The part of Reddit that I DO miss are the video subs. Like WTF, mildly interesting, why were they filming, etc. From my understanding, let me isn’t able to host videos but why not drop links to vids🤷🏿♂️
I’ll be honest, I am still browsing Reddit, though in a more limited fashion. I deleted all my submissions and comments and refuse to post or comment, no matter how strong the urge to correct misinformation regarding topics I am interested in is. Communities for those topics are generally non-existent, got created and withered within a month of the 3rd-Party-Exodus, or in the case of /r/leagueoflegends and its local mirrors, are generally carried by the eSport scene and there is generally no decent discussion to be had outside of that. And I don’t even know if one of the League communities here even does post-match threads.
I noticed a massive drop of quality after the api changes (though it’s been declining for a couple years now) and after a while I just realized there is no point, so I mostly only kept subreddits related to my country. The balance of repost bots/trolls/idiots/people who think saying the same joke a million times is funny vs. people you actually can converse with really started outweighing the latter ever since covid hit and Reddit got even more popular (it was on a slow decline regardless). The api changes just made everything even worse.
I’d like to think things here will be better, and to be honest I’m really liking Lemmy so far.
The quality of reddit posts outside of niche communities or events has tanked a lot. Most of the stuff at the top is AITA(H), the most basic questions, and reposts, with some short video clips and the occasional comic. Doesn’t help that it is known that someone is using LLMs for bot accounts.
Agree on communities over here getting created during the exodis, seeing a small surge, and then kind of withering. I’m subbed to 15ish communities that aren’t even all that niche (3D printing, photography, woodworking) and it’s rare that they all get one post per day. There are obviously people lurking because posts will get comments, but I think we’re all a little wary of being the person to post a bunch of content for fear of no one else doing so.
The people on here on are on mighty high horses but don’t realize they’re still in the children’s section. It’s so cringey. I want to hate reddit but the lemmings here are sometimes vomitable. Stop comparing redditors. Redditors are YOU, just earlier or later. You were a redditor before! If you weren’t, then you crawled out of some miracle vaginal and found your way to the lemmyverse.
Do y’all just order fast food on Uber eats, I don’t get it? 50% of the time I order like Vietnamese, Indian or Japanese. Not McDonalds lol. Costs like 15€ (edit: +5€ delivery, I forgot since I had some 0 cost program once) instead of 3-4€ self cooked but it’s usually some Sunday afternoon where I am too lazy to get up and do anything myself.
Tbf, now that I’ve jumped over here and gotten comfortable, its nice that lemmee itself isnt abusive, but good god are the communists here fucking retarded. And I say this as someone who liked the ideals of communism. Its like how I liked the Idea of Telsas until I met Tesla owners
Edit: Lmao the most controversial part of this statement is merely one of the words I used. One of the things I appreciate about Lemmy is that it shows both the up and downvotes
Since I have been a child the word retard has NOT been used for people with developmental disabilities, it has only ever been used to describe people who’ve done something incredibly stupid that they had the capacity not to do. In fact, I have worked with low and high functioning people with developmental disabilities, and one of the high function people actually told me to use the word when he’s being stupid, as I was using the word goof before, and that had unfortunate prison meanings that the resident didnt like.
My roommate is autistic and was in the special classes. He thinks it’s funny to be called a retard when he’s, you know, being retarded. He actively tells me not to stop doing it. Hell, he’s the one who told me it was fine to begin with, haha
Hey! It doesn’t matter if people say they are ok with it! White people are fixing the world by doing nothing but creating limitations to how we speak! Can’t you understand how that’s better?
Look at Latin-x and how it isn’t usable by anyone that actually speaks Spanish and was entirely conceived of by rich kids in universities in America! It’s just obviously better when we let others define our entire interactions with the world and immediately get upset to try to shame anyone not conforming to the point that shame isn’t even usable because no one feels it anymore.
Nah man, I’m just not down for constantly keeping up to date with the treadmill of what words are and arent appropriate… especially for insults, which have never been meant to be appropriate. I dont fucking care if your feelings are so fragile that relatively tame words can hurt you
Someone knowing using hurtful, bigoted language and claiming they didn't "mean it like that" is asinine and disingenuous. Using deliberately incorrect terminology nearly everyone will misinterpret and then complaining when they do is placing yourself upon a cross. It's a pathetic level of discourse usually outgrown by middle school.
You’re assuming barely anyone keeps up with what the minority of people decide isn’t okay to say anymore. Twitter isn’t the world. Lemmy isn’t the world. Reddit isn’t the world. There may be millions of users, but the average person doesn’t give a shit about any of these platforms.
