Speaking as a California native and blatant leftie, I’m very proud of the Texas liberals I have met. They are actually better liberals than most people In CA, because they aren’t just inculcated into it, and they maintain their liberalism against adversity. Texas the state is fucked up, but I have a lot of respect for Texans. You just have a slightly larger asshole block than we do.
Yes, many people are raised to have pride in the town, city, state, country or planet they are from. It's so common and cross-cultural that I am extremely surprised you would need an explanation by the time you're capable of writing comments on the Fediverse.
Now that we have the pedantry out of the way, how is your comment meant to be helpful or move us forward? If it's neither of those things, why are you doing it? All of this is rhetorical, of course. Just food for thought for us both.
I like the places I have lived, but I don’t feel like where I happened to be born is a personal achievement for myself. The rivalry between states and regions in the US is basically like nationalism. It’s not a good influence and it doesn’t come from a position of emotional maturity.
Sure, of course I acknowledge it exists. I understand why, i guess. I was forced to move around a lot as a kid, first from school to school and then from state to state, which probably gives me a different perspective. I just also resent it from things like, I drove 5 minutes across the bridge to Wisconsin to eat mexican food at this crappy bar, then guys in the parking lot acted like they wanted to kill me for not having a Wisconsin license plate, as they muttered something about football.
Since it seems we are covering personal opinions, I think this is like all pride: sometimes it can be good and sometimes it can be toxic, often depending on who the person feeling prideful is.
I find it confusing because i think pride should be reserved for personal achievements. Got your doctorates, ran a marathon, good for you. You were born in a place, born of a specific nationality, born of a specific race…not a point of pride, just something that happened to you. To take pride is to personalize something. I assume if youre a “proud texan” you created texas? Own texas? Texas owns you? You achieved a texas? So yea, I understand its a colloquialism but dont get it and people seem to mean it quite sincerely. I asked OP (Who you are not) what they mean personally when they say “texas pride” You are not who was asked nor are you qualified to answer for them. Also I proudly own my pedantry. Words have meanings and should be used responsibly.
Usually there’s an aspect of embodying the good things associated with your place and culture. I wasn’t allowed a sense of pride as a child and never grew to understand it. But if I did have a normal sense of pride, one might say that my love of southern food and country music and disdain for shoes was a form of southern pride. Hell, I am getting the hang of being proud to represent those things without bringing the usual baggages of southern culture. See, being born in a place or of a race isn’t just a thing that happens to you. It’s a life you live. It’s a culture that is built into your foundation. There is no going back or starting over. It’s part of you forever. And you can take inherent pride in who you are, in the things you do, in the mark you leave on the world and people around you. You can be self satisfied to have created a good life and a stable person from the culture and community in which you were raised.
That’s a very individualist take on pride, which I suppose some might say is pretty American since we’re so focused on the individual here. But humanity also has communities, and pride in one’s community is quite normal.
You have to be a real fucking idiot if you think the bible tells you to hate others. Jesus’s whole fucking message was love everyone no matter what. He literally walked with lepers and washed others feet. Fuck these people (the Texans they are defying)
It’s not sarcasm. The bible says (not just the old testament, but the New testament as well) that homosexuals won’t enter the kingdom of God, etc. Throw out the entire religion.
I mean it’s all make believe anyway but I don’t recall the Bible actually condemning homosexuality. It condemns perversion, as in molestation or sexual assault, but doesn’t say anything about homosexuality to my knowledge.
You need to look again, because it absolutely does. Or do you think, “if a man lies with another man,” was just talking about best buds sleeping in the same bed.
edit: I guess people are too lazy to look themselves for something that’s already common knowledge…
But it’s Leviticus 20:13.
And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
In case you didn’t see the other replies, Leviticus 20:13:
And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
I'd be interested if you could share the original text, what you've shared is a translation. I don't read Sanskrit or Aramaic so I am not sure I'd be super useful, but I imagine other people might be able to help.
I’m not going to engage too heavily in an online religious discussion, but as with most things it really is more complicated than that. Many, many Christians acknowledge these parts of the Bible while still being LGBTQ affirming. In brief terms there’s a very good case these passages largely are speaking of some kind of sexual abuse, or the use of sexual activity as an act of worship.
