Israel is literally waging a war to expand borders, so yeah, maybe they want to be left alone in the sense that they won’t accept any state other than Israel existing in the end.
Have you ever heard of this social experiment that was done a long time ago.?
A teacher in 1968, following days after MLK was murdered, decided to teach kids about racism. It ended up becoming a famous experiment about how people who are discriminated against will often do the same back to others. And that we are all equally capable of being taught to discriminate even when we ourselves have faced discrimination and know what it’s like.
Here is the premise. (All kids were white, I believe)
The teacher told the students that blue eye color students were smarter than brown eye color students because the pigment in brown eyes was related to lower intelligence.
Here is the rest copied from Wikipedia
"Initially, there was resistance among the students in the minority group to the idea that blue-eyed children were better than brown-eyed children. To counter this, Elliott led the children to believe the false premise that melanin was linked to their higher intelligence and learning ability. Shortly thereafter, the initial resistance fell away. Those who were deemed “superior” became arrogant, bossy, and otherwise unpleasant to their “inferior” classmates. Their grades on simple tests improved, and they completed mathematical and reading tasks that had seemed outside their ability before. The “inferior” classmates also transformed – into timid and subservient children who scored more poorly on tests, and even during recess isolated themselves, including those who had previously been dominant in the class. These children’s academic performance suffered, even with tasks that had been simple before.[10]
The next Monday, Elliott reversed the exercise, making the brown-eyed children superior. While the brown-eyed children did taunt the blue-eyed children in ways similar to what had occurred the previous day, Elliott reports it was much less intense. To reflect on the experience, she asked the children to write down what they had learned.[6]"
But yeah segregation was 50 years. People are alive today that weren’t allowed to use the same toilets as whites or share drinking fountains. Restaurants wouldn’t serve them.
That is one way to see it, but it’s also possible to have a more pluralistic view. Like in India which has a long tradition of many religions co-existing with respect.
Boy, you should really look into how they’re handing their Muslim population. Though, yes, much like the Israel situation, the Brits really fucked that region up.
Then there is the Stoic view of Logos, which is the ”natural order” of the world. It’s a philosophical view, but according to it Logos has a divine source and it’s up to the individual to align with it and accept it. So since Logos contains multiple religions, does it matter which ones are right or wrong, rather how to align yourself with them?
Sorry if it seems flippant, but I’ve been down this discussion before. Done the research before. And I’ve come to conclusions already taking into account what you sent. A quick Google of “what religions believe other religions are right” would get similar results.
The end result is: all religions make up their rules. It’s just people finding ways to live with other people. There’s nothing in them that isn’t explained easily by reality, or disproved easily by saying “no it isn’t”.
I used to be. I learned a lot about a lot of religions. I was seriously Catholic for 18 years. They all have a dogma that their believers don’t follow well. They’re often internally inconsistent in their rules. They don’t get us new knowledge or truth or understanding of the universe.
If you objectively look at religion and how it’s used, it seems to be a convenient way to keep sociopaths under control (threat of a punishing father figure), a way to cope with mortality, and a way to funnel money and accomplish social goals. They had interesting uses in the past as forms of local government and keeping people from killing each other. They’re often used by horrible people to enhance their power and abuse others.
But today what’s the point? Get a hobby, join a club, follow the laws, and accept that death is the end.
Yeah, and that’s why realists who believe in an objective reality are stupid. They won’t admit they’re wrong no matter how much evidence is stacked against them.
I honestly don’t even think I get your position here. Do you somehow not believe that you live in some kind of objective reality together with the rest of us? Do you think this is all just going on in your head? Like… is this some kind of far-out simulation theory thing? Even if we do live in a simulation, that simulation itself must exist in some kind of “real world”.
Your perceptions are influenced by your beliefs, and your beliefs are influenced by your culture. So if someone can buy control of our cultural media, they can control reality for the general population. And that’s exactly what they’ve been doing. The owning class have literally constrained our ability to imagine and perceive a fair and just world. For example, they spent centuries silencing queer people, and as a result, most people became literally incapable of perceiving a nonbinary person. When they looked at someone like Me, they would see a man or a woman instead. Their foundational perception was and is distorted.
For a revolution against the owning class to be successful, we need not just to destroy the state apparati of physical control, but also of mental control. We need to destroy the belief in a capitalist cisheteropatriarchal reality. https://soulism.net
That doesn’t even remotely answer my question though? My impression was that you have some kind of belief that an objective reality doesn’t exist in the first place, and that just doesn’t make any kind of sense to me.
