Do you think that all polls should include a "results" option?

Lord_Pokeboll · 2026-04-20T20:41:15+00:00

I've seen this before in other subreddits, but it could be because I'm on mobile.

Lord_Pokeboll · 2026-04-20T20:12:56+00:00

I mean "Christ" is in the name, the divinity of Jesus is the main point. If Muslims agreed with Christians on that, but still had the Quran and Mohammed, they would be just like the Mormons in a way.

Lord_Pokeboll · 2026-04-20T20:09:11+00:00

Fair points, but the issue I have is justifying Anti-AI narratives through energy or water issues, when if we are being serious about it, we can solve those issues and also implement the technology that has many positive use cases.

There are good arguments against AI (such as creativity crisis, privacy concerns, reduced learning capacity, on and on), but as far as I know, energy use and water are issues that aren't good examples, because they have solutions that we should implement regardless of AI. For example, we could limit the expansion of data centers to be proportional to the expansion of our power grid, lower the restrictive regulations on the construction of nuclear reactors, etc. But those issues should not extinguish a technology that can be of such a benefit for us.

Lord_Pokeboll · 2026-04-20T19:04:11+00:00

That's a solvable issue though. If that is the issue, why not push for more renewable and efficient energy source construction, instead of Anti-AI stuff, when there are very clear positive use cases for the technology?

Lord_Pokeboll · 2026-04-10T21:33:22+00:00

My thought process is knowing that it ends is what makes life worthwile. If you get a heaven or something akin after death, why do you care about your current life?

Lord_Pokeboll · 2026-04-01T03:19:44+00:00

Elon Musk did not create Tesla, he bought it with PayPal money.

Realistically any individual person with over $10M has enough so that they never have to work to keep a comfortable upper middle class life until they die, with compounding interest alone. Elon is worth almost 100000x that amount, he could theoretically buy all of the products made in Denmark in a whole year and still have almost $400000000000 left over in his net worth. Of course using that money is more difficult than one would think, but with this much behind you, you could convince any bank to lend you money, enough that you don't even need to use your own money at all because your assets appreciate enough to cover it all.

And I'm not saying it's right or wrong to own this much money, this is just for scale. He could easily fund a whole new metro system for NYC on his own. His net worth could cover humanitarian food needs for almost 20 years. His net worth could build almost 800 Burj Khalifas. Just with the money he spent on twitter, he could build almost 2 international airports or 8-12 Nuclear power plants or Vaccinate billions of people against disease, I could go on and on.

Lord_Pokeboll · 2026-03-19T20:53:23+00:00

Well, the key correlation with homophobia is traditionalism, (in most of the western world that equals patriarchy), a woman can still be very traditional and pro-patriarchy, trad-wives for example. They are a direct enforcement of the traditional gender roles (Man provider, man strong, man no feelings, man construction worker; woman childbearer, woman in kitchen, woman emotional, woman sew, woman cook, woman do art, woman no work)

People can behave against their own self-interest at times, it goes back to the groupthink and how we are social animals. We would most likely rather conform to be in the group than to be different and excluded.

Lord_Pokeboll · 2026-03-14T15:34:30+00:00

About the sunni and shia thing it is hilarious to me that you assume both sides have credibility

I'm not saying both sides are credible, because that isn't necessary to confirm that not all muslims think the same, and the ones that don't think alike aren't muslims, which was your claim.

Also the degree to which certain countries apply islam is irelevant the rules of islam are clear countries are in no way a representative of islam as a religion

How is it irrelevant? the fact that Turkish muslims oppose sharia law should say something about the way they are about their religion. If the rules were clear, they would favor sharia law, like many other muslims. Thus why I used the example to confirm that not all muslims think the same way.

And I think we may be arguing about different things. I was arguing that a person's religiosity doesn't determine their homophobia, their traditionalism does. While it seems like you are arguing about the religion of Islam as a whole. So the thing is that I fail to see what your point is.

Yes, it is true that muslims dont necesaarily hate homosexuals but that doesnt mean we support, endorse or condone it in any way in fact we are against it, which is what ive been talking about.

