None of these white conservative men are historians or scholars on actual totalitarianism.
Dreher (who has a bachelors degree in journalism) “has written extensively about what he calls the "Benedict Option", the idea that Christians who want to preserve their faith should segregate themselves to some degree from "post-Obergefell” [the Supreme Court case that legalized folks, you know, getting married and shit - Dan] society, which he sees as drifting ever further away from traditional Christian values (particularly those regarding sex, marriage, and gender).” [wikipedia]
He's also written about what HE (and not any serious historians or scholars) thinks about what HE (and not any serious historians or scholars that I can find) calls “soft totalitarianism.” The idea being, as one might expect, that mean liberals are "forcing" by "soft totalitarianism" people to accept ideas they don't like.
Here's Dreher...
Soft totalitarianism, by contrast, depends on people being afraid of losing comfort, status, and at worst, employment, to force conformity. Nevertheless, because so few people today will be willing to suffer for the truth, it will achieve by softer means what the earlier version achieved through harsh means.
Finally, the softness of soft totalitarianism is also a reference to the fact that we are building a total control society for the sake of compassion, in order to create a “safe space” for favored minorities.
https://cbmw.org/2021/06/08/an-interview-with-rod-dreher-on-soft-totalitarianism/
And just as a reminder, here's the definition of actual totalitarianism...
Totalitarianism is
a form of government
that prohibits opposing
political parties and ideologies,
while controlling all aspects of the
public and private lives of the people.
Under a totalitarian regime, all
citizens are subject to the absolute authority of the state.
Or...
Totalitarianism is generally identified by
dictatorial centralized rule
dedicated to controlling all public and private aspects of individual
life,
to the benefit of the state,
through coercion,
intimidation, and
repression.
Totalitarian states are typically ruled by autocrats or dictators who
demand unquestioned loyalty and
control public opinion through propaganda distributed via government-controlled media.
https://www.thoughtco.com/totalitarianism-definition-and-examples-5083506
So, in short, "soft totalitarianism" is NOTHING LIKE actual totalitarianism.
The ideas that Dreher points to and objects to are the ideas of applying peer pressure for the sake of not oppressing people. But applying peer pressure is NOT totalitarianism.
If a company truly believes in accepting LGBTQ folks, for instance, and requires their employees to address people by their preferred pronouns (the horror!), the employee who wants to be a rude jackass is free to leave the company if they don't want to be a decent human being at literally no cost to themselves. (Let's face it: a woman asking you to refer to them as She or anyone requesting you refer to them as THEM is just about the lowest bar one could possibly put in place for not being a total douche). There is no government involvement, no torture, no dictators, no controlling of every aspect of one's life, no illegal coercion, no oppression, no jail... just an expectation to be a decent human being and, if one doesn't want to comply, then they can be fired.
That is not any kind of totalitarianism. It's peer pressure, naught else.
The same for boycotts or just dirty looks and losing friends for being a jerk. It's not oppression to say, "I can't be your friend if you're going to be a jerk to people doing nothing but living their life..."
It's just not.
So, here again, we have the whole "War on Christmas/Christians" emotional response from the religious right to people just asking them to be decent human being, or at least, not be a jerk. There is no war on Christmas or Christianity. People are free to find rude behavior to be rude and unwanted. Peer pressure is precisely the sort of change agent we want to see in a free and non-violent world. It's a respectful of human rights and peaceful way to try to effect positive change and fight actual oppression.
I have two questions about this that I'd love to hear conservatives give a thoughtful response to...
Prior to 1960, white conservative Christianity had a profound control of the dominant culture. If you were LGBTQ prior to 1960, you HAD to keep it in the closet for your own safety.
If it were found out or one was even suspected of it, they could be literally arrested, beaten, kicked out of their family, shunned by their faith community, gossiped about and demonized across the city and suspected of being a threat to children and people everywhere. You could be (and people were) chemically castrated!. This extreme pressure (which included peer pressure, but went way beyond it because you could be arrested and the threats of violence were never-ending and IF a person were arrested for beating/killing a gay person, there was a good chance the charges would be dismissed as justifiable!) was largely because of conservative religious teachings and beliefs.
First of all, I'd like to know if conservative Christians today can acknowledge that reality?
Secondly, I'd like to know if they can call out this extreme peer pressure AND government oppression as the great evil it was and admit it was much closer to actual totalitarianism than anything they are seeing today?
After all, you can be publicly Christian or even conservative Christian and you won't lose your job for that. You certainly won't go to jail for it. It's only if you act like a jerk and refuse to treat others with some basic decency (and again, at literally NO COST to them) that you'd be at risk of losing your job.
It would be easier to take conservatives seriously about their concern about so-called "soft totalitarianism" today IF they could recognize that much worse was done by conservatives prior to, really, the 1970s.
And one final thought: I'm thinking that this idea of "soft totalitarianism" is something that is spreading in conservative echo chambers across the nation. Conservatives truly think they are being oppressed or at risk of being oppressed and it's in part because of non-historians, non-scholars like Dreher loosely passing on ridiculous ideas like this "soft totalitarianism."
The problem with this is that conservatives seem to be moving further and further, faster and faster into the hands and ideas being passed on by people who aren't experts in the fields they're talking about and who are using inflammatory language that only serves to spread the irrational fears that conservatives appear to be prone to. We have to find some way to move away from this conspiracy-leaning mindset embraced by way too many.
And no, conservatives, that doesn't mean we're going to put you in jail for being irrationally fearful. But we WILL ask you to not spread dangerous false claims. Be better than that. Be a conservative who breaks free of that fear.
Or at the very least, don't be a jerk.
60 comments:
OK. I'll bite. But I'm sure you'll act all totalitarian in no time by saying I'm not responding in the manner you demand.
First of all, I'd like to know if conservative Christians today can acknowledge that reality?
First of all, anytime you demand acknowledgement of what you regard as reality, it behooves the reader to research beyond your rhetoric to see exactly what the reality was. It seems that your reality is once again tainted by pro-homosexual feelings on your part, and surely influenced by one-sided anecdotes from homosexuals, which is pretty much the standard regarding their tales of woe. Without having the time to dig deeply to present actual reality, especially given all the many woes you list before your question, I'm quite content and prepared to acknowledge the "gay" community has had a rough go of it, though most of it is mere whining about not getting their way. I offer this quick synopsis of the history. Note how little was offered under "Violence Against Gay Men". I wonder why they limited the subject to the 1970's, using an example where the chief suspect was a homosexual himself.
Secondly, I'd like to know if they can call out this extreme peer pressure AND government oppression as the great evil it was and admit it was much closer to actual totalitarianism than anything they are seeing today?
NO and NO. For the first part, there remains the question of the morality (as well as health) of homosexual behavior. Behavior generally has a moral component which is justifiably worthy of public rejection if adjudged immoral. Laws are often crafted to reflect this and to compel better behavior as perceived by that populace. When the culture drifts to the immoral, laws regarding the immoral behavior change to reflect that sad occurrence, as has happened with regard to homosexuality and those who engage in it. While we can refer to this as "peer pressure", so too can we regard all laws which regulate human behavior. Thus, so what?
