnic" group, "Judeo-Christian" is almost always used to refer to the religion of which my statements are representative of the vast vast majority of Judaism.
Also one of the distinct differences is that Atheism and the faith of Judaism are not incompatible. There are many atheist-jews because God actually isn't the center point of Judaism, the main point is the time tested rules (see the argue with everything/everyone) about becoming a better person.
We will always be used by minority groups referring to themselves, mostly because "the vast vast vast majority of us" is clumsy to say and people get the point that exceptions exist. Also, because it doesn't change the fact of the statement being made.
It's also why I mad the example points I did because they're central points that are agreed upon by all major sects as opposed to the many many points which are argued over (once again see the argue with everything/everyone... arguments are a past-time in Jewish culture)
@A.L. Blacklyn @Scott Matter I think it's problematic because all of that is almost always presented from the filter of Christianity looking backwards. Jesus was absolutely a Jew and the vast vast majority of what he preached was in line with Jewish beliefs (if they hadn't shed Judaism as part of their faith and hadn't been co-assimilated with the entirety of Rome, it would be a very very different relationship).
The problem mostly comes from the fact that saying Judeo-Christian about those elements and times really should only be applied when you are intimately familiar with both faiths and are doing the hard work of removing the Christian filter from it.
Highlights on the Jewish view of Jesus: * He fulfilled no significant prophecies regarding the Messiah (the whole point is the thousand years of peace), the vast vast majority of prophecies he's claimed to have fulfilled are mistranslations and/or completely out of context (ie. "virgin birth" came from "young woman of marriageable age" and a prophecy that had nothing to do with the messiah but was fulfilled in the following chapter) * Trinitarianism isn't even universal among Christians, among Jews it's deeply deeply heretical as one of our long defining statements has been "God is One" * Human sacrifice is abhorrent in Judaism, so the idea of Jesus being a sacrifice is abhorrent * In Judaism we already have forgiveness, the biggest distinction is that God will only forgive how you've wronged God. For forgiveness over how you wronged another person you have to ask them. Imagine how you'd feel if I forgave my friend for stealing from you and then they looked you dead in the eye and said they were forgiven for stealing from you... I'd be an asshole, right?
They often use it as a stand-in for Abrahamic (which is often problematic, but has far far more legitimate uses) and I mention in my elaboration comment, though I go more narrow a mention the most obscure Abrahamic faith I know of (Baháʼí) to highlight both facts just because their obscurity I feel makes the point better (though I feel a little guilty for using them as a token, it is also in the effort of getting them and other groups recognition).
@ScepticalScot1 Correct on Judaism, it's an explicit thing.
To be clear, our faith doesn't blanket allow it either... but it's a tiny distinction with how broad our allowance is:
We don't consider it a person until it's birth, until then it's just a potential person (Jewish law only treats it as a person in cases of forced abortion or similar, ie. if you murder a pregnant person who wanted their child, then it's a double-homicide).
Judaism specifically says that abortion is permitted when the well-being of the person carrying it is threatened. But that sounds far more restrictive than it is because we have a broad view of well-being laid out, which includes mental health (being forced to carry a pregnancy you do not want and birth a child against your will is traumatic, therefore abortion is permitted because your mental health would be threatened by denying an abortion... which basically means abortion is permitted in the vast vast vast majority of cases)
(An example of times when it might not be permitted would be things like if they were in the middle of a psychotic episode)
I will forewarn against the usage there because many anti-theists (atheists with a grudge against all faiths) have picked up Judeo-Christian as well and would interpret that as accusing Judaism of also committing similar atrocities (though the government of Israel continually makes that a challenging topic...)
"Major Sects" - the large divisions of Judaism representing the vast vast majority of us "Agreed upon" - Explicitly in our agreed mutual holy texts, considered major defining elements of our faith, or in the case of the afterlife not mentioned anywhere in our texts
Keep in mind that we have more religious texts than are included in the Christian "Old Testament", most significantly the Talmud which is accepted by all Jewish sects I know of and is where many of these elements are established.
How about this follow up: do you have more familiarity with Jewish cultures than a Jew? Do you know what I'm leaving off of the lists that differs between Jewish groups?
It's a messy topic and it's late here (I'm a bit sleepy), so feel free to ask follow up questions.
The short version of it is that Judeo-Christian is almost always used in one of two harmful ways:
1) To try and give more credibility and weight to something that is purely Christian by claiming that it's part of Judaism as well when it's not (like the above example, because Judaism explicitly permits abortions) 2) To try and talk about broader groupings of related faiths while ignoring the many other Abrahamic faiths (the proper term, though that one more often hurts the lesser known groups, don't use it unless you also know it applies to groups like the Baháʼí, which I'll admit even I know next to nothing about, but it's valid here because all I'm doing is naming their religious family)
Because many (cough most cough) teach a bastardized form of Judaism through the lens of Christianity, and because that's the only exposure many get to our faith... they get skewed harmful and hurtful ideas about us.
Some highlight examples: * We don't have an established afterlife (we don't say there isn't one, we just have zero information on it if there is) * We don't seek "eternal reward", the reward for our faith is being a better person than we were the day before * We have forgiveness baked into our faith, and no it doesn't require animal sacrifice (it requires you to actually ask the person you wronged...) * We thoroughly encourage arguing any topic with anyone (right time and place of course), and that includes picking a fight with God if you think they're wrong about something (you have a 99.9% chance of being wrong... but we commend the effort and every once in a while someone wins the argument) * We have a rule, Pikuach Nefesh, roughly meaning that life is the highest commandment. Your well being takes precedence over your faith, if it would hurt you or others to be observant than you are exempt from that requirement. It's unacceptable to hurt others for your faith, and for yourself it's frowned upon * We actively discourage conversion, it's allowed but it's not a trivial process. We don't want people to become Jews, we just want people to be better.
@Nicolai von Neudeck 🤒🤕 I have no ability to delete your post without you being on my server, though I'm not seeing it anymore either. I'd check with your admins to see if they maybe flagged it and didn't understand?
And the exact kinds of people I mentioned in my comment are the people who'd not understand because they're indoctrinated by christo-fascism and rejecting it without rejecting what they've learned from it.
Karaite Jews do not accept the Mishnah or Talmud! In modern times they are a small sect with <50k adherents but historically had more followers and trace a long line of ancestors :) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karaite_…
@HollyGoDarkly Solid agree, *and also* such claims are generally not even “Christian”, but a particular subset’s views. Plenty of Christians — including lots of large organized denominations — are pro-choice, for example.
@Anthony Sorace @Erika Ensign that falls under "No True Scotsman", they are Christian regardless of being a subset much the same as I won't claim that Zionists aren't jews despite holding objectionable views.
It's a logical fallacy used very often to avoid looking at issues in one's own social groups.
@HollyGoDarkly Oh, I agree, and I’m sorry if it came across that way. I just meant that they claim to represent Christianity in general, which is BS. You’re entirely right that we don’t get to disclaim them so easily.
@a13cui Hi friend... let me just hit this follow button here and see if people will read this simply because I commented on it because this info needs to get out... 👋
@a13cui in my experience, people saying “Abrahamic religions” are using that as a direct substitution for “Judeo-Christian” and using the same christofascist cudgel to also include Islam in their shit.
@Pedestriansfirst @A13cui :perl: :opensuse: most jews in my experience condemn the actions of the israeli government. Those that don't are usually zionists and they are contemptable for it.
@morecowbell It's not really a tribute if it mostly gets used to mean Christian. It often implies the speaker doesn't understand or value the important differences between Jewish and Christian values. Also low-key islamaphobic
@Zach Fine @A13cui :perl: :opensuse: as far as the grounds for rejecting 3 times, it's one of the cases where the tradition stretches drastically farther than the origin of it. I wish I had citations, but my rabbi did once find the super obscure origin of it and for the life of me I can't remember where.
@Zorin =^o.o^= @A13cui :perl: :opensuse: That's one of those Christian centric things right there, most faiths don't care much about forcing people to join, just the largest (direct causation there)
It's a messy topic and it's late here (I'm a bit sleepy), so feel free to ask follow up questions.
The short version of it is that Judeo-Christian is almost always used in one of two harmful ways:
1) To try and give more credibility and weight to something that is purely Christian by claiming that it's part of Judaism as well when it's not (like the above example, because Judaism explicitly permits abortions) 2) To try and talk about broader groupings of related faiths while ignoring the many other Abrahamic faiths (the proper term, though that one more often hurts the lesser known groups, don't use it unless you also know it applies to groups like the Baháʼí, which I'll admit even I know next to nothing about, but it's valid here because all I'm doing is naming their religious family)
Because many (cough most cough) teach a bastardized form of Judaism through the lens of Christianity, and because that's the only exposure many get to our faith... they get skewed harmful and hurtful ideas about us.
Some highlight examples: * We don't have an established afterlife (we don't say there isn't one, we just have zero information on it if there is) * We don't seek "eternal reward", the reward for our faith is being a better person than we were the day before * We have forgiveness baked into our faith, and no it doesn't require animal sacrifice (it requires you to actually ask the person you wronged...) * We thoroughly encourage arguing any topic with anyone (right time and place of course), and that includes picking a fight with God if you think they're wrong about something (you have a 99.9% chance of being wrong... but we commend the effort and every once in a while someone wins the argument) * We have a rule, Pikuach Nefesh, roughly meaning that life is the highest commandment. Your well being takes precedence over your faith, if it would hurt you or others to be observant than you are exempt from that requirement. It's unacceptable to hurt others for your faith, and for yourself it's frowned upon * We actively discourage conversion, it's allowed but it's not a trivial process. We don't want people to become Jews, we just want people to be better.
@Robrab That's really a combination of anti-semitism and "No True Scotsman"
Most of the "old testament angry bits" are Christian interpretations or mistranslations.
Prime example is the verse they translate as "A man should not lie with another man as he would a woman" (anti-homosexuality) which is far more accurately translated as "A man should not lie with a boy as he would a woman" (anti-pedophilia). One of those two makes a hell of a lot more sense for stoning...
yes i know abortion has no place in Judaism and is an antisemetic trope, wasn't referring to that at all, there is a lot of overlap in the moral base of Christianity and Judaism, it's not 99% disjointed at all.
most people assume "Abrahamic Religions" and "JudeoChristian" are interchangable terms and thus often spout shit they don't realize are just not true, gotta give everyone a fair interpretation given such common misconceptions.
I'm not the original questioner, I dropped them from the thread. I don't think anything I wrote here contradicts your main argument. Just sharing some diversity you may not have been aware of—I think the Karaites pose really interesting theological questions for rabbinic Judaism.
@a13cui this is fascinating but the position on misogyny is untenable. The entirety of the Torah literally defines the patriarchy created to suppress women and classify them as property. You either reject the entire written text of the old testament or reject the notion that women are entitled to the same rights men are. You can’t really accept Judaism as a religion and at the same time reject the patriarchal doctrine that is integrated into the text of the old testament.
@a13cui PS same goes for all modern religions which are based on the old testament ( including Islam and Christianity). They don’t get a pass on the misogyny either. If you love women you must respect them
@Pedestriansfirst @A13cui :perl: :opensuse: They're a blatant antisemite using limited visibility on their posts to hide their posts from moderators. I've reported them to their server admins and instituted a contact block on my server (to be clear, only of their individual account and server wide block is not because of personal disagreement but because blatant bigotry that I don't want my users to be exposed to)
@A.L. Blacklyn @Scott Matter They're a blatant antisemite using limited visibility on their posts to hide their posts from moderators. I've reported them to their server admins and instituted a contact block on my server (to be clear, only of their individual account and server wide block is not because of personal disagreement but because blatant bigotry that I don't want my users to be exposed to)
@a13cui yeah the last time I saw someone using the term “abrahamic religions” in an “inclusive” manner it was regarding something that was literally about honoring Christ, so
@CaptMorgan @A13cui :perl: :opensuse: This is a very flawed take and discounts the many interpretations and approaches different groups have to addressing these things.
I will openly say that what you're saying absolutely applies to Orthodox Judaism and can somewhat apply to Conservative Judaism... there's a reason I'm a Reform Jew and not Orthodox lol
Also of note the "Old Testament" is not synonymous with all our texts or the Torah (the Torah is only the first five books). We have many texts that are not included in the Christian Bible.
@fluffy 💜 @A13cui :perl: :opensuse: most of the time I see "abrahamic religions" I barely make note of it because it's academic usage (ie. looking at the Wikipedia page for Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Bahá'í, etc and seeing "Classification: Abrahamic"), but my experience is definitely not universal, I just suspect the perception of it is possibly warped by proper usage not drawing attention like improper usage does.
@Zorin =^o.o^= @A13cui :perl: :opensuse: Also noting that a lot of the "have things figured out" comes from the outlook of arguing as a pastime. Since nothing is above debate, everything gets challenged constantly.
These days, it's not as visible because the vast majority of topics have been challenged to the point that there's little to argue... but there are absolutely topics being fought over (like for instance circumcision which is a very very touchy ongoing argument, mostly due to it's adjacency to the history of antisemitism)
So I forget where I heard this (probably "We need to build" by Eboo Patel?), but IIRC the term Judeo-Christian was invented mid-20th century by a coalition of Jews, Catholics, and Protestants as a way to fight against anti-Semitic and anti-catholic sentiment in the US. These days we definitely need a broader term to encompass an even larger cohort, and it's a shame Judeo-Christian has been misappropriated for evil 😞
@Jared Forsyth wouldn't surprise me, a lot of terms get formed in a positive place and corrupted over time.
The broader term is Abrahamic Faith. It has more valid use cases, but does suffer from the same problem of people using it to talk just about Christianity.
As beloved author Charles Stross (The Laundry Files) commented above, it's the Embrace Extend Eradicate practice, applied to religion.
