Are you a scientist in the USA? Do you wanna research progressive issues but are afraid Trump's 200-word list will block your study? Well, worry no more:

Introducing Censordodge!

Censordodge is a simple word replacement tool that will search your document for words on Trump's 200-word list and replace them with synonyms that Trump overlooked.

The synonyms were carefully chosen to be short, common to the point of online visibility, easy to understand, grammatically applicable to all contexts, and as close to the original as possible. They're partially even superior to the originals in accuracy and potential to be misunderstood, deliberately or not!

Censordodge even works if you apply the plugin at the last minute: It'll censor-proof your article in no time and you won't even notice a difference!

Satisfaction guaranteed or you'll get your money back! Because it doesn't cost any money to begin with! In fact, the entire word replacement algorithm is right here:

• advocacy → promotion

• antiracist → against race-based mistreatment

• barrier → obstacle

• belonging → fitting in

• bipoc → black, indigo, and people of color

• black and latinx → latinx and black

• cis → sex-affirmed at birth

• disability → permanent disadvantage

• discrimination → mistreatment

• diverse → various

• diversified → varied

• diversify → vary

• diversity → variety

• equality → equal treatment

• equity → fairness

• ethnicity → race

• gender → brain-sex

• hate speech → harmful rhetoric

• historically → throughout time

• implicit → subconscious

• indigenous → indigo

• inequality → unequal treatment

• inequities → unfair treatments

• justice → fairness

• lgbt → GSRM

• marginalized → mistreated

• minority → fewest

• opportunity → possibility

• polarization → controversy

• political → legal

• privileges → undeserved advantages

• racial → race-based

• racism → race-based mistreatment

• sexual preferences → sexualities

• stereotypes → clichés

• trans → sex-denied at birth

• trauma → mental scar

• under( )appreciated → underrated

• under( )represented → fewer than what would be expected

• undervalued → underrated

• victim → target

• women → ladies

And if Trump ever extends his list don't worry: We have a huge backlog of even more synonyms ready for a potential Censordodge 2.0!

---

/uj Seriously, why don't the scientists just use synonyms? It looks so easy, especially considering the list is so short! I must be missing something. What am I missing?

TL;DR: Das ist nicht nur in der deutschen Sprache so. Auch in anderen Sprachen habe ich ähnliche Muster festgestellt.

Die folgenden Tabellen zeigen die Artikel der deutschen Sprache:

Und hier sind die Suffixe der lateinischen Sprache:

Apropos Suffixe, in der deutschen Sprache kriegen die Mädchen und Frauen das Suffix in und die Jungs und Männer kriegen überhaupt nichts.

Auch im Altägyptischen kriegen die Jungs und Männer überhaupt nichts und die Mädchen und Frauen kriegen 𓏏 ein Brot.

Das finde ich historisch überraschend, denn das grammatikalische Genus war im frühen Protoindoeuropäischen noch aufgeteilt in Utrum für Lebendiges und Neutrum für Unlebendiges und erst später spaltete sich das Utrum in Maskulinum und Femininum auf, was ursprünglich nicht einmal als binäres System gemeint war, sondern als eine graduelle Richtungsangabe: oben in der Hierarchie und unten in der Hierarchie. Wenn man also von der Hierarchie Maskulinum > Femininum > Neutrum ausgeht, wieso sind dann gerade das Maskulinum und das Neutrum so ähnlich zueinander?

> "If it was a girl, it'd have a big bow on the side of its head or something." --Kevin, Ben 10: Alien Force, "Unearthed"

Ein Smiley ohne Wimpern, ohne Rock/Kleid, ohne Haarspange und ohne Haare wird standardmäßig als männlich angesehen, obwohl er auch ohne Bart, ohne Zylinder und ohne Krawatte/Fliege ist. Das 🚹 hat ebenfalls überhaupt keine geschlechtsspezifischen Merkmale und wird deshalb neben der Herrentoilette auch generell in Schaubildern zur Symbolisierung allgemeiner Bevölkerungszahlen verwendet. Wenn ein Kerl Rosa trägt, wirkt er heutzutage immer noch feminin, aber wenn eine Dame Blau trägt, wirkt das in keinster Weise maskulin. Im ersten Pokémonspiel konnte man nur einen Jungen steuern. 999 Schauspielerinnen und 1 Schauspieler ergeben zusammen 1000 Schauspieler. Das ist im Deutschen, im Französischen und sogar im Englischen so. Im Deutschen wird an vielen Stellen immer noch das generische Maskulinum benutzt. Das generische Femininum gibt es zwar auch, klingt aber in den Ohren Vieler einfach nur seltsam.