If you think ableist pejoratives targeting neurodivergences and metal impairments are only present on social media, you need to touch some fucking grass. That shit hasn't been OK in decades. South Park even did an apologetic episode on it more than a decade ago which means the discussion was mainstream. And you should 100% not be taking social cues from that show.
Then that's a more honest response than your earlier one. It's not that you don't understand that others may be hurt by your language even though it's not a word you personally ever used to describe developmental disabilities, it's just that you don't give a shit.
Good on you for owning it (on the second try), I guess.
I dont fucking care if your feelings are so fragile that relatively tame words can hurt you
You mean like developmentally disabled people you work with who may have good reasons to be sensitive about certain words? I guess since one of those people said he was cool with it he speaks for all of them. I'm sure none of them have ever been hurt by hateful people using the R word about them.
Nah man, I’m just not down for constantly keeping up to date with the treadmill of what words are and arent appropriate… especially for insults
50+ years old and in my entire life this isn't something I've found to be mentally taxing to keep up with. This is truly the flimsiest excuse I've ever seen for using shitty language. Just stick with "I don't fucking care."
Do you really not know that people can have multiple different reasons and motivations for their behaviours and actions? I’ve been honest this entire time, there are slurs I absolutely wont use because of their history and the immediate harm they cause, but retard isnt one of them, so my earlier explaination still stands. Its also true that people that get offended on others behalf annoy me and I dont care when I offend them. If I PERSONALLY offend someone for something that they PERSONALLY struggle with? I care in that scenario and I mark it down mentally to adapt to their needs and not hurt them again. You are a stranger on the internet, I dont care about you, I dont have the emotional space to. I didnt casually use the spicy word, I used it specifically as an insult towards people who I’ve been dealing with dogshit takes from. To be clear, I NEVER called any of my clients Retard, and this client I only did for them, after they requested it, and even then it made me uncomfortable because using that word to refer to someone with developmental disabilities IS gross. Nuance exists. And yes, I’m tired of the treadmill. I have Aspergers syndrome and now the treadmill is trying to tell me that not only did the DSM take that diagnosis away, I’m now not allowed to refer to my high functioning autism as Aspergers since the guy whom it was named after was a nazi, even though my autism has NEVER BEEN about that guy, and IM THE PERSON WHO HAS the diagnosis.
I can capitalise whatever letters I damn well please, and like I said in another reply, insults by their nature have never been appropriate, and by their very nature are frowned upon.
You know, not too long ago the same argument you’re making was made for the word cunt with regard to sexism instead of ableism. Just food for thought is all.
In this instance being a cunt to the idiots was my exact point. I dont care for their stupid ass opinions, and I dont for yours. IRL I make it a point to avoid people as sensitive as you as its more rewarding to spend my time around people who arent as fragile and sensitive
lmao, if the word Retard is too scary for you, what makes you think cunt will scare me off the internet. I’m perfectly capable of just blocking you when I get tired of thos conversation
It’s not the word that I give a shit about; I just abhor people that opt to not attempt to use a modicum of respect when talking to other people. That word offends people for very specific reasons, and I (and most other people) phased it out of using it as a pejorative a long time ago.
If you want to act like a fucking child; keep on keeping on. You should block me now.
From the perspective of God the delineation between good and evil is a human perspective, not necessarily God’s.
A similar point of view would be if a person sets a rule for a child or maybe a pet. The person strictly enforces this rule, but openly breaks the rule because it does not apply to them. The child or pet meet feel that they are being treated unjustly and categorize breaking of the rules as being wrong. Making the child go to bed at bedtime or not allowing the pet to eat certain foods.
What many atheists do not understand is that human logic does not apply to God(s), just like the feelings of my dog wanting a slice of pizza do not apply to me.
Is God evil, probably, what is evil? What is good? Is God just? In application to others if you’re following Christian ideology he theoretically is in the long term, but in application to their self definitely not.
The biggest problem I have with Atheist logic is that if there is a god that it should follow human logic and because there is suffering and issues in the world there must be no god or that God isn’t worth following. If after life beliefs are correct do you think it matters if you took a moral high ground against an unfair god?
If you’re an atheist because you don’t believe there is a god then cool, but if you are an atheist because you think God should follow our rules idk what to say for you.
The same goes for religious people, you have to accept that God let’s bad things happen to you.
The simple obvious answer is that there is no God. If there is, I want no part of an afterlife with him.
“God is so moral that he doesn’t need earthly morals” is an absolutely laughable justification. May God strike me dead before I click the “reply” button, if I’m wrong.
