I would say that “hippie” and “fundie” are equivalent equivocalities. They are both neutral but characterized by the “fundie” or “hippie” adopting them, respectively. We all have pet names for our opposition, persecutors, or nemeses and of course our individual opinions about them (be they justified or unjustified). Hell, the disdain and hate is nearly palpable when I see certain posters employing the words “liberal” and “hippie”. Newton’s Third Law I guess.
Polycarp said:
I think that supports my view that the word has no inherent meaning. To the extent any word has a broad, shared meaning among individuals, it can change with cultures, generational times, and the context in which the word is used. Jackie Robinson took no offence at being called “colored.” I’m guessing Barry Bonds would.
So your father could use the word with a non-perjorative intent (read:meaning) and it is quite possible that a black person perceives it as perjorative and takes offense. Or maybe not.
But would your father use the word in a context where he had a reasonable expectation that the person hearing it would be offended? I’m guessing not. Even if he didn’t personally see the word as offensive, simple tact would dictate that he show some restraint. Unless… Unless he wanted to offend. Unless he wanted to insult.
And the use of the word “fundie” here is almost always used perjoratively. It’s designed to insult, to offend. Lest someone say that maybe I’m misinterpreting someone’s meaning, posters here have dispatched with any subtleties and have said, “I mean to insult!”
And so my point. It’s OK to disagree. But if a person is engaged in presumably rational debate, it is a sure sign in my view that the person doesn’t have the intellectual cojones.
Are there any subtleties directed towards me in that paragraph? 
Criticism? Maybe. Scrutiny? Absolutely. Debate/dialogue? Sure. Abuse? Nope.
And calling people names that are likley to offend is as potentially abusive as using the N word to someone who you have reason to believe will be offended by it. Evil Captor would have us believe that it’s not OK to abuse someone based on the color of their skin, but perfectly OK to insult them based on their closely held personal beliefs. That leads me scratching my head.
Repudiated how? How is it OK that offending someone based on their race is taboo, but perfectly OK based on their sincere, closely held religious beliefs?
How 'bout Muslims? Would towel head be OK? Jews? Kike? Hindu? Dot head?
Please let me know which religious beliefs should be respected, and which ones I may use disparaging language towards.
I’ve read a little about Jesus Christ. You, sir, are no Jesus Christ.
If it were your closely held personal belief that it was OK to torture people if they didn’t know the periodic table by heart, would I be justified in using abusive language in describing you? I believe it would. Perhaps the problem is that you’re just not bothered by fundie beliefs and behaviors, as I am.
Oh, I think a belief that slavery is A-OK deserves the full range of my invective. The belief that it’s OK to treat gays like shit also is deserving of some scathing rebukes. And let’s not forget the belief that it’s OK to censor what others can and can’t see – deserving of all seven of the Words That Can’t Be Said on Broadcast TV.
And the fundies, as a general rule, by into the last two, and there’s a thread around here somewhere about a Christian school that teaches that slaves lived a life of ease and enjoyed simple pleasures.
So, yeah, there’s some beliefs I feel free to disparage the living hell out of.
Don’t forget that Muslim belief about atheists being killed or whatever. Stupid fucking Muslim belief.
So did you just not read the first two pages of the thread or something? I’m not going to rehash that discussion. Respond to the posts in which this has already been addressed–respond with specific quotes–and I’ll take it up with you. But ignorantia, they say, excusat neminem.
Daniel
neminem? Isn’t he a rapper?
I took the time to re-read the first 2 pages— lest my ignorantia be showing— and for the life of me I can’t understand what you’re saying here. I don’t think the question was repudiated in any way that makes sense to me. (Maybe my ignorantia is showing after all)
What it seems to me is that you’ve not commented twice in a row here to let me know that you won’t be commenting…
The joke’s funny (funnier than your last one, anyway), but you’re still missing the point. The debate can’t really proceed until you say what you find wrong with the reasoning offered before. Ignoring the reasoning offered before doesn’t count, nor does a blanket statement that you don’t understand it.
That’s why I asked you to refute it with quotes. Which you’ve still not done.
I’ll relent, and rephrase some of it; at least maybe that way you’ll address it specifically:
It is illegitimate to attack someone for a feature of their heredity.
It is legitimate to attack someone for a choice they make.
If a choice they make is inextricably linked to a feature of their belief system, it is legitimate to attack them for their belief system.
Daniel
Thanks for relenting…I wasn’t trying to be difficult.
