As more and more states pass laws targeting “pornographic material” in books and online, they are repeatedly running up against a problem: The Bible has not just a few passages that could be considered indecent
The Davis School District initially removed the Bible from school libraries after a review determined it did include “vulgar” content. But the school board unanimously reversed its decision after a review by an appeal committee determined the text has " significant, serious value for minors which outweighs the violent or vulgar content it contains," the AP reported.
There’s no hypocrisy here.
Selective enforcement is the core of conservative law making.
Broad generalizations like this do nothing but reinforce echochambers.
It’s not a broad generalization at all. It’s a widespread pattern of hypocritical and contradictory conservative outrage, statements, and laws.
- “I should be able to teach kids about the Bible in school, but you can’t teach them about Yoga”
- “we can’t have vulgar language, oh unless it’s from our religious book”
- “I can’t make a cake for you because you’re gay and that’s against my religion. What do you mean you won’t make a Christian cake? That’s religious discrimination!”
- “Happy holidays!??! Happy holidays??! You monster, how dare you wage war on Christmas! We have religious liberty in this country! What do you mean that protects other religions? There’s only one God and one religion!”
- “It’s totally fine that the polling places in large democratic areas have hours long waits so long as my polling places are quick and easy”
- “it’s totally fine that a county with 10,000 people has the same number of ballot drop boxes as a country with 3,000,000 people”
- “marriage is between a man and woman … and may include 17 divorces; they gays can’t have it”
- “we need to teach kids (i.e., indoctrinate them in the ways of) Jesus not this woke (black history, trans, etc)”
- “let’s let white kids off with a slap on the wrist while we throw a black kid in jail for smoking a plant”
- “I can’t believe a president could have such a scandal in the white house as to have had an affair with an assistant! We need to impeach! No, I don’t think extorting an ally for information about an opponent is worthy of an impeachment! Trying to overthrow a legitimate presidental victor with a procedural trick? Nah that’s not worth an impeachment either! Oh but hey, this Biden guy’s son who lost one of his parents and a sibling in a car crash, that lost his brother to cancer, that has a drug problem, called his dad while he was in business meetings to show off… so you know his dad definitely was up to something! We’ve got to impeach him over that! What do you mean that was before he was even president and that’s completely unprecedented?”
- “We should totally lock her up for those emails! What do you mean the guy screaming that’s son and law did the exact same thing?”
- “We’re sorry we can’t appoint a supreme court justice just before the election! Psych! We totally can if it’s nominated by OUR president!”
- “We need law and order in this country! What do you mean Trump broke the law? Nah, I’m not hearing it; this is clearly a partisan witch hunt and the majority conservative staff of the FBI is out to get conservatives! Oh but we’ll DEFINITELY weaponize the federal government and go after our political rivals full steam if we get the presidency in 2024”
- “I believe abortion is amoral, that’s why I hid the fact that my ex/current lovers have had one”
- “I believe homosexuality is amoral, that’s why I am one in the closet”
- “we’re going to be the party of health care, but don’t watch as we strip you of your federal protections for your health care”
- “we’re the party of the little man, but don’t watch as we cut taxes for the rich (and you but make sure that expires under the next term (probably while the Democrats are in power)”
- “the national debt is an outage! Oh let’s spend as much as Obama did in half the time! Oh Biden is in power again, spending is out of control!”
- “the problem isn’t guns it’s mental health, but we’re not going to do anything about that either! Must be because the kids aren’t in church, the gays, video games, or hey look over there, a squirrel!”
- “climate change? Nah. It’s not real. Okay maybe it is, but it doesn’t matter because look at China! Oh we could make a dent and get the ball rolling? Well, it’s too late anyways, we should’ve been building nuclear plants! What do you mean I just made that up? Clearly I’ve been trying to solve this via nuclear the whole time, and it’s not another dog whistle! Oh and btw all of my top presidential candidates say they don’t believe in man made climate change! But yeah, totally serious about this issue!!”
… and that’s just off the top of my head. If you’re a conservative, wake up, your party is a mess.
