|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hug a homophobe?
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
There's an interesting article here in The Independent which came out of Justin Welby's recent appearance at Greenbelt.
Aside from objections in the quality of the journalism, the early reaction I've seen has not been good, but I rather agree with Welby.
If churches are not willing to embrace and welcome homophobes then we surely only reverse previous prejudices that LGBT people have suffered, rather than rid the church of prejudice.
If we adopt a "conform or leave" approach towards homophobes, then we are surely as lacking in love as those homophobes who have taken such an attitude against our LGBT brethren. It seems that the author of the piece (I'm not sure if he's a christian) isn't aware of 1 Corinthians 12:21-26 or the idea that, in that context, we treat our homophobic brethren as the less respectable members, therefore treating them with greater respect.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
Sipech -- I don't altogether disagree, but I trust you are sending the parallel message to the (far greater number of) churches that are themselves homophobic to "hug a GLTB person".
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Welby is dancing on the top of a very narrow fence, but it is still rubbish.
Embrace those who are actively affecting one's life? Who share responsibility in making people feel ashamed and harm themselves? Who drive more people away than they draw in?
Yes, Christians are called to love people despite their behaviour, but they are not called to accept, condone or enable that behaviour. And accept is what Welby is asking.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
If churches are not willing to embrace and welcome homophobes then we surely only reverse previous prejudices that LGBT people have suffered, rather than rid the church of prejudice.
It's not a reversal because the two reasons for rejection are not functionally equivalent.
You're just re-running a variation of the argument that says "if you argue for tolerance one of the things you must tolerate is intolerant people". And the argument doesn't logically hold up.
The desire to treat people nicely can only go so far, and the place it cannot go is to treat "people who don't treat others nicely" nicely. Why? Because it involves continuing to allow them to treat other members of the community badly, increasing the total number of people who are having a bad time in that community.
If 1 person inside the congregation is going to make 10 other people in the congregation miserable by their presence, then frankly the overall better course is to exclude that 1 person, reducing the number of unhappy people from 10 to 1.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Actually, being nice or civil to people in general is not a problem. I just don't want to be "nice" and quiet when people are being intolerant. That means when a homophobic person is discussing the flower rota or bemoaning their teenager's problems with trig, I'm perfectly happy to discuss and sympathize. If they start spouting off on their prejudices, I'll challenge them -civilly. If they start trying to push through policies that hurt people, the claws come out.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Actually, being nice or civil to people in general is not a problem. I just don't want to be "nice" and quiet when people are being intolerant. That means when a homophobic person is discussing the flower rota or bemoaning their teenager's problems with trig, I'm perfectly happy to discuss and sympathize. If they start spouting off on their prejudices, I'll challenge them -civilly. If they start trying to push through policies that hurt people, the claws come out.
Providing they have shoved their poisonous prejudices up their arse, I'll happily embrace them.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
Good to see that someone has finally spotted the fatal flaw that has always existed in political correctness.
Yes, there was a large grain of truth in politically correct ideology. It has though done a disproportionate amount of damage by driving benign prejudice underground. Then, when your Donalds and Boris' come along, it emerges from the bunker and attaches itself to what it thinks is a kindred spirit.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
I think it's rather a good idea. Wouldn't it be wonderful if a stinker like Jensen (either of them) or any of that Gafcon crowd knew they couldn't set foot out of doors without the real chance of a big and prolonged and passionate hug from a gay person of their own sex? Can you imagine anything they'd hate more?
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
As a woman, if someone came up to me and hugged me I would regard it as an attempt at assault. Nor would I hesitate to express my displeasure. Can you say cold-cocking? I knew you could.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
I think the term "hug" is being used as a metaphor for accepting people who hold different points of view.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibaculus
Shipmate
# 18528
|
Posted
Poor journalism it is. Archbishop Welby wasn't saying that we should tolerate homophobes. I am sure he would say that bigotry and hatred have no place in the Church. What he seems to be saying, rather, is that there is a difference of views on the acceptability of same sex relationships, and those who believe that they are intrinsically wrong are part of the Church too.
