Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
56 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: "Sinful" is to Christianity as "hateful" is to moral progressivism rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I have been holding this thought to myself for a while, but on the heels of Tripp getting banned, raising the count to five conservatives and zero liberals, I can't hold this anymore.

How many times have we had discussions about how religion is a tool that is used to try and control the masses? That things are determined to be "sinful" not because of any inherent evil but just because it strengthens those in power?

I think we are entering a similar phase of society where the word "hateful" is being used in the same, arbitrary way others have accused Christians of using "sinful."It is being used to control all discourse, where things that are not necessarily hate but simply disagreement or a different moral view are branded as "hateful." Then the outrage rises and a new era of Scarlet Letter comes where there is public shaming.

Let's take a for-instance. My morals say that God has ordained marriage to be between one man and one woman. However, I accept that the laws of the land are not based on what God dictates, but on equality. So as much as I fear where the path will lead us as a society, I am on the side of marital equality. But that will still get me tarred with the epitaph "hate." It is not enough to allow for equality in the law. I must change my core moral beliefs or else I hate. The only way to be not hateful is to adopt the prevailing social norm as being defined by the new pastors from the Twitter pulpits.

I have had passengers who have yelled at me for being hateful based solely on being a Mormon (and how they could tell that, I've no idea). But because I am a Mormon, I deserve to be screamed at and told how "hateful" I am. Do they know that I support legalized marriage for all? No. But I am hateful, that's all that matters. All that matters is I get shamed for not believing properly what has been approved.

What matters is that the masses are being controlled. "Sinful" or "hateful," does it really matter the word?
16 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jamie Hankins
United Kingdom
Southampton
Hampshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GameCrossing wrote:
Let's take a for-instance. My morals say that God has ordained marriage to be between one man and one woman. However, I accept that the laws of the land are not based on what God dictates, but on equality. So as much as I fear where the path will lead us as a society, I am on the side of marital equality. But that will still get me tarred with the epitaph "hate." It is not enough to allow for equality in the law. I must change my core moral beliefs or else I hate. The only way to be not hateful is to adopt the prevailing social norm as being defined by the new pastors from the Twitter pulpits.


I strongly disagree with your stance, but it doesn't sound like you're a hateful person (based on what you've written here). I'm also a practical person, so I am very keen to focus on areas of agreement (where cooperation can happen) rather than focus on points of disagreement.

That all being said, is it possible that those people who accuse you of being hateful genuinely believe that your beliefs are hate-based? If so, their statements are not arbitrary but merely misinformed.

When a person declares that they believe that your romantic union is religiously and/or morally invalid, that is very easy to interpret as coming from a place of hate. It's doubly easy when you have experience of people saying such things who do actually hate you.

The fact that you support equal access to the legal institution of marriage seems to suggest that this is not the case with you specifically, but homophobia is an understandably sore and sensitive topic.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hateful generally addresses externalized thoughts and actions. Sin is generally more internalized.

I hurt myself via sinful actions.

I hurt others through hateful actions.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Binkowski
United States
Rochester
Michigan
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Shadrach wrote:

I hurt others through hateful actions.


You can hurt others through non-hateful actions though.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Wight1984 wrote:

That all being said, is it possible that those people who accuse you of being hateful genuinely believe that your beliefs are hate-based? If so, their statements are not arbitrary but merely misinformed.


This is the problem, though, isn't it? Who gets slathered by so broad a brush? Those screaming "hate" may be misinformed, but it doesn't keep those in earshot from hearing it. And in today's public forum, isn't the scarlet letter "H" about the worst thing that can be borne? Public shaming, protests, campaigns... all because the word was thrown out there. The degree of sincerity of belief of the person using the term doesn't enter into the equation. The degree of actual hatred doesn't enter into the equation. All that enters into the equation is that it has enough volume to be heard. Then snowballs get rolling.

I see the parallels between those in medieval times branding something or someone as "sinful" and those in today's society branding something as "hateful" to be eerily similar. It is about controlling the populous. But at least this control is for our own good.... right?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls

Pennsylvania
msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GameCrossing wrote:
Wight1984 wrote:

That all being said, is it possible that those people who accuse you of being hateful genuinely believe that your beliefs are hate-based? If so, their statements are not arbitrary but merely misinformed.


