Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

The contrast between games on the one hand and nationalism, or divisive religions on the other, clearly is that nationalists and divisive religionists don't respect or honour the opposition.

Tribalism is caused by fear: universalism is caused by love. Fear is often a life -saving attitude : love is risky. Sheep : goats. Men are pilgrims on their quest to be righteous and they progress from fear towards love.

Good Lord! This seems to be entirely driven by sublimated religious-idealistic sentiment. This view is highly ideological but misguided. It is just this sort of attitude and the policy that results from it that is being questioned.

[Belinda]

The contrast between games on the one hand and nationalism, or divisive religions on the other, clearly is that nationalists and divisive religionists don't respect or honour the opposition.

Tribalism is caused by fear: universalism is caused by love. Fear is often a life -saving attitude : love is risky. Sheep : goats. Men are pilgrims on their quest to be righteous and they progress from fear towards love.

Good Lord! This seems to be entirely driven by sublimated religious-idealistic sentiment. This view is highly ideological but misguided. It is just this sort of attitude and the policy that results from it that is being questioned.

I never denied I was born and brought up in a Christian culture which I mostly retain. I have not sublimated my preferred cultural orientation but will explain it to anyone who seeks to know it.

Competitive games are in fact a good example of the unwritten rules of good behaviour towards the other. If you don't try to progress from fear to love where do you think you will end up? Cultural stasis, that's where; or worse, reactionary retreat to some failed ideology.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I never denied I was born and brought up in a Christian culture which I mostly retain. I have not sublimated my preferred cultural orientation but will explain it to anyone who seeks to know it.

I would never ask for a denial of any stance but rather an examination of it. A Christian culture, and the outcome in liberalism, has many many positive aspects. But an ideology that takes aim at necessary social and national limits is potentially mistaken. In any case there are those who notice certain negative consequences. For this reason the references to France, Sweden, Germany, Italy, Denmark and other nations too where reactive sectors act up. Is their position and their view ‘immoral’?

The issue here is the examination of results — both positive as well as negative. For that reason I refer to extensive contemporary literature on the topic.

[phyllo]

But Americanism is a form of tribalism. Universalism is people are simply people whatever cultural strait jacket they are persuaded to dress up in.

Humans have always been tribalistic. Even at this time the tendency hasn't been reduced as exemplified most seriously in the sports world. Universalism can best be understood biologically but hardly ever and probably never in practice. Universalism requires a reticence in not taking sides which is almost impossible to do...a kind of unconditional neutrality which rarely yields to judgement. Universalism, as grand as it sounds, is not the goal. There isn't enough definitional or conceptual in it to create a corresponding reality, which, even if it could, may not be desirable.

By 'universalism' one means not only laws that benefit all people(human rights laws) but also the attitude of individuals who serve the needs of others regardless of race, creed, age, sex, or past history.

Competitive games such as cricket or football have written rules of the game so everyone is playing the same game. Just as necessary to the health of competitive games are the unwritten rules that aim at respecting and honouring the opposition. The contrast between games on the one hand and nationalism, or divisive religions on the other, clearly is that nationalists and divisive religionists don't respect or honour the opposition.

Tribalism is caused by fear: universalism is caused by love. Fear is often a life -saving attitude : love is risky. Sheep : goats. Men are pilgrims on their quest to be righteous and they progress from fear towards love.

A just society is only about treating people fairly.

It's not about shaming people and forcing them to suppress their feelings. If someone hates blacks/whites or some other group, they are free to continue.

[Belinda]

Humans have always been tribalistic. Even at this time the tendency hasn't been reduced as exemplified most seriously in the sports world. Universalism can best be understood biologically but hardly ever and probably never in practice. Universalism requires a reticence in not taking sides which is almost impossible to do...a kind of unconditional neutrality which rarely yields to judgement. Universalism, as grand as it sounds, is not the goal. There isn't enough definitional or conceptual in it to create a corresponding reality, which, even if it could, may not be desirable.

By 'universalism' one means not only laws that benefit all people(human rights laws) but also the attitude of individuals who serve the needs of others regardless of race, creed, age, sex, or past history.

Competitive games such as cricket or football have written rules of the game so everyone is playing the same game. Just as necessary to the health of competitive games are the unwritten rules that aim at respecting and honouring the opposition. The contrast between games on the one hand and nationalism, or divisive religions on the other, clearly is that nationalists and divisive religionists don't respect or honour the opposition.

Tribalism is caused by fear: universalism is caused by love. Fear is often a life -saving attitude : love is risky. Sheep : goats. Men are pilgrims on their quest to be righteous and they progress from fear towards love.

A just society is only about treating people fairly.

It's not about shaming people and forcing them to suppress their feelings. If someone hates blacks/whites or some other group, they are free to continue.

Free speech is good, but sometimes what a group of people say is as dangerous as an offensive weapon. When people are trying to live near each other in peace and prosperity you need laws for keeping the peace.

