IDK if it would be better but it might be worth trying.

There are alternatives like cryptpad that allow you to make a document and then share links that allow others to comment.

cryptpad.org

But that would seem to contradict your premise that the words are meaningless even though people use them. What then can possibly make a word meaningful? Secondarily, as you know, many communities of speakers would misgender you (as they would me), does that make those speakers correct?

How do you think meaning is derived in sentences? Do you think that words are inherently meaningful? You previously mentioned some wittgensteinian notions of a community of speakers. As such does that mean that these people who use neopronouns are valid so long as there are others using those words?

"You are dumbasses for defending neopronouns". Honestly I do not see what the big deal is. Like I am not defending it on some high ground of it being sacred or whatever. I just think that your reasoning is completely fallacious and boils down to that you don't personally like their aesthetics.

"They work against functional communication" perhaps I am used to new terminology being introduced regularly from mathematics, but these do not seem to be hard to understand. Xe when to xeir wedding with fey. Easy to parse. (just unify fey and xe with the relevant people)

What qre you accomplishing by insisting that neopronouns are bad? I don't see any practical value or need being served, which is the metric you would use to evaluate those pronouns. So why speak?

I don't know if this is the intent but if you use a blocklist and later unsubscribe from it (say because you found it was blocking the wrong people) then you don't have to re-follow people afterwards.

If I were to find your arguments convincing for whatever reason and did that there would be no reason I should not adopt say Hinduism. But I think you mean to more generally refute religion. This is not accomplished through the refutation of one interpretation of one translation of one text.

If you want to argue for atheism (in an interesting way), then maybe focus on the interesting arguments for god and refute them? Focusing on finding contradictions on one version of one particular religious text is only evidence that you should not literally interpret that one text.

And also I don't really get what pointing out what seem to be contradictions to you argues *for*. That the KJV is a hideously bad translation of a translation? I think most people agree. That you cannot take a position of literalism? That also seems to be a position most people take already.

Well if you seek to refute a point you ought to refute the point instead of constructing a separate point and then arguing against that easier to attack point.

Certainly there are parts where there are laws, but when we look at say the Exodus, the whole thing is a story, not a collection of laws. Many people also do not think that the bible is particularly clear and rely upon some hermeneutics to interpret it (which is not of course included in the bible).

Well many people (and specifically probably most scholars) interpret it in ways that are incompatible with your particular biblical literalist interpretation so I doubt you would be particularly convincing to them.

It's also not a set of orders, it is more a collection of stories.

Are you some sort of biblical literalist by any chance?

This is amazing, were any of them printed on by silk screening or woodblocks?

Manually blocking the people in his starter pack is a bit slow, so I'd also like that.