This is the problem, though, isn't it? Who gets slathered by so broad a brush? Those screaming "hate" may be misinformed, but it doesn't keep those in earshot from hearing it. And in today's public forum, isn't the scarlet letter "H" about the worst thing that can be borne? Public shaming, protests, campaigns... all because the word was thrown out there. The degree of sincerity of belief of the person using the term doesn't enter into the equation. The degree of actual hatred doesn't enter into the equation. All that enters into the equation is that it has enough volume to be heard. Then snowballs get rolling.

I see the parallels between those in medieval times branding something or someone as "sinful" and those in today's society branding something as "hateful" to be eerily similar. It is about controlling the populous. But at least this control is for our own good.... right?


Unlike in medieval times, when consorting with the devil and witchcraft claims could be proven on the flimsiest of evidence, I'm pretty sure that video footage, written texts, and verbal proclamations that are hateful are pretty decent evidence that accused is being hateful.

That isn't to say the tool isn't being wielded in an undisciplined manner by some, but if you want to show me a myriad examples of someone not expressing hate, and being called on it, then I'm all for defending false witness and claims.

I guess to fine tune the argument, what unhateful expressions do you consider as being mislabeled as hateful?

Just two to start. Pick out the most egregious.

7 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Warren Smith
Canada
Calgary
Alberta
flag msg tools
badge
And what become of her new straw hat that should have come to me?
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GameCrossing wrote:
My morals say that God has ordained marriage to be between one man and one woman. However, I accept that the laws of the land are not based on what God dictates, but on equality.
My personal reaction to this is that the word "morals" should be replaced with bible/church/leaders or whatever. I find the second sentence to be more reflective of your morals than the first.

Regardless, I think I agree 100% with your premise. "Sinful" and "hateful" are sides of a coin which often ends discourse rather than promote it.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Sarxis wrote:
Shadrach wrote:

I hurt others through hateful actions.


You can hurt others through non-hateful actions though.


Of course you can. A better way to lut it:

You tell me my actions are sinful because you believe they hurt my soul.

You tell me my actions are hateful because they hurt others.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Binkowski
United States
Rochester
Michigan
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
h00sha wrote:
... "morals" should be replaced with bible/church/leaders or whatever. .


One you did not mention: God.

Is it so inconceivable to you that God does actually teach people the difference between Truth and error?

'It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me.' John 6:45

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Johnson
United States
Azusa
California
flag msg tools
One of Alabama 3's finest songs, especially the versions on the single this image is from...
badge
Sweet Pretty M*th*rf*ck*ng Country Acid House Music - All night long!
Avatar
GameCrossing wrote:
raising the count to five conservatives and zero liberals,


Your continued repetition of this particular lie does no one any favors. Especially you. :|

(And is *extra* hypocritical, given your own history of claiming to be a conservative, despite being disavowed by your fellow travelers...)

Seriously, knock this shit off.
4 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GameCrossing wrote:
Let's take a for-instance. My morals say that God has ordained marriage to be between one man and one woman. However, I accept that the laws of the land are not based on what God dictates, but on equality. So as much as I fear where the path will lead us as a society, I am on the side of marital equality. But that will still get me tarred with the epitaph "hate." It is not enough to allow for equality in the law. I must change my core moral beliefs or else I hate. The only way to be not hateful is to adopt the prevailing social norm as being defined by the new pastors from the Twitter pulpits.


#1 - I think a majority of the people who would actually do this would fall on the "fringe" side of things. They'll be a very loud fringe, but I'd be absolutely shocked if anything approaching a significant minority of people that support SSM would call your stated position "hateful."

#2 - Anyone who did this would be just as wrong as the religious person that wants their religious belief translated into law. When we step on expression of differing beliefs simply because someone holds them, we're pretty fundamentally undermining the freedoms that both sides claim to embrace.

#3 - I would state that expressing "fear where the path will lead us as a society" does start getting into some problematic waters. Once you start expressing that sentiment, you're starting to intimate that your personally held moral convictions should, perhaps, be imposed upon others that don't agree with you. I mean, were a nation to enforce Sharia law or the Hindu caste system through the engines of the government in the interest of "protecting society," I suspect you'd find that to be an issue for the many people that don't belong to the Islamic or Hindi faith. Wouldn't you? You're basically making a very soft slippery slope argument, which implies that there is some point at which you'd go "hard" and actual advocate mandating your religious belief.

