this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2024
0 points (NaN% liked)

Ask Lemmy

26239 readers
1217 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

[Disclaimer] - I am not an American and I consider myself atheist, I am Caucasian and born in a pre-dominantly Christian country.

Based on my limited knowledge of Christianity, it is all about social justice, compassion and peace.

And I was always wondering how come Republicans are perceiving themselves as devout Christians while the political party they support is openly opposing those virtues and if this doesn't make them hypocrites?

For them the mortal enemy are the lefties who are all about social justice, helping the vulnerable and the not so fortunate and peace.

Christianity sounds to me a lot more like socialist utopia.

top 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

one way fascism thrives is by co-opting the aesthetics of religion to further itself, and it does not limit itself to only one religion. other commenters have noted correctly that the dichotomy you perceive isn’t real; what you identify as the “fervent” are actually just “the most loud and outspoken.”

this is not to “no true scottsman” my way out of the situation. republican christians are christians, it’s just that they are also complicit in using their religion as leverage to gain power as white nationalists.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

In my experience lefties in America only claim to be about helping the most vulnerable. When it actually comes down to it, the lefties are perfectly willing to screw over a vulnerable person so long as they are of a certain race or political affiliation.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 0 points 6 months ago
[–] zoostation@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

At its core religion is based on fearing people who are different, and modern right wing politics is based on fearing people who are different.

[–] Kantapper_Kantapper@feddit.de 0 points 6 months ago

Yeah, that is Not what religions are about, that is what people are abusing religion for. It could be different.

[–] ballskicker@sh.itjust.works 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

There's a real cognitive dissonance there. Their version of Christianity takes a back seat to politics because they've been told all these visions of grandeur about how "Jesus is coming back" and how they are the "sheep" and all those godless liberals are the "goats. They've been trained to look for reasons to feel persecuted even if they don't come directly out and say it, even if they don't realize it themselves. There's a real "us vs. them" mentality in a lot of those types of churches and they'll gladly go rub one out to stuff like where Jesus said to his disciples in one of the gospels that if people aren't for him then they're against him. Nevermind that one of the other gospels says the opposite. A lot of Christians I've come across just have this persecution fetish where any slight inconvenience or call for accountability from pretty much anyone (because their church won't take them to task over things) turns into a 'righteous' cry to their lord about how the godless Philistines around them are normalizing oppression and sodomy and trans rights or whatever and these holy little Christian's are the only beacon of hope in society even though they insist on treating anyone who isn't like them like absolute garbage. I'm not a social scientist or anything like that, hopefully people smarter than me chime in. But conservatives treat equity in a community like a zero sum game, you know? If poor people are given a hand up by the government then it's interpreted by these (at best) middle class Christians as an affront to their hard earned money. They worked for their income but "these filthy poors just get handouts at MY expense?" You can tell by their actions that they have absolutely nothing to do with Jesus regardless of how they try to present themselves. They're full of crap and they deserve to be treated as such.

Source: Grew up in a very conservative farming community, did all the church stuff, then moved away and found myself.

Also, I know I abused quotation marks but my bad on any grammar or spelling errors or general incoherence. I treated myself to vodka for dinner.

[–] Kantapper_Kantapper@feddit.de 0 points 6 months ago

I have made similar observations in a rural area in Germany. Christian Traditions are highly valued. Christian Values do only apply to non-immigrants, people that work a lot and therefore are considered worthy and other conservatives in general. I consider myself a christian myself somehow and these people gave me the creeps. How can they go and listen to someone preaching about humbleness and being kind and whatever and afterwards keep on being racist and prejudiced against anyone?

[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 0 points 6 months ago (2 children)

The gambit of American Christianity is just the wildest snarled mess of hair splitting bullshit one can hope to theologically take seriously (there are actual church splits over folding chairs vs pews).

"BROADLY" you can understand American Christianity as being one of two flavors, what you're observing is Evangelical Christianity, which emphasizes a "born again" experience and a "personal relationship with God", basically they all but come right out and say that they believe what's convenient to their already existing worldviews because these are the Christians that derive from trying to preach a religion that holds the story of Exodus as a core myth to slave oligarchs and also to their slaves.

