My own take on that by now is: “OK, look, that was badly worded, and out of context is an unfair accusation, but it has been so established and now it’s beginning to look like demanding retraction and contrition”.
And it ties in to a larger debate involving not just this but other even more fraught issues, as to what things in what contexts are we going to give a presumption of hateful intent or trollery.
No, not seeking a retraction. I am still seeking clarification on the modding. Hari’s mod note to Wendall Wagner said that TriPolar had clearly limited his comment to “As a political group, Christians…” which seemed to make it okay, and then said that WW was being a jerk for not quoting that limitation.
Personally, I don’t see how that limitation: “As a political group Christians are sneaky, hypocritical, and dishonest” changes anything. It is still a blanket statement that any Christian who works in a political group is sneaky, hypocrtical and dishonest.
As I said in the other thread, that is a clear example of stereotyping and attributing bad characteristics to members of a particular religion, albeit only those engaged in political action. Yet the mod note to Wendall Wagner seems to say that’s an acceptable limiting phrase.
As Wendall says, I just don’t understand. What_Exit says that even with that limitation, TriPolar’s statement is boarderline hate speech and trollery, but Hari seems to be saying to Wendall* that the reference to “As a political group…” is a limiting provision and seems to make it okay.
The comment under discussion was repulsive, and the half-hearted non-apologies, clarifications and qualifications that followed really didn’t help.
I agree completely with those who commented that had the same remark been made about other religious groups, it would not have been tolerated at all.
I’ll also point out that the first mod note in the thread wasn’t in response to the comment, it actually defended the comment and “explaining” it in such a way as to de-claw it (here).
Seems to me that defense or qualification of the comment should have been left up to the poster.
And then a different mod merely offered “guidance” to the author of the comment, but then backed off even that.
And then that mod noted another poster, directing that poster to stop commenting about TriPolar’s post, and defended TriPolar in that mod note.
Astounding. I’m not surprised that I’m not the only one to point out that this would not have been tolerated had it been about, say, Jews. Or Muslims.
I (and plenty of others) have been “warned” for a lot less. The post was flat-out, unambiguous bigotry, and it was defended by another mod (not you), acting as a mod.
I don’t think it’s necessary to have to attach long, complex qualifiers every single time - “as a political group, white evangelical Southern Christians”, for instance, rather than just “as a political group, Christians” any more than it is necessary to attach a lot of qualifiers to “Islam is for the most part a repressive religion against women.” That would bog discussion down and make it almost impossible in some cases. As long as we know what is meant, it works.
As a group, a group is a group. I don’t think anyone misses that there are always exceptions. But a group is a group. Haven’t there been a thousand “Trump voters are ____ and ____” comments made, even if there are always exceptions?
He didn’t limit it to a particular political group.
I vehemently resent that.
Could you just accept that you need to actually say what you mean, and that if you say something else instead people are going to justifiably react to what you said and not to what you wanted them to read instead?
How about 'I’m sorry, I phrased that really badly, what I meant to say was . . . "?
The post I made in that thread that was directly on that subject, with cites, got pretty much ignored.
Long, complex qualifiers? No, it’s not always necessary to attach qualifiers like that. But some qualifiers are absolutely necessary.
The comment under discussion was
As a political group Christians are sneaky, hypocritical, and dishonest.
There is no qualifier in there that limits the comment to a subset of Christians. It can only be read as being about all Christians (which is why I find the defense of the comment, or the “explaining” of the comment by mods so wrong). Your hypothetical comment about Islam is limited by the words “for the most part,” and in any event is not about Muslims, it’s about Islam. That’s admittedly a fine distinction, but not an unimportant distinction.
Absolutely. And I’ve disagreed with many of them, and even, if memory serves me right, taken at least one to the Pit. That said, there’s a key difference – a comment about “Trump voters” is about an action, something the person has done. It’s inherently limited to those who have acted in a certain way at a certain time on a certain issue. It’s self-limiting. The limitation is built in.
