Thread: Etymological Evangelical the bigot Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025658
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
In this thread you have degraded yourself to the level of prejudiced bigot. You even boldfaced "retarded remark". Explain yourself and how you hate large swaths of humanity.
I have no idea what your shipname means, but it must not mean you are Christian. Explain yourself.
quote:
Originally posted by Etymological Evangelical:
Your comment is the most retarded remark I have read on the Ship in all the time I have been here (and that is saying something!)
Thank-you EE for being as insensitive a whackjob as Ann Coulter for posting the same way as she tweeted.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem, so get educated, and apologise EE, and do it now.
I paraphrase the link below. You wanted to belittle the comment you posted about EE by linking it to people you perceive as being stupid and dimwitted. Like the man who wrote the letter, you assume that people will understand your insult. I don't. If you would be comfortable making the remark using the word "nigger" then I guess I'd understand.
Man With Down Syndrome Writes Letter To Conservative About Her Use Of Word ‘Retard’.
quote:
A better person than EE wrote this
I'm a 30 year old man with Down syndrome who has struggled with the public's perception that an intellectual disability means I'm dumb and shallow. I am neither of those things...
Etymological Evangelical, explain yourself.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
Being called a "dangerous sociopath" for criticising someone who desires other people dead, simply because he disagrees with their understanding of marriage is a view that is insane.
OK, I am sorry for using the word 'retarded'. I used it as a synonym for insane, and probably wrongly. I was wrong. But I was also very angry, especially at the sheer evil of some of the views and the craven hypocrisy I see on this site, which you self-righteous pseudo-moralisers never seem to pick up on.
I have apologised. If you can't understand someone's anger, then fucking well grow up.
By the way... don't you bloody well preach to me about vulnerable or disabled people. I probably know more about that than you do.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Being called a "dangerous sociopath" for criticising someone who desires other people dead, simply because he disagrees with their understanding of marriage is a view that is insane.
OK, I am sorry for using the word 'retarded'. I used it as a synonym for insane, and probably wrongly. I was wrong. But I was also very angry, especially at the sheer evil of some of the views and the craven hypocrisy I see on this site, which you self-righteous pseudo-moralisers never seem to pick up on.
I have apologised. If you can't understand someone's anger, then fucking well grow up.
By the way... don't you bloody well preach to me about vulnerable or disabled people. I probably know more about that than you do.
You seem to know more about everything than anybody else does, you insufferable prig.
If you want to know what a self-righteous pseudo-moraliser looks like, get a mirror.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais
You seem to know more about everything than anybody else does, you insufferable prig.
If you want to know what a self-righteous pseudo-moraliser looks like, get a mirror.
I frankly don't care what you think. You're just a smug and pompous nobody, who sits on the sidelines with no opinion about anything.
There's a lot of anger expressed about a lot of issues on this site. The word 'retarded' is extreme, I admit, but, in context, it was used to describe the sheer insanity of a deeply offensive remark. There is nothing in what I wrote that was an attack on people with learning disabilities (and it takes a particularly twisted and perverse mind to think that it was). If you can't understand context, then I pity you. And if you are so self-satisfied in life, and so cosy in your little champagne socialist world (or whatever pathetic little hole you live in), that you cannot understand the strength of people's feelings, then God help you.
Marvin wants people dead who don't agree with him. I called him out on that in anger. And then I am called a "dangerous sociopath". Who is the dangerous sociopath and bigot? The one who is shocked and sickened by the lust for other people's deaths, or the one who expresses such lusts?
If people like you cannot understand this, and cannot understand the strength of anger associated with this, then I think your mothers shouldn't let you out of your bedrooms in the morning.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If you can't understand someone's anger, then fucking well grow up.
#irony
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If you can't understand someone's anger, then fucking well grow up.
#irony
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais
You seem to know more about everything than anybody else does, you insufferable prig.
If you want to know what a self-righteous pseudo-moraliser looks like, get a mirror.
I frankly don't care what you think.
If you don't care what I think, then why reply? Furthermore, why participate in debate. I doubt anyone would miss you (except Gamaliel, and he's taking a break).
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
There's a lot of anger expressed about a lot of issues on this site. The word 'retarded' is extreme, I admit, but, in context, it was used to describe the sheer insanity of a deeply offensive remark. There is nothing in what I wrote that was an attack on people with learning disabilities
Uh, if you think retarded refers to "sheer insanity" then yes there is something deeply and horribly offensive in what you wrote. You're saying that retarded people are insane. Which is revolting.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
Do we really need two threads for this dip-shit? Seriously? Giving him/her attention is what he/she craves.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Well, two threads of his own and one that turned into an inpromptu thread about him. It's quite an achievement, right up there with MT's post count. And he's done it with no help from Gam this time.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Well, two threads of his own and one that turned into an inpromptu thread about him. It's quite an achievement, right up there with MT's post count.
Oh please.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Being called a "dangerous sociopath" for criticising someone who desires other people dead, simply because he disagrees with their understanding of marriage is a view that is insane.
OK, I am sorry for using the word 'retarded'. I used it as a synonym for insane, and probably wrongly. I was wrong. But I was also very angry, especially at the sheer evil of some of the views and the craven hypocrisy I see on this site, which you self-righteous pseudo-moralisers never seem to pick up on.
I have apologised. If you can't understand someone's anger, then fucking well grow up.
By the way... don't you bloody well preach to me about vulnerable or disabled people. I probably know more about that than you do.
I accept your apology for the remark.
But what's with the attitude and pompous swelled up "I know more than you do". I actually doubt you do. I started work with mentally and physically disabled children and adults in 1977. And we didn't even use the word "retarded" then.
Good Heavens! Please lose the chip on your shoulder and think a little before posting. You've many more ill-considered posts than the one I focussed on.
[ 23. May 2013, 15:00: Message edited by: no prophet ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Well, two threads of his own and one that turned into an inpromptu thread about him. It's quite an achievement, right up there with MT's post count.
Oh please.
I didn't say it was a good achievement.
Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on
:
E.E: quote:
By the way... don't you bloody well preach to me about vulnerable or disabled people. I probably know more about that than you do.
N.P: quote:
I started work with mentally and physically disabled children and adults in 1977.
Gripping. Who's cared for these folks more, and for how much longer?! Stay tuned, everyone!
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Riv:
E.E: quote:
By the way... don't you bloody well preach to me about vulnerable or disabled people. I probably know more about that than you do.
N.P: quote:
I started work with mentally and physically disabled children and adults in 1977.
Gripping. Who's cared for these folks more, and for how much longer?! Stay tuned, everyone!
I didn't say I wanted to be in any sort of competition.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Marvin wants people dead who don't agree with him. I called him out on that in anger. And then I am called a "dangerous sociopath". Who is the dangerous sociopath and bigot? The one who is shocked and sickened by the lust for other people's deaths, or the one who expresses such lusts?
You weren't called out for expressing shock. You were called out for asserting that it was only a small step from wanting someone dead to actually trying to make them so.
Lots of people have tried to point this out to you, and you have persistently ignored them. Why is that?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Well, two threads of his own and one that turned into an inpromptu thread about him. It's quite an achievement, right up there with MT's post count.
Oh please.
I didn't say it was a good achievement.
Touché.
[ 23. May 2013, 15:32: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on
:
EE
We accept the apology.
Now Shut up.
Please
Or it isn't an apology,
it's an explanation
[ 23. May 2013, 15:35: Message edited by: Ethne Alba ]
Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
Originally posted by The Riv:
E.E: quote:
By the way... don't you bloody well preach to me about vulnerable or disabled people. I probably know more about that than you do.
N.P: quote:
I started work with mentally and physically disabled children and adults in 1977.
Gripping. Who's cared for these folks more, and for how much longer?! Stay tuned, everyone!
I didn't say I wanted to be in any sort of competition.
That didn't keep you from making it one, though. Be of good cheer -- from most threadmates' POV you're winning. WINNING!!!
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Lots of people have tried to point this out to you, and you have persistently ignored them. Why is that?
Because he always does. Just the same way he persistently and massively misinterprets other people's posts and then screams blue murder if a reference to his own scribblings is a gnat's arse out. I think it's got something to do with his "logic", which even he is now putting in inverted commas to distinguish it from the real thing.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Riv:
That didn't keep you from making it one, though. Be of good cheer -- from most threadmates' POV you're winning. WINNING!!!
I have to cry foul here. EE made it a competition from the get-go. NP didn't make it one. He could have let it drop, true, but he didn't create the competition.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I was wrong. But ...
There can be no 'but' in an apology. 'I was wrong and should not have said it' is an apology.
Anything else is justification.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
EtymologicalEvangelical: Being called a "dangerous sociopath" for criticising someone who desires other people dead
You haven't been called a 'dangerous sociopath'. In this post, the subject of the verbal clause 'is potentially a dangerous sociopath' is 'Anyone who truly believes what you've written above'.
So, let's take a look at what you've written above:
"Now to wish someone dead, because they hold views with which you happen to disagree, is a very small step from desiring their execution."
This sentence talks about people who wish someone dead, and then take the step to desire their execution.
These are the people that Anselmina called dangerous sociopaths (implying that Marvin and the other posters on the thread weren't). You aren't among them.
Aren't you glad that I searched this out for you?
Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on
:
But LeRoc, you're assuming s/he can read for comprehension...
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I was wrong. But ...
There can be no 'but' in an apology. 'I was wrong and should not have said it' is an apology.
Anything else is justification.
Give EE some credit. S/he didn't use that awful "I am sorry if I offended anyone" construct.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Being called a "dangerous sociopath" for criticising someone who desires other people dead, simply because he disagrees with their understanding of marriage is a view that is insane.
If you re-visit what I posted you'll see that this....
quote:
Anselmina posted:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Now to wish someone dead, because they hold views with which you happen to disagree, is a very small step from desiring their execution.
For rational people there are many, many steps between expressing a passive wish for a troublesome person's demise, and instituting legal execution for those of other views. quote:
Anyone who truly believes what you've written above, EE, is potentially a dangerous sociopath.
.... is the long and the short of what I actually did write.
So don't make me responsible for whatever was going on inside your head when you were reading this and 'interpreting' it in your own interesting way!
Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by The Riv:
That didn't keep you from making it one, though. Be of good cheer -- from most threadmates' POV you're winning. WINNING!!!
I have to cry foul here. EE made it a competition from the get-go. NP didn't make it one. He could have let it drop, true, but he didn't create the competition.
Cry all you want. Hopefully it's one of those cries after which you feel much better.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina
Anyone who truly believes what you've written above, EE, is potentially a dangerous sociopath.
OK. So I wrote something, which was as follows...
quote:
Now to wish someone dead, because they hold views with which you happen to disagree, is a very small step from desiring their execution.
Now why do you think I wrote that?
1. Because I believe it to be true?
2. Because I do not believe it to be true?
The correct answer is #1. I wrote that comment, because I believe it to be true.
So therefore I come into the category of...
"Anyone who truly believes what you have written above, EE"
And, according to you, such a person is...
"potentially a dangerous sociopath".
Therefore I am being called "potentially a dangerous sociopath" because I believe what I have written.
Unless there is something hidden in the grammar and syntax of your comment that has some meaning that has eluded me? If so, please kindly reveal it.
Perhaps you see the direct object of the verb 'believe' as being something different from what I can see? According to what you wrote, the direct object of 'believe' is: "what you've written above, EE."
So what is this thing which is described as "what you've written above, EE"? It is the concept, which EE expressed in the words EE used, and EE wrote it, because EE believes it. Therefore, EE is, according to you, a potentially dangerous sociopath.
Is there some other direct object of 'believe' that I am not seeing here??
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie
There can be no 'but' in an apology. 'I was wrong and should not have said it' is an apology.
Anything else is justification.
Good try, Boogie, but you're wrong.
"I apologise, but..." is perfectly legitimate, because it is possible to apologise for one aspect of an act, while also justifying the other aspects. Are you suggesting that if someone makes a mistake, for which he is sorry, that he must apologise for everything else he does?
If so, you are obviously a perfect being, and God help the rest of us!
I am very sorry for using the word 'retarded'. But I am not sorry for the content of the post in which the offensive word was used.
I therefore "apologise, but..."
If you don't like that, then off you go to your utopia, and the rest of us will just have to settle for something called "the real world".
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
EtymologicalEvangelical: Is there some other direct object of 'believe' that I am not seeing here??
The word 'believe' is a reference to the word 'desire' that you used in your sentence. The object of 'believe' is 'that someone who holds views with which [one] happens to disagree, should be executed'.
I agree that there is a bit of ambiguity, because there are some sentences involved with implied subjects, and because of the switch from 'desire' to 'believe'. We aren't speaking Lojban on the Ship, and especially in Hell, so these things are bound to happen. However, anyone with more than 1,5 braincell could have deducted the meaning of Anselmina's post.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Marvin wants people dead who don't agree with him. I called him out on that in anger. And then I am called a "dangerous sociopath". Who is the dangerous sociopath and bigot? The one who is shocked and sickened by the lust for other people's deaths, or the one who expresses such lusts?
EE, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and try one last time.
Suicide rates among homosexuals, especially teenagers, are much higher than for straight people (around two to six times higher). Many suffer from depression and self-harm. This is often due to bullying and rejection by others in society, which is created by the attitudes and actions of people like Dominique Venner.
So, Marvin's comment wasn't about disagreeing with your opinion. You've justified your response by mentioning your anger. But you've failed to consider that what Marvin said was in anger too. Anger at the unnecessary loss of life and quality of life aggressive homophobia creates. So, I'm guessing that Marvin's attitude was something like scumbags like that have caused the suffering and deaths of too many people already, if there were fewer people like that around, then the plight of homosexuals wouldn't be so bad. His comment was against someone who marginalized and persecuted gays, not someone who he just disagreed with. This isn't about disagreeing or agreeing.
Your description of what Marvin said has been a woefully inadequate misinterpretation throughout. Fine, we all misinterpret each other, especially in a text-based medium. But explanations as to why you misunderstood have fallen on deaf ears - did you even read my post on the other thread on hyperbole?
Anyway, I'm glad you apologised over the use of the word 'retarded'. It's an incredibly offensive word, but there still seem to be large parts of society that don't realise that. I'm glad you've now joined the ranks of those that do.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
LeRoc appealing to logic!!!
The person who once told me that s/he doesn't believe in it!
Well I never...
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
EtymologicalEvangelical: LeRoc appealing to logic!!!
The person who once told me that s/he doesn't believe in it!
Well I never...
If you *could* read for comprehension, you would have understood that I don't believe in logic as a useful way in trying to describe God. This qualifier is rather imporant.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
"I apologise, but..." is perfectly legitimate, because it is possible to apologise for one aspect of an act, while also justifying the other aspects.
Then you need to be clearer as to what exactly you are apologising for, instead of saying what amounts to 'I'm sorry but I was provoked'.
I'm glad you are sorry for using the word retard - I hope that means you won't use it again, in print or speech.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs
EE, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and try one last time.
Suicide rates among homosexuals, especially teenagers, are much higher than for straight people (around two to six times higher). Many suffer from depression and self-harm. This is often due to bullying and rejection by others in society, which is created by the attitudes and actions of people like Dominique Venner.
So, Marvin's comment wasn't about disagreeing with your opinion. You've justified your response by mentioning your anger. But you've failed to consider that what Marvin said was in anger too. Anger at the unnecessary loss of life and quality of life aggressive homophobia creates. So, I'm guessing that Marvin's attitude was something like scumbags like that have caused the suffering and deaths of too many people already, if there were fewer people like that around, then the plight of homosexuals wouldn't be so bad. His comment was against someone who marginalized and persecuted gays, not someone who he just disagreed with. This isn't about disagreeing or agreeing.
Let us suppose that the serial killer, Fred West, had just killed himself in prison (as I am sure you know, he committed suicide some years ago). I then decided to open a thread in hell called "Good Riddance", and I expressed my pleasure at the demise of this indescribably evil man. Let me guess what the reaction would be. Judging by some of the comments on one of the Purg. threads some months ago (which I think was on the subject of damnation), I suspect that I would be pilloried for being so self-righteous and full of 'hate'. On the evidence of his previous performance, Marvin would probably have gone on about how "there is good in everyone" and so on. In other words, we've been this way before.
But it seems that it's perfectly OK to bid 'good riddance' to someone who did not believe in gay marriage. Yes, I am aware that he was probably an obnoxious fascist, but no more evil than the kind of people whom people like me shouldn't speak against!
I am well aware that there is the tragic trend of suicides among gays and lesbians as a result of homophobic attitudes. But it's an astonishing leap (and an illiberal rejection of freedom of speech and conscience) to say that someone who believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman, is driving gay people to their deaths.
The word 'homophobic' is bandied around in a way that stifles honest debate among people who do not harbour any hatred at all of gay and lesbian people. If people want to talk about offensive language, then I would suggest that the reckless use of 'homophobic' is deeply irresponsible. And if we want to talk about "dangerous sociopaths", then we could consider that it is truly frightening to suggest - even in the hyperbole of anger - that people who simply hold to a traditional view of marriage are worthy only of death. The implications of that do not bear thinking about.
And if you think that casually wishing people dead can't generally lead to serious oppression, then I suggest you read the history of propaganda in Germany and Rwanda prior to their respective holocausts.
So yes, people have been offended by my language. I hope that they will also have the integrity and sensitivity to appreciate that I was deeply offended by Marvin's comment.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The word 'homophobic' is bandied around in a way that stifles honest debate among people who do not harbour any hatred at all of gay and lesbian people.
Ah yes, the old "it's OK to oppress and persecute someone so long as you don't hate them" canard. Haven't heard that one in at least a day... ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:
I hope that they will also have the integrity and sensitivity to appreciate that I was deeply offended by Marvin's comment.
And to think that you weren't even its target. But if you're offended because you share the late fuckwit's views, then I'm fucking glad it offended you.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
There's something in misperception of intent and excessive emotion influencing what you post (p)Et(t)y Eva[n]. You've acknowledged posting in anger. You've acknowledged feeling under attack because you hold 'traditional morality' (whatever exactly this might be). Surprise! some of the rest of us also get angry sometimes, and also hold various ideas and beliefs, but we don't . A blowing-of-steam type of thread isn't the right one to start debating all emotionally. It makes the armchair analyst consider that perhaps something is boiling in your belly from something elsewise you failed to digest. You must understand that it is not your views so much as your inappropriate expression of your views.
Do you need a psychologic purgative? Something to rinse the brains of that cruel frustration. Or perhaps something in the gastrointestinal department, something to loosen your tripes?
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet
There's something in misperception of intent and excessive emotion influencing what you post (p)Et(t)y Eva[n]. You've acknowledged posting in anger. You've acknowledged feeling under attack because you hold 'traditional morality' (whatever exactly this might be). Surprise! some of the rest of us also get angry sometimes, and also hold various ideas and beliefs, but we don't . A blowing-of-steam type of thread isn't the right one to start debating all emotionally. It makes the armchair analyst consider that perhaps something is boiling in your belly from something elsewise you failed to digest. You must understand that it is not your views so much as your inappropriate expression of your views.
Do you need a psychologic purgative? Something to rinse the brains of that cruel frustration. Or perhaps something in the gastrointestinal department, something to loosen your tripes?
Obviously I must have overdosed on my medication, because I started hallucinating, and read the following:
quote:
This is Hell. Please note that posting here is the equivalent of drawing a big, fat bull's eye on your chest. Got a complaint, a rant or a personal argument to settle? Feel free to add it to the uproar – so long as you have a thick skin to match. The flames are fast and furious here, so back out if you don't want to be roasted to a crisp. Please read, study and become one with the Hell guidelines before plunging in, as our normal rules on civility are abandoned on this board.
Addendum:
But if you take the above seriously, you will be called a bigot - or something similarly delusional.
You have been warned!
Thank goodness this "hell board" doesn't really exist. And therefore no prophet's words make perfect sense!
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie
There can be no 'but' in an apology. 'I was wrong and should not have said it' is an apology.
Anything else is justification.
Good try, Boogie, but you're wrong.
"I apologise, but..." is perfectly legitimate, because it is possible to apologise for one aspect of an act, while also justifying the other aspects. Are you suggesting that if someone makes a mistake, for which he is sorry, that he must apologise for everything else he does?
If so, you are obviously a perfect being, and God help the rest of us!
I am very sorry for using the word 'retarded'. But I am not sorry for the content of the post in which the offensive word was used.
I therefore "apologise, but..."
If you don't like that, then off you go to your utopia, and the rest of us will just have to settle for something called "the real world".
Does this mean that you will come in from your dogmatic and idealised world in which those who are in a sexual relationship are married to a person of the opposite sex, and everyone else is chaste, though straight?
Or could you too, just possibly, take the leap to this "real world" you mention?
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The word 'homophobic' is bandied around in a way that stifles honest debate among people who do not harbour any hatred at all of gay and lesbian people.
And yet, Marvin wasn't just talking about any old homophobe. He was talking about one who "marginalise(d) and persecute(d)" gays. Read the post again. Like he just said, it wasn't aimed at you. He also said "if only a few homophobes...", not "if only all homophobes...".
Whatever. Keep digging.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
And if you think that casually wishing people dead can't generally lead to serious oppression, then I suggest you read the history of propaganda in Germany and Rwanda prior to their respective holocausts.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Nobody is denying this. The point at issue is whether this is a small step or, as Anselmina says, a succession of many, many steps.
I don't know much about Rwanda, but the Shoah in Germany was preceded by a massive campaign of propaganda and intimidation, centuries of European anti-semitism, and the trauma of the Great War. Even then many people apparently went into denial that it was happening. Hardly a 'small step'.
[ 23. May 2013, 21:26: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Being called a "dangerous sociopath" for criticising someone who desires other people dead, simply because he disagrees with their understanding of marriage is a view that is insane.
First, let's get practical. Wishing others dead is admittedly among humanity's least appealing traits, but it certainly is one.
Nevertheless, the vast majority of angry people who say (or more likely think) "I wish X were dead" take not one further step toward realization of that outcome.
It's possible that the distance between thinking, or even typing anonymously on an internet bulletin board, "I wish X were dead" is very small -- for you, or for various others. That's not the case for most of us, though. Most of us, even in the throes of mad rage, have plenty of inhibitions in place to prevent lifting a single finger toward bringing about someone's death. IOW, it's several, probably large, steps for most of us.
In this case, though, you are the one claiming that thought-to-action is a very small step, which might mean that's true for you (since it is, for some people with poor impulse control). If so, then it's understandable, perhaps even justifiable, for others to wonder if you are in fact dangerous, since you're the one making this "small-step" claim.
I also know that some Christians take the whole "what's in your heart is equivalent to having committed the act" very seriously. (Though oddly, this seems to apply solely to bad acts, not good ones.) That may be good Christian theology (I wouldn't know), but as psychology it leaves much to be desired.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
OK, I am sorry for using the word 'retarded'. I used it as a synonym for insane, and probably wrongly.
Where I live and work, this is a very common, and therefore (in my book, anyway) forgivable mistake. The members of the general public I run into on a daily basis who use the term "mental" or "retarded" to cover everything from Down syndrome to a nervous tic to bipolar disorder are legion.
As my daily work involves dealing with dually-diagnosed folks who have both major mental illnesses (and/or character disorders) and developmental disabilities, including various levels of retardation, the two sets of disabilities look very different, at least to me. A significant number of patients with mental illness experience substantial relief from their symptoms through the use of medications and various other treatments.
So far, "retardation" is impervious to either. All we can offer such folks is the patient breaking down of learning tasks into tiny steps, and then helping folks through endless repetitions until some, most, or all of the necessary learning sinks in.
"Retardation" is no longer a politically-correct term where I am; we use "cognitive deficits" these days, though UK people on this board seem to favor "learning difficulties."
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
. . . don't you bloody well preach to me about vulnerable or disabled people. I probably know more about that than you do.
I hope I haven't been preaching; I have no license to do so. But I've been doing this work for a looong time, and all I can say is this: I learn something new from my clients every single day.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I just have to comment that I'm not sure I've ever seen the cute fluffy "there's good in everyone" Marvin. It's wet naive pinko "wouldn't it be nice if everyone was nice" idealists like me who get a bit uncomfortable when people talk about hatred and rejoicing in death.
But I've learnt to keep that quiet in Hell, where people can get it out of their systems. I've never seen Marvin as a fellow traveller on this one though.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
This is Hell. Please note that posting here is the equivalent of drawing a big, fat bull's eye on your chest. Got a complaint, a rant or a personal argument to settle? Feel free to add it to the uproar – so long as you have a thick skin to match. The flames are fast and furious here, so back out if you don't want to be roasted to a crisp. Please read, study and become one with the Hell guidelines before plunging in, as our normal rules on civility are abandoned on this board.
Addendum:
But if you take the above seriously, you will be called a bigot - or something similarly delusional.
You mean like that time you called me a fascist? Are you genuinely so deficient in self-awareness that you can't see that what others are now doing to you is exactly what you did to me? The irony on this thread is just killing me
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
Indeed.
One of the things that makes EE's argumentative style so irritating is that he tries to argue by some form of reductio - 'You believe X, X logically implies Y, Y is absurd and evil, ergo you are absurd and evil, sarcastic comment double exclamation mark'. Which pisses people off because it feels like putting words in their mouth.
Now Anselmina has in effect done the same to him, and he throws a massive strop.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I just have to comment that I'm not sure I've ever seen the cute fluffy "there's good in everyone" Marvin.
It comes from a thread on damnation where EE was claiming that some people are pure evil all the way through, can therefore never ever ever be Saved, and that's a good thing. I argued that nobody is like that, that everyone has some good aspects, and that nobody deserves eternal damnation.
Because EE is incapable of seeing the world in terms other than Right/Wrong or Black/White, that makes me a fluffy pinko librul commie, or something. Go figure.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I just have to comment that I'm not sure I've ever seen the cute fluffy "there's good in everyone" Marvin.
It comes from a thread on damnation where EE was claiming that some people are pure evil all the way through, can therefore never ever ever be Saved, and that's a good thing. I argued that nobody is like that, that everyone has some good aspects, and that nobody deserves eternal damnation.
Only too true. What's the point of forgiveness and salvation if it isn't available to all?
quote:
Because EE is incapable of seeing the world in terms other than Right/Wrong or Black/White, that makes me a fluffy pinko librul commie, or something. Go figure.
Not merely right or wrong, black or white, but EE's very own take on right/wrong and black/white. I don't think it's even derived from a doctrinal basis, just from his own prejudices and preferences (I suppose he's no different to anyone else there).