All das ist nur ein Aspekt von vielen, der mir schon immer das Gefühl gegeben hat, dass Männer der Standard sind, Frauen hingegen was Besonderes. Unterbewusst sind bei mir Mädchen und Frauen abstrakt gespeichert als "Dinge mit Femininität (🩷🪄)" und Jungs und Männer als "Dinge ohne Femininität (……)", quasi als bloße Abwesenheit von Femininität.

Deshalb hatte ich schon immer Schwierigkeiten, zwischen Medien für Jungs und Unisex zu unterscheiden, für Mädchen aber irgendwie überhaupt nicht. Wieso wurde Pokémon von McDonald's also als "für Jungs" klassifiziert, obwohl Pikachus piepsige Stimme die Serie für Mädchen attraktiver machen sollte? Was unterscheidet Herrenmode von Unisexmode? Sogar bei diesem Video hatte ich Schwierigkeiten, die Spiele für Jungs von den Spielen für alle zu unterscheiden. Ich meine, Barbie, Hello Kitty, Winx Club, Lillifee, Disney Prinzessinnen, Bratz, Trollz, das alles ist natürlich an Mädchen gerichtet, aber was ist an Dr. Mario maskuliner als Tetris? Wieso wurde Metroid, wo man die ganze Zeit über eine Frau steuert, ausschließlich an Jungs vermarktet? Und warum wurde Legend of Zelda an Jungs vermarktet, obwohl der Protagonist Link absichtlich androgyn entworfen wurde, damit sich auch Mädchen mit ihm identifizieren können? Im Video wurde auch gesagt, dass Videospiele früher überwiegend an Jungs gerichtet waren, heutzutage aber überwiegend geschlechtsneutral sind. Ich hätte das so jetzt nicht sagen können, einfach, weil ich dazwischen nicht unterscheiden kann!

Bei mir ist das sogar so schlimm, dass ich bis heute Schwierigkeiten mit den deutschen Artikeln habe, obwohl Deutsch meine Muttersprache ist: Heißt es "der Salz" oder "das Salz"? "der Broccoli" oder "das Broccoli"? "der Salat" oder "das Salat"? "der Fibrom" oder "das Fibrom"? "der Kader" oder "das Kader"? Ich habe diese Schwierigkeiten aber nur mit "der" und "das", niemals mit "die". Denn das Femininum ist für mich voller Femininität 🩷🪄, das Maskulinum und das Neutrum hingegen..........nicht. Wenn meine Muttersprache Englisch oder Französisch wäre, hätte ich das Problem nicht: Im Englischen, weil das die einzige gegenderte Sprache ist, in denen die Pronomen auch wirklich Sinn ergeben (außer bei Schiffen und so etwas); und im Französischen, weil es das Neutrum dort gar nicht erst gibt, sodass die sogar sagen: "Er regnet." Ich habe deshalb sogar Schwierigkeiten, mir nichtbinäre Menschen vorzustellen, obwohl ich mich regelmäßig mit nichtbinären Menschen in meiner Transselbsthilfegruppe treffe und mit ihnen rede, denn in meinem Unterbewusstsein gibt es nur:

• Dinge mit Femininität (🩷🪄)

• Dinge ohne Femininität (……)

• abstrakte Konzepte, die irgendwie nicht in dieses Modell passen sollen (⦻⁉️)

Weiß irgendjemand von euch, was ich meine? Geht es irgendjemandem von euch genau so?

