top 97 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 220 points 8 months ago (27 children)

If you think one gender needs to be subservient to another you’re either an evil person, a stupid person, or both.

  • source
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [+] 43 points 8 months ago* (19 children)
  • [–] 34 points 8 months ago* (4 children)

    I am slowly discarding my differentiations between stupid and evil, there’s a different, mysterious third thing that combines both but exists on its own.

    Willful Ignorance. Choosing to remain stupid despite access to information.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 9 points 8 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 10 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    HyperNormalisation is a 2016 BBC documentary by British filmmaker Adam Curtis. It argues that following the global economic crises of the 1970s, governments, financiers and technological utopians gave up on trying to shape the complex "real world" and instead established a simpler "fake world" for the benefit of multi-national corporations that is kept stable by neoliberal governments.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperNormalisation

    https://youtube.com/shorts/gs1-ebayUIs

    Some links you may find interesting. It took me a few sittings to finish it because there's so much information to process but I highly recommend watching that documentary.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 9 points 8 months ago (8 children)

    https://bonpote.com/en/the-5-basic-laws-of-human-stupidity/

    Law 1: Everyone always and inevitably underestimates the number of stupid people in circulation

    Law 2: The probability that a person is stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.

    Law 3. A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or group of people when he or she does not benefit and may even suffer losses.

    Law 4: Non-stupid people always underestimate the destructive power of stupid individuals.

    Law 5: A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    What if I estimate the number of stupid people in circulation to 10 trillion?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago*

    OOOOF. This is a gooder. Cuz like, technically being terrible at math is an independent characteristic, meaning that I can't categorize you as stupid, thus adhering to the 4th law.

    Congratulations. You solved stupidity.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    I feel like it's worth noting that anyone, including you, can be a stupid person, and acknowledging that fact does not exempt you from potentially being a stupid person

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [+] -3 points 8 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Did you mean faith? People believe lots of stuff for good reasons.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 9 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Most of those people tend to believe such things because of their religion.... Which they think is good, wise or both.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 22 points 8 months ago

    So then they fall under the “stupid” category if they actually believe and live their lives according to unprovable mythology and “evil” if they don’t actually believe and just use the religion as an excuse to oppress others.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -15 points 8 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 21 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    that opinion involves other women. they can make what ever choices about themselves but the belief that others are to be subservient is evil.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 136 points 8 months ago (7 children)

    The survey the article is based on is not of good quality (I'm being polite)... People without a proper degree in statistics should not be allowed to get anywhere near numbers... Here the [link] of the PDF: (https://www.kcl.ac.uk/assets/news/iwd-2026-global-charts-final.pdf)

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 42 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Even with those numbers, it's still frustrating.

    You can see in the data that the country dominates attitude. Using only the global averages against the generational buckets isn't very useful. I want to see the generational breakdown BY COUNTRY.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 10 points 8 months ago* (1 child)
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago

    It’s a fact that in societies with high wealth disparities and a lack of mobility gender and social roles tend to be more rigid, whereas in societies with more equality they are more flexible. Which is largely a product of people seeking economic security first and foremost, and gender freedom only after they have it.

    You have any good sources on this? Not being cynical, just genuinely interested.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago

    yeah I always assume articles that say X group is like Y thing is usually full of trump. these definately have to be taken with a grain of salt. Also boomers were the hippie generation. Theoretically they should be much larger on general equality.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 51 points 8 months ago

    People of both genders in Indonesia (66%) and Malaysia (60%) were most likely to agree with the statement, compared with 23% in the US and 13% in Great Britain.

    So I question how much of this actually takes into account massive cultural differences and how that can skew the results since this is apparently a global survey.

  • source
  • [–] 47 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    People of both genders in Indonesia (66%) and Malaysia (60%) were most likely to agree with the statement, compared with 23% in the US and 13% in Great Britain.

    How do you act surprised with this is beyond me.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 95 points 8 months ago (30 children)

    People of both genders in Indonesia (66%) and Malaysia (60%) were most likely to agree with the statement, compared with 23% in the US and 13% in Great Britain.

    As a Malaysian, i'll let you guess the reason.

  • source
  • hideshow 30 child comments
  • [–] 55 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    It’s a country full of manosphere fans. Also religion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 55 points 8 months ago

    We Asian are generally patriarchy and misogyny is rather common, but religion supercharge it to extreme level. You can tune in to popular malay radio station and they will bring on woman preacher that basically say woman should obey husband and do their role, and the woman host will agree to them. Self oppression is really common because they were taught that since as a kid. We're that deep.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    Informal, but in brazil we made a poll among our class mates and 10 in 40 students thought "women should be submissive tp their husbands" and "disagreed with homosexuality".

