Disclaimers and trigger warnings

The purpose of this mediocre and pseudo-philosophical diatribe of mine is to foster discussion.

I’ve come to understand that this is what Tildes is for. This isn’t a “platform” (I don’t think that I can even call it that) like Reddit, which has become like any other social media app, that is designed for retaining attention, make money from ads and in-app perks, and give people the means to build a following on the Internet.

As such, I’m proposing to you that we, well... discuss... something.

Now, we do discuss a lot of things in here, but it’s obviously more interesting to discuss hot button issues, am I right? I’m talking about those that we seem to be all be up in arms about these days. lol

I know that some of the topics that I will bring up can be very triggering to a lot of people.

I want you to know that I do not intend to harm nor hurt anyone with my words.

I spent hours (I’m not exaggerating) carefully crafting this, uh... “““essay””” of mine, to make sure that the words contained in it will inspire you to engage in a meaningful discussion by sharing your opinions in a polite and humble manner, think more deeply and nuanced about these issues, and perhaps (I can only hope) extend a hand to those who disagree with you.

When I wrote this piece, I did so feeling completely at ease. In my head, I heard my own words, as if I was having a dialogue with you all. I imagined sitting with you in a big circle, talking with you face-to-face. My tone was natural and calm, and I occasionally used a humorous tone (marked by every instance where I wrote “lol”, which always refers back to the sentence immediately preceding it). This is how I’d like you to imagine that I’m talking to you through these words, because that’s exactly what I’m doing. Even if my choice of words isn’t the best (for which I apologize upfront, if anything that I wrote offends you), then know that in no way did I write any of these words with an accusatory tone in mind. I hope that this visualization makes it easier for you to chew through the bits where you disagree with me.

Also, I was recently made aware that in some online circles, the use of italicized or bold formatting, is equivalent to CAPS LOCK, meaning, a way to express “loud screaming”. That is not how I use these formatting tools. I use italics for emphasizing certain words in my “speech”. Again, imagine that I’m speaking to you face-to-face. A natural part of my speech will be to give emphasis to certain words that are central to the point that I’m making. In writing, I emulate that effect via the use of italics. I hope that makes it clear what I mean. As for bold text, I just use it to highlight a point that I think is particularly important, and that I wish to be easy to find if you ever return to my essay.

(I keep calling this an “essay” for lack of a better term. If you can think of a better word, then please do let me know. I intend no offense to actual essayists. lol)

Finally, if you want to discuss scientific facts with me, then please do so, but know that I’m aiming more for a philosophical discussion. I will admit that, despite my best efforts throughout the years to read as much scientific literature as I can, I have been unable to memorize any studies, papers, or “facts” on any of these topics. I don’t know why that is. Maybe my IQ is too low. So, all of my arguments here will be 100% anecdotal. Either way, I don’t intend to make those of you who do want to cite research or link to news outlets uncomfortable, so feel free to do so. Just know that I will probably not have anything to reply to you in that case. I mean, if the research proves your point, then that ends the discussion, right? lol

More than anything, I’m good at asking thought-provoking questions (I think, I hope), and that’s what I came here to do.

I want to remind you that here on Tildes, there isn’t any “karma”, so I have nothing to gain from posting this (apart from some interesting discussions for a day or two), and have everything to lose.

And with that, I’d like to say that it was nice knowing all of you.

(Just in case I get banned. lol)

Introduction

Over the last few years, much has been said about the political polarization of society, particularly in the United States of America (though this has since spread to much of Europe and other places, I feel).

I often hear folks say that there used to be a time when people’s opinions did not vary so widely as they do today. Allegedly, the majority of the population held politically moderate beliefs that orbited the “center” of the isle. Also, allegedly again, there used to be a culture in which it was acceptable for people to “agree to disagree”.

I have heard from these people that all of this has radically changed. One can now simply not have moderate opinions on any topic anymore. One must pick a side and blindly adhere to it, 100%. It is also not possible (nor safe) to engage with the opposite safe, under any circumstances. There are only two camps: red and blue, right and left, liberal and conservative, Republican and Democrat, Christian and Atheist, carnivore and vegan, fossil fuels and green energy, Windows and Mac, PC and consoles.

The last two dichotomies are just a joke. lol

The more I think about this, the more I doubt if there ever has been a “golden age of tolerance” in “recorded” human history though. I say “recorded”, because as far back historically as we can look, I see that all that humanity has ever done is to be at war with itself.

Maybe back then, it made a bit more sense that we looked with suspicion upon each other, after all, we didn’t know three things:

1. That we all resided on the same globe.
2. That we’re all the exact same species.
3. That the planet can sustain all of us...

...if we properly steward its resources.

But now we do know. We do know how big this planet is. We know more or less to what extent its resources can support our way of living. We also know that all of us are part of the same human species. We know (or should know) that fighting each other is pointless, and that we have more to gain from cooperating and living in harmony.

And yet, we still choose not to.

But it’s not only about resources, living space, and ethnicity that we fight each other now. Now we also fight over ethics, morality, societal norms, culture, or in one word: politics.

Now, politics is a bit of different debate than the other three items.

I think...

Because resources and living space are a thing that a group can have and lose to another group, for example.

But is a “political opinion” the same?

Well, if you think of politics as a tool for securing a group’s “rights”, then I can see why you would think that way. To give an over-simplified and sadly caricaturized (but often and hotly debated) example: The liberal side of the isle argues that if a country enacts and enforces a law stating that trans women are not entitled to using public restrooms assigned to women, then they lose that right, making it so that one group has more rights than the other. But the conservative side of the isle will argue that “biological women” have a right to have the restrooms assigned to them be private spaces where no “biological man” can enter, which is a right that they would lose if an opposite law was enacted and enforced, meaning that a different group would have less right.

(oof That was a mouthful. lol You wouldn’t believe how long it took me to craft those last two sentences. lol)

Notice how even the language employed by both sides wildly differs, for example, with the terms “trans women” and “biological women”.

So, does that mean that polarization is pre-programmed into the human species? Will we always want to fight over resources, living space, ethnicity, and which political ideology is the “correct” one? Are humans designed to seek reasons to disagree with each other?

And taking these questions to the absolute extreme: Are civil wars inevitable?

Could one in the US be on the horizon?

A lot of people sadly seem to think so.

(And it’s even more unfortunate that we have plenty of historic precedent for that.)

Or...

...is there perhaps a way for us to agree to disagree, to live and let live, and to ensure that everyone has the freedom to do as they choose, no matter what set of politics they believe in, and yet not have their freedom interfere with the freedom of any other?

Are the “culture wars” just a distraction?

Some say that we’re all just being made to fight each other, so that we’re distracted from what is really going on, which supposedly is the fact that there is a “tiny and elite cabal” that sits on the capstone of the pyramid of society, which wants to retain all of its wealth and power, and can only do so if we don’t notice that they exist, because if we did, then we would depose them.

I won’t deny that our world’s society has a clear elite that exercises a lot of influence over all of us, but I don’t believe that this tiny cabal that sits at the top really exists. I find it more plausible to say that there are very many competing groups of “elites”, and that there is no society that we can take refuge in where we won’t end up having to submit to one (meaning, a governing power). Some elites just happen to be slightly more benevolent and open to feedback from those who they rule than others.

(I even question whether in human society, it would even be possible for a political system to arise where, from the “peasant” all the way to the “president”, everyone is treated equally and has access to the same amount of wealth and influence. Notice that I couldn’t even find the language to avoid using words that denote a difference in class.)

But let’s assume for a moment that the “tiny capstone cabal” does exist, and that they are just pitting us all against one another. How could we stop that? Could we all join hands, climb the pyramid, and topple the capstone? Could we overcome our extreme differences of political opinion to focus on dethroning corrupt political leaders and installing fully trustworthy and competent ones?

(Do such politicians even exist? Or does power always, inevitably corrupt those who have it? I sometimes imagine myself trying to get into politics only as far as it would take for someone to try to bride me to peddle my influence. My gut tells me that I wouldn’t even get into any office before the first “buyer” appeared. lol So, on a more serious note, aren’t humans just inherently self-serving? Doesn’t everyone has a “price tag”? I do sincerely wonder what my price tag is sometimes, and if I would truly be willing to die for what I believe in.)

So, what I find somewhat amusing about the discussion surrounding this idea that the elites are to blame for the polarization, is that neither side seems to be willing to give up on its ideals. I have heard some on the left say: “Reproductive and trans rights aren’t the issue and aren’t going to hurt anyone. The elites are the problem.” But to very many people on the right, “outlawing abortion and banning gender ideology” is something that is going to “prevent” a lot of people from “getting hurt”. It’s a hill that they are willing to die on. In other words, what one side thinks is “obviously” a minor issue, is a major issue for the other side, and vice-versa.

So, who gets to decide what is and isn’t an important moral principle that needs to be protected by the law, and which side is willing to change its opinion on the matter, or at least, agree to concede its position on it?

Let’s look at some more concrete examples:

“Abortion” versus “reproductive rights”

A few months ago I stumbled on this podcast episode, moderated by one Ellen Fisher, where a “liberal feminist” influencer, Bronte Remsik, hashed it out with a “conservative wife” influencer, Isabel Brown. The topic of the debate was abortion.

I felt so nervous through the whole thing. The tension was palpable. I felt as if the two would jump on each other and viciously tear each other apart at any moment.

But maybe it was just me. Maybe I’m the unreasonable, overly sensitive one here. Maybe the two of them actually felt calm throughout (or at most, a little nervous) the whole thing. I should say that Ellen Fisher did an excellent job (I think) at giving both sides equal opportunity to build, consolidate, and defend their arguments. I don’t think that anything was left unsaid. I therefore highly recommend this podcast to you. It’s probably the best debate on the topic of abortion that I have ever heard.

However Remsik and Brown may have felt about each other and the debate, they kept it together. They remained polite. They looked in each other’s eyes while they talked. They didn’t use any bad faith arguments (not that I noticed anyway). They kept a calm tone of voice throughout. They didn’t get sarcastic with each other. It felt as though they were trying to listen to understand, rather than to reply (to a certain extent anyway). And surprisingly, they even agreed on a few points.

Wow. Refreshing. As intense as it was, I loved listening to both of them.