If you can filter your mind of centuries of homophobic biblical rhetoric and biased translations, it’s surprising how little there is to read on the subject.
How is that contradictory? I didn’t say all Christians are hypocrites, just the ones that pick and choose what verses are convenient for them. Westboro Baptist seems to adhere pretty closely.
Christianity itself is a hateful ideology. Many people pick some of those hateful things when they walk past on the buffett line. Those people are both hateful and hypocritical.
I’m saying to either do it the way it says you have to do it, or stop wasting your time.
After all, God did say not to be lukewarm Christians, and if you are, he will “spew you from his mouth”
I mostly agree, with the exception of thinking that Christianity is hateful (though some of course try their best to show otherwise), but if you’re saying it’s hypocritical to interpret the bible as not being against homosexuality I think you’re drastically oversimplifying. That part was the only thing I was looking to discuss.
Affirming Christians don’t ignore it, but they also don’t need to treat it as a commandment as you seem to. If you read the start of the chapter, it’s talking about practices done by neighbouring communities as they worship their own gods. The instruction here is essentially to the Israelites to make themselves separate from that. It’s relevant to the time and their geography and it is not a code of sexual ethics. Furthermore, even though it’s easy to call it very clear, the verse you cite is not even talking about regular gay sex, and certainly not gay sex in a loving relationship. It’s referring to likely abusive gay sex with teenage boys.
Believing what I’ve just said is not an act of hypocracy, at worst it’s a well meaning misinterpretation. If someone were to pick and choose as you say, and be fine with tattoos (also covered in this section) but use this verse to be against homosexuality then that is hypocracy.
I’m well aware of the apologetics. Whatever mental gymnastics you have to do, friend. Maybe one day you’ll be free of the constant cognitive dissonance. It’s a huge relief.
Furthermore, even though it’s easy to call it very clear, the verse you cite is not even talking about regular gay sex, and certainly not gay sex in a loving relationship. It’s referring to likely abusive gay sex with teenage boys.
So then why would it call for the abused boys’ death?
Someone else pointed out it’s Leviticus 20:13. Fair! It should be noted though that passage was to Moses about Jewish law as it goes on to talk about not eating unclean animals, etc… which is generally ignored by Christians but your point stands
“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
So according to the bible , homosexuals and effeminate people cannot enter heaven, that sounds like condemning to me…
The Bible explicitly says in black and white that God hates gender-nonconforming people.
True. Edit: I like to clarify that I define this strictly to God hating people having sex with another of the same biological sex.
Ditto that Christians need to shun gay men.
Logically speaking, it doesn’t follow. It’s equally valid to hold the opinion that “while God hates gender-nonconforming people, I am not supposed to punish them for it.” In fact a famous example to that effect is John 7:53–8:11: “let him who is without sin, cast the first stone”. Practically-speaking, that line of thinking (that Christians need to shun gay men and similar ideas, that is) had dire consequences in the form of witch trials. There, they used the Christian prohibition on witchcraft to purge societies of social outcasts and undesirables who are most probably not witches.
Jesus as described in the New Testament was quite a badass. He fearlessly stood up to power, and fought against greed and hypocrisy. If more Christians followed his example that would be great.
Did he? He flipped over some money lenders tables and he debated the religious leaders of the day. He may have disagreed with them but I challenge you (and I'm an atheist, I have no real horse in the race about supposedly divine beings) to find a place in the bible where jesus was described as hating anyone.
“13 But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in. 15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves…
23 Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
25 Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26 Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean…
33 You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?”
Matthew 23:13, 15, 23-26, 33
The entire chapter is a rant against them but I just picked out some of the more damning language against them.
This is somewhat irrelevant, but I’m most struck with the “mint, dill and cumin”. Herbs sure are amazing. The history of cuisine is pretty interesting too.
You got any more of this? I know more than the lay person about the Bible but less than the ones who’ve read it most of their lives (or studied it). I love these verses!
