Actually, though I disagree with some of your applications of Biblical principles, I have absolutely no problem with what you said in your post, and would trust that you have not taken discussions here (other than Daniel’s posts which you complained about) personally as attacking you as an individual.
For me, the principles which Jesus propounded and commanded us to espouse in the Two Great Commandments, the Golden Rule, Matthew 7:1-2, and the Parables of the Good Samaritan, Sheep and Goats (AKA Last Judgment), and Prodigal Son, as well as passim through the Sermons on the Mount and the Plain and the Farewell Discourse in John, are the bottom line of Christian behavior, to which I expect my fellow Christians to abide. That we may differ in detail on how they affect specific acts is not a source of frustration or irritation to me, unless their perspective is that their interpretation as to those specific acts is the only one a Christian may lawfully and morally do.
It might be well for Daniel (Left Hand of Dorkness) to review that post and determine if he himself has misjudged you, if I may dare to volunteer you as a “LeGuinea pig” for that bit of repair work in communication breakdown.
As for the general thrust of the thread, I think Tom~'s last post makes quite clear the line being drawn in terms of vocabulary. There are people who violate basic Christian principles in their zeal to “prove” something relative to the Bible to an uncaring world – and there are others who may hold similar views as regards Scripture but apply it in the manner Christ taught. To hold the first up to contempt as abusing others, in Christ’s name no less, while refusing to condemn the second group, strikes me as, if not ideal morally, at least human nature.
While I’m happy to continue the discussion directly with you, Polycarp, my impression is that raindog resorts to unethical debate tactics when confronted, so I don’t see much percentage going on in that direction.
The distinction you describe isn’t one that’s particularly important to me, inasmuch as Christ’s teachings aren’t relevant yardsticks for me. Whether someone is following Jesus’s teachings isn’t what makes me decide whether to excoriate them; it’s whether they’re treating others with dignity, respect, and compassion (which may or may not be Christ’s teachings).
Naturally, everyone’s human, and everyone behaves in less-than-optimal ways sometimes. But if a person establishes a pattern of bad behavior, that’s when I’m not going to treat them so well.
This may appear hypocritical, inasmuch as I’m saying I’ll treat someone with contempt who commits the sin of treating someone with contempt. The difference is that I won’t initiate the process: I won’t treat a relevantly innocent person with contempt.
And that’s an almost universal distinction. I may not punch someone out if I see them walking innocently down the street, but if they’re engaged in mugging someone else, I may ethically punch them out. Actions that are unethical when committed against the innocent may be ethical when committed against the guilty.
In other words, Shodan’s comparison of “fundy” and “homo” is fallacious: “homo” is namecalling against someone who is relevantly innocent, whereas “fundie” is namecalling against someone who is relevantly guilty.
I do not draw a distinction between a person’s actions and a person. I believe that is a false distinction, for who we are comprises our actions. I suppose I’m something of an existentialist in this regard, but the “hate the sin, love the sinner” attitude is not one I find convincing.
Well, I would say that I agree with you more than I disagree. I would like to answer you — and I will --but I am interested in your views on** Left Hand of Dorkness**'s specific use of the word, including his stated intent/meaning and the context in which he uses it here in GD. (As you’ve neither rushed to his defense, nor taken him to task)
I’d also reiterate that words have no inherent meaning. Meaning is given by the sender, and the recipient independent of each other. In another thread,**Gaudere ** said that he objected to more “clear-cut pointless slurs (“niggers”, “rag-heads”) …” Even in this example, as Polycarp noted with his father, “nigger” is not a universal perjorative. To the extent any word is seen as objectively perjorative , or rather to have a meaning of it’s own, is only because the meaning of a word has a broad, common meaning in society among individuals. The word “nigger” is probably a good example.
Still, even if the sender sees it as perjorative, there may still be many appropriate uses of it. (Like using the word in a discussion about slavery/racism)
And so I can’t think of a single word that couldn’t be used in GD.
