I write this having just read about the gunman who opened fire on some congressmen at a baseball practice, successfully wounding Steve Scalise, a Republican congressman from Louisiana. Early reports indicate the gunman was trying to kill Republicans in particular, and the left wing fever swamps on Twitter consequently began to celebrate the shooting.
This follows hard on the heels of Kathy Griffin’s cultural appropriation of beheadings as a form of social commentary, and then the assassination chic exhibited by that theater group updating Shakespeare.
When events like these happen, we are called upon to interpret them. And we will interpret them accurately or not, depending upon whether we are living in God’s world or in our own fantasy world. Reality—whatever else it is—is not optional, and those who insist on dwelling in their own fantasies are actively engaged in trying to cause the civilizational roof to collapse upon us all. They are Philistines who, in their self-assured mockeries, are trying to help Samson push on the pillars. I don’t know who Samson is in all this, but I do believe the roof is beginning to sway.
Jonah Goldberg has observed that we have reached certain epic levels of craziness in our society, such that violent protests are described as “free speech,” and any exercise of free speech (by conservatives) is described as “violence.”
“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; That put darkness for light, and light for darkness; That put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Is. 5:20).
The point here is that you cannot invert things without inverting them. You cannot call evil good without, at some point, calling good evil. You cannot say that darkness is light without also claiming that light is darkness.
You cannot tolerate abortion without, at some point, celebrating it. And when you start to celebrate it you have acknowledged that Molech is in fact your god, and you then make the honest confession. Yes, we chop up babies. Deal with it. Yes, we celebrate the shed blood of our political opponents. Yes, we cackle when elected representatives are shot. Yes, we march in New York parades in honor of terrorists. And why? Because we are the party of compassion. Because conservatives are mean and hard-hearted. And if you really think that, then somebody has some beach front property in the middle of the Everglades that he will turn over to you for a song, if you will just sign now.
We need to understand the other side of the inversion. Liberals are not. They are not magnanimous. They are not compassionate. They are fighting for total authority over the dictionary because they want to change all the words, not just some of them.
If a man can be declared a woman, then hatred can be declared love. But I will still confess that whenever I look at hatred-in-transition (chosen as love-of-the-year by Vogue), all I see is the same warty old hatred with a couple of silicone implants, lipstick put on crooked, and a ratty Goodwill dress.
Today might have set a new record for Leftists calling for the seizure of guns before the last bullet casing hit the ground. The spin from the media will be interesting to watch as they try to rehabilitate the shooter from a far-left, Bernie Sanders-loving, Donald Trump-hating crackpot into a deranged shooter whose motives are unfathomable.
As an aside, I hope you find time to mention the absolute fiasco going on in Phoenix at the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention vis a vis the failed resolution condemning the “alt-right”.
I just saw on CNN that the Southern Baptists has passed a revised resolution condemning the racism of the alt-right following a lot of outrage overnight.
Thankfully it wasn’t a failed resolution! It did pass after a bunch of red tape was gotten out of the way.
Absolutely despicable.
Also incredibly stupid. I imagine his mind had to be just overloaded with anger/hatred to think that the slightest “good” (in terms of his own objectives) could possibly come from this.
Quite a blessing that no one else was killed.
Okay, after that picture I hereby recant of any previous complaints that may have suggested or implied that beauty was exclusively subjective. You may all return now to complaining about the unattractive girl with the even more unattractive tattoo. Clearly truth and beauty do have a certain connection to objective reality. Yes, the left with their language and inverted definitions are radicalizing the nuttiest among us. What I fear is if that right begins to follow suit and than we soon resemble the very thing we oppose. It would be quite lovely if we could all just stand up and… Read more »
As Doug stated after 911, God’s judgement is already upon our nation, and these judgements are becoming harder and harder for believers and non-believers alike to ignore or categorize as mental illness or cultural change. Christians need to understand that things are not going to get better by any kind of political or cultural reformation, and all indications are that real Christian persecution is getting close to becoming severe enough in this country that it will begin separating the chaff from the wheat. You need to be prepared for all out war on everything you thought was great about this… Read more »
Jesus said, “As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.” Mama always said “Crazy is as crazy does.”
Why are we surprised when the venom inside spills over to action? What will it take before the Western God of Rationalism dies? Before we see that the horse driving the cart is the spirit, not the mind, and that the spirit always manifests in the material?
So relieved that our side didn’t shoot first.
As I’ve said here before, this is not about right versus left. It’s about people of all ideologies who think violence is an appropriate way to resolve theological differences versus the rest of us. Yes, the guy who fired today’s shots is a hater; so is the guy who shoots an abortion provider, and so is the guy in Iraq who pushes a gay man off the roof of a building, and so is the suicide bomber who blows up a church or mosque full of worshipers in Cairo. The proper line to draw is that everyone who engages in… Read more »
If the issue were tolerating things, your last paragraph would be making an important point. But we are being asked to do much more than “tolerate” some things. In some cases, there is an insistence that we participate.
Jane, do you believe the state has the right to require Christian Science parents to get medical treatment for their children? Or to forbid fundamentalist Mormons from entering into polygamous marriages with 8 year old girls? If you do, then we’re quibbling over where that line gets drawn, and not whether it exists. And if you don’t, then we just disagree.
Deciding whether that line should be drawn at requiring the world to participate in a mentally ill’s person delusion is not “quibbling,” it is the conversation that absolutely needs to be had.
I’m not sure how your questions are relevant. I never made any assertion that everything should be tolerated. I questioned your equivocation of toleration, and required assent.
Nor did Wilson say that tolerating anything leads to celebrating it. That only applies to things that all morally sane people recognize as objectively evil, like abortion.
Hello Jane, I had no internet for 5 days, and I felt like a heroin addict kicking it cold turkey, like an astronaut cut adrift from the mother ship, like an emphysemia patient deprived of oxygen. On the other hand, I cleaned the house.
Is there any way of knowing if someone has posted without wading through all the comments?
“Cleaned the house”?
‘Find any cats? ????
No, but I found many nice little surprises they had hidden away for me. Pens. Sewing bobbins. Dead bugs. Cigarette lighters. Earrings. Important looking envelopes from the State Franchise Board. Catnip stashes, theirs and mine.
It’s a blessing that cats aren’t cooperative animals. I don’t know what would happen to me if the three of them could actually organize.
