Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)D
Posts
0
Comments
347
Joined
1 yr. ago

  • Jesus literally contradicted those passages, both in His most famous teaching (Matthew 22:34-40) and in the "why we can eat bacon cheeseburgers" post-resurrection vision in Acts 10.

    The most straightforward reconciliation of this is to posit that the pre-Christian israelites either did not preserve God's law as recorded by Moses after breaking the original tablets, or that Moses himself introduced errors when he carved the second set.

    Most Jews and Christians don't require their cloaks to have tassels or religiously mandate fields of monoculture crops or demand that men and women have entirely separate fashion. And even if you did, the most common form of trans-gender expression is to adopt the clothes of said gender, so mere transgenderism doesn't violate Deuteronomy 22:5 (or 23:2, which is either abelsim or ethnic bigotry and doesn't even apply to bottom-surgery transexuals.)

    (It's between you and God if you believe in Him or not, FWIW. Im happy to answer any other questions you'd like to ask.)

  • Agreed completely.

    There are folk for whom reductio ad absurdum is a personal attack, and those for whom it's a perfectly reasonable form of asking for refinement.

    To pick an easy example -- if we support neo-genders, we absolutely should treat someone who claims to "identify as an attack helicopter" as such and strive to use their claimed neo-pronouns. (Thankfully, one doesn't need to support neo-genders to respect trans-gender and a-gender individuals or those unsure of their gender ).

  • It's inhumane to deny the humanity of inhumane humans.

    English is a funny language.

  • Eww. It's a LLM travel agent.

  • So, the people in companies pushing and making this AI slop treat it like toxic waste, and the author thinks that they're the problem?

    I suddenly want to look at his AI map thingy and see how bad it is.

  • The only almost exception is in response to sea-lioning, when the request for an explanation is made in bad faith

    But that's what LMGTFY links are for.

    http://lmgtfy2.com/?q=sealioning

  • This is why "I'm not going to explain it to you" is the biggest and reddest of all the red flags.

    Ignorance is the natural state of all humans, and the whole point of language is so that you can help reduce that natural ignorance!

  • If we're talking re-enacting the way the folks who wear historish costumes and blank-fire muskets at each other mean it, then the cutoff is "whatever the last war was fought locally and then ended."

    If you mean it the way the folks who wear even sillier costumes, drink, and walk around with swords mean it, then the cutoff is "whenever the clothes we want to wear were last plausibly worn."

    If you mean it the way a TV reporter, producer, or academic might mean it, however, there's no cutoff beyond "isn't happening now.". (There's a famous story about someone who won the lottery after playing on a whim, was egged on by a reporter to re-enact buying the ticket, and won again.)

  • That's not a religion paper. Those actually cite the numbered verses or church decrees that support their position.

    (And, just to be clear, you can't cite any Bible verses about Jesus being transphobic because He wasn't. All the gospels report Him saying are "don't stone adulterers", "divorce and emotional cheating are bad", and "love each other as you love yourselves".)

  • You're abusing the word "may" here to a degree that's unnecessary.

    It's like saying the US civil war "may" have been about slavery, or that Trump "may" be really old.

  • No. I'm a happily married alcohol-and-caffine-only boring dad-guy.

    Definitely a computer nerd, though.

  • Is this a graph of "report negative opinions about homosexuality", or "think homosexuality should be illegal."

    The former is just freedom of speech ("freedom to say something dumb and bigoted"), while the latter is a public policy concern.

  • Excluding clone-troopers and only in live acted Star Wars, Stormtroopers (sometime from off screen) have hit:

    1. All kinds of rebels on various planets in "Andor"
    2. A whole bunch of rebels in "rogue one"
    3. A bunch of rebels on the Tantive IV
    4. Leia (with a stunner) on the Tantive IV
    5. All those poor Jaws, plus Luke's family.
    6. The hull of the millennium falcon (to no effect)
    7. A bunch of rebels on Hoth
    8. C-3P0 in cloud city
    9. Luke's lightsaber blade in cloud city
    10. Leia on endor's forest moon
    11. R2D2 on endor's forest moon
    12. At least a few ewoks on endor's forest moon.
    13. Din Djarin's beskar armor
    14. A bunch of other mandaloroans and extras
    15. Some of those turtle-riding aliens in a distant galaxy in "Asoka"
    16. A bunch of innocent villagers on Jaku
    17. Poe's parked X-wing (to great effect!)
    18. Poe in the arm
    19. Rei's lightsaber blade a bunch of times
    20. The hull of the millennium falcon (again, to no effect)

    I think stormtroopers are more effective than Klingons, federation red-shirts, or the borg.

  • I didnt dismiss it entirely. I merely noted that the part I read includes a solid example of the biggest complaint against the grey lady over the past several years : that they parrott Republican attacks without challenge or clarification.

    The part I paraphrased wasn't "incoherence" -- it's an analogy specially chosen to outrage and motivate Republican voters, which was printed "above the fold" and may well have gone unchallenged in the whole rest of the article.

    And while the bylined author presumably as you say a wholesome journalist who would never cause such distortion, they're also an employee and not responsible or empowered to edit, format, or headline their work.

  • I got through about the first four paragraphs, and there were obvious bad-faith Republican attacks. To paraphrase and edit:

    "This fraud's total potential revenue [over an unstated number of years] was greater than the state spent on prisons [for a single year]."

    No objections to most of the rest of what you said, but this article is definitely a Republican slant pretending to be impartial.

  • Does anyone want to go past the paywall to find if this is anything more than the NYT doing their "parrot Republican attacks without nuance" trick?

  • Because the killings are targeted actions that are arguably justifiable in the face of tyrannical action.

    If a story broke about a criminal gang who all wore identifiable colors and claimed the right to stop anyone you saw and bully them to the point of death, you'd demand that effective (violent) action be taken to stop them. But because the gang is "the police" and nominally controlled by elected officials and the courts, there is a public policy reason to treat both their misbehavior and the public reactions thereto as something categorically different.

    (I'd be all in for abolishing police costumes and requiring them to act only within the bounds of permissable behavior for the rest of us, FWIW )

  • I got all the way to "as I've been writing about for years .." before I clocked this as something I won't bother to finish.

    Humans as a species have never listed as the lead quote implies. We're a shallow species whose interpersonal communication is far more of a handshake than a learned debate. If you go against someone else's notions you may, at best, get them to remember a short phrase. (And if you're really lucky and repeat a phrase a few times, it may even be one that accurately reflects your position!)

  • Sex in heaven is really good, but gets boring after awhile.