I draw a distinction between an argument that calls some tenet of liberalism into question – or refutes one – and hostility/ill-treatment. The latter need not involve threats or violence, but it must involve something more that an argument that attacks a position.
So, sure – I think liberals have been persecuted here on the SDMB, and I’ve done it myself.
I don’t think people should stop speaking (er… “typing”) but I do think people should stop speaking/typing hostile attacks against the person or practice, and confine themselves to showing why a particular position or plan is wrong.
And as I say, I’m not without sin on that issue, myself.
Do you still think is the most relevant and useful definition? When Christians complain about being persecuted in the USA as a whole, is that the definition they’re using? When liberals say “what? you say you’re being persecuted? that’s ludicrous, and you’re a bunch of whiny victims” is that the definition that they’re using?
I’ll go a step further. Bricker, if that’s you definition of persecution, I do not give a shit that christians are being persecuted. I wouldn’t give a shit if bisexual, overweight atheist democrats were being persecuted, and that’s my demographic. I mean, if that’s the definition these fundies are using, then it makes a lot more sense and what they’re saying is certainly a lot less out there, but it doesn’t really garner a lot of sympathy.
I’ve never felt persecuted by you. Has anyone here felt persecuted by Bricker? Clearly the feeling of persecution is a mental state, which cannot be denied, but that doesn’t mean one should change ones behavior based on it.
Going back to religion - remember religion? - the one thing I’ve done that pisses off the most theists is bring up the IPU. The IPU is not even an attack on the truth of any religion, let alone an attack on any believer in a religion, but is rather an attack on a certain argument theists sometimes make. Do you think that the use of the IPU argument is persecution?
I’d hate to see the word persecution made useless by having it defined down to such a low level that both sides of a formal debate could accuse the others of persecuting them.
Really, this could have been a good debate had the rather tedious and pointless discussion of the meaning of persecution not been started. Maybe some people really enjoy this nitpicking, but it seems to me quite silly.
Obviously, if being rude to Christians is persecution, and there are more Christians, that means there is more persecution of Christians. It’s simple arithmetic!
In any case, I there is huge cognitive dissonance among some Christians. Jesus was crucified. There’s a historical perception of persecution. And then we get to 2014 and some Christians do things like propose a law in AZ to protect their expression of their religion, then pulled back because people said mean things about them on the news.
So, if you are going to try to claim the law was an important bit of religious freedom, it’s pretty lame to then say “Oh, but not so important that we can withstand being called mean names on the news.” A fear of being misunderstood doesn’t sound so tragic and important.
But if you say you’re being persecuted, why, that explains the failure so much better. “We are trying to defend our faith but are being persecuted!” Why, that sounds bad! “We would accomplish so much, except for the horrible persecution!”
So, I don’t think it’s just people taking pleasure in being victims, and I don’t think it’s just a cultural love of martyrdom. I think it’s a way to try to align what people think their religion demands of them (can’t just give up on stuff because someone is a little mean to you) and what they actually want to do (don’t like it when people are mean, so change). If you call what the people are doing against you persecution, you have a better excuse for not accomplishing anything/sticking with your values/standing by your positions.
I agree. I’ll just assume that many American Christians feel that they’re being persecuted (which was the question of the thread title, I gather) even if they’re not in any meaningful way. I can do this in part on how successful the “War on Christmas” theme has become, since I figure if all Americans reacted as if this was laughable (as it is), it would get no traction.
I’m not sure the motivation is that complicated, though - Group A responds when Group B calls out some ill-defined “other” for creating problems for Group A, with the result that A gives money/power to B. American Christians and Fox News aren’t the first to play the A and B roles, nor will they be the last.
And again: the source for that claim – that the suffering experienced by the victim must be sufficiently severe – is either not cited, or is intended to be covered by footnote one.
If it’s not cited, then it’s worthless – I can edit the wikipedia page to change it to say that the suffering experienced by the victim need not include physical threats or violence, for example.
If you are relying on footnote one, that links to a paper in which the author PROPOSES the adoption of a standard of sufficiently severe harm, a proposal which recognizes the reality that no such standard now exists.
I have no idea why such a claim would be of value in a debate, regardless of its truth.
Now, as to the Invisible Pink Unicorn…
…as a theoretical construct, intended to highlight problems of proof of the existence of a deity – i.e., “Whatever you say is proof of God, I argue is equally proof of an Invisible Pink Unicorn,” – then it is not persecution.
Used as a strawman bludgeon – “You’re such an idiot that you believe in an Invisible Sky Fairy or an Invisible Pink Unicorn or whatever you theists believe; I can’t keep it straight…” – is persecution, by the plain definition of the word. It’s hostile, ill treatment.
You mean his strawman example might be a strawman? How meta…
Anyway, “War on Christmas”. We all know we’re going to be hearing the term a lot come November (or even earlier), so… is it real or not, and if the latter, why does it persist?
Earlier in the thread I expressed my opinion that people, for some reason, actually want to feel persecuted, or at least want to say they are persecuted. I think the nitpicking supports this theory.
If someone can’t support their claim of persecution with the meaning of “persecution” that everybody is obviously using, then they’ll find other definitions.
Anyway, “War on Christmas”. We all know we’re going to be hearing the term a lot come November (or even earlier), so… is it real or not, and if the latter, why does it persist?
[/QUOTE]
Well I know I can’t sleep on December 24 for the deafening sound of ack-ack batteries on the rooftops around my crib, criss-crossing the skies hoping to score a lucky hit.
I’m with you 100%. Bricker, please stop derailing the thread.
Well, if you define “war on X” as “any cultural shift away from the norm with regards to X”, then yes, there is a war on Christmas. Of course, that would be an absolutely ridiculous definition.
And I showed you that your source, the OED, did a horrible job of defining “abiogenesis.” Not just horrible, actually- it got the definition wrong. So why should we go with your definition when it doesn’t appear the majority of people use the word in a way that you’ve been shown in this thread would be meaningless?