I do think inclusiveness means including those with whom one disagrees. The Church of England is able to accommodate those who don't accept that women can be priests and those who do. It is able to accept those who believe in the real presence at Mass and those who have a Calvinist view of the Communion Service. As a gay, liberal Catholic Anglican I may wish that everyone in the CofE accepted gay relationships, women priests and a Catholic view of the Eucharist. And I hope that is the direction of travel. But really, it isn't all about me and what I want, is it?
--------------------
A jumped up pantry boy who never knew his place
Posts: 257 | From: In bed. Mostly. When I can get away with it. | Registered: Dec 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
It is able to accept those who believe in the real presence at Mass and those who have a Calvinist view of the Communion Service.
The Calvinist view also affirms the real presence, though to be sure it is understood differently from the Catholic view. Nonetheless, it is a belief in the real presence.
/tangent
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Good to see that someone has finally spotted the fatal flaw that has always existed in political correctness.
Yes, there was a large grain of truth in politically correct ideology. It has though done a disproportionate amount of damage by driving [QB]benign prejudice[QB] underground. Then, when your Donalds and Boris' come along, it emerges from the bunker and attaches itself to what it thinks is a kindred spirit.
And exactly which prejudices count as "benign"? I suspect you'd get different answers depending on whether you're on the giving or the receiving end of that prejudice.
- I don't want to live or work around [gay / black / Jewish] people, but it's not like I'm in favor of restricting their rights.
- I don't think [gay / black / Jewish] people should have exactly the same legal rights as me, but it's not like I want to make being [gay / black / Jewish] a crime.
- I think the state should throw the [faggots / niggers / kikes] in jail, but I'd draw the line at executing them.
- I think the state execute the [faggots / niggers / kikes], but I'd never do so myself. Vigilantism is wrong!
One of the advantages of such a continuum is that bigots can always point at the next lowest tier of bigotry and say "hey, I can't be prejudiced because I'm not as bad as those guys". In practical terms this definitional race to the bottom ends up meaning that unless you're a Klasman engaged in a lynching at that moment, you can't possibly be racist (for example).
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
One of the advantages of such a continuum is that bigots can always point at the next lowest tier of bigotry and say "hey, I can't be prejudiced because I'm not as bad as those guys". In practical terms this definitional race to the bottom ends up meaning that unless you're a Klasman engaged in a lynching at that moment, you can't possibly be racist (for example).
I get what you are saying, but still maintain that unless someone somewhere makes a distinction between what I call benign and malignant prejudice then we are forever trapped in a tension building situation.
Why not use the comparison of the current problem with Islam. I don't observe any sane or rational commentator saying the whole Muslim population should be condemned over the actions of a minority of cold blooded killers, accepting the fact there is doubtless latent anti-Western feeling in Muslim communities that thankfully never pupates into terrorist activity.
I sure Welby isn't advocating hugging individuals who verbally abuse or physically assault gay people, just those who have an ill-defined problem with it.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I get what you are saying, but still maintain that unless someone somewhere makes a distinction between what I call benign and malignant prejudice then we are forever trapped in a tension building situation.
There is no such thing as benign prejudice in the sense you seem to mean.
First, benign =/= harmless.
Second, people like your racist Gran, who quietly mutters about "those" people may not cause direct harm. But they actively or tacitly support those who do. The vehemently homophobic or racist do not appear out of nowhere nor are they supported only be those equally rabid. The structure of hate is a pyramid, its base being the people you consider benign.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Good to see that someone has finally spotted the fatal flaw that has always existed in political correctness.[/QB]
Bullshit. "I want to protect the oppressed" does not require "I want to protect the right of the oppressor to oppress the oppressed" to be consistent.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Yes, Christians are called to love people despite their behaviour, but they are not called to accept, condone or enable that behaviour. And accept is what Welby is asking.
I have a mixed reaction.
