CharlesDarwin

Depending on what you have a taste for, I seem to remember seeing this in Emacs:

https://github.com/magit/forge

I wish I could vote you up 1000x for the RSS recommend. I've never stopped using it (even though many people snickered when I mentioned it - "oh, that old thing ?" - but I've never been one to care what is considered "cool" when it comes to technology anyway) only on the desktop, using elfeed, mostly.

It's not Javascript per se, it's the abuse of it that I take issue with. Also, there are plenty of places where it has no purpose that benefits the user and it would be quite possible to have many sites/pages that don't require Javascript at all.

I think I might put that on a T-shirt. Ferchrissakes. The propensity for everyone to want to build a GD React SPA with gobs of unnecessary Javascript is so very rampant right now.

Let the backlash begin. Someone has got push back - the hegemony of Javascript frameworks as the Golden Hammer of the Internet has just got to end.

I remember when Spring came along and effectively put the end to baroque J2EE stuff; it seems that the frontend is long overdue for this type of revolution. Or at least stop inflicting this awful experience on the users...why do I need to keep upgrading my computers every few years, just to browse the freaking Internet? Why is Javascript necessary to read text? It's ridiculous.

Yeah, I have some extended family that was raised in the more liberal/red letter type of xtianity, only to later "rebel" by veering toward more authoritarian/right wing style of interpretations of "the" bible. Most of them are full maga now and don't resemble anything I was taught as the core of xtianity.

When it comes to trying to square the "old" and the "new", I think it's mostly in the eye of the beholder. A lot of xtians declare they have a "new covenant", so therefore, they can selectively decide what is not law and what isn't, especially when it comes to things like dietary laws being rejected. But there is that "not one jot or tittle" portion, and the position that the OT validates the claims made in the NT, so...not sure how they select what they will and will not follow. I think that's how absurdist things like voting on what is and what is not canon came about...

I watch all of that with a bit of amusement, I must say, much like I watch right wing Americans claim they want this country to follow xtianity and the Constitution, when right off the bat, the First Amendment and first commandment are in obvious conflict with one another...the First Amendment clearly lays out a secular country and the first commandment demonstrates that the god of "the" bible is a jealous god that won't tolerate anything else but complete devotion. No real way to square that circle without changing this country to something other than its intent, which means they will not be following the Constitution...

True. I was raised in a religiously leftist household, and even as a child, when I first came across right wing xtians, I was legitimately confused by how they even exist. Our instruction was pointedly about reading the words of the character of Jesus (or for those too young to read, having it read to you) and boy is there a lot of stuff in there that I have no idea how the hard right xtians explain away.

Of course, there are the later writings from someone who never even MET the character of Jesus, which seem to be more problematic. I think it was RAW that said the people that seem to want to follow Paul more so than Jesus should really be called "Paulian", not xtians.

Of course, the OT and NT taken as a whole, and then trying to treat it as a cohesive message is a fool's errand and it quickly falls apart, but....

What are the set of beliefs (or lack thereof) that require someone advocate for any of these things, though? You are saying these individuals behaved/are behaving badly - okay, let's assume that is true. What about irreligion would lead to any of that?

When you say they "militarize" rationalism, how have any of these people done that? All of them are still proponents of liberal democracies.

I'd like to understand what the definition of what "New Atheism" is. I know there have been a few tempest in a teapots over certain individuals [1] and their behavior; nothing about atheism - new or otherwise - seems to require them to behave like some individuals have, as far as I know. I also have no idea how this set of (non) beliefs would make them a hate group.

[1] thunderf00t, for example. I also know plenty of people that go crazy over the mere mention of, say, Sam Harris, or Richard Dawkins, or Christopher Hitchens. Not sure if those guys are who we are talking about here.

Many of today's hard right xtians now complain that the things Jesus said sound overly "woke".

Wokeness is the new "politically correct" - just pure unadulterated nonsense to rile up the conspiracy theorists and Republicans (but I repeat myself). And they use it much like people were using "thanks Obama". If one of the cult stubs their toe, they can blame it on "wokeness" and also probably yell "thanks Obama!" now probably also followed up by "Let's Go Brandon!".

Generally: atheists are those that say there are no gods and no goddesses. Agnostics tend to be more on the fence about it, making no claim either way.

But, as a rule, neither requires that someone is "against religion".

Well, it seems the same ding-a-lings claiming agnosticism and atheism are religions are also prone to claiming science is a "religion", following evidence is a "religion", and so on...