Skip to main content

99% of the time "Judeo-Christian" is antisemitic. And yes, I will absolutely elaborate on this if asked.

Credit: @Rabbit Cohen

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.

This entry was edited (11 months ago)
Unknown parent

Shiri Bailem
Shiri Bailem
•

@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.

@Pedestriansfirst @Shannon (she/her)
Unknown parent

Shiri Bailem
Shiri Bailem
•

@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)

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?".

https://neuroclastic.com/the-identity-theory-of-autism-how-autistic-identity-is-experienced-differently/


The Identity Theory of Autism: How Autistic Identity Is Experienced Differently » NeuroClastic

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.
Terra Vance (NeuroClastic)

Mandi reshared this.

Unknown parent

Shiri Bailem
Shiri Bailem
•

@bike I suspect it isn't that much different. Collectivist societies can be awful in their own ways.

They're still better imo, but they have a tendency to focus too hard on traditions and conformity on top of the ideals of communal responsibility.

But in all cases it's a mesh of peer pressure and group identity vs our value identity.

@bike
Unknown parent

Shiri Bailem
Shiri Bailem
•
@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.
@bike

Why You Must Keep The Monsters Human

*(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.

Rant about AI:

Sadly there's no reasonable way to differentiate AI content from "real" content. And regardless of your opinions on AI there's no "stopping" it (it's a "cat's out of the bag" situation, you can run these things on your home computer with open source software... there's no way short of an apocalypse to stop development from here).

What we do have is a lot of fighting and little effort to work on solutions of living with this. And I think worse yet many taking the anti-AI stance, especially the loudest of them, are basically making things worse because real solutions are anathema to them (ie. anything short of an outright ban on the technology is unacceptable, which means they tend to push back against even efforts to rein in AI or talk over those who want to push those efforts).

On top of that you have the borderline predatory push of "AI Detection Tools" and "AI Poisoning". The detection tools are a question of "How many real lives are you okay with ruining to catch a handful of bad uses cases in AI because there is zero way to have any certainty on the accuracy of these tools?" while poisoning tools are a security blanket that leads to people dropping their defenses because they don't stop AI, just slightly delay it's access to your content (even the creators of those tools acknowledge that AI will quickly bypass them, at which point there's no difference in whether or not you used that tool), worse yet as AI gets further incorporated in search tools it can make it harder to get visibility and exposure over AI generated content.

What we really need to be focusing on to address the problems with AI:

  • Learning how copyright works (in my experience artists tend to have a woefully bad understanding of what is or isn't covered) and making sure corporations don't lobby the government into allowing copyright on AI works (under current law they are public domain, aka. no copyright, but there's already been one case of pushing that they can copyright "arrangements" of AI works). This means if they want to actually have a copyright on art, they've got to pay a human artist
  • We need to push for reporting requirements/standards. One of the most toxic elements is how much AI floods spaces and bumps out human artists, especially when they attack the prompt containing the artist's name (meaning searching for that artist can turn up more AI work than their actual work)... there needs to be a requirement that AI art be labeled. This also works with the previous point as it is similar to being able to search for something released Creative Commons.
  • Push for copyright responsibility in outputs rather than training data inputs. This sounds like something that is already one of the loudest arguments, but really isn't. Most arguments I hear try to go after AI tools for copyright content in their training data... but if you actually learn copyright you realize that a victory here largely means that major companies get more of an advantage because copyright only applies when content is copied (ie. when the training data is made available for smaller companies to run their own) vs when content is transformed (despite popular opinion, the vast majority of AI output does not violate copyright and qualifies as a transformative work... see again learning copyright law, plus a dash of learning how these tools actually work). Responsibility in outputs means that an AI can violate copyright (if I ask an AI tool to give me the first chapter of a copyrighted book and it does so... that is a violation and they need to genuinely be responsible for taking measures to prevent this from happening, but there should also be leeway for "forced violations", ie. when you bend over backwards to make it break copyright vs just saying "give me the first chapter of...")
  • Work on learning and developing responsible usage. Again despite popular artist opinion, there genuinely is a lot of responsible use cases for all these AI technologies, from using LLMs to help debug code, summarize text, prioritize lists to voice duplicators used, with the license of the original VA, being used for dynamic speech (ie. voice assistants or actually speaking a player's name in a video game in the middle of otherwise pre-recorded output). And that's not to ignore image generators which can be used for enhancing/repairing old photos, or just used for general visual effects on your own art (ie. the filters everyone uses on instagram or the like... much of them are the exact same tech as AI Image Generators)
  • And as always... fighting capitalism because the real threat of AI is the same as any other technology advancement: if CEOs can replace you with a machine, they will, and we live in a society where no employment means risk of death.

#AI #ResponsibleAI #Rant

#ai #rant #ResponsibleAI
⇧