I got banned from unpopular opinions and a bunch of other communities on dbzer0 for activity not on that community. We’re slowly turning into Reddit ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Given that, according to your comment history, you think “homosexuality is morally wrong”, I don’t think you’re going to find much sympathy here. On the whole, Lemmy has little patience for regressive ideology.
I’m a Christian! Did you know that the church in Ethiopia was started by a non-binary person? Gender and sexuality used to be very different social constructs in biblical times and modern views on gender and sexuality didn’t come around in full force until around 300 years ago.
It’s a real shame that the church in general tends to reject the LGBT community. Science has shown over and over again that sexual identity and gender identity are inherent parts of people, and it makes no sense to me how God can hate something that he designed.
He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?
Acts 8:27-28 NRSV
[27] So [Phillip] got up and went. Now there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of the Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of her entire treasury. He had come to Jerusalem to worship [28] and was returning home; seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah.
Here’s a story about a eunuch returning home from Jerusalem. Eunuchs back then were seen as ‘between’ male and female. They were able to go between the men’s Chambers in the women’s Chambers freely, and so they were very useful in courts. Not all Eunuchs were in the courts though.
According to church tradition this very Eunuch founded the Ethiopian Church. And so it is very possible for non-binary people to be followers of Christ.
Of course we can’t fall into the pitfall of applying modern sexuality and gender theory on ancient cultures, as they have a very different set of social institutions.
Some theologians of years past have suggested that the passage which is alluded to in Genesis might have a different meaning.
Genesis 2:23 NRSV
[23] Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called Woman, for out of Man this one was taken.”
This taken in conjunction with the passage that you quoted, can be interpreted very differently. Woman was taken out of man, meaning that Man was once both male and female at the same time, and yet perfect as all of God’s creation was.
Jesus never explicitly condemns Eunuchs or other groups of gender non-conforming people. I would not take this passage to exclude everything else from the life giving blood shed for us on the cross
Eunuchs were men, though. They were castrated so were seen as less of a threat. I do not think we can compare eunuchs to non-binary/gender-non-conforming people of today.
Matthew 19:12 NRSV
[12] For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”
Jesus mentions two types of eunuchs here. Those who are made, and those who are born as eunuchs. The latter, those who are born as eunuchs are what we today call intersex people.
Intersex people have ambiguous sex characteristics and are born that way. Intersex people make up around 1.7% of the population, around the same amount as people who have red hair. They are pretty distinct. Sometimes they can have male genitalia and female sex hormones, while still others can have ambiguous genitalia. Others still have male chromosomes when being phenotypically female.
Not every one of these was included in the term Eunuch, as they aren’t always visible traits. But many of these traits were visible so they were seen as distinct from men. Oftentimes they’re born that way.
(An aside while it’s on my mind, Jesus tells us that marriage is overrated in this passage. I think we neglect our single church members a lot, seeing as there doesn’t seem to be much space for them outside of the context of marriage. And this passage says that marriage isn’t for everyone)
Unfortunately, lately Christians have done nothing but fucking make their religious beliefs a concern to me so no. You are dead ass wrong. After having drinks thrown at me, guns pulled on me, being spat at, cussed out, followed around in my car, kicked out of dog parks, and up rooting my entire fucking life to move to a safer place: I’m not a Christian and your opinion concerns the fuck out of me.
I haven’t thrown a drink at you, pulled a gun, spat at you, cussed at you, followed you in your car or kick you out of a dog park. Nor have I done that to anyone. And I’ll condemn anyone I find doing it.
Perhaps not yours personally, but Christians’ in general sure do, because they’re always trying to shove their religious beliefs into governmental policy. People are dying right now because of the obviously Christian abortion ban in the US.
As a Christian, gtfo with homophobia. All people are made in Gods image and so to condemn the gay and transgender people is to condemn the Lord. Take one of the greatest commandments seriously: love thy neighbour.
One of the greatest commandments. But it’s not the greatest. The greatest is to love the LORD your God with all of your heart, soul, mind and strength. That means loving Him more than any human and not engaging in relationships that dishonour Him.
Everyone has sinned and yet is made in God’s image. No human is not made in God’s image. Does that mean that we shouldn’t have a definition of right and wrong? By no means!
Don’t care. If you cannot obey loving thy neighbour then you’re not a true Christian.
Loving your God means to love thy neighbour, that is what Jesus says. Quite literally citing from the motherfucking Bible:
"There is no commandment greater than these.”