As to people yelling at you, being an asshole isn't something exclusive to a particular set of political beliefs. They shouldn't do it (particularly if they've only known you like 30 seconds), but that doesn't make them the majority. It just makes them assholes. I'd bet you would run into some assholes that would yell at you for not wanting it to be made law.

ETA a bit to #3 for clarity.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GameCrossing wrote:
Those screaming "hate" may be misinformed....


Or they could just be assholes. Who might make fun of you for the shirt you're wearing or yelling at you because you drove a foreign car.

Maybe we shouldn't extend being an asshole from a small sample to everyone in a group?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Dearlove
United Kingdom
Chelmsford
Essex
flag msg tools
SoRCon 11 23-25 Feb 2018 Basildon UK http://www.sorcon.co.uk
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
There's a serious asymmetry in the OP's argument, which rather undermines it.

Sin is based on a set of rules from religion. Those rules are considered to apply to all, even those who reject the tenets that the rules come from. Now there are rules that are fairly universal, such as do not kill without authority (though the source of the authority can vary). So here we are considering rules that the religion has that are not universal. When in power the religion enforces those on everyone, when not in power it usually (there are exceptions, religions that keep their rules to themselves) indicates that the rules should apply to everyone.

Now at first sight, as the OP, it looks like the "anyone can marry" (and it's hateful if you oppose that) is symmetric. But that's something that is not a rule imposed on everyone, but a freedom extended to everyone. It only overrides a rule put forward by the religion. In both cases we have the religion being the source of the prescriptive rules. The religious aren't bound to follow that practice. As a wise man once said, if you don't believe in same sex marriage, don't get married to someone of the same sex.

Now if you want to find a mirror image case (although gay marriage was the OP's example, not mine, I didn't set it up as a fail) you need a case where the non-religious impose a rule on the religious. That of course has happened, for example a prohibition of worship. But that's not the real life issue in say the UK, let alone the US. There are apparently milder cases such as "you can't have the Ten Commandments posted here". But those are also not an opposite case, they are saying "your religion can't dominate the shared public space here".

You might find an issue, though it can be tricky. Constraints on educating your children for example. Though that has to be balanced in the what matters is not your right to control your children, but that the children have rights (some, but not all of which, we usually, but not always, let the parents exercise on their behalf).

So I'm looking for a real example, not a false symmetry between cases that actually both hinge on the religion being the one imposingly constraints. Either where (not in a country like China) the non-religion is actually the one imposing the restriction, or where the religion is pretty non-imposing (the Quakers spring to mind, though I am no expert there) but are constrained.

Of course to match the OP I've presented the above as religion and non-religion. It can actually be two religions (e.g. in Britain before various religious emancipation acts in the nineteenth century it was Anglicanism imposing on Catholics, Nonconformists and Jews). It could be two non-religious ideologies, thought that's rarer without religion involved somewhere.
12 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
G Rowls
msg tools
Mostly made up of spare parts and sarcasm! ... HTTP Error 418 I'm a Teapot!
Avatar
mbmb
Sarxis wrote:
h00sha wrote:
... "morals" should be replaced with bible/church/leaders or whatever. .


One you did not mention: God.

Is it so inconceivable to you that God does actually teach people the difference between Truth and error?

'It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me.' John 6:45



Evidence please that God * says this that is not in the bible and none of that circular logic that the evidence is in a book written on behalf of god over 1500 years and by at least 49 authors.

* because as far as I know it has never been noted Baal said that.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dearlove wrote:
There's a serious asymmetry in the OP's argument, which rather undermines it.

Sin is based on a set of rules from religion. Those rules are considered to apply to all, even those who reject the tenets that the rules come from. Now there are rules that are fairly universal, such as do not kill without authority (though the source of the authority can vary). So here we are considering rules that the religion has that are not universal. When in power the religion enforces those on everyone, when not in power it usually (there are exceptions, religions that keep their rules to themselves) indicates that the rules should apply to everyone.