What I thought was the high point of this debate, was when they reached the bedrock of the issue. It turns out that their opinions on the matter are built on entirely different foundations. This was best illustrated, I think, when Remsik argued that forcing a woman to take her pregnancy to full term, violates her bodily autonomy. Brown countered by arguing that an abortion always violates the bodily autonomy of the baby. The discussion then moved to a debate about whether it morally matters more that the “already living and conscious” woman gets to choose if the fetus continues to “exploit” her body for its development, or the baby is given the opportunity to be born as he or she “naturally intends” to in order for him or her to later decide what to do with his or her own life. The debate boiled down to: “Which of the two ‘lives’ ‘matters’ more?”

Notice how, again, I tried to emulate the specific (and differing) language used by both sides. There was even a moment where Remsik was referring to “people who can get pregnant” in these terms, and Brown insisted on calling them “women” and “mothers” instead. Honestly, I’m worried that someday we won’t even be speaking the same language anymore and will become unable to understand each other. I think that was what George Orwell warned us about with the concept of newspeek, among other things.

With such a fundamental disagreement, it was inevitable that Remsik and Brown would end the debate at an impasse.

So, I’m not sure that they could become “friends” outside of this debate, and that saddens me.

But at least they were able to agree to disagree. They were willing to face each other and discuss this difficult topic without vitriol.

It probably wasn’t easy for them, but I think that it was worth it.

“Gender ideology” versus “LGBTQ+ rights”

I’m a Christian, and I have a very close gay friend.

I know. It’s a cliché. I understand that.

But it’s true.

And in fact, we met all the way back in 2015. We were very close friends for three to four years before he felt comfortable enough to come out to me.

Yes, we have discussed his sexual orientation at length. I have given him a fully open ear to tell me about his story and experiences. We never had anything even close to resembling a heated argument. I have never told him to seek any sort of conversion therapy. He told me that he knew that he was gay from whence he was a child. He told me that he has a good relationship with his parents and siblings (which I know he does), and that there isn’t any some sort of “repressed trauma” that “made” him gay. For all that we know, he was born that way, and he can’t change.

Now, his friendship has been one of the most important and meaningful to me in the years since we’ve met. We come from different countries but have spent a lot of time together. We have even traveled together (some of my fondest memories). We often update each other and talk just about anything. No, he’s not secretly into me (he’s into blondes, and I’ve known a lot of his crushes, lol), and he has known and been friends with my wife for about as long, because we all met around the same time. In fact, it’s a bit of a long story, but if it wasn’t for this gay man, then I wouldn’t be happily married today to begin with.

I won’t pretend that I don’t know what the Bible says about homosexuality, and how offensive and hurtful those eight short pieces of text are to people within the LGBTQ+ community. But tell me sincerely, what can I do about it? What can we do about it? Can we just pull a Nineteen Eighty-Four, erect a “Ministry of Truth”, and redact every statement about homosexuality in every Bible that’s in circulation? Should we just get rid of Christianity and the Bible altogether? I’m sincerely asking you to tell me what the solution here is.

As for me, I have long decided that I don’t want to be a part of this “us versus them” circus.

My friend is gay. That won’t change. I don’t want to change him. I know that I couldn’t anyway. We cannot change others. We can only change ourselves.

Therefore, I have chosen to accept my gay just friend as he is.

Gay.

Time will tell if I made the right choice. I’m willing to die eternally (as per the beliefs of my particular Christian denomination), if my choice to embrace this friendship is “a sin” that I’m unrepentant of. Ultimately, I’m not worried about whether I will “be saved” or not though. It’s not up for me to decide. I’m worried about my relationship with God. He is also a good friend to me—my best friend, in fact. I worry that what I do and say things that offend Him—Him who created me and died for me. And I have come to believe that it would be exceedingly offensive to God for me to antagonize my friend for being gay, given that He died for him as well.

All of this is to say that, it seems that a gay man and a Christian man can be close friends, agree on many things, work together (as we have), and live in harmony.

All it took, is for both of us to be willing to be friends.

Now, of course, I’m not suggesting that anyone can be close friends with anyone. That’s a different topic altogether.

My point is that we had the potential to become friends, and we didn’t let the political polarization that needlessly pits members of the LGBTQ+ community and Christians against each other to get in the way of that.

But I’ll be honest with you about something.

As careful as my (admittedly introverted) gay friend is to conceal his sexual orientation from those whom he feels he cannot trust...

...as careful am I to conceal my religious beliefs in the vast majority of the social interactions that I have, because I know that they will not be tolerated. And that leads me to the next topic:

On being a “social double agent”...

...as opposed to a “social butterfly”. lol

As you can imagine, as a Christian, I often hear opinions that deeply offend me and hurt my feelings. This is particularly true when I interact with people in my “secular social circles” (I’ll use that term for lack of a better one). Even those who tout themselves as “tolerant”, feel at ease to equate all of Christianity with bigotry of all kinds, including but not limited to sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, you name it. I hear this list of evils that I’m supposedly guilty of all. The time.

When I was younger, I would get angry whenever someone unfairly characterized my religious beliefs.

These days, I just take a deep breath and... say nothing.

In fact, I have stopped the act of telling my people about my religious (or political beliefs) upfront, unless prompted. And in the case of this thread, I bring up Christianity a lot just because of my personal experiences, and because it is an excellent example of the points that I’m making, since it has become such a devise religion.

It just isn’t safe to be open about my religion anymore.

I have at times gotten into very ugly fights with people (both on and offline), as well as lost friends, or even been excluded from entire friend groups.

A lot of it was justified. I’ll admit that. Still, if you think about it, isn’t that counterproductive? That is, for me, a Christian, to be excluded from “secular social circles” because of some of my beliefs?

Think about it: If I keep being excluded from social circles where the majority of people have opinions different from those of my own, then where am I supposed to go? Well, back to my “echo chambers”, of course.

Isn’t this a self-perpetuating, circular problem that we have in our society today?

People keep excluding each other from social circles for dissenting opinions. Therefore, they retreat into their echo chambers. This makes them exclude dissenting opinions even more, further radicalizing their beliefs. And the cycle continues.

Now, I am aware that I’m about as intelligent and mature as a molding aubergine. lol So, I know that I desperately need to be exposed to a variety of opinions, thoughts, philosophies, ideologies, etc., in order to not become some radical fundamentalist myself. Of course, I’m not willing to adopt any opinion that is out there just for the sake of appearing “tolerant” or open or whatever. However, I know that I can learn from all, and will definitely come closer to a more balanced worldview if I do (cue the cliché) “keep an open mind”.

So, what have I done in these last few years to ensure that I retain access to “secular social circles”?

As I said, I have kept quiet.

I mix and mingle with folks of all kinds of strokes, and when I hear them criticize an opinion that I hold, if I feel that me “coming out” will start a fight, then I just choose to stay quiet and nod.

Experience has taught me that, in many cases, an opportunity will eventually arise for us to discuss that exact opinion on good faith terms, sometime in the future.

But in that particular moment, it just may not be the right time to do that.

Yes, on occasion I meet people on either side who are just completely obnoxious and can’t be reasoned with, whether vocally or silently. They will demand that you either side with them or against them. In those cases, I just distance myself. Acting like a doormat doesn’t help anyone either.

And yes. It could be that I never get an opportunity to “set the record straight” about who I truly am or what I truly believe in.

So what though?

I don’t think that I’d like my epitaph to read: “He always made sure that people knew his opinion about every single thing.” lol

I lose nothing from occasionally “swallowing the frog” (as we say in Portuguese) and keeping quiet. My “opinions” won’t be offended if I don’t defend them. lol

Now, does that mean that sometimes people think that I agree with them when I actually don’t? Would they be offended to eventually find out? Probably. But, I mean, what’s the alternative? “To always say it as it is”? Because that’s really going to benefit both parties, right? lol I mean, the choice is yours. You can be my friend, have meaningful interactions with me, and accept that I may secretly not see eye-to-eye with you (which, let’s be honest, none of us 100% agree on everything), or you can continue to retreat into your echo chamber.

But do my opinions really matter that much? Am I somehow incapable of being a good person to you, and enrich your life with my friendship, because I have opinions that are different from yours? Do my opinions define who I am?

I won’t say that they “completely don’t”, but I’ll say this:

Years ago I learned this really useful principle (starts at 1m 6s) from CGP Grey, that a better way to relate to our opinions, is to think of them as items that are “separate” from us (as in, bodily), and sit somewhere in a “box” (if we were to mentally visualize this principle), so that when people inevitably “attack” them, we don’t feel like the attack was directed at us. This also makes it easier to swap them out if we find better ones, and in turn means that our opinions aren’t what fundamentally defines us, so “hiding” them isn’t tantamount to deception. Rather, we are then primarily defined by how we interact with others. To simply this principle: It isn’t what you think or say, it’s what you do.

Is me adhering to this principle dishonest on my part? I’ll let God decide that. I think that it matters to Him more that I live in harmony with people, though I could be wrong.

But do know that adopting this attitude is very difficult. It took me a lot of painful practice to get to the point that I am at now (and I still have such a long journey ahead). And it just so happens that I subject myself to opinions that I disagree with on a daily basis, not just in discussions with other people, but even through the media that I consume (where some sources are those that often express views that disagree with mine). It physically hurts me, sometimes. I feel a knot in my stomach. I won’t pretend that I’m stronger than other people. I’m not. I often think to myself: “My goodness. That is such a horrible misrepresentation of my opinion!”

And believe it or not...

...that even happens to me in my church.

I generally agree with the tenants and fundamental beliefs of the denomination that I am a member of.

But boy, oh boy, would I be quickly burned at the stake if some of them knew what I actually believe concerning certain topics. lol

(And this includes what I wrote earlier about my gay friend.)

It seems that we’re just not allowed to hold opinions from different camps in one brain anymore.

And this leads me to the next topic:

The appropriation or co-opting of lifestyles and the death of variety

A lot of Christians these days say that the carnivore diet is the best and most “natural” one.

I’m a Christian and I don’t agree with that.

Surprisingly, my denomination happens to be one of the few ones out there that mostly subscribes to veganism.

Unfortunately though (in my opinion), politically conservative Christians (especially the loudest ones on social media) have made the carnivore diet a part of their “brand”. And very many of them do push the idea that vegans are always weak, unhealthy, and leftist.

In other words: Vegan = left wing. Carnivore = right wing.

