Need to let loose a primal scream without collecting footnotes first? Have a sneer percolating in your system but not enough time/energy to make a whole post about it? Go forth and be mid: Welcome to the Stubsack, your first port of call for learning fresh Awful you’ll near-instantly regret.

Any awful.systems sub may be subsneered in this subthread, techtakes or no.

If your sneer seems higher quality than you thought, feel free to cut’n’paste it into its own post — there’s no quota for posting and the bar really isn’t that high.

The post Xitter web has spawned soo many “esoteric” right wing freaks, but there’s no appropriate sneer-space for them. I’m talking redscare-ish, reality challenged “culture critics” who write about everything but understand nothing. I’m talking about reply-guys who make the same 6 tweets about the same 3 subjects. They’re inescapable at this point, yet I don’t see them mocked (as much as they should be)

Like, there was one dude a while back who insisted that women couldn’t be surgeons because they didn’t believe in the moon or in stars? I think each and every one of these guys is uniquely fucked up and if I can’t escape them, I would love to sneer at them.

(Credit and/or blame to David Gerard for starting this.)

The magic of decentralized social networks means that even though the Nexus of Discussions is running NodeBB software, you can follow and participate in discussions here from accounts on GoToSocial, Mastodon, Glitch, Piefed and other Fediverse platforms -- and thanks to the magic of bridging, also from Bluesky. Blacksky, and other ATmosphere apps. Hooray!

But, it's not always as straightforward as it could be, so here's a quick how-to guide.

And, no matter what platform you're participating from, please make sure you're aligned with the community guidelines!

Note: I've done my best to test out these instructions, but there may still be some mistakes or situations where they don't work. Feedback welcome, either here or at my Mastodon account at thenexusofprivacy@infosec.exchange or bluesky account @thenexusofprivacy.net

From the Fediverse

• If you see a post from here in your feed on GoToSocial, Mastodon, Glitch, Piefed or another Fediverse platform, you should be able to interact with it just like any other post. (At least in theory -- If you run into problems, please let me know.)
  
  • Replies to threads here are public by default, and may wind up indexed by search engines.
  • If you've opted in to Bridgy Fed, replies to threads here are generally likely be bridged to Bluesky, unless you're replying to somebody who hasn't opted in.

  
  

• If you're looking at a page on discussions.thenexus.today and want to reply, like, or boost it, the usual trick of copying the link from the address bar in the browser into your search box doesn't always work. If you run into problems, the first thing to try is add /1 to the end of the link. On this post, for example, searching for discussions.thenexus.today/top… (which is what it shows in the address bar) doesn't work, but discussions.thenexus.today/top… (with the extra /1 at the end) does.
  If that still doesn't work, see the instructions in a reply for how to copy the link from the posts timestamp.
• to follow an account here, you can search for it in the usual way (jon's account for example is [jon](discussions.thenexus.today/use…)\@discussions.thenexus.today) and then follow it as you would any other account
• to follow a category here, you can either search for the "category actor" (for example \@public@discussions.thenexus.today for all public posts), or just go to the category page and copy the link from the address bar

From Bluesky and the ATmosphere

• Replies from Bluesky, Blacksy, and other ATmosphere apps are only federated here if you've opted in to Bridgy Fed, which connects Fediverse sites to Bluesky. An important caveat here is that opting in to Bridgy Fed makes all your Bluesky posts available in the Fediverse as well!
• you can follow an account here by following its bridged account. The handle is @[account name].discussions.thenexus.today.ap.brid.gy
• as far as I know, it isn't yet possible to follow a category from the ATmosphere

From Threads

• discussions.thenexus.today does not federate with Threads, so hopefully there's no way to participate in discussions from there. If you do find a way, please let me know, because that means there's a bug somewhere!

If Donald Trump was actually serious about fighting crime in cities like Chicago, he, along with his congressional Republicans, would not be cutting over $800 million in public safety and crime prevention grants nationally, including cutting $158 million in funding to Illinois for violence prevention programs that deploy trained outreach workers to deescalate conflict on our streets. Cutting $71 million in law enforcement grants to Illinois, direct money for police departments through programs like Project Safe Neighborhoods, the state and local Antiterrorism Training Program, and the Rural Violent Crime Reduction Initiative, cutting $137 million in child protection measures in Illinois that protect our kids against abuse and neglect.

>Trump is defunding the police.

Earlier today in the Oval Office, Donald Trump looked at the assembled cameras and asked for me personally to say, "Mr. President, can you do us the honor of protecting our city?" Instead, I say, "Mr. President, do not come to Chicago."

