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
@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)
@scottmatter It’s so hard to get it right, and the faint antisemitism is hiding under every freaking rock. I’ll have my bagel with a schmear and some, uh, kosher ham?
@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.
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.
"Judeo-Christian" always feels about as helpful as a distinction as, like... "Eurasian", except for the specific cases where it's a wink-and-nudge thing from the types I'd like to keep entirely out of wink-and-nudge range from me.
@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 :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karaite_Judaism
@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 This is fantastic — I have one note that is a bit of a question. I suspect the bit of Jewish law that discourages conversion into Judaism isn’t about screening for the best candidates but is about screening for narcs. Jews were oppressed in many different societies, including ones that forbid conversion to Judaism with severe penalties for all involved. Turning away a potential convert 3 times would be a ritualized way to weed out undercover fakes.
@a13cui I’m not sure if that “three times” is actually law. But testing the applicant’s commitment is the norm. It’s a long way from the experience of the first convert, Ruth, just basically said “your God is my God, where you go I go” and that was what it took when it wasn’t a conversion process happening under the rule of regimes hostile to Jews.
@a13cui I’m saying this note is a question because I bet I’ve got some misconceptions in there and don’t mean to pretend to be an authority on the subject. The question would be whether this line of thought about the changes in process and reasons for it are plausible.
@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)
You would hope, but many people don’t continue to do research when they get disapproval, hate for it. In that case it was in reference to D Elisabeth Glassco who posts here as @Deglassco, about Black history, specifically all teh bs book banning etc GOP is pulling out to cover up the history of slavery.
People like her have the fortitude and intelligence to fight through the bs, read the hard hateful truth, and share with us. We need more brave, smart people to fight the good fight.
Intransigent unwilling to change one’s point of views, even under pressure Intelligence, smart enough to see the truth.
So you need them both in how I mean the phrase. Because when you start talking about how life really is, you often get a LOT of hate from small minded authoritarians.
@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.
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.
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: https://youtu.be/W3oUqKUx2o0
@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)
@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.
“I admit that there was a great deal of confusion the first day of Animation Class at the college, and most of us were convinced that the professor would just quit. But thankfully she didn’t, because we’re all learning so much about techniques you wouldn’t get anywhere else, and my own creations are now FAR more lifelike!
I even splurged on an arcane box similar to hers; it’s SO much more efficient than using school-approved quills.”
Mom always said I should make friends. This seemed more direct.
Or, a player's necromancer restaurant. Offering self-serving chicken, where the animated cooked carcass could walk out along the table, cave itself up and serve itself to the guests.
Oh, don't make that face. There was no negative energy, it was just "animate object," not "create undead" ( unless you ordered from the 'special' menu)
FYI for any necromancers out there I'm available for hire to polish your presentation decks. I have extensive experience with pitching reanimated dead IPs at Disney. #/GetFediHired
Necromancers as weapons dealers: "Oh, it seems your kingdom is being attacked by zombies sent from the Empire. Would you like to hire my services in raising your deceased to counterattack?"
Later: "Oh, it seems your empire is being attacked by zombies sent from the kingdom. Would you like to hire my services in raising your deceased to counterattack?"
Basically, I got into a conversation on here with a dude whose entire political philosophy seems to be based on having repeatedly read 1984 but never having understood it, which is one of the few things worse than a dude whose entire political philosophy is based on reading 1984 and understanding it correctly.
This is the guy who suggested to me that "cis" is Newspeak. He then suggested to me that people should only be sorted into two categories: selfish and selfless. This would effectively limit people's language so that they don’t have cognitive access to categories other than "good" and "bad". For those of you following along at home, THAT'S WHAT NEWSPEAK IS.
The whole "we're all humans, we don't need categories and labels" thing is so fucking intellectually dishonest. If Mr Newspeak here actually acted on that philosophy, if he really believed it, he wouldn't be able to function in his daily life.
Interestingly, this is a guy who claims to have trans friends. So I was like "Interesting idea, so in this world where we only describe people as 'selfish' or 'selfless', how do I get HRT?" He appears to have blocked me after that.
It sounds a little bit as if that person might have a neurological or psychological issue? Wanting things to be simple „for the people“, not being able to see the easiest analogies (recognise newspeak), apparently having really read only one short book about authority/rule, being confused about when what was discovered, hating adjectives because they make everything complicated, …
All of this sounds like someone who has some severe issues in processing information.
I shared this 3 years ago today before my egg even cracked...
And honestly, rereading it is chilling a true. I never experienced dysphoria before transitioning, but I definitely felt that those were not my spaces or my people.
On top of that, when around other women I was incredibly self conscious... in the spaces that felt the most natural, the relationships that felt the most natural, I felt like I was intruding.
I was so intimately aware of the threat of men and because I thought I was one I was so terrified of being threatening and making the women around me feel unsafe... because doing so would mean being feared and ostracized by the people I felt most natural with.
For the longest time I thought this was maybe just because I was autistic, and even then I still couldn't understand why I felt natural around women and those socialized as women... It was a sticking point in my mind constantly because I know I wasn't socialized female and I have a bio-brother who lived through similar circumstances and didn't remotely turn out the same way.
And honestly as I finally found true family... I was low key terrified for the longest time because the people I adopted were almost all women (at least, we thought so at the time... funnily enough most turned out to be trans-masc sometime after adopting them, but that didn't change the terror...)
All this is to say we're not men who decide to become women... we're women who decide to stop pretending to be men. Who grew up being forced to pretend to be someone other than who we are, and being told that the idea of being who we are is impossible, gross, and wrong. And even after we have to live in terror of people accusing us of pretending to somehow abuse other women.
it’s infinitely more accurate to characterize a trans woman as a woman pretending to be a man than it is to say she’s a man pretending to be a woman
Reply by valkyriethunderbitch
This is such an important point, and it hits at the crucial problem that even when cis people do genuinely try to wrap their brains around trans people, they tend to have trans men and trans women entirely reversed.
When a cis man tries to imagine what it would be like to be trans, invariably that man imagines what it would be like if he “wanted to be woman,” because that’s what many people think trans women are.
Instead, he should be trying to empathize with trans men. He should be thinking about his own childhood and relationship to manhood, and then asking himself how it would have felt if he’d grown up being told he was a girl, forced to wear dresses, never recognized by other boys as a boy, and then experienced the horror of going through the wrong puberty and becoming a giant estrogen factory.