Spoiler: he’ll completely ignore this comment and just continue to go on saying that all criticisms of conservatives are baseless and unproductive
I’ll be honest, the point was less for him and more for lurkers, that might not pay as much attention and might benefit from an outline. I gave up on changing the mind of the person I’m replying to on the internet a long time ago (if it happens great!) … but I want to challenge and cut through the “noise” for the casual observer.
That’s the only single reason I debunk conservatives with some of their tactics thrown back at them. In a forum, I’m pretty much am blocked by nearly every conservatives there.
He didn’t say that, he criticized generalizing conservatives. I know conservatives who don’t care to block books from school libraries, or block trans students from going to bathrooms in their identified gender- or most of the other “culture war” arguments.
If they feel that way, then why do they vote politicians into power who do those things?
You don’t get to vote evil people into power and then say “oh no, I don’t support the evil stuff, I just care about the lower taxes”
Because they at least agree with some of their messaging rather than agree with none of it.
Yes but until they start actively opposing those policies and demanding their politicians do the same, they are still complicit with these policies as their votes are what enable them. Whether or not they personally believe these things is entirely irrelevant. All that matters are the actions and policies, and every conservative voter is this complicit.
Unfortunately people have different priorities than you or I, I guarantee a politician you have voted for has done something you oppose, and you may have still supported them. That’s because you care more about their other policies.
Don’t put words in my mouth or accuse my of something you made up in your mind.
I don’t need to put any words into your mouth, your reply to the comment was to ignore all the real, objectively true examples and just claim that despite the fact that they’re the actions of real conservative policy makers, that they somehow have nothing to do with real conservative policy
You ignore the faults of real world conservatism, holding up this idealistic version of conservatism you have in your head as “real” conservatism. Ill bet you also hold that conservatism has nothing to do with anti-LGBT+, despite their policy makers constantly making anti-LGBT+ policy decisions
You’re completely ignorant of who I am and you’re reinforcing my initial point that we should be careful about creating an echochamber.
Don’t put words in my mouth or accuse my of something you made up in your mind.
Translation: I don’t have an argument for any of the things posted so I’m going to accuse a random person of something instead
I mean they just said don’t generalize, not that there isn’t widespread hypocrisy.
Ok fuck you too ignorant jackass.
You are a machine!
Excellent summary. Maybe add:“That slut next door should not have an abortion, she should have kept her legs closed. My daughter‘s abortion? That‘s totally different, it would have ruined her career“
You definitely win the internet with this comment.
Yeah… I agree. None of that makes selective enforcement the core of conservative laws.
I agree those are bad examples.
Better examples:
Phillando Castile. All for gun rights until a black man is shot while legally owning a gun. One could run down the list of black people (and children) who have been murdered by the police because they “thought there was a gun”. Guns are legal and they’re quite vocal about supporting the right to bear arms (but only if you look white).
Jan 6. All for upholding law and order and obeying the police until they don’t get what they want. They lied about the cities in this country being destroyed during the Floyd uprisings as if America was gone.
All of the anti-trans laws passed are to “protect children” and yet they have not gone after any of the abuse scandals in churches or law enforcement.
Build the wall. Enforced only against black and brown people at the southern border.
How about holding the supreme court seat for a year?
We could continue but I’ll just boil it down with a pithy quote: there are those who the law must protect but does not bind and there are those that the law must bind but not protect. That is the conservative idea. Go read the only moral abortion is my abortion with that statement in mind and it’ll make sense.
Phillando Castile.
I haven’t heard that case, can you show some examples of “conservative” outrage?
And I feel like it’s probably not race related seeing as conservatives were some of the first people to criticize the police in the Brenna Taylor case(a post about her boyfriends trial is still the top post on r/progun). Some conservatives also defended Andrew Coffee IV.
Jan 6. All for upholding law and order and obeying the police until they don’t get what they want.
From their perspective(by the way me explaining someone’s perspective doesn’t mean I agree with it at all like most of the people on this site seem to think!!!) their is a coup happening by the elites so they are going in to uphold the law and put in the rightfully elected(again in their mind) president.
