JBB: An Artblog!
h
Monterey Bay Aquarium
izzy's playlists!
PR's Tumblrdome
Kaledo Art
đȘŒ
almost home
Sade Olutola
i don't do bad sauce passes
taylor price
shark vs the universe
Aqua Utopiaïœæ”·ăźćșă§èšæ¶ă玥ă
⣠Chile in a Photography âŁ
Product Placement
Janaina Medeiros
Mike Driver
Peter Solarz
No title available
sheepfilms
seen from Finland
seen from Philippines
seen from United States
seen from Romania
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Egypt
seen from United States
seen from Indonesia
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Brazil
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Poland
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
@starlight-shadowbanned
Hello! This is @starlightomatic. I'm shadowbanned on main, which means several functions are restricted on that account, such as:
- Notifying people when I reblog from or tag them
- Showing my reblogs in the notes
- Messaging
I intend to use this blog to supplement those functions.
Do you think it's immoral to use chatgpt for college assignments? I think it's unfortunately unavoidable.
It is absolutely immoral, completely counterproductive to the goal of learning things, and turns out incredibly subpar work.
As for unavoidableâŠ.you understand that the vast majority of people who have ever graduated college throughout history did so without ever once using AI, right? You understand that?
You understand that the point of writing papers isnât just to have a paper with words on it, right? You understand that the entire point is to do the mental work necessary to put your learning into organized words, such that you actually learn it? And that if you outsource that to AI you are not learning?
Let's cost out the idea of AI use as an unavoidable part of university life, shall we? Imagine the following scenario:
A professor uses AI to generate their lecture outline and slides, because it saves them time; their students then use AI to summarize the lecture, because it's easier than taking notes themselves. The TA, overworked and underpaid, uses AI to generate the class assignments, which the students use AI to answer - and once they're handed in, the TA uses AI to grade them, too. The professor then uses AI to make the final exam, which the students use AI to answer, and which the professor and TA again use AI to grade. The semester ends, and none of the human participants have materially done any work. Who benefits from this? It's not the professor, whose skills begin to atrophy due to cognitive offloading, nor is it the students, who never develop those skills in the first place. And it's certainly not TA, because in a scenario where this level of AI use is normalized - which is what the AI companies want - they've functionally made themselves redundant. If the AI can do a TA's job, then who needs a TA? Come to that, if the AI can do a professor's job, then who needs a professor? And if the AI can do a student's job, then who needs to be a student? Why do any of these people need to be here at all? Why even have a university? To which the tech giants reply: pfft, never mind the ever-mounting financial, environmental, ethical and social costs of AI - isn't using it just easier? Well, yes - in the same way that it's easier to die than live. Death, after all, is a tremendously simplifying affair. You don't need to learn or study or struggle or suffer or love or err or improve or feel or encounter setbacks or wrestle with anything difficult at all when you don't exist - and this, too, ultimately, is the lure of AI: to outsource the fundamental business of being human; which is to say, of living. But as this would make a rather terrible sales pitch, it's presented instead, not just as convenience, but as an exclusive convenience - one whose power is predicated on others being too stupid or moral or Luddite to do likewise. Thus: students are pitched on AI as a convenience to help them more quickly progress through their studies, while universities are pitched on AI as a convenience to help them more easily manage students. Both groups are told that using AI will help them keep up with their workload while surpassing the competition; that it will free up extra time to do more enjoyable things, and that, the more others use it, the more necessary it becomes to use it yourself. But the implication is still that the traditional professional, social and intellectual systems that AI intends to parasitize will continue to exist - because if they didn't, what would be the point in using AI to cheat at them? The best-case scenario is that life becomes like an Olympics at which everyone is doping - which, as we recently saw with the Enhanced Games, turns out to be a fairly dismal prospect. Counter to the assumption that PEDs would cause the contestants to surpass all previous human limits, only one world record was actually (barely) broken and, in fact, multiple victories were claimed by non-enhanced athletes. In a lesson that AI shills would do well to learn from, it turns out that raw human effort, ingenuity and skill are actually the biggest factors in human success, and that whatever minor advantage you might gain from cheating is annihilated in a context where the whole field is doing it. The worst-case scenario is that we irreparably break several centuries' worth of our most collectively vital institutions, innovations and accomplishments so that a handful of the very worst people on Earth can, briefly, be richer than god. So, no: just because the AI industry has baited a hook for college students with the promise of Finish All Your Assignments Faster And Worse (While Getting Stupider) does not mean you have to swallow it. Use your own brain! Civilization will thank you for it.
