Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(December 12, 2018 at 12:44 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Sure, and lots of Muslims recognize it so I don't see what your point is. Lots of Muslims come from Africa and there are even American Muslims that migrate to Africa. Approximately 1/3 of the world's Muslim population is on the continent of Africa. Really though, anybody can choose to celebrate it.
My point is it's based in nationalism (specifically African-American nationalism; I legitimately can't find information about people in Africa actually celebrating it) instead of religion, therefore, not a Muslim holiday.
Cool. Nobody asserted that it was specifically a Muslim holiday. Here is a video of Muslims recognizing Kwanzaa.
Rev and Max, please stop derailing the thread and take your kwanza celebration to a new thread or PM. Not that I'm being intolerant of it, just that there is a unity of topic here and that's off the rails.
(December 12, 2018 at 12:15 am)bennyboy Wrote:
The problem is that some traditions conflict with each other, or are considered an offense just by existing in the same place. Confederate memorials are a secular example of that-- statues don't really do harm, but if you want to get excited enough and paint it as implied aggression and so on, it's not very hard to get there. I doubt we'd argue that I can show pride in my German heritage by wearing a Nazi uniform to school every day-- even though the actual harm done to others is non-existent. I couldn't wear shirts with very offending images of Jesus or Muhammad. I doubt you'd want my kid showing up in school with Satanic imagery, demanding to be allowed to show depictions of a ritual sacrifice at the holiday pageant.
So to some degree, there's really no way to make rules to cover everything. "You didn't SAY I couldn't slaughter a mouse at school!" We have to depend on civic principles of toleration, but also of understanding offense.
I'd say in the US, the sense of civil unity is so fractured that people just don't care about each other. If most people can find a way-- ANY way-- to make the world turn around them for a day, they're likely to do it. It seems to me that unless the population is unified by a very important goal-- say, a war with China or a massive plague or something, this is unlikely to change.
That was one of the biggest advantages of religion-- that it gave very different people a sense of unity so long as they showed up at the same church on Sunday. Now-- there really is nothing to unify us except for our mutual distrust and dislike of each other.
Nail on the head. 100% on board with your thoughts here. Civic principles of toleration are what I think is wrong. Tolerate something without understanding is allows potential harm into a society. Mistaking your personal moral authority or your cognitive dissonance without understanding and offense is just as equally bad for society. We have actual harm physical/mental and perceived/potential harm. I agree that more compassion and understanding would help that. So instead of civic principles of tolerance should we be shooting for a respectful and compassionate civic understanding of positions?
(December 12, 2018 at 12:51 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: You'd probably have to live in the shadow of confederate monuments to understand the harm they do. It's shit like that, that makes us distrust each other. You can be fairly confident that a Statue Enthusiast™ won't have your back unless you're the right shade of lipstick.
Is trust necessary for understanding or compassion? Is that something we should strive for. Personally I have to trust some people, but I don't have to trust Jeffry Dahmer to understand his motives. I might need trust to show compassion. idk. That brings up intrinsic worth of compassion and value as a person/society into the equation.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
(December 12, 2018 at 8:45 am)tackattack Wrote: Rev and Max, please stop derailing the thread and take your kwanza celebration to a new thread or PM. Not that I'm being intolerant of it, just that there is a unity of topic here and that's off the rails.
(December 12, 2018 at 12:15 am)bennyboy Wrote:
The problem is that some traditions conflict with each other, or are considered an offense just by existing in the same place. Confederate memorials are a secular example of that-- statues don't really do harm, but if you want to get excited enough and paint it as implied aggression and so on, it's not very hard to get there. I doubt we'd argue that I can show pride in my German heritage by wearing a Nazi uniform to school every day-- even though the actual harm done to others is non-existent. I couldn't wear shirts with very offending images of Jesus or Muhammad. I doubt you'd want my kid showing up in school with Satanic imagery, demanding to be allowed to show depictions of a ritual sacrifice at the holiday pageant.
So to some degree, there's really no way to make rules to cover everything. "You didn't SAY I couldn't slaughter a mouse at school!" We have to depend on civic principles of toleration, but also of understanding offense.
