AWKWARD ZOMBIE

Avengifier wrote:What does everyone else think of afterlife?

You have SEVEN DAYS.

Pepper this is supposed to be a serious discussion topic. Please keep it that way.

TheStranger wrote:

Valbrandur wrote:So much for "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself".

When has that ever been an issue for anyone ever?
Cue countless "Oh dont count those, theyre not the REAL christians." Sure, theyre not going to do anything about counting them among their numbers, but Im sure making useless platitudes will make all the difference.

I'd say those people in that post are the same type of people that support the WBC, and you really can't take what they do as Christian. They just like to piss people off to get people mad at them so that they will get hurt and have a reason to sue someone for a quick buck.

Also, some Atheists say similar things about Christians, don't act like they don't.

Really those people fall into the category of "hateful, bigoted people" before any other category. These people exist in every group, Christian, atheist, whatever.

SaintCrazy wrote:Really those people fall into the category of "hateful, bigoted people" before any other category. These people exist in every group, Christian, atheist, whatever.

Sure, but when they arent actually going against the groups rules, or rather, when your group is so splintered that no consensus exists, then you cant claim that they arent part. For example, christians cant actually say that the douchebags arent part of the religion, because they are two different interpretations of the same text, its a No True Scottsman fallacy. Atheists cant claim that the dickheads arent "real" atheists, because atheisms only rule is that you dont think there's a divine power behind creation. Any further political or moral beliefs beyond that is inconsequential.

Not really, "human" is a species, which separates into individuals, and has no connection beyond the title. Everything else comes from race, nationality, religion, etc. A religion is an existential philosophy that has certain rules that must be adhered to, and is voluntary. Since most religions tend to splinter into groups over interpretation, unless they take on a new identity entirerly, then they have to include EVERYONE who follows the basic premise. Since there's statements and allegory that supports nearly every interpretation in the Bible, every splinter group has an argument for their interpretation, since no one version holds any more legitimacy than any other.

That's like comparing milk to steak. They both come from the same thing, but they're totally different.

Which is kind of what I was trying to say. While within the group, (for example, Baptists v. Mormons) the whole "We don't consider them Christians" is, for all intents and purposes an acceptable argument. But someone who is tired of being insulted (or is otherwise actively against religious people) doesn't care about technicalities and social divides, because it's all listed under the banner of Christian for them. So as far as the people associated with the party are concerned, it is relevant. For the people not associated, the distinction is irrelevant.

Also: Stranger, I don't know you, so I'm not sure just how familiar you are with Christianity in particular, but "Love your neighbor" is a pretty standard principle in Christianity, regardless of denomination. Some people just have a nasty habit of using their personal prejudices to exclude people from being their neighbor. Which, to be fair, doesn't necessarily mean that they're not a Christian, it just means that they aren't acting as loving as they should, and need to do some work on their attitude.



*or more accurately, "they aren't presently acting the way that a Christian in the first world where they are safe should act"

I don't think it's up to anyone to say who is what religion since it's a personal choice. Doctrines are such long, complicated and controversial messes there probably isn't a single person who adheres to everything. You shouldn't judge an entire group on the actions of individuals though.

TheStranger wrote:Not really, "human" is a species, which separates into individuals, and has no connection beyond the title. Everything else comes from race, nationality, religion, etc. A religion is an existential philosophy that has certain rules that must be adhered to, and is voluntary. Since most religions tend to splinter into groups over interpretation, unless they take on a new identity entirerly, then they have to include EVERYONE who follows the basic premise. Since there's statements and allegory that supports nearly every interpretation in the Bible, every splinter group has an argument for their interpretation, since no one version holds any more legitimacy than any other.

Why should they all be lumped together when religion is a personal choice and there are so many interpretations?

RikuKyuutu wrote: Also: Stranger, I don't know you, so I'm not sure just how familiar you are with Christianity in particular, but "Love your neighbor" is a pretty standard principle in Christianity, regardless of denomination. Some people just have a nasty habit of using their personal prejudices to exclude people from being their neighbor. Which, to be fair, doesn't necessarily mean that they're not a Christian, it just means that they aren't acting as loving as they should, and need to do some work on their attitude.