All of the anti-trans laws passed are to “protect children” and yet they have not gone after any of the abuse scandals in churches or law enforcement.
Can you site any they defended recently?
Build the wall. Enforced only against black and brown people at the southern border.
I don’t see how that’s hypocritical.
How about holding the supreme court seat for a year?
IIRC not illegal- but against tradition
Love it
I’d argue it does, conservative lawmaking has consistently operated with a distinct understanding (and execution) that shows “this applies to them not us.” I’d love for conservative law makers to do what they say and say what they mean. However, they won’t and thus can’t build a coalition that gets them elected by being honest about their policy goals.
Conservative law making in the US has become at its core “outrage politics” (and that depends on selectively enforcing ideals, policies, and laws/antagonizing part of the population). I don’t make generalizations lightly, but this is the core and fundamental piece holding the Republican party together, and it’s an awful state of affairs.
This can be further demonstrated by Vivek Ramaswamy climbing in the polls despite, as Chris Christie put it, “sounding like ChatGPT.”
I’m done with this conversation, you lot are ignorant, loud, and preventing actual progress and critical discourse.
You want to talk about outrage politics? You morons are outrage politics. Fuck off.
K. When you figure out what discourse you want to have come back without an empty argument.
You’ve just proven everyone else’s point that wrote you off. You’ve made no supportive arguments for your position and resorted to an opaque moral high ground where everyone else is an idiot.
Bruh, you are the literal embodiment of the issue plaguing the USA in this historical period: you say you are ready to have a discussion and then, once somebody engages you with actual facts in his hands, you attack your interlocutor with the most vapid point without replying to his considerations.
Furthermore I’ve been taught that there are two possible sides when tackling a problem: you can either be part of the problem or part of its solution.
As far as I see nowadays republicans are ALL part of a problem called “political extremism”. If you vote for the party which is presenting an autocrat and a crybaby as it’s frontrunner for the past and upcoming elections you don’t get to be offended when someone calls you out for that. If you are not voting democrat you are actively choosing to be ruled by a tiny minority which sees it’s religion as the only viable solution to all the (made up) problems they see in the modern world. Should you vote democrat, on the other hand, the worst which may happen is that you’ll loose some purchasing power when the world has been facing a pandemic and a regional war at the gates of Europe.
If your choice is to actively vote for the first option I’ve news from you: you are an enemy of the people and of democracy, don’t be surprised when people will treat you as such in your future interactions with tem
deleted by creator
Sort of, but also, Christianity is a death cult that enables child molesters and promotes hate, so there is not much room for subtly. It is also profoundly lacking in any basis of reality and frankly teaches deranged ideas that harm children’s ability to make rational judgments about reality.
Also a church is the worst kind of echo chamber.
Broadly speaking though, it’s true. Do you have counter examples to offer?
A counter example of what? A conservative law that doesn’t have selective enforcement at its core?
Have you got one?
No, I’m done with this stupid conversation and closer to believing Lemmy is a cesspool echo chamber than before it started. You people are fucking idiots that detract from reasonable discourse and progress on the left.
And by the way, I’m far from conservative, I hate Trump and all the other extremist authoritarian assholes, and I’m starting to realize you lot are almost as stupid as the MAGA fascists.
Downvote me and fuck off.
I don’t know what you want from other people. You’re not obligated to argue with people on the internet, but you started a disagreement that you weren’t willing to back up. Then you baseslessly called everyone idiots and a danger to the left before storming off. Maybe when you have more distance you can learn some lessons. Maybe you can understand where they’re coming from. Maybe you can better articulate what they did to harm the discourse. At the very least, it would be wise to learn to not pick fights you don’t want to actually participate in, for your sake and everyone else’s.
Dude just shut the fuck up and leave Lemmy then. Clearly you aren’t interested in any actual conversation, so why the fuck would we want you here to begin with? Do us the favor of walking away.
deleted by creator
does the law allow a school board to override the law? That seems odd.