TL;DR section below

Whenever anyone asks why Christians are more likely to be homophobic, Atheists usually jump to that one verse in Leviticus. However, not only is this verse in the Old Testament, it's also surrounded by condemnations of shellfish and mixed fabric and I don't see any Westboro Baptist signs saying "GOD HATES POLYESTER/CHEESEBURGERS/SHELLFISH/INDOOR PLUMBING/etc.". Therefore, all this homophobia in the name of Christianity was clearly not caused by the bible but rather cherry-picked as a posteriori justification by people who were already homophobic for a different reason. But is homophobia nevertheless part of Christianity or not?

Christians have been using the bible to justify both sides of racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and even slavery, with a great amount of disagreement even among pastors. And I've seen cherry-picking, quote mining, ignorance of context, and troll logic on both sides. Heck, even I know so many bible verses that I can make the bible say pretty much whatever I want!

For example, Deuteronomy 22:5 says that men should not wear women's garments and women should not wear men's garments. Trans women are women so a trans woman wearing women's garments would technically not violate this verse but, let's be honest, this text clearly gives the impression that it wasn't meant to be interpreted like that. This video interprets the verse to refer to cis men who disguise themselves as women to infiltrate women-only spaces and have sex with them, which kinda makes sense because I've also heard of condemnations of homosexuality being written during a time when such acts were associated with demonic rituals or whatever. But this logic falls flat when you consider that Christians believe the bible to be timeless and universally applicable because they are supposed to have been inspired by an omniscient god who should've known how those verses would be interpreted nowadays. I also heard that this verse has been mistranslated and that it actually meant that soldiers shouldn't disguise themselves as civilians and vice versa, which makes sense on its own but contradicts with that other theory. And I have no idea how to check which theory is correct because the word "man" itself evolved from "wæpnedmann" meaning "armed person" so there is a chance that the words for "man" and "warrior" used to be synonyms. For all I know, that verse could've been written by a transphobe who simply didn't know any better.

Both sides usually accuse each other of distorting what the bible actually says and of not being real Christians but what does Christianity actually say? Atheists love to point at religious totalitarian regimes and say things like "This is religion in its purest form!" or "This is what happens when religion gets power!" but there are also totalitarian Atheistic regimes and I don't see the difference between calling those not real Atheism and calling the religious ones not really religious.

What makes this even more confusing is that, despite all the Sunday Schools and Biblical Scholarships, believers tend to know less about the bible than non-believers! Conservatives are now dismissing Jesus's teachings as "liberal", calling themselves "done turning the other cheek". This made DarkMatter2525 say that Christian nationalism has nothing to do with Christianity anymore, despite also having criticized Christianity for years. As he puts it:

> When you think of a modern Christian, especially an American, and, particularly, an Evangelical, do you imagine someone who is humble humble, gentle, and patient? (Ephesians 4:2) Do you imagine a selfless person? (1 Corinthians 10:24, Matthew 16:24) Do you imagine someone who does not care about identity politics? (Matthew 9:10) Do you imagine someone who cannot be manipulated by the brash, egotistical materialism of narcissistic billionaires, millionaires, politicians, and partisan pundits? (Isaiah 29:13, Luke 21:8, Matthew 7:15) Do you imagine someone who does not care about their belongings? (Matthew 6:19, 24)? Do you imagine someone who would not try to protect their belongings from someone demanding it of them, let alone give them more than what they demanded? (Luke 6:29-30) Do you imagine someone who would turn the other cheek? (Matthew 5:39) Do you imagine someone who would be willing to sell everything they own and give it all to the poor? (Matthew 19:21) Do you imagine someone who welcomes foreigners as if they were native-born citizens? (Leviticus 19:33-34) Do you imagine someone who supports welfare? (Leviticus 25:35) Do you imagine someone who considers prayer a private matter and would neither do it in public nor try to get anyone else to do it in public either? (Matthew 6:5-6) Do you imagine someone who loves their enemies and is kind to them? (Matthew 5:43-44) Do you imagine someone who was angered about the commodification of their religion? (Matthew 21:12-13) And, finally: Do you imagine someone who is completely immune to the whims of culture, who can't be easily distracted, or who's not easily offended?