@zachnfine @a13cui Which sums up pretty succinctly why Christianity is the way it is: It could really have done with some of that, instead of being so open and welcoming to all, that it is now very obviously the product of 2000 years of infiltration, appropriation, and bastardization, by every example of exactly the worst kind of self-serving people with power and privilege, Jesus warned about.
Thanks to that difference, try as they might to appropriate and bastardize Judaism - like they have so many other cultures - Christians have time and again, failed.
Where Christians go out of their way to eradicate basic critical thinking in those they indoctrinate, Judaism encourages it, and that provides a basic defense against the kind of corruption, that Christianity has utterly succumbed to.
'Those who have eyes shall see', and Jews see Christianity's leaders very clearly, for the wolves in sheep's clothing they always have been.
It starts with the Apostles and namely with Luke arguing that Christians did not have to first be Jews. It's obvious why that argument won out (lower standards and dropping circumcision).
And then it was kicked into high-gear with Emperor Constantine who converted the whole Roman Empire to Christianity.
As an important bit of context, the Roman empire/faith was essentially the borg of religions. As it conquered cultures it declared that their faiths were all subsets of their own, assimilating them into their faith.
The issue between the Jews of Israel and Rome was rooted in the fact that Rome wanted to call our God just another manifestation of Zeus and we wholeheartedly rejected that (the story of Hannukah starts with the Romans trying to put up a statue of Zeus in front of the Temple).
So, when the emperor declared that Rome was now Christian, they immediately assimilated their own faith into Christianity. This is why the popular Christian afterlife mirrors the afterlife of the roman faith (seriously compare Heaven/Hell depictions with the Elysian Fields and Pits of Tartarus; and then contrast to the fact that Judaism has no established afterlife).
This is worth reading in full, but one point to take away is that in Judaism abortion is not merely permitted (in certain circumstances). It is obligatory/required (in certain, more limited, circumstances). If continuing a pregnancy threatens a woman's life, abortion is obligatory.
This is complicated by another halachic principle, which is the obligation to abide by the (secular) laws of the place where one lives.
@a13cui This is great. I went to a catholic high school, and I remember contesting anything religious was a huge no-no. The word was the word, and arguing about it wasn't allowed.
Allowing even long-standing ideas to be challenged is one of the most important requirements for a society to progress.
I will however always note that they're Zionists and that non-Zionists don't approve of Zionists.
For a Christian example, it's the difference between saying WBC isn't Christian vs saying WBC is condemned by most other Christians.
Making the Palestine argument applies specifically to the Zionist take that Israel (the political entity) and Judaism are inseparable, and it implies from that that all Jews support the actions of Israel as opposed to the majority (at least as I've seen) condemning it.
He has made a marvellous fight in this world, in all the ages; and has done it with his hands tied behind him. He could be vain of himself, and be excused for it. The Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greek and the Roman followed, and made a vast noise, and they are gone; other peoples have sprung up and held their torch high for a time, but it burned out, and they sit in twilight now, or have vanished. The Jew saw them all, beat them all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, no weakening of his parts, no slowing of his energies, no dulling of his alert and aggressive mind. All things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?
We persist and have great impact because knowledge and understanding are cherished, and all things old and new are challenged constantly. We don't claim perfection, being Jewish is all about the act of continually striving to do and be better.
@Nicolai von Neudeck 🤒🤕 also of note, I'm American, the Holocaust is pretty much only ever talked about here as a story of the "Allies victory over evil" and little is really talked about with detail about the Jewish experience of it or what really was going on across various stages of it.
@zachnfine @a13cui And this is why I'd much rather listen to Jews than Christians. You keep the parts of history that Christians have gone out of their way to bury, so your explanations actually make sense of the glaring disparities between what Jesus (a Jew) said, and what Christians, from the apostles onwards (Paul in particular), /say/ he said.
I mean, I can't even google anything related to the Bible, without getting endless pages of 'Good Christian Bible study' takes, twisting every word he said into its opposite.
Questioning that is why I got kicked out of Sunday school when I was still an infant, and it wasn't much longer before I realized Christianity was a very Roman creation, even with the poor, Christian education I was given.
Yeah the term judeo christian doesn't really make sense 99.9% of the time. Like most things Judaism and Christianity share in common are also shared by Islam so "major Abrahamic religions" would be more appropriate way of describing whatever that may be.
And that's when they do share things in common. Like for example abortion is only a hot button issue in Christianity its consider a completely acceptable thing for women (or anyone else with a uterus) to do in Judaism and Islam has some limitations but is also largely fine with it from what I've read.
@Eugene Yeah, I can't speak to Islam but in Judaism it's "disallowed" with exceptions so broad that it basically just means you need to be in your right mind, and the only time limit being birth.
@a13cui So if I’m not blocked and understand you correctly the people killing Palestinian children (about 80 in the last couple of years) are Jews but bad Jews that most Jewish people don’t approve of. Good.
I won't say "bad Jews" because that's far too close to "No True Scotsman", they are Zionists and Zionism is Jewish Colonialism, which is a very bad take imo.
And no, you're not blocked. It wasn't a great take to start with, but it was understandable given the propensity for Christians to take the "No True Scotsman" fallacy against arguments such as that.
I believe in giving someone a chance first when there's any grey area on potential hate, plus it was a good excuse to outline the differences on a very common and hot topic that gentiles often know little about. And I think you learned something about Jewish society from it.
For more background, part of the problem with Zionists is that they're supported by White Supremacists and Nazis.
It sounds weird on the surface that Nazis would support Zionists, but it comes from a common White Supremacist principle of "Blood and Soil" in which they believe that different "races" have dominion over different lands (ie. white people over europe, Jews over Israel, Asians over Asia, etc). It's why you'll occasionally see someone spouting antisemitic bullshit, but then pivot to supporting Israel.
(Also "fun" trivia: this is why so many white people claim some vague distant "Cherokee Princess" in their background, it came from an effort to expand their blood and soil claim to the Americas)
@a13cui For your information I am not a Christian but I am a true Scot! Thanks for an interesting discussion and I have genuinely learned a bit more about Jewishness and Zionism. If your prayers might work please pray for peace in this troubled world.
@Nicolai von Neudeck 🤒🤕 I saw in your about you're from Germany and yeah, it's bad everywhere (the honeymoon post-holocaust period is ending and anti-semitism is returning to the "norm"), just from what I understand there's still drastically more taught about the Holocaust and Naziism in Germany than in the US.
Here, we get little more than "Nazis hate Jews", "Nazis bad", and "Bad things happened at Auschwitz". If anything else is covered, it's merely glossed over.
Of course, we're also the country that throws hissy fits at the idea of taking down monuments to people who actively fought to keep slavery (not that it's over with in the US, we just made it state slavery)
@Pedestriansfirst @A13cui :perl: :opensuse: praying for peace is a constant for us, but we also believe in Tikkun Olam, it's our responsibility to continually work toward it as well.
I figured you were not Christian, when mentioning Palestine you were calm about it and responded reasonably... Christians tend to only really go that route if they're going to be frothing antisemites, so it'd be really surprising to me if you were. (Not impossible, just unlikely)
Part of the trouble is that in the west Christianity overshadows all other religions to the point that many atheists only known and understand Christianity when they're rejecting religion as a whole. And that's something I'm deeply conscious of.
... I also love getting into arguments with anti-theists because they get so incredibly confused at (a) rational arguments and (b) the fact that I'll context switch right along them when they're not even paying attention to their context. (I jokingly call these people theo-phobes after the idea of homophobes being self-hating homosexuals and I believe many of them have an indoctrinated belief in god and are repulsed by the thought that the things they were taught would be true)
@Nicolai von Neudeck 🤒🤕 btw, 7 hours later I decide to finally hit translate on Täter-Opfer-Umkehr and learn that it's the german for DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender)
I just want to say, thank you for this and especially thank you for your _astonishing_ patience in dealing with the replies. There is clearly a goodly amount of bad faith or even just whataboutism floating around and you have handled it with grace, kindness and aplomb.
@Nicolai von Neudeck 🤒🤕 oof, for some reason I thought Germany was notable in taking them all down... but I really shouldn't be surprised.
I think it's both (a) and (b), after the war anti-semitism became shameful so it moved out of the public view... but also being out of the public limited it's spread.
But every year the holocaust gets more distant and the reaction to it becomes more and more muted as people try to claim that it's done and gone and not worth talking about anymore and with that Naziism becomes more and more a cartoon instead of a real threat... so of course it starts spreading again.
@Pedestriansfirst @A13cui :perl: :opensuse: peace is supposed to come with the Messiah, until then we just work toward that goal because even if we can never achieve it it's always a blessing to work toward.
@Emily K 🪬 @Jared Forsyth Agreed, I cite it as better only because it's actually used in broader valid cases (as an accurate classification of the faiths), but whenever they talk about individual beliefs... it turns to total crap real fast.
Majority of the time they're talking about Christianity, every once in a while they hit a valid chord between the big three... but it's a miracle if it's actually accurate to all Abrahamic Faiths.
@Shaterri (he/him) Honestly I think this has been mostly good faith arguments given how people have responded to my replies. There's one where I drew the line feeling it was making it's way to bad faith pedantry... and the one worse than that you'll note their posts have disappeared or will soon because their server banned them (credit to Venera.social for responding quickly and decisively)
But I can see what people think of as bad faith. There's a lot of common anti-theist counter arguments that I'm familiar with, but I don't think any of them have gone beyond one post and in most cases took my reply graciously and learned something.
For instance calling out Palestine that one time, which while tiresome is understandable since Christians typically pull a "No True Scotsman" fallacy in response to things like that, which clearly marks them as not worth talking to. As tiresome as it is, it's a good barometer question for Jews imo.
@CaptMorgan @a13cui a hot take, perhaps, but I think Christianity does the mysogyny for sport; not because they care much for what’s in the first half of their scripture. The Old Testament is little more than “that’s all the stuff Jesus did away with” to a lot of folks.
@assertchris @Zach Fine @A13cui :perl: :opensuse: it's established well after that, that's prior to the Torah even being written and I believe it was established somewhere in the commentaries (like a millennia later) I think, but as I said no idea where.
It's not as hard to maintain your culture prior to being conquered by Rome and prior to Diaspora, but after it becomes vitally important to preserve your practices if you don't want them to dissolve into assimilation.
@assertchris @CaptMorgan @A13cui :perl: :opensuse: * Except when they want to take something out of context to condemn a group that makes them uncomfortable in some way, then they're all about it
Hi from Germany, a country with a 'very long judao-christian tradition', as a leading politician said some years ago. Not only did he use the term to promote anti-islamism by claiming they are NOT part of our tradition and shouldn't be, but he also seems to have 'forgotten' the nasty details of that 'judao-christian tradition'... He definitely belongs in that 99%-bracket.
@More Cowbell @raf I had to sit on this one for a while, but... you know that arguing with Jews over what is antisemitic is itself antisemitic?
And do you really think bigots are saying "Oh yeah, I'm absolutely a proud bigot!"? And that if they actually believe their bigotry that somehow frees them of being a bigot?
Thank you so much to everyone who's shared this and asked questions!
From the comment section it seems to me a lot of people have learned some things about Judaism and how it differs from Christianity. We even exposed one raging antisemite troll who's been banned from their server (shoutout venera.social for having over a thousand users and taking care of it in around an hour).
There certainly was a lot of mild antisemitism throughout the comments, but as far as I can tell in most cases it was ignorance that has been relieved by this!
(Remember kids, pulling a "what about israel?" is rude to do out of nowhere, but if someone supports the occupation they're bad for being a Zionist and that still doesn't permit you to denigrate their faith because it's the same faith as those who reject the occupation)
What do you mean by that? Or the word “Zionism.” I’m asking in earnest. Please describe what that means for you because I don’t know that we understand these words to mean the same thing.
@heather gold Zionism, in it's current form is Jewish colonialism of the area of Israel/Palestine. It wasn't so bad initially when it was just a push for a Jewish state, but became awful between that state enacting colonialist policies against Palestine. Topped off by the fact that modern Zionists believe that the Israeli government represents the Jewish faith and not just the people of Israel. (ie. Zionists generally believe criticism of Israel to be antisemitic)
The occupation of Palestine is the fact that Israel has forced them out of more and more land, and keeps encroaching on their territory. There's a constant expansion effort by Israel that constantly disregards the impact on Palestine, and is more than happy to push Palestinians out of their homes then declare them the "bad guys" for fighting to keep their land and homes. (They often paint it as antisemitic attacks rather than attacking a nation that keeps trying to steal your home)
Ich verstehe es nicht. können wir Dinge wie eine Abtreibung auch ohne Religionsbezug betrachten? Es ist ein Eingriff, welcher von Ärzten vorgenommern wird mit Zustimmung des Patienten. Meiner Meinung nach hat Religion in dieser Entscheidung nichts zu suchen, egal welcher man angehört.
I do not get it. can we look at things like abortion without reference to religion? It is an intervention performed by doctors with the patient's consent. In my opinion, religion has no place in this decision, no matter which one you belong to.
Agreed, but unfortunately it's often centered around Christianity and fascism, and both for and against throw around Judeo-Christian when talking about how it's being forced by religious groups.
@Shiri Bailem If people were more human and less religious, the problem would probably not exist. I'm not religious and I don't have much to contribute to this discussion, except my opinion, unfortunately :)
@Raroun Critiques of religion and it's impact on people not of their faith (and sometimes of their faith) are valid!
A lot of the time I see the problem being that people's only experience is imperialistic religions (Christianity) and little experience with the variety of experiences and lessons.
Like for instance, in Judaism we couldn't care less if you worshiped our god, let alone any other god. Our primary focus is on the wellbeing of ourselves and our communities (which includes the non-jews). (We don't even care that much if other Jews worship our god, atheistic religious jews are an actual accepted thing!)
