Difference between revisions of "Talk:2536: Wirecutter"
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
I really want this article to be real. ----Dave | I really want this article to be real. ----Dave | ||
| + | : Me too. I did something similar in my early 20s, and feel such an article honestly done would be a great help to many. In fact, the current description is slightly inaccurate- in that even lifelong practitioners, do usually have a wandering time in early adulthood if not given direction. Such an article would give some direction.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 15:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | ||
The major problem with trying multiple religions is that to fully test a religion you need to die - and most people only die once, with the ability to die multiple times being exclusive feature of small number of religions. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 04:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | The major problem with trying multiple religions is that to fully test a religion you need to die - and most people only die once, with the ability to die multiple times being exclusive feature of small number of religions. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 04:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | ||
| Line 17: | Line 18: | ||
I don't want to sound controversial but tithing would be a refreshing change comparing to current tax systems [[User:Tkopec|Tkopec]] ([[User talk:Tkopec|talk]]) 10:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | I don't want to sound controversial but tithing would be a refreshing change comparing to current tax systems [[User:Tkopec|Tkopec]] ([[User talk:Tkopec|talk]]) 10:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | ||
| + | : Agreed- 10% is much less than the near 50% I'm paying when I figure it all in.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 15:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | ||
Last night I was writing a huge thing about religions' almost universal reluctance to be 'tried out' (lestways allowing easy unsubscription at the end) <!-- ((Here's what I wrote, though...)) Most religions (not just the three major Abrahamic supersets) specify exclusivity. To the extent that the sub-sub-branch of the sub-branch of your umbrella faith probably doesn't really even encourage tolerance of a fellow sub-sub-branch of the same sub-branch of the same umbrella (see [[https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2005/sep/29/comedy.religion the archetypal joke]]) and may even be more aggressive to that sibling creed (that might easily absorb many of the fickle-faithful) than to entirely dissimilar one (which has less inroads, and may only extract the really awkward square pegs not really happy with theround holes). It's a memetic necessity, as even in the case of the casual "come and try us!" attitude by any 'recruiting' and evangelising religion there must by necessity still be a trap to close off too many apostates (or head off the 'foreign' proselytisers before they create too many such convertees) or else the creed becomes leaky and needs other ''very'' strong (cultish!) practices to continue to be a going concern. Syncretism is another solution, especially in a panthestic context, by ensuring everything still ''is'' within the rather broader church (literally and figuratively), but still maintains borders that are deliberately guarded against easy departure. ((...that's part of what I wrote.)) --> but on reflection, after a night's sleep, I'm wondering if they just had 70+ 'mystery shoppers' tasked to report back on one assigned 'product' each, their reports aggregated so this didn't matter too much (to the overall report-writers, at least). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.175|172.70.85.175]] 14:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | Last night I was writing a huge thing about religions' almost universal reluctance to be 'tried out' (lestways allowing easy unsubscription at the end) <!-- ((Here's what I wrote, though...)) Most religions (not just the three major Abrahamic supersets) specify exclusivity. To the extent that the sub-sub-branch of the sub-branch of your umbrella faith probably doesn't really even encourage tolerance of a fellow sub-sub-branch of the same sub-branch of the same umbrella (see [[https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2005/sep/29/comedy.religion the archetypal joke]]) and may even be more aggressive to that sibling creed (that might easily absorb many of the fickle-faithful) than to entirely dissimilar one (which has less inroads, and may only extract the really awkward square pegs not really happy with theround holes). It's a memetic necessity, as even in the case of the casual "come and try us!" attitude by any 'recruiting' and evangelising religion there must by necessity still be a trap to close off too many apostates (or head off the 'foreign' proselytisers before they create too many such convertees) or else the creed becomes leaky and needs other ''very'' strong (cultish!) practices to continue to be a going concern. Syncretism is another solution, especially in a panthestic context, by ensuring everything still ''is'' within the rather broader church (literally and figuratively), but still maintains borders that are deliberately guarded against easy departure. ((...that's part of what I wrote.)) --> but on reflection, after a night's sleep, I'm wondering if they just had 70+ 'mystery shoppers' tasked to report back on one assigned 'product' each, their reports aggregated so this didn't matter too much (to the overall report-writers, at least). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.175|172.70.85.175]] 14:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 15:03, 2 November 2021
Note: they don't say they tried out a large number of religions but a large number of belief systems. This could include things like "Libertarianism" or "Monarchists". (By CWALLENPOOLE, but not signed in.)
- But the picture of the article title says “The Best Religion” 108.162.216.233 20:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
The phrase "highly controversial" should not be used in the explanation. For the record, I am opposed to the things listed in that sentence and my objection is not based in a desire to defend them. Religion itself might be said to be "highly controversial" so the use in the last sentence is both superfluous and biased. 172.70.82.53 00:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I really want this article to be real. ----Dave
- Me too. I did something similar in my early 20s, and feel such an article honestly done would be a great help to many. In fact, the current description is slightly inaccurate- in that even lifelong practitioners, do usually have a wandering time in early adulthood if not given direction. Such an article would give some direction.Seebert (talk) 15:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
The major problem with trying multiple religions is that to fully test a religion you need to die - and most people only die once, with the ability to die multiple times being exclusive feature of small number of religions. -- Hkmaly (talk) 04:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- I ain't mad Hkmaly, but the idea that a religion's primary purpose is to promote a vision of the afterlife is alien to a lot of religions (including my own flavor of Judaism), whose policy on the hereafter is "afterlife, shmafterlife, pass the bagels." Hence also my edits toning down the "religions are about provable belief claims" rhetoric (eyeroll). ----Ben
It doesn't look like the search bar text says "search," but I can't make out what it actually says.--KrazyKat (talk) 06:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe it says Seance, since for "seach" the high stoke from the H is missing. -- 162.158.203.10 07:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- or Sermon maybe, that would fit the theme
- Could be Search with large S and smaller caps for the rest? Anyone subscribe to the NYT and care to visit the actual WireCutter site to see the formatting? 172.70.147.195 12:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't want to sound controversial but tithing would be a refreshing change comparing to current tax systems Tkopec (talk) 10:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed- 10% is much less than the near 50% I'm paying when I figure it all in.Seebert (talk) 15:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Last night I was writing a huge thing about religions' almost universal reluctance to be 'tried out' (lestways allowing easy unsubscription at the end) but on reflection, after a night's sleep, I'm wondering if they just had 70+ 'mystery shoppers' tasked to report back on one assigned 'product' each, their reports aggregated so this didn't matter too much (to the overall report-writers, at least). 172.70.85.175 14:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Also, the 'religious' wars metaphor extends quite easily to different platforms, yet (say) laptop reviews might compare a set of Windows vs a Mac or two (vs Chromebook, and maybe others) as options. And when it comes to keyboards, the QWERTY-Othodoxy and the Dvorak-Reformists both have bad (and untrue) things to say about each other, when 'enough time' with any given layout should be good enough to prosper in that. (That said, I had a programmable calculator from the '80s until it gave up the ghost some time post-Millenium, and I really did not get on with its alphabetical-order keyboard all that time, perhaps because I was QWERTYing almost everywhere else.) 172.70.85.175 14:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
(Also also: QWERTY with UK-layout is my own personal sub-sect, with occasional need to adapt to US-layout (physically printed keycaps and/or what the computer thought was plugged in) with " and # and ~ characters amongst the main jumbled up ones, and no easy £ access. Which wasn't actually as unnerving as being in the 'wrong' bit of Belfast, but had the same subtle note of discordant undertone to it until I shifted my mental gears or ideally corrected the situation satisfactorarily by configuration.) 172.70.85.175 14:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
