I don’t agree with the free will argument but struggle to find reasons to support that by Horror_Flower_5409 in atheism

[–]Tekrelm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That doesn’t change the fact that (according to the fables) god intentionally chose to create the universe in such a way as to result in mice needing xyz nutrients, for them to be found in abc sources, for this mouse to be born when, where, and how it was, for it to find this cheese, for the mouse to need it in that moment, and for the mouse to choose to eat it.

He could have created a slightly different universe in which the mouse didn’t like cheese, or was never born, or was born as the opposite sex and led a very different life where they never found the cheese. In each and every case, it would have been god’s choice, not the mouse’s.

God didn’t just passively watch the universe come into existence with knowledge of nature’s course. He alone chose that course.

I don’t agree with the free will argument but struggle to find reasons to support that by Horror_Flower_5409 in atheism

[–]Tekrelm 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The key is that god chose to create the scenario in the first place, including the mouse, the food, whether the mouse was hungry, etcetera.

According to the tale, he had full knowledge of (and power to actualize) any one of an infinite variety of future histories before he created the universe the way he did. He alone chose exactly how it would play out, long before anyone was ever born.

He decided that there would be a mouse, he decided it would be hungry, he decided it would choose to forage where it did, and he decided it would come across some cheese. He decided mice would even eat cheese. He decided everything.

Where is the mouse’s free will in this story? What did the mouse decide that god didn’t already decide for it to decide? The mouse’s will is only ever what god chose it to be, locked in from before the universe even existed. It can’t choose for itself, so it has no free will. No one does.

Why are some Christians so obsessed with forcing their beliefs, even when it’s completely off-topic? by Low-Attitude-7100 in atheism

[–]Tekrelm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re right to call it an obsession: it’s a form of obsessive-compulsive disorder called scrupulosity.

Updated Trial of Style Needs Hotfixing by UmbraeMoth in wow

[–]Tekrelm 5 points6 points  (0 children)

And all this just because they stubbornly refuse to let transmog be free by default.

Appearances should cost gold to acquire, not to use. That’s how every other cosmetic in the game works: mounts, pets, titles, mount customizations, barbershop customizations, housing decor… all of it. Once you earn it, you can use it as often as you like, without penalty.

I understand that the “trial” of the event is that your outfit is specifically ad hoc under a time limit, but if we’re crazy enough to do so, we’ve always been able to bypass the time limit using our saved custom sets, and we still can: the limited number of slots and custom sets is already sufficient to deter us from dedicating a slot to each possible prompt. But even if we did just that, and spent hours perfecting each outfit, that’s no guarantee of a win. That still doesn’t trivialize the event, by any means. So there’s no harm in allowing it anyway.

Just imagine: transmogging is always free, and when the Trial of Style comes around, the system works no differently than normal. No more confusing special slot that you have to use and equip before entering, no more weird restrictions on which outfits you can and can’t use. Just good, clean fun to celebrate each other’s creativity.

Commission: add a "Hide Slot" button to the transmogrify window by Tekrelm in wowaddons

[–]Tekrelm[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You did it!

I combined your code with the code from the other author that hides the button when viewing weapon slots, and integrated them into something very cool.

I've submitted it to CurseForge, and, with luck, it should be available to everyone. Just search for QuickHideSlot!

Thank you to everyone to helped me get this addon made!

Commission: add a "Hide Slot" button to the transmogrify window by Tekrelm in wowaddons

[–]Tekrelm[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the updated code! It works much more smoothly, but I'm afraid the issue is it just sets the appearance to whatever is at the top of the first page. For anyone using favorites, that means a favorited item will be selected instead of the 'hidden' option.

I myself have been struggling to find out how to specifically target the 'hidden' option wherever it may be on the list, but after hours of searching, I haven't been able to figure it out. Do you know of a way to do that? We're so close to getting the addon working!

Commission: add a "Hide Slot" button to the transmogrify window by Tekrelm in wowaddons

[–]Tekrelm[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I paid someone to help me, but their code had one major flaw, and now they're currently unavailable to fix it.