Where many Christians take the stance of "let Jesus into your heart and you will become a good person!", Judaism takes the stance of "You must do the right thing whether you like it or not, and if you keep doing it maybe you'll become a better person for it" (do the right thing being things like being charitable and kind as well as not tolerating bigotry even if it's not directed at you).
And most importantly in Judaism: if it can't stand up to scrutiny than it shouldn't be respected (ie. nothing is off limits to argue, and if it falters under argument then it has no right to be respected)
Feel free to ask me questions if you like about my experiences, I just ask that you content warning for others any questions that are potentially sensitive. I won't try to convert you (we have a tradition of rejecting potential converts), we just emphasize sharing knowledge and understanding as one of our primary goals.
I sincerely didn't know how drastically different Judaism was until years out from leaving fundamentalist Christianity, I was in a 4 year relationship with a Jewish woman.
There is so much outright bullshit about Judaism taught in those circles.
I still only know enough to know that there is a vast ocean of information I need to learn.
I love how much Judaism is about learning, from what I have heard, and find it fascinating that debating more minor details is practically a friendly sport.
My life would have been so much better had I grew up in that kind of environment instead.
thanks for this! That phrase has bothered me for a long time and this is helpful to keep in mind so I can push back on it with something more concrete than my bad vibes/general suspicion
Feel free to ask me any questions you may have about this or Judaism in general! (I just ask you content warning for others any potentially sensitive topics)
@Don Hawkins - W7DAH fun fact, atheist observant Jews are a thing because Judaism is not dependent on belief in God.
Feel free to fire your arguments away, I enjoy debating antitheists. I'll even give you a courtesy and forewarning you: I will match the context of your arguments (ie. if your argument is from the assumption of my god existing, my response will follow that assumption; but if your argument is from the assumption that my god doesn't exist, I will respond likewise... a lot of people get confused because they don't pay attention to context switches)
good to know about the Atheism among Jewish-peeps, thanks! As for debating the rest, you’d be wasting your time & mine. There is no God, period, done & done. But hey, u b u.
@Don Hawkins - W7DAH then why spend your time coming to the post of a minority culture posting hostile memes if you're not going to discuss? Sounds like all you're doing then is shitting on people trying to feel superior but backing down immediately when challenged?
@Don Hawkins - W7DAH Also, for arguing in favor of reason there seems to be an absence of it here? And a lot of assumption.
Your response is nonsense if your response to "atheist jews" is "there is no god"? So what?
Are you just trolling persecuted minorities because you think none of us will ever debate you? You think a handful of memes shitting on a post about antisemitism will make you appear enlightened?
it’s called opinion & free speech, nothing to feel threatened by; conversely why do you go to such great lengths to proselytize in a social media space? Why would you characterize someone’s decision not to waste time debating as “backing down” as though some contest had been declared & everyone ‘required’ to participate? Your logic seems skewed. Nice try, & thanks for playing Skippy, but I have better things to do. Don’t you have some doors to go knock on?
why do you go to such great lengths to proselytize in a social media space?
Judaism does not proselytize, and the fact that you make that claim shows an ignorance of both the conversation and our faith. Our tradition is to reject converts by default, and when accepted we have an extensive vetting process. Accusing me of proselytization just exposes your ignorance of religion in general and makes you look like a tool who's only here to shit on people to make yourself feel better.
“also”, I couldn’t care less what others might think. This appears in my profile:
“Better to write for yourself & have no public, than to write for the public & have no self." --Cyril Connolly
Well, if you're posting it publicly then you're on some level writing for the public, and even if you're writing for yourself you're getting something out of it and I'm just trying to get to the bottom of what you get out of shitting on an oppressed minority talking about their oppression? My best guess is a sense of smug superiority in which you claim enlightenment, but what's so enlightened about attacking an oppressed minority asking to not be oppressed? Or misrepresenting an oppressed minority on a post asking people to stop misrepresenting us?
you seem triggered by one, short response; maybe social media isn’t for you. 😎
Ah yes, the "I'm being an asshole, but obviously better than you because I can throw around psych terms completely out of context to claim your inferiority and dismiss your responses". Triggered is referring to PTSD, do you think it's amusing to mock people with PTSD? Quite an enlightened take. I'm engaging a bigot because it's fun and presents a complete picture of their bigotry to others (especially to moderators). If I refuse to engage I get nothing, but by engaging I stand to protect vulnerable people from you and the likes of you.
@Odradek @BathysphereHat I feel there's a special evil in talking about germanies "judeo-christian" history (often done!), as uf that history wasnt mostly pogroms, exclusion, antisemitism, the shoa.
@More Cowbell @raf To quote Avenue Q: "Everyone is a little bit racist sometimes"
The defining question is whether it's rooted in ignorance or willful, which is part of this whole conversation with you.
You can be antisemitic without being willful about it, the question of character is how you respond when called on it. Telling us you know better than us about what is or isn't bigotry that we deal with is itself a form of bigotry.
The judgement of you as a person comes now, in how you respond to this?
If you learn and grow, addressing what we called out, then all the praise for you because that's hard to do. If you back away, well at least you were polite. If you become hostile, then we just write you off as a bigot.
And of course, further polite inquiries in good faith are valid too and fall under learning and growing.
@More Cowbell @raf There isn't a shared culture between Judaism and Christianity, they are very very distinctly different cultures and one has spent a very long time trying to kill the other.
Christianity is a member of the Abrahamic family of faiths and probably has more cultural similarity to Islam than it does Judaism, despite being an offshoot of Judaism. (And Abrahamic can be equally problematic if you're not well familiar with the cultural differences between Christianity and say Rastafarianism, but at least it's an accurate name for the relationship)
Much of the usage of "Judeo-Christian" comes from the belief that there's far more similarity than there is.
It's much like talking about the "Western Culture in which healthcare is a privilege, not a right" despite the fact that that's an american cultural element that's not shared by the vast majority of western nations.
@Ulrich_the_Elder 🇨🇦 🇺🇦 😷 Realized that my tone may not have come across in context, I genuinely want to know because that's a fascinating bit of trivia to have!
I otherwise agree, especially since in the Jewish Bible (parts not included in the Christian Bible) it is talked about, and explicitly permitted.
@wboucek @Scott Matter nondenominational usually refers to "generic Christian", and mixed faith is... well, mixed if it's just those two specific faiths (it implies there are more than 2 faiths present in the case of the potluck, and in the case of a home it's just less specific)
Sects do have a cultural element because they are groupings based on shared beliefs and values.
Ethnic distinctions are a mess in general, especially when talking about ethno-religious groups like Judaism as someone can be of the ethnicity and not the faith, or of the faith group and not the ethnicity. In those cases though we'd typically differentiate by their specific groupings.
Most I know are Ashkenazi Jews, being the most represented group of Judaism in the west (for comparison, you also find Sephardic Jews as prominent in the west, but with drastically less representation).
Because of intersectionality, one can be a member of many many cultures at the same time and the definitions are going to depend on which topics and elements are being referenced. When talking about religious beliefs, a sect/denomination is more meaningful than a region. And there are some elements that are derived from those beliefs that make it applicable as well.
I won't pretend that a New York Jew is the same as a Florida Jew, as a Texas Jew, let alone a Polish Jew, Indian Jew, or Japanese Jew. Just that we're going to share a lot of the same cultural elements where they're rooted specifically in our faith, especially when in the same sects.
Also, fyi, "IQ" is mostly rooted in classism and racism. here's an entertaining video from the show Adam Ruins Everything talking about it: youtu.be/W3oUqKUx2o0
@wboucek @Scott Matter well, neither of those cases would be something I'd call antisemitic, just less precise. They're absolutely valid to use, and are absolutely used more often.
@M_U "smart" and "intelligent" are all vague, undefined terms that are pretty much always problematic.
We have a multitude of different cognitive abilities, and they're basically trying to say someone who's "smart" is cognitively superior... when they're often just well versed on a topic.
It also causes a lot of trauma for people like myself who go through life oscillating between being called "smart" or "stupid" depending on which cognitive abilities are factored into a task. (For instance, I have Executive Dysfunction, but also have pattern thinking and great pattern recognition)
@M_U to elaborate further, saying a particular group has "higher intelligence" in any fashion is still racist and falls under the "Model Minority" bigotry (used to pigeonhole people in those groups and leveraging one group against another).
Jews aren't "smarter", we just have a culture that encourages education, and very importantly critical thinking (our pastime of arguing everything, and nothing being above challenge means that we are encouraged to actually analyze topics rather than just memorize)
@DemocritusDiscoBall Yeah, it's basically the backfire effect and whether or not the person takes effort to combat it. It has nothing to do with smarts and everything to do with pure psychology.
The backfire effect is rooted in the fact that when we take a stance on an issue it incorporates into our identity, the stronger the stance the more it incorporates.
When faced with evidence that the position may be wrong, we experience cognitive dissonance and our brain reacts to that information as a threat. Our natural default response is to double down on whatever it is, both increasing the strength of your connection to it and even less critical of the details you're relying on to support your argument.
It's basically the reason you "can't win arguments on the internet", because if someone is to the point of arguing about it, then they're invested enough that they'll be highly susceptible to the backfire effect. (Instead it's better to make your arguments for the sake of unconvinced bystanders)
It takes effort and mindfulness to push back against the backfire effect, and a conscious effort to allow yourself to be wrong.
@M_U ... okay, that's just straight up eugenics bullshit and will not be tolerated.
It's proven blatantly untrue, and is deeply disrespectful of our cultures. On top of that it's a purely racist talking point.
We have long established that we do not have significant mental or physical differences between "races", especially given that no one is "pure blooded", and especially going back thousands of years.
@M_U tendency towards sickle-cell anemia, tendency for cancer, tendency for blue eyes, tendency for baldness... sure.
No tendency for traits that don't exist (ie. "IQ"), no genetic tendency for education, or open-mindedness.
I've already reported you for racism and eugenics talk.
Maybe step back and look at your arguments vs the counter: that a culture that encourages challenging and arguing everything might be more conducive to understanding and challenging ideas in the world than a culture that emphasizes rote memorization and penalizes asking questions?
Do you assume that magically all groups of Judaism preserved genes for "superior intelligence" (despite being a non-sense idea rooted entirely in racism to begin with) despite varying every other genetic trait throughout? Or are you making assumptions about the genetic makeup of Jews worldwide, just assuming that all Jews are descended from Ashkenazi? Perhaps divine intervention? (I may be religious, but I'll take "easily provable" over "God did it")
💯 I dont get how Christians can claim these bans are "Judeo-Christian", Nearly all of the terrible logic Christians use for being against abortion are mostly based on Christian Scripture(mainly in the New Testament and its vagueness) and one psalm which im not sure is even related
Like, they think our beliefs are that you behave perfectly or go to hell because they see "judged by our acts" under their belief of "any sin = hell". (FYI, we do believe in being judged by our acts, but judged means judgement, it's not some automatic punishment thing but an actual decision... and on top of that, we don't believe in hell)
Non-Christians use it because many of them are convinced that all religions are basically Christianity with slight differences.
@Shannon (she/her) @Pedestriansfirst I suppose you're technically correct, I guess I usually never think about it because there's always more apt descriptions (ie. Nazis are often Zionists because "Blood And Soil").
And yes on the antisemitism of it, I just chose not to say anything about that in favor of a chance at education. (Also a love for getting into arguments with aggressive militant atheists because it's so fun to see their talking points shatter and the confusion that comes from it)
And I didn't bring it up later because I felt from the conversation that it wasn't going to be a problem again from them because they learned some things about Judaism, Jewish Culture, and that religions people can in fact own and acknowledge bad behaviors in their own communities.
@Shannon (she/her) I don't think believing all zionists are jews isn't that messy of a idea because it impacts so little, especially since the zionist behavior of non-jews is already easily discernible on it's own as awful anyways.
And keep in mind that the comparison is that this started from assuming that all Jews condoned the atrocities committed by the Israeli government and has walked away knowing that it's not uniform.
This is a long article, but the theory hits *hard* with me and connects really well.
The basic gist is that autistics almost always define our identities by what we do and our personal traits, while non-autistics almost always define their identities by their relationships (in particular to social groups)
If you don't have it in you to read all of it, definitely read the section: "How does having an experientially-constructed identity impact relationships?".
Terra Vance posits that Autistic people experience empathy and emotions differently because the way autistic identity is structured differs from non-autistic people’s identity constructs.
@bike I get that, I mostly mention that so I don't come across as bashing collectivist societies incidentally. My point was more that I doubt there's that much difference for us, just swap out one set of rules that don't make sense for another set that don't make sense for a different reason.
*(Reposting because my node crashed and lost all my posts and I want to keep this one pinned)*
I've been mulling over making this post for a little bit, but I think it's really **really** important.
It's critically important that you remember and acknowledge the humanity of monsters. Not for their benefit, but for *everyone else's* benefit.
When someone commits a monstrous act or shares a monstrous belief, we want to think of them as an inherently vile and non-human thing.
But doing so shields and protects other monsters.
When you make a Nazi, or any kind of abuser, into a one-dimensional monster. When you make their whole existence *center* on this monstrous act or belief... you make it hard to see their humanity. And that's the point, you don't *want* to see their humanity.
*** You Don't Want To Believe That Someone You Know And Trust (Maybe Even Love) Is Capable Of Such Atrocity. ***
And that's the problem. Because when you reject their humanity, that humanity becomes their shield. Your friend Bob can't possibly be a Nazi or a child-abuser, he's such a loving father and he helped you move!
Because you see their humanity, you can't possibly imagine them as monsters because the monsters have no humanity in your eyes.
There's a reason that when serial killers get caught their neighbors say they couldn't imagine them doing such things.
So don't ignore their humanity, keep it in your mind... so the next one can't use it as a shield.