As to the second part, in the same way, all laws...by your logic...represent totalitarianism. As such, it's ironic that you would criticize those opining on the subject of "soft totalitarianism" without first being scholars on the subject of totalitarianism, when clearly you're not clear on what it looks like...your posted definition notwithstanding. To have laws which prohibit in some way the proliferation of immoral behavior, by definition, cannot be "great evil" as you choose to put it due to your leanings, since the immoral behavior...being immoral...is the true evil. This once again indicts your ability to recognize reality.
As to what I thought was the actual topic until you chose to make it about homosexuality, for any of the "accused" to speak on a term coined by one of them is not a matter of assuming any role of expert...and again, if you are possessed of at least a Master's Degree is a given subject, what business do you have daring to speak on it when you criticize other "non-experts" for doing so...but simply describing what they see and relating it to something similar. But their positions are solid. There is indeed a push by the left to censor, cancel and threaten all who disagree with them. This is the essence of what they're saying (based on my limited research). Indeed, this administration is encouraging businesses to act on their behalf so it can say it isn't doing the totalitarian dance on those who disagree with them. But it is seen all over and has been for quite some time now. How many people have lost their jobs or stepped down from even ownerships after daring to speak out against a leftist position like "gay marriage"? We see leftist news shows denying invites to anyone who opposes climate change, for pete's sake. Look at the crap people dealt with by BLM asshats disturbing them during dinner. Look at restaurants refusing service to those who worked for Trump. Putting people in a position where they must stifle their opinions to the point where no one knows they hold it lest they lose their jobs, memberships is more than mere "peer pressure", Dan. It's despotic. The fact that it's perpetrated by members of the private sector as opposed to Dem/socialist politicians is just the method being used to achieve the same end. The result of it is hoped to be and in so many cases been shown to be "dictatorial centralized rule
dedicated to controlling all public and private aspects of individual life,
to the benefit of the state, through coercion, intimidation, and repression." Leftists in the private sector are acting as agents of the leftist government which is promoting all the things the private sector is pushing via their "peer pressure" as you call it. But unlike your hapless homosexuals, those attacked by these fascists are NOT the immoral ones. That's YOUR side of the divide, and you need such totalitarian tactics...soft or otherwise...because good people don't buy what you're selling.
Do you think an employer can reasonably fire an employee for using the N word to refer to black people, the B word to refer to women, the F word to refer to gay people?
Is that "soft totalitarianism" or a reasonable employer option?
And if it's "soft totalitarianism" to apply peer pressure/social pressure to folks for getting the vaccine or not being a jerk towards gay folk, etc, then why is it not "soft totalitarianism" to use peer pressure to demonize and ostracize LGBTQ folk?
If you could, would you criminalize gay and lesbian folk getting married to the person of their choice?
If you could, would you criminalize "gay behavior..."?
If you answer no on either of the last two questions, were people wrong in the past to criminalize the activities of what happened in the privacy of people's homes?
Were churches wrong to support "sodomy laws?"
Marshal... "what business do you have daring to speak on it when you criticize other "non-experts" for doing so...but simply describing what they see and relating it to something similar..."
1. Peer pressure and societal pressure is not similar to totalitarianism. Let me say that again.
Peer pressure and societal pressure to do good work/not oppress people it's not in any way similar to totalitarianism.
It's vitally important that you understand that. do you understand that?
2. When someone states something In an authoritative manner it is reasonable to question if this just something they're pulling out of their ass or is it based on something?
When someone states something in an authoritative manner about something as serious as totalitarianism and compares it to what the "other" political group is doing and they do so not based on the authority of any scholarly research but just an empty claim, it is very important to note that and call it out. It is important to do so even if you aren't a scholar, as long as you're able to investigate and see that it's not a scholarly claim but a sick partisan claim.
Marshal... "Behavior generally has a moral component which is justifiably worthy of public rejection if adjudged immoral."
So, society has judged refusing to call a woman She to be immoral.. So then by your measure, such behavior is deserving of a rejection. Is that right?? Or does it depend on who decides it's immoral or not?
“I'm sure you'll act all totalitarian in no time by saying I'm not responding in the manner you demand.”
Stone cold hypocrite.
Texas is a sharia-law-like state. Hard totalitarianism.
Marshal... "We see leftist news shows denying invites to anyone who opposes climate change, for pete's sake."
Well, a show dealing with the reality of climate change and inviting experts and scientists to speak on the topic is under no obligation to invite a plumber to the invitation, just because he is a climate science denier.
On the other hand, any serious scientists who have data to talk about another point of view other than the dominant consensus would likely be invited. If they were a serious scientist with actual data.
Not all "opinions" are equal.
Marshal... " It seems that your reality is once again tainted by pro-homosexual feelings on your part, and surely influenced by one-sided anecdotes from homosexuals,"
Do you not now that "sodomy laws" were used to harass and imprison gay people? That gay people (or people suspected of being gay) were regularly beaten, killed, harassed, kicked out of their homes, demonized in their churches if they didn't repent, etc, throughout at least the last 100 years (and I'm confident, even before)?
Of course you know that gay people couldn't get married prior to just a few years ago.
Are you saying that you are not aware of the reality of the oppression of LGBTQ folk over the last century?
Or that you don't know that churches helped promote these harmful ideas of LGBTQ folk?
Are you not aware of the various, endless sermons that complain about the "sodomites" who will incur God's wrath on the US?
Were you not aware that it wasn't safe to be an "out" LGBTQ person until very recently? (and still not, sometimes and some places).
What are you disagreeing with?
https://time.com/5600232/lgbt-crime-history/
https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-adv-lgbt-archive-20150830-story.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/us/a-brief-history-of-attacks-at-gay-and-lesbian-bars.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48564480
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_gay_men_in_the_United_States#1900%E2%80%931949
Billy Graham...
"Graham also spoke out on the subject of the AIDS crisis, telling a record-breaking crowd of 44,300 in Cooper Stadium in Columbus, Ohio, in 1993, “Is AIDS a judgment of God? I could not be sure, but I think so.”
Franklin Graham...
On the organization's website, Franklin Graham has claimed Satan is behind LGBTQ rights and activism, has said there is “no place for compromise” on same-sex marriage and has praised Russian leaders who he said have "stood steadfastly against the rising homosexual agenda in their country."
I'm sure if I did some research, I could find huge numbers of quotes from sermons condemning "the homosexual agenda" and LGBTQ, kicking them out of churches if they don't repent. We know it happens in the real world because we hear about it every day from LGBTQ folk.
Are you saying you're ignorant of this reality?
