|
Nidhg00670000 posted:The fact that it's so incredibly easy to whip up anti-Swedish sentiment because someone burns a Quran tells me that wherever you go in the world, there's plenty of people that won't let facts get in the way of some good old hate. i will always hate the swede
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2023 15:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 18:10 |
|
|
at the end of the day it's an issue of a fundamental contradiction in the liberal-bourgeois conception of social discourse; it turns out that it's hackable. sartre describes this kind of thing in his essay about the anti-semite - effectively, a society built on reasoned debate has to assume that people are reasonable and susceptible to reasoned argument. if it doesn't, it loses its reason for being and the basis of its legitimacy. this becomes absurd when someone does something unreasonable such as be deeply religious or an ideological racist or what have you. at the end of the day, this contradiction has to be tolerated in a principled liberal society or it morphs into something else. the social project then becomes shaping people to be open to reason; however, this is surprisingly difficult in part because of the existence of uneven power in bourgeois society; this can be seen in the environmental question, where idealistic rationality is quite clear that we have to drop everything and do something dramatic about this immediately, but the practicalities of power make this impossible. such things drive citizens to madness and destroys the liberal subject. this drives "enlightened" elites to consolidate power more truly unto themselves or onto reason-generating projects (such as market forces or official inquiries using formal reasoning), which makes powerless the masses and, again, further destroys the liberal subject.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2023 17:09
|
|
|
Also worth noting that these Säuberung reenactors want to ban the Qur'an and ethnically cleanse Denmark of Muslims. Paludan sues anyone calling him bad names, even sued someone once who had the misfortune of sharing his name. Denmark has extensive restrictions on free speech in general already. We jailed and deported someone for material support for terrorism over posting "  " in response to the Charlie Hebdo attack on Facebook.
SplitSoul fucked around with this message at 17:16 on Aug 2, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2023 17:10
|
|
|
Jack Trades posted:Yeah, I believe in science, except the part where they claim that the earth is "round" and not in the center of the universe. That part is bollocks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2023 17:32
|
|
|
thotsky posted:Yeah, gently caress that Martin Luther guy! Yes? loving heretic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2023 17:53
|
|
|
Muslims own and I'm glad people are finally recognizing swedes for the numbnuts we are
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2023 18:01
|
|
|
zokie posted:Christians have went to war with each other over things like does the communion wafer actually turn into the real body of Christ or not. The burnings are not just simple book burnings, they are done in effigy of the people that the burners hate. It doesn’t matter if you are a secular Arab or believe and follow 100% of the Qur'an. This hits the nail on the head. It's about symbolically dunking on a minority in a way that the system will essentially support. The actual materiality of the act, like the transubstantiation schism, is entirely incidental. The trouble is that while it's obvious that this is what's going on, it's pretty hard to prove in court, especially when freedom of speech cultism is so mainstream.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2023 19:29
|
|
|
Jack Trades posted:Yeah, I believe in science, except the part where they claim that the earth is "round" and not in the center of the universe. That part is bollocks. very cool richard dawkins post
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2023 19:34
|
|
|
Jack Trades posted:Yeah, I believe in science, except the part where they claim that the earth is "round" and not in the center of the universe. That part is bollocks. Yeah, I want to dunk on this dumb post too. The first obvious thing is that science and (Abrahamic, I don't really know about others) religion are not the same thing, because science is just a method of trying to understand stuff, and religion is as much a moral, practical, political, and so forth guide to life and society. The second thing is that it's actually quite possible to believe in science, as it were, while also not believing in specific stuff. Like, I believe in science, but Optimality Theory and Chomsky stuff like that is clearly bullshit, despite it being obviously science. The third thing is that  the Earth is an oblong spheroid and, for reasons I fail to understand, apparently every point in the universe is in fact the center.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2023 20:31
|
|
|
endocriminologist posted:Muslims own and I'm glad people are finally recognizing swedes for the numbnuts we are In my experience, Muslims have about the same percentage of assholes as everyone else. So it's pretty bad. The cool ones are p.cool though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2023 22:06
|
|
|
