Honestly? Nah. Jesus wouldn’t be hanging with Satanists because that would be preaching to the converted - His work is already done. Fact is that Jesus likely would spend his time with right-wing Christofascists, but he would spend all of his time trying to convince them why they’re wrong. He’d be crucified again, but that’s kinda His deal. He hung out with vagrants and prostitutes because those were the ones who needed Him most; these days the ones who need Him most are the false Christians.
It’s just a well-known trope of Lemmy nowadays that whenever any issue with any OS is reported, rather than providing advice for the situation the default response is often “FUCK [OS], USE LINUX”. It’s become so common that it’s essentially now viewed by non-Linux users as Linux users just engaging in a circlejerk of their favourite OS. I know that circlejerks usually require more than one person but the Lemmy hivemind tends to respond this way, so a single comment (that is usually highly upvoted) is viewed as a circlejerk.
Because it’s valuable to deconstruct any concept that is held without a clear reason. It’s far more important to know why you believe or feel what you do than just knowing what you feel or believe.
I’m not expecting to convince people of my position, nor to have others change their positions based upon said deconstruction, but it’s worth raising nonetheless.
If attraction can be socially programmed (as it so very obviously is), then it can similarly be deconstructed. The first step to achieving that is questioning the motivation for attraction beyond “that’s hot”.
We definitely shouldn’t be putting down people for their attractions, but I think there is value in highlighting that a person’s concept of attractiveness can be socially constructed and therefore can also be deconstructed.
I think instead of labelling people with narrow or socio-centric concepts of attraction as “lesser” or stupid or uninformed isn’t fair, but I also think it’s fair to say that they likely haven’t gone through the process of deconstructing why they feel the way they do.
I’d argue teeth aren’t skeleton because they’re not made of the same substance as bone - the outside is enamel and dentin whereas bones are collagen, protein and minerals (mostly calcium). Kinda like how hair and nails don’t count because they’re made of keratin.
I never stated nor implied that spelling and grammar are a marker of intelligence - just a marker of being able to retain and use simple information. This was absolutely directed towards neurotypical people, and I probably should have mentioned dyslexia as an example of where this logic doesn’t follow.
It needs to be used to discriminate in fields that require abundantly clear communication urgently. I’m a child protection caseworker who does nothing but write up reports all day; if I had dyslexia I’d need serious accommodations to be able to perform the role at the level expected by the taxpayer who pays my salary. It absolutely can be done, but they’d likely need to hire a whole other person just to scribe. Have a look through my comment history; I’m well aware of dyslexia and its effects as I used to scribe for a friend in uni.
While that may be true, it’s a reasonable indicator of a person’s capacity to hear new information and then incorporate that into practice. If they’ve been told that they’re spelling a word wrong but then either can’t integrate that new knowledge or actively choose not to follow it, you’ve got someone who is either wilfully ignorant or lacks some capacity to integrate new information. Either that, or dyslexia.
Also, it genuinely depends on the work you do. My role has me writing up anywhere between 5-10,000 words worth of reports per day - proper spelling and grammar is key for competence in this role. I’ve seen reports where seemingly innocuous spelling mistakes completely change the meaning of text. Writing ‘can’ instead of ‘can’t’ and vice versa is an immediate example that comes to mind. I know this is an engineering grad, but clear communication is important in every role that includes managers, teams or other stakeholders.
Satire? Maybe. Karma mining? Not on a platform like Lemmy. There’s no value to karma on Lemmy - no one wants to buy a Lemmy account with a bunch of Karma to start shilling from - the user base is still just too small to be worth it.
Palestinian resistance is the last thing you should critique
Here you’re conflating Hamas with all Palestinians and implying that Hamas’ actions are merely ‘Palestinian resistance’ which is just incorrect. Palestinian civilians should NOT be lumped in with their unelected (in the last 17 years) leaders, much as Jewish people should not be lumped in with Israel/their government. The majority of Palestinian citizens have never had an opportunity to vote for their leaders.
That point aside, the killing of civilians, whether intentional or through reckless disregard, should never be last on the list of condemnation. We can want Palestine to win their freedom and independence while criticising how Hamas is attempting to achieve that. We should be critiquing innocent slaughter wherever it exists and regardless of who is the perpetrator or victim.
We can walk and chew gum. We can critique Hamas AND the Israeli government / IDF. We can accept Israel’s responsibility in pushing the Palestinian people to desperation for survival through apartheid and genocide, and we can condemn Hamas’ killing of civilians. We can call for Israel to immediately ceasefire and we can call for Hamas to immediately ceasefire. We can feel for Palestinian civilians even as we feel for Israeli citizens.
This is not black and white; life rarely is. It’s steeped in nuance. That’s okay to talk about.
Level-headed people are not saying that Palestine shouldn’t fight back against the occupation, they’re just deriding the method they’re using. It’s hard to support a regime that kills civilians and children, even if they’re doing it in response to their civilians and children being killed. Two wrongs usually don’t make a right.
Now the question that I think is still rhetorical and whose answer people can’t agree upon is this: what is the appropriate response to apartheid and genocide? Many would agree that attacking the IDF, government officials etc. would constitute reasonable reactive force, however this is particularly difficult for Palestine due to Israel’s domination of the geography.
What should Hamas do that can expedite the end of apartheid and genocide? I don’t know. It’s a fucked situation. I feel deeply for the Palestinians, especially the almost 50% of them that are under the age of 18, and believe that they need to be liberated. I also feel deeply for Israeli citizens, many of whom didn’t vote for Netanyahu, who have been killed as a result of the Hamas incursion.
This issue is flooded with nuance that’s just going over many people’s heads.
Will the experience of war victims resonate with the victors of that war? Will the victors understand the oppressed and be able to prove their position with adequate psychology? Does the psychology of an occupied people differ from the psychology from the oppressors? Does a person whose culture has been stripped from them require the same counsel as those who believes that illegally occupied territories are their’s?
Many confounding variables exist here that may interact with being militarily oppressed, and therefore comparisons between the two sides are incomparable. I don’t have the answers to these questions. I wish I did, because then I’d be able to secure facts. In this situation the only secure facts are that both sides have committed atrocities and crimes against humanity.
Sure, but someone who lives in Addis Ababa probably doesn’t have the cultural knowledge to give adequate therapy to someone in Pyongyang, despite them both being located in cities.
Could someone in London counsel someone in New York? Probably, because the cultures are quite similar and share a root ethnicity and language. But that Londonian probably won’t have as much luck counselling someone in Ho Chi Minh.
It may be universal, I’m not sure. I’ve not read any information able to establish that. There are indigenous tribes of people who are not integrated into the global world - we can’t know their psychology as we can’t study them.