Serious Political Correctness and Race

Status
Not open for further replies.
And in Hawaii, where the social norm is acceptance of a level of un-ill-intended stereotyping/race-joking, people have an even clearer sense of the line where something is not benign but genuinely hateful. The fact that we don't call out every micro-aggression means that when we DO call racism, the impact is much more clear-- so when there IS a problem, we're able to take it much more seriously. The offending party genuinely sees the problem.

When there is shared trust, it's much easier to get an apology and actual regret-- and then more trust. And much easier to avoid a pointless screaming match.
I see your point, but to put it bluntly, mainland USA has had a much more traumatic history than Hawaii- plantation slavery, civil war, lynchings and government mandated segregation, whose impacts continue today. Such wounds don't heal overnight. Is it really surprising that African-Americans are more sensitive to "micro-aggressions" than Hawaiians are? Your stereotyping about Filipinos and a white person's stereotyping about African-Americans carry very different historical baggages, have very different connotations. Context matters.
 
Last edited:

TheValkyries

proudly reppin' 2 superbowl wins since DEFLATEGATE
Yeah that and inaccurate. Hawaii fielded the most Human Resources complaints of discrimination out of any state when my mom was in the national arbitration office for Securitas. It also was the state that they found they had to settle the most often because discrimination was verifiably happening.

But yeah the Hawaiian model is so forgiving (read: repressed and toxic).
 

OLD GREGG (im back baby)

old gregg for life
This is a very complex issue, wherein I see no right or wrong.

I just see a bunch of confusion from both sides of the political spectrum to little avail. Maybe it's due to a lack of understanding about yourselves, maybe not. I'm just speculating here. What I do know for certain is that tribalism is a natural thing and occurs in all peoples.

There are very old cultures that have fought off advances by the modern world for at least 100 years. These cultures are important to acknowledge because they represent human life in a more simplistic form. When the modern world makes an advance onto sacred lands that the same people have inhabited as long as time remembers they are often met with aggression. I'm not exactly sure where this ties into political correctness or equality, but I insist that it is relevant information to consider when we say crazy stuff like abolish borders. Really, this is asking a bit much of such territorial creatures. It's a recipe for chaos.
 

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
well this thread degenerated fast


My politics is based in historical evidence, which I maintain is about what actually happened. "a political thought can be politically correct only if it is scientifically painstaking". So to be politically incorrect is in the first place to be deluded, because you're in denial of what actually happened, and thus what is actually happening. And in the second place to be unscientific. So rather than strive for a politics of denial of reality, obfuscation of blame (the misidentification of perpetrators), and sweeping generalizations, I strive for completely evidence-based claims in political discourses that I participate in.

Old_Gregg why are u paying lip service to complexity and then making sweeping generalizations about human history? PS: neoliberal capitalism already abolished borders, haven't you heard of multinational corporations, or just individuals buying a visa. we don't have territories, or borders: we have lawyer fees.

either way, the tribe always has it's own form of political correctness.

also that you think borders exist outside of a courtroom/legislature, except for as a security apparatus, is adorable. Will you make a prediction about California seceding from the U.S please?

now for some juicy truews to top off this post, 100% real bonafide:

http://abovethelaw.com/2016/12/jury...-black-man-five-times-in-the-back-is-a-crime/

"Walter Scott was murdered. On video. In broad daylight. The only question is whether the murder of black people by police is illegal. The South Carolina jury cannot reach consensus on that point. White people cannot achieve broad-based agreement that the murder of black people is wrong."

http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/poverty-doesnt-need-technology-it-needs-politics-1789520902

"Poverty and wealth are inextricably linked. The economy is not a zero-sum game, but the fruits of the economic growth that creates and fuels wealthy nations like ours are hoarded to a shocking extent by a tiny group at the top, which warps our political system, starves our economy of demand, and fuels poverty both directly and indirectly. Philanthropy is fine and dandy. Show me a good charity, though, and I’ll show you an idea that could be practiced on much larger scale by a government. (One of the world’s most effective anti-poverty charities does nothing but send money directly to poor people. Hello, redistribution of wealth.) Fighting poverty—and making our nation more economically fair—is not a mystifying riddle waiting for a technological breakthrough. It is a question of political will. If we want to push more wealth down the economic chain, we will."

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/803567993036754944?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

"Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!"