On the one hand, it's ridiculous to imply that the major problem here is pro-gay Christians failing to recognise anti-gay Christians as part of the Church. You'd think that far higher up the list of problems would be those parts of the Church who think it can't really be the church when there are gay Christians in it.
On the other: I believe it's established that the most reliable way of turning a homophobe into a non-homophobe is to have them interact with gay people in a friendly social setting. Denouncing homophobia is not nearly as effective.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I dunno. If someone has my brother in a headlock and is punching his face, it may be true that he would like my brother if he just got to know him better. It might be true that he would be more open to the message of loving my brother if I could be welcoming and not condemning. But the fact remains he's punching my brother in the face.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
...if someone came up to me and hugged me I would regard it as an attempt at assault...
TBF, that's more or less what I had in mind for the Gafcon crowd and their merry chums.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
One of the advantages of such a continuum is that bigots can always point at the next lowest tier of bigotry and say "hey, I can't be prejudiced because I'm not as bad as those guys". In practical terms this definitional race to the bottom ends up meaning that unless you're a Klasman engaged in a lynching at that moment, you can't possibly be racist (for example).
I get what you are saying, but still maintain that unless someone somewhere makes a distinction between what I call benign and malignant prejudice then we are forever trapped in a tension building situation.
If you say so. I suggest that you be that "someone somewhere" and answer my question about where on my previous hierarchy the line between "benign" and "malignant" prejudice gets drawn.
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Why not use the comparison of the current problem with Islam. I don't observe any sane or rational commentator saying the whole Muslim population should be condemned over the actions of a minority of cold blooded killers, accepting the fact there is doubtless latent anti-Western feeling in Muslim communities that thankfully never pupates into terrorist activity.
First off, while I won't make any judgements about sanity or rationality it should be noted that one of the two people who has a realistic chance of being the next President of the United States holds exactly that position. So while it may not be sane or rational by your judgement, it is a common enough position to hold.
Second, by framing something as "the current problem with Islam" implies that the problem is Islam (or Muslims). There was a similar difficulty America during the first half of the twentieth century with what was then referred to as "the Negro problem", implying that the Negros were the problem. Or way the term Judenfrage implies that the Jews are themselves questionable.
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I sure Welby isn't advocating hugging individuals who verbally abuse or physically assault gay people, just those who have an ill-defined problem with it.
Why not? Isn't that what you call the "disproportionate amount of damage" done by political correctness? The injustice of social opprobrium from verbally abusing others? (The basis of political correctness, insofar as it was ever really a thing, seems to be not calling people by various slurs. Oh, the oppressive horror of it all!) Why can't the church embrace those willing to call others "fag" (or "nigger" or whatever their preferred hate may be) to their faces? Isn't that the whole argument advanced by this thread?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
On the other: I believe it's established that the most reliable way of turning a homophobe into a non-homophobe is to have them interact with gay people in a friendly social setting. Denouncing homophobia is not nearly as effective.
It isn't either/or, but and.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
I don't know where the line between benign or malignant prejudice is but clearly there is one.
Take the problem recently highlighted by Corbyn regarding anti-semantic sentiment in the Labour Party. I'm guessing there was never any suggestion that those harbouring such feelings were advocates of the Holocaust.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
I trust you are sending the parallel message to the (far greater number of) churches that are themselves homophobic to "hug a GLTB person".
Yes. Though as Rolyn rightly points out, "hug" is meant metaphorically. I'm not comfortable with enforced hugs. And of course, we must use more than words. quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's not a reversal because the two reasons for rejection are not functionally equivalent.
What do you mean by "functionally equivalent"? That's not what I said. My point was about ridding the church of hate, rather than making it acceptable to hate those who hate LGBT people. Wrong though I think they are, and much as I might seek to persuade them to change their views, it is more important to show them the love and acceptance that I wish they would show others. As the guy said... quote:
You're just re-running a variation of the argument that says "if you argue for tolerance one of the things you must tolerate is intolerant people". And the argument doesn't logically hold up.