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
EE, I usually feel fairly neutral about your posts, though I think in this you're being a bit of a tit! And I do see what you're getting at. Perhaps I should've made it clear that I personally (so far as I know) don't think you're an actual sociopath. I didn't set out to insult you, either, just to challenge what I thought was a lazy and irrational statement.
You tried to guilt Marvin into feeling bad about not feeling bad about the death of someone else. You tried to do this by implying that it's reasonable to say that in the one moment we are dismissively shrugging off the death of another, and in the next we're rigging up the electric chair for them - as if these two concepts are right next-door to each other. But they're not. And it's not reasonable to say this. It's an unreasonable thing to assert, going through a whole spectrum of non-reason.
And at one end of that spectrum is yourself with your implication that Marvin shouldn't feel the way he does because he's almost as good as a lynch mob if he does; and at the other end are the people who also share the 'only one step between the two concepts' philosophy and are happy to be the lynch mob.
Yes, thinking fatal thoughts, as a fixed pattern, is unhealthy, and can create an environment where physical danger ensues. But, unless you know better, Marvin's dismissive concern for the death of another, can at worst be only the thin end of a very large and complicated wedge.
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on
:
Has anyone else noticed the difference in standards EE applies to other people's comments compared to his own?
So when referring to Marvin it's: quote:
Now to wish someone dead, because they hold views with which you happen to disagree, is a very small step from desiring their execution.
But when it's EE himself it's: quote:
But it's an astonishing leap (and an illiberal rejection of freedom of speech and conscience) to say that someone who believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman, is driving gay people to their deaths.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Has anyone else noticed the difference in standards EE applies to other people's comments compared to his own?
So when referring to Marvin it's: quote:
Now to wish someone dead, because they hold views with which you happen to disagree, is a very small step from desiring their execution.
But when it's EE himself it's: quote:
But it's an astonishing leap (and an illiberal rejection of freedom of speech and conscience) to say that someone who believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman, is driving gay people to their deaths.
Hands up everyone who is surprised? Ah, one hand.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian
Has anyone else noticed the difference in standards EE applies to other people's comments compared to his own?
So when referring to Marvin it's:
quote:
Now to wish someone dead, because they hold views with which you happen to disagree, is a very small step from desiring their execution.
But when it's EE himself it's:
quote:
But it's an astonishing leap (and an illiberal rejection of freedom of speech and conscience) to say that someone who believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman, is driving gay people to their deaths.
Terrible, innit?
Connection #1: Wishing someone dead ----> desiring to implement their death
Connection #2: Believing that a particular recognised type of relationship should be between people of the opposite sex ----> causing the suicide of people with a sexual desire for others of the same sex
Firstly, I have not made any comment about my own view of marriage, so if you are implying that I have, then you are just making things up.
Secondly, there is a huge moral difference in the gaps - symbolised by arrows in the connections above. In the first one, both sides of the connection involve wanting people dead. In the second, death only exists on one side of the connection.
Therefore, your attempt to demand an equivalence between these two sets of connections is a huge category error.
If you really think that people with a traditional view of marriage either desire gay people to be dead, or wish to drive them to their deaths, or even act in ways that could do so, then you are pitifully deluded. And your grasp of logic is laughable in the extreme.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Has anyone else noticed the difference in standards EE applies to other people's comments compared to his own?
So when referring to Marvin it's: quote:
Now to wish someone dead, because they hold views with which you happen to disagree, is a very small step from desiring their execution.
But when it's EE himself it's: quote:
But it's an astonishing leap (and an illiberal rejection of freedom of speech and conscience) to say that someone who believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman, is driving gay people to their deaths.
And, ironically, what was being leapt from was a total misrepresentation of what I said in the first place.
I wasn't talking about people who "believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman". Nothing remotely resembling that appears in my post. I was talking specifically about militant homophobes like Dominique Venner. I even spelt that out in the post.
EE, you may be shocked that I think it is possible for someone to think that homosexuality is a sin, and yet be non-homophobic and accept homosexuals and even campaign for their rights (Tony Campolo comes to mind, as do a few friends of mine). But given your form on this and the other thread, it seems you'd rather decide what someone else thinks and vehemently argue against that, rather than listen to what people are actually saying.
(cross post with EE, who's still flogging the same old horse)
[ 24. May 2013, 13:20: Message edited by: goperryrevs ]
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Secondly, there is a huge moral difference in the gaps - symbolised by arrows in the connections above. In the first one, both sides of the connection involve wanting people dead. In the second, death only exists on one side of the connection.
What utter, disingenuous horseshit!
Your increasingly desperate attempts to wriggle out of the mire you have landed yourself in fool no one. OK, you may have deceived yourself, but I don't think anyone else has fallen for it.
(If anyone has fallen for EE's argument, do let me know)
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
Look, the problem is that your interpretation of what people have said is totally at odds with everyone else's. But everyone else is wrong, and you're the only right one, yeah? Let's look at how you've described these 'connections':
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Connection #1: Wishing someone dead ----> desiring to implement their death
Part 1: Wishing someone dead:
Who is 'someone'? According to you, anyone who thinks marriage should only be between a man and a woman. and/or anyone who disagrees with Marvin's opinion. What Marvin actually said: Someone who marginalise(s) and persecute(s) gays. Spot the difference?
Part 2: Desiring to implement their death:
Probably the best way to test whether it's a big leap or a small one to this or not is to ask Marvin whether he's planning to commit any murders of high-profile homophobes. If not, then probably the leap is bigger than you think.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Connection #2: Believing that a particular recognised type of relationship should be between people of the opposite sex ----> causing the suicide of people with a sexual desire for others of the same sex
Part 1:
EE's version: Believing that a particular recognised type of relationship should be between people of the opposite sex. What I actually said: people like Dominique Venner / aggressive homophobia / someone who marginalized and persecuted gays
Part 2:
EE's version: causing the suicide of people with a sexual desire for others of the same sex. Actual version: causing the suicide of people with a sexual desire for others of the same sex.
Wow! Well, 1 in 4 isn't bad, I guess?
[ 24. May 2013, 13:35: Message edited by: goperryrevs ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
My concern is the way some people use 'God' - and His obvious superiority to us - as a device to stamp out debate and the proper investigation of truth claims. Anybody can do this.
Okay this is funny.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
I sincerely doubt he understands the irony of his making this statement.
And would argue he does not operate this way and, after all the proof showing he does, will say that your argument is scientific naturalism. Which is wrong because, clearly, God did it.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
Etywhatever Annoyingthing, you are a moron. An abject idiotic moron. And like so many creation nutjobs, you are either stupid or lying.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
... the theory that the scientific establishment has been wearisomely promoting for years, namely, that we are all just animals. And furthermore, the idea that some races are more evolved than others is perfectly consistent with that theory. ...
There were plenty of racist Christians around before Origin of Species was published who used their religion to justify their racism. So a) fuck off, and b) for the love of the sweet baby Jesus, take an introductory biology course at your local community college.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Etywhatever Annoyingthing, you are a moron. An abject idiotic moron. And like so many creation nutjobs, you are either stupid or lying.
Now, let's be reasonable here. Why can't it be both?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
for the love of the sweet baby Jesus, take an introductory biology course at your local community college.
No, not a biology instructor, a geologist. A geologist would have the necessary tools to carve the lesson into the rock between EE's ears.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Etywhatever Annoyingthing, you are a moron. An abject idiotic moron. And like so many creation nutjobs, you are either stupid or lying.
I doubt he is either stupid or a liar. I believe he is entirely sincere in his malice and deliberate provocation.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
EtymologicalEvangelical: LeRoc appealing to logic!!!
The person who once told me that s/he doesn't believe in it!
Well I never...
If you *could* read for comprehension, you would have understood that I don't believe in logic as a useful way in trying to describe God. This qualifier is rather imporant.
You know, it just hit me while browsing this thread. Qualifier. EE is consistently, spectacularly qualifier-blind.
Always takes the straight path. Which would be an admirable quality, in an empty field...
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Let us suppose that the serial killer, Fred West, had just killed himself in prison (as I am sure you know, he committed suicide some years ago). I then decided to open a thread in hell called "Good Riddance", and I expressed my pleasure at the demise of this indescribably evil man. Let me guess what the reaction would be. Judging by some of the comments on one of the Purg. threads some months ago (which I think was on the subject of damnation), I suspect that I would be pilloried for being so self-righteous and full of 'hate'. On the evidence of his previous performance, Marvin would probably have gone on about how "there is good in everyone" and so on. In other words, we've been this way before.
.
First, I'm a hellhost on holiday using an iPhone. Trying to edit that down pissed me off.
