serious-discussion

[cunning adder]

it probably wont be just medical detransitioning clinic, but also include conversion therapy that parents can send their kids off to!!

[magic python]

Yeah I believe it said in the article it also helps reverse social transitioning iirc

[rapid valve]

Conversion therapy with the barbaric practices that come with it

[true zinc]

It'll start off as something voluntary

[rapid valve]

I remember hearing peopke talk about it what they went through and this is inimaginably cruel

[magic python]

Wonder how many parents will force it to their children then

[rapid valve]

I think some can legit be compared to concentration camps

[true zinc]

Then it'll become mandatory by being renamed to just being a gender clinic and then anyone found to be trans will have to go to the gender clinic thinking it's actually to help them transition, but nope!

[cunning adder]

Any amount is too many

[magic python]

And I just know it'll be non-zero.

Based on just how many adults are actually denser than osmium.

[true zinc]

Like c'mon the end game is basically obvious imho

[magic python]

Abuse?

[long orchid]

dude yeah this.... will take me a while to process

[cunning adder]

i get way too shaky and scared when i see news on how trans ppl are being oppressed more and more and more and more

[magic python]

The fact I just said "yeah, that's america" when I saw that headline probably isn't good

Some famous transphobes I believe are directly in the Epstien Files.

Notably Donald Trump and JK Rowling iirc

Also note, there was forced transitioning there iirc.

It's all projection.

[cunning adder]

blaming everything on a marginalized group to get extremely popular and in power worked in 1933, and its working today

[magic python]

JK Rowling claiming we would sexually assault lesbian women and be predators to them sounds an awful lot like a fantasy with my knowledge of what happened.

Not so fun fact: child sexual predators don't just do it to genders they are attracted to in adults.

Isn't Donald homophobic?

[cunning adder]

he's everyone-thats-not-cishet-white-men-phobic

[magic python]

I don't normally do conspiracy theories, but you have to admit, it sounds like they are projecting this hate because they actually abused said groups.

[magic python]

Fair

[civic thicket]

how did a maths server have political discussion

[magic python]

Read the channel description please!~

[civic thicket]

oh alr

[magic python]

Yeah it's JUST projection

Yeah, some trans people are abusers. A majority of us aren't.

The whole "Trans people shouldn't be allowed in the correct bathroom because they'd sexually assault cis people"

There was a case of two cis people sexually assaulting a trans woman in the women's bathroom.

Like come on. These people would feel uncomfortable having trans people in the bathroom aligning with their gender assigned at birth as well.

[old oak]

Doesn't the whole bathroom panic mostly result in cis women (the ones which don't entirely conform to traditional stereotypes of feminity) getting harassed by other cis women (who have rigid notions of how a woman should present)?

[magic python]

Also, a cisman can just walk into the women's bathroom in some places. Like stopping trans people from being comfortable isn't gonna stop SA in bathrooms

[magic python]

Yes transphobia very much so affect gender non conforming people

If you're too masculine you must not be a cis woman and must be a predator

[rapid valve]

Transphobia is sexism, always has been

[magic python]

but quite literally now, as it discriminates based on sex more than sexism does, as that's mostly gender based

[cunning adder]

They think trans people shouldnt exist and this is just another step towards that

[rapid valve]

Transphobia is rooted in gender norms, so exacerbating transphobia inrestrict norms

[magic python]

Indeed

[old oak]

I'm not a woman, but I can honestly say I have never wondered what genitalia other people in the bathroom might have

That said, women have reason to fear sexual assault in ways men typically do not (this is not justifying the bathroom transhphobes, but I can see how that would give them something to tap into)

[cunning adder]

as do normal functional people 😌

[magic python]

People ACTUALLY say only a trans woman who has done bottom surgery can be a the woman's bathroom. Fucking crazy how the genitals determine whether they can "sexually assault" women.

[old oak]

Yeah, it's deranged. Just let people piss in peace

[magic python]

Tfw women sexually assault women:

Though I guess one could argue "it's not as bad because there isn't pregnancy risks"

No it's just them being transmedicalist and saying "you need surgery for me to see you as like almost real. Ignore the fact that I can't fucking tell if you had bottom surgery by just looking at you normally."

People have suggested "bulge detectors"

Well I guess that was more for airports, but...

[cunning adder]

of course its the transphobes most insterested in peoples genitals when they insist its the trans people, all projection

[magic python]

Literally sexually harass people

"No, what's between your legs?"

And insisting to know

I'm sorry, if you care about someone who looks like a woman and is a trans woman in the bathroom, but don't care about masculine women, you are just stupid.

[old oak]

I mean, why do you care what people in the bathroom look like at all? Just have your shit and get on with your life

[magic python]

Also, some people who protect the "keep trans people out of their gendered bathroom" can be disgusting.

I saw a comment on a video about a transphobe that said "I'm [age over 60] and I'm fine with a trans woman in my bathroom"

Someone commented "because nobody would want to touch you"

People are actually fucked in the head

[old oak]

I used to think there's a merit to gender-separated bathrooms because men are, on the whole, disgusting, but then I learned women bathrooms are often worse because of the practice of "hovering"

[cunning adder]

only because THEY wouldnt touch a 60+ year old, they obviously only touch younger people /hj

[magic python]

Men just don't want to see tampons in their bathroom /hj

[idle steppe]

Whats hovering?

[magic python]

I swear all the "most trans people want to rape and sexually assault people" has to be projection by now

These people think about little girls awfully much /hj

[idle steppe]

Only cuz thats the only reason they think someone would wanna be trans

[cunning adder]

literally everything these people say is projection

[magic python]

I've seen someone say the only reason a trans woman would use the girls bathroom is to assault little girls

WHERE THE FUCK DO THEY USE THE BATHROOM THEN

[idle steppe]

Only cuz they've thought of doing that themselves lol

[old oak]

Considering all the utter bullshit trans people have to put up with, I find it mind-boggling to assume that anyone would choose that on some kind of whim

[magic python]

Also yeah i totally got a mental illness and fucked my body up to SA people, totally...

[magic python]

Yeah its not fun, even without gender dysphoria

[cunning adder]

being trans is totally 100% a choice you can make at any time!!!!!! totally!!!1!1!11!11!1! /s

[magic python]

You choose to be trans so you didn't die tbf

Like it technically is a choice to transition and everything

[idle steppe]

"gay son or thot daughter"

[old oak]

I'm not trans but I'm gay, and 1. The parallels betyween the transphobic rhetoric and the homophobic rhetoric of the 80s and 90s are eerie, 2. I'm baffled at the gay people who lean into transphobia without understanding that if the transhpobes get their way, they'll go after the gay people next

[magic python]

They literally can't tell is the issue

[magic python]

It's that quote of

"They went after X, I didn't speak up as I am not X" and then ends with "then they came for me, and there was nobody left to speak up for me"

[cunning adder]

true yea, ig i wanted to talk about feeling like your assigned gender is wrong

[magic python]

These people also call gender neutral washrooms "pushing the rhetoric"

[cunning adder]

and feeling dysphoria or euphoria

[old oak]

Sort of, but that poem had a more general thrust, and in this case it's a direct line from transphobia to homophobia

[magic python]

We definitely don't choose that :3

[old oak]

It's the same picture, it's jus that homophobia is currently a bit less socially acceptable

[magic python]

Fair

[idle steppe]

Transphobes dont have enough empathy to realise thats even possible

Surely there must be another reason someone is trans

[steel blade]

Idt its about empathy. Its just brainwashed beliefs

[magic python]

I'm sorry, if you care about the genitals of random strangers (which transphobes quite literally do), I don't want you anywhere near me or in the bathroom with others, you're probably more of threat.

[cunning adder]

as said before they think the only reason ppl would be trans is to assault others in bathrooms, and its all projection every single word of it

[old oak]

One thing that is worth keeping in mind is that people are very susceptible to propaganda and can absorb shitty beliefs disappointingly well if they're correctly barraged with them (which the social media algorithms tend to facilitate)

[steel blade]

Transphobia existed before social media

[old oak]

I'm not disputing that

[steel blade]

Not saying you didnt know this but I think religious culture has a lot more influence still

[magic python]

It's certainly easier to propagate it with social media imo

[old oak]

Sure, and for cultural reasons people like JKR were already primed to be transphobic, but the social media are a great avenue to irrevocably entrench and exacerbate these things

[magic python]

It's far harder to reach such a wide audience without some form of broadcasting, iirc social media is one of the larger forms of this

[steel blade]

Yeah before social media it was televangelist and news outlets

[magic python]

Indeed, and before that it was literature I believe (unless radio? But I'd class that under news outlets to some extent)

[steel blade]

Idk im hopeful for social change as it goes. Im doubtful there will be stagnation or regression as long as people stay vocal and become less secular as time goes on.

[old oak]

Basically the thing is, just due to statistics a lot of people will never meet a trans person, so their perception of trans people is shaped by what they see in their media sphere; and these days media spheres are very easily tailored, so someone already primed to be transphobic will only see portrayals of trans people in which they are dangerous predators.

This is an aside, but I'm amazed at how prevalent the trans discourse is considering how few trans people there are.

[steel blade]

Its still obvious bait though. If anything social media is good because less centralized news becomes the more media literacy people will have. Less willing to just accept transphobia on first glance

[magic python]

And even if they do meet them, they probably won't know that person was trans. Many people hide it irl

[old oak]

A lot of people fall for obvious bait very easily, that's why it's done

[cunning adder]

many people are kinda forced to hide it irl.. i would know 😔

[old oak]

I live in Poland and in over 40 years of my life I can genuinely say I've never met an openly trans poerson (nor a non-openly trans person that I'd later learn was trans).

[steel blade]

Forced to hide transphobia or being trans?

[old oak]

I'm sure I met closeted trans people, but by definition I wouldn't know

[magic python]

If you mean why we bring it up so much online, it's because a lot of us don't really have the ability to socialize irl or even any motivation to ever talk to people irl iirc

[cunning adder]

forced to hide being trans, bc where i live (the UAE) being lgbtq is a death sentence

[steel blade]

Rip

I’m doubtful that will change and I’ve never been to the UAE. What do you think?

[magic python]

Does Poland have strict laws? Because I know that certainly influences it. Also like trans people don't often make it their whole personality, there really isn't much of a reason to bring it up in conversation

[glossy marlin]

-# I´ve heard about one in three hundred people out in public / participating in the questionnaires admit that they´re trans, I´d assume there are 3 to 10 times more...

[old oak]

I more mean the media discourse about trans people, anti-trans legislation etc., even if someone would genuinely think there's dangers associated with trans people (which, for the record, I do not; trans people are great and should be left in peace!), there's so many things that are measurably, demonstrably more important to debate and legislate about

[cunning adder]

its an absolute monarchy with no elections so shit will never change unless a revolution is forced, which is unlikely bc of the restrictions of freedom of speech, the press and assembly that our shitty government also have

[magic python]

Oh yeah, the people they would call trans is such a small group (often only binary trans).

It's because minorities are easy to pick on, and it's better to put the people against eachother I believe

[steel blade]

The fact that we live in gendered society means that there is still important legislation needed for trans people. Its not too surprising and I feel like its more seen like spectacles to the public w stuff like gender affirming care and sports

Also people just deny their existence which is questionable

[magic python]

Trans people are easy to villianize because well, many people think it's entirely a choice and it's easier to hate something someone technically wasn't "born as" than well force them to hate racial minorities, which are easy to see they are born as.

[old oak]

I wish the discourse would be be about supporting legislation; in the West it's mostly about persecuting and restricting trans people; which on a purely pragmatic level, what's the point?

[magic python]

Erasure, duh.

[steel blade]

I think its a distraction lol

Easily polarizing too

Ive been at discussions where neither party has met a trans person but are arguing on opposite sides

[cunning adder]

easier to pit the common people against eachother so they dont notice the rich ruling the world

[steel blade]

Rent free discussion like that is gold in politics

[old oak]

Yeah, pretty much

There's like 10 trans athletes and suddenly everyone runninng for an election has to have an opinion on them, meanwhile no one asks about what we do about the billionaire leeches

[steel blade]

Its also hilarious because if you are an athlete and you meet mtf or ftm its not like they are some superhumans for their gender

[glossy marlin]

-# and afaik basically all the trans athletes are transmasc and some are forced into women´s teams

[steel blade]

Lots of nonathletic people with athletic opinions

[magic python]

Many trans people also take hormones so......

