Is "fundie" a pejorative?

Great Debates
161

Left Hand of Dorkness said:

OK, fair enough. I’ll look through the thread to see what I can find. If you’re right, I’ll be back with an apology. Sit tight…

<that annoying Jeopordy music playing in the background…>

Ok, I’m back. You know words are funny things, with all that “meaning” business and all. But here’s what had me deluded:

Post #11

Post #44

Post #44 continued…

Post #57

Post #63

Post #63 continued…

Post #63 more…

Post #95

Post #108

Post #118

Post #118 continued…

Post #128

Post #128 continued…

Post #148… (The one Joseph Stalin would love…)

Post #150

Now what has me so confused, among other things, is that while you challenged me to find instances where you asserted that I find where you “said that namecalling was an effective, useful form of rational dialogue” ,you’ve spent the thread name calling and giving reasons why it is reasonable to offend and attack fundamentalists.

What the heck is the above? You spent the whole thread calling names, and justifying the use of them. Have I missed something?

If I have clear this up for me? Are you saying that I misread your good intentions? Do you actually believe that it is inappropriate to call someone names simply because you believe differently?

Unfortunately, no. But I’ll forge ahead. Maybe it will come to me.

is this a trick question? <g>

I tell them 300 years, silly!

Just as it would appear that you are unable to make a distinction between a person and their beliefs, you seem unable to see a new element to this thread: faith.

It is interesting that you chose an inane analogy when you cited various “fundie” beliefs that would have made the analogy more useful and pertinent. But, hey we’ll play the cards we’re dealt.

If I believe that you’re 300 years old, that is my answer. The only way that it would not be my answer is if I lacked the necesasary faith to stand up for what I believed under duress. In that circumstance, I might perceive what the gun holder wanted to hear and tell him that to save my skin. That is not relevent at all to what I believe! The apostle Peter was questioned in the midst of a riot about his relationship with Christ and 3 times denied knowing him. That was not relevent to the “truth” as he knew it; he simply had a momentary test of faith and due to fear provided an answer that saved his skin. His faith wavered.

In your example, if I really believed you when you told me that you were 300 years old (a belief that I would have to choose to subscribe to!) adding the element of harm does nothing to change what I believe! A gun might change my answer, but the presence of the gun wouldn’t change what I believed ! That seems pretty basic to me.

To the extent that I would answer differently, it would only because I really didn’t believe it anyway, or I was afraid and willing to answer contrary to what I believe in order to save my skin. That is a question of faith, and how one responds to tests of one’s convictions.

Got it?

That’s interesting. You said you were raised in the bible belt. Does this include a religious family/parent? If so, why aren’t you a “fundie?”

Left Hand of Dorkness, I don’t think you’re making the necessary distinction between a person and his/her beliefs, and as a result you feel entirely justified in attacking the person, rather than the beliefs. In fact, I don’t believe you can tell the difference.

I also don’t think you understand how faith manifests itself in any belief system.

Lastly, I don’t think that you have the necessary respect for those who have beliefs that are fundamentally (pun intended!) different than yours. Again and again you use words like, “reprehensible”, “morally reprehensible”, “folks who hold truly reprehensible beliefs”, “uniformly awful”, “reprehensible ideolgy” etc. The contempt is palpable. Feeling contempt is fine, but when you’re unable to contain it it colors the substance of your debate. You end up with endless name calling. It doesn’t strengthen your argument. IMO, it looks like someone who can’t make their case on the merits.

Thanks!

I notice you’re no longer signing off as Jesus Christ. It’s not because of me is it?

162

Left Hand of Dorkness

You know I got to thinking…

Of course, the opposite of namecalling being an effective, useful form of dialogue is that it is not effective, and not useful as a means of communicating.

Sound about right? So…

  1. You show me (as I couldn’t find it for the life of me) where you have said this on multiple occasions in this thread.

and…

  1. Since you apparently believe that name calling is not useful,or effective (given you’ve said it multiple times) why have you engaged in it almost non-stop in this thread?
163

You are changing the terms. I am aware that you can construct a set of relationships proceeding from dialogue back to communicating, but, in fact, they are not equivalent. One may communicate without engaging in rational dialogue, so your attempt to dismiss your opponent on this point fails.

164

I’m not sure what your point here is, so it would help to clarify it further. To the extent I perceive your intent/pont, I would agree that it is certainly possible to engage in non-rational dialogue.