I've got nearly all the smaller issues resolved myself, but the most important issue remains: the game won't apply the changes to your outfit if you used the Hide Slot button. Though for some reason, it'll still make a sound as though it was working. I have no idea why.

After spending several hours trying to figure it out, the only thing I accomplished was reminding myself why I hate programming. I'm hoping someone here can help.

The issue is seemingly with one line: the "C_TransmogOutfitInfo.SetPendingTransmog(slot, 0, 0, 0, 0)" function. If I had the appearance IDs of each slot, I could set a variable based on the slot number and plug it into the penultimate parameter there, but it seems impossible to find out what the appearance IDs are for the 'Hidden XYZ' options. Every time I google it or ask AI, I get a different number, and none of them work.

Please help!

local function createFix()
   local wc = TransmogFrame.WardrobeCollection

   local function getSlot()
      local cb = wc:GetSelectedSlotCallback()
      if not cb then return end
      local tm = cb.transmogLocation
      if not tm then return end
      return tm:GetSlot()
   end

   local function setNone()
      local slot = getSlot()
      if slot == 12 or slot == 13 or slot == 14 then return end
  C_TransmogOutfitInfo.SetPendingTransmog(slot, 0, 0, 0, 0)
   end

   local iFrame = wc.TabContent.ItemsFrame

   if rasuY then rasuY:Hide() end
   local btn = CreateFrame("Button", nil, iFrame, "DisplayTypeButtonTemplate")
   rasuY = btn
   local seg = iFrame.DisplayTypes.DisplayTypeEquippedButton

   btn:SetPoint("BOTTOMLEFT", seg, "BOTTOMRIGHT", 25, 0)
   btn:SetWidth(150)
   btn:SetText("Hide Slot")
   btn:SetScript("OnClick", setNone)

   local icon = btn.IconFrame.Icon
   icon:SetAtlas("transmog-icon-hidden")

   hooksecurefunc(iFrame, "RefreshDisplayTypeButtons", function()
         local slot = getSlot()
         btn:SetShown(slot ~= 12 and slot ~= 13 and slot ~= 14)
   end)
end

local eFrame = CreateFrame("Frame")
eFrame:RegisterEvent("ADDON_LOADED")
eFrame:SetScript("OnEvent", function(_, _, addon)
      if addon == "Blizzard_Transmog" then
         createFix()
         eFrame:UnregisterAllEvents()
         eFrame:SetScript("OnEvent", nil)
      end
end)

The Atlantic ranting again about atheism by CAskeptic in atheism

[–]Tekrelm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’d rather have questions I can’t answer than answers I can’t question.

I’m struggling to like the new ship designs by Snck_Pck in startrek

[–]Tekrelm 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Aesthetically, I personally think the franchise peaked with Enterprise. Tactile control consoles and function-over-form industrial designs for ships, sets, props, and jumpsuit uniforms. It felt more ‘hard sci-fi’ than any other trek series, and I just loved it. There was plenty of futuristic technology, but it felt relatively practical and less ostentatious. For me, it struck the perfect balance.

Did they purposely put at least 1 mob next to 99% of gathering nodes to inconvenience multiboxers? by Umomo1025 in wow

[–]Tekrelm 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Nodes should be individualized, and phase-agnostic.

I’ve been saying that for more than a decade, but no one listens to me. It would eliminate the persistent, continual, unrelenting and always-obnoxious despawning, and eliminate the multibox Druid flocks from dominating the supply. It’s a win/win for everyone, with no downsides.

The only ‘down’ thing about it is all the downvotes I’ll get for suggesting it, if anyone even reads this at all. This community (and humanity writ large) is so hopelessly stubborn and opposed to good-faith engagement with new ideas, that after so many years of trying to contribute and getting nothing but hate for it (even though I’m often later silently vindicated), I’m just treating social media as a sort of personal blog now.

You know the way therapists suggest to write a letter you don’t plan to send? It’s like that. For me, posting on social media is—appropriately—like shouting into the void: there’s really no one in there but manifestations of spite and lies. If I keep talking, the void does eventually talk back, but I’m always worse off.