[steel blade]

So do many pro athletes which is the funnier part

[magic python]

Wonderful, let the person who is probably taking T into the area we don't want people with T in!

[magic python]

That too, that too

[cunning adder]

and they love to ignore/pretend that fluctuations between trans and cis people, also happen between cis and cis people

[glossy marlin]

(and/or force them to detransition)

[magic python]

A wild hyperandrogenism has appeared!

[magic python]

Oh yeah they run with women they are a woman

[old oak]

Just do something like they do in boxing, separate people by weight or by hormone levels instead of an arbitrary gender classification

[magic python]

Finally something based on actual body differences!

[steel blade]

I feel like the differences are negligible and populations are small enough that its silly to even regulate on that

And even if you notice a trend and its actually a disruptor for a competitive environment you can just make divisions like you said

But its just fiction imo

[magic python]

I just say sports do not matter enough to have discrimination, it isn't that fucking serious.

Especially chess of all the sports people say this for

[steel blade]

Its literally more entertaining to see people perform well too

[magic python]

True

[steel blade]

I still don’t understand chess and gender

Is it not entirely a socialization thing?

[magic python]

Like chess is not that serious, we do NOT need discrimination in tournaments, come on

[steel blade]

Like math and gender too

[magic python]

To be fair, less women get pushed into it so comparatively they seem worse (just like chess)

[glossy marlin]

-# women claiming they´re too frail and stupid to play chess because of their... tits? bits? T? chromosomes?

[magic python]

Something something the female mind acts differently (which yes it technically does but it's fucking chess)

[steel blade]

I know a couple of college athletes like this

Not steroids for breakfast lol

[magic python]

Yes women are very much sexualized in so many places :3

[glossy marlin]

I don´t even know how exactly it would be different, and yeah, it barely matters if at all. >90% of the differences are cultural.

[magic python]

Fair

[steel blade]

I mean there is definitely some of this BS too. Ive had conversations with women about why they wouldn’t do stem and they give reasons ranging from it being male dominated to not being attracted to it biologically. Personally I see its all socialization at the end of the day.

[glossy marlin]

if you weren´t allowed to play sports until your 30s, constantly got told you´d never even get close to being the best, etc., you´d perform worse. same thing in school, at work, whatever.

[steel blade]

The reason most people do anything is because people around them exposed them to it and they caught on at early age. Idea that you have freedom with these things isnt really true

[steel blade]

Same with being forced into feminine sports

I dont think its excuses. Its all the same propaganda

Like if someone asked me why I chose math I can say that I like it, but for sure there were some activities in my youth that led me here

And I barely had a choice if being honest about it

If I had been a girl then I likely wouldn’t do math because I wouldnt have been doing those activities in my youth. This is without accounting for things discouraging girls from doing math or science

Thats a new thing if anything

New propaganda

[cyan sleet]

is mathematicians in academia are pluralist or structuralist?

[sharp mulch]

Most mathematicians you ask won’t be able to define either of those

[steel blade]

What does this mean

[cyan sleet]

😭

[sharp mulch]

You don’t need to think of the philosophy of mathematics to do math and most people don’t

[cyan sleet]

https://www.infinitelymore.xyz/p/structuralism

[cyan sleet]

yeah

[steel blade]

Ty for link but a sentence wouldve sufficed

[cyan sleet]

well,mathematical pluralism is the view that there is an irreducible plurality of pure mathematical structures, each with their own internal logic, that multiple mathematics truths can be co-exist at the same time.
structuralists on the other hand, maintains that mathematical objects do not possess any intrinsic properties but are defined by their external relations in a system.

[steel blade]

Not sure what this means concretely

Multiple truths meaning what? Like Bertrand paradox?

[old oak]

Most mathematicians in academia just get on with doing what interests them or what they need for grants/tenure

[cyan sleet]

yeah

[cyan sleet]

😭

[steel blade]

I think mathematicians recognize some situations can be ambiguous unless clarified and also that objects are defined in their relationships to others?

This doesnt seem mutually exclusive to me

[cyan sleet]

yea

also can I ask something?

[steel blade]

Yeah sure!

[cyan sleet]

😭

[cyan sleet]

Do mathematics truths exist independent of the human mind in your opinion

[steel blade]

Yes?

[old oak]

Do you think this is a meaningful question?

[glossy marlin]

we wrote a bit of it down but it would exist without us.

[cyan sleet]

yea?
depends on the individual.

[old oak]

Why do you think it's meaningful?

[steel blade]

Meaningful like practical?

Isnt this just philosophy type question so ofc its not practical

[jolly sandal]

The relationships between properties exist independent of the human mind, but realizations of those properties only exist in the mind; the notion of "if a set contains its limit points, then it is closed" is independent, but any particular set satisfying this property is a construction

That is, axioms are invented, and their consequences are discovered

[cyan sleet]

knowing mathematics truths can be exist independent or not is meaningful in its concept as it can determine the axioms we use are ("human invented") that can be work or not etc, still most mathematicians just do maths and won't not think abt it just like you said.

[cyan sleet]

ohh

[old oak]

How would we know whether "mathematics truths can be exist independent or not"?

[jolly sandal]

This is a good point

It comes down to philosophical interpretation

[glossy marlin]

everything is discovered. the phrasing is invented.

[jolly sandal]

You would say that the assertion that "two sets are equal if they have the same elements" is discovered and not an imposed condition?

I would think anything taken to be true without invoking logical consequence (i.e. axioms) must be an invention

[glossy marlin]

it would exist without us.
calculus would exist without us.
CiC would exist without us.
without us it would not exist in writing, it would not be worked with, and there would be no proofs in it.

[jolly sandal]

In what sense would it "exist"?

[cyan sleet]

depends on your interpretation, some say ("2+2=4") is always correct even if there is no human alive or "if an extraterrestrial life form uses the same method as we do for maths"
for some, maths is just a tool we made to use in our empirical science to determine the rules of the universe and without a conscious mind, it doesn't exist

[old oak]

So it's only a matter of interpration, and the impact on the real world is the same either way?

[cyan sleet]

yea, the effect would be the same whether someone believes, "it is independent or not" and doesn't really affect, the way we do "maths" in everyday.

then, you can argue that "the whole question is meaningless as it doesn't affect the way we do ("maths") and maybe you are correct.

[old oak]

That phrasing does appeal to me

[grizzled crypt]

usually on this topic I just say that definitions are invented and theorems are discovered which seems pretty obvious to me, but probably the actual contention is deeper than this because I think Platonists will argue that concepts the definitions point to already existed

[hidden bough]

Constrastingly you can claim that logic and theorems are purely subjective

[steel blade]

Its silly semantics but sure

Concepts are human made because we can only communicate and create them with humans as of today

Idt its a significant distinction

Ok sure

[cyan sleet]

yea but depends on your interpretation of "truth"
post-modernist does believe that, "there is no objective truth as such" and there is nothing to discovered

[cyan sleet]

btw my question is truly meaningless...

[steel blade]

Its not practical

Definitely something to think about but idk how far it goes or if there are interesting implications

[cyan sleet]

maybe, you can say that

[steel blade]

Kinda how i feel about all epistemology to be fair

[cyan sleet]

yea, just like someone said above, for a mathematician, he won't care abt it "as it doesn't change anything in everyday use of maths" in our life

[steel blade]

I mean most people have no reason to care about it but maybe thats because they dont know the implications or there are no interesting implications

[cyan sleet]

lmao

[steel blade]

More interesting than other questions that could be asked tho

[cyan sleet]

yeah

i only start reading abt these things when I'm having a course abt godel lol

[jolly sandal]

https://www.tumblr.com/empressofkashyr/788503716954292224/in-my-dnd-setting-the-most-eldritch-of-creatures

[mellow pond]

it infuriates me how often i see literally anything that someone who is black or latine or literally any race or ethnicity not considered "white" or "white enough" is doing gets labeled as "suspicious" or "ghetto behavior"

[proven pagoda]

What do you guys usually talk about in "serious discussion"?

Politics? Religion? Economy? Government?...

[vast wraith]

we talk about what to talk about in "serious discussion"

[proven pagoda]

Thoughtfull

[spring cradle]

hello everyone thoughts on programming? do you program? are you willing to program?

[spice grotto]

Will you wear wigs?

[rapid valve]

Hi jen you're amazing

[vast wraith]

im amazejen this is true

https://tenor.com/view/nodding-crossed-arms-pikachu-eyes-closed-pokemon-gif-15194868

[magic python]

Politics, religion, oftentimes "controversial" topics about how some minorities are quite literally just people trying to survive, and others

[proven pagoda]

This server is cool

[spring cradle]

and programming

[magic python]

No, that is off topic to this channel

[spring cradle]

really?

[magic python]

Yes, for I was here when this channel was made.

[spring cradle]

oh okay shrump or biden

[magic python]

It was made so people didn't have to hear unsavory topics in #discussion

[magic python]

Someone I know nothing about or someone who's fried rice, such a hard pick...

[spring cradle]

whose fried rice

[magic python]

https://tenor.com/view/g-man-shrimp-fried-rice-shrimp-fried-rice-gif-3769694692428347578

[spring cradle]

oh okay moving on.. thoughts on muslims and christians and jews

[magic python]

I see people who claim to be Christian be hateful, but i see every type of person spew hate content, so like, I can't blame their religion for that (Outside of the homophobia I guess, since that's technically "a part" of the religion, or that's what some claim. It's up to interpretation, like basically all religions.)

The other two, I don't know anywhere enough about them to really say much or have an opinion on them

[spring cradle]

what religion do you think is the most probable

[magic python]

I don't really care for religions or their deities if I am being honest, so I don't really see any as "the most probable" (especially since some have drifted quite a bit from their origins)

Religion is useful culturally, that's really all I can say

[spring cradle]

same

[magic python]

Like, just believe what you want so long as it doesn't directly hurt others or push their boundaries, be respectful. That's all I can say.

[rapid valve]

I wouldn't say useful

More like it is culture

Not exclusive

[magic python]

I mean it arose multiple times and is legitimately helping some people find purpose, I'd call it something useful

A lot of people take on a religion to find purpose, no?

Useful mainly as in "it has a use" not as in "it's better than not having it"

[rapid valve]

I don't think people think of religion as having a use, it's just there and it's very important

Hm

[magic python]

fearmongerering scammers would say it has use

[rapid valve]

Yeah i think the importance of religion is jistified by itself and an exterior use

I think most people are religious because of their culture

[magic python]

Well yeah, for sure

[rapid valve]

And then everything justifies itself in a sort of coherent way

[magic python]

It is, just like other forms of culture, quite good at being a social object.

[spring cradle]

if I witnessed a miracle I would convert to whatever religion the miracle came from honestly

unfortunately most are fake and word of mouth related

[magic python]

And you find out which religion it is from... how..?

[rapid valve]

But i agree that religion has something somewhat unuversal

So it gotta be special

[spring cradle]

I have no idea

[magic python]

Like yeah if Jesus Christ came, gave me a bottle of wine, said Christianity is true, and then floated off, that'd obviously tell you

[rapid valve]

If you saw a miracle, would you believe it is a miracle?

I don't think so, religion is not about proof

[spring cradle]

depends

[magic python]

But like, if a baby doesn't die despite having been guaranteed to die, how the hell do you know what religion is the cause (if there even is one...)

[magic python]

Probably not

[rapid valve]

I think you's associate it to something of your current religion or science/physics that you can't explain

Or current spirituality or whatever are your beliefs that explain the world

[spring cradle]

i mean if I saw someone levitate with no wires and pretty high I would consider

[magic python]

Plus like, atheists can still believe in miracles

Quite a few believe in spirits to some extent iirc

[rapid valve]

Magnets exist

[spring cradle]

you dont think I would tell if they had a magnet on them lol

[rapid valve]

I mean personally, i would say there's something in my belief system that is related to that and it would not immediately trigger a foreign belief

[spring cradle]

honestly I think a god is probable but maybe he doesn't really care about us

either that or god is the universe itself

[heavy dagger]

hello my children

what are we discussing today i am too lazy to backread

[magic python]

Nothing anymore it seems, I need to find some discussion bait

[heavy dagger]

oh ok

[unborn meteor]

no what you need to do is find the 8 quadrillion free 5S speeds...