the way ozempic has finally made the fact that eating healthy and exercising doesn't necessarily make you thin well known and society's reaction to this is not "oh i guess being thin or fat doesn't actually show if you're healthy" but "oh i guess everyone should be on this drug"
I hate that this is infact how ozempic is viewed now because I watched, in real time, how my mothers diabetes got significantly better on ozempic, she didn't start it for weight loss, infact she started it before it even got big for weight loss, but all people can talk about is the weight loss on ozempic and not how good it is as a diabetes medication. Watching my mom find energy and happiness because for once a drug wasn't making her lethargic and miserable was wonderful, she was able to feel better, but then it was spouted as this miracle weight loss drug, and suddenly she just couldn't access it anymore at a good price. Not only has the ozempidemic made fatphobia normal in an already fatphobic society but it's making it harder to access for people who genuinely need it because it's seen as a luxury cosmetic drug.
New thought:
You can go back in time to visit one (1) historical person, and gift them one (1) animal as a pet. You don't concern yourself with whether or not it would be ethical to keep this animal as a pet, or how would they keep it at all, but the one requirement you have is that this animal does not naturally occur on their native continent. What are you giving, and to whom?
#hitler is getting a boa constrictor#(you never said the animal is trained or knows itâs a pet) (tr. #hitler va se chopper un boa constrictor (tu n'as jamais dit que l'animal Ă©tait entrainĂ© ou au courant du fait qu'il est de compagnie)) Loin de moi l'idĂ©e de faire ma nerd des reptiles, mais un boa constrictor ne fera rien Ă un humain, encore moins adulte. Un python rĂ©ticulĂ©, un python birman, ou un anaconda vert fera bien mieux le travail.
Ah â merci!
New thought:
You can go back in time to visit one (1) historical person, and gift them one (1) animal as a pet. You don't concern yourself with whether or not it would be ethical to keep this animal as a pet, or how would they keep it at all, but the one requirement you have is that this animal does not naturally occur on their native continent. What are you giving, and to whom?
Costume. Chitons.
Marjorie & C. H. B.Quennell, Everyday Things in Archaic Greece (London: B. T. Batsford, 1931).
Wait, waitâŠ. Is that seriously it? How their clothes go?
that genuinely is it
yeah hey whats up bout to put some fucking giant sheets on my body
lets bring back sheetwares
also chlamys:
and exomis:
trust the ancients to make a fashion statement out of straight cloth and nothing but pins
Wrap Yourself In Blankets, Call It a Day
Wear blanket. Conquer world.
That last one looks dope
Squares and rectangles: easy to weave!! No cutting means no hemming.
And easy to construct, you donât have to have complicated seaming and patterning to turn fabric into clothing!
ancient Egyptian robes
This sort of clothing solution wasnât just for the Mediterranean, or northern Africa, either. Behold the Belted Plaid:
(auto generated captions)
Has anyone already reblogged this with saris? Itâs cool how many cultures have similarities like this hidden in plain sight.
https://kalaavarsha.com/how-to-wear-or-drape-a-saree/
The lungi is a traditional garment worn in many southern states of India. It's different from the dhoti, in that it is a tubular shape (like
Since we are here might as well share the dhoti and the lungi
https://www.wikihow.com/Wear-a-Lungi
https://www.wikihow.com/Wear-a-Pancha-Kachcham?amp=1
Itâs only men in the photos but really anyone can wear them. I am wearing a lungi right now.
I also know Thailand and Sri Lanka have their versions of a lungi as well.