Second, you're comparing a Hell post to something you observed in Purg. Have we taught you NOTHING?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Let us suppose that the serial killer, Fred West, had just killed himself in prison (as I am sure you know, he committed suicide some years ago). I then decided to open a thread in hell called "Good Riddance", and I expressed my pleasure at the demise of this indescribably evil man. Let me guess what the reaction would be. Judging by some of the comments on one of the Purg. threads some months ago (which I think was on the subject of damnation), I suspect that I would be pilloried for being so self-righteous and full of 'hate'. On the evidence of his previous performance, Marvin would probably have gone on about how "there is good in everyone" and so on. In other words, we've been this way before.
.
First, I'm a hellhost on holiday using an iPhone. Trying to edit that down pissed me off.
Second, you're comparing a Hell post to something you observed in Purg. Have we taught you NOTHING?
Oh how we've tried, as have the Purgatory hosts and numerous Shipmates, but has EE learned anything? Nope, he clings on to his doctrines, catch-phrases and strawmen like a little boy holding on to nurse 'for fear of finding something worse'.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
To create a hell thread so vile and insidious in its title and contents that it merits its own hell call is really quite an achievement. I did try to read past the first post on it, but I actually felt dirty. It's like wading through evil pretending to be righteousness, and I doubt EE will ever see it for what it is.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Let us suppose that the serial killer, Fred West, had just killed himself in prison (as I am sure you know, he committed suicide some years ago). I then decided to open a thread in hell called "Good Riddance", and I expressed my pleasure at the demise of this indescribably evil man. Let me guess what the reaction would be. Judging by some of the comments on one of the Purg. threads some months ago (which I think was on the subject of damnation), I suspect that I would be pilloried for being so self-righteous and full of 'hate'. On the evidence of his previous performance, Marvin would probably have gone on about how "there is good in everyone" and so on. In other words, we've been this way before.
But it seems that it's perfectly OK to bid 'good riddance' to someone who did not believe in gay marriage. Yes, I am aware that he was probably an obnoxious fascist, but no more evil than the kind of people whom people like me shouldn't speak against!
I am well aware that there is the tragic trend of suicides among gays and lesbians as a result of homophobic attitudes. But it's an astonishing leap (and an illiberal rejection of freedom of speech and conscience) to say that someone who believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman, is driving gay people to their deaths.
The word 'homophobic' is bandied around in a way that stifles honest debate among people who do not harbour any hatred at all of gay and lesbian people. If people want to talk about offensive language, then I would suggest that the reckless use of 'homophobic' is deeply irresponsible.
I happen to think EE is talking quite a bit of sense here . The resistance he's picking up on this, (and the other), thread is by no means representative of the views of the wider general population IMO .
Remember how, until recently, it was trendy to call anyone who concerns about immigration a 'racist' . Not so since the recent UK By-Election upset however.
It's not just a few so-called "homophobic" straight folk who are concerned about the speed of change with regards to Gay Right legislation , many gay people themselves are unnerved by it. I have read posts on the Ship from gay people who are already happy with the freedoms they enjoy , they are not keen to have the boat rocked in a way that might see attitudes harden against them.
I have yet to read the link re. the guy who topped himself at Notre Dame , yet it sounds more like a tragedy than something to rejoice over.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Remember how, until recently, it was trendy to call anyone who concerns about immigration a 'racist' . Not so since the recent UK By-Election upset however.
I don't think I've met anyone with "concerns" about immigration who wasn't an ignorant racist. The fact that there are still a lot of them around, and the flames are fanned by the press, is neither here nor there.
quote:
It's not just a few so-called "homophobic" straight folk who are concerned about the speed of change with regards to Gay Right legislation , many gay people themselves are unnerved by it. I have read posts on the Ship from gay people who are already happy with the freedoms they enjoy , they are not keen to have the boat rocked in a way that might see attitudes harden against them.
So because some gay people are willing to accept what they currently have because they see a risk of stoking up homophobia that's a sign that homophobia isn't a real problem? That's some fucking twisted logic you have there. I think most gay people (and indeed most of their straight allies) are willing to take the risk of causing Lord Carey, UKIP and the BNP further fits of apoplexy in the pursuit of justice. Fuck them and the horse they rode in on that they claim somebody wants to marry.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
By the same logic, if some women being bashed by their husbands don't leave their husbands, domestic violence isn't really a problem.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I don't think I've met anyone with "concerns" about immigration who wasn't an ignorant racist.
I know a few people with "concerns" about immigration, and their concerns center on the fact that immigration increases the supply of people with similar skills to them, and so reduces the market rate for their job.
This isn't exactly racist - they don't care so much about the ethnic origin of the immigrants as the fact that they are outsiders competing for the same jobs. It's rather similar, in fact, to members of a trade union complaining about work being given to non-union members.
Now, I'm generally in favour of fairly unrestricted immigration, so I don't agree with them, but I don't think they're all being racist.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
I don't see another suitable description for treating people differently based on their nationality. And it's totally different from the union question because anyone can join the relevant trade union for their industry, whereas immigration "concerns" are precisely about stopping people joining. If my trade union decided they didn't want Polish members I'm pretty most people (and the Equality Act) would rightly consider them to be racist.
[ 02. June 2013, 14:51: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I don't think I've met anyone with "concerns" about immigration who wasn't an ignorant racist.
I know a few people with "concerns" about immigration, and their concerns center on the fact that immigration increases the supply of people with similar skills to them, and so reduces the market rate for their job.
This isn't exactly racist - they don't care so much about the ethnic origin of the immigrants as the fact that they are outsiders competing for the same jobs. It's rather similar, in fact, to members of a trade union complaining about work being given to non-union members.
I remember the opposition to "union shops" in the 1970's and 1980's (this is all in the UK) and most of it was from the same part of the political spectrum that is now in a froth about EU migrant workers. The line that it's about competition for jobs is a bit of opportunism aimed at getting the British workers on their side. That part of the political spectrum is all for screwing the workers, whatever the location, gender, race, nationality or sexual orientation, so it's a pretty specious argument.
quote:
Now, I'm generally in favour of fairly unrestricted immigration, so I don't agree with them, but I don't think they're all being racist.
Not all but many rather than some.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I don't think I've met anyone with "concerns" about immigration who wasn't an ignorant racist.
Either you don't meet many people or your definition of an 'ignorant racist' is completely different to mine.
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I don't think I've met anyone with "concerns" about immigration who wasn't an ignorant racist.
Either you don't meet many people or your definition of an 'ignorant racist' is completely different to mine.
On the subject of ignorance, what was the "recent UK By-election upset" you were referring to upthread? Labour holding South Shields most certainly isn't an upset, Sinn Fein holding Mid Ulster ditto. I suppose you could make a case that the Lib Dems did well to hold Eastleigh, given the circumstances, but "upset" would be a bit strong, and I can't see why it would make anyone well-disposed towards racists. That's all there is from the last 6 months, which is a pretty decent definition of recent, given Harold Wilson's famous epigram on politics and time.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I don't think I've met anyone with "concerns" about immigration who wasn't an ignorant racist.
Either you don't meet many people or your definition of an 'ignorant racist' is completely different to mine.
On the subject of ignorance, what was the "recent UK By-election upset" you were referring to upthread? Labour holding South Shields most certainly isn't an upset, Sinn Fein holding Mid Ulster ditto. I suppose you could make a case that the Lib Dems did well to hold Eastleigh, given the circumstances, but "upset" would be a bit strong, and I can't see why it would make anyone well-disposed towards racists. That's all there is from the last 6 months, which is a pretty decent definition of recent, given Harold Wilson's famous epigram on politics and time.
I think the "upset" was the Eastleigh by-election. UKIP took so many votes from the Tories that the LibDems hung on to the seat.
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I think the "upset" was the Eastleigh by-election. UKIP took so many votes from the Tories that the LibDems hung on to the seat.
Well, I'm assuming that the idea is "UKIP got some votes, therefore they can't really be racists, loonies and fruitcakes", but the narrative around this gets more ridiculous every time.
Reality check: UKIP are a bunch of nutters who are desperately trying to carve out an existence as an all-purpose "none of the above" protest party for xenophobes, retired Colonel Bufton-Tuftons who remember the good old days, I'm-not-a-racist-buts, metric martyrs, saloon bar racists, elf-n-safety-gorn-mad ranters, and people who think the BNP have the right idea but are a bit too shouty and common.
They have the advantage of not one but two parties forming a highly unpopular government, one of those parties being a highly favoured protest vote in previous years, but despite this, the best they can claim is to have come 2nd in a By-election. Whoop-de-fucking-do. Anyone who votes for these nutjobs is either a racist, a bigot or terminally confused, and that doesn't change just because they stopped losing their deposits.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Anyone who votes for these nutjobs is either a racist, a bigot or terminally confused, and that doesn't change just because they stopped losing their deposits.
An anecdote from the election trail in Eastleigh:
On election day, I went out 'knocking up' (trying to get identified Conservative voters to go out and vote Tory). As you might expect from the result, it wasn't a great success.
At the sun was starting to set, I knocked on the door of a middle-aged couple who - according to my information sheet - were solid Tory voters. They were very pleasant when they answered the door, very chatty. They told me that they had already voted, but for UKIP.