Responding to your voluminous list of questions and assertions will take time. But while going over them it occurred to me two things:
1. Your blog is a great example of the soft totalitarianism expressed by Dreher. The burden you put on visitors to act a certain way does not lend itself to good faith discourse given you never act in good faith with your visitors who oppose your wacky beliefs. You don't find that kind of nonsense at my blog. You'll note I've always given you room to express yourself as poorly as always without any more than a plea that you reserve your hypocritical use of f-bombs for your own blog...especially if you're going to continue insisting on a growing list of words I cannot use, despite their accuracy and appropriateness.
2. Peer pressure can be argue to be the softest of totalitarianism. But in practice, it truly is simply a way to convince without real consequence for failing to be convinced. That is to say, when I was a kid, I witnessed such pressure from some members of my crowed toward others, but non-compliance never resulted in being cast out. Most of what you've presented are not instances of peer pressure, but ultimatums for maintaining employment, membership or simply a life lived without being targeted and scorned.
One more thing...it still seems you're not so much concerned with the concept of soft totalitarianism as you are with defending homosexuals. If it is your intention to do both here, that's perfectly fine with me. As to your questions and assertions, I'll be getting to them soon, but in pieces, as I'm going out of town.
I've been using the real world example of the oppression of LGBTQ folk by society and including conservative (and even moderate) churches because it's an easy-to-see, impossible to dispute example. But the point is how ridiculous it is to call peer pressure a form of totalitarianism. BUT, IF YOU THINK THAT, then surely you'll have to be consistent and condemn the church for most of last century (and prior) for doing exactly this sort of "soft totalitarianism..." with the exception that the church actually implemented laws to do the oppressing, instead of being content with "soft totalitarianism."
Waiting to see if you'll be consistent.
And by the way, my deleting comments that attack innocent people with dangerous and foul language is simply NOT totalitarianism. It's defending historically oppressed people from continued oppression.
And my deleting comments in the midst of a dialog when people refuse to answer reasonable questions is just a way to try to hold a reasoned dialog. It is ridiculous to call that "soft totalitarianism..." There just is no comparison.
Marshal... "The burden you put on visitors to act a certain way does not lend itself to good faith discourse given you never act in good faith with your visitors who oppose your wacky beliefs."
The "burdens" I'm placing on visitors are pretty simple and reasonable.
1. If you're making a disputable fact claim, either support it or acknowledge it's not an objective fact.
That is rational and certainly not any sort of totalitarianism. It's just not.
2. Don't attack historically oppressed people... and especially Don't attack them with vulgar, obscene words.
2a. In case you're not clear, the R word relating to those with intellectual disabilities, the N word, the B or Wh*** words relating to women are all the very most vulgar words used historically to oppress marginalized people and groups. Those words WILL be deleted here.
This is neither unreasonable nor does it bear ANY connection to totalitarianism.
Marshal... "more than a plea that you reserve your hypocritical use of f-bombs for your own blog..."
The F word, used as an adjective especially, has not been used to oppress historically oppressed people. Fucking cowards, fucking insane are merely crude ways of expressing extreme disdain. The words you have used have been and continue to be used by pedophiles, rapists and other oppressors.
You don't need to be able to understand the difference to understand they won't be allowed here.
When I DO use such crude words, it has only been at conservative blogs and used there judiciously, as an object lesson to differentiate between the actually oppressively vulgar ("grab women by the p****") and the merely socially crude.
And still, such limitations are not an infringement of free speech nor related to totalitarianism.
"Your blog is a great example of the soft totalitarianism expressed by Dreher. The burden you put on visitors to act a certain way does not lend itself to good faith discourse given you never act in good faith with your visitors who oppose your wacky beliefs. You don't find that kind of nonsense at my blog."
Stone cold hypocrite. (Because he's scared.)
“You don't find that kind of nonsense at my blog."
Stone cold liar. (Because he’s scared.)
Calling peer pressure "soft totalitarianism" and comparing it in ANY way to, you know, actually fascist, murderous, oppressive totalitarianism is comparable to comparing a massage to widespread cancer. A massage helps, is kind and compassionate (when invited) and it is not dangerous.
They're comparing apples to Armageddon.
Still low on time...I can't wait to totally dive into this...there are degrees of most everything, Dan. I made my point that some might argue peer pressure is the softest of totalitarianism based on the definition of the word you provided. But then you ignore the point regarding your clear misunderstanding of the term, or it's perversion to suit your point.
Good faith discourse contradicts your cheap rationalization for censoring words here and assuming the right to use foul language at the blogs of others. While my use of words are far more legitimate in terms of accuracy and appropriateness, yours is not only an attempt to posture yourself as righteously outraged, but ignores any respect for the host of the blog where you engage in such behavior, while hypocritically demanding an extremely narrow and intentionally stifling degree of it here.
Out of time.
In a similar vein, some reject the use of the word "persecution" with regard to the treatment of actual Christians in this country because it doesn't rise to the level of harm inflicted upon Christians around the world who are oppressed by islamists. But again, it's persecution nonetheless despite being to a far, far lesser degree. The same is true of other words, like "fascism" and even "evil". And don't forget, Christ put hatred alongside murder.
Marshal... "I made my point that some might argue peer pressure is the softest of totalitarianism based on the definition of the word you provided."
But it's NOT totalitarianism in ANY sense. Words have meanings. A hiccup is not the same as a tornado and no one can say otherwise. You can't call a hiccup a "soft tornado," it's just a crazy claim not based in any kind of reality.
Now, if you want to say something like "He sneezed like a hurricane" if one wants to be hyperbolic and humorous and that would be fine.
But to say, "These liberals and their peer pressure are like a soft version of totalitarianism... we better watch out!" is not rational.
I think Feodor is right. You all live in fear of becoming increasingly irrelevant (and that fear is not unjustified, because you are becoming increasingly irrelevant) and as the immoral ones (ditto) and you're just blindly striking out, making insane comparisons that are simply not based in reality. And it's one thing when it's a ridiculous hyperbole that everyone laughs at. It's another thing when it's only serving to fearmonger more conservatives into thinking that "liberals" and "the press" and "the democrats" are all enemies to be prepared to fight.
That's what leads to Capitol insurrections when you don't get an election result you don't like.
And it's not "persecution," either! It just isn't. Words have meanings. Good Lord, have mercy on your poor frightened souls.
There were more COVID deaths in Florida in the last two weeks than US military deaths in Afghanistan in the last 20 years.
Florida is a totalitarian state.
Texas has amassed more than 50,000 confirmed COVID cases in students in just two weeks. Yep as is a leader in child deaths from COVID.
Texas is a totalitarian state.
Nurses in Birmingham, Al, hospital go on strike over being forced to work in deadly conditions and having their COVID pay revoked. Alabama’s GOP Governor got rid of the mask mandate and now all ICU beds are full.
Alabama is a totalitarian state.
"Words have meanings."