I recall from my childhood and from deck nite posts that there are many evangelist christians who identify american nationalism with their God. Not that donald trump puts god on the same level as he reserves for american nationalism.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-weissman/trumps-corporate-takeover_b_13305864.html?


https://medium.com/public-citizen/c...n-at-federal-agencies-c42d32cb5ec1#.fvhobltdr

http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2016/11/2...aign=20161129+online&utm_content=usca_nonsubs

"For the US, Castro’s great crime wasn’t heading a repressive regime – ‘strong men’ such as Batista, Rafael Trujillo, Saddam Hussein, Mobutu Sese Seko or General Suharto got away with murder as long as they were US clients – or even his professed Marxism (Nixon and Kissinger were happy enough to cosy up to Mao Zedong when interest dictated); but that his regime was a standing rebuff to US might. Kennedy was ready to risk nuclear apocalypse to put paid to it.
It would be pleasing to think that the post-Castro era might herald an end to internment without trial on the island of Cuba, and the release of prisoners who have been tortured while in custody. Unfortunately, Barack Obama’s administration has failed to carry out its promise to close Guantánamo."

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/former...s-get-so-angry-when-you-question-nationalism/

Nationalism has long been considered a “Christian” virtue in America, and many of us end up believing it.
All cultures have a tendency to blend cultural values and practices in with the Christian faith (a process technically called “syncretism”), and for generations this has been the case with nationalism and our faith (something uniquely American; this isn’t the case in Canada for example). The two have been blended together so strongly in our culture that any suggestion we separate the two becomes an infuriating concept that literally feels all wrong. Being a good American often becomes synonymous with being a good Christian, which is a false pairing. In fact, sometimes being a good Christian will mean one is radically disloyalto whatever empire they find themselves in.

We’ve long been taught that we as a nation are “exceptional” compared to everyone else (See “American Exceptionalism”).

From our earliest years, we’re taught that the United States is the greatest nation in the history of mankind. I don’t mean this metaphorically either– just listen to some of our politicians closely and you’ll hear folks actually say this, repeatedly. In fact, during the last presidential election one of the candidates stated during a debate that the United States remained the “greatest hope for the future of the world”. Instead of simply being appreciative for where we live and appreciative for what we have, we take it a step further and idolize the nation itself, which means that when someone questions this belief system, it feels like blasphemy. We are not the hope of the world– the hope of the world is a man named Jesus, and to suggest differently is nothing short of idolatry.

We’ve rarely been taught to think critically about our nation.

Being taught that we are the greatest nation in the history of the world means there’s something we’re not being taught: critical thinking. While there is much to love and appreciate about our country, we arrived at our place in the world by a history of utter atrocities against humanity– some of which we are still actively committing, such as killing children with drones and calling it a “bug splat”. However, because of the pairing of nationalism and Christianity and because of our belief that we are the “greatest”, when people question our violent history and present reality it creates too much tension for us to handle. As a result, we attack the person who brings it up in hopes to assuage our own desire to avoid the full truth.

Conservative commentators even have a term for folks who talk about our moral national failings– they call it the “hate America crowd”. This is precisely because thinking critically about our nation goes against our national value of exceptionalism. Such critical thinking risks revealing that we might have believed a lie, and that our loyalties might be in the wrong place.

Growing up, we’re not often taught the truth about God’s Kingdom.

In America, we’ve often replaced the Kingdom Jesus spoke so often about with our own nation– thinking that God established America, instead of remembering that he came to establish a Kingdom that was “not of this world“, to quote Jesus. The truth of God’s Kingdom is that it is nearly impossible to live in it if one is still stuck holding onto loyalties to an earthly kingdom.

Jesus calls us to forsake everything to follow him, and this includes forsaking our loyalties to anyone but him. When it comes to issues such as sexual ethics, we’re taught that Jesus wants all of us, and that we’re to forsake the ways of our culture in favor of his Kingdom. However, when it comes to nationalism, we’re told that it’s actually good and right to hold onto the values of our culture and that there’s no incompatibility between the two. The actual truth however, is that God’s kingdom is so radically different from anything you will find in this world that it is completely impossible to harmonize the two– something that’s true on sexual ethics but is also true about nationalistic idolatry.


tl-dr Deck Knight is guilty of idolatry at the minimum.
 