You are neither wanted here nor needed here. Your remarks about this effort over the last several weeks have betrayed a continuing slip in your mental faculties and are not fit for the auspicious office that you occupy.

When Tolstoy speaks of Christianity, he's referring to his more objective, philosophical, non-supernatural interpretation of his translation of the Gospels: The Gospel In Brief. For context: lemmy.world/post/23133528

"This short account of the Gospel is my own synthesis of the four Gospels, organized according to the meaning of the teaching. While making this synthesis, it was mostly unnecessary for me to depart from the order in which the Gospels have already been laid out, so that in my synthesis one should not expect more but actually considerably fewer transpositions [cause (two or more things) to change places with each other] of Gospel verses than are found in the majority of concordances of which I am aware. In the Gospel of John, as it appears in my synthesis, there are no transpositions whatsoever; it is all laid out in the exact order as the original. The division of the Gospel into twelve or six chapters (if we were to count each thematic pair of two chapters as one) came about naturally from the meaning of the teaching. This is the meaning behind these chapters:

1. Man is the son of an infinite source, the son of this father not by the flesh, but by the spirit.
2. And therefore man should serve this source in spirit.
3. The life of all people has a divine source. It alone is holy.
4. And therefore man should serve this source in the life of all people. That is the father's will.
5. Only serving the father's will can bring truth, i.e., a life of reason.
6. And therefore the satisfaction of one's own will is not necessary for true life.
7. Temporal, mortal life is the food of the true life—it is the material for a life of reason.
8. And therefore the true life is outside of time, it exists only in the present.
9. Life's deception with time: the life of the past or the future hides the true life of the present from people.
10. And therefore man should strive to destroy the deception of the temporal life of the past and the future.
11. The true life is not just life outside of time—the present—but is also a life outside of the individual. Life is common to all people and expresses itself in love.
12. And therefore, the person who lives in the present, in the common life of all people, unites himself with the father—with the source and foundation of life.

Each two chapters share a connection of effect and cause. Besides these twelve chapters, the following is appended to the account: the introduction from the first chapter of John, in which the writer speaks, on his own authority, about the meaning of the teaching as a whole, as well as the conclusion from the same writer's Epistle (written, likely, before the Gospel), containing some general conclusions on all that came before. The introduction and conclusion do not represent an essential part of this teaching. They are simply general views on the teaching as a whole. Although the introduction and the conclusion both could have been omitted with no loss to the meaning of the teaching (especially since they were both written by John and do not come from Jesus), I held on to them for their simple and reasoned understanding of Jesus's teachings, and because these sections, unlike the church's strange interpretations, confirm one another and confirm the teaching as a whole while presenting the simplest articulation of meaning that could be attached to the teachings.

At the beginning of every chapter, apart from a short summary of its contents, I also present corresponding words from the prayer that Jesus used as a model to teach his students how to pray. When I came to the completion of this work, I found, to my surprise and joy, that the so-called Lord's Prayer is nothing other than Jesus's whole teaching expressed in its most distilled form in the very order that I had already laid out the chapters, and that each expression in the prayer corresponds to the sense and order of the chapters.

1. Our father — Man is the Son of God.
2. Who art in heaven. — God is the eternal, spiritual source of life.
3. Hallowed be thy name. — Let this source of life be holy.
4. Thy kingdom come. — Let his power be manifest in all people.
5. Thy will be done in heaven — And let the eternal source's will come to be, both in and of itself
6. as it is on earth. — as well as in the flesh.
7. Give us our daily bread —Temporal life is the food of true life.
8. this day — The true life is in the present.
9. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. — Let not the mistakes and delusions [the images we create in our heads via our imaginations] of the past hide the true life from us.
10. And lead us not into temptation. — And let them not lead us into deception.
11. But deliver us from evil. — And then there will be no evil.
12. For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory. — And it will be your power and strength and reason.