Yes they do. Some have many, others have few. For lefties like you, they have what you need them to have to make your argument and nothing more or less. Then of course for other words, like "marriage", "family", you lefties make up meanings they never had before. Here, persecution doesn't mean crucifixion only. Harassment is a form of persecution. Go ahead and look up the word, review as many sites as possible, and try to tell me the crap good actual Christians take from people like you doesn't qualify as persecution. Keep in mind while you reject the truth here, that no one says it's the same degree of persecution as the Christians burning before Nero, but it's persecution nonetheless.
For now, with time limited in way of which I am not completely certain, I'll get to your many questions and assertions referred to earlier.
"Do you think an employer can reasonably fire an employee for using the N word to refer to black people, the B word to refer to women, the F word to refer to gay people?"
I think an employer can do what he wants. That's not the point. And your example is far and away less so. But then, you have a tragic inability to formulate analogies. If your point...such as it is...is to question whether such an employer is acting in a totalitarian manner, the answer is "of course he is". But one can reasonably argue he's justified in his response, though I would say this is true if in each case the "perpetrator" was acting in none other than a malicious manner in using those terms. But what if the person was the victim of malicious behavior by the three? I would say that from a Christian perspective, it still uncool. But that only makes the employer's response that much more totalitarian. Personally, I prefer people stop whining about what words are hurled their way and consider what else was said as much more important. But that's me. I'm not a wuss.
"And if it's "soft totalitarianism" to apply peer pressure/social pressure to folks for getting the vaccine or not being a jerk towards gay folk, etc, then why is it not "soft totalitarianism" to use peer pressure to demonize and ostracize LGBTQ folk?"
Your first mistake is to equate "peer pressure" with what is described as "soft totalitarianism". I take that back. It's no mistake at all, is it? You do it purposely in an attempt to mock those who describe the state of affairs. Again, typical "peer pressure" doesn't usually result in losing a job, being outcast from a social group or any other form or ostracism or marginalization. To lose one's job, to being denied access to restaurants, sporting events, other businesses, and now apparently, medical attention, that's not "peer pressure". Again, that's an ultimatum. "Act as we say, or else!" Totalitarianism.
And of course, one is not a "jerk" for acknowledging the sinfulness and abnormality of homosexuality, and if you delete this comment for saying that, you'll be acting like a totalitarian...forcing me to act in only a way that conflicts and contradicts my personal beliefs in subordination to yours. Rather than persuade me to your side, you validate my beliefs because if my beliefs are wrong, you should be able to argue it out until I come around. But your fascistic response...which is the only form your response takes to anything said in opposition to the agenda...demonstrates you have no way to accomplish that feat.
I don't believe I suggested there's no totalitarianism against homosexuals, and there certainly was in the past. The difference, however, is that the practice is sinful and to cast out the unrepentant sinner is a most Christian response (Matt 18:17, 1 Cor 5:1-13, Rom 16:17, Titus 3:10-11) You more than seem to regard the Christian as the bad guy for doing what Scripture teaches in response to those who reject what Scripture teaches.
"If you could, would you criminalize gay and lesbian folk getting married to the person of their choice?"
In this country, there was never any criminalizing for such, as such could not happen. No state or municipality would license such a union as a marriage because such a union is not marriage by its true definition. Words have meanings, except where the leftist finds the true meanings inconvenient. But if two homosexuals wanted to commit to each other as legitimate married couples do, that's their business. I would not legally recognize it because there's no benefit to the culture to do so...no benefit to society.
"If you could, would you criminalize "gay behavior..."?"
For all the rational and logical reasons given by Antonin Scalia in his dissent regarding the Lawrence v Texas case, I would prefer that but with mild to no enforcement, so long as, again, it's two consenting people in the privacy of their own abodes. It's the same as prostitution...or must I call it "sex workers" in order to avoid deletion?...in that it is immoral, unhealthy behavior which corrupts the culture. I can't...and wouldn't...implement a theocracy, but that doesn't mean I have to allow any form of unChristian immorality gain legal acceptance.
"If you answer no on either of the last two questions, were people wrong in the past to criminalize the activities of what happened in the privacy of people's homes?"
No. A society has the right to determine what it regards as unwholesome and destructive to the culture and legislate against it. Whether this particular behavior requires that isn't as important to me as civil law treating it as no different than actual marriage on the character of the culture. It is said government can do three things: outlaw it, legalize it or ignore it. This should have been ignored and any criminal behavior against homosexuals should be dealt with as in any other case. But again, there's no benefit to the culture in enabling immoral behaviors such as this, and how the law treats such is not something to take lightly. Our society has done just that and the negative impact persists.
"Were churches wrong to support "sodomy laws?""
No. In the same vein as above, they're not necessarily wrong to oppose them depending upon how the laws are actually worded. Worse is that too many now enable the behavior and pretend, as the perpetrators do, that they're still right with God in doing so.
That's all for now. Maybe I can squeeze in a few more a bit later, after which it could be awhile.
GOP controlled states are totalitarian and disregard life.
"“What really protects children are the interventions directed at the rest of society,” said Dr. Thomas Tsai, an assistant professor in the health policy department at Harvard University.
State-level vaccination coverage appears to be making a difference. States with the highest vaccination rates in the country have seen relatively flat pediatric hospital admissions for Covid-19 so far, while states with the lowest vaccine coverage have child hospital admissions that are around four times as high."
Dan asked if Marshal would criminalize homosexual behavior. Marshal answered... "I would prefer that but with mild to no enforcement..."
You would criminalize consenting adults being intimate in their own homes and not harming anyone else... and yet you think businesses firing people for calling transgender women "he" is "soft totalitarianism."
Criminalizing non-harmful behavior and choices to adhere to your own personal religious whims and doing so for all people, even those who disagree with your personal religious whims comes MUCH closer to actual totalitarianism than employers choosing to fire people who are rude.
And no, it's not in anyway similar to totalitarianism, "soft" or otherwise.
It's just not and you're just wrong.
No need to respond further. I gave you enough of a leash and don't want to see further justification for something much closer to totalitarianism.
Thanks for the honesty. I'm just sorry you don't see the inconsistency or hypocrisy or creeping totalitarianism in your own religious whims.
Your notion of "good or justified totalitarianism" is just perverse.
Marshal... " typical "peer pressure" doesn't usually result in losing a job, being outcast from a social group or any other form or ostracism or marginalization. To lose one's job, to being denied access to restaurants, sporting events, other businesses, and now apparently, medical attention, that's not "peer pressure". Again, that's an ultimatum. "Act as we say, or else!" Totalitarianism."
It's not. It's liberty. A company has the right to join the KKK if he wants. AND the people in the community have a right to boycott (apply societal peer pressure) on that company if they want to. It's free speech. It's liberty.
The company or individual has their free speech, BUT they don't have ANY right to being free from all repercussions of that free speech. This is what I mean by peer pressure. Applying societal peer pressure on people, politicians and companies is what is taught in non-violent direct action.
