3 ms·

> label that accuses the text of being offensive Abrahamic religious texts, and a lot of others as well, are offensive. They clearly and directly glorify oppr

> label that accuses the text of being offensive Abrahamic religious texts, and a lot of others as well, are offensive. They clearly and directly glorify oppressive and/or genocidal violence in the past. There's a very strong argument that they demand similar violence in the present and future. They definitely demand a whole bunch of evil and oppressive social institutions. They're more offensive than hardcore porn. Any "believers" who claim they don't really mean what they say should get exactly as much consideration as people who claim hardcore porn doesn't really mean the sex. It's just that F-Droid shouldn't be in the business of caring what's "NSFW".

watwut 1y ago
> They're more offensive than hardcore porn. No they are not. Not unless you are intentionally taking in super weird definition of "offensive" or "hardcore porn". And I am saying that as someone who is not Christian and finds a lot of what Christianity stands for off-putting or even unethical. There is a reason people who want quick individual fun go for porn and not for a bible.
- greycol 1y ago
  It's all about interpretation, which is the point where you mark something as not appropriate for children so that parents can actively make the choice on if their kids should be exposed to it. In this case there's very little argument about whether we want more people following the voice in their head to kill their son, which is from the bible, or having vanilla sex, which is the definition of hardcore porn (as opposed to softcore porn, not hardcore as in extreme at least that was the definition I'm used to perhaps the meaning has drifted). People are comfortable with religious texts because they are bought up with them and know which pieces to ignore, just look at the moral panic around teenagers getting hold of a Qaran and going off to join ISIS after 9/11. Hell I find the prevalence and acceptance of genital mutilation encouraged by religious texts horrendous when I spend time considering it. It's not a hardship to let parents decide whether kids should have access to this stuff. That being said what the tag does in context of the f-droid shop is not really helpful behavior. It's not what most people would expect for parental control and outside of countries where the texts may be proscribed it's not really helpful behavior to hide these apps.
  - Hizonner 1y ago
    > whether we want more people following the voice in their head to kill their son Now, to be fair, the voice did walk that back once it was clear the guy was going to do it. It just needed to be reassured that it was special.
    - asacrowflies 1y ago
      Classic narcissist/ borderline personality disorder style manipulation btw.... Which says a lot about the religion ...
    - daurentius523 1y ago
      To be really fair - semitic politheism had a thing for the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moloch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moloch . This can be seen as opposition (a weak one) or whitewashed remnant of endorsement. I'm not sure that this label works though - I get the F-Droid is doing it because of regulatory push but it seems to me that simply notion of "safe internet" or "safe app-store" is fundamentally misguided (we didn't made TV safe - just gave ranking and let parents decide)- and I can see that someone with modern sensibilities looking at older or god-forbid "ancient" literature will have to mark huge swaths of it as not safe. I think that most of this rage should instead be directed toward this regulatory nonsense instead of F-droid though. This does illustrate ironical thing - and what christian puritans forget - bible will not OK for atheistic/modern puritans.
  - watwut 1y ago
    > r having vanilla sex, which is the definition of hardcore porn Which is super weird definition of hardcore porn. No, a vanilla sex appearing in a book does not make it hard porn book. > people following the voice in their head to kill their son, which is from the bible A thing that appears in book and stories for kids. Including the ones the kids are taught about in school. And yes I have kids in school.
    - Hizonner 1y ago
      > Which is super weird definition of hardcore porn. As far as I know, the definition of "hardcore porn" is and always has been explicit depiction of actual sexual activity (on edit: in a way intended to be sexually arousing to the reader/viewer). In pictures, that generally comes out to genitalia being shown in contact with genitalia or other body parts. And that's how you do vanilla sex. What is your super weird definition? > No, a vanilla sex appearing in a book does not make it hard porn book. "... and then they had sex" wouldn't. A relatively clinical or relatively expurgated sentence or two wouldn't. > A thing that appears in book and stories for kids. What particular book or story do you have in mind here, and exactly what does it say, and how does it present it? Because the Bible presents it as praiseworthy to be prepared to kill your son if you hear God tell you to do it, and gives what it claims is an actual, factual, historical example.
- Hizonner 1y ago
  > Not unless you are intentionally taking in super weird definition of "offensive" or "hardcore porn". I'm sorry, but I find books that say straight out that I should be killed to be a bit on the offensive side. I'm funny that way.

watwut 1y ago

> They're more offensive than hardcore porn. No they are not. Not unless you are intentionally taking in super weird definition of "offensive" or "hardcore porn". And I am saying that as someone who is not Christian and finds a lot of what Christianity stands for off-putting or even unethical. There is a reason people who want quick individual fun go for porn and not for a bible.

greycol 1y ago
It's all about interpretation, which is the point where you mark something as not appropriate for children so that parents can actively make the choice on if their kids should be exposed to it. In this case there's very little argument about whether we want more people following the voice in their head to kill their son, which is from the bible, or having vanilla sex, which is the definition of hardcore porn (as opposed to softcore porn, not hardcore as in extreme at least that was the definition I'm used to perhaps the meaning has drifted). People are comfortable with religious texts because they are bought up with them and know which pieces to ignore, just look at the moral panic around teenagers getting hold of a Qaran and going off to join ISIS after 9/11. Hell I find the prevalence and acceptance of genital mutilation encouraged by religious texts horrendous when I spend time considering it. It's not a hardship to let parents decide whether kids should have access to this stuff. That being said what the tag does in context of the f-droid shop is not really helpful behavior. It's not what most people would expect for parental control and outside of countries where the texts may be proscribed it's not really helpful behavior to hide these apps.
- Hizonner 1y ago
  > whether we want more people following the voice in their head to kill their son Now, to be fair, the voice did walk that back once it was clear the guy was going to do it. It just needed to be reassured that it was special.
  - asacrowflies 1y ago
    Classic narcissist/ borderline personality disorder style manipulation btw.... Which says a lot about the religion ...
  - daurentius523 1y ago
    To be really fair - semitic politheism had a thing for the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moloch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moloch . This can be seen as opposition (a weak one) or whitewashed remnant of endorsement. I'm not sure that this label works though - I get the F-Droid is doing it because of regulatory push but it seems to me that simply notion of "safe internet" or "safe app-store" is fundamentally misguided (we didn't made TV safe - just gave ranking and let parents decide)- and I can see that someone with modern sensibilities looking at older or god-forbid "ancient" literature will have to mark huge swaths of it as not safe. I think that most of this rage should instead be directed toward this regulatory nonsense instead of F-droid though. This does illustrate ironical thing - and what christian puritans forget - bible will not OK for atheistic/modern puritans.
- watwut 1y ago
  > r having vanilla sex, which is the definition of hardcore porn Which is super weird definition of hardcore porn. No, a vanilla sex appearing in a book does not make it hard porn book. > people following the voice in their head to kill their son, which is from the bible A thing that appears in book and stories for kids. Including the ones the kids are taught about in school. And yes I have kids in school.
  - Hizonner 1y ago
    > Which is super weird definition of hardcore porn. As far as I know, the definition of "hardcore porn" is and always has been explicit depiction of actual sexual activity (on edit: in a way intended to be sexually arousing to the reader/viewer). In pictures, that generally comes out to genitalia being shown in contact with genitalia or other body parts. And that's how you do vanilla sex. What is your super weird definition? > No, a vanilla sex appearing in a book does not make it hard porn book. "... and then they had sex" wouldn't. A relatively clinical or relatively expurgated sentence or two wouldn't. > A thing that appears in book and stories for kids. What particular book or story do you have in mind here, and exactly what does it say, and how does it present it? Because the Bible presents it as praiseworthy to be prepared to kill your son if you hear God tell you to do it, and gives what it claims is an actual, factual, historical example.
Hizonner 1y ago
> Not unless you are intentionally taking in super weird definition of "offensive" or "hardcore porn". I'm sorry, but I find books that say straight out that I should be killed to be a bit on the offensive side. I'm funny that way.