If this sounds dumb to you, then welcome to my club. I also think that it sounds dumb.

Yes, I’m vegan because of my religion... and also because of the environment, animals, and my health.

And speaking of the environment, yes, I think that humanity has a (God-given) duty to steward the earth, and I think that green energy is the technology that we should invest in.

Crazy! Who would think that Christians, who believe something as ridiculous as the idea that God created the earth in seven days, and told the first two humans He created to take care of a garden, could be environmentalists? lol

One attitude that I think contributes more to the polarization of politics than almost anything, is this co-opting or appropriation of lifestyles, interests, and political opinions, by the two tribes. And what saddens me the most about this, is that I have observed that many people “choose their tribe”, and then end up subscribing to all of the other ideas of that tribe, even those they disagree with, just because the tribe demands complete loyalty to its entire ideological program.

Just to give an example in the category of “interests”, I find it astonishing how unwelcome Christians are in the FOSS community. Believe it or not, I would love for FOSS to grow and become mainstream. I think that decentralized, free, and open-sourced software would benefit us all. My denomination branched off from Protestantism, which may deserve criticism for a lot of things, but not for being closed to technological and openly-shared innovations, as printing Bibles in the vernacular (German) was central to the popularization of the printing press. So, I don’t think that my religious beliefs make me somehow incompatible with open-sourced software. Would a FOSS app get offended that I believe that its was “code” was “programed” by a “higher intelligence”, and that it didn’t evolve out of the silicon and copper by pure chance? lol

This “death of ideologically diversity”, if I may call it that, is what led us to this situation where, in the words of the guys from The Juice Media, we are left with all but two tribes to plead our loyalty to: Shit™ and Shit Lite™. lol

And that leads me to the next topic:

How I vote

I don’t.

I voted once, in a parliamentary election, not long after I turned 18 in 2007.

Side note: I’m still a babe with regards to politics, but I was a political zygote when I became old enough to legally vote. What is holding us back from using our much neglected systems of education to teach students about how our political systems work? How they can participate in politics? How they can obtain information about politicians and parties? Call it “Political Literacy 101” if you will.

Either way, I never voted again. A big reason is simply because I began to spend more time abroad than at home when I turned 22. And since I’m 29, I’ve been permanently living abroad, with no plan of returning to the absolute dumpster fire that the Portuguese political landscape has been in the last few years.

But another big reason is just because... I don’t “who” to vote for.

First of all, it seems that every party that makes it into power, is ultimately caught in multiple scandals. And given enough time, every politician will turn out to have done something deeply corrupt and/or outright illegal. Very many of them get blatantly away with it and laugh in our faces.. We keep “voting for change” (which the candidates and parties promise), but after the victory celebrations are over, it’s back to the status quo, or maybe even a step deeper into the mire.

Furthermore, no politician or party seems to represent me. Until 2022, in Portugal, there was a Christian, center-right party (they would have characterized themselves as such) named CDS-PP. But that year, they lost all remaining seats they had (and that after being existing since 1974, founded right after the military coup that returned democracy to the country). Whats particularly unfortunate about this, is that an actually dangerous, populist, far-right party rose to replace them. CDS-PP are kind of back now, but in a way that makes them even less representative for me.

You will tell me that abstaining from voting is the same as casting my vote with the powers that be. But I have also heard from many people that casting my ballot in favor of a small and independent party, has the exact same effect. The big parties are “guaranteed to win”, so any other option is not a “useful vote” (which is an expression that I dislike, and is, as I understand it, what we call a “strategic vote” in Portugal) So, as much as the system seems to encourage (or at least, not be effective enough to prevent) the polarization of the isle, it would seem to me that the voting habits of the population do exactly the same. It would require a large majority of us to collectively agree to refuse to vote for the two, primary, ruling parties, for any real shakeup to occur. But how can we achieve that agreement?

I live in Latvia, and it isn’t a perfect system either, but the people here do one thing right: They have and vote for a lot of small parties that hold seats in their parliament, giving voters a real choice and forcing politicians to compromise, compromise, compromise when forming coalitions. Again, I’m politically ignorant, so correct me if I’m wrong, but in theory, this should make it more likely that moderate policies end up the ones that are enacted, right? Which in turn should displease every citizen only slightly, rather than pleasing either only one half or the other.

I brought up The Juice Media YouTube channel before, and I’d like to recommend to you this very funny three-minute-long video, that is as much a parody as it is highly informative, where the creators warn Australians about how the two-party system is about to become entrenched in Aussie politics. The video lists the large number of alternative minority parties that can be voted for, and how the red and blue dinosaurs currently in power are working to use the system to make it impossible for any of them to get a seat at the table. Talk about kangaroo politics! lol

I don’t think that packing a parliament (or the chambers of the US Congress for that matter) with many small parties, is what is going to solve all of these problems. I know that. And unfortunately, in a way, the polarization has even affected how parties form coalition governments, creating all sorts of chaos. We’ve seen that recently in my country, as well as in Spain and France. I haven’t been paying too much attention, but it seems to be an issue in Germany as well. If you happen to come from any of these countries, or know a lot about their political systems, then please do enlighten me. This is all to say, that I acknowledge that coming up with a better system is a complex and complicated matter.

Still, I cannot imagine that having lots of small parties in an assembly would be worse than what we have in the United States at the moment, which despite all the talk about “checks and balances”, seems to be a popularity contest that is an eternally swinging pendulum of “winner takes all” politics.

And by the way: I say “we”, because when the United States “sneezes”, the rest of the world catches a cold. My lungs have been coughing up “tariffs” lately. It’s rather painful. I think that, as important as it is to respect the sovereignty of a nation’s electorate, we also need to stop pretending that any countries’ politics are completely inconsequential to their neighbors, or worse, the rest of the world. They’re not, and the US is a particularly heavy link in this chain. In other words, as “apolitical” as I feel these days, politics affect me nonetheless.

Can we accept the outcome of elections?

And that leads me to my last point.

I would like to see an utopia where those who are pro-choice and those who are pro-life, live together in harmony, and don’t clash with each other.

But inevitably, they will. A woman will pregnant and want an abortion, and someone close to her (or the state) will want to prevent that.

And this is just one example where the freedoms and right of one group can clash with the freedoms and rights of another group.

So, sadly, I have to admit defeat. I don’t think that we can reverse the political polarization. I also don’t think that we can prevent more civil wars. They have happened in the past, and they will happen in the future. I just can’t imagine what thing could possibly make everyone stop for a moment and think: “Hey, maybe it would be best to just let others live however they choose to”, and then cooperate to build a system that somehow, magically makes that a reality.

And even if one cohesive ideology could conquer every single human mind and take control of the world (which would be a horrible idea, but for the sake of the argument, let’s imagine it for a second), I’m willing to bet that, given human nature, sooner or later, some new kind of division would come out of it. A good illustration of this are episodes 12 and 13 of the 10th season of South Park. They were hilarious, for various reasons (including for making fun of the launch of the Nintendo Wii), but the overarching story in those two episodes is that, in the future, there are only atheists. They, however, broke off into three factions and started a war because... well... I won’t spoil it, but you can watch it for yourself in the 13th episode, between 16m 45s and 17m 55s. It’s hilarious.

I try to act in a manner where I accept the outcome of elections, and more broadly speaking, the societal shifts that go along with them. I’ve been a Christian since around 2004, and the world has only become more hostile to my kind, but I just move on with my life. At the same time, I try to avoid to cause any disturbance to anyone around me, especially those who associate my religion with painful lived experiences.

But even the Bible warns me (or at least, that’s how I interpret it), that a day will come, when I will be persecuted for my beliefs, particularly “keeping the Sabbath holy”, or said differently, refusing to work on Saturday. And I have felt that this is a real and growing danger, as it’s becoming the norm for businesses and companies to expect their employees to work on Saturday. I have been unemployed for a while now, and part of my difficulty in finding a new job is that no employer wants to give me Saturday off (I should add that I always offer to work from Sunday to Friday). This state of things is partly due to politics. But there was once a group of people that was persecuted and killed, and they happen to also refuse to work on Saturdays, so it’s not impossible that something like that might happen again. And if that day comes, then... well... I’ll take the bullet.

It worries me that people are increasingly dissatisfied with election results, unwilling to accept them and move on, and that more and more are openly (or secretly) calling on those around them to start a violent uprising. J6 may have been a foretaste of that. We also saw the “mostly peaceful protests” that took place in 2020. More recently, a bullet missed its intended target by one inch, preventing what could become a complete catastrophe (though causing the electorate to vote for a different one). I would like to the Americans among us to take head, because we saw how absolutely brutal a civil war can be, when all the weapons at your disposal are primitive firearms. So imagine what a civil war would like with very effective, modern firearms. I’d rather not imagine that. So, shouldn’t we take a deep breath and turn the heat down?

If you have made it this far, you’re a trooper.

I want to give a special thanks to the kind people maintaining Tildes for allowing me to participate on here (especially if I’m not banned after posting this, lol).

I can’t wait to read your comments.

Much love from Latvia.

So I was raised in a religious household with prayer and such but due to things like a dysfunctional family where some members used religion in a very unhealthy way, combined with distrust I have developed over the years of any sort of authority (and some of the teachings that i disagreed with), I just couldn't fully reconcile being part of the religion I was raised in and left.

However, despite the complicated relationship I have with God (I am left unsure as to whether He exists and if He is truly loving), it has proven a useful outlet for my gratitude for life.

I see unhoused people around me, people struggling with drug addiction, I am friends with a nurse who works in a psych ward and they sometimes text me the saddest stories. combine that with the fact that I was laid off for 6 month during the tech layoff season (I was over the moon when I finally landed a job), I have a lot of gratitude for the fact that I have a job in something I am passionate about, can afford my lifestyle and and a roof over my head. basically the necessities.

And I find I have a need to direct this gratitude somewhere and the idea of God proves useful in these cases.

For people who don't believe in God, do you feel a need to express gratitude at anything and if so, how do you do it?

Update: https://tildes.net/~health.mental/1hnb/struggling_with_nihilism_and_the_inability_to_enjoy_things#comment-e8s1

Preface #1: I know the first response with something like this will be "go see a therapist" - I have been in therapy for over a decade now. There are a lot of things it has helped with (specifically trauma-focused), but nihilism is not something I've been able to get help with. The help has ranged from things like "focus on the micro over the macro" (which I think is probably the best advice, but also can be boiled down to "don't think" and I can't not think), to "find religion" (for me at least: religion doesn't breed hope, hope breeds religion), to "I don't know how to help, I can't relate to that" (...not all therapist are good).

