Exactly. That’s why one browses forum by forum, because every forum has interesting threads.
It used to be that the forums didn’t distinguish based on topic, but the approach of discussion. It’s all gone downhill since they started Cafe Society. [/getoffmylawn]
I feel like I could be reprimanded for failure to view the board in the prescribed way.
I’m glad this point got made again, because I stumbled across the thread in the way this is described, under the original title. I saw it, made my point (that yeah, they do contribute) and got out. I will also point out that it isn’t like the thread was closed - the Mods are allowing the conversation to continue, even if the title was judged to be too offensive (and I agree!). So we’re fully allowing the discussion, just wanting to keep the title within bounds of discretion.
And with this I agree 100% for an entirely different reason. Ideally, the SDMB should grow and attract other people. If someone comes here for the first time, perhaps because of a friends reference, do you want that sort of title to be the first thing they see? Because, well, it would have looked more like an alt-right message board. And before you ask, no, I wouldn’t want to see the same applied to right-leaning targets either, a point that I’ve argued about in other posts.
Why would that be? ISTM that that’s the entire point.
If you’re going to say (for example) “UO-J are terrible because they are opposed to masks during this pandemic”, and in actual fact the number of UO-J opposed to masks is a small minority, do you really think that fact is insignificant?
I don’t see how that’s any different than saying “Blacks are a bunch of thugs who riot in the streets” based on some video of Blacks indisputably doing just that, and then waving away discussion of “what proportion” of Blacks actually do that as being “rarely productive”.
In sum, there are certain beliefs which are shared by and define UO-J, and those are fair game. But if you don’t have any real evidence that a particular belief is actually shared by (at least the majority of) UO-J, then it’s not.
How on earth is that a sensible conclusion from the fact that I care about the topic, but I don’t care whether someone else has decided it fits better in IMHO rather than GD?
Does the distinction between “valid criticism” and “bigotry” really hinge on a quantitative measure, whether 30% or 50% or 70% of members of some group believe something?
To see threads from each forum, the sensible conclusion is to go to each forum to see them. (Apparently there is a shortcut to see everything at once, but that’s not very useful when it’s existence is unknown.)
No, if I really need to spell it out - if you care about active topics and you don’t particularly care about what forum they are posted in, the sensible conclusion is to aggregate and ignore the forum structure when looking for topics that interest you.
I don’t understand why you are being so obtuse about this. Nobody is saying anyone is obliged to do this, but some people prefer to do this, and clearly this way of browsing the forums is not “unknown” to many people.
It might be restricted under some lockdowns, but in NYC, even in the current red zones, houses of worship are permitted to have gatherings of 25% capacity or up to 10 people, whichever is less. I doubt if there are any Jewish houses of worship where 25% of capacity is less than 10 people. ( I have seen some Christian storefront churches where that might be the case)
I can confirm that the layout I use is the default layout a person sees when not logged in. The main page shows categories on the left side and the “latest topics” on the right side. These latest topics often include Pit topics, specifically, every time someone posts in the Pit, that topic gets added to the top of the list that a newcomer sees on the homepage.
~Max
ETA: Example of a pit topic showing up on the home page, in this case, Roderick_Femm’s post in a topic titled “Pitting Urbanredneck for making shit up and claiming it’s facts”.
Probably, but even that is not what we’re discussing here.
If 30% of a group hold some odious belief and you say “30% of Group X has this odious belief”, then you may or may not be bigoted (mostly depending on how and how much you harp about it). But - and this is the point here - if 30% of a group hold to some odious belief and you say “Group X holds to this odious belief”, then that’s bigotry, because you’re ascribing an offensive characteristic to an entire group based on a minority of that group. Truth is that even if it’s 70% it’s not ideal either, but it’s not as bad as if it’s much smaller minority.
Yes, there are. Among some of the Brooklyn Hassidic Jews, it is common for a minyan (the minimum of at least ten Jewish men) to meet in someone’s living room. And it’s not unheard of for the homeowner to seek legal “house of worship” status for his home.
They might normally have 12-15 men meeting every morning for the daily prayers, for instance.
(Source: I used to work with a Lubuvitcher, and we were friendly. We often talked religious practice, and he invited me to a few things with his family, and once to a service at their large main building.)