I’d be quite pleased to accept that the name calling is irrational.

165

Hit “Submit Reply” prematurely…

I agree with you. It may in fact be irrational, yet useful.

166

And in fact, may be effective also.

The OP asked, is “Fundie” a perjorative?

I submit it is. It would appear that most posters do also. In fact, some posters not only see it as a perjorative term, use it regularly, and see it as appropriate.

But your post has me clarifying my point. The fact is that it is indeed both useful, and effective. Effective and useful to offend, degrade and slander those with beliefs that are different, and to show contempt and prejudice.

I do not find it useful or effective to show respect to an opposing belief; to open the lines sufficient enough to understand one another better, or to find what common ground that may exist, to find areas of compromise, to make the world a better place, to change the mind of someone through intelligent argument, or to bring some measure of peace even if no common ground may be found.

167

Of course it is perjorative, and it is intended to be insulting. It is a diminutive, meant to belittle. Like calling a black man, “boy”.

It is a form of hate speech, but it is OK to insult some groups based on their behavior.

Don’t believe me? Try calling a gay group “homos” or “cocksuckers” and see how far you get.

Regards,
Shodan

168

[QUOTE=All religious belief involves faith and the suspension of reasoning-- some just more than others.[/QUOTE]

True faith is not without reason. God said to Israel: :Come now, and let us reason together…" (Isaiah 1:18)

The apostle Paul said in 1 Cor. 15:2, that belief without reason was vain (worthless)

True faith always has a basis of reason underlying it, i.e., a foundation of fundamentals (“that which is written”) upon which it rests. Jesus Christ did not blindly subject himself to the death of the cross. He went willingly because he knew by what he saw in the Old Testament that he would be raised from the dead. (Ps. 16:10; Matt. 16:21; Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22)

Most Christian folks I have met who call themselves “fundamentalists,” do dispite to the word, because their beliefs are based on feelings rather than facts. When the feelings wain, so does their “faith.”

169

[QUOTE=JMS@CCT]

I think this is a pretty good point. However, I’d submit to you that Jesus clearly (from the Gethsemane story) did not know He would be raised, but rather had firm faith that God would bring good out of His self-sacrifice, presumably by raising Him (cf. the various prophecies during His ministry).

I’d submit further that the real fundamentals of the Christian faith are not the ones defined in “The Five Fundamentals” or by the Shaeffers (my wife and I were at one time close friends of Francis Shaeffer’s sister-in-law, so we can speak with some knowledge here), but rather the principles which Jesus Christ Himself said to put first, and the mode He taught for implementing them.

170

Yipes.

Would now not be a good time to say that I have always posted "fundie’ b/c I don’t want to type out f-u-n-d-a-m-e-n-t-a-l-i-s-t?

For me, it is simple expedience (I shorten Episcopalian, too).
:slight_smile:

171

Well, of course. Or try calling a person who steals a “thief” and see how far you get. Who disputes that it’s okay to insult some people based on their behavior?

Daniel

172

Reality check: does anyone else reading this see that any of these quotes contain a statement in which I say that “namecalling was an effective, useful form of rational dialogue”?

Because I’m impressed with your ability to use quote tags, but still dismayed at your inability to grasp the distinction I’m making between rational dialogue (when, as I’ve said, I won’t use insulting terms) and venting (when I feel free to use them).

At this point, I’ve despaired of your engaging in rational dialogue: you’ve shown either an incapability or unwillingness to argue on what I say, instead arguing on entirely different points you attribute to me. So I don’t expect there’s much more to be gained from talking with you, not until you decide to play cricket.

Daniel

173

Don’t despair! We’re gettin’ somewhere!

I’m perfectly OK with the notion that some people are quite willing to use degrading, offensive, insulting language towards people of a different belief/culture/creed/race. Society is full of them. When directed at full classes of people it is prejudice, and bigotry plain and simple. (Which you aptly helped me to understand with your spelling lesson earlier) We now call it “hate speech.”

But you can’t put lipstick on that pig and expect us to call it Cinderella. Now I must concede that no where in this thread did you use the exact words, " “namecalling [is] was an effective, useful form of rational dialogue.” OTOH, again and again in this thread you defended it’s use as appropriate. (which is plainly evident in your words above.)