Sure, why not? Here, https://multiverse.soulism.net/post/67924/comment/535398. This Lemmy user said if you believe in gods, you think you’re right and others are wrong, and that leads to a dogmatic mindset. Now, reality obviously has all the same qualities as a god in this context, so although I don’t personally believe religion leads to dogma, I’m happy to cite you at yourself and ask that you take your own advice and believe in no absolute truth.
believing you are right is requisite to belief. acknowledgement that you might be wrong, in the existence of doubt, that’s maturity but it does not preclude the belief that you are right.
I think you’ve just talked yourself into a circle. You can’t both believe something and doubt it. Doubt is the opposite of belief.
What you’re talking about is possibly belief in belief. That’s the belief that you should believe, or belief that you do believe. That is not the same as actual belief.
If your bar for believing something is that you’re 100% certain that it is true (i.e., a complete lack of doubt), then you’ve rendered the whole concept of belief useless as there is no proposition this applies to.
Me, if I see a cat sitting on a mat, I will believe there is a cat on the mat. But it might be that it’s a capybara wearing an incredibly convincing cat costume. Very low odds, but the possibility is there. It could also be that I was a bit careless in looking, and the cat is actually sitting on an especially mat-like section of the newspaper. There is always doubt. Sometimes there’s more (maybe the lights were off), sometimes there’s less (I spend a good hour examining the cat-mat situation, consulting biologists and mat experts), but there is always doubt.
Asserting you have no doubt is asserting you made no mistake in assessing reality, i.e., that you’re perfect. And call me a dick, but I don’t think you are.
There’s a big difference between having no doubt, and thinking you’re infallible.
I believe if I drop something it will fall to the ground because objects with mass produce gravity. It may be that some other completely different force is at work, besides gravity. But I don’t believe that to be true. But if there is evidence that it is true, I will change my mind.
A good way to check if you believe something is to look at how you act. You see the cat, you act like. It’s a cat, you believe it’s a cat. If you see the cat, and hesitate and doubt, then you don’t believe it’s a cat. You may do some thinking and then determine it is a cat, and start believing it. And then you will act accordingly.
And that’s why funerals disprove religious belief. If people truly believed in their religion, and believed in the afterlife, funerals would be happy not sad. But they don’t believe in their religion. They hope that they’re right. But they don’t believe it.
I have beliefs about what I think is the most probable truth. That means I can both believe something is true, and acknowledge the probability that I’m wrong. Whenever my beliefs change, there’s necessarily a period where I gradually come to see the probability that I’m wrong as larger than the probability that I’m right, at which point my beliefs about what is right change. However, the acknowledgement that I may still be wrong remains.
I sure can believe anything, I can believe whatever I want. I take choice, agency, and responsibility over My worldview. While realists take no agency and no accountability, they take no active part in shaping their perceptual world. I choose My perception based on My moral compass, but realists can be manipulated into believing anything.
A realists accountability is to reproducibility and observability.
But if you can believe anything, and that makes you happy, then good. I personally believe red is green and drive how I like. Sure I’ve killed a few people, but that’s in reality so I don’t believe it.
Wow, you made short work of that strawman! Problem is, this thread is old and we’re deep in a thread, so nobody else is reading this. There are only two people listening to this conversation. Now, obviously a strawman fallacy won’t persuade Me, so I must conclude that you were using that strawman for your own satisfaction, to feel like you’ve won the argument in your own mind, regardless of what anyone else thinks. Which is pretty hypocritical, given you were just making fun of that sort of behaviour.
You say that but there’s no real evidence of a mass migration, suggesting the chase never happened. But, considering the Israelites’ goal back then was to annihilate the natives of (what was until 1948) Palestine and take their land because someone said Yahweh said they should… If they were banished they probably had it coming. Just like modern day Israelites have it coming.
Are you aware that there were laws in most of Europe that were created with the explicit purpose of expelling Jews from their homes? They didn’t choose to have Polish last names.
I am. That was likely just cruel discrimination, and preceded the radical Nazi Party, so we know that looking upon Jewish folk as lesser humans was widespread. Not, however, related to the Israeli Zionists who waged/wage war against others, often hurting their own people.
You need to know that there’s a difference between Jews and the extremists in politics. You must not generalise, and discriminate against, regular people.
Well I’d agree but I have standards… If you catch your neighbour burning your shed down for the eighth time, eventually you’re going to decide they can’t be trusted in your garden. The Zionists have fucked with Palestinians for decades recently, and centuries past, and seem incapable of refraining from murder.
And that makes everything US-upon-middleast does okay, got it.