They said that they would vote Tory at a general election ("when the vote matters") but that they had voted UKIP this time because of a general disillusionment with the political classes and a feeling that the Tories had caved in too much to the Lib Dems. The husband mentioned immigration briefly, saying something along the lines of 'I don't mind them coming here but I want them to try to fit in, and not all of them do, you know what I mean?'
This couple might not be typical UKIP voters, but I imagine a lot of support for UKIP comes from people who think the way they do. You might disagree with them, but I wouldn't say they were 'racists', 'bigots', 'nutjobs' or 'confused'.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
... 'I don't mind them coming here but I want them to try to fit in, and not all of them do, you know what I mean?' ... You might disagree with them, but I wouldn't say they were 'racists', 'bigots', 'nutjobs' or 'confused'. ...
You wouldn't, but I will: they are being racist. If you don`t understand how and why that statement is racist, then you don`t know what racism is, and you are superbly unqualified to determine whether someone else is being racist.
Posted by wishandaprayer (# 17673) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
... 'I don't mind them coming here but I want them to try to fit in, and not all of them do, you know what I mean?' ... You might disagree with them, but I wouldn't say they were 'racists', 'bigots', 'nutjobs' or 'confused'. ...
You wouldn't, but I will: they are being racist. If you don`t understand how and why that statement is racist, then you don`t know what racism is, and you are superbly unqualified to determine whether someone else is being racist.
Wait. I am an immigrant and I agree with this. It can actually be a genuine observation - I have observed it in my community (real example - a family who have immigrated to the country over 30 years ago where members of the family have not attempted to learn the language of the country they are in). This is in no way 'racist', I'm sorry. I hold similar views, I also dislike laziness and entitledness in anyone, it might be another 'ism' but it's not, necessarily, racism. Now fuck off and shut up (this is hell after all). ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
[ 03. June 2013, 12:54: Message edited by: wishandaprayer ]
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by wishandaprayer:
Wait. I am an immigrant and I agree with this. It can actually be a genuine observation - I have observed it in my community
Welcome to the Ship, wishandaprayer, I hope you have fun on here. Despite your own observations in life and the fact that you think you're ok, I'm sure someone will be along shortly to diagnose you with 'internalised racism' or some such and suggest a suitable remedy. Get well soon.
Posted by wishandaprayer (# 17673) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Welcome to the Ship, wishandaprayer, I hope you have fun on here. Despite your own observations in life and the fact that you think you're ok, I'm sure someone will be along shortly to diagnose you with 'internalised racism' or some such and suggest a suitable remedy. Get well soon.
Thank you for my welcome. Certainly not hell-ish.
I will pre-empt that by telling them once they have been assaulted, passed over on jobs, passed over in church positions, and generally pissed over both for the colour of their skin and the fact they are an immigrant (as I have), they can talk about my 'internalised racism'. Until then they can certainly talk from their ivory towers (what a suitable image) about 'internalised racism' or 'not liking Burkas as racism' or whatever else. But they'd be wrong. I know what racism is; it kicked my teeth in. Thank you.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
We could have an interesting discussion, perhaps in Purg, about whether is any obligation to 'fit in' and why. Why exactly do we want people to be like us? Exactly what obligations does someone take on, if any, in return for being allowed to move somewhere.
I'd note for now that learning the language is not a formal requirement in many cases, otherwise people wouldn't be allowed in until demonstrating competency.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by wishandaprayer:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
... 'I don't mind them coming here but I want them to try to fit in, and not all of them do, you know what I mean?' ... You might disagree with them, but I wouldn't say they were 'racists', 'bigots', 'nutjobs' or 'confused'. ...
You wouldn't, but I will: they are being racist. If you don`t understand how and why that statement is racist, then you don`t know what racism is, and you are superbly unqualified to determine whether someone else is being racist.
Wait. I am an immigrant and I agree with this. It can actually be a genuine observation - I have observed it in my community (real example - a family who have immigrated to the country over 30 years ago where members of the family have not attempted to learn the language of the country they are in). This is in no way 'racist', I'm sorry. I hold similar views, I also dislike laziness and entitledness in anyone, it might be another 'ism' but it's not, necessarily, racism. Now fuck off and shut up (this is hell after all).
Hmmm, it is a matter of application and observation.
Why is London* riddled with sub-culture? Because people are unwilling to give up their identity. It just happens with those who have been there hundreds of years have kind of mushed together and acculturated by the press of time and proximity. Kind of like soup, the longer you cook it, the less distinguishable the ingredients. Newer immigrants have not been in the pot as long. Yeah, they ain't like us, but we aren't like us either.
Is Anglican't's example racist? Not inherently, but it is often the battle cry of those who would try to mask their racism. And how much assimilation is enough? Some of us are not willing to go all Michael Jackson, so there will always be differences.
*Any large city of significant age will likely do. Hell, even New York is old enough to exhibit this.
Posted by wishandaprayer (# 17673) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Hmmm, it is a matter of application and observation.
Great point. This is of course very true; I was just pointing out to the battle cry of Soror Magna that it isn't so easy just to label someone 'racist'. In fact, this way of labelling things that could display genuine issues as something inherently negative is a way of shutting down a section of people from displaying real concerns; and when this goes on, no wonder their views become more and more extreme.
At the end of the day we're all descended from immigrants in one form or another, no matter how you look at it ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by wishandaprayer:
At the end of the day we're all descended from immigrants in one form or another, no matter how you look at it
Except, of course, people living in Olduvai Gorge. Oh wait.
Posted by wishandaprayer (# 17673) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Except, of course, people living in Olduvai Gorge. Oh wait.
Just a different type of immigrant. Bastards.
[ 03. June 2013, 16:00: Message edited by: wishandaprayer ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
We could have an interesting discussion, perhaps in Purg, about whether is any obligation to 'fit in' and why.
Well, we've all heard stories about asshole tourists who refuse to pay attention to any local customs or norms and who spend their whole holiday basically shitting all over the culture of the place they're staying in. What jerks they are. Is it asking so much of them to at least try to care about the sensibilities of the people they're visiting?
Now imagine if those tourists never went home. Would their behaviour suddenly become acceptable, or would they still be jerks who the host country would be better off without?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
I dunno, it has worked in London for 2,000 years.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
We could have an interesting discussion, perhaps in Purg, about whether is any obligation to 'fit in' and why.
Well, we've all heard stories about asshole tourists who refuse to pay attention to any local customs or norms and who spend their whole holiday basically shitting all over the culture of the place they're staying in. What jerks they are. Is it asking so much of them to at least try to care about the sensibilities of the people they're visiting?
Now imagine if those tourists never went home. Would their behaviour suddenly become acceptable, or would they still be jerks who the host country would be better off without?
No, but the relevance of this to an immigrant family that doesn't learn English pretty much escapes me. The gap between not assimilating and actively shitting over the locals is far and wide.
Posted by wishandaprayer (# 17673) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
No, but the relevance of this to an immigrant family that doesn't learn English pretty much escapes me. The gap between not assimilating and actively shitting over the locals is far and wide.
It is a question of scale. To say it doesn't matter is to say that indigenous culture is irrelevant.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
As Bits and Yanks have horrible reputations for crapping over the locals whilst traveling, does this mean they do not get to bitch about immigrants?
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by wishandaprayer:
I know what racism is; it kicked my teeth in. Thank you.
That has always my definition of racism .
If the definition net is widening to include people like myself who exhibit signs of 'hidden racism', as lilbuddha puts it, then so be it.
Only trouble with that is it either makes the person who assaults someone of a different race less bad , or it makes me as bad.
And if it's the latter, then that my friends is oxygen to extremism.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
As Brits and Yanks have horrible reputations for crapping over the locals whilst traveling, does this mean they do not get to bitch about immigrants?
That's hardly fair. We crap over our own kind and bitch about one another too. Injuring 'the locals' and immigrants is often no more than collateral damage.
The Brits and Yanks have this strange idea that they are tolerant while being anything but. I've seen this on three continents.
[ 03. June 2013, 18:11: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Only trouble with that is it either makes the person who assaults someone of a different race less bad , or it makes me as bad.
And if it's the latter, then that my friends is oxygen to extremism.
Not the way it works.
A person who assaults another gets top prize.
However, those who cheer it on do not get a pass.
And, you might be in the closet, but the door is oft thinner than you think.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And, you might be in the closet, but the door is oft thinner than you think.
So if I'm a closeted racist , what would suggest ? Come out and join BNP , EDL or some such ?
Then maybe put my energies into lobbying all those others brought up with parents who had their attitudes shaped by the dying decades of the British Empire and enid blyton ?
Making sweeping statements about who is, or isn't a racist has been tried by the Prime Minister . Had to eat his words as I recall.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
My point was that simply because someone does not march in a protest, throw a rock or swing a bat does not meant they do not influence those who do.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
My two cents over languages, as in learning them:
In my extremely limited teaching experience, I had an international student in the same class as many native-born (U.S.) students.