In the third section of the more comprehensive account, which is still in manuscript form, the Gospels according to the four Evangelists are thoroughly explicated [analyze and develop (an idea or principle) in detail], without the slightest omission. In this current account, the following verses are omitted: the conception, the birth of John the Baptist, his imprisonment and death, the birth of Jesus, his lineage, the flight with his mother into Egypt, Jesus's miracles in Canaan and Capernaum, the casting out of demons, walking on water, the withering of the fig tree, healing of the sick, the resurrection of the dead, Christ's own resurrection and all references to prophecies fulfilled in Christ's life. These verses are omitted in the current short account because, since they do not contain any teaching but only describe events that occurred before, during or after Jesus's ministry without adding anything, they only complicate and burden the account. These verses, no matter how they are understood, do not contain contradictions to the teaching, nor do they contain support for it. The only value these verses held for Christianity was that they proved the divinity of Jesus to those who did not believe in it. For someone who perceives the flimsiness of a story about miracles, but still does not doubt Jesus's divinity because of the strength of his teaching, these verses fall away by themselves; they are unnecessary.

In the larger account, each departure from the standard translation, each interjected clarification, each omission is explained and justified by a collation [collect and combine (texts, information, or sets of figures) in proper order] of the different versions of the Gospel, contexts, philological and other considerations. In this short account, all of these proofs and refutations of the church's false understandings, as well as the detailed annotations with references, have been left out on the basis that no matter how exact and correct the reasoning of each individual section may be, such reasoning cannot serve to convince anyone that this reading of the teaching is true. The proof that this reading is correct lies not in reasoning out separate passages, but in the unity, clarity, simplicity and fullness of the teaching itself and on its correspondence with the internal feelings of every person who seeks truth.

Concerning all general deviations in my account from the accepted church texts, the reader should not forget that our quite customary concept about how the Gospels, all four, with all of their verses and letters are essentially holy books is, from one perspective, the most vulgar delusion, and from the other perspective, the most vulgar and harmful deception. The reader should understand that at no point did Jesus himself ever write a book as did Plato, Philo or Marcus Aurelius, that he did not even present his teachings to literate and educated people, as Socrates did, but spoke with the illiterate whom he met in the course of daily life, and that only long after his death did it occur to people that what he had said was very important and that it really wouldn't be a bad idea to write down a little of what he had said and done, and so almost one hundred years later they began to write down what they had heard about him. The reader should remember that such writings were very, very numerous, that many were lost, many were very bad, and that the Christians used all of them before little by little picking out the ones that seemed to them best and most sensible, and that in choosing these best Gospels, to refer to the adage "every branch has its knots," the churches inevitably took in a lot of knots with what they had cut out from the entire massive body of literature on Christ. There are many passages in the canonical Gospels that are as bad as those in the rejected apocryphal ones, and many places in the apocryphal ones are good. The reader should remember that Christ's teaching may be holy, but that there is no way for some set number of verses and letters to be holy, and that no book can be holy from its first line to its last simply because people say that it is holy.

Of all educated people, only our Russian reader, thanks to Russia's censorship, can ignore the last one hundred years of labor by historical critics and continue to speak naively about how the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, as we currently have them, were each written completely and independently by the respective Evangelist. The reader should remember that to make this claim in the year 1880, ignoring all that has been developed on this subject by science, is the same as it would have been to say last century that the sun orbits the earth. The reader should remember that the Synoptic Gospels, as they have come down to us, are the fruit of a slow accumulation of elisions [an omission of a passage in a book, speech, or film], ascriptions and the imaginations of thousands of different human minds and hands, and in no way a work of revelation directly from the Holy Ghost to the Evangelists. Remember that the attribution of the Gospels to the apostles is a fable that not only does not stand up to criticism, but has no foundation whatsoever, other than the desire of devout people that it were so.

The Gospels were selected, added to, and interpreted over the centuries; all of the Gospels that have come down to us from the fourth century are written in continuous script, without punctuation. Since the fourth and fifth century they have been subject to the most varied readings, and such variants of the books of the Gospel can be numbered as high as fifty thousand. All of this should remind the reader not to become blinded by the customary view, that the Gospels, as they are now understood, came to us exactly as they are from the Holy Ghost. The reader should remember that not only is there no harm in throwing out the unnecessary parts of the Gospels and illuminating some passages with others, but that, on the contrary, it is reprehensible and godless not to do that, and continue considering some fixed number of verses and letters to be holy. Only people who do not seek for truth and do not love the teachings of Christ can maintain such a view of the Gospels." - Leo Tolstoy, The Gospel In Brief, Preface

When Tolstoy speaks of Christianity, he's referring to his more objective, philosophical, non-supernatural interpretation of his translation of the Gospels: The Gospel In Brief. For context: lemmy.world/post/25679868

