This begs the question: “what is religion?” For me the linked article is far too narrow in scope. For example, they don’t talk about stuff like civil religion that can be a mixture of theism, nontheism, etc.

Personally I keep things real loose with a vague scale between “spiritualism” and “religion”. Spiritualism would be things that are more meta-physical but not necessarily bad. For example, feeling awe at a sunset or believing in a different plane/power. On the other end religion would be meta-physical stuff that’s bad, authoritarian, repressive, etc.

A major point is to distinguish/contrast between people, ideologies, etc. that are “spiritual” versus “religious”. What are the good aspects (eg. community)? What are the bad elements? How do these work together. Can we have the good without the bad?

For me this provides more nuance than just like: “There are a number of distinct religions. There are people who follow these religions and people who don’t. What is to be done?!?” I feel like many of these frameworks are tired and mostly used by “new atheists” which I would consider a mostly bad form of religion. No offense to this author though.

• Kdenlive - Excellent video editing software.

If some adobe chump can’t figure out how to install and use this program, then that’s on them. Completely unhinged meme.

Ok now try it with wheels…

NOFAPSA

deleted by creator

This nationalist grift is going to destroy whatever is left of LA.

Meanwhile statistics and computational methods have always been used in Math. Mathematicians literally invented the computer and they’ve been getting more powerful ever since.

But more importantly there is still no “AI” involved at all.

But I have no doubt that mathematicians (and trashy websites ofc) will cash in on the grift like everybody else.

This still doesn’t provide a clear definition of “cash savings”. See the comment from WesternInfidels for the actual definition from the study.

I don’t know why people would downvote you. I came here to complain about the same thing.

The actual problem is the shitty as usual reporting from faux news. The article never defines “cash savings” and provides no link to the referenced study. It’s lazy slop.

PSA: Y’all, please don’t post faux news ever. Find a better source or the original source. Thanks!

deleted by creator

If they were jumping off a cliff, would you join them but vote to fall slower?

More of a mass murderer really.

Family and friends who know you and care about you and are worried… Or cops.

Unfotunately this dude doesn’t seem to have a basic support network and the cops serve him.

Maybe people who mutilate the genitals of dead animals aren’t actually future scientists?

Worth thinking about.

Dude with no respect for life has no respect for the dead? I’m shocked! \s

deleted by creator

Americans will have to rethink the role and authority of the president

Nothing to think about. The role of the president has always been imperialism and genocide. It always will be as long as the regime exists.

Undeniably a good thing

Actually it’s quite easy to deny that Ted Cruz or Chris Christie would be a good thing.

This is like some real Dem thinking.

then ran Mit Romney

Dems wouldn’t go that far left.

Liberal in this instance means socially progressive.

Incorrect. The Atlantic is a zionist publication. Socially it’s very regressive.

https://hrnews1.substack.com/p/the-atlantic-editor-in-chief-jeffrey

More importantly there’s nothing to be gained by conflating liberalism with social progress. That’s probably why they used the term “illiberal” in the first place - to muddy the waters. They don’t want to talk about fascism because The Atlantic literally supports fascism.