The other flavor of American Christianity is "Mainline Christianity", this is not to mean mainstream, Mainline refers to how these are the denominations that found the most traction along rail towns. This is the group of denominations closest to what you consider to be what Christianity is meant to be, and they're currently having severe retention issues because the evangelicals are making the mainliners' younger members disgusted with Christianity altogether.

[–] DontRedditMyLemmy@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

This is interesting, but I don't think it attempts to answer the question. I think there's a correlation between people that can so passionately believe in a obvious bullshit, whether it be the Bible or Reaganomics/MAGA.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The Bible isn't obvious BS.

[–] gapbetweenus@feddit.de 0 points 6 months ago

Yeah, it's nice fantasy book from back there.

[–] crispy_kilt@feddit.de 0 points 6 months ago

Great answer!

[–] crispy_kilt@feddit.de 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

I am Caucasian

Are you actually from the Caucasus, like Georgia, Armenia, etc, or do you use the word to mean "European or descendent of Europeans"? Because the USA likes to use the word to mean European-like, which is incorrect, as the caucasus is a very specific region in the border of Europe and Asia.

[–] xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You're right about where the Caucasus is, but the generally accepted meaning - both in the US and Europe - is white European ancestry, not just those from the Caucasus.

[–] crispy_kilt@feddit.de 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I am from Europe, and fluent in several European languages. In all of those Caucasian means person from the Caucasus. The usage to mean European is exclusively an USA thing.

[–] xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Thank you for your assumption that I am not, in fact, European.

However, given I'm from one of the few European countries that speak English as their primary language, I can categorically say you're wrong.

[–] crispy_kilt@feddit.de 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Alright, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Link me to a dictionary of your country's version of English that lists "caucasian" with the exclusive meaning of "European or descendent of Europeans", or something to that effect.

[–] xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=caucasian+meaning

Oh wow, that first result sure does say exactly that

Edit: interestingly, lmgtfy actually gets a different response to googling it directly in the UK for me 🤔

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/caucasian#:~:text=Caucasian%20in%20British%20English&text=adjective-,1.,noun

[–] crispy_kilt@feddit.de 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Not a dictionary, thus not a credible source.

Let me help you out:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race

"The Caucasian race is an obsolete racial classification of humans based on a now-disproven theory of biological race. [...] In the United States, the root term Caucasian is still in use as a synonym for white or of European, Middle Eastern, or North African ancestry, a usage that has been criticized."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race

I understand why you might think Caucasian to mean something else despite person from the Caucasus despite being European: the US version of English is influential, due to the size of the country and the popularity of their media. Some British people have started saying "TV series" instead of "programme", for example, due to the influence of the US. You probably heard and read the adjective almost always in the incorrect US usage, because a) other nations don't obsess over ethnicity and b) the actual Caucasus not exactly being a common topic in the media. Hence, when you do hear the word, it is used the way the USA does, incorrectly.

[–] xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I additionally linked to the specifically British edition of Collins as well for your benefit, which is, in fact, a dictionary. Seriously, trust me, if you go up to 5 Brits and ask them what Caucasian means, they will almost certainly all answer "white".

Wikipedia, also, is not a dictionary.

It's also pretty damn rude to classify the American usage as "incorrect", you're not the arbiter of what "real" English is.

[–] crispy_kilt@feddit.de 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Well, they're wrong. The Caucasus is where Georgia, Armenia and other countries are. Caucasians are people from the Caucasus.

Another academic source: "White, European, Western, Caucasian, or what? Inappropriate labeling in research on race, ethnicity, and health." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1509085

There is more: "Though discredited as an anthropological term and not recommended in most editorial guidelines, it is still heard and used, for example, as a category on forms asking for ethnic identification. It is also still used for police blotters (the abbreviated Cauc may be heard among police) and appears elsewhere as a euphemism. Its synonym, Caucasoid, also once used in anthropology but now dated and considered pejorative, is disappearing."

https://books.google.com/books?id=_hZHAAAAMAAJ

The United States National Library of Medicine discontinued usage in favor of the more narrow geographical term European, which traditionally only applied to a subset of Caucasoids. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/techbull/nd03/nd03_med_data_changes.html

[–] xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

What happened to "show me one dictionary"?