For that matter, during the pandemic I have sometimes been joining the minyan of a friend who is a conservative Jew. His group is meeting on Zoom, so precise covid restrictions don’t matter. But they only have 15-20 attendees on a typical Friday evening service.
There’s absolutely a basis. By definition, they hew very faithfully to the laws in the Torah. They go so far as to prohibit a bunch of practices on the Sabbath because they might have been prohibited by a very ambiguous word relating to the building of religious sanctuaries. But there are a lot of laws in there that are not ambiguous in the least, commanding genocide, sexual slavery, all kinds of commandments I would safely call “benighted”:
So you are definitely supposed to slaughter the Palestinians (“Canaanites”), since they are squatting on “your” land. “Do not leave alive anything that breathes.” Not even babies! This is not optional: you MUST do this.
Deuteronomy 21 has a weird mix of reasonable and abhorrent laws. The latter would include these two passages:
Marrying a Captive Woman
10 When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.
A Rebellious Son
18 If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” 21 Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.
Again, it’s not–as religious conservatives, both Jewish and Christian, like to disingenuously claim–about descriptions of atrocities, but commandments that you MUST commit these atrocities to “purge the evil from among you.” “All Israel will hear of it and be afraid”. Just absolutely unambiguous.
And don’t tell me these horrendous commandments don’t inform the ultra-Orthodox parties’ actions as key blocs in the Israeli Knesset.
Deuteronomy 22 gets into some similarly eclectic territory. There’s a lot of talk about how to properly treat donkeys, oxen, and birds who have fallen out of nests. Kind of sweet, really. But then…
5 A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this.
Well, I suppose that’s just old-fashioned–but why aren’t the ultra-Orthodox getting any of the heat that seems reserved for JK Rowling? Anyway, then there’s stuff about how to make your roof safe, how you can’t weave wool and linen together, and other picayune oddities. But further down:
Marriage Violations
13 If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 15 then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. 16 Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels[b] of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.
20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.
Uff da.
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
So the takeaways here are:
–You’d better hope you bleed on that cloth, and that your parents keep it in a safe place (ewww, gross).
–If you’re a dude who spots a hot chick you’d like to make your wife, just rape her and pay her dad fifty shekels of silver, and you’re all set! I mean, it’s not as good a deal as the one with the captive woman (you know, the one whose parents you killed), where you can just cut her loose whenever, and you don’t have to pay anyone anything…but hey.
This is the very definition of a benighted ideology. It’s right there in black and white.
Because you can’t choose whether to be Black or not! It’s an inborn/immutable characteristic. Being an UO-J is not. It is an ideology and affiliation that people can and do reject as adults. Why is this so hard?
ModHat On: Enough SlackerInc; this post is not appropriate to ATMB. I’m going to lock this thread and suspend you pending Mod review.
Suspended SlackerInc for 24 hours for Trolling and posting privileges under review by Mod team.
But at some level of granularity, and if there are certain prominent aspects of ideology within a group, the group that an individual identifies with does become largely a choice, and it’s reasonable that any individual who chooses to identify as part of that group should be associated with those beliefs, without constant caveats.
Sure, and if you say Observant Jewish people keep Kosher and dont eat pork, you’d be correct.
But yes, there are Jewish people who dont wear masks and are anti-vaxxers. They are nutcakes. There are Christian people that dont wear masks and are anti-vaxxers. They are nutcakes. There are Atheists that dont wear masks and are anti-vaxxers. They are nutcakes. There are liberals that dont wear masks and are anti-vaxxers. They are nutcakes. There are Conservatives that dont wear masks and are anti-vaxxers. They are nutcakes.
So, it is fine to say that people who dont wear masks and/or are anti-vaxxers are nutcakes.
But by no means all Observant Jewish people, or Evangelical Christians or Liberals or whatever refuse to wear masks or are anti-vaxxers.
So- calling out all Ultra- Orthodox (better term is Observant) as nutcakes who refuse to wear masks or are anti-vaxxers is bigotry, pure and simple.
That Pit thread is bigoted, and should not be on the SDMB. We should be ashamed of it, the OP should be warned and the thread cornfielded.