• ApeNo1@lemm.eeEnglish
    42·
    9 months ago

    In other words this creep has thought about raping women who are wearing shorts. Authorities should be putting him on a watch list.

        • jarfil@beehaw.org
          2·
          9 months ago

          There is a nice warning ⚠️ on that page, may want to check the Wikipedia to learn more.

            • jarfil@beehaw.org
              1·
              9 months ago

              It applies to both. The word is a neologism created specifically for an eugenic purpose, using it as an insult doesn’t change its meaning.

              • ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee
                4·
                9 months ago

                It was a neologism associated with the eugenics movement (“created specifically for” appears to be editorializing on your part), more than 100 years ago. The word has LONG since lost any connection with that meaning, with the sole exception of virtue signaling like yours.

  • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
    15·
    9 months ago

    Here’s what I don’t get: In a lot of churches, isn’t the guy standing up at front supposed to be telling you literally the word of God? Like God’s anointed representative on earth? I know that’s how it’s supposed to work for the pope; like it’s officially supposed to be absolutely impossible for the pope to ever be wrong in any statements about anything. Shouldn’t this seem to the church goers like finding out that your doctor actually doesn’t have a medical degree? Or like he thinks your heart is in your leg or something? It seems like “oops I made a mistake, I definitely know it’s in the chest now, we all live and learn sometimes” should not by any means be the end of that conversation.

    • t3rmit3@beehaw.org
      28·
      9 months ago

      No. In Catholicism, when a Pope makes official rulings on matters of Catholic doctrine it is supposed to be infallible. It also must be explicitly invoked as ex cathedra, meaning “from the chair”, as applying to all Catholics. The last time that happened was in 1950, with a doctrinal ruling on the nature of the Assumption of Mary. It also cannot be a new doctrine, only a ruling on the nature of an existing one, so it’s meant to be sort of akin to a SCOTUS ruling interpreting a law, rather than being an executive order.

      In Protestant and other Reformation-derived denominations (e.g. Evangelicals) Pastors are not supposed to be authoritative or infallible. They just often present themselves that way.