No I'm not running that argument; you made a straw man. The overriding principle at play here is do to others as you would have them do to you. I don't know about you, but I want to be accepted and welcomed by the church as a whole, so therefore I am compelled to show others that same acceptance and welcome, even if they hold different views from me on things like sexuality.
Accepting the person is a very different thing from saying that their views are condoned or adopted into the church. It's important not to deliberately conflate them. I think it is possible to simultaneously condemn the hateful attitude whilst showing acceptance towards the person exhibiting hatred, though admittedly it is a delicate balance that requires careful handling from the elders and pastor.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
Accepting the person is a very different thing from saying that their views are condoned or adopted into the church. It's important not to deliberately conflate them. I think it is possible to simultaneously condemn the hateful attitude whilst showing acceptance towards the person exhibiting hatred, though admittedly it is a delicate balance that requires careful handling from the elders and pastor.
What, hate the sin while loving the sinner?
Have you any idea how tone-deaf that proposition sounds in this context?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I sure Welby isn't advocating hugging individuals who verbally abuse or physically assault gay people, just those who have an ill-defined problem with it.
Why not? Isn't that what you call the "disproportionate amount of damage" done by political correctness? The injustice of social opprobrium from verbally abusing others? (The basis of political correctness, insofar as it was ever really a thing, seems to be not calling people by various slurs. Oh, the oppressive horror of it all!) Why can't the church embrace those willing to call others "fag" (or "nigger" or whatever their preferred hate may be) to their faces? Isn't that the whole argument advanced by this thread?
The disproportionate amount of damage done by political correctness to whichI referred is illustrated by the very fact that a dangerous Maverick like trump is now close to parking his butt in the Whitehouse.
The term racist or homophobe or misogynist should never have been applied to those who only held benign attitudes. That in itself was a slur.
I personally wouldn't be happy sharing Communion with someone I knew openly used aggressive and hurtful language to minority groups on the basis of sexuality or race. However given we use the directive --'We all share in one body'-- I have to accept I am, theoretically, sharing Communion with those who have done a damn-site worse. But then that's a whole different bag of worms.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
Quote from our Communion format was meant to read ---'we all share in one bread'.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
The disproportionate amount of damage done by political correctness to whichI referred is illustrated by the very fact that a dangerous Maverick like trump is now close to parking his butt in the Whitehouse.
The term racist or homophobe or misogynist should never have been applied to those who only held benign attitudes. That in itself was a slur.
Yeah, not a fact but merely your supposition. Your words show absolutely no awareness of how the civil rights struggles actually happened nor the multiple issues which have created Trump. And Brexit for that matter.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
There is no such thing as "benign racism" or "benign anti-sematism" or "benign homophobia". The terms are oxymorons. They refer to hatred, you can't have benign hate.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
There is no such thing as "benign racism" or "benign anti-sematism" or "benign homophobia". The terms are oxymorons. They refer to hatred, you can't have benign hate.
But would you agree that there may be degrees?
Someone who is homophobic in the sense that they think gay people shouldn't have the same marriage rights as straight people seems less dangerous that someone who is homophobic in the sense of advocating the death sentence for anyone who is gay.
I would certainly advocate church discipline against those who display the latter, but not to go so far as the kind of thought police style of church discipline that orfeo is advocating whereby anyone who has less than 100% acceptance of LGBT people are themselves kicked out of the fellowship.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Calling racism "racism" did not create racism.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
Someone who is homophobic in the sense that they think gay people shouldn't have the same marriage rights as straight people seems less dangerous that someone who is homophobic in the sense of advocating the death sentence for anyone who is gay.
Less dangerous in the same way that someone passing the ammunition is less dangerous than the person pulling the trigger.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
quote:
But would you agree that there may be degrees?
Certainly there may be degrees. Murder comes in degrees too; that doesn't mean there's any such thing as "benign murder". "Benign" means "gentle, kindly" according to where I just looked it up on google. No hatred is ever that. It is always caustic and harmful.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I don't know where the line between benign or malignant prejudice is but clearly there is one.
