Religion
Related: About this forumCan independents refresh our debates over faith and politics?
From the article:
What does all this mean for religion? For one thing, we should look at how people bring their social and religious beliefs in line with their party instead of assuming their faith shapes their politics. This goes a long way toward explaining, for example, white evangelicals overwhelming support for President Trump despite his obvious deficiencies.
To read more:
https://religionnews.com/2018/08/23/can-independents-refresh-our-debates-over-faith-and-politics/
Voltaire2
(13,033 posts)Whatever role it might have played in social evolution- it no longer serves any useful purpose and instead is yet another banner for resurgent 21st century fascism to rally idiots around.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)for "religion" and the same argument can be made.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)You keep making this false equivalency, you're desperate to make it stick, but you've never supported it.
Give it up - no one is buying it.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)But because it does not support the preferred narrative of some few here, it must be ignored or rejected.
Feel free to do some research.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Doesn't work for Trump, doesn't work for you.
It is not my responsibility to do research to support YOUR narrative. I've explained this to you countless times.
You have proven you are not sincere in calling for dialog. You only wish to dictate to others, and have them accept what you say uncritically.
I shall continue to respond appropriately to call out your unsupported statements.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)But I understand your opposition to any posts that are positive about theism and theists.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)causes you to lash out and question people's motives for DARING to question you and your pronouncements.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And we both know that the DU record is filled with you attacking anyone who posts positively about religion.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)and continue to try and smear me with.
I post my opinion on DU, just like anyone else. Just because I disagree with your opinion doesn't mean I am attacking you, no matter how much you hate it when people disagree with you.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And when I posted replies by you going back to 2012, replies that supported my claim, you accused me of personally attacking you.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Why are you making up nonsense, gil?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Fine. When I have time, I will link to my previous proofs.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Uh huh.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)And *I'm* the one attacking when I object to that?
Wow gil, now that I see what you consider "evidence" I know exactly the bullshit you're pushing.
On edit: hey, thanks for linking to that thread. My post #33 is quite apropos:
https://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=133704
I'm proud to be on YOUR shit list, gil.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And there is no mention of genocide.
Nice try. cbayer had an interesting comment on your behavior.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Your use of violent imagery and language is making me increasingly uncomfortable.
She was directly criticizing a DUer for using "violent" hyperbole.
I pointed out that she herself had used violent hyperbole when it suited her.
That's what you consider an "attack." Thank you for posting it for all to come to their own conclusions about you, gil. I am content to let my words stand in context.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Your words, and the original thread, do not support you now.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)That's where cbayer accused a DUer of advocating genocide.
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to expose your deceit yet again.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)to defend an attack you made in the post I cited?
Thank you for demonstrating your agenda.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)That's the entire point, gil.
Do try and keep up.
Attacking another poster, again cbayer, for something that she did not actually say. But she did commit the sin of defending theists.
https://upload.democraticunderground.com/121834880
trotsky
(49,533 posts)There is none. You are making things up again in order to smear me. Is that a Christian thing to do?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)So I will stop now because it is too easy to find them. My point is made, and made again.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)My, what lovely "Christian" behavior.
You have failed, and failed again. I'm happy to expose you every time you try this nonsense.
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)and is populated, in significant part, by argumentative people who have been removed from DU. That is your example? It does not convince. Not at all. I recognize some of the names there as people who once drove me away from this group. Is that the example you're using to illustrate your point? How strange. Is that what you want the Religion Group to look like? No thanks. Ugh!
trotsky
(49,533 posts)He apparently thinks he'll fool people into thinking that because cbayer didn't make her genocide statement IN THAT THREAD, that by referring to it, I'm making it up, and thus it's a personal attack against something she didn't say.
Thankfully I keep links to provide the whole story, since he's tried this before.
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)I went through the thread that guillaumeb linked to and clicked on the profiles of a number of people who were prominent posters in that thread. I was actually surprised to see just how many of them are no longer able to post here. I remembered some of the names, but not all of them.
Apparently that is a nostalgic period for some. Not for me, though. I can't imagine how such a thread is relevant to any discussion that is taking place at this time.
It's evidence of something, to be sure, but not of what guillaumeb claims it to be.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Gil cannot address my arguments, so he is attacking me, trying to discredit me, and having to fabricate and/or deceive to do so.
I'm happy to oblige him and expose his dishonesty for all to see.