Preface #2: I know the quick response to "life is meaningless" is "so make your own!" but I absolutely despise that logic. If everything is meaningless, than that means making your own meaning is meaningless. It's self-defeating in and of itself. That said, I don't really care about "meaning" anyway. I personally view things as "irrelevant", as if you dig deep enough you get to a point where everything is relevant to nothing. And the conclusion to draw from that is: "it's irrelevant that everything is irrelevant" - similar meaning, but checks out logically significantly better to me. But this has it's own problems that I will go in below.

Preface #3: I know the quick response to the inability to enjoy things is "you don't enjoy things because you are depressed." What I'm positing is the inverse, "I no longer enjoy things, and it's causing me to be depressed." I'm very much not saying the former doesn't happen and I've gone through time periods like that. What I am saying is that the latter is also true, and I'm sure that other people who have dealt with depression for decades understands both "My depression is causing this to happen" and "This is causing my depression to flare" happen.

To give quick context for myself: I had become a nihilistic atheist by the time I graduated elementary school; I had a rather traumatic childhood and my official diagnosis is (C-)PTSD and all the offshoots that come from it like depression and anxiety (Bringing up as I recognize myself these are thoughts that, according to the DSM/ICD, would be from someone with mental disorders). This led to things like dropping out of high school and becoming a mute hikikomori. To make a long story short, in my late teens I got to a point of either suicide or completely revamping my life with the belief that enjoyment could be found via actually being social (friends and dating) and proper self-sufficiency/money. I chose the latter for one simple reason: there was nothing to lose, so just trust the process. It took over a decade of constant self improvement, but I became a sociable person part of different clubs and hosting my own parties/gatherings with a very active dating life. I also got my degree in comp sci and have done quite well for myself with that. And a lot on top of that just in terms of trying to make the most out of life.

Unfortunately, none of that actually helped. Having to mask to be able to be social/date is exhausting and frankly people suck, and wasting life working 9-5 one of the most depressing things to me. The reason I bring this up is because I did really fucking try, I tried the stuff that everyone says brings happiness - but it don't. And it's all just so irrelevant.

Over the last half decade or so, I just can't bring myself to care about anything. And I mean anything, even super simple things. I'll talk to people or listening to a song and think "why do I care what you have to say?". I'll watch a movie or read a book and can't keep focus because seriously who cares about these imaginary things some person thought up? People I know die and I'll just think "yeah that happens." And the absolute worst for me was when it came for knowledge. Because knowledge was the thing I always cared above all else. But what does "knowing things" matter if "things" don't matter to me?

Which brings me back to preface #2. Everything is irrelevant, but it's irrelevant that it's irrelevant. Except that society demands relevancy to justify ones own existence within it. It's not possible to live an irrelevant life and be part of society. I personally really only see two options: reject society or embrace absurdism.

Speaking strictly personally, I do not see rejecting society as a means of living an enjoyable life. Mostly because I know it will lead to me living out of my car again, spending my time embracing hedonism via drugs and alcohol to fuel escapism until the end comes. And if in the end I'm just going to fuel escapism, why not just escape to begin with?

Absurdism is mostly what I fed into while "turning my life around". But I do have issues with it. One is how much it feels like the "this is fine" fire meme; it recognizes the problem but then rejects that it's a problem. This is fine if "life" itself is not a problem and you are able to enjoy your time regardless (after all, the problem itself is irrelevant so yeah just reject it as a problem), but then that gets to my second and main issue: if you don't enjoy life, what defense against suicide does absurdism have? Yes there is the whole thing of "suicide just adds to the absurdity by claiming meaning is needed" but that's only if you are committing suicide because life has no meaning. I don't care that life is irrelevant, I care that life fucking sucks. Suicide then is not rejecting the lack of meaning, it's rejecting time spent unenjoyably.

I've been able to get through things being both meaningless and unenjoyable with the belief that things would become enjoyable. Now I'm nearly 40 years old, things have played out, and I do not buy into it anymore. Either life needs to be enjoyable, or there needs to be some relevancy to it. Which, I reject the later as even being knowable as a human. Which leaves the former.

Which then comes to the silly question, how do you just enjoy things?

I am able to recognize one of my issues with enjoying things: In order to raise my emotional floor, I have embraced being stoic. Things happen that are out of our control. Things are lost, hardships are had, people die. They are simply facts of life. The problem is that it also prevents enjoying things - enjoyable things are also out of your control, so do not embrace them for they will be gone. Which, moments in time then neither "good" or "bad", they simple are just moments in time. Every moment is simply some indefinite, irrelevant moment in time.

Which, kind of tied to that as well, but another issue I recognize: as I have understood my own trauma and how it's affected me, I've really understood just how much is deterministic in life. Which is especially sad in the case of trauma responses, and how much society basically double downs on the trauma (just easy eg of how "hysterical women" have been treated throughout history, but look at the overlap of BPD and traumatic childhoods).

But now these are not just moments in time, but determined yet irrelevant moments in time.

But that still doesn't preclude enjoying things. And I guess that's mostly what I'm for the search for in life, to figure out what things I actually enjoy/how to actually enjoy things I want to enjoy. Because enjoying life is certainly enough, but that requires life to be enjoyable.

And it's actually part of why I'm even posting this. With all the different ways I've changed my life and such, I've tried to look back at what was actually enjoyable. And long-form text communication is definitely the way I prefer to communicate (oh do I miss when 'social media' was forums). I also recognize the importance of being part of more smaller, tighter-knit communities compared to being a blob in a mass. So it's part looking for help, and part just trying to get back into posting on smaller communities.

But I also feel like I'm all over the place and I do apologize for that. I think to try to summarize to bring the points clearer...like I said before, life either needs to be enjoyable or there needs to be some kind of relevancy to it. So either how do you find relevancy/where am I wrong on that, or how do you find enjoyment (and I don't mean "try new hobbies until you find what you enjoy!" kind of stuff - I've already ran that gauntlet. I'm not asking where to find enjoyment, I'm asking how to feel enjoyment; how are you able to care about things might be a better war to phrase it)?

The kinds of change I'm referring to are hard to put into words. A few examples may be switching from one end of the political spectrum to the other, leaving one country or culture for another, religious conversions and deconversions, or leaving behind one's family. Often, these changes are caused by deeply personal events like receiving a serious medical diagnosis, conflict, the death of a loved one, midlife crisis, or merely examining one's values or beliefs. There are countless other examples of both changes and causes, many of which I've never considered.

There is shared experience between these changes: the world hasn't changed, but somehow everything is different. Everything is in a completely new light; it's as if you've moved between parallel universes. Not everyone has had or will have such a moment, but these changes seem to be the most important in catalyzing who we are. As much as we think sharing opinionated memes or arguing at Thanksgiving is going to shape or mold people around us, it is often personal experiences that actually make such change possible. And some small number of people do experience profound change: racists become antifascists, liberals become stanch conservatives, Christians become atheists. These sorts of life-altering changes are often what tell us most about who a person is.

I made this post because the discussion of these changes are among the most valuable discussions I've had with others, and people often don't get socially-acceptable opportunities to share something so personally important to them. This is potentially a heavy subject, so don't feel that you need to share or elaborate any further than what's comfortable for you.

I miss the magic of Christmas. Today and tonight feels ordinary to me, and I miss that sense of wonder.

I miss the trips my family would take to visit our relatives. I miss the get-togethers, and the feasting, and playing games with my cousins and the family friends.

Even though I'm an atheist now, I miss having to go to midnight mass. I miss the excitement of being able to open one present before going to bed.

Unless some tragedy befalls me, I'm sure I can recapture that magic in my future. I'm not depressed about it. But that's a hope for later. For now, this is it.

For everybody else out there who's having a so-so Christmas... wishing you all the best, and hope you can still find a moment to appreciate the holiday.

Normally in the evenings I have to myself, I keep busy and find satisfaction in coding, or writing, or gaming. Tonight, those things don't feel meaningful.

I just wish I had somebody special to share Christmas Eve with, like in all those cozy Christmas songs. Instead, I'm just tired and want to sleep... But I can't go to bed until me and my mom can get my dad changed, so he's not wet with urine the whole night. Just like last night, and the night before that, and the night before that.

I wish I could have gotten to know my dad as well as I've gotten to know my mom, as an adult instead of as a child. But I also would have never spent this much time with my mom if my dad didn't end up with PCA, so wishing for that is wishing for an impossibility.

Why are people setting off fireworks in my area, starting at midnight? It's already 2:00 AM. It's Christmas Eve, not New Years. Aren't kids supposed to be asleep for Santa Claus to drop off presents? Do kids still believe in Santa Claus, or do they just stay up late playing video games on Christmas Eve now?

Maybe they aren't fireworks, maybe they're shooting at Santa.

I've been hearing some ambulance sirens. My dog is upset. It's hard to feel sorry for myself when there are some people having a much worse Christmas than me. If you're having a true disaster of a Christmas, I am truly sorry and I hope you pull through.

Does anyone have any short-to-medium length content that clearly introduces the ideas of Jung?

I don't mind it being dense philosophically, but there's sort of this deliberate obfuscation of ideas that Jungian content creators utilize towards some end.

In philosophy, specific terms and jargon is necessary to ensure philosophical precision of the idea being presented. If one looks up said jargon, they can gain context about what's being communicated.

As far as Jung content online goes, there's a lot of jargon being used, but I'd wager about 50% of it is made up on the fly. When looked up, the term often either doesn't exist, is an adhoc portmanteau of two random terms, or simply doesn't make sense within the context it's used. Why? It seems like they deliberately are obfuscating their ideas for seemingly no reason. Perhaps there's a perceived invulnerability to criticism if your position on basic ideas can't be nailed down?

It seems that Jordan Peterson is the most prominent idea-obfuscator in this tradition, but I understand why he does it; some of his audience likely wouldn't care for the fact that he's likely what they'd describe as an atheist if you were able to pin down the ideas he conveys (e.g., Christ is but one of many manifestations of a Jungian archetype.)

