You must log in or # to comment.
Since people here seem confused by this post:
Helping a minority religious group and defending them against discrimination? Good.
Beleiving that religious fundamentalists will suddenly have progressive values and not immediately turn against the LGBTQ people who stood by them? Naive.
Yes but it says they’re “muslim” here, not a kind of radical or whatever. There is nothing here foreshadowing.
Source on her believing this? Because all I see is justified outrage, yet you’re calling her stupid.
Naive and stupid don’t mean the same thing. Stupid means a lack of intelligence but naive is a lack of wisdom.
The meme outright says stupid.
It’s stupid not to be bigoted in a world where other people are.
An argument only someone invested in bigotry would make.
So don’t be kind to people who need it because they could betray you later?
Sounds like Republican logic to me.
The reason to help people is because they need it, not because you need to get something from them.
These people have the right to upset and outraged that they were betrayed by a community that they supported.
But the logic being suggested here that they should have never offered helped because this was inevitable is not only cold and heartless but also xenophobic and discriminatory against Muslims.
You all sound like GOP voters.
Edit: Mocking people for showing compassion is a new low here. Your anger and hate is turning you into the people you deride. Take a long look in the mirror people.
I think it’s more a “you shouldn’t expect people will change their whole belief system just because you helped them materially. Don’t vote bigots into office, regardless of situation.”
Nonsense. If your chosen belief system includes edicts to harm other people you can fuck right the fuck off with your false indignation. You’re the asshole in the room, not everyone else.
Again, lumping all those practicing a religion into the same pot is discriminatory. It’s at the very least stereotyping. If you know anything about religion and the people who practice it, you would know that there’s a much variation from church to church or mosque to mosque as there are between major religions. I’m an atheist and even I know not every Christian church and Christian person believe or practice the same things, the same goes for Muslims.
This is how you make enemies of allies before you even give them a chance. If you want to alienate every single Muslim person without even giving them a chance the you’re just as bad as Trump voters.
AND EVEN IF, it was safe to assume that they would vote against flying pride flags, the people who gave them help and compassion did nothing wrong. If you believe otherwise you’re more of a villain that the Muslims who betrayed them.
If you think casting people out because they were raised to believe some shit in a book that was written thousands of years ago is going to making things better, you’re the idiots here. Their children will remember the compassion, and maybe that will change them. Isolating them and treating them as unwanted would never make anything better.
No one is saying that they shouldn’t have been shown compassion. They’re saying that they shouldn’t have been elected to office.
Where the fuck does it say they voted for them? You idiots are all laughing at someone for helping people and being betrayed.
Y’all went from laughing at conservatives hurt by conservatives to just laughing at people hurt by conservatives. What’s next, the little kids with cancer being deported?
Because any of that had worked so far. You’re scarily ignorant.
Again, turning inward and only taking care of your own team are exactly the attitudes of the people this place is meant to mock, and it’s exactly why we are in the situation we’re in.
Nah, I’m not going to stop pointing out hypocritical bullshit just because it conflicts with some weird idealistic worldview you’ve got.
So don’t be kind to people who need it because they could betray you later?
not sure where you’re getting that interpretation from
The comments and fact that this is posted here means the people hurt should have assumed so.
When I was growing up I (caucasian) for some reason had a couple cassette tapes of American First Nations folk tales. One has been looming in the back of my mind, mostly with regard to personal relationships, but it seems relevant in politics and so many other areas of life.
Paraphrased version in my natural tone goes something like this:
A young person is preparing to wade across a river when they notice a rattlesnake on the same bank. The snake seems to be giving an indication that it wishes to cross the river, so the child approaches the snake and asks if it wants a lift, because they were raised to treat all living beings with kindness. The snake looks over the child as if to say “you sure, human? I mean, that’s nice and all, but I am a rattlesnake. Didn’t you ever learn to leave us alone?”
The child persists, saying “well yes, I can see and hear that you are a rattlesnake, but I was raised to treat all beings with kindness, and this river is deep and fast. If you try cross it alone, you’ll be swept away. But I have long legs and steady feet, and hands to carry you with, and I have eyes to see that you need help if you wish to cross the river. So I offer you this aid, which I can provide in this moment, and ask for no payment, only that you do not bite me as we cross.”
The snake pauses, looks the kid over again, then relaxes its coils and stills its rattle. The child picks up the snake, and begins to wade across the river. As they cross, the child speaks to the snake, saying “remember this kindness, snake. The next time you or your children see a human, remember that we helped you cross this river, and let us pass in peace. We don’t eat rattlesnakes, and rattlesnakes don’t eat humans, we need not engage in conflict in the future.”
The snake remains quiet and still until the child finishes crossing the river, at which point the snake rears back, tenses, and strikes the child in the throat. The child instantly collapses, the snake’s venom coursing through their veins, swiftly poisoning their heart and brains. With their dying breath, the child turns tear-filled eyes to the snake as if to ask “why? Why would you kill me after I helped you cross the river? Why, after an expression of kindness and an offer of assistance, with no expectation of payment beyond decency in return, would you betray my trust?”
The snake replies, “because I’m a fucking rattlesnake you naive twit, what did you think was going to happen?” The snake leaves and the child dies.Remember, snakes are snakes, and humans are humans, which makes it all the more disappointing when humans act like snakes (and also when snakes don’t act like humans)
I’ve also heard a version of that story where the snake bites the kid in the middle of the crossing, and they both drown
There’s a similar tale with a scorpion and frog, often attributed to Aesop, that ends with them both drowning.
You know that was probably the version I heard actually
Alan Turing invented computers and used them to crack Nazi encryption during WWII helping the Allies win the war. After the war ended, he was repayed by being jailed and chemically castrated for being gay. So, I guess things are improving?
Turing did not invent computers, nor did he use them to crack codes during the war. That movie was correct that World War II occurred, and that Turing was alive at the same time and somehow contributed, but otherwise is pure fantasy.
I also have no idea what movie you’re talking about. His machine though (really a model) is what we consider a computer in the modern sense: a machine that can calculate different algorithms on the same hardware by having separate inputs (described as tapes") for data and instructions. Basically with that instructions tape idea, he invented the very concept of “software”. In all modern computers, different parts of memory are analogous to these two tapes. They call him the “Father of Computer Science” for a reason.
And he did help crack codes in WW2, he was employed by the British government to do just that for the duration of the war and had a lot of success. He designed and helped build the first British Bombes which broke many enigma-encoded communications, and his research contributed to the Colossus, the first programmable computer.
No idea what movie you’re talking about but from what I remember he did invent the Turing Machine and had a lot to do with lambda calculus.
I am also relatively certain that he worked with computers for some sort of military thing according to the Wikipedia article.
Turing improved upon the electromechanical Polish bombe machine and used that for cryptanalysis during the war. Bombes weren’t computers. His war work is often confused with the Colossus computers built by Tommy Flowers also at Bletchley Park, which built on some Turing theory, but with which Turing was not involved.
I could tentatively agree with “invention” of computers, but to say he didn’t use them (or hardware that could be classified as such) to further decryption efforts of messages in WW2 seems a little insane. He was pivotal to those efforts and to ongoing advancements in the field of computer science.
I don’t even understand why you made this comment. Turing was for all accounts a leading and influential mind. Why try to take that away from him? He wasn’t a bad guy.
Turing cracked codes using a Bombe, which is a machine invented by the Polish and is not a computer. His main work in computing came after the war, joining the pre-existing programme at Manchester where he wrote an early program. His achievements are many, and it isn’t necessary to attribute to him ones that were others, or to do him the disservice of misattribution because he happens to be a “celebrity”.
The computing work at Bletchley Park consisted of the Colossus machines, built by Tommy Flowers to crack communications between the German High Command, while Turing was on a separate programme using improved bombes to decrypt Enigma.
Fuck the religious.
Stupid isn’t a good word. Naive is better. You would think that after fighting to make a place more open that others would be appreciative, but unfortunately people don’t work that way.
Image broken
You wouldn’t feed and clothe people because they don’t ideologically support your display of gay flags (even if they’re not coercing you not to be gay)?! Should I not give charity and cash to homeless folks because they might buy booze, drugs and eat pork with that money? Very low standards for human decency, but I’m not surprised. 🤷
Wow your reading comprehension is really bad. That’s not what this post said at all
Edit: I just reread this post because something was bothering me. After pondering what you said for a little while I realized that you probably didn’t make a mistake because you’re an idiot. You intentionally misrepresented what the post said because you’re religious and the post made your religion look bad.
I don’t feel like I did, please enlighten me.
It’s not naivity. It’s a very particular mixture of stupidity, insanity, egocentrism and megalomania.