"Ad Hominem" is a logical fallacy in which they dismiss the argument by addressing the person not the argument.
Ad Hominem is not calling the person a douchebag while addressing the points of the argument.
Ad Hominem is saying those points should be dismissed because they are a douchebag.
It's thrown around (improperly) often by people who want to basically say "you've lost the argument because you're angry" but what to add elitism on top of entitlement.
Easy test: if you can remove all the insults from the argument and it still makes sense, then it's not Ad Hominem.
My little fur niece and my family still need help. While the goal has been met, it's the bare minimum, if things go well and luck is good things will work out... but things are really hard even then.
Please consider donating more to improve her odds and help support my sister, her husband, and my nephew through this.
Hello to all the big hearts out there. My name is Zee and Bluebell (aka Baby… Tanya Laird needs your support for Help Bluebell Get Well & Stay With Her Family
@Henry willow to be clear, this is my sister's campaign. As far as I know they're stable, they're just holding their breath for worse and cutting back on their own care to cover and prep (ie. my sister has severe health issues, my nephew has dietary issues, and they're cutting groceries).
So donations right now are toward breathing room, toward either avoiding possible bad news putting them back under or if all goes well then toward getting them back on their feet.
yeah sorry liberals but im not upholding the patriarchy because i want to get railed in a sun dress there's more serious feminist issues to talk about. let me wear whatever i want
That's a core feminist issue because you wanting to get railed in a sun dress ON YOUR OWN FUCKING TERMS!
Like you ain't out here saying "This is what will make him happy." That shit's about what YOU want, and that was the supposed to be the entire fucking point!
(I'm so goddamn done with white second-wavers, I can't even…)
cephalon-sancti: “whitebear-ofthe-watertribe: “salamandorange: “tiktoksthataregood-ish: “” The most PATHETIC lil baby sounds… ” I love when little creatures who are entirely loved and well cared for...
@RS I suspect it's because it's a linked post from Tumblr and they decided to change their account name and because Tumblr is a pile of crap it broke the link as opposed to forwarding it. Here's a fixed link: belalugosisdeadname.tumblr.com…
Thanks for letting me know, I'll try and keep an eye out for it happening again if I'm guessing wrong.
Sincere question for people who are into astrology: you're often insistent that people respect your beliefs, but do you allow us to opt out of being stereotyped and judged based on those beliefs? Because if not, that respect is very much one way.
Are you respectful when queer people who aren't into astrology say they feel alienated by it, or do you laugh it off because it's "not real oppression"?
I'm legitimately curious: do you mean this in a "You seem so much younger" way, or is it just a general disbelief that someone my age is hanging around a corner of the internet like this one?
No judgement; I just find this topic interesting (especially since your own outburst on my birthday reminded me of how old you are)
I peg you to be a lot younger than that and it’s mainly disbelief. I am glad to have both younger and older queers here, I don’t really care about the ages.
if anything - I am happy because it means that generational knowledge (especially generational queer knowledge) has a place to be passed down on. A lot of y’all didn’t get the same experience because of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. It’s genuinely a relief to see older queers around us who are still living strong.
I think the oldest person on this instance im aware of is an author who occasionally posts here and on tech.lgbt, in their 50s-60s? I barely see them ever.
Just saying, if I had any real ability to influence standards or get things implemented, I'd be rolling out yesterday a standard reporting system for the fediverse...
It's frankly ridiculous that every platform handles moderation reports differently, sometimes within a platform there's support for sending the report automatically from your home instance to the remote instance, but not something I'd remotely rely on.
Hell, I'm running a Friendica instance and the only way you're going to send me moderation reports if you're not logged into my server is to just find the info page for the server and email me or tag me, which is frankly ridiculous.
Like this isn't remotely hard to implement in code, the problem is entirely getting people to adopt it!
I don't celebrate Christmas but this is my sister's shop and I can't recommend her teas enough! She orders ingredients individually and mixes them herself from high quality ingredients! Please order from her and tell her I sent you ❤#ad #tea #SmallBusiness #recommendation #gifts
Nothing like reading a lesbian superhero novel and being able to viscerally feel all the romantic and touchy feely elements thanks to them actually being present in your life.
I love my partner so much, I knew I longed for these feelings but nothing in the world could prepare me for how they actually feel. How intense it is to just be loved like that, or how quickly they can shut down your entire nervous system with just their fingertips...
Same silence: 𝄀𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝅂𝄚𝄀
Dear World - I am a wreck. My furbaby, Bluebell, needs medical care and I just can't afford it. I don't want to have to relinquish her, so I am hoping some kind souls can help us out. If you can't give, please share! TIA <3gofund.me/225bf03b#DogsOfBluesky #Dogs #Doxie #Dachshund #Furbaby #MyHeart
Hello to all the big hearts out there. My name is Zee and Bluebell (aka Baby… Tanya Laird needs your support for Help Bluebell Get Well & Stay With Her Family
The fact that people are still taking criticism of Democrats as some pro-Trump shit is the most infuriating thing because: this is literally the only reason why we have to deal with Trump again. Because you all will not listen to criticism.
Every time I was like "hey Biden is doing a super shitty job and is probs not gonna get re-elected" I had a bunch of Dems being like but Trump will be worse!
As if I did not know. Trump getting re-elected was what I wanted to avoid, actually.
For those not aware, I've been without valid photo ID for ages, let alone ID with my correct name and gender marker.
When I got my name and gender marker change order done a few months back, just before I could get in the state office to get a new ID (and I was having issues with them actually sending me a non-temporary one regardless...) they decided they were going to start ignoring court orders and putting anyone who tried to get their ID updated on a list.
Thankfully that's only at the state level and the only thing that matters there is drivers license. I was born in a state that is very supportive of updating my birth certificate, and the federal government still accepts the forms just fine.
So the passport isn't just me able to leave the country reasonably, it's also a valid photo ID with my correct name and gender which I haven't had in ages (and has been the thing holding me back from updating things like bank accounts).
Hell, I'm pro AI and still think this is cursed... Yes I want AIs trained, but why the hell would you work with sensitive private data and think it should have access to that?!
The other day I messaged a friend's niece to tell them how to disable a setting on their laptop that is potentially leaking their work to feed AI. They work in educational psychology, so I didn't want patient/student data getting fed into some black box. All well and good so far.
What really surprised me however, was her reaction.
"Don't I want AI to be trained?"
Holy fuck do we have an educational failing in lay people's understanding of what LLMs mean and their implications.
PSA: Most internet users do not know that there is a distiction between an email provider and an email client.
Gmail users believe the only ways to access a Gmail account are through the official web client at mail.google.com, and the official Gmail app for iOS and Android.
Yahoo Mail users believe the only ways to access a Yahoo email account are the official webmail client and the official Yahoo Mail app for iOS and Android.
Outlook users believe the only ways to access an Outlook email are through the Outlook website, the Outlook desktop app, or the Outlook mobile app. Outlook's inbox search feature doesn't work very well, so as far as most of the internet is concerned, there's no reliable way to search the inbox of an Outlook email account.
Additionally, most email users are completely unaware that their provider blocks emails from other providers that violate their terms of service. They don't know that different email providers may have substantially different moderation policies.
At my university, student emails use Gmail, while faculty emails use Outlook. IT wanted to move everyone to Outlook, and the students revolted in protest, eventually convincing IT to change reverse course. Faculty members are also asking to have Gmail, though we aren't as organized as the students.
The primary reason cited by both students and faculty for preferring Gmail over Outlook is that the user-interface for the Gmail website is much better than its Outlook counterpart. As far as most people are aware, that's the only difference between email providers.
We are explicitly allowed to use 3rd party email clients, but very few students or faculty understand that that's a possibility. Some of my colleagues are amaze that I have the ability to search my own email inbox, since Outlook's search is broken unless you use a 3rd party client.
Why am I telling you all of this? Because if you try to explain the fediverse to someone by saying federation works "like email," you have to understand that most non-tech people's understanding of email is very very different from most of the people here.
If you tell someone that fedi instances are like email providers and that your instance is transfem.social, that creates three expecations in your audience: 1)The main, or possibly only, way to access your fedi account on a desktop is through the transfem.social website. 2)The main, or possibly only, way to access your fedi account on a smartphone is through the transfem.social app. This app is completely separate from the apps that could be used to access a fedi account on another instance. 3)The primary difference between transfem.social and other fedi instances is the UI of the website and app.
Without further explanation, those three incorrect assumptions are going to make it very confusing for them to learn to navigate the fediverse.
When you install a fediverse app on your phone, it asks you for your instance. Most newcomers to the fediverse have never been asked for their provider after installing a client app. When you launch the Gmail app, it doesn't ask you for your email provider: it assumes you are using Gmail. If someone gets confused as to what they have to do, it doesn't help to tell them "it's like picking an email provider," because, as far as most people know, it is not how they picked an email provider.
The situation on the desktop is a little better. Almost every fedi instance hosts their own web client, just like major email providers. Newcomers who are told federation is like email expect to access the fediverse from their provider's website, and that's exactly what they can do.
Even so, if a typical email user thinks fedi providers are like email providers, they are likely to get confused in choosing an instance. People decide between Gmail and Outlook based on the UI of the web client. They likely don't even know the moderation policies of different providers are different. You can certainly use your preference in UI to decide between Mastodon, Akkoma, or Sharkey, but once you've chosen which software, how do you pick an instance?
If you're reading this message, you likely chose your fedi instance based in part on the community, moderation policies, the instance URL, knowing the admin, or some combination. But most people did not take those factors into consideration when choosing an email provider. Telling them "it's just like picking an email provider" isn't enough to help them.
I suspect the lack of widespread understanding as to how email works also contributed to one past piece of fedi meta. During the some of the big waves of users joining after leaving Twitter, some of them were absolutely outraged to discover an instance could block another instance. Several of them said some variation of
I thought Mastodon instances were supposed to be like email providers? Can you imagine how absurd it would be if your email provider told you you couldn't send a message to someone because of who their provider was?
These newcomers use Gmail or Outlook, and they were completely unaware that their email provider already does exactly that.
The TL:DR is that if you are explaining the fediverse to a non-tech person, "it's like email" is not a sufficient explanation.
@183231bcb great insight into quirks of understanding, I do stick with email metaphor just because it's the best way to explain the whole "multiple servers" thing. I figuring I can get to the app question after I've convinced them to join...
I guess you could go with something entirely non-tech like a ttrpg table or a sports group
We're all playing with the same written rules and so we can expect to talk to each other in a cohesive way, but how you are allowed or expected to behave is different, and what each club/table has to offer is different. What this doesn't get is moderation between instances, ie defederating, but I think it's a start
Most rights are based in statute, but dozens — such as rights to same-sex marriage, search warrants and Miranda warnings — are based on judicial rulings that the Supreme Court can overturn and that current justices have questioned some aspect of.
This is from one of the "safer" states. Imagine what it means to be living somewhere like Texas like me... There's a reason I closed registrations on my server, I have no idea of what's coming and this could easily be me any day I leave the house...#lgbt #lgbtqia #lgbtq #transfemme #transwoman
Just finished rewatching the 1972 musical "Cabaret", about three friends and lovers in the waning days of the Weimar Republic. Found this when checking in for the evening: the-independent.com/news/world…
Don't really have any other way to say this than GET OUT NOW.
It hurt... it hurt so much and like so much trauma it's not that obvious until the trauma is past... I was isolated, not only from other people, but from my own emotions... I wanted so badly to cry but I couldn't, all I could do was bottle it up (not toxic masculinity, literally an effect of testosterone)... I looked at myself and pretty much didn't see myself... I had no self-image then and now I have one forming. Before even my transition I figured out I'm grey-ace, now that I have a girlfriend I've really established that I'm grey-ace, emphasis on the grey... 😳 So it's really nothing sexual for me... there's the opposite of gratification there (without details... certain things don't work right anymore...). What it is is feeling at home in my skin, looking at myself in the mirror and finding things I like... sure I get dysphoria and there are plenty of things I don't like about my body... but there's for once in my life alot of things I do like. And on top of it all... my personality and interactions with the world feel so less discordant... so many of my behaviors were early hints of being a woman... I may never have kids, but it's clear I've had "mother" energy for a looooong time. ... I could keep going but I got a day job to do...
I'm forever and especially now pissed at the people who bullied Snarfed into making the Bluesky/AP bridge explicit opt-in only.
It's like pulling teeth to work with a bridge that's explicit opt-in because that means anyone on the other side of the bridge you want to talk to you have to hand hold them through connecting to a bridge. "Oh it's just following a specific account to opt in", do you think most people have any level of comprehension that they have to follow two wholly different accounts just so I can follow them back?
They see my posts and they think it's done, they're fine with me seeing their posts, they don't give a flying fuck about bridges, but the confusion every time I have to walk them through it...
All for people who have zero idea of what the fuck federation is, assholes who are in the category of thinking this is all Mastodon, that think just because they're posting it here they're perfectly protected from the evil corporate networks and they think the bridge bursts their delicate little bubble... on top of that they demand that no, they don't do anything to be accountable at all, ****EVERYONE ELSE**** has to be accountable for their fucking paranoia.
"I don't want a corporate network to slurp up my data!" - Then why the fuck are you posting where every single corporate network can freely slurp up your data? If you don't want corporations slurping up your data then your only real choice is to only post as followers-only and turn off automatic acceptance of follow requests!
"Bluesky isn't safe, by making it opt-in people can't harass me over it" - They can harass you already, all you're doing is taking it from instead of you blocking one instance you have an issue with you demanded everyone else suffer just so you didn't have to hit the fucking block button.
"But what about people who don't know about the bridge, what about their safety?" - What the fuck about their safety? Are you demanding all the countless literal nazi servers out there block you instead of you blocking them?
And of all things Snarfed bowed to all that dogpiling hate from whiny children who refused to accept responsibility for themselves.