If you don't know where it is, then "clearly" is certainly the wrong word for it.
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Take the problem recently highlighted by Corbyn regarding anti-semantic sentiment in the Labour Party. I'm guessing there was never any suggestion that those harbouring such feelings were advocates of the Holocaust.
There's a major political movement against so-called 'grammar Nazis'? I know they can be annoying with their "that should be 'whom', not 'who'" and "I think you mean 'anti-semitic', not 'anti-semantic'", but it seems like a small point to get hung up on. What do they do, stage thesaurus burnings?
And yes, I'm getting into a semantic argument about the word "semantic". This thread wasn't nearly as recursive as it needed to be.
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
The disproportionate amount of damage done by political correctness to which I referred is illustrated by the very fact that a dangerous Maverick like trump is now close to parking his butt in the Whitehouse.
I've heard variations on this argument and it still seems counter-intuitive to claim that attaching social opprobrium to racism and race-baiting just leads to more racism and race-baiting. Which seems contradicted by most of American history. Donald Trump may have some racist views you consider "benign" but he's nowhere near as racist as Woodrow Wilson (to pick one example from an unfortunately far too large field). People may be distressed that form Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon David Duke is mounting a credible campaign for the U.S. Senate, but if you go back more than half a century he'd just be considered a typical southern politician. Perhaps even a moderate when compared with Strom Thurmond or Theodore Bilbo.
The change here isn't that people will start electing racist (or other forms of hate) "Mavericks", it's that being racist is now seen as a "Maverick" position outside the political mainstream, not something so commonplace it bears no mentioning.
Please explain how making racism socially unacceptable actually encourages racism. Historically it seems to have done the opposite. I'd argue that making racism socially unacceptable has simply made us more aware of instances where it crosses our notice, rather than the "does a fish notice the water?" state that used to exist.
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
The term racist or homophobe or misogynist should never have been applied to those who only held benign attitudes. That in itself was a slur.
I guess we've found one of those lines between "benign" and "malignant" prejudice. Apparently having a 'No Coloreds' policy in your segregated rental properties falls on the "benign" side of the ledger, not even really counting as "racism". This gets back to my earlier complaint about how no one is considered a racist unless they're literally a Klansman. That seems like you're effectively defining racism out of existence.
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I personally wouldn't be happy sharing Communion with someone I knew openly used aggressive and hurtful language to minority groups on the basis of sexuality or race.
Why not? Isn't that your whole gripe here, that the church (broadly defined) seems to no longer have room for the likes of Fred Phelps and Julius Streicher? You're unhappy to share communion with Streicher, you're unhappy with the idea that anyone would condemn Streicher, and you're unhappy with Streicher. Maybe this is just a situation where nothing is going to make you happy?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
There's an interesting situation in one of Terry Pratchett's "Johnny Maxwell" children's books where the hero travels back in time to WWII with friends one of whom is a young black boy. In one scene a 1940s English woman manages to say just about every possible politically incorrect thing about the black buy, even calling him "Sambo" which you certainly wouldn't let anyone get away with nowadays. And though postwar myself, I remember people like that.
Yet via young Johnny, Pratchett, definitely no racist, doesn't tear the woman to shreds but gives her the benefit of the doubt - heftily. And as I read it, for all the wrong words that woman has a good heart and likes the boy; and to be blunt, I get the decided impression from the way she is portrayed that if the boy were threatened by a German paratrooper, she'd take the bullets for him. Which again, is how I remember many people of that era - all the wrong words maybe, but right where it mattered.
I rarely feel that modern politically correct people have that much care for the people they supposedly support. Indeed I've often felt such people have a rather abstract idea of the black/gay/disabled people they so vociferously 'speak for' and that really they're playing power games at the expense of other white people....
The situation doesn't seem as simple as some Shipmates here are suggesting....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I don't know where the line between benign or malignant prejudice is but clearly there is one.
