Reply With QuoteThe problem is that there are some groups you can call out on their BS and some groups that you can't without being decried as a bigot of one kind or another in the media, even if your critique is perfectly justified.Originally Posted by JBK405
The same could be said for any group.
As I told a friend of mine last week when he told me about all the grief he got when a group of Hassidic Jews stayed at the hotel where he works, every group has its nutters and its extremists. They all have people who will misinterpret the teachings of whatever they believe (Or don't believe), or deliberately twist them to further their own agenda, or just not care abot the teachings at all and do whatever they want.
It's a part of the human experience.
Life is like a roller coaster. It has its ups and downs, but if you sit back and relax you get a heck of a ride.
The problem is that there are some groups you can call out on their BS and some groups that you can't without being decried as a bigot of one kind or another in the media, even if your critique is perfectly justified.
That again depends on where you are. I'd imagine calling those people out for their bullshit would be perfectly fine in, say, Denmark.
well. no I am a bit beyond embarrased to have confused that. I must have mixed Luke being a gentile up witb Paul's preaching to them. Wow. I should have known that. Still.. Paul wasfuther dionnected from the original twelve than many think. Plus he is quite... zealous... im preaching which I think many Christians praise..but is not always best in keeping the message on target? I dunno.. kinda wobling about now trying to patch upmy error.
Still.. one single line from Paul does negate the teachings of Christ in the Holy Gospel.
Yeah, Paul was a Jew and an asshole. Not that being a Jew makes one an asshole. Being a Born Again Christian almost always makes one an asshole and I like to think of Paul as the first of many.
Part of it is the problem of having followers.
Paul says "I don't teach this," and his followers say "Paul doesn't like this," and their followers say "Paul hates this!" and their followers say "God told Paul to hate this!" and their followers say "KILL THE HERETICS!!!!"
In reality, Paul often gives nuanced and complicated answers to a lot of questions, and often goes to great trouble to point out when something is his opinion and when it is rooted in either Jewish teaching of the time or the accepted teachings of Jesus. He studied for a long time with other Christians before he ever started preaching, and a lot of his more controversial statements are actually a lot less so when put in context and read in full. But zealots don't like to do that.
Yeah, here is the thing, "calling someone out on his bs" is to make the claim that the group is in fact full of BS, that everything they say is BS, or that a small faction of that group speaks for the entirety of that group. Its a case a generalization, that quite frankly tends to irritate me. It's an attempt to make straw men out of a certain group of people, and never see them as true 3 dimensional people, in order to justify your own philosophy.
The West Burro Baptists don't speak for me, and many wouldn't even consider them a true Church. Pope Benedict doesn't speak for me, I'm not catholic. My own church pastor doesn't speak for me, even if he's really good at his job. I speak for myself.
"You really can't ignore Bendis, especially when he shoots you in the face with a sniper rifle in Call of Duty." ~Brubaker
Actually...no. If you call someone out on their BS, you're calling that particular person (as well as anyone who supports that person and adheres to that philosophy) out on their BS. No more, no less. I'm more irritated when a previously discriminated against or oppressed group believes that the discrimination or oppression they suffered gives them a free pass, now and forever, to be just as big, if not bigger, asshats than the people who discriminated against or oppressed them in the first place. Especially if all that happened generations ago.
Last edited by Lunar Archivist; 05-07-2012 at 09:10 PM.
Except not everyone in a particular group is going to share that said persons philosophy. Lets take some of the biggest card carrying villains of the 20th century, the Nazis, now we often like to turn everyone associated with this group into a cartoonish caricature. Because to humanize them would be to humanize the horrific acts of evil they are associated with, and that is a horrible thought, so it's easier to make them into complete monsters. Often we might go one step further to make WWII Germany into a bunch of goosestepping fascist fanatics. Of course such a depiction is a gross misrepresentation WW II Germany, but will just focus on just those who were actually members of the Nazi party.
Now if you were to say "that they were all a bunch of genocidal maniacs" you would be making that same generalization about Albert Speer that you would about Hitler or Goring. That is not to say that Speer shared some guilt by association, but the difference between Speer and Goring is the reason why Speer was given a twenty year prison sentence, and why Goring was sentenced to hang. It's also the reason that Speer was the only guy they coup was going to leave alone had Operation Valkyrie actually worked.
"You really can't ignore Bendis, especially when he shoots you in the face with a sniper rifle in Call of Duty." ~Brubaker
Your analogy's a bit tricky because pretty much everyone in Germany at the time was a member of the Nazi party. Hell, you practically needed to be a member in order to not only be able to do anything in the country, but also to avoid undue suspicion falling upon you.
I'm deliberately trying to avoid naming any groups here because I don't want to drag politics into this, but let me give a clear example that I recently witnessed: if the leader of an organization appears on a news program surrounded by his followers, makes a thinly-veiled death threat against someone, and all of his followers that are present shout their support for the death threat and not a single one raises their voice in protest, I don't think it's unreasonable for me to assume that, at the very least, all of the people present completely share their leader's philosophy.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks