Comments

The submission is locked. You cannot post new comments.

Pop wrote (edited )

The site doesn't

There's a difference between
having a problem with abusive hierarchical religious institutions that mediate (and bureaucratise and abuse) our relationship between ourselves and whatever spiritual leanings we may have
and
acting against religious people as part of a global or regional system of opression against those people

most people here probably generally want to destroy (especially institutionalised) religion? but we want to destroy antisemitism, islamophobia, and other shitbag anti-religious views that similarly use relative positions of power to maintain oppressive frameworks against people

9

____deleted____ wrote

I didn't see any rule about that.

Also, many of us such as I are far from traditional Marxism.

4

gonnagetbanned OP wrote

It's in the T&Cs, no critique of religion allowed basically.

−3

An_Old_Big_Tree wrote

w/terms_of_service:

Content is prohibited if it

Promotes white supremacy, homophobia or heterosexism, transphobia or cisgenderism, misogyny or patriarchy, classism, ableism, body shaming, antisemitism, Islamophobia, colonialism or age discrimination.

Sexualizes minors or promotes adults having sex with minors.

Trivializes or makes light of rape.

Apologizes for police or military brutality, imperialism, eugenics, genocide.

Apologizes for violence towards children.

Is a pornographic image/video (however, nudity is permitted if it's non-pornographic).

Not sure where you're looking.

3

zombie_berkman wrote

Considering this is their only post they clearly have an issue with Muslims or Jews and concern trolling

3

gonnagetbanned OP wrote

Ummm... I was born Jewish and my father was an Irani Muslim (mother Ashkenazi jew). Not sure what your logic is there mate.

−1

gonnagetbanned OP wrote

why is critiquing Christianity ok but not Islam or Judaism? I assumed the ToS would include Christianity as obviously these form the three main monotheistic religions..

−3

An_Old_Big_Tree wrote

Critiquing all three is welcome. Participating in systemic oppression is not. You seem to be intentionally misunderstanding what has been said here.

3

gonnagetbanned OP wrote

I have defined systemic oppression below and you have chosen to ignore the definition I gave without explaining why.

So, you have accused me of "intentionally misunderstanding what has been said" when you have, intentionally or not, misunderstood the meaning of systemic oppression!

Plus, if critiquing all three is welcome, why are only two written in the ToS? You still have not replied to this, sticking only to your incorrect definition of systemic oppression.

Please don't ban me, I just want to hear your logic on this. Banning me for no reason just because you disagree with me would be mean, I'm sure you wouldn't do that.

−1

gonnagetbanned OP wrote (edited )

Systemic oppression "occurs when established laws, customs, and practices systematically reflect and produce inequities based on one’s membership in targeted social identity groups. If oppressive consequences accrue to institutional laws, customs, or practices, the system is oppressive whether or not the individuals maintaining those practices have oppressive intentions"

How is this systematic oppression?

−2

gonnagetbanned OP wrote

I love how people dislike the comment without explaining why they think it's wrong. Is it correct, but you don't like it? At least just tell me if I'm saying anything false..

0

____deleted____ wrote

Okay, fair.

antisemitism, Islamophobia,

this part concerns me too given I very much hate the main branches of most religions, from these to Christianity to Buddhism, etc.

−3

An_Old_Big_Tree wrote

You've said a few things lately that indicate you don't know (or don't know in much depth) how systemic oppression works - please have a look into that.

Having a problem with antisemitism and islamophobia is not the same as preventing criticism of the individuals/groups/institutions involved.

7

____deleted____ wrote

to be fair i dont know much overall im just generally a dumbass

−1

sudo wrote

No no, I see what you're trying to do here. You're trying to deflect criticism against yourself by owning it. By ruthlessly deprecating yourself, you're trying to elicit a sympathetic response (something along the lines of "come now, there's no need to be so hard on yourself"). You're hoping that your opponent will take pity on you and try to comfort you, forgetting their criticisms in the process. Regardless of whether you actually think you're stupid or not, this is a manipulative tactic, and it shouldn't be used when a simple counter-argument would suffice.

I'm not trying to be unsympathetic - I think both you and the OP have made it clear that you are criticizing religions, not the people who believe in those religions. I understand the need to double-check criticisms of Judaism and Islam to ensure that they're not really racist sentiments against jews and muslims. But, I think you've shown that your criticisms aren't coming from a position of bigotry, so the continued reluctance to address these points is unnecessary. I understand that you're frustrated by this, but let's not resort to manipulation, yeah?

2

____deleted____ wrote

No, I just consistently call myself a dumbass, don't try to view it as manipulative- I've known a lot of manipulative people and would hate nothing more than to be one.

This is a consistent point I've pushed on Riot, Mastodon and other channels of communication (in reference to 'I'm a dumbass'). I can imagine it coming off such a way since I don't know you and assume vice versa is true, but I'm very consistent on this.

I want no pity and do not accept pity.

A counter-argument would not suffice because I have none; I don't know enough to make one, and generally often don't know enough to make arguments period. Over Riot I stressed a wish to get passed some resources to educate myself with, generally 'im a dumbass' is me just accepting defeat before going on to ask on easier forms of communication for ways to remedy that.

In conclusion, I am a dumbass, but I am very consistent about it.

2

gonnagetbanned OP wrote

You don't know what systemic oppression is either obviously! You're ignoring the definition I gave of it entirely, because you either had no idea what it meant or thought it meant something completely different. You can't criticize people for not following a term you don't understand.

−3

[deleted] wrote (edited )

3

gonnagetbanned OP wrote

That's still not explaining why I can say whatever I want about Christianity but not Judaism and Islam. Are you saying these two religions are better than the first one, and therefore need more protection? Are their members weaker, therefore not able to stand criticism?

I fail to understand.

Obviously not talking about "jackassed racist myths", but if I say the following: "Women can't drive yet in Saudi Arabia and it's 2018" and "It's an Islamic country, Islam being a religion which precisely describes women as inferior"

What did I say wrong? These are absolute facts, no?

3

[deleted] wrote (edited )

2

gonnagetbanned OP wrote

"The change, which will take effect in JUNE 2018, was announced in a royal decree read live on state television and in a simultaneous media event in Washington. The decision highlights the damage that the ban on women driving has done to the kingdom’s international reputation and its hopes for a public relations benefit from the reform." According to NY Times. Women can't drive till June, buddy. You had one of the easiest fact checks in the world and you still fucked it up.

Also, there is absolutely no reason why I should treat one religion with more respect than another. I'm not talking about "Jews" or "Muslims"! My father was a Muslim! I don't judge people based on their religion. I'm just saying ISLAM, compared to ALL OTHER MAJOR MONOTHEISTIC RELIGIONS, has a much more pejorative view on WOMEN according to the KORAN (not current practices and/or thoughts/traditions). Obviously there is also misogyny in Christianism (I mentioned this in another post with priests) but women can drive and have their faces uncovered and work and be president etc etc etc in most countries with a majority Christian population and/or non-secular Christian nations (El Salvador, eg.)

I'm not talking about "groups", I'm talking about the institutions. I never mentioned individual people. I talked about ISLAM, JUDAISM and CHRISTIANITY. What is wrong with that?

Side note: It is not my opinion that Islam is inherently sexist. If you read the Koran, line by line, you will find plenty of extremely sexist mentions that, in many parts of the world, still hold true. That is a fact.

1

[deleted] wrote (edited )

0

gonnagetbanned OP wrote

Here's homework assignment:

Indonesia and Kyrgystan are secular nations where religion doesn't control the state therefore any information about them is irrelevant.

Turkey, which is mostly secular but not officially and where Islam is coming back by sharia, there has been only one female Prime Minister since the country's inception. And that was 20 years ago, so it seems to be getting worse.

In Pakistan, there has been one woman PM as well, and she was the daughter of the dictator in place before her, and was assassinated. LOL. She was elected again later, and suffered a coup d'etat in 1995 due to strong criticism. LOL.

I have to hand it to you, Bangladesh has had two women PMs, the same as the UK. However, Bangladesh is a "secular Islamic" state, which means it is not an islamic country either. But, it does have a majority muslim populations, so you were right in a sense. But it should be considered that their political system is based on the British one, according to many sources:

            "We don't practice Islamic Sharia laws in our court. We follow British 
              Indian laws. " - Anik Hassan, Quora

So in another sense your argument is invalidated by this.

As I have just shown, your homework assignment has done little good to your cause, sadly.

0

____deleted____ wrote

Aren't all of the Abrahamic religions generally pretty sexist by default? The writings are sexist and depending on the country the sexist parts are implemented to varying degrees (this includes Christian teachings, don't take this as a roundabout 'but the muslims do it worse'. Covering myself because reading over it it could be taken that way.)

Generally, the three just pull social progress back.

1

[deleted] wrote

1

____deleted____ wrote

Oh, yeah, definitely. The trio just seem to me that they're often hand-in-hand with reactionary ideals, given my experiences with Christianity and what I've heard from friends from Morocco and Syria.

0

____deleted____ wrote

jackassed racist myths in the process.

Yeah, I'll talk shit about any religions but will certainly avoid that.

1

jaidedctrl wrote

I'm not religious in the slightest, but I don't get what there'd be to gain from criticizing religion. … criticizing organized & institutionalized religion is a different thing which is useful, though.

1

gonnagetbanned OP wrote (edited )

Well, you see, for example, women are treated horribly in the Koran, and I don't like that. In the Torah, I disprove the point that you're not allowed to eat pork as it is completely out-of-date and was written in a time when pork was dangerous and could kill if not prepared properly. In the Bible, I strongly dislike the fact that women are not allowed to be priests, and I hate the amount of pedophilia in the Catholic church today.

Why am I allowed to say the last one but not the two first ones according to the ToS?

1

____deleted____ wrote

women are treated horribly in the Koran

and also the torah and also the bible

the rape law comes to mind as one major case, though i recall reading and seeing a good amount more

1

gonnagetbanned OP wrote

Absolutely, this is true too, but you don't see Christianism or Judaism today systemically oppressing women and not allowing them to work, study, drive, hold important positions...

2

____deleted____ wrote

In Malta, a kidnapper “after abducting a person, shall marry such person, he shall not be liable to prosecution.”

The predominant religion in Malta is that of the Catholic Church. The Constitution of Malta establishes Catholicism as the state religion and it is also reflected in various elements of Maltese culture.

1

[deleted] wrote (edited )

0

gonnagetbanned OP wrote

I completely understand what you say, and I agree. However, two questions arise:

  1. Why isn't Christianity up there with the religions you can't be racist or biased against?

  2. Why then is everyone downvoting my comments that simply state objective, non-biased views on religions as a whole (and not about the people that represent them)?

I'm not asking you to answer in particular, you didn't decide these problems. But maybe someone has an answer...?

3

[deleted] wrote (edited )

0

____deleted____ wrote

countries where racism against Christians doesn't really exist

I'd like to remind of the issues the occupied areas of Rojava suffer especially regarding Yazidis. Just a small note, I otherwise agree.

1

gonnagetbanned OP wrote

lol are people just gonna keep downvoting absolute facts that I post? Is that the best Raddle can do? Downvote provable facts because it doesn't like them?

I figure I've got a few hours before I get banned for saying nothing but the truth, too.

−4

jaidedctrl wrote

You're beating a dead horse. We know that religious texts generally have terrible BS in them, but there's really no reason to single any of them out from the rest.
You're getting downvoted, also, because for the smug attitude:

I figure I've got a few hours before I get banned for saying nothing but the truth, too.

You've done nothing TOS-violating yet, but when you do it won't just be "for saying the truth." :-P

3

gonnagetbanned OP wrote

  1. There is absolute reason to single out some from the rest as some are less/more strict or sexist than others; they're not all on the same scale. Eg: Jesus didn't marry an underage child of about 13 without consent.

  2. The only reason why I said that is because I've seen other people get banned(before I created an account) simply for criticizing Islam objectively.

I'm not trying to be smug or anything, and I definitely don't want to get banned, it was just sort of a passive-agressive way (I was mad, apologies) to reflect on what other people have been banned for. (Not saying this always happens at all, it's just what I've noticed on some occasions).

1

gonnagetbanned OP wrote

  1. There is absolute reason to single out some from the rest as some are less/more strict or sexist than others; they're not all on the same scale. Eg: Jesus didn't marry an underage child of about 13 without consent.

  2. The only reason why I said that is because I've seen other people get banned(before I created an account) simply for criticizing Islam objectively.

I'm not trying to be smug or anything, and I definitely don't want to get banned, it was just sort of a passive-agressive way (I was mad, apologies) to reflect on what other people have been banned for. (Not saying this always happens at all, it's just what I've noticed on some occasions).

1

ETERNAL_PRISONER wrote

I also can't understand, why leftists soliderize with religious idiots. They are our ideological enemies, we should be happy every time a mosque, church or synagoge gets burned down.

0

ziq wrote (edited )

"We we we" will you stfu? You're not attached at the limb to every self declared 'leftist' and you're certainly not better than 'religious idiots' just because you've labelled yourself an atheist.

You go be happy watching other peoples places of worship burn without expecting other people to give a shit about the fucked up shit that makes you wet.

1