this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2026
1012 points (99.0% liked)

Murdered by Words

2563 readers
178 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:

Rules:

  1. Be civil and remember the human. No name calling or insults. Swearing in general is fine, but not to insult someone else.
  2. Discussion is encouraged but arguments are not. Don’t be aggressive and don’t argue for arguments sake.
  3. No bigotry of any kind.
  4. Censor the person info of anyone not in the public eye.
  5. If you break the rules you’ll get one warning before you’re banned.
  6. 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
[–] GardenGeek@europe.pub 18 points 2 days ago (5 children)

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 Bit outdated nowadays but the concept is continued in form of laws, human rights, social norms etc.

[–] mig@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

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.

[–] dracc@discuss.tchncs.de 16 points 2 days ago

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.

[–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] GardenGeek@europe.pub 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

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.

[–] OldChicoAle@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Most religions have a lot of stuff about giving money to poor people.

[–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

... but also murdering them, therefore the criticism.

Nobody would have a problem with them if it wasn't for all the murder.

[–] ahornsirup@feddit.org 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] dracc@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

And who decides what pissed off the gods? Typically someone with something to gain from the changes required from the common folk.

[–] GardenGeek@europe.pub 2 points 2 days ago

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.