Many cis women, particularly in LGBT spaces, will fall all over themselves trying to empathize and identify with trans men, because the same transmisogyny that tells them that trans women and cis men are connected tells them that cis women and trans men are connected.
Instead, cis women should be asking themselves what it would have been like if they had never been allowed to have their womanhood acknowledged. How would it have felt to grow up being told you were a boy, not allowed to deviate from male stereotypes (often with violent repercussions if you did), always viewed by other women as an icky boy or predatory male, exposed to the utter horror that is being a woman in male spaces where they think no women are around, and had testosterone distort your body irreparably only to have everyone around you use your anatomy and appearance to forever deny your womanhood and where your best possible outcome is to transition and live your life in abject poverty fighting loneliness and dysphoria and surrounded by people who think you’re a disgusting, subhuman monster who should be locked away or put down?
If you want to worry about men pretending to be women, pay more attention to trans men. They are men who are forced to pretend to be women, and while that is immensely fucked up for them to go through, it doesn’t change the fact that they are MEN in WOMEN’S spaces, and many of them take advantage of transmisogynist ideas about gender to stay in those spaces even after coming out and transitioning. Just look at all the trans men at women’s colleges – schools that in most cases will not allow trans women.
Trans women have always been women. Trans women have always been female.
Trans men have always been men. Trans men have always been male.
A trans woman cannot be a “man pretending to be a woman” because by definition we aren’t men and never were.
Reply by thecuckoohaslanded
“exposed to the utter horror that is being a woman in male spaces where they think no women are around”
So many people have no idea how true this is. Almost no statement I have ever read has resonated with me more than this.
One of the arguments certain people (mostly terfs, but dishearteningly often well-meaning feminists who have accidentally been corrupted by terf rhetoric) make about trans women is that we experience “male privilege.” This is a muddy topic, because there are certainly some situations where being socially read as male is a convenience (it is much easier to apply for jobs pre-transition and then transition while employed than it is to apply for jobs during or after the more awkward and difficult parts of transition, as an example).
There can be benefits, here and there. But to call it privilege, especially with the term “male” attached to it, is horribly misleading.
Trans women can, in the earlier parts of our lives, EXIST in male spaces. That does not mean we belong in them. Or feel comfortable anywhere near them. Even if you look outwardly male, being in male spaces is terrifying. Even being in NEUTRAL spaces is terrifying. You are in a constant state of panic around men. And you fear rejection and ostracization from other women – the people you most empathize with and understand, whose personalities and ways of thinking most closely match your own, whose communities you desperately crave to be a part of because that’s where you belong – almost as much as you fear breathing the same air as any man you aren’t comfortably out to, including friends and family. We NEVER feel safe. And we are firsthand witnesses to all the reasons we SHOULDN’T feel safe around men. They’re horrifying. What was so frustrating about the “Locker Room Talk” scandal during the 2016 election, as a trans woman, is that you know from personal experience that it was “anywhere and everywhere outside the earshot of a woman” talk. Dozens of sports teams came forward and said no, we don’t talk like this, we would never say things like this, we would never disrespect women like this. I have never been an athlete. My only experience with locker rooms was required as a high school credit, and made me extraordinarily uncomfortable. I ASSURE you, I have heard talk like this OUTSIDE of the hypermasculine world of sports. The level of total disregard that men have for women’s most basic humanity is STAGGERING. Men don’t see women as less than human. They see women as less than ALIVE, nothing more than usable, disposable objects.
Trans women’s great “privilege” of existing “safely” in male spaces is being exposed to this world and these people up close, alone, (if in a locker room, without most of your clothes, and with all the added shame about your body that comes from that) in a state of absolute terror that ANYTHING about your personality, your mannerisms, your body language, the way you don’t quite fit in with the way they talk, will tip them off that you’re not one of them. Your LIFE depends on whether they notice. That’s not safety. That’s Russian Roulette where you don’t get the option to stop playing, and not only do you not know if or when you might get the bullet, you don’t even know how many bullets are loaded in the first place. Every single interaction with another human being is a trigger being pulled in slow motion, in overwhelming, agonizing detail as you can only wait to find out if you drew a blank.
We spend our lives pretending, often badly, to fit in with these people. Not because we have or want any god damn thing on this earth in common with them, but because the alternative – that they will know we aren’t – fills us constantly with a paralyzing, spine-chilling terror that is almost impossible to describe. Even when real benefits that do come from being read as male (again, this is usually socioeconomic factors), we are constantly, inescapably aware that all of these things come at the expense of our own authenticity. We have to lie to get them. We live in unbearable discomfort with the fact that everything good that happens to us is because other people are making these massively incorrect assumptions or judgments about the kinds of people we are. We live with the fact that everything good could be taken away the second anyone finds out we’re not what they wanted based on our appearance, because often it’s the only way we can survive at all.
Let me rephrase that last part for emphasis, because it’s integral to understanding the core of this issue, and the core of the argument that OP (and the excellent addition) wanted to make. If your takeaway is just ONE part of my addition to this post, let it be this:
Every single interaction we have with another human being is based solely on the value assigned to us based on our physical appearance, and how well we can conform to those expectations, which leaves us feeling suffocatingly, deeply uncomfortable and often terrified for our personal safety and livelihood.
Think about that before you put the words “male privilege” anywhere in a conversation about trans women.
For parts of our lives, we can exist in male spaces. But even in them, we are still always, at our core, women. Everything else is social. Everything else is acting. Trans women pretend to be men until we just can’t take it anymore, and we either live as the women we always were, or one way or another, we die. We can never really be anything other than female.
Womanhood is not the thing trans women have to fake.
Hey y'all! so last year on #Juneteenth I started a lil #reparations thread. Some racist assholes took issue with that...
So this year I'll be making multiple threads throughout the month! It's now June where I am so I'm eager to get started.
Black folks, reply w/ your cashapp venmo ko-fi etc etc if you like.
Other folks, (especially if you're benefitting from the federal holiday) throw them coins if you got the means and *boost replies in the thread for circulation*
hi y'all, i'm deja! i am a 42 year-old queer person of color with disabilities. i am in need … Deja May needs your support for Please help Dej with July rent!