If we can shame a governor into allowing black students into Alabama's schools, that is LIBERTY, not oppression, not totalitarianism.
But I bet you could get some KKK types to support your whims on this, no matter how wrong those whims are.
I'll say it again: The ability to apply societal pressure to affect changes for justice is one of the great triumphs of modern peacemaking efforts and it is just perverse to try to call THAT "oppression" or "totalitarianism."
One has no right to be free from repercussions from their reprehensible, oppressive views.
Today's "conservatives" want liberty for themselves with no personal responsibility. Ironically, this has been one of their criticisms of others for decades.
Marshal... " If your point...such as it is...is to question whether such an employer is acting in a totalitarian manner, the answer is "of course he is"."
Again, you're just failing to understand totalitarianism. The definition...
* Totalitarianism is a system of government under which the people are allowed virtually no authority, with the state holding absolute control.
* Most totalitarian regimes are ruled by autocrats or dictators.
* Totalitarian regimes typically violate basic human rights and deny common freedoms in maintaining total control over their citizens.
Now, sometimes totalitarian systems may express as justification for their totalitarianism a perceived public good. "It's for the safety of our nation," "It's to rid society of dangerous people," etc. But what makes totalitarianism, totalitarianism is that
1. It's a system of gov't
2. Generally ruled by autocrat/dictator
3. Typically violate human rights and deny common liberties to maintain total control.
That's why applying social pressure to "force" (via public shaming and righteous civic outing of oppressive policies) a governor to allow black students into their schools is not IN ANY WAY totalitarianism. It's not from the gov't, it's not oppressive, it's not seeking total control, it's not from a dictator. Without those elements, you just don't have totalitarianism.
Again, no need to respond. I think you've said enough.
Clearly, being totalitarian in your corruption, you now put an end to the conversation due to your inability to withstand truth, facts, logic and virtue. Are you not the government of your own blog world? Of course you are, having asserted repeatedly "my blog, my rules". Are you not despotic in your reign? Blatantly so as you delete for the slightest infraction rather than to avoid confronting the better argument. In doing so, you violate the rights of visitors to argue their superior position, defend against routine spurilous attacks and corrections of your false claims and you do this to maintain control.
No. That is literally not the definition of despot, totalitarianism or fascism. You're just literally factually wrong.
You have your free speech. I have no control over you - much less total control. I am no dictator. I am not violating your basic human rights.
You're confusing personal liberty (ie, I have the personal liberty to control what happens in my house or on my blog) with totalitarianism.
"Liberty" doesn't mean that YOU GET TO TROMP YOUR SHIT wherever you want. It does not mean that you have total control over other people.
You're thinking of a toddler's temper tantrum with liberty.
"Blatantly so as you delete for the slightest infraction rather than to avoid confronting the better argument. In doing so, you violate the rights of visitors to argue their superior position, defend against routine spurilous attacks and corrections of your false claims and you do this to maintain control."
Stone cold hypocrite and liar.
Clearly you reject the blatant hypocrisy of your response. I drew the obvious parallel between you and how you run your blog to the definition you posted. I have my free speech, generally speaking in this cancel culture, but not at your blog, where you reign with an iron hand in the face of anything which exposes the weaknesses of your positions, particularly as it's such an easy task. You don't see anything like it at my blog, or any of the many where you've been banned for far worse than any of t the weak reasons you've deleted me. At your blog you're an absolute despot.
Marshal... " I have my free speech, generally speaking in this cancel culture, but not at your blog, where you reign with an iron hand in the face of anything..."
YOU DON'T HAVE UNLIMITED FREEDOM OF SPEECH. No one is obligated to listen to you or give your words a single thought. No blog is obligated to let you post your comments at all. A blog not allowing comments (which happens SO FREQUENTLY on conservative blogs - are you calling them totalitarians?) is not the same as denying you freedom of speech.
What about this are you failing to understand?
Marshal... " I have my free speech, generally speaking in this cancel culture, but not at your blog, where you reign with an iron hand in the face of anything"
To the second half... I allow people to comment here with no censoring or pre-approval from me. IF someone attacks or speaks in a way that I believe to be vulgar in an oppressive manner (ie, calling black, gay, women or other names that have been used to oppress them historically), then I WILL delete such comments.
And IF I ask reasonable questions, I fully expect those questions to be answered. You are free to not answer them but I am free to delete comments until I am satisfied that the question has been answered.
NONE of that is totalitarianism or despotism. That is just childish, pre-K grade thinking.
You are not being oppressed. You are being a toddler in your reasoning.
Marshal resorted to making vulgar, oppressive comments about historically oppressed people and was deleted.
Marshal STILL doesn't understand that the world doesn't owe him a forum to post his false words. That people don't want to listen to your nonsense and vulgarities is not a sign that you are being oppressed.
Toughen up a bit, cupcake. You and modern Trump conservatism have become emotionally fragile mental weaklings.
If you want to comment, here's an easy question for you. An employer says he doesn't want any of his employees to use terms like the N word or the R word while on the job.
Is this a morally and rationally upright position...? and one that honors free speech in a reasonable way, consistent with what is reasonable in a free Republic?
If you answer that and agree with what is reasonable... that this is a reasonable, just and moral position and not contrary to free speech values in a free Republic, let's take it one step further.
What about a group of liberals and their allies who start a social media campaign to apply pressure to that business to implement a policy that does not allow such words to be said by the employees on the job.
Is such social pressure a good, reasonable and just use of public pressure and one that is consistent with free speech in a free Republic?
Marshal opted to respond by not answering the questions put to him but with comments that were irrational and emotionally fraught and used vulgar oppressive language. One comment from him...
"you invite comments by having a comment section following each post. And when you ask me questions, you owe me the right to respond in the manner I see fit without acting like a little ..."
This was followed by vulgar termed that rapists and sexual predators often use about women. Such language will not stand here. You'll have to get over yourself. And now focusing on this line...
"... You owe me the right to answer in the manner I see fit..."
?!
I'm guessing you just don't see the hyper emotional and fragile toddler level hissy fit of white privilege in your comment.. No one owes you anything.
I ask questions to get answers, but I don't owe You free rein to say just anything. I have a responsibility on my blog to monitor comments in a reasonable and adult fashion.I don't owe you shit. Especially if you're using the sort of language that you tend to use. And here, I'm not talking about merely cuss words. I'm talking about oppressive vulgar words.. As I have pointed out quite often and quite clearly.
This is not totalitarianism. You are seriously confused. I think your white privilege has driven you mad when you don't get your every little whim satisfied.
"I have my free speech, generally speaking in this cancel culture, but not at your blog, where you reign with an iron hand in the face of anything which exposes the weaknesses of your positions, particularly as it's such an easy task. You don't see anything like it at my blog, or any of the many where you've been banned for far worse than any of t the weak reasons you've deleted me. At your blog you're an absolute despot."
Stone cold hypocrite and committed liar.
A child of the darkness.