in studies of religion (religionsvitenskap, as its called in our neck of the woods), an important core concept is that religions are internally diverse, so it doesn’t make any sense to speak of “only one way to be christian” or “a muslim is like this” as a normative fact. there are as many different ways to be christian as there are individual christians, and so on. also, the belief that in order to truly be a christian (or any other religion) means to follow (the literal meaning of) every single word in the bible (or torah, quran, vedas, +++) is a key signifier of fundamentalism, so in that regard it’s rather warped to then judge someone for not being truly religious if they, quote, “cherrypick the good parts”. in most mainstream denominations the bible isn’t to be read all literally all the time (this is why theology is an actual university degree, a component of which is interpretation of the bible, for example) ulvir fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Aug 2, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2023 22:17
|
|
|
ulvir posted:in studies of religion (religionsvitenskap, as its called in our neck of the woods), an important core concept is that religions are internally diverse, so it doesn’t make any sense to speak of “only one way to be christian” or “a muslim is like this” as a normative fact. there are as many different ways to be christian as there are individual christians, and so on. on might note that this is a notion which is pretty much incompatible with the stated position of several major organised religions
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 00:51
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:on might note that this is a notion which is pretty much incompatible with the stated position of several major organised religions The first bit can be fine depending on what you cherry pick, since the real world impact is positive, but "No, I don't believe in all of that" is not really a defense if you still materially support criminal organizations, or behave in a manner that makes it obvious that you still carry some really lovely parts of the religion with you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 05:19
|
|
|
it's interesting to see people who endorse "social" "democracy" and participate in bourgeois electorial politics criticize religion for cherry picking and supporting corrupt institutions...
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 05:27
|
|
|
Jon Pod Van Damm posted:it's interesting to see people who endorse "social" "democracy" and participate in bourgeois electorial politics criticize religion for cherry picking and supporting corrupt institutions... I don't have a choice to not participate in those systems if I want to live in this country. I do have a choice to not participate in those religious systems.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 05:30
|
|
|
Yeah, that is literally "Yet you participate in society, curious!".
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 05:49
|
|
|
“But how can you call it a rules-based order, when THIS corrupt thing happened? Huh! Huh! I am very smart”.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 06:55
|
|
|
Revelation 2-13 posted:“But how can you call it a rules-based order, when THIS corrupt thing happened? Huh! Huh! I am very smart”. on the specific note of the "rules-based order" it pretty much just means "what the US says, goes" in international politics. nobody seems to be able to articulate any other rules which stand up to any level of scrutiny, at least it is interesting to me that so much of our freedom of religion is based on people not being that religious - or rather, on them not feeling strongly that their particular vision of the divine should be universal and have an impact on the lives of other people and not just themselves. it just seems to not be taking religious conviction seriously. it's not clear to me how one would go about establishing freedom of religion which does take religious conviction seriously without abandoning modern secularism, but it would be an interesting topic to read more about - how have societies historically handled religious liberty?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 08:20
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:on might note that this is a notion which is pretty much incompatible with the stated position of several major organised religions sure, but it’s the reality, and also explains very well why there’s an endless series of in-fighting within any given religion obviously, there’s a big overlap within, say, protestantism. some rituals and rites are performed and taken as a given, and the psalms and hymns used will be recognisable for all, for example. if there was someone who’s actually a scholar on religions they might elaborate a bit deeper on that point
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 09:20
|
|
|
Wonder where all these people were when that guy got jailed and deported over an emoji, or republicans were expelled from Amalienborg Slotsplads, or Støjberg sicced the cops on two teenage girls who called her a fascist, or some t-shirt producers got convicted for terrorism, or, or, or... somehow it's always the race war proponents whose so-called free speech is inviolable. Must just be a coincidence. https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/politik/syv-partier-i-faelles-udmelding-frihedsrettigheder-skal-vaegte-hoejere-end
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 09:54
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:on the specific note of the "rules-based order" it pretty much just means "what the US says, goes" in international politics. nobody seems to be able to articulate any other rules which stand up to any level of scrutiny, at least It’s not so hard once you realize that historically, the prevailing stance for most religions has NOT been that outsiders must adopt your beliefs. It’s not even a constant for Christianity and Islam, which has the evangelical trait that has probably given you the image of it being the universal norm. For example, during Medieval times, you’d have Muslim rulers actively not wanting their Jewish and Christian subjects switch religion, as they were allowed to tax them differently. Baghdad famously was divided into quarters for the various religions - forced conversion was not a universal, or even common, idea in most religions in most periods. The Romans didn’t care what Gods you had if you paid your taxes. The various Chinese dynasties didn’t either unless you happened to start rebellions based on your doomsday cult. And so on. Lots of people in history have been 100% convinced that their religion is true and deserves devotin and at the same time didn’t care if the neighbours agreed. lilljonas fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Aug 3, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 20:51