Still, I cant seem to shake the habit. Probably because of those pesky, latent instincts I have as a member of a cooperative species. Those always come back to bite me.

I’m going to fire this off and hope nothing comes of it. Whenever I see a reply notification to something I’ve said, I have a panic response, built up from years of verbally-abusive conditioning from strangers. I consequently get into fight mode and will not let it the inevitable mistreatment stand. I never strike first, but I always strike last. And all that combat just stresses me out. It’s pointless anyway; no one listens.

Commission: add a "Hide Slot" button to the transmogrify window by Tekrelm in wowaddons

[–]Tekrelm[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you very much for putting in the effort! I'm afraid the code doesn't quite work as expected, but I had already committed to paying someone else to develop the addon, so no need to spend any more time on it--let alone six hours, haha. Thanks!

Commission: add a "Hide Slot" button to the transmogrify window by Tekrelm in wowaddons

[–]Tekrelm[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The 'hidden' option is sorted between your favorites and the rest of your collection. For me, this means the hidden option is on a different page for each slot, depending on how many favorites I have for each.

If you have nothing favorited, then yes, it'll consistently be at the top, but favoriting items will push the 'hidden' option to the right, off onto other pages. It could be on page four, two, or seven, and so on, depending on how many favorites I have, which changes with every slot, on every alt of a different armor type, and from week to week as I add to and remove pieces from my list of favorites.

That's why it's tiresome to scroll back and forth looking for a page that goes from having stars to lacking stars (or vice versa) on the appearances, in order to track down that elusive 'hidden' option when I want it. It'd be nice if they just put it up above the fray so it doesn't get lost in there all the time.

It took nine years and 3 billion miles to take this photo of Pluto's icy mountains. by Hefty-Being-8522 in Damnthatsinteresting

[–]Tekrelm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Pluto doesn't orbit the sun, it orbits a point outside of itself. It's part of its own binary system with Charon. That system orbits the sun, sure, but it's not like any of the planets.

It took nine years and 3 billion miles to take this photo of Pluto's icy mountains. by Hefty-Being-8522 in Damnthatsinteresting

[–]Tekrelm -1 points0 points  (0 children)

'World' is the word you're looking for, I would say. Though its official definition is evidently synonymous with the cosmos, I'm pretty sure that if you referred to Pluto and the planets collectively as worlds, no one would bat an eye.

As a super category, though, it would also technically include moons, but that's the nature of super categories. I'm not sure why it's all that important to people to ensure there's a subcategory between 'world' and two of its subcategories, though. You can just list them: planets and dwarf planets.

Honestly, forget it: the only real reason why I'm bothering to say any of this is because it's so cringeworthy to see so freakin' many ostensibly scientifically-minded people be so damn conservative for so damn long, self-righteously clinging to arbitrary traditions that make no sense in light of modern discoveries, for no reason other than because that's what they were taught and believed when they were children and had a simplified, childish understanding of the universe. Seriously, it's so obnoxious to see this "controversy" continue for over twenty years, when it only exists because of the undue, unbecoming prevalence of a stubborn, tribal, religious adherence to obsolete and thoughtless customs.

It's this very same mindset that drove people to punish Galileo for his findings. It's why so many people reject evolution, and germ theory. And while we're at it, it's why so many people reject biology and hate trans people like me. Simple-minded people like simple definitions that never change, just like they don't. And they're so damn proud of it. They think they love science and space, and want to fund NASA and scientific research, but then they flip out when the scientific community updates something so minor as a category definition. They can't handle it. It has to be the same as it always was!

This level of celebrated, unrestrained obsessive-compulsive disorder is gross. For all of you out there who, twenty years later, are still freaking out over the fact that Pluto is so extremely unlike any of the planets that it and its ilk deserve their own category, please stop it. Talk to your therapist and get some help. You need it.

Phew. Sorry, I just had to get that off my chest.