This is a tallit (a Jewish garment worn during prayer):
It can also be pulled up over the head, like the great kilt:
This is what it looks like spread out (itâs being used a wedding canopy in this photo):
There is another version called the tallit katan (small tallit) which is for everyday wear, under clothes, and itâs got a hole for the wearerâs head:
The man on the left is wearing it over his shirt but under his vest, and the man on the right is wearing it under his shirt:
Hereâs what it looks like spread out:
They can have different colors and patterns. Hereâs a contemporary big tallit with a tree design, and a historical tallit katan from Italy:
ok yeah fine its cool that i cant edit posts if theyâre from before 2019! this is a really functional website
are we really still doing language wars in 2026? i love both yiddish and hebrew. also im very tired
ŚŚŚȘŚŚŚ§, ŚŚŚš ŚŚŚąŚ ŚŚ Ś©Ś€ŚšŚŚŚ-ŚŚŚŚŚŚĄ ŚŚŚ 2026? ŚŚŚ ŚŚŚ ŚŚŚ ŚŚŚŚŚą ŚŚŚŚŚ© ŚŚŚ ŚŚŚŚŚą ŚŚŚŚšŚąŚŚ©. ŚŚŚ ŚŚŚ ŚŚŚ ŚŚŚŚąŚš ŚŚŚ
ŚŚŚŚȘ ŚŚ ŚŚ Ś ŚąŚŚŚŚ ŚąŚŚ©ŚŚ ŚŚȘ ŚŚŚŚŚŚŚȘ ŚŚŚ©ŚŚ ŚŚȘ Ś2026? ŚŚ Ś ŚŚŚŚŚȘ ŚŚ ŚŚȘ ŚŚŚŚŚ© ŚŚŚ ŚŚȘ ŚąŚŚšŚŚȘ. ŚŚŚ Ś ŚŚŚ© ŚŚŚŁ
there is something kind of funny though about reviving 130 year old discourse. like of course we are doing that
ŚŚŚąŚš ŚĄŚłŚŚŚ ŚŚ ŚąŚ€ŚąŚĄ Ś ŚŚŚĄŚ Ś§ŚŚŚŚ© ŚŚŚ ŚŚ€ŚŚšŚąŚ ŚŚ ŚŚŚĄŚ§ŚŚĄŚŚą ŚŚŚŚĄ ŚŚŚ 130 ŚŚŚš ŚŚŚ. ŚŚŚŚŚŚą ŚŚŚąŚ ŚŚŚš ŚŚŚĄ
ŚŚŚ ŚŚ© ŚŚ Ś§ŚŠŚȘ ŚŚŠŚŚŚ§ ŚŚȘŚȘ ŚŚŚŚ ŚŚŚŚĄŚ§ŚŚšŚĄ Ś©ŚŚ 130 Ś©Ś ŚŚ. ŚŚšŚŚš Ś©ŚŚ ŚŚ Ś ŚąŚŚ©ŚŚ ŚŚȘ ŚŚ
#i invented a word to cover a linguistic gap i hope thats ok
Of course it is, as long as you tell me which one!
ŚŚ€ŚŚšŚąŚ Ś
for âreviveâ
ŚŚšŚąŚ Ś means bring
but i got the prefix wrong. i was going based on vibes, and it turns out ŚŚ€ is completing an action.
from my perusal of various resources (the uky dictionary, with some guiding in the right direction by google translate), iâve determined the word i would want to use is ŚŚŚŚ€ŚŚąŚŚ - basically âupwards livingâ
which is closer to what i chose in the hebrew
basically i usually use online resources like this when i type in yiddish but this time i decided it fit the post better just to use my existing knowledge and have it be imperfect
assorted comments on an insta post of a chart listing the 18 cities with the highest jewish populations
[note: this post is to spread awareness so non-jews see what the situation is. if youâre jewish and would be harmed by reading this â donât.]
bonus: mr. big brain over here thinks heâs onto something
"people are just angry about israel" people when jews are living outside of israel
A
there have been countless oppressive regimes throughout history so it sure is interesting that the one people most love to compare israel to is the one that will be most painful for a jew to hear. but im sure thatâs a coincidence
also this
The comparison is made because it is indeed very appalling that a small but loud selection of the survivors and their offspring are doing the thing that was done to them. What, do you think these people will feel any empathy if the Armenian or Rwandan or Bosnian genocides? If the comparison close to home doesn't convince them that genocide=bad, then I don't know what else to tell you about how cruel they are being.
Well, it is in fact not the thing that was done to them, which something you would know if you looked into the details of either situation. Or, you know, even the broad strokes.
do you use facebook
yes
no
I don't think you can be redeemed.
what am i, a coupon?
Tumblr Sexyman Contest 2026 Round 2 Part 24
Kim Kitsuragi (Disco Elysium)
Discord (My Little Pony)
Is Robby from The Pitt in the contest? I know heâs widely considered sexy on here.
(Sorry for asking on an unrelated post, I canât send asks)
A lot of criticism of delivery apps focuses on the fact that they offer convenience and variety, which I find much less compelling than criticizing the fact that the apps often send their contractors on fetch quests from Hell.