"An employer says he doesn't want any of his employees to use terms like the N word or the R word while on the job.
Is this a morally and rationally upright position...?"
It's morally and rationally upright for every employer to insist on all employees treating each other with respect. That which I've just stated in response to your question is a reasonable expectation most...if not all...employers have of their employees. But truly reasonable employers would never fire anyone for breaking any rule without first determining the circumstances which led to the presumed law breaking. Reasonable people don't crucify people for the mere uttering of inappropriate language...even against the sexually immoral...without first determining why the suspect did so. That's what "reasonable" looks like. You should study it for personal edification.
"What about a group of liberals and their allies who start a social media campaign to apply pressure to that business to implement a policy that does not allow such words to be said by the employees on the job.
Is such social pressure a good, reasonable and just use of public pressure and one that is consistent with free speech in a free Republic?"
What a grand bunch of pantywaists who would waste time and effort on something so lacking in significance. I could easily see moron lefties doing just that.
Such things...so long as they do so peacefully and not in a manner which interferes with the business operation...and perfectly acceptable, regardless of how wuss-like the grievance. Such behavior is worthy of being ignored and mocked. I'm sure the "they can find another job" response to actual soft totalitarian mandates would not be encouraged by you here, because you're all about double standards.
Boycotts are also an option, because what do you care about the employees and customers who would suffer as a result.
But it's all a sham. None of this is an illustration of what is meant by soft totalitarianism. Traditional notions of mutual respect and common courtesy is acceptable to everyone but you lefties who demand total compliance with whatever jacked-off notion fills your otherwise empty skulls. It's one thing to prohibit the use of the "N-word". It's quite another to cancel Frank Turec's consulting contract because one asshole homosexual looked him up on line, found his website wherein he argues perfectly and righteously for Traditional marriage and then whined about it. Or to fire someone, grade their school work poorly or refuse service for supporting Donald Trump for president. None of that is peer pressure. It's being outright assholes and there's nothing the least bit Constitutional about it. It's totalitarianism.
sigh.
I asked you if it was morally and rational upright position for an employer to expect his employees to not use the N word and other terms with an abusive/oppressive history.
You responded... "t's morally and rationally upright for every employer to insist on all employees treating each other with respect."
Not what I asked.
You continued... "But truly reasonable employers would never fire anyone for breaking any rule without first determining the circumstances which led to the presumed law breaking. "
Okay. But NOT what I asked.
I'm wanting to know if you agree that it is reasonable and NOT a free speech abuse for an employer to insist that his employees not use oppressive words like the N word?
Can you please answer the question that is asked?
And let's assume that such words might come up in "non-offense-intended" atmosphere. That is, a KKK customer walks in and there are no black folk around and the employee and the KKK customer begin talking about people using the N word.
IS an employer justified in REQUIRING that such terms not be used at their place of employment? Is that a morally rational position to take and one that is not an affront to free speech?
Answer the question being asked of you or just move on.
Within the confounds of free speech, I have ZERO moral or rational obligation to give you a platform for whatever crazy, foul ideas you may have.
You cite the case of one Frank Turek (correct spelling). Let's look at that.
Turek is an extreme right religious fundamentalist who does not believe gay folk should get married. And he is free to think that.
He has written books and articles about why gay folk should not be allowed to be married.
And he has lost an employment contract (free lance, I believe) because some found his views to be offensive.
And the person who complained and the companies that ended the contract are ALSO within their rights to not hire him.
Can you imagine it any other way?
That is, what if a church hired a pastor or a city hired a police chief and after the fact, they found out that this pastor/police chief had written KKK books. While that police chief/pastor has the free speech right to write such a book, the church and the city have EVERY RIGHT to not give him a job.
Are you suggesting that the church and the city in that case should be forced to keep that pastor/police chief in SPITE of their beliefs?
If you're suggesting that, then it seems your "free speech and liberty" views only go one way.
And furthermore, that church or city is NOT in any way violating someone's first amendment rights or liberties for firing him for his out-of-sync beliefs/words.
Do you agree?
A final point to be made: Here, we're not talking about inconsequential beliefs. It's not like Turek was fired because he REALLY liked chocolate ice cream and wrote about it.
Instead, he REALLY didn't believe that gay people should have certain civil liberties and in the context of a very real history of denying human rights to LGBTQ folks that was very much a way of life in this nation until VERY recently (and still is, to a lesser degree), such views run the danger of denying rights and inciting violence against an historically oppressed minority.
Turek's views have consequences that could be direly dangerous to gay folk. It's not that he just didn't like the "right" flavor of ice cream. And that being the case, an employer concerned about human rights (with Turek or with the KKK example), is morally and rationally correct to not want to give credibility to such a person AND the views that have been historically dangerous to others.
As always, one is free in this nation to hold vile thoughts and even write books on them, as Turek has. But he is NOT free from consequences.
It appears you dream of a world where conservatives (and only conservatives) can be as despicable and file as they want AND that they should suffer no consequences of their vile views.
It just don't work that way, buttercup. Adults recognize that our liberty is tempered by consequences and responsibility.
I may have to dedicate a post to the inane and infantile ramblings of Turek on why gay people should be oppressed/denied human rights (the ability to marry who they want). It's just such grammar school "logic," he uses.
Whatever happened to the era of at least plausibly rational and smart conservatives?
But here's someone who has already taken the time to point out the series of rational fallacies in Turek's "logic."
https://wesleyluther.org/from-the-director/there-is-no-case-against-equality
The "case" against SSM has been so deconstructed and demonstrated to be lacking in rational and moral viability... it's why you all have collectively lost this argument. The free world recognizes the innate immorality and injustice in the traditional conservative (Christian AND Muslim AND Mormon, etc) views.
Think about it - you all have more in common with fundamentalist Mormons and Muslims and sound more like them than rational adults the world round. Is that the side with which you wish to align yourselves?
Oh, Blessed Jesus! That this dude dares pretend he cares what you teach! "Sigh", indeed!
You asked me if I believed it was morally and rational upright position for an employer to expect his employees to not use the N word and other terms with an abusive/oppressive history. I not only answered your narrow and leading question, I went beyond to state an ideal most employers believe they promote which includes prohibiting rude and offensive speech. You want to pretend my agreement would compromise, if not destroy, the concept of soft totalitarianism should such an employer terminate the guilty employee's position. But that's just you being stupid, as the example does not qualify for the form of despotic behavior the concept of soft totalitarianism addresses. Thus, even your scenario of two white guys using the not-nearly-as-egregious-as-too-many-pretend-it-is "N word" with no one to around who might be offended by it fails by stupidly daring to imagine any who are decent enough to consider those who choose to be offended by slang terms would still insist no one use them in his place of business.
But you fail by conflating slang with message, because yes, a serious discussion may include the utterance of such words to make a point, including how too many wish to keep the flames of racist tension burning by continuing the word carries more power than that which race hustlers and racists seek to give it. I have little sympathy for those who cheapen real damage from real racism scant few in this country ever suffer.