In this new environment, I think we’re all quite busy trying to find ourselves…never mind each other! :)
At the moment there’s a ‘notify me of new comments’ thing at the top of the comment section but that would be for the specific post…
I assumed that your comment about being forced to participate was directed at the baker and florist cases involving Christian business owners being penalized for not providing services to gay weddings. The point of my questions was that religious freedom is not absolute; in point of fact we don’t allow fundamentalist Mormons to enter polygamous marriages with 8 year olds, so the question is under which circumstances do you have to participate, and not whether.
And not all morally sane people recognize abortion as objectively evil. I realize that’s your position.
No, I was referring to being forced to play along when people delude themselves about their true sex.
All morally sane people recognize abortion as objectively evil. It’s one of the tests of moral sanity.
Jane, some things are black and white, but abortion is not one of them. You’re entitled to your contrary opinion.
I don’t need you to tell me that not everyone understands the moral insanity of abortion, I was not unaware that you fall into the morally deluded category, and I don’t need you to inform me that I am entitled to believe the truth. However, like every other thinking person, I hold my own views to be correct. My point is not to be hostile, I’m just tired of playing the game that says that moral ideas are merely opinions. There is right, and there is wrong, and we are always on one side or the other in any view… Read more »
I agree that there is right and there is wrong and that moral ideas are not merely opinions. But the fact that plenty of other thinking persons reach a different conclusion than you do suggests that the issue may not be as cut and dried as you think.
I am not sure how “cut and dried” you think that I think it is. Cut and dried is not necessarily a factor or an important value here. Whether by quick assessment or thoughtful analysis, there is only one conclusion consistent with an appropriate morality. I also am bemused by the idea that if a lot of people disagree with you, the truth is no longer obvious. I probably don’t need to begin listing the counter-examples; there are plenty of truths you hold to be self-evident that plenty of people have disagreed with. I am guessing you think that it… Read more »
Is it morally wrong to own another human being?
Yes. Next question.
This new comment structure is clumsy. I was meaning to ask Jane. I’m having a difficult time understanding her “moral sanity” compass.
According to Scripture, it is morally wrong to kidnap someone, or to treat them with partiality (which would include the partiality of racial malice). However, according to Scripture, it is not morally wrong to own another human being for the purpose of resolving an actual moral or financial debt. God provides for it explicitly. This process of requiring repayment through forced labor is also called restitution. Debt restitution (unlike racial malice and kidnapping) is a just and moral thing, and is the basis for punitive civil justice. There is also a principle of debt forgiveness and jubilee, but Paul instructs… Read more »
No one actually “owns another human being” in any real sense, and to the extent that is possible, it is morally wrong. However, I assume you’re asking about slavery. Katecho’s answer is mine. There are forms of slavery in which another person’s labor is owned, but no real claim is made upon the other person’s life and soul in the sense of “owning another human being.” These forms are biblically permissible, but probably best avoided in societies in which there are other options for the poor to provide for themselves or be provided for. What is hard about understanding my… Read more »
Unless you are employing some esoteric definition of owning, I’m sure you do not have an accurate grasp of chattel slavery. That gives me an an insight into your moral compass. I fear you have failed to allow for magnetic declination. Happens all the time..
I understand what chattel slavery is. I don’t think you understand what would be required to own a person’s soul.
I also think indefinite chattel slavery is wrong. But even that is not owning a person in the true sense.
This is an area where we need to be slow to listen to our own instincts and to form our own conclusions. We need to allow Scripture to instruct our ways of thinking. We instinctively react against the idea of being owned by another, because we recognize that man is not authoritative, in himself, to subjugate another. But we should consider that God is authoritative to deliver a man into the subjugation of, and ownership by, another man. God gives strict rules and regulations around this, just as He gives strict regulations around the practice of justly taking the life… Read more »
I agree with your take on those cases, katecho, I’m just not sure they have any current application. So I tacitly excluded them as not relevant to the conversation.
I mention it because if we say that owning/inheriting another is categorically wrong, or that indefinite servitude is categorically wrong, someone is going to raise Leviticus 25 and throw it in our faces. I’m just anticipating that.
GKC wrote:
In GKC’s worldview, what moral magnetic field exists to prevent declination? Or is declination just as valid as any other compass direction?
No, not if you obtain your sense of “morally wrong” from Scripture. If you obtain your morals from the shifting sands of post-modern Western culture, then yes it is…for now.
God owns you. Is that wrong, or right?
wisdumb(?) wrote:
Excellent observation. This is especially true of believers (Lev 25:55). We are not our own, we have been bought with a price. We are His bondservants.
Perhaps GKC can refine his/her question.
No, there isn’t only one conclusion consistent with an appropriate morality. And having lots of people disagree with you doesn’t necessarily mean you’re wrong, but it does mean that a wise person will take another look at the issue to figure out how so many people of good will managed to get something wrong that seems so obvious to you. (The answer to that question, by the way, is usually not that they’re moral midgets.) There are cultures in which trickery and theft are considered virtues, yes, and I believe them to be mistaken. But even in those cultures it… Read more »
Krychek_2 wrote:
However, when GKC asked if it is morally wrong to own another human being, Krychek_2 dogmatically responded:
Shouldn’t Krychek_2 have said that other conclusions are also morally appropriate? He wants fixed moral standards, and fluid moral standards at the same time.
Within the context of abortion, which is what I was talking about, there isn’t only one conclusion consistent with an appropriate morality. That doesn’t mean there are no other issues on which there are fixed moral standards.
I think you misunderstand what I mean by moral sanity.
Sanity is a properly ordered way of thinking. The lack of it, is disordered thinking, resulting in failure to grasp the basic ideas being thought about, and failure to reason properly about those ideas.
Not recognizing abortion as wrong, fails these tests. It does not mean the person is unable to make any moral judgments whatsoever, or acts unremittingly immorally, just as an insane person is not (contrary to common caricature) totally incapable of acting in a coherent fashion at any time.
But you’re assuming that your views on abortion are the only morally correct ones. And it’s argument by insult; it’s the functional equivalent of someone who is pro-choice arguing that only disordered thinking about morality could result in someone being anti-abortion. OK, I hope you feel better for having insulted your opponent, but insults don’t actually contribute anything to the discussion.
Of course I’m assuming my views on abortion are the only morally correct ones. If I didn’t, I wouldn’t hold them. That’s not arrogance, that’s called actually believing in something. Just like you do.