Historical wrongs don’t let you invade your neighbours. And given that Israel was founded as a way to export people from their existing homes, maybe it shouldn’t exist. Maybe the forces that formed Israel should repatriate their citizens and stop this leibensraum shit they’ve picked up from their past abusers.
I have no issue with Jews, none at all. I think all of the various sky-daddies are fucking ridiculous. But I do think that they’re building their own self-destruction. They’ll be unstable forever as a result of their actions.
I’m scared of the things that will happen when the US stops supplying munitions to Israel.
Again: I don’t have strong opinions on race or religion, I just think that all of Israel’s neighbours would like to see US influence in the region gone, and that would include Israel. And the cause of this is entirely Israel’s own aggression as a state.
Israel is literally waging a war to expand borders, so yeah, maybe they want to be left alone in the sense that they won’t accept any state other than Israel existing in the end.
It’s … wild because this is part of the roots of the Jewish people being chased from their lands.
In a world where folks accepted other peoples gods but revered their own … the monotheistic Abrahamic religions fucked all that up.
Have you ever heard of this social experiment that was done a long time ago.?
A teacher in 1968, following days after MLK was murdered, decided to teach kids about racism. It ended up becoming a famous experiment about how people who are discriminated against will often do the same back to others. And that we are all equally capable of being taught to discriminate even when we ourselves have faced discrimination and know what it’s like.
Here is the premise. (All kids were white, I believe)
The teacher told the students that blue eye color students were smarter than brown eye color students because the pigment in brown eyes was related to lower intelligence.
Here is the rest copied from Wikipedia
"Initially, there was resistance among the students in the minority group to the idea that blue-eyed children were better than brown-eyed children. To counter this, Elliott led the children to believe the false premise that melanin was linked to their higher intelligence and learning ability. Shortly thereafter, the initial resistance fell away. Those who were deemed “superior” became arrogant, bossy, and otherwise unpleasant to their “inferior” classmates. Their grades on simple tests improved, and they completed mathematical and reading tasks that had seemed outside their ability before. The “inferior” classmates also transformed – into timid and subservient children who scored more poorly on tests, and even during recess isolated themselves, including those who had previously been dominant in the class. These children’s academic performance suffered, even with tasks that had been simple before.[10]
The next Monday, Elliott reversed the exercise, making the brown-eyed children superior. While the brown-eyed children did taunt the blue-eyed children in ways similar to what had occurred the previous day, Elliott reports it was much less intense. To reflect on the experience, she asked the children to write down what they had learned.[6]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Elliott
Here is an in-depth article by PBS on it. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/introduction-2/
Here is a documentary about it , also made by PBS. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1mcCLm_LwpE
It’s a fascinating experiment into human behavior and self reflection. And how superiority complex changes performance and personality.
I was surprised to learn Jane Elliott is still alive. MLK’s assassination really wasn’t as long ago as they want you to believe.
Black slavery really wasn’t that long ago either.
1863
163 years.
That’s roughly only 2 lifetimes ago.
Two.
But yeah segregation was 50 years. People are alive today that weren’t allowed to use the same toilets as whites or share drinking fountains. Restaurants wouldn’t serve them.
Sundown towns. Lynchings.
The latter is still occurring.
A bunch of Europeans calling themselves Israelites has about as much weight as a bunch of Europeans calling themselves Aryans.
The problem with believing in gods is that you think you are right. That makes other people wrong. And so it begins…
That is one way to see it, but it’s also possible to have a more pluralistic view. Like in India which has a long tradition of many religions co-existing with respect.
Boy, you should really look into how they’re handing their Muslim population. Though, yes, much like the Israel situation, the Brits really fucked that region up.
You can respect someone and still think they’re wrong. Just like I respect you right now.
But if you truly believe in your religion, then you must believe that other religions aren’t right.
That’s only your view of it, and if it suits you then so be it.
I think the Hindu school of thought is described here, that there is one truth (god), but it has many manifestations (religions)
https://www.sanskritica.com/shlokas/rig-1-164-46-ekam-sat
Then there is the Stoic view of Logos, which is the ”natural order” of the world. It’s a philosophical view, but according to it Logos has a divine source and it’s up to the individual to align with it and accept it. So since Logos contains multiple religions, does it matter which ones are right or wrong, rather how to align yourself with them?
https://www.stoicmentality.com/logos-in-stoicism
So Hindu believe that the alien worshipping death cult that thinks all Hindu should die is as true as their own religion? That doesn’t seem right.
By the way, I actually put in some effort in that comment to you which you downvoted. To me that felt a bit disrespectful of you.