This one isn’t Jesus but John the Baptist but has a similar vibe:
7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Bear fruit in keeping with repentance. 9 And do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. 10 Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Matthew 3:7-10
John 7:25-54 has a kind of funny interaction between Jesus and the Pharisees. Basically Jesus is preaching and saying he is the Messiah. Some of the Pharisees flip out about this and send the temple guards to arrest him. The guards hear Jesus speaking and then come back without arresting him. Then the following conversation happens:
45 Finally the temple guards went back to the chief priests and the Pharisees, who asked them, “Why didn’t you bring him in?”
46 “No one ever spoke the way this man does,” the guards replied.
47 “You mean he has deceived you also?” the Pharisees retorted. 48 “Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed in him? 49 No! But this mob that knows nothing of the law—there is a curse on them.”
50 Nicodemus, who had gone to Jesus earlier and who was one of their own number, asked, 51 “Does our law condemn a man without first hearing him to find out what he has been doing?”
52 They replied, “Are you from Galilee, too? Look into it, and you will find that a prophet does not come out of Galilee.”
Another interaction between them:
9 As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector’s booth. “Follow me,” he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him.
10 While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples. 11 When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”
12 On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13 But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
Matthew 9:9-13
Another one:
10 And he called the people to him and said to them, “Hear and understand: 11 it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.” 12 Then the disciples came and said to him, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?” 13 He answered, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up. 14 Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.”
Matthew 15:11-14 (rest of the chapter is pretty good too).
Jesus issues some scathing condemnation against the Pharisees in that entire section of the book of Matthew. His messaging is pretty consistent all throughout the New Testament. It all boils down to loving others as you would love yourself, stop being greedy, and don’t be a hypocrite. When Jesus was asked what is the greatest commandment in the law he replied simply:
“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment’. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
So all these bible thumpers and evangelicals who constantly rant about hatred and condemnation have missed to first and second most important messages that Jesus shared.
Yeah, I knew someone would say this. He’s calling a group of people that are trying to kill him a brood of vipers and damning them to hell. That reads to me as hate. If anyone other than Jesus was making those statements it would be interpreted by most people as hate.
Yes, under Christian theology Jesus doesn’t hate people because that is the backbone of the entire belief system. But without that presupposition, Jesus’s statements to the Pharisees sound a lot like hate.
Edit: But tbf, his hatred is probably directed towards the entire institution rather than the individual members. Like how people hate the police but may not necessarily hate every single police officer.
Thank you for citing the passages, but I similarly to the other commenter disagree that he is saying he hates them rather than their actions.
The word hate isn't in there. I might call a gang a "brood of vipers" but that wouldn't mean I necessarily hated them.
Lastly, and for what it's worth, I'm not clear if the "Seven Woes on the Teachers of the Law and the Pharisees" are meant to be quotes of Jesus or if they are Matthew.
Still, thank you for sharing something specific and not just hand waving.
I don’t know. He didn’t just “flip tables”. In John 2:15, he “braided a whip out of cords” to drive them from the temple. However, in the original Greek, the word used for whip was “phragellion”, which isn’t an ordinary whip. This was the type of whip used in Gladiatorial combat by Romans, and was typically fashioned with weights or barbs at the ends of the falls. This was a whip designed explicitly to do harm, and no other whip in the Bible is described as a phragellion. Making such a whip is a deliberate, premeditated and time-consuming process. I would argue that this specific detail suggests that, while His actions are not directed by hatred, He still clearly intended to hurt the people defiling the temple and abusing their authority.
And these are the only people Jesus ever deliberately harms. Which is very telling.
You seem very confident in a lot of what is written in a very old translation of a hodpdge of work.
You are drawing a conclusion I do not from the same text.
It seems odd to me that a divinely inspired work could be so confusing or open to interpretation.
And given so very many passages where Jesus calls for love, why do you spend so much time justifying your interpretation that says Jesus hated a particular group?
There may be food for thought here for both of us.
I didn’t say He hated anyone. In fact, I explicitly said His actions were not motivated by hatred. Jesus speaks of Justice on numerous occasions. His actions in the Temple were not hateful or vengeful, they were enacting justice upon those who abused their power, and specifically power they claimed to derive from God.
The Bible contains quite a bit of hating others… God is a real piece of shit in the old testament. What did Job do to deserve what he got? Why did he tell Abraham to kill his own son for a goof? The book literally justifies slavery.
