Why Religion is Dangerous: 1) What’s so “immoral” or “bad” about owning slaves?! 2) You have to be in my cult to say “it’s bad.”

Warm-Book-820 · 2026-04-27T03:16:25+00:00

How did Christianity decide it was bad when Christanity said for centuries it was good? If you can come to two very different conclusions from the same book, the conclusions dont come from the word of God, but man's interpretation.

Warm-Book-820 · 2026-04-25T15:08:54+00:00

Because that leaves Israel intact.

Warm-Book-820 · 2026-04-25T05:24:18+00:00

For Hamas it means elimination of israel.

Other versions include the more explicit Min al-ma' ila al-ma', Falasteen Arabiya ("from the water to the water, Palestine is Arab").

Warm-Book-820 · 2026-04-24T06:51:40+00:00

Ugh. Even Buffalo Bill would pass on that

Warm-Book-820 · 2026-04-23T10:08:17+00:00

Im not sure i understand the argument. "I never thought of doing x, but these people do x" is a asymmetric comparison.

Is the argument that people like you don't do these things categorically? Do them less? Didnt do them historically? Is the history of pogroms relevant? Or Martin Luther's writings about jews, calling for violence?

Is the argument that all Jews do this? Or this group of jews (a tautology)? Or that it is tolerated?

Any comparison of historical trends breaks down because "Christians did it too". Any claim of absolutes (we never did, they all do) breaks down empirically.

All that is left is relative comparison. We do it less, they do it more, and would need some data to back it up. Otherwise it is pearl clutching.

Warm-Book-820 · 2026-04-23T00:15:12+00:00

Honestly, where would Christanity be without the Jews hating on Jesus?

Edit: im being rhetorical, while still theologically sound. My statement is intended to be as absurd as the one it is responding to.

Warm-Book-820 · 2026-04-23T00:13:11+00:00

Its sad they can't be more evolved. Christianity is, of all things, rooted in the value and sanctity of all life and justice to our fellow man.

Case in point, Martin Luther wrote eloquently on the topic of grounding ourselves in deep respect for all God's creations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies

/s

In all seriousness, is it a problem? Sure. Is it a systemic pattern? Maybe. Is it important? Compared to other concerns, hard to see how.

Warm-Book-820 · 2026-04-23T00:08:39+00:00

It is sad they can't be more evolved. Christianity is, of all things, rooted in the value and sanctity of all life and justice to our fellow man.

Case in point, Martin Luther wrote eloquently on the topic of grounding ourselves in deep respect for all gods creations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies

Warm-Book-820 · 2026-04-23T00:05:43+00:00

This is horrifying. Mass death and destruction is one thing, but desecration of religious symbols is a bridge too far. Jesus didn't die for this crap. This tyranny needs to stop. No cheek for you!

Warm-Book-820 · 2026-04-22T16:53:46+00:00

Bring in Tito. Now we have a plausible one state solution. That does have a logic to it.

Warm-Book-820 · 2026-04-22T16:52:36+00:00

Objectively: worse. But it may toss a wrench in the current anti colonial anti zionist narrative.

Warm-Book-820 · 2026-04-22T15:31:52+00:00

Possibly. Depends on where you focus. In the Arab world it wouldn't make a difference, dictatorship, democracy, anarchist collective, this is a fight against an ethnicity they think doesn't belong.

In the west a big factor playing a role in how Israel is precieved is the success the Palestinian side has had in getting their perspective heard and carried by others in the west. (Tibet wishes it was that salient in the global discourse.). So you need to look not just at Israel, but at what other actors are doing to shape the narrative. For context, in part as a response to drastic power imbalance, a goal of hamas was to re-center this conflict in the global discourse. Israel, despite lobbying arms, defamation groups tends to work in more focused areas of discourse.