There are real labor problems here. Base pay is often insulting. Customer tips carry too much of the burden. Workers need better protections, more transparent algorithms, protection from arbitrary deactivation, and actual recourse when the app or a customer screws them over. Car-dependent delivery is also an environmental and infrastructural problem, though in a denser city Iâd still be doing this work; Iâd just be doing it by bike.
But when people talk about delivery work, I rarely see them talk to actual delivery workers. I see a lot of abstract arguments about convenience, consumer decadence, âhustle culture,â and internalized neoliberalism. Meanwhile, when Iâm out working and waiting in restaurants for orders, the other Dashers I meet are usually people who only speak Spanish, people who read as neurodivergent, visibly physically disabled people, or some combination of the above.
I have not met this mythical Disco Elysium poor ultraliberal hustlegrinder-wannabe people seem to be arguing with. Maybe that archetype exists somewhere. If it exists among any kind of gig worker, it would probably be rideshare drivers. But most of what I see looks less like ârise and grindâ and more like âthis is one of the few forms of work available to people who need flexibility, low barriers to entry, limited managerial surveillance, or a way to work around language barriers, disability, burnout, chronic illnesses and injuries with symptoms that come and go unpredictably, caregiving, rĂ©sumĂ© gaps, or discrimination.â
That does not make the current system good. It means the current system is filling a real gap that a lot of supposedly better systems do not even acknowledge.
As a disabled person who is burnout-prone and demand-sensitive, contracting as a delivery driver has given me an unprecedented level of financial flexibility. I can work when I have capacity. I can stop when Iâm deteriorating. I can build my day around my actual body instead of being trapped under a manager who thinks âreliableâ means âable to perform the same way every day no matter what.â That matters. It does not cancel out the exploitation, but it is also not fake just because it is politically inconvenient.
And delivery itself is not some inherently decadent evil. Sometimes people live alone. Sometimes they are sick. Sometimes they are disabled, exhausted, overwhelmed, grieving, overloaded, or recovering from something else - perhaps the stress and fatigue induced by their own job. Sometimes they need medicine, groceries, or a meal that will actually unplug their sinuses instead of whatever generic community-care slop someone thinks they should be grateful for. Humans are allowed to need specificity. âFoodâ is not the same as âthe food I can actually eat right now.â
A serious labor critique would ask how to make delivery work safer, better-paid, less tip-dependent, less car-dependent, less algorithmically punitive, and less precarious. It would ask what kinds of flexible, accessible work should exist for people who cannot thrive in conventional employment. It would ask how cities could support bike delivery, worker cooperatives, public infrastructure, and real protections without simply replacing one bad system with a moral sermon about how nobody should ever want takeout.
But a lot of the discourse does not do that. It treats convenience itself as suspicious. It treats wanting flexible work as false consciousness. It treats the needs of disabled people, immigrants, and other people who can't fit into traditional employment structures as details to be swept aside in favor of a cleaner political image.
I guess the opinions of delivery workers only count when they are politically convenient.
reminds me of how for some reason the phrase "doordashing Tylenol" got stuck in my head as a general critique of so many of the ways that we are so isolated from each other and from better forms of support. I meant it from both sides. I was the person living alone an hour from anyone I knew who was home sick, could barely make it to the door to pick up the delivery, and paid $30 for just a little pain relief. On other days around that time, I was the Dasher running into CVS and trying my best to find the random items people needed without the infrastructure to do so very well, getting paid $5 to accomplish it, and relying on that pay to make rent because my full time job as a high school teacher didn't come close to paying me enough to live near the school.
And for all the frustration that job caused, the problem was almost never the people ordering. It was almost always the system not being built for people.
This reminds me of the time I doordashed NyQuil and some other items from CVS. The store was only about three blocks away, so why couldnât I just go walk there myself?
Because I had covid and I was quarantining so I wouldnât get other people sick!
Can you guys help me steelman the position against AI (whatever you want that to mean; LLMs, AI generated images, or something else). I'm looking for people like me who hate the current anti-ai moral panic but also has concerns about certain aspects, who want to share any arguments they have for why AI is dangerous or harmful or unwise or unethical etc.
I'm also looking for the brave anti-ai people who follow me (thanks for hanging with me). What are Your Reasons for being anti ai. Also if you saw this in the anti AI tag hi this is your chance to stretch your argument legs!!