Yeah, but like fuck the Old Testament. That shit is just stories. The New Testament is where I feel the actual messages are. That’s just my belief others can feel differently I don’t care. However, I do care if you use your religion to expose hate and violence. Be better, love everyone regardless of what they are. You can not enjoy their company or not want to associate with them, but lift them up always. I don’t know if I worded that last bit properly 😅
Ok, just pointing out that your beliefs are not consistent with your holy book.
By what criteria are you able to justify ignoring parts of the book and not others? Is it not the inerrant word of God? Didn’t Jesus say that he didn’t come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it? He made it very clear that you can’t just throw away the OT.
You seem to have good values, just don’t see the reason any kind of unscientific claims about the supernatural need to be a part of it. Just unnecessary baggage.
Jesus consistently preached basically in opposition to those obscure Old Testament hate filled passages. Look in the other comment chain for the Matthew verse. To expand on what I said, I don’t think all of the OT is garbage, but I do think most of it is up to personal interpretation to a point. If you get to a point your interpretations are hateful you’ve fucked up.
I don’t exactly think Jesus was supernatural, I believe he existed and that he was trying to teach the world a lesson that still holds true today. Whether he was a messiah or not is up to personal interpretation and I’m not gonna tell people they can’t believe that.
If you don’t believe that Jesus died and rose again for your sins, then you’re not a Christian by definition.
Also, those are not “obscure” stories. They’re the basis of all Abrahamic religions, including Christianity. In fact, the only reason there even is a NT is because they wanted to write about the “prophecies” from the OT “coming true.” You can’t have one without the other.
And, once again, Jesus is God. God did really fucked up things in the old testament, that means Jesus did really fucked up things. In the NT he supported those fucked up things that he did, and his existence itself is allegedly a fulfillment of OT prophecy. That’s why they killed him! Assuming he ever existed in the first place.
Not trying to be a dick, but as someone who was raised in an evangelical church, I know the Bible inside and out. People who pick and choose, or pretend they can be Christian and still think being gay is ok, piss me off because it’s a direct contradiction of what you claim to believe.
People like you legitimize a barbaric religion that is (once again) destroying the fabric of our society. Be honest with yourself and come to terms with the fact that your religion condones slavery, and killing people for being homosexual.
There is a huge gulf of difference between someones religion and someone’s scripture. Christian abolitionists were a powerful force to end slavery in the USA.
Not every Christian group places too much importance on the Bible. I was raised catholic and we were actively discouraged from reading it, lol. That’s not better, but it is insulation against the laws for how to treat your slaves
Never claimed to be a Christian. I don’t legitimize these barbaric idiots, I believe they’re wrong, that’s my interpretation of the OT. I know I’m not wrong because it’s religion not science, you can believe whatever you want.
So you think something philosophical in nature has a black and white right or wrong about what to believe in? Like I said it’s not science it’s religion/philosophy
If you can’t prove yourself right, you’re wrong by default. Onus of proof and all that. For someone so interested in philosophy you sure have a poor understanding of it.
You’ve gone so far bro you’ve accidentally came out for the other side. My sister is trans, this isn’t up for debate it’s a fact. She also had genetic testing done and she’s completely normal to her birth gender. She now has no actual proof beyond how she feels and believes. Does that mean she’s wrong because of onus of proof and all that?
I think the New Testament is mostly garbage that is filled with stories/ideas that are very much up to personal Interpretation, exactly how I view the other Abrahamic faiths. Each of the Gospels has their own interpretation of Jesus and their own agenda to push.
Jesus absolutely never ever refuted or went against the Torah in the Gospels. People accused him of it, but that’s only their interpretation of the law that he broke, not his own. He just didn’t want people to be burdened needlessly by the law, that’s all. Jewish sects of the time were fighting over semantics and interpretation of the Torah.
They fought about things like, what constituted working on the Sabbath? Could you go into your farm and pick some fruit on the Sabbath, or would that be a form of work. Some Jews would say ‘fuck yes that’s work bitch’. Jesus thought that YHWY created the sabbath to help and benefit humankind, and that it was silly to look at such small details while bigger details, like human suffering, went ignored.