Kinds of content I'm looking for:

• Newb friendly
• Clearly communicates ideas
• Philosophically precise
• Critical, but not polemic (i.e., no "debunking" videos)
• Video/audio/books preferred

Thank you in advance (:

I find stream-of-consciousness-style writing helps me wrestle with ideas and concepts, organizing thoughts into ideas from the chaos. To be clear, I'm a leftist agnostic (some might say atheist) who's been thinking about new atheism and skepticism a lot recently. I spoke to a friend who is a liberal atheist, and they consider themselves a skeptic first, and an atheist second. This seemed strange to me, not because I'm unfamiliar with the skeptical movement, but because it doesn't fit into my current mental model of skepticism. I don't really like the term skeptic. Below, I will attempt to work out my ideas into words, and hopefully have a conclusion.

A quick note: my view of atheism, especially from this era, was largely mediated by YouTube and limited to trends in the US.

Late '00s and early '10s: The Rise of Reactionary Skepticism

For me, no one embodies this era of atheism better than Christopher Hitchens. His videos were one of the many factors that led to me "converting" to atheism. He was a brilliant debater, and mastered the art of crafting rhetoric. Being successful in debate doesn't equate to having more accurate beliefs, but it does mean you can convince people of your ideas more effectively. Upon re-watch of these old videos, they are somewhat intellectually unsatisfying. A case that was impactful to me recently was that upon being presented with a fairly standard formulation of the moral argument, Hitchens feigns shock, and implies that Craig (his opponent) had implied that atheists couldn't act morally (which he clearly didn't.) This is why Hitchens destroys his opponents; he is far more effective at debate than Craig, who looks weak when trying to maintain philosophical precision by choosing statements carefully and hedging/qualifying his statements.

Being skeptical is a valid, often important epistemic tool for increasing the accuracy of our beliefs. For the sake of this post, I will oversimplify skepticism to something like "deconstructing big ideas" and "poking holes in overarching narratives". It starts from a position of neutrality, and seeks to determine if there is rational warrant in believing ideology "X". There are various reasons why one could use skepticism to shape their worldview.

There's a certain kind of skepticism that gained popularity during this time. It was the "'x' DESTROYS 'y' in debate" where "x" was often a new atheist and "y" was often an apologist. There's something both persuasive and cathartic about seeing someone representing your worldview deconstruct someone else's. For many, the reason for watching the content was nothing more than the entertainment value of seeing people get "DESTROYED" in debate. For some, the satisfaction of humiliating the opponent intellectually was the entire point.

Early to mid '10s: Seeking Out Other Ideologies to Destroy

There are only so many religious debates one can have before getting bored. There's basically a set list of apologetic arguments one can have these sorts of debate about before they either get too philosophically dense, or are just so incredibly silly that it isn't satisfying to DESTROY them (in the case of young Earth creationist apologetics.) How many videos can one possibly make debating the Kalam before viewers get bored?

It shouldn't necessarily be surprising that many skeptics turned out to be reactionary. Skepticism is, at least dialectically and sometimes politically, a reactionary position. It turns out there are a lot of ideologies and overarching narratives the left believes in: feminism, progressivism, and various beliefs relating to sexual and gender identity. Gender identity at this time wasn't really on the map, but feminism was. Many prominent atheist YouTube channels pivoted to "'x' DESTROYS 'y' with FACT and LOGIC" but instead of deconstructing religion, it sought to deconstruct feminism. If Christopher Hitchens embodied the previous era, though not an atheist, Ben Shapiro embodies this era.

It seems correct to me that these folks were "skeptical" of feminism. They, from a position of neutrality, sought to "poke holes" in feminist ideology. Of course, the new atheists weren't neutral on religion; they were strongly atheistic. So too were these feminist skeptics. They were strongly misogynistic. Of course, like the new atheists before them, only so much content can be made

2016 to Present: Reactionary Skeptics Abandon Atheism

Peter Boghossian, author of A Manual for Creating Atheists is the person I pick to personify this era (he was also partly inspiration for these weird person-on-the-street interviews of Christians where they just begin so-called Socratic questioning ("but WHY do believe that, and WHY do you believe that?"), similar to right-wing person-on-the-street interviews of feminists). He's had multiple interviews where he states that criticizing religion is unhelpful; that Christians can be powerful allies against a much worse religion in needing of deconstruction: Wokeism. (yes, he really does use that word)

Skepticism is now a mainstream component of conservative thought. While Climate Change skepticism has been around for awhile, in the COVID-era, skepticism of vaccines and masks is probably one of the more powerful pieces of evidence that skepticism is a core component of modern American conservative ideology. It's also applied to right-wing ideologies: once united on subjects like foreign interventionism and free trade, now there's greater skepticism among conservatives about once unquestioned conservative beliefs. Despite whether you think they are "doing skepticism the right way" they are certainly "doing a skepticism".

Jordan Peterson, famous reactionary, identifies as a Christian. His actual metaphysical beliefs, though he tries to squirm out of elaborating on them, are closely aligned with what the majority of people would describe as atheism. But, like Boghossian has already recognized, Christianity is a tool to be wielded for reactionary political aims, even if you are a de-facto atheist. In 2023, "Christian" implies "conservative" more strongly than any period in my living memory.

New, New Atheism

The movement that has been abandoned by who I call the Reactionary Skeptics has been left primarily with progressives, LGBTQ folks, and many suffering from religious trauma. Christianity more strongly maps onto conservatism in the modern era, therefore its negation isn't a merely reactionary process; it is a progressive, revolutionary one. In keeping with my cringe habit of anointing a YouTube creator for each era, I'd point to Genetically Modified Skeptic (there's that word) as the embodiment of this era.

Obviously these folks were part of "the movement" (if it can even be called such) the entire time. But they are largely who is left. Why did reactionaries decide to leave? Because they realize that religion structures power in a way that they find beneficial, and that atheism can be used to restructure power in a progressive or revolutionary way.

This movement, due to the aforementioned abandonment is far more profoundly progressive than any previous era. Folks like The Satanic Temple come to mind. It's hard to find an atheist creator nowadays that isn't an outspoken proponent of LGBTQ rights and feminism. Atheism has been ceded to the left.

What's the point of this damn post?!

If you are talking in earnest about atheism now, you're probably a progressive. And I don't think it's helpful to use term skeptic. Yes, what a dumb quibble. And yes, you are a skeptic of one particular largely right-wing overarching narrative. But the term is unhelpful. Its confusing. What is meant by skepticism, whenever I press my progressive "skeptical" friends is something along the lines of "having rational beliefs" or "'good' epistemology", which... like come on, that's not what skepticism means. Besides, most people believe they "have true beliefs", which leads me to wonder, what's the point of telling people you're a skeptic?

I get the point. It's about saying something more than "God's not real." But there are simply better, more impressive political projects with less baggage than skepticism.

Thanks for reading :)

My contribution:

It's 2:17am on a school night, you're a teenager, and you're googling "most disturbing movie ever made" - because you can. Among mentions of films like A Serbian Film and Audition, you also notice that a film with two names is commonly mentioned: Salò, or The 120 Days of Sodom. Huh, even the name sounds creepy. After looking behind you to make sure no one's watching, a brief glance at a summary of the movie explains enough to make you want to forget about the whole thing forever. Regardless, you fall further down the Wikipedia hole... (or in my case, you really do forget about it for 10 years, only to unfortunately stumble across it again yesterday.)

Salò was made in 1975 and is based on a novel written by Marquis de Sade in 1785. It is known as one of the most disturbing films ever made, but as I learned recently, the film and novel somewhat pale in comparison to the real life of the author. Sade was a French guy who committed all manners of wild, outrageous, and terrible behavior throughout his life, and his Wikipedia page is a crazy ride. You know the word "sadism?" This man is literally the etymological origin of sadism. (Also, practically his whole existence requires a content warning. In this case, it seems that the art has never been separate from the artist.)

In 1763, Sade was charged with "outrage to public morals, blasphemy and profanation of the image of Christ," which at first makes him seem pretty cool. Alas, it all goes downhill from here, as he was known as a nuisance and danger to every community he lived in.

Later, when Napoleon Bonaparte issued a warrant for his arrest after being offended by his novels, Sade was imprisoned, then had to transfer prisons because he was being such a disgusting sex pest to other prisoners at the first one. His family had him declared insane and moved to an insane asylum. While in the asylum, he was permitted to direct and perform his plays, using the other patients as actors. Somehow, even when living amongst the most underprivileged members of society in prisons or insane asylums, it seems that Sade was never fully prevented from promoting his ideas and art to the world, even though the subjects he explored were universally horrifying to society - then, as well as now. I found this fascinating.

Sade wrote The 120 Days of Sodom on scraps of paper while in an insane asylum in 1785, and lost it in the Storming of Bastille during the French Revolution. It was somehow rescued (eternally unbeknownst to him,) and was finally published in 1904, to eventually be adapted into the film that sent me down this whole rabbit hole.

While reading about Sade's life, I was surprised not only by the major events in history he was present for, but the lasting impact he had on philosophy, art, and culture. As mentioned above, the word "sadism" has its roots in his name. The Surrealists adopted him as an inspiration in the 1920s, dubbing him the "Divine Marquis" and praising his ideas about "sexual freedom." (Side note: I love surrealism, but I swear, I never stop discovering new, unsettling facts about Dali and his ilk.) Along with Surrealism, he is said to have had great influence over Modernist art. Some consider his work to be a precursor of nihilism. Sade also influenced Sigmund Freud, Friedrich Nietzsche, and at least one serial killer.

Discussion

Learning about this guy left me astounded, and I just needed to share with someone. Could I have just posted the Wikipedia article? Yes, but that's not as fun as writing down this crazy story and some of my feelings about it. (Note: I did not link sources excessively in this post, as it generally follows the structure of the Wikipedia article and sources can be found there.)

I couldn't believe I didn't already know about Marquis de Sade before today (maybe because I've never taken a philosophy class?) It also got me thinking that I'd like to hear about any other outrageous, controversial, or just plain strange characters in history that you might know of. Even the other historical figures mentioned above have pretty wild lives themselves. (And on the other hand, I suppose there's so much here to chew on that we may just discuss Sade in general. If so, have at it. I'm particularly fascinated by how such a sick individual has heavily influenced significant parts of our culture, and how to feel about that.)

Fun facts are welcome, considering I certainly didn't bring any.