If you wish to argue further with me, go first treat gay and transgender people with due respect as a true Christian should. If you cannot do that, then you are no longer a Christian.
According to the Bible, engaging in homosexual activity is dishonouring God.
I’m just saying what the Bible says.
Romans 1:26-27
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Well I think any “Christian” that thinks that God judges people for being gay is a Devil worshipper. Hate is the domain of Satan, not a benevolent God. There is a word for a being that would make people a certain immutable way and then judge them harshly for it. That word is Evil. You fundamentally believe in an evil, demonic god.
You’re not a Christian. You’re a Devil worshipper. And you will burn in Hell for your sins.
Seeing people as a means to an end rather than an ends unto themselves. A basic lack of human empathy and respect for human dignity. Jesus was a brown socialist who hung out with queers, prostitutes, and social outcasts. That fact should inform any form of Christian ethics.
Serious question: is the morality of homosexuality actually brought into question in the old/new testaments, or is this one of those things where people have chosen to interpret some shit creatively? Seen quite a few of those creative takes, like the people claiming the “hot or cold” or “camel through the eye of the needle” bits are actually some obscure references to local conditions rather than actual moral lessons.
I encourage you to look it up for yourself. The English translations are pretty unequivocal, though there are those who insist they are miss-translated.
That insistence has not resulted in any of the major English translations choosing different wording.
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,
Romans 1:26-27
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
As for the “hot and cold”, that type of thing is up for interpretation, although I hold that hot water is good and so is cold water. I believe that’s what Jesus was referring to.
The “Camel through an eye of a needle” with the “eye of the needle” being a gate is a total myth made up by the rich to try and justify their greed. Jesus meant what we read it as today. For extra clarification, the original greek even refers to the word “needle” with different words, one is surgical, I believe the other one is fishing related. So it couldn’t be a place. Jesus meant what He said - it is easier for a camel to go through an eye of a needle than a rich person to get into heaven.
Some Lemmy “lefties” are actually just liberals who hate America and want some token reforms of capitalism. If you look at it that way the actions of the extreme/stupid users starts to add up.
DBZero(and Blahaj) have skin so thin that a bible page across the arm causes bloodletting.
I’m surprised the owners don’t divvy out ban quotas per month. Half of the users they ban aren’t even conservatives, who just had logical misunderstandings with an admin one day; wannabe couch revolutionaries looking for targets in the absence of anything real to do.
Blahaj has a no tolerance policy on trans rights, from what I understand, and I think they like how they run their stuff. Maybe you know that already, but if not, maybe that’s helpful? It’s not so much thin skin as “we’re here for the purpose of not seeing that kinda stuff, so we block it here”.
DB0 is legitimately one of the coolest places on the modern internet, I’m curious to hear what kinds of things you’ve seen bans for. The admin/host (by the same name) seems to have very rational, reasonable takes toward moderation, and he values transparency and community feedback. Frankly from my own (instance-level, not community or thread) observations, he seems like a model of high-quality moderation. Your experience sounds off to me, but I hope that doesn’t come across as an accusation, I don’t intend one.
Blahaj, I kind of understand. Although I’d prefer if you were to have an LGBTQ+ safe place instance, that the communities primarily on there are LGBTQ+ communities. I don’t think I was banned on DB0 by the instance, but multiple communities which seemed to have the same mod.
I think it’s absolutely ridiculous that you cannot be conservative on [email protected] , they’re basically just name squatting. They banned me from there because I was calling out a post attacking religion. I wasn’t even being that conservative.
I guess I’d add, having returned to this, that it’s a bit off-putting for you to be sharing your preferences for how they behave with their own instance, given your non-involvement with that instance itself, or trans things in general.
One of the major points of federation as a concept is for folks to not be mandatorily subject to some overarching singular approach to content moderation. You’re here, so I think it’s reasonable to assume you care at least a bit about the way this platform works and what makes it unique(ish) and valuable.
At the risk of coming across more hostile than I intend - why on earth does Blahaj need to specifically, only, be about trans topics, to be a valid space in your eyes, when it seems they mostly just want to exist how they prefer and interact with federated Lemmy stuff, in the ways federation explicitly intends?