We all knew they were gonna figure out a way that the law doesn’t apply to them and the stuff they like. That’s like the fundamental constant of conservatives, it’s different when we do it because we’re not those people.
“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” –Francis M. Wilhoit
Porn just needs some inspirational quotes to go along with it.
Porn just needs some inspirational quotes to go along with it.
Love thy Neighbor, as you would love yourself.
Love thy Neighbor, as you would love yourself: ferociously.
Fuck yeah, spread it
TBF understanding that horses are known for their voluminous ejaculation is critical knowledge for children.
God is a brony confirmed
Time to start giving the kids leaflets that highlight all the Communist teachings of Christ. Use The Bible to radicalize the youth!
Betcha they yank the book, tout suite.
They’d just lie and say the pamphlets are twisting Jesus’ words and use that as a pretext to ban the pamphlets.
Cognitive dissonance is a helluva drug
They would also use it as an excuse to try and teach the Bible in schools. Ya know, to correct the misinformation in those pamphlets.
Well, church leaders have been reporting that the sermon on the mount (or whatever) is being criticized as woke. Maybe there’s something to this idea after all.
What’s Reddit?
A proprietary, for-profit version of Lemmy
You forgot shitty version of Lemmy.
Tbh with all the extremist propaganda from places like hexbear, Lemmy is the shitty version of Lemmy.
I don’t know, man. I’ve had a better experience here. There’s the occasional ragebait, but that’s easy to block. Reddit on the other hand… ugh.
Maybe I should switch to your instance, lemmy.world defederated with Hexbear.
Your instance is federated with Hexbear? Yeah man. Switch over.
Ew, sounds gross and like one greedy cunt can ruin everything. Pass
fucks pez
Wait I messed up
Who fucks a fish?
I wouldn’t go. It’s mostly spambots and crypto scams.
This frood is not averse to a hive of scum and villainy, but that place is too nasty even for my towel now. I wish the Apollo dev endless fortune and spez endless bowel distress.
You forgot about all the right wing trolls and sea lions offering all that Valuable Discussion™
I hope it doesn’t catch on
Weird, why would they want to make something like that?
So they can fool investors into buying shares. They do things like offer 100$ in free advertising credit to boost advertiser numbers, and ban 3rd party apps/run a pixelboard to boost user numbers.
I can’t imagine anyone being dumb enough to sign up for that, but according to the article, some few have.
Because it was there first and we didn’t know better yet
When have they ever made a profit?
No one said the people running it are competent.
For profit doesn’t mean they are successful
reddit.club
Old stuff, like a digg or something.
Some sort of mollusc.
Don’t bring us into it.
A social media platform we don’t talk about because Fuck u/spez
deleted by creator
The Davis School District initially removed the Bible from school libraries after a review determined it did include “vulgar” content. But the school board unanimously reversed its decision after a review by an appeal committee determined the text has " significant, serious value for minors which outweighs the violent or vulgar content it contains," the AP reported.
Now to challenge the “significant, serious” value. Truth before law is based on facts, right?
Upthread I suggested leaflets that use chapter and verse to highlight the Communist teachings of The Christ. Radicalize the youth using The Bible!
Betcha they yank the book, almost immediately.
What value? It has none. Zero.
That law is a complete waste of time. It’s inevitable its going to be overturned (if theres at least a shred of common sense in the Virginia courts)
The majority of porn sites don’t even bother trying to comply with laws like this and there’s nothing state governments can do about it.
Yep, sites that wish to comply with the new regulation simply block traffic from those states. Search results for VPNs increase sharply for a few days and nothing really changes.
Laws arn’t that easy to pass, makes you think if that effort was put into something constructive instead of reinforcing that prohibition doesn’t work…
What does the law actually do?
It makes conservatives feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
Theyre a big fan of feels over facts
Forces people of Virginia to start using VPN’s.
