Homo Evolutis
I think using a political philosophy or a common enemy to unite a society is more harmful than it is good, since those things will inevitably be held sacred, and it becomes impossible to think rationally about them. Religious people are able to disagree on things like economics because the things that they hold sacred are supernatural sky gods, instead of things which are of this world (Americans are an exception due to the polarization of the two-party system and the compelling force of American Civil Religion, which makes freedom, democracy, and the Constitution into sacred things), but people who hold a political ideology like Marxism or Liberalism to be sacred (Tons of people, many of them on this very website) cannot tolerate disagreement and will ignore facts that might disprove their ideology. This is manageable when it involves nothing more than a sky god, but when it involves the very basics of how society should operate, it gets bad, quickly, which is how you get thousands of dead dissenters and a permanently stagnant society. Using a common enemy is even worse since it leads to an irrational hatred of said enemy that drives people to do horrible things to eachother, with the most infamous example being the Holocaust. The Nazis also held their political ideals to be more sacred than their religious beliefs, coincidentally.
Who are you to say he is a bad role model?
Andrew Tate's entire schtick is being a misogynistic chimpanzee wearing the skin of a man and bragging about how wealthy and sexually successful he is. Anybody who believes this manchild to be a good role model ought to be treated as a laughingstock, much like the man himself. Andrew Tate and people like him capturing the minds of the youth, or young people living a meaningless and depressive existence with no role models or aspirations at all, has direct negative effects on society, and therefore me as well. Therefore, I will continue to tell people to stop following shitty role models like him and to get good ones, because I wanna live in a society where people actually have standards for how they conduct themselves, instead of a society dominated by people like Andrew Tate.
I like excessive sweetness in all of my beverages since I've been drinking excessively sweet beverages all my life. I got the taste buds of a toddler. Still, give me aspartame over sugar, even on the off chance that the meager amount I consume gives me cancer some day that's probably better than what too much sugar would do to me.
The only time when willful ignorance is bad, in my book, is
A: They're being willfully ignorant about an essential skill that they need in order to make everyone's day go smoother
B: They're willfully ignorant about something but somehow still give as much of a shit about it as experts on the topic. These people are the worst.
It depends on what substance it is. I wouldn't try and test this theory on plutonium, but some allergenic stuff can have vaccines made for them.
Achsjullllyallyyyyiu, humans also do a form of Selective breeding voluntarily and it's why families that tend to live in a more rural farming type communities tend to naturally be larger. We breed for what our families job is going to be.
This is not really what I'm talking about, making more people so you can make them work on the fields is kinda different from breeding dogs with inhumanely short snouts for aesthetic purposes, or making gargantuan dogs capable of 1v1ing a tiger so they'll protect your livestock
All I'm saying is the Human race is very adaptable and we have changed a lot since drawing on cave walls.
Culturally, yes, physically, a little bit, psychologically, no. Our minds are still optimized for the savannah, and not the office, factory, or farm. Cultural adaptations, in the form of religion and etiquette, which we patch in after birth are what fill the gaps and make us actually capable of thriving in such a foreign environment to what our biology is made for.
Achsjulllyally, dogs and cats changed quickly on account of selective breeding. Natural selection, especially in cases where flaws in biology won't immediately lead to someone losing reproductive fitness, operates on much longer timespans.
Why do you assume he doesn't assume anything? Sounds like a pretty big assumption to assume he doesn't assume anything.
On my phone, yes. I intend to still use old.reddit on my PC in order to keep up with my favorite communities.
From a technical perspective, right now Lemmy is as anonymous as can be — I've yet to see an instance that requires ANY kind of verification. I didn't need to provide an email address, phone number, or any other identifying information to sign up. Didn't even need to solve a captcha. I just choose a name and set a password and BOOM! I was in.
Sopuli made me write a little paragraph about myself before they let me in
Ghostc1212
joined 1 year ago
I believe that something resembling religion will reappear in society (American society, I mean) in the future, maybe even the near future. Political substitutes for religion have given meaning to people's lives, i.e made them feel apart of something greater, but they have not provided them with physical community, a path toward self-improvement, a guide for how to manage interpersonal relations (Apart from "don't offend people", in the case of progressivism, I guess?), or any compelling reason not to be afraid of death.
Traditional religion's staying power came not from oppressive power structures or whatever people think these days, but because of all of that. Just having an oppressive power structure and none of the other stuff has generally led to religions/philosophies dying out within a few generations, like Nazism or communism. Both of those had their time to shine, completely ruined the societies they took over, and are now viewed as jokes by most people today. Meanwhile Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc, which offer way more than ideology ever has, have been around for millennia and are on track to stay around for millennia more.