I’m not sure what the fact that self-interest based cultures aren’t a free for all has to do with it. The point being made is that according to your standards, there is only one correct moral position on stealing stuff, and the fact that a significant number of people in the world disagree with that, doesn’t (I presume) really give you pause about your position. The only difference between that, and my position on abortion, is that my position and yours differ. It’s simply a matter of my being right and you being wrong or (in your incorrect opinion), your… Read more »
Jane, are you aware of any cultures in which it is considered okay to steal from one’s peers who are members of the group? I am aware of a group I will not name who live by stealing from people of the dominant culture, but I don’t think they steal from one another. I think, too, that some people who would otherwise be honest will steal or cheat in times of great stress (like using the black market in world war 2 England) or when they feel they are doing what they have to survive under an oppressive government (such… Read more »
Krychek_2 wrote:
Krychek_2 may as well have just said that he agrees that the one true God is Triune, and that Jesus is the only Savior of mankind. It would fit just as neatly beside his materialistic, deterministic, purposeless cosmology as his remark about objective morality.
It’s almost as if Krychek_2 has never sat down to ponder the many implications of his materialism.
Katecho, normally your view that unbelievers have no basis for morality is merely ridiculous, but in this context it’s also dangerous because if enough people take you seriously, they just might decide that there really is no morality and start living accordingly. Good luck if that happens.
“it’s also dangerous because if enough people take you seriously, they just might decide that there really is no morality and start living accordingly. ”
Isn’t that pretty much what’s happening already?
I’m not sure about that. It has often struck me as interesting that atheists have lower incarceration rates, adjusted for population, than any other group. I know a lot of nonbelievers who are motivated to be truthful, fair, and faithful because they love other people, or they follow the golden rule, or even that they care what other people think of them. Many western nations have both lower rates of religious belief and lower rates of evils such as abortion and crime.
Jill, the argument is not that atheists are more or less moral than non-atheists. it is whether materialism has a basis for objective morality. It does not and this has been conceded by many materialists.
I do understand that. My point was that a morality that lacks such an objective basis can still be practiced by nonbelievers and result in virtuous lives. And if we say that there is nothing to stop them from abandoning such a morality when the going gets tough, we have to acknowledge that believers also often abandon their morality under temptation.
Jill Smith wrote: My point was that a morality that lacks such an objective basis can still be practiced by nonbelievers and result in virtuous lives. Atheists can’t escape being moral creatures. They can’t outrun their built-in conscience. So I don’t deny that an atheist can perform just about any outward act that we would recognize as virtuous. The problem is that God doesn’t regard the act as virtuous, in isolation, severed from a proper heart motivation. Whatever is not of faith is sin. It still misses the mark. Without faith it is impossible to please Him. In other words,… Read more »
True, I should have said “apparently virtuous lives”.
It’s not conceded by this materialist. In fact, this materialist considers it one of the silliest arguments on any subject he’s ever heard in his life.
Krychek_2 wrote:
Continually brushing the subject off as silly is not a substantive response. We’ve repeatedly demonstrated how and why atheism does not have an objective basis for morality, or any kind of expectation whatsoever with regard to reactionary matter. Krychek_2 has yet to respond to this dilemma with anything but dismissal.
Jill Smith wrote: It has often struck me as interesting that atheists have lower incarceration rates, adjusted for population, than any other group. Lower than any other group? What about the Amish? It may seem counter-intuitive, but remember that correlation is not causation. Keep in mind that the chic atheistic movement is trendy among upwardly mobile white folk, while the decades-long “war on drugs” has primarily targeted lower class “people of color”. The result can say more about our priorities for incarceration than about religious affiliation. This factor, by itself, can more than account for the difference in the U.S.,… Read more »
I got interested in that statistic, so I did some reading. There are only only 250,000 Amish in the US so it is hard to make any comparisons. But it is difficult to generalize about atheists in prison because definitions are used very loosely. A lot of unbelievers will avoid calling themselves atheists because it is they are viewed with opprobrium. People who do self-identify as atheists tend to be male, young, white, and highly educated. As you note, they can use illegal drugs without much risk of going to prison. Catholics have a high rate of incarceration, and Jews… Read more »
Re your last paragraph, atheists also recognize that if we don’t take care of each other, nobody else will either. Since we believe that there is no God who hears or answers prayer, if I see someone in need, it’s up to me. You’d be amazed at the incentive that provides to actually be decent and charitable human beings.
Krychek_2 wrote: Since we believe that there is no God who hears or answers prayer, if I see someone in need, it’s up to me. You’d be amazed at the incentive that provides to actually be decent and charitable human beings. In my experience, secularists and atheists are among the most morally acute, socially triggered, and self-righteous people that I know. Krychek_2, Dawkins, Hitchens being cases in point. Unfortunately, atheists also have a reputation for being significantly less charitable than practicing theists. Secularists are most notable for being generous with other people’s money, namely through Statist interventions and entitlements. They… Read more »
The idea that secularism is religious is almost as silly as the idea that secularists have no basis for morality, but as far as theists being more charitable, a significant chunk of the money donated by theists goes to religion rather than genuine charity. Donating a stained glass window to a cathedral, or adding a new wing to a church, or sending proseletyzers to the third world, isn’t quite on the same level as feeding the hungry and clothing the naked and improving the lot of the poor. And if you exclude so called charitable donations that are religious rather… Read more »
Krychek_2 wrote:
This is false. Krychek_2’s objection is already factored in to most studies on this topic. Can’t blame him for trying though.
No. Humanists are mostly able to figure out morality for themselves. As with Christians, not all humanists live up to their own moral standards, but that’s a failure of application and not of the ethical system itself.
Krychek_2 wrote: Humanists are mostly able to figure out morality for themselves. Anyone can make up an arbitrary moral compass for themselves. They can easily point it in whatever direction they want it to point. What atheists lack is any moral magnetic field, to which the compass must align. Atheists like Krychek_2 try to concoct moral purpose and ethical expectation from a purposeless, accidental universe, which has no expectations of any kind. If Krychek_2 is going to invent such fancies, he might as well invent a god for himself and prostrate himself down before it. It would make as much… Read more »
Krychek_2 wrote: Katecho, normally your view that unbelievers have no basis for morality is merely ridiculous, but in this context it’s also dangerous because if enough people take you seriously, they just might decide that there really is no morality and start living accordingly. Good luck if that happens. If Krychek_2 had a non-arbitrary basis for morality, he would have shared it by now. Given this, I appreciate that Krychek_2 acknowledges that it would be quite dangerous if materialists tried to be consistent with their materialism. I am very grateful that Krychek_2 is not a consistent materialist. Just because materialism… Read more »
“If Krychek_2 had a non-arbitrary basis for morality, he would have shared it by now.” Exactly why should I take seriously any moral pronouncements coming from someone who would tell such a brazen falsehood as that? I have stated, repeatedly, the non-arbitrary basis for morality. If Katecho can’t even be honest about what’s been said here, then I’m not really interested in whatever else he might have to say about morality.