Now at first sight, as the OP, it looks like the "anyone can marry" (and it's hateful if you oppose that) is symmetric. But that's something that is not a rule imposed on everyone, but a freedom extended to everyone. It only overrides a rule put forward by the religion. In both cases we have the religion being the source of the prescriptive rules. The religious aren't bound to follow that practice. As a wise man once said, if you don't believe in same sex marriage, don't get married to someone of the same sex.

Now if you want to find a mirror image case (although gay marriage was the OP's example, not mine, I didn't set it up as a fail) you need a case where the non-religious impose a rule on the religious. That of course has happened, for example a prohibition of worship. But that's not the real life issue in say the UK, let alone the US. There are apparently milder cases such as "you can't have the Ten Commandments posted here". But those are also not an opposite case, they are saying "your religion can't dominate the shared public space here".

You might find an issue, though it can be tricky. Constraints on educating your children for example. Though that has to be balanced in the what matters is not your right to control your children, but that the children have rights (some, but not all of which, we usually, but not always, let the parents exercise on their behalf).

So I'm looking for a real example, not a false symmetry between cases that actually both hinge on the religion being the one imposingly constraints. Either where (not in a country like China) the non-religion is actually the one imposing the restriction, or where the religion is pretty non-imposing (the Quakers spring to mind, though I am no expert there) but are constrained.

Of course to match the OP I've presented the above as religion and non-religion. It can actually be two religions (e.g. in Britain before various religious emancipation acts in the nineteenth century it was Anglicanism imposing on Catholics, Nonconformists and Jews). It could be two non-religious ideologies, thought that's rarer without religion involved somewhere.


So looking at social media, you don't feel that it is increasingly being driven by those seeking to impose their morals on others, whether they adhere to that moral code or not? Hell, people are screaming at Uber because of how much they did-or-did-not price gouge during a taxi strike. This is more and more becoming the norm, the public shaming of those who are on the outs of the prevailing morals of those in power. And while that power may not be codified by law as with governments, it is more and more dictating how society is run. And it is becoming more and more oppressive toward those whose voice doesn't agree with their own. "Hate."

Now, if you want to say that there is merit to this wave, or this is just the natural outcropping of the exchange of ideas, so be it. But calling things hateful which are not is, in my mind, just as much an attempt to silence and subdue the masses and get them in line as was calling things "sinful." The fact that it is crowdsourced power makes this oppression no more noble.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
fightcitymayor
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
"This is a really weird game, and you’ll find that most people will not want to play this."
Avatar
mb
I might say: Sin is an arbitrary construct, whereas hate is a verifiable occurrence.

At some point in human history I would have been branded a "sinner" by some sect for everything from eating pork, to trimming the hair at my temples, to fucking someone before marriage, to sucking a good dick. But the problem becomes when one person thinks something is "bad" while others believe it isn't. Even today we could both be from the same sect/tribe/group and still argue all day about "what god believes" is improper.

But if I stand up at a bar-mitzvah and shout at someone to "Burn in hell, you filthy fucking kike whore!" then no one in attendance or otherwise would doubt or have reason to not believe that I hated someone there. It isn't relative to a belief system, it's self-evident.

But I totally agree that the word "hate" is abused in common parlance these days.
5 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Binkowski
United States
Rochester
Michigan
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
growlley wrote:
Sarxis wrote:
h00sha wrote:
... "morals" should be replaced with bible/church/leaders or whatever. .


One you did not mention: God.

Is it so inconceivable to you that God does actually teach people the difference between Truth and error?

'It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me.' John 6:45



Evidence please that God * says this that is not in the bible and none of that circular logic that the evidence is in a book written on behalf of god over 1500 years and by at least 49 authors.

* because as far as I know it has never been noted Baal said that.


"Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires.

He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”" John 8:43+
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GameCrossing wrote:
I have been holding this thought to myself for a while, but on the heels of Tripp getting banned, raising the count to five conservatives and zero liberals, I can't hold this anymore.

How many times have we had discussions about how religion is a tool that is used to try and control the masses? That things are determined to be "sinful" not because of any inherent evil but just because it strengthens those in power?