*or more accurately, "they aren't presently acting the way that a Christian in the first world where they are safe should act"

Sure, but there's plenty of rules in the Bible that gets discounted for various reasons. While Love Thy Neighbor is pretty big to overlook, it still means that stuff gets overlooked a lot. Who decides what is cool to ignore and what isnt?

Dire wrote:

TheStranger wrote:Not really, "human" is a species, which separates into individuals, and has no connection beyond the title. Everything else comes from race, nationality, religion, etc. A religion is an existential philosophy that has certain rules that must be adhered to, and is voluntary. Since most religions tend to splinter into groups over interpretation, unless they take on a new identity entirerly, then they have to include EVERYONE who follows the basic premise. Since there's statements and allegory that supports nearly every interpretation in the Bible, every splinter group has an argument for their interpretation, since no one version holds any more legitimacy than any other.

Why should they all be lumped together when religion is a personal choice and there are so many interpretations?

If they want to use the Christian label, theyre at odds with others who use the same, and they all consider themselves to be the "right" one. Since there's no consensus on what being Christian is, and they all identify as it, they get lumped together. There's still good Christians, but they have no grounds to claim that the bad ones arent Christian.

The individual (decides what rules to follow). Not all of the Christians.

EDIT: Yeah, alright, Thanks, buddy, for editing out the dumb question I was responding to.

I originally left this forum because I felt that it was becoming to insular in its toxic attitudes towards anything remotely "SJ", including dragging in perfectly reasonable things under the "dreaded evil tumblr SJ" umbrella, because they pointed out privileges you might refuse to acknowlege, or because you felt it was unreasonable to treat another human being with respect just because you refuse to understand their sexuality or gender identity, and do not do any research on your own beyond glancing at the first or second link on google. But mostly because they were using words you are not used to and refuse to learn, claiming they are "too hard" or "too silly" or "too random" to be used, or because you believed them "made up" by teens and young adults or "special snowflakes" on tumblr, or not "academia" enough to meet your apparently so very high standards.

I came across a nice little posting that summed up my thoughts on the matter perfectly, and after venting to a fellow AZ user whom will not be named, I was urged to post this here

In my QPOC class I started seeing the language I’d see on tumblr all the time: “white privilege,” “cis-sexism,” “microaggressions,” “POC,” “WOC,” the definitions of racism and sexism as only targeting POC and women respectively, etc. And I discovered the community organizers and woman studies majors in my class knew and used this language, too. Some of this language, I previously thought, was just part of the tumblr community. And I think a lot of people have this misconception. That this is stuff people on tumblr made up. When Ethnic Studies courses, Women Studies courses, Queer Studies courses, and POC community organizers etc USE THIS LANGUAGE. This is the language legit activists and academics use—and have used long before tumblr.

I don’t want to give the impression that language only used on the internet has no legitimacy or significance—new and important movements in social justice are being made on one of the most democratizing forces the world has seen: the internet, which has allowed people who are often excluded from the media and academia to communicate their unique messages to others.

But I think it’s important that the anti-social justice movement understand that this language exists out there in the world—and is used by people who study these issues for a living. Teens on tumblr didn’t make this shit up. It’s just that the language that was once mostly limited to classrooms and academic journals and woman-only/poc-only/queer-only spaces is reaching a more mainstream and younger audience. And if you don’t understand it or know it? It only reveals your ignorance.

Bolding mine for emphasis.


And to continue from that, I'd like to mention something else I had brought to my attention recently. As I said before, most of the excuses I see thrown around on this forum, especially this thread and text screenshots thread, are that words like "cisgender" or neutral identities like genderfluid(or even the concept/wordy of "nonbinary genders") and what not are somehow too hard to remember or pronounce, or because you disagree with the origin of the root of the word or something, you believe that takes away its validity, or that you think they are too silly and made-up sounding, or that the word itself or the roots of the words somehow depart from the original meaning too much for you to handle.

So, then, why do you only bring up these arguments when words are "made up" for non-straight/male/white/abled/cis/etc issues? I haven't seen anything even close to similar arguments when it comes to things that interest you. You all so very quickly grew attached to silly words like tumblr, facebook, twitter iPad, heretic(at you mlp fans), pokemon(and all the names of hundreds of them, to boot, some of you even managing to memorize every single one. even just memorizing the first 150 is impressive though some pokefans consider it average), swag, baller, hipster, ratchet, basic, hoochie, grill/e(as in teeth covers and in some cases personal space), and etc.

I also see many of you pulling out the dictionary in your arguments. Even ignoring the issue that the people who are in charge of what's written in dictionaries are generally straight/men/cis/able/etc, why do you place such high regard for the bible against "silly" words, when in 2012 Merriam-Webster added to it's dictionary words like: man cave, mouse potato, soul patch, ollie, unibrow, manga and qigong, sexting, earworm, mash-up, aha moment, and f bomb. And in 2011 Merriam-Webster added tweet(in regards to twitter), bromance, cougar(in regard to an older woman seeking romance with a younger man), parkour, fist bump, and helicopter parent. And in 2010 they added fan fiction, earmark, flash mob, frenemy, vlog, webisode, staycation, and sock puppet(in regard to people who create a fake identity online for devious purposes, such as if someone here made a second account to try and weasle out of trouble.) These were all added in just the last three years, and words like "cisgender" have been in use online and in academia for much longer. These words all fall under the exact same categories you use to refuse to use words that are used to describe non-heterosexual and non-cisgendered sexuality and identities and so on and to demean the people who use them.

And in regards to academia, you feel that these words are too "made-up". I want to ask you- where do you think most of the words used in academia came from in the first place? They were made up. Previously they were made up by generally white, straight, cisgendered men, and hardly a fuss was raised. When people who are women, trans*, nonbinary, POC, etc, try to join in the party with words that accurately described their identities and lived experiences, suddenly you all throw your hands up and say "wow no that's going too far".

As I said to the person who urged me to post this here, I doubt posting this will do any good and that the majority of you will plug your ears or huff and stamp your feet, cry "SJW!"(while completely missing the point i made in the very first sentence of this post) like it somehow invalidates what I have to say, or come up with further excuses that fall flat against the fact that the dictionary and academia both includes words that are too hard to pronounce or remember, that have origins you may disagree with or whose roots have changed from the origin entirely and have found new use, that are silly and made-up sounding(and in many cases actually are silly and made-up), and the fact these very same words actually have been used in academia and activism, and not just the dreaded tumblr, for quite a while.

I'd just like you all to think about what I've said, about how you accept and embrace hundreds of words that are "silly" or "made-up" or "unacademic" or "difficult to remember" so long as they involve your interests, and yet as soon as someone mentions a completely valid word like "cisgender" or a similar vein, one that accurately describes identities or struggles, you raise a fuss and dig your heels and throw out every ad hominem and logical fallacy(false equivalence and slippery slope seem to be a favorite) in the book. Ask yourself, why do those categories mean nothing when its a word that describes your interested, but those categories are inherently bad when you claim words like "cisgender" fall under them?

Íts not the friggin words that are the problem, its the victim attitude behind a lot of them.

I think part of the problem is that (myself included), it can be hard for white dudes to empathize with a group that's more put-upon. It's difficult to understand the problems and hurt that can result from, say, a transgender person being mistaken for the wrong gender. If that same thing happened us, we could just laugh it off because it's not something that we had to work through or come to terms with. Since we haven't had to do that, it makes it much more difficult for us to conceptualize that someone else would have a much harder time of it, which then makes people who complain about it seem whiny, when in reality it can be a serious problem.

And then there's also the vocal minority that does sometimes say stupid, ridiculous shit that a lot of people point to and say "SEE? That's what I'm talking about" which can ruin it when someone actually has something relevant to say, like Oracle's post.