A friend and I were recently discussing how spineless modern boycotts are.

We set a goddamn deadline for when the Reddit boycott ended. No wonder Spez just waited. Most people then just continued using the website. What a disgrace.

Imagine if after one week of the genocide in Gaza, the BDS efforts just stopped. A boycott must be indefinite. It should go on until demands are met.

Silver lining for them is that the iceberg is melting.

It goes back to before cities existed, man.

Hate to break it to you pal, but religion has been in politics since before cities existed. Not really ruination if it’s been that way almost forever.

It’s not gallows humour if you’re the executioner.

Huffman is a greedy bastard, but I don’t think he’s alt-right. He’s a bland neoliberal hypocrite. He is an advisor at the ADL and made a post saying that black lives matter, while not actually doing anything to help and actively profiting from what he said he was against.

Good bot

That was allowed previously?

Wtf

According to the article it’s within the margin of error, so Trump may have more votes.

Fair

Comrade, we’re specifically talking about people trying to push for a ban on porn and the 10 Commandments in every classroom.

I mean yeah, but it’s in a text most Muslims believe in. It makes sense to say that Christianity forbids women from being teachers even though most Christians ignore the rule, no?

After the debate and especially after the botched assassination attempt, I felt despair and a hopeless sense of certainty that our comrades in the USA would have to endure a Trump presidency and all of us around the world would suffer the consequences.

I’m genuinely optimistic now. I think Harris can win.

People who complain about her not being a socialist or how electoralism won’t change the system are missing the point. Those are true things, but the alternative is a fascistic climate change denier with the Sons of Jacob as his cabinet.

The Americans are standing at a crossroads between an increasingly fragile status quo and tyranny. As much as I hate the status quo, I’m glad that the odds are now smiling far less at tyranny.

I know that hadith hold less weight than the Quran. That being said, there are several ahadith that say that painters will get screwed over by Allah that are considered canon by pretty much all Sunni Muslims. Many of them don’t follow these rules, but I personally know several Muslims that drink. This does not change the fact that the actual written rules of the religion prohibit it.

You’re also completely missing my original point. The guy I was originally replying to was joking that following Christian fundie logic will lead to a ban on images. I then drew parallels between the Christian and Muslim extremists who are both trying to institute their respective religious laws as the laws of countries, hate each other furiously, consider themselves the exact opposites of each other, and yet seem to converge on a number of issues.

P.S. I am pretty sure that Shi’ites have no equivalent rule regarding aniconism. I know very little about Shia Islam in general so I won’t comment on it.

If the Bible itself prohibited such things, then yes, I would be making this point and also making fun of the Christians for not following it, like how they’re not supposed to wear mixed fabric or have female teachers.

A ban on depicting living things is documented in a fairly well-supported ahadith. While strict adherence is rare in modernity, it is indeed something present in religious texts and widely practiced historically, which merits mockery.

Well, the other really big religion has a zombie as its mascot so it isn’t without precedent.

Maybe if you draw him as a corpse ;)

What’s extra funny is that Islam bans drawing living things.

first

Don’t get my hopes up like that

Ah ok