I'd say in the US, the sense of civil unity is so fractured that people just don't care about each other. If most people can find a way-- ANY way-- to make the world turn around them for a day, they're likely to do it. It seems to me that unless the population is unified by a very important goal-- say, a war with China or a massive plague or something, this is unlikely to change.
That was one of the biggest advantages of religion-- that it gave very different people a sense of unity so long as they showed up at the same church on Sunday. Now-- there really is nothing to unify us except for our mutual distrust and dislike of each other.
Nail on the head. 100% on board with your thoughts here. Civic principles of toleration are what I think is wrong. Tolerate something without understanding is allows potential harm into a society. Mistaking your personal moral authority or your cognitive dissonance without understanding and offense is just as equally bad for society. We have actual harm physical/mental and perceived/potential harm. I agree that more compassion and understanding would help that. So instead of civic principles of tolerance should we be shooting for a respectful and compassionate civic understanding of positions?
(December 12, 2018 at 12:51 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: You'd probably have to live in the shadow of confederate monuments to understand the harm they do. It's shit like that, that makes us distrust each other. You can be fairly confident that a Statue Enthusiast™ won't have your back unless you're the right shade of lipstick.
Is trust necessary for understanding or compassion? Is that something we should strive for. Personally I have to trust some people, but I don't have to trust Jeffry Dahmer to understand his motives. I might need trust to show compassion. idk. That brings up intrinsic worth of compassion and value as a person/society into the equation.
"Trust" is a product of evolution, not old mythology. But it is also a double edge sword. Cooperation is how we form groups, but even in doing that that "trust" can create blindness in those who follow, and lead humans down very dark roads.
"Trust" cannot be blind, nor should it be blind. It was because humans questioned social norms that the west became more open and grew to value more inclusion, not less.
ok so similar to justice and blind justice. I'm down for informed trust instead of blind trust.
So instead of being PC or general civic principles of tolerance we would have time better spent shooting for a respectful(trust and understanding) and compassionate civic goals?
Where should it be limited? In the laws? To the person? In creative endeavors (music, art, speech) or should it always be a cornerstone of society?
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
December 12, 2018 at 10:52 am (This post was last modified: December 12, 2018 at 10:54 am by The Grand Nudger.)
(December 12, 2018 at 8:45 am)tackattack Wrote:
(December 12, 2018 at 12:51 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: You'd probably have to live in the shadow of confederate monuments to understand the harm they do. It's shit like that, that makes us distrust each other. You can be fairly confident that a Statue Enthusiast™ won't have your back unless you're the right shade of lipstick.
Is trust necessary for understanding or compassion? Is that something we should strive for. Personally I have to trust some people, but I don't have to trust Jeffry Dahmer to understand his motives. I might need trust to show compassion. idk. That brings up intrinsic worth of compassion and value as a person/society into the equation.
It's necessary for the sort of national coming together Benny was commenting on, yeah. For notions of the most fundamental unity and cohesion and equality to be more than transparent lip service. Not everyone around a fire singing kumbaya, just the basic expectations. Just as understanding why and how the things people bitch about as PC is necessary.
I've never known any complaint about the latter to be more than the prelude to some notion that a person feels slighted by not being able to slight another. Is it really any wonder that we're in the state we're in? The irony of a thread ostensibly about the intolerance of tolerance swirling that particular drain is delicious. No one is suffering from any lack of understanding on that count, and no amount of compassion for the less than compassionate will make them more so.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
(December 12, 2018 at 9:34 am)tackattack Wrote: ok so similar to justice and blind justice. I'm down for informed trust instead of blind trust.
So instead of being PC or general civic principles of tolerance we would have time better spent shooting for a respectful(trust and understanding) and compassionate civic goals?
Where should it be limited? In the laws? To the person? In creative endeavors (music, art, speech) or should it always be a cornerstone of society?
"Respect" is a word I never use. Far more often than not, it is used, BY ALL LABELS, to mean "Don't bruise my ego" and or "Know your place."
I think Thomas Jefferson was a brilliant man and he once said, "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." But does that mean I have to "respect" that even given that, at the time of the signing of the Constitution slavery was still acceptable?