    And its precisely the most religious people in the classroom... The new wave of for profit protestant churches in brazil and america is crazy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Many of the patterns in the US are imitated elsewhere. Probably something to do with all of those "mission trips" churches take to "help the disadvantaged" (well, I assume that they actually help, but I'd be amazed if they weren't trying to spread their religious beliefs everywhere they go". Or, perhaps, they see the Billy Grahams and the Kenneth Copelands making a fuck ton of money, and they also want a fuck ton of money. Probably all of the above.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    Or, perhaps, the US isn't the center of the world and other countries aren't "imitating patterns", this is just also happening there for mostly the same reasons.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    It isn't the center of the world, I agree. However, pentecostalism and televangelism, especially televangelism, originate in America, and are mostly American practices. Evangelical churches like sending missions to "help poor people" in "third world countries", which involves quite a bit of preaching. It isn't a stretch to assume that the televangelists in Brazil were strongly influenced by the religious movements of the US. In fact, the Brazilian user I was replying to SPECIFICALLY mentioned the US. The United States is not the center of the world, but it doesn't exist in a vacuum either.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -15 points 8 months ago (23 children)

    Allah and his only prophet Mohammed?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 8 months ago (21 children)

    You know Jesus is a prophet to Muslims right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago

    The Shahada explicitly mentions that Mohammed is the 'final' messenger of God. Also called "Khatam an-Nabiyyin,” usually translated as “Seal of the Prophets.” That phrase comes from the Quran (33:40.) Muslims interpret it to mean he is the last prophet in a long line of prophets.

    Muslims often consider what Mohammed said to be the end of the conversation, contrary to numerous prophets that came before him.

    So if there's 'one' prophet to 'go to', under Islam, Mohammed is the alpha prophet.

    Some Muslims don't even believe Jesus was crucified. Some think there was a substitution.

    The abrahamic religions are so dynamic yet the ego(d)centricity remains. You move from a dumb God that gets fooled by Satan chapter after chapter. Getting God to torture his most devout worshippers. Fun.

    Then you get Jesus! Praise Jesus! Love each other. The hippy socialist. Flipping tables and feeding the hungry, healing the sick, visiting prisoners, and he even raised the dead occasionally. Truly God in the flesh.

    Then you get Allah. A transcendental god. A thing that's best described not by what it is, but by what it is not.

    Then how they go from no after life, aka sheol. To heaven and hell (many mansions, weeping gnashing of teeth). Then you get paradise with 72 virgins, so kind of like Mormonism. Oh wait? You don't get your own planet and godhood itself? SMH. noob.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (9 children)

    The confusion is language.

    In the Quran, he's called Isa and is mentioned over 30 times.

    Same way Allah refers to the same God Judaism calls Yahweh and Christians aren't supposed to say aloud because they treat God like Voldemort.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (8 children)

    I think it's Jews who can't say Yahweh. Christians certainly can.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 8 months ago (7 children)

    ...

    Judaism = Yahweh

    Islam = Allah

    Christianity = "Do not say my name, just say God"

    That's literally the whole "do not say God's name on vain" thing.

    Idiots that couldn't read the Bible centuries later just thought "God" was what you shouldn't say, be cause they scrubbed God's name in the original language from the Bible and Christianity to make it more believable he was the only God and not one of many

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (2 children)

    What's the evidence of the name being scrubbed? Is it just that the Jews still use Yahweh and Christians don't usually? I'm curious and would like to have backing if I repeat that at some point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Yahweh is used to describe God like 7,000 times in the Old testament (written before Christianity by Jews) and used 0 times in the New Testament written by Christians.

    Depending bible, all the Yahweh's may be replaced by the all caps "LORD" because they literally went back and scrubbed the name out to obey "don't use my name in vain".

    Not sure how good of a source this is but I mean you can literally compare the Old Testament to the Torah and see that it changed:

    In actuality, God’s personal name is in your Bible . . . sort of. The editors have chosen not to transliterate God’s name, like they do every other proper name in the Bible, and have instead chosen to replace God’s name, Yahweh, with the upper-case LORD or GOD. That’s right, all 6,828 times God’s personal name Yahweh is written in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament have been replaced with the English LORD or GOD in your English Bible. Let’s look at Psalm 117 as an example.