|
|
|
lilljonas posted:It’s not so hard once you realize that historically, the prevailing stance for most religions has NOT been that outsiders must adopt your beliefs. It’s not even a constant for Christianity and Islam, which has the evangelical trait that has probably given you the image of it being the universal norm. Not sure the Jizya system really counts against their point either, since the religion of the Muslim rulers in question clearly had an impact on people outside the Muslim community.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 21:46
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:I feel like the traditions of non-proselytizing religions isn't super relevant, when the only religions of any real significance to this discussion are ones that have vigorously spread their faith through the centuries, often with force of arms or the threat thereof. Like, yeah, maybe the Pagan Romans didn't give a poo poo most of the time, but their Christian counterparts pushed their religious on every continent they touched. There are situations where non-prosetylizing religions are extremely violent, like the various Buddhist monk riots across Asia. There are also prosetylizing religions that have, at least temporarily, been rather chill about SOME non-believers, even when being very violent towards other non-believers. poo poo is complicated. My point was rather that I feel it's pretty Eurocentric to claim that the only way to have freedom of religion is a society that is mostly a-religious, or at least apathetic to religion. Especially when history gives us a lot of examples of societies that has been able to have pretty decent degrees of freedom of religion despite a high degree of religiousness. Even within Christian and Muslim societies. I'd probably rather be a Jew or Christian in pre-Mongol Baghdad than a Muslim in modern day India, if you look at the topic of religious freedom. OTOH yes, it's easy to find some the WORST examples of lack of religious freedom in societies following the Abrahamic religions, even if religious violence is common elsewhere. But Hindus have conducted (and still conduct) some of the most overt religious violence towards competing religious groups in modern times, and that's a non-prosetylizing religion. Again, poo poo's complicated. Often other social conflicts are fought under the banner of religion, even if it's mostly a scapegoat. lilljonas fucked around with this message at 22:12 on Aug 3, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 22:07
|
|
|
lilljonas posted:There are situations where non-prosetylizing religions are extremely violent, like the various Buddhist monk riots across Asia. There are also prosetylizing religions that have, at least temporarily, been rather chill about SOME non-believers, even when being very violent towards other non-believers. poo poo is complicated. My point was rather that I feel it's pretty Eurocentric to claim that the only way to have freedom of religion is a society that is mostly a-religious, or at least apathetic to religion. Especially when history gives us a lot of examples of societies that has been able to have pretty decent degrees of freedom of religion despite a high degree of religiousness. Even within Christian and Muslim societies. I'd probably rather be a Jew or Christian in pre-Mongol Baghdad than a Muslim in modern day India, if you look at the topic of religious freedom.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2023 02:48
|
|
|
political christianity is essentialy de-christianised in much of europe. even the catholic church in ireland has gotten completely bamboozled with truly shocking speed. my claim isn't that freedom of religion requires a society that is mostly areligious, it is that modern freedom of religion presupposes that everyone basically accepts that religion isn't that important, and that this is a historical anomaly. hell, norway had a state church until well into the 21st century based on the idea that there's a Correct religion and that the others are essentially just tolerated for practical reasons. contemporary freedom of religion requires us to say that "religion" is a formal category to which one can be neutral, which it is hard to see how makes sense to someone who has strong reasons to prefer one form of religious expression over another - e.g., that they happen to believe that the will of God manifests in a way concommitant with the teachings of a particular sect and that deviating from that will is profoundly sinful. ulvir posted:sure, but it’s the reality, and also explains very well why there’s an endless series of in-fighting within any given religion this is a remarkably and rather radically protestant attitude imo. i don't think you can simply sidestep the issue of substantive theological content so easily. V. Illych L. fucked around with this message at 08:54 on Aug 4, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2023 08:52
|
|
|
