this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2026
1008 points (99.0% liked)
Murdered by Words
2563 readers
196 users here now
Responses that completely destroy the original argument in a way that leaves little to no room for reply - a targeted, well-placed response to another person, organization, or group of people.
The following things are not grounds for murder:
- Personal appearance ("You're fat", "You're ugly")
- Posts with little-to-no context
- Posts based on a grammar/spelling error
- Dick jokes, "Yo mama", "No, you" type responses and other low effort insults
- "Your values are bad" without any logcal or factual ways of showing that they are wrong ("I believe in capitalism" - "Well, then you must be evil" or "Fuck you you ignorant asshole")
Rules:
- Be civil and remember the human. No name calling or insults. Swearing in general is fine, but not to insult someone else.
- Discussion is encouraged but arguments are not. Don’t be aggressive and don’t argue for arguments sake.
- No bigotry of any kind.
- Censor the person info of anyone not in the public eye.
- If you break the rules you’ll get one warning before you’re banned.
- Enjoy the community in the light hearted way it’s intended.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Trump never cared for religion until he realised he can use it as a tool for oppression
Was religion ever intended to fill a different role?
It was/is a ruleset made by humans for humans to ensure cooperation within huge groups. Bit outdated nowadays but the concept is continued in form of laws, human rights, social norms etc.
I often reflect on the role it filled for mental health before the advent of science, psychology, and neuropsychiatry.
I was raised in a very opressive sect of protestantism, where I was instructed to pray and meditate. I find it analogus to visualisation and self reflection. I learned silence and meditation, I was put in situations where sitting silent by the hour listening to empty droning speech was my only recourse. My first awareness of the concept of mental illness was from bible stories of those people being healed implying their condition was not inherent to them, they were innocent.
The act of singing together about our beliefs and feelings has always seemed like a powerful thing that has vanished from our society, except at baseball games.
Human rights wasn't a thing until the Enlightenment, The Bible, Koran, and Tanakh all limit rights, not expand them.
You're giving credit for human rights to the oppressor. Horrifying.
I'm pointing out patterns in the development of human kind. If you want to judge everything retroperspectively through your ideological glases that's on you.
It's also commonly used to create a strong sense of "us"/"them", inferiority to the unquestionable elite, superiority and self righteousness over non-believers, and a great way to force your underlings to do your bidding disguised as words from "God", whoever that might be.
Right, so oppression.
Most religions have a lot of stuff about giving money to poor people.
... but also murdering them, therefore the criticism.
Nobody would have a problem with them if it wasn't for all the murder.
Also an explanation for things we couldn't explain. Humans hate uncertainty and randomness. A random flood is scary because it could repeat without warning, but if it happened because you pissed off the gods then you can just avoid doing that and you're safe.
And who decides what pissed off the gods? Typically someone with something to gain from the changes required from the common folk.
Not necessarily.
If you think church in medival Europe: Yes.
However if you think shaman in an animistic tribal religion the material or hirarchical insensitive is far less clear.
Oppression can be a byproduct of religion but isn't necessarily one.
Scamming money maybe?
Sounds very oppressive, yes.
Exact same question I had
An alternative heirarchy for second and third sons.
[Its_the_same_picture.jpg]
Look at basically every none-abrahamic faith
Especially those religions without gods per se, but rather concepts and ideas
You'll always find in History a group that will push for the spread of a religion because it allows them to oppress others and take shit for themselves. And slaughter people who say no. Some religions may start as philosophical and social liberation for small groups, but it is still violence that spreads them the most in a larger society. Yes, even the ones about internal peace, as long as others create external riches and influence about it.
Looks up "Taoist Religious Wars" - 0 results
Everything is convenient when you close your eyes for whatever doesn't suite the agenda. Yellow Turban Rebellion didn't happen, or did it not qualify as a war?
The rebellion against the oppressive regime? That one?
Right! "The way of the great peace." Peace for us, step 1: violently overthrow the corrupt ruling class. Not that I'm disagreeing, that's an example of someone preaching peace and finding that it doesn't exist without standing for the people, and protecting them from oppression means killing those that are doing the oppressing (Ed Sheeran in shame), we're just putting that in a book and calling it a religion.