Krychek_2 wrote: I have stated, repeatedly, the non-arbitrary basis for morality. Krychek_2 has offered utilitarianism in the past, but we’ve already shown how quickly that falls apart. Absent any non-arbitrary basis for valuation, utilitarianism is unable to establish the value of the ends. Without establishing the value of the ends, the value of the means is also unknown. For example, Krychek_2 never established any value in human flourishing (etc.), he merely assumed its value, which is the epitome of arbitrariness. As such, no value can rationally be attached to things that promote human flourishing. Apart from all that, materialism, as… Read more »
Your world view doesn’t allow secularists to have a basis for morality, so it ultimately doesn’t matter what arguments secularists have, your response will always be “la, la, la, la, I can’t hear you.” Which is why at this point I’m no longer bothering. However, it is a falsehood to say that I’ve never made the case for a secular basis for morality. The archives here are replete with my having made that case. You can say you disagree with it, just as the person who believes in believer baptism by immersion isn’t persuaded by the arguments for sprinkling infants,… Read more »
Krychek_2 wrote: Your world view doesn’t allow secularists to have a basis for morality, so it ultimately doesn’t matter what arguments secularists have, your response will always be “la, la, la, la, I can’t hear you.” Which is why at this point I’m no longer bothering. Krychek_2 is free to let his worldview languish here, but he can’t blame it’s collapse on our worldview. We’ve explained the dilemma of materialism on purely materialistic terms. Krychek_2 wrote: However, it is a falsehood to say that I’ve never made the case for a secular basis for morality. I already acknowledged that Krychek_2… Read more »
No one has a right to my labor. If I want to be a bigot or a homophobe and choose to refuse to do business with you, that is my deal. You have no right to demand that I provide you my labor. If I want to refuse to do business with you because sometimes your eyes cross for no reason and it creeps me out, then that is my deal. If it is a deal, the market will punish me for it. Are you suggesting the African American bakeries don’t have the right to refuse service to the KKK?… Read more »
I actually agree that bakers should not be forced to make cakes for gay weddings, but not for the reasons you’ve given. And you are mistaken as to the law; if Westboro Baptist sued a gay baker, Westboro would win; religious discrimination is illegal as well. Whether the KKK would win would depend on the jurisdiction; in some places it’s illegal to discriminate based on political affiliation and in others it’s not. When you open a business, you agree to follow the laws that relate to your business. You can’t hire a 12 year old to work a 14 hour… Read more »
I am not mistaken about the law. I fundamentally disagree with forcing labor out of people at gunpoint, that is called slavery and I thought we were all against that. I am aware of what used to happen and I still maintain that individual businesses and customer must enter into business contracts willingly especially when it comes to labor. Of course, you can’t use false advertising. Because why? Because that is lying. Saying that I can’t hire a 12-year old or emit toxic fumes or dump toxic waste into rivers is an entirely different thing than saying I must bake… Read more »
I used to think it was slavery when my mother made me do chores too. Sometimes living in community means that one has to set aside one’s wishes because the community has interests too. Discrimination is harmful, not just to the people being discriminated against, but to society as a whole, because it tends to create problems that spill over into other areas. Baking a cake is pretty low stakes so I agree with you that that one doesn’t require state intervention. But to say that the government may not under any circumstances require a business to refrain from discriminatory… Read more »
Discrimination is not always harmful and is sometimes quite reasonable and necessary. In any case, discrimination is inevitable, outside anarchy. The question is, which and how much?
When you say the community has interests, such that individuals must set aside their wishes (which I agree, the community does) do you mean what the community needs, or what the community wants? Do you have in mind what you consider to be an objective standard, or is it rather majority, over and against individual, preference that constitutes community interests? Or should elite opinions determine community interests?
Before there were anti-discrimination laws, there were entire classes of people who were basically shut out of large parts of the economy by majoritarian prejudices. Having a permanent underclass is not only bad for the underclass but for everyone else too since their problems tend to seep out into the larger society. Not only does society lose their gifts and talents , but they themselves then turn from legitimate participation in society to less legitimate ways of meeting their needs. Someone who can’t get a good job because no one will hire someone of his race or sexual orientation isn’t… Read more »
I’m sorry your mom forced you to do chores at gunpoint. Now I see why you have no trouble using the threat of guns and violence to get my compliance. You may ask me to quit doing something, it is wrong to ask me to do something with my own labor. Businesses discriminate against their customers all the time and for all kinds of reasons. Abercrombie and Fitch made clothes for a specific kind of customer. They openly declared who they wanted and did not want for customers. It worked for awhile and all the cool kids wore Abercrombie. But… Read more »
Well said. One thing to keep in mind when interacting with Krychek_2 is that he is a self-professed materialist and determinist. He doesn’t have any access to prescription or expectation in his worldview, but somehow this doesn’t stop him from pontificating about the “interests of the community”, and what Christians ought to be doing. Krychek_2 is a walking contradiction, in that sense.
If Abercrombie and Fitch doesn’t sell anything you’re interested in buying, that’s fine. But that’s not the same as them selling something you do want to buy that they won’t allow you to.
Actually, untrue. I want to buy pants that fit over my calves and they refuse to make them. I am being discriminated against because I do have a genuine disability and they sell pants but not ones for me. FOUL!!
Abercrombie only wanted the thin beautiful people to wear their clothing. They did not want the regular kids wearing their clothes and they refused to make clothes for regular people and they said that publicly. There were a ton of kids who wanted their clothes and couldn’t get them. FOUL!!!