To make a word inappropriate, the element of context and intent has to be added.Specifically ,intent that seeks to denigrate a person. I have no problem with perjorative terms being used to identify a belief system, or a set of ideas. But when it is being used towards a specific person, or a group of people, it’s not cool. It’s use then is to denigrate, belittle , mock, and attack.
Just as there is a broad, common view of the word “nigger” out there in society, (therefore giving it a common meaning to sender/recipient alike) is there a common meaning of the word “fundie” here at SDMB? (shared and common but not necessarily accepted universally)Further, to the extent there is a shared, common meaning here at SDMB, is it applied to beliefs/ideas or is it used to belittle a minority here? In this thread, Liberal pointed out the many ways that “fundie” is used here at SDMB. Again and again and again it is directed towards individuals. SPOOFE, put it this way, “…For example, I see the word “Fundie” as more synonymous with “asshole” than with “nigger”, as the N-word is used by intolerant people to indiscriminantly slur black people. However,** “Fundie” is applied to certain folks** quite discriminantly, based solely on their own behavior…”
(bolding mine)
It is entirely reasonable for a black person to see the word “nigger” that’s directed towards him as not only as perjorative, but as a personal attack. (based on it’s common use in context) Within the SDMB community it’s equally reasonable that a person who identifies himself as a fundamentalist see the word as a personal attack based on it’s common use here.
And how SPOOFE’s attitude any different that your’s below? My problem with this attitude is that both you and SPOOFE presume to the arbiter of what is “right”, or what is “true.”
Tell me, do you have empirical evidence that they were lying? I mean lying; not in possesion of some beliefs you find silly or indefensible. Nor do I think you’ll be able to make the point that they’re, intentionally twisting anything. Please show me that all of them are acting with some malice of forthought and intent. Even if some in that group are practicing intentional deception, it’s highly likely that the majority are sincere in their beliefs. Why not go after their beliefs relentlessly without using a perjorative term, that in the SDMB context is almost always used towars the individual, that will likely be offensive. Further you’re applying it to a whole group, not all of which (even among the specific group who dispute Darwin) believe the exact same things.
I see a contradiction here. You’re not calling anyone a fundie, but to identify a known group of people…? You are in fact applying fundie to a group pf people. (vs a belief system) You are in fact calling someone [anyone] a fundie.
Once again, I would need to see empirical evidence that they are acting, with malice of forthought, with dishonesty. That is nearly impossible, but while you’re at it, show me that it applies to the whole group.
bolding mine
Not in my view! But I don’t see a reason to make this distinction with a word that is construed to be a perjorative by many people. I wouldn’t even call them liars, unless I could prove that they were lying. (Which is nearly impossible; just because they see the facts differently doesn’t mean they are intentionally lying)
I don’t think you can establish that your beliefs are the standard in which others are judged, and therefore you have the right to level perjorative names towrds those you disapprove of. If you feel that they have silly beliefs, attack them. But until you can establish that yours is the objective truth, the individual has to be respected.
Kent Hovind and Duane Gish have been caught on numerous occasions repeating as fact distortions and misstatements that they have been forced to recant in public. Caught making an “error” in a debate and forced to retract, that same “error” of fact will appear in their next publication or speech. That certainly meets my definition of lying.
Now, there is no question that I have used the word fundie in such contexts as a dismissive. I have limited myself to using it to dismiss people who are not participating in the thread for the purposes of establishing ahead of time that any appeal to their “authority” will be met with disdain. I have also used the word once or twice in discussions of religion to dismiss the opinions of people (not present) who would assert that Catholics are not Christians, although I have refrained from directly calling His4ever or similar posters “fundies” when I have had to engage them on their errors.
