Microaggressions?

[Jedidiah]

Anybody who disagrees with the conservative rump here is accused of 'whining' or being too sensitive, while day after day, Seer(and the rest) whine and moan about how badly the world is treating them and their favourite retrograde philosophy. It's hypocrisy at its finest. We have a term here: 'Whingers', and this site is full of them. As long as you're whinging about the 'right' cause, you'll be fine.

The United States of America was once a great nation.

Was the United States a perfect society? No. No one I have heard ever claimed it was. We have had some horrible things in our past. But when I was growing up in the 40's and 50s it was a far far better place than it is now. Was there racism? Sure, but the American people pushed to make things better. Were we all Christians? Certainly not, but the Judeo-Christian ethic was the commonly accepted system of values. It may not have been followed perfectly but it was still the publically accepted norm.

Today that system of beliefs is ridiculed and rejected. We, as a nation, value what feels good at the moment with little concern for the future or for consequences.

. . . they make excuses for their intolerance. So much for the, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." sort of thought process.

This was what I grew up with (me too CP) and while I would never say "I'll defend to the death your right to say it," I believed that everyone had the right to speak their mind. I still think that. While I accuse several folks here of being "cry babies" that is not because I deny their right to speak. It is because I see them as demeaning others and trying to deny them the same rights they want.

If this upsets you, too bad.

[fm93]

Well, I think that also goes both ways. I've seen 'progressives' (for want of a better term) here calling people 'bigots' and accusing them of homophobia, as well as making various snide remarks about their religion and beliefs. Maybe it's just the culture here - and both groups are responsible for that. Certainly 'progressives' want not just to gain acceptance of a view they have, but silence dissenting voices, and force compliance with that view, by using state power.

I can understand 'conservatives' feeling threatened not just by that view, but by people who promote it, because it will eventually lead to them facing loss of employment, social opprobrium, and possibly fines and even imprisonment. In that environment, arguing for that view is supporting those outcomes. Someone like CP could face a reduction in income (if churches lose their tax status), restrictions on what he can say (including prohibitions on saying what he believes the Bible to teach) and possibly arrest, trial fines and imprisonment for simply practicing his religion as it has been practiced for generations past. So it's not just an intellectual exercise to discuss it here, but something that could have major effects on his life.

The issue with this is that progressives (American ones, at least) simply don't believe that allowing gay couples to marry would lead to imprisonment, fines, or restrictions on what pastors say in the privacy of their churches. The worst example I've heard of is the Houston mayor who issued pastor subpoenas, but she withdrew those a while ago, after only two weeks. So the way many progressives see it, allowing same-sex marriage is completely innocuous, and the conservative side is the one that "wants not just to gain acceptance of a view they have, but silence dissenting voices, and force compliance with that view, by using state power."

If 'conservatives' were arguing for, and succeeding, in getting legislation passed making it illegal for Asian Americans to hold certain jobs, restricting freedom of movement and association for Asian Americans; pushing for legislation to 'return' Asian Americans to their 'country of origin', would you not feel threatened? Would you not feel that TWeb posters arguing in favour of those things as a long-overdue social advance were effectively attacking you?

If I was to argue in support of the principles behind those changes - but not push for the more extreme changes advocated by some - would you feel comfortable with me? Or would you see me as tacitly aiding the more dangerous extremes of the movement?

This is a difficult thought experiment to work through. In the case of same-sex marriage, one side genuinely thinks that nothing bad is going to happen if a piece of legislation is passed. Because really, the law is "People who are gay are free to marry each other." That on the surface really doesn't imply that it'll adversely affect anyone. But how would one possibly support legislation that racially discriminates in the workplace and household while thinking that nothing bad is happening? How would one reconcile "Asians can't hold certain jobs and will be returned to their country of origin" with "It doesn't adversely affect anyone"?

I guess it boils down to whether I realize what the person's reasoning is. If people told me that they genuinely don't see how the legislation would adversely affect people, and if there was genuinely a possible way to reconcile those beliefs, I think I'd just show them that it would, in fact, hurt people like me.