Same as Christian sects do today, over the same kind of bullshit too.
I don’t believe in anything supernatural at all. I think Jesus of nazareth was a nutter who thought his God was going to swoop in and make him king and get rid of the Roman’s oppressing his homeland and people, but got executed as an enemy of the state. He also had some tasty views on rich people, so overall cool dude in my book. Fuck the Roman’s.
Christianity started out as a Jewish sect by the way. Christianity became anti-jewish over time because they couldn’t convince Jews that Jesus was the Messiah. Probably because the Jewish Messiah was supposed to be a grand warrior figure that was going to overthrow the Roman’s and Jesus was executed by the Roman’s in one of the most dehumanizing and humiliating ways they had. Its why gentiles were easier to convert than Jews, they didn’t have explain that away.
You should read up on the historical Jesus, Bart Ehrman is my absolute favorite author on the New Testament and the Historical Jesus. Israel Finklestein has a delightful book on the historical side of the Hebrew Bible, I think the Great Courses Plus has a lecture series on that as well.
Here’s a YouTube Playlist from Bart Ehrmans lecture series on the historical Jesus, it is missing the best episodes sadly, but still great. People can get the full thing on audible, it’s so worth it.
Edit: I miss r/askbiblescholars so bad 😫 I miss you RIF
What was envisioned as a day to spotlight the “widespread opposition” to LGBTQ+ youth instead blossomed into a remarkable display of backing and unity for trans individuals across Canada.
Because there is no widespread opposition. It’s just a bunch of really loud opposition who think volume equates support and who’ve been hoodwinked by Russian trolls and bots into thinking there’s a lot of people like them.
Except for two places. Kitchener and Surrey.
Kitchener has seen a rise in LGBTQ hate crimes as well. Generally it's been perpetuated by high school kids, so nothing will happen
There is a diversity of Christian denominations and some are (socially) progressive. But we seldom hear about them as angry evangelical ones scream mich louder. But they are there, doing their work as they always have making little news unless you look for it.
For example the Metropolitan Community Church has ordained LGBT clergy since 1968 and United Church of Christ since -72. So there are very socially progressive denominations out there, just wish their voices were heard louder. Or that media reported on them more.
Thinking of it I would like more Christian schisms to be prevalent.
Thank you for highlighting this fact. For another example, the Episcopal Church has LGBT clergy, and performs marriages for LGBT people. It strongly emphasizes welcoming everyone with no exceptions, and supports lots of social welfare programs. They even oppose legal restrictions on abortion. Liberal Christians are out there but they don’t make headlines in most cases.
My partner was telling me that Tammy Faye Bakker was a queer ally during the AIDS epidemic, gave a victim of AIDS a hug when people were scared to touch them, told christians to be ashamed of themselves for turning their backs, and had one on her TV show (by satellite because all the crew were scared so it wasn’t logistically possible). All these people are batshit crazy but like they say, even a broken clock is right twice a day
A very slightly better one than you thought you went to sleep In?
Credit where it’s due. I applaud the church for doing this and never thought I would read such a thing. Of course there’s a bit of an orphan crushing machine kind of thing going on. But I’ll take the microscopic ^^^^W
In general, the rural areas are red and the cities are blue. Austin, Dallas - Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio, all center to left leaning. Literally everywhere else is full of repuglicunts or ‘libertarians’.
A greater number of people in the state lean left rather than right, but a greater number of districts lean right rather than left. This is primarily because there are far more rural areas in the state than otherwise, but gerrymandered districts make the problem worse.
From my anecdotal experience growing up, Texas used to be a lot more chill when it came to civil rights. It was a lot more common to hear, “I don’t agree with you, but it’s your right to do it” than it was to experience truly hateful people. They still existed, but the average person tended to get annoyed or offended by the outspoken, hateful people, even if their views aligned. Somewhere along the way it started going downhill (before Trump), and then Trump gave it a big shove which is why Texas is where it is today.
Edit: also, something a lot of people forget is how massive Texas is as a state. Any single European country can comfortably fit inside of Texas with room to spare. There’s a reason why Texans tend to talk about distance in terms of minutes or hours instead of yards or miles.