In a post on a specific item where I wish to simply remove a tangential argument, I see no need to waste the bandwidth laying out a complete argument against Hovind and Gish (or against Robertson and Wildmon) when a single descriptive statement will accomplish the same task. On the other hand, I am not applying the word to the whole group of Fundamentalists who may believe in YEC, I am specifically limiting my use to those who are willing to be dishonest in their declarations–hence the use of “fundie” rather than “Fundamentalist.” There are many sincere believers in YEC or biblical literalism whom I respect. I do not use the word “fundie” when I refer to them. When I have used fundie, the context has generally indicated that I am addressing liars or bigots. Darwin’s “deathbed recantation” was a pure invention by one woman who was not even present. That meets my definition of a lie.
Clearly there are posters who are willing to use the term as an insult directly to another poster in GD and I think I’ve been clear in noting that I do not think that is a valid tactic. I have tended to address your posts on this topic because it has seemed that you have argued that the word could never be legitimately used in GD, a point with which I disagree as posted above.
I have not addressed Left Hand of Dorkness on that issue, because I figured you were making the case pretty well for your position–except to the point where you seemed to set a limit beyond which I am willing to go.
Frankly, as you note, “fundie” (and even “F/fundamentalist”) has a rather wide range of meanings held by quite disparate posters. To that extent, any use of any word should be limited in GD only when it is being used as a direct insult. I’ve used the word “papist” in any number of threads, but I doubt that anyone could be offended by my use of it. (milum once oddly objected to my use of “RCC,” but then he seemed to be on a personal mission to find offense among all posters who did not meet some odd criteria of his own.)
Actually, I didn’t even see Daniel as attacking me. I take no offense from him, although I disagree with his mindset. I have never felt attacked by you.
I agree. I think it is fairly established throughout biblical history that it is incumbent for the believer to stand up for his/her beliefs; even if they are unpopular. Abraham, Moses, Noah, virtually every one of the prophets, John the Baptist, Jesus, Paul—all of them—found them in the circumstance where they had to provide a defense for the faith they had in them.
I think we would agree that it is appropriate for me [you…] to share my beliefs respectfully, even stridently and without equivocation, without jamming it down someone’s throat or condeming them. No one has the right to play God and sit in judgement of another. I perceive in you a sincere desire to live a life that is in harmony with Christian principles, and seek to educate rather than attack; to discuss rather than condemn. And so I can appreciate those qualities without agreeing entirely as to dogma. I see the same sincerity in tomndebb, SolGrundy and others. It does me no good, and belies any attempt to share the news about the Christ, to call anyone names.
I’m game. I have no bad feelings at all towards Daniel. (And I mean that; I’m not just playing nice) Of course, I disagree with some of his thoughts. At times I have all the charm of a Pit Bull. If I’ve been a smart aleck (sp?) trying to be clever, than I apologize to Daniel.
I would agree. The best approach, in my view, is to first seek out common ground. (if possible) It is the best place from which to start discussing the differences. I think it also reminds everyone that there are reasons to be reasnable and civil. That doesn’t mean that one has to compromise closely held pronciples in an effort to get along. High emotions and hurt feelings are inevitable. But it gives a reason/platform from which to go back in the cooler, more rational light of day and deliver the requisite apologies.
Curses–my long post was deleted. Briefly, I’m pretty sure I’ve never advocated using the term as an insult to another poster in GD; FWIW, I agree that would be inappropriate. However, the world doesn’t consist entirely of great debates.
I appreciate your apology, raindog. I neither know nor care what your religion is, and so I’ve not been attacking it, or attacking you based on it. I have attacked you (or your actions, if you’re an essentialist) for what seem to be unethical debating tactics, where you misrepresent what I say or attack me personally instead of addressing my points (e.g., implying that it’s my age speaking, not my mind).
I don’t know the circumstances of this, but I have no reason to dis-believe you. I think you’d probably agree that the common use of the word “fundie” here at SDMB rarely rests on the solid ground desribed here.
It’s easy to feel disdain for some of the opinions/beliefs offered here. I don’t like using blunt instruments when removing their intellectual organs. There’s so many other ways to get that job done.