Without getting into my thinking about discrimination laws in general, I don’t quite follow your reasoning about bakers and gay wedding cakes. It is true that the gay couple will not have trouble finding a baker in most places in the U.S. It can be disputed whether being gay should give one official status as a minority, but I assume you don’t have a problem with that. So, if the black person shouldn’t have to cross the street to buy a hamburger, why should the indignity of being refused and having to find a willing vendor be visited on the… Read more »
Jilly, first of all, hello! It’s good to see you again. Next of all, we are not talking about hamburgers. We’re not even talking about birthday cakes. What’s being objected to is the idea of being forced to supply homosexual practitioners with the accoutrements of a ‘wedding’ that we believe impossible. Thirdly, we are not talking about black people, or any other category defined by a biological reality. It has been a very effective tactic of the propaganda machine to identify homosexuals as a group like unto women and black people, presumably to distract us from the truth that homosexuality… Read more »
Hi Indigo! I had written such a long and profound reply, at least I thought it was profound, but my computer disagreed and lost it somewhere. If it shows up, ignore it. I was arguing from Krychek’s own premises–that anti-discrimination laws are good, and that gays are properly included as a protected category. Given those premises, I didn’t understand why he would oppose declining to serve a black person while being okay with somebody refusing to bake a gay wedding cake. It is a difficult issue, and it is a good thing it doesn’t come up very often. Since Obergefell… Read more »
Jill, that’s not a bad argument and I wouldn’t dispute too loudly with someone who takes that position. I have enough libertarian instincts, however, that I think state action should be reserved for stuff that causes major social harm. A job is a necessity. A place to live is a necessity. A wedding cake or a hamburger are not. So I’m not as supportive of public accommodations civil rights laws in general as I am employment and housing laws. So I’m fine with living in a society in which gays can get married but nobody has to bake them a… Read more »
So, assuming that it is illegal to deny employment or housing to a gay couple, you are okay with denying them a cake. Does this mean that you would be okay with denying a black wedding couple a cake as long as they did not face discrimination in housing and the labor market?
“And no, tolerating something does not lead to celebrating it. ”
Well, you have just declared that “The proper line to draw is that everyone who engages in violence to achieve a political or religious goal should be treated as a pariah.”
So apparently we should be drawing some clear lines in the sand and NOT tolerating violence, because if we do tolerate it, we will soon be celebrating it, as some on twitter are doing at this very moment.
I would agree with that. Not everything should be tolerated. And not everything that is tolerated should be celebrated.
I agree that the issue is about how we respond. What we must be careful to consider is how an event came about. There is the temptation to be like the school principal who says he does not care who threw the first punch, just who was involved. If peaceful protesters get attacked and defend themselves, they are hardly to blame. They are better to attempt to leave, but the push to violence is relevant.
Related to this is what the response is to. Violence responding to speech is generally not acceptable, but speech in response to violence is reasonable.
I note you refer to killing or Christians and Muslims in Cairo. Where are all these suicide bombers targeting Mosques in Cairo?
Sunni and Shi’a have been sending suicide bombers into each other’s mosques for years, pretty much all over the Middle East.
So…………..should Sunni’s and Shi’a’s be “treated as a pariah by both (their) co-religionists and also by the entire rest of the world.”?
And what should US immigration policy be with regard to these “pariahs”?
And at what stage of development is the left’s “pariah’ detector? ; – )
Probably in the same state of development as their honesty patch!
The ones who blow up each other’s mosques, and Christian churches, certainly should be treated as pariahs by their co-religionists. And most of their co-religionists have the same opinion of terrorism that you and I do. The hundreds of millions of Muslims who aren’t blowing things up don’t make news; the small handful who are, do.
I am aware of it in the Middle East, just not in Cairo (though I may be uninformed).
Of course this means that Muslims are targeting Christians and Muslims are targeting Muslims. So mentioning churches and mosques kind of obfuscates the issue in Egypt.
The dividing line is not Christian/Muslim. It’s willing to use violence/not willing to use violence. The overwhelming majority of both Christians and Muslims are on the right hand side of that slash.
Hey! I think I am on board with your last sentence at least! ; – )
Krychek2 says: The dividing line is not Christian/Muslim.
But… a good Muslim is directed toward violence as a virtue, whereas a good Christian is directed away from violence.
Maybe as you define good Christian and good Muslim, but there are plenty of Christians and Muslims who would disagree with you. Erik Rudolph thought being a good Christian meant blowing up a gay bar and an abortion clinic. Paul Hill thought being a good Christian meant shooting an abortion provider. And they had texts to back themselves up. If you’re a violent person, you can find texts — in both the Bible and the Koran — to back you up. If you’re a peaceful person, you can do the same. And your notion that Christianity is nonviolent is largely… Read more »
Krychek_2 wrote: Maybe as you define good Christian and good Muslim, but there are plenty of Christians and Muslims who would disagree with you. … And your notion that Christianity is nonviolent is largely a 20th century innovation. ‘Maybe as Krychek_2 defines innovation, but there are plenty of Christians who would disagree with him.’ Oops. See how easily Krychek_2’s linguistic deconstruction cuts the legs right out from under him too? All of his words turn to subjective goo. Deformable into anything that anyone wishes. It really is too bad that Krychek_2 doesn’t have any access to objective semantic meaning and… Read more »
Government coercion is violence. Leftists like you love violence if they are paid by tax dollars.
The issue is not violence versus nonviolence. Some level of a threat of violence is at the root of any civilized society. The issue is whether it is righteous or not.
Pot, kettle. The right has demonstrated itself just as willing, if not more so, to use violence to achieve its goals.
Political goals are always achieved by violence or the threat of violence.
“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” –Chairman Mao.
Krychek, I agree that tolerance is not celebration. However, the current connotation of tolerance is closer to celebration than to forbearance (patient self-control). In other words, one is expected to support, not just endure. A working definition of intolerance seems to be: failure to agree with and support my beliefs.
Beauty is a crime. Human equality demands inversion. http://www.mileswmathis.com/equality.html
Communists killing people. What a surprise.
The Left’s reaction to Trump’s election was funny at first. It ain’t no more. They are looking for a revolution.
Of course they are looking for a revolution. In their place, so would you. Take a look at the big picture. The Democrats have won the popular vote for president in six of the last seven elections, but because of the electoral college two of them were awarded to Republicans. In this last election, nationwide, there were five million more votes for Democratic Senate candidates than for Republican Senate candidates, yet the GOP controls the Senate because Alaska’s 200,000 votes cancel California’s 33 million. In House races, 2016 was an exception, but for most of the past 20 years the… Read more »
You know the electoral college has been around for a long time, as has the system where each state gets two Senators, right? That system was put in place for a reason. Liberals act like they never heard of the electoral college until this year. And by the way, more people voted for candidates on the Right than on the Left in the last election. Inconvenient truth perhaps and not relevant to the electoral outcome but then again neither is the “popular vote” ( http://arsenalofliberty.blogspot.com/2017/02/a-quick-note-on-on-going-but-hillary.html )
Yes, the system was put in place for the same reason that originally only white property owners were allowed to vote: To make it harder for progressives to win elections. And no one disputes that that is the system; the question is whether it should be changed. The procedural rules should not favor one ideology over another. You wouldn’t put up with a system stacked as heavily in favor of liberals as this one is in favor of conservatives, so why would you expect progressives to?