Hey, that’s chill. I’m not trying to appeal to people to change their opinions on whether there is a god or not. I’m simply arguing that if what is said about god is true, then taking the moral high ground because you’re the better being doesn’t really mean anything.
“Hey what did you do that landed you up in eternal pain and suffering?”
“Oh, I’m just morally superior to the being that put me here.”
The same goes for religious people blaming the bad things in their life on anything other than the same all powerful being.
The religious blame the bad things on Satan, not God. Pretty convenient. God gets all of the credit an none of the blame. It’s delusional.
Also, what rational argument suggests there is eternal pain and suffering? Some old Mediterranean folk lore twisted through time, with more Faust and Inferno (Dante) than scripture in the current belief? I don’t see any reason to rationally believe there is eternal pain and suffering.
IDK, I was going for the more extreme groups of religious groups. In some religious beliefs your belief in god has less effect on your post death outcome. Maybe in those you become a cat rather than burn in eternal pain for not believing in xyz god.
In high school I wrote a paper about the dichotomy of religious beliefs portrayed in Beowulf. My paper was about how the embracing of a new religion was personified by the acts of good being attributed to god, but the acts of evil were attributed to the non-biblical and villainous entities being portrayed by pagan representations. Essentially, as new cultures adopted Christianity they had a core issue in assigning blame to god for the ills in their lives so they were instead assigned it to something else that was still familiar (another cultural belief). This lead to a short period in which these peoples earnestly believed in both religious pantheons.
“Hey what did you do that landed you up in eternal pain and suffering” “oh, I’m just morally superior to the being that put me here”
From what I understand, the “eternal pain and suffering” is just not being near him for eternity, but that’s the thing with religions usually there are 100s of different interpretations of stories that were written after thousands of years of oral tellings. “If what is said about God is true” becomes a moot point because no one agrees what he said. Who knows if not believing in a god can cause eternal pain and suffering or what that suffering entails if it exists. The story had those details once it was written down, but who knows if it was there in the original oral telling.
I personally believe that the stories are just outdated allegorical stories. Satan and the many other people punished by “god’s wrath” in the beginning of the Bible are just allegorical figures for people who don’t follow the virtues of the story. I mean Satan’s fall from grace was because he thought he was superior to god, which is how you describe atheists that use a moral argument to justify their atheism (they’d probably be more agnostic than atheist though if they are entertaining the thought that god could exist).
If you look at the Bible as a collection of allegorical stories on how to live a good life, then it becomes clear why “god” and his rules often suck in a modern context. It is a guide to living a good life thousands of years ago, and human beings and life has become much more complex as time has gone on. We need to acknowledge and criticize how awful the bible’s and other religious teachings are, so we can move on and write a new guide on how to be good people who live good lives.
Tell that to the self proclaimed atheists that use the morality of God as a reason why there is no god. To be clear I agree, but I’m tired of hearing the argument.
The Argument From Evil, properly stated, concludes that no god exists because it defines God as a necessarily omnipotent/omni-benevolent being. I think it’s weak because it leans on a version of God that most religious people don’t REALLY believe. It then leans on the fact that lines like “God is not good” or “God is not omnipotent” gets religious folks’ back up.
If the only way an atheist argument wins is because the valid logic objections to it are frustrating to Christians, it’s not a great argument.
But stated right, it IS still an argument for the nonexistence of God, not an argument that “God exists but is immoral”.
Ah the argument from authority… this exact reasoning is I believe why christofascism is taking such a root in American politics. A pet still knows when it is being abused. Having rights and power over others does not make actions moral. This is basically a might makes right line of thinking except God becomes humanities bully.
You may not believe morality is subjective, but I do, and I define moral actions as led by my inner compass. You may choose to call your inner compass the holy spirit and assign gods divinity to it, making your interpretation of gods actions closer to divine authority, but it holds no more importance than anybody elses interpretation or convictions.
To think that any being would be exempt from judgement or morality based on their power or position of authority is in my opinion the weakest logic of all. By this logic, abortion should be a non starter for theists after all, my house my rules, right? No it turns out there is no equivalent logic to explain the relationship between man and god. All sinful humans must follow your inner compass whereas any command or action attributed to god is exempt from reproach, and since you inner compass is actually the holy spirit, it gives you or your interpretation of your favorite book dominion over all others without the need for any self reflection whatsoever. This way you can attribute acts that are considered evil by every other daily metric as good so long as you can delude yourself that it is gods will.
“Didnt you go out and do all these things in my name?”
If god exists and provided you free will and the holy spirit, why then would you not be expected to use it to discover more about god? To develop discernment instead of chalking up inconsistencies in the messaging to gods will and all actions dictated by men as “acts of God”. Isn’t it possible that the idea of god of the Bible or the Quran or whatever is inherently flawed and twisted to serve the desires of man? That god, if real, is not depicted accurately in any single book in the history of man?