As I said, I think I agree with you much more than I disagree. I think your post[s] have had the effect of refining/clarifying my points. I was having an extremely pointed discussion with **Left Hand of Dorkness ** and you reminded me (correctly) that some of the prohibitions I would levy on him might be less pernicious in the hands of another, and that there may be some appopriate uses of the term in question. (although we may not agree on the full scope of it’s apporpriate use…)
Bolding is mine
We agree in large part. That bolded text was really why I ventured into the thread. As I’ve said, I have no stake in the term personally. I have a sense that my application of the appropriate use of the word may still be more restritive than yours, even if only marginally.
Still, even if all posters used your, less restrictive, guideline when posting, the use of the word “fundie” would fall by 90+% or more, and would only be seen commonly in The Pit.
Cool. I appreciate the post. I will [continue to] try keep as much clarity in posts as possible, and apologize if you perceived I was attacking you. That was not my intent/meaning.
So we may all be in agreement: nobody, as I said, is suggesting that the word may be used in rational, civil discourse as an appellation for a member of the discourse.
However, I think your numbers are way off. Discounting this thread, here are the last 5 uses of “fundies” in Great Debates (when the word was used in the same context multiple times in the same thread, I only am quoting the first example).
Not one of the six examples I listed runs in violation of this rule. Far from making “the use of the word ‘fundie’. . . fall by 90+% or more,” I think it’d have a negligible effect.
Indeed, I think tom’s proposed rule is currently in effect. I challenge you to find a single example of the word’s being used as a direct insult against another poster in Great Debates. (I assume that if it’s used against a nonmember, it’s an indirect insult).
You mean that this thread was a false alarm? Think of all the people bummed out thinking that “fundie” was perjorative (to most posters/recipients) when in fact it’s nothing more than a harmless pronoun!
But I think not…
I wonder how I would be received if I used “homo” as a pronoun. Like fundie which is a clipping of fundalmentalist, homo is a clipping of homosexual. The two words in their non-clipped versions evoke strong emotions—on both sides of the word.
Both words have been shortened as a means of belittling and denigrating the people associated with the word. While the words have no inherent meaning —no word does— the common use of the word has a perjorative meaning in most contexts.
The funny thing at SDMB is that threads like this help flush out people’s intents/meanings when using the word. That goes a long, long way in coming to a common understanding of the word in it’s use here.
In The Pit, where it seems to be in most common use, it is almost always (best as I can tell) used to offend. It would appear that posters using the word want to make sure our imaginations don’t miss the finer points in using the word. So, SPOOFE offers us, "“Fundie” as more synonymous with “asshole.”
Given the thoughts you’ve shared in this thread as to your use of the word, the irony that you’d offer up this post isn’t lost on me. You’re practically the poster child for advocating the word be used perjoratively, and towards the individual.
Just because a perjorative term gets enough widespread use that it makes it pronoun status doesn’t mean that it loses it’s baggage. So someone should see the word fundie used routinely in the most vile way in The Pit, and consider it a benign pronoun a couple doors down in Great Debates? (especially as it is often the same people using the term in both places?)
There you go again, raindog. Is that what I said? Or did I say something much more specific, something that you couldn’t refute, so you pretended that I made a stupid argument instead, since you could refute the stupid argument?
This is what I attacked you for. I thought you were going to try not to do it.
No that’s not what you said…Of course I didn’t say you did either…
:dubious:
I agree that it is a perjorative word, and in most (the overwheliming amount actually) contexts it is used to offend; to belittle.
I tend to agree with tomndebb when he says that he would find it appropriate in some circumstamces—like when someone is clearly lying. Even in that context, it is a perjorative.
I’m struggling to understand how someone, who would likely take offense at the word as it’s used in The Pit, would not take offense when it’s used as a garden variety pronoun here. I can’t get that.
I say use it as a last resort, and only in limited circumstances–in a narrow application.