[phyllo]

Free speech is good, but sometimes what a group of people say is as dangerous as an offensive weapon. When people are trying to live near each other in peace and prosperity you need laws for keeping the peace.

One would have to be very clear about what "hate speech" is. I can see the reason for having a law which states you cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. However, I think much of what is labelled "hate speech" is not dangerous at all.

[Belinda]

Free speech is good, but sometimes what a group of people say is as dangerous as an offensive weapon. When people are trying to live near each other in peace and prosperity you need laws for keeping the peace.

One would have to be very clear about what "hate speech" is. I can see the reason for having a law which states you cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. However, I think much of what is labelled "hate speech" is not dangerous at all.

Hatespeech is sometimes insidiously put about by clever agitators and the cleverness makes it hard to identify it. Sometimes hatespeech is traditional, unthinking, and stems from battles and vendettas that are officially deemed to be past events. Sometimes hatespeech is simplistically reserved for a recent enemy to the extent that anybody hostile to the old enemy is regarded as a trustworthy friend.

[phyllo]

I would draw the "hate speech" line at advocating violence against a group.

[Immanuel Can]

I would draw the "hate speech" line at advocating violence against a group.

Like "Punch a Nazi"? Or like, "Deplatform the haters?" Or like "Punish the Russians?" (as per the Ukrainian PM) Or is it only the case that advocating violence against groups that the politically correct happen to LIKE is "hate speech"?

Just asking. It's not obvious from recent events that the proponents of "hate speech" have an equal view of who gets to speak, or even who gets to be immune to being treated with violence.

That's one contested term, to be sure.

[phyllo]

Like "Punch a Nazi"?

I would say it qualifies as hate speech.

Or like, "Deplatform the haters?"

"Deplatform" is violence???

Or like "Punish the Russians?"

Is that a reference to this:

In a resolution adopted on Thursday, MEPs demand the Russian political and military leadership be held accountable for the crime of aggression against Ukraine.

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/ ... ian-crimes

[Immanuel Can]

Like "Punch a Nazi"?

I would say it qualifies as hate speech.

We agree. "Punch" anybody is not warranted. But "hate speech" is actually a nonsense term, because we have a better one: "incitement to violence," and it's already illegal. So we don't need the silly term "hate speech." But what the Lefties don't like about "incitement" is that it either has to be explicitly instructing on how to harm somebody, or some violence actually has to happen before it can be charged. They don't want that. They want to be able to decide, in the absence of any evidence at all, that some "speech" can be condemned beforehand as if conducing to violence, even when it's just an opinion, or when they have not a single scratch of evidence it's likely to produce violence at all.

Or like, "Deplatform the haters?"

"Deplatform" is violence???

Agreed. It's a ridiculous Leftist idea, like "silence is violence." But that's exactly what they want to get people to believe, under the rubric of "hate speech"; that people they suspect are going to say something that disagrees with them are not to be allowed to speak, and the excuse is that they are preventing "hate speech."

Or like "Punish the Russians?"

Is that a reference to this:

In a resolution adopted on Thursday, MEPs demand the Russian political and military leadership be held accountable for the crime of aggression against Ukraine.

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/ ... ian-crimes

No, actually. It was a reference to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-a0Wqj-0m8. I'm very curious what Zelensky has in mind, because the idea of "punishment" goes beyond the goal of winning the war. He seems to want retribution and revenge, too, and of an enduring kind...and not just on Putin and his cronies, but on "Russians," as he says. That's not a very concilliatory way to negotiate a peace, at the very least. Is he "inciting to violence"? Maybe. It would depend on what he thinks "punishment" means.

[Harbal]

We agree. "Punch" anybody is not warranted. But "hate speech" is actually a nonsense term, because we have a better one: "incitement to violence," and it's already illegal. So we don't need the silly term "hate speech." But what the Lefties don't like about "incitement" is that it either has to be

Agreed. It's a ridiculous Leftist idea, like "silence is violence." But that's exactly what they want to get people to believe, under the rubric of "hate speech"; that people they suspect are going to say something that disagrees with them are not to be allowed to speak, and the excuse is that they are preventing "hate speech."

Really?

I thought you were more sophisticated than that, IC.

No, actually. It was a reference to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-a0Wqj-0m8. I'm very curious what Zelensky has in mind, because the idea of "punishment" goes beyond the goal of winning the war. He seems to want retribution and revenge, too, and of an enduring kind...and not just on Putin and his cronies, but on "Russians," as he says. That's not a very concilliatory way to negotiate a peace, at the very least. Is he "inciting to violence"? Maybe. It would depend on what he thinks "punishment" means.

Maybe having his country suffer an unprovoked military attack by a foreign power has temporarily warped his sense of proportion.