AronRa went even further, reporting multiple cases of Christians actively closing the bible and putting them away if you show them a verse that disagrees with them. All of this makes it seem to me that the problem was never Christianity itself but rather its infiltration by fascists. Sure, being susceptible to fascist infiltration is still a valid point of critique against religion, but fascists have also infiltrated:

• gamers, resulting in the quinnspiracy theory, later renamed to GamerGate

• feminists, resulting in TERFs, later renamed to Gender Criticals

• postgenderists, resulting in people who claim to not believe in the existence of gender, only sex

• environmentalists, resulting in ecofascism

• the beauty industry, resulting in looksmaxxers

• the comics, Star Wars, and sci-fi fandoms, YouTube, and the Atheist community

Is there even such a thing as true Christianity? Does what the bible actually says even make a difference at this point? In a way, what I'm asking is: TL;DR: When you used to be a Christian, have you ever based a decision on something you read in the bible? Something you discovered in the bible on your own without anyone telling you the exact position in the bible? Something where you would've acted differently if it hadn't been there? It could be a minor decision, a change in your behavior, or even a difference in how you see a specific minority group.

TL;DR: According to this subreddit's About page, this subreddit is for "people who have left Christianity as well as Christians who are considering whether or not they want to get out". But before any of this happened, how did you even become a Christian, in the first place? And why didn't you stop believing when you were older, like you did with Santa Claus?

First of all, I'm not sure if I really count as an ex-Christian or not. One one hand, I was raised Christian, I was baptized, and I used to believe in God and Jesus and that everything in the bible was 100% true so that would technically classify me as a Christian, right? On the other hand, I also used believe that every story, every fairytale, and even every cartoon was also 100% true. When I stopped believing in those stories, I also stopped believing in the bible. I simply saw the bible as yet another one of those fantasy fairytales and I didn't even realize that society views the bible as something special until much later. If a Christian accuses me of never having been a real Christian, in the first place, I'm not offended.

Mr. Zod said in this video: "A question like 'How were you introduced to Christianity?' doesn't even make sense, at least not in my case. That's because the question evokes an image of a person walking up to someone else and explaining Christianity to them, for the first time, you know, kind of like in a Chick tract. A preacher sees someone sinning and blurts out: 'You're destined to hell,' and the person says: 'Oh wow, I don't want that to happen. What must I do to be saved?', so the preacher explains that a guy named Jesus died for our sins and we can go to heaven if we accept his sacrifice. It probably wouldn't be that stupidly abrupt in real life but you get the idea: At some point, probably during childhood, since that's when I was impressionable enough to take this kinda thing at face value, someone must've told me about Jesus, probably using cute storybooks and songs, and probably being less overt about the hellfire part until I was, oh, who knows, about 6 or so. I'm not sure exactly how people picture it but I imagine they must think some such introduction to the idea took place and that I bought into it and incorporated it into my understanding of life but this deeply misunderstands how lifelong indoctrination works because all it does is take the same sequence of events that happens to the adult in a Chick tract and shifts it back several years. In both cases, you start out shaping a pretty normal idea of evident reality through daily experience - 'people exist,' 'things fall down, instead of up,' 'touching the stove hurts,' 'humans breathe oxygen,' 'the earth orbits the sun,' and so on - but then, at some point, someone introduced you to Christianity and convinced you to buy into a bunch o' things that run contrary to that evident reality, such as: 'a disembodied god exists,' 'people did miracles, back in the day,' 'you'll go to heaven or hell when you die,' and so on, and, the earlier you can introduce a child to these ideas, the more likely they'll buy into them, despite how they conflict with their common sense understanding of life, but I never experienced that series of events because Christianity was never really introduced to me. It just arose out of the fog of pre-memory childhood, along with other parts of life I take for granted and remained an ever-present part of my world, along with them, so asking me when I first heard who Jesus was would be nonsense on par with asking when I first heard who my mom was or what a baller blanket was. That's the most deeply insidious part o' this: When you're truly indoctrinated since birth, Christianity doesn't conflict with your established understanding of reality. It becomes part of your understanding of reality, while you're still establishing it. In fact, it's even worse than that makes it sound because it's not just one distinct part. It's more like a series of threads woven at random through all the other threads of everything else you've learned, such that you couldn't even distinguish the Christian from the non-Christian ones. I learned 'Jesus loves you,' along with 'Mom and Dad love you.' I learned 'pray for your food,' along with 'eat healthy food.' I learned that miracles happen, probably before I learned anything beyond the most rudimentary facts of natural science. Because I'd never developed a pre-Christianity understanding of life, it never occurred to even label anything as Christian and set it aside from everything else, much less start questioning it."