I’ll admit that I don’t always remember to look at where a given post originated from before commenting, and I should get better at that - could be that’s all you need, too 🤷♂️
It’s moreso how here people tend to gravitate to a single community. It is annoying if that community is on an instance which could be banning people for other reasons unrelated to that community. I didn’t say it isn’t a valid space, it’s just how instances work. For a while Blahaj had defederated feddit.uk because we handled trans topics differently to how they’d prefer. It would be annoying if, let’s say, the main and active asklemmy community was on blahaj
Ah yeah that’s a reasonable take and I do know what you mean. I broadly like what federation offers over centralization, but it’s not without its quirks and some drawbacks, I hear ya.
At least if a community goes bad, people can shift very easily and it’s an inconvenience. I think ideally though, there should be a way to create publicly accepted combined communities. Maybe an option in a community’s setting to graft in posts from another community. Although then rule enforcement and moderation might get a little tricky. For example, just say [email protected] grafted in [email protected], maybe along with uk politics and other UK related subs (even local UK subs, that’d be cool!). Users on unitedkingdom may see something on casualuk and unknowingly leave comments on it which are political- and discussing politics is banned on casualuk.
Yeah I’ll be honest, I don’t have a lot to say about how those kinda scenarios should be managed at the moment, I haven’t thought that stuff through too deeply I’m realizing. I’m pretty happy to defer to folks with experience in community moderation and such, I’m frankly a pretty poor candidate for that, for several reasons (somewhat moody, sometimes fond of borderline hyperbolic takes, etc.).
I do think users should be able to have the experience they want, but that’s vague enough to be almost uselessly uncontroversial, and I also recognize that some people’s wants can be incompatible with others’, without either necessarily being unreasonable or unfair. So, another partial reflection of the human condition in general I guess.
You can be conservative, you just cannot be an ass. Unfortunately, it is rather difficult for conservatives to not be proper conservatives and instead they often turn to fascism like Trump and Musk proclaim.
Being a conservative is about prioritising the status quo. It is not about returning to the middle ages with a police state of witchhunting and mass murder, which is what fascists and reactionaries want.
I really don’t understand that comm either, but I haven’t looked too closely cuz I’m not that interested. I also moved off .world entirely for my accounts because I don’t like some of their moderation stances. I understand why they have them and don’t begrudge them for it, to be clear. But I do eye them warily as a kind of emerging de facto instance in some ways (AKA potential for more centralization than seems wise, given their need or desire to comply with certain local laws that limit speech).
It would be nice if some of them(like my previous alt), were actually proven to be conservatives to begin with so they didn’t draw the attention of keyboard warriors for the misuse of a pronoun.
Blahaj kicked me out of 196 on Matrix just for being straight.
This. In recent months I’ve seen more and more hostile interactions and political strawmans than I can count. Been on Lemmy for over 2 years, and it hasn’t changed for the worse until recently.
Yeah, it all changed after Trump’s victory and all the crazy shit he started immediately doing. I have both contributed to the problem, and lamented the shift. I don’t want this platform to be about slinging half-baked political takes (lumping myself in there, to be clear), but also I can’t blame anyone for wanting to discuss the terrifying stuff we’re seeing. Really was cooler here, even just 6 months ago.
You sir are a rare breed, I think the first actual conservative I have ever seen on Lemmy. I’m sure we disagree on most things but thanks for adding some diversity of opinion in a respectful manner.
Actual as in, status quo, Christian democrat stuff, or “actual” as in, fascists and alt-right and populists? The latter aren’t conservatives; in the US, those are the actual RINOs.
I got banned from unpopular opinions and a bunch of other communities on dbzer0 for activity not on that community. We’re slowly turning into Reddit
¯\_(ツ)_/¯Given that, according to your comment history, you think “homosexuality is morally wrong”, I don’t think you’re going to find much sympathy here. On the whole, Lemmy has little patience for regressive ideology.
I was talking in terms of my religious beliefs. If you aren’t a Christian, my opinion doesn’t concern you.
I’m a Christian! Did you know that the church in Ethiopia was started by a non-binary person? Gender and sexuality used to be very different social constructs in biblical times and modern views on gender and sexuality didn’t come around in full force until around 300 years ago.
It’s a real shame that the church in general tends to reject the LGBT community. Science has shown over and over again that sexual identity and gender identity are inherent parts of people, and it makes no sense to me how God can hate something that he designed.
Source on the Ethiopian church?
Matthew 19:4-5
Gender did exist in biblical times
Acts 8:27-28 NRSV [27] So [Phillip] got up and went. Now there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of the Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of her entire treasury. He had come to Jerusalem to worship [28] and was returning home; seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah.