OLD GREGG (im back baby)

old gregg for life
I make sweeping generalizations with little regard to race, money isn't everything too. People without monies can still have a sense of ownership. I'm trying to avoid politickling because I'm not campaigning for anything except an enhanced sense of self awareness. I know you like to use the good ole politicklings and buzzwords like the ists or phobes to silence and derail differing opinions, im not going to play those childish games. The only kids game I play is obviously Pokemon's.

Yeah the issue is complex and until we can be honest with ourselves and acknowledge bad ideas that are terribly executed, like diluting a nation through too much immigration, they will never be fixed. Btw, what's the point of bashing someone else's ideas just because they don't click with yours? You will never truly educate anyone with this attitude. You scream for freedom of speech but only as long as it's the speech you wish to hear? What's that all about?
 

Soul Fly

IMMA TEACH YOU WHAT SPLASHIN' MEANS
is a Contributor Alumnus
I make sweeping generalizations with little regard to race, money isn't everything too. People without monies can still have a sense of ownership. I'm trying to avoid politickling because I'm not campaigning for anything except an enhanced sense of self awareness. I know you like to use the good ole politicklings and buzzwords like the ists or phobes to silence and derail differing opinions, im not going to play those childish games. The only kids game I play is obviously Pokemon's.

Yeah the issue is complex and until we can be honest with ourselves and acknowledge bad ideas that are terribly executed, like diluting a nation through too much immigration, they will never be fixed. Btw, what's the point of bashing someone else's ideas just because they don't click with yours? You will never truly educate anyone with this attitude. You scream for freedom of speech but only as long as it's the speech you wish to hear? What's that all about?
This is the third instance on which I have seen you come in with that preachy rhetoric of neutrality. I don't know if you yourself are self-aware of your vocabulary. For better or worse you are definitely NOT a neutral political entity. What I've highlighted are but a few of the biases and assumptions operating in your speech which I spotted in one reading. What you are doing IS politics.

And that imo makes you more problematic than some of the other posters here. Your worldview is so naturalized you think that this the neutral norm, and then there is some vast realm of complex otherness that these "kiddos" are waddling in, like some pointless mud fight. That's (sadly and ironically) just flat out patronizing.
 

OLD GREGG (im back baby)

old gregg for life
And this is the tribalism I speak of, are you self aware of your actions?
Soul Fly

It most definitely is a mud fight and if you think my words are preachy or patronizing, there's an ignore button my friend. I don't require anyones approval or acknowledgement, definitely not some politically obsessed keyboard warriors. Im sure the majority of people come here for mons like me, but we all have a responsibility to allow people to think for themselves which alot of you disregard via hive mentality and circle-jerking for personal gain. Talking about fixing the world's issues on a Pokemon forum for privileged kids is utterly pointless; when you could be out browbeating people over assumed irrelevancies irl.

I've spoken my peace, I'm done.
 

Soul Fly

IMMA TEACH YOU WHAT SPLASHIN' MEANS
is a Contributor Alumnus
A. If you come for mons then do that. No one's forcing Cong on you. Don't shit up threads and then randomly claim disinterest for an easy out. You do that far too often when people catch on to your bs. You're making statements about other people, sometimes very bad ones. Have the balls defend them or... maybe don't make them. No one asked for an appraisal from you, yo.


B. Unlike you I at least give people a positive benefit of doubt and attempt to engage them, compared your guerrilla hit-and-run tactics. Someone's called the others attempts at engagements here as "kids games", and that wasn't me.

You are just breathtakingly tone deaf, and I hope you realize that.
 

Soul Fly

IMMA TEACH YOU WHAT SPLASHIN' MEANS
is a Contributor Alumnus
Also double posting, but like honest general question. I've seen this recurring concept of "too much immigration diluting the country" and whites becoming a minority.

Why is this seen as a problem? Are minorities treated badly in the US or something?
 
@Old Gregg

i've seen you engage in colorblindness when there are still certainly colored issues yet to be solved. i've seen you give lip service to climate change denialists. i've seen you reify stereotypes of minority groups. i've seen you, when faced with evidence-laden opposition, solemnly declare you don't wish to put the time nor effort into becoming less ignorant and have your family to support. i've seen you employ red herrings time and time again, and actively engage in unproductive discussion tactics.

what's problematic about behaviors like these is that they've been historically permissible in more wide-reaching contexts. we've seen climate 'denialists' given equal representation in media outlets with actual scientists for the sake of "equality", but not all opinions were created equally.

i refuse to allow you to continually skirt by with this behavior and act like it's okay.

it's not.

engage with the myriad examples and material in this thread. for the sake of everyone.

--

i find it interesting there is such a huge shift of narrative between valkyries and chou's interpretation of hawaii. is the bigotry actualizing in disruptive manners which are kept to oneself?
 

Yeti

dark saturday
is a Community Contributor Alumnus
My sister (white af) married a native Hawaiian and moved there, from what they've said native Hawaiians can be super racist/prejudiced against those who are not from Hawaii. I don't think this is a particularly difficult claim to verify, that there is a lot of disdain for those who aren't natives.

I feel like a lot of discussions about racism/discrimination are extremely American-centric wherein white boys with white guilt talk about how only 'the majority' can be racist.............

Disregarding the fact that in other countries/continents 'white people' are not the majority, and ethnic/racial discrimination is perpetuated by people who aren't white, against people who aren't white. Acting like America is the entire world and racism is only a problem here. There's this silent "in America" after people say "only white people/the majority can be racist" because that claim is simply not true in other countries... like those where white people are a vast minority.

The key play here is to not think poorly of other people due to their race or ethnicity not harp about white m'jority doing bad things, because racism is a global problem perpetuated by those in all countries, of all races, against all races.
 

vonFiedler

I Like Chopin
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
Acting like America is the entire world and racism is only a problem here. There's this silent "in America" after people say "only white people/the majority can be racist" because that claim is simply not true in other countries... like those where white people are a vast minority.
Nobody has said anything to the contrary.

All you are saying is "problems exist elsewhere, so why bother with them here?"
 

Ampharos

tag walls, punch fascists
is a Community Contributor Alumnus
news flash: if you can't make a joke without relying on prejudices/stereotypes about a person's race/sexual orientation/etc then you aren't funny to begin with, you're just an asshole

Anybody who thinks that systemic racism and rampant prejudice are uniquely American problems is deluded, and anybody who thinks that this should stop us from attempting to do anything about racism in our own nation is equally deluded. Yes, the problem is widespread, but that doesn't mean that attempting to combat it is futile; "be the change you wish to see in the world" and all that.

as an aside most of the people i hear complaining about political correctness usually follow up by lamenting how they can't say [insert racial slur here] anymore so uh yeah
 

Ampharos

tag walls, punch fascists
is a Community Contributor Alumnus
also shoutout to old gregg with the (not very) low key white nationalistic rhetoric, gj my man
 

thesecondbest

Just Kidding I'm First
I think the fact that you can get banned from this site for hurting someone's feelings (or not even that, for having some moderator think you hurt someone's feelings whether they care or not) but not get banned for constantly calling people racist and sexist without evidence in a smear campaign proves that political correctness has gone too far. Saying someone was racist or sexist used to have meaning, now people say it just because they lost an argument or want to silence the other person. And there's no repercussion even for false claims.
 
Last edited:

vonFiedler

I Like Chopin
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
I think the fact that you can get banned from this site for hurting someone's feelings (or not even that, for having some moderator think you hurt someone's feelings whether they care or not) but not get banned for constantly calling people racist and sexist without evidence in a smear campaign proves that political correctness has gone too far. Saying someone was racist or sexist used to have meaning, now people say it just because they lost an argument or want to silence the other person. And there's no repercussion even for false claims.
How many times need it be said that the evidence is when people say racist and sexist things

How many times need it be said that calling people out on saying racist and sexist things is not "an insult"

What is this Sherlock Holmes shit where you except us to break into your homes and find some KKK/nazi paraphernalia? Like, what kind of evidence are you even talking about?

Meanwhile, please reread the rules before whining about them. They are pretty much the same as any forum I've been to (but then I've also seen the same people whining everywhere)
 

thesecondbest

Just Kidding I'm First
I literally asked Soul Fly for proof of when I was sexist and there was literally none. I deleted it because I'm done arguing with people who call me sexist for no reason.

You know, I'm gonna start doing it too...

Vonfiedler, are you white? If so stop fucking whitesplaining you racist. You only disagree with me because you're a racist.
 

vonFiedler

I Like Chopin
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
I literally asked Soul Fly for proof of when I was sexist and there was literally none. I deleted it because I'm done arguing with people who call me sexist for no reason.
I literally just asked you what you mean by proof and you literally said nothing.

You know, I'm gonna start doing it too...

Vonfiedler, are you white? If so stop fucking whitesplaining you racist. You only disagree with me because you're a racist.
Straw man.
 

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
i love how this thread predicts itself, for some reason the image that it evokes for me is a serpent eating its own tail.

thesecondbest if you read this thread closely, like i have, im pretty sure, not a single accusation of saying something racist or sexist against a user in the thread has been made. there is something rather defensive, some would liken it to a blindness of sorts, but it is actually learned through habit, about the continual refrain 'stop calling me sexist/racist', when no one did so. try to read what ppl post, it's called reading when it's text, but irl it's more commonly referred to as 'listening', and you've demonstrated that you may be rather poor at it (reading and listening).

i excitedly referred to several ppl's positions as exhibitions in delusion Old_Gregg , and i accuse(d) Deck Knight of idolatry, and afaik no one else has accused anyone in the thread of anything more than being stubborn or willfully illiterate.

as always, racism is a structural and systemic phenomena, and so it would seem like a massive waste of time to call out individuals for sexist and racist avowals they post in this thread. this is perhaps why you are so eager to make it about that thesecondbest , instead of discussing the contents of the posts in this thread, which contains much evidence, books full of it, actually, when one considers all the links and the links in the links. And always remember that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. attempt to read until the end, and think carefully before you decide you've arrived at it.
 

TheValkyries

proudly reppin' 2 superbowl wins since DEFLATEGATE
Im still here trying to figure out when calling people sexist or racist actually meant something like he said.
 
well this thread degenerated fast


My politics is based in historical evidence, which I maintain is about what actually happened. "a political thought can be politically correct only if it is scientifically painstaking". So to be politically incorrect is in the first place to be deluded, because you're in denial of what actually happened, and thus what is actually happening. And in the second place to be unscientific. So rather than strive for a politics of denial of reality, obfuscation of blame (the misidentification of perpetrators), and sweeping generalizations, I strive for completely evidence-based claims in political discourses that I participate in.

Old_Gregg why are u paying lip service to complexity and then making sweeping generalizations about human history? PS: neoliberal capitalism already abolished borders, haven't you heard of multinational corporations, or just individuals buying a visa. we don't have territories, or borders: we have lawyer fees.

either way, the tribe always has it's own form of political correctness.

also that you think borders exist outside of a courtroom/legislature, except for as a security apparatus, is adorable. Will you make a prediction about California seceding from the U.S please?

now for some juicy truews to top off this post, 100% real bonafide:

http://abovethelaw.com/2016/12/jury...-black-man-five-times-in-the-back-is-a-crime/

"Walter Scott was murdered. On video. In broad daylight. The only question is whether the murder of black people by police is illegal. The South Carolina jury cannot reach consensus on that point. White people cannot achieve broad-based agreement that the murder of black people is wrong."

http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/poverty-doesnt-need-technology-it-needs-politics-1789520902

"Poverty and wealth are inextricably linked. The economy is not a zero-sum game, but the fruits of the economic growth that creates and fuels wealthy nations like ours are hoarded to a shocking extent by a tiny group at the top, which warps our political system, starves our economy of demand, and fuels poverty both directly and indirectly. Philanthropy is fine and dandy. Show me a good charity, though, and I’ll show you an idea that could be practiced on much larger scale by a government. (One of the world’s most effective anti-poverty charities does nothing but send money directly to poor people. Hello, redistribution of wealth.) Fighting poverty—and making our nation more economically fair—is not a mystifying riddle waiting for a technological breakthrough. It is a question of political will. If we want to push more wealth down the economic chain, we will."

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/803567993036754944?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

"Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!"

I recall from my childhood and from deck nite posts that there are many evangelist christians who identify american nationalism with their God. Not that donald trump puts god on the same level as he reserves for american nationalism.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-weissman/trumps-corporate-takeover_b_13305864.html?


https://medium.com/public-citizen/c...n-at-federal-agencies-c42d32cb5ec1#.fvhobltdr

http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2016/11/29/glen-newey/the-clean-hands-problem/?utm_source=LRB online email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20161129 online&utm_content=usca_nonsubs

"For the US, Castro’s great crime wasn’t heading a repressive regime – ‘strong men’ such as Batista, Rafael Trujillo, Saddam Hussein, Mobutu Sese Seko or General Suharto got away with murder as long as they were US clients – or even his professed Marxism (Nixon and Kissinger were happy enough to cosy up to Mao Zedong when interest dictated); but that his regime was a standing rebuff to US might. Kennedy was ready to risk nuclear apocalypse to put paid to it.
It would be pleasing to think that the post-Castro era might herald an end to internment without trial on the island of Cuba, and the release of prisoners who have been tortured while in custody. Unfortunately, Barack Obama’s administration has failed to carry out its promise to close Guantánamo."

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/former...s-get-so-angry-when-you-question-nationalism/

Nationalism has long been considered a “Christian” virtue in America, and many of us end up believing it.
All cultures have a tendency to blend cultural values and practices in with the Christian faith (a process technically called “syncretism”), and for generations this has been the case with nationalism and our faith (something uniquely American; this isn’t the case in Canada for example). The two have been blended together so strongly in our culture that any suggestion we separate the two becomes an infuriating concept that literally feels all wrong. Being a good American often becomes synonymous with being a good Christian, which is a false pairing. In fact, sometimes being a good Christian will mean one is radically disloyalto whatever empire they find themselves in.

We’ve long been taught that we as a nation are “exceptional” compared to everyone else (See “American Exceptionalism”).

From our earliest years, we’re taught that the United States is the greatest nation in the history of mankind. I don’t mean this metaphorically either– just listen to some of our politicians closely and you’ll hear folks actually say this, repeatedly. In fact, during the last presidential election one of the candidates stated during a debate that the United States remained the “greatest hope for the future of the world”. Instead of simply being appreciative for where we live and appreciative for what we have, we take it a step further and idolize the nation itself, which means that when someone questions this belief system, it feels like blasphemy. We are not the hope of the world– the hope of the world is a man named Jesus, and to suggest differently is nothing short of idolatry.

We’ve rarely been taught to think critically about our nation.

Being taught that we are the greatest nation in the history of the world means there’s something we’re not being taught: critical thinking. While there is much to love and appreciate about our country, we arrived at our place in the world by a history of utter atrocities against humanity– some of which we are still actively committing, such as killing children with drones and calling it a “bug splat”. However, because of the pairing of nationalism and Christianity and because of our belief that we are the “greatest”, when people question our violent history and present reality it creates too much tension for us to handle. As a result, we attack the person who brings it up in hopes to assuage our own desire to avoid the full truth.

Conservative commentators even have a term for folks who talk about our moral national failings– they call it the “hate America crowd”. This is precisely because thinking critically about our nation goes against our national value of exceptionalism. Such critical thinking risks revealing that we might have believed a lie, and that our loyalties might be in the wrong place.

Growing up, we’re not often taught the truth about God’s Kingdom.

In America, we’ve often replaced the Kingdom Jesus spoke so often about with our own nation– thinking that God established America, instead of remembering that he came to establish a Kingdom that was “not of this world“, to quote Jesus. The truth of God’s Kingdom is that it is nearly impossible to live in it if one is still stuck holding onto loyalties to an earthly kingdom.

Jesus calls us to forsake everything to follow him, and this includes forsaking our loyalties to anyone but him. When it comes to issues such as sexual ethics, we’re taught that Jesus wants all of us, and that we’re to forsake the ways of our culture in favor of his Kingdom. However, when it comes to nationalism, we’re told that it’s actually good and right to hold onto the values of our culture and that there’s no incompatibility between the two. The actual truth however, is that God’s kingdom is so radically different from anything you will find in this world that it is completely impossible to harmonize the two– something that’s true on sexual ethics but is also true about nationalistic idolatry.


tl-dr Deck Knight is guilty of idolatry at the minimum.
I don't like the fact that you dragged religion into this, because saying 'this is a problem because it's against God's will!' is convincing to far less people than 'This is a problem because it limits our ability to understand and fix problems withing our society', and alienates non-Christians from agreeing with you. Which is doubly unfortunate because you actually bring up good points - having lived in both the US and overseas I've come to many similar conclusions.
 

vonFiedler

I Like Chopin
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
I don't like the fact that you dragged religion into this, because saying 'this is a problem because it's against God's will!' is convincing to far less people than 'This is a problem because it limits our ability to understand and fix problems withing our society', and alienates non-Christians from agreeing with you. Which is doubly unfortunate because you actually bring up good points - having lived in both the US and overseas I've come to many similar conclusions.
Well, for starters, if the points are good aren't they what matter?