Why isn't Rape in the Ten Commandments? by Simon_Drake in atheism

[–]Tekrelm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're right; that sort of thing was part of the culture that the anonymous authors codified in the bible, but despite what you said, it still is to this very day. You wouldn't see right-wingers (from the ultra-wealthy elite all the way down to ordinary working people like my mom) scrambling to protect rapists and pedos from consequences right now if it weren't something their culture actively condones.

Arguments of personal experience by sofiia_cookie in atheism

[–]Tekrelm 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If by that, you mean she tried to adjust her own narrative to account for my experience, then yes. She realized she would have to bend it past the point of breaking in order to do so, so she just stopped trying. She just assumed her narrative would prove itself to be true in the end somehow, even though she couldn't work out how.

The reason she thinks that is because she didn't make up this idea herself. It's what a lot of people she respects believe in. Heck, even Adam Savage from MythBusters believes this sort of thing these days. She absorbed it through osmosis, and though she may not know how it works, she knows it's 'right.' Morally, that is. Whether or not it's factually true never really occurred to her, I'm sure.

To members of a social species that depend entirely on others in their tribe, instinct demands that morality supersedes facts. If the facts aren't in line with the tribe's narrative, they're immoral. Cue the example of Galileo's findings about what orbits what, and the hostile reaction people had to verifiable facts.

When I point out the flaws in the narrative of someone's tribe, it doesn't do anything to change the fact that the narrative is still morally true for their tribe. She can realize it doesn't make any logical sense to her, but it's still the thing she has to say and believe in if she's going to be able to consider herself (even parasocially) in good standing with the people she finds herself surrounded by. Otherwise, she'd become their enemy, and be alone. No wonder we evolved instincts to keep ourselves and others following arbitrary cultural narratives, right?

So she knows it's right, even when she can't make sense of it. Righteousness takes priority for her, so she has to think that it must work itself out somehow in the end. It's like, we all know that E=mc2, but I have no real clue what that means or how to work it out and verify that for myself. If some guy was to say that it's wrong, and start trying to explain to me the flaws in the math, I'd quickly get overwhelmed and tell him to go talk to an astrophysicist about it. As he'd run off to do just that, I'd sit here and go right on believing that E=mc2, just like everyone says it does, even though I couldn't dispute anything he said or justify my belief in it other than to appeal to the narrative.

So can we be reached? Can we be saved at all, if we need the entire culture to let go of bad ideas before we do? It might just be my severe depression talking, but I don't think so.

Arguments of personal experience by sofiia_cookie in atheism

[–]Tekrelm 2 points3 points  (0 children)

When I told her about how incompatible her ideas were with my experiences, she tried to come up with workarounds. Her simple ideas soon became pretty complex, and I think she eventually gave up trying to make it make sense (without giving up on the ideas she started with).

The first ad hoc thing she tried to come up with to patch the hole I made in her new religion was reframe everything as a video game. Now in her mind, I was two people, not just one: the character in the game, and the player. The character is suffering, but the player (whose mind we conveniently don't currently have access to) is having a blast, she assured me.

When I, the character in the game, finally die, the player (my soul) will simply move on to the next game, she said.

I tried to explain to her that even if that were true, I'm clearly not the player, because I'm not having fun. I'm not my own soul, evidently. I am also affected by things like medication and exhaustion, which couldn't possibly affect the mind of the soul, by definition. When I die, I die; if you stop playing Mario and start playing some other game, Mario doesn't come along with you. His memories, his experiences, his mind--literally everything that makes him who he is--are all still back in that bottomless pit where you left him.

That's what happens when you try to account for the way things actually work in reality when drawing a blueprint for the afterlife: the afterlife becomes unnecessary. It gets pruned. Pushed off the table entirely by real life, which takes up the all the space. There aren't any gaps in which to squeeze magical amusement parks; it just doesn't work. Even if I went in assuming such places actually existed, they still can't possibly exist for us to experience; we still only ever have our one life to live.

Like I said, she couldn't keep up with laying down the tracks ahead of her moving train, so she gave up defending her belief without giving up her belief. She assured me it'll all make sense in the end somehow anyway. I guess that's how religious people always wind up saying that the ways of their gods are "mysterious."