Looks like your goalposts have grown legs.

So, the common usage in both the country with the greatest number of English speakers AND the country the language originated in is incorrect? Because crispy_kilt says so?

Language is a socially negotiated system, so what the word means to the people who use it is what the words mean.

That paper is about what terminology should be used in academic work, who gives a fuck for people talking on lemmy?

The scale of annoyingness:

Pedants -> incorrect pedants -> incorrect pedants who insist they're right, regardless of the evidence in front of them

----------------------------------------------------| you are here

[–] crispy_kilt@feddit.de 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

What happened to “show me one dictionary”?

I was honestly surprised with it listing the term with its common, but incorrect meaning, without as much as a hint to that end. You got me there!

Because crispy_kilt says so?

No. Please refer to the three academic sources I provided.

That paper is about what terminology should be used in academic work, who gives a fuck for people talking on lemmy?

That's like arguing "could of" to be correct English just because some people do it. Correctness is thankfully not what some believe, but something that has to be demonstrated with some rigour. If you discredit academic sources in favour of a popular misconception then I guess we will never agree.

Pedants -> incorrect pedants -> incorrect pedants who insist they’re right, regardless of the evidence in front of them

I mean, I provided several sources for my claim

[–] xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

But your sources have multiple flaws:

  • firstly, they're all American, and so have no relevance to European English dialects
  • secondly, they did not say "Caucasian does not mean white European", they say variations on "it is not the best term to use in academic literature"

So my source - despite being a highly reputable entity whose entire reason to exist is to define words - is "incorrect"?

"Could of" is different, because the social consensus is that it's grammatically incorrect. Your argument is more like arguing that antisemitic refers to Arabs as well, just because Semitic includes Arabic peoples. Just because a term is derived from another doesn't mean that it permanently must only be understood by its etymological roots.

[–] crispy_kilt@feddit.de 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Of course they're all from the US, they're the only ones who use the word that way. They're also the only ones obsessed with the ethnic origin of the various parts of their population. In England, a person with UK citizenship whose ancestors came from Africa 300 years ago isn't an African-Englishman, or a Black English, or some other racist bullshit like that, he's simply an Englishman. That's because the British aren't unhealthily obsessed with ethnic origin.

This of course makes it difficult to find UK examples of the correct usage of the term, as this whole topic doesn't really exist in a civilised nation.

Earlier we talked about European languages. I speak some of them.

French: Caucasien: Qui appartient au Caucase, chaîne de montagnes d’Asie. (Who is from the Caucasus, a chain of mountains in Asia.) https://www.le-dictionnaire.com/definition/caucasien

German: Kaukasier: Einwohnerbezeichnung (term for describing inhabitant) https://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Kaukasier

Russian: кавказец: Жители, уроженцы Кавказа. (Inhabitant or native of the Caucasus) https://kartaslov.ru/%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5-%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0/%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B7%D1%86%D1%8B

See? One example from the most spoken language in Europe of each group, Latin, Germanic, Slavic.

They all agree.

[–] xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Do you think the concept of race doesn't exist in Britain?!

I'll tell you it most definitely does, hell we practically invented systemic racism. Come to London and tell a black Brit that they aren't black and we'll see how that one goes down.

Just because words that look like "Caucasian" mean the other thing in German and french doesn't change it's English meaning. Congratulations on your language knowledge, but are not the genius you think you are.

I speak English, as an Englishman. Caucasian means white in British English.

[–] crispy_kilt@feddit.de 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Right then, you Caribbean. What do you mean you're not from the Caribbean? What does that have to do with anything? That word is obviously referring to the population of the British Isles. Duh.

That's how this sounds. It's ridiculous.

[–] xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Well yeah that would be a great metaphor, if everyone in Britain referred to Britain as the Carribbean. But they don't, so it's deeply dumb.

I don't understand what you're caught up on.