Share your favorite argument for the existence of God below.

Background: I'm an atheist (and have been for a decade) who's been interested in Christian Apologetics since I was a young Christian. As I entered adulthood, I found myself losing my faith, largely because I grew up in a fundamentalist, Young Earth Creationist household which taught that evolution and God are incompatible. While I no longer believe in this lack of compatibility, my belief in God never came back. I've tried to give it an honest effort, and there are many compelling reasons why I want Christianity to be true:

• Reunification with loved ones who've passed
• Absolute moral justice exists
• A plan for my life, and meaning in my suffering
• Access to unconditional love; to have a personal relationship with my creator
• Surviving my own death

For a variety of reasons seemingly outside my direct control, I still don't believe. It doesn't help that I've been introduced to strong arguments against the existence of God (e.g. the problem of evil and its subsets) which have rebuttals of varying quality from Christian philosophers. I don't think this lack of belief is my fault, or for lack of trying; I can't make myself believe anything. I try to be open to arguments, and this has led to an obsession with revisiting apologetics.

Now I think of apologetics as at least a fun mental exercise; combing through the arguments, atheist rebuttals, and responses to those rebuttals. That's probably strange, but it tickles the right parts of the brain to keep me engaged.

*Disclaimer: I am not an apologist, theologian, or a philosopher, just someone interested in the topic. Perhaps this could've been asked in r/AskPhilosophy or maybe even r/changemyview, but I figure the conversation might be good here

The recent post here on Absurd Trolley Problems has had me thinking about ethics again, and I realized I've never been introduced to how one can be an atheist and be not only a moral objectivist, but a moral realist. I remember a debate I watched years ago with William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens where Craig asks Hitchens what the basis of morality is, and he acts insulted, insinuating that Craig intended to say that atheists couldn't "be good without God" (which I think became a famous moment for the both of them.)

But I never got the answer to Craig's question that I wanted. Without God, how should we determine what moral facts there are? How should we determine if there are moral facts at all? I grew up in a fundamentalist religion, and found myself in adulthood deeply interested in apologetics, and see similar responses in debates to the one mentioned above. Now while I believe Hitchens was a moral relativist, I often see and hear cases where atheists do seem to want to say that [insert atrocity here] was objectively morally wrong. Can atheists reasonably claim that there are not only moral facts, but objective moral facts that they can access? Upon examination, aren't you ultimately required to derive an "ought" from an "is"?

I skimmed The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris some years ago, and it seems to "avoid" (i.e. commit) the "is/ought" fallacy by simply declaring that "human flourishing" (however that may be defined, separate issue) is an irreducible "ought" in his eyes. The book is great, I think that science should be part of the discussion about how one ought to live their life if the goal is some end like human flourishing; doctors already give prescriptions for behavior based on a presupposed goal between both parties to promote health and well-being. Both of these necessarily presuppose a state of affairs that one "ought" to seek to attain.

But none of this answers why one "ought" to do anything; sure, there are facts about what one "ought" to do in order to attain a state of affairs, but that isn't morality: that's true of any subject where two people agree to share a goal. It doesn't tell us why they should have that goal. None of this feels like a satisfying answer to the question Craig posed. I don't feel like I'm any closer to these objective moral facts.

I should say this topic is really meaningful to me. I've thought a lot about veganism, and the suffering of non-human animals. I've thought about the impact of my consumption decisions instead of perpetually leaning on the "no ethical consumption" crutch (even though there are reasons why that would have merit in certain circumstances. I literally can't stop thinking about climate change and how powerless, yet simultaneously complicit I feel. I've read Peter Singer, Scripture, Kant, John Stewart Mill, Rawls, and works from many others, and can't find any reason for an atheist (and maybe even a theist?) to think that there are these moral facts at all, much less objective, accessible ones. This really leaves me with "I guess I should just do whatever it is that I feel like doing", which probably seems to you as unsatisfying as it was for me to type.

Last week I woke up to yet another PM from someone I've come to admire from afar on tildes. This was a user I'd seen many times on Tildes, bringing with them a unique and powerful voice. This person was a minority. They brought a voice to the table that was like a breath of fresh air - I'd frequently see them enter threads dominated by a single opinion and make everyone challenge their assumptions. They would enter and offer their shoes to anyone who'd like to try them on and get a glimpse into how the world might work for them, should they be brave enough to walk a mile or two.

This is not the first PM I've received from someone who decided this website had become too troublesome to continue participating and it's likely not the last I will see. While it is heartbreaking to see them go, it is equally heartbreaking to me that the reason they are going is often not because people are trying to push them away. By far and large, I see a majority of tildes users actively participating in discussions with good faith. By the results of the last census, increasing diversity was of importance to the majority of users and I do not think they were free-text typing that in without good cause.

This post is one that I've been contemplating in the back of my mind for a very long time now. It first really occurred to me nearly a year ago when a fairly well known person of minority status got banned for being too confrontational and aggressive to the kind of voice they didn't want to see on Tildes. I wasn't sure how to address it at the time, and I wasn't entirely certain it would be a problem, but the year since this post I've become hyper aware to its existence in a way I wasn't previously. In fact, I've had a bit of this conversation on more than one outlet on the internet already, because my recognition of this behavior has had me upset many times since. To this extent, I thank that user, because it truly did open my eyes to a behavior which I believe is self-sabotaging, but often genuine in nature.

I believe the simplest way to explain what is happening is through the law of large numbers. While not everyone responded to the 2020 Tildes Census (in fact I would imagine maybe 10% of us did), I'm going to use it as a model to touch on these issues. There were a total of 350 responses to the survey. Of this 86% were male, 67% were heterosexual, 75% were atheist or agnostic (50, 25 respectively), 52% were from the US, and 47% identified as white or Caucasian. I point all of this out to say that as a population we tend to trend towards a particular kind of individual. To be clear, this isn't necessarily bad - we are still quite a small website and we need to start somewhere with a base we know how to pull from.

But this does present a unique problem when it comes to interaction. Let's imagine for a second that 1 in 100 individuals has some sort of problematic behavior on Tildes that manages to find its way into discussion. This behavior might be that they have a strong intolerant opinion on a specific subject but manage to obscure it enough to get past the intolerance detecting capabilities of others. Or perhaps their views are not intolerant, but they simply possess a strong opinion on how something should be worded or an aversion to a particular kind of venting. Because I don't want to throw anyone under the bus I'm going to pull from an upsetting behavior I used to have in my childhood - I couldn't shut my mouth when people would bring up that women make '70 cents on the dollar'.

It's very hard for me to look back and definitively say it was one shaping experience that led me to behave like that. If I had to attribute this shameful behavior, I think there's a few major players. First off, I grew up in an upper middle class family who happened to be located in an area that was very homogeneous. I went to school with the children of tech millionaires, many of whom were white and quite privileged. I think there were a grand total of 4 people of color in my middle school. Things got a lot better once I had made it to high school (by numbers, whites were in the minority), but there's a subtle cultural indoctrination that happens through absorbing what you hear from parents and teachers at a young age. As a young child, I also latched on to early internet behavior. People who were pedantic about grammar, who could use logic effectively, and otherwise followed the rules that rich white people before them set up as the 'correct' way to do discuss were revered on the internet. I remember when being the grammar police was behavior that was actually celebrated. This kind of mindset lead me to read into the research on the matter (also primarily conducted by rich white folks, another bias I'm trying to undo in my life) and the modern research suggested that this figure was outdated and poorly controlled.

I was the 1 in 100 users with the problematic behavior. It took me awhile to learn that I wasn't helping anyone out by offering this information up (turns out there were a lot of people already doing the same work I was and people are smarter than I gave them credit for), but that only scratches at the surface of the real problem. The real problem is that I didn't have the lived experience of a woman entering spaces where this discussion was happening. I wasn't the woman who received less pay than their colleagues, who put in more hours, who spoke up but was talked over, whose ideas were restated by their male peers, or who clicked on an article link talking about pay inequality or women's rights and how far we still have to go and was met with hostile comments. I didn't know how soul-crushing it could be to be met with nearly the same resistance in every public sphere where this was being discussed. I didn't know how tiring it was to have to justify my existence and to explain my struggles to those who hadn't lived the same life as me. I didn't know how heart wrenching it would feel for someone I valued, trusted, and loved to express opinions like these years after I had built up a strong bond with them and for them to be entirely unaware of the damage they were causing.

To be clear, when I say understand I mean to have either experienced it directly enough to begin to actually place myself in the shoes of others or heard about it enough for their experience to truly sink in. It's one thing to acknowledge and know that this behavior exists, it's another to live it and see it first hand on a day where you're hanging on by a thread. To truly understand how mentally exhausting it can be to treated this way was something that escaped my comprehension because I could only live this experience through the words of others. I didn't really start to appreciate this until I got older, because I started recognizing how universal this experience truly was. I don't think I know a single female who doesn't have a story of sexual assault - the rate at which they respond with something in their lives is a stark reminder of how far we still have to come.

What I knew, but didn't truly understand is that if 1 in 100 users have problematic behavior and 1 in 100 users are transgender, we have an equal number of transgender individuals as we do users with problematic behavior. I want you to stop here and reread the last sentence and really absorb it before moving on. Ask yourself what problems might arise by these inequality existing.

In this hypothetical we have an even number of individuals who are going to participate in a thread about a transgender issue as we have transgender individuals. If even 1 of these transgender individuals decides they do not want to engage with this behavior, we're on a downwards slope to eventually having nearly no transgender representation as now they are outnumbered and their voice is more likely to be drowned out by the problematic individuals. As less and less people of the minority engage, because they are discouraged by the expressions of the problematic individuals, less people will wish to engage as the threads become increasingly more hostile.

The problem we have on tildes is that the only way I see for us to become more diverse is to ask for more from those who have, to protect those who do not. I'm calling on everyone to pay closer attention to the intended audience of a thread. We need to look at how discussions are happening throughout the entirety of a thread and do a better job being welcoming of the minority opinion. We need to elevate and celebrate the voices of the minorities in these threads so that they are equal in paradigm to the voices which counter theirs. If a thread's topic is about a minority class such as gays we need to ensure that gays get an equal voice - if one person is dominating replies to gays in the comments, we need to be good allies and help balance the scales.

