femkethefaineant

[femkethefaineant]

Superiority of humans is a whole other can of worms, since we have a tendency to assume ourselves at the top and then test animals on our standards. I can't find it right now, but a fun paper about this looked into the intelligence of humans and concluded we are incredibly stupid because we could not follow a trail of smells like dogs can. Now that I think about it, this is also a thing in autism research where allism is assumed as standard. But anyway

Obviously, autistic people can also react differently to different people based on prior experiences, and most of us are able to lie. But does that constitute theory of mind? A crow could also react differently to different objects. This requires learning from experiences, not the projection of intentions. The cat at least seems to use false beliefs, but we can't know for sure. Does it really want to trick the human, or does it not know why something is forbidden? Like, if a cat brings a dead bird into the house but hides it from the human, does it really know it's tricking them, or does it know that consequences only follow if the human finds the bird, so only letting the human find it is forbidden?

So far, the only way researchers have found to distinguish these is through communication, by asking the test subject what a hypothetical person is thinking or would do. But this means the conclusion will always be influenced by communication and therefore cannot be trusted for those who communicate differently. If a cat was given the sally-anne test, it'd probably just chew on the dolls. Does that mean it doesn't understand humans, or that it doesn't understand the question?

You know, the interesting thing to me about the argument with that lordhellebore person is that I always thought “do autistic people have theory of mind?” was a debated topic, with some people asserting that the idea that autistic people don’t is insulting if not ableist.

But helleperson asserted that it’s settled that having issues with theory of mind is not only a common thing on the spectrum but that it’s a defining characteristic.

Am I misremembering? Is this one settled?

[femkethefaineant]

It's not settled, because we don't actually know what 'theory of mind' is or how to test it (let alone without secretly only testing communication). In the most basic sense, ToM means you understand that other people are also humans with thoughts and feelings. In a more complicated sense, it's the skill of correctly anticipating what those other humans might think or do. Therefore, someone might think they have no theory of mind because they frequently do not understand others, but those others could very well hear this as them being a solipsist.

For a source, I recommend https://doi.org/10.1037/arc0000067. It clearly shows how no correlation between theory of mind and autism has ever been proven, outlines some problems with this entire avenue of research, and highlights examples of harmful miscommunication derived from the concept. It also might help in understanding why people would think it's settled as defining autism: it's one of many parts of autism research where researchers are dishonest about the universality of their claims, which can really mislead people unfamiliar with the field.

You know, the interesting thing to me about the argument with that lordhellebore person is that I always thought “do autistic people have theory of mind?” was a debated topic, with some people asserting that the idea that autistic people don’t is insulting if not ableist.

But helleperson asserted that it’s settled that having issues with theory of mind is not only a common thing on the spectrum but that it’s a defining characteristic.

Am I misremembering? Is this one settled?

[femkethefaineant]

It's also important to remember that these elections were in 2006, almost twenty years ago. Hamas ran on promises of improving Palestinian infrastructure back then, not on open conflict with Israel. The current war was likely not the intent of most Palestinians, even those who voted for hamas back then. Which is why they are now protesting. Hamas was elected, but if free and fair elections were held right now, they would not be again.

I would compare this to Bush: while he should have been improving his own country, he chose instead to wage war. He invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and while this was initially somewhat supported, he became wildly unpopular as the wars dragged on but nothing really improved. He was elected to make the US better, but in the end mostly made the Middle East worse.

Now consider this: a far-right nationalist politician was re-elected while facing criminal charges, precisely because of his controversy. Policies were pushed to the background to focus on him as a person. And though he has won a small majority of the vote, almost everything he does also leads to widespread protests. But amid growing disapproval, his hostilities will likely lead to even more conflict, which he then uses to stay in power. This is currently happening in both the US and Israel.

My point is, none of these people are responsible for other people's actions, but blaming Palestinians for electing hamas is like blaming current USAmericans for anything Bush did. The last US election, however, more resembles Israel than Palestine.

Also, re “they elected Hamas”

Like… my country elected MAGA. That’s who won an election we’re pretty sure was fair.

But I’d really rather people not include me in “they elected MAGA.”

Especially not if you want to, like, kill people for that.

Please for the love of god aim a LITTLE better?

[femkethefaineant]

They might be referring to

This study was done by people working at tavistock, who concluded that puberty blockers result in delayed puberty (obviously) and no change in mental health, on average. It is very often cited by news outlets agitating against their use. However, it was very short-term and does not have a control group - results were apparently compared to teenagers who did not seek medical care - so the results cannot be compared to trans people without puberty blockers.

It has since been shown (https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.05.30.23290763) that on an individual level, 17 to 34% of participants of this very study did very much benefit from puberty blockers.

When compared to a control group, it has also been shown that, while puberty blockers result in less mental health change, not having them often leads to negative changes. Thus the 'no change' is due to a positive effect balancing a negative one.

So they are doing some trick where they take a single outdated, non-replicated, small, short-term, preliminary study that they partially agree with, and just ignore all science they disagree with.

So im watching this somewhat right wing anti Trump podcast, and they’re Just Asking Questions About Puberty Blockers flavor transphobic, and they keep saying that there’s a study that shows trans people who are denied care are no more likely to commit suicide than people who get it.

Anyone know what they’re talking about? Any time I try to find any studies everything I see does show a reduction in suicidality.

Are they doing some trick like saying most people don’t COMPLETE suicide over lack of access to care, rather than looking at ideation? That’s my guess and I’m perturbed.

(They also seem to be saying you can’t be both autistic and trans, which is first of all gross and second of all just weird—would it not stand to reason thst autistic people, who tend to question the way society works, might fit less well into gendered roles than others?)

[femkethefaineant]

The new experimental allegedly miraculous 'cure' that 'destroys appetite' is just a depressant. You know how antidepressants make you like things? Ozempic does the opposite. For everything. The mental health problems are not a side effect, it's the main purpose. You no longer like food (if you even ever did) because you're depressed. And you apparently have to take it for the rest of your life, but also there's no real research on long-term consequences yet, so we can't know if it's healthy.

Stomach reductions are even worse. It makes you literally unable to eat anything. It makes you constantly think about food because you're full in a few bites, but somehow still hungry. It makes you unable to eat a full meal, especially in light foods like vegetables. It's permanent starvation.

Which just emphasises the ignored autonomy of fat people. If losing weight won't make you happy or healthy, who are you doing it for and why should you?

diet culture people make me feel like i’m going crazy. you want me to take an experimental pill that destroys my appetite?? you want me to remove part of my stomach??? you want me to stop eating bread and rice, two of the staple foods most inherent to humanity????? why exactly? because my stomach is big? because you don’t like the way i look, and you think it’s reasonable to tell me to carve pieces off of myself and try random drugs and ruin my own life so i can look more visually pleasing to you? and you somehow don’t see how absurdly cruel and selfish that is to ask of somebody???? while pretending you care about their HEALTH????????????????? FUCK YOU!!!!

[femkethefaineant]

I think lots of people needn't really be 'in on it', so much as mistaken. It's easy to interpret evidence based on belief, instead of the other way around. Look for example to videos of police brutality, where some people really do 'see' anything a black person does as aggression, perpetuating their own racism with data created by said racism. The same goes for antisemitism: if Jews are perceived as malevolent, then they will be inserted into any nebulous group with vaguely malevolent goals, which is then used as evidence for the original assumption of malevolence. Of course, this applies to all types of discrimination.

I prefer demarcation as a metric, like who specifically intended what to happen. When a boeing whistleblower died last year, clearly those he would've implicated wanted him to shut up. A clear goal with clear beneficiaries: boeing stakeholders. Epstein, however, is on thin ice, as we don't really know who he could've implicated so any group of perceived malevolence can be inserted.

As for the moon landing, there is no clear goal. Almost everyone could be mistaken, but not really everyone. Someone must have thought they would benefit from everyone else, including NASA and their space race rivals, wrongly thinking NASA went to the moon. They would've even had to plant evidence on the moon. There is no possible intended benefit, that could not have more easily been achieved by really landing on the moon but then spreading this very conspiracy theory positing a fake landing. Therefore, the theory must assert a nebulous group with malevolent goals. Some kind of 'they', an elite or a government that can be freely chosen and would somehow benefit from or simply like deception.

So it's not just about how many people 'they' initially refers to, it's about which ones and on what basis. Once you believe in a 'they', the concept will grow but also self-reinforce, and can be more easily accepted in other theories.

are there any harmless conspiracy theories, or are they all bad bc they all lead to more fucked up conspiracies?

"Jeffrey Epstein didn't kill himself" is technically a conspiracy theory, but it doesn't inherently imply anything beyond somebody killing him to keep him from ratting out Ghislane Maxwell's other clients. It doesn't require a grand conspiracy narrative or incite moral panic that could lead to miscarriage of justice against vulnerable people.

[femkethefaineant]

Also, none of these are luxuries. You need clothes to go outside. You need furniture to prevent medical issues. You might need a tv because a computer is useless without a screen. And of course, humans need fun for mental health reasons, especially as daily life grows ever more stressful.

Older generations are used to viewing cell phones and computers as new luxuries that aren't really necessary to live, because they never had them. But now you need a computer for college. You need the internet to find a job. You need a phone for two-factor authentication. These might have gotten cheaper, but you are forced to pay it.

Seeing this as some moral failure of younger generations is easier than recognising how society has changed, but much less helpful.

[femkethefaineant]

Please don't base this only on eye colours. The idea that parents with 'recessive' eye colours can't make children with 'dominant' eye colours is based on the severely outdated Mendelian model (B and b genes). It's simplified school biology.

In reality, there are multiple genes that can cause rare eye colours. If parents have the same one, the child usually will too; if parents have a different one, the child might get anything. Even the environment (after birth) can influence eye colour. Brown eyes really don't mean anything. Light-eyed parents with brown-eyed children are rare, but not non-existent.

So please, think about the risk you're taking, telling someone their parents aren't really their parents. If you're wrong, you might upend the whole family.

If you have other reasons to think you're right, try to keep it an open question - perhaps they have a benign explanation like adoption or step-parenting. Depending on age, talk to the mother first - she is most likely to know what happened and might be planning to tell your friend. If your friend is an adult, talk to them first as they are the one you're concerned for and they have a right to know.

In my experience, ignoring is a bad idea. If you assume the mom cheated without telling anyone, you will treat her differently and people will notice.

Most comprehensive source I could find (on eye colour, not on my personal opinion for family dynamics):

okay so. my closest friend has very dark brown eyes. I’ve met their parents – their mom has green eyes, their dad has blue eyes.

so like. How do you broach the subject of “your mom totally cheated on your dad lol” without causing a stir? or do you try to trust yourself to ignore it?

[femkethefaineant]

I hope people will learn from this and not devote the same enthusiasm to any one specific thing. Don't forget the absolute chaos in Western Africa, the probably still ongoing Armenian genocide, whatever the Houthis are doing, Ukraine, the Palestinians still being killed by Hamas, and so much else we've ignored. When the coup in Syria happened, I was at a party where no-one could even remember if Assad was good or not, because unless you actively went looking, all we'd heard about for a year was Israel. I wonder how many humanitarian crises could have been mitigated, how many people saved, with just a little more attention, donations and pressure. These people have been ignored precisely because of the attention directed towards one thing, and making them the new One Thing will be to the detriment of all others.

Also, it'll be nice to finally go to uni again and maybe not be screamed at.

Now that there's a ceasefire (thank goodness!), I'm hoping people will devote the same enthusiasm to, perhaps, the oppression of women in Afghanistan or the outright genocide and extermination of the Uigher people.

[femkethefaineant]

It's quite the opposite way around.

You seem to think endometriosis is a thing that creates more of itself. It's not. It's a disease which makes endometrium dangerous. Without endometriosis, endometrium is a normal and healthy thing to have. Endometrium is discarded during periods, cleaned up, and remade before the next. Endometriosis means it's either grown or moved into a place it shouldn't be, and then not properly cleaned up. This means that hormones to prevent periods will prevent the periodical growth of whatever's going wrong and therefore mitigate the endometriosis.

Hormonal suppression is not always in the bloodstream. Especially modern IUD's can spread their hormones locally, to prevent negative side effects like moodswings. Besides, if they were only in the bloodstream, they wouldn't work at all, not even for their intended purpose. They must reach the womb.

The disease is associated with high estrogen levels, but this is most likely because an excess of estrogen causes it, along with other circumstances like genetics. The tissue endometrium itself cannot create hormones, it reacts to them.

You're saying yourself that removing the problematic tissue doesn't work. At least, you said remove the non-physical concept of a disease but you probably meant the tissue it presents. 30-90% resurgence sounds worse than placebo. That means it's not a working treatment, nor even symptom control. It's a last-ditch effort for temporary relief in extreme cases. It doesn't stop anything from growing back, it just removes the effects of previous failures in prevention. Due to risks associated with surgery in general, it also shouldn't be considered lightly nor repeated too often. And as always, prevention is better so please do treat endometriosis before it reaches the level where surgery is necessary and don't tell people it doesn't exist when it does. There is no cure, but there is treatment and we should use it.

Lastly, I am sorry for your loss but I'll need to see a source for endometriosis killing people more recently, as your example is from before treatments became widely available and thus proves nothing about said treatment nor about the current state of our knowledge. There are still lots of things wrong, but the medical field does look rather different than it did a century ago.

Do you or anyone you know have endometriosis?

[femkethefaineant]

Most people don't know because the main symptoms (agonizing pain, everywhere) are normalised and ignored. Periods are supposed to hurt, so anyone who complains must be exaggerating or overly sensitive. You're supposed to treat it like just a little blood and continue working, but also not talk about it because gross.

Have you ever experienced Schrödinger's period, where you can't function because of the pain and are told this is normal and not to talk about it, but also you should function as normal because it's just a period? Go find a doctor, if only to keep the rates of diagnosis steady.

Because I'm sorry to say the only current treatment is symptom control by not getting periods. And IUD's are easier to get than diagnoses. So it's probably, in my opinion, more than 10%.

Do you or anyone you know have endometriosis?

[femkethefaineant]

Behaviorists: behavior is the only psychological phenomenon that can be objectively measured

Behaviorists measuring behavior of 13-year olds to prove the kids can communicate well:

[femkethefaineant]

This article deserves a more detailed critique but I could honestly write a book about it. So here's a very very brief summary with limited examples. I actually encourage everyone to read the article, because it's so unconvincing.

Part 1: citations

Every paper needs citations. Who does this article cite and how? First, the alleged victims. Most citations are from people who claim they are victims of false accusations of antisemitism. The actual accusations are not cited. This leads to the article claiming that knowing someone who knows someone who was once seen at a protest, valuing the lives of palestinian people or criticizing war crimes is the reason for accusations of antisemitism, while statements of dual loyalty or actual violence against perceived jews are excused. Another source is JVP, a highly controversial organisation I've seen referred to as 'jewish autism speaks'.

And since OP mentioned David Hirsch: he is grossly misrepresented. In the paragraph 'IHRA', one definition of antisemitism is presented as the basis on which many people are falsely accused. Hirsch is quoted as claiming the definition was academically "denounced as a bad-faith attempt to say that all criticism of israel is antisemitic". The paper cited does contain this quote. However, the context is that Hirsch feels many academics are afraid to engage with antisemitism and that antizionism is prevalent in universities. Antizionist academics felt included in the IHRA definition but they did not identify as antisemites, and thus voted for a more restricted definition which they themselves did not fall under. The thing is, the only difference in these definitions is whether antisemitism must be a conscious and open effort. Hirsch implies, in my opinion, that antisemitism is perceived as being weaponized because it is prevalent in anti-zionist groups. (And no, this isn't conflating the two)

Part 2: assumptions

This article makes many assumptions that are necessary to make weaponisation a more important issue than antisemitism itself. Most are sewn together and disproven by the article itself. For example, it says weaponization includes the idea that all criticism of israel is antisemitism, which risks conflating jews and israel. This assumes that they aren't already seen as interwoven, and doesn't even follow: attacking a single jew can be antisemitic and so can attacking a group that is majority jewish; therefore accusations of antisemitism do not imply that all israel is jewish nor that all jews are israeli. Other assumptions include that accusations of antisemitism are not related to actual antisemitism, that these accusations are more harmful than antisemitism, and that they are more prevalent. None of these have been proven by the creative interpretation of cited self-perveived victims. I could almost conclude that this article itself trivializes antisemitism while accusing jews of doing so. Because it does imply that this is a common reaction among jews.

Part 3: an example

So this is all a bit abstract. Lets look at pro-palestine protests. The article cites the protestors claiming the protests have been labelled antisemitic because they "demand justice for all palestinians". It concludes that the accusation of antisemitism is used as a weapon against criticism of israel. What the article glaringly omits, is the actual accusations. The majority of jews do not claim the existence of other people is antisemitic. However, some activists sent death threats, sang genodical chants and used physical violence to intimidate those they perceived as zionists, who in practice were mostly jews. These actions specifically were widely criticised as antisemitism; they were not related to the stated goal of helping palestinians but actively hurting jews, especially those who didn't have anything to do with israel. In this situation, the antisemitism conflates all jews everywhere with israels actions, the accusation of antisemitism is correct, and the accusation of weaponization of antisemitism conflates the idea of criticism with the violence perpetuated in its name. An actual analysis of wikipedia's sources thus leads to a conclusion opposite of what the article implies.

Part 4: closing remarks

So this article proves nothing except that the writer had a clear goal in mind but no actual knowledge. There are smaller examples baked in as well. An Israeli refers to a conspiracy theory called 'the jewish lobby', which the article links to a wikipedia entry mostly about jewish self-advocacy. The intifada's are described as examples of israeli agression. The possible trivialization of the term antisemitism is mentioned often, but the obvious parallel in the trivialization of genocide is not mentioned.

However, I do want to possibly nuance two things. First, this article is very fringe. Is not even referenced in the list of articles surrounding antisemitism. This could be one of the reasons it hasn't received much discussion within the wikipedia editing forum. Second, one (1) example is sourced: Netanyahu claiming the ICC arrest warrant against him is antisemitic. However, only Netanyahu is quoted. Others in the source cited have more nuanced views, such as a fear of rising antisemitism resulting from international condemnation of Israels actions. However, whether netanyahu was right or whether anyone agreed with him cannot be concluded from this.

All in all, this article is just a list of unsubstantiated or misrepresented quotes. The author fails to make any convincing point because his views do not align with his evidence. The only conclusion I can reach from this is that some people are antisemitic.

While I'm poking at Wikipedia's antisemitism problem, I would like to point out that while it does have a page that includes many quotes from David Hirsh/David Schraub types of the "saying that Jews calling you antisemitic are acting in bad faith in order to discredit your antizionist/anti-Israel argument is, in fact, an inherently antisemitic argument" variety and gives a good amount of space to explain why, the page itself is titled "Weaponization of antisemitism" and it begins with lots of quotes from people, in fact, saying that Jews who level accusations of antisemitism at anti-Zionist/anti-Israel arguments are in fact acting in bad faith, which to me rather implies that whichever WIkipedia editor allowed that to go forward had already decided which side was "right" and which side was a bunch of lying Je- I mean Zionists

[femkethefaineant]

Excuse me, what the fuck? Sanskrit? Connected to everything? Anon, are you okay?

Do you believe in Non-dualism?

Nondualism is a philosophical and spiritual concept that emphasizes the absence of separation or duality in existence. It's a way of living that involves feeling connected to everything and everyone around you in each moment. The term comes from Sanskrit and means "not two"

[femkethefaineant]

I want to expand on this. Football hooligans have always been a problem here. All major matches end in riots. Police are always present. Stadiums have separate entrances for home fans and visitors. Nets are placed between different seating areas. Fireworks and weapons are expected. Security at football events is generally stricter than at the airport. This is considered normal.

Before this match, 'pro-palestinians' had announced they would use this match to stage a protest. Before this match, there has been a major increase in antisemitic violence in the Netherlands. Before this match, the Netherlands have been casually antisemitic for as long as I can remember. Sure, not everyone is actively antisemitic, but if you make derogatory 'jokes' or use harmful stereotypes, you won't be called out for it. Most of us are passively antisemitic.

And let us not forget that not to long ago, our police force stated that they had 'ideological objections' against protecting Jews. Granted, not the whole of our police force, but in the Randstad (the group of major cities Amsterdam is in) police are known to be way worse than in the rest of the country, especially in regards to making people feel safe and treating everyone equally. Things they should be expected to do as a baseline.

So while the football hooligans are definitely part of the problem, they are also symptomatic of many related problems in our society. We should condemn this pogrom, yes. But we should also be critical of the police force who should have expected this and done more to prevent it. We should call out the 'activists', whose protests previously lead to violence, for even considering a protest in this context. And we should call out each other for letting it come this far. We are not our government and we are not all hooligans, but we are all responsible for creating a society where people think this is normal.

And since new news has come up, we should also condemn our racist government for trying to use this for their own political games.

oh.

[femkethefaineant]

Yeah I think we mostly agree the thesis/antithesis ideas are not the problematic part of Hegel.

Although I have always wondered what added value the distinction has if they can be so easily switched up. Whether something is a thesis or antithesis is entirely dependent on perspective, and everything is a synthesis. So it doesn't say anything that counterarguments and conclusions don't. It also, in my opinion, isn't much better than the medieval style of starting with a question and exploring arguments for multiple answers to it.

Your chart can document the evolution of ideas, which is valuable, but I must admit I don't remember this being important to Hegels works. Especially since, at the end of history, we can no longer learn from the past. It has been multiple years since I read him though so don't trust me on the details.

Perhaps that, together with my post above, is why I don't see dialectics as inherently part of Hegelianism and therefore I might be too quick to discard Hegel entirely.

?????

Can someone explain to me what supersessionism actually is?

Because, like, I understand getting mad at theory that says Christianity is an improvement over Judaism, as you see in, like, Hegel.

But the other day someone posted a mini to a HF community I'm in depicting the Crucifixion and quoting Isaiah, and people piled on the artist for being supersessionist for not choosing a quote from the New Testament instead.

That seemed weird to me, like bringing a conversation about proper interfaith coexistence into... the comment section of a piece of art... i a community where religious discussions aren't the point?

Seemed mean, like the thing where people post unwelcome concrit and it's not the concrit itself that's the issue, it's the "dude, not here."

Am I missing something huge here?

[femkethefaineant]

I think we can safely say any professor who confidently asserts that Christianity historically correlates with democracy should not be teaching anyone anything.

I also think it's worthwhile to look at supersessionism and end-of-history rhetoric together, because they share many problems. A main part of Hegel's belief system was not only that history was a constant move forward, but that there was a teleological endpoint from which no more progress could be made. Which just so happened to be him. The endpoint of history, to Hegel, was 19th century Europe. This means, crudely, that he was right about everything and could criticise everyone else, but no one could criticise him. All of history improved towards him, but he could be improved no further.

Compare this to christian supersessionism and the idea that Christianity is an improvement to everything that came before it, but all that came after can somehow be discarded. And after playing its role in history by improving or spawning Christianity, all older religions can also be ignored.

Where both supersessionism and Hegel go wrong is the strong belief that my synthesis is the correct one and all others are wrong, and once I have a synthesis all theses and antitheses are obsolete. It completely disregards the idea that either Christianity or Europeans can be wrong about anything. End-of-history rhetoric does not end, but starts with the idea that the end is here and now.

If we keep doing Hegels thesis-trick without assuming Christianity is correct, we get into interesting questions like why shouldn't Islam supercede Christianity or if discussion inspires improvement, shouldn't we have many different cults all interacting with one another? The entire world being one Christian denomination would be the end of improvement not because it's the best, but because there is noone to challenge it. As an example, we see now that many Christian apologists are forced to articulate their beliefs more clearly in the face of militant atheists, thus improving their own religion by interacting with others.

I therefore believe that supersessionism and Hegelianism are not only wrong, but harmful in very comparable ways. They must disregard all dissenting views, they must see themselves as incapable of further improvement, and they must make the whole world agree with them. If they don't or can't, we can logically conclude they are wrong. If they do, they're stuck in a circle. Thus, in much the same way that Hegel could not take other cultures seriously, Christian supercessionism cannot take Judaism seriously. It is therefore inherently antisemitic, with or without covenant. Just as it is islamophobic and all other prejudices against what it does not itself entail.

As an alternative, I would like to introduce the many-gods-hypothesis: the idea that all religions, especially monotheistic, have separate Gods. This moves the goalposts from "did God really move the covenant to Christians" to "is God, who has a deal with Christians, real, or is Hashem, who has a special relationship with Jews, real?". This removes supersessionism and is, I think, a way to make Christianity a full religion without being inherently antisemitic.

?????

Can someone explain to me what supersessionism actually is?

Because, like, I understand getting mad at theory that says Christianity is an improvement over Judaism, as you see in, like, Hegel.

But the other day someone posted a mini to a HF community I'm in depicting the Crucifixion and quoting Isaiah, and people piled on the artist for being supersessionist for not choosing a quote from the New Testament instead.

That seemed weird to me, like bringing a conversation about proper interfaith coexistence into... the comment section of a piece of art... i a community where religious discussions aren't the point?

Seemed mean, like the thing where people post unwelcome concrit and it's not the concrit itself that's the issue, it's the "dude, not here."

Am I missing something huge here?