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)the boundaries. I wonder of some of those old names are still hanging about and reading threads in this Group. I can't imagine doing that, but it's not hard to imagine others doing so.
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)That strategy is also a common one. I await the next.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)You are amazing.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)You keep trying, and I keep exposing your deceitful tactics.
Can't wait for you to fail again. It's quite entertaining.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)But the toxic responses of some few, almost in harmony, drove many out.
And if one makes a comment regarding a long standing practice, a reference to older posts is acceptable to prove the point.
Strange is how you ignored the toxicity of one poster to only see the others.
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)of behavior here, and were shown the door. On the other hand, I chose to leave this group on my own accord to avoid toxic conflict. They are gone, but I remain.
Since you were not here at the time of that thread, perhaps, you may not have a clear vision on it. Or, perhaps you were here. I do not know.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)You literally condemned Trotsky for referring to something from a different thread, then yourself defend using material from another thread.
You're right though, the toxic responses from a few, almost in harmony did drive a lot of people away at the time. Fortunately most of those voices were kicked out for their toxic behavior.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)"OK for me, not for thee."
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Which was kind of the whole point which sailed off into the sunset over your head.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)His imaginary fan club is still sending thank you cards.
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)a link upthread. Now, I can't say with any certainty that he was giving a nod to them, but one wonders about linking to a 4-year-old thread. I remember so many of the screen names from it. I confess, though, that I miss none of them.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)for that argument and your ability to demonstrate why it matters mysteriously falters.
Mariana
(14,857 posts)We discuss religion and religious issues here.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)transcends all divisions. So we do not make statements saying that religion is uniquely evil, or other such unprovable assertions.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)MineralMan
(146,308 posts)to religious groups. That is the difference, really. That essential hypocrisy is why the topic keeps coming up again and again with regard to religion. Not all religions, of course, but enough of them, or divisions of them act in that way. Seen from outside, that offers many opportunities to point out the hypocrisy.
Justifying evildoing based on faith in an invisible entity is very weak sauce indeed. So, we point it out. Others, inexplicably, attempt to defend it. That keeps some of us busy. If nobody defended such hypocrisy, we'd have nothing much to do, really, and might find other outlets for our disappointment and criticism.
Perhaps that's worth considering, guillaumeb. Perhaps.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)That is worth considering, especially by those who try to promote an agenda.
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)can be avoided. One must at least try to do so, however.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Bringing up a litany of the entirety of human behavior is nothing but a distraction. Why do you do it? What is your agenda when you refuse to stick to the group topic and constantly derail discussions?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)is my way of dismissing the many replies that attempt to single out religion as being uniquely responsible for such behavior.
Does that bother you?
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)"pointing out it's human nature" is a deflection, and an attempt to shut down the discussion in relation to how it affects religion. If you turned that in as an assignment you'd fail the class.
I had more to say, but you always ignore any post with content in it, so I'm not going to spend the energy.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Which refutes your only contention.
As to discussion, it is my opinion that for a few here, discussion really means to join in a group denunciation of theism and theists. That is not really a discussion.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)so my contention remains unrefuted.
You don't participate in any discussion. You flat out refuse to at times (like right here).
Several times, recently even, I have posted long, responses to your questions and you ignore them, why is that? Trotsky has a question he's been asking you for a few days now and you've been deflecting away from it, and now just ignoring it, I hope he asks it every day until you answer it.
It's not worth posting more because you will, as per usual, ignore it and go on with your own agenda.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)But if a few posters, almost simultaneously at times, decide to trash a thread, it is obvious that discussion is not the intent.
And if, coincidentally, the same few posters attack any positive posts about religion, again, it is obvious that promotion of an agenda is the real object.
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)How would you know? I'll wait here for you answer.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And ignoring the actual post so they can promote their own agenda.
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)DU has a "trash thread" feature. I never use it, since I prefer discussions. When people disagree with you, they say so. They discuss your post. Sometimes many people disagree with you. That can be an indication of something, if you think about it.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)and a certain amount of politeness.
If what I described is what you see as discussion, that can be an indication of something, if you think about it.
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)is showing respect and politeness? I don't know, guillaumeb, but I think not.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)I guess that's the newest line.
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)even when it hurts to do so. Of course, what is polite is often in the eye of the recipient of that politeness.
Some people, too, think they are being polite when they're really being snarky and accusatory. As always, irony is funny.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Does it mean saying please and thank you? Does it mean peppering flowery language, does it mean not disagreeing with someone? Can a post be neither polite or rude? It's setting a positive standard that is undefined.
