I’m a 27 year old furry. my fursona is a fox. I’m agender; any pronouns are fine with me.
At the very least, it would be far more of a circus, as the follow-up articles would read “LINUX KERNEL CREATOR LINUS TORVALDS MAKES DEVESTATING REPLY TO FOSS DRAMA!”
But yeah, I think shit like that would just make devs want to go work for a company, because at least when they make a shitty closed sourced, exploitive program people are mad at the company, not them, specifically. They don’t have to deal with this shit.
I’m really glad Torvalds is the kind of person to flip articles like this off and carry on with his day and just not be affected by it at all. When the time comes, I hope whoever carries the torch is just as well.
I must’ve worded my original comment much poorer than I thought lmfao.
I meant it as in he intended to become the Messiah King after kicking the Romans out of Israel, not that he did. XD
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+16%3A13-20&version=NRSVUE
Matthew 16:13-20 NRSV
13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist but others Elijah and still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah,[a] the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter,[b] and on this rock[c] I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he sternly ordered the disciples not to tell anyone that he was[d] the Messiah.[e]
But Jesus was silent. Then the high priest said to him, “I put you under oath before the living God, tell us if you are the Messiah,[k] the Son of God.” 64 Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you,
From now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
65 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has blasphemed! Why do we still need witnesses? You have now heard his blasphemy. 66 What do you think?” They answered, “He deserves death.” 67 Then they spat in his face and struck him, and some slapped him, 68 saying, “Prophesy to us, you Messiah![l] Who is it that struck you?”
From the NSRV, one of the preferred standards of Biblical scholars. A few places where Christ, if not outright says, heavily implies he is the Messiah, which is the reason the Jewish leaders wanted him put to the death.
I do not have access to the full article to give, but Bart Erhman also goes over some of these points in the free point of this article: https://ehrmanblog.org/jesus-claim-to-be-the-messiah/
Of most interest to my point is this bit:
Jesus’ proclamation was all about the coming kingdom of God. He was an apocalypticist who believed that God would soon intervene in the course of history, overthrow the forces of evil, and establish a good (and very real, political) kingdom here on earth. His listeners had to turn to God in preparation for this imminent end.
There is also this summary from Wikipedia regarding a King Messiah, which is the one I believe most Christians believe Christ was laying claim to:
In Jewish eschatology, the Messiah is a future Jewish king from the Davidic line, who is expected to be anointed with holy anointing oil and rule the Jewish people during the Messianic Age and world to come.[1][2][8] The Messiah is often referred to as “King Messiah” (Hebrew: מלך משיח, romanized: melekh mashiach, Jewish Babylonian Aramaic: מַלכָא (הוּא) מְשִיחָא, romanized: malkā (hu) mšiḥā[9]).[10]
The link is here if you would like to see the sources : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_in_Judaism
In general, we can also see in both Jewish and Christian scripture that a Messiah was a figure that would rise up and deliver the Jewish people from their oppressors. Depending on your religion (or lack there of) and theology, the expectations vary. Earlier in Judaism it could be anybody who freed the Jews such as Cyrus.
However, as time went on, the Messiah became a cosmic figure who would not only restore Israel’s independence, but would also destroy God’s enemies, rally the Jewish people from across the world, establish the Kingdom of God here on earth as a real, physical, political entity, and rule like a king as God’s emmisarry here on earth.
There’s nothing about this that isn’t authoritarian, it just so happens to be benevolent.
There is also far, far more to this topic with many different views ans takes to it because both Christianity and Judaism have a stake in it, and neither of these religions are monolithic. Judaism, specifically being absolutely ancient and having transformed significantly since its earliest records while the beliefs itself predate even the earliest written records. So of course, this is not the only lens with which to view it, but this is the most likely role that Jesus Christ was attempting to fill, the claim that got him killed, and the role most Christians believe he will finish when he returns.
Jesus Christ believes himself to be the Jewish Messiah. The man literally was going to be king of Israel after kicking the Romans out of their land. So like… Yeah. He was also an authoritarian.
The secret is to be incredibly neurodivergent and unlock the secrets to extreme hyperfixation. The more you lose track of time, the better, as this is also the threshold where hunger ceases to exist.
-source, one incredibly autistic fuck (me)
I’m stealing this concept for my TTRPG usage!
Tl;Dr, yes*
I find this discussion to be an exercise in frustration. There’s a lot of philosophical jargon that gets glazed over and nuances that often get ignored. I also think it’s an incredibly complex and complicated topic that we simply do not have enough information available to us to determine in a scientific manner.
For instance: what kind of “free will” are we talking about? Often it’s “Libertarian Free Will,” that is, absolute agency uninfluenced by any external factors. This much is disproven scientifically, as our brains run countless “subconscious” calculations in response to our environment to hasten decision making and is absolutely influenced by a myriad of factors, regardless of if you’re conciously aware of it or not.
However, I think that the above only “disproves” all notions of free will if you divorce your “subconscious” from the rest of your being. Which is where the complication and nuance comes in. What is the “self?” What part of you can you point to as being the “real you?”
From a Christian perspective, you might say the “self” is your soul, which is not yet proven by science, and thus the above has no bearing on, as it cannot take the soul into account. But from the opposite side of the spectrum, from a Buddhist perspective, there is no eternal, unchanging, independently existing “self.” And as such, the mind in its entirety, concious awarness or not, is just another part of your aggregates, and from that perspective it can be argued that a decision is no less your own just because it was not made in your conscious awareness.
With my ramblings aside, I am a Buddhist and so my opinion is that we do have free will, we’re just not always consciously aware of every decision we make. And while we cannot always directly control every decision we make, we can influence and “train” our autopilot reactions to make better decisions.
Relatable tbh. I think a good part of it was depression in my younger years, but, I used to be an incredibly angry person.
It took a long time for me to accept that the truth is, you don’t get angry about shit you don’t care about. Hard to accept that half the things I’d get angry at weren’t worth it. The other half anger just wasn’t a helpful response. Been a long process of learning to have a better reaction for me.
I think “atheist” carries the connotations of being irreligeous, not just not believing in any gods. So some people may not believe in any gods, but maybe they do have some kind of spirituality, or believe in ghosts or something. Buddhism as a religion doesn’t mandate God-belief, though some schools do interact with devas. I’m unsure if any other religions don’t require gods to work, but even if they exist, I imagine they and Buddhists, despite not believing in any gods, will be very hesitant to describe themselves as “atheist.”