What else is there to say? This statement is correct: religion has always been misused for political purposes - that’s what the sentence says, not that religion itself is always misused; that’s your interpretation.

Besides, if you’d read a little further, you probably would have figured out what I’m trying to say.

You’re reading into my statement that it somehow implies I’m making some kind of fundamental claim about religion here. I’m sorry, but it’s simply a fact that religion is being misused for political purposes. I can’t help it if you’re turning that into a fundamental claim that isn’t there at all.

What makes you think I’m not fully aware of that?

I’m talking about the dangers of exploiting religion, which remains one of humanity’s most serious problems, as is currently and undeniably illustrated by the monstrous regimes in the U.S. and Israel, for example.

I never said that religion should be rejected outright or that it cannot also do good.

I don’t understand how you came to that conclusion.

Religion certainly plays a regulatory role within society - historically, for a very, very long time. It also promotes values such as charity, empathy, and humility as virtues. The problem, unfortunately, is that this system of order is frequently abused in practice - just like the legal system, whose guidelines are often derived from religious values. So it is not religion itself that is the problem, but the way it is abused.

A good example of this is the ultra-conservative Christians in the U.S.: Since this ideology is being exploited politically to promote a ruthless form of hyper-capitalism that serves only a tiny elite, there is no room for values such as humanity and empathy, which the Bible clearly prescribes as positive values. Thus, inhuman policies are legitimized in the name of God and Jesus, though only those aspects of religion that enable the propagation of “in-groups” and “out-groups” are utilized. On the one hand, this serves to convey a sense of community, and on the other, to deny all rights -including the right to exist - to anyone who does not belong. Of course, this could no longer be reconciled with Christian ethics, but since this is not about ethics but about power, these schizophrenic movements are nevertheless very successful.

This logic is present in nearly all forms of religious extremism - from ultra-Christians to fanatical Muslims and Jews to Hindus and so on. These fundamentalist movements always have one thing in common: they are not interested in good, peaceful coexistence, but solely in the dominance of one group over another, which is because they are political movements whose leaders use religion merely as a means of power to legitimize their inhumane ideology.

But please don’t misunderstand what I’m saying here: It is not religion itself that is the problem, but the way it is abused to pit people against one another and distract them from who actually benefits from the corresponding policies.

This effect is by no means limited to religion: the same can be achieved, for example, by emphasizing nationality - in this case, concepts such as “foreign infiltration” serve as a backdrop of fear, so that the corresponding out-group can be denied basic rights, even their humanity.

This doesn’t baffle anyone at all. On the contrary. It was entirely to be expected, given all the AIPAC money Israel uses to bribe politicians.

Religion is, and always has been, a tool used by those in power to legitimize the status quo.

Its primary purpose is to shift responsibility for actions onto fate and thus divert attention from the fact that it is people who are responsible for these actions. In this way, even the most unfair and exploitative conditions can still be portrayed as just: the king by the grace of God, the kingdom of heaven that awaits the patient after death, hell that punishes the greedy, making it unnecessary to hold them accountable in this life, and so on.

This also works in reverse to strip people of the self-confidence that they can achieve things through their own efforts: Thank God for the food he has put on the table, for your success, and for everything else, because he has given it to you in his infinite generosity - don’t even think of making demands.

In this sense, religion provides a justification for hierarchies in society. It cements the status quo in the interests of the powerful.

Hence: People who do not question this narrative - which serves their own exploitation - but have made it the purpose of their lives are quite strange, because they are thereby harming themselves.

That reminds me of the scientists in Terry Pratchett’s Discworld, who let themselves dangle in a basket from the edge of the world to conduct their research.

We’ll see. One thing, however, should be quite clear: it is very unlikely that the living conditions of U.S. citizens will improve significantly, even if the status quo is maintained. The system has already been infiltrated far too deeply for that to happen. The US will therefore remain an oligarchy one way or another - living conditions will continue to deteriorate until US citizens dismantle the system, which I consider virtually impossible. The only question, then, is whether the democracy charade will continue or not, because there is truly no democracy in the U.S. where the system serves the people. The current administration merely makes this clearer than its predecessors.

Yes, that’s true: the methods of oppression in the U.S. are still relatively subtle at the moment. However, that doesn’t change the fact that in the U.S., too, a tiny elite exploits the country while standing above the law - a point proven by the very fact that the current president is, in fact, president rather than serving a life sentence in prison.

What I’m getting at is this: It would be easier for this elite to switch to the Russian model. I consider it likely that they intend to do so, since the current regime demonstrates on a daily basis that the most serious crimes in the US always go unpunished - so why even maintain the facade when it’s already abundantly clear that the law simply doesn’t apply to the powerful elite?

I don’t think one can expect even the slightest resistance from the police in a crisis, since their leadership is largely made up of the same people who elected these crooks to the White House.

I believe the circumstances surrounding the military’s current war against Iran - a war that violates both international law and U.S. law, during which they are committing the most serious war crimes - clearly indicate that no resistance is to be expected from them either. Furthermore, all generals critical of the regime have already been removed.

In Short: Both the police and the military are led predominantly by MAGA officials who would benefit from the establishment of a dictatorship. I therefore do not think they would offer resistance in a crisis - they could do so right now given the obvious crimes the regime commits on a daily basis, but they just do not.

I think it will simply turn out however the oligarchs who actually control the U.S. decide. If they want a dictatorship modeled on the Russian one, that’s exactly what will happen.