Let alone all the people whining about corporate takeover efforts, THEY ALREADY WON, this isn't letting them take over the network, this is how we fucking fight back by showing them how it's done.
It's like if when Internet Explorer was trying to take over browsers Mozilla and those like it just threw up their hands and decided to just split the internet. Arguing that we can't let IE take over the internet so we're just going to refuse to support anything at all related there and we'll "win" by... dying quietly...
I'm so goddam sick of the combined effect of people with zero sense both signing up for awful platforms and other people with zero sense just handing those platforms victory on a fucking silver platter.
This post brought on by another friend not comprehending that he has to follow both accounts and me waiting all day for his profile to populate on the bridge only to eventually check and see he didn't understand me at all.
I don't blame him, I blame every asshole who demanded explicit opt-in (as opposed to the implicit opt-in it would have had because follow requests are a fucking thing!)
@Devil Doll tldr: I'm pissed at everyone who kneejerk reacted at the bridge and dogpiled the dev into making it opt-in despite there not being a single valid argument for it, that wouldn't have impacted them at all, and made the lives worse of everyone who wants to use the bridge.
I didn't put hashtags because it's not a thesis, it's just a rage rant into the void.
@Devil Doll a bridge is a service that connects different protocols together, fed.brid.gy connects ActivityPub (the one you're on) to a few different ones, the most controversial is Bluesky's AT network.
It means that you have the ability to, with your current account, follow users on Bluesky and they can follow you.
What people bullied the dev into is a convoluted layer that means you aren't visible on the bridge unless you follow bsky.brid.gy@bsky.brid.gy, but not only that... you have to convince anyone you want to follow on Bluesky to follow @ap.brid.gy.
Because it was made explicit opt-in (as in you have to bend over backwards to opt in as opposed to the normal methods), this means that if you bridge your account others can follow you on Bluesky but you won't see their replies (let alone be able to reply to them) unless they follow ap.brid.gy.
So every friend I see joining Bluesky I have to convince to follow this strange account in addition to following me so that we can actually properly connect. Half the time they don't understand, only follow me and shrug at the other account because as far as they're concerned it looks like it's working fine.
@Devil Doll no offense meant if I over-explained, just no idea what you do and don't know already and it cuts out potential back and forth. Let alone if someone else is reading this later.
I'm on Mastodon, posting my thoughts, and I have no concern about federation, followers, popularity, or how others interact with me.
I know how already skewed Bluesky is, and that it is owned by venture capitalism, and that everyone on Bluesky is a fucking idiot, because we've been here, and it didn't work out well, then, so these idiots' faith that it will be different, this time, is such a red flag, and you want them to see it...people like @mmasnick.bsky.social are FUCKING BRAINWASHED, but they won't listen to you, when you try to save them.
But, why do you care? That's what I'm interested in.
@Devil Doll because "idiot" is an ableist term used to dismiss people's very real needs, wants, and realities.
People use Bluesky because they've heard of it, because other people are on there, because they don't even know what the hell the fediverse is and too many people have made it overcomplicated.
I care because what I want isn't just a feed of complete strangers and shitposting... I want to actually keep up with people I care about and I want to do so without having to rely on a fucking corporate network.
The people I follow through the bridge? Mostly people I know in real life.
The people on Bluesky aren't "idiots", they're just people who have moved where it's convenient and popular to move.
Why don't they move here? Because any effort to make the space more acceptable is met with demands for ideological purity.
I don't want the fediverse to just be a toy... I want it to be an actual place to connect, I want it to overthrow the corporate networks... but that'll never happen if people keep demanding that we isolate and make it harder to connect with us.
@Devil Doll given that your response to being told that "idiot" is ableist is to just start throwing it around more and arguing the same ideological purity I claimed about... pretty sure I'm not the one who needs to grow up lol
Good night, I'm not entertaining whiny brats tonight.
So, I've bridged my account via brid.gy to Bluesky. I'm looking for suggestions of bridged accounts on both sides, ones for me to follow and ones for me to suggest to people on Bluesky to tempt them to the dark... I mean AP side.
(For those not aware on the AP side: if you follow the account bsky.brid.gy@Bridgy Fed for Bluesky your account will become available to Bluesky users, no more than it is to any other instance and likewise blocking will block the bridge like any other instance. Bluesky users that have bridged will become <username>@Bridgy Fed for Bluesky, your username will become @username.ap.brid.gy, with the @ in your username becoming a period much like how mine changes from shiri@foggyminds.com to @shiri.foggyminds.com.ap.brid.gy, your profile link... because so many people on Bluesky don't know how to search a frikkin username is going to be something like bsky.app/profile/shiri.foggymi…)
(For those on the Bluesky side: if you follow the account @ap.brid.gy you'll be accessible via the ActivityPub fediverse. Unlike Bluesky the fediverse is properly federated and has absolutely no dependency on any corporation, individual people can easily run their own completely independent nodes and do so on reasonable hardware. If you do your account will become <username>@Bridgy Fed for Bluesky on the fediverse and you'll be able to access accounts at @username.ap.brid.gy with the @ sign in the normal AP username turning into a ., like how mine changes from shiri@foggyminds.com to @shiri.foggyminds.com.ap.brid.gy)
@Cory Doctorow Pinging to see what your opinion is on Bridgy Fed, the Bluesky - AP bridge. I know you have expressed strong negative feelings towards Bluesky that mirror my own, but I haven't caught mention of the bridge yet.
This is brought about especially because I'm trying to convince friends that have bought in to Bluesky to at least bridge and am trying to find bridged accounts to recommend to sweeten the pot (and maybe show them that there are better options than Bluesky...)
(a) Lead dev is also a huge fan of yours (b) They suspect there might have been some slight confusion back when you tried, I think they saw evidence of you trying to use the webform to set things up.
Gist of setting up the bridge is all you need to do is follow @Bridgy Fed for Bluesky , from there it may take a few hours depending on lag time but your profile on the Bluesky side will be pluralistic.mamot.fr.ap.brid.gy (or profile link: bsky.app/profile/pluralistic.m…)
If you want your username to be craphound.com (or any other domain you own) let me know and I can walk you through how to change it once you're bridged. (Though I'd recommend a subdomain that you can then forward to your profile page because people get confused so easily and it seems like most Bluesky users have no idea they can just search for usernames...)
just adrienne
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Shiri Bailem likes this.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to just adrienne • •@just adrienne @Rabbit Cohen And followed now!
This was from Facebook memories way back, and I like to when it fits, share those things over to the fediverse.
Adding an edit to explicitly credit because they deserve it.
like this
just adrienne, Claudius Link and Rabbit Cohen like this.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to Shiri Bailem • •like this
just adrienne, Rabbit Cohen and DoctorOctothorp like this.
Rabbit Cohen
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Shiri Bailem likes this.
Scott Matter
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Shiri Bailem
in reply to Scott Matter • •@Scott Matter things like:
Judeo-Christian Potluck - A potluck hosted by both Jews and Christians
Judeo-Christian Househould - A family in which one parent is Jewish and the other is Christian
like this
Rachel Evans, @stevewfolds, Scott Matter, myrrhsterious, Dr. Mikaila, just adrienne and Dweebish like this.
Charlie Stross
in reply to Scott Matter • • •Shiri Bailem
in reply to Charlie Stross • •@Charlie Stross @Scott Matter antisemitism from ignorance is still antisemitism, it's accidental bigotry vs willful bigotry.
But also the EEE is a perfect reference point for what it's all about!
like this
novatorine 🏴🏳️⚧️, Liv, Citrus Reamer, ראַף 🟣, Patrick Poitras :opensuse: and just adrienne like this.
Shiri Bailem
Unknown parent • •@A13cui :perl: :opensuse: Thanks for asking!
It's a messy topic and it's late here (I'm a bit sleepy), so feel free to ask follow up questions.
The short version of it is that Judeo-Christian is almost always used in one of two harmful ways:
1) To try and give more credibility and weight to something that is purely Christian by claiming that it's part of Judaism as well when it's not (like the above example, because Judaism explicitly permits abortions)
2) To try and talk about broader groupings of related faiths while ignoring the many other Abrahamic faiths (the proper term, though that one more often hurts the lesser known groups, don't use it unless you also know it applies to groups like the Baháʼí, which I'll admit even I know next to nothing about, but it's valid here because all I'm doing is naming their religious family)
Because many (cough most cough) teach a bastardized form of Judaism through the lens of Christianity, and because that's the only exposure many get to our faith... they get skewed harmful and hurtful ideas about us.
Some highlight examples:
* We don't have an established afterlife (we don't say there isn't one, we just have zero information on it if there is)
* We don't seek "eternal reward", the reward for our faith is being a better person than we were the day before
* We have forgiveness baked into our faith, and no it doesn't require animal sacrifice (it requires you to actually ask the person you wronged...)
* We thoroughly encourage arguing any topic with anyone (right time and place of course), and that includes picking a fight with God if you think they're wrong about something (you have a 99.9% chance of being wrong... but we commend the effort and every once in a while someone wins the argument)
* We have a rule, Pikuach Nefesh, roughly meaning that life is the highest commandment. Your well being takes precedence over your faith, if it would hurt you or others to be observant than you are exempt from that requirement. It's unacceptable to hurt others for your faith, and for yourself it's frowned upon
* We actively discourage conversion, it's allowed but it's not a trivial process. We don't want people to become Jews, we just want people to be better.
like this
Leijona, Captain of the guard, tiphphin, Rachel Evans, spiegelmama, Jeremy Mallin, Weltschmerz à Gogo, aby is tired of your bullshit, Dan Howell, tuoba denrael, TinheadNed, 『-𝚍𝚜𝚛-』, myrrhsterious, novatorine 🏴🏳️⚧️, the last heron, Robert, A. Lynn, Eduardo Padoan, fraggle, John :thisisfine:, Katja, Swift, Craig Reynolds, Andy H., miramarco, DressToKILT, chainsaw ma'am 🩸, AnAnarchist, Greg, Jonathan Beverley, Fabián Roque, Ember :autism:, Hart of the Wud, fibre 🐿, packbat is a social construct, Chadee 🦨🐋, Dream Witch 🌕 🌊, Deer Witch, aka ginger, Yingtai, :garfield:fuchsiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, rhizomatic arcade, Ysegrim, Tatra, Boundless, Amelia, a wandering happenstance, Darth Osler, Miss Havisham, Stapper, Verity :transHaskell::verifiedtransfem:, Eldan Goldenberg, Alexis, luluberlu (recette originale), Ana, Bry is Just. So Gay, Neon Ghost Rat, Liv, Citrus Reamer, BlackPixelDust: Art :autism:, Flatbush Gardener 🌈, reazonozaer, Cyber Trans Punk (It/They): The hidden arc, ✅Joe Stalin 1917 🇰🇵🇮🇷🇵🇸 🇨🇺🇨🇳, THE HAT IS CONICAL, jocanib, noahnah, Senil 🍹, Thunderbeans Original Recipe, Brian Tatosky, AnCuRuadh ΔΘ :verified_trans:, The Master of Suck, Jay :QueerCatMorning_Trans:, Tim is wearing a mask 🌈, Vera "Eat the Rich" Lycaon, Settantahertz, bimbo moomoo :cowtumble: and 31 other people like this.
reshared this
ReimanSaara, Jeremy Mallin, tuoba denrael, 『-𝚍𝚜𝚛-』, myrrhsterious, novatorine 🏴🏳️⚧️, NeonSnake, lucapette, PH1BE5, Katja, Mike Richman, Richard Brockie, PixelRobot, miramarco, chainsaw ma'am 🩸, Jonathan Beverley, Ember :autism:, Trans Gruber, packbat is a social construct, Psy Chuan :therian:, Deer Witch, Sven Slootweg, Yingtai, :garfield:fuchsiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, Darth Osler, ಚಿರಾಗ್ 🌹✊🏾Ⓥ🌱🇵🇸 (he/him), Alex, trinity-1686a, luluberlu (recette originale), Ana, Myz Lilith, Bry is Just. So Gay, Neon Ghost Rat, self-soothing stem bolt, lux :flag_nonbinary:🦊ΘΔ, Flatbush Gardener 🌈, Cyber Trans Punk (It/They): The hidden arc, ✅Joe Stalin 1917 🇰🇵🇮🇷🇵🇸 🇨🇺🇨🇳, THE HAT IS CONICAL, noahnah, Rebecca Fielding-Miller, AnCuRuadh ΔΘ :verified_trans:, The Master of Suck, Jay :QueerCatMorning_Trans:, fluffy 💜, Johannes Silverfox 🦊, Reinder Dijkhuis Does Art, merry kira [Powered By Quantum Blockchain AI], Nonny, Richard M. Stalin, Cuttle of Fysh, The Doctor, Exiled New Yorker - Connie, Catherine Berry, NatalyaD, Jamey Sharp, Jovan, Paul Chernoff, Sebastian Dröge 🍵, Larry Garfield, rhapsodos 🇵🇸, Gina Peter Banyard, Writerphoebe, kuna, John P. :clubtwit:, sil lee she wab, Chele and Quin~Kara reshared this.
Jacob Vardy
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Shiri Bailem likes this.
foo
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •novatorine 🏴🏳️⚧️
in reply to foo • • •like this
Shiri Bailem and Riot Disqordia like this.
Dr. Mikaila
in reply to foo • • •Shiri Bailem likes this.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to foo • •(A) when it's a person is a philosophical/religious argument, Judaism says at birth
(B) Pikuach Nefesh is specifically what permits it, abortion is permitted when it would cause harm to carry to term. It explicitly includes mental and economic health in that (if it would cause mental distress, if it would interfere with your ability to care for yourself or your family)
@A13cui :perl: :opensuse:
like this
Fabián Roque, Odd reverberations, Deer Witch, foo, Liv, Citrus Reamer, jocanib, Riot Disqordia, Scott Matter, Patrick Poitras :opensuse:, just adrienne, Leszek Karlik and spooky Ske-lil-ton 🦇 like this.