Here’s a story about a eunuch returning home from Jerusalem. Eunuchs back then were seen as ‘between’ male and female. They were able to go between the men’s Chambers in the women’s Chambers freely, and so they were very useful in courts. Not all Eunuchs were in the courts though.
According to church tradition this very Eunuch founded the Ethiopian Church. And so it is very possible for non-binary people to be followers of Christ.
Of course we can’t fall into the pitfall of applying modern sexuality and gender theory on ancient cultures, as they have a very different set of social institutions.
Some theologians of years past have suggested that the passage which is alluded to in Genesis might have a different meaning.
Genesis 2:23 NRSV [23] Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called Woman, for out of Man this one was taken.”
This taken in conjunction with the passage that you quoted, can be interpreted very differently. Woman was taken out of man, meaning that Man was once both male and female at the same time, and yet perfect as all of God’s creation was.
Jesus never explicitly condemns Eunuchs or other groups of gender non-conforming people. I would not take this passage to exclude everything else from the life giving blood shed for us on the cross
Eunuchs were men, though. They were castrated so were seen as less of a threat. I do not think we can compare eunuchs to non-binary/gender-non-conforming people of today.
I don’t think that’s the case
Matthew 19:12 NRSV [12] For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”
Jesus mentions two types of eunuchs here. Those who are made, and those who are born as eunuchs. The latter, those who are born as eunuchs are what we today call intersex people.
Intersex people have ambiguous sex characteristics and are born that way. Intersex people make up around 1.7% of the population, around the same amount as people who have red hair. They are pretty distinct. Sometimes they can have male genitalia and female sex hormones, while still others can have ambiguous genitalia. Others still have male chromosomes when being phenotypically female.
Not every one of these was included in the term Eunuch, as they aren’t always visible traits. But many of these traits were visible so they were seen as distinct from men. Oftentimes they’re born that way.
(An aside while it’s on my mind, Jesus tells us that marriage is overrated in this passage. I think we neglect our single church members a lot, seeing as there doesn’t seem to be much space for them outside of the context of marriage. And this passage says that marriage isn’t for everyone)
Unfortunately, lately Christians have done nothing but fucking make their religious beliefs a concern to me so no. You are dead ass wrong. After having drinks thrown at me, guns pulled on me, being spat at, cussed out, followed around in my car, kicked out of dog parks, and up rooting my entire fucking life to move to a safer place: I’m not a Christian and your opinion concerns the fuck out of me.
Why would my personal beliefs concern you?
I haven’t thrown a drink at you, pulled a gun, spat at you, cussed at you, followed you in your car or kick you out of a dog park. Nor have I done that to anyone. And I’ll condemn anyone I find doing it.
Same way you’ll condemn the gays yes?
So you hate religious people, why does anyone need to hear about it?
We aren’t going to generalise and putting words into peoples’ mouths. Correct your behaviour.
Feel free to report/ban me, I’m not correcting shit.
Perhaps not yours personally, but Christians’ in general sure do, because they’re always trying to shove their religious beliefs into governmental policy. People are dying right now because of the obviously Christian abortion ban in the US.
I disagree with a state enforcing religion
I’m glad, and I wish all Christians thought that way.
As a Christian, gtfo with homophobia. All people are made in Gods image and so to condemn the gay and transgender people is to condemn the Lord. Take one of the greatest commandments seriously: love thy neighbour.
One of the greatest commandments. But it’s not the greatest. The greatest is to love the LORD your God with all of your heart, soul, mind and strength. That means loving Him more than any human and not engaging in relationships that dishonour Him.
Everyone has sinned and yet is made in God’s image. No human is not made in God’s image. Does that mean that we shouldn’t have a definition of right and wrong? By no means!
I never said to hate your neighbour.
Don’t care. If you cannot obey loving thy neighbour then you’re not a true Christian.
Loving your God means to love thy neighbour, that is what Jesus says. Quite literally citing from the motherfucking Bible:
If you wish to argue further with me, go first treat gay and transgender people with due respect as a true Christian should. If you cannot do that, then you are no longer a Christian.
I never said we should not treat gay and transgender people with due respect.
Your idea of due respect is saying that being gay is dishonoring god?
According to the Bible, engaging in homosexual activity is dishonouring God.
I’m just saying what the Bible says.