One such went off at the international student one evening over her "inability to speak English."
I intervened. The international student's English was pretty much perfect, grammatically speaking (I was an English major as an undergrad). She'd been here two years (though studied English all through school in her country of origin). She did have a pronounced accent. I had no trouble with it, but native speakers with little experience of listening to non-native speakers are sometimes unable to understand accents easily.
The native speaker's English, by comparison, was poor, especially in his written work. The international student could have taught him a thing or two, if he'd been open to that possibility.
I have also known long-term residents who have struggled mightily and largely in vain with learning a new language. It takes most of us roughly 10-14 years to become fairly competent in our first language (and the rest of our lives to become really adept, and many don't bother to go that far). I wouldn't personally be so hard on people who fail to "pick up" a new language, especially when faced with the necessity of doing so in adulthood.
And in this country, immigrants have to pay cold hard cash for instruction in English, when they often can barely afford to live.
[ 03. June 2013, 19:06: Message edited by: Porridge ]
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Making sweeping statements about who is, or isn't a racist has been tried by the Prime Minister . Had to eat his words as I recall.
As is often the case, he screwed up by telling the truth in public. He back-pedalled for political reasons, not because he was wrong. Same deal with Gordon Brown and that ignorant bigot in Rochdale.
Your defence of racism has a lot in common with those who try to minimise date rape and those who rape people too drunk to consent, because those rapes don't have the exact same character as a masked man with a knife dragging a woman into an alley. Rape is rape; racism is racism. And bigots are bigots.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
As Bits and Yanks have horrible reputations for crapping over the locals whilst traveling, does this mean they do not get to bitch about immigrants?
Point is, if they're wrong to do it to others then others are wrong to do it to them.
Posted by wishandaprayer (# 17673) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Your defence of racism has a lot in common with those who try to minimise date rape
Oh GAWD. This is nothing like it. I feel in some cases it actually does a dis-service to lump everyone in together, it minimises what the public perception of racism in; rather than the family who shun a daughter for marrying into a family from a different race (yes, it does happen, in my life) it becomes the little old lady down the road who describes a person as "black as my boot"; you're inadvertently trivialising racist; rather than making it more serious, by bandy-ing it about left right and center. But I suppose I can't talk, as I'm clearly a "closeted racist". Walk a mile in my shoes and you'd understand differently.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Your defence of racism has a lot in common with those who try to minimise date rape and those who rape people too drunk to consent, because those rapes don't have the exact same character as a masked man with a knife dragging a woman into an alley. Rape is rape; racism is racism. And bigots are bigots.
And this is why UKIP, the BNP and the EDL will always have support. As far as I'm aware, there has been limited real political debate about post-war immigration. It's something that has been imposed on people (changing their towns beyond recognition in the process). If anyone who dares poke their head above the parapet to complain is shouted down as 'racist' then we won't eliminate hatred. We'll stoke it.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
As Bits and Yanks have horrible reputations for crapping over the locals whilst traveling, does this mean they do not get to bitch about immigrants?
Point is, if they're wrong to do it to others then others are wrong to do it to them.
And what is it two wrongs don't make? These extra-terrestrials, coming over here, using our websites and bulletin boards ......
Posted by wishandaprayer (# 17673) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
These extra-terrestrials, coming over here, using our websites and bulletin boards ......
The Annunaki were here first ANYWAY.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Ah but where are they FROM?.
One of my bosses told me the other day that he forgot I was Asian because I was so white. (Blond hair, blue yes, pink skin)
Is that racist?
Posted by wishandaprayer (# 17673) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Is that racist?
You're racist. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
I am?
But some of my best friends are Annunaki!
Posted by wishandaprayer (# 17673) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I am?
But some of my best friends are Annunaki!
It doesn't even matter if you married an Annunaki.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Oh good. That's allright then.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
And what is it two wrongs don't make?
So you agree it's wrong?
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
Evensong:
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Thank you God, that some bright spark occasionally comes along and shows me my brow is not quite so fevered as previously assumed and I do not traverse the lilypads of my mental pond entirely alone.
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on
:
And the Evensong/Yorick lovefest continues.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
My point was that simply because someone does not march in a protest, throw a rock or swing a bat does not meant they do not influence those who do.
I do accept the truth in that statement .
'Masked racists' as you like to call us need to be very careful what we say, and ought, at every possible opportunity, make it quite clear that we do not support abuse, assaults, or hassle of any kind to folk of different race.
I've never feel good at all when hearing news of racist attacks or killings . On the contrary, such things are appalling , tragic and wrong.
I will however shamefully admit to becoming angry enough after the 7/7 bombings, and the near miss of 21/7, not to mind all that much about the spate of vandalism to mosques that happened in it's wake .
Which is the very type of feeling terror acts are meant to provoke.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I will however shamefully admit to becoming angry enough after the 7/7 bombings, and the near miss of 21/7, not to mind all that much about the spate of vandalism to mosques that happened in it's wake .
Which is the very type of feeling terror acts are meant to provoke.
Do you think you would have felt the same way if people had started attacking churches in the wake of the IRA bombing campaign?
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Do you think you would have felt the same way if people had started attacking churches in the wake of the IRA bombing campaign?
No I wouldn't have , probably just have felt it to be all the more depressing .
The problem many people seem to have with Islam , Mosques and the like is they view as an impostor from without.
Whereas I recall the Irish troubles feeling internal , even though Catholicism was perceived by some as being the dark driving force of the IRA.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Do you think you would have felt the same way if people had started attacking churches in the wake of the IRA bombing campaign?
No I wouldn't have , probably just have felt it to be all the more depressing .
The problem many people seem to have with Islam , Mosques and the like is they view as an impostor from without.
Whereas I recall the Irish troubles feeling internal , even though Catholicism was perceived by some as being the dark driving force of the IRA.
And don't you think the source of that difference in view is racism?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Do you think you would have felt the same way if people had started attacking churches in the wake of the IRA bombing campaign?
No I wouldn't have , probably just have felt it to be all the more depressing .
The problem many people seem to have with Islam , Mosques and the like is they view as an impostor from without.
Whereas I recall the Irish troubles feeling internal , even though Catholicism was perceived by some as being the dark driving force of the IRA.
And don't you think the source of that difference in view is racism?
Part of my family has a distinctly Irish surname and living in Birmingham in the mid-1970's wasn't a bundle of fun, especially for my neices at school. Bigotry is bigotry, whether it is based on race, class, gender or whatever. So long as an in-group that has power (and often does not acknowledge that) can identify an out-group, that power will be abused.
Posted by Kittyville (# 16106) on
:
The IRA was driven by the RC church? I've never heard that one before. Certain RC priests were sympathisers and active supporters of the IRA? Absolutely. A suggestion that the church was the engine behind the Fenian movement or Irish nationalism? That's a new one on me.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kittyville:
The IRA was driven by the RC church? I've never heard that one before. Certain RC priests were sympathisers and active supporters of the IRA? Absolutely. A suggestion that the church was the engine behind the Fenian movement or Irish nationalism? That's a new one on me.
I would say that the church was not the engine behind Irish nationalism, but it was a very important element.
Moo
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on
:
Are you saying that the Church supported the IRA and terrorism? Or that people who identified as Christian supported the IRA?
The last I would believe; the first no.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
It depends on how you perceive things. When I was living in Ocford in 69-72, Blackfriars -- the Dominican house in the city and the university -- was the local centre of IRA activity and support. Now it is perfectly true that this was not an official function of the house, and probably that not all the members were IRA supporters -- though none of them seemed to object. But it's easy to see how outsiders might assume that there was some kind of moral link between the IRA and Blackfriars.
And the fact that, since everyone at Blackfriars must have known what was going on in their midst and what the general public clearly understood, none of the authority figures in the house or in the church said boo about it, might tend to encourage people in that belief.
John
Posted by wishandaprayer (# 17673) on
:
It goes on both sides - priests in the RC supported the various IRA (Provos, OIRA, Real IRA, etc.); pastors in protestant churches supported their paramilitaries - UVF, UDA, UFF, etc.
[ 05. June 2013, 14:29: Message edited by: wishandaprayer ]
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
It depends on how you perceive things. When I was living in Ocford in 69-72, Blackfriars -- the Dominican house in the city and the university -- was the local centre of IRA activity and support. Now it is perfectly true that this was not an official function of the house, and probably that not all the members were IRA supporters -- though none of them seemed to object. But it's easy to see how outsiders might assume that there was some kind of moral link between the IRA and Blackfriars.
And the fact that, since everyone at Blackfriars must have known what was going on in their midst and what the general public clearly understood, none of the authority figures in the house or in the church said boo about it, might tend to encourage people in that belief.
John
That's quite a claim, John. Can I ask you to be specific about whether it was paramilitary operations of the IRA that were being "supported" from Blackfriars rather than non-violent political activities? With specific regard to the sections I have italicised above, what is your evidence for this? Was there any evidence, in particular, that any of the friars themselves actively supported or endorsed nationlist violence?