We also need to stop and think about how these discussions usually play out on the rest of the internet. Do you ever see something like this on twitter and go "definitely not checking the comments"? We need to pay attention to this, and strive to ensure the same doesn't eventually apply to Tildes.

A common example of this that I've seen is present in threads directed at specific minorities. The early discussion in a fantastic thread titled What's hard about being a woman? exemplifies this issue - because there aren't enough women on Tildes, the thread was dominated by male voices. Only one of these individuals were particularly problematic, but there was a hesitation from women I knew to enter this thread because an environment dominated by the male voice is not welcoming. Some of the women who entered this thread were met with replies challenging some of what they said, rather than elevating their voices and celebrating their participation. A small minority of men were in this thread to learn, but weren't aware of how the way they engage with other men on the internet was not appropriate for this venue. They didn't stop to consider that a thread dominated by male voices was neither welcoming nor a good start. If they had merely waited for women to start populating the thread, and replied to them, or opened soft with commentary on what they had seen in women without providing too much analysis they may have made the thread more welcoming.

Another common example of this that I see happened in a thread I posted titled Stop telling women they have imposter syndrome. I actually had to stop myself from posting in this thread because I had an inkling that it was going to exemplify the behavior I wanted to address in a thread like this and I didn't want to disrupt what would naturally happen on Tildes absent my intervention. Nearly every reply in that thread criticizes the author for not mentioning that men can have impostor syndrome too. Imagine entering this thread as a woman - even if you emotionally connected with the author on some level, would you bother engaging when highly regarded comments focus on nitpicking the author for not being 'inclusive' enough? As far as I could tell, even the title doesn't call upon the reader to critically examine what imposter syndrome is and who is eligible to suffer from it. It's calling upon the reader to stop telling women that they have imposter syndrome (or to stop others when they make this statement), when the problem is a sexist environment. I've even received recognition from women on Tildes outside of this thread (through DMs and discussions on different platforms) who thank me for posting these threads, but their voice is often conspicuously absent from the thread itself. I do not want to speak on their behalf, but I can guess that a major reason for that is the environment we are creating here on Tildes is not welcoming enough for them to feel it is worth commenting.

The insidious part of this problem is that very often the people creating a hostile environment do not intend to do so. They truly wish to be inclusive. Or they see behavior like this and they don't understand why it's problematic - it doesn't cause a flag to go off in their brain which tells them that they should jump in and fight on behalf of the people they want to protect. But this behavior is slowly causing minority individuals to flee this website. I don't know and cannot know them all, but waking up to PMs about someone else leaving makes my heart sink. Entering threads about the intersectional minorities that I find myself and my loved ones a part of often makes me feel similarly upset, downtrodden, and makes me feel like I want to engage less and less with this platform.

I wish I had an answer. I wish I could wave a magic wand and make everything better. To give everyone omniscience, or at least a day's firsthand experience of someone radically different than them. Unfortunately, I do not. I think the best I can offer at this time is this post - a call on all of us to do better; a start of an ongoing discussion on how we can protect the minorities among us so that we can be bettered by their presence.

I don't know if this would be only an option when you are creating a comment, or added to the list of tags like "Exemplary" and such, but an option to have a "Spoiler" comment tag that collapses the comment but doesn't affect ranking might be a good edition to the "What is your favorite media/What have you consumed recently/Recommendation threads." It's also something that the site already supports, and most importantly, looks atheistically pleasing to me compared to highlightable Spoiler Script.

Hey Tildians,

This is going to be a really long post that is an ongoing search and conversation I am having with myself. Its going to be about religion and culture. Sorry for the shitty title, I am really bad at coming up with titles, I tend to ramble a lot.

I'm currently going through a crisis both of faith and cultural identity. Not because I am questioning either, but because I have never had either. I'm a white man from america. Growing up as a kid, my parents gave me the option to look at religions and choose one if any that spoke to me. None did, so I didn't go for a long time. In high school I attended Methodist Church every weekend because I felt pressured by my Boy Scout troop to be Christian, the Methodist Church let us use their church for our meetings despite none of the troop being members of the church, and the priest there at the time was a really great guy that I liked a lot. I spent a lot of time talking about faith with him and eventually, he said to me "let's face it, you don't believe the things I am preaching. That is completely fine. You're welcome in the church, it'll always be home, I'm always here to talk about faith or life or anything, but you don't believe in Christianity and you owe it to yourself to try and find something you do believe." And he was right, I didn't. So I studied a few things here and there and none ever stuck. So I've just been agnostic. But I desperately want to believe in a religion and have a sense of community and just, something to tie my individual beliefs to the world and know other people feel the same way I do.

Similarly, I grew up pretty much "American". I know my heritage is from Ireland, Poland, UK, Croatia, Germany because I did reports on ancestry in school, but they've never been a part of my identity. We never talk about being from Poland other than explaining to people why my last name is spelled the way it is (WHICH IS STUPID BECAUSE IT'S NOT A WEIRD SPELLING OR PRONOUNCED DIFFERENT THAN IT LOOKS). It just isn't a thing. I've always envied my friends whose families are very proud and invested in their heritage. And that's not for a lack of trying, I've tried to get invested in them, but there aren't really communities around me for it, my family doesn't give a shit, and even if I did, I'm like 15% everything so it doesn't feel like I'm REALLY from that culture. I guess that's why some people are so extreme about being American. They're such a mix of so many different European countries that if a parent isn't invested in a specific culture, it's hard to identify with any single one, so they rally behind America. It is all they have.

I don't know. It's very weird crisis that came out of nowhere in the stupidest ways (rewatching avatar and then having a crisis of faith looking at a chacra candle in a used book store). I've realized that I am paralyzed by the lack of a foundation of my identity. Personality traits and political views and hobbies are all malleable and change over time and so what I define myself as now could be completely gone and irrelevant in 2 years time and something about that terrifies me. It makes me wish there was something I could tie myself to that doesn't change, like what country my family is from. And if not that, an felling like I undestand the world around me would be great, and something religion provides. Also, the community wouldn't be something I'd hate to have.

Tangentially to this, I'm having a weird relationship with faith in another way. I keep finding myself gravitating towards budhism. I don't know why, but it just is what I keep ending up looking at. I have 6 different bibles, a torrah, and a quran that I've read. None feel quite right. I keep ending up reading more about budism. But I feel SO WEIRD about it. It feels like I'm that white dude everyone hates that wont stop talking about budism. I don’t know. I know I shouldn’t let the outside world’s perceptions affect my religious views. But that doesn’t mean it is easy not to.

Guess to make this more of a convo I’ll ask some questions to generate discussion:

Religious folks: How has growing up with a religion effected your life? Do you think you’d be a drastically different person without it?

Atheists: How weird does this sound to you? Did you go through a similar crisis before landing on atheism

People who grew up with a strong cultural identity: How has that effected your life? Are you generally happy that you have that identity and community? Were there ever times you wished you weren’t a part of it?

Intro

Hello everyone.

Due to @Kat’s ever-failing health, I will be analyzing the data instead of her this time around. If you have no idea what this is about, see the demographic survey that was posted on the day of Tildes’ half-year birthday. She’s done this before, so let’s see what's new.

The original survey was answered by 404 people, while the half year survey was answered by 293. Though the total number of replies was lower, the completion rate was actually higher: 293 responses from 422 unique visitors, or 69.4%, up from the first year’s 404/599=67.4%. The decrease in answers is most likely attributed to the change of the default sort from “Activity, all time” to “Activity, 3 days”: the response rate held fairly consistent for the first three days, then plummeted after the third as the topic stopped being able to gain any publicity. Though response rates on the original were not high after the first three days, there was a steady trickle up until the survey stopped accepting responses.

While the numbers are relatively big (for a community of this size), do take anything found with a healthy dose of scepticism. Even though the original dataset she shared with me does not contain any identifiable information (all I can see are randomly-generated user strings) the specifics of that data will not be posted, as was mentioned during the original survey. This is because I am unable to be certain I can sufficiently anonymize it. Typeform has created a summary of the data on a per-question basis with substantially more datapoints than this thread, which you can find https://themeerkat.typeform.com/report/H2TtYg/rVf75AqbKaPncy6y.

Explanation

I will compare the statistics with a similarish reference set based on the six most common territories, all of which are above one percentage of the survey answers. That means when I compare on the general populace, I will base it on numbers from USA, Canada, UK, Australia, the Netherlands, and France.

This means it will be weighted like this:

I’ll clean up my data sheet and post it in the comments later. You all are absolutely encouraged to fix it because it will most likely contain errors.

The interesting stuff

What has changed in the first half year?

Age

This time around an age range was used instead of an exact numerical input, but if we were to assume that everyone is aged in the middle of their age range (so 20 for 18-22 year olds, for instance), the average age of a user would be 26.84 years, or 26 years, 9 months, and 4 days old (roughly). So we’ve grown a bit younger than last year, on average.

Gender and identity

Gender distribution seems to be roughly the same. We see a small decrease in percentage of heterosexuals, divided roughly evenly on the remaining categories. We also see a significant increase in the amount of transgender users, but since the amount reported is small, that could also just be statistical noise. The percentage of polyamorous people has remained exactly the same. For pronouns, there are only three users who prefer it/its, and zero who prefer any neopronoun set: every “Other” was offering commentary on the question rather than answering it. Similarly, almost all of the “Others” for orientation were expressing that they didn’t understand the specifics of the options given.

All in all, little has changed.

Territorial

In both surveys, three options dominated: the USA, the UK, and Canada. On that end, little has changed, though it seems that all of the Swedes disappeared, with zero answering the half year survey as compared to eight for the first one. Wonder what they’ve been busy with.

Native language

Unsurprisingly, about everyone speaks English. What is more surprising is the lack of native multilinguals: fewer than 6% of Americans who natively speak English also natively speak a second language. For comparison, that’s 10% for Australians, 21% for Canadians, and 13% for the UK. This represents an overall decrease in geographic diversity, with users coming from 36 different countries as compared to 42 the first time.

Religion

Compared to the world at-large, we sure are a god-denying folk. A whopping 52% of us consider ourselves atheists, whereas the sample data puts it at 12.1%, so we’re far from the norm of our fellow citizens.

We got a few interesting answers in the “other” section of the religion part of the survey. We got a few interesting ones I had never heard of before, like “Discordian”. But generally speaking, around half of them were either “none” or one of the actual options. Two stood out to me though.

