• StenSaksTapir@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    67
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    This guy is christian, btw. So he’s just selective with things he doesn’t believe in because he can’t see them.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      In this case, he’s following in his savior’s disgusting foot(hand?)steps.

      Luke 11:38

      But the Pharisee was surprised when he noticed that Jesus did not first wash before the meal.

      They specifically meant hand-washing, as was Jewish custom of the time.

      • MNByChoice@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        37
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        That is fascinating.

        I Wondered about the context, and looked it up.

        38 But the Pharisee was surprised when he noticed that Jesus did not first wash before the meal.

        39 Then the Lord said to him, “Now then, you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. 40 You foolish people! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also? 41 But now as for what is inside you—be generous to the poor, and everything will be clean for you.

        Provided Mr. No Hand Washing is also giving generously to the poor, I guess he is on point. OTOH, Jesus was clearly making a point about wickedness, not germs.

        Also, ew.

      • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        More specifically, ritual hand-washing, which was not a matter of cleanliness. There is good indication that Jesus washed his hands before eating, just not the way certain elites wanted him to.

        Further reading.

  • PickTheStick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    1 year ago

    It missed the best part: It wasn’t even after shitting. The person who noticed what was going on tracked deaths between doctors who had just come from a cadaver and then went and delivered babies. So it wasn’t shit they were spreading, it was literal death boogies being brought and slathered on vaginas and neonates.

  • randon31415@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    1 year ago

    Doctor: “How dare you say I am unclean! I just got back from performing a human dissection and now am going to deliver a baby with out washing my hands. I am a man of science and I know there is nothing wrong with it!”

    5000 years ago, some random Jewish priest: “If you do not wash your hands after pooping, we will forever banish you to the wilderness!”

    • PugJesus@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      FUN FACT: Poland was spared the worst of the Black Plague. This may have been in part due to the Polish king at the time inviting expelled Jewish populations, which have an emphasis on ritual cleanliness (and prompt burial), who may have then provided a demographic barrier in urban centers to the spread of the plague.

  • Poob@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    But like… even if you don’t believe in germs, dirt is still a thing

    • Nowyn@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      That was part of the issue. The father of the idea that handwashing can lower people getting puerperal fever and even other infections Ignaz Semmelweis was practicing in the 1840s in Vienna and during that time doctors were already top of working society. Because there was no idea of the germ theory of disease until later he was basically saying that first the doctors were responsible for deaths that could rise to 18% child birthing women in hospitals and secondly that they were unclean people. As gentlemen latter was offensive as that class of people both didn’t have to get their hands dirty in the way “lower” classes had to and if they got dirty definitely didn’t keep them dirty. Ignaz’s theory why didn’t help as he thought their hands were dirty with cadaver or animal carcass matter and not with invisible microbes.

      That is also where white-collar and blue-collar worker terms come from. White collar workers didn’t have to get so too dirty working that they couldn’t wear a white shirt and collar (which was a separate piece of garment until the early 20th century).

      Even though doctors washing hands lowered the puerperal fever deaths to about 1% in the maternity ward of Ignaz’s hospital handwashing didn’t really become a thing in hospitals at that point. It needed many other people to get it through in 1850s and 1860s.

  • x4740N@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    Read “handwashing” as “handwriting” accidentally at first and ot sounded correct to me because of how batshit-insane the right are

  • peanutdust@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s divisive bc it’s meant to be, those news stations play off each other all day and the people buying it are fools.

    • PugJesus@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, I actually remember this incident distinctly. His cohosts were genuinely aghast. It was a moment of genuine, unscripted stupidity, I’m pretty sure.