[heavy dagger]

ok speedy

[unborn meteor]

yes?

[magic python]

Nooooo

[heavy dagger]

noted with thanks.

[unborn meteor]

1 death transition oscillators

literally free

[heavy dagger]

in any case i just want you to know that you are appreciated (and that goes for anyone else reading this)

[magic python]

Yes I tried to find ones that wouldn't count as adjustable...

[unborn meteor]

how tf did you find adjustable ones

[unborn meteor]

why tell me this specifically?

[unborn meteor]

soon i may add an adjustability checker

[heavy dagger]

why not

do you not appreciate the sentiment that i should retract it?

[unborn meteor]

no i very much appreciate it

[magic python]

I don't think I did, I just naturally am skeptical of any "box oscillators" where they are just shells with something smoking erratically inside

[unborn meteor]

no those are fine

[magic python]

Smoking???? Autocorrect what?

[unborn meteor]

girl i literally wrote an ENTIRE SEARCH PROGRAM to find those things

[heavy dagger]

thanks

[magic python]

Oh damn

[heavy dagger]

why do i sound so socially inept today LOL wtf am i doing and wtf am i saying what im a chud

[rapid valve]

Bleh

[magic python]

Which bait should I drop?

[rapid valve]

"Cereal or soup?"

[magic python]

But that doesn't lead to a convo on something I know

[unborn meteor]

they aren't adjustable as long as they aren't like whatever the fuck this is

[magic python]

Wait do I drop the rights bait again

[unborn meteor]

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1417233331329699933/1505724924021706803/sim.gif?ex=6a0bab1c&is=6a0a599c&hm=837568dabfb278bf8dc96d7cb4a843a22ab2de8788e462a1ba5610e77664a77f&

definitely adjustable

[magic python]

These ships are fucking vile

[unborn meteor]

wdym

they're beautiful

also adjustables don't count if they're found by a program that found them accidentally

[magic python]

It's just a little creature in a shell pushing against its walls to move

[unborn meteor]

yes that is the idea

[magic python]

I also just dislike ships with ships within them since I never find them

[glossy marlin]

-# afaik the transphobia, nbphobia, etc. is "part of the religion" (depends on who you ask), the misogyny is part of the religion (and some others), at least some of the homophobia comes from bad translations

[unborn meteor]

you either need to be extremely experienced or use search programs to find those

again using EPE is its own art

[rapid valve]

Pov boxes with a an intitial momentum worth exactly twice one of a fly are thrown with a fly going backwards in them

[unborn meteor]

there is no concept of momentum here

[rapid valve]

/j

[magic python]

Wait it explicitly has transphobia too? I thought it was just because vocal people claiming to be Christian were uh very bigoted anyways, not that it came from the religion..

[rapid valve]

/i can only be joking i suck at physics

[magic python]

Aw

[unborn meteor]

i think it's only explicitly homophobia in the bible

[unborn meteor]

but you can learn... i found a STABLE SPLITTER by hand

[magic python]

You can interpret it as anti-pedophilia iirc...

[magic python]

Holy shit which rule

[unborn meteor]

i found this on new years eve 😭

[magic python]

Crazy

[unborn meteor]

anyway this search program is so stupidly simple but has already found new records in normal INT

[magic python]

Ooooo

[thick wind]

Hey guys

I have a question for whoever wants to take it

[unborn meteor]

what is it?

[magic python]

Probably not the channel

[unborn meteor]

173 lines of code https://github.com/speedydelete/sssss/blob/main/src/randomsearch.ts

[dreamy crag]

ca?

[thick wind]

It's not about math. Just an opportunity. If that's allowed.

[unborn meteor]

yes

[dreamy crag]

fire

[magic python]

Wdym opportunity

[dreamy crag]

go for it

[unborn meteor]

if it can be interpreted as an ad pls ask @polar panther for permission

[thick wind]

Fair enough. It is about guest speaking.

[unborn meteor]

i can explain it if you wish

[magic python]

CA is evil trust me you need to run before she kidnaps you like she has done to me multiple times

[unborn meteor]

well actually this is pretty niche

for CA

also this is off topic we should move...

[glossy marlin]

there´s the "god made you this way" nonsense where some people ignore the implication that god made people not just appear some way but also be trans, and apparently something about how a man shall not wear women´s garments or whatever (and maybe vice versa), if the reader doesn´t accept binary trans people the interpretation will be transphobic, but it´s always going to be bad for gnc people.
I heard some of the parts with homophobia were about / inspired by the ancient greeks and could be more faithfully translated to say e.g. that a man who lays with a boy shall be stoned rather than that a man who lays with another man shall be stoned

[dreamy crag]

my heart burns with hatred and my grief is eternal

[magic python]

TheGang™ CA channel

[magic python]

Oh so in a similar way as like many other religions, awesome...

[magic python]

No actually.

[unborn meteor]

there are like 6 people currently very interested in this thing

[magic python]

It's under tracegerman

[glossy marlin]

-# also the bible says in like a hundred places that women shouldn´t talk / talk back / whatever

[magic python]

My horrible attempt at a trasgernder... except its two real words...

[magic python]

Yay I love misogyny!

[dreamy crag]

i could list like 20 albums off the top of my head that are better and desirve the prize more

[midnight kiln]

men, too, should also not talk back. submission and obedience is a virtue that all should try to achieve.

[livid walrus]

السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته
what's good brother. you there? id like to dm you

[misty pumice]

Okay. You can't translate your way out of an entire chapter dedicated to explaining how to beat your slaves and get away with it

[glossy marlin]

nah

[spring cradle]

thoughts on israel and netanhayu

[midnight kiln]

you are an agent /j

[midnight kiln]

is submission and obedience not a virtue? what about one's parents? shouldn't a child obey their parents? shouldn't a worker obey their boss?

[glossy marlin]

-# idk if it´s in the bible but like no.
-# don´t listen to the propaganda.
-# overthrow that government, girliepop /hj

[frozen narwhal]

May gods curse be upon the nation state of Israel and Netanyahu
May he burn in hell alongside Judas for both hated the Christ

[glossy marlin]

"shouldn´t a child endure two decades of abuse"

[misty pumice]

Workers are exploited for the value of their labor. And therefore should not obey their boss given the circumstances of this economic system.

You have more in common with your worker than you do the bourgeoisie ruling class.

[misty pumice]

No

[spring cradle]

so many valid opinions in this channel

[frozen narwhal]

The only absolute obedience one holds is to god

[glossy marlin]

parents shouldn´t own you. bosses shouldn´t control you like a slave.
submission and obedience is bs the authorities and corporations want from you.
-# and cute doms but that´s in specific situations and fine if you´re fine with it

[magic python]

Oh no what happened.

[spring cradle]

unpopular opinion: every religion that says that you will go to hell if you dont believe in it is man-made and incorrect

[frozen narwhal]

Every human relationship has rights
A worker has rights over his boss and vice versa
A parent over their child and otherwise
A husband and wife have rights over one another

[misty pumice]

The corporations are the authorities. The state and capital are two sides of the same coin

[magic python]

And also a reason why pascals wager is kinda not ideal...

[glossy marlin]

-# if someone needs the threat of eternal torment to be a good person they´re not a good person...

[magic python]

Ive actually heard people say "what is stopping you from just raping people then if there is no punishment"

[misty pumice]

Come on nobody replying to my banger opinions

[magic python]

Like I am sorry, but if hell is what is stopping you from doing this, you might need some help immediately

[misty pumice]

This is the kind of stuff you would hear from brainwashed theist trying to prove a God claim on a talk show. You can hear the gears turning in their head when you challenge them.

[magic python]

It's so funny hearing people go "well uhhhh you must be evil because there isn't something stopping you'

Like mate, why do you expect me to want to do those things???

[midnight kiln]

the idea that humanity is deserving of punishment is actually not what the Gospel is about. sin is not a crime that requires legal penalty.

Roman Catholic and Protestant theology have propagated this idea of an angry god, which is not true

[frozen narwhal]

The bible teaches we are inherently sinful and the price of sin is death

[midnight kiln]

but does that death come from God?

[misty pumice]

I do question the ethics of mainstream society. A lot of "progressive" movements seem to stem from personal suffering through experience. And I suspect that's why nothing ever changes. Because there is no true empathy beyond the part of self interest. Perhaps because people have been conditioned to be indivualist

[midnight kiln]

When God says that Adam and Eve will "surely die" when they eat the forbidden fruit, He is not saying "I will kill you" but rather "You will die."

[magic python]

I've heard Christians laugh about "Oh you don't believe? You're gonna burn in hell forever, then you'll feel stupid."

Like what.

[glossy marlin]

well, god allegedly made everything.
given the state of the world you´d quickly come to the conclusion that god is an asshole.

[magic python]

Fair

[frozen narwhal]

All things except evil
So I suppose no

[misty pumice]

You know what's even worse? The people who say you send yourself to hell as if its a personal choice by choosing to ignore who supposedly wrote the rules to the universe.

Its like they forget parts of their own belief system to keep justifying it

[glossy marlin]

couldn´t god have made fruit that don´t kill people, or protected people from the fruit?
isn´t he allegedly benevolent and omnipotent?

[midnight kiln]

God is the source of all life. Only life can come from Him. If we turn away from God, the "fountain of life" as said in many hymns, we turn towards death.

[glossy marlin]

also isn´t what you said literally not true

[magic python]

And yet some of these people also sometimes talk about some sort of "gods plan" in a way that implies we don't control our lives...

[glossy marlin]

source of all life. and death and suffering and made hell and so on or whatever

[midnight kiln]

What is sin?

[frozen narwhal]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WEp4A5Iqxnc&list=PLwXRRL4mnlCc6TVW47zKxzFmcFLWHuQmh&index=13&pp=iAQB&ra=m

[glossy marlin]

staying alive. having kids.

[misty pumice]

Indeed, they bounce between God has a plan and they have free will.

When they have free will its because they want to feel in control over life

When they say God has a plan. Its because the world is too scary. So they have to pretend that its out of their hands.

These opinions contradict each other. So they bounce between them when it is convenient

[frozen narwhal]

This is from the ayatollah I follow sayyid kamal al haydari

[spring cradle]

I wonder what will happen to those who have cultural practices that inherently are sinful as described in the bible/quran because they cannot help that they where born into thinking that cannabalism/murder was okay or smth

[frozen narwhal]

A dialogue with atheists with English subs since he only speaks in fusha and Farsi

[misty pumice]

God when he discovers Viltrumites
shocked Pikachu face

[magic python]

Yeah this is unfortunately a massive problem I see with some very vocal Christians online

[frozen narwhal]

There is neither absolute free will nor absolute pre determinism - imam Jafar as Sadiq Alayhi Salam
There is some things in which god has granted a level of free will while other things are absolute in which that they will happen ie death but it’s not set when this is called bada as god has not fettered his hands and has the ability to change destiny for a human at his choice

[spring cradle]

fallacy of unfalsifiability is what this is called

[misty pumice]

I was having a conversation with my mother the other day. She believes in free will and fate. I said how do you know which is which when it happens. She has no answer

[magic python]

This is kind of like what i see some people who play in-casino poker do. They claim the dealer fucked them over when they lose, but when they win it was "all them"

Pick one.

[misty pumice]

I would say its close to cognitive dissonance.

[spring cradle]

this too

[magic python]

Because when something bad happens, it can't have been my fault!!!!!1!1!!

[shut thunder]

Neither is true btw

[frozen narwhal]

https://al-islam.org/media/are-our-actions-based-free-will-or-are-they-predestined

[shut thunder]

But most people have big problems with what probability is

[magic python]

Yeah it's nowhere near a full skill game, luck is so big in it.

[frozen narwhal]

This is mostly a psychological thing and isn’t really comparable

[shut thunder]

You can be both good and bad at luck-based games, and that doesnt imply youll win

[misty pumice]

My father didn't secure this lottery ticket and it flew out the window. And he said "I guess it wasn't meant to be"

I just died inside. I can't take these types of people seriously. 50+ years old and can't own up to his own mistakes.