I think we are entering a similar phase of society where the word "hateful" is being used in the same, arbitrary way others have accused Christians of using "sinful."It is being used to control all discourse, where things that are not necessarily hate but simply disagreement or a different moral view are branded as "hateful." Then the outrage rises and a new era of Scarlet Letter comes where there is public shaming.

Let's take a for-instance. My morals say that God has ordained marriage to be between one man and one woman. However, I accept that the laws of the land are not based on what God dictates, but on equality. So as much as I fear where the path will lead us as a society, I am on the side of marital equality. But that will still get me tarred with the epitaph "hate." It is not enough to allow for equality in the law. I must change my core moral beliefs or else I hate. The only way to be not hateful is to adopt the prevailing social norm as being defined by the new pastors from the Twitter pulpits.

I have had passengers who have yelled at me for being hateful based solely on being a Mormon (and how they could tell that, I've no idea). But because I am a Mormon, I deserve to be screamed at and told how "hateful" I am. Do they know that I support legalized marriage for all? No. But I am hateful, that's all that matters. All that matters is I get shamed for not believing properly what has been approved.

What matters is that the masses are being controlled. "Sinful" or "hateful," does it really matter the word?


I would never ask that someone think that gay marriage is MORAL, but they should accept it because our laws demand equality. That sounds like your stance, so great, we're in disagreement agreement.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
fightcitymayor wrote:
I might say: Sin is an arbitrary construct, whereas hate is a verifiable occurrence.

At some point in human history I would have been branded a "sinner" by some sect for everything from eating pork, to trimming the hair at my temples, to fucking someone before marriage, to sucking a good dick. But the problem becomes when one person thinks something is "bad" while others believe it isn't. Even today we could both be from the same sect/tribe/group and still argue all day about "what god believes" is improper.

But if I stand up at a bar-mitzvah and shout at someone to "Burn in hell, you filthy fucking kike whore!" then no one in attendance or otherwise would doubt or have reason to not believe that I hated someone there. It isn't relative to a belief system, it's self-evident.

But I totally agree that the word "hate" is abused in common parlance these days.


That last bit... that's my point. If we used hate to signify actual hate, especially with the power that we have in a connected world like today, we might make actual progress at rooting it out. But we don't. We say that people who simply think differently "hate." And sure, it may only be the fringe who say it, but the fringe get some nodding from the broader masses. And it's easy to throw a hashtag out there.

For the religious back in the time when religion held the power, there was no consequence to them for throwing around "sinner" or "witch" or whatever other term with impunity. If they were wrong, oh well. No punishment for them, they were just wrong, we can all have a good laugh about it, right? Similarly today, what are the consequences for those who slap "hate" across anything they don't like? None that I can see.

My point is not one of whether "sinful" is better or worse or more accurate than "hateful." It is simply to draw the parallels between how the use of the two is all about controlling the masses. And take a look around... how many people and companies do an undue amount of tiptoeing simply for fear of being on the wrong end of some slacktivism?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Binkowski
United States
Rochester
Michigan
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Shampoo4you wrote:
equality


According to who's scales? Because everyone seems to have their own scales with their own calibrations.

"In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes." Judges 21:25
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jorge Montero
United States
St Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
badge
I'll take Manhattan in a garbage bag. With Latin written on it that says "It's hard to give a shit these days"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GameCrossing wrote:
I have been holding this thought to myself for a while, but on the heels of Tripp getting banned, raising the count to five conservatives and zero liberals, I can't hold this anymore.


I wonder about the reasoning behind this sentence.

I for one think you are a very sensible conservative that sincerely tries to back their thoughts, so you'd be very low in my idea of 'hatefulness', even though I am sure there's a whole lot of topics in which we disagree.

As far as control of masses, we also used to have treasonous and unamerican: There are always words to say that a thought is so far away from what an upstanding member of the community can support. It's not really about controlling masses IMO, but about group membership. Even small groups of people have their own social contracts. What we are seeing is that people that live in very different worlds, and yet in the same country, have very different ideas of what their social contract is. I for one don't think that a very strict definition of religious marriage breaks a social contract, but that trying to make it into law is a different matter. It's the same for being a vegan, or believing that people that don't drink or smoke weed aren't trustworthy.