[Sea of red]

Totally as expected. fm was nice enough to send me an encouraging note enquiring after my well being. I shall post the reply I gave him here.

You said it.

Lately this site has just become a conservative echo chamber that wants little dissent or reasonable discussion. I've learned that the hard-right on here have little interest in honest debate. You'll address their points, take the time to try and explain the flaws in their logic, provide sources, and you'll just get nothing but stupid talking points from the most laughably crank sources.

I found out in my thread on recycling just how far some will go to defend their ideology over all else. They believe in their political and religious creeds to an extent they're willing to sacrifice even the most basic of sanity in a discussion. When you point it out to them they call you a communist, say you're wanting to stifle their speech, take away their rights, and that every problem in America is because of liberals.

The sweet, loving, forgiving, TRUE American, moral right-wing really show their true colors on here, and it's ain't pretty.

[Sea of red]

The United States of America was once a great nation.

Still is.

I'm sorry it's not a Christian club house that makes your values the law.

[Cow Poke]

You said it.

Lately this site has just become a conservative echo chamber that wants little dissent or reasonable discussion.

And yet here you are, an atheist, freely posting on a Christian website.

[Jedidiah]

Still is.

I'm sorry it's not a Christian club house that makes your values the law.

It is not only Christians who are able to see the problems.

[fm93]

OK, and I'm typing this as calmly and respectfully as I can.... and it's still going to draw fire, but so be it.... I get frustrated because there are those who seem to write a whole bunch about something, and I ask, "ok, so what are you actually DOING about it?", and I get a bunch of "credentialism" crap thrown at me.

I write about stuff, but I believe in DOING stuff. And, for that, I get crap like, "So, you're a REAL Christian", or whatever. It comes with the territory.

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but often times I don't have a specific answer for what to do about something because--as I said earlier--I'm trying to initiate a discussion about what to do. I realize that people of various political persuasions may have good points to offer, or that their various solutions may have flaws. I can freely admit that I personally don't have all the answers. What I *did* think I could do, however, was try to convince people that a problem exists and it needs a solution--but as it turns out, often times people can't even agree that there is a problem.

[Cow Poke]

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but often times I don't have a specific answer for what to do about something because--as I said earlier--I'm trying to initiate a discussion about what to do.

If I recall correctly, it was that you were trying to guilt others into doing it ---- like taking in a gay homeless teen.

I realize that people of various political persuasions may have good points to offer, or that their various solutions may have flaws. I can freely admit that I personally don't have all the answers. What I *did* think I could do, however, was try to convince people that a problem exists and it needs a solution--but as it turns out, often times people can't even agree that there is a problem.

There are LOTS of problems out there, and not everybody is called to "solve" or address all of them. I'm always looking for things I (or my Church) can do that's actually within our means to do, and is not already being done by some other organization.

[fm93]

If I recall correctly, it was that you were trying to guilt others into doing it ---- like taking in a gay homeless teen.

I wasn't trying to guilt others into anything. As I recall, you mentioned your experience guarding a pride parade and asked if that constituted love. I said I believed it was a rudimentary form of love, but nevertheless still qualified as love. Abigail then accused me of automatically downgrading all Christian expressions of love as merely being rudimentary. I was taken aback by this accusation and replied that no, there are certainly Christian expressions of love that I would regard as far more than merely rudimentary. I then mentioned "...such as, say, taking in a gay homeless teen" as a hypothetical example of what I believe the greatest form of such love might entail, to show what a large scale there is. Obviously there are other expressions that are more significant than merely guarding a parade, but also aren't as drastic as taking in a homeless youth. I certainly wasn't trying to imply that all Christians have a formal obligation to do such a thing.

There are LOTS of problems out there, and not everybody is called to "solve" or address all of them. I'm always looking for things I (or my Church) can do that's actually within our means to do, and is not already being done by some other organization.