I remember once being just out of walking distance of a place I wanted to go to, the mass transit “distance” being well over an hour, and the taxi “distance” being about ten minutes.
Something is far when it takes me a while with loads of effort to get to it. Something is close when I can get to it quickly and easily. Western PA is further from me than London is. One involves a single flight and one train, the other involves a 10 hour drive with traffic, PA drivers, and PA roads.
Listen to George HW Bush, from Texas, talking about immigration in a debate with Reagan (who also talks about “an open border both ways”). Reagan ruined a lot of things, but it still used to be different. youtu.be/YsmgPp_nlok
I call it “what if?” news… so I basically I do the same thing you do, only instead of replacing “could” with “could not”… I just rewrite the sentence to start off with the words “What if”, like this: “What if this could be the holy grail to replace palm oil”.
Replacing “What if” with “IN A WORLD, WHERE…” and then doing in the movie trailer guy’s voice works equally well.
You’re right. It’s not silly for the rich folks who use the media to brainwash the public. They have everything to gain from pushing propaganda down the throats of everyone
Good, but the US should do better. I would support outlawing new construction of non-renewable energy. And strict timelines for utilities to become renewable.
I think we're past the point when we should just "encourage" or incentivize clean energy. We need to DEMAND it.
First thing I see on this chart is China understanding the next several decades of energy. Second this I see is corporate America willingly fuck the next few generations with their problems by refusing to to put lives before profits.
There is a wide range of renewable sources: Hydro, geothermal, biogas, different kinds to use wind and solar. I can understand why you would want diversification across that range. So that if one source is affected by circumstances, the others can continue delivering.
But what sense does it make to diversify between renewable and non-renewable, if you meant that? It’s certainly possible to lead this principle ad absurdum. Should we diversify between tested and untested methods, between cheap and expensive, between safe and dangerous?
we don’t know what tomorrow holds.
That’s a reason to diversify between different renewable methods, distribute them across different regions. If you really meant we should include fossil fuels, you might need to make that point explicit, because it is not self-explaining.
Microsoft just started selling spare parts for an xbox controller.
Fixing a drifting thumbstick is 80% the cost of a new controller in parts alone. You can fix it for $5 if you go aftermarket and are happy desoldering over 10 points to remove it.
Which, as I understand it, is kinda the point of the bills too. As in, if there is documentation and it’s reasonably easy to dis- and re-assemble, there can be a (bigger) market for spare parts.
The problem is that the thumbsticks are soldered onto the motherboard. Microsoft’s “fix” is replacing the whole motherboard, when the sticks should really be swappable.
In a Nintendo Switch, the sticks are held in by screws and connect via a ZIF connector.
The method involves a chemical solution that dissolves and leaches gold at room temperature and is “environmentally friendly”
Strategic quotes deploy! If it's anything like the methods I've seen, then that's some really generous usage of the words environmentally and friendly next to each other.
I’ve recycled old ram trimmings to recover 2.5g of gold for use in my fiancée’s engagement ring (wasn’t enough for the whole ring, but it’s the thought that counts.
If you do it right, the only byproducts are salt, carbon dioxide, oxygen, and water.
Copper (II) chloride dissolves the copper and makes Copper (I) chloride. Mix with sulfuric acid and get CuSO4 and HCl. CuSO4 can have the copper plated out of it and get more sulfuric acid, and HCl can be mixed with Copper (I) chloride to recycle back into copper (II) chloride.
So you’re left with gold and other bits. You can dissolve the gold in a mixture of nitric and Hydrochloric acid to get chloroauric acid. Wash with water and you now have a beaker of gold in solution that looks like an alcoholic’s piss.
Then bubble in sulfur dioxide and you get gold, Hydrochloric acidic and sulfuric acid.
So if you play it right, it’s infinitely recyclable. You just need electricity and heat to keep recovering the waste materials.
The problem I mostly ran into was ending up with a shitload of HCl. The store bought stuff is 30%, but the best you can recover through distillation is 20%. It takes a LOT of baking powder to neutralize it.