The Islamic Relief family has been providing emergency relief in Africa. With your generous support we can help these families in such desperate need. Donate Now.
I'm a disabled black man currently fighting through American bureaucracy for any support at all, have electric and internet service bills to pay plus need to replace food that was ruined by a refrigerator problem
My situation: can't work due to a medical condition; had my disability payments cut off by my insurance company against my doctor's recommendation; waiting on appeal of my application for SSDI/SSI; no income to pay bills and expenses.
Currently I am in desperate need of $510 right now for paying off overdue utility bills, with service cut offs imminent at any time.
EVERYONE.... PLEASE READ MY PINNED POST, AND THEN, IF YOU CARE ENOUGH, MAKE A DONATION.
IT IS GETTING QUITE DISCOURAGING FACING HAVING MY SERVICES DISCONNECTED BECAUSE I HAVE NO WAY BEYOND CROWDFUNDING TO PAY MY BILLS, AND IMPLYING FROM THE LACK OF RESPONSE THAT I AM BEING SHADOWBANNED OR IGNORED.
im a little late but ty for this thread. i'm a trans disabled artist trying to get stability and medical help. my ca: $adaeandnight venmo: @/adaeandnight and i have commission slots & paypal payments at https://ko-fi.com/princessnecro
Hands down the worst most bullshit thing about Friendica...
No notifications for moderation reports. Only way to know if something has been reported? Gotta manually go check the list (oh and no way to clear items from the list, or do anything with them at all...)
Few months ago I had a rude awakening to this, and then apparently it's been a minute since I last checked (I try and check every time I think of it).
Thankfully the only recent report was a remote server but eww... I hate that it took me that long to block that server.
@Nicolai von Neudeck 🤒🤕 apparently muscular changes as well? I don't have a good grasp of the exact change that makes it happen (no clean write up, and I doubt anyone has done a formal clinical record of it...)
I'm feeling really grateful today and just wanted to share that feeling.
I'm grateful for... * Living in a time when HRT is available * Having easy access to it even though I live in the state of Texas * Being blessed by the boob fairy (46B after 6-months when most trans-femmes are lucky to hit A-cup after 2 years... insert suspense tone for what that means for later) * HRT absolutely demolishing body/hair growth and making everything very manageable * Liking pickles before HRT so it's not as confusing * HRT feminizing my face enough that I feel comfortable going out without makeup * My hair, which was just a short mess before... now just magically grew into a cute bob with zero effort (and this is it's maximum length... I do lament not having longer hair though) * Having an incredibly supportive adoptive family * Skirts, dear god the skirts I've got now are so damn comfy * Randomly knowing how to adjust my voice properly so I skipped voice training entirely * A work from home job that allowed me to easily transition before ever worrying about work * A Christian boss (also owner of the company) who was baffled at the idea I even had something to worry about with coming out at work... in a traditionally conservative industry * Being born it Illinois which makes it trivially easy to update my birth certificate (just waiting on the legal name change documents first so I can do both at the same time)
* being a grower and so small that I don't need to tuck in 90% of cases and couldn't if I wanted to * being grey-ace and not phased by the shrinkage * not really having bottom dysphoria... that shit's expensive AF
Among my many annoyances with copying formatting is when I copy a URI or an address with an '@' in it, and see it in blue, underlined. Did it render it as a hyperlink? Is it just the color and underlining? Did it misinterpret a Fediverse or XMPP address as an email address?
And in general, I think there's a loss of understanding of the virtues of plain text.
"This screenshot could have been the text from the terminal."
@shi Both are needed. Programs that copy should not put formatting there by default in case a badly behaved program uses it, and programs that paste should not paste formatting by default in case a badly behaved program put it there.
This is not just a nice UX matter but a privacy/security one. C&P of formatting is an info leak side channel that exposes sources, process, etc.
Content warning: Original post is too long for Bluesky. Click this to read.
Someone on fedi decided that they'd use their Fedi account as a syndication feed for their blog and switch to Bluesky because nobody (t)here respected her boundaries, which is sad but perfectly understandable. Then some clown replied that they would be blocking her now because Bluesky is pure evil or something and it's like bitch that's what she was talking about. That's the boundary violating behavior.
My #CompSci lecturers often dropped the names of inventors. But only if they were men. We talked about Gordon Moore, obviously Turing 🏳️🌈 was mentioned, about Don Knuth, about Chomsky etc.
But when we discussed the #ARM architecture, we never talked about the inventor *Sophie Wilson*. We also never talked about *Mary Ann Horton*, despite her work on `vi` and `terminfo` -- but of course we mentioned Bill Joy. We discussed the Spanning Tree Protocol, but not its inventor *Radia Perlman*. We have the whole field of #SoftwareEngineering, but who coined the term? *Margaret Hamilton*. We mentioned the ENIAC and v. Neumann, but failed to talk about *Adele Goldstine*. We discussed the origins of #OOP and #Smalltalk but ignored *Adele Goldberg*. We programmed in #Assembly but never talked about the woman who wrote the first #Assembler, *Kathleen Booth*. And don't get me started on #Safari and our sweet @lisamelton ❤ Or any of the (incomplete list) of *Ida Rhodes, Carol Shaw, Shafi Goldwasser, Edith Clarke, Annie Easley, Joyce Little*, ...
And today? Let's talk about our favorite trans woman CPU designer, Lynn Conway.
Lynn developed "generalized dynamic instruction dispatch" for IBM in 1966. 2 years later she was kicked out, just after Robert Tomasulo published the "Tomasulo Algorithm" for out-of-order execution of floating point instructions, utilizing Lynn's work. Everyone knows Tomasulo (and he did great work, mind you!), but no-one knows Lynn.
Later, in technical compsci, you may stumble upon highly integrated circuits, everyone there knows #VLSI, but not the inventor, our dear Dr. Conway.
Her story, her struggle against IBM who took decades to apologize to her for her mistreatment. She transitioned in darker times and pioneered not "only" in compsci. She was what many would call "greater than life". She died a few days ago.
Today, let's remember Lynn 🏳️⚧️, tomorrow we'll fight on ✊
@Hank G ☑️ @lj·rk @Lisa Melton Grace Hopper and Ada Lovelace are the two women CS departments have heard about. *Maaybe* Margaret Hamilton if you're lucky.