[shut thunder]

Being good just means you win more often compared to someone whos bad

[magic python]

"Kind of like" as in they claim one thing is from an external source and another is from an internal source, purely in a way that seemingly benefits them...

[magic python]

Oh god...

[misty pumice]

The problem is no one seems to have an answer as to how they know if it was changed destined or not

[shut thunder]

Also, big theory, the human brain surely is made for creating dichotomies

[magic python]

can I bring in an unrelated thing that people do that is so fucking stupid

[misty pumice]

So lets say I live a perfect life. And get hit by a truck. Get brain damage and become a trash head. How does God account for this?

[misty pumice]

Yes

[magic python]

I feel like at least one person would call this a "test"

[shut thunder]

free ticket to heaven btw /j

[midnight kiln]

What do you mean by perfect life?

[misty pumice]

Being injured somehow translating to fundamentally changing core aspects of your personality doesn't sound like intelligent design to me.

[shut thunder]

this is a 100% not the important part of the argument

[misty pumice]

They did everything right. They where as close to perfect as can be.

[frozen narwhal]

In Arabic, the word “bada’” literally means “manifestation” and “appearance”, and in the parlance of Shi‘ah scholars it applies to the change in the natural course of someone’s destiny as a result of his or her righteous and wholesome behavior. man is not always hindered from deciding on his destiny; rather, the path of felicity is open for him, and by reverting to the right path and meritorious conduct he can change the ultimate destination of his life.

[midnight kiln]

This is literally Jesus Christ. He was crucified. Why did God allow or do this?

[misty pumice]

You seem to deliberately be giving a longer answer

[magic python]

In that case, it is so insane people go online, see someone say that trans people (and other minorities, and even just like women somehow????) Don't have their rights taken away (and sometimes even a stronger statement of never having had that happen)

There is literally the starts of a genocide in the US. If you look up the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (I think that's the name), you can trivially see quite a few, and the argument "well it happens to other groups so it's fine"

People are actually so ignorant

[misty pumice]

I am saying how does the punishment or reward system work for someone with brain damage?

The injury can fundamentally change who they are causing a radically different life.

Also the idea that some people live longer than others is itself an ethical concern given that we are supposed to believe before judgment and sll that.

Not very well thought out

[frozen narwhal]

That there is no punishment for the one with Brain damage in the spiritual sense ie in reference to sin

[magic python]

I've actually seen people say women never had their rights taken like istg

[misty pumice]

How do you know that

[midnight kiln]

Sin is not a legal thing... this is Western theology. I do not subscribe to it. Eastern Orthodox theology asserts that sin is a spiritual sickness, "the failure to realize life as love and communion" (Bernstein, "The Original Christian Gospel").

[misty pumice]

I gave up on the human race a few years ago. The best this century has to offer is reformist puppets.

People are lost

[magic python]

Yeah

[glossy marlin]

-# I mean, if they never officially had them...
-# but yeah there´s an ongoing multiple thousand year long history of women not having the same rights

[magic python]

I have a list of rights that have been taken :3

[magic python]

Oh in that case, trans and gay people have lost some abilities in the past at least in some places.

[misty pumice]

The economic system will fail. It is destined to fall. No laws. No regulations. No "good leader" will make it work. It is a selfish and barbaric system and fascism is its natural conclusion

[shut thunder]

This is just particularly my opinion on the matter, but faith and reason/logic (not the human faculty, more like, scientific thought) dont often pair together pretty well. Its no surprise that most arguments for god existing and religion being justified fall apart pretty quick as a logical argument.

[midnight kiln]

Forgiveness of sins is only one part of the Gospel. It is not the main point. The whole point of Jesus Christ incarnating as man, humbly living with us, dying, and resurrecting, is to cure our spiritual sickness. To reunite man with God. To reunite us to the fountain of life.

[shut thunder]

Which i wouldnt say invalidates them for people who share in the faith (not my case), id say they are just different departments of what human thought as developed

[magic python]

Isn't there a right to identity?

India passed a fancy new bill where you can no longer self identify iirc....

[spring cradle]

I feel like we are more corporate fuedalist rather than captialist

[midnight kiln]

There is no "debt" that Jesus pays like Western theology says, especially Evangelical Christians.

[magic python]

And well, sodomy laws are quite literally treating gay couples as lesser than straight ones, but I suppose you don't have a right that correlates with this, they just get treated as lesser

[paper lantern]

I consider this kind of ridiculous attribution of mistakes as a consequence of the mix-up of different narrative levels.

People are chemicals, and the interactions between neurons are pre-determined, of course, but that is none of our business.
On the level of action, we still need to be responsible for whatever we do.
The fact that everything is pre-determined has nothing to do with our subject experience

[misty pumice]

A bunch of word salad that holds no meaning. So, please explain the mechanisms for this process and why it was absolutely nessecary

[frozen narwhal]

If they are no longer sane or at an average mental capacity then they’re expedited from accountability for sin
In the Shia beliefs you will be judged for what occurred before that event
That in judgment you will be judged based on what environment you were exposed to and what you knew and what you did so since I’m Shia a person who was never exposed to Shiism and remained Christian will be judged individually

[misty pumice]

I mean from a logic standpoint. Explain the process of why and how. Because what you're saying is a whole lot of feel good story but not a lot of makes sense story

[shut thunder]

Trying to follow on this; faith-focused people trying to convince people who are logic-focused and viceversa is an eternal attempt of changing other people's mind, which 99% of the times doesnt work

You will not be able to convince someone who believes in something so strongly that they dont need solid proof.

[misty pumice]

This is why I dislike religious people more often than any other group. When I ask how do you know something. That isn't a request to make more claims. It's about asking how you know this. What convinced you this particular process was true. Etc.

This is the most frustrating thing ever and ONLY religious people struggle with it.

[shut thunder]

And you wont be able to bat a wand and convince someone which needs proof.

[misty pumice]

Understanding the difference between "elaborate" and "how did you arrive at this conclusion" is a skill that should be learned in elementary school.

[shut thunder]

people in HS dont know how to read btw

Youre asking for so much more, lmao

[magic python]

That... that is a sad thing.

[misty pumice]

That is by design. And also an accident. The public was always meant to be stupid. But not even they expected it to get this extreme

Anywayz it was nice talking but I have to get to bed

[shut thunder]

eepy time 💤

[misty pumice]

Yes

[shut thunder]

Im not particularly agains the idea of there being a creator god(s), im just agains the idea of him being benevolent or interested in the human race

[midnight kiln]

Forgive me, I tend to over-complicate. Basically, man turns away from God. This is sin, and it corrupts the image of God within us (Genesis 1:27), but it never completely destroys it. God fixes this by participating in His creation in order to renew His image in us (which is through Jesus Christ). In other words, God is trying to rescue us from our fallen condition and reunite us with Him. I left out a lot of details, but this is the basic gist of the gospel. I'm sorry if it still doesn't make sense.

[shut thunder]

maybe his methods of "good" breach far much wider than what human experience involves

[magic python]

If God is so perfect why was i given a mental disorder that makes me literally do something that can be interpreted as against his will, so i don't die

(Specifically referring to Christianity here, I don't know how many other gods would disallow this)

I've heard Islam supposedly also forbids it, but explicitly

[shut thunder]

Adam was canonically an amoeba /j

[magic python]

No he was a cell that underwent mitosis!!!!

[midnight kiln]

The mental disorder is from a bunch of different things, but at the very, very root of it (along with other disorders), it's because of our spiritual sickness. Thankfully, God is understanding and meets us where we are, so do not worry. God is not eternally angry at me, you or anyone else. I will go as far as to say that suicide does not "send you to hell" like some other Christians say. Is it bad? Yes, it is the worst type of murder you can do---self-murder---but it does not mean you go to hell. If anybody says that suicide sends you to hell, they are blaspheming; only God can judge.

[glossy marlin]

explanations for the birth of christ, a man:
mary cheated
mary somehow got pregnant out of nowhere, and was intersex
mary somehow got pregnant out of nowhere and jesus was intersex
mary somehow got pregnant out of nowhere and jesus was transmasc (supported by one painting where he had scars similar to the ones from modern double mastectomies)
god did that (not required, god could just have picked that one interesting guy for his weird plan)

[shut thunder]

Im slightly mad at orthodox visions of religion, for any kind; Mostly cause most of them have this consideration that sacred texts were somehow passed down by god and not written down by people in some historical context

Like, if you start to strip down the fundamental ideas of christianity, theyre basically boiled down to "not be an asshole"

[unborn meteor]

this sounds legit

[midnight kiln]

The single most important fundamental idea of Christianity is love and communion with God, not just "not be an asshole."
It's more than a moral or legal code.

[shut thunder]

If you assume jesus was a historical figure which did what is narrated in the bible, he was just a hippie which preached for love above everything else

[magic python]

I mean if I do commit, it's after I've already altered my body (as it's kinda too late to not do this)

But yeah, I do willingly alter my body in "unnatural" (for humans) ways, just so I feel happy. Which some Christians say is against his plan.

[midnight kiln]

He preached that people ought to repent and believe and be baptized, too.

[magic python]

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/268882317391429632/1504984465842241636/iu_.png?ex=6a08f981&is=6a07a801&hm=7b91c622ba3c604b024a569fe7e81c1428cd0c587de0df2651782f2337536bfe&

[shut thunder]

The old texts talk about rules to follow, which are just a 101 on how to not be a psycho/sociopath
except for those on religious practice

which was seemed as the character of a good person back then

[glossy marlin]

-# I like how bo burnham said it

[shut thunder]

which is the basic idea of how people can have a change in character to some degree

being baptized, is just a common practice that stuck on as a symbolic thing,

[midnight kiln]

It's not just about following rules and doing good for others. It goes deeper than that.

[magic python]

Kinda funny how people use religions literally known for teachings of "be kind to others" to justify discrimination

[midnight kiln]

Baptism, traditionally, was not treated as a symbolic thing.

[shut thunder]

I never said it was treated as such

they obviously believed in it, the same as you probably

im just saying it is

[midnight kiln]

Sorry, I assumed, that's my bad

[shut thunder]

If it wasnt a symbolism, different religions which all delve in traditions of "clensing" related to newborns, or as getting rid of the original sin; should have converged into the same practice

Or at least have stuck on to the same thing, and we know baptism as a concept has mutated over the years

[midnight kiln]

I don't know, that's an interesting thought

As far as I know, baptism, and the cleansing of newborns, began with Christianity, but beyond that I do not know.

[shut thunder]

If you mean baptism (using water), they are rooted in judaism

The old jewish text of tradition practice and law, speak of routine cleansings just previous to rituals meant to clean the person of whatever rest of "bad spirits/evil" (i have no better words to describe this concept) after some event

Judaism has the characteristic of "baptism" being repeatable

meanwhile, circumsicion was thought of as a permanent form of cleansing

[midnight kiln]

Oh I was thinking about old mythologies having similar traditions

[shut thunder]

And most probably, that tradition started from the fact that circumsicion is cleaner and therefore safer in an era where an infection was 100% fatal

Im a non believer, i talk from the view of religion being a by product of human nature and something that is almost impossible to avoid

[midnight kiln]

That makes sense

[shut thunder]

We know prehistoric humans most probably pondered on why the stars were in the sky and they could only see them at night, since we are one of the only animals to lay back while sleeping

Notice, early records of history have ""scientific"" reasoning all wondering on what the fuck was happening up there

And to this day a lot of people just have some instinct to be interested in the stars

[midnight kiln]

Reminds me of C. S. Lewis' argument from desire

[shut thunder]

Silver is nowadays valued so much because a few hundred years ago people who used silver silverware were less prone to being sick, because it so happens to be that silver has antibiotic, antiviral and antifungal properties; they figured this fact out a few hundred years after the fact, previous to that silver had "magic" properties.

Again, thats why i stand to say that logic and faith dont match, in my vision they are entirely different lines of human thought

I simply happen to be a non-believer, but as i said, im not against the idea of there being a god, clearly not your god, but one nontheless

[proper basalt]

HEY

[midnight kiln]

You are right to a point. Logic and reason can be used, but to use them to explain everything concerning God becomes fruitless, I believe.

Theology is such a hard maze to travel in...

That's why there's only three saints ever called theologians.