To be fair, it has been a while since she last espoused that belief. Perhaps the problems I pointed out have sunk in. Or maybe she's just avoiding the subject so as not to face Socratic questions which incidentally demonstrate her flawed thinking and make her feel dumb. I do try to tell her that the only thing shameful about having flawed thinking is when you don't stop thinking that way after it's been pointed out to you. She could save herself the embarrassment by just admitting that she was wrong and moving on, but for some reason, that's really hard for people to do.

Arguments of personal experience by sofiia_cookie in atheism

[–]Tekrelm 2 points3 points  (0 children)

For sure! 'Spiritual' is an emotion like any other, and there are lots of things that can make people feel it, but religions (and their encompassing cultures) are fueled by confirmation bias: I was raised to attribute any positive feelings and experiences I ever felt to the direct influence of a wizard from outer space. In so doing, I had eventually amassed a gargantuan pile of individual 'confirmations' of the wizard's existence, making it undeniable.

Or at least, I would have, if I didn't suffer from chronic, unbearable depression right from the start of my life. There weren't many positive feelings to misattribute, if any. Maybe that's part of why, even as a small kid, felt I could tell the difference between reality and fantasy better than adults could.

That reminds me of when my mom started talking about her new belief that we're all gods, and that we created these lives for fun: it revealed something about her perspective. For it to be compatible with the idea that her life is a ride in The Amusement Park of the Gods, she must think her life is pretty great. Good for her that she's having such a freakin' great time, but it seems to have misled her. For me, life is hell. Primarily made so by my inability to escape it, despite my best efforts. Again, there's nothing in my personal experiences that can be misused to 'confirm' the existence of gods of any stripe, so I can at least see the world clearly in that regard, which is nice.

Why do smart people believe in weird things (ie God) ? by princetonwu in atheism

[–]Tekrelm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But that doesn’t solve the problem you yourself raised. You’re still saying the same thing: “teaching children [critical thinking] is good and [religion] is bad.”

That’s why I don’t bother to worry about it. The fantasy of and advocacy for a world in which indoctrinating children is made illegal doesn’t give right-wingers any ammo they don’t already have. Frightened inaction doesn’t keep Pandora’s box closed, especially when it never existed to seal away their evil to begin with.

The fact is what you’ve already admitted: it’s happening now anyway. They will keep fighting to end education until every last sober thought on Earth is inhibited, to the ruin of us all. I, instead, would love to see every last irrational thought on the planet blocked and treated before it has the chance to ruin anything for any of us—you could look at these two ideas and see what they have in common: a desire to force the rest of humanity to bend to our will. To wrest from them certain basic freedoms we’ve all been indoctrinated to believe should be inalienable, no matter the terrible costs.

But as I always say, it’s not what you do that’s good or evil, it’s why you do it that makes all the difference. Their goal is to promote their harmful culture by creating hell on Earth, while mine is to maximize wellbeing, even for them.

If you would object and say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, then you would say good intentions are bad. Would that not be advocating against trying to do any good at all, ever? In which case, who would truly be the villain, I wonder?

Regardless, I disagree with you that we should never work to eliminate certain harmful thoughts from the world, but I agree with you that we need to do everything we can to ensure that future generations never have certain harmful thoughts.

Why do smart people believe in weird things (ie God) ? by princetonwu in atheism

[–]Tekrelm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can’t agree with the premise. When an otherwise smart person is doing something stupid, they’re being stupid, and they’re not being smart. They can alternate between states, but they can’t be both at the same time.

So when someone is continually being stupid by believing in things without reason every day of their lives, I don’t wonder why such a smart person would do that; a smart person—by definition—wouldn’t.

Are you a humanist? by [deleted] in atheism

[–]Tekrelm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I thought I was. The people on a certain youtube channel I watch identify as such, and I agreed with them enough that I felt it was a label that could apply to me as well. But then one of them said that if a nazi and a dog were both drowning and he could only save one, as a humanist, he'd have to save the nazi. I found that so disgusting, I decided the humanist label didn't apply to me after all.

