I think it’s just a fancy way to make a phone turn into a tablet, which I don’t see much point in. Or rather, I do see the point just not the appeal. Now if they made a Surface style tablet-laptop I’d take a second look.

And it’s always those same people

disloyalty to America

Stop trying to make him sound cool, I’m not voting for him.

I’m pretty sure the actual museum of neoliberalism is in Cambodia

At least two big ones

The only thing that would be more fitting is Thatcher’s grave catching on fire because of reduced safety standards, and no one’s able to put it out because they ran out of piss

He is a member of Nippon Kaigi, the ultra-nationalist group

I stared at this trying to understand what a guardian parrot is

Isn’t the greek equivalent of X Chi while Xi has more of an s sound?

I hope you didn’t mean it, but that is a really gross sentence with a slur phonetically.

But a cock is an animal, that could be a problem. What if they rename it the shuttleshaft, it’s equally phallic and even more fun to say

As long as it doesn’t include renaming the shuttlecock

Were the residents white? Either way now Beirut has an excuse to invade a country that had nothing to do with the bombing

Thank you for the response.

Religion is a part of culture. Culture is an outgrowth of the base of society/system. The system itself is driven by material reality. Culture can work to reinforce and strengthen the system, in fact that’s the main point of it, but it doesn’t dictate the actions of the system. Colonialism, imperialism, genocide aren’t caused by religion, anymore than they could be caused by a movie or a song.

That’s the problem I have with it, how good it is at reinforcing and justifying hate. Yes, a movie or song also reinforces hatred (which, mind you, those should be shat on appropriately), but I think having your spiritual life tied to it makes specially good convincing people. People use it to justify what they already believe, yes, but I know people who take the bible at face and believe in things just because that’s what’s in there, I don’t think it’s purely a one way street.

do a little self-criticism and examine what you really think and want to say here.

I wouldn’t be putting any effort if I weren’t. It upsets me. Is it objectionable if what I say is uncritical, unqualified belief of the texts that preach genocide is itself genocidal belief?

Help me understand, and I actually mean this, this isn’t a framing device for a dumb point though it looks like one. I mean this, I would rather be taught.

If the religious texts say genocidal stuff, why is it wrong to say if an institution believes in it, it believes in genocidal stuff? I can understand if sects qualify or revise it and I wouldn’t call them that, but why is saying, for instance, “Christianism is homophobic” wrong when that is what the bible teaches? Again, if one church recontextualizes it, or says it was just Paul who said it, God is Love, fine, but can that sect speak for all Christianity when even in context the book preaches homophobia?

No, of course not. I agree with you on that. Ultimately how a religion is followed is a reflection of the society, but I hope you’ll agree that the source materials have a lot of outdated beliefs from a time where people knew little about a lot of things and it’s fertile grounds for otherwise well meaning people to do harm.

You know, I said that on a whim, but on second thought I am. I would rather not argue with people I think are cool, but in my view, religion, as an institution, proliferates and helps perpetuate hatred. It’s not the only one, and it’s often a tool for others to do that. But I’m conviced it’s an outdated institution we (in general, not each specific person) would be better off casting away.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod