Initiateofthevoid

I never said that, nor did I ever think that. But you have made clear that this discussion is unwanted, and I will respect that and say no more on it. Farewell.

Did you? To me? Where?

Please don't feel that the best thing you can do is shut up! You deserve a voice in the matter, even if it is much harder for you to use it the way others can use theirs.

Besides, not everyone can always be or even needs to always be the person who spreads the message. We need people to help figure out what the problems and solutions are just as much as we need people to share those problems and solutions with the world.

It is usually a necessary evil that we have marketers to sell the things that wouldn't exist without the engineers to produce them.

I already told you what I didn’t agree with and why I didn’t agree with it several times

I didn't and still don't see any explanations for why you disagree, other than "being athiest" which I do not believe is sufficient explanation in and of itself. There are plenty of athiests who find reasons to agree or disagree on this topic beyond that single belief.

I apologize if my approach seems insistent that you need to agree with me. I only wanted to explore the topic further, and am happy to discontinue that if the desire is not reciprocated. Farewell.

I have no idea how to interpret “improve our conscious contact with God” any other way.

... All they’re really doing is using their imagination to simulate a being greater than themselves and then asking “what would that being want for my life?”

This is a secular interpretation of "improve our conscious contact with God" that doesn't actually involve "communicating with a God"

Is there something about this interpretation that you don't understand or disagree with?

You are missing the point, voting in a party that has been moving slowly right isn’t a way to fix it.

Most of us are well aware voting them in wasn't going to fix the core problems of the United States.

However, most of us are also well aware that voting them out is making the core problems worse. One need only apply a blindfold and throw a dart at any of the executive decisions made over the last week to find incontrovertible evidence of that.

Accelerationism is nothing but supporting facism. There is no magical moment where fascists run a nation into the ground, the system collapses, and somehow you get to decide what happens after.

What comes after can be just as bad - if not worse - than what came before. And you will do nothing - less than nothing - to stop it by choosing not to vote.

I'm not questioning the value of non-electoral political action. That is just as - if not more - important. Get involved. Use your voice. Donate. Rally. Please.

I am only challenging this naive idea that "not voting" = "protesting". You cannot protest by staying home. You cannot protest by sitting out. Not voting isn't action, it's inaction and no revolution will ever, ever start with inaction.

I have no idea how to interpret “improve our conscious contact with God” any other way.

Then you're not experiencing any empathy for them. You're not actively putting yourself in their perspective, their world. You're accepting what they say, not extrapolating from that to understand what they think.

Religious people generally don't hear voices in their head. We know God doesn't talk to them. They know God doesn't talk to them. They might believe in signs or whatever, but they don't hear a voice when they pray, and they certainly don't expect to.

From the outside perspective of an athiest, you should be able to see that all they're really doing is using their imagination to simulate a being greater than themselves and then asking "what would that being want for my life?"

This is not very functionally different from asking ourselves "if I was a better person, what would I want for my life?"

The theistic process could be corrupted by malformed ideas about the things a deity would want, sure. But the athiestic process could also be corrupted by malformed ideas about the things a good person would want.

There has never, ever been anything approaching a protest that starts with the words "sitting out”.

Sitting out has definitely been a form of protest. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montgomery_bus_boycott

The Montgomery bus boycott didn't start with sitting out. It started with Rosa Parks sitting in.

Not to mention the easily understood fact that an economic boycott - one which causes direct material consequences - has absolutely no relation to some sort of "political boycott", which causes zero consequences against anyone in power.

Hell democracy is measured by political votes, a nation with low voter turn out are considered non democratic.

Yes? Congratulations, you are therefore contributing to our continued democratic decline.

You're not engaging with the challenge to your original statement.

You don't protest by sitting out. So what are you doing?

What the radical left are doing is sitting out in protest of a broken system.

There has never, ever been anything approaching a protest that starts with the words "sitting out".

That's not revolution, that's apathy and disinterest. That's what the people in power want.

Don't sit out. Stand up. Do something. Or don't. But don't lie to yourself and others and say that sitting out of the problem makes it any better.

If the user was going to message someone off platform they’d still be sending them an unencrypted message anyways if they have to switch apps to SMS.

It sounds like they don't want to take responsibility for that user choice or be connected to anything that happens because of that choice.

It would still be an insecure choice, even with obvious UX distinctions. It would only be a matter of time before headlines muddy the waters with "intercepted Signal messages reveal..." or "Judge rules in favor of subpeona for unencrypted Signal messages..."