If you don't know where it is, then "clearly" is certainly the wrong word for it.
Not supporting either Rolyn or Rolyn's argument at all, but don't agree with this.The fact that there is a line is often clear, but just where that line is not. In the case of homophobic or racial prejudice, the fact of there being benign and malign prejudice is not at all clear to me - it's all malign - and hence no line can be drawn.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Steve, it's not 1940 anymore. She had an excuse. Nobody today does.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
She was also fictional.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
Racism is still endemic in many sub cultures. The British Police; the CofE; Queeensland (Australia) Aboriginal "rights;" USA - attitudes towards Native Cultures and Tribal Peoples (lower life expentantcy, incomes, higher likelihood of death by alcohol, misadventure)
Prevalence doesn't make it right, it should inspire us all to stop it whilst recognising none are innocent. Land of the free - but for whom? Discrimination Acts - but no one really bothers
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
Croesos @
I thank you for your in depth replies. It will take me a while to pick through the last one, and I might bow out anyway as I have no wish to enrage people or continually stir matters.
A world that would make me happy is one where no person suffers physical oppression of any kind,(from the actions of another). And that, as we are all painfully aware, is a scenario unlikely to ever be fulfilled. A world where no person ever suffers any internal emotional oppression is not possible in this realm.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
There is no such thing as "benign racism" or "benign anti-sematism" or "benign homophobia". The terms are oxymorons. They refer to hatred, you can't have benign hate.
Sometimes racism isn't hate, it's ignorance. My MIL was overtly racist but I genuinely think she was ignorant, not hating. She was fearful of that which she didn't know. Fear rarely comes out well.
The nastiest dogs are the scared ones.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
Some of these posts show a stunning lack of understanding of what it means to be an LGBT Christian. If you step away from the Anglican communion for a moment and consider people who've joined the Metropolitan Community Church - I was a member for a while - you will meet a group of people who have been kicked around by other Christians, often to the point of significant harm. Sure, one or two looked at what was on offer in other churches, and thought "nope don't fancy that" but most of them started out somewhere else. Some of them were hounded out of their churches. Some were disowned by their families and communities. They had people try to cast demons out of them. They had youth leaders refuse to work with them. They were pushed towards "ex-gay" therapy. Their sexuality was held up as a horror story before the church. Or they were used as a "useful idiot" to bash other gay people.
Even the people who didn't do these things openly made their disapproval known in a thousand little tiny ways. They gossiped and stared and for some reason didn't want to go to that birthday party or be left in the same room. They listened to other people who preach outrageous lies about the gays coming after your kids, and even if they didn't say those things themselves they didn't openly disagree either.
After a while you stop trusting people. What are they saying about you behind your back? Sure, she seems cool, but is she treating you as a pity case to try and save from yourself later? Which of the lies passed around in Christian circles do they believe? Do they believe those lies about YOU? Are these people going to abandon you if you find a partner, or are they going to casually invite only one of you to something? Why do they keep mentioning members of the opposite gender they think you might like? Who is actually a friend, and who is just playing nice in order to try and push conservative theology more effectively later?
In my case I had a rector who kept putting off the baptism I kept asking for. Over and over, with excuses that didn't quite make sense. It's entirely possible it had nothing whatever to do with my sexuality. But this is the key thing - at this point you don't know, because the standard operating procedure for the British homophobic Christian is quiet passive aggressive disapproval. If you think that does less harm you're wrong. You can become a leper within a Christian community without a single overtly homophobic remark said to you.
So you end up in MCC, and people say "How sad that gay people need their own church! Can't they just integrate? Why won't they play nicely." But here it is: there are a lot of people who don't want to play nicely with the church. LGBT Christians are not those people. We have turned the other cheek, then the rest of our face, then every part of ourselves, each time looking for a bit that wasn't already bruised. You will not find a more forgiving group of people than LGBT Christians, because the ones who can't forgive leave the faith.
