Given all of this, you'll have to excuse me if I'm a bit gunshy whenever I meet someone who self-identifies as a Christian. Especially of the evangelical camp. (The tormentors in high school were Adventists.) And if you think you're oppressed because of people like us being gunshy and suspicious, perhaps it's time for you to reflect on how you (the collective, not you individually) have been treating people for centuries. Perhaps, then, you'll feel a bit of sympathy instead of whining about your oppression.
I mean, the vast majority of Christians are pretty moderate these days. How else would all those predominantly Christian nations in Europe and North America secularize? I think the fear of Christians is overstated, and I'm an atheist.
I mean, don't get me wrong, I find their proselytizing very annoying, but I don't think Ned Flanders is going to shoot me for being an infidel or anything. His opinions are just a bit kooky. Hardly a basis for fear.
@Lain It depends on where you are and what it is you're afraid of, naturally. Though Christianity might well be bland and acceptable in the 'western' world, in many parts of Christian Africa (especially Uganda, the "most Christian nation in Africa") homosexual acts are punishable by imprisonment and death.
He/Him
My German teacher in high school was a Russian orthodox nun who managed to escape the Soviet Union where over 250,000 priests and nuns were rounded up and murdered by atheists. Given the track record of atheists in the 20th century, well that ought to turn many a Christian white with fear.
If you were in Soviet Russia you'd have a point. And, indeed, I'd be saying it with you. I'm not a huge fan of capital-A Atheists (like the Oh-So-Rational Trinity: Dawkins, Hitchens, and that closet wannabe Buddhist, Sam Harris) and their approach to dealing with the religious, after all.
You're not, however, and thus you don't. Hence, I'm not.
@Lain It depends on where you are and what it is you're afraid of, naturally. Though Christianity might well be bland and acceptable in the 'western' world, in many parts of Christian Africa (especially Uganda, the "most Christian nation in Africa") homosexual acts are punishable by imprisonment and death.
This is true. Are you willing to hold other religions, like Islam, to this standard, though? Is it "Islamophobia" to go, "Oh, you're a Muslim? Wow... I'm not sure how I feel about that, given your religion's ongoing ... uhm... issues."
My German teacher in high school was a Russian orthodox nun who managed to escape the Soviet Union where over 250,000 priests and nuns were rounded up and murdered by atheists. Given the track record of atheists in the 20th century, well that ought to turn many a Christian white with fear.
If you were in Soviet Russia you'd have a point. And, indeed, I'd be saying it with you. I'm not a huge fan of capital-A Atheists (like the Oh-So-Rational Trinity: Dawkins, Hitchens, and that closet wannabe Buddhist, Sam Harris) and their approach to dealing with the religious, after all.
You're not, however, and thus you don't. Hence, I'm not.
So what are you distinguishing it by? Nationality? Why don't the actions of Soviet atheists count toward one's valid apprehension toward atheism, exactly?
@WildBaboons said in RL Anger:
It likely depend on where you live. I live near the border. It's not uncommon for US citizens to go to Canada for some procedure for way cheaper, but more common to have Canadians coming here to have stuff done they didn't want to wait for up there.
Waits for elective procedures are commonplace, yes. But the thing is, elective procedures are elective for a reason: they're not considered medically necessary. If people want to spend extra money Down South to get medically unnecessary treatment that bugs me not even slightly. It won't have any meaningful impact on health statistics.
You know. The health statistics that should make Americans cringe every time they look at them.
Those ones.
So what are you distinguishing it by? Nationality? Why don't the actions of Soviet atheists count toward one's valid apprehension toward atheism, exactly?
Tell me next time you see the Soviet Union suppressing Christians.
(Or, for that matter, the next time you see the Soviet Union at all.)
Currently in Russia it is--again--the Christians who are doing the suppression.
@Lain It depends on where you are and what it is you're afraid of, naturally. Though Christianity might well be bland and acceptable in the 'western' world, in many parts of Christian Africa (especially Uganda, the "most Christian nation in Africa") homosexual acts are punishable by imprisonment and death.
How could Uganda be the "most Christian nation in Africa", when the percentage of Christians is higher in Zambia, Rwanda, Democratic Republic of Congo, Republic of Congo, Lesotho, Namibia and Equatorial New Guinea?
And if you go by most Christians by population, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania Christian population is higher.
The only nations in Africa that have the death penalty for homosexual acts are Somalia, Sudan, Nigeria and Mauritania.
So what are you distinguishing it by? Nationality? Why don't the actions of Soviet atheists count toward one's valid apprehension toward atheism, exactly?
Tell me next time you see the Soviet Union suppressing Christians.
(Or, for that matter, the next time you see the Soviet Union at all.)
Currently in Russia it is--again--the Christians who are doing the suppression.
Using this logic, I could not be concerned about the rise of white nationalism and Neo-Nazi stuff like we saw in Charlottesvile, since they're not the ones doing much of the suppressing right now. In fact, they are the ones being suppressed; notice how the Daily Stormer, a semi-satirical Neo-Nazi site, had its domain names revoked on multiple occasions, followed shortly later by Stormfront, a similar site that has been up for over two full decades. There is an active corporate censorship campaign against anything with even the vaguest whiff of nationalism, much less ethnonationalism. Combine this with literal mobs of people who are so hellbent on silencing "Nazis" that they'll call a gay Jew who likes sucking black cocks a Nazi for the vile act of calling progressivism insane. We have CEOs threatening to fire people for voting for Trump. The only thing the Soviets have on us right now in terms of suppression of right wing speech are literal gulags.