Gotta know Greek (and Hebrew) for Christian theology

[thick wind]

You sounded interested in the opportunity so I wanted to reach out directly to see if you were still interested. If you are, would you mind if I DM you?

[ancient lance]

Okay I started this off in #discussion so talking about it here

[hidden bough]

...is that why? Lol

[verbal quest]

the revered Moe, Larry, and Curly

[magic python]

... alright..? So I just go to hell..? Is that the takeaway?

... who is..? I wasn't talking to anyone there...

Ah, I was missing a lot of context.

[hidden bough]

It's unclear to me how this interpretation as stated isn't in contradiction with like... people existing pre-Jesus or in places where they can't be exposed to christianity

Like, if the proof that he has not forsaken us is the birth of Christ, did he forsake everybody before the birth of Christ?

[next schooner]

What is the contradiction specifically

[hidden bough]

Pretty much this

Right certainly we have the flood but this is pretty far pre-Christ

[hidden bough]

And even disregarding the people in the (quite long) intermediate period, it seems like without Christ those people who died in the flood did not actually have the opportunity to make the choice to "stay on the right path"

I'm not saying that this cannot be reconciled but it's not immediately clear to me how one does

[next schooner]

Now that depends on who you ask - if you are asking about Roman Catholicism, then there were two categories (broadly speaking) of people who died prior to the coming of the Christ. Namely, the "damned" and the "righteous dead before Christ". When Christ died on the cross, he entered the "abode of the dead" (what you may see called Sheol in Hebrew and was often translated in the early Church into Greek as Hades) and found there the righteous dead. Then he more-or-less took all the righteous folks up with him when he was resurrected, ascended, and opened the doors to heaven.

Now the question regarding people who never have the chance to even learn about Christianity is quite a bit more complex and you shall see many different answers from many different denominations

[hidden bough]

Right I mean I've heard this but I still don't see how either the damned or righteous dead had any real opportunity to pick the "right path" without a way to determine what that was

Like how they should have known what the "correct" actions to take were, outside of specifically following christ

Sure but what about people pre-Judaism

[next schooner]

Yes the Mormons are kinda oddly universalist in this manner

[hidden bough]

I guess the natural next question is "why have the test on earth in the first place then"

[next schooner]

Well this is where one needs to understand kinda the theological history of Catholicism because it is a good question but is again a rather complex one to answer. However, according to the Catechism, all humans have access to the moral truth of the universe (and thereby God) via natural law, and it is acting according to one's conscience (more-or-less) that determines whether one dies "righteous"

[hidden bough]

To clarify, is the claim in Catechism that our consciences are inherent and accurate ways to access moral truth?

[old ginkgo]

long before the torah was written and long before moses there were people directed by God himself. Like Adam and Abraham who were prophets and they were the one's who act upon God's missions before religion. But there was also the universal moral principles which is part of human nature that continue to grow in generations.

[hidden bough]

I don't get it

Like I think I understand what you just said but I'm not sure I understand how that answers the question

[old ginkgo]

I dont believe life is a test, Life is gift. Life is a gift from God's creations and we try to live our best according to how this gift is used according to the way of the lord.

[next schooner]

Not quite - it is said to be inherent insofar as it is present "in the heart of a person", and that when one listens to their conscience, one is - in some sense - listening to God speaking. But, naturally, conscience is fallible. So the claim is definitely that it is inherent, but accurate, no.

However there is a presupposition that all humans have a tendency towards the moral truth of things

Now all of this is in relation to "orthodox" Roman Catholicism. Other denominations have vastly different thoughts and views

[magic python]

I feel like gift makes it sound a touch more positive than the reality for many to be honest

[hidden bough]

Ok thanks. So then given that you need Jesus to open the gates so that the righteous dead can ascend, I guess I don't see why you need him to also open this other path to non-heaven which is rejecting Christianity, if to follow one's conscience is "good enough", so to speak.

[long orchid]

hello chat what are we talking about

[hidden bough]

Why make it easier to be born into conditions (like a Muslim household in the US, say, where you can know Christianity but not necessarily have a real opportunity to convert) where you don't get into heaven, if previously the same conscience-following would have been sufficient to get into Heaven?

[next schooner]

And even within the Roman Catholic tradition, there remains some degree of ambiguity in interpreting e.g. what "hell" actually is. It is certainly accepted by (nearly) all Catholics that hell exists as a physical place, but its nature is not necessarily known to Man. The main defining feature and indeed punishment of Hell is that all who reside there live with the full and total knowledge of God's grace and infinite love and divinity but are permanently severed from having any spiritual connection to God - the torture of Hell is thus, primarily, the knowledge that God exists etc and that your soul shall never be in communion with God

[hidden bough]

Oh in Roman Catholicism this is the main defining feature?

Does Roman Catholicism have a purgatory or similar?

[next schooner]

Yes, purgatory is - as far as I know - basically only a Catholic thing

[hidden bough]

Sure yeah I get this part but why does that necessitate the test on earth

[old ginkgo]

I know it sounds positive but it is labelled by God as good. In reality yeah I get you it's hard but life is more about growth than anything. It is a gift to experience all this feelings even if we don't want to experience it. It's all because of God's love to give us the right to choose, he did it because he wanted to. But he meant it to be good not evil. It is still good but it is heavily corrupted. For me personally, There are 2 reasons why bad things happen and its either God will ultimately respect your free will even if it means to sin or He is testing you to grow as a person, as a human.

[next schooner]

Heaven was opened by Christ, and a person who knows Christ may accept or reject him explicitly. A person who does not know Christ may still accept or reject his 'grace' implicitly through their moral conscience.

[hidden bough]

From talking to practicing christians the general vibe I get is that the important part to them is much less the theology and more the general guidelines about how to live well

[next schooner]

More-or-less, yes. To quote the actual Catechism specifically (S. 1033),

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.’

If you don't wanna be rude then don't be rude. You can be agnostic or even an atheist without saying that Christian theology is nothing more than "blind faith" because this is simply not intellectually honest

[magic python]

Fair, I was also kinda being intentionally dense to the fact that well, good is subjective, and supposedly whatever tortures here on earth that exist don't really mean much in the end. I was more jesting

[next schooner]

I say this as someone who is very much not a Christian

If hell exists per the Catholic tradition, you can be sure I'm headed straight there. But that does not mean I am unable to engage with Christian theology (or any theology, for that matter) on its own terms.

The naturalist view of the universe is - on the timescale of Homo Sapiens, still an extremely new philosophical school of thought

[shell swan]

Scientifically, we don’t know where we came from or how the universe began, we only have (strong) theories based on our observation and analysis of data. I don’t think it is ridiculous to consider, even for a moment, the notion of an intelligent designer.

[next schooner]

Just because you are personally not compelled by the arguments that X god or gods exist does not mean that it always boils down to nothing but "blind faith"

I am very much an agnostic because I do not believe that there are any means by which I can presently discern the truth (or falsehood) of Christ or any other God

[stark trench]

It is not.

It is pretty old. It's about as old as philosophy is.

It's older than Christianity.

[shell swan]

What do you think philosophy is?

[next schooner]

Indeed

[hidden bough]

Which is also pretty young, relatively, no?

[next schooner]

However, naturalism without any manner of theology accompanying said naturalism was not at all common, that we can tell, throughout the full period of history about which we can really know anything about what people thought

[stark trench]

I mean, I guess. We don't really know because like, it's likely that spoken language developed before written language by a large margin and so it might very well be you had naturalists during pre-history.

[next schooner]

Also true

[stark trench]

I guess that'd still be young.

[next schooner]

It would be quite funny if all the neanderthals were strict naturalists

Though we shall never know

Alas I must get to work. But if y'all are discussing religion, keep it civil please.

[stark trench]

Someone named Ataraxia sent me a friend request, which I guess is funny given my Discord username is PyrrhonianSkeptic.

[long orchid]

i find debates about the nature of theology or the existence of God (which i know this isn't) rather silly, since at least ime about 0% of religious people i know are religious for those reasons

[stark trench]

yes, this is my experience as well

it's not really 0% but it's the vast majority of religious folk

[long orchid]

yeah not literally 0% haha

[feral maple]

Super random, but like whoever's from south east asia know their politics is corrupt.

are*

Js read a book abt this, and just brought this up

[magic python]

Politics corrupt? What's next, fork found in kitchen?

[feral maple]

lol

[long orchid]

from India, this is like an open secret lol

[feral maple]

but like genuinely it is religion politics

Like its worse than the brits' politics imp.

[old ginkgo]

atleast like a hundred times the catholic church has been corrupted by politics

[long orchid]

and back to the point, even if you could find a satisfying answer to the Existence Question™ you have made little inroads in understanding religious motivations or beliefs, which i think is more important and relevant to the world, certainly more interesting to me for sure

[shell swan]

I don’t think we’ll ever know who or what created us within our lifetimes.

[stark trench]

now it is worthwhile to ask whether this is a desirable position to be in; i am sympathetic to the idea that while religion sorta morphs in response to moral change, at least current major religions like christianity, islam, hinduism, buddhism, etc. are probably harmful to moral progress in general and perpetuate injustices. this isn't like, an intrinsic property of religion or anything, it just seems to me this is the case when looking at most major religions.

however, it's difficult to assess this because a lot of regions where religiosity is lower also tend to have independent cultural momentum towards things i find morally desirable, like rights for queer folk and Mad folk, and it's difficult to assess whether reduced religiosity is a result of some other third causal factor, increased positive sentiment towards minority groups causes reduced religiosity, or reduced religiosity is the cause itself. one reason to suspect sentiment is the caused of reduced religiosity is that many religious communities have institutions which give moral prescriptions, and these prescriptions might conflict with the changing moral opinions of the broader community. people don't like it when their religious community tells them to do immoral things, and this is a major reason a lot of people convert out of their religion and often become less religious.

i think one thing going for current religions having a causal role is that even in countries where there is already some cultural momentum, religious folk tend to be more opposed to things like queer rights, and when they're supportive of it, it's typically for undesirable reasons, such as believing homosexuality is innate.

[stark trench]

depending on what you mean, we have a pretty good idea

[long orchid]

wait is homosexuality not innate lol

[stark trench]

well, i don't like the term "innate" because it's sorta just bad and incoherent but your sexuality is definitely not determined entirely by your genes or hormone exposure in utero or more generally before birth

i just used it because that's how the debate is framed in popular discourse

[stark trench]

sexuality isn't static, either

it depends on cultural factors, situational factors, your hormones, your childhood, your genes, etc.

[long orchid]

doesn't this imply that conversion therapy would be effective if done right? obviously it's wildly unethical. but also ineffective

[stark trench]

not really

[hidden bough]

Sexuality being fluid doesn't imply that telling someone what their sexuality is changes it automatically

[hidden bough]

Gender is a product of all of these things and you can't just conversion therapy somebody into a new gender

[long orchid]

no i mean the broader concept of managing someone's environment to change their sexuality/gender

[magic python]

Isn't it funny just how much homophobia and transphobia (and lots of other forms of being anti-queer or just hating queer people) are literally just people not understanding how this stuff is for the most part not a choice in the same way other things are choices (as in like, I have the choice between what brand I buy, that's a far different type of choice)

[stark trench]

let's say being gay or trans was a choice: so what? why does that make it bad?

[long orchid]

it doesn't lol

[stark trench]

like yes it's not a choice but it being a choice is totally irrelevant to whether it's permissible to be gay or trans

[magic python]

It's bad because uhhhh uhhhh if it's a choice you can reverse it! And it says in this book it is evil!

[long orchid]

I'm not talking about permissibility, im trans myself

[hidden bough]

I think magma was replying to definitely car

[long orchid]

I'm focusing on effectiveness, because my understanding is that conversion therapy is also ineffective

[stark trench]

yeah

[shell swan]

Obviously we have a pretty strong theory (the big bang) backed by tons of evidence. It’s just interesting to think about what came before.

[long orchid]

oh sorry

[stark trench]

yes, it is ineffective

[magic python]

It's easier to tell people to stop doing something if you pretend they chose to do it

[hidden bough]

Sure I mean if you control how somebody experiences culture as a whole they'll have different expressions of their gender and sexuality

[magic python]

It's a way to try and remove connection, no? Acting like they actually picked it?

