this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2026
84 points (78.4% liked)
Controversial - the place to discuss controversial topics
496 readers
414 users here now
Controversial - the community to discuss controversial topics.
Challenge others opinions and be challenged on your own.
This is not a safe space nor an echo-chamber, you come here to discuss in a civilized way, no flaming, no insults!
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, "trust me bro" is not a valid argument.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Got that one labeled as a fascist so, checks out
You can label users on here? Like private notes? Or am I misunderstanding you?
ok, so no word of a lie, i saw your comment, look at the name, read it as "fascistBasis" and I’m like dayum, they be self identifying and everything nowadays.
then realised my mistake.
I guess TERF would be more exact
Their controversial comments are less bad than I expected from my previous interaction with them, besides the TERFbrained comments
Yeah that was an easy block
I'm a Democratic socialist, Stalin.
OK, so i really need to preface this with the fact that this is a genuine question, my knowledge of political ideologies and their naming schemes is basically "things i heard in passing on the internet".
Also apologies if it's a joke that i've /whooshed on.
What is the difference between the type of democratic socialist you are and a social democrat.
Is it a Peoples Front Of Judea type of thing ? or is there a legitimate difference?
The reason i ask is that the only other social democrat (or democratic socialist, assuming there isn't a difference) political ideology I’ve heard of was the precursor to the nazi's.
It's really not a dig, i'm interested in the answer.
See: Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), Bernie Sanders, Zohran Mamdani, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez(AOC), or other progressive democrats or independents.
That video isn't loading for me.
As far as I know, yes they are similar. (social democrat to democratic socialist)
I guess the difference is inclusivity. And if we're talking a Party or ideology(capitalization matters, like I'm a democrat, but not a Democrat.)
Unlike Nazis, I'm for inclusivity. Come as you are, all faiths welcome.
But I also personally detest body mutilation. Even when they want it. Yea, all forms. So tattoos, piercings, gauges, split tongues, etc. but to be clear: I don't think it should be illegal for adults to 'mutilate themselves', voluntarily. It's just not for me. It's a gut feeling kind of thing.
I think maybe, psychologically, it's because it is seeking external validation. To "pass" as the kids say. I don't think people should need to "pass"... You're good as your are. I don't think you're going to improve on God's design.
Useful and mostly answers my question, thanks.
Fair enough.
You lost me at this bit though, by that rationale anything external that isn't strictly functional would fall under this category.
Coloured clothes, haircuts that aren't just to keep the hair out of your eyes, any accessories of any kind ?
It also feels like a big leap to claim external validation as the only reason for personal expression.
That being said, as long as you aren't forcing it on other people, you do you, personal choice is important.
I'm going to be honest, I don't like this way of thinking, at all.
I'm all for personal faith, but the problems with that statement aren't theistic in nature, they're logical.
~~The only way that statement works is if it's absolute. If God's design is perfect it has to be "perfect".~~
~~If any part of the design is questionable then it's all questionable.~~
I take that back, you could argue that we can't improve upon gods design in just the areas we are talking about (body mods) but then i'd follow up: with why can we not improve upon body-mod related areas, but we can on something like vision for instance?
Easy go-to examples are everywhere
The most contextually relevant example i can think of is a cleft lip, something that you could live a full life with but would be significantly better off without.
I believe you’re responding to an argument I didn’t quite make.
I wasn’t saying “any external change = validation.” I was talking specifically about physiological body modification done to fit in or ‘pass’ ... that’s a much narrower category than general self-expression via....
Clothes, hairstyles, accessories, etc. aren’t comparable. Those are temporary, low-stakes, and reversible. I’m talking about chronic physical changes to the body.
And even then, I didn’t claim external validation is the only reason, but just that it’s a common psychological driver in some cases. So no, the logic doesn’t expand to “everything non-functional.” That’s a mischaracterization.
On the “God’s design” point, you’re also stretching it into areas I wasn’t talking about. Medical interventions like glasses, mobility aids, or corrective surgery (like cleft lip repair) are about restoring function or alleviating harm.
My counter would be the opposite. And this is really the core. If cleft lips became a fad and people willingly cleft their own lips when they were normal before. That's insane, IMO. That's jumping off the cliff because Bobby Jones did.
If you want to challenge the position, that’s fine, but it should be the position I actually stated, not a broader version of it.
Ah, that's my bad, i read it as all body mods are external validation driven.
Stakes are relative in this case, just because you care about the permanence or reversibility of a modification doesn't mean others do.
but yeah, it's not an exact match.
see above
This we'll have to disagree on, unless you have a convincing way of explaining why we can't improve on gods design with stylistic choices, but medical intervention is ok.
I realise how that sounds (to me at least) but your phrasing didn't leave any leeway in that it didn't really specify what about gods design could possibly be improved upon.
It also gets into conversation about what exactly constitutes harm, psychological harm exists and can be just as devastating as physical harm.
Not to mention that psychological harm can cause physical harm, i don't mean self-harm (though that's a thing also) i mean detrimental physiological changes brought about by negative psychological pressure.
My answer to this would be contingent upon your answer to "what about god's design is possible for us to improve upon?".
That's fair, though as i said your position was unclear in that the statement seems to be an absolute with no specification as to boundaries.
I did go back and adjust my statement to ask a question around boundaries in the original reply, I’m not sure if you replied before or after this.
If you don't mind giving me some clarification on where those boundaries exist i can be more specific.
Lol that checks out