I was fantasizing that maybe I could get you (as opposed to me) to say that name calling was irrational. Frankly, I don’t think you are able to make an intellectual distinction between a person and their beliefs. But imagine my delight when you made a distinction between the part of your dialogue that is rational (when you won’t use insulting terms) and your presumably irrational (benignly labeled “venting”) dialogue. (where you do call names) Dude, that is always the very first step in disavowing one’s own words.

Now how do you expect anyone to take you seriously by suggesting that we make this distinction for you —between rational and irrational dialogue— when each post is laced with hate speech; that each post is filled with both irrational and rational words? (To wit I am being gratuitous for a greater good. I find liberal use of the word “reprehensible” but not much rational reasons why this is such)

Foir the lurkers, it would appear that we now agree on the following: (which you can correct me on if necessary)

  1. The word “Fundie” is used most often as a perjorative (at SDMB) generally, and by you always as a perjorative specifically.
  2. That your use of the word is to “belittle”, “mock”, “hurt” and “attack.” (your exact words)
  3. And now, we would agree that name calling is not part of a rational debate.

Good so far?

I’m not done yet.

It’s one thing to acknowledge that name calling is not rational. (If you wish to take cover with the word “venting”, have at it) It’s another thing entirely to argue strenuously that it is a legitimate form of dialogue. In my impressive quote tags above, you argue, more than once, that it is legitiimate to attack people.

Now I typically associate “venting” as mouthing off in a small group with like minded friends. It’s another thing to go out in the wide open world and proclaim —and I’ll quote you—

and…

and…

and…

and…

Dude, that ain’t venting. That’s** public** bigotry and indisriminate prejudice. And given that almost every single one of your posts is dominated by it, I can’t see why someone wouldn’t be left with the impression that you’re just a name calling bigot.

So, my questions to you:

  1. Is it appropriate in an open, public forum to engage in name calling?
  2. Why would that not be simple prejudice and bigotry? (especially as it’s directed at whole classes of people whom you’ve never met)

Now, I don’t play cricket. I do play chess though. And in that game the conclusion is often a foregone conclusion at some point in the game. Given that you’ve now acknowledged that “fundie” (and Jesus Crispy etc) are perjoratives, and used by you to offend, and that they are not part of your rational dialogue, you have really only two positions to take in my view:

  1. Admit that name calling is wrong, and inappropriate in a rational, civil forum where such things are discussed, with a charter to fight ignorance. (Great Debates)
    or…
  2. Help me understand why they are a benefit in a discussion about religion generally and fundamentalism specifically. (Of course, you will be making a case for the legitimacy of irrational behavior in a civil, rational enviornment/discussion.)

Help me out with this.

174

I do not believe that your either-or construction is a legitimate narrowing of the choices.

Now, clearly it would be inappropriate in a discussion with a Fundamentalist Christian to poison the well either by insultingly referring to them as fundies or by referring to all adherents of their beliefs as fundies.
However, in a discussion of some other topic (say the meaning of the Book of Revelation) with rational and educated persons, it might be quite effective to limit the discussion (thus reducing hijacks and unnecessary tangents) by declaring up front that silly nonsense such as spouted by LaHaye and company have nothing to contribute to the discussion. An admirer of LaHaye might find the reference insulting, but it would clearly delineate the discussion. Obviously, if a discussion arose regarding how the LaHaye books were built on terribly silly theology or if the discussion arose in which an admirer of LaHaye was an original participant, it would not be appropriate to call the other participants “fundies.” However, it is a rational effort to preclude the introduction of nonsense by identifying the nonsense at the outset.
If a discussion arose between adherents of Dawkins’s Gradualism and adherents of Gould’s Punctuated Equilibrium, it would serve no purpose to have someone from the peanut gallery running throught the thread crying “God did it in six days” and a dismissal of such an interruption by a “fundie” would be appropriate. (It might not be necessary, but it might be appropriate.)

175

One other thought, although I would really like Left Hand of Dorkness to respond to the 2 questions at the end of my last post.

The internet, unlike the real world, has the ability to carve out slices of the cyber-world where you can do things that you can’t do (easliy anyway…) in “real life.”

I’m specifically referring to The Pit. I know of nowhere in the real world where I could enter a “room” and call someone a slew of vile names because I was displeased somehow.

Cool!

Now, I don’t think that there are the same boundries, and expectations for civility, rationality, and intellectual rigor as in the other forums.

As to Left Hand of Dorkness’s arguments, perhaps it is appropriate to engage in acknolwedged name calling and perjorative language that is intended to offend while in The Pit. (By his own admission)

I don’t find much value in this, either in cyber space or the real world. However in GD, there are not only posted policies that raises the expectations, but the atmosphere is such that people are expected to bring their intellectual “A” game.

But I am interested in how Left Hand of Dorkness will be able to make a case, should he choose to, that in a presumably civil, rational, intellectually based forum (GD) that irrational pejorative language is cool.

It will be interesting.

176

Raindog, there is a bottom-line epistemological question at work here, which people tend to ignore.

On what basis may certitude be founded? For one group of people, absolute truth lies in the Holy Scriptures, read literally (for the most part; any Christian whatsoever concedes that there are portions written in rhetorical tropes), and whatever in observation of the natural world disagrees with the assertions of Scripture (read in that manner) is therefore suspect – embedded falsehood, erroneous interpretation of nature by science, etc.

For another group, rational examination of the world as a whole leads to conclusions based in the scientific method, which are not claimed as absolute truth, but as the closest which one can arrive at using this methodology, to be refined rather than rejected. Included in this methodology is the examination of Scripture, not as revealed truth, but as records of the legendary history and beliefs of the Israelite people, no different than Roman, Greek, Ugaritic, or Japanese legendary history and beliefs.

Typically, a fundamentalist Christian (who is more apt to call himself a conservative evangelical than a fundamentalist) is an adherent of the first methodology, and tartly dismissive of people who use the second. Another Christian may believe just as firmly in God, but subscribe to the second methodology and question the contents of Scripture as they apply to, not faith and theology, but natural history and moral codes.

When a fundamentalist undertakes to tell me, e.g., that he knows far more about gobear’s upbringing and capacity for choice than gobear himself, because “Scripture says that…”, that person has arrogated to himself the job of the scribes and Pharisees, of judging others by what he unearths in Scripture and the construction he places upon it – and he deserves my pity, my effort at brotherly correction – but not my respect. He has forfeited that by denying Christ in another, and doing unto that person in a manner he himself would be offended by (and when I have echoed another’s style of condemnation back at that other, they are invariably offended at it – something about dishing out vs. taking, probably deserves mention here).

177

As you mentioned in the 2 examples, certitude can be found by either group. I think you’d agree that it can be found by many other means as well; many of which are more capricious than the ones you outlined.

Certitude of course is not “truth.” For the person who has strong feelings about such matters, it is likely that he/she believes that he has found the “truth.” You feel that way, I’m sure. So does Left Hand of Dorkness and gobear. So do I.

However, if God exists, I don’t think it is an accident by any means that neither school of thought (and the many that are not outlined here) can show objectively that their approach leads to God’s truth. It is the nature of faith that we are charged with the responsibility (whether we accept it or not) to weigh the facts and choose our life course. God is not coming down to do stupid pet tricks in order to establish The One Truth, and in the process take away our freedom. (and of course the consequences of our choices inherent in this freedom)

So we come to places like this, and to our churches, coffee houses and the like and talk about the truth as we perceive it. What is the proper role that the bible should have in our lives? How closely should we hew to it’s teachings? Really, what are it’s teachings? Which of them are pertinent? What does the bible have to say about the issues we face in modern society? I presume your inclusion of gobear was a passing reference to the bible and homosexuality. What about abortion? The Death Penalty? Civil disobedience? War? Atheism? Polytheism?

The list goes on.

For many, (most?) these convictions are felt at a visceral level. In a place called “Great Debates” it is understood that these conflicting beliefs will collide. It is inevitable that emotions will run high. Hurt feelings are going to happen. Some people will take offense. There’s no way around that.

I agree with you that it is inappropriate for someone to presume to “know[s] far more about gobear’s upbringing and capacity for choice than gobear himself, because…” That is presumptuous.

I don’t know how much of your post is purely general and rhetorical, or if it is intended towards me in a more specific way. If not, forgive me if I speak now in the singular.

FTR, I do not consider myself a fundamentalist, although in a VERY similar thread I was called one. Nor do I consider myself a conservative evangelical. While I don’t think it is appropriate to comment about gobear’s upbringing, it is appropriate in my view to offer the bible’s view on the matter of homosexuality, for example,in a thread about that very subject.