Shiri Bailem
Unknown parent • •@𐪅𐪀𐪈 𐪑𐪁𐪉
Not remotely a counter argument. For one equating Israel with Judaism is an anti-semitic (blood and soil, or just thinking a regional government is authoritative of a worldwide culture) or Zionist take (despised by non-zionists like myself as they are colonizers who think Israel can do no wrong).
Also, it's in the blog section talking about America. It's also precisely the wrong usage (it's calling America Judeo-Christian... it's just christian if anything). On top of that, internalized bigotry is a thing in minority groups.
like this
Liv, Citrus Reamer and just adrienne like this.
A. Lynn
Unknown parent • • •Sidenote: I understand why the combination would be complete trash in the topic of abortion. Anyone trying that might deserve a kick to the shin.
Shiri Bailem likes this.
ZenDra
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Shiri Bailem likes this.
Evan Prodromou
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Shiri Bailem likes this.
fraggle
Unknown parent • • •Shiri Bailem
Unknown parent • •@M_U @A13cui :perl: :opensuse: Judaism is both a religion and a cultural/"ethnic" group, "Judeo-Christian" is almost always used to refer to the religion of which my statements are representative of the vast vast majority of Judaism.
Also one of the distinct differences is that Atheism and the faith of Judaism are not incompatible. There are many atheist-jews because God actually isn't the center point of Judaism, the main point is the time tested rules (see the argue with everything/everyone) about becoming a better person.
We will always be used by minority groups referring to themselves, mostly because "the vast vast vast majority of us" is clumsy to say and people get the point that exceptions exist. Also, because it doesn't change the fact of the statement being made.
It's also why I mad the example points I did because they're central points that are agreed upon by all major sects as opposed to the many many points which are argued over (once again see the argue with everything/everyone... arguments are a past-time in Jewish culture)
like this
Liv, Citrus Reamer, Łukasz Langa, Clara “kon Kiwawa” sparks, deco, Nauga Clown, just adrienne and Dweebish like this.
The Doctor reshared this.
Shiri Bailem
Unknown parent • •@A.L. Blacklyn @Scott Matter I think it's problematic because all of that is almost always presented from the filter of Christianity looking backwards. Jesus was absolutely a Jew and the vast vast majority of what he preached was in line with Jewish beliefs (if they hadn't shed Judaism as part of their faith and hadn't been co-assimilated with the entirety of Rome, it would be a very very different relationship).
The problem mostly comes from the fact that saying Judeo-Christian about those elements and times really should only be applied when you are intimately familiar with both faiths and are doing the hard work of removing the Christian filter from it.
Highlights on the Jewish view of Jesus:
* He fulfilled no significant prophecies regarding the Messiah (the whole point is the thousand years of peace), the vast vast majority of prophecies he's claimed to have fulfilled are mistranslations and/or completely out of context (ie. "virgin birth" came from "young woman of marriageable age" and a prophecy that had nothing to do with the messiah but was fulfilled in the following chapter)
* Trinitarianism isn't even universal among Christians, among Jews it's deeply deeply heretical as one of our long defining statements has been "God is One"
* Human sacrifice is abhorrent in Judaism, so the idea of Jesus being a sacrifice is abhorrent
* In Judaism we already have forgiveness, the biggest distinction is that God will only forgive how you've wronged God. For forgiveness over how you wronged another person you have to ask them. Imagine how you'd feel if I forgave my friend for stealing from you and then they looked you dead in the eye and said they were forgiven for stealing from you... I'd be an asshole, right?
like this
Ember :autism:, A. Lynn, Amelia, Liv, Citrus Reamer, :thufie: דגל שכור 🏴 :contains_thc:, just adrienne and essay necromancer like this.
Shiri Bailem
Unknown parent • •@0x506978656C526F626F74🦾🤖 in probably 50% of the cases absolutely!
They often use it as a stand-in for Abrahamic (which is often problematic, but has far far more legitimate uses) and I mention in my elaboration comment, though I go more narrow a mention the most obscure Abrahamic faith I know of (Baháʼí) to highlight both facts just because their obscurity I feel makes the point better (though I feel a little guilty for using them as a token, it is also in the effort of getting them and other groups recognition).
like this
PixelRobot and just adrienne like this.
Shiri Bailem
Unknown parent • •@ScepticalScot1 Correct on Judaism, it's an explicit thing.
To be clear, our faith doesn't blanket allow it either... but it's a tiny distinction with how broad our allowance is:
We don't consider it a person until it's birth, until then it's just a potential person (Jewish law only treats it as a person in cases of forced abortion or similar, ie. if you murder a pregnant person who wanted their child, then it's a double-homicide).
Judaism specifically says that abortion is permitted when the well-being of the person carrying it is threatened. But that sounds far more restrictive than it is because we have a broad view of well-being laid out, which includes mental health (being forced to carry a pregnancy you do not want and birth a child against your will is traumatic, therefore abortion is permitted because your mental health would be threatened by denying an abortion... which basically means abortion is permitted in the vast vast vast majority of cases)
(An example of times when it might not be permitted would be things like if they were in the middle of a psychotic episode)
just adrienne likes this.
Shiri Bailem
Unknown parent • •@Nicolai von Neudeck 🤒🤕 Oooooof, true but oooof.
I will forewarn against the usage there because many anti-theists (atheists with a grudge against all faiths) have picked up Judeo-Christian as well and would interpret that as accusing Judaism of also committing similar atrocities (though the government of Israel continually makes that a challenging topic...)
just adrienne likes this.
Shiri Bailem
Unknown parent • •"Major Sects" - the large divisions of Judaism representing the vast vast majority of us
"Agreed upon" - Explicitly in our agreed mutual holy texts, considered major defining elements of our faith, or in the case of the afterlife not mentioned anywhere in our texts
Keep in mind that we have more religious texts than are included in the Christian "Old Testament", most significantly the Talmud which is accepted by all Jewish sects I know of and is where many of these elements are established.
How about this follow up: do you have more familiarity with Jewish cultures than a Jew? Do you know what I'm leaving off of the lists that differs between Jewish groups?
@M_U @A13cui :perl: :opensuse:
like this
aka ginger, Liv, Citrus Reamer and just adrienne like this.
DressToKILT
Unknown parent • • •Shiri Bailem likes this.
Tammy Garrison
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Shiri Bailem
in reply to Tammy Garrison • •@Tammy Garrison Here's a link to my previous elaboration: foggyminds.com/display/c6ef095…
Feel free to ask follow up questions!
Shiri Bailem
2023-07-29 06:46:57
Tammy Garrison
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Shiri Bailem likes this.
Shiri Bailem
Unknown parent • •@Nicolai von Neudeck 🤒🤕 I have no ability to delete your post without you being on my server, though I'm not seeing it anymore either. I'd check with your admins to see if they maybe flagged it and didn't understand?
And the exact kinds of people I mentioned in my comment are the people who'd not understand because they're indoctrinated by christo-fascism and rejecting it without rejecting what they've learned from it.
just adrienne likes this.
Feygele Ⓐ Ⓥ🏳️⚧️
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Shiri Bailem likes this.
Chadee 🦨🐋, Dream Witch 🌕 🌊
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Shiri Bailem likes this.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to Chadee 🦨🐋, Dream Witch 🌕 🌊 • •like this
Chadee 🦨🐋, Dream Witch 🌕 🌊 and Patrick Poitras :opensuse: like this.
Pedestriansfirst
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •e. hashman 🇵🇸
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Jewish religious movement characterized by the recognition of the written Torah alone as its supreme authority in Jewish religious law and theology.
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)Anthony Sorace
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Shiri Bailem
in reply to Anthony Sorace • •@Anthony Sorace @Erika Ensign that falls under "No True Scotsman", they are Christian regardless of being a subset much the same as I won't claim that Zionists aren't jews despite holding objectionable views.
It's a logical fallacy used very often to avoid looking at issues in one's own social groups.
like this
Mr. Q The Pizza Demon, Adam, as the world falls down and just adrienne like this.
Anthony Sorace
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Shiri Bailem likes this.
Aviva Gary
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Shiri Bailem likes this.
Glyph
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •My Jewish Faith Makes Me Pro-abortion
Danya Ruttenberg (The Atlantic)Shiri Bailem likes this.
fluffy 💜
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •like this
Shiri Bailem and Riot Disqordia like this.
Zorin =^o.o^=
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •@a13cui It often feels like the Jewish faith has things figured out better than most belief systems.
Especially the "don't try to force others to follow your religion" part. That's a big awesome one.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to e. hashman 🇵🇸 • •@e. hashman :flag_bisexual: Again I said major sects and didn't say there are no exceptions.
I'm not going to entertain this line of arguments any further because I can't see a version of this being in good faith at this point.
MeredithW likes this.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to Pedestriansfirst • •like this
Alexis, ocdtrekkie, just adrienne and Leszek Karlik like this.
ראַף 🟣
Unknown parent • • •It's not really a tribute if it mostly gets used to mean Christian. It often implies the speaker doesn't understand or value the important differences between Jewish and Christian values. Also low-key islamaphobic
Shiri Bailem likes this.
Shiri Bailem
Unknown parent • •@Zach Fine @A13cui :perl: :opensuse: it's purpose is to prevent dilution of the faith.
The rejection is just the first step, there's also studying and being approved by a Bet Din (rabbinic court).
We want to insure people don't join the community and the immediately start screwing with our traditions and practices.
Pedestriansfirst
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Shiri Bailem
Unknown parent • •just adrienne likes this.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to Zorin =^o.o^= • •just adrienne likes this.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to fluffy 💜 • •@fluffy 💜 @A13cui :perl: :opensuse: It has slightly more legitimate usage, but only slightly.
Mostly just because it is the actual family name.
But yeah, it's too often used for faux-inclusivity.
like this
Alexis and just adrienne like this.
Pedestriansfirst
Unknown parent • • •Shiri Bailem
Unknown parent • •@crows call me breadlady sure, I need to update the original to link this because it got way more traction than I expected!
Happy to answer follow ups!
foggyminds.com/display/c6ef095…
Shiri Bailem
2023-07-29 06:46:57
crows call me breadlady likes this.
Robrab
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Shiri Bailem
in reply to Robrab • •@Robrab That's really a combination of anti-semitism and "No True Scotsman"
Most of the "old testament angry bits" are Christian interpretations or mistranslations.
Prime example is the verse they translate as "A man should not lie with another man as he would a woman" (anti-homosexuality) which is far more accurately translated as "A man should not lie with a boy as he would a woman" (anti-pedophilia). One of those two makes a hell of a lot more sense for stoning...
like this
Eugene and just adrienne like this.
Robrab
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Shiri Bailem likes this.
american
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Shiri Bailem likes this.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to american • •american
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •american
in reply to american • • •Shiri Bailem likes this.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to american • •american
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Shiri Bailem likes this.
e. hashman 🇵🇸
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Shiri Bailem likes this.
CaptMorgan
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •CaptMorgan
in reply to CaptMorgan • • •Shiri Bailem
in reply to Pedestriansfirst • •like this
Alexis and like jam or bootlaces like this.
Shiri Bailem
Unknown parent • •like this
Scott Matter, just adrienne and A. Lynn like this.
fluffy 💜
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Riot Disqordia likes this.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to CaptMorgan • •@CaptMorgan @A13cui :perl: :opensuse: This is a very flawed take and discounts the many interpretations and approaches different groups have to addressing these things.
For reference, I'm a Reform Jew: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in…
I will openly say that what you're saying absolutely applies to Orthodox Judaism and can somewhat apply to Conservative Judaism... there's a reason I'm a Reform Jew and not Orthodox lol
Also of note the "Old Testament" is not synonymous with all our texts or the Torah (the Torah is only the first five books). We have many texts that are not included in the Christian Bible.
like this
like jam or bootlaces, just adrienne and Dweebish like this.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to fluffy 💜 • •like this
Alexis, Clara “kon Kiwawa” sparks, fluffy 💜 and just adrienne like this.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to Zorin =^o.o^= • •@Zorin =^o.o^= @A13cui :perl: :opensuse: Also noting that a lot of the "have things figured out" comes from the outlook of arguing as a pastime. Since nothing is above debate, everything gets challenged constantly.
These days, it's not as visible because the vast majority of topics have been challenged to the point that there's little to argue... but there are absolutely topics being fought over (like for instance circumcision which is a very very touchy ongoing argument, mostly due to it's adjacency to the history of antisemitism)
like this
just adrienne, assertchris and Dweebish like this.
Jared Forsyth
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Marge吴静玫 likes this.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to Jared Forsyth • •@Jared Forsyth wouldn't surprise me, a lot of terms get formed in a positive place and corrupted over time.
The broader term is Abrahamic Faith. It has more valid use cases, but does suffer from the same problem of people using it to talk just about Christianity.
As beloved author Charles Stross (The Laundry Files) commented above, it's the Embrace Extend Eradicate practice, applied to religion.
like this
just adrienne and Marge吴静玫 like this.
Naomi
Unknown parent • • •@zachnfine @a13cui Which sums up pretty succinctly why Christianity is the way it is: It could really have done with some of that, instead of being so open and welcoming to all, that it is now very obviously the product of 2000 years of infiltration, appropriation, and bastardization, by every example of exactly the worst kind of self-serving people with power and privilege, Jesus warned about.
Thanks to that difference, try as they might to appropriate and bastardize Judaism - like they have so many other cultures - Christians have time and again, failed.
Where Christians go out of their way to eradicate basic critical thinking in those they indoctrinate, Judaism encourages it, and that provides a basic defense against the kind of corruption, that Christianity has utterly succumbed to.