I use the word "value" instead. I will always value human rights and non violence, but I do not have to "respect" bad claims.
(December 12, 2018 at 8:45 am)tackattack Wrote: Is trust necessary for understanding or compassion? Is that something we should strive for. Personally I have to trust some people, but I don't have to trust Jeffry Dahmer to understand his motives. I might need trust to show compassion. idk. That brings up intrinsic worth of compassion and value as a person/society into the equation.
It's necessary for the sort of national coming together Benny was commenting on, yeah. For notions of the most fundamental unity and cohesion and equality to be more than transparent lip service. Not everyone around a fire singing kumbaya, just the basic expectations. Just as understanding why and how the things people bitch about as PC is necessary.
I've never known any complaint about the latter to be more than the prelude to some notion that a person feels slighted by not being able to slight another. Is it really any wonder that we're in the state we're in? The irony of a thread ostensibly about the intolerance of tolerance swirling that particular drain is delicious. No one is suffering from any lack of understanding on that count, and no amount of compassion for the less than compassionate will make them more so.
I like your choice of words. So instead of striving for tolerance we should strive for finding fundamental unity with understanding and compassion to achieve civic goals. I value your opinion but I respectfully disagree with your last point that no amount of compassion for the less than compassionate will make them less butt hurt. The irony is that in this thread of intolerance of tolerance that by seeking understanding and showing compassion and valuing the fundamental basics that make each giver of an opinion human, it''s become quite a tolerant discussion about intolerance
(December 12, 2018 at 11:03 am)Brian37 Wrote:
(December 12, 2018 at 9:34 am)tackattack Wrote: ok so similar to justice and blind justice. I'm down for informed trust instead of blind trust.
So instead of being PC or general civic principles of tolerance we would have time better spent shooting for a respectful(trust and understanding) and compassionate civic goals?
Where should it be limited? In the laws? To the person? In creative endeavors (music, art, speech) or should it always be a cornerstone of society?
"Respect" is a word I never use. Far more often than not, it is used, BY ALL LABELS, to mean "Don't bruise my ego" and or "Know your place."
I think Thomas Jefferson was a brilliant man and he once said, "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." But does that mean I have to "respect" that even given that, at the time of the signing of the Constitution slavery was still acceptable?
I use the word "value" instead. I will always value human rights and non violence, but I do not have to "respect" bad claims.
I will "value" evidence when it is provided.
OK so respect isn't the right word. Value is fine. You can value someone's worth as another living breathing organism with an opinion and perspective different than yours. You can trust, like you have here, that there are no ulterior motives, that it's just a discussion on tolerance/intolerance. I consider respect = value+ trust. As you define respect differently we can just use the base terms.
So would you agree with: it would be better than just tolerating someone to find basic value and trust to promote fundamental unity with understanding and compassion to achieve civic goals?
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
December 12, 2018 at 12:08 pm (This post was last modified: December 12, 2018 at 12:16 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
(December 12, 2018 at 12:04 pm)tackattack Wrote: I like your choice of words. So instead of striving for tolerance we should strive for finding fundamental unity with understanding and compassion to achieve civic goals. I value your opinion but I respectfully disagree with your last point that no amount of compassion for the less than compassionate will make them less butt hurt. The irony is that in this thread of intolerance of tolerance that by seeking understanding and showing compassion and valuing the fundamental basics that make each giver of an opinion human, it''s become quite a tolerant discussion about intolerance
You're misunderstanding me. Yes, we should strive for tolerance, but not in the case of the intolerant. They can eat a bag of dicks, lol. Nothing can destroy a tolerant society quite like becoming tolerant of the intolerant.