And this is a response that I could gladly accept in my efforts to discuss what I believe might be a problem. (You realize that here, I'm speaking in a general sense, not about microaggressions specifically.)

[Sea of red]

It is not only Christians who are able to see the problems.

Yeah, the country has problems, so what else is new? The problems are not down to the black and white moral issues that you see as being all about Christianity. Sorry to tell you, the US doesn't need Christianity, or any other religion to be force of freedom or good in the world.

[Sea of red]

The United States of America was once a great nation.

Was the United States a perfect society? No. No one I have heard ever claimed it was. We have had some horrible things in our past. But when I was growing up in the 40's and 50s it was a far far better place than it is now. Was there racism? Sure, but the American people pushed to make things better. Were we all Christians? Certainly not, but the Judeo-Christian ethic was the commonly accepted system of values. It may not have been followed perfectly but it was still the publically accepted norm.

Today that system of beliefs is ridiculed and rejected. We, as a nation, value what feels good at the moment with little concern for the future or for consequences.



This was what I grew up with (me too CP) and while I would never say "I'll defend to the death your right to say it," I believed that everyone had the right to speak their mind. I still think that. While I accuse several folks here of being "cry babies" that is not because I deny their right to speak. It is because I see them as demeaning others and trying to deny them the same rights they want.

If this upsets you, too bad.

It's funny to hear you guys talk about political correctness and cry babies.

Just look at this entire civics forum. It's overrun with threads boo hooing about how the mean liberals are responsible for Americas ills, and if everyone saw things the way of conservative Christians, the US would be some sort of Disney Land. Get real. You're not really upset about political correctness or oppression, you're upset because you're not the ones getting to delegate such things.

[MaxVel]

The issue with this is that progressives (American ones, at least) simply don't believe that allowing gay couples to marry would lead to imprisonment, fines, or restrictions on what pastors say in the privacy of their churches. The worst example I've heard of is the Houston mayor who issued pastor subpoenas, but she withdrew those a while ago, after only two weeks. So the way many progressives see it, allowing same-sex marriage is completely innocuous, and the conservative side is the one that "wants not just to gain acceptance of a view they have, but silence dissenting voices, and force compliance with that view, by using state power."

I can't really reconcile what you say here with what's happening 'on the ground' in America (and other places where the situation is more advanced). The Oregon cake business, now effectively closed and facing a $135,000 fine is one example. Brendan Eich, Chick Fil A, are other indications of where things seem to be heading. Progressives have tried in Texas to restrict religious practice.

That progressives (you say) don't feel that they are punitively targeting people who believe differently won't pay that $135,000 fine, will it? It won't get Brendan Eich his job back, either.

The thing that really undercuts progressives for me is that they say they're 'fighting for freedom and people's rights' when clearly all they want to do is change who gets to restrict others rights and freedoms. I can't really blame conservatives who say 'No thanks, I'd rather keep the old crew running the show'.

This is a difficult thought experiment to work through. In the case of same-sex marriage, one side genuinely thinks that nothing bad is going to happen if a piece of legislation is passed. Because really, the law is "People who are gay are free to marry each other." That on the surface really doesn't imply that it'll adversely affect anyone. But how would one possibly support legislation that racially discriminates in the workplace and household while thinking that nothing bad is happening? How would one reconcile "Asians can't hold certain jobs and will be returned to their country of origin" with "It doesn't adversely affect anyone"?

You can't see this? The same way that 'gay rights' supporters demonise the opposition as 'bigots' and 'homophobes' and 'religious nutters'. Those people obviously aren't quite mentally all there, or fit for a modern society. In fact, it would be better for all concerned of they shut up or were re-educated. So whever happens to them isn't anything bad, because they're a fringe group of troublemakers who need to be brought into line, forcibly if need be.

Back in WWII I'm sure that there were plenty of people who felt that 'nothing bad' would happen to anyone who mattered if the Japanese Americans were interned, but plenty bad might happen if they weren't.

