Real-world sensitivities and game names

[Gregstrom]

chrispedersen said:

Well, by quoting you, I illustrate that I have read your statements; and I am not easily offended. Having done that, I will now opine that you *are* bashing Christianity.
Your biases - while politically correct in the circles you probably run in, are none-the-less fairly strong.

I disagree, in that I think Atreides is just bashing a vocal sub-section of Christianity. He didn't say anything about the Christian centre or left that I could see.

Speaking of visible bias, you yourself capitalise Christian in your post, but not Jew or Muslim.

chrispedersen said:

For example - calling Christian fundamental groups 'radical' in the same vein as muslim terrorists. Or calling Lieberman a douche bag - because he holds beliefs contrary to yours.

Some (but not all) fundamentalist Christian groups could I think be regarded in the same light as Muslim terrorists - in much the same way, some Muslim fundamentalists are not terrorists. For that matter, some Christian terrorist groups are AFAIK not fundamentalists. (btw, use of the term 'radical' may be a difficult issue, as I understand it has a different meaning within Christian circles)

chrispedersen said:

It may be my misreading, yet I would opine that when the original poster was commenting about jews and muslims being the most easily offended that there is enough evidence to support the utterance of the statement, if not support or prove it.

chrispedersen said:

I believe he was referring to the world wide muslim response to things like - the danish cartoon, the film in the netherlands where muslims responded by killing the producer, or even the reactions to 9-11.

On the jewish side, I think the case much less strong, although the actions of the israeli state, the constant tit for tat middle east violence; and perhaps even the actions of the antidefamation league might support his case.

chrispedersen said:

Regardless; I don't support his position. In this area I happen to believe that all peoples are to greater or lesser extents capable of violence. And to argue who is most qualified is bootless.

I agree completely - I often think people use religion as an excuse to hate, rather than a cause. In the secular world, similar hatred and violence occur in the name of animal liberation or nationalism.

chrispedersen said:

But your whole rant about hate-mongering, gay hating christians right wingers etc etc. is exactly that. Bashing

Yes, but surely focussed on a subset of Christians rather than the whole. If I choose to bash a particular politician, I'm not bashing their whole party. If I bash a committee of politicians, I'm not bashing the Government.

[chrispedersen]

Gregstrom said:
{quote]
But your whole rant about hate-mongering, gay hating christians right wingers etc etc. is exactly that. Bashing

Yes, but surely focussed on a subset of Christians rather than the whole. If I choose to bash a particular politician, I'm not bashing their whole party. If I bash a committee of politicians, I'm not bashing the Government.

[/quote]

Sure - but I don't mind bashing.
I just don't like bashing when mind bashing when its accompanied by a logical disconnect, or masked, or denied that it is a bash.

My whole point had nothing to do about jews, muslims, Christians (smile) or other. It was rather focussed on the logical disconnect of saying "I'm not bashing that douche bag Lieberman". I actually found the disconnect funny, even if the sentiment were offensive. (I happen to believe that Lieberman is one of the most upstanding politicians in congress, willing to say what he thinks regardless of political cost).

*it is bashing, even when you don't see it (which I believe is what occured) or when its cloaked in political correctness.

"why, that can't be rascist. Some of my best friends ae human."

"I'm not bashing - its because... (fill in reason..)

[Gregstrom]

chrispedersen said:
Sure - but I don't mind bashing.
I just don't like bashing when mind bashing when its accompanied by a logical disconnect, or masked, or denied that it is a bash.

My whole point had nothing to do about jews, muslims, Christians (smile) or other. It was rather focussed on the logical disconnect of saying "I'm not bashing that douche bag Lieberman". I actually found the disconnect funny, even if the sentiment were offensive. (I happen to believe that Lieberman is one of the most upstanding politicians in congress, willing to say what he thinks regardless of political cost).