Time to invest!
deleted by creator
So sites like pornhub now simply need to host two sfw items for every porn video?
deleted by creator
How does the law work? Does it force websites outside of VA to use ID verification, or are ISPs requried to block no compliant sites?
deleted by creator
They’ll appeal to the Trump SCOTUS.
Reddit still has users?
Unfortunately not only is Reddit still chugging along, Lemmy is slowly losing users.
Growing new communities is very hard and takes a long time.
EDIT - Adding my source
It sucks to get to the end of social media. On Reddit I could always find plenty of posts with hundreds of comments and many were worth reading or replying to. Lemmy absolutely has good content and good comments, but you can get to the end where there’s no more. It probably doesn’t help that I’ve been much quicker to block people over the cut of their jib. I don’t come here to argue or hate people more than I already do, so I spend a lot less time and words embroiled in pointless conflict.
But I still haven’t been back to Reddit and won’t. When I get to the end of content I find myself going to TikTok or Instagram - two things that I’ve never liked but at least it’s a stress free way to kill time, just louder.
I feel the same way. On Reddit, they used to joke that the best material was in the comments.
I’ve been using Sync and Thunder . There are lots of posts but often no comments at all.
Sometimes it feels like a big cave of silence.
Lurker’s lurker’s everywhere, not a post a read.
It actually has been motivating me to comment a lot more than I did on Reddit. I feel like I actually have something to contribute. On Reddit, I would lurk more because my thoughts usually have already been expressed by someone else.
I kind of lurked a lot on Reddit, largely because I was afraid of getting attacked.
Lemmy seems nicer at this point, but God knows what we are in for.
deleted by creator
I’m kind of confused about bots. I mean some self identity. But others…
It’s kind of creepy
deleted by creator
It will be interesting to see what this place looks like in a year
Be well.
Lemmy absolutely has good content and good comments, but you can get to the end where there’s no more.
That’s what Reddit was like 12 years ago when I joined. Frankly, I’ll take the higher quality community here on Lemmy over the endless scrolling potential and lowest common denominator discussions on modern Reddit.
It’s not healthy to look at social Media that much, anyway.
Yeah after 12 years on reddit, I feel this. But on the other hand, I’ve found myself enjoying the extra time I would have been scrolling on the phone and reading a lot more books
It probably doesn’t help that I’ve been much quicker to block people over the cut of their jib.
Something you should consider is that you’re in danger of making your own little personal echo chamber.
Also, +1 for using the term “the cut of their jib”.
That’s definitely possible, but mostly I’ve been blocking over unnecessarily hostile responses either to me or to someone else, not ideology, so hopefully I won’t get too far up my own ass.
deleted by creator
That’s possible. Comment count & Post count are both trending up - so that’s nice.
Welp it’s what happens when people love being controlled
Deuteronomy 28:53-57, where you eat the flesh of your own children seems kinda indecent
Less indecent if it’s remnant from the days of a famine.
A mistake a lot of people make in analyzing the text is in assuming the official story about its origin, contents, and authorship is correct outside supernatural stuff.
But there’s actually a compelling case Noah was originally a story about escaping a famine, so there may well have been a period when eating the flesh of one’s children was a part of the ancestral history of the people transmitting the stories.
The Geeks have similar stories.
It may well be that Deuteronomy 28:48-57 isn’t a warning about a certain future event, but a warning from similar things having happened many times before.
Eating your family because an army whose language you don’t even know is sieging your city and you are all starving is probably just a fairly common part of many generations of history around the world during those times.
There’s much worse things in the Bible than likely representative history.
The Geeks have similar stories.
I’m sure they do, especially in their D&D Campaigns.
Fair, but you’re looking at it from a good faith perspective that examines the spirit of the “law” for want of a better term, rather than the literal meaning of it, as I did. That was a deliberate glibness on my part because I wanted to examine and interpret it in the same way that the bible apologists and literalists do in order to cherry pick passages in the bible to further their hateful idiot agenda. You can find and interpret both support and condemnation in the bible for anything, often in the same passage depending on who’s reading it. Thanks for the interesting link!
Or pretty much all of Song of Solomon.