    “Praise the LORD, all nations! Extol him, all peoples! For great is his steadfast love toward us, and the faithfulness of the LORD endures forever. Praise the LORD!”

    PSALM 117

    The word “LORD” in all upper-case letters is God’s personal name, Yahweh. God’s personal name is used three times in Psalm 117. So, in a way, God’s personal name is in all modern English Bibles; the translators and editors have simply chosen not to transliterate it, but to use the word LORD or GOD instead. Most Bibles explicitly state what they are doing in the preface, but let’s be honest, most people do not read the preface to their Bible.

    https://biblicalculture.com/why-is-gods-name-not-in-the-bible/

    To be clear I don't believe any of this stuff, it's just always bugged me that the biggest modern religious conflict is three groups all praying to the same God they all swear is peaceful, and just constantly killing Innocents over minor details without even realizing it.

    So I've looked into how they different they really are. And most of the conflict is semantics that no one fighting over actually understands.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    I keep meaning to give you a proper reply, but find myself to not have much worth saying. I wanted to make sure to say thanks though. This gave me great content to think about and I appreciate you taking the time to line it all out. I've been gathering things like this in my head and evaluating the asks done by some religions against them. Religions, culturally, often become unreasonable once you apply reason, logic, and the original text against their odd demands.

    Similar to this one is when they get worked up about cussing. They say it's because of the whole "name of god in vain" bit, but saying shit damn fuck cunt, doesn't involve god at all. So they are getting their puritanical panties in a bunch over nothing. Par for the course I guess.

    Anyways, just want to thank you again for your reply. I appreciate your efforts to give me a thorough answer. 🙂

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (2 children)

    I'm a Christian, and I assure you that this is nonsense. I distinctly remember the name Yahweh being used in sermons. Maybe there are branches of Christianity where that's a thing, but it's definitely not universal.

    "Using God's name in vain" is generally taken to be about blasphemous cursing, not about using God's name at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago

    The god's name in vain thing has nothing to do with not saying God's name. It also doesn't really mean saying things like "god damn it." It's meant to be about not using God as a justification or excuse to do something you want. Throughout history it's probably the least followed commandment, except for maybe throw shalt not kill.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (9 children)

    Serious.

    How exactly does that work? I'm pretty ignorant of most religions.

    I know the Koran came after the Bible and that Moses and Jesus are considered holy. Is Muhammed the ultimate prophet? Can other prophets come later and add to the Koran?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

    And the (Christian) Bible came after the Talmud, which came after the Tamakh, which came after the Torah, and so on and so on...

    Most religions borrow heavily from the ones that came before. Noah's flood echoes the story of the flood in the Epic of Gilgamesh.

    Islam actually takes an interesting approach to other religious figures. They don't necessarily deny them, they more absorb them. If someone was truly holy, the must have been a prophet. In the Quran, many figures from the Jewish and Christian bibles are called out as prophets.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (7 children)

    It's more of an academic point than anything that has actual effect on day to day religious activity.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    Not true at all. I mean sure Muslims don’t pray to Jesus, but they don’t pray to Muhammad either. And when reading the Quran, Jesus is mentioned more than Muhammad’s by name. Mary mother of Jesus is mentioned even more.

    Fun fact, Muslims unlike Evangelicals believe Mary was indeed a virgin.

    But to understand how important Jesus is to Muslims, just know that when the apocalypse happens in the Quran, it’s Jesus that returns not Muhammad.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    None of that changes what I said. He's not really part of the core of the religion. It's just like with Judaism and Christianity. The Torah is a big part of the Christian Bible, but the focus and context are vastly different.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago* (3 children)

    Not a good example at all.

    The Old Testament is vital to Christianity first of all.

    And to Muslims, Muhammad was clarifying the message of Jesus because it had been obscured by centuries of changes done by “men” and “the church”. The teachings of Muhammad to them are the same as the teachings of Jesus. And of Moses, and Abraham.

    They don’t see Mohammad as inherently more worthy than Jesus, or Moses or Abraham. They are all equally prophets. I mean they even see Jesus as more special than Mohammad in many ways cause like I said they believe in the virgin birth. They believe God literally made Jesus in Mary’s womb.

    And there are PLENTY of Jesus quotes in the Quran. Like full on teachings of Jesus.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    The Christian Jesus is literally god. The Quran changed that to just a prophet, that's a significant change. That's pretty similar to how the Christian Bible treats the old testament, it's part of it, but the new testament recontextualizes it to be something different than the Jewish Torah.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Muslims would say that the view that Jesus is literally God is one of the distortions in the Bible. That idea is actually pretty late, becoming orthodoxy only centuries after Jesus.