I cant stand these ray comfort style gotcha arguments like no actually we don’t have to follow logic or morality because divinity and anyone who questions our assertions has the absolute arrogance to spit in gods face.
I’m not trying to make an argument in support of religion or god, I’m making an argument that moral (subjective or objective) rationales do not validate or invalidate the existence of god. If god exists, then they do so whether you believe in them or not. If god exists and the supposed outcomes of not following their rules is true, then whatever judgements about them you have is irrelevant.
Is god evil because it allows bad things to happen? Yeah and so what? You can think god sucks and is unfair or unjust, be the better person and refuse to worship or believe all you want. If you don’t meet their magic requirements for the good ending then you get the bad ending no matter how much more moral you are.
I think that trying to have a philosophical debate about the morality or ethics of god(s) is asinine since if a god exists your objections to it have literally no value.
Only you are not having a philosophical debate with god about your moral judgments, ill be the first to admit that gods opinion matters fuck all in a philosophical debate about god you are debating the ideas of the person who believes in god. This idea that god can and will always be good and just simply because he may exist outside of any human measurement is absolute bullshit for all the reasons I listed above and more. The belief of god and the claim the god wills or controls every action and event can be tested.
Any claim to the contrary is just cowardly evasion or desperation
Dude, you’re literally inventing shit. I never said that,
“that god can and will always be good and just simply because he may exist outside of any human measurement is absolute bullshit for all the reasons I listed above and more. The belief of god and the claim the god wills or controls every action and event can be tested.”
I’m making the statement that if you think that god doesn’t exist because god doesn’t meet your definition of good or moral, you’re missing the mark. If god exists they exists outside of whether you believe in them. If god exists and their power is what is attributed to them then your opinions, however morally well founded they may be, are completely worthless.
The idea that you can test god’s will or that god controls our every action cannot be tested unless you assume that god is a benevolent being. If god doesn’t care that you kill your neighbor as long as it doesn’t effect their long term plan then killing your neighbor doesn’t disprove there is a god.
If god turns out to be a 7th dimensional being playing around with a 3rd/4th dimensional ant farm, that can just destroy us in a snap then all your moral high ground is for shit. If god is real our relationship to it is the same as ants in an ant farm to the guy outside the glass wall. If they fry us with the magnifying glass it makes no difference if they are good, evil, just, unjust, right, or wrong.
If you don’t believe in god then cool. If you think god is unworthy of worship and belief then cool, but if so you’re not an atheist because you believe in god. If you believe in god, but think they are unworthy of worship you opinion doesn’t matter because you’re an ant in an antfarm. The lesson here is either stop believing in god or fucking shut up about it.
I’d like to propose a thought. 1.) God makes rules 2.) Following those rules is good 3.) Breaking those rules is evil
For the record I’m agnostic, and I don’t believe in a monotheistic god. One that is asserted as omnipotent, benevolent, omnipresent, omniscient etc. The Christian god is the one which the moral argument was presented against which does assume a god of perfect good. I personally think if god exists they would encompass the lowest common denominator of spiritual beliefs and likely be devoid of a singular personality.
Just like your original point about this supposed moral immunity derived from authority, the subject is not so black and white. You’re not either an athiest or a believer depending on where you argue from. Every believer in one god is also an athiest to another.
I don’t have to believe in “your” god to point out the bad argument in support of god. I dont have to acknowledge gods existence to defend against believers imposing their beliefs of god onto me. I also don’t have to stay quiet while somebody takes a pulpit and cries about how their omnibenevolent 7th dimension king of kings gets a bad rap from everyone who doesn’t see just how magnificient their being is because theyre too hung up on the silly notion that a being of perfect good would not order kidnapping virgins to take as child brides, or genocide every Canaanite, command bears to eat children who teased a bald guy and so on.
I’m making the statement that if you think that god doesn’t exist because god doesn’t meet your definition of good or moral, you’re missing the mark. If god exists they exists outside of whether you believe in them. If god exists and their power is what is attributed to them then your opinions, however morally well founded they may be, are completely worthless.
Your statement doesn’t exist in a void!! People dismissing god as immoral is based on a thousand years of philosophy such as Thomas Aquinas, Immanuel Kant, and CS Lewis asserting that god is the source of all morality.