I guess it boils down to whether I realize what the person's reasoning is. If people told me that they genuinely don't see how the legislation would adversely affect people, and if there was genuinely a possible way to reconcile those beliefs, I think I'd just show them that it would, in fact, hurt people like me.

[fm93]

It's funny to hear you guys talk about political correctness and cry babies.

Just look at this entire civics forum. It's overrun with threads boo hooing about how the mean liberals are responsible for Americas ills, and if everyone saw things the way of conservative Christians, the US would be some sort of Disney Land. Get real. You're not really upset about political correctness or oppression, you're upset because you're not the ones getting to delegate such things.

Eh, personally I'm hesitant to accuse people of not genuinely being upset about things they seem to be upset about. I suspect they might actually be upset about it; it's just that they don't see ways in which their own side is doing those things as well.

[myth]

It's funny to hear you guys talk about political correctness and cry babies.

Just look at this entire civics forum. It's overrun with threads boo hooing about how the mean liberals are responsible for Americas ills, and if everyone saw things the way of conservative Christians, the US would be some sort of Disney Land. Get real. You're not really upset about political correctness or oppression, you're upset because you're not the ones getting to delegate such things.

Actually, I'm upset because I genuinely think the liberals are ruining our country. I see the steady march of liberal thought is geared toward repressing the practice of my faith, despite claims otherwise. I see that political correctness protects Muslims and others from any real criticism in our country, but somehow it IS politically correct to denigrate Christians (Phil Robertson, Jason and David Benham, to name a few). I'm concerned that the prevailing mindset among liberals seems to lack any nuance or (hypocritically) tolerance. I'm glad that our government separates church and state, but I'm very concerned that our political culture is being primed to persecute Christians, and the only ones who seem to care are (you guessed it) Christians. I don't think it's started in earnest, but it's coming.

[fm93]

I can't really reconcile what you say here with what's happening 'on the ground' in America (and other places where the situation is more advanced). The Oregon cake business, now effectively closed and facing a $135,000 fine is one example. Brendan Eich, Chick Fil A, are other indications of where things seem to be heading. Progressives have tried in Texas to restrict religious practice.

Well...I am of the opinion that the Oregon bakers technically did do something wrong, as they weren't asked to endorse any message on the cake, and because I don't believe that merely providing a cake, even to something considered sinful, qualifies as "participating in sin." I agree, however, that a $135,000 fine is ridiculous. But Brendan Eich wasn't fired--as I recall, OkCupid asked its users to boycott only in the sense of not using Mozilla software to access their website, some people on social media used their freedom of speech to express disapproval over his promotion to CEO, and then Eich resigned on his own. And I could be mistaken, but I thought the controversy was more over his status as CEO, not over his employment at the company. And nothing bad happened to Chick-Fil-A.

The thing that really undercuts progressives for me is that they say they're 'fighting for freedom and people's rights' when clearly all they want to do is change who gets to restrict others rights and freedoms.

I think that's a rather unwarranted conclusion. "ALL" they want to do is change who gets to restrict others' rights and freedoms? You don't see how it might be possible for some to genuinely be fighting for freedom and people's rights?

You can't see this? The same way that 'gay rights' supporters demonise the opposition as 'bigots' and 'homophobes' and 'religious nutters'. Those people obviously aren't quite mentally all there, or fit for a modern society. In fact, it would be better for all concerned of they shut up or were re-educated. So whever happens to them isn't anything bad, because they're a fringe group of troublemakers who need to be brought into line, forcibly if need be.

I've known people who use such rhetoric, but with them, it seems to be "Ugh, more bigots and homophobes. Just stay away from them and ignore them. Their outdated views will fade from society sooner than later." I don't think that suggests "whatever happens to them isn't anything bad." I mean, I also frequently hear from those people "Why do the homophobes worry about gays marrying? If they don't like gay marriage, just don't have one! I just want gay people to be allowed to marry, not for religious people to be forced to hold marriages in their churches. Sheesh."