Grace Hopper and Ada Lovelace are always mentioned as the two female pioneers in programming, but there are so many more. Thanks for sharing this list; I was not aware of most of them.
people immediately understand when I say “imagine twitter. but instead of one central twitter, there are many. and they can all communicate with eachother so you can see posts from other twitters, but you can have full control over that if you run the twitter you’re a member of. and anyone* can run their own twitter.”
Women’s reproductive rights, contraception, LGBTQ rights, IVF, now this:
The Christian right is coming for divorce next - Vox
“Conservative commentators and lawmakers are calling for an end to no-fault divorce, arguing that it has harmed men and even destroyed the fabric of society.” https://apple.news/AZrx9yMTiQiaZJGSvy9X9Tg
NFL You know what's "destroying the fabric of society"? Shit like this -- imposing antiquated, pseudo-religious, misogynist, paternalist bullshit on the growing majority who don't share those beliefs.
well, yes, because they ran out of causes to keep their base interested, so they keep sliding to the right. I hope November will send them strong FU message.
I have to ask... at what point can Margaret Atwood sue these people for copyright infringement? Obviously they're ripping off the plot of the Handmaid's Tale.
Laffy: They really are coming for that next. I mean, the republican's mere purpose in life is to take all of our rights away. Before we know it, we're back in the 50's, and everything's in black and white... Sounds like some messed up episode of the Twilight Zone. And unlike the Twlight Zone, these republicans have already revealed to us how bad, and ugly on the inside they are. And yet fools will vote for them...
Selfish, abusive, controlling men harmed the “fabric” of society. There were some many ways to create a society but men forced it into a shape which was often imbalanced, heavily manipulated, and unfair to women.
Really it’s mostly white men complaining that their hold on society is weakening because even with every deck stacked in their favor, they’re not winning every game. That’s because they’ve weakened themselves by making things too easy. Unchallenged muscle turns to flab.
Here in Australia we have no-fault divorce. Because when politicians decided to write our divorce laws, they sent a judge to look at US divorce laws. The judge was horrified by the then-current at-fault divorce laws. Private detectives staking out seedy hotel rooms to catch adulterers. Having to prove domestic violence. His recommendations that we definitely didn't need to follow that path is why we had no-fault divorce from the start (1970s?).
amazing that there's a base voting for these regressive rollbacks. absolute bottom of the barrel, and yet you can still make ample cheese from it, it seems. 50% of the country backs this? or is it just 50% of the country's area?
I can’t wait to see how many women would willingly do prison time rather than stay in a marriage they didn’t want to be in. I can tell you with my last relationship (an abusive marriage) I would have done time if it meant I didn’t have to deal with him any longer.
Stay married to an abuser, or make toilet wine in prison with a bunch of other women willing to do time for the same reason? TOILET WINE WINS HANDS DOWN
this is devastating. I remember when no fault divorce was introduced in Australia, sitting around the kitchen table, listening to my mum and her friends discuss a friend who had left a violent husband and another who was hiding stuff at our house getting ready to run. It’s about 50 years ago but I still sense the fear. 😧
Deciding to get divorced was the best decision my parents made for our family. That's one thing both of them could agree on. And believe me, their kids had zero complaints about it. Honestly, that divorce saved lives.
Denying the right to divorce is truly cruel and unusual punishment.
"Republicans Are ‘Running Out of States’ to Pass New Transgender Restrictions" - NYT headline a week ago
It's more than that, though. Their "SAFE" laws, ostensibly passed to protect [cis] women typically included defining "man" and "woman" per their religion. This had the practical effect of a blanket erasure of trans people from public life as far as state law was concerned.
They did something similar with Dobbs.
The GOP is now the dog that caught the car it was chasing, and elections are still four months away. I'm guessing they're either going to flounder or their grandstanding will reach new heights of hyperbole.
The Christian right will then require women to be escorted in public by her husband or brother, to be barred from owning property, when widowed to be married to the brother of her husband, to wear a veil, and to bring a dowry of goats for her husband to herd. They will bring back stoning adultery and heresy. And this time, they will back their threats with weapons of mass destruction. A species can not embrace technology and superstition at the same time and survive.
If it has "harmed men," it must be canceled? Let us look at the effect it has had on women. It seems to have helped them. A great deal. I guess you guys are going to have to find a different way to persuade women to stay with you. Imprisonment doesn't seem to be working.
No fault divorce has saved the lives of many men for whom the only other option their wives might have had could have included additions to their meals.
Sick of how we accept 'conservative' platforms calling themselves that. Preserving the present status quo is conservative. Centrists are conservative. The act of rolling back rights and repealing laws enshrining progress to recreate something that doesn't actually exist anymore is regression, not conservation. They are Regressive commentators and lawmakers.
(snark) Can't we just shoot these people and end this? Hint: It wouldn't work. Would just make them martyrs. However, the oligarchs bankrolling this nonsense would get none of that sympathy. Just a thought for the future.
#PandoraHolmes is being held against her will without access to HRT. Policy is a bridging prescription from DIY, but they are stringing her along and lying, trying to stall until she can't appeal.
This is self-justifying torture. Denied HRT because she's suffering from having her HRT withdrawn. Initially they wanted to hold her two weeks. Now she's facing 6 months. I don't even want to imagine what's next.
An adult is being forcibly detransitioned, in the UK. Make this fucking news everywhere. Before they start opening special camps for trans people.
@mdione He also seems to have ignored the effects of wind; a strong enough air current might have carried the material farther than expected. But that could depend on the shape and density of the material in question, and let's stop here before we all get nerd sniped.
If a bird poops above the caboose of a train leaving Toledo at 15 miles per hour, calculate the speed at which the poop would land on someone wearing a new hat on the platform. Show your work.
There's a male bluebird that sees himself in my passeger side mirror at work. I guess male bluebirds are very territorial and fight other males readily. He flies at my mirror at frightening speed and upon hitting it loses control of his bowels, shitting all over the mirror and my vehicle.
How about the bird just flew into your window and shit itself upon impact. Most likely explanation.🤣
The guys figure out the best way to jerk off an entire room of people most efficiently.All rights owned by HBO. Not my own.I'd like to say a Thanks to HBO fo...
But how far the poop flew through the air? It could be calculated based on the splash area and average shape and density of the poop... that would further reduce possible launching area.
