Neurodivergents being overrepresented likely accounts for some of the tendency of people mistakenly taking things literally on Lemmy. But I think a bigger issue is just a lack of media literacy. People tend to close themselves off from opposing viewpoints, and what does filter through is often exaggerated or otherwise misrepresented to make it easier to ridicule. This pattern leads people into thinking something intentionally absurd is in fact serious. Poe’s law is something easy to observe on other platforms too, but it’s worse on a platform with an especially political and nondiverse userbase.

Humans lack many sharp teeth and have unimpressive jaw strength. It’s a much more beautiful show of trust with my dog.

Well they also enslave their pokemon, primarily to fight each other to unconsciousness for their masters’ entertainment. In fact, gambling winnings from these fights is how the main protagonists in the games are able to make money. It’s prevalent and profitable enough that pokemon trafficking is the main enterprise of several organized crime organizations. All this is despite the fact that there are several examples of pokemon learning to speak and otherwise having an intelligence comparable to humans. Basically, it does not do well in the veil of ignorance test and only seems idyllic if you know you will be at the top of the hierarchy.

The AI is the summary software. How else do you think the summary happens?

It doesn’t sound like AI is being used for either. It’s just summarizing the encounter at the end as a note, and not storing any data to train on.

I’m ok with people being British, just not in front of children.

Pam Bondi more like Pam Gone-di

Others have already pointed out that her distress calls were most certainly not ignored. But even if it were true that others did casually allow her to die, their disregard for her life wouldn’t have been because she was a woman. Her navigator, Fred Noonan, was a man on board and also suffered the same fate as her. Inventing a sexist conspiracy over an unfortunate tragedy accomplishes nothing productive.

Found God’s account

You are free to criticize democrats, but when you imply they are as bad as child rapists people are going to roll their eyes

I would say standardized testing is a way for us to provide transparency about how we are failing our kids. The SAT and ACT stats you used are an example of that. This should motivate us to improve things, but like a lot of modern issues people just don’t care enough to make it happen. Even so, being able to cite worsening outcomes supports people arguing for more investment in education.

I took standardized tests from elementary to college, and I remember their questions being objective, unambiguous, and relevant to learning topics much better than teachers’ custom exams. I actually felt well prepared for the SAT/ACT/college thanks to the way they were used.

Teachers do need some discretion on what they teach, but without good standards you can easily have them just spreading their personal agendas. I don’t want students learning about “the war of northern aggression”, or that native Americans just chose to move to reservations actually, or that evolution is nonsense, or that abstinence is the only way to be safe regarding sex. Having expectations about what students should know at each grade gives a goal without stipulations on how it’s achieved. Standardized tests then just measure it.

It’s cherry picking because it’s choosing which pieces of the bible to give credence to and which to ignore based on preference. Paul was chosen as God’s chosen vessel; I don’t see why his instructions to the early church should be cast aside.

Jesus did say to love thy neighbor, yet it is easy to find examples of God condoning slavery and demanding genocides. Unless you intend to also deny those parts, it’s pretty clear he’s willing to contradict that commandment against whoever he considers sinful. For gay men, he prescribed the death penalty, although that was part of the covenant with Israel. I don’t think the new testament says how they should be punished, just that it’s a sin.

I believe you are right for the old testament commandments, but it does seem like cherry picking to say the early restrictions should only apply to the Israelites, and later verses that would expand the scope in letters from Paul shouldn’t be accepted.

When you say intentional, do you mean it’s interpreted that way as part of an agenda? Why would someone do this? Other versions of the verse make similar purity claims as well. From the surrounding verses, it sounds to me like Jesus is saying what you eat does not matter in the context of morals/sin rather than it being symbolic of people with different practices.

Something like ADHD is notably difficult to diagnose because its symptom behaviors are things that other people also experience, just less frequently or severely. Everyone has limited executive function, spaces out, forgets things, becomes restless, procrastinates, etc. to some degree. So it’s difficult to notice the point where it crosses the threshold of interfering with a healthy life.

It is entirely reasonable to wonder if you’ve been misdiagnosed as having it, just like a neurotypical person may wonder if they have ADHD from normal experiences. It’s not like we have another life to compare ours to.

Yeah it was acknowledging the conflict of interest in both state-owned and privately owned media, even saying the former can be more obvious.

For the unclean foods bit, Jesus may have retconned that with Mark 7:19.

Gay sex is disparaged in various verses, some of which come from Old Testament divine commandments. It’s not just in letters.

It’s less clear about abortion but throughout the Bible fetuses are generally considered to have distinct personhood from their mothers. That tends to imply certain rights.

Christians tend to pick and choose which parts of their word of God are actually infallible and which parts don’t apply anymore. There’s no reason to think God changed His mind on gay sex, tattoos, or wearing garments of mixed materials, because there was no justification for banning them in the first place. If a Christian is a true believer, they should be satisfied with “God said it, so it must be true”.

That’s the problem with relying on an external authority for morality. When it tells you to do something you don’t like, you have to either change your behavior accordingly or realize that you actually don’t trust it as an authority. Christians being by and large massive hypocrites, they tend to do the latter without admitting to it. Because if they did admit it, they wouldn’t be Christians anymore.

It’s pretty rare to find someone who genuinely takes it all on faith, that stealing cookies from the cookie jar indeed warrants eternal punishment. For everyone else, if they were honest with themselves, they would admit that if you only follow the rules you agree with, they were never actually rules for you.

Yeah, I think it boils down to this.

“Do you believe in a god or gods?”

“Yes” - Theist

“No” - Atheist

“I don’t know.” - Agnostic

Of course, many people would admit they aren’t certain for yes/no, and so might qualify as an agnostic theist/atheist depending on how strict you are with confidence. Some agnostics will be more rigid and say the answer is inherently unknowable. Regardless, it still seems a lot simpler than having to explain a satirical religion you are pretending to believe in to someone.