See: the current and accelerating decline of liberal governance at the hands of racist trolls.....worldwide. No amount of including those trolls in a civic coalition is prudent. If they want in, then they need to buy in, not bitch about being excluded and called for what they are. It doesn't matter that we might both agree that a new highway is a good idea, for example...particularly since you just -know- they're gonna name it The Nathan Bedford Forrest Superhighway. No darkies in the left lane, violations monitored by aircraft. It'll be a toll road, ofc...and generate immense profits for the local highway patrol, as well as prime opportunity for theft by cops that simply are the robbers. The Statue Enthusiasts of the world will see this, nod their heads, and call it good (as they already do). Gotta keep our roads clean and our nation safe, right?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
It's necessary for the sort of national coming together Benny was commenting on, yeah. For notions of the most fundamental unity and cohesion and equality to be more than transparent lip service. Not everyone around a fire singing kumbaya, just the basic expectations. Just as understanding why and how the things people bitch about as PC is necessary.
I've never known any complaint about the latter to be more than the prelude to some notion that a person feels slighted by not being able to slight another. Is it really any wonder that we're in the state we're in? The irony of a thread ostensibly about the intolerance of tolerance swirling that particular drain is delicious. No one is suffering from any lack of understanding on that count, and no amount of compassion for the less than compassionate will make them more so.
I like your choice of words. So instead of striving for tolerance we should strive for finding fundamental unity with understanding and compassion to achieve civic goals. I value your opinion but I respectfully disagree with your last point that no amount of compassion for the less than compassionate will make them less butt hurt. The irony is that in this thread of intolerance of tolerance that by seeking understanding and showing compassion and valuing the fundamental basics that make each giver of an opinion human, it''s become quite a tolerant discussion about intolerance
(December 12, 2018 at 11:03 am)Brian37 Wrote:
"Respect" is a word I never use. Far more often than not, it is used, BY ALL LABELS, to mean "Don't bruise my ego" and or "Know your place."
I think Thomas Jefferson was a brilliant man and he once said, "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." But does that mean I have to "respect" that even given that, at the time of the signing of the Constitution slavery was still acceptable?
I use the word "value" instead. I will always value human rights and non violence, but I do not have to "respect" bad claims.
I will "value" evidence when it is provided.
OK so respect isn't the right word. Value is fine. You can value someone's worth as another living breathing organism with an opinion and perspective different than yours. You can trust, like you have here, that there are no ulterior motives, that it's just a discussion on tolerance/intolerance. I consider respect = value+ trust. As you define respect differently we can just use the base terms.
So would you agree with: it would be better than just tolerating someone to find basic value and trust to promote fundamental unity with understanding and compassion to achieve civic goals?
Christians have the saying, " God grant me the ability to change the things I can, and accept the things I cannot, and the ability to know the difference."
I agree with that, but not the superstition or mythology.
The skeptic would say something like, " Shit happens, do what you can to minimize harm to others and accept our diversity."
Humans are not a separate species. We are all capable of compassion and non violence. But that does not mean we have to accept all bad claims.
(December 12, 2018 at 12:04 pm)tackattack Wrote: I like your choice of words. So instead of striving for tolerance we should strive for finding fundamental unity with understanding and compassion to achieve civic goals. I value your opinion but I respectfully disagree with your last point that no amount of compassion for the less than compassionate will make them less butt hurt. The irony is that in this thread of intolerance of tolerance that by seeking understanding and showing compassion and valuing the fundamental basics that make each giver of an opinion human, it''s become quite a tolerant discussion about intolerance
OK so respect isn't the right word. Value is fine. You can value someone's worth as another living breathing organism with an opinion and perspective different than yours. You can trust, like you have here, that there are no ulterior motives, that it's just a discussion on tolerance/intolerance. I consider respect = value+ trust. As you define respect differently we can just use the base terms.
So would you agree with: it would be better than just tolerating someone to find basic value and trust to promote fundamental unity with understanding and compassion to achieve civic goals?
Christians have the saying, " God grant me the ability to change the things I can, and accept the things I cannot, and the ability to know the difference."
I agree with that, but not the superstition or mythology.
The skeptic would say something like, " Shit happens, do what you can to minimize harm to others and accept our diversity."
Humans are not a separate species. We are all capable of compassion and non violence. But that does not mean we have to accept all bad claims.
Interesting. Kinda sounds like the Wiccan Rede.
I don't adhere to any crazy religious or atheistic hocus pocus, but I think there are certain concepts we can all agree on.