Example (Song of Solomon 7:6-9):
How beautiful you are and how pleasing, my love, with your delights! Your stature is like that of the palm, and your breasts like clusters of fruit. I said, “I will climb the palm tree; I will take hold of its fruit.” May your breasts be like clusters of grapes on the vine, the fragrance of your breath like apples, and your mouth like the best wine. May the wine go straight to my beloved, flowing gently over lips and teeth.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes!!
I miss Crazy Bible Stories on New grounds…
So much drunken incest…
https://www.newgrounds.com/portal/rip/372088
Mirrors since they died awhile ago: Censored dong still makes me sad. https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0nkyN_wsaTSNAQVlACFTg-br8pP1RooA
Judges:19 where a guy throws his side piece to a crowd that wants to rape him in hopes they’ll be satisfied with raping her instead.
TIL a concubine is a side piece. Somehow that never connected before.
Ah time to quote from Eziekel 23:20…
The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish, and the tyranny of evil…wait…23:20? Oh. Well nevermind then.
Now I kinda want to hear Sam Jackson say “There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.”
Also, why the need to specify a distinction between donkey genitals and horse semen? Do horses or donkeys have bigger cocks? Do horses or donkeys cum more? I don’t know, but whoever wrote that passage into the Bible seemed to know.
Same size cocks but donkey are smaller so they look bigger. In those days a flaccid bee-dick was the mark of a cool-headed thinking man; clearly capable of controlling their profane lust.
And it’s not that the average horse smell worse than a donkey, their ass is just closer to most people’s nose.
Ok, so I think we’ve settled the theological debate around the relative size of of horse cock vs. donkey cock.
What about the relative quantity of their emissions?
RIP to my browser history. It looks like it scales with size but donkeys on average are 100-200 mL and horses are more in the 200-400mL. So, you know, up to a can of soda worth worth…
Your service to the internet is mildly appreciated!
I just read the whole chapter. It’s all just ancient porn. But there’s a plot hole… So Oholah and Oholibah (the one that liked donkey dick) were sisters, both prostitutes. Oholah is raped and killed by Assyrians. But then later Oholah makes an appearance in the bondage gang bang scene with the drunkards from the desert? WTF, 50 shades of grey is better written that this. Well maybe that’s going too far, but still this is badly written porn.
But I liked this part:
14 “But she carried her prostitution still further. She saw men portrayed on a wall, figures of Chaldeans portrayed in red, 15 with belts around their waists and flowing turbans on their heads; all of them looked like Babylonian chariot officers, natives of Chaldea. 16 As soon as she saw them, she lusted after them and sent messengers to them in Chaldea.
My girl Oholibah hitting up dudes on ancient day Tinder.
Is it a donkey thats an infertile crossbreed of a horse and a mule, or is it a mule that’s an infertile crossbreed of a horse and a donkey? I can’t remember off the top of my head but that feels like it could affect the…ahem… emissions
I think it’s a mule that’s an infertile cross between a donkey and a horse.
But we need to also consider that horses were significantly smaller back in those days. People will often say a pony is a smaller breed of horse, but it’s actually more accurate to say a horse is a larger breed of a pony. They bred them to be bigger over the years since that made them able to carry more weight.
So was the Biblical passage saying “well she wasn’t so depraved to want the much larger horse cock, she was at least demure enough to only want donkey cock”? Or was horse cock smaller in those days so was it saying “horse cock wasn’t big enough for her, she desired men with the much larger donkey cock”?
This may have serious theological ramifications and needs more research.
How many angels can dance on the head of a horse cock?
Mules be the cross breed and infertile ones
Oh, well in that case I retract this line of reasoning entirely. Thank you.
Is that the one with Donkeys and Stallions? Hot stuff.
As they should.
deleted by creator
Spez may be a hurensohn but at least Reddit users still have their heads screwed tight.
Has someone started reading the other source books? They can’t be perfectly clean either.
Reddit against religion. Hand me the popcorn.
“Where do I sign up?”