'Those who have eyes shall see', and Jews see Christianity's leaders very clearly, for the wolves in sheep's clothing they always have been.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to Naomi • •@Naomi @Zach Fine @A13cui :perl: :opensuse: So there's definitely some distinct history to what happened with Christianity.
It starts with the Apostles and namely with Luke arguing that Christians did not have to first be Jews. It's obvious why that argument won out (lower standards and dropping circumcision).
And then it was kicked into high-gear with Emperor Constantine who converted the whole Roman Empire to Christianity.
As an important bit of context, the Roman empire/faith was essentially the borg of religions. As it conquered cultures it declared that their faiths were all subsets of their own, assimilating them into their faith.
The issue between the Jews of Israel and Rome was rooted in the fact that Rome wanted to call our God just another manifestation of Zeus and we wholeheartedly rejected that (the story of Hannukah starts with the Romans trying to put up a statue of Zeus in front of the Temple).
So, when the emperor declared that Rome was now Christian, they immediately assimilated their own faith into Christianity. This is why the popular Christian afterlife mirrors the afterlife of the roman faith (seriously compare Heaven/Hell depictions with the Elysian Fields and Pits of Tartarus; and then contrast to the fact that Judaism has no established afterlife).
Dweebish likes this.
Hilary
in reply to Glyph • • •@glyph @foo @a13cui
This is worth reading in full, but one point to take away is that in Judaism abortion is not merely permitted (in certain circumstances). It is obligatory/required (in certain, more limited, circumstances). If continuing a pregnancy threatens a woman's life, abortion is obligatory.
This is complicated by another halachic principle, which is the obligation to abide by the (secular) laws of the place where one lives.
There can be direct conflict here.
Shiri Bailem likes this.
Zorin =^o.o^=
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •@a13cui This is great. I went to a catholic high school, and I remember contesting anything religious was a huge no-no. The word was the word, and arguing about it wasn't allowed.
Allowing even long-standing ideas to be challenged is one of the most important requirements for a society to progress.
Shiri Bailem likes this.
crows call me breadlady
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Shiri Bailem likes this.
korin
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Shiri Bailem likes this.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to Pedestriansfirst • •@Pedestriansfirst @A13cui :perl: :opensuse: they are in fact Jews and you won't find me pulling a "No True Scotsman" on that.
I will however always note that they're Zionists and that non-Zionists don't approve of Zionists.
For a Christian example, it's the difference between saying WBC isn't Christian vs saying WBC is condemned by most other Christians.
Making the Palestine argument applies specifically to the Zionist take that Israel (the political entity) and Judaism are inseparable, and it implies from that that all Jews support the actions of Israel as opposed to the majority (at least as I've seen) condemning it.
like this
just adrienne, Leszek Karlik and Dweebish like this.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to Zorin =^o.o^= • •@Zorin =^o.o^= @A13cui :perl: :opensuse: Agreed, I'm a fan of Mark Twain's (yes, the Mark Twain) commentary on the topic:
We persist and have great impact because knowledge and understanding are cherished, and all things old and new are challenged constantly. We don't claim perfection, being Jewish is all about the act of continually striving to do and be better.
like this
Zorin =^o.o^=, Christie and just adrienne like this.
reshared this
Zorin =^o.o^= and Johannes Silverfox 🦊 reshared this.
Shiri Bailem
Unknown parent • •like this
ראַף 🟣 and just adrienne like this.
Shiri Bailem
Unknown parent • •DemocritusDiscoBall likes this.
Naomi
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •@zachnfine @a13cui And this is why I'd much rather listen to Jews than Christians. You keep the parts of history that Christians have gone out of their way to bury, so your explanations actually make sense of the glaring disparities between what Jesus (a Jew) said, and what Christians, from the apostles onwards (Paul in particular), /say/ he said.
I mean, I can't even google anything related to the Bible, without getting endless pages of 'Good Christian Bible study' takes, twisting every word he said into its opposite.
Questioning that is why I got kicked out of Sunday school when I was still an infant, and it wasn't much longer before I realized Christianity was a very Roman creation, even with the poor, Christian education I was given.
Shiri Bailem likes this.
Eugene
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Eugene
in reply to Eugene • • •Shiri Bailem
in reply to Eugene • •Eugene likes this.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to Eugene • •like this
Eugene and Dweebish like this.
Pedestriansfirst
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Shiri Bailem
in reply to Pedestriansfirst • •@Pedestriansfirst @A13cui :perl: :opensuse: 80? that honestly is a lot lower than what I would have expected at this point
I won't say "bad Jews" because that's far too close to "No True Scotsman", they are Zionists and Zionism is Jewish Colonialism, which is a very bad take imo.
And no, you're not blocked. It wasn't a great take to start with, but it was understandable given the propensity for Christians to take the "No True Scotsman" fallacy against arguments such as that.
I believe in giving someone a chance first when there's any grey area on potential hate, plus it was a good excuse to outline the differences on a very common and hot topic that gentiles often know little about. And I think you learned something about Jewish society from it.
For more background, part of the problem with Zionists is that they're supported by White Supremacists and Nazis.
It sounds weird on the surface that Nazis would support Zionists, but it comes from a common White Supremacist principle of "Blood and Soil" in which they believe that different "races" have dominion over different lands (ie. white people over europe, Jews over Israel, Asians over Asia, etc). It's why you'll occasionally see someone spouting antisemitic bullshit, but then pivot to supporting Israel.
(Also "fun" trivia: this is why so many white people claim some vague distant "Cherokee Princess" in their background, it came from an effort to expand their blood and soil claim to the Americas)
like this
Patrick Poitras :opensuse:, just adrienne, Leszek Karlik and Dweebish like this.
Pedestriansfirst
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Shiri Bailem likes this.
Shiri Bailem
Unknown parent • •@Nicolai von Neudeck 🤒🤕 I saw in your about you're from Germany and yeah, it's bad everywhere (the honeymoon post-holocaust period is ending and anti-semitism is returning to the "norm"), just from what I understand there's still drastically more taught about the Holocaust and Naziism in Germany than in the US.
Here, we get little more than "Nazis hate Jews", "Nazis bad", and "Bad things happened at Auschwitz". If anything else is covered, it's merely glossed over.
Of course, we're also the country that throws hissy fits at the idea of taking down monuments to people who actively fought to keep slavery (not that it's over with in the US, we just made it state slavery)
Shiri Bailem
in reply to Pedestriansfirst • •@Pedestriansfirst @A13cui :perl: :opensuse: praying for peace is a constant for us, but we also believe in Tikkun Olam, it's our responsibility to continually work toward it as well.
I figured you were not Christian, when mentioning Palestine you were calm about it and responded reasonably... Christians tend to only really go that route if they're going to be frothing antisemites, so it'd be really surprising to me if you were. (Not impossible, just unlikely)
Part of the trouble is that in the west Christianity overshadows all other religions to the point that many atheists only known and understand Christianity when they're rejecting religion as a whole. And that's something I'm deeply conscious of.
... I also love getting into arguments with anti-theists because they get so incredibly confused at (a) rational arguments and (b) the fact that I'll context switch right along them when they're not even paying attention to their context. (I jokingly call these people theo-phobes after the idea of homophobes being self-hating homosexuals and I believe many of them have an indoctrinated belief in god and are repulsed by the thought that the things they were taught would be true)
like this
Patrick Poitras :opensuse: and just adrienne like this.
Shiri Bailem
Unknown parent • •ראַף 🟣 likes this.
Shiri Bailem
Unknown parent • •Pedestriansfirst
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Dean L. Surkin
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Shiri Bailem likes this.
Shaterri (he/him)
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Shiri Bailem likes this.
Shiri Bailem
Unknown parent • •@Nicolai von Neudeck 🤒🤕 oof, for some reason I thought Germany was notable in taking them all down... but I really shouldn't be surprised.
I think it's both (a) and (b), after the war anti-semitism became shameful so it moved out of the public view... but also being out of the public limited it's spread.
But every year the holocaust gets more distant and the reaction to it becomes more and more muted as people try to claim that it's done and gone and not worth talking about anymore and with that Naziism becomes more and more a cartoon instead of a real threat... so of course it starts spreading again.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to Pedestriansfirst • •like this
just adrienne and Dweebish like this.
Wayne is distracted reshared this.
Shiri Bailem
Unknown parent • •@Emily K 🪬 @Jared Forsyth Agreed, I cite it as better only because it's actually used in broader valid cases (as an accurate classification of the faiths), but whenever they talk about individual beliefs... it turns to total crap real fast.
Majority of the time they're talking about Christianity, every once in a while they hit a valid chord between the big three... but it's a miracle if it's actually accurate to all Abrahamic Faiths.
just adrienne likes this.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to Shaterri (he/him) • •@Shaterri (he/him) Honestly I think this has been mostly good faith arguments given how people have responded to my replies. There's one where I drew the line feeling it was making it's way to bad faith pedantry... and the one worse than that you'll note their posts have disappeared or will soon because their server banned them (credit to Venera.social for responding quickly and decisively)
But I can see what people think of as bad faith. There's a lot of common anti-theist counter arguments that I'm familiar with, but I don't think any of them have gone beyond one post and in most cases took my reply graciously and learned something.
For instance calling out Palestine that one time, which while tiresome is understandable since Christians typically pull a "No True Scotsman" fallacy in response to things like that, which clearly marks them as not worth talking to. As tiresome as it is, it's a good barometer question for Jews imo.
just adrienne likes this.
assertchris
Unknown parent • • •assertchris
in reply to CaptMorgan • • •Shiri Bailem
in reply to assertchris • •@assertchris @Zach Fine @A13cui :perl: :opensuse: it's established well after that, that's prior to the Torah even being written and I believe it was established somewhere in the commentaries (like a millennia later) I think, but as I said no idea where.
It's not as hard to maintain your culture prior to being conquered by Rome and prior to Diaspora, but after it becomes vitally important to preserve your practices if you don't want them to dissolve into assimilation.
assertchris likes this.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to assertchris • •like this
assertchris and CaptMorgan like this.
Schafstelze
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Not only did he use the term to promote anti-islamism by claiming they are NOT part of our tradition and shouldn't be, but he also seems to have 'forgotten' the nasty details of that 'judao-christian tradition'...
He definitely belongs in that 99%-bracket.
Shiri Bailem likes this.
Philip N Cohen
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Shiri Bailem
Unknown parent • •@More Cowbell @raf I had to sit on this one for a while, but... you know that arguing with Jews over what is antisemitic is itself antisemitic?
And do you really think bigots are saying "Oh yeah, I'm absolutely a proud bigot!"? And that if they actually believe their bigotry that somehow frees them of being a bigot?
Shiri Bailem
in reply to Shiri Bailem • •Thank you so much to everyone who's shared this and asked questions!
From the comment section it seems to me a lot of people have learned some things about Judaism and how it differs from Christianity. We even exposed one raging antisemite troll who's been banned from their server (shoutout venera.social for having over a thousand users and taking care of it in around an hour).
There certainly was a lot of mild antisemitism throughout the comments, but as far as I can tell in most cases it was ignorance that has been relieved by this!
(Remember kids, pulling a "what about israel?" is rude to do out of nowhere, but if someone supports the occupation they're bad for being a Zionist and that still doesn't permit you to denigrate their faith because it's the same faith as those who reject the occupation)
like this
Moved to CatCatNya, undead enby of the apocalypse, NullNoMore, spooky Ske-lil-ton 🦇, novatorine 🏴🏳️⚧️, gim, eingy and Pteryx the Puzzle Secretary like this.
reshared this
SCSalon, Left Field Farm and Jeff Cuscutis reshared this.
heather gold
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •heather gold
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Shiri Bailem
in reply to heather gold • •heather gold
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Shiri Bailem
in reply to heather gold • •@heather gold Zionism, in it's current form is Jewish colonialism of the area of Israel/Palestine. It wasn't so bad initially when it was just a push for a Jewish state, but became awful between that state enacting colonialist policies against Palestine. Topped off by the fact that modern Zionists believe that the Israeli government represents the Jewish faith and not just the people of Israel. (ie. Zionists generally believe criticism of Israel to be antisemitic)
The occupation of Palestine is the fact that Israel has forced them out of more and more land, and keeps encroaching on their territory. There's a constant expansion effort by Israel that constantly disregards the impact on Palestine, and is more than happy to push Palestinians out of their homes then declare them the "bad guys" for fighting to keep their land and homes. (They often paint it as antisemitic attacks rather than attacking a nation that keeps trying to steal your home)
Raroun
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •können wir Dinge wie eine Abtreibung auch ohne Religionsbezug betrachten?
Es ist ein Eingriff, welcher von Ärzten vorgenommern wird mit Zustimmung des Patienten.
Meiner Meinung nach hat Religion in dieser Entscheidung nichts zu suchen, egal welcher man angehört.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to Raroun • •@Raroun @Rabbit Cohen
Agreed, but unfortunately it's often centered around Christianity and fascism, and both for and against throw around Judeo-Christian when talking about how it's being forced by religious groups.
Raroun likes this.
Raroun
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •If people were more human and less religious, the problem would probably not exist.
I'm not religious and I don't have much to contribute to this discussion, except my opinion, unfortunately :)
Shiri Bailem
in reply to Raroun • •@Raroun Critiques of religion and it's impact on people not of their faith (and sometimes of their faith) are valid!
A lot of the time I see the problem being that people's only experience is imperialistic religions (Christianity) and little experience with the variety of experiences and lessons.
Like for instance, in Judaism we couldn't care less if you worshiped our god, let alone any other god. Our primary focus is on the wellbeing of ourselves and our communities (which includes the non-jews). (We don't even care that much if other Jews worship our god, atheistic religious jews are an actual accepted thing!)