Here’s my problem(s) with your thought process:
- It’s entirely arbitrary. You’ve simply rephrased the earlier posts, to wit: It’s OK to be abusive towards some one based on their beliefs, but not based on who they are. Other than the reason Left Hand of Dorkness et. al. say so, you offer us nothing more than it is a choice.
The “choice” in question is as deeply rooted in the believer as any belief system known to humans. We’re not talking about wearing white after Labor Day. Ask Polycarp whether his ministry is a choice as much as a spiritual calling; that he feels spiritually drawn to his faith. That’s not to say that the element of choice is suspended. But this choice is not capricious. To many believers—of any persuasion, “fundie” or not— it is core to their perception of themselves.
Renowned doctor Victor Frankl wrote that patients in group settings felt so strong about their faith that they were almost always more willing to discuss deeply personal sexual matters–including sexual abuse-- before opening their deeply held beliefs to strangers.
And this is the choice that you and Evil Captor feel you should attack. Not scrutinize. Not debate. Not oppose via dialogue, legislation, demonstration, the ballot box, education—none of that. You want to attack them. :smack:
2) It’s rank predjudice, plain and simple. Among those who identify themselves as fundamentalists, as well as those who are labeled as fundamentalist (which may include me, although I don’t consider myself one) there are many different beliefs. In fact they’re not always in agreement and often have different views about their core beliefs, ministry, views on politics, legislation. Yet you lump them all together under the banner “fundie” with a consistent level of contempt. If that doesn’t define predjudice, what does?
In the aftermath of 9/11 there were incidents of hatred against US Muslims. They were labeled “hate speech.” Many, many people came to the defense of the Muslim community, correctly noting that the 9/11 hijackers were not representative of all Muslims. Even the POTUS publicly denounced such language/actions. Yet the generalizations in the perjorative word “fundie” assume all fundamentalists as homogeneous, with the same ignorance that assumed that all Muslims are terrorists. Predjudice is a form of ignorance.
And unlike the 9/11 hijackers, (and the many who support them in the middle east) what are the relative crimes of these “fundies?” (or at least some of them)
- You are not in possesion of “objective” truth. Their’s is a belief system, with a wide variety of beliefs/applications. Did I miss some divine memo? Is there something in your belief system that makes yours objectively superior? What is “truth?”
Even if I accept the intellectually indefensible position that it’s OK to attack someone based on their beliefs, what specific beliefs are “attackable?” How about Baptists? Catholics? Jews? Muslims? Who gets to decide what is “right?” Look at your comments again:
Sounds like Iran, huh?
That is shameful. It’s also intellectually bankrupt.
First off, did you really just say that my deeply held, sincere personal beliefs were shameful and intellectually bankrupt? I am appalled at your capricious willingness to attack me.
…
waits for the light to come on over your head…
ah, forget it. Let’s just move on.
Note the subtle moving of the goalposts. I never said it was okay only to attack people based on beliefs that were capriciously chosen; I said it was okay to attack people based on beliefs that were inextricably tied to appalling choices. That distinction is very important, as we’ll see later on.
So? Someone’s sensitivity about their beliefs don’t make them any more or less appalling.
Doubly wrong, and if you’d read my posts with an eye toward discussion, you’d understand that. Instead, you’re reading them with an eye toward attacking me, so you’re misrepresenting what I’ve said.
Again, the choice that I’m wanting to attack is the choice that inextricably derives from the beliefs, not the choice to believe these things. When the choice is inextricably tied to the beliefs, attacking the choice is tantamount to attacking the belief–the commutative property, I think it’s called.
Secondly, by attack I’ve already said that I’m willing to debate, oppose via dialogue, legislation, etc. I’ve said that I use the word “fundie” when I’m venting. Please don’t bear false witness against me.
Sure, I’ll help out: what defines prejudice (note the spelling–it helps you understand the word) is pre-judging. Judging before you meet. I grew up in the Bible Belt. I’ve met the people I’m calling fundies, or else I’ve heard them speak on television.
But there are plenty of fundamentalists I haven’t met?
Well, sure. And I don’t call them fundies when I vent. Because I haven’t met them.
However, if they meet the criteria I set out on the first page, then I’ll judge them based on their meeting those criteria. That’s not prejudging, any more than it’s prejudice to call someone a thief if they:
- Take something
- That’s not theirs
- Unlawfully.
Huh. How many people came to the defense of Wahabbists? There’s your analogy, not Muslims in general. Or are you incapable of distinguishing between attacks on a pernicious subsect and an attack on the relatively benign larger group?
Are you freakin kidding me? What country have you lived in for the last twenty years? Make your best guess what the crimes of these fundies are.