To be fair, in China through these ~500 years, every current of thought or philosophy was called a religion, and the line between religion, politics, and philosophy, was pretty much nonexistent. If someone had an idea and put it in a book so others can think about it, that was a religion. It's a bit weird for us today to read "legalism is considered a religion? and legalism is... Absolute administrative power, everyone is equal under the rule of law? Sounds familiar... Oh, there you go, the ruler writes whatever he wants and then kills whoever he wants by designating them as enemies. Like those dummy thinkers and book-writers." "all right, fine, let's look at Mohism: egalitarian society and universal love, cool! First paragraph on Wikipedia: paramilitaries-- oh."
I'll admit I've dismissed them all as mumbo-jumbo but please correct me if I'm wrong - not eating cows (hinduism?) despite being a suitable source for protein seems pretty limiting. Living in celibacy with an odd haircut (Buddhism) is downright weird to me. Sihks seem alright, although those turbans (the name escapes me) seem oppressively heavy. Do you have any other religion in mind that isn't a tool for oppression?
Edit: Sikhs are warriors with swords as part of their uniform. Doesn't get much more oppressive than war. Scientology extracts wealth from the members to keep the leaders happy. I don't know of any "concepts and ideas" religions. Please feel free to enlighten me.
Oh of course, the best religion, Leveyan Satanism
Objectifying women was considered oppressive last I heard.
Leveyan Satanism does that?
It's atheism, but they formed a "religion" just so that they were able to use it as a form of activism against any religious freedom laws by going "oh, so we're allowed in right?" to show the contradictory nature if they say no
Men and older women should dress in black robes during rituals, young women should dress sexy to please and arouse the men. Naked woman to be used as an altar when an altar is needed.
Edit: granted, this is according to the Wikipedia page on LaVeyan Satanism - maybe the spelling difference is of significance?
It's literally not an actual religion???
It's a satire of religion.
I don't know, seems some take it seriously.
But it's not atheism nor nontheism - seems to be a religion. :)
It's literally just a religion for the express purpose of pissing off theists
Hindu eat beef? It's not against the religion to eat it.
That's a misconception, they just make sure they die with dignity and lived as happy a life as possible.
Which some sects argue it's impossible if they're not living a wild life in nature, and argue one shouldn't eat them ever (as there's basically no such thing as wild cow anymore.) But there's no ban, it's just seen as immoral.
Sikh having a warrior thing is funnily enough fuck all to do with war. It's a holdover from ancient times that's just stuck around as part of it.
And those that don't eat beef out of religious conviction that it's not moral are not hindu, or is their religion not true?
They're just a different subsection of the same faith
And nazism didn't start any wars these last 10 years so it's all good? Geez, I've selldom seen cherry-picking this obvious.
Spiritualism, Wicca, Taoism to a degree, Confucianism
Taoism basically wants you to disappear so that others can decide what happens next. Very oppressive.
Confucianism oppresses women heavily, they're supposed to follow their father, husband or sons depending on what stage of life they're in. Suicide to protect chastity after a husband has died has also been a theme there, as losing your chastity has been seen worse than starvation.
Spiritualism isn't considered a religion where I'm from, can't say I'm familiar.
Wicca seems to be whatever you want it to be, where many think there are two gods, some think there are many, some one and some none. Some seemingly think karma is a thing (called something else) which is very limiting (although mostly sound), while some say there's no such thing. I guess those get a pass, as they don't really exist as a homogenous group?
An incredibly uncharitable reading of all of them.
Taoism especially bad. It wants you and the world to become no longer at odds, with two main paths argued for it, you shape the world, or you let the world shape you.
Wicca it's fully a faith about "customisation is the point" yeah, so it can be basically anything (though sadly a lot just use it as Christianity+)
Spiritualism is inspired by Native American faiths, and the root of it is "every thing, living or dead, have some sort of essence be it a spirit or a soul or just an amount of energy", and then from that extends the idea that because of it you should treat nature and by extension each other with respect. Rocks have a spirit, trees have a spirit, dogs have a spirit, etc.
And profit from it.