I for one think that without words like 'sinful' and 'hateful', we cannot work as a society, but at the same time, that our ideas of what those words mean are just way too narrow. The problem is not that we have beliefs, or that there are beliefs that should be expensive to have, but that we have such a high level of disagreements on which beliefs are problematic that dialogue becomes impossible.

I have some utilitarian tendencies, and as such, I always wonder about what the beliefs mean in practice. What really angers me is not random beliefs I disagree with, but actions that theoretically implement said beliefs, but in practice do something different. For instance, how laws to stop abortions in practice just stop them for poor people. Or how the travel bans aren't really focused on anything that would, in any way, be effective. The reason I hate those is that they stop us from arguing rationally about objectives and policies, and instead just make people tie their moral beliefs to things that, in practice, go against what they really believe, and their own self interest. This is in no way something unique to the right: There's plenty of stupid policies in the left that don't achieve the objectives they supposedly achieve, like rent control.


I don't know if you'd consider this disagreeing with you or not, but I hope it at least allows more fine grained discussion.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shampoo4you wrote:
GameCrossing wrote:
I have been holding this thought to myself for a while, but on the heels of Tripp getting banned, raising the count to five conservatives and zero liberals, I can't hold this anymore.

How many times have we had discussions about how religion is a tool that is used to try and control the masses? That things are determined to be "sinful" not because of any inherent evil but just because it strengthens those in power?

I think we are entering a similar phase of society where the word "hateful" is being used in the same, arbitrary way others have accused Christians of using "sinful."It is being used to control all discourse, where things that are not necessarily hate but simply disagreement or a different moral view are branded as "hateful." Then the outrage rises and a new era of Scarlet Letter comes where there is public shaming.

Let's take a for-instance. My morals say that God has ordained marriage to be between one man and one woman. However, I accept that the laws of the land are not based on what God dictates, but on equality. So as much as I fear where the path will lead us as a society, I am on the side of marital equality. But that will still get me tarred with the epitaph "hate." It is not enough to allow for equality in the law. I must change my core moral beliefs or else I hate. The only way to be not hateful is to adopt the prevailing social norm as being defined by the new pastors from the Twitter pulpits.

I have had passengers who have yelled at me for being hateful based solely on being a Mormon (and how they could tell that, I've no idea). But because I am a Mormon, I deserve to be screamed at and told how "hateful" I am. Do they know that I support legalized marriage for all? No. But I am hateful, that's all that matters. All that matters is I get shamed for not believing properly what has been approved.

What matters is that the masses are being controlled. "Sinful" or "hateful," does it really matter the word?


I would never ask that someone think that gay marriage is MORAL, but they should accept it because our laws demand equality. That sounds like your stance, so great, we're in disagreement agreement.


You wouldn't. But others would. Others do.

Here's a for-instance. BYU was applying to get included in the Big 12 Conference. That would have been huge dollars for them. But BYU is owned by the LDS church. They have a student honor code which is well into the deep end of what counts as "strict." And so rather than putting rules in place that spell out how to be fair and equal toward all people of all genders actual and invented, their student conduct code focuses on maintaining chastity outside marriage.

That was hate.

Mormons aren't accepting of gays and lesbians and transsexuals and so let's deny them them access to better sporting competition. True or not, that was the narrative put out there, and tens of thousands hopped on that. Fully their right to do so, but the LDS church was labeled as "hateful" and those who said it tried to bully other schools into excluding them based on that alleged hate.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
hibikir wrote:
GameCrossing wrote:
I have been holding this thought to myself for a while, but on the heels of Tripp getting banned, raising the count to five conservatives and zero liberals, I can't hold this anymore.


I wonder about the reasoning behind this sentence.

I for one think you are a very sensible conservative that sincerely tries to back their thoughts, so you'd be very low in my idea of 'hatefulness', even though I am sure there's a whole lot of topics in which we disagree.

As far as control of masses, we also used to have treasonous and unamerican: There are always words to say that a thought is so far away from what an upstanding member of the community can support. It's not really about controlling masses IMO, but about group membership. Even small groups of people have their own social contracts. What we are seeing is that people that live in very different worlds, and yet in the same country, have very different ideas of what their social contract is. I for one don't think that a very strict definition of religious marriage breaks a social contract, but that trying to make it into law is a different matter. It's the same for being a vegan, or believing that people that don't drink or smoke weed aren't trustworthy.

I for one think that without words like 'sinful' and 'hateful', we cannot work as a society, but at the same time, that our ideas of what those words mean are just way too narrow. The problem is not that we have beliefs, or that there are beliefs that should be expensive to have, but that we have such a high level of disagreements on which beliefs are problematic that dialogue becomes impossible.

I have some utilitarian tendencies, and as such, I always wonder about what the beliefs mean in practice. What really angers me is not random beliefs I disagree with, but actions that theoretically implement said beliefs, but in practice do something different. For instance, how laws to stop abortions in practice just stop them for poor people. Or how the travel bans aren't really focused on anything that would, in any way, be effective. The reason I hate those is that they stop us from arguing rationally about objectives and policies, and instead just make people tie their moral beliefs to things that, in practice, go against what they really believe, and their own self interest. This is in no way something unique to the right: There's plenty of stupid policies in the left that don't achieve the objectives they supposedly achieve, like rent control.


I don't know if you'd consider this disagreeing with you or not, but I hope it at least allows more fine grained discussion.


No, I fully agree. If people were using "treasonous" to do that, that's what I would be calling out right now. But right now, it's "hateful." And it is applied on the broadest of brushes, and it seems that some people don't care about who gets smeared with it.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jorge Montero
United States
St Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
badge
I'll take Manhattan in a garbage bag. With Latin written on it that says "It's hard to give a shit these days"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GameCrossing wrote:

So looking at social media, you don't feel that it is increasingly being driven by those seeking to impose their morals on others, whether they adhere to that moral code or not? Hell, people are screaming at Uber because of how much they did-or-did-not price gouge during a taxi strike. This is more and more becoming the norm, the public shaming of those who are on the outs of the prevailing morals of those in power. And while that power may not be codified by law as with governments, it is more and more dictating how society is run. And it is becoming more and more oppressive toward those whose voice doesn't agree with their own. "Hate."


Societal change happens when people impose their morals on others. One of this country's biggest early challenges was slavery: How wasn't it anything other than a group of people imposing their morals on others? The original plan, leading later to the Missouri compromise, just couldn't work. Someone had to lose, as far as whether their morals were made into law or not.

Today we see a fight for a different set of morals, which are far less dramatic than slavery, but still, it's the same shape. Should someone be ashamed of marrying someone that traditionally would have been considered of the same gender identity? Does religious tolerance really mean 'as long as you really mean Christian?' What is moral behavior towards people from other countries that want to come in (and this one is NOT unique to the US at all)?

We can't change the laws every four years, kicking people out, or making their marriages null and void. Some values have to outlast that, and it's very hard to make any change there without making moral arguments: Hell, the arguments against all of those things are also moral arguments: Practical discussions are limited to the intelligentsia. Most of our beliefs, no matter how smart we think we are, come from identity affiliation, not because we've done very serious thought about what would happen if we changed our minds. That's why some people rethink abortion when they hear their very single daughter is pregnant, or their ideas on law enforcement change after they are mugged.

So yes, it's all driven to impose morals on others. It's, unfortunately, how society works, or doesn't.
4 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jorge Montero
United States
St Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
badge
I'll take Manhattan in a garbage bag. With Latin written on it that says "It's hard to give a shit these days"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GameCrossing wrote:

No, I fully agree. If people were using "treasonous" to do that, that's what I would be calling out right now. But right now, it's "hateful." And it is applied on the broadest of brushes, and it seems that some people don't care about who gets smeared with it.


So why hateful? Because many people using it are not describing the values of a single country: They don't necessarily identify themselves with country first, or second, or third. They are thinking of what they consider decent across the board, anywhere. It's just that hateful is a very broad word.

And you won't get any argument from me in that people are being accused of being terrible by people who don't know them and are just taking shortcuts. If there's anything we lack in this modern world, is attention and nuance, because the kind of long lasting relationships that societies historically have, and which provide the grounds that let people disagree with each other in a way that shows empathy, are gone. We are built for moving less, and spending our social time with fewer people. Technology has made us outpace our biology. Now that's an existential problem to humanity that I sure hope we manage to beat through culture.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.