The big thing is though, I'm pretty sure Myzo is trying to talk to the crowd, because these arguments DO apply to a lot of Christians. I'm Christian and I've used some of them on fellow Christians. I'm really unsure that Myzo is Christian, I wouldn't have thought so, but the point is that for people who claim that acting according to Jesus is important to them, they sure don't. People's religious memes almost invariably go about 50 years back. They feel like Jesus actually said that to be Christian is to have a white picket fence, two kids, and a heterosexual marriage. He didn't. Clinging to dogmas and traditions as if they are morality is something another group did once: the pharisees. It's an argument worth having with religious people. Maybe it doesn't apply to you, but it still needs to be said in a country where religion matters.
 

EV

Banned deucer.
Let's ask a different question: Do you believe $135,000 is an appropriate fine for a business with as low a profit margin as a bakery?
I don't know how the fine works. I imagine it's a set amount. For a bakery, yeah that bites. For a multi-national corp, not so much. Understandably, $135k is a sledgehammer where a mallet would have been more appropriate, but then again ... "if you can't do the time" or in this case, "pay the fine," (say it with me now) "don't do the crime."

The First Amendment inherently protects framing things with a religious bias.
Right. I have no problem there.

For background, there have been innumerable articles written about "The New Democratic Majority / The New Democratic Coalition" that was forged by the Obama candidacy and presidency - chiefly minorities, Millenials, unmarried women, and secular whites. Here's a recent one from TheFederalist. The policy priorities of Institutional Power (academia, government, media) have been on catering to the hobby horses of those niche groups, believing in the aggregate they had more political strength than traditional working class votes.

How do I put this to an audience like Smogon which is composed primarily of college-age or younger people without children, homes, or families to provide for, who have no aspirations for anything currently but perhaps their own house? Out in the real world people who are aging are finding the economy increasingly brutal (the labor force participation rate being at lows not seen for decades and the reported unemployment number being drastically distorted by people no longer even seeking work being removed from the pool) and wondering how they can provide a better world for their children than the ones their parents gave to them.

Social institutions for the last eight years have been focused mostly on virtue policing through the force of law because that agenda appeals to "New Democratic Majority" subgroups, the most prominent issues being the forced usage of "undocumented" over "illegal," the knee-jerk media reaction of people being slaughtered by terrorist sympathizers to warn the public against discussing the root cause, and the the advancement of LGBTQ+ privileges. It became so absurd that a few months before the election the Obama Administration through an executive ruling at the Department of Education demanded every public school in America procure transgender bathrooms or risk losing federal funding. What conclusion should the average person come to other than that they are invisible to their own government? What conclusion can they arrive at other than their government does not represent them but instead represents special agendas that it feels compelled to impose on them?
I bolded the last two sentences because, again, this "average person" rhetoric seems to have caught a snare in your argument. I know I'm not "average" by your definition (and I know you're using it in another context throughout your arguments but bear with me), but I've felt invisible to my own government for a long time. Do you understand that these "special agendas" are actually life-changing for the people they're designed to help? Collateral damage notwithstanding (which I'm not saying doesn't exist), the aim of these policies is not to destroy your well-being but to lift up the underserved, underrepresented, etc. It's easy to see them as Liberal ideologies being rammed down your throat when you don't quite like the subset of society in question, and if that's the case, well I can't help you there.

As far as political representation, it's the general electorates of most of the 50 states. I frame them as normal and I guess Smogon's community as abnormal because in the grand scheme of things, this community IS abnormal. It lies well outside the mean of general political views within the United States for the purposes of this discussion, part of which stems from its international nature and part of which stems from its general age cohort. When I use "normal" (vs "abnormal") I'm not talking about specific minorities or subgroups but of the general US voting age population vs the voting issues that animate Smogon's userbase.
You mean the majority general electorate that voted for Hillary Clinton? Of course, one can argue that this majority was cobbled together out of "The New Democratic Coalition" and then dismiss them as "abnormal" (when it comes to politics) because not one subset of this coalition consists of a "normal" general electorate, but that's politics. Aggregate voices / votes = power.
 