Anyways, I think we’ve kicked this horse to death…
What, were your fingers crossed behind your back, too? Does it not count if you didn’t say “Simon Says”? C’mon. Your implication was obvious, insulting, and inaccurate. Don’t pretend you weren’t implying that I was making that argument. It’s embarrassing.
First, this is a nitpick, but given that it’s one of the two words central to this debate, I gotta finally say it: it’s pejorative, not perjorative. That’s been grating on me for awhile.
Second, of course we all agree that it’s used as a pejorative most of the time.
I think you mean a “garden variety noun,” because it’s certainly not a pronoun. Do you mean that people should take offense when it’s used as an indirect insult (i.e., used to belittle people not part of the debate)? This sentence is pretty incomprehensible, but I’ll assume that’s what you mean.
Sure, people may take offense, just as someone may take offense at all kinds of things. That’s not especially my problem, nor is it what I was discussing. I won’t directly insult someone in the middle of a discussion if I think there’s any hope of the discussion bearing fruit. But I may, for example, talk about leftwing loonies in the course of a debate over environmentalism as a way to differentiate my views from theirs. I might say, “Look, I’m no environmental whacko. I don’t call for banning all uses of the internal combustion engine. I’m just saying we ought to put in place stricter fuel standards.”
Such a statement includes a pejorative toward environmental radicals: it calls them “whackos.” It’ll probably offend them.
Boooooo hooooooo.
And that’s the same as my feeling about fundies.
And you’ve consistently moved the goalposts of the conversation. I look forward to how you’ll move them in your next post. Will you now claim that I’m saying we should go to churches and shout imprecations during the sermon?
Hey, if Fundies feel like “Fundie” has a strong mental attractor or is a negative connotative force then they better reevaluate what they are representing as a group and seeding in the collective conscious. Sure, people do tend to reinforce stereotypes with prejudice but I’ve found that some Christians and especially Fundamentalists tend to be rather vocal reinforcements of those prejudices. Their religion is evangelic and crusading by doctrine. Their imperative is Jesus-spew, conversion, and moral-superiority by default. I find the movement to be extreme and unpleasant in association. To each his own, says I, but they don’t subscribe to that and would rather impose and proselytize.
Don’t be embarrassed. If the nature of your posts hasn’t embarrassed you by now, nothing should.
As to my comment, it was tongue in cheek. (my meaning) Words are funny things, huh?
You know I don’t type at all. And, I actually spell fairly well. But, in an effort to get out my rather verbose posts I focus on the keyboard and go at it. (with my index fingers) I suppose I should preview my posts. Pretty much most of my posts have typos or spelling errors of some sort. Years ago, when I was on Usenet I always heard that spelling/grammar corrections were juvenile. Did you hear that?
You know, there is some pretty smart people here, and I see typos/spelling errors in posts all the time. I’ve always ignored it, preferring to focus on what they’re saying as opposed to how they’re saying it.
In the tortured syntax and grammar of your posts I’ve perceived that you’re a college kid somewhere.
For example, only an adolescent would spell adolescence “adolescents.”
Feel stupid? I didn’t either.
Chill with this stuff, OK?
Even as a noun?
Highlights mine
You dress up nicely! Unfortunately this thread is full of quoote boxes where you’re dressed in rags.
Now there’s the Left Hand of Dorkness I’ve come to know! How’d you get changed so fast?
Is that tongue in cheek? Or should I call you to task for saying that I’m saying that you’re saying…?
I’m actually kinda done with this thread. Sheer stuborness kept me around as long as it did. (and waiting for you to cry “uncle”, the truth be told (see post 182))
Actually, I’m taking a little time off, so I’m done relocating goalposts for the moment. I’ll catch you another time.
Except that I’ve never heard of gays trying to force their viewpoints on others, as fundies most assuredly do. Gays mostly want to be free to be who they are, they don’t seek to force others to be gay, they just try to obtain equal rights to live their lives. They are not evangelical. They do not crusade. Should they ever attempt any such thing, my support for them will evaporate. So your analogy does not stand on a very basic tenet.
