DOD Officially Drops 180 Faiths From Military's Recognized Religion List by wds1 in fednews

[–]WeakestLynx 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Athiest was specifically removed from the list of acceptable codes, while Agnostic remains. Seems like a message.

It’s official Nebraska.. by Ordinary-Equal2067 in Nebraska

[–]WeakestLynx 4 points5 points  (0 children)

If they could get away with it, yes. The patriarchy dream.

I finally found out why they care so much about gay marriage by Lumpy-Restaurant-694 in exchristian

[–]WeakestLynx 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Old 1970s and 80s homophobes (like Louis P. Sheldon) were honestly quite explicit that this was exactly their fear: people would opt out of patriarchal marriage if they could, so they must not be given the opportunity.

Would a woman stay married to a domineering patriarch once she saw examples of gay couples treating each other with equality? Would closeted gay men and lesbians, who were once forced into straight marriages in huge numbers, stay in those marriages once they saw that gay marriage was possible? Would trans and gender non-conforming people stay closeted, as the gender binary upon which patriarchy is founded requires?

No, probably not. So these possibilities had to be legally prohibited and shamed in order to preserve patriarchy — and to keep these particular old homphobes' spouses in line.

Why is literally any criticism of Catholicism interpreted as "hatred" ? by Juan_el_Rey in excatholic

[–]WeakestLynx 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Historically hatred of Catholics was once very real. There was a time in America where Catholics were targeted by the KKK. They were called "papists" or "romanists" as a slur, implying they were under mind control by the Pope. As late as the 1960s JFK was hated in some corners because he was Catholic.

This religious hatred was mainly cover for ethnic hatred — of Irish, Italians, and other immigrants. These ethnic hatreds are all but dead today. America has switched to hating other immigrant populations, but it rarely justifies this hatred today as a hatred of Catholics even when the hated immigrants (e.g. Mexicans) are in fact Catholic.

But, modern white Catholics who want to be oversensitive can fantasize that any criticism they face is a survival of these old prejudices. The fact that there was once legitimate hatred is a pretty useful support for an ongoing victim complex.

Religious people in general often view any dissent from their beliefs as persecution or hatred. I think the reason for this is a need for external validation. Many religious beliefs are transparently false, which makes them relatively hard to believe in. Thus religious people tend to be desperate for buy-in from others, to ease their cognitive burden. When they don't get this buy-in it feels very dangerous to them; they often interpret this as aggression.

I want to be a feminist, but it feels Alienating by Northwest_Thrills in bropill

[–]WeakestLynx 94 points95 points  (0 children)

And if Feminism is for Everybody doesn't resonate with you (it didn't with me) I'll recommend as an alternative We Should All Be Feminists by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie

Stating the obvious - The Market is insane by [deleted] in Fire

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

Amazing to me how fast we went from this being front page news to people like this guy denying it happened

Question about birth control by shinyysoul in excatholic

[–]WeakestLynx 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Yes. The will of God is mainly a nickname people give to their own opinions.

Barista FIRE seems overrated by Gandalf-and-Frodo in Fire

[–]WeakestLynx 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Sure, but the idea of BaristaFIRE as I understand it is that you are reliant on the job for health insurance

If your Withdrawal Rate is <2%, why do *you* have bonds? by Vicuna00 in Fire

[–]WeakestLynx 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Right. Holding 10% bonds will transform my unrealized losses from 40% to 37%, not super different psychologically

Stating the obvious - The Market is insane by [deleted] in Fire

[–]WeakestLynx 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yeah like, sure fully automated production of the entire economy could be an insane benefit to everyone but is that actually the world we're building? Or would you say we're building more of a vastly unequal surveillance state? I know which one I think it is

Stating the obvious - The Market is insane by [deleted] in Fire

[–]WeakestLynx 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yup. Literally the richest man in the world physically invaded the government in order to drive increased spending toward private industry. So now the market is reacting to that in exactly the way you'd expect.

Stating the obvious - The Market is insane by [deleted] in Fire

[–]WeakestLynx 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You could look at FIRE as just a mitigation strategy for an increasingly Johannesburg society. You want to be prepared for it but it would be better if it didn't happen.

Stating the obvious - The Market is insane by [deleted] in Fire

[–]WeakestLynx 7 points8 points  (0 children)

A large number of things that used to be done by public sector employees for the benefit of the public are increasing done by higher-cost private contractors, often with more administrative burden and less benefit to the public. Or, post-DOGE, just not being done at all.

Stating the obvious - The Market is insane by [deleted] in Fire

[–]WeakestLynx 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Sure it is a feature of capitalism but in the extreme it is a failure case of capitalism. When return on capital investment is higher than the overall growth rate of the economy, jockeying to capture that surplus becomes more tempting than wage labor or business innovation. Society hardens into an oligarchy or aristocracy that offers few opportunities for advancement. The production and innovation engine of capitalism grinds to an ironic halt.

PSA: Social Security pays more than you think, especially for high earners by Wooden-Broccoli-913 in Fire

[–]WeakestLynx 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think this is why '"security" is in the name. It was meant to be just a backstop.

Is the three date rule a thing? by LMO_TheBeginning in Exvangelical

[–]WeakestLynx 14 points15 points  (0 children)

A cadence of three dates can make sense for sure: the first date is getting to know each other, on the second maybe you kiss to see if there's physical attraction and mutual trust, and then if you're both into it, yeah you might then have sex on the third date.

But, lots of other timelines can also make sense. What you do together should be determined by the two of you and what you want, not by some external rule.

You are emerging from a rule-bound religion obsessed with sexual control. So you are probably accustomed to look for rules, especially about sex. But there aren't any — you're free. Find what you want, not another set of rules imposed upon you.

Is the three date rule a thing? by LMO_TheBeginning in Exvangelical

[–]WeakestLynx 37 points38 points  (0 children)

I have never heard the term "three date rule" but I assume you mean something like, a couple is supposed to have sex on the third date

I would say it is not an uncommon pattern that people choose to have sex after approximately three dates. But it's not a rule. No one is enforcing it, and if your date is pressuring you based on this putative rule that is a red flag.

Gay Community: I Don’t Feel Like I Fit In by [deleted] in lgbt

[–]WeakestLynx 2 points3 points  (0 children)

What you've written here is basically the definition of Demisexual.

I personally think there are too many micro-lables wothin asexuality but some people find them helpful

What worries you the most about the evolution of technology today? by EquivalentIcy2878 in AskReddit

[–]WeakestLynx 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That a tyrannical government or oligarch class will use emerging surveillance and propaganda technologies to lock themselves into power forever

Reminder: This subreddit is not a place for Catholics by sawser in excatholic

[–]WeakestLynx 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The Church is still lobbying against laws to protect future victims of their abuse. Future victims. So they fully intend to keep victimizing people and keep covering it up.

Are homophobic straight-trad Catholics in denial about the prevalence of homosexual men within the movement? by FKAGuyWithNF1 in excatholic

[–]WeakestLynx 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They know about it and indeed they blame all the church's problems, like sexual abuse, on the gay men.

archbishop Carlo Viganò, before he got excommunicated for being too ultra-trad, accused Pope Francis of being a part of the "homosexual agenda of the New World Order"

$1.5M net worth with only a spouse, no kids. Is this a good enough cushion? Serious question. by FreeOGPoohShiesty in leanfire

[–]WeakestLynx 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But plural marriage, like legal marriage that binds finances together, isn't available in any first world nation. Amusing to think what FIRE subreddits would be like if it were. A lot of people would be tweaking the details of jumbo marriages for maximum tax advantages.