New research calculates the propulsive pressure of penguin waste: Penguins can shoot their poop 4 feet. Finally, scientists are studying the important stuff.
I watched this from beginning to ending, it truly is what the internet was made for. Perhaps a wildlife camera could solve things faster any next time a bird poops on the window.
He did an awful lot of math and modeling but the truth is almost certainly that the bird was flying *through* the porch and bank-pooped onto the window.
Well, the simple explanation: the bird is just dumb as all birds are. Planned to get inside, flew against the window, got scared by crashing into an invisible wall, turned around, let some fear-fart which also ejected some mass and the rest is rocket science. push matter out the back to get a forward boost. so it "shot" only inches or even with direct contact instead of feet.
You know what's great to learn at 38, right before bedtime one night, after a whole life time of struggle...
That your mother traumatized you with ADHD to the point where actually pushing myself against ADHD is a trigger... making it so no amount of coping skills can help me push myself for any real length of time...
I'd try and do something that requires a push, even a little one... and be crying... and I thought it was just the feeling of hitting my dopamine... but nooooo... now I'm unpacking that it was me getting triggered at the feeling of pushing my reserves at all...
That explains so damn much and makes me feel so damn hurt and angry...
I was forced to push myself so far so often as a kid and she didn't ever relent when I was critically over-extended on dopamine... usually around cleaning. I'm remembering so many times crying and sobbing on the floor because she demanded I clean to an extreme standard and I wasn't allowed to do anything else until I met her approval...
And I've been running my whole life fucking kneecapped by this... I thought I just had it worse than most (with ADHD) on my ability to push myself on tasks... but no... it's because I realize now I can't fucking push myself at all because my fucking brain just jumps straight to that extreme pain and trauma right away...
Now I'm fucking crying when I should be trying to sleep...
i spent a sizeable portion of my childhood shut in my room with "you're not coming out until it's clean!" And without guidance on how to clean it.
I push through hard things like this as an adult with the mantra "something is better than nothing" and just chip away at things.
And I sit with my kids when cleaning their room, talk through my process and coach them. That's been really healing, coaching my kids and also my ADHD friends; it's like re-parenting myself!
Fiction idea: Vampires only get weird and spooky if they drink human blood.
In reality, it's commonly accepted that if you eat something similar to yourself, you'll develop diseases (this is a vast oversimplification of kuru and mad cow disease). I propose it's the same for vampires, but since they're relatively immortal, they don't die from it, they just get aggressive, creepy, and obsessive. If they didn't drink human blood, and instead went for animal blood or coconut water, they'd be totally normal.
Bonus points if this work of fiction draws parallels to colonialist mindsets of cleaner societies being "primitive".
there's a group of vampires that were raised to drink only human blood but know that it's wrong and want to stop, there's a cure being worked on but it involves high level experiments and there's lots of sabotage attempts from traditionalists.
@lonerfanatic it does make sense that traditionalism would thwart change, though. Even if the human predators were a minority, they would likely be the most visible, and therefore considered the real ones, or more "pure" vampires. Especially with the stereotypical idea of vampires being what they are. A demand for change would come across as an eradication of vampires.
exactly and some humans might even also be against the progress as it threatens their worldview, thereby literally working against their own interest by working in parallel with their predators. Lots of possibilities
@Princeoflonelymt @emilie_stims ie one of the most promising obvious areas of research is stem cells just creating blood, or other cloning adjacent research with all of todays arguments...
Also the "vampires are always evil" crowd, who will send hunters after the ones researching (killing the ones specifically wanting to find a way to not harm you)
@cstross I really, *really* can't get on board with the original poster's conclusion though. This is entirely Apple's fault for having removed the standard analog audio port and left only a proprietary one requiring paying them to make a product for it; they set the incentives here entirely. And of course this also won't be a long-term problem because they've been thankfully forced by the EU to change that lone port to an actual standard one, so third-parties won't have to so resort.
@sn0n seriously. to experience that and then think "gosh I hope apple uses their infinite billions to crush these people" feels like ... you were close, and then suddenly you were very not
The people here is tech savvy in a very different way that this engineer is: they mostly don’t care about what the underlying technology should do, they just care about solving a problem.
In UX we call that “Jobs to be done”. You are in the wrong here, my guy.
The engineer is offended by "cost cutting work-around" because wired headphones "shouldn't" need BT.
Shades of racism and techno superiority over folks who don't understand tech details.
Some folks are mad at Apple for removing functional old-tech audio jacks that "just worked" in favor of capturing money via licensing leads to clever, but deceptive hacks.
Entitled dude bro, Apple is greedy, people are clever, scammers gonna scam.
Am I the only one wondering why he didn't ALSO complain about Apple deleting the headphone port and requiring manufacturers to use an expensive, due to Apple's licensing requirements, and incompatible solution?
In my mind the problem lies with Apple. Not with the people figuring out workarounds for Apple breaking their existing wired headphone business.
It's not the port, it's the licensing fee. """While Apple doesn't issue a price sheet publicly it's been widely reported as $4 per lightning connector - and that in the past it's been as much as $10 per device. Feb 1, 2020""" @jackwilliambell
They aren't paying for the audio port license and chip. (Yeah, it requires a special chip to decode the audio.) Turns out a Bluetooth chip is cheaper.
ETA: I misspoke. The chip is to authenticate the adapter. But the power lines are always up even if you don't authenticate.
Related: See European Commission proposed laws to require all electronic devices to support USB-C – this anti-competitive move by Apple is one of the reasons.
@jackwilliambell @trouble I remember thr EU mandating USB-C charging so we didn't have to buy a whole new set of chargers and cables when a new device had a different charging port. Is this something else?
Note that the alt text has one passage repeated twice, and hence is missing some content. Quote:
" I return it all, run to catch my plane, and spend half the flight wondering what planet I'm on. Until finally back home, I do some research and figure out what's going on:
A scourge of cheap "lightning" headphones and lightning accessories is flooding certain markets, unleashed by unscrupulous Chinese manufacturers who have discovered an unholy recipe:
True Apple lightning devices are more expensive to make. So instead of conforming to the Apple standard, these companies have made headphones that receive audio via bluetooth — avoiding the Apple specification — while powering the bluetooth chip via a wired cable, thereby avoiding any need for a battery.