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kittyville:
The IRA was driven by the RC church? I've never heard that one before. Certain RC priests were sympathisers and active supporters of the IRA? Absolutely. A suggestion that the church was the engine behind the Fenian movement or Irish nationalism? That's a new one on me.
Interestingly, the Fenian movement received a little boost from the Presbyterians, in the 1800s, who, as non-conformists, where subject to the same discriminations as Catholics pre-emancipation; and who briefly shared the same lobbying platform. Strange bed-fellows as the saying goes!
The Irish Republican Brotherhood was responsible for the Fenians, however, and this eventually evolved rather untidily into the IRA in the early 20th century. As a political movement - not a terrorist force - and like other such movements in the Republic, it certainly received its share of support from individual Catholic church leaders and priests. This was very much tied in to the fight for firstly home-rule and then independence and it could hardly be expected that parish priests or bishops would stay quiet and hidden when their parishioners were striving for their own identity and rights.
It would've been exceptionally strange for churchmen of any stripe to keep their noses out of the politics that affected their flock! It's also worth bearing in mind that many of the Catholic priests were also local men; brothers, uncles, townsmen and so on of the people involved in these very active movements. To be Irish was/is to be political.
But an actual driving force? Hard to qualify. Obviously the RCC wanted to progress the establishment of Catholic Ireland, or at least Catholic majority rule. And obviously the faithful Catholic public expected their Church to champion their cause. But there's no indication that it was - even unspoken - church policy to actively support violence to attain those ends. Doubtless some individuals did as they pleased anyway.
But any direct association with the IRA faded, I believe, very soon after partition in 1921, when it seemed the Church's role was to support the new government's establishment.
In modern Ulster, with the Troubles, it was a thing often said that priests would hide or assist terrorists or absolve them of their crimes knowing the crimes would be repeated. But again, allowing for the odd pro-IRA priest, it's very doubtful this happened in the way prejudiced people suggested.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
It depends on how you perceive things. When I was living in Ocford in 69-72, Blackfriars -- the Dominican house in the city and the university -- was the local centre of IRA activity and support. Now it is perfectly true that this was not an official function of the house, and probably that not all the members were IRA supporters -- though none of them seemed to object. But it's easy to see how outsiders might assume that there was some kind of moral link between the IRA and Blackfriars.
And the fact that, since everyone at Blackfriars must have known what was going on in their midst and what the general public clearly understood, none of the authority figures in the house or in the church said boo about it, might tend to encourage people in that belief.
John
That's quite a claim, John. Can I ask you to be specific about whether it was paramilitary operations of the IRA that were being "supported" from Blackfriars rather than non-violent political activities? With specific regard to the sections I have italicised above, what is your evidence for this? Was there any evidence, in particular, that any of the friars themselves actively supported or endorsed nationlist violence?
Why sure. A number of the friars, names now forgotten, sponsored meetings in the house at which members of the IRA appeared and spoke. At least one spoke in support on several occasions. I can't at this stage remember hwich branch or branches of the IRA, but <name removed>, both before and after election to the House of Commons was one of the frequent speakers. As for public knowledge, the meetings were advertised in the daily university listing of events.
The meetings were well-known, publicized in and around the university and held in the Blackfriars itself. No comment was ever made publicly repudiating (or, as I have admitted, explicitly supporting) these events by the head of the house or by any other official of the church or the order.
If you are seriously claiming that the head of Blackfriars was unaware and not made aware of public meetings arranged by members of his order and held inside his house and publicly announced to the whole university over a period of several years, then I fear you are far more trusting than I am.
John
[ 06. June 2013, 14:29: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
John, since we don't know what "IRA" were are talking about here I'll restrict my question to my original specific enquiry: was it paramilitary terrorism/violence that was being explicity supported by the friars/at the venue rather than legal political endeavours?
Your first-post reply was to PeteC who explicitly mentioned terrorism which gives me to believe that you meant that support for terrorism was being openly advanced and/or winked at by the friars. Would you want to substantiate that psrticular claim?
[ 06. June 2013, 10:48: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
psrticular claim?
Haven't heard that one before.
Must be an Irish accent.
*nods to self*
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
posted by Chester:
quote:
was it paramilitary terrorism/violence that was being explicity supported by the friars/at the venue rather than legal political endeavours?
Huh? What 'legal' political endeavours did any branch of the IRA involve themselves in during the late 60's and early 70's?
When you have any kind of conflict like the one in Northern Ireland during the 'troubles', things invariably get messy, confused and rife with the problem of shaking the hand of the devil. It is important to note that there were many, many priests and clergy who were incredibly daring and had a clear vision of their own faith in the midst of the quagmire. There are very notable Roman Catholic priests and those in orders, alongside notable Presbyterians and Episcopalians (and others) who could be named here. Many of their stories are only beginning to be told (for many and various reasons, including the fact that at the time to advertise their bravery might have cost them their lives). But the flip side is the nasty, insidious, often untold story of the priests and clergy (of all denominations) who facilitated terrorism (not just the IRA, but also the UVF, etc). There was also the issue of infiltration. It may seem far fetched now, but then it was a reality, well known on the streets if not in a court judgement. Safe places, employment foils and 'safe houses' were a very important part of how terrorism actually worked - from all sides of the community. People don't like to think about it now because they might have to admit they were duped, or worse, the priest they thought was 'good and upstanding for Ireland's cause' or the cleric who was 'a solid Protestant standing up for Ulster's working class' was anything but a good priest/cleric.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Oh, Jesus!. Save me from Catholic Purgatory!
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
posted by Chester:
quote:
was it paramilitary terrorism/violence that was being explicity supported by the friars/at the venue rather than legal political endeavours?
Huh? What 'legal' political endeavours did any branch of the IRA involve themselves in during the late 60's and early 70's?
I dunno, flatcher - John's left it too non-specific to determine what we're talking about. Could it be talks by Sinn Fein members involved in the political process? Was it talks by persons who were known to advocate and perpetrate violence? Was it talks by active terrorists? Who knows?
But John's implication seemed very much to me to be that Blackfriars openly (and at least semi-officially) supported or condoned terrorism. I just want to know what the actual evidence for this is.
[ 06. June 2013, 14:11: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
Hostly Bowler on
I have altered the element in italics towards the end of this post upthread to depersonalise it and thereby lessen the chance of legal action. As fletcher christian has mentioned naming names could actually do far more harm than writs winging their way to the Ship so please, if anyone does have evidence or information and feels a burning need to pass it on, think once, think twice, think three times and take it to the places evidence and information should go. Don't clutter up cyberspace with it. Especially not this bit of cyberspace (including PMs and emails).
Sioni Sais
Hellhost
Hostly Bowler off
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
Chester:
Fletcher has reminded me -- it was a long time ago -- that at the time, the IRA was a banned organization in the UK. In the public eye (which is what we're talking about -- remember, I began my original post with "It depends on how you perceive it) in England at the time, all IRA activists were terrorists, either actual or potential. THe speaker whose name has been removed from an earlier post was certainly speaking in favour of what was, at the time, only otherwise being pursued by bombs and covert shooting in Ireland -- only later did the bombing move to the British mainland. (Which is not to deny that equally "terrorist" activities were being carried on by the Protestant forces.)
I will admit that I did not attend the meetings at Blackfriars, because it was clear that the cause was terrorism -- at least, so far as those of us on the outside could judge, given the political situation at the time. So I suppose that it is possible that Miss D****** was only spreading sweetness and light. Given what she said openly in other public forums in the period, and indeed at Westminster after her election as an MP, that strikes me as unlikely. You of course are free to reach a different conclusion. I am assuming that in reaching such a different conclusion, you are remembering what it was like to live through the events of that period, and what the climate of public opinion was like at the time.
John
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
posted by Chester:
quote:
Could it be talks by Sinn Fein members involved in the political process?
I very much doubt it. They were too busy during this period making trips to America to rattle the Noraid collection boxes; and you can bet your ass the money wasn't for buying shoes for poor catholic children.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
Thanks for the clarification, John. I do not, of course, rule out the possibility of individual layfolk or friars supporting or condoning terrorism, horrible as that would be.
There is, however, conceptual space between Blackfriars (openly or covertly) supporting or condoning acts of terrorist violence on the one hand, and on the other inviting speakers (or allowing them to be invited) who may or may not themselves have supported such violence to address meetings held on ther premises.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
And don't you think the source of that difference in view is racism?
Well it could be if you say so .
Not that I remember the 70s no-warning pub nail-bombings being any less appalling than 7/7 due to the fact that they were committed by by my white caucasian brethren .
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
Are you saying that the Church supported the IRA and terrorism? Or that people who identified as Christian supported the IRA?
The last I would believe; the first no.
It's hard for the average outside to separate the two. When you have a priest, say supporting Bobby Sands and there's no comment from the church hierarchy, it looks that way. This is something to clarify.
By way of comparison, we also had the eventual censure of Liberation Theology of Latin America, and the order that priests can't be politicians.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0