I thought about it a while before responding.
Saving a religion by breaking its commandments sounds a lot like saving democracy by shutting down democratic processes. On the other hand, due to the unfathomable and ineffable nature of the divine, such actions could easily fall into the category of murders done in times of war/crusade.
In the end, I think maintaining a cohesive religion of that size without having that leeway to condone "inexcusable" actions is just as impossible as preventing 100% of the possible corruption of the organization. And honestly, I can't think of a more effective way of removing corruption within an organization.
I'll be the first to admit my understanding of catholic practice is not complete. Is the pope chosen directly by the cardinals or through every catholic church constituent voting? If it's the latter, then yes, that's definitely the way to do it, but if it isn't how should the people get the cardinals to do this?
How do they keep the cardinals from picking another just like the last one though?
The best part about a zero emissions policy is that each wind turbine needs a diesel engine to keep it from freezing up in icy weather. Next they'll be saying electricity is an unnecessary, racist, burgois concept.
It's super weird. It's the equivalent to claiming the phrase " black people were sold into slavery by other black people" is racist because it is accurate.
There's only one reason why anyone would say running Hollywood and the banks reflects badly on them, so we can all rest assured that anytime the discussion gets shut down it's because the topic was over the target.
Doesn't seem like something we'll be able to get away from. Our gov't definitely controls search engines, so it's quite likely there's at least some involvement. The key difference, to me at least, is that one of them makes a serious effort to restrict available information and the other doesn't.
All while Google search engine actively seeks to hide information in searches. I may never understand how such a terrible utility became so popular. If you are still using Google (or it's adscent affiliates: brave, ddg, mojeek, etc.), do yourself a favor and switch to a search engine that doesn't hide information.
Or possibly religion
By this virtue we can see what "the science" is obfuscating by seeing what discussions they are not willing to entertain.
Overlord - if you haven't seen this one yet, pretty good isekai, but I think it went downhill after the 3rd season
Another - mc has amnesia and has to figure out which of his classmates is a ghost to stop it from brutally murdering all of them
Dungeon Meishi - probably one of the best I've seen recently. Could be classified as "dungeon survival. I've never seen CC, but I'm guessing this one will probably hit close to Campfire Cooking
Shuumatsu no Valkyrie: Record of Ragnarok - if you don't care about cannonical accuracy, fuggedaboutit! As long as it's not taken seriously, this is a great tournament-styled fighting anime. But there's a plethora of inaccuracies and embellishments
And if you like to read manga, I can recommend Uzumaki. It's a train wreck in the best and worst ways - one is almost compelled to keep watching/reading.
The price of freedom is, unfortunately, eternal vigilance
Hate speech doesn't exist. Words are not violence. If you find an idea distasteful, that does not necessitate that others will as well.
The very concept of hate speech implies that words are objectively offensive by nature, which is to completely misunderstand the nature of "offense." One cannot dictate how another is going to feel or react, thus one cannot give offense - offense must be taken.
It is much like the way one cannot accurately say "that isn't funny." The accurate statement is "I didn't find that funny." It is the same with offense. We choose what to take offense at. Whether we realize this choice or not is unimportant because it does not change the reality of the situation.
Free speech is hate speech. I know it's not readily apparent to most people, but the restrictions one places on ideological opponents are exactly the restrictions that will be used against one in the future. Restricting speech because one does not agree with it only has one eventual outcome: more speech will be restricted in the future for an equally arbitrary reason as a means to leverage control over the populace.
Next it'll be Emerson, Lake and Palmer!
Probably the same people that will "vote" in Killary Clinton or Polydent Pelosi if Cameltoes is shunted to the scotus
Yew got a loicense for them internets yew bean veiwin?! We keeps a list of everyone that buys a cellphone/modem/router.