112
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by poVoq@slrpnk.net to c/solarpunk@slrpnk.net

Note: their definition of "community" is quite problematic in many ways...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Sibbo@sopuli.xyz 10 points 1 month ago

Interesting article. I believe it makes sense what they are saying in the big picture. Certainly, people would benefit from creating and joining local non-online communities.


What in their definition of community do you find problematic?

[-] poVoq@slrpnk.net 27 points 1 month ago

Mainly the focus on authorities, religion and so on. I get that they mean stability, which is probably good for children, but it is a bit too much of a projection of the "good old times" that never really existed.

[-] RobotZap10000@feddit.nl 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I agree. The study seems a bit biased. In the article (or the previous in the series, I forgot), a study claims that religious children say that they have trusted persons more often than secular children. I (don't) wonder how this might change if the child in question wasn't cisgender and/or heterosexual.

It is a very insightful article nonetheless. Thanks for sharing!

[-] hackersquirrel@gnulinux.social 4 points 1 month ago

@RobotZap10000
As an athiest, I'm an active member of a Unitarian Universalist church. It gives me a community without the theology baggage. It's a win/win and super welcoming to LGBTQ+
@poVoq

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2024
112 points (96.7% liked)

Solarpunk

5336 readers
1 users here now

The space to discuss Solarpunk itself and Solarpunk related stuff that doesn't fit elsewhere.

What is Solarpunk?

Join our chat: Movim or XMPP client.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS