FrogCat

joined 1 week ago
[–] FrogCat@piefed.social 2 points 1 hour ago

Okay thanks, I might post it there, although I noticed on that community the Piefed dev said he's busy with PHP stuff, so maybe I'll wait a couple of days.

[–] FrogCat@piefed.social 1 points 3 hours ago

I don't really know who is right and who is wrong though. I don't believe in God, but maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there is a God and the religious people are correct. I just think that there are some religious people I've met, and surely others who I haven't met, who are relatively good people, and I'd like to get on well with them, even if I don't fully agree with their views. I can see why you find certain views frustrating though.

[–] FrogCat@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Maybe we just have different ways of looking at it.

In terms of how Muslims view LGBT people: I mentioned that the mayor of London is a Muslim, and he has been to LGBT pride parades, so I think he's more supportive of LGBT people than a lot of non-Muslims are. So I guess it depends on the particular person. Some religious people might be anti-LGBT but other religious people are more welcoming of LGBT people.

But yes maybe we just have different ways of looking at it, which is fine I think.

[–] FrogCat@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago (4 children)

I definitely prefer rational, evidence-based thinking to thinking which isn't supported by evidence.

If I were to say "all religions are bad" though then I think I'd alienate some religious people who are decent. I might not agree with their religious views but if I think they're decent then I don't want to alienate them.

For example, apparently Zohran Mamdani and Sadiq Khan (the mayors of NYC and London respectively) are both Muslims. I don't agree with those views; I'm not a Muslim myself. But I still think both of those people are relatively decent, more so than some other politicians. I guess I'm more interested in whether a person is decent, than whether a person is religious.

 

In the community !casualuk@feddit.uk (https://piefed.social/c/casualuk@feddit.uk), I've noticed that posts by one user in particular (ladybutterfly@piefed.blahaj.zone) don't have post titles visible, when viewing from piefed.social (but other instances don't have this issue). It doesn't seem to be an issue with my account, because the issue still appears when logged out.

For example, these two posts appear to have no title:

But if you view the same posts on piefed.world, they do have a title:

Does anyone know if there's a way to fix this issue, so I can see all post titles on piefed.social?

Thanks if anyone has any help.

[–] FrogCat@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago (6 children)

Maybe I'd prefer a world where nobody is religious. Maybe I'd also prefer a world where everyone shares my taste in music, and my political views, and so on. But people do have differences.

I definitely understand the frustration with some religious people, particularly if they use religion to try to justify hateful views. Then again, there are non-religious people who hold hateful views. I think I'd rather spend time with a non-hateful religious person than a non-religious hateful person. To each their own though.

[–] FrogCat@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago (8 children)

I'm saying there have been cultures in history where atheists faced discrimination. I think atheists in western countries used to face discrimination and ostracisation. And in some Muslim countries even today, if a Muslim leaves their religion, they can face harsh penalties.

some kind of lame-ass desperation to appease those with opposing views, in the hope they won’t ask you awkward questions that challenge your cozy conceits

I'm not desperate to appease people with opposing views. I just know that I have met some religious people in my life who I got on well with. I didn't agree with their views, but I could still get on with them. If I come across someone and I think they're a decent person who I can get on well with, then I won't mind what their religious views are, as long as they are respectful of my lack of religious belief.

[–] FrogCat@piefed.social 5 points 2 days ago

A man with an extraordinary amount of privilege, inherited by him simply by accident of birth, who is completely out of touch with the struggles of ordinary Brits?

Yeah it would be pretty fitting for him to represent Britain, given that people like him control modern Britain.

[–] FrogCat@piefed.social 1 points 2 days ago

Non-exhaustive list of terrible things inflicted upon us by the Americans:

  • Donald Trump
  • Grey squirrels
  • Scientology
[–] FrogCat@piefed.social 1 points 2 days ago (10 children)

I've not been convinced of religious thinking which is why I'm non-religious, but I think it's fair for me to respect people believing in religion, so that they will also respect me not believing in religion. In some cultures in history, people have been persecuted for being atheists. I'm more in favour of people being able to believe what they want without facing discrimination due to their beliefs.

[–] FrogCat@piefed.social 1 points 3 days ago (12 children)

I prefer non-religion which is why I'm non-religious, but I've known decent people in real life who were religious. I try to respect their right to believe what they like, because I'd like them to also respect my right to believe what I like.

Yeah I agree with you that sometimes it's best to admit that you don't know something. There are many questions we don't know the answers to, such as the question of whether life exists in other galaxies, just as one example.

[–] FrogCat@piefed.social 1 points 3 days ago

Fair points. I'm British not American, so I'm sure you know a lot more about Newsom than I do. I've seen a couple of interviews with him but that's about it.

If 2028 is Newsom vs Vance and Newsom wins, I would hope that would improve the world. Maybe a Democrat who more boldly stands up for ordinary (non-wealthy) people would be better, but whether they'd get enough support from Middle America to win the presidency, I don't know.

[–] FrogCat@piefed.social 0 points 3 days ago

The solution is simple: European AI.

Europe should invest more in European AI companies like Mistral. Otherwise, Europe might find itself dependent on American AI or Chinese AI, and both of those countries don't seem very friendly towards Europe.

 

President signed the legislation championed by late senator Lindsey Graham last month but has waived the restrictions as they were due to come into effect

Maybe "the West" no longer exists. There's just the US and then there's Europe, and each of them is doing their own thing.

 

Apparently the Chancellor wants to reverse a cut to a surcharge that banks pay on their profits, on top of normal corporation tax. The surcharge was 8%, then Jeremy Hunt cut it to 3%, so Healey apparently might set it back to 8%.

[Healey is] believed to be minded to increase the surcharge banks pay on their profits, over and above corporation tax. Industry figures believe that will probably mean raising the surcharge back to 8%, from 3% at present.

Thoughts?

view more: next ›