"This short account of the Gospel is my own synthesis of the four Gospels, organized according to the meaning of the teaching. While making this synthesis, it was mostly unnecessary for me to depart from the order in which the Gospels have already been laid out, so that in my synthesis one should not expect more but actually considerably fewer transpositions [cause (two or more things) to change places with each other] of Gospel verses than are found in the majority of concordances of which I am aware. In the Gospel of John, as it appears in my synthesis, there are no transpositions whatsoever; it is all laid out in the exact order as the original. The division of the Gospel into twelve or six chapters (if we were to count each thematic pair of two chapters as one) came about naturally from the meaning of the teaching. This is the meaning behind these chapters:

1. Man is the son of an infinite source, the son of this father not by the flesh, but by the spirit.
2. And therefore man should serve this source in spirit.
3. The life of all people has a divine source. It alone is holy.
4. And therefore man should serve this source in the life of all people. That is the father's will.
5. Only serving the father's will can bring truth, i.e., a life of reason.
6. And therefore the satisfaction of one's own will is not necessary for true life.
7. Temporal, mortal life is the food of the true life—it is the material for a life of reason.
8. And therefore the true life is outside of time, it exists only in the present.
9. Life's deception with time: the life of the past or the future hides the true life of the present from people.
10. And therefore man should strive to destroy the deception of the temporal life of the past and the future.
11. The true life is not just life outside of time—the present—but is also a life outside of the individual. Life is common to all people and expresses itself in love.
12. And therefore, the person who lives in the present, in the common life of all people, unites himself with the father—with the source and foundation of life.

Each two chapters share a connection of effect and cause. Besides these twelve chapters, the following is appended to the account: the introduction from the first chapter of John, in which the writer speaks, on his own authority, about the meaning of the teaching as a whole, as well as the conclusion from the same writer's Epistle (written, likely, before the Gospel), containing some general conclusions on all that came before. The introduction and conclusion do not represent an essential part of this teaching. They are simply general views on the teaching as a whole. Although the introduction and the conclusion both could have been omitted with no loss to the meaning of the teaching (especially since they were both written by John and do not come from Jesus), I held on to them for their simple and reasoned understanding of Jesus's teachings, and because these sections, unlike the church's strange interpretations, confirm one another and confirm the teaching as a whole while presenting the simplest articulation of meaning that could be attached to the teachings.

At the beginning of every chapter, apart from a short summary of its contents, I also present corresponding words from the prayer that Jesus used as a model to teach his students how to pray. When I came to the completion of this work, I found, to my surprise and joy, that the so-called Lord's Prayer is nothing other than Jesus's whole teaching expressed in its most distilled form in the very order that I had already laid out the chapters, and that each expression in the prayer corresponds to the sense and order of the chapters.

I. Our father — Man is the Son of God.
2. Who art in heaven. — God is the eternal, spiritual source of life.
3. Hallowed be thy name. — Let this source of life be holy.
4. Thy kingdom come. — Let his power be manifest in all people.
5. Thy will be done in heaven — And let the eternal source's will come to be, both in and of itself
6. as it is on earth. — as well as in the flesh.
7. Give us our daily bread —Temporal life is the food of true life.
8. this day — The true life is in the present.
9. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. — Let not the mistakes and delusions [the images we create in our heads via our imaginations] of the past hide the true life from us.
10. And lead us not into temptation. — And let them not lead us into deception.
11. But deliver us from evil. — And then there will be no evil.
12. For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory. — And it will be your power and strength and reason.

In the third section of the more comprehensive account, which is still in manuscript form, the Gospels according to the four Evangelists are thoroughly explicated [analyze and develop (an idea or principle) in detail], without the slightest omission. In this current account, the following verses are omitted: the conception, the birth of John the Baptist, his imprisonment and death, the birth of Jesus, his lineage, the flight with his mother into Egypt, Jesus's miracles in Canaan and Capernaum, the casting out of demons, walking on water, the withering of the fig tree, healing of the sick, the resurrection of the dead, Christ's own resurrection and all references to prophecies fulfilled in Christ's life. These verses are omitted in the current short account because, since they do not contain any teaching but only describe events that occurred before, during or after Jesus's ministry without adding anything, they only complicate and burden the account. These verses, no matter how they are understood, do not contain contradictions to the teaching, nor do they contain support for it. The only value these verses held for Christianity was that they proved the divinity of Jesus to those who did not believe in it. For someone who perceives the flimsiness of a story about miracles, but still does not doubt Jesus's divinity because of the strength of his teaching, these verses fall away by themselves; they are unnecessary.