[hidden bough]

This seems almost tautological to me though

[long orchid]

oh so you're saying it's GxE stuff

[magic python]

You wouldn't feel as much pity if it's self-inflicted, so it's easier to hate

[hidden bough]

That is what magma said pretty much verbatim yeah

[magic python]

At least, it's probably easier to force yourself not to feel it

[long orchid]

ok cool i buy that

[stark trench]

there's also other stuff like norms against exploring one's sexuality

which will meaningfully impact how people understand and make sense of their experiences

[shell swan]

Just experience things, that’s all you can do. It doesn’t matter what other people tell you to do or not to do.

[long orchid]

this is dubious if you're say, a minor living with a deeply racist family

[stark trench]

mhm, yeah, it is, although it's an interesting question whether we can even make sense of that relative to various senses of beforeness---i'm very permissive when it comes to talk about things in general, so i basically want to give the incredulous stare if someone says "our understanding of causation, time, etc. is only relativized to our universe, so we can't even meaningfully talk about what caused the creation of our universe" but this is an objection worth mentioning

[long orchid]

bro where do you learn about this stuff

[spice grotto]

Brezis i think

[hidden bough]

Isn't this a PDE book

[spice grotto]

Our prof used it in my functional analysis course

Was jok

[stark trench]

some folk, famously hilary putnam, objected to things like the brain-in-the-vat hypothesis on the grounds all definitions of our words would essentially be relative to, like, the simulated world, and you can take a similar approach to all discourse about what happened "before" the creation of the universe, i.e. all talk is relative to our universe and so we can't even refer to stuff outside of it.

[long orchid]

i see

[stark trench]

i love jazz music

it is a bit sad as a jazz drummer that i cannot count seconds well

[long orchid]

ouch

[long orchid]

ok seriously though @stark trench

[stark trench]

i read a fair bit on philosophy

i mainly read books that i just find out about in nebulous ways and journal articles in various philosophy journals

[long orchid]

interestingggg

how do you balance your time between this and your actual work

[stark trench]

well, i don't really. philosophy is also my actual work, i do philosophy research

i've written a small bit on applied ethics, formalized ethics, and on feminist epistemology

[shell swan]

If you consider the singularity, it’s very hard to comprehend an infinitesimally “packed” point which contains, as we understand it, everything. Really, it’s hard to comprehend something outside of existence as something which is within the bounds of existence.

I love thinking about existence.

[long orchid]

ooooh interesting

[stark trench]

existence is a big one

[long orchid]

what about uniqueness

[stark trench]

i think the field that interests me the most i haven't done any reading on is meta-ontology

[stark trench]

haha

[pearl gulch]

Yall what are you talking bout

[long orchid]

what's feminist epistemology like

[stark trench]

it's just the intersection of feminist theory and epistemology, so stuff like standpoint epistemology, more generally social epistemology, and naturalized epistemology---feminist epistemology emphasizes the ways in which our knowledge-making processes are social and cultural, and also the ways in which they can be biased by injustice

[long orchid]

is this post positivist?

[stark trench]

sorta, yeah. there's a difficulty in that "post-positivist" is moreso a label used in the social sciences and "positivist" has a less specific meaning there, too, and is more associated with trying to resemble the "hard" sciences, whereas in the tradition of philosophy i work in (the Anglophonic / analytic / Anglo–Austrian tradition) positivism has a more specific label associated with the logical positivism of the Vienna circle. however, logical positivism is basically dead, and almost all philosophy after WWII is post-positivist in this sense.

[long orchid]

i see

[stark trench]

but most feminist philosophers of science will basically endorse that the hard sciences have the exact same social and cultural aspects to it as the soft sciences or social sciences. the generic feminist phil. sci. position is that all science is value-laden, but to be clear not all feminist philosophers of science think this.

[long orchid]

i see

[long orchid]

idk i primarily have an interest in ML so I'm not particularly sure how it's value laden

[shell swan]

Just read a short section about feminist epistemology, seems like a brilliant field to be in.

[tall finch]

E(s)=n=1∑∞​nsμ(n)Λ(n)​+∫0∞​eπx2−1Θ(x)−x1/2​xs−1dx ?

[tall finch]

The notation {Uα}α∈Ord
represents:
"A family of objects denoted by Uα where α ranges over all ordinal numbers."
Decomposing the notation
Uα represents one math object/universe at position α
α∈Ord means:
α takes values within the class of all ordinal numbers.
Ord represents the proper class containing every ordinal number:

0,1,2,3, …, ω, ω+1, ω⋅2, …

Thus, the notation denotes a transfinite hierarchy of mathematical objects:

U0,U1,U2, …,Uω,Uω+1, …

expanding infinitely beyond any standard form of infinity.
In terms of the hypothetical situation:
Each Uα represents a universe of mathematics, with higher ordinals representing more powerful/universal universes, and continuing infinitely into the transfinite domain

[misty pumice]

Science is not a blind belief. It is built around observation, testing, and even challenging theories or our understanding of how things work. Thats not blind. That's actuallt the opposite.

Blind is religion. It doesn't want proof. It makes magical claims. And it has nothing to show for it.

Putting science in the same vein as religion is fucking absurd.

[stark trench]

SO BASED. HUME REINCARNATE

[misty pumice]

Science acknowledges this limitation philosophers and scientists openly discuss it
Religion tends to not welcome that same scrutiny of its foundations
The assumption that repeatability works is continuously validated in practice, it builds bridges, cures diseases, sends rockets to space
Religious claims often don't produce that same kind of verifiable, practical payoff

So yes, science has foundational assumptions but it's transparent about them and they prove themselves useful over and over. That's quite different from faith in supernatural claims that can't be tested at all.

[stark trench]

Buddhist philosophy has been pretty critical of Buddhist dogmas since like, forever. I don't think it's really true that religion doesn't welcome scrutiny of assumptions. But conversely, there is also a lot of dogmatism within scientific practice.

[misty pumice]

Well, I don't nessecarrily like to count that as a religion but I suppose you have a point. There.

[stark trench]

Also, it's sorta unreasonable to compare religious practice and scientific practice on the grounds of which has "built more" because very few religions intend to build anything / advance our knowledge of manipulating the physical world.

[hidden bough]

What

[misty pumice]

When you say religion. People tend go associate with the whole God/Gods things. Buddhism is more unique.

[stark trench]

Some people will consider certain Buddhist traditions, especially the more philosophical ones, to not be a religious practice but a collection of philosophical analyses of the nature of experience and being.

[hidden bough]

I think that this is facially silly ngl

[stark trench]

I think this isn't reasonable but she's right that often religion is sorta of monotypically viewed in terms of "classical theism" or monotheistic religions.

Whereas most forms of Buddhism aren't theistic at all.

[hidden bough]

Sorry, I'm not entirely sure what monotypically means and a quick google search wasn't super helpful

I'd note though that even theistic religiions aren't monolithic in the degrees to which they examine their beliefs (obviously)

[shell swan]

Lacking internal diversity, meaning “broad”.

Well not really broad

whatever I’m really tired i need to go to sleep

[misty pumice]

The "no moral high ground" argument sounds fair and open minded, but it kind of proves too much.

By that logic:
Flat earth belief and astrophysics are just different but equal "belief systems"
Medicine and faith healing are equally valid
Any claim is as good as any other as long as someone believes it sincerely
Most people wouldn't actually accept that in practice.

lot of heavy lifting in your argument. Whether a belief system is more accurate at describing reality isn't really subjective it's something you can actually evaluate. Whether you prefer one over the other might be subjective, but that's a different question.

You seem to be like a centrist. And those are people whom I hate with a passion. I hope you never enter politics. You remind me of the type of person who would tell Martin Luther King and Thobb Robb they both make good points.

[stark trench]

"Monotypically" was meant in reference to monotypy but it didn't mean anything distinct from monolithic here. My brain just went to taxonomy for some reason, but monotypy isn't even exactly the right analogy here.

[hidden bough]

I see

[stark trench]

Arti, isn't it like, very late for you?

[hidden bough]

Surely it's later for you

[stark trench]

Yeah, it is.

[hidden bough]

It's only like 1 here

[stark trench]

Honestly, I feel like shit. But I can't fall asleep and am not at all tired. I'm also somehow very sick.

Okay, well, not very.

I'm like, slightly sick but my bad mood and allergies makes it feel like the end of the world.

[hidden bough]

That's too bad

[stark trench]

Like the sickness is gently rocking my lungs and throat.

[hidden bough]

Have you taken allergy meds and/or melatonin

[stark trench]

I have not. I have a weird aversion to taking OTC medication. I only recently decided to take acetaminophen for anything.

[hidden bough]

Mm yeah that's rough, I've found zyrtec especially to be really good for my allergies fwiw

[misty pumice]

I went outside and came back several hours later sneezing. It took months to escape this last time. Aaaa

[hidden bough]

I feel like this jump at the end is pretty bad faith lol

[misty pumice]

Didn't have this problem when I left the house at night time. :/

MAYBE ITS POLLON. MAYBE hair cut place chemicals. Who knows

[misty pumice]

Im just saying thats who people like him remind me of. Trying to both sides shit on everything. Even if they aren't close to equal footing

[sharp yarrow]

No us Christians believe since the christ died everyone before that is forgiven, in the second day before he was ressurected

[misty pumice]

Yeah that makes perfect sense. 👌

[hidden bough]

I think in a sensible conversation giving an idea some proper thought is the intellectually honest thing to do and your reaction to this seems not in the spirit of the channel

[hidden bough]

I feel like you must have misunderstood something I said but I can't quite tell what

[sharp yarrow]

you were asking that the people before was forsaken right?

[hidden bough]

Well sure

[sharp yarrow]

yeah

i did not read the context though since my discord decided to take me back to the past when I opened this channel

[misty pumice]

With all due respect. That conversation is kind of beneath me. There reaches a point to where you know enough.

If someone tells me the CIA made a fake moon of cheese. The reasonable thing to do is not take them seriously. I just happen have a more strict set of principles. Because I value truth. And sometimes that means admitting what someone says is well worthless.

[sharp yarrow]

People do ilogical things somehow

[hidden bough]

I think they were making pretty reasonable points lol

This just comes across as incredibly arrogant and dismissive of pretty reasonable ideas

[misty pumice]

Comparing "Muh feelings" belief system to looking at evidence and testing hypothesis in the same category is far from reasonable.

[hidden bough]

Ok, why?

[misty pumice]

The explanation of why they are different and why they shouldn't be compared is in the sentence. If you cannot figure it out still then you are lost

[hidden bough]

Ok I mean if your take is that they shouldn't be compared why did you spend so much effort above comparing them

[misty pumice]

You are either trolling me or delusional. I have done nothing but explain why they are different. Not to form a comparison. But to show why its wrong to compare them.

I feel like slamming my head against a brick wall

[sharp yarrow]

You seem to have a very large ego

[hidden bough]

I'm honestly pretty unsure what your position is here. Because I'm inclined to agree with the position that these have pretty different epistemic aims and don't really have comparable "validity" in any meaningful sense, but then above you were trying to make exactly this comparison.

[misty pumice]

You have no idea

[sharp yarrow]

@bleak sable depends on your goal

[bleak sable]

wrong chat so please forget it

[sharp yarrow]

right

[misty pumice]

My point was science values evidence. Religion doesn't therefore they should not be used on the way that it was being used

[stark trench]

What is evidence? What constitutes evidence?

[hidden bough]

Doesn't this kind of immediately run into the problem of induction

(Which, I think, was roughly what E. Heckler was getting at above?)

[stark trench]

Yeah, it does. But you can take the dogmatic approach (not used pejoratively here) and just assert that there are laws, we discover them through interacting with the world, etc. and what differentiates religion from this approach is just that religion is, in actuality, a bad approach to finding out facts about the physical world and is unreliable, regardless of whether it appears reliable to the religious.

[misty pumice]

But to elaborate. My ego issues where largely from being ahead of my time you could say. I see the economic system. The puppets of society see laws. Regulations. And "leaders"

Realizing people would chase short term legislation would undercut the class struggle became a very isolating and dreadful experience. I'm sure you can understand that.

Watching people doom the world by chasing short term reforms. Those reforms will be stripped away eventually. And the next cycle of fascism begins.