I’ll get you started:
Eric Rudolph
Pass me the joint, dude, and I’ll give you my best college freshman answer to this question (what if, like, we’re all amoebas in petri dishes?). Otherwise, I’ll do what every effective person on earth does in response to this conundrum: muddle through life as best I can, doing my best to figure out what the truth is and act accordingly.
Again, your beliefs are intellectually bankrupt, inasmuch as they’re hypocritical. You attack me for my sincerely held beliefs, solely on the basis that my beliefs allow me to attack others based on their beliefs.
Shit. At least my reasons for attacking other folks’ [choices based on their] beliefs make sense.
Daniel
Left Hand of Dorkness said:
Checking to see if bulb is burned out…
We don’t have to move on… So we’re not in a theoretical discussion, those beliefs are the right to call someone names that you intend to insult with, and that you would hope cause offense.
Cool! They’re your beliefs. IMO they are intellectually bankrupt and indefensible. Those comments are [were] directed at your postition, not you. I never called you any derisive name, nor was I condescending. It is certainly appropriate to voice your dissent in the strongest possible terms. It’s certainly OK to oppose beliefs that you find dangerous or wrongheaded. But I was respectful towards you. I would not have inferred that you were stupid. (as in the comment above) OTOH, I would be unrelenting of a position that seeks to justify calling someone names simply because you disagree.
I haven’t called you any names, or attacked you.
However you come to it, attacking people ----insulting them— is intellectually vacant. It’s bigotry and prejudice plain and simple. The addendum "inextricably tied to appalling choices " is inane and redundant. What beliefs are not based on choices?
You want to criticize their beliefs ot choices? Have at it! Make your case with the facts. Calling them names is poor form.
May I ask, how old are you? I’m guessing 22-23ish? Yes? No?
I’m quite capable of well crafted invective. Nonetheless, I haven’t attacked you at all. (see Evil Captor for attacks, albeit poorly “crafted”)
Maybe my bulb is burned out after all.
No matter how many time I re-read the underlined portion it still comes across as confused circular logic. Tortured, senseless drivel. Maybe it’s me…
I always read that correcting spelling errors and typos on internet message boards was bad form and juvenile. You wouldn’t be doing that to make me look stupid would you, especially with the words,* “it helps you understand the word?”*
You would say this…
And then say this? I trust, based on your standards for your persoanl use of the word “fundie” you’ve met Mr. Rudolph.
And what the heck does he have to do with any of this?
<snip>
I’ll stop here. The logic is beyond hope of redemption.
The French have an expression, “buggering a fly’s ass,” to describe what you’re doing. The distinction you’re drawing is insignificant. Explain to me why I ought to distinguish between your calling my beliefs intellectually bankrupt and your calling me intellectually bankrupt, please. I see no difference at all.
Last things first: I suspect most beliefs are not based on choices, and your suggestion otherwise shows that you’re still not reading what I’m saying. I’m not saying that beliefs are based on choices; I’m saying that beliefs that are the basis for bad choices can be attacked.
Secondly, just because you say that insulting people is intellectually vacant, bigotry, and prejudice don’t make it so. I’ve explained in small words why it’s not prejudice; saying, “Is too!” ain’t an argument. Care to buttress your position?
And this, after all your chastisement for supposed prejudice on my part, is fucking rich.
Oh, please. You called my positions intellectually bankrupt. That’s an attack, at least the way I’m using the word attack.
I’ll try once more for you. This time with pictures.
Beliefs are the ingredients you start off with. People don’t get to choose those.
Decisions are what you do with the ingredients. People do get to choose those.
NOrmally, it’s dumb to attack people for their ingredients, since they don’t get to choose them. Instead, you attack them if they make something crappy. If someone uses their flour and eggs and sugar and butter to make a cake, you say, “Cool!” If someone uses them to make a bomb (not a bombe, a bomb), you say, “Sucky!”
With me so far? Again, ingredients=beliefs; what you do with ingredients=decisions.
Now, some ingredients are poison. Someone who starts off with cyanide and plutonium and a barrel of piranhas isn’t going to make anything good out of them. At that point, whether I cry “Sucky!” based on their end product (invariably a radioactive meal that kills you when you eat it or it eats you) or on their ingredients is immaterial: based on their ingredients and my extensive experience with other people with those same ingredients, it’s gonna be a sucky end-result.
I’m willing to be persuaded otherwise. Show me some folks with piranhas, plutonium, and poison who turn them into a lovely benevolent end-product, and I’ll retract my attacks on them. But I’ve encountered a lot of these folks, and so far not one of them has surprised me.
Do the pictures help?