They have even made lightning adapters using the same recipe: plug-in power a fake lightning dongle that uses bluetooth to transmit the audio signal literally 1.5 inches from the phone to the other end of the adapter.
In these remote markets, these manufacturers have no qualms with slapping a Lightning / iPhone logo on the box while never mentioning bluetooth, knowing that Apple will never do anything. " @cachondo
After one of the owners died, work has been struggling with not having admin access to some of our systems, namely Google Workspace.
We finally got that access... so now I've sent the email to my boss about my name change. I verified with my boss a month or two ago that he's not going to fire me for being trans (it's actually a cute story...), that way I could safely start the legal name change process... but I've been holding off on otherwise being "out" at work because of this account thing...
So finally sent an email to my boss about the new name... it's the last place where I wasn't out!
You know what I want? A Hades and Persephone design, where Hades is just some emo dude, but Persephone is this primordial, hulking mass of vines and tree bark.
I made something to scratch an itch that's been bugging me for years... will save me a lot of time and trouble on some of my work (and possibly personal) projects...
(For anyone wondering my current use case, I have a tool I wrote for work that's sitting on top of peewee and sqlite and it's been a massive pain to expand it out... this isn't something super special, but for the 20k-40k or so entries this should do just fine searching/querying/etc, even before adding indexing... and it'll make rebuilding my toolkit faster as well as easier to maintain since there's no firm structure to the resulting database)
Want to learn real quick that "leftist" does not automatically mean "good person" or "free from bigotry"?
Call them out on body shaming or misgendering monsters.
It's also a painful reminder that so much "acceptance" is just performative.
If you think I'm valid for being fat, but then insult a monster for being fat, it tells me that you never actually saw me as valid.
If you think my gender transition is valid, but then purposefully misgender an awful trans person, it tells me that you never saw my transition as valid.
Because if these things are true and valid, then being an awful person wouldn't matter!
This is the first mostly negative design critique, so I'm gonna lay out a ground rule: I won't dock points for what could be considered an artistic choice. For example… No: "These aren't SF Symbols so this is wrong" Fair game: "This form field transition is dog shit"
Just for fun, I listed out every single view transition that happens during onboarding, including every fake-out the app does. This is the UI version of telling a story to your friend but going on constant tangents and finishing the story 20 onboarding steps later.
Since this is someone's first impression of your app, it's SO important to show a clear navigational hierarchy. Where views come from, what happens when they get dismissed, etc. When sheets slide in and out and content flashes for half a second, that mental model quickly rots.
Let's talk about the first onboarding, since this is the most widely applicable. It has you accept EULA, analytics, & grant location. It lists what location gets used for, but none are immediately useful. This should not be here — ask for permission when the user wants a feature.
Frankly, this entire step can be cut. Merge the EULA acceptance into some other action ("by continuing, you agree to blah blah blah") and just choose a default for analyics. Stick the toggle in settings.
I'm fine with the core login flow, it just needs WAY fewer transitions. It seems like the cross fade is the common denominator when the experience chokes up. Cut fade transitions altogether and less intrusive ways to show progress. Maybe show spinners in buttons, instead.
Security has been a huge painpoint for the NUX (new user experience) here. It often is, but there are so many possibilities to make this suck a little less. Here are all of the security settings:
A lot of banks and similar entities have security setups like this. And that sucks big time. Because we know that SMS and email one-time passwords are not super secure, the onus is on the user to: 1. Have a random unique password, and 2. Not get SIM swapped or email breached
The lowest of low-hanging fruit is to allow time-based one-time passwords (TOTP) to let something like 1Password handle that for you. But ideally, they would forgoe this entirely and support passkeys. So with the changes so far, this is what onboarding could look like:
Speaking of nonsense banking apps do, this drives me up the wall: After a cold start, it throws up the login screen and starts a biometric auth session. Entirely unnecessary. Determine sensitive parts of the app and require auth to unlock them for the rest of the session.
And whenever `applicationWillResignActive` is called, the app will flicker out whatever screen you're looking at and replace it with a blank logo. Again, this kinda makes sense for sensitive screens. But beyond that, **it's just security theater**. This looks fucking awful:
Moving onto the more skin-deep stuff. The app uses tab navigation: -Overview -Insurance -Claims -Finances -More
The selection state for a tab is just shifting from gray to red. If you grayscale the screen, it's the same shade. I'd give the selected tab a filled icon variant
In the Overview tab, the header said "Good evening" at 4:30 PM. Whatever. I digress. I get three sections in this tab: - Upcoming bills (useful) - Hints & tips (useless) - Offers & discounts (ads)
Get rid of this tab, move upcoming bills into Insurance, and make it the default.
Also, one of the "Hints & tips" was advertising new features in the app. When you tap the card, it yanks up a sheet with a card advertising a new feature. Why...why isn't this just the top level card. Why was this sheet necessary.
I'm still waiting for my policy to kick in, so this card says pending. I'm baffled by this card. The status dot should be significantly larger. Also, there is no reason for the policy category to be in a chip. Put it loose in the card, no container. Just raw dog it.
Right under that policy card, there's a prompt to visit the document center. This could probably use some better copy (why would I want to visit that? it sounds boring. what's in it for me) but the real thing I want to point out is error handling.
If you're going to advertise something at the second-to-top level of your app, you better make sure it fails gracefully. I've done nothing weird to screw with the app AND YET it throws this ugly technical error at me. I'm guessing because I have no documents. Make an empty state.
In fairness, there is an empty state when you dismiss that error and proceed anyway. I've slowed down the video to ¼ speed so you can see this animation: to make room for the segmented control, everything BUT the description slides down. But the description is the same copy 🤷♂️
Here's just a standard empty state. The description text is leading aligned, but the image and button are both centered. Easy fix: center the stack, center align the description text, reduce the prominence of the CTA.
If you've used SwiftUI, you'll be familiar semantic toolbar item placements. destructiveAction, navigation, etc. These exist because we've been conditioned to expect certain button types in certain positions. So imagine my surprise when I saw Log out in the confirmation position
Make log out a destructive bottom, position it to the bottom of the list, rename "Close" to "Done" and put it in the confirmation position. Boom, fixed your nav bar.
There are a few screens where navigation titles compete with some arbitrary heading in the view. Avoid having two headers of the same visual prominence right next to each other.