Romans 1:26-27
Well I think any “Christian” that thinks that God judges people for being gay is a Devil worshipper. Hate is the domain of Satan, not a benevolent God. There is a word for a being that would make people a certain immutable way and then judge them harshly for it. That word is Evil. You fundamentally believe in an evil, demonic god.
You’re not a Christian. You’re a Devil worshipper. And you will burn in Hell for your sins.
How do you define evil in that case? Lol.
Seeing people as a means to an end rather than an ends unto themselves. A basic lack of human empathy and respect for human dignity. Jesus was a brown socialist who hung out with queers, prostitutes, and social outcasts. That fact should inform any form of Christian ethics.
He kept telling them not to sin
He also made them gay.
Oh, and he made them in his image along with everyone else so god must be Pan.
God also made billionaires desire money. Doesn’t mean that them acting on their desires is right.
Serious question: is the morality of homosexuality actually brought into question in the old/new testaments, or is this one of those things where people have chosen to interpret some shit creatively? Seen quite a few of those creative takes, like the people claiming the “hot or cold” or “camel through the eye of the needle” bits are actually some obscure references to local conditions rather than actual moral lessons.
I encourage you to look it up for yourself. The English translations are pretty unequivocal, though there are those who insist they are miss-translated.
That insistence has not resulted in any of the major English translations choosing different wording.
https://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/bible-verses-about-homosexuality/
Is a good list.
Of course, none of that matters because gay people should have more rights than any book.
Damn those are some harsh passages. Definitely not creative interpretation on that one.
Bible is pretty clear.
1 Corinthians 6:9
Romans 1:26-27
As for the “hot and cold”, that type of thing is up for interpretation, although I hold that hot water is good and so is cold water. I believe that’s what Jesus was referring to.
The “Camel through an eye of a needle” with the “eye of the needle” being a gate is a total myth made up by the rich to try and justify their greed. Jesus meant what we read it as today. For extra clarification, the original greek even refers to the word “needle” with different words, one is surgical, I believe the other one is fishing related. So it couldn’t be a place. Jesus meant what He said - it is easier for a camel to go through an eye of a needle than a rich person to get into heaven.
Exactly. The bible is clear, and it is clearly unjust.
Therefore those who follow what it says are spreading injustice through the world and must be stopped.
wow what a hateful book
I never had to write my political manifesto to join a community on Reddit either lmao
Some Lemmy “lefties” are actually just liberals who hate America and want some token reforms of capitalism. If you look at it that way the actions of the extreme/stupid users starts to add up.
DBZero(and Blahaj) have skin so thin that a bible page across the arm causes bloodletting.
I’m surprised the owners don’t divvy out ban quotas per month. Half of the users they ban aren’t even conservatives, who just had logical misunderstandings with an admin one day; wannabe couch revolutionaries looking for targets in the absence of anything real to do.
Blahaj has a no tolerance policy on trans rights, from what I understand, and I think they like how they run their stuff. Maybe you know that already, but if not, maybe that’s helpful? It’s not so much thin skin as “we’re here for the purpose of not seeing that kinda stuff, so we block it here”.
DB0 is legitimately one of the coolest places on the modern internet, I’m curious to hear what kinds of things you’ve seen bans for. The admin/host (by the same name) seems to have very rational, reasonable takes toward moderation, and he values transparency and community feedback. Frankly from my own (instance-level, not community or thread) observations, he seems like a model of high-quality moderation. Your experience sounds off to me, but I hope that doesn’t come across as an accusation, I don’t intend one.
Blahaj, I kind of understand. Although I’d prefer if you were to have an LGBTQ+ safe place instance, that the communities primarily on there are LGBTQ+ communities. I don’t think I was banned on DB0 by the instance, but multiple communities which seemed to have the same mod.
I think it’s absolutely ridiculous that you cannot be conservative on [email protected] , they’re basically just name squatting. They banned me from there because I was calling out a post attacking religion. I wasn’t even being that conservative.
I guess I’d add, having returned to this, that it’s a bit off-putting for you to be sharing your preferences for how they behave with their own instance, given your non-involvement with that instance itself, or trans things in general.
One of the major points of federation as a concept is for folks to not be mandatorily subject to some overarching singular approach to content moderation. You’re here, so I think it’s reasonable to assume you care at least a bit about the way this platform works and what makes it unique(ish) and valuable.