This explanation doesn't really satisfy me because all of those things also apply to Santa Claus, the easter bunny, the tooth fairy, and the stork: Everyone is expected to lie to the children about these things before they develop their critical thinking skills, yet they are expected to just stop believing in them, one day. Not because they developed a thorough understanding of macrophysics and could explain in simple terms how we know that a sleigh can't REALLY exceed the speed of light and that it's not just a conspiracy in the scientific community but simply because it's silly to believe in these things. I believed in God before I had developed critical thinking skills, just like Mr. Zod had. I believed in all stories and movies and cartoons. What kickstarted my skepticism was Agent Scully.

Agent Scully is a character role present in many cartoons which can be simply described as: The skeptic. Whenever the plot was about anything outlandish, Agent Scully would simply say: "There's no such thing as monsters/fairies/ghosts/aliens/etc." In some stories, Agent Scully would be right. In some stories, Agent Scully would be wrong. But, even in the stories where they would be wrong, they would still have a good reason for their skepticism, usually because those beings had put an unreasonable amount of effort into hiding from the general public. I also began to notice that some stories had those elements while others did not. I was able to draw a clear line between things that existed in all of these stories and things that only existed in some of them. I named those categories "realistic" and "unrealistic". "natural" and "supernatural" were not accurate enough because the latter also contained things that almost certainly exist, such as aliens, and things that are possible to exist and expected to be invented in the future, such as sci-fi technology. I also noticed that the "unrealistic" category was exclusively made out of things I had never seen before, whereas everything I HAD seen was in the "realistic" category. Agent Scully never said something like: "There's no such thing as airplanes/nuclear power plants/particle accelerators/kangaroos/dinosaurs." They said that dinosaurs are extinct but never that they never existed. I concluded that it's silly to believe in "unrealistic" things and just stopped. I didn't see the need to do anything about those stories. For example, I didn't voice my disbelief in the easter bunny because I didn't wanna ruin the fun of the children younger than me while they were looking for its eggs. I stopped believing in the bible, too.

I got increasingly annoyed with people using the bible in more serious conversations. For example, which came first: The chicken or the egg? The chicken because God created all the animals in their adult forms. Like, really? Using a fantasy story to answer a question about the history of biology? Or one day, when the pastor repeated the story of creation again, I thought: "Really? Does he still expect us to believe in that kinda stuff? We all know that humans came from monkeys so the story can't be true! Hmm… Well, I guess it technically could be true if…" That day, I asked my father: "Were Adam and Eve monkeys?" He then told me that the creation story was a myth, written before evolution was discovered. He even added that it was written before dinosaur bones were discovered and that dinosaurs aren't in the bible because of this. A clear contradiction. But when I confronted the believers about it, they just called the story "metaphorical". Like, really? The bible contains metaphors? How do you even know what is a metaphor or not? What if the existence of God and the afterlife are just metaphorical? Besides, how can a text be metaphorical if it was written by a god who not only knew that his audience would take it literally but also that they would kill people for disagreeing with it? All of this happened when I was 4 years old. The pastor also told us to not let us be deconvinced or we would go to hell. Okay, but that requires all of that stuff to be true, in the first place, and I'm not convinced. One time, an adult who was a lot older than me told me: "You can't see it, you just have to believe it!" I remember thinking: "Wow, the church must've presented some exceptional evidence to get an adult to believe in such an absurd-sounding principle!" What I saw, instead, throughout the years, was that science kept becoming more and more believable and religion became more and more ridiculous: I learned about how scientific methods work and how we know all of these things, whereas the bible was written by fallible humans who didn't know any better at the time. I learned about the crusades, the different denominations, the satirizing of other religions, the people who were killed by the church for saying that the earth is round and later that the earth revolves around the sun, and even the self-contradictions and I'm just baffled how anyone, especially adults no less, can know all of this stuff and still believe that this is true!

