Aesthetics, plus the seductive appeal that pre-modern, pre-liberal-democratic societies (when the governments were authoritarian, the women were submissive, and the men “were men”) have for reactionaries, incels, and cryptofacists.

30 is way too many. Ideally, you want about 4-5 parties in order to maintain a healthy democracy without getting bogged down.

Either way, the two party corporate duopoly of the US ain’t it.

I know that there is a tendency amongst people of Nutomic’s ilk to view identity politics as little more than a bourgeois preoccupation. He said as much himself.

Pointing that out isn’t chauvinism.

Yeah, that would definitely explain the hypersensitivity when it comes to any criticism of China or the USSR, valid or otherwise.

It still strikes me as counter-productive, though, as there are many people on Lemmy who have capitalism-critical views who could be persuaded to shift further left or become more interested in socialist causes. Banning them, or censoring them, or labelling them as idiotic liberals, only serves to undermine that endeavor. Socialism is dying fast enough in the west as it is.

Fair point – having power decentralized certainly makes it more common for individual actors to act unilaterally in this way. However, in my experience the most egregious examples have been users being banned from Lemmy.ml for simply expressing a contrary opinion in a non-aggressive manner.

For a community that is so actively political, the tolerance for an open exchange of views is surprisingly low.

Removed by mod

I swear, petty and vindictive banning is far worse on Lemmy than it ever was on Reddit, and particularly on ML instances.

If I were to indulge in a bit of armchair psychology, I’d say it is a side effect of venerating authoritarianism.

Immediately after October 7th, there were various sensational and outlandish claims made by Israeli officials that babies were beheaded, put into ovens, murdered in their nurseries, and generally singled out and made to suffer with intentional violence. Since then, no evidence whatsoever has been provided to substantiate these claims and the majority of them have been dropped completely.

UN records indicate that one baby did actually die along with her family after Hamas fighters opened fire into a safe room in Kibbutz Be’eri (page 10), but there were no recorded cases where multiple babies were intentionally targeted and killed in the way that Netanyahu describes.

None of this is to diminish the atrocities that were committed on October 7th, but it is telling that Israel and Netanyahu in particular seem dead set on making the events on that day seem as barbaric as possible in order to somehow justify the large-scale massacring of men, women, and children that is happening in Gaza.

And yet again we have congress members clapping like trained seals to debunked Israel propaganda and the characterization of anti-war protesters being in favor of the killing of civilians.

“My friends, defeating our brutal enemies requires courage and clarity. Clarity begins by knowing the difference between good an evil. Yet, incredibly, many anti-Israel protesters choose to stand with evil. They stand with Hamas. They stand with rapists and murderers. They stand with people who came into the kibbutzim – into a home – the parents hid the children, the two babies, in a secret attic. They murdered the families – the parents. They found the secret attic and then they murdered the babies. These protesters stand with them; they should be ashamed of themselves.”

*Thunderous applause, standing ovation

https://youtu.be/Kwi0uD2QlKw?t=5589

This is 2003 Iraq War levels of state-approved disinformation. I feel nauseated.

I’m a fan of atmospheric horror too, so I’ll give Longlegs a watch.

Recently, I’ve also seen:

• Late Night With the Devil - really good retro horror flick. They got the feel of the late 70s just right, and i enjoyed the way the tension gradually builds to a crescendo.

• A Quiet Place: Day One - was a big fan of the first movie, but the sequels have been increasingly disappointing. This one was definitely the weakest, IMO, but still somewhat enjoyable if you still feel like seeing a little more of the same.

• Furiosa - it was never going to be quite as good as Fury Road, but I enjoyed it nonetheless. It leant a little too much towards the grotesque at times, but the central performances and the world building were still good.

• Immaculate - Sweeney is pretty good and it has some atmosphere but by the end it got a little too silly for me. A fairly passable religious genre horror, all round.

• Dune: Part Two - as a big fan of the books, I have to say it was a little disappointing. Villeneuve nailed the look and feel of Arrakis no doubt, but this part felt rushed and unsatisfying - It really needed another 30 or 40 minutes to allow some of the central plot points to land and to give the characters more room to develop. I enjoyed it, but it’s not the masterpiece it could have been.

There is no rule that says the universe must make sense to human beings. In fact the more we learn about it - subatomic particles, quantum mechanics, the multiverse, etc. the stranger it becomes and the less it appears to operate in ways that are intuitive to our primitive primate brains.

Hell, even space and time might not be fundamental properties, and could themselves be abstractions which emerge from an even deeper underlying reality…

All of which is to say your list should have an extra option:

D. Who The Fuck Knows?

As someone married to a JW and who is friends with several others, I will say this: like any group of people, they can be a mixed bag. Some are more closeted and “in the truth” whereas others are more outgoing and “worldly”.

One the things that I actually admire about them (the individuals, mind you, not the Watchtower organization) is that they really seem to try and live by the teachings of the Bible and study it frequently. Much more so than, say, your average evangelical Protestant.

As someone who is mostly agnostic, those who belive that absence of evidence equals evidence of absence belong in psychotherapy.

This position is a straw man. Atheists generally do not argue that God categorically does not exist. Instead, we usually say that we don’t believe in God because there is insufficient evidence. Much like the proverbial invisible unicorn in your backyard - since there is no evidence that it exists, there is no reason for it to affect how we go about our daily lives.

When it comes to whether you’re agnostic or atheist, I think it helps to answer the following question on a scale of 0 - 10: How confident are you that God exists? If you say around 5, then you’re agnostic. If you say around 1 or 2, then you’re an atheist.

I’d say a good-sized part of it is simply the American preference for watching beautiful, weathly people doing beautiful, wealthy people things. Hollywood rom-coms and US TV shows in general clearly skew towards upper middle class settings when compared to the equivalents from, say, the UK.

In other words, I reckon US media prefer their fictional characters to be aspirational whereas other cultures prefer theirs to be relatable.

The Death of Stalin is great.

It’s not so much saying that someone’s religious beliefs are logically impossible, more highly unlikely. When I typically see this rhetoric, it’s generally along the lines of “how on Earth did you weigh up all the evidence (or lack thereof) and come to the conclusion that God exists?”, or more impolite words to that effect.

I personally don’t browbeat the religious, so I’m not condoning it, but that’s why this line of argument generally isn’t gnostic atheism.

If, on the other hand, someone is actually saying that the existence of God is logically impossible, a priori, then that would be gnostic atheism. But, like I said before, that generally isn’t what most atheists believe or argue for.

Gnostic atheists are only a thing on paper; I’ve never met or heard of another atheist who ascribes to this view. As the link you provided states, this academic definition of atheism is not one ascribed to by the vast majority of self-described atheists.

Or, to quote the American Atheists organization:

Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Source

On this basis, any invisible unicorn/intergalactic teapot/flying spaghetti monster argument that invokes “burden of proof” is not an gnostic atheist position. The argument is based on the idea that until evidence for an invisible unicorn exists, there is no reason for it to have any bearing on our behavior.

This is different from saying that because no evidence of an invisible unicorn exists, that we must conclude that it categorically does not exist. You cannot logically prove the non-existence of a non-existent entity.

As an atheist who is not anti-religion, I wholeheartedly agree. The religious do not have a monopoly on irrationality, or weaponizing ideology.

I see many atheists on forums proposing the idea that if we could only just get rid of religion, the world would be a harmonious and rational place. As if human beings wouldn’t still be perfectly able to come up with new and interesting ways to rationalize conflict and division amongst themselves.

I agree with your second paragraph but take issue with your first.

Atheism is not the belief that God categorically does not exist; it’s the position that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that God exists, and that therefore there is no reason to believe in him/her/it. It’s a subtle but important distinction because the first is not logically consistent whereas the latter is.

Agnosticism, on the other hand, tends to either be the view that the likelihood of God existing is more or less equal to that of God not existing, or the view that we will probably never know so we cannot come down on one side or the other.

True. There’s something to be said for pleasuring any passing bats who might be in the vicinity.