[Dr. Jezebel]

Samantha Field makes some excellent observations about interaction with Christians who disagree with things she's said. I see the same patterns repeated on this site.

http://samanthapfield.com/2016/08/31/chr...slighting/

[The Inimitable Lady Semp]

(09-01-2016, 04:35 AM)Dr. Jezebel Wrote: Samantha Field makes some excellent observations about interaction with Christians who disagree with things she's said. I see the same patterns repeated on this site.

http://samanthapfield.com/2016/08/31/chr...slighting/

I've seen that from time to time here, more than I'd like to see from people who self-report as being part of the faith.  

When I see threads that have been started or hijacked by people who do this I generally ignore those posts.  When I find a person particularly difficult I block the person altogether.  Life is too short to correct everyone on the internet who is wrong.  Also, real life has enough churlish and abrasive people to deal with without looking for them online.

[Norm]

Why must the change of approach always come from the individual holding the conservative or traditional perspective?

More often than not, if the individual holding the conservative perspective does not abandon their view, they are deemed a bigot. So what is asked by "liberal" or "progressive" individuals is not so much a request of approaching discussion in a more civil manner, but is actually a request to abandon one's beliefs entirely and agree with the opposing [progressive] perspective. Just because a perspective is new or progressive doesn't mean it's right.

Also, this article implies that individuals holding progressive perspectives ALWAYS approach discussion in an open, polite, civil manner. That is not true.

[Dr. Jezebel]

(09-01-2016, 08:52 AM)Norm Wrote: Why must the change of approach always come from the individual holding the conservative or traditional perspective?

More often than not, if the individual holding the conservative perspective does not abandon their view, they are deemed a bigot.  So what is asked by "liberal" or "progressive" individuals is not so much a request of approaching discussion in a more civil manner, but is actually a request to abandon one's beliefs entirely and agree with the opposing [progressive] perspective.  Just because a perspective is new or progressive doesn't mean it's right.

Also, this article implies that individuals holding progressive perspectives ALWAYS approach discussion in an open, polite, civil manner.  That is not true.

If a person is acting in a bigoted way, then they deserve to get called out.

No, the article does not assume that progressives always approach discussion in the right way. That wasn't even touched on, actually. The point is that after being told, "Hey, what you said is problematic, and here's why," too many people in general (although this post is specific to Christians) act SHOCKED that anyone could possibly interpret their words as anything other than sweetness and light. And they proceed with the psuedo-kind and open, teachable tone while simultaneously denying the very things others are attempting to bring to their attention.

[Norm]

But let's not confuse the definitions of bigotry and disagreement. Just because two people disagree (perhaps even vehemently) is not evidence that one of them is bigoted.

[Dr. Jezebel]

Disagreement isn't bigotry. Espousing dehumanizing, damaging ideas against entire groups of people, i.e. Christians are hypocrites; Trans people are mentally ill, is textbook bigotry.

[Ricardo]

We just experienced a textbook case this week in Maine, this week.

Governor Paul LePage stated that all drug dealers coming into Maine are Black and Hispanic, and that they are impregnating young white girls.

Three police chiefs came out and stated that the facts do not support the governor's statements. Only about 16% of drug-related arrests are black.

Rather than admit to the error of his views or to provide supporting evidence, the governor came out swinging. He left an obscenity-laced voice message to a Democrat legislator'

Now, define bigot. define racist. What do you call a person who, after having been shown the facts still insists on labeling a whole race and a whole ethnicity as drug dealers? [Edited by Mod]

[rsc2a]

Ricardo - what do you call a person who makes blanket statements against entire demographic groups?

[Norm]

I second rsc.

"Everyone who supports Trump is a racist, hypocritical, bigoted rapist."  -Ricardo

Dear Ricardo (a.k.a. Pot)

  Nice to meet you.

         Sincerely,
         Kettle

[Dr. Jezebel]

1. That's not what Ricardo said. Obviously you missed the nuance.

2. Back on topic, please.