I suppose my story would've been different, had I grown up in a religious environment in the USA, where people actually see the contradiction between creation and evolution, where they actually take those accusations of self-contradictions seriously and at least try to explain them, and where they accuse the scientific community of a giant conspiracy. But, even if I was a believer, I'm sure I would've still noticed a huge contrast between everyday life and the world as depicted in the bible: In the bible, God speaks to people on a regular basis, but, whenever I pray to God, I never get any response. The bible is full of stories like Moses parting a sea, a plague somehow being able to tell who is a firstborn and who is inside a building with lamb's blood on it, sticks transforming into snakes, immediate curings of diseases that are still incurable by today's technology, and a talking donkey, whereas nowadays, what's called a miracle is just people surviving unlikely scenarios or Mary appearing on a burnt toast. The bible is full of angels showing up and regularly talking to people but I've never even seen a photo of an angel. Also, why do the angels' halos in cartoons look so much different from their halos in those churches' windows? Even if angels were invisible to cameras for whatever reason, why would there even be any disagreement on what an angel looks like, in the first place? And that's even before taking the "biblically accurate angels" meme into account! It just runs contrary to common sense, you know? Even the most devout believers have a clear understanding of what is supernatural and what is not. But how do they even define "supernatural" while still believing in it? What do they believe would happen if the conspiracy in the scientific community disappeared? Would science suddenly discover God, the angels, and evidence for creation and the afterlife? If so, would they cease to be supernatural? Or can the supernatural never be discovered by science? And, if so, what would be the need for such a conspiracy then?

So, in a way, what I'm asking isn't how your belief started but why you didn't lose it along with your belief in Santa Claus, the easter bunny, the stork, and the tooth fairy? What made you stop believing in those things and why didn't the same also make you stop believing in God?

Plenty of subreddits are entirely in English or German or Arabic or other languages but those are all natural languages. What about constructed languages or fictional languages? Are there any subreddits that somehow managed all of its users to speak entirely in one of those, all the time?

Specifically, I'm looking for a subreddit where everyone speaks in a cypher language. Simply put, a cypher language us a conlang where everything can be translated from a natlang using a very simple algorithm that can be taught to a computer in a relatively simple programming exercize.

These conlangs are examples of what I'm looking for:

• Al Bhed
• Morse code
• binary code
• backwards text
• upside-down text
• T9
• Braille
• the Caeser cipher
• Leetspeak
• fictional accents and/or speech impediments

These conlangs are examples of what I'm NOT looking for (although you can also post about them if you want):

• Esperanto
• Klingon
• Elvish
• Newspeak
• sign language
• Uryom

I don't know if such a website even exists but I've seen so many strange and obscure subreddits that it would seem possible so I thought I'd make a post for it, just in case.

The closest I found so far is r/SUBREDDITNAME, where everybody speaks in all-caps.

Who cares if boys get a little rough on the playground? That's just how boys are! Boys weren't made to quietly sit at a desk all day and listen to an adult talk. Expecting a boy to do a girl's job is just irrational.

Boys are just naturally hornier than girls. You can't blame them for just mindlessly following their own instincts like an uncivilized animal because it's easier for girls to dress modestly than for boys to behave so it's really her fault if she expects otherwise. All women are prudes but all men would bone all girls they see.

Yes, I said girls. Men are just naturally attracted to females of a younger age. That's just how men are. It's completely natural and has been done for ages. So the age of consent is really pointless.

Also, men are natural-born leaders because they are the rational sex…