But even with that proper attitude and superior understanding regarding oppression, I would still not condone the use of such language by subordinates were I a business owner. But I would also prohibit whining about it as if someone shot your dog. Such a restriction falls under my more perfect edict of treating others with respect...which, by the way, is not demonstrated by those quick to whine about the specks in the eyes of others who utter a truly foul word.
As to "free speech", I wouldn't pretend I have a single brain cell and then dare present that scenario as indicative of a free speech issue, any more than yelling "fure" in a crowded theater when there's no fire. This whole thing demonstrates you're incapable of good faith discourse.
"Turek is an extreme right religious fundamentalist who does not believe gay folk should get married."
There's nothing at all extreme about Turek's accurate understanding of Christian teaching on the subject of homosexuality and SSM. He's perfectly aligned with God's will on the subject and as a result understands...so very obviously...there is no Christian justification for supporting SSM, which required bastardizing the definition of "maariage" in order to rationalize legal recognition of it. This is a fact you reject because you enable, support, defend and celebrate sexual immorality.
Yet, like all other honest Christians who abide God's will even when inconvenient to do so, Tarek is well aware homosexuals always had both the legal ability to marry according to the only understanding the word ever had in human history...and especially American history...as well as the ability to commit one's life to another of the same sex even though the state righteously refuses to recognize the commitment as an actual marriage.
"And he has lost an employment contract (free lance, I believe) because some found his views to be offensive."
I explained this far more truthfully than you did. One sorry-ass homosexual took it upon himself to investigate this guy hired to consult and train. That in and of itself is not a problem. The problem comes when this hate-mongering asshole chose to lodge a complaint despite the fact Turek's logical and righteous position on homosexuality and SSM had absolutely nothing to do with the training or the work the business did. It was flat out retribution for daring to stand for truth and morality as God revealed it so clearly.
"And the person who complained and the companies that ended the contract are ALSO within their rights to not hire him.
Can you imagine it any other way?"
Yeah. It used to be that way in this place once known as America, where citizens weren't required to all agree on every little thing...they could have a different point of view without totalitarians persecuting and banishing them. You clearly don't want it that way anymore.
You see, I can handle homosexuals and racists working for me. I won't fire them simply for being either. I just don't want them actively promoting their unholy beliefs. YOU want to outlaw views with which you disagree and would indeed fire such people even if they did nothing to promote it in your business, because like here at your blog, you're a totalitarian despot.
Marshal... "There's nothing at all extreme about Turek's accurate understanding of Christian teaching on the subject of homosexuality and SSM. He's perfectly aligned with God's will on the subject and as a result understands."
Yeah. The extremist Muslims and extremist Mormons and extremist Christians are all agreed on that point and what they think their god/allah would think.
But that doesn't help your case that you align with other extremists that you would otherwise not agree with.
Except on what women should wear (dressing modestly).
And who people can date.
And whether transgender people should have basic human rights.
And perhaps that woman belong in the home?
That men should be the leaders of the family?
And perhaps a few dozen other agreements you all share in common.
Other than that, not extreme at all.
It's more than a little telling that you regard adherence to the teachings of Scripture...to the will of God so clearly and unambiguously revealed therein...as "extremism", and worse, to imply it's a bad thing.
And it's emblematic of progressive corruption to compare those devoted to the will of God as in any way comparable with or parallel to musljms or Mormons.
Neither of these things are surprising anymore, as you're clearly eager to expose yourself for the fraud you are. So again I ask, why continue trying to convince anyone you're Christian when you so clearly not?
Marshal... "You asked me if I believed it was morally and rational upright position for an employer to expect his employees to not use the N word and other terms with an abusive/oppressive history. I not only answered your narrow and leading question, I went beyond to state an ideal most employers believe they promote which includes prohibiting rude and offensive speech. You want to pretend my agreement would compromise..."
??? So... your answer is, YES, it IS a morally and rationally upright position to take?
Why can't you just give a direct and clear answer? I honestly don't know what your answer is. I THINK you are saying Yes, you agree with me that it's a morally and rationally upright position, but please clarify DIRECTLY.
Part of the reason why it's not clear (aside from the reality that you NEVER responded directly in a clear manner) is because you say things like this...
" But I would also prohibit whining about it as if someone shot your dog. Such a restriction falls under my more perfect edict of treating others with respect."
So... you would prohibit "whining" about someone using the N word? Is THAT what you're saying?
Good God, tell me you're not this evil.
Answer directly or just go away.
And as a reminder, USUALLY a direct and clear answer would be "NO, it's not moral or rational..." or "Yes, it is moral and rational..." but I'm also fine with more measured responses like, "So, I can't say No or Yes precisely. I think it depends on..." or "I would say Yes, in most cases, that is a reasonable position to take... BUT, I also think..."
But answer it directly. You're not an illiterate child unable to be clear in your responses. Be better.
Marshal... "It's more than a little telling that you regard adherence to the teachings of Scripture...to the will of God so clearly and unambiguously revealed therein...as "extremism", and worse, to imply it's a bad thing. "
You're once again conflating YOUR ILL HUNCHES about what God thinks and what the Bible says with what God actually thinks or what the Bible actually says. While neither of us can prove objectively God's position on this topic, it seems rather obvious to those who value morality, decency and justice and regardless, you should really stop assuming you're speaking for God.
Your god is sickly and petty and mostly in your head... just a sad extension of your own human biases.
Per usual, extremists unconsciously project their will to brutality on to the wider world in order to justify their violent bigoted behaviors. And so, soft totalitarianism is simply the political behavior below the federal level. And, predictably here in the US, it's all driven by racism.
"Crucially, as Alan Abramowitz, a political scientist at Emory University pointed out, opinions on abortion are also closely connected with racial attitudes:
Whites who score high on measures of racial resentment and racial grievance are far more likely to support strict limits on abortion than whites who score low on these measures. This is part of a larger picture in which racial attitudes are increasingly linked with opinions on a wide range of disparate issues including social welfare issues, gun control, immigration and even climate change. The fact that opinions on all of these issues are now closely interconnected and connected with racial attitudes is a key factor in the deep polarization within the electorate that contributes to high levels of straight ticket voting and a declining proportion of swing voters.
Some of the scholars and journalists studying the evolving role of abortion in American politics make the case that key leaders of the conservative movement in the late 1970s and early 1980s — among them Richard Viguerie, Paul Weyrich, Phyllis Schlafly and Jerry Falwell Sr. — were seeking to expand their base beyond those opposed to the civil rights movement. According to this argument, conservative strategists settled on a concerted effort to politicize abortion in part because it dodged the race issue and offered the opportunity to unify conservative Catholics and Evangelicals.
“The anti-abortion movement has been remarkably successful at convincing observers that the positions individuals take on the abortion issue always follow in a deductive way from their supposed moral principles. They don’t,” Katherine Stewart, the author of the 2019 book “The Power Worshipers, wrote in an email.
