Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Waldbrand (waldbrand@poa.st)'s status on Thursday, 27-Jul-2023 21:49:50 JST Waldbrand

   • Dr. Sex, Ph.d, Esq.
   I do think there is a valid definition. But it doesn't stay with "E-Christians" alone but "E-Religious People". There is clearly a subset of people who IRL, barely, if at all, keep up with the Morals and Obligations of their Religion, But Online start to greatly flaunt these Morals and pretend to be the embodiment of piety. A very obvious example would be Groypers, back in 2021.
   No Religious Obligations IRL, Postouring Online.
   Another Example would be Millions of "Internet-Muslims". Who IRL break every Islamic Law ever but get angry as fuck if you break a law that by Islamic Rulings isn't even that big of a deal.
   Pornposters who the next second talk about Christianity.
   Or a personal favourite of mine, because Indian Internet is funny as fuck "Radical Hindus".
   Does TRS use it differently, certainly.
   But my problem with "E-Christians" boils down to "If that is your thing be as strongly and consistently for it IRL as you're online."
   
   RT: https://nicecrew.digital/objects/78f32440-17a6-4646-a6d3-6f276640f3f0
   • BowserNoodle ☦️ likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Shadowman311 (shadowman311@poa.st)'s status on Friday, 28-Jul-2023 01:14:10 JST Shadowman311

     in reply to

     • DM me cats :nv:
     • Dr. Sex, Ph.d, Esq.
     @doctorsex @Waldbrand @CatLord My Poast was regarding a couple posts Sven made on Telegram where he called Poast irrelevant and insulted graf, my original post stated that TRS calling Poast irrelevant is like the pot calling the kettle black and that we almost certainly have more users (36k) vs whatever their numbers are, which I would estimate is likely lower at this point by a significant margin. The religious debate came later since McNabb can't help himself and hates Christianity more than he hates ZOG and someone made the mistake of waving that red cape in his face.
   • Embed this notice
     Shadowman311 (shadowman311@poa.st)'s status on Friday, 28-Jul-2023 01:14:10 JST Shadowman311

     in reply to

     • Shadowman311
     • DM me cats :nv:
     • Dr. Sex, Ph.d, Esq.
     @doctorsex @Waldbrand @CatLord Btw I should add that out of all the posts McNabb made, he never once responded to my original claims because I'm right and he knows it. He just spun off into religious infighting because of his kike tier hatred of Christians and to cynically D&C the thread and userbase.
     victor likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Dr. Sex, Ph.d, Esq. (doctorsex@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 28-Jul-2023 01:14:11 JST Dr. Sex, Ph.d, Esq.

     in reply to

     • DM me cats :nv:
     Shadowman posted or made reference to some anti-christian rant Sven made. I think the McNabb stuff happened later on, but it certainly didn't help the case
   • Embed this notice
     DM me cats :nv: (catlord@poa.st)'s status on Friday, 28-Jul-2023 01:14:12 JST DM me cats :nv:

     in reply to

     • Dr. Sex, Ph.d, Esq.
     @doctorsex @Waldbrand What was even said this time? I haven't seen anyone post the actual content they're complaining about.
   • Embed this notice
     Waldbrand (waldbrand@poa.st)'s status on Friday, 28-Jul-2023 01:14:12 JST Waldbrand

     in reply to

     • DM me cats :nv:
     • Dr. Sex, Ph.d, Esq.
     @CatLord @doctorsex Thats because it was Mcnabb and Mcnabb now left Poast.
   • Embed this notice
     Dr. Sex, Ph.d, Esq. (doctorsex@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 28-Jul-2023 01:14:13 JST Dr. Sex, Ph.d, Esq.

     in reply to
     I should have been more clear with the original post. I think the term has kind of come to be used how "wignat" was way back in ye olde tymes. Everybody knows and understands the boilerplate definition, but how it's actually used isn't congruent to that. I'm sure if you asked basically anyone who is throwing it around haphazzardly, they would give the same, if not an incredibly similar, definition to what you just gave. Like, back in the day, I think you could have asked anyone if they wanted dudes who went around and started throwing romans in public or the whole "plastic stalhelm" thing most people would have said "yeah we're not interested in that". Yesterday, we saw a whole bunch of people get called "e-christians" with the rationale that they were demanding groups be explicitly pro-christian, even though the actual objection was very different and if someone making an objection is a Christian, it's an easy thought-terminating cliche for why an actual answer isn't required.
   • Embed this notice
     Dr. Sex, Ph.d, Esq. (doctorsex@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 28-Jul-2023 01:14:13 JST Dr. Sex, Ph.d, Esq.

     in reply to

     • Dr. Sex, Ph.d, Esq.
     And just to be clear, I haven't seen a single person criticizing them from the angle that "they aren't pro-christian enough". Maybe those people are out there, but I haven't seen it. All of the criticism I *have* seen, and I think a lot of people will agree, is that any time the topic *does* come up, it's overwhelmingly anti-Christian, goes on for way longer than is necessary, and many of the things the church is criticized for are things that the people responding to them are also critical of. In these spheres, everybody already *knows* ELCA sucks. Everybody *knows* episcopalians suck. Everybody *knows* that the institutions themselves are infiltrated, like any other institution. We don't need a spergy early 2010's r/atheism tier rant about the faith itself with enough requisite antisemitism/racism sprinkled on about the faith itself to know that the institutions aren't doing what they're supposed to, and to that end, people are just asking them to not talk about it.