Ahh, politics. One man's 'one of the most upstanding politicians in congress, willing to say what he thinks regardless of political cost' is another man's 'douche bag who espouses petty, narrow-minded causes in order to get the votes of one sub-section of the electorate'.

chrispedersen said:
*it is bashing, even when you don't see it (which I believe is what occured) or when its cloaked in political correctness.

"why, that can't be rascist. Some of my best friends ae human."

"I'm not bashing - its because... (fill in reason..)

Just to define: I see bashing (in this context) as a condemnation of a group (of whatever kind), where a specific (and possibly non-representative) flaw is used to justify a wide range of criticisms.

For example: "Anyone who plays Caelum is a cheater, because once I got [MoD+retreat]ed by an Eagle King. I bet they all have sex with chickens too, the bird-loving freaks"

My point was that Atreides' rant wasn't a bash on Christianity as a whole - he was very clear on which group of Christians he was attacking: right-wing fundamentalists (the 'funda' being optional perhaps ).

He even went so far as to name people he felt particularly angry at and supply quotes that angered him, explaining what he believed their motives were and therefore why he was angered. The bit where he said "speak for and represent millions of like-minded fundamentalist Christians" I think is a bash, as it's assuming that fundamentalist Christians think the way he assumes they do based on the behaviour of politicians.

[HoneyBadger]

I just want to come out in support of Ich's use of the word "bull****". It's an opinion, and it doesn't reflect on the person, just the argument.

I think we're all adults enough to know what the word bull**** means, and I would hope we'd all be mature enough to deal with it's use as a critcism, instead of taking it as a direct, inflammatory insult, when it's not meant to be.

[lch]

HoneyBadger said:
I just want to come out in support of Ich's use of the word "bull****". It's an opinion, and it doesn't reflect on the person, just the argument.

Oh yeah, that's exactly right, this subtlety might have slipped my mind. I'm not one to attack another person, only his arguments or his beliefs. Stop being such girls!

[JimMorrison]

I <3 Lch. I think it's funny that other people would be offended that he called my argument bull****, when it didn't offend me. That right there speaks volumes on the subject that we're currently discussing.


And Chris, yes you are right that the 2nd amendment is very important, and should not be allowed to ever be taken away by a third party. However, any individual, and by extrapolation, any community of like-minded individuals may abandon their own freedoms if they feel it enhances their quality of life. By forbidding firearms in a community, it would be assumed that they are making a pacifist statement - and that they simply won't rise up in violent protest of anything, so wouldn't gain anything by retaining that freedom that they wanted to give up in the first place.

As long as there are people (like most of my friends, actually) who believe that the government is rather tyrannical and untrustworthy - there will be millions of people with guns, sitting around waiting for that day when we collectively cry "bull****", and demand reformation of our governmental system that was once revolutionary, but is now compromised, and corrupt.

[Sombre]

Right on! Wolverines! Wolverines! Wolverines!

[Omnirizon]

lch said:

Oh yeah, that's exactly right, this subtlety might have slipped my mind. I'm not one to attack another person, only his arguments or his beliefs. Stop being such girls!

this brings up an unusual philosophical question. can you actually attack a person's arguments and beliefs without attacking them?

can you actually attack a person without attacking their arguments and beliefs?

if we are our ideals, then no.
if we are our actions, then no.

so what are we then?

now, in light of this, is an attack on our personality (whatever that may be) or an attack on our arguments or beliefs actually any violence to us at all?

given the performative quality of our existence, isn't limiting our freedom to act the only real way to attack us?

[HoneyBadger]

I think you can attack a person's actions and ideals both, without attacking the person-but it takes a bit of a leap of faith. It's counter-intuitive, since we're not designed to do so-we make snap judgements, it's a survival instinct-but people change constantly, in little or big ways. Maybe not the core person, but their real world experiences, and how they adapt themselves to them. We're just primed for attacking a person for their immediate actions, rather than taking a person as a whole entity, from birth to death. We're a short-sighted lot, without enough insight into other people. It's how nature made us.

Hard to go against Mother Nature, but it's the only way to see the big picture.