Where many Christians take the stance of "let Jesus into your heart and you will become a good person!", Judaism takes the stance of "You must do the right thing whether you like it or not, and if you keep doing it maybe you'll become a better person for it" (do the right thing being things like being charitable and kind as well as not tolerating bigotry even if it's not directed at you).
And most importantly in Judaism: if it can't stand up to scrutiny than it shouldn't be respected (ie. nothing is off limits to argue, and if it falters under argument then it has no right to be respected)
Feel free to ask me questions if you like about my experiences, I just ask that you content warning for others any questions that are potentially sensitive. I won't try to convert you (we have a tradition of rejecting potential converts), we just emphasize sharing knowledge and understanding as one of our primary goals.
JamieGC 🏴 🏳️🌈 🖖
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •I sincerely didn't know how drastically different Judaism was until years out from leaving fundamentalist Christianity, I was in a 4 year relationship with a Jewish woman.
There is so much outright bullshit about Judaism taught in those circles.
I still only know enough to know that there is a vast ocean of information I need to learn.
Shiri Bailem likes this.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to JamieGC 🏴 🏳️🌈 🖖 • •@JamieGC I mean, I think any honest rabbi will say the same thing? lol
It's a constant learning experience, especially for someone not raised in it.
And Christianity loves to paint such a horrific picture of Judaism and pretend it's an authority on the matter... and then people believe them.
JamieGC 🏴 🏳️🌈 🖖 likes this.
JamieGC 🏴 🏳️🌈 🖖
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •🙂
I love how much Judaism is about learning, from what I have heard, and find it fascinating that debating more minor details is practically a friendly sport.
My life would have been so much better had I grew up in that kind of environment instead.
Shiri Bailem likes this.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to JamieGC 🏴 🏳️🌈 🖖 • •JamieGC 🏴 🏳️🌈 🖖 likes this.
✨mo✨
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Shiri Bailem likes this.
Shiri Bailem
Unknown parent • •undead enby of the apocalypse
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Shiri Bailem likes this.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to undead enby of the apocalypse • •@undead enby of the apocalypse My pleasure, thank you for reading and taking it earnestly!
Feel free to ask me any questions you may have about this or Judaism in general! (I just ask you content warning for others any potentially sensitive topics)
undead enby of the apocalypse likes this.
Don Hawkins - W7DAH
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Shiri Bailem
in reply to Don Hawkins - W7DAH • •@Don Hawkins - W7DAH fun fact, atheist observant Jews are a thing because Judaism is not dependent on belief in God.
Feel free to fire your arguments away, I enjoy debating antitheists. I'll even give you a courtesy and forewarning you: I will match the context of your arguments (ie. if your argument is from the assumption of my god existing, my response will follow that assumption; but if your argument is from the assumption that my god doesn't exist, I will respond likewise... a lot of people get confused because they don't pay attention to context switches)
Don Hawkins - W7DAH likes this.
Don Hawkins - W7DAH
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Shiri Bailem
in reply to Don Hawkins - W7DAH • •Dweebish likes this.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to Shiri Bailem • •@Don Hawkins - W7DAH Also, for arguing in favor of reason there seems to be an absence of it here? And a lot of assumption.
Your response is nonsense if your response to "atheist jews" is "there is no god"? So what?
Are you just trolling persecuted minorities because you think none of us will ever debate you? You think a handful of memes shitting on a post about antisemitism will make you appear enlightened?
Dweebish likes this.
Don Hawkins - W7DAH
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •“also”, I couldn’t care less what others might think. This appears in my profile:
“Better to write for yourself & have no public, than to write for the public & have no self." --Cyril Connolly
Don Hawkins - W7DAH
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Don Hawkins - W7DAH
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Shiri Bailem
in reply to Don Hawkins - W7DAH • •@Don Hawkins - W7DAH
When did I call for government censorship of you?
Judaism does not proselytize, and the fact that you make that claim shows an ignorance of both the conversation and our faith. Our tradition is to reject converts by default, and when accepted we have an extensive vetting process. Accusing me of proselytization just exposes your ignorance of religion in general and makes you look like a tool who's only here to shit on people to make yourself feel better.
Well, if you're posting it publicly then you're on some level writing for the public, and even if you're writing for yourself you're getting something out of it and I'm just trying to get to the bottom of what you get out of shitting on an oppressed minority talking about their oppression? My best guess is a sense of smug superiority in which you claim enlightenment, but what's so enlightened about attacking an oppressed minority asking to not be oppressed? Or misrepresenting an oppressed minority on a post asking people to stop misrepresenting us?
Ah yes, the "I'm being an asshole, but obviously better than you because I can throw around psych terms completely out of context to claim your inferiority and dismiss your responses". Triggered is referring to PTSD, do you think it's amusing to mock people with PTSD? Quite an enlightened take. I'm engaging a bigot because it's fun and presents a complete picture of their bigotry to others (especially to moderators). If I refuse to engage I get nothing, but by engaging I stand to protect vulnerable people from you and the likes of you.
Dweebish likes this.
A. Lynn
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Shiri Bailem likes this.
Niedliche Nacktschnecke
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •I feel there's a special evil in talking about germanies "judeo-christian" history (often done!), as uf that history wasnt mostly pogroms, exclusion, antisemitism, the shoa.
Shiri Bailem likes this.
Shiri Bailem
Unknown parent • •@DemocritusDiscoBall ooh, such delightful words. I enjoy linguistics, so many fun quirks.
And isn't Intransigent Intelligence just all of us? It sounds to me like "Intelligence suffering from the backfire effect"
Shiri Bailem
Unknown parent • •@More Cowbell @raf To quote Avenue Q: "Everyone is a little bit racist sometimes"
The defining question is whether it's rooted in ignorance or willful, which is part of this whole conversation with you.
You can be antisemitic without being willful about it, the question of character is how you respond when called on it. Telling us you know better than us about what is or isn't bigotry that we deal with is itself a form of bigotry.
The judgement of you as a person comes now, in how you respond to this?
If you learn and grow, addressing what we called out, then all the praise for you because that's hard to do. If you back away, well at least you were polite. If you become hostile, then we just write you off as a bigot.
And of course, further polite inquiries in good faith are valid too and fall under learning and growing.
Shiri Bailem
Unknown parent • •@More Cowbell @raf There isn't a shared culture between Judaism and Christianity, they are very very distinctly different cultures and one has spent a very long time trying to kill the other.
Christianity is a member of the Abrahamic family of faiths and probably has more cultural similarity to Islam than it does Judaism, despite being an offshoot of Judaism. (And Abrahamic can be equally problematic if you're not well familiar with the cultural differences between Christianity and say Rastafarianism, but at least it's an accurate name for the relationship)
Much of the usage of "Judeo-Christian" comes from the belief that there's far more similarity than there is.
It's much like talking about the "Western Culture in which healthcare is a privilege, not a right" despite the fact that that's an american cultural element that's not shared by the vast majority of western nations.
Shiri Bailem
Unknown parent • •Shiri Bailem
in reply to Shiri Bailem • •@Ulrich_the_Elder 🇨🇦 🇺🇦 😷 Realized that my tone may not have come across in context, I genuinely want to know because that's a fascinating bit of trivia to have!
I otherwise agree, especially since in the Jewish Bible (parts not included in the Christian Bible) it is talked about, and explicitly permitted.
Shiri Bailem
Unknown parent • •Shiri Bailem
Unknown parent • •@M_U @e. hashman :flag_bisexual: I appreciate the apology.
Sects do have a cultural element because they are groupings based on shared beliefs and values.
Ethnic distinctions are a mess in general, especially when talking about ethno-religious groups like Judaism as someone can be of the ethnicity and not the faith, or of the faith group and not the ethnicity. In those cases though we'd typically differentiate by their specific groupings.
Most I know are Ashkenazi Jews, being the most represented group of Judaism in the west (for comparison, you also find Sephardic Jews as prominent in the west, but with drastically less representation).
Because of intersectionality, one can be a member of many many cultures at the same time and the definitions are going to depend on which topics and elements are being referenced. When talking about religious beliefs, a sect/denomination is more meaningful than a region. And there are some elements that are derived from those beliefs that make it applicable as well.
I won't pretend that a New York Jew is the same as a Florida Jew, as a Texas Jew, let alone a Polish Jew, Indian Jew, or Japanese Jew. Just that we're going to share a lot of the same cultural elements where they're rooted specifically in our faith, especially when in the same sects.
Also, fyi, "IQ" is mostly rooted in classism and racism. here's an entertaining video from the show Adam Ruins Everything talking about it: youtu.be/W3oUqKUx2o0
Shiri Bailem
Unknown parent • •Shiri Bailem
Unknown parent • •@M_U "smart" and "intelligent" are all vague, undefined terms that are pretty much always problematic.
We have a multitude of different cognitive abilities, and they're basically trying to say someone who's "smart" is cognitively superior... when they're often just well versed on a topic.
It also causes a lot of trauma for people like myself who go through life oscillating between being called "smart" or "stupid" depending on which cognitive abilities are factored into a task. (For instance, I have Executive Dysfunction, but also have pattern thinking and great pattern recognition)
Dweebish likes this.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to Shiri Bailem • •@M_U to elaborate further, saying a particular group has "higher intelligence" in any fashion is still racist and falls under the "Model Minority" bigotry (used to pigeonhole people in those groups and leveraging one group against another).
Jews aren't "smarter", we just have a culture that encourages education, and very importantly critical thinking (our pastime of arguing everything, and nothing being above challenge means that we are encouraged to actually analyze topics rather than just memorize)
Dweebish
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Shiri Bailem likes this.
Shiri Bailem
Unknown parent • •@wboucek @Scott Matter yeah, false inclusivity is a huge pain in my ass...
It's why now is the time of year for me to greet people with Happy Holidays and Season's Greetings!
Shiri Bailem
Unknown parent • •@DemocritusDiscoBall Yeah, it's basically the backfire effect and whether or not the person takes effort to combat it. It has nothing to do with smarts and everything to do with pure psychology.
The backfire effect is rooted in the fact that when we take a stance on an issue it incorporates into our identity, the stronger the stance the more it incorporates.
When faced with evidence that the position may be wrong, we experience cognitive dissonance and our brain reacts to that information as a threat. Our natural default response is to double down on whatever it is, both increasing the strength of your connection to it and even less critical of the details you're relying on to support your argument.
It's basically the reason you "can't win arguments on the internet", because if someone is to the point of arguing about it, then they're invested enough that they'll be highly susceptible to the backfire effect. (Instead it's better to make your arguments for the sake of unconvinced bystanders)
It takes effort and mindfulness to push back against the backfire effect, and a conscious effort to allow yourself to be wrong.
Shiri Bailem
Unknown parent • •@M_U ... okay, that's just straight up eugenics bullshit and will not be tolerated.
It's proven blatantly untrue, and is deeply disrespectful of our cultures. On top of that it's a purely racist talking point.
We have long established that we do not have significant mental or physical differences between "races", especially given that no one is "pure blooded", and especially going back thousands of years.
Shiri Bailem
Unknown parent • •@M_U tendency towards sickle-cell anemia, tendency for cancer, tendency for blue eyes, tendency for baldness... sure.
No tendency for traits that don't exist (ie. "IQ"), no genetic tendency for education, or open-mindedness.
I've already reported you for racism and eugenics talk.
Maybe step back and look at your arguments vs the counter: that a culture that encourages challenging and arguing everything might be more conducive to understanding and challenging ideas in the world than a culture that emphasizes rote memorization and penalizes asking questions?
Do you assume that magically all groups of Judaism preserved genes for "superior intelligence" (despite being a non-sense idea rooted entirely in racism to begin with) despite varying every other genetic trait throughout? Or are you making assumptions about the genetic makeup of Jews worldwide, just assuming that all Jews are descended from Ashkenazi? Perhaps divine intervention? (I may be religious, but I'll take "easily provable" over "God did it")
Shiri Bailem
Unknown parent • •@M_U I didn't report you for being antisocial, I reported you for racism. "Positive" stereotypes still cause harm and are still racist.
And I have no tolerance for for talk of eugenics, you are now blocked server wide regardless of whether your admins take action.
miawgogo :KirbyVerified:
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Shiri Bailem
in reply to miawgogo :KirbyVerified: • •@miawgogo :KirbyVerified: it's because they believe Judaism is just Christianity minus Jesus.
Like, they think our beliefs are that you behave perfectly or go to hell because they see "judged by our acts" under their belief of "any sin = hell". (FYI, we do believe in being judged by our acts, but judged means judgement, it's not some automatic punishment thing but an actual decision... and on top of that, we don't believe in hell)
Non-Christians use it because many of them are convinced that all religions are basically Christianity with slight differences.
miawgogo :KirbyVerified: likes this.
Shiri Bailem
Unknown parent • •@Shannon (she/her) @Pedestriansfirst I suppose you're technically correct, I guess I usually never think about it because there's always more apt descriptions (ie. Nazis are often Zionists because "Blood And Soil").
And yes on the antisemitism of it, I just chose not to say anything about that in favor of a chance at education. (Also a love for getting into arguments with aggressive militant atheists because it's so fun to see their talking points shatter and the confusion that comes from it)
And I didn't bring it up later because I felt from the conversation that it wasn't going to be a problem again from them because they learned some things about Judaism, Jewish Culture, and that religions people can in fact own and acknowledge bad behaviors in their own communities.
Shannon (she/her) likes this.
Shiri Bailem
Unknown parent • •@Shannon (she/her) I don't think believing all zionists are jews isn't that messy of a idea because it impacts so little, especially since the zionist behavior of non-jews is already easily discernible on it's own as awful anyways.
And keep in mind that the comparison is that this started from assuming that all Jews condoned the atrocities committed by the Israeli government and has walked away knowing that it's not uniform.
Shannon (she/her) likes this.