That sounds like a fun experiment to go through. Are any of these ingredients hard to come by? And is there something explicitly dangerous besides the usual “don’t breath in directly from the beaker and don’t put acid on yourself”?
The most dangerous is probably the sulfuric and nitric acid. Sulfuric acid has earned its nickname “oil of vitriol.” 99% sulfuric will burn through paper in seconds. Skin and paper have a lot in common. Didn’t play much with the nitric acid, but I’ve heard it’s angry. You really only need a small amount to help the hydrochloric acid dissolve the gold. Also sulfur dioxide is hella nasty smelling.
Nitric acid is the single hardest ingredient to get. I found a seller on eBay. I think you can make nitric acid with store bought chemicals though, but I never had to do that.
Other ingredients:
Hydrochloric acid - sold as concrete cleaner Sulfuric acid - sold (diluted) as battery acid. Easy to concentrate with a condenser. Unlike HCl, you can get like 99% purity through distillation. Copper Chloride - Drop some copper into a bath of hydrochloric acid and hydrogen peroxide Sulfur Dioxide - Mix sodium metabisulfite with an acid. Sodium metabisulfite is commercially used in some food/beverage preservatives. I bought a bag of it of amazon that was marketed towards brewers. SO
Yeah, it’s sort of hard to define “environmentally friendly.” We fart. That’s OK, totally natural, environmentally friendly, right? 7 billion of us fart? Well, that’s stinking greenhouse gas right there…
Walking is one of the best things you can do for your body. I never thought much of it until I got a dog and started taking him on walks a couple of times a day. I had no clue how much better regular walks would make me feel, despite being relatively healthy and active before.
Especially if you’re getting up in years. Even just some light walking everyday helps significantly in preventing or minimizing osteoporosis and muscle atrophy. Plenty of mental benefits too as well.
At a point, a sedentary lifestyle will rapidly catch up with you both mentally and physically. It also becomes a “use it or lose it” when it comes to bone and muscle health and significantly difficult if not practically impossible to reverse once it starts to fail.
He says it makes no sense to do it, because not only are you basically using twice the energy to get it back down, often using energy made from fossil fuels to begin with, you then also have to tackle storage and that's nearly impossible at the scale we need to take it out of the atmosphere. Any use case, such as green houses and whatnot don't help, because they put the CO2 straight back into the atmosphere with a bit of a delay, same with trees.
Which makes it a futile exercise. It's basically gold plated HDMI cables. Sure it works, but it makes no sense whatsoever, because it doesn't do what it claims to do.
While it appears he actually has credentials related to this topic I would be way of promoting him in particular. Giving more light to someone who was so deeply entrenched in the gamergate harassment campaigns is not a good thing. I took a quick look around and while it seems like he's stepped away from that kind of commentary I haven't seen any acknowledgement of what he did.
What does “gamergate harassment” mean? He’s got an opinion channel and so, regardless of his credentials, one should not take his word (or anyone’s) as gospel. Opinion channels are exactly what they are for, opinions. He does do a good job though at basing his opinions on science facts and shares sources for the evidence he presents on his videos. Him and Evvblog channel are high up there with those pointing out the flase science claims and tech scammers of today, imo.
By "gamergate harassment" I mean the campaign of criticism and harassment that was primarily focused on several prominent women in the gaming/media industry from about 2014-2015. Thunderf00t was particularly focused on Anita Sarkeesian, making dozens of videos about her and bringing her up frequently in unrelated videos over the course of multiple years. He helped create a climate where people felt the need to threaten and doxx others because they were feminists and "SJWs".
I certainly agree with your view of opinion channels, take everything with a grain of salt unless it has a source. Even then, make sure the source is legitimate and not manipulated before assuming it is correct. I do not mean to say he is wrong about everything, just to apply some extra skepticism to his opinions and ideas. Particularly when it comes to stuff outside the scientific sphere.
hbomberguy made a good video about some of the stuff he closer to when it was happening. It is primarially focused on Thunderf00t's reactions to the Ghostbusters trailer, but it does go a bit into the gamergate stuff. It gives a good idea as to what kind of videos he made on gamergate. It's largely opinions though, so be sure to approach it critically as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpgBkpb7xlU
upliftingnews
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.