At the risk of coming across more hostile than I intend - why on earth does Blahaj need to specifically, only, be about trans topics, to be a valid space in your eyes, when it seems they mostly just want to exist how they prefer and interact with federated Lemmy stuff, in the ways federation explicitly intends?
I’ll admit that I don’t always remember to look at where a given post originated from before commenting, and I should get better at that - could be that’s all you need, too 🤷♂️
It’s moreso how here people tend to gravitate to a single community. It is annoying if that community is on an instance which could be banning people for other reasons unrelated to that community. I didn’t say it isn’t a valid space, it’s just how instances work. For a while Blahaj had defederated feddit.uk because we handled trans topics differently to how they’d prefer. It would be annoying if, let’s say, the main and active asklemmy community was on blahaj
Ah yeah that’s a reasonable take and I do know what you mean. I broadly like what federation offers over centralization, but it’s not without its quirks and some drawbacks, I hear ya.
At least if a community goes bad, people can shift very easily and it’s an inconvenience. I think ideally though, there should be a way to create publicly accepted combined communities. Maybe an option in a community’s setting to graft in posts from another community. Although then rule enforcement and moderation might get a little tricky. For example, just say [email protected] grafted in [email protected], maybe along with uk politics and other UK related subs (even local UK subs, that’d be cool!). Users on unitedkingdom may see something on casualuk and unknowingly leave comments on it which are political- and discussing politics is banned on casualuk.
Yeah I’ll be honest, I don’t have a lot to say about how those kinda scenarios should be managed at the moment, I haven’t thought that stuff through too deeply I’m realizing. I’m pretty happy to defer to folks with experience in community moderation and such, I’m frankly a pretty poor candidate for that, for several reasons (somewhat moody, sometimes fond of borderline hyperbolic takes, etc.).
I do think users should be able to have the experience they want, but that’s vague enough to be almost uselessly uncontroversial, and I also recognize that some people’s wants can be incompatible with others’, without either necessarily being unreasonable or unfair. So, another partial reflection of the human condition in general I guess.
You can be conservative, you just cannot be an ass. Unfortunately, it is rather difficult for conservatives to not be proper conservatives and instead they often turn to fascism like Trump and Musk proclaim.
Being a conservative is about prioritising the status quo. It is not about returning to the middle ages with a police state of witchhunting and mass murder, which is what fascists and reactionaries want.
Conservative was reclaimed from the hatemongers so it could be used to mock them.
Hilariously this comment is precisely as confusing to me as the comm itself.
I really don’t understand that comm either, but I haven’t looked too closely cuz I’m not that interested. I also moved off .world entirely for my accounts because I don’t like some of their moderation stances. I understand why they have them and don’t begrudge them for it, to be clear. But I do eye them warily as a kind of emerging de facto instance in some ways (AKA potential for more centralization than seems wise, given their need or desire to comply with certain local laws that limit speech).
Or maybe the ““conservatives”” are the actual snowflakes they complain about.
Maybe those fascists should gtfo and try not shooting and killing women and queers, and so on?
It would be nice if some of them(like my previous alt), were actually proven to be conservatives to begin with so they didn’t draw the attention of keyboard warriors for the misuse of a pronoun.
Blahaj kicked me out of 196 on Matrix just for being straight.
Pretty sure Blåhaj doesn’t kick out people like that. It may be that you used a slur, were being an ass with your faith, or whatever.
Have you ever tried being nice to people? It does wonders.
This. In recent months I’ve seen more and more hostile interactions and political strawmans than I can count. Been on Lemmy for over 2 years, and it hasn’t changed for the worse until recently.
Yeah, it all changed after Trump’s victory and all the crazy shit he started immediately doing. I have both contributed to the problem, and lamented the shift. I don’t want this platform to be about slinging half-baked political takes (lumping myself in there, to be clear), but also I can’t blame anyone for wanting to discuss the terrifying stuff we’re seeing. Really was cooler here, even just 6 months ago.
I hate Trump passionately.
You sir are a rare breed, I think the first actual conservative I have ever seen on Lemmy. I’m sure we disagree on most things but thanks for adding some diversity of opinion in a respectful manner.
Actual as in, status quo, Christian democrat stuff, or “actual” as in, fascists and alt-right and populists? The latter aren’t conservatives; in the US, those are the actual RINOs.
I mean I haven’t browsed through his post history but this thread he says he is a Christian who hates trump so I would guess the former.