Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their voting records don’t seem to bear that theory out.
Did large blocks of them vote for Tate?
Large blocks of them voted for his ally.
https://www.propublica.org/article/andrew-tate-investigation...
New US phone network for Christians to block porn and gender-related content
101–110 of 131 posts
Re: New US phone network for Christians to block porn and gender-related content
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
The beginning of Matthew 19 seems to be about divorce, not where you put your wiener in general. Matthew 19 is interesting to bring up, though. The end is all about how rich people don’t get into heaven. Would you say that this service should block depictions of wealth? It can be very tempting, after all.
In Matthew 19, Christ explicitly affirms the definition of marriage given in Genesis. As I said, this is an affirmative definition, i.e. it says what it is. Implicit is what it isn't, that is, anything else. He is answering by affirming marriage as a thing grounded in creation, in the nature of man and woman cleaving to one another in a lifelong covenant. I think things like "flexing" influencers who idolize material…
Funny that your go-to bad rich person is influencers and not, say, the president.
Re: New US phone network for Christians to block porn and gender-related content
#103So, Andrew Tate videos would be blocked for talking about male gender roles? I don’t understand why we are replacing “LGBT Content” with “Gender Content” in formal vocabulary.
[flagged]
Re: New US phone network for Christians to block porn and gender-related content
#104Happy to have the market solve a problem, providing an opt-in solution for people who want it. Somehow porn doesn't show up in my web-browsing either, funny how that works.
It doesn’t randomly show up in my browser either. Mysterious how all these people are “forced” to see this stuff when they go online.
Re: New US phone network for Christians to block porn and gender-related content
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Matthew 19, Christ explicitly affirms the definition of marriage given in Genesis. As I said, this is an affirmative definition, i.e. it says what it is. Implicit is what it isn't, that is, anything else. He is answering by affirming marriage as a thing grounded in creation, in the nature of man and woman cleaving to one another in a lifelong covenant. I think things like "flexing" influencers who idolize material…
Funny that your go-to bad rich person is influencers and not, say, the president.
I wasn't particularly aware of President Trump until he went for political power. I barely knew of him. I recall having seen him exactly once, in some documentary on the History Channel. He's mentally categorized to me as "politician" more than "rich guy", which is the wrong type of corruption for this case. I had much more exposure growing up to the "flexer" types as the archetypal idolizer of wealth.
You should engage with what I'm saying, rather than nitpicking, or say nothing.
Re: New US phone network for Christians to block porn and gender-related content
#106So, Andrew Tate videos would be blocked for talking about male gender roles? I don’t understand why we are replacing “LGBT Content” with “Gender Content” in formal vocabulary.
[flagged]
You conflate them, but it kind of sounds like the article is separating their de novo definition of “gender” from “trans”?
> It’s also rolling out a filter on sexual content aimed at blocking material related to gender and trans issues
Also there’s no need to “separate the T” because the actual quote was that this group wants to block LGBT content:
> “We are going to create an environment that is Jesus-centric, that is void of pornography, void of LGBT, void of trans”
It’s just weird for news outlets to relabel “LGBT” to “Gender”.
Re: New US phone network for Christians to block porn and gender-related content
#107Presumably not suitable for Catholics, as it would block catechism 239 (https://www.vatican.va/content/catechism/en/part_one/section... - WARNING: Contains gender.)
Re: New US phone network for Christians to block porn and gender-related content
#108So, Andrew Tate videos would be blocked for talking about male gender roles? I don’t understand why we are replacing “LGBT Content” with “Gender Content” in formal vocabulary.
[flagged]
... Well, I mean, taken at its most literal, _arguably_ the earth is flat. It's a bloody nonsense argument, but one might theoretically make it, and thus it is arguable. If you mean 'arguable' in its more conventional meaning, then, no it isn't arguable, don't be silly.
> This is why there's been a burgeoning "LGB drop the T" movement in the past few years.
So... As an experienced homosexual, I have met exactly one gay person in real life who holds this position. But he also opposed gay marriage, and civil unions, so, ah, y'know, not the most rational actor. (Also, IIRC he didn't believe in bisexuals, so would presumably be looking to lose the 'B', as well...) In practice, pretty much anyone parroting "LGB, drop the T" thing is a straight transphobe, and likely also a homophobe.
Re: New US phone network for Christians to block porn and gender-related content
#109This is such an extreme thing to do, there must be a better way. Why can't religion coexist alongside societal progress? From my (limited) understanding of the Bible, as it was translated and translated over the years to our common, modern languages a lot of it has been adjusted, and these adjustments don't align with the original text. Perhaps it needs to be changed further. I would love for people to have a religio…
Isn't that the whole point of religions... they offer something timeless, transcendent, or divinely revealed that stands above whatever the current culture happens to celebrate or condemn this decade. The current, past, and future values and norms that are decided by societies are fleeting, old tomorrow, always changing.
No. This is being aimed, one assumes, at US evangelical Christians (as I mention semi-jokingly elsewhere, it blocking catechism 239 might be an issue for Catholics). That is, being very generous, only about 250 years old at most, but realistically the current version's only about a century old.
Re: New US phone network for Christians to block porn and gender-related content
#110Interesting. I assumed that cellular providers were common carriers. Who knows under this administration though.
> Who knows under this administration though. That does not add anything of interest so you might as well leave it out unless you use it as an identity flag. There's plenty of 'special' mobile subscriptions with all sorts of filtering options. Most target parents who want their children to be able to do A but not B or C, some - like this one - target other groups.
There is previous history around the Trump administration, common carrier status for Internet providers, and net neutrality.