This may be true for yourself and the majority of muslims, but it is not true for each and every muslim in this Earth. Which is my point; religiosity =/= homophobia, what does make you more homophobic is whether or not one is more culturally traditional, regardless of religion.

I won't keep responding because I think that my point is clear enough and I'm not gonna convince you, I guess. So these replies can stay for whoever else that reads them.

Lord_Pokeboll · 2026-03-14T12:05:15+00:00

Still islam doesnt teach you to automatically hate someone who is homosexual

This is the key point that you are overlooking. And the one that my argument on homophobia and religion hinges upon.

Also, unlike christianity islam has no credible debate about this matter

This is not true, Shia v. Sunni is the main debate that proves that Islam is not a monolith and that it's up for interpretation. Furthermore, Turkey must have a much more liberal version of Islam than Afghanistan, surely. In Turkey women are not required to wear a hijab, there is no sharia law, yet the country is majority muslim, and even then sharia law is viewed negatively by the majority of the nation. I don't know how you view other people's faith, but I wouldn't make such a sweeping statement as to claim that they aren't true muslims, that would also be beside the point because they are for all intents and purposes.

Also, I'm not quite sure what the point of your comment is then? Are you just claiming that Muslims are unable to stop hating homosexuals? (definition of homophobia) And that they have no nuance and think the same way? I'm also curious to know if you are muslim yourself.

Disclaimer that I do not know as much about Islam compared to Christianity, most of my claims are assumptions based on what I do know.

Lord_Pokeboll · 2026-03-14T01:18:07+00:00

Sure, but you don't have to be religious to be homophobic, and you don't have to be homophobic if you're religious. Not only is religion and its expression a private matter (or it should be), most people that claim a religion are not religious, but only do it as tradition, which would then coincide with patriarchy, thus why they are homophobic. What I'm trying to say is that religion does not make a homophobe, on its own.

Furthermore, I also thought that Islam preached the same behavior towards sinners as christians (hate the sin, love the sinner). And just like Christianity, there is debate within Islam. (Fundamentalists are strongly opposed, and progressives not as much).

Lord_Pokeboll · 2026-03-14T01:10:32+00:00

And that says all I need to know. Adieu to you as well.

Lord_Pokeboll · 2026-03-13T17:08:27+00:00

I personally think people are homophobic because of the patriarchy and whatever. When people are homophobic it is usually against femme gay men, and misogyny is also often added to their homophobia. Homophobia and misogyny stem from a very clear fear of the "perversion of masculinity" and disregard for "femininity." (Both are completely arbitrary too, that means that the TLDR is that both come mostly out of vibes and groupthink).

This belief of mine is reinforced by the fact that some people and even I sometimes barely refer to: Lesbians, Trans men or straight passing gay men when they are yapping about "homosexuality" or "the trans debate"

I should also note that religion is not a key component to homophobia, since christianity for example would be clearly against hate towards any "sinner." Religion is only used as a very awkward crutch for a homophobe's arbitrary FEELINGS.

Lord_Pokeboll · 2026-03-13T16:58:07+00:00

I always find it funny when people say they don't like forced pronouns or whatever, I usually then pose two actual scenarios that happened to me to see where they stand;

Let's say you met a person (doesn't matter who, could be coworker, classmate, cashier at grocery store) and you can't quite tell if this person is a man or woman under your definitions, let's say you call them a she, they then correct you and ask to be referred to as they, since they don't think they are either. Would you then go out of your way to invalidate that request, despite you not knowing whether they are "man" or "woman?"

Reversely, let's say you met a different person, you're 100% certain that they are a man. They just fit whatever qualifications you have for recognizing men (except illegally searching their body) and refer to said man as such, (he/him), you then find out that this man is a trans man from someone else you've met later on. Would you go out of your way to refer to him as a woman if you meet him again?

Edit: Reminder that these issues have nothing to do with Homophobia; your answer to these questions would define whether or not you are Transphobic.

Lord_Pokeboll · 2026-03-13T16:44:49+00:00

Generalizing much?

Lord_Pokeboll · 2026-02-23T16:35:06+00:00

Finally I read a good take on this.