    And the Old Testament is not recontextualized. It’s just the Torah. The idea that Jesus’ message was fundamentally different from Judaism is also a pretty late development. Something Muslims also say is a distortion of the Bible from the original message of Jesus.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    And the Old Testament is not recontextualized. It’s just the Torah

    Technically they removed every "Yahweh" in most English versions of the Bible when they turned the Torah into the Old Testament. They just replaced it with "LORD" or "GOD".

    It's the one major change, because Christians weren't supposed to use God's name. Spelled Yahweh in the Torah and Allah in the Quran.

    And as a result a shit ton of people who consider themselves experts in their own religion, don't understand it's all the same God all the Abrahmic religions pray to.

    Similar with Jesus, who is called Isa in the Quran.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 29 points 8 months ago (10 children)

    I don't understand this. I'm married. My wife is the coolest person I know. I wouldn't dare try to control her. She is too much fun.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago

    That's because you're a terrible husband.

    It's disgusting how proud you are about the sick gratification you get from forcing that poor women to use her tiny little lady brain for your own personal amusement.

    Report to 4chan before it's too late! They'll help you set you straight. Make sure you have nudes handy as payment for their services.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    I try to control my wife the same amount that she tries to control me, which is to say not much at all but we communicate expectations which we think are reasonable. Like yeah, have friends and hang out with them without me, but I'm gonna be pissed off if you stay out until 3am without checking in. Extreme example, but you get my point. We check in before planning/doing shit that affects each other, and once in a while there is a good reason for the answer to be no.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    Communication is the #1 thing that's kept my wife and I happy and together. I don't think it's "controlling" to let my wife know where I'm going, or for her to tell me where she is going, that's just normal married couple stuff.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 11 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (7 children)
  • [–] 14 points 8 months ago* (3 children)

    Gotta remember selection bias. The single women are (eternally) on the dating market because of their horrible views, the ones who aren't horrible are not on the dating market anymore or only very very short.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Wouldn’t that argument work the same way for men? To be clear, I’m not a fan of that argument for any gender. But fair is fair.

    I’m polyam, so my experiences are quite different. I’m finding more married people looking for a third, which is awkward when I’m more of a “relationship anarchist” and don’t want to put my partners into tiers above/below each other (or be put into such tiers myself.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago

    You're absolutely right on that. Some people really just want the freedom for themselves, but not for their partners. Which is ridiculous. After all, "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." If someone hasn't got the maturity it takes for polyamory, then they're not ready for it.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Are you dating women your own age? I’m a woman in my early 40s and have literally never met a woman my age who thought like this. If you’re dating women ten years younger than you you’ll be selecting for the type who likes to date older men - usually for exactly the reasons you complain about (they want someone to take care of them).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 1 point 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    I can’t argue against your lived experience, but it doesn’t match mine at all. Maybe they’re all sick of dating irresponsible losers and this is some misguided screening technique? Good luck out there, it sounds like you’re having a difficult time finding someone you like!

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago*

    What you describe doesn't reflect reality in my region of the world or amongst any of the people I know. Not sure where you are but you're making a lot of generalized statements that should be a hell of a lot more specific. Do you live in Amish country maybe?

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 71 points 8 months ago (7 children)

    And they were confused when women choose the bear

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 8 months ago

    Bears are less unpredictable. Also the woods are a context you expect to find a bear in so it's not out of the norm. All that combined with years and years of true crime stuff makes the answer to that question pretty predictable, regardless of the gender.

    I have not actually read the primary source for this though, only encountered it on social media so maybe they asked men the same question and they chose another person? I should probably look it up.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (4 children)

    I'm a man and I also choose the bear. I frequently go backpacking and would absolutely prefer to come across a bear in the woods rather than a random man.

    Does despising my gender make me realistic or does it make me a misandrist? Maybe it's both. Maybe being a misandrist and being a realist are the same fucking thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Hopefully it's a black bear, though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    I'm a man, I do a lot of solo hiking and camping.Ii usually carry when I go into the woods and it's not for wild animals.

    The last thing anyone wants when they're "alone in the woods" is finding out they're not alone. I'll take a wild animal experience over a wild human experience every time.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    98 comments in c/news@lemmy.world view that post
    6 comments in c/lgbtq_plus@lemmy.blahaj.zone view that post