Sorry if it seems flippant, but I’ve been down this discussion before. Done the research before. And I’ve come to conclusions already taking into account what you sent. A quick Google of “what religions believe other religions are right” would get similar results.
The end result is: all religions make up their rules. It’s just people finding ways to live with other people. There’s nothing in them that isn’t explained easily by reality, or disproved easily by saying “no it isn’t”.
You have to ask some Hindu about it. Maybe if you’re less argumentative and more eager to learn they’ll tell.
I used to be. I learned a lot about a lot of religions. I was seriously Catholic for 18 years. They all have a dogma that their believers don’t follow well. They’re often internally inconsistent in their rules. They don’t get us new knowledge or truth or understanding of the universe.
If you objectively look at religion and how it’s used, it seems to be a convenient way to keep sociopaths under control (threat of a punishing father figure), a way to cope with mortality, and a way to funnel money and accomplish social goals. They had interesting uses in the past as forms of local government and keeping people from killing each other. They’re often used by horrible people to enhance their power and abuse others.
But today what’s the point? Get a hobby, join a club, follow the laws, and accept that death is the end.
Not necessarily. If I wear rose-tinted glasses while yours are tinted green, I may still believe that the worlds we see are lit by the same light.
If you believe that, then you believe you do not actually know the truth. But only an interpretation of what might be true.
Why would you believe anything if you were going to believe you were wrong?
And that’s why you shouldn’t.
Yeah, and that’s why realists who believe in an objective reality are stupid. They won’t admit they’re wrong no matter how much evidence is stacked against them.
I honestly don’t even think I get your position here. Do you somehow not believe that you live in some kind of objective reality together with the rest of us? Do you think this is all just going on in your head? Like… is this some kind of far-out simulation theory thing? Even if we do live in a simulation, that simulation itself must exist in some kind of “real world”.
Please explain
Your perceptions are influenced by your beliefs, and your beliefs are influenced by your culture. So if someone can buy control of our cultural media, they can control reality for the general population. And that’s exactly what they’ve been doing. The owning class have literally constrained our ability to imagine and perceive a fair and just world. For example, they spent centuries silencing queer people, and as a result, most people became literally incapable of perceiving a nonbinary person. When they looked at someone like Me, they would see a man or a woman instead. Their foundational perception was and is distorted.
For a revolution against the owning class to be successful, we need not just to destroy the state apparati of physical control, but also of mental control. We need to destroy the belief in a capitalist cisheteropatriarchal reality. https://soulism.net
That doesn’t even remotely answer my question though? My impression was that you have some kind of belief that an objective reality doesn’t exist in the first place, and that just doesn’t make any kind of sense to me.
Citation needed
Sure, why not? Here, https://multiverse.soulism.net/post/67924/comment/535398. This Lemmy user said if you believe in gods, you think you’re right and others are wrong, and that leads to a dogmatic mindset. Now, reality obviously has all the same qualities as a god in this context, so although I don’t personally believe religion leads to dogma, I’m happy to cite you at yourself and ask that you take your own advice and believe in no absolute truth.
believing you are right is requisite to belief. acknowledgement that you might be wrong, in the existence of doubt, that’s maturity but it does not preclude the belief that you are right.
I think you’ve just talked yourself into a circle. You can’t both believe something and doubt it. Doubt is the opposite of belief.
What you’re talking about is possibly belief in belief. That’s the belief that you should believe, or belief that you do believe. That is not the same as actual belief.
If your bar for believing something is that you’re 100% certain that it is true (i.e., a complete lack of doubt), then you’ve rendered the whole concept of belief useless as there is no proposition this applies to.
Me, if I see a cat sitting on a mat, I will believe there is a cat on the mat. But it might be that it’s a capybara wearing an incredibly convincing cat costume. Very low odds, but the possibility is there. It could also be that I was a bit careless in looking, and the cat is actually sitting on an especially mat-like section of the newspaper. There is always doubt. Sometimes there’s more (maybe the lights were off), sometimes there’s less (I spend a good hour examining the cat-mat situation, consulting biologists and mat experts), but there is always doubt.
Asserting you have no doubt is asserting you made no mistake in assessing reality, i.e., that you’re perfect. And call me a dick, but I don’t think you are.
Anyway, death to Israel.
There’s a big difference between having no doubt, and thinking you’re infallible.
I believe if I drop something it will fall to the ground because objects with mass produce gravity. It may be that some other completely different force is at work, besides gravity. But I don’t believe that to be true. But if there is evidence that it is true, I will change my mind.