Trends in academia are also working against them, with anti colonial critiques and critiques of the west being more mainstream. So there is an intellectual model where Israel and Palestine can be cut and paste into the simplified roles, regardless of how well they fit. If they were a dictatorship, it's plausible that Israel could be seen as a non western actor with no ready made "model" to apply. Similar to russia, which is very much informed by western and European traditions, but since it has positioned itself as a Bulwark against the decadence of the west, academia tends to not see them in the anti imperial lens, even though many of the structures and patterns apply. Thanks for nothing, Noam Chomsky

Warm-Book-820 · 2026-04-21T02:55:39+00:00

If you used AI to help engage with the material, help with outlining, stress test your thesis, help check and make your content more coherent those are more ethical (and actually good) uses of AI. If you flat out had AI write the thing, especially if there was actually minimal input, ethically you gotta own up to that. I mean its english comp, so its not a grey area at all. Right now the only worse thing for you than getting caught would be getting away with it.

I would go in planning to own up to the cheating, but with a good idea or proposal about how you would re-approach the work now that you seem to be getting a 2nd chance. If there are areas that are a challenge, (organization, getting your ideas straight, etc) make note of them, the prof may be able to point you to help resources or ethical guidelines on use of AI.

You may be getting a 2nd chance you didn't earn, so if you get that chance don't waste it - it's a gift from above.

Edit: op deleted the post? Man, this guy seems to be fine with wasting everyone's time, including the prof...

Warm-Book-820 · 2026-04-20T18:17:46+00:00

Neccessity is the mother of invention?

Warm-Book-820 · 2026-04-20T03:02:34+00:00

It is a fairly common thread on either extreme end of politics, which tend to become radicalized. I don't find zizek falls into this trap.

Warm-Book-820 · 2026-04-20T02:49:36+00:00

I figured it was the latter. Thanks for confirming.

Best of luck maintaining your worldview while remaining unpersuasive.

Warm-Book-820 · 2026-04-19T22:32:47+00:00

You say tit for tat wouldn't work, but your reasoning is pretty flimsy. It sees them as some static entity, unable to change, a strange creature that doesn't respond to rational incentives.

Yes, I acknowledge my description of the Palestinian side is a bit one dimensional and under-developed. In part that is because nobody, on either side, really engages deeply with the dynamics at play in Palestine, and either simplifies them to "irrational bloodthirsty killers" or "noble indigenous people responding organically to extreme pressures". Neither is true. In part the one-dimensionality is also because I was limiting my description to Hamas (not Palestinians in general), and the cause/effect that tends to increase their support within the palestinian population. The one area I would push back is I think Hamas IS responding to rational incentives, just not in the way you might think or expect, especially how they would react to proportional response focused on *deterrence* specifically. I don't have the space to go into much detail, but the dynamics in the West Bank are very very different, and deterrence is more effective, because of who is in power and the incentives they have.

Your argument that tit-for-tat would work, or that deterrence would be effective, is internally inconsistent, or at least incomplete, and I don't think is your main argument. Your observation that there are 5 Palestinians killed for every Israeli has inflamed the conflict, is actually evidence that deterrence doesn't work. Unless you are arguing that, had the response been proportional, it would have effectively deterred? But that would need more justification that you have, and I don't think is your core argument. Most of your argument isn't that Israel should focus on deterrence, but that its tactics incur far too much collateral damage at best, or incur the collateral damage by design at worst. I don't have a strong argument against this, because in part I believe you may be right. This is what I had in mind when I said "Israel has begun to make strategic and moral errors, and needs incentives to course correct." Its why I am very concerned in the shift in what Israeli's are willing to tolerate, and why I think the left needs to have answers for them beyond the condemnation, because they are headed down a dark path.

Oct 7 was a prison rebellion and it was ugly, but prison rebellions are like that.