In 1978, the hostile reaction to an I.R.S. proposal to impose taxes on churches running segregated private schools (“seg academies” for the children of white Southerners seeking to avoid federally mandated school integration orders) provided the opportunity to mobilize born again and evangelical parishioners through the creation of the Moral Majority. As Stewart argues, Viguerie, Weyrich and others on the right were determined to find an issue that could bring together a much larger constituency:
As Weyrich understood, building a new movement around the burning issue of defending the tax advantages of racist schools wasn’t going to be a viable strategy on the national stage. “Stop the tax on segregation” just wasn’t going to inspire the kind of broad-based conservative counterrevolution that Weyrich envisioned.
After long and contentious debate, conservative strategists came to a consensus, Stewart writes: “They landed upon the one surprising word that would supply the key to the political puzzle of the age: ‘abortion.’”
In an email, Stewart expanded on her argument. Abortion opponents "are more likely to be committed to a patriarchal worldview in which the control of reproduction, and female sexuality in particular, is thought to be central in maintaining a gender hierarchy that (as they see it) sustains the family, which they claim is under threat from secular, modern forces."
The soft totalitarianism that was the American Revolution.
“George Washington issued the order to have all troops inoculated for smallpox on Feb. 5, 1777, in a letter to John Hancock, who was president of the Second Continental Congress. In another letter, Washington ordered all recruits arriving in Philadelphia be inoculated.
"Finding the smallpox to be spreading much and fearing that no precaution can prevent it from running through the whole of our army, I have determined that troops shall be inoculated," he wrote. "This expedient may be attended with some inconveniences and some disadvantages, but yet I trust in its consequences will have the most happy effects. Necessity not only authorizes but seems to require the measure, for should the disorder infect the army in the natural way and rage with its virulence we should have more to dread from it than from the sword of the enemy."
By the end of 1777, about 40,000 soldiers had been inoculated against the disease.”
Last chance. Answer directly or be deleted and done.
NYC is the safest city in the US. With all our amazing diversity; with women in leadership; with Muslims in leadership along with Catholics and Jews and Atheists; LGBTQ+ in leadership; almost all of them Democrats.
Massive gun control and no stop and frisk!
https://safecities.economist.com/
"You asked me if I believed it was morally and rational upright position for an employer to expect his employees to not use the N word and other terms with an abusive/oppressive history."
OF COURSE IT US, YOU LOW INTELLECT BUFFOON!!! How could my response have possibly confused even you! It CLEARLY affirms agreement!
So having provided ONCE AGAIN!!!...what "profound" point were you going to make?
How could I find it less than clear when you APPEAR to say it's a morally and rationally upright position...? Because you also keep on harping on it, like when you said this
"But I would also prohibit whining about it as if someone shot your dog. Such a restriction falls under my more perfect edict of treating others with respect."
AND you suggest the use of the N word is merely undesirable "slang," as opposed to significant harm?
AND you say that the use of the N word is "not-nearly-as-egregious-as-too-many-pretend-it-is..."
It's a good, moral position, AND it's whining and exaggerating?
It's a good, moral position to fire someone for using a word that is not egregious and merely slang, like "Ain't that a darn thing...?"
Do you not see how the one claim contradicts the other?
Are you saying you'd fire someone - or think that it's moral and rational to fire someone - for using a harmless slang word?
??
"How could I find it less than clear when you APPEAR to say it's a morally and rationally upright position...? Because you also keep on harping on it, like when you said this
"But I would also prohibit whining about it as if someone shot your dog. Such a restriction falls under my more perfect edict of treating others with respect."
By using the reason you insist you possess. These are two distinctly different issues about which distinctly different courses of action are required. But more important for this wacky line of "reasoning" by you is that I haven't presented extravagant detail and thus you decide to think the worst, like grace-embracing Christian apparently does in your world.
"AND you suggest the use of the N word is merely undesirable "slang," as opposed to significant harm?"
What "significant" harm? Is there massive blood loss, broken bones or other physical destruction as a result of being called a nasty name? No. There's only the harm one allows the nasty name to inflict. The "whiners" of whom I referred are those who give power to nasty names...power the mere utterance...even with intense malice behind it...cannot give.
And keep in mind...unless I, as an employer, was present to hear the exchange from beginning to end, how can know who started it? Was the name-caller provoked by hateful speech from the eventual whiner? Is the name-caller using such nasty words regularly without my being aware of it until his accuser comes forth?
A general rule does not require I fire either party for a first offense. I work with people I don't particularly like. It's happened more often than I preferred it did throughout my many decades in the workforce. But even assholes can be the best person for a given task. And if an asshole simply has some problem with me (as opposed to others who look like me or are of the same ethnicity or whatever), I'm dealing with him on my own anyway, and the employer won't know unless the asshole lives to make my life miserable...in which case I'm dealing with him on my own anyway.
"AND you say that the use of the N word is "not-nearly-as-egregious-as-too-many-pretend-it-is..."
Absolutely.
"It's a good, moral position, AND it's whining and exaggerating?"
It's good and moral to insist upon mutual respect between all employees, and yes, some "victims" are just whiners who exaggerate the harm they claim is inflicted upon them by being called nasty names. There's a difference in that some victims are whining and others are concerned about a person who uses nasty names...their concern being for others, not themselves. The latter isn't whining then, but seeking to improve things for others.
All this isn't really so difficult to determine.
"It's a good, moral position to fire someone for using a word that is not egregious and merely slang, like "Ain't that a darn thing...?"
WTF??? This is where my original response covers so much more than your goofy attempt to focus on "the marginalized". My mutual respect position includes prohibition against name-calling as obvious. WTF is "ain't that a darn thing... supposed to mean? Why do you constantly insist on inventing the stupidest hypothetical you can imagine and then pretend it's true to the reality of the issue on the table? I shouldn't have even dignified that with a response!
"Do you not see how the one claim contradicts the other?"
There's absolutely no conflict as I just illustrated above. You wanna try again to pretend there's something wrong with my position? Try using actual reason.
"Are you saying you'd fire someone - or think that it's moral and rational to fire someone - for using a harmless slang word?"
Oh, I get it...you moved from words you think are physically destructive to "harmless slang" which totally makes the whole freaking point moot.
Let me remind once again of a moral principle taught to me and those of my childhood time that was so incredibly common I can't believe "progressives" are unaware of it:
"Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me."
When a kid in my day would whine about being called a nasty name, our parents would respond with the above. THEN, the parent of the name-caller would teach them to treat others better. It's the same dynamic I shouldn't have to explain to such a bright boy as yourself, but you continue to demonstrate the need to have the obvious pointed out to you. Back then, the adults prohibited both name-calling AND being a pansy-ass about it. ("Progressives" enable the latter, yet strangely engage in name-calling on a regular basis.)
Maybe now we can get back to the point of the post?
Post a Comment