Good god, do you read nothing I say with an eye toward understanding? I told you why I did it: to help you understand the word! “Prejudice” has its roots in “pre-,” a suffice meaning “before,” and “jud,” a root meaning “judge.” Your misspelling indicated that you didn’t get these root words, and I thought that might explain why you were so egregiously misusing the word.
I agree the logic is beyond hope of redemption, but perhaps not the way you meant that. Do you dispute that Mr. Rudolph is a fundie? Do you really think it’s prejudging him to say he’s made poison out of his ingredients?
Technically, you’re right, I’ve not heard him speak on television. 'Cept that actions speak louder than words, and I’ve heard his actions loud and clear. I woulda thought this was obvious. Apparently not: you’re more interesting in giving it to that fly than you are in civil discourse.
More’s the pity for you. But go ahead believing that you’re holding to a higher standard by not using naughty words. It apparently makes you happy.
Daniel
You didn’t answer me.
How old are you?
Damn straight I didn’t answer you, because it’s none of your business how old I am. What’s wrong with you that you think it is?
Daniel
It’s a personal barometer of mine, while not universally useful, has proved to be reliable time and again.
So, how old are you?
Perhaps this will demonstrate the value of naughty words.
None of your fucking business.
You apparently missed the statement before, when I elided the explitive. Did you get it this time?
Holy Christ. Talk about your rank bigotry and prejudice! Is “baromenter” the newspeak way of referring to “prejudice,” then?
Daniel
This is classic argumentum ad hominem, raindog. Why don’t you ask how old I am? And then ask us both how we dress? What’s our posture like? And do we part our hair to the left or the right? That would REALLY have a bearing on the validity of our arguments.
I know old you are!
Bolding mine.
Well, actually yes. It is.
I try to keep an open mind, which is why I said that it has not been universally true for me. But I have found that many times engaging in rational discussions with youngsters is fruitless. (I am 43, and if you are the age I suspect you are, relatively speaking, a youngster)
I mean no harm. But there have been several things in this exchange (that I frankly lost interest in a while back, and if not for my Irish heritage I would would have left the thread for dead) that lead me to conclude that we’re not singing from the same hymm book. (pun intended)
First, I find it ludicrous that we’re debating the validity of calling people names; names that are intended to offend, to insult. There’s a certain surreal quality to it all. That someone would believe that to be an effective, useful form of rational dialogue leads me baffled.
Secondly, it seems that the cornerstone of your argument, from which the rest of the terminally flawed argument flows, is the notion that ---- aw heck I’ll quote it—“Beliefs are the ingredients you start off with. People don’t get to choose those.” Frankly, that got me thinking for sure that your posts are coming from a dorm room somewhere. Perhaps I am as stupid as you infer, but for the life of me I can’t get my mind around the thought that people don’t choose their beliefs. <shrug>
Lastly, and while we’re talking about it, you have repeatedly used terms that infer that I am stupid. (which may in fact be true) Here’s a couple examples:
Dude, that get tiring.
Anyway, my prejudice is duly noted. I’ll continue to work on it. Now whether I am wrong or not about you, (including whether I am an idiot or not) it is clear that we’re talking past each other and no more good can come from this exchange.
Wouldn’t you agree?
Now, I showed you mine, you show me yours. How old are you dude?
Yet more proof that you’ve not read what I said. Would you kindly point me to where I said that namecalling was an effective, useful form of rational dialogue? Or do you think you might go back and reread what I wrote and admit that I’ve said exactly the opposite on multiple occasions?
First, I can’t let this irony slip by: I may have implied that you’re stupid in my posts, but that would be from my inferring that you’re stupid from what I’ve read. Honestly, I don’t think you’re stupid; I just think you’re deliberately misreading what I say in order to perpetuate your own stereotypes. But no worries: confusing “imply” and “infer” is a common mistake.
Second, as for the idea that people don’t choose their beliefs:
a) If people do choose their beliefs then they’re even more culpable for them than I’ve suggested; I’m being charitable by assuming people don’t choose them; and
b) As a thought experiment, I ask you to believe that I’m three hundred years old. It’s a perfectly harmless belief, so go ahead and choose to believe it.
Got it?
Now, imagine someone’s holding a gun to your head and asks you whether I’m three hundred years old. They’re gonna shoot you if you answer incorrectly. How do you answer them?
Near as I can tell, people don’t choose their beliefs. I certainly don’t choose mine.
First sensible thing you’ve said.
Perhaps bolding will work. All-caps, too:
NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS.
How many times do I have to say that before you read it and comprehend?
Daniel