British people use the word caucasian to mean white, and that is documented in British dictionaries.

I appreciate you take personal issue with that usage, but that's life, you don't control the English language.

[–] crispy_kilt@feddit.de 0 points 6 months ago

A misconception being common does not make it correct.

[–] Akasazh@feddit.nl 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It reads like op used the common American euphemism for 'white'. Which is the correct usage as he's addressing an American audience.

[–] crispy_kilt@feddit.de 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The usage of the word as it is common in the USA is incorrect. OP might not be aware of this, hence my comment.

Do you know why US-americans don't use the appropriate word "European"? I've always wondered. They do say African, Asian, Latino, but not European, to describe ethnic origins.

[–] Akasazh@feddit.nl 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

The usage of the word as it is common in the USA is incorrect

Etymological prescriptivism is not really a tenable point in linguistics. You can argue that, for instance, in American English the Dutch word 'rekening' (bill) is abused as reckoning. And you can find literally thousands of examples like that.

I'm this case a non native speaker used the American English vernacular correctly. You argue that the word is used incorrectly in this vernacular, and it is very peculiar and steeped in the racial discourse of the country. However it's usage was correct in this case.

[–] crispy_kilt@feddit.de 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I mean, sure, you Japanese person you. No silly, being called Japanese has nothing to do with being from Japan, why would you even think that?

[–] Akasazh@feddit.nl 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

You are not adressing my argument at all and being obtuse.

[–] crispy_kilt@feddit.de 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I am trying to demonstrate how absurd it is to use the demonym for one region of the world to refer to the inhabitants of a completely different part of the world

[–] kromem@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Christianity sounds to me a lot more like socialist utopia.

A lot of atheists end up with that impression, maybe from unfamiliarity. That Jesus was just a dope socialist who loved everyone.

But the religion has been absolutely shitty for pretty much as soon as he was dead (at least).

For example, the other day I saw someone cite Acts 4 as an example of how Christianity was a commune, where people pooled their assets.

It conveniently left out the part where Peter had an older couple who didn't pay him everything they owned who were both struck dead after meeting privately and being confronted (allegedly killed by God). Which was a reference back to the book of Joshua where a guy kept some loot for himself and was outed and killed.

Women were told to be silent and subservient (in spite of 'heretical' sects and texts of Christianity where Jesus was instructing female disciples and they were acting as teachers - ironically the only extant sect that claimed Jesus was talking about Greek atomism and naturalism was one of these).

The religion was canonized right after the emperor of Rome converted, so guess what was canonized? A bunch of shit about how patriarchal monarchy is the divine plan. The saying attributed to Jesus about how someone who succeeded in life should rule and should only hold power temporarily obviously gets excluded and eventually the collection of sayings is punishable by death for even possessing it.

Even a lot of that stuff about "blessed is the poor" was probably from Paul who was separating fools from their money. Originally there's sayings about how those ministering shouldn't collect money, but this gets straight up reversed in a later edition of Luke and you can see Paul in 1 Cor 9 arguing that he is entitled to make a living off ministering and encouraging donations "for the poor in Jerusalem." But then elsewhere we see Paul was accepting expensive fragrant offerings from people. But that's ok, as then in the gospels you see Jesus keeps an expensive fragrant offering and yells at the people who criticize him for not selling it and giving the proceeds to the poor.

It's a bunch of feel good BS to con people out of their money. I don't think it was always that from the very start, and probably even had some interesting things going on initially, but almost immediately after Jesus is out of the picture the errant early tradition gets morphed into a traditional cult where power and wealth consolidates at the top and it preaches subservience and obedience and self-hatred so you beg for the idea of salvation and trade all that you have for a promise the people you turn everything over to can't fulfill.

So why would a group that wants power and wealth concentrated and to destroy democracy in favor of patriarchal authoritarianism be attractive to Christians? Because they've been being fattened up for that slaughter going on near two thousand years at this point.

[–] crispy_kilt@feddit.de 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

It’s a bunch of feel good BS to con people out of their money.

Would it be an assholish move to point to the religion of Jesus himself in this context? I believe it would, and thus I won't.