In the larger account, each departure from the standard translation, each interjected clarification, each omission is explained and justified by a collation [collect and combine (texts, information, or sets of figures) in proper order] of the different versions of the Gospel, contexts, philological and other considerations. In this short account, all of these proofs and refutations of the church's false understandings, as well as the detailed annotations with references, have been left out on the basis that no matter how exact and correct the reasoning of each individual section may be, such reasoning cannot serve to convince anyone that this reading of the teaching is true. The proof that this reading is correct lies not in reasoning out separate passages, but in the unity, clarity, simplicity and fullness of the teaching itself and on its correspondence with the internal feelings of every person who seeks truth.

Concerning all general deviations in my account from the accepted church texts, the reader should not forget that our quite customary concept about how the Gospels, all four, with all of their verses and letters are essentially holy books is, from one perspective, the most vulgar delusion, and from the other perspective, the most vulgar and harmful deception. The reader should understand that at no point did Jesus himself ever write a book as did Plato, Philo or Marcus Aurelius, that he did not even present his teachings to literate and educated people, as Socrates did, but spoke with the illiterate whom he met in the course of daily life, and that only long after his death did it occur to people that what he had said was very important and that it really wouldn't be a bad idea to write down a little of what he had said and done, and so almost one hundred years later they began to write down what they had heard about him. The reader should remember that such writings were very, very numerous, that many were lost, many were very bad, and that the Christians used all of them before little by little picking out the ones that seemed to them best and most sensible, and that in choosing these best Gospels, to refer to the adage "every branch has its knots," the churches inevitably took in a lot of knots with what they had cut out from the entire massive body of literature on Christ. There are many passages in the canonical Gospels that are as bad as those in the rejected apocryphal ones, and many places in the apocryphal ones are good. The reader should remember that Christ's teaching may be holy, but that there is no way for some set number of verses and letters to be holy, and that no book can be holy from its first line to its last simply because people say that it is holy.

Of all educated people, only our Russian reader, thanks to Russia's censorship, can ignore the last one hundred years of labor by historical critics and continue to speak naively about how the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, as we currently have them, were each written completely and independently by the respective Evangelist. The reader should remember that to make this claim in the year 1880, ignoring all that has been developed on this subject by science, is the same as it would have been to say last century that the sun orbits the earth. The reader should remember that the Synoptic Gospels, as they have come down to us, are the fruit of a slow accumulation of elisions [an omission of a passage in a book, speech, or film], ascriptions and the imaginations of thousands of different human minds and hands, and in no way a work of revelation directly from the Holy Ghost to the Evangelists. Remember that the attribution of the Gospels to the apostles is a fable that not only does not stand up to criticism, but has no foundation whatsoever, other than the desire of devout people that it were so.

The Gospels were selected, added to, and interpreted over the centuries; all of the Gospels that have come down to us from the fourth century are written in continuous script, without punctuation. Since the fourth and fifth century they have been subject to the most varied readings, and such variants of the books of the Gospel can be numbered as high as fifty thousand. All of this should remind the reader not to become blinded by the customary view, that the Gospels, as they are now understood, came to us exactly as they are from the Holy Ghost. The reader should remember that not only is there no harm in throwing out the unnecessary parts of the Gospels and illuminating some passages with others, but that, on the contrary, it is reprehensible and godless not to do that, and continue considering some fixed number of verses and letters to be holy. Only people who do not seek for truth and do not love the teachings of Christ can maintain such a view of the Gospels." - Leo Tolstoy, The Gospel In Brief, Preface

New York City schools have had a long history of phone restriction policies, with an outright ban in the early 2000s that was reversed about 10 years later. Individual schools, like the ones where Corletta and Leston teach, have had the freedom to implement their own restrictions.

That will change again in the new academic year as all schools in New York state will implement a bell-to-bell ban — one of the strictest among dozens of other states that have passed similar legislation — barring students from access to personal devices that can connect to the internet for the entire school day. Schools will be required to provide storage for the devices.

But with such new policies, many being implemented for the first time this school year or in effect for less than two years, no one knows what the perfect model looks like.

Researchers are moving cautiously as they grapple with uncertainty about the effectiveness of in-school phone bans on mental health. Data yields mixed results — and there’s growing a sentiment that more has to be done outside of schools to get kids off their phones and back into the world.

A recent Pew Research survey found that nearly three quarters of Americans support restrictive phone use in schools, up six percentage points since last year — but many are also unsure how far the bans should go. About 44% of respondents supported all day bans, with others split on whether students should have access to their phones between classes or at lunch.