It’s reductio ad absurdum, but it’s like saying “all drunk drivers are careless sociopaths.” One could argue the point, but it’s clearly only about those who have behaved in a dangerous manner.
One doesn’t have to include the word “all” for a comment to be all-inclusive. If I say “Ruritanians are sneaky thieving people,” it’s immediately clear that I mean all of them. “As a political group” doesn’t limit the comment at all. It doesn’t imply that the comment describes only a subset of Christians.
No do I. There was nothing sneaky about his/her attack.
Your post was much appreciated.
I know I was the OP, but if people are incapable of discussing a topic without widening it up to a ridiculous level just to vent about their pet bugaboos, then perhaps that topic should die a quiet death, and maybe brought up again later. My topic was about the attitudes of a specific group of Christians about a certain politician after certain events took place, and it turned into self-serving shit not long after it was opened.
Well, since they supported Biden, perhaps not. And again even American catholics are by no means a monolithic block. They aren’t even all anti-abortion.
Never mind. I was going to invite you to a thread about whether or not Catholics are politically just as bad as Catholics, but it’s probably pointless. If you want to start a thread, go ahead, this isn’t the place for that discussion, but I’m not going to bother.
Yeah, it seems like everyone’s hackles are highly raised across a range of topics. Which bothers me because that means having to walk on eggshells all the time.
They have amply demonstrated themselves to be so. Every time a vote came up allowing for public funds to be used by religious schools, I remember the Sunday sermons cutely skirting the politics and ending with ‘you know how to vote’. The same was true of political issues relating to abortion, birth control and church employment. Also, Chaplin Priests sprinkling holy water on military vehicles fits the bill when it’s placed in the context of the ‘Prince of Peace’ or ‘turn the other cheek’. Not unique to Catholics, but that’s the above quote.
However this is best applied to Organized Religions (corporations) rather than individual members. The phrase ‘as a political group’ fits Religious Corporations very well. .
I personally think they’re exactly as bad.
And yet people keep coming into this thread to post exacty the same thing. Amazing.
He did that!
That’s the thing that is puzzling me about this thread. You guys keep responding like you stopped reading the thread at the point where the mods told him he need to clarify.
And he did so. He apologized for the misunderstanding, and explained what he meant. Exactly what you say he should have done.
But that was his intent. That was how those of us who didn’t get upset read it. And it is what he clarified and said he meant.
Yes, that wasn’t clear. The other parsing is also valid. You can read it as an attack on all Christians who ever act as part of a political group. But now that he’s spelled out what he meant, I don’t get the insistence that the attack interpretation is the only possible one.
I, as a Christian myself, did not interpret it as referring to all Christians. Several other posters also did not interpret it that way. And he has made it clear that is not what he meant.
So what is left?
No, he (he? I don’t know. Maybe you do.) didn’t.
Tripolar said in that thread, in response to complaints about the post in the op:
None of that reads to me like ‘I phrased that really badly’ or ‘I shouldn’t have said it that way’ or anything else of the sort. All of it reads to me as TriPolar saying that the language used was perfectly fine, that TriPolar doesn’t understand how anyone could have read it as constituting a broad brush attack, and that TriPolar’s insisting the problem’s entirely with the people who read what was actually said instead of reading TriPolar’s mind.
“I am sorry that my words were taken that way” is not at all the same statement as ‘I’m sorry that I said it that way’.
The ones with actual political pull, not so much.
Hell, just talking about hypocrisy, even the supposedly neutral and vanilla “Family Guide to Faithful Citizenship” ends by telling Catholics to follow the example of St Teresa like she wasn’t actually a horrible example to anyone.
How is that not voting for him or supporting him? There are a good number of things I disagree with Biden on also.
I was saying that their anti-abortion stance makes them “just as bad” as Evangelicals, regardless of who they support. Although I would not call openly disagreeing with his stance “supporting him” in any case.