People arent starting with god isnt moral therefore he doesn’t exist, as you claim in this strawman. arguments for god are been presented as omnibenelovent and the source of all morality, god does things that are agreed upon as immoral, therefore the moral arguments for god are wrong and god still likely doesn’t exist. Pointing out contradictions between the actions of god in the Bible and the claims made about gods also doesn’t make an athiest a believer. More desperate gotcha bullshit.
The lesson here is either stop believing in god or fucking shut up about it.
So much for that high school paper. You very clearly don’t have any grounds to hand out lessons.
I’ll be the first to say the new trend of atheists horribly mangle the Problem of Evil, and while they rebut responses like yours, they tend to do so horribly and emotionally. But properly stated, Divine Command theory really doesn’t work.
The LPOE is challenging one of two traits for God: omnipotence or omni-benevolence. And those two concepts are defined in reasonable, quantitative ways. The God in the your example is a direct acceptance of the LPOE by the admission that god isn’t “benevolent” at all by that definition. Which is perfectly fine, but it does create a lot of very valid moral or ethical problems, along the line of Hedonistic salvation.
The rest of my reply doesn’t belong with LPOE, but this is focusing on the rules side instead of the suffering side.
You see it as a parent setting rules for a child, but it can also accurately be seen as (sorry, both of these come from the show Suits, and apparently the showrunners have a problem with moms) “mommy tells the child he’ll get a Playstation if he lies to the judge about daddy hitting her”. OR, “mommy will punish you if you tell daddy what she did with the mailman last night”. Rules are not inherently Good by most standards.
And that’s before you add the uncertainty. We’re 100% definitely not “following rules that our parents gave us”. We’re following rules we found typed up on a piece of paper that some people **insist ** came from our parents, and maybe they did. And some of them seem really weird or even harmful, and seem to contradict what we think mom and dad want for us. And we have to decide whether or not we’re going to follow them before our parents come home. Because daddy will murder us if we’re wrong. And I don’t mean a beating, I mean with his God-glock.
What many atheists do not understand is that human logic does not apply to God(s), just like the feelings of my dog wanting a slice of pizza do not apply to me
This is true, but you can still pass some judgement on a dog who acts out of possessive-aggression. But of course, we are more responsible for our actions than dogs, aren’t we? Why? Because we have more agency than dogs. Guess who has the most agency, assuming there’s a God? That would make him the most accountable. When he does something prima facie evil and the more you analyze his actions the weaker the objections get, then “Good is just what God wants and evil is just what he doesn’t want” simply doesn’t cut it.
Is God evil, probably, what is evil? What is good? Is God just? In application to others if you’re following Christian ideology he theoretically is in the long term, but in application to their self definitely not.
I think there are Christian ideologies that can make sense of it all, but contingent salvation is as filmsy to philosophical attack as wet cardboard. I would encourage you to listen/read Dr. Josh Rasmussen for his in-depth research into the Problem of Evil and Salvation from an open-minded Christian perspective. He, too, concludes that God cannot pass the Problem of Evil if there is contingent salvation. But he stands by the Ontological Argument, so conceding “God isn’t all-good” is not on the table for his POV.
The biggest problem I have with Atheist logic is that if there is a god that it should follow human logic and because there is suffering and issues in the world there must be no god or that God isn’t worth following. If after life beliefs are correct do you think it matters if you took a moral high ground against an unfair god?
Ironically, I would hope a Christian would be the first person to say YES IT MATTERS because they stand behind martyrdom as a legitimate virtue. Let me put it this way. If Christianity were true with one exception, that the Devil ultimately wins instead of God, would you kneel to him because your eternity is more important than actually being a good person? Would you be able to respect a person who does unspeakable evils, knowing they are unspeakable evils, because they get to selfishly be immortal?
If so, I think you’ve just given atheists the win. If not, then at least you can understand (if not agree) rejecting a God you think is evil.
The same goes for religious people, you have to accept that God let’s bad things happen to you.
Yeah, I’m fine with that. I think the true god is neither omnipotent nor omni-benevolent. God can be a jerk sometimes, but so can I, and I don’t have to debase myself or put him far above me, so I can forgive god. If that gets me a good afterlife, I got there in a way I’ll never regret. If that gets me eternal damnation, at least I know I didn’t selfishly throw away my morals for personal gain.
Substitute the trolley for a tornado, the tracks for homes, the deity killing randomly with said tornado, and the survivors thanking deity for their survival (and their neighbors’ deaths).
Not a good analogy? Of course it isn’t. God doesn’t exist, and if he does, he’s perfectly happy killing you and destroying your family for no reason whatsoever, and your neighbors will thank him for doing so.
Making sonic memes and saying bazinga is gay because anything outside of the actual sexual preference is socially constructed “performance norms” and I can make up whatever the fuck I want.
memes
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.