Progressives indirectly kill thousands of people by delaying rather than stopping.

[hidden bough]

Right, I mean, in the same text that Hume introduces this he gives roughly this answer, no?

[stark trench]

Hume scholars are undecided as to whether he's a naturalist or a skeptic.

[hidden bough]

I see

[stark trench]

There are good readings either way.

[glossy marlin]

-# prove that if you can cook k meals, you can cook k+1 meals

[hidden bough]

Anyway I personally find this a pretty convincing answer but it seems inconsistent with the earlier assertion by quintessa that the distinction between science and religion is blind faith

[sharp yarrow]

Yeah I understand but I dont really see how it relates

[hidden bough]

I don't think it really does she just wanted to say that

[sharp yarrow]

ok

[misty pumice]

It was an explanation of what birthed my ego

Since you seemed highly interested in it

[stark trench]

One way of cashing out what she's saying is in terms of the idea of non-vicious circularity. Some philosophers, mainly coherentists, will accept some circularity is fine while maintaining other forms of circularity are still epistemically undesirable or irrational or whatever. I think what Quintessa was getting at is that if you adopt some religious approach to the world (which she differentiates from a scientific approach), then it's not possible for your worldview to undermine itself or compel you to discard one of the beliefs you take dogmatically. Whereas arguably scientific inquiry could tell us our faculties are unreliable, or undermine induction or laws and what-not, e.g. with Boltzmann brains. Then, you differentiate between circularly-justified belief which can, through adding new evidence (based on what you deem evidence to be) obtained from those beliefs, undermine itself and circularly-justified beliefs which can't.

[misty pumice]

I listen with an open mind until I determine that a position is no longer worth listening too.

Most people wouldn't engage with an open nazi about genocide. Because they are AWARE of what all is involved.

But for me I take it further than that. I say if someone says something absurd. After enough investigation. Enough is enough and I drop the subject. Unless someone can do something worthy to catch my attention.

I don't stop at morals. I stop at waste of time.

[hidden bough]

I think a nontrivial number of people experience something similar when they realize that doing math even in terms of first-order ZFC requires accepting some underlying informality

[glossy marlin]

you can keep using an induction stove with the assumption that it will work the next time, but you will probably have a bit saved up just in case it breaks.
that´s kinda how science is done. we work with a theory but think a bit about the next. we use medicine but we research better drugs.

[stark trench]

We should all be skeptics.
- Pyrrho.

[misty pumice]

But when the collective is wrong. That begins a cycle of isolation wouldn't you say?

[sharp yarrow]

Its kinda the cool how he was one of the first Buddhist

[hidden bough]

Probably a silly question, but how would empirical evidence tell us that our faculties are unreliable? Or undermine induction in a way that isn't circular?

[misty pumice]

Well, if you grew up near an ideology and that ideology is mainstream. To reject it like the others would mean you are all alone in your area.

I disagree with liberals, conservatives, and centrist. Basically 1% of the population is correct. And that is people like me. I have no community. And everything i say to them will go over their heads. They have been psychologically programmed to think a certain way. Either through indivuality or economic policy.

[sharp yarrow]

"Correct"

[hidden bough]

If you can only bring yourself to interact with people that are "correct" the issue is perhaps not entirely that everybody else is incorrect

[glossy marlin]

sometimes a quick little fix works too.
the stove will not work forever, the fixes won´t work forever, reading the manual over and over won´t fix the stove, but that´s how religions work.
if religious texts don´t make sense, you can interpret a part differently or patch on a bit and maybe it´ll not be criticized for the next week and surely that will work forever. and if you pray enough you can use induction on the stove.

[stark trench]

One way is you could imagine we do psychological research and it turns out we can't differentiate squares from circles, or you do research on yourself and find out that there's actually no physical pathway whereby information is being transmitted to your eyes and your brain is confabulating it. Depending on what you do with this information, either you reductio and say the information you obtained is invalid or you genuinely take it to be a refutation of your previous position that your eyes are functioning (and likewise for all your faculties.) One way to undermine the validity of induction is to suggest that with near-certainty the experiences you're having are a result of statistical fluctuations and a series of statistically independent events, such as what occurs with Boltzmann brains, where there is no guarantee nor reason to expect anything about your brain or your experiences to continue over time / be regular.

[hidden bough]

I guess I'm wondering how, if we think somehow that we don't get real visual imagery, we can conclude that the things we're seeing (like that there is no information being transmitted to our eyes) are accurate

[misty pumice]

My comrades tell me to work alongside the puppets. But I find it exhausting to pretend the destruction of my vision is acceptable.

You try to build a house of stone. The pigs do an intervention and make it of straw. So the wolf burns the house down. Then you're all dead.

[stark trench]

We can't!

But it's enough that the position our eyes transmit accurate data be self-undermining for (some people to say) that the circularity is fine.

Even if it leaves us with no other better position after.

[hidden bough]

Oh yeah sure ok

[stark trench]

But you can get problems with unstable beliefs, where you can adopt a belief B, reject it, then because you rejected it, you adopt that same belief B again. And then reject it. And then accept it again. Ad infinitum.

[misty pumice]

Ahem the house thing is a metaphor

The stone is understanding the root issue

The straw is regulation

And the wolf is fascism and/or the destruction of those regulations

[hidden bough]

For the induction point, I'm not sure I see how you would conclude in eg the Boltzmann brain scenario that you were a Boltzmann brain

I kind of thought it was part of the point that you couldn't

[misty pumice]

That is true. But 14+ years of being exposed to these perspectives is enough time to cut it off. It clearly isn't getting anywhere.

[stark trench]

You can conclude, for certain plausible beliefs, that with near-certainty you're a Boltzmann brain. This, of course, undermines all the beliefs you used to conclude you're almost certainly a Boltzmann brain, but it suffices to show those beliefs are self-undermining.

[hidden bough]

Hmm. How?

Sorry, to clarify, how would you do this determining that you're a boltzmann brain

[stark trench]

You wouldn't determine you are a Boltzmann brain, just that it's very likely you are.

[hidden bough]

Also, now that you've elaborated on how you arrive at this inconsistency, how do you arrive at new conclusions that aren't negative if you do establish the unreliability of your faculties or whatnot

[hidden bough]

Sure, but how?

[stark trench]

If you conclude there are infinitely many Boltzmann brains (which can be done when, e.g., the universe approaches a de Sitter space with a cosmological constant) and make an anthropic argument from the fact that almost all brains are Boltzmann brains that you're likely to be a Boltzmann brain. This article discusses Boltzmann brains but unfortunately I can't find a readily available reference which explains the physics, beyond merely just mentioning that a de Sitter space with cosmological constant is "like a gas" which is basically meaningless. Broadly the argument goes: in a de Sitter space that extends either very far into the future or infinitely far, we expect there to be many randomly-created brain-like fluctuations, many more than non-spontaneously-created brains. By (some anthropic principle), we ought to believe with very high confidence we are Boltzmann brains.

This article seems to give some analysis of when Boltzmann brains can occur in de Sitter space but I'm not equipped to understand it. @hidden bough

[stark trench]

You can't. You become a skeptic of some sort.

[misty pumice]

Indeed

[cold needle]

can u not multipost this everywhere

[elfin lance]

True, you can't stop someone from thnking the way they think, but you can stop them (or yourself) from wasting your time.

[next schooner]

My problem here is with your haphazard use of the phrase "blind faith".

It is fair indeed fair to say that essentially any worldview will have some basic commitments it cannot prove from nowhere. Christianity has them, atheism has them, naturalism has them, and science also depends on some philosophical assumptions about reason, evidence, induction, the external world, Yadda Yadda.

However. This does not make all of these commitments “blind faith”. There is a difference between “this rests on some set of foundational ontological or epistemological assumptions” and “this is believed without any good reason”. Science, for example, is not generally considered to be a matter of "blind faith", because its claims are provisional, testable, revisable, and accountable to evidence. Likewise, Christian theology is not automatically blind faith just because you personally find its answers unpersuasive.

The same applies to “digging deeper”. I’m not really sure what you are trying to imply there. If the claim is that Christianity only works when people avoid serious scrutiny, that is just false. There have been countless theologians, philosophers, historians, and ordinary believers who have examined Christianity in great depth and remained Christian. You may think their arguments ultimately fail, and that is fine. But that is very different from saying the religion depends on people not thinking about it.

One can reject Christianity without reducing it to “people taking things for granted” or “blind faith”. There are long and complex intellectual traditions behind all major religions. You do not have to find those traditions convincing, but dismissing them as mere blind faith is just making a caricature.

Like, read Aquinas's Summa Theologiae and tell me that he was writing based on "blind faith"

Again, you can disagree with the conclusions - I certainly do - but it would be simply wrong to say that this one work was not an absolute masterpiece in synthesis

[toxic dagger]

Is the sat reading part impossible to complete to any of you here if you're a foreigner

[long orchid]

this feels... very depersonalizing tbh

like not in a good way.

[next schooner]

I think I’m still unclear on what your intended point is supposed to be. If you mean to say that many religious people do not engage very deeply with theology, then sure. I would not be surprised if that were true. But, like, that is a fairly ordinary sociological observation, not a critique of Christianity or any other religion. But your seemingly 'stronger' claim is that Christianity is better "enjoyed" by people not looking too closely at it. This claim is far broader - and it is one that you have failed to justify. You seem to be posing that deeper engagement with theology makes Christianity less coherent or satisfying, when for many serious believers the opposite is true.

[stoic tusk]

seriously

[placid shadow]

This is crazy! MIT has made a lot of impressive findings that have helped society in the past, and for it to have less research now is nuts. @sullen thistle

[sullen thistle]

Oh I cant send images 😭

[glossy marlin]

budget cuts to education, science and medicine suck, but it´s exactly what some people expected...

[sullen thistle]

"On April 3, 2026, President Donald Trump submitted his annual budget request to Congress, calling for historic cuts to domestic funding and shifting that money toward historic increases in the military budget."

It seems that he will not stop.

[placid shadow]

https://tenor.com/view/hug-cat-gif-21835868

[untold charm]

ah yes ofcoursee WE NEED MORE MILITARYYY!!! after all?? what would happen if we DONT FUND the miiitary america will be in HUGGE DANGER!!

i mean small funfact the carbon dioxide levels the US military alone EMITE is more than some countries they are the number 1 organizational source of greenhouse emissions YIPPEEE

[idle steppe]

I'm yet to understand why the usa pours the most money into the military, more than a few of the next biggest countries combined.

"danger"

[sullen thistle]

I mean, the US military budget is 1 trillion and the annual salary of a grad student is something like 3k dollars. Does that worth to make Terence Tao leave the country? Its crazy.

[placid shadow]

What are your thoughts on the potential reason? If I had to think about it, I guess that luring threats like China and the risk of being hacked and whatnot are really powerful threats to the US' defense.

[placid shadow]

I'm glad Tao is leaving, that makes anyone like me think twice about their potential future here

[idle steppe]

Paranoia about china invading taiwan and taking the semiconductor factories with that, "protecting" ukraine. Supporting israel

Bombing the middle east

[untold charm]

no i am guessing the actual reason is that big military companies want big contracts with the DoD therfore lobbying money. therfore they get more money.

[placid shadow]

ooo

[idle steppe]

Its disgusting to think that a country would be ran like this

[placid shadow]

Are the previous world wars unrelated to what's going on right now?

[untold charm]

i mean think about it where is the money going? i dont think the US actually feels threated military in any way shape or form. its just the fact is WAR money is profitable for the US biggiest companies and its economy kinda relies on it now in some sectors

[sullen thistle]

But it makes me upset to think that some of the most elite universities in the world will be gradually destroyed if this sick man continues to be in charge.

[untold charm]

ever since WW2 the amiercan dollar became standard international curcency and that fact shaped alot of things...

[idle steppe]

The israelis got their own state to prevent another holocaust

The world wars are definetly related

[placid shadow]

Same, hopefully they won't be physically destroyed though

[untold charm]

wdym " prevent another holocaust" /genq

[idle steppe]

Its paranoia

[placid shadow]

i want to attend one in my lifetime or just visit one and admire the architecture

[untold charm]

ohh yeah makes sense..