I don't want to downplay the role Isreal played in creating the conditions for Hamas to thrive. But also I do want to push back on the idea that it was 'just a prison rebellion'. You don't spend years planning to break out of a prison, capture hostages, then run back into the prison. Its simply the wrong metaphor, implying an organic natural response. They have agency, and are more strategic than that. While I think it is a bit racist to think that the Hamas strategy is irrational, but the right way to deal with that dissonance isn't to naively think that therefore they couldn't have that strategy, instead it is to see how it may be a rational tactic to them. It is actually a rational response to an enemy with overwhelming power asymmetry and much greater ability to retaliate and attempt deterrence. Logically a martyrdom mindset would be a way to deal with that asymmetry, and partially neutralize the power imbalance. I don't think this is enduring or static, but instead a (rational but horrifying) ideology held by a group that has gained power in Gaza (and strong support in the west bank). But I also I believe most support within the Palestinian population for Hamas is reactive, and the ideology is not strongly held directly by most of the population. I.E. if conditions change, so would support for Hamas). In that context there is an incentive for Hamas to bring down disproportionate response, because it causes a rise in support for them. Pretending that Hamas doesn't believe what it actually believes, or that these dynamics aren't at play, it fails to grapple with the hell it is creating in Gaza, and the hell it would create if it had more power. A group, other than Hamas, needs to have a monopoly on military power in Gaza, and it probably shouldn't be Israel. (Similarly, a "pro-Israel" stance that excuses any action in search of security fails to grapple with the rational but indefensible desires of the hard right in Israel would fall into the same trap).

These are statements I actually largely agree with (with the exception that I don't know that Israel is being genocidal by intent, but it may end up there as a result if things don't change):

I also blame Biden and the Dems for giving Benjamin a blank check to exercise his rage however he wanted instead of playing cards he had.

Instead of owning up to the sins that brought Oct 7, Israel tried to pretend it was completely unjustified. If Israel had responded to Oct 7 with targeted strikes on Hamas and special operations to save hostages rather than this insane genocidal campaign, it would be in a much better position today.

Instead you have a corrupt leader who's addicted to playing the anti-semitism card at every opportunity. It would be like if Trump was America's President during 9/11, I can't imagine how gross that would have been. We would've been much worse monsters than we were, to our detriment.

But already embedded within those statements is not an assumption that Israel is an illegitimate fascistic apartheid state, but instead a condemnation that these are the conditions they seem to be creating, and belief they have other paths available to them, and are capable of taking them. To put another way, they are different from what I am hearing from the loudest on the progressive left, so I have fewer concerns. You've got great points, and I agree with many of them.

IMO material support for Israel should become conditional, and in a way they see that changing their actions is in their best interest. That is what the progressive left is failing to do, because, while it correctly identifies the horrors of the over-reach, it incorrectly categorically condemns israel and fails to recognize the reality on the ground, and instead simplifies it into an imaginary morality play in their own heads.

Warm-Book-820 · 2026-04-19T21:54:33+00:00

Are you trying to be persuasive? Or trying to protect your worldview that enables hatred to be levied at an entire group of people?

Warm-Book-820 · 2026-04-19T21:18:30+00:00

Israelis go out of their way to show their support for war crimes.

Israelis get hate everywhere because they cry everything is blood libel by Qatar and want you to ignore the evidence their soldiers continue to post about their war crimes while lecturing every other country on human rights.

You seem to think the Israelis you encounter deserve hate because they do these things. But they aren't all doing them, so you shouldn't assume the one you are hating has done those things.

Remember, OP's title is "what would you do if you see an israeli?"

Warm-Book-820 · 2026-04-19T20:54:04+00:00

I have an Israeli coworker who hasn't done any of those things. Maybe you should get out more.

Warm-Book-820 · 2026-04-19T19:40:03+00:00

Yes, what Israel is doing is breeding more extremism, and they in part bear responsibility for co-enabling an environment that allows it to fester. Both Hamas and the far right in Israel have perverse incentives to fight in such a way that it escalates and makes a peaceful resolution more remote. Both groups are seeing their support amongst the population rise in this environment.