To the one Chinese user who filled it in as “The heck is chinese traditional”: I have no idea either.

To the one Australian user who wrote “Left-hand path Heathen”, you be yourself, mate.

Politics

The average has barely moved in the last half year—we’re still slanted very much to the left. Unlike the first survey, there was no freeform input this time around, so the specifics are hard to discuss.

Computers

We have seen a drastic fall in the percentage of Windows users. It was at 60%, and is down to 43%. Nearly all of this has gone to Linux, which is now at 38%. That’s quite large, especially compared to the reference data, which has Linux use among web users at 1.23%. It’s like a herd of penguins in here.

Mobile phones

Compared to half a year ago, not many of us have switched mobile OS. Compared to the calculated data, we like Android slightly more than average. 62% vs 72%.

Not much interesting in the “other” section, though I will give a salute to the one American user still holding out on Windows 10 Mobile.

Work

We have a pretty even distribution with three exceptions. “Computer software”, “Never employed”, and “IT”. Nearly 3/4 who answered “Never employed” are currently students.

Among the students, we only have one student that proudly smokes and has no interest in quitting. The campaigns seem to be working.

Tildes usage

If we look at the users who visit Tildes multiple times per day, we see a few interesting trends. Nearly all of them use Android, and nearly all of them are employed. Beyond that it all seems surprisingly… average.

Overall, people rated Tildes as a platform as-it-stands a 5.7/7 (0.81), and their optimism for the future of the site at a 5.4/7 (0.77). The most important reason they use the site (of the options given) is “Minimal, fast design” at a 4.6/5 (0.92), with “Privacy-consciousness and lack of trackers” right on its heels. 20.8% of users have ever contributed money to Tildes (surprisingly high, compared to most donation campaigns), with about half as many making a recurring donation.

Despite @Kat’s insidious attempt to influence the data, “waves” as a demonym only received 5.5% of the vote. The leader for that, overwhelmingly, is “no demonym at all”, with a combined 49% of the votes and 18.5% of respondents strongly preferring the site not to have a demonym. Second place, the generic “users”, only has 15.8% in comparison. The first Tildes-specific demonym present is Tilders/~​rs, with 13.4%.

Most notably, about ⅔ of users would prefer Tildes to be remain invite-only long-term.

Freeform questions

The survey had three freeform questions: “What do you like most about Tildes, thus far?”, “What do you like least about Tildes, thus far?”, and “What is the most pressing missing feature/‘pain point’ for you about Tildes in its current state?” All the comments fill over 30 pages, so it seems like we really have a lot to say. You can download and look at all of the raw answers here, if you’d like. They’ve been shuffled to ensure privacy.

Likes

A large majority of the comments boil down to “a quality of discussion where disagreement is discussed in a respectful and level-headed way”. A very significant amount also point out the lack of “low effort content and trolls” as a good thing. A significant amount also mention the simple and quick-loading interface. We also have one user who believes he can find a twerk team on Tildes.

So on this, @Deimos can feel proud for what he has done. Though you know what really makes the site good? There is one comment that properly gets it: “The people, d’awwww.”. Yes, that includes you.

Dislikes

But not everything is perfect, though negatives about Tildes seem to be a lot less unanimous than the positives. There are a few that repeat a bit more often than others: the biggest one is “left centrism in discussions” or “echo chambers”, though in a close second, as with any political discussion, is its exact opposite with complaints about “too much discussion about left-centrism in discussions”—notably, though, in the question “Do you feel as though Tildes has a good mix of political opinions, for your personal preferences?”, the leading answer was “Yes” with 63%. A small amount of users also think we have too many software developers.

Beyond that, the main complaint that stands out is “lack of users and content”, which I am sure will improve in time.

Missing feature/pain point

This too is very varied. A lot of the comments are actually about features that have been introduced since the survey was done, like bookmarking. Honestly, it’s not that many complaints compared to just likes and dislikes.

The “majority” seem to be on a lack of tag autocompletion, USA-centrism, and the lack of a mobile app.

There was one more section: “If you would like to offer any long-form commentary, criticism, or feedback regarding Tildes, you may do so here.” Due to its nature, I’ll let you read through them yourself in the raw data, if you’re interested.

Closing words

First of all, to everyone who took the time to answer: thank you! I hope this post and the survey has brought some fun to everyone. If there’s an interest, I am sure that Kat, myself, or someone else will make another one at the one year anniversary. We already got some feedback in the previous thread, but we’re always open for more.

I will do some additional data comparisons on request. I might be a bit occupied this weekend, though, so that will come when it comes.

Let's debate religion. I don't think I've seen this topic on Tildes yet and it might be interesting.

My country has practically no visible religion - about 10-15% of our population is religious (mostly seniors) - and just a fraction of them does those religious thing like going to church. Religion basically doesn't exist here. We have a lot of nice churches, but they mostly aren't used.

The thing that I think caused this big amount of atheists (agnostics, ...) is that almost noone is raised to believe in God - in our culture, we don't teach religion at all. Kids are taught that religions exist, but they are not pressed to believe in it such as in other parts of world. They choose what to believe. And God isn't the thing people choose for most of the time.

Whenever I see anything about USA (discussion, film, serial), I frequently see religion there. When I saw it for the first time when I was young, I thought something like "They still have religion there? I thought USA is developed country". I don't think it anymore, I understand better why are people religious, but still - I'd like to know more about more religious cultures and what effect religion have in other countries.

I've been enjoying reading peoples conversations on Tildes. There's been in-depth discussions and debates and open dialogue with a genuine attempt at understanding the other side's opinions. I really enjoy discussing spirituality with all angles of beliefs, so I thought it could be fun to try that here :)

I think it will be important to understand while discussing this that we all have different understandings and definitions of loaded words when referring to things that, by definition, are indefinable. I think it'll help to keep that in mind. One person may use the word "God" and have a picture in their head of a literal being in the clouds with a robe and beard. Another may use the word "God" and it means something else entirely. Like the creative power behind the ongoing evolution of the universe.

Two very different things.

I'll start with a little bit about my own beliefs, and where I'm coming from.

I was raised conservative christian, being taught to believe in a literal 6-day creation, with God resting on the 7th. And we took the commandment to also rest on the 7th day very seriously. Seventh-Day Adventist. We were right in our interpretation of the bible, and everyone else was wrong and in danger of going to hell, including all other religions.

I had an experience about 7 or 8 years ago that shifted my perspective completely. Essentially, I fell into a state of samadhi, had a kundalini awakening, became one with god. Whatever the words used to describe it, or the belief structures that have been built around it, I was there. My body and mind fell away into stillness, and it was just conscious awareness of Peace and Love. No thoughts about it, or physical sensations in my body, just awareness of.

Since then, I've been opened up to an understanding about the universe that's bigger than beliefs. I see my experience and the "Truth" reflected in all sorts of religious texts and beliefs, as well as in non-religious things. I've said to many people while talking about these topics that I believe there are atheists who have a closer "relationship" with god. Looking into the makeup of the universe with curiosity. It's great. I don't believe anyone needs a belief in god or religious theology to be headed in the "right" direction. And at the end of the day I think that's where we're all at. Headed on a path. We've all got our own personal journey and having compassion and love for others where they are at is what Jesus was talking about and trying to teach to people who had no understanding of that level of understanding.

My wife and I are reading a book right now called Unbelievable: Why Neither Ancient Creeds Nor the Reformation Can Produce a Living Faith Today - by John Spong

My wife was raised conservative christian and is just starting the exciting journey of questioning all of it. We're reading it together. So far the author's understanding of spirituality, god, etc. seem to line up closely with mine.

In the book he speaks about the inability to use limited human language to discuss this sort of thing, and why christianity has gotten it so confused over the years, as it's hard to put into words, and then have others read it and understand it. Experience vs Belief. Very different things.

Anyhow, I think I've rambled enough. I'd love to see the kind of discussion we can get going about such a typically decisive topic :)

Tell me what you know...

I've seen a few remarks here and there that have implied sort of matter-of-factly that places like /r/The_Donald have no redeeming value, the community members are awful (and undesirable to have here), their ideas are all reprehensible, etc. I assume that this is mostly just due to the demographic coming primarily from popular reddit mod teams where being anti-Trump is sort of an unspoken requirement - but I don't really know for certain.

It reminds me a little of this woman in a class i had once, who spoke to me about atheists, assumed I was christian just as a matter of course. It's kind of an awkward situation to find yourself in. I don't identify as an atheist, but if someone is mildly insulting atheists, it's uncomfortable. You have to be a covert conservative (or covert center-right, or even left-leaning Trump voter) or else you risk being blasted/flamed/mocked/etc. in places like reddit.

Part of what attracted me to Tildes was the sales pitch that it is to be a community for civil conversation, no hate-speech/bigotry. I think that's a perfect environment for political discussion - far more than shit-flinging and nuclear downvoting on /r/politics. So even if I'm the only MAGA person here, maybe there's a chance we can actually have civil conversations on topics we might initially disagree on...?

Edit: wow! Really happy to have these conversations with folks. Sad that i haven't encountered any fellow (public) Trump voters/supporters yet but very pleased that things have been civil as advertised. ;) Apologies for slow responses, trying to give proper thought and consideration to all the comments!

Edit2: gotta head to bed. sorry to anyone i haven't responded to questions from. feeling a bit like a novelty "And here's our token Trump voter. ha ha, he sure is a quirky one, isn't he, that crazy dictator-enabler!" xP. I'll try to answer any questions I've missed tomorrow. Sleep well, all (well, all who are going to sleep before I get back).

Edit3: Thanks for the open engagement, all you people who live in a different reality!

Still a bit bummed there aren't any MAGA friends here yet, but I've been blown away by how cordial most of you have been (i hope we can retain this culture into the future of the site). For those who are just coming in and don't want to read everything, I'd say a tl;dr of the conversations I've had below is:

• most people here want to engage with others on important topics without the shit flinging,
• some people express disbelief that someone can not be a bigot or racist and vote for Donald Trump,
• I've been repeating in various conversations the Laurel and Yanny thing is a great metaphor for the polarized camps experiencing different realities, seeing different movies on the same screen.

I'm continuing to try to reply to questions, and in the spirit of not provoking heated emotions I have been trying not to argue any of my political beliefs except that both sides are seeing different realities.