As to “judging others”, it’s worth noting that I have never started a thread here, ever. I’ve also not participated in threads that evaluated the merits of SSM, or in threads that would presume to tell another how to live their lives. Consistently, I’ve made it clear that I speak in the singular, and that IMO it is inappropriate for a Christian to sit in judgement of another. Several times I’ve made it clear that my primary goal in those threads was for people to read the bible for themselves and come to their own conclusion. Towards that end, I’ve gone so far as to say that my own words should be looked upon with suspicion, and that one should get their faith from the source, not some internet message board. In my experience bible ignorance is pandemic, no matter the flavor of your beliefs. I’ve shared what the bible has to say and left it up to each person to interpret the information for their own faith. (or academic interest) (while imploring them to read it for themselves)

As to the issue of respect, and getting closer to not just the OP and my exchanges with Left Hand of Dorkness, I looked up “respect” to see the different ways it is rendered. (Dictionary.com) Here’s a couple:

  1. A feeling of appreciative, often deferential regard; esteem. See Synonyms at regard.
  2. The state of being regarded with honor or esteem.
  3. Willingness to show consideration or appreciation.

Now I may not have respect for the positions of someone I’m debating. I may even feel contempt for their views. In that respect, I can say that I have no respect for his views. I may even say that I find his views flawed, intellectually vacant or some other scathing commentary. But I am willing to show the type of respect in item #3 above—in that I am willing to challenge his views or beliefs without degrading him as a person. In that respect, I am quite willing to show respect.

There’s no better example than my relationship with Diogenes. I agree with him at times, although I have little respect for many of his views. Even between you and I there have been sharp exchanges, and we disagree sharply on some things. Yet I am willing to show consideration, and I can find many things that I appreciate.

And that is my problem with Left Hand of Dorkness. I wouldn’t take from him his contempt or outrage. But he made it very clear that he sees “fundie” as perjorative and offensive, and means to belittle, mock and attack the person. It’s one thing for SolGrundy or gobear to be upset with me because of my interpretation of the bible texts in question. It’s another thing for me to call them “faggots.” I have absolutely no problem with you or Diogenes or Left Hand of Dorkness voicing your outrage (as you have above), even in blunt terms, but calling me names is a sign of intellectual weakness in my view.

178

That’s too bad. Can’t debate in bad faith and expect a response from me.

Daniel

179

In what way have I debated in bad faith? I’ve put thought and effort in this thread. I haven’t been duplicitous. Please show me where.

I’ll put it more succinctly:

You say that some of your dialogue is “venting.” (and presumably irrational)

In GD (or forums like it in cyber-space or in the real world) there is an expectation that civility, good faith, and rationality.

In fact SDMB/GD has a stated policy to that effect:

**"**Moderator’s Note:

Direct personal insults of other posters and “flaming” are not permitted in Great Debates (or, indeed, in any SDMB forum outside of The BBQ Pit).** The general rule is to attack the other poster’s arguments, rather than the other poster him- or herself.** If you feel you must “flame” someone, please open a thread in The BBQ Pit. (Although be advised that even the BBQ Pit does have some rules.) "

Highlighting is mine

In spite of this, you’ve come here with the stated purpose of attacking the person. You have done this repeatedly, unambiguously and stridently.

I agree with tomndebb; irrational langauge may be useful, and effective. It may also be appropriate—in a bar, a locker room, among your friends, and… in The Pit.

But tell me why it is appropriate in GD, or in any other forum, internet or real life, to denigrate your opponent with bigotry and prejudice.

The Roberto Duran impression (No mas! No mas!) isn’t getting it for me. You’ve staked your claim. Don’t abandon it. Step up and see it through.

180

Well, to completely agree with me, you would need to also agree to its legitimate use in GD, (although you are, of course, not required to provide such agreement).

For example, in this post in GD, I used it to identify a specific group of people who were willing to spread lies in their attempts to “fight” Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection. Should I refer to the people spreading that lie as “Fundamentalists,” I would be insulting a great many honest people who have never attempted to twist the truth just to make a (false) point. I am not calling anyone in that thread a fundie. I am not using the word to denigrate believers of biblical literalism, per se. I am using it as shorthand to quickly identify (in a less than complimentary way) a known group of people who have resorted to dishonest rhetoric in support of their particular religious beliefs. Am I somehow required, in your view, to type in a long explication of the distinction between the liars of whom I disapprove and their fellow believers who do not engage in dishonest practices simply because my post appears in GD and not The Pit?