Krychek_2 wrote: Yes, the system was put in place for the same reason that originally only white property owners were allowed to vote: To make it harder for progressives to win elections. This is revisionist nonsense. The electoral college was put in place because the founders rejected the tyranny of democracy (mob rule). The founders were very explicit that this was one of their overall guiding principles. Krychek_2’s racial spin has nothing to do with it. Krychek_2 wrote: And no one disputes that that is the system; the question is whether it should be changed. Should? Krychek_2 keeps trying to… Read more »
I have never heard such anger and frustration directed toward a president as I hear daily against Trump. It doesn’t cover it to say people loathe him here; it goes way beyond that. I’ve had to ask people to give it a rest because it’s too disturbing to hear all day every day. You hear it in stores, in elevators, in movie lineups, in doctors’ waiting rooms. It is endless.
A lot of people I know were not happy about the Bush presidency but this is absolutely nothing like that. But I don’t know anyone who would ever advocate violence.
Jill, Nixon had better poll numbers in the final days of Watergate than Trump has four months into his term. Not only is his election a catastrophe, but it’s a catastrophe that happened against the wishes of the voters.
One of the arguments for the electoral college is that it was supposed to protect us from demagogues. After this past election, that’s hilarious.
“Of course they are looking for a revolution.”
So than this really IS a right-left issue?
“You say you want a revolution. ….But when you talk about destruction.
Don’t you know that you can count me out”
Because revolutions are violent. Just saying. So I guess I can just scratch all the lefty declarations about non violence and declare, this really IS a left-right issue and the left has done lost their minds.
I have not said that I favor a violent revolution. What I have said is that proponents of the status quo are flirting with a violent revolution if the progressive majority continues to be shut out of the process by stacked-deck procedural rules.
Krychek_2 wrote: What I have said is that proponents of the status quo are flirting with a violent revolution if the progressive majority continues to be shut out of the process by stacked-deck procedural rules. The hilarious part is that Krychek_2 seems to think that the “status quo” isn’t, and hasn’t been, thoroughly progressive. Speaking of “shut out”, if not progressives, who does Krychek_2 think recently saddled every state with a mandatory health insurance racket without their consent? Such government overreach belongs to the progressive ideology. As far as anyone being “shut out of the process”, who does Krychek_2 think… Read more »
This sounds like a strong defense of revolutionary violence for someone who claims to be against it. I call your bluff. You are just as willing to use violence as the actually fascist so-called anti-fascists. You just want to fool the dupes who still believe this posture. And just for the record, I would stoop to calling myself a conservative. Theocratic Christian radical is a more apt adjective. And we have had this system in place for over 200 years. Either get used to it or start the revolution. Support it or overthrow it, but stop bitching about how you… Read more »
I guess we can’t make corrections, now.
Make that, “I would never stoop to calling myself a conservative.”
You have to be logged in when you post, in order to edit.
Maybe it’s my age, but I don’t seem to be able.
Try hitting the “REPLY” button. When a new comment text box opens up, there should be a row of buttons just above the top right edge of that box. Choose one of those and log in, or create a new account.
I am not in favor of violence. I am simply pointing out that people who have been excluded from the process tend to find ways around it, especially if they are in the majority.
Same question I posed earlier: If the procedural rules favored liberals as they currently do conservatives, what would your reaction be?
Your premise is wrong. It does not favor one particular ideology. It empowers states. There also happens to be a good reason for that. We are a republic and we do not want to be dominated by one heavily populated state. The very liberal Rhode Island, Vermont, and Connecticut all have just as much power as Wyoming, Alaska, and Idaho.
It favors rural areas, which tend to be conservative, over more liberal urban areas. The framers understood this, and that’s what they wanted, which is why they originally didn’t even allow blacks or non-property-owners or women to vote: It’s a result-oriented system. And if you look at rural/urban demographics, there are far more conservative places that benefit than there are progressive places.
And by the way, republic is Latin for democracy, and democracy is Greek for republic. It’s a silly distinction.
Krychek, please provide some support for your claim that “the system” was designed to retain power with the conservatives.
Also, perhaps the “framers” were right, and it is best for a country or society to slowly progress. I know the idea of changing slowly seems to be anathema in the USA today. Maybe it’s really better.
There’s a section in the Federalist Papers, I forget where, in which Hamilton talks about the need to restrict the franchise so you don’t have the masses voting themselves largesse from the public treasury.
Taking change slow and easy is one thing. Taking it too slow and easy gave us a bloody civil war. Same question I asked earlier: If the shoe were on the other foot and liberals were the ones benefiting from these rules, would you be as sanguine about it then?
Krychek_2 wrote: Taking change slow and easy is one thing. Taking it too slow and easy gave us a bloody civil war. More ignorant revisionism from Krychek_2. Forcing an immediate statist utopian vision (rather than following Paul’s non-revolutionary model for Onesimus) is what led to the bloodbath of war, in which over 650,000 were killed. Slavery was rejected nearly everywhere else without such a civil war, proving that it was unnecessary, in principle. The importation of new slaves had already been outlawed for decades, and the laws were continuing to apply gradual pressure. The South had a growing number of… Read more »
OKRickety wrote: Krychek, please provide some support for your claim that “the system” was designed to retain power with the conservatives. The framers were not designing a system to benefit the conservative party in the partisan sense that Krychek_2 seems to be on about. But they were definitely designing an inherently conservative system, in principled rejection of the progressive majority mob rule that Krychek_2 is advocating. Remember that progressives inherently reject the restraint that is represented by a Constitution or a Bill of Rights, in the first place. Progressives reject any restrictions or rules of law that would impose themselves… Read more »
+1,000,000!!