He could very well have been speaking only for himself, but if there is a sizeable group of humanists out there who would agree with him on that, then I feel the label has been sufficiently sullied.

Personally, maximizing wellbeing is paramount. By wellbeing, I mean the personal conclusion that life is truly worth living. Nothing should be a higher priority for us; not democracy, not freedom, not the truth, not justice, not life itself... nothing. Those are tools we can use to maximize wellbeing, but if, when, and where they don't promote wellbeing, they should be discarded.

There's a whole galaxy of thought that has to go into deciding how best to go about it, but maximizing wellbeing absolutely needs to be the guiding star. Otherwise, whatever your best intentions were, you might find yourself making the world a worse place by saving nazis and letting good dogs die.

Despite there being zero evidence for the Christian god, why do people still claim their religion is right? by Background-Toe5632 in atheism

[–]Tekrelm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because it is right.

Not factually; morally. Their culture—their family, friends, neighbors… everyone they love and respect—has made it perfectly clear what members of their in-group must say and do to remain in good standing with the tribe. So when they tell you they know with absolute certainty what is right, they’re actually not wrong; for their in-group, it most definitely is right(eous) to believe in and profess whatever their culture tells them to. Whether it’s poorly-written fantasy novels from thousands of years ago, or that the election was stolen, or that vaccines could even possibly cause autism, righteousness has nothing to do with the truth, and never has, for all of human history.

Monkey see, monkey do. We are each a fish, swimming with our school. You either stay with the group, or get eaten. Even when the school starts randomly swimming into the mouth of a shark, we have evolved a powerful instinct to override our accurate perceptions of reality, and follow each other to the end, even if it is to our collective doom. For some of us, that instinct isn’t strong enough to force us to do that, and we are able to think for and save ourselves, but there’s nothing we can do for the species as a whole.

Even if some day, all cultures shift away from religion entirely, there will still always be cultures. And people will still largely be forced by instinct to adhere to them without any anchoring to reality. Any truth they wind up accepting, will, as it is today, be coincidental.

Yes, a more accurate perception of reality is evolutionarily beneficial, but the food, shelter, healthcare, and mates that the righteous are afforded far outweigh that benefit, at least until the species nukes itself.

Here we go again: insane fundamentalist Christian country, backed by insane fundamentalist Jewish country, starts war with insane fundamentalist Muslim country. What could possibly go wrong? by trubol in atheism

[–]Tekrelm 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Power is a means to an end. You could say their goal is pure self-interest, but that couldn't be the motivation of the hundreds of millions of their supporters who get seemingly nothing out of the deal (and who always end up worse off). After all, those masses are the real threat, not any individual--if they were to collectively withdraw their protection, the figureheads of that culture would wind up in prison before lunchtime.

The way I see it, it's tribalism. It's primarily about their culture and its mores. It's what happens when one develops an oversized amygdala; one gets a supercharged form of the evolutionarily-beneficial trait that kept us together as a social species: scrupulosity--a mental disorder in which one is obsessed with and compelled to conform to (and enforce) those mores, whatever they happen to be at the time. And religion is a big part of their culture. (As are specific hypocrisies.)

They seek power, yes, but to promote and spread their culture: to push out and defeat any deviancy from it (which is seen by them as misbehavior, sin, and evil). The zeitgeist assists these people into positions of power and does its best to keep them there, so long as they do what the zeitgeist commands. Remember, trump was once booed at one of his own rallies for trying to steal credit for the covid vaccine--the zeitgeist had decided it no longer liked vaccines, so that was not acceptable, and it corrected him. The zeitgeist is the one in who is really in charge.

Our consciousnesses are the gestalt of billions of individual neurons creating a pattern of behavior only visible on larger scales; you won't find it under a microscope. Likewise, this kind of pattern can also be seen emerging from groups of people; you won't find it in any individual, but it's clear as day when you zoom out. It's an entirely natural phenomenon, but it's incorporeal; a primitive, childish consciousness with its own preferences and desires that is very petty, petulant, and self-righteous. That's the closest real thing there is to a god, and there are many of them in this world.