Okay. I've done enough free work for State Farm Insurance Inc. The point of this being: these are all papercuts. Nothing fundemental. Just little things that worsen the experience. Take some time to audit your project for these things. I promise you'll be better off because of it
btw, Lickability (where I normally write these threads) did not endorse this or anything, this is literally just me kvetching about an app that has been forced into my life.
more design threads are planned for @lickability as well as here!
I just signed up for the umpteenth EV charging plan. App asked me three times for phone number and address, sabotaging autofill of course. Anything car related seems to be bottom of the barrel.
I appreciate seeing a nice critique. This all, to me, felt like a classic "we have 5 teams working on this app but no single person driving the overall UX or CX but we delivered software" situation. What happens when no one looks at the whole thing? Mostly this.
@grishka this whole blog post I found while writing this thread is absolute poison. This doesn't secure anything, this just makes tinkering (and, in all likelihood, developing workarounds for a shitty app) more of a pain in the ass. https://medium.com/adessoturkey/ios-app-security-96c32ba4e036
Nowadays, security stands as a top-priority subject within the IT industry. Both individual users and corporations are displaying an increasing awareness of the concepts of data security and privacy…
Along the same lines are those banking/brokerage apps that cue up a “You’ve been logged out” push/local notification if you don’t explicitly log out yourself.
If I’m automatically logged out… that’s good! I don’t need to be told about it.
@jeff In Fidelity’s app years ago, if you return back from the app switcher after any amount of time, it would sign you out and you would get a non-dismissable alert “You have been signed out. Please log back in."
and you just couldn't dismiss it. you had to force quit the app.
@2happy1sad it depends on the implementation! I’m not sure about enforceability of browse wrap (vs click wrap) agreements in the EU/under GDPR. In US case law, this example from Uber was enough for the court to enforce the agreement.
Got some questions about a critique I gave on this app last night about the EULA acceptance screen, so I figured I'd break this out. Do you have any opinions on these methods for mandatory legal agreements before using a product/service? I made a quick mockup representing their current design and the type of design I argued for.
Please tell me this is satire. 😫 If it's not satire, I can't believe we need a new term to express that a lunch *break* is a supposed to be an actual break.
@FeralRobots @capsulejay satire but at the same time, lots of American jobs don’t let workers eat or go to the bathroom for hours or shifts. Amazon drivers infamously have to pee in bottles while driving
@FeralRobots @capsulejay 🎶I am the very model of a model employee I never leave my shuttle, can’t afford to pay those fees My overtime does overtime, I work nine days a week And I never hit that bottle til it’s time to take a pee🎶
"Gadzooka what's next! Quiet peeing, Quiet pooping, during work hours no less! This practice must stop! You should have done this before you left for your slave shift... I mean before your work shift!" 😬 🙄 😜
People should go to Paris around lunch time. Wine, stemware, tablecloths, cutlery, loaves of bread, and stunning food comes out. NOTHING of work interferes with Parisian and generally European meals. The US #NeedsToLearn and #NeedsToGrowTheFuckUp
it's a reference to "quiet quitting" where people just stop coming to work without notice. For these bosses, coming to work isn't even enough, because they're telling each other that lunch break is "quiet nourishing."
Millennials are quiet living. They leave at the end of the work day to go home and be with their families and they aren't picking up the phone when their bosses call at with a 7pm emergency pdf issue.
"99% of the Fortune 500 C-level execs we interviewed totally fucking hate that millennials are not spending enough in diamonds, yachts, lavish wedding parties, or creative financial instruments of wildly speculative portfolios. The other 1% is Warren Buffet, who doesn't give a fuck and will always find a way to profit from you anyway. We know because they tell us what to print."
The best kinds of workers know if they pleasure their blessed benefactors enough with increased productivity by refusing the destructive, selfish impulse for nourishment during time that does not belong to them, they can expect a quarterly reward of one slice of cold pineapple and squid pizza from the most economically-focused pizzaesque establishment within range of their manager’s busted-ass Subaru Waaaay Outback.
I’m surprised they don’t call it communist eating or something like this, because it’s basically what people in Europe do. Ok maybe 20 minutes is a bit short.
dont tell them about Europe where you can sometimes get 2 hour lunch breaks 5 weeks paid vacation, plus other holidays, and still be among the most productive countries on the planet.
@bbbhltz When people join my team, I tell them to go and look at productivity studies. Across different industries (I originally thought this was solely for knowledge workers, but I recently chatted to a researcher who has reproduced the same result in the construction industry), they all show roughly the same shape:
Productivity increases up to 20 hours a week.
It then plateaus up to 40.
It then starts to decrease and is typically negative by about 60.
This is the total net productivity, not the delta. If you are working 60 hour weeks, you would probably be more productive if you just stayed in bed all day.
For programmers, just think about how long it takes to fix a bug that you introduced when you were tired. Fixing mistakes (in any field) is often slow and expensive. Reducing the likelihood of making mistakes is usually much cheaper,
This is for sustained periods. People can often be productive for a 60-hour week if they are well rested, so if you have a one-off urgent deadline, it *may*be okay to work longer hours to meet it, as long as you take enough time off to recover. Averaged out (factoring in the recovery time), this tends to be less productive overall (ignoring the secondary impacts on people who have other commitments, like to see their families, and so on), so it’s generally a bad idea.
I want the most productive 20 hours of each employee each week. I don’t care when they happen (I’ve worked with some people who find they are most productive 2-4am, and that’s fine). Employees are responsible for getting enough rest to make sure that they can be productive for 20 hours each week.
I wrote our vacation policy to be explicit about the point of leave. It is not a gift from the company. It is not a reward for good behaviour. It is an obligation from the employees to the company to ensure that their brains are taken care of so that they can be productive. My contract (which is the model for new employees) has a minimum amount of leave I must take each year and a maximum time I can go without taking at least two days of leave.
The book I most recommend to new managers is PeopleWare and the most important point in that book is that, as a manager, it is not your job to make people work. Most people take pride in their work and want to do it well. Your job is to remove obstacles that stop them from being able to do good work. I don’t think it goes quite far enough because sometimes the biggest obstacle is the employee. If you’re hiring smart and motivated people, the most likely failure mode is that they work too hard and don’t notice their productivity dropping off. Sometimes you have to force them to take a week off (and you need a leave policy that supports you in doing so).
