Well, I included the definition of persecute to cut Bricker some slack. The word in discussion was persecution, which implies something more systemic.
Since this was a discussion about definitions (which is a pretty inane thing to go on about for 6 pages), the proper thing to do would be to grab examples of usage from various media. NYT and google books comes to mind.
That said…
I thought the responses to my ridicule might be different. One of the odd aspects about this message board is the unwillingness of the great bulk of posters to play along with Bricker’s lawyerly game. I mean we’re here to fight ignorance. I now see from the ATMB thread that Bricker cited the OED (I wasn’t aware of that).
Anyway, in the ATMB thread Bricker complains about the following (substantive point snipped out):
That’s the sort of thing that I’d be inclined to respond with. Now I might leaven that with, “Your particular definition is bizarre in this context…” etc. etc. But there’s no reason why board members shouldn’t enter into Bricker’s structure of rhetoric. It isn’t that deep, and over the past few years Bricker has shown sufficient flexibility so as to not entirely ignore competing definitions. Heck he did that explicitly in that thread.
Maybe. But the canyon-wide difference between Bricker and say adaher is that Bricker will stop and acknowledge contrary points made and not simply bulldoze across them. He will also go to outside sources. He gives those who disagree with him something to work with. I can’t discern the extent to which some of his points are noteworthy, because they haven’t been engaged with properly IMHO.
I love that in response to “why do Christians feel persecuted?” Bricker mewls about how tough it is being a Christian.
First century Christians faced persecution with bravery. Twenty-first century Christians bleat about injustice at the idea of being equal to others (as opposed to the supremacy they’ve enjoyed since they gained power.)
Except that if Christians are claiming they are persecuted, and acting as if it’s enough of a big deal to complain about it in public settings such that we’ve heard about it, then that gives us some information about what definition of persecuted THEY are using, which is more important than which one WE are using or which one YOU are using.
Because they are also giving specific examples of what they are calling persecution…so THAT should be what gives you information about what definition they are using, rather than interpolating a definition from the fact that they complain in public.
I think the issue is more subtle than you’re giving it credit for. “Persecution” is one of those words with a lot of weight behind it, like “rape” or “racism”. If Reverend Bob gets on the radio and says “hey, did you see how we weren’t allowed to put the 10 commandments on a public building? I tell you, we Christians are PERSECUTED in the USA today! We’re PERSECUTED!”, and we start debating the issue, and you argue that one of the definitions of “persecuted” is technically met by the events that transpired, but that you agree that it’s a VERY lightweight definition of persecution, then I’d argue that Reverend Bob is still being very dishonest. Because even if “Christians are being persecuted” is in fact true in that context (using super-lightweight-definition-of-persecuted), there’s a strong implication from the way he’s talking, from his level of alarm, from his histrionics, that his claim “Christians are being persecuted” is an important warning cry about something serious, not just a minor and fairly meaningless description of someone feeling butthurt.
Well, the new thread is actually more or less productive, moving the debate in the direction it seems was originally intended. The problem does indeed seem to be that Bricker wouldn’t stop trying to say “persecution is <something far milder than anything anyone would ever consider persecution>, therefore Christians are justified in claiming they’re persecuted, just like antivaxxers, 9/11 truthers, and holocaust deniers”. So… Uh… Yeah, suck it, Drunky & co.
If you see people complain about being treated in a perfectly reasonable and fair way after losing the enjoyment of unreasonable and unfair special privilege, that tells you all you need to know about the (in)validity of their complaints, and provides a starting point from which to judge any future complaints from the same source. If you really sympathize with them, you ought to apply a bit of intellectual tough love rather than enabling them and thereby exacerbating the latter outcome.
No, I don’t agree. This is I kept insisting that we remember why words have meanings, and why I land strongly on the prescriptivist side of the fence, and why I don’t accept that saying “My head literally exploded when I read that post,” should be permitted to stand unchallenged. It’s perfectly correct to clarify what’s being said; it’s not correct to complain that because a word has weight, it can no longer be used in its correct sense. That way lies offense at “niggardly.”
Well, to be honest, Budget Player Cadet is very niggardly. He freely admits to mooching off of his girlfriends family by staying rent free for entire weekends at their house over the course of many months and eats their food without pitching in for groceries and makes their parents drive him around with out pitching in for gas or getting his own vehicle.
You mean that retards who wanted to bash christians got their chance to and reasonable people rolled their eyes and thought, “Oh, these assholes again. Yeah I’m not going to get involved in this retard fest.”?
Well at least you’re right in this case. Unlike fucking under age children. Which is wrong by the way in case you still haven’t figured that out.
Hey, someone help me out. Has Drunky Smurf ever contributed anything of value to any conversation, or is he just the pit-dwelling troll he seems to be? Like, if he has and I haven’t seen it, I’d like to know, because I try to restrict my ignore list to people who never have anything of any value to say (at this point basically just FXMastermind) and people with whom I try to avoid contact because otherwise I’m liable to go off on them (again, FX).
(For the record, for those tuning in, everything he says is either false or horribly outdated.)
That is indeed the definition I shall use from this day forth.
Exactly - modern day North American Christians seem to have a definition of “persecution” that means “If I’m not allowed to persecute or exclude other people or put my religion above theirs, you’re persecuting me.”
False. Inequivocally false in just about every respect, from the age of my partner (there was an age difference of 2 years) to her mental state (she suffered from GID, not any sort of mental handicap as her mother had led me to believe) to her ability to consent (clear mind, sober, legal under the laws in Maine both by way of being 16 and by way of being within 4 years of me at the time). If you’re interested in the details, feel free to PM me; this shit is just stupid, and I’d rather not have to deal with it every time I post in the pit, but leaving statements like “you’re a pedophile who raped a retarded minor” unchecked just seems like bad policy.
I avoided the original thread because I knew it would be filled with ridiculousness all over the place, but let me say here:
Anyone who is in the self-professed 70-80% majority of the population who even entertains the notion that he or she is a persecuted demographic is fatally stupid at best, or maliciously deceitful at worst.
Despite what Google may say, persecution is not synonymous with “hostility and ill-treatment, esp. because of race or political or religious beliefs.” If I, as a non-Christian, say to a Christian, “you’re a shithead, because you’re a Christian, and I hate you!” I am not persecuting that person. Bricker et al know this. Suggesting that this is a workable definition of ‘persecution’ in the context of the original OP falls under the “maliciously deceitful” category mentioned above.
