Archive Today will help you look at paywalled content the way search engines see it.
Depending on severity, you might be warned before adverse action is taken.
Application of warnings or bans will be subject to moderator discretion. Feel free to appeal. If changes to the guidelines are necessary, they will be adjusted.
If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a group that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of any other group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you you will be banned on sight.
Provable means able to provide proof to the moderation, and, if necessary, to the community.
~ /c/nostupidquestions
If you want your space listed in this sidebar and it is especially relevant to the atheist or skeptic communities, PM DancingPickle and we'll have a look!
This is mostly YouTube at the moment. Podcasts and similar media - especially on federated platforms - may also feature here.
Start here...
...proceed here.
As a community with an interest in providing the best resources to its members, the following wiki links are provided as historical reference until we can establish our own.
The UN is a joke.
Also, fuck your holy book. We need to burn holy books every day until these Neanderthals understand how free speech and democracy works. If you want to live in a theocratic dictatorship, don’t move to the West!
No we should print more of them and disseminate them widely. On scrolls of the cost effecting tissue so we can print a lot but make it two or even three ply so it has strength and let those use it as they feel is right.
As one who has never burned a book to the best of my recollection, I'm flummoxed by the pleading for respect of dogma.
It's one thing to be respectful of other human beings, in adherence to the social contract. It's quite another to demand respect for an arbitrary thing, such as a point of view.
For example, I refuse to knowingly use Apple products in my house and, by extension of the same principle, my family chooses to use products on offer by companies who respect the rights conferred by ownership rather than effectively leasing a device to me with provisions. If I am vocal about my distaste for the way Apple does business, and you happen to be an Apple user, I expect that you understand that I mean no disrespect to you, the individual. I don't care one whit what you use privately, provided it doesn't perturb my rights to act differently from you. Anyone who has had this conversation from either perspective knows that being an Apple user is practically a religion on its own, so I think the comparison is apt.
And yet, nobody is going to put up a serious problem if I smash an iPhone. People understand that destroying a physical object in protest is not meant as a personal affront.
Meanwhile, religions throughout history have committed no small number of human rights violations and atrocities that pale in comparison to burning a book. Nobody has ever caused harm to another human being by setting fire to a book in protest, unless they then threw that book at someone wearing flammable pajamas.
what counts as a holy book? what if i get a group together and we all declare something like Game of Thrones to be holy?
well jedi is a religion so any star wars novelezation.
For those looking for corroboration from a more obviously neutral source: here you go
We need to start asserting something like Bibliocism, wherein all books are holy, and burning any of them should be condemned. There is no reason that my kid's early reader "Pat and Meg" should be treated with one iota less reverence than "The Quran."
Twenty-eight countries voted in favour, 12 voted against, and seven countries abstained.
Unholy shit, it actually passed? I hoped the title was clickbait.
"The opposition of a few in the room has emanated from their unwillingness to condemn the public desecration of the Holy Koran or any other religious book," he said.
"They lack political, legal and moral courage to condemn this act [...]"
No?? It's just not right. Also makes no sense. You can have as many books as you like and do whatever you want with them, as everyone else.
"The opposition of a few in the room has emanated from their unwillingness to condemn the public desecration of the Holy Koran or any other religious book," he said.
In point of fact: The opposition emanates from the fact that it’s a fucking book. I’m opposed to book burning as a general principle, but putting specific books that are supposedly written by someone’s imaginary friend into a special category where it’s illegal to burn them is entirely idiotic.
I’m opposed to book burning as a general principle
I think the details can make a huge difference here. Bad book burnings are meant to eradicate a book from existence, at least in a certain area. They mean to deprive people from accessing these books. This may include stealing books from people to burn them.
Harmless book burnings are nothing like that. They involve a person burning what they own (without stealing), with no attempts or hopes to reduce the number of books in circulation, and no goal to deny access.
The first is an actual threat to intellectual self determination. The other harms no one but the owner, who burns their own property.
Religious people would probably still be offended if you destroyed a copy of their scripture which you produced yourself.
Unholy shit, it actually passed? I hoped the title was clickbait.
It still is clickbait, no criminalization will happen because of this, they only publicly condemned it.
This isn't corroboration. It's a refutation. Turns out the UN didn't (and can't) criminalize anything.
Joke’s on them: My religious book is The Anarchist’s Cookbook
PSA: The Anarchists Cookbook is shit and gives very unsafe instructions. Use TM31-210 instead. It's a bit older but you can't get better than a government issued IED manual. For purely recreational reading only of course.
Another watch list? Sign me up!
Another source of things not to make can be found in "Ignition!" by John Clark and two books by Max Gergel. They're pretty funny regardless.
To some people, all books are "holy books." It is a sacred thing because it is a book.
At least make it all books then, why is the "Holy“ so necessary? Just seems like the ones who do this then would go for "books written by Muslim/Jewish" instead or maybe the religions team up to burn science or LGBT books.