it’s mostly a methodological approach to religions as they study it, rooted in the fact that religion is a practice. theology and doctrine is obviously central to the central churches, I’m not trying to claim that the holy trinity or Shahada aren’t one of the most important aspects of christianity or islam, and members of the congregation/the religions will obviously recognise it. but humans being humans, what it means to be/act christian or any other religion will vary. for example: some will approve of LGBTQ, some won’t, and both sides might use the bible to argue their point. or look at the popes: some of them are way more conservative than others, this is the same with Islam or any other. different official branches of the religions stem from the fact that religions are a human and social practice, and is also one of the ways that the fact that they’re internally diverse comes to light. there’s not one way to be christian, even if each of the branches claims so (and that their own are that one true way), same with any other religion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2023 10:02
|
|
|
Doesn't sound particularly useful or reliable to me, for being the infallible words of the creator of the world (and please don't make me dig out the quotes for that again. Religious texts of every abrahamic religion have a claim like that in them.) It's almost like those texts were actually written as a way to coerce the general populous into acting in a certain way that was beneficial to the ruling class, under the threat of eternal damnation, or something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2023 10:10
|
|
|
 The derails this thread will embark on are incredible. In Stockholm we have pride week, and a bunch of people are showing their lack of brains by trying to argue that ackshually they are not SD supporters but Björn Söder was right that Stockholm pride is conspiring with Big Pedo. Also the non-dictator supporting part of our Eritrean diaspora blitzed and burned down the regime-sponsored festival in Järva. It's an interesting weekend.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2023 10:11
|
|
|
BonHair posted:The third thing is that The cute way to phrase it is to specify it as the center of the observable universe. Semantically, the observer would have to be what defines the observable universe. The more boring explanation is that a center is defined by boundaries; for a circle it's the point that's equally distant from any point on the edge, for more complex shapes there can be different ways to define it, but all of them will at some point require you to describe the boundary of a concept. We don't have an intuitive way to describe things that are infinite, but all evidence seems to point to that being exactly what the universe is, something with no edges or boundaries. The dry response would be to argue that there is no center because "center" is a meaningless concept with regards to the universe, but it is technically valid to claim that any given point in the universe is the one that equally far from every edge, i.e. infinitely. The best way to visualize it is to look at something tangible that has no boundary, like the surface of a ball. That's technically a loop rather than an infinite shape, but it's something we can comprehend. Take a soccer ball, for instance, which has 12 black pentagons. Which one of those is in the middle, i.e. closest to the other 11? Any one of them, or none of them, or maybe that specific one by the pump intake, are all valid answers depending on how you look at it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2023 10:13
|
|
|
in other news: norway's newly appointed minister of research and higher education was just yesterday quoted on disagreeing with virologists and ornithologists simply because she felt differently. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2023 10:22
|
|
|
Birds just don't *feel* real, y'know?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2023 10:33
|
|
|
Birds are real. Real spy drones.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2023 10:39
|
|
|
Mymla posted:Birds are real. That pigeon knows what you've done....and he's not happy about it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2023 15:12
|
|
|
I removed a pigeon nest earlier today, and now I fear for my safety
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2023 15:16
|
|
|
Wibla posted:One of the newest protest parties (INP) in Norway delivers (juicy?) drama I have met a couple INP people at the local. They are not smart. I read what was then the one-page screed website in five minutes and startes follow-up questions about other things they stand for, and the dude could only refer to the website. They are FrP and racist Sp refugees, basically.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2023 19:18
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/bjorningeb/status/1687768228297121792 Haha.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2023 13:28
|
|
|
Lol at invoking church burning, when that was famously a Norwegian guy originally called Christian.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2023 17:43
|
|
|
Also lol at complaining about "antinorsk atferd" while posting under the name of a Danish politician. Why is it always fedoras with these people?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2023 10:15
|
|
|
Esran posted:Also lol at complaining about "antinorsk atferd" while posting under the name of a Danish politician. Now now, Lille Lars has done a lot of work towards making Denmark a worse place, including opening up for private hospitals. If hurting Danes is not pronorsk, then I don't know what is. I mean, except burning churches, but he's against that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2023 11:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 18:10 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/mathiasced/status/1688478138651611136?s=46&t=G1x8XWIwrNxUQoXItlkh2w This might be fun.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 14:48
|
|