A good way to check if you believe something is to look at how you act. You see the cat, you act like. It’s a cat, you believe it’s a cat. If you see the cat, and hesitate and doubt, then you don’t believe it’s a cat. You may do some thinking and then determine it is a cat, and start believing it. And then you will act accordingly.
And that’s why funerals disprove religious belief. If people truly believed in their religion, and believed in the afterlife, funerals would be happy not sad. But they don’t believe in their religion. They hope that they’re right. But they don’t believe it.
I have beliefs about what I think is the most probable truth. That means I can both believe something is true, and acknowledge the probability that I’m wrong. Whenever my beliefs change, there’s necessarily a period where I gradually come to see the probability that I’m wrong as larger than the probability that I’m right, at which point my beliefs about what is right change. However, the acknowledgement that I may still be wrong remains.
look who isn’t familiar with uncertainty
If there is uncertainty, there is not belief. There is hope.
That’s not true. I believe in gods and I’m n antirealist. I think everything is subjective and we should kill the idea of one objective reality.
If you can believe that, then you can believe anything, and you’re one good conversation away from being manipulated and used.
I sure can believe anything, I can believe whatever I want. I take choice, agency, and responsibility over My worldview. While realists take no agency and no accountability, they take no active part in shaping their perceptual world. I choose My perception based on My moral compass, but realists can be manipulated into believing anything.
A realists accountability is to reproducibility and observability.
But if you can believe anything, and that makes you happy, then good. I personally believe red is green and drive how I like. Sure I’ve killed a few people, but that’s in reality so I don’t believe it.
Wow, you made short work of that strawman! Problem is, this thread is old and we’re deep in a thread, so nobody else is reading this. There are only two people listening to this conversation. Now, obviously a strawman fallacy won’t persuade Me, so I must conclude that you were using that strawman for your own satisfaction, to feel like you’ve won the argument in your own mind, regardless of what anyone else thinks. Which is pretty hypocritical, given you were just making fun of that sort of behaviour.
deleted by creator
You say that but there’s no real evidence of a mass migration, suggesting the chase never happened. But, considering the Israelites’ goal back then was to annihilate the natives of (what was until 1948) Palestine and take their land because someone said Yahweh said they should… If they were banished they probably had it coming. Just like modern day Israelites have it coming.
K.
Id like anyone who read my comment to not see this comment and think it follows what I’m saying or expands on it.
This dude is standing alone just trying to normalize their hate.
I stand proud, hating evil and cruelty. It has no place in the world I envision.
So you dont think israel is wrong for stealing land and killing innocence woman and children?
I’m not gonna circumcise this mosquito with you.
Coward, also very freudian analogy you have used.
Are you aware that there were laws in most of Europe that were created with the explicit purpose of expelling Jews from their homes? They didn’t choose to have Polish last names.
I am. That was likely just cruel discrimination, and preceded the radical Nazi Party, so we know that looking upon Jewish folk as lesser humans was widespread. Not, however, related to the Israeli Zionists who waged/wage war against others, often hurting their own people.
You need to know that there’s a difference between Jews and the extremists in politics. You must not generalise, and discriminate against, regular people.
They can buy a house and live there, just don’t genocide everyone else, is that so hard?
Well I’d agree but I have standards… If you catch your neighbour burning your shed down for the eighth time, eventually you’re going to decide they can’t be trusted in your garden. The Zionists have fucked with Palestinians for decades recently, and centuries past, and seem incapable of refraining from murder.
They need Lebensraum.
Why do they all sound like they’re from brooklyn?
Because you are only watching one sided propaganda.
The majority of Jews in Israel are Mizrahi, meaning from the Middle East and Mediterranean region.
Where were they 70 years ago?
Getting forced out of the Muslim and Arab countries.
And that makes everything US-upon-middleast does okay, got it.
Historical wrongs don’t let you invade your neighbours. And given that Israel was founded as a way to export people from their existing homes, maybe it shouldn’t exist. Maybe the forces that formed Israel should repatriate their citizens and stop this leibensraum shit they’ve picked up from their past abusers.
I have no issue with Jews, none at all. I think all of the various sky-daddies are fucking ridiculous. But I do think that they’re building their own self-destruction. They’ll be unstable forever as a result of their actions.
I’m scared of the things that will happen when the US stops supplying munitions to Israel.
Again: I don’t have strong opinions on race or religion, I just think that all of Israel’s neighbours would like to see US influence in the region gone, and that would include Israel. And the cause of this is entirely Israel’s own aggression as a state.
I never said that.
Or, they want to be left alone to do whatever they want for the glory of the motherland.