Sorry for the long rant, I haven’t had coffee yet and bad management annoys me, even when it’s depressingly accurate satire.
It really sounds like everyone else is butt-hurt that they didn't think of having a life outside of work first. These bullshit articles and their enablers on LInkedIn are the problem.
i have a new fundraiser for july rent: https://gofund.me/e7857208
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, crysterious, Dr. Mikaila, just adrienne and Dweebish like this.
wendinaokland
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Shiri Bailem
in reply to wendinaokland • •wendinaokland likes this.
wendinaokland
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Shiri Bailem
in reply to wendinaokland • •wendinaokland
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Shiri Bailem
in reply to wendinaokland • •@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!
wendinaokland likes this.
wendinaokland
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Shiri Bailem likes 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
Elénna, healing, tiphphin, Rachel Evans, spiegelmama, Jeremy Mallin, Weltschmerz à Gogo, aby - is gay, does crimes, Dan Howell, tuoba denrael, TinheadNed, 『-𝚍𝚜𝚛-』, crysterious, novatorine 🏴🏳️⚧️, the last heron, Robert, A. Lynn, Eduardo Padoan ☕, Nicolai von Neudeck 🤒🤕, 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 🌈, telpeverellë, reazonozaer, Cyber Trans Punk (It/They): The hidden arc, ✅Joe Stalin 1917 🇰🇵🇮🇷🇵🇸 🇨🇺🇨🇳, the helmet isn't working, jocanib, noahnah, Senil :maitai:, Divorcewing Duck, Brian Tatosky, AnCuRuadh ΔΘ :verified_trans:, Baron Heave PurpleStink, Jay :QueerCatMorning_Trans:, Tim is wearing a mask 🌈, Vera "Eat the Rich" Lycaon and 34 other people like this.
reshared this
ReimanSaara, Jeremy Mallin, tuoba denrael, 『-𝚍𝚜𝚛-』, crysterious, novatorine 🏴🏳️⚧️, NeonSnake, lucapette, PH1BE5, Katja, Mike Richman, Richard Brockie, 🤖, miramarco, chainsaw ma'am 🩸, Jonathan Beverley, Ember :autism:, Erik, 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, A Scrungular Man, lux :flag_nonbinary:🦊ΘΔ, Flatbush Gardener 🌈, Zach Fine, telpeverellë, Cyber Trans Punk (It/They): The hidden arc, ✅Joe Stalin 1917 🇰🇵🇮🇷🇵🇸 🇨🇺🇨🇳, the helmet isn't working, noahnah, Rebecca Fielding-Miller, AnCuRuadh ΔΘ :verified_trans:, Baron Heave PurpleStink, Jay :QueerCatMorning_Trans:, fluffy 💜, Johannes Silverfox 🦊, Reinder Dijkhuis Does Art, In This ＨＯＵＳＥ,, Nonny, problematic height gap, cuttlefish, 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:, Cas, average anthocyanin enjoyer, Chele and Quin~Kara reshared this.
'Spooky' Johnny
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Shiri Bailem likes 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 sprouting 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 "parody" sparks, deco, Nauga Clown, just adrienne and Dweebish like this.
The Doctor reshared this.
Shiri Bailem
Unknown parent • •Content warning: religious history
@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: 🥇Pond Slurper :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
🤖 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: https://foggyminds.com/display/c6ef095f-1864-c4b5-e122-cfb887278714
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.
like this
Nicolai von Neudeck 🤒🤕 and just adrienne like 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.
Zach Fine
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Zach Fine
in reply to Zach Fine • • •Glyph
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •My Jewish Faith Makes Me Pro-abortion
Danya Ruttenberg (The Atlantic)Shiri Bailem likes this.
Zach Fine
in reply to Zach Fine • • •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
in reply to Zach Fine • •@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
in reply to Zach Fine • •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!
https://foggyminds.com/display/c6ef095f-1864-c4b5-e122-cfb887278714
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 • • •Content warning: religion
CaptMorgan
in reply to CaptMorgan • • •Content warning: religion
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 • •Content warning: religion
@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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Judaism#Reform_Judaism
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 "parody" 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.
DemocritusDiscoBall
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Shiri Bailem likes this.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to DemocritusDiscoBall • •DemocritusDiscoBall likes this.
DemocritusDiscoBall
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Shiri Bailem likes this.
DemocritusDiscoBall
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Like forfend popped out just now?
Why? Couldn’t tell ya, but it’s why I’m a much better writer than talker lol.
My best one of late was intransigent intelligence. Think the asd helps with popping the right sounds n meaning out at the right time.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to DemocritusDiscoBall • •@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"
DemocritusDiscoBall
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •You would hope, but many people don’t continue to do research when they get disapproval, hate for it. In that case it was in reference to D Elisabeth Glassco who posts here as @Deglassco, about Black history, specifically all teh bs book banning etc GOP is pulling out to cover up the history of slavery.
People like her have the fortitude and intelligence to fight through the bs, read the hard hateful truth, and share with us. We need more brave, smart people to fight the good fight.
Shiri Bailem likes this.
DemocritusDiscoBall
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Intransigent unwilling to change one’s point of views, even under pressure
Intelligence, smart enough to see the truth.
So you need them both in how I mean the phrase. Because when you start talking about how life really is, you often get a LOT of hate from small minded authoritarians.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to DemocritusDiscoBall • •@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.
Jared Forsyth
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Marge Wu 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 Wu 吴静玫 like this.
Naomi
in reply to Zach Fine • • •@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 🟣, Nicolai von Neudeck 🤒🤕 and just adrienne like 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)
Nicolai von Neudeck 🤒🤕 likes this.
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 • •like this
Nicolai von Neudeck 🤒🤕 and ראַף 🟣 like this.
Shiri Bailem
Unknown parent • •Nicolai von Neudeck 🤒🤕 likes this.
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
in reply to Zach Fine • • •assertchris
in reply to CaptMorgan • • •Content warning: religion
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 • •Content warning: religion
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, sprouting Ske-lil-ton 🌱, novatorine 🏴🏳️⚧️, gim is now slutty on main, 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 • •@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 • •@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: https://youtu.be/W3oUqKUx2o0
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 • •@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.