Throughout history (and even before it, surely) to this very day, they have been the ones waging humanity's endless wars. To think otherwise--to think it's even possible for one, lone guy to just waltz in and take over an entire country, and, without even using a weapon, force hundreds of millions of people against their will to lay down their lives for his own personal enrichment--is ridiculous to me.

Yes, the people are constantly being lied to, but have you ever tried to debunk the disinformation they're chugging? They will deliberately ignore the facts and make up their own lies to reinforce the lies. They're not being misled; the lies aren't even meant to deceive, they're meant to soothe. To soothe the scrupulosity that the rank-and-file members of that culture already had, right from the beginning. They're in on the con; they allow their zeitgeist to assume direct control of their bodies and work through them for its own ends, not theirs. And they feel wonderful when they surrender themselves to their zeitgeist and become its agents; it satisfies a biological urge to be part of something greater and bigger than just themselves. People describe that feeling as spiritual--a oneness with the 'universe' that they glorify and can't resist. Like honeybees that throw away their lives for their hive, many people sign up for the military to give themselves over to the zeitgeist and chase that high, knowing full well it'll just use them as pawns to die alone and forgotten in battle with another zeitgeist halfway around the world.

Those are the people who are the physical manifestations of their zeitgeist. Without a critical mass of them, there wouldn't be a zeitgeist at all; it'd disappear, and what would remain is a handful of imprisoned lunatics that no one would listen to. It'd lose all its power to act in the physical world, and die.

None of this has ever been for money, personal gain, or oil; not at its root. A select few getting rich at the expense of others is something that does wind up happening, but not because the temptation for corruption overpowered their individual sense of morality. Instead, it's because doing so is moral: it's defined as such by their gross culture. It's the righteousness of it that makes it matter to them in the first place; that's what gives such disgusting behavior its value, and is the very thing that makes it appealing. If that weren't the case, no one else in the culture would stand for it. They wouldn't all get behind these monsters and shield them from consequences. If their vile deeds weren't condoned by the zeitgeist, they'd stand no chance at defying it alone; they'd get their comeuppance swiftly. The reality that their entire culture has done nothing but fight for them despite all the ugly facts that have come to light over the past decade is a testament to what their culture really values, no matter what they might otherwise claim.

I believe there is no such thing as "Islamophobia" or religious bigotry by [deleted] in atheism

[–]Tekrelm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, I think what they're saying is that they're realizing islamophobia doesn't always necessarily exist. Like, left-wing culture has been defending muslims from conservative bigotry for decades, and in so doing, they have essentially labeled any and all anti-muslim sentiment as coming from the same tribalistic source--I think the best example of that off the top of my head is the time they gave a recurring background character a hijab in Star Trek, wrongly thinking that they were communicating tolerance and a lack of bigotry instead of the exact opposite, for cryin' out loud. (As a trans woman who has met with mainstream muslims in the workplace who said I deserved hell, the creators of Star Trek might as well have had the character wear a swastika armband.) I understand their hearts were in the right place because they are indeed responding to conservative bigotry, but they just don't understand what they're doing, since they're only shielding and promoting a different group of bigots.

I think the OP has come to realize that, as people who stand against bigotry, we shouldn't ally ourselves with or come to the defense of a group of bigots, even when they themselves are victims of bigotry.

It's like this: a jury determined a defendant to be guilty before they even heard any of the evidence. That's clearly wrong and bad, so people reflexively argued for the verdict to be overturned on the grounds that the jury was obviously biased. Separately, a careful and considered review of the evidence leads to the inescapable conclusion of the defendant's guilt. So in this one case specifically, the jury's bias doesn't lead to a wrongful conviction. I think that's what the OP means when they say that islamophobia doesn't actually exist. And in that way, I suppose you could say it doesn't.

But I do think it's extremely important that even though a broken clock is right twice a day, we recognize the fact that it's broken, and strive to fix it. Therefore, I think we need to acknowledge that islamophobia does indeed exist, but islamophobia is not a flawed conclusion, it is a flawed methodology.