[idle steppe]

Up until israel jews didnt have their own country and so were scattered, mostly across europe

[placid shadow]

i'm sorryu but this convo is too much for me, i'm gonna leavev now

[untold charm]

https://tenor.com/view/cat-hello-hand-wave-waving-gif-2074980009496309562

[placid shadow]

https://tenor.com/view/bunny-rabbit-bnuuy-bed-hyper-gif-25445957

[untold charm]

i shall also leavee i am too silly for such srs topics ;3 and now i am kinda sad over what happening again even though it probably wont affect me too directly having media is wierd... i will go study

[sullen thistle]

Israelis were trying to establish the country even way before the first world war. Theodor Herzl even requested the region from the Ottoman sultan Abdulhamid but they were rejected, instead he offered land in todays Iraq but they rejected. It was zionism what led to creation of Israel. I also condemn holocaust but its another topic.

[idle steppe]

I thought what happened in ww2 massively accelerated their plan to create their own country

[sullen thistle]

Thats true.

[sullen thistle]

See ya

[misty pumice]

Where have you been lol?

[misty pumice]

Both sides have been funding the military for years. yawn

Its what happens when you live in an imperialist state

[ember glen]

cool

[hot gyro]

serious-discussion, the serious discussion:

[glass peak]

Don’t shit post here, and don’t post massive copy pastas anywhere. Go to #chill

[covert yew]

@safe chasm i have a proposition

add me to the sqa gc and all of this will stop
no more dms from me
you wont ever hear about me again

[safe chasm]

Holy beg

[covert yew]

add me to the gc lad

this is a great offer btw so take it while its still up

[magic python]

!redir

[quasi jetty]

This channel is only for on-topic discussion. Please take casual conversation to #discussion or #chill.

[magic python]

Why do people act like most trans people don't just want to literally live. I get some vocal trans folk can be extreme at times, but it's quite obvious there are far more non vocal people, people in hiding, self conscious people, no? Or are people being intentionally dense just so they have something to hate us for by taking our points out of context and or warping them to mean entirely different things?

Like these vocal trans folk can tend to just not represent a lot of us

[true zinc]

Also someone being vocal isn't neccesarily a bad thing, also if no-one holds the furthest line, how will even a slight movement become normalized, etc etc

[magic python]

That too. It's just sometimes the most vocal can be a bit extreme in ways that can cause actual not utterly stupid people to fight against them, as some points I've seen are uh.... not the best...

[vocal vessel]

It can get a bit dangerous to blame bigotry on the vocal people speaking up for trans people. Blame the horrible bigots instead.

[true zinc]

Also blame the people with the shitty points, not every vocal person has disgusting beliefs ofc, and when you do, criticize their points, not them for being trans; bc well, yeah, anyone can have horrible disgusting points and those should be called out

[magic python]

I'm not exactly trying to

I'm saying it can be a reason some may see us in a bit of a bad light, it is by no means responsible for the absolutely horrible things bigots say...

Yeah, especially considering how lots of them think only binary trans is what trans is...

I mean, even some trans folk only think of binary trans

and then disregard an entire side of the binary

I'm not in much spaces so i don't actually know how badly transmasc gets disregarded, but I'd believe that

Then again, you'd expect transmasc and transfem to probably distribute rather evenly in numbers...

[glossy marlin]

there´s barely any talk about transmasc people, and they would not wanna be the primary target of most of the discrimination. the "too high T" argument wouldn´t work well, if transphobes acknowledged trans men they´d obviously be putting men in women´s bathrooms themselves, etc.
from what I´ve seen / heard trans guys figure it out / come out younger on average and flood all the trans friendly spaces (and some women´s spaces), but there should theoretically be as many trans women as trans men.
-# and the politics in some queer spaces are uhh... yeah...

[magic python]

Well, AFAB and AMAB are roughly an even split, so it'd be an intuitive heuristic

[glossy marlin]

-# we don´t need woke ways to misgender

[magic python]

This also applies to the gender erasure of trans folks people do and claim not to be transphobic while doing

Just because you "acknowledge" they aren't their gender assigned at birth, doesn't mean you are accepting.

You need to acknowledge what they aren't and what they are.

[glossy marlin]

-# amab and afab tend to refer to transfem and transmasc respectively but are sometimes used in place of man and woman. intersex people are of course entirely ignored. gender abolitionists will straight up call trans women "bro", "man", etc., sometimes even after they´re asked to stop a dozen times, they´ll basically never use feminine or established gender neutral terms.

[rapid valve]

Why ar eyou always speaking small

[glossy marlin]

not always

[rapid valve]

Yeha but that wqs afunny phrasing

[magic python]

People who argue to use "bro" saying it's gender neutral are honestly so fucking dense. Who cares if it's gender neutral, I told you to stop.

I don't like gender neutral slurs either but you don't seem to use those

And then they say it "isn't that deep/serious" when I use the slurs analogy. Actual potatoes of humans.

I know it isn't a damn slur, you're just too dense to know other types of words can be damaging.

And don't even get me started on the people making fun of this by saying "actually don't refer to me like that" to ANYTHING to try and argue with this, they need some actual fucking help. This isn't a joke.

[vast wraith]

https://tenor.com/view/nodding-crossed-arms-pikachu-eyes-closed-pokemon-gif-15194868

by some David Gate

[magic python]

The world is anything but binary in most common places one could look

[misty pumice]

Whats the second half mean

Tell that to red mad hatters

[magic python]

Mercury poisoning makes you insane, but not that insane.

[misty pumice]

What does "corrupting the image of God look like. And what does it mean? Why can't this all powerful being write the rules in such a way that this problem can be avoided.

[magic python]

I love how silly and simple this argument is

But it requires whoever you are talking to to believe God is all powerful

Otherwise the question is in no way useful

Indeed, and it's quite simple

[dreamy crag]

Media literacy is so dead omg…

[rapid valve]

Wjat is media literacy

[cloud crest]

I’m not a theist or anything but just to play devil’s advocate, what if the god was only all powerful in domains they can’t physically interact with?

[dreamy crag]

the ability to understand the themes of a story bascialy

[rapid valve]

[dreamy crag]

what you learn in english class

[rapid valve]

😭

I learnt i suck at that ig

[dreamy crag]

wdym?

[rapid valve]

Very bad grades

[dreamy crag]

oh

[rapid valve]

🥀

[dreamy crag]

its fine :3 dw

but yeah, people not understanding a story is a masive peve of mine

[magic python]

Oh I'd 100% accept that, it's just some people claim they are flat out all powerful.

It's a very simple problem to fix, it's just funny how I see some people who this argument can actually be told to.

Like just don't claim they can do absolutely everything, problem solved

[cloud crest]

Yeah if you claim god can do literally anything it probably causes contradictions

[magic python]

The people I hear claim this tend to contradict themselves and not be open to actual conversations, so makes sense

Or immediately go "well god wouldn't do that" mate how do you know? Did you ask them?

[cloud crest]

The other argument I’ve heard is that the question itself doesn’t make sense, since if you assume a god is all powerful it’s not possible to create a rock they can’t move

So the rule becomes ‘god can do anything that doesn’t logically contradict itself’

[magic python]

Is this related how people complain a story doesn't have X when X literally goes against the themes or plots the story holds, because yeah, it seems to be happening so much...

[magic python]

Yeah they can also say that, but they never do

(Exaggerating on never here)

[cloud crest]

It’s a similar kind of contradiction I suppose

[mellow pond]

i've seen an argument a couple times that societies with a patriarchal pantheon or a single masculine god are rooted in a systemic desire among misogynists to erase the image of women as creators and birthgivers

obviously things are probably a bit more nuanced than that, but it would be no surprise to me at all if there were at least a nugget of truth in there somewhere

thoughts, anyone?

[mellow pond]

@true zinc i'm ngl i'm curious to hear your take on this /pos /srs

[true zinc]

Hmmmm, I'm not too sure, fwiw what I know of religion is mostly from looking at stuff via linguistics, so I'm not too sure I can answer this well or give my opinion on whether it's true or not

[mellow pond]

that's completely understandable

[jolly sandal]

I would like to participate in this discussion

[true zinc]

then...do so

[heavy pagoda]

i dont think this is true

[jolly sandal]

I am, however, too lazy to scroll up

[heavy pagoda]

or at least it isnt really close to being the driving factor here

[mellow pond]

i mean the first message of it is literally right here
#serious-discussion message

[jolly sandal]

Oh ok, thanks

[mellow pond]

elaborate

not saying whether i agree or disagree, but i'm open to and interested in opinions and viewpoints on the matter

[heavy pagoda]

in any case the power structures in these pantheons just seem to be modelled off of some idealised version of existing real world power structures

[true zinc]

oh shit there was a ||school shooting in SF just now||

[heavy pagoda]

so i dont think this is separate from just the general fact that a lot of these ancient societies were patriarchal

[true zinc]

I just turned my TV on and saw this wtf

[heavy pagoda]

and envisioned that of the gods to be similar

[true zinc]

No-one harmed tho and shooters are dead

[jolly sandal]

It depends on societies' view of the roles of deities as more similar to 'classically masculine' traits compared to 'classically feminine' traits; in cultures where protectorship is masculine, environmental factors leading to the "necessity" of a god(s) with more protective inclinations would attribute masculine traits, and similarly for cultures where "creation" or "nurturing" is considered feminine

[heavy pagoda]

even so there is a lot of variation in how female goddesses are portrayed

[mellow pond]

oh jesus christ

still infuriates me how the u.s. government tried to convince us that the shit with charlie kirk was some national tragedy that we should all be infuriated about while the several upon several school shootings and acts of gun violence that happen are "just how things are here"

[heavy pagoda]

e.g. in greek mythology gaia is in some senses above and or independent of olympus

[mellow pond]

yeah that makes sense

[heavy pagoda]

like lots of the super primordial gods in greek mythology are female or genderless

[mellow pond]

there's this one artpiece i saw

it looks like a fucking shitpost to the naked eye

but i promise it's not

from some person by the username bionicbandit
where essentially it depicted charlie kirk's face on one of the twin towers during 9/11, half to criticize the way people compare the shit with kirk to something like 9/11 and half to call out the way people take these things like 9/11 and that assassination and act like they're fundamentally more tragic and severe than the constant atrocities that the u.s. has committed in its 250 years of existence

not to mention all the genocides caused by colonialism, fascism, and generally just racism

[mellow pond]

yee

[mellow pond]

i'd send it here, but again i can see how it could easily be misconstrued as a shitpost and would be mistakenly modpinged, then i'd be at the mercy of the media literacy of whoever first responds to the modping

[heavy pagoda]

i mean the thing with gun violence in the us is that there is this narrative that has existed more or less since its founding that a well armed general public is essential for the prevention of tyranny

so i suppose if you buy into that, you can tolerate any number of these incidents on the basis that tyranny would be worse

[jolly sandal]

The main characters of Greek mythology have an interesting attribute, which is that the ones intended to resemble forces of nature (the primordials) are more feminine while the human-like ones are more masculine

[mellow pond]

i mean yeah ig
depends on if someone does or doesn't view the current government's behavior as tyrannical or not

also even beyond incidents like shootings it also is worth it to consider things that the country itself does or permits

[heavy pagoda]

typically the image of tyranny people have in mind is something far more extreme

[mellow pond]

true,,,

[heavy pagoda]

like they envision some situation in which the government is going to kill them or something unless they have a gun

[zealous garden]

Based

[heavy pagoda]

whilst i find some aspects of the anti-tyranny case for gun ownership compelling, id argue that you actually need only a very small proportion of the population to be armed in order to overthrow the government

like only a few percent or something

so i dont think there is really a case against limiting gun ownership to like the 10% of the population deemed by reasonable metrics to be least likely to abuse it

[mellow pond]

fr

[heavy pagoda]

as opposed to this total no holds barred model

[tall finch]

{Uα​}α∈Ord

[proven pagoda]

There is a shooting in san diego

[true zinc]

Yes, and also apparently I was incorrect in saying no-one was harmed, I was looking at a preliminary report, 3 people are dead

[mellow pond]

oh holy shit-

[misty pumice]

The world changes through suffering. That much is clear to me. These deaths will begin to pile up and eventually people will snap when they are tired of it. They say we live among an empathic population. That is not true.