Uh, if you're a totally pro AI person you can chime in too I guess. Try your hardest to come up with a reason why it might not be perfect
ohhhhh boy where do i begin
AI has massively lowered the barrier to entry to orchestrate political psyops or scams - things that previously took dedicated troll farms or scam call centers can now be orchestrated by a single person with sufficient knowhow and enough money/compute.
While attempts to do so have been very clumsy thus far (grok lol), AI labs can influence the outputs of their models in ways that cannot be undone and may be challenging for the average user to detect. This puts them in a position of immense power that I believe they will try to exploit.
Over the past few years, there has been a massive increase in AI-generated content - to use the term du jour, slop - which is low-quality and drowns out higher-quality human content. I expect this to continue to accelerate if strong barriers are not put into place.
AI is currently sweeping the legs of the education system as everyone scrambles to adapt. I think this will eventually be solved to a reasonable degree, but in the meantime it has the potential to create a deficit for a full cohort that will ripple through their entire lives.
AI is currently reducing the value of entry-level white collar employees while leaving mid and senior level openings mostly untouched. In the short run, this means economic prospects for young college grads are worse than they ever have been, which will have all sorts of unpleasant ripple effects. In the long run, you can't get new mid and senior level employees without a pipeline, and if that pipeline collapses, it will be difficult or impossible to rebuild.
A small but visible portion of the population (1 in 10000, maybe?) are susceptible to what is starting to be called LLM psychosis, where interaction with an LLM and their naturally sycophantic natures reinforces delusions and pulls the person into a dangerous fantasy. These people were almost always mentally ill in some sense prior to the LLM, but the LLM triggers an episode in a specific way that has to be quite harmful.
To restrain things like LLM psychosis, LLMs are increasingly monitored and have the capacity to take more and more actions. I think it's likely that, with attempts to hold AI companies liable for people who killed themselves after talking to an LLM, LLMs will be equipped with the capacity to call the cops if your chat messages to them meet some arbitrary bar that triggers a "mandatory reporting" behavior, and that this is only the beginning. In the long run, I suspect this will represent a massive expansion of the surveillance state, where any internet-connected model is a snitch.
Related to the previous, LLMs enable processing of an immense amount of information in a reasonably humanlike, intelligent way. While I doubt we'll hear about it for a while, this almost certainly enables widespread surveillance in a way that used to be impossible, enabling isolation of signal from noise at a scale that would be prohibitively expensive if you were relying on human analysts.
The US stock market performance (the largest market in the world) is increasingly concentrated in companies that are making huge bets on AI. If AI does not end up being profitable enough to justify this level of investment and those valuations, this is a systemic risk for the US economy and risks plunging us into a recession that will make 2008 look like a cakewalk.
If AI does pan out, the most likely way it could do so would be by being "AGI" - sufficiently intelligent and reliable to replace a massive chunk of white-collar workers in the US. This would cause a different kind of economic (and political) crisis that could potentially be an even worse outcome than the recession (to say nothing of tail concerns about AI risk). The line where some kind of major economic upheaval due to AI doesn't happen in the next ten years is pretty thin.
i could come up with more but those are the main ones that keep me up at night.
A list I made in an insta comment a bit ago. In the first bullet point, it should read âat that understandingâ rather than âat understanding.â
The second-to-last bullet point should be read â[people in professions that canât be messed up][using AI]â rather than â[people in professions that canât be][messed up using AI].â
what do christians mean when they say jesus fulfilled the law? whenever i am arguing with people who are trying to proselytize people keep saying this as though the meaning is obvious but itâs not đ
To my understanding from a class I took last year, it means that the purpose of the law was essentially replaced by Jesus, that is the law is no longer necessary because Jesus fulfills the same purpose
but what to them is the purpose of the law?
and why do they keep citing stuff from the allegedly superseded law? like they do cite "leviticus" when they're being homophobic, and they talk about adam and noach and moshe and all of our people, and they cite our prophets as evidence for jesus? so what's the theological explanation for that?