I try to match the level of the person I'm trying to have a discussion with, and in his case I constantly go above and beyond.
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)Disagreement is not impolite in itself, certainly. Saying someone is an "idiot," isn't polite. Discussion doesn't exist if everyone always agrees with everyone else. It also doesn't exist if responses are just random snark. Discussion will involved disagreement, but needn't devolve into exchanges of insults, i think.
I try, as I said. I fail sometimes, though, in maintaining a polite level of disagreement.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Also requires discourse, something sorely lacking around here. The level of ambient hostility has been raised by people in the past, as we were recently reminded of, who are no longer here, but the damage has been done.
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)is not discussion. There's no point in stating disagreement without explaining why you disagree. Saying just, "Well, that's just your opinion," or "You appear to have convinced yourself," is not discourse in any way. It's just a placeholder that says more about the poster than about the subject.
Religion, like politics, generates emotional responses. Nothing wrong with that, but it's possible to discuss opinions without using insults. The worst part is one insult begets another. Some of the endless subthreads in this group are little more than trading of insults.
I sometimes fall into those subthreads, but I try not to get involved in them most of the time.
It's the nature of the internet and semi-anonymous screen names, I guess. It gets very ugly at times.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)calling the attack a response to my attack on the poster.
I pointed out that I have not actually attacked the poster, and the poster went off in another direction.
So yes, my question was quite appropriate.
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)Of two different low-post-count DUers. How are you not ashamed of yourself?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)MineralMan
(146,308 posts)I'm not religious. I am not in any way bound by the words supposedly spoken by Jesus. Besides, you've left off the rest of that quotation.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)and your reply indicates that you are, why ask the initial question?
Or was it a rhetorical device?
Being a mere theist, my intellect is far too small to follow all of these fancy literary techniques.
Mariana
(14,857 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)And now we're just arguing over the ways you derail or refuse to. There's really no need to continue.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I do not recall ever seeing a response of yours to a theist that was in any way polite. But I recognize that I have not seen all of your responses and am willing to be proven incorrect.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)But you have time to learn.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)a literary technique, originally used in Greek tragedy, by which the full significance of a character's words or actions are clear to the audience or reader although unknown to the character.
So, as an example, if a poster uses words that actually describe himself/herself during an attack on another, that is unintentional irony.
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)Last edited Thu Aug 30, 2018, 08:09 PM - Edit history (1)
of "irony," and requires the adjective "dramatic." It is the third definition of the word, and the least used.
i·ro·ny1
ˈīrənē/Submit
noun
the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.
"Don't go overboard with the gratitude, he rejoined with heavy irony"
synonyms: sarcasm, causticity, cynicism, mockery, satire, sardonicism
"that note of irony in her voice"
a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result.
plural noun: ironies
"the irony is that I thought he could help me"
synonyms: paradox, incongruity, incongruousness
"the irony of the situation"
a literary technique, originally used in Greek tragedy, by which the full significance of a character's words or actions are clear to the audience or reader although unknown to the character.
noun: dramatic irony
Many words have multiple definitions. Sometimes they are related, but not identical. If dramatic irony is meant, the word dramatic is used to clarify the meaning.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)where a person who is attacking another is actually the one guilty of the offense.
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)Irony is funny.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)And which one someone chooses to use says a lot about them as well.
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)definition to support an argument, too.
Permanut
(5,608 posts)makes them seem to be equivalent. Which they are not.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I equate religion and other forms of group identity.
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)Is far more complex than that. So, what's your opinion of that article? Can you detail your reaction to it for us?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)As to which factor is the causal factor, I am open to discussion.
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)I'm not quite interested enough to go to the link. Why should I take the time? Tell me.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Did you read the article, or did you respond based on the title?
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)If you find this type of response in any way deficient, unclear, or potentially suggestive of the poster's failure to read something, I suggest you stop using it yourself.
Docreed2003
(16,859 posts)I grew up in the Southern Baptist Church in the late 70's/early 80's thanks to one parent who was a Southern Baptist. I can assure you that faith shaped the politics of everyone in that congregation and, in my experience hundreds of similar congregations, and every single thing they were fighting for then has come to fruition today in the current GOP. They are fighting for a theocracy. Mike Pence and Mike Huckabee are the poster children for this group.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Too little. Too late.