"…

Are you ready? Hey, are you ready for this?

Are you hanging on the edge of your seat?

Out of the doorway, the bullets rip

To the sound of the beat, yeah

Another Cat-in-the-box

Another Cat-in-the-box

And another one gone, and another one gone

Another Cat-in-the-box (yeah)

Hey, I’m gonna get you, too

Another Cat-in-the-box

…"

They’re just the backup, after all. Do you really think the military would put up a fight? Or even the police?

For these three reasons alone, I consider it highly likely that this regime will now abandon even the pretense of democracy and establish a true autocracy:

1. ICE has a larger budget than all U.S. federal agencies combined. This budget is equivalent to the military spending of a medium-sized country. It is clearly a secret police force.
2. Given the serious crimes they have already committed, all members of the cabinet would likely face criminal prosecution under a new administration—even within the completely dysfunctional U.S. legal system. They will not let it come to that.
3. Coups d’état have no criminal consequences in the U.S., at least for conservatives, as evidenced by the fact that no one actually responsible was prosecuted during the last coup attempt—even the foot soldiers are all back on the loose.

Just to be on the safe side, in case the mainstream media in the U.S. doesn’t give this much coverage: The advertising budget to secure Gallrein’s election victory amounts to $32 million, a large portion of which comes from pro-Israel groups. It is the most expensive campaign of its kind in U.S. history.

Yes, that’s true, because of the network effect. But you can still rest on your laurels as long as there’s no serious competition. Another motivation for PeerTube & Co.

Regarding federated applications: I think they not only need content, but also have to become significantly more user-friendly to ever have a chance in the mainstream. It’s simply a reality that the average user doesn’t know the first thing about the applications they use—and, above all, that they never want to know. The essential and only “selling point” is and remains convenience—and even setting aside the lack of content, federated applications unfortunately can’t keep up. Not for technical reasons, but because the average internet user is such a complacent wimp.

Isn’t it unbelievable how multi-billion-dollar corporations push out updates that should never have been released, despite the warnings from their undoubtedly highly competent developers?

That alone says everything you need to know about the times we live in…

It seems we’ve reached the end of the road for hyper-capitalism.

Unfortunately, that’s about as likely as the tech giants paying for the data they use to train their models.

The thing is: even under the status quo, AI is already a money-losing venture due to its enormous energy consumption alone (only a fraction of the actual costs). If the tech giants were now required to cover the costs they currently avoid by misusing public infrastructure and stealing the work of others, there is simply no business model that would be profitable.

Even if additional revenue—such as from advertising (Google’s main source of income)—were to be added, which will almost inevitably happen sooner or later, it doesn’t account for the tech giants having to cover the additional costs they would incur if things were done properly.

Or to put it another way: The hype would come to an abrupt end if the courts did not rule in favor of the billionaires. Because then AI would not be economically viable to operate, at least not with those LLMs that the tech giants tout as all-knowing “artificial intelligence,” which is intended to be used by the general public as well as by companies to supposedly replace workers.

In short: Not only are the promises regarding the technology’s potential massively exaggerated, but the corresponding business models are also built on sand—they simply cannot work if the tech giants were also required to bear the costs they are legitimately obligated to bear.

Edit: Given this context, in my view there can really only be two reasons why the tech giants are still investing so heavily in AI:

1. It is a “pump and dump” scheme of unprecedented scale, because the major investors will still make enormous profits even when the bubble bursts, since they are the ones keeping the hype alive and will therefore be the first to sell their shares with profit before everything collapses.

2. It is an attempt by billionaires to centralize the world to their advantage, because multi-billion-dollar corporations are the only ones capable of covering the astronomical costs of developing AI models and operating them. Consequently, they are also the only ones who stand to profit from the widespread adoption of the technology. A bit like in the Middle Ages, when the monopoly on knowledge lay exclusively with the clergy: The billionaires would have absolute interpretive authority—exclusive control over the medium and thus, in a sense, also over what is generally accepted as truth, which narratives are socially accepted, and so on. It would multiply their current, already enormous power yet again.

I think it’s a bit of both.

If Jesus were a U.S. citizen, he would certainly organize a general strike that would last until the oligarchs were driven out of the temple once and for all.

He probably tried that long ago, but received no support from the American people and was therefore forcibly shipped to a concentration camp in a foreign country thousands of miles away, where he likely perished … or even worse … no one knows where he is … the U.S. authorities refuse to comment on the matter, yet they continue to commit mass murder in his name…

I think there are mainly two reasons for this:

1. In fiction, you’re simply not personally affected, so you don’t have to face any adversity or negative consequences. It costs nothing to see yourself as part of the revolutionary movement, and you don’t put yourself in danger.

2. Apparently, many people simply don’t want to admit what monsters their leaders really are, even though it’s actually obvious. This is the result of decades of propaganda, I think: The U.S., for example, has always seen itself as the friendly superpower that brings freedom and democracy to the world. Now that it is obvious even to the biggest idiot that this has always been a lie - since the regime has abandoned the facade - people are looking for other explanations to maintain the worldview they have long held to be true - such as the excuse that the current U.S. president is being controlled by evil forces from other countries (Russia/Israel) and therefore does not represent his own, indeed so righteous, country at all.

Naturally, in this system, the logical response is to vote for the Democrats because they are the lesser evil.