The purpose of the law, as I remember it, was a stand in until Jesus could come - wherein he had to come at "the right time" to fulfill the "prophecies" (mis translated or cherry picked and d contextualized verses from the Prophets or the writings) so everyone who lived pre-jesus but followed God's laws are "pre-christian" As far as why do they cite the law they think it still informs Christian ethics- they split the law into "ethical" and "ritual", where "ritual" law (such as the sacrifices, kashrut, sperating fabric) are superceded by Jesus, but the "ethical laws" still remain in force. There is a verse where Jesus says he "didn't come to replace the law" that they usually cite there, but "obviously" that doesn't apply to the ritual law.
fulfilling prophecies makes sense! (as in i understand what it means; i donât actually think he fulfilled them). but i still donât understand how youâd fulfill a law?
like, you can fulfill a prophecy, a promise, a prediction, an order, a prescription, an expectation⊠but how do you fulfill a law?
@thedeepbreathbeforetheplunge oh wait no. i didnât read what you said clearly. if the purpose of the law is to be a stand in for jesus to come, then yeah it makes sense to say it was fulfilled when he came. itâs tautological but linguistically it works.
so since jesus is there to absolve people of sin does that mean that to christians, thatâs also the purpose of the law? (thatâs what evilwickedme was saying in another reblog)
The way it was explained to me, in my non-denominational/Baptist upbringing, is that God gave the Law to the Israelites as a temporary measure to absolve sins for those who kept the Law and reveal His will to the world before Jesus came. When Jesus came to the world, died, and was resurrected, that established a new covenant that superseded the Law by 1. making it a universal covenant (as opposed to the Law which was primarily between God and the Israelites/their descendants) and 2. giving people direct access to God through the in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit, as opposed to the Levite priesthood intervening on behalf of the Israelites before God in the Tabernacle and the Temple.
And the reason given as to why the Law was a temporary measure is because it was supposed to be impossible for anyone to keep completely, to showcase mankind's need for God's direct intervention. Jesus' death and resurrection made it so that God's grace could make up for the impossible standards of the Law. I don't recall anyone ever explaining why the sacrifices would be mandated then if they weren't effective recompense for breaking the Law, and the explanations for why Christians keep trying to enforce lesser versions of the Law socially and politically never sat right either.
interesting! so to them, the difficulty of keeping the law is a feature not a bug, and by using âloopholesâ people are escaping this feature?
(i think itâs actually a feature not a bug for us too, but for different reasons)
I would say yes, the difficulty of keeping the law is a feature not a bug, but I don't think this is primarily why evangelicals would be opposed to "loopholes". The so-called loopholes that I see commonly criticised are usually regarding aspects of Jewish law that, according to the Christian supercessionist framework, would be considered "civil" or "ceremonial" and therefore no longer needed thanks to Jesus.
And I think there's also a perception that a lot or most of the "loopholes" come from the Talmud and not the Tanakh*, and since the Talmud was written post-Jesus it's... distrusted or considered unnecessary/untrue/unscriptural, at best. It's obviously not a part of the Christian canon, which for evangelicals would only include the Old and New Testaments (some Christians do include the Apocrypha).
So I think the objection to loopholes is essentially because they see it as trying to "have your cake and eat it too". They think Jews have decided not to follow Jesus, but they're also not following the Old Testament properly. And they're like, well if you're going to follow it, why don't you stick to all the rules as specified in the [Christian interpretation of the] Torah, because that's the inspired book? Basically they think that any further developments in Judaism after Jesus' lifetime are not inspired by God, because Christianity is the true continuation/"fulfilment" of Judaism. That doesn't necessarily mean they think Jewish practices are actually wrong or disapproved of by God, just unnecessary. There often seems to be a sense of sympathy that Jews have to adhere to what seems to them a burdensome obligation.
And as to non-religious criticism for the "loopholes", I think it's honestly partly for the same reasons as the Christians. Why a supposedly neutral non-Christian non-Jewish person should see the Talmud as somehow less valid than the Torah makes zero logical sense, but it's just antisemitism I guess. Also a general lack of understanding and disdain/suspicion for any religious practices they don't understand, because I see the same things with Islam and sharia.
*I'm not saying this is the case, only that this is what I perceive Christians to generally think. This may be entirely wrong â I'd be interested to learn any information if you wanted to share it!
Yeah, I think itâs all of that. What I donât really get is why they still get upset when like⊠the Talmud gives us âloopholesâ to get around halachot that come from the Talmud, which as far as I understand is the case for carrying on Shabbat and eruvim. Also like, the fact that there are plenty of Jews (like me) who just arenât halachically observant. And of course, plenty of non-Jews are atheist or agnostic. But those latter two categories donât seem to set people off the way eruv does.
