Other posters have called TriPolar on that, as broad-brushed and not acceptable, because it makes a general statement about all Christians.
One mod initially said that it was a broad-brush attack against Christians and close to hate speech and trolling, but ultimately two mods have said it’s okay, because TriPolar prefaced it with “As a political group”.
I’m afraid I don’t understand that distinction, because it is saying that it is okay to stereotype all Christians when they are acting in a political fashion. To me, it’s still a broad-brush attack on all Christians when they exercise political rights.
I really don’t see how that phrase “As a political group” changes the statement from unacceptable to acceptable.
Is it acceptable to say:
“As a political group Catholics are sneaky, hypocritical and dishonest.”
“As a political group Blacks are sneaky, hypocritical, and dishonest.”
“As a political group Muslims are sneaky, hypocritical, and dishonest.”
“As a political group Jews are sneaky, hypocritical, and dishonest.”
I don’t understand how that one phrase makes statements of this sort acceptable, and based on comments from @DrDeth and @Wendell_Wagner, I’m not alone.
Yep, not only would any of those not fly, but likely the poster would be suspended on the spot, if not banned.
Christian is a large group, and even Christian Political groups is a very very large umbrella, quite a few of which are/were Supporting Biden, and anti-trump.
Agreeing. “Christian” is not a political group. A lot of Christians are in political groups; but they’re not all in anywhere near the same one, the politics of those groups vary wildly, and nowhere near all of them are “sneaky, hypocritical, and dishonest”.
There are some political groups which claim to base their politics on their religion, and some of those are Christian. So if the poster had named a specific political group, that would be different; it would then be possible to discuss whether the description were accurate for that group. But they didn’t. They lumped all Christians who have anything to do with politics into one group, which is nonsensical and insulting in itself.
TriPolar has as much as admitted using that as an extremely sloppy/careless shorthand for what I call “those US political factions that call themselves Conservative Christians/Religious Right” but apprently expecting that since they are the ones vocally insisting in calling their politics “Christian”, somehow we all should concede the shorthand because we knew what he meant.
Very sloppy broad-brushy statement, and very weak “sorry you misunderstood me” apology. I’d stop short of going beyond that as to adscribing anything else.
OTOH yes, I knew what he meant, but it still has the effect of perpetuating the notion that political Christians who are not ideological asshats don’t count or are the aberration.
They should be treated the same, namely, that we don’t attribute characteristics to political actors based solely on their religion. Muslims have just as much right to express political beliefs as Christians. Individual Muslims and Christians who do so should be evaluated based on their political expressions, not all lumped together based on their religions.
What was wrong with my explanation? He didn’t say “all Christians.” He used “as a political group” as a limiter. His goal was specifically to not broad brush Christians, but to limit it to a particular political group.
That’s what he explained to the mods. The mod accepted that it was not his intent, but told him he needed to be more clear in the future. So he did–he took the time to explain exactly what he meant. And he also apologized for the misunderstanding and to anyone who was offended by it.
I very much agree with this modding. I see no sign he was trying to sneakily attack all Christians. I’m all for not Warning people for misunderstandings. My only issue is that I wish the mods would believe me as much as they did him.
Not to a particular political group. To any Christian political group.
He had chances to limit it to Evangelicals or Conservative Christians, but nope.
"…but there are plenty of people with a political identity that they state is based on their Christian identity. It’s usually a two part spec, specifying ‘Christian’, but associating some other philosophy, like Christian Conservative. It isn’t simply the label either, they will identify their politics as being Christian in nature, and then have some set of political values/causes/whatevers to go with it. And they are sneaky, they are hiding the details of their political philosophy. …"
That was after I gave examples of Anti-trump and Pro-Biden Christian political groups. So it appears that to him, any Christian Political group, of whatever politics or stripe is sneaky, hypocritical and dishonest. He even doubled down on the sneaky.
To the mod "… I specified Christians as a political group, not all Christians as someone said and was noted for…"
So, like our Op here has said, would we give a pass to: “As a political group Jews are sneaky, hypocritical, and dishonest.”?
No. But it’s Ok if you are bigoted against Christians, apparently.
Now, when I got a PM from the Mods, I did ask for a Note, not a Warning. But the doubling down has me concerned.
Well, then he’s right. Or at any rate, communicating his right or wrong idea effectively.
It’s disingenuuous to pretend he meant to include the League of Quaker Socialists when talking about Christians and (US) politics. Everyone knew what he meant.
“People in the USA who use their Christian identity as an excuse for shitty political actions that they doubtless would have wanted anyway even if they were atheists, because they are inherently racist, misogynist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic reactionary assholes, but the Christianity gives them more acceptable cover” was my immediate understanding.
Anyone who says they thought TP meant any other group is lying or faking their outrage.
Could you just accept that I did not mean what you are saying that I did? I would like to respond to you to provide further clarification but that should be done in the original thread.
What do you hope to accomplish in this thread? I will be happy to help you out to put an end to what is just a miscommunication.
OP of the original thread here. Frankly, I would like to avoid both widespread accusations about Christianity as a whole and attempts to take any criticisms at all as attacks on all Christianity. All I wanted was a discussion of Christian groups that started out supporting Trump and whether any of them have turned away from that original position because of what he has done and/or said since they took that position. Personally, I wouldn’t mind if y’all started a separate thread about whatever it is this discussion is about.
I don’t think What_Exit admitted that TriPolar’s post #55, as written, is “okay”. TriPolar may not admit that he made a broad attack on all Christians, but has subsequently apologized for giving that impression. It’s a half-apology, and that seems to be enough for What_Exit to back off from “very close to a warning”.
There’s room to criticize What_Exit’s moderation or TriPolar’s actions, but without getting into any of that, I don’t think you are justified when you conclude that What_Exit (one of the “two mods”) thinks TriPolar’s post #55 is okay.
Part 2, Hari_Seldon’s note. The exchange, in isolation:
Hari_Seldon exchange (Click to show/hide)
#55:
#63:
#64:
#68:
#86:
#94:
Of critical relevance is where Hari_Seldon wrote, referring to TriPolar’s post #55,
What they actually wrote was “As a political group, Christians…” which definitely limits it.
I can interpret TriPolar’s post in such a way that he only describes some Christians as sneaky/hypocritical/dishonest. In fact I did so when reading the thread - I mentally substituted “Evangelicals” or “Conservative Christians” for “Christians”. In the context of discussions about Christians and support of Donald Trump, I feel justified in my interpretation. The actual words TriPolar used, devoid of that context (and my personal grant of the benefit of the doubt), do not support my interpretation; but it is okay in context.
It turns out that my assumptions were wrong. TriPolar clarified in post #64 that he was not referring to Evangelical or Conservative Christians, but to any and all Christians “who strongly tie their politics and Christian identity”. There’s no easy way to defend Hari_Seldon’s mod note to Wendell_Wagner after post #64.
That being said, I would not necessarily classify TriPolar’s overall position as an unacceptable attack on or stereotype of Christians. I do not think his position should be verboten, provided it is on-topic in a debate: ‘People who strongly tie politics and Christian identity are sneaky, hypocritical, and dishonest.’ A while back I started a debate about whether religion should be a prominent force in politics, and I think TriPolar’s position would have been totally acceptable in that discussion, or as a spin-off discussion.
To clarify, I do not think TriPolar’s post was OK. It was close to a warning. His explanation helped but his choice of words was terrible and should be better clarified in the future.
It’s also crucial to remember that there’s a major thread of political Christianity in the US that isn’t right-wing and awful. Look at Reverend William Barber, or at Reverend Raphael Warnock, for two examples.