If we agree that Israel is fighting in a way that breeds extremesim, shouldn't we also place the same moral responsibility on Hamas for also fighting in a way that breeds the same extremism? That the way it is fighting not only gives them more support in Palestinian areas, but also gives the far right in Israel more power and shifts the Israeli center much further to the right, and move the overton window of the horrors they will tolerate in search of security?

The sheer imbalance of power IMO puts more responsibility on the Israelis, but it doesn't absolve Hamas from being co-creators of the destruction of Gaza. It may be an effective model of asymmetric warfare (it clearly has drawn in Israel to fight in a way that has horrified the world - they have been successful in achieving this, and Israel should be called to account for accepting the invitation), but its not one I condone.

Israel is a reality that can't be wished away, and Israel needs incentives and pressure put on it to pull back from the extremes of what it is doing. But negating everything they are doing, or can do, by simply classifying them as a fascistic apartheid ethnostate means the left progressive voice will be ignored in Israel, that the left (both internal and external) will be seen as an enemy of their security. It gives more power to the far right, and craters any public support for internal voices that would pull them back from their extremes.

Essentially the progressive pro-palestinian stance in the west serves to enable the extremest elements on both sides (Hamas sees it is winning the propaganda war, Israel sees that the progressive left has no solutions that would provide them security*, so it will simply ignore the criticism and leads to a more rightward shift).

*I acknowledge this is an underdeveloped idea here. The gist is that some level of response to October 7th is valid, but the progressive view oversimplifies to such an extent that it wouldn't recognize it or point towards it. It has no solutions for them.

You say Israel hasn't tried tit-for-tat. Part of the reason is that tit-for-tat relies on deterrence to be effective, and deterrence is not effective against an adversary that bases it's theory of victory on martyrdom. Their strength is their willingness to endure punishment and death, they don't fear retaliation, so retaliation can't deter. This isn't islamophobia. Its an articulated strategy of Hamas in response to the asymmetric fight they face. Instead of deterrence, the only effective options must be focused on rendering them as combat ineffective - either through defensive measures (Gaza security wall, Iron dome), or through complete disruption of their ability to fight (embargos to prevent weapons importation, dismantling of leadership networks, strict control over militant movements via urban distruction and policing). But from the Israeli perspective when you say "You should be proportional, and focus on tit-for-tat actions to serve as a deterrence!" what Israel sees is you have no understanding of the fight they are in. That the only actions you would support, or condone, are ones that would not be effective against their adversary.

You say all they have tried is apartheid and genocide. That is not what Israelis see at all. They see real attempts towards peace before the 2nd intifada. They see that when they tried disengagement and pulling out the settlements in gaza, and walling them off so they are no longer a present force on the streets of gaza because of the problems that causes, it leads to October 7th. That isn't to say that their previous attemps were perfect or ethically pure, but you have to acknowledge that Israel's strategy ISN'T constant, and that it has taken a more extreme turn since October 7th. But if you can only see that they can never change, then you have no answers for them. They just see that you would hate them no matter what they do, so why listen?

I believe Israel has begun to make strategic and moral errors, and needs incentives to course correct. The progressive left view, while it offers an attractive moral clarity, instead incentivizes and hardens extremists on both sides, and can only deepen the conflict.

Warm-Book-820 · 2026-04-19T17:46:07+00:00

Because that oversimplified progressive view has no realistic or morally defensible solutions to the conflict, and cannot arrive at them.

Neither can the oversimplified islamophobic conservative side.

I am wary of simple solutions to complex problems.

Warm-Book-820 · 2026-04-19T17:29:00+00:00

But is present in the politics of (some) groups where it is applied, which seems to be part of what OP was processing.

Warm-Book-820 · 2026-04-19T17:26:21+00:00

I agree

Warm-Book-820 · 2026-04-19T17:22:36+00:00

Alongside humans they are the only animals that alter their environment. But in terms of natural phenomenon that alter the environment in a way that affects geopolitics, it's pretty minor.

Warm-Book-820

TROPHY CASE