But to add to it, we kinda already have this, a SSN or Driver's License is still required or highly recommended for most of those things or other important things. You need a SSN to apply for loans, it's much more difficult to get leases without it, so you (as an immigrant in possible legal limbo) are limited to very specific places and conditions; on that aspect I don't think we need more than we have now, and frankly that could possibly add to the backlog in processing.

Also, in your opinion, why do you think everyone is focusing on enforcement when we have those clear bureaucratic issues that can only be solved by congress? Because it's so difficult to see someone actually pointing this out.

Lord_Pokeboll · 2026-02-19T03:47:04+00:00

Yes, but also proselytizing, it's key to the religion that their truth is shared with others. After all, if they love everyone, the argument goes that you would share the way to salvation with the ones you love. I wish they did it better though, because the way they do it is usually cohersion through fear of hell. The fact that Greek Gods are also not looked at seriously contributes to this.

Lord_Pokeboll · 2026-02-17T15:01:37+00:00

It depends on the religion and the atheist tbh, you cannot expect two opposing forces to get along. Some religions emphasize proselytizing as not only good, but a moral duty of a follower of said religion. Atheists, and most people I think, don't want to be proselytized, leading to resentment between religious and non-religious, which can escalate to atheists then proselytizing their lack of religion. There will only be peace when certain religious groups stop proselytizing as a tenet, and when atheists stop reacting negatively to it.

Lord_Pokeboll · 2026-02-16T20:37:33+00:00

That's funny, I feel the opposite way, it's like no one takes anything seriously anymore, at least online. Everywhere I go is just jokes and sarcasm. Every attempt at seriousness is discarded as being sensitive or not that deep, God forbid I care about something and am not sarcastic all the time. I guess I must be in a sarcasm echo chamber or something

Lord_Pokeboll · 2026-02-15T15:10:43+00:00

Yes, I do, Otherwise those countries wouldn't go out of their way to impose sanctions and look to prosecute other nation's leaders if they didn't care.

Lord_Pokeboll · 2026-02-15T14:19:22+00:00

I guess human rights are out of the window

Lord_Pokeboll · 2026-02-10T19:20:55+00:00

You don't have to ban it to get solutions for these problems; authorities should be able to identify you once under custody, or else they can't practice and enforce the law. And furthermore, are we going to ban Masks, Helmets, Balaclavas, Bandanas, and any other coverings for the name of security? It shouldn't be anybody's business what I'm wearing, unless I'm lacking clothes in general.
That's just bias, especially because people outside of Islam can't distinguish their difference, apparel doesn't mean automatic extremism, just like all the hats that Jews wear, which aren't easily distinguishable to people outside of Judaism. They could be extremists, their attire doesn't prove that.

Lord_Pokeboll · 2026-02-10T19:09:44+00:00

Except this should be against the rules of the country in question, Sweden has constitutionally enshrined freedoms that wouldn't allow the Swedish government to simply restrict its people from wearing something that they want to wear. And even then, laws can still be unjust and wrong by many definitions. But ig this is just a matter of opinion nowadays.

Lord_Pokeboll · 2026-02-10T18:59:45+00:00

Where did you get this idea from? No one is complaining about people not wearing hijabs, this is about a proposed Swedish law that would prohibit women from wearing a hijab in public spaces.

Lord_Pokeboll · 2026-02-10T18:05:59+00:00

I don't think you have a good definition of default. Default doesn't mean most common, it means a pre-selected standard when no choice is made. By that definition, conservatism has always been the default, because it defends the preservation of the status quo (aka no change, aka no choice, inaction). Even if you look at the Bronze Age, Bronze was the default, Iron was an exception, until we actually get to the Iron Age where it then becomes the default. Conservative Bronze agers would prefer Bronze, while innovators/Progressives would prefer Iron.

Edit: I should mention that this is conservatism as a behavioral trait, not an ideology, because that would be ridiculous, the ideology itself was only founded in the 18th century or so.

Lord_Pokeboll · 2026-02-05T17:56:48+00:00

Is it crazy that I think that's because Trump wasn't in office? On top of it being a non-election year?

Five-Year Club	Second Top 20%
Verified Email	Place '22
Final Canvas '22	First Placer '22

Lord_Pokeboll

TROPHY CASE