You are correct. I was only joking, lemmy.ml is officially a general purpose server and this community is meant for everybody. But nonetheless, lemmy.ml users tend to be very leftist.
I'm confused by the second part, are you referring to lemmy.ml or lemmy.world when you say this instance? If people are claiming that the Lemmy devs are right wing... wow.
That's very good news, and hopefully more states modernize their outdated marital laws.
It does raise the question in my mind of how male suicide rates would be affected by a revision of certain policies regarding male agency in marital and spousal relationships. The most obvious scenario being when a man gets a woman pregnant and isn't prepared to be a father, but the woman is unwilling to abort the child or give it up for adoption. Closely followed by the skewed treatment of men and women in divorce proceedings, although I think that has been improving slightly in recent years.
What you see is entirely subjective, and the fact that you don't seem to realize that your impression is subject to bias is concerning. It's not necessary for me to set up any kind of rhetorical trap because your position is inherently flawed.
I support LGBTQ people to defend their rights and existence, but that doesn't mean they get carte blanche to do whatever they want.
being persecuted isn't carte blanche to be a dick to others.
That's precisely my point. When I called out the hostile and dickish behavior of some feminists, LGBTQ+, and minorities, your response was:
That's victim blaming and disgusting. Women, lgbtq+, and other minorities actually get persecuted in modern times, not just offended while they clutch pearls. If you remain ignorant of that, it's willful and you need to be a better person.
You can't have it both ways. Is it okay to act like a dick to other human beings if you belong to a "persecuted" group? If not, then why is it disgusting of me to point out such behavior?
Women, lgbtq+, and other minorities actually get persecuted in modern times
As do religious people. The world is much larger than America and Western Europe my friend, people all around the world are literally killed for their religion on a daily basis.
Then you should be familiar with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states
To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."
Nothing in there about torture. And that's just the most mainstream Christian branch, there are innumerable alternative interpretations, some of which deny the existence of hell entirely. Such as annihilationism which is most commonly associated with Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovahs Witnesses today, but has been present in varying forms throughout Christian history.
I think most of us are tired of the vocal minority that exist IRL that are actively harming others (especially lgbtq+, women, and minorities) and the silent majority that are complicit with it, especially in the US.
Would you agree that a great deal of opposition to LGBTQ+, feminists, and minorities is similarly a reaction to a vocal minority from each of those groups that adopts a militant, hostile tone towards mainstream society and/or religion? If we accept that the existence of a vocal minority with problematic positions and behavior justifies treating all members of that group with a lack of respect, then we are doomed. We cannot allow the traumatized and incoherent members of society to modulate the interactions between different social factions.
Religion also seems to have a hatred of every other belief, explicit or implicit, e.g. if you don't believe in Jesus, you deserve to be tortured eternally. Why would I be tolerant of people that think that's capital g Good?
This is completely incorrect and reductive of the infinite variety of religions that exist. Even limited to just Christianity, most Christians would disagree with your assertion that people "deserve to be tortured eternally". This is an example of you taking the opinions of certain mentally disturbed individuals who happen to identify as religious, and extrapolating them to apply to all religious people. Allowing the crazy people to dictate the terms of the conversation.
Practically nobody keeps to the basic rules of evidence, religious or otherwise.
Buddhists and Daoists are much less relevant and known to Western civilization, so they are rarely even mentioned, let alone critiqued. I have no doubt there are plenty of Indian atheists who could absolutely dissect Buddhism and how it's actually problematic at times, but they're simply not on Reddit or Lemmy.
Well said, that's a good explanation of the pitfalls of this tactic. I've enjoyed many of your previous comments as well and I think you're a cogent independent thinker, which is increasingly rare to find.
My only quibble is that I don't quite agree that you're being threatened with violence in this situation. It raises an interesting concept, which is that the internet allows us to essentially act out these debates and conflicts without the implicit threat of violence that has historically accompanied them, due to our anonymity.
Fascinating perspective, well expressed.
One thing I would clarify is that there are still many different cultures in existence. Although most cultures are converging due to the global economic hegemony enforced by the US, they still maintain highly significant differences.
For instance, in many Muslim countries, your argument wouldn't apply as much for a wide variety of reasons, including the prevalence of arranged marriages.
Furthermore, each generation actively produces its own culture and it can sometimes change rapidly due to changing environments. I agree with you that culture is built around human biology and in some ways remains similar across all human communities regardless of time or location. However, within that general framework, the possibilities are almost infinite, as we can see just by observing history.
So, in this specific context, I would argue that while it's essentially inevitable that men will take on the more dangerous and difficult roles in any given culture, the actual manifestation of that tendency can come in many different forms. Western society manifests the male disposability phenomenon in a particularly harsh manner, in my personal opinion.
I think that many other cultural lineages may have traditionally held less demanding/dangerous expectations of masculinity. A relevant factor is that all Western nations have military traditions going back millennia, whereas many other regions of the planet do not share such an extensive history of warfare. All Western cultures essentially trace their roots back to the Roman Empire, in which basic mechanics of the male gauntlet which you speak of had already been firmly established.
None of them are super active but here's what I found.
I just noticed that OP is from hexbear so they can't use lemmy.world communities.
Here's some more
I don't think any government is giving homeless addicts cash to pay their rent, that would be insane.
What happens is that the addicts can get the money either from some other government program, or simply by begging, depositing cans, etc. The shelters don't allow people to use drugs inside and they have a curfew. Otherwise, they would quickly become dilapidated drug dens.
Therefore, some addicts prefer to sleep on the street whenever they can afford heroin, and return to the shelter when they can't.
Wow, nice comment. Most people are so absurdly ill-informed on this topic that it's embarrassing. We really do live in a Disinformation Age, and it's getting worse day by day.