[Immanuel Can]

We agree. "Punch" anybody is not warranted. But "hate speech" is actually a nonsense term, because we have a better one: "incitement to violence," and it's already illegal. So we don't need the silly term "hate speech." But what the Lefties don't like about "incitement" is that it either has to be

Agreed. It's a ridiculous Leftist idea, like "silence is violence." But that's exactly what they want to get people to believe, under the rubric of "hate speech"; that people they suspect are going to say something that disagrees with them are not to be allowed to speak, and the excuse is that they are preventing "hate speech."

Really?

Yep. That's exactly what they say.

I thought you were more sophisticated than that, IC.

I don't say it. They do. I was quoting.

Here's a very Leftist site using that very meme, actually: https://www.globalintegrity.org/2020/06 ... vesmatter/ Or, if you prefer one more on the Libertarian side, here's another: https://reason.com/2020/07/03/silence-i ... on-is-not/ You can pick your preferred evidence.

Maybe having his country suffer an unprovoked military attack by a foreign power has temporarily warped his sense of proportion.

That could be. I understand the anger. But to say I "understand" it doesn't mean I think that having a vengeful spirit is justified.

But was it "unprovoked"? What was Biden doing in Ukraine? Can you think of anything legitimate he could have been doing involving germ labs and such, which the Dems themselves listed as war concerns? I'd want to know that, before I decided the Russians had not been provoked. There may well be blame to go around. I suspect there will be, when this story is fully uncovered.

The Russian military was wrong to invade, no doubt. But making it two wrongs won't fix that. The aim, I think, should be peace, and justice in regard to the guilty; but not revenge, and certainly not undefined "punishing" of the Russian people in general. I'd want to know, first, that "the Russians," whomever Zelensky means, were guilty. I suspect a great many are not.

[Harbal]

We agree. "Punch" anybody is not warranted. But "hate speech" is actually a nonsense term, because we have a better one: "incitement to violence," and it's already illegal. So we don't need the silly term "hate speech." But what the Lefties don't like about "incitement" is that it either has to be

Agreed. It's a ridiculous Leftist idea, like "silence is violence." But that's exactly what they want to get people to believe, under the rubric of "hate speech"; that people they suspect are going to say something that disagrees with them are not to be allowed to speak, and the excuse is that they are preventing "hate speech."

Really?

Yep. That's exactly what they say.

I thought you were more sophisticated than that, IC.

I don't say it. They do. I was quoting.

Here's a very Leftist site using that very meme, actually: https://www.globalintegrity.org/2020/06 ... vesmatter/ Or, if you prefer one more on the Libertarian side, here's another: https://reason.com/2020/07/03/silence-i ... on-is-not/ You can pick your preferred evidence.

Maybe having his country suffer an unprovoked military attack by a foreign power has temporarily warped his sense of proportion.

That could be. I understand the anger. But to say I "understand" it doesn't mean I think that having a vengeful spirit is justified.

But was it "unprovoked"? What was Biden doing in Ukraine? Can you think of anything legitimate he could have been doing involving germ labs and such, which the Dems themselves listed as war concerns? I'd want to know that, before I decided the Russians had not been provoked. There may well be blame to go around. I suspect there will be, when this story is fully uncovered.

The Russian military was wrong to invade, no doubt. But making it two wrongs won't fix that. The aim, I think, should be peace, and justice in regard to the guilty; but not revenge, and certainly not undefined "punishing" of the Russian people in general. I'd want to know, first, that "the Russians," whomever Zelensky means, were guilty. I suspect a great many are not.

That could have been written by Walker, and that's not a compliment.

[Immanuel Can]

Really?

Yep. That's exactly what they say.

I thought you were more sophisticated than that, IC.

I don't say it. They do. I was quoting.

Here's a very Leftist site using that very meme, actually: https://www.globalintegrity.org/2020/06 ... vesmatter/ Or, if you prefer one more on the Libertarian side, here's another: https://reason.com/2020/07/03/silence-i ... on-is-not/ You can pick your preferred evidence.

Maybe having his country suffer an unprovoked military attack by a foreign power has temporarily warped his sense of proportion.

That could be. I understand the anger. But to say I "understand" it doesn't mean I think that having a vengeful spirit is justified.

But was it "unprovoked"? What was Biden doing in Ukraine? Can you think of anything legitimate he could have been doing involving germ labs and such, which the Dems themselves listed as war concerns? I'd want to know that, before I decided the Russians had not been provoked. There may well be blame to go around. I suspect there will be, when this story is fully uncovered.

The Russian military was wrong to invade, no doubt. But making it two wrongs won't fix that. The aim, I think, should be peace, and justice in regard to the guilty; but not revenge, and certainly not undefined "punishing" of the Russian people in general. I'd want to know, first, that "the Russians," whomever Zelensky means, were guilty. I suspect a great many are not.

That could have been written by Walker, and that's not a compliment.

There's nothing in there that's not totally common knowledge.

I guess if you don't like it...then you don't like it. It doesn't change the facts.