Krychek_2 wrote: And by the way, republic is Latin for democracy, and democracy is Greek for republic. It’s a silly distinction. Krychek_2 appears desperate to ignore and obscure the distinction between majority rule and representative democracy. Regardless, the framers were quite clear in rejecting the kind of democracy that Krychek_2 is peddling; and for good reason. Nearly all of what government does should be guided by fixed rule of law and principle, not the shifting, reactionary, and progressive demands of the majority. Since men do not live forever, it is necessary to elect new representatives to enforce these principles, but… Read more »
If you think a republic is the same thing as a democracy (in English), then our disagreement is about nothing more than the dictionary.
Plus, it is not wholly true that rural equals conservative and urban equals progressive. Minnesota is very rural and quite liberal, while nearly every major city in Texas, Oklahoma, and Utah are dominantly conservative. Your sweeping generalities are obscuring the issue.
The issue is really economic. Neoliberal economics lost, because the people who are winning in that system is dwindling.
Hey, a fair number of people died so that our current problem of red states overriding blue states, and vice versa, wouldn’t happen but we know which side won.
I’m ALL FOR me, as an Alabamian, not having a say as to what goes on in Oregon, but that same courtesy isn’t being extended in the opposite direction — or at least USG, who forces such upon the states, won’t allow that courtesy to be extended as far as a lot of people would like.
Hey Kilden! Let’s do about the “math” for today’s liberal “revolution”. Kooky Liberal shooter with long gun and lots of ammo, shoots at 40-60 unarmed Republicans playing baseball, along with two detail cops with side arms. Score? 50-60 shots fired. 2 cops wounded. 3 (?) Republicans wounded. 1 kooky liberal hater / shooter dead. Sounds like the cops are much better shots than kooky liberal haters, even with only side arms for the cops! With “revolutionaries” like that, do we really have any enemies? ; – ) I think for the typical kooky liberal, their eyes (and their mouth), are… Read more »
What makes you think this guy was typical?
You missed the distinction. “Kooky liberal shooter” and “Typical Kooky Liberal” are not the same thing. Although they do have a lot of over lap. A typical kooky liberal, weather he knows it or not, is in naive agreement with the below Karl Marx “affordable society act”. : – 0 It is as bad as the affordable care act, except with a lot more bloodshed. “If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and,… Read more »
Some nut kills people and suddenly the entire 40% of the country that identifies with the left in some way is out for a revolution? Do we think there may be an alternative, less excitable, less us-and-them interpretation somewhere?
I’ve never claimed 40%, but it’s pretty shocking what people associated with HuffPo, DailyKos, Vox, etc. have said about it:
https://thefederalist.com/2017/06/14/insane-reactions-alexandria-shooting-thus-far/
Not to mention the HuffPo’s article calling for Trump’s “ultimate punishment”….
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/15/huffpo-scrubs-jason-fullers-ultimate-punishment-tr/
No well-known conservative sites said anything remotely similar about Obama. So there’s a major difference in the rhetoric from the left and right.
Some nut? He seemed fairly functional when he systematically opposed Trump and worked to get Bernie elected. He was rational enough to plan and execute (no pun intended) an assassination.
Being violent is not the same thing as being clinically insane.
But if you don’t want to be included in with the violent Leftists, then the voices on the Left need to do as Bernie did here and openly disavow this stuff. Normally, they talk about how shutting down speakers with the threat of violence is “speech.”
Dude, “voices on the left” can’t do anything of the sort, because the left isn’t a hive mind like you seem to think, and to the extent that the left has appointed representatives, by electing Democrats to office, they have quite openly “disavowed” this one.
You gotta love it when the Southern Baptists go all Social Justice Warrior. http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/14/politics/southern-baptist-convention-alt-right/index.html
I can’t wait to see the massive revival of leftists converting and joining the SBC after this.
I deplore SJWism, but condemning the alt-right is not SJW, it’s Christian.
Amen.
I will believe that when they put out a resolution condemning black lives matter. I will hold my breath.
Do you consider it necessary to pass a resolution to condemn any group who has some unchristian ideas? If so, then we need to see the string of resolutions condemning leftist groups. Otherwise, this just a way to virtue signal the SBC SJW credentials.
Back in 2016 World Magazine publically called upon then candidate Trump to resign his candidacy after the Billy Bush “grabbing” incident. I understand and agree with World’s idea there, but it was telling that they never called upon Hillary to resign. I have never heard a reasonable answer why Hillary’s pro-abortion views didn’t disqualify her as much or more than Trump’s character flaws, not from them or anyone.
The SBC could have easily condemned racism as displayed by some in the alt-right AND in BLM in the same resolution.
Sometimes what is not said speaks louder than what is.
Upvote
Condemning the views and behaviors of the pernicious aspects of the alt-right is Christian; condemning labels that will be (and already have been) weaponized is handing the enemy a weapon. The SBC would have been fine if it would have stuck to condemning ideas and those who hold them; condemning a label creates all sorts of problems, especially a label that gets thrown around whenever a leftist wants to insult someone. By the definition of some leftists I know, everyone here up to including MeMe and jilly is alt-right. That said, I’m not siding with those who say that opposing… Read more »
I have a pretty good idea what alt-right is and is not. But can we please stop saying “weaponize” all the time?
Good comment, Jane, especially about how progressives will slap the label on anyone who’s a quarter inch to their right.
But I think that the SJW aspect becomes clear when one considers why they are going only after one group and not others. They would have been communicating something very different if the only group they called out by name for racist tendencies was BLM.
They did not axe the resolution. They stayed up all night hashing it out,edited it, and the next day, overwhelmingly passed it. Much prayer was behind them. Ironically,they tabled it at first, hoping to deal with it at a later date. But Richard Spencer went on twitter in such a fashion, that they decided perhaps alt right racism really was a problem. Then they drug it back out, refined it, and passed it.
They axed the original resolution, is what I mean. I applaud them for passing the revised version.
How is this not virtue signalling? Will anything substantive come from this resolution? Nope. Ah, we must openly condemn sin in all its form. I see, then let’s see the SBC be consistent. Let’s see the resolutions against the antifa protesters, the blm thugs, the Bernie bros, and the Clinton cabal. Let’s see them pass the urgently needed resolutions against sin in all its form. If a denomination selectively calls out one group, because some of their ideas are sinful, and they are, but not others, then one has to ask themselves why. This is a big mistake, because placating… Read more »
Well said.
Durden wrote:
Great point. Durden makes a strong case that this was nothing more than virtue signalling.
There’s another part of the resolution that I have not yet seen anyone comment on:
Unintentional? Yeah, that can be true, but it also throws open the gate for nonstop virtue signaling. “When you ask them how much should we give, ooo they only answer ‘More, more, more, more’, y’all”
“If a denomination selectively calls out one group, because some of their ideas are sinful, and they are, but not others, then one has to ask themselves why. “ Here is the crux of the SBC Resolution: “RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention, meeting in Phoenix, Arizona, June 13–14, 2017, decry every form of racism, including alt-right white supremacy, as antithetical to the Gospel of Jesus Christ; and be it further RESOLVED, That we denounce and repudiate white supremacy and every form of racial and ethnic hatred as a scheme of the devil intended to bring suffering… Read more »
Is there a lot of BLM support, Sanders fandom, and Clinton cabalism within the SBC? Perhaps they’re mostly concerned with cleaning their own house, rather than virtue signaling by denouncing stuff other people are doing wrong?
I can’t speak for the SBC, but the PCA has its share of social justice garbage–from hipster pastors/RUF types to seminary profs. When BLM was a hot topic a year or so ago, many of them were sympathetic and didn’t condemn the violence (yes, there have been violent acts by some BLMers). This crowd is much bigger in the Reformed world than the Alt-R. I’d guess it’s similar for the SBC. If you’re going to name names, then name every group and movement.
Jane, I don’t think they are cleaning their own house. The original draft of the Resolution was from a black minister. When it was not passed, many people claimed this was implicit support of “alt-right”. Rather than ignore this, it seems the politically correct action was to pass yet another Resolution denouncing racism (one of several over the years) with a specific mention of “alt-right”.
If there is actual sin in the SBC houses of worship, then use the denominational levers to rid itself of it or openly censor the voices advocating for this sin.
While there may be support within SBC pews for the Alt-right, and I seriously doubt it is really that much, if there are voices and pastors preaching sin, then knock off the tooth-less resolutions and do something substantive.
You are being far too kind in your reading of this. This is driven by a desire to be liked by what the good pastors calls the cool kids.
I would like your comment if I had figured out how to like comments.
Jonathan, you have to be a “member” to vote up or down.
Ok can someone tell me how I become a member? When I click on connect with google or twitter it says “Authentication failed. Either you have cancelled the authentication or Twitter/Google refused the connection.”
This happens on my desktop and my phone.
“They extol reasonable and sane public discourse, and then if a lone nut shoots somebody on the other side of the country, they are assigning responsibility to all their personal enemies within ten minutes.”
“The climate that actually encourages this kind of thing is a climate of hyper-politicalization, when absolutely anything is used against your political adversaries, provided you think you can make some points with it, whether or not all parties are able to join together in condemning whatever it is.”
The person who wrote those quotes appears wiser than the person who wrote this article.
Jonathan wrote:
If Jonathan had something productive and constructive to offer, why didn’t he just say it instead of giving us another round of his empty sniping at Wilson?
I thought those two quotes were constructive. Even flattering of the author at the same time.
And I hope you can see the irony in your complaint.
When it’s at the point that people are referring to Doug’s White Knight and everyone knows who is being spoken about without the necessity of naming….
Jonathan wrote: When it’s at the point that people are referring to Doug’s White Knight and everyone knows who is being spoken about without the necessity of naming…. Jonathan flatters himself. I knew who “wrote this article”, since I came to Doug’s blog to read it. I had to google for the other quotes to discover that they were also from Doug. At which point I realized that Jonathan was just attempting another of his veiled jabs at Wilson. If Jonathan wants to differentiate Wilson from Wilson, he will actually need to provide an argument at some point. That would… Read more »
Katecho, you just completely misread the sentence you quoted. As you often misread me. Go back and look at it again, say it to yourself a couple times, and you’ll get it.
As far as your complaint, how is it a “veiled jab”? I thought the jab was quite clear. The only thing “veiled” in a very minimal way is that I’m using Pastor Wilson’s own words to support my critique.
Jonathan wrote: As far as your complaint, how is it a “veiled jab”? I thought the jab was quite clear. The only thing “veiled” in a very minimal way is that I’m using Pastor Wilson’s own words to support my critique. What critique? The only thing clear is that Jonathan is attempting to imply a contradiction between Wilson’s handling of two different situations. Since he has declined to provide any argument, or any actual point of contradiction, when invited to do so, nothing has been clarified. Perhaps Jonathan thinks that we will supply the missing argument for him? Perhaps he… Read more »
Katecho, I already stated my exact argument, and you ignored it. I’m tired of your ridiculous tired cliches and personal attacks. I am done responding to you.
If Jonathan wants to contend that Wilson has taken a contradictory position between the two different situations, he’ll need to spell it out. He’s definitely not done so yet.
And I thought that Pastor Wilson was quite clear in the quotes and didn’t see the need to interpret them for you. Hyper-politicalization, when absolutely anything is used against your political adversaries, is the climate that encourages these things. So when a lone nut kills someone, don’t go blaming all your political enemies for his lone nut actions.
Fascists don’t make logically consistent coherent arguments. They raise the volume or use coarse language in order to be heard. When all else fails, they jump the rails with gusto.
They dehumanize (see Reza Aslan) to justify their violence (in the heart or physically).
Umm…we’re finally criticizing logically inconsistent arguments, raising the volume, and coarse language now?
While there are certainly leftists who do all that, did the right just choose to represent themselves with a certain man who….might fit that definition to a T?
And would you consider, “Democrats aren’t even people to me” to be sort of the definition of “dehumanization”?
Perhaps ron was including the “fascists” of both the left and right varieties?
I’m not sure how much Trump represents the right…being pro-ssm and pro-preborn murder at some time. (The GOP listens to evangelicals as much as the Democrats listen to urban single mothers.) Others might say that Trump being an role-player in Vince McMahon’s traveling play (http://tinyurl.com/nesog35) makes him the epitome of the right. You’ll not find me defending DJT on the basis of volume or bravado, but I don’t deny that he brings the level of discourse down a notch. I suppose if you wanted to be supremely obtuse, you could insist that merely labeling people fascists dehumanizes and justifies violence… Read more »
How much of the trouble is related to a public square which has no face, only a screen? People talking with people and not screens tend toward finding a limit to what they will say, and ultimately do. People talking to screens have no such built-in limits. Liberal – make a conservative friend and listen to what he says. Conservative – make a liberal friend and listen to what he says. Keep your mouth shut long enough to learn something. Then have a real discussion about the issues that will bring us all down in a heap together. You might… Read more »