Deck Knight

Blast Off At The Speed Of Light! That's Right!
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
I don't know how the fine works. I imagine it's a set amount. For a bakery, yeah that bites. For a multi-national corp, not so much. Understandably, $135k is a sledgehammer where a mallet would have been more appropriate, but then again ... "if you can't do the time" or in this case, "pay the fine," (say it with me now) "don't do the crime."
Generally speaking there is leniency in the application of fines. Avakian wen with whatever maximum was allowed because he clearly had political ambitions and wanted to make an example of somebody to show his progressive bona fides. Someone earlier mentioned not acting in ways that subvert good public order. Suing everybody at the drop of a hat is probably the most common behavior subverting good public order generally. I don't know how much shopping around the gay couple did and I don't know how over-the-top the rejection was, if at was at all.

Conservative writers are saying this was basically targeted, like the hypothetical question to Memories Pizza about whether they would cater a gay wedding was. Progressive Writers are saying the Klein's were quoting Leviticus and basically forced them to listen to a moral lecture somehow.

I wish we could all just assume the mean of good faith and just settle out of court.

I bolded the last two sentences because, again, this "average person" rhetoric seems to have caught a snare in your argument. I know I'm not "average" by your definition (and I know you're using it in another context throughout your arguments but bear with me), but I've felt invisible to my own government for a long time. Do you understand that these "special agendas" are actually life-changing for the people they're designed to help? Collateral damage notwithstanding (which I'm not saying doesn't exist), the aim of these policies is not to destroy your well-being but to lift up the underserved, underrepresented, etc. It's easy to see them as Liberal ideologies being rammed down your throat when you don't quite like the subset of society in question, and if that's the case, well I can't help you there.
The problem with government forcing people to "change their values" as Hillary would have put it (even if it's to "lift up" people), is that Unintended Consequences Intrude. I know bathrooms are such a stupid thing to discuss but that's half the point. People were using the bathroom of their preference without laws that forced people to make everything single stall or made it a hate crime if you would up misgendering someone in the bathroom. So yes, this was life-changing: Now that everyone is on high alert for violating a criminal statute every time they install a bathroom or even drop a deuce, people who otherwise went about their lives in peace because they "passed enough" are more likely to be scrutinized. Complete opposite effect of what was intended, and of course since public agencies (including schools) are going to take the path of budgetary least resistance, they will not remove urinals to install stalls in the boy's room, they will simply co-opt one of the girls rooms so the vagina-challenged-girls can go in peace. (If they have a second girls restroom. The issue in small towns is they only have one of each and often don't even have a staff restroom. But if they don't comply they lose federal funding. Catch 22, but only for communities that likely never voted for Obama anyway.)

Part of this is the conceit of something like the Guardian article that was posted earlier, which took like 20 paragraphs to get to the base assumptions it was using in the penultimate paragraph. The conceit of their thought is that "society is changing and people are stressed about that." The problem is that society is NOT changing, at least not naturally changing. People are not upset that there a natural public groundswell of their neighbors trying to get them to change their attitudes, they are upset that some peon got himself a government office and thinks the best way to use that office is to subvert the values and culture - using whatever penalties they can administer - of the people that put them there.


You mean the majority general electorate that voted for Hillary Clinton? Of course, one can argue that this majority was cobbled together out of "The New Democratic Coalition" and then dismiss them as "abnormal" (when it comes to politics) because not one subset of this coalition consists of a "normal" general electorate, but that's politics. Aggregate voices / votes = power.
Basically California. California went super-lopsided for Clinton, if you removed its popular votes from both candidates, Trump would have the majority of the popular vote averaged among the remaining 49 states. Most of the other 49 states think California's electorate is bonkers. In either case, both candidates campaigned on a contest where the goal was to win the electoral college, not the national popular vote, so all these exercises are kind of pointless. The most defining feature of the Electoral College is that it makes the geography of the vote extremely important (which is by design, after all Rhode Island has the same number of Senators as California). Yes, you can rile up millions of densely populated urbanites with economically efficient ad buys to set upon the interests and the lifestyles of rural voters. This will only impact the federal election in the sense that if your state is defined by massive urban areas your popular votes will easily shift that state. In states where the population of voters outside the metropolis exceeds the cities proper, they are more likely governed by more moderate leaders that have to pull from both voter groups.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top