We are still getting kicked around. We are still being driven out for our relationships. We still hear lies about LGBT people all the time. When we finally cry out "Stop hitting us!" there's always a response that goes "what about the homophobes! They have feelings too! Aren't their beliefs valid?"
When the other person's belief is that you're less good, less deserving of rights, a bit icky or weird, or a bit of a dangerous pervert, you can't muddle along with that perspective. You can't say "oh well, at least he doesn't think I'm a completely depraved disgusting pervert like that other guy does. He just thinks I'm a bit less good." There is no conversation to be had there. There isn't a give or take: "Funny how our views on things differ! I didn't think that Breaking Bad was a very good show, and it turns out that Ian over here likes me very much as a person but thinks I'm a danger to society because I fancy women."
There's nowhere to go. They won't budge. The only place you can go is to see their point of view. Then internalise it. Let it seep into you until you start to hate yourself. Too many gay people have been pushed into that path. I take the attempt to push others after them very very seriously, even if nobody gets called a faggot.
--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by mousethief
quote:
Steve, it's not 1940 anymore. She had an excuse. Nobody today does.
Yes I know - but I'm also thinking that the example found its way into the Pratchett story because he thought there was something relevant about that for today.
And yes the lady in the story is fictional - but again, the issue raised is not necessarily irrelevant; it may even show clearer when fictionally treated by an author like Terry.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
The nastiest dogs are the scared ones.
Should have thought the nastiest ones are those that sink their teeth into a person.
I have to conclude my late parents were racists and homophobes by today's standard. They were on the edge of the British Empire twilight generation. Those prejudices were never ever, to the whole of my knowledge, used to hurt/harm anyone either physically or emotionally.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I have to conclude my late parents were racists and homophobes by today's standard. They were on the edge of the British Empire twilight generation. Those prejudices were never ever, to the whole of my knowledge, used to hurt/harm anyone either physically or emotionally.
The thing about racism is that it isn't a thing that someone decides to do to another person. Well, not for the most part. It's a set of biases and beliefs and automatic assumptions and intellectual short cuts that pervade through society and the actions and attitudes that occur as a result, and their effect on people of colour. That stuff was prevalent when your parents were around. It's prevalent now. The way you eliminate it is by examining the way that these biases have crept into your thinking and challenging that based on the evidence.
Did your parents hold racist attitudes? Almost certainly. So do people today. I'm not saying that they had any particular ill will towards anyone. I'm not saying they set out to make black people suffer. I am saying that the lack of intentionality (or even conscious choice) on their part, or anyone's part, does not mitigate the effects of racism on the people who've suffered as a result. And once again I can't get more upset about the feelings of white people who are horrified about being accused of racism, than I am about the effects of actual racism.
--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by mousethief
quote:
Steve, it's not 1940 anymore. She had an excuse. Nobody today does.
Yes I know - but I'm also thinking that the example found its way into the Pratchett story because he thought there was something relevant about that for today.
And yes the lady in the story is fictional - but again, the issue raised is not necessarily irrelevant; it may even show clearer when fictionally treated by an author like Terry.
Except that an author controls all circumstance for a predetermined outcome. Real life is generally more of a mess
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Excellent post, Liopleurodon.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by lilBuddha
quote:
Except that an author controls all circumstance for a predetermined outcome. Real life is generally more of a mess
If you read the Pratchett original (in "Johnny and the Bomb") I think you'll find that the messiness of life was part of his point about the situation; and that therefore simply seeing the lady's words as 'racist' was a superficial reaction.
It is rather the point of Terry Pratchett that in his fantasies he makes real life points about our here-and-now world
Between on the one hand the lady in the story and real life people I've known like her, and on the other hand many 'politically correct' people I've known whose attitude does not seem to include actual care for the people they're supposedly supporting, or any likelihood that they would make sacrifices for the blacks/gays/disabled in question, I know who I'd choose, and likewise Terry Pratchett I think.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
And for what it's worth, I'm also broadly in agreement with Liopleurodon's post there.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