If I could only be rationally concerned about the current dominant ideology/religion no matter how bad their history is, then there would be literally no basis at all to be concerned about Nazis. In spite of the outright dystopian approach the American Left has taken to suppressing any speech right of Noam Chomsky, I'm still simultaneously concerned about white nationalist types getting too much influence on the culture/policy of the nation.
Your standard for when one may get concerned is... I think it's a bit shallow and one-dimensional, to be honest.
In fact, they are the ones being suppressed; notice how the Daily Stormer, a semi-satirical Neo-Nazi site, had its domain names revoked on multiple occasions.
The difference between the Rohingya suppression in Myanmar and the neo-Nazi suppression here shouldn't be difficult to understand.
Keep making false equivalences as you will.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
In fact, they are the ones being suppressed; notice how the Daily Stormer, a semi-satirical Neo-Nazi site, had its domain names revoked on multiple occasions.
The difference between the Rohingya suppression in Myanmar and the neo-Nazi suppression here shouldn't be difficult to understand.
Keep making false equivalences as you will.
I ninja'd you.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
I ninja'd you.
Totally! With nothing that counters what I wrote.
Uhm, yeah, actually, I did. Literally the only thing Soviets have on us in terms of suppression of right wing speech are literal gulags. It's pretty dramatic.
Uhm, yeah, actually, I did. Literally the only thing Soviets have on us in terms of suppression of right wing speech are literal gulags.
Do tell.
Sure, the Russians suppress dissent. And the Rohingya are being shot at on the border by the Myanmar army.
That's not in any way close to the Daily Stormer being shut down by private interests. Not even close.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
Uhm, yeah, actually, I did. Literally the only thing Soviets have on us in terms of suppression of right wing speech are literal gulags.
Do tell.
Sure, the Russians suppress dissent. And the Rohingya are being shot at on the border by the Myanmar army.
That's not in any way close to the Daily Stormer being shut down by private interests. Not even close.
Then you should read the rest of my post. We also have: literal mobs of people rioting in the interest of shutting up anybody right of Noam Chomsky for being a "Nazi," CEOs of major companies publicly threatening to fire you for voting wrong, and cities revoking licenses to stage peaceful demonstrations at the last minute for ideological reasons and then sending in the police to shut those demonstrations down.
Literally the only way the American Left could get worse on free speech is if they were to successfully institute a gulag system. It's atrocious. Frankly, it's worrying. Its like McCarthyism on steroids.
Then you should read the rest of my post. We also have: literal mobs of people rioting in the interest of shutting up anybody right of Noam Chomsky for being a "Nazi," ...
... private citizens. (By the way, I've no love for Chomsky; the guy is a fucking nutjob.)
... CEOs of major companies publicly threatening to fire you for voting wrong ...
... private citizens.
... and cities revoking licenses to stage peaceful demonstrations at the last minute for ideological reasons and then sending in the police to shut those demonstrations down.
... which Charlottesville was enjoined from doing, pursuant to a federal court order.
Literally the only way the American Left could get worse on free speech is if they were to successfully institute a gulag system. It's atrocious. Frankly, it's worrying. Its like McCarthyism on steroids.
Wait, so it's the American Left that threatened to alter libel laws? That argued that corporations should have unlimited donations to political campaigns? That sought an exception based on religion for corporations to deny equal protection under the laws?
No, please, do tell.
Modern, white Americans have no idea what suppression or oppression means or is. I'll wager you haven't had an entire branch of your family imprisoned and then killed for trying to read books that were banned by the government.
But, sure. Go on. Tell me how bad the American Left is, please! Continue.
(Don't get me wrong, the American Left is stupid, naïve, and fascist on a lot of other levels, but this ain't it.)
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
I'mma just leave this here.
No, please, do tell.
My policy is not to feed the 4channers. Definitely don't want to tell anyone what to do but...eh, mostly I just wanted to paste the scarlet Fucking 4channer letter on this @Lain asshole. Which I've done, so.
Then you should read the rest of my post. We also have: literal mobs of people rioting in the interest of shutting up anybody right of Noam Chomsky for being a "Nazi," ...
... private citizens. (By the way, I've no love for Chomsky; the guy is a fucking nutjob.)
I'm glad you think that a right wing mob barging into the classroom of a Marxist professor, beating him senseless, and destroying the physical classroom wouldn't qualify as speech suppression because they're "private citizens."
... CEOs of major companies publicly threatening to fire you for voting wrong ...
... private citizens.
I'm glad you think that a conservative CEO firing you for voting Hillary doesn't qualify as speech suppression because they're "private citizens."
... and cities revoking licenses to stage peaceful demonstrations at the last minute for ideological reasons and then sending in the police to shut those demonstrations down.
... which Charlottesville was enjoined from doing, pursuant to a federal court order.
This isn't a refutation of the point. There is an active speech suppression campaign going on from the left wing. Just because there is interference going on from the Feds in some cases doesn't make that reality go away.
Literally the only way the American Left could get worse on free speech is if they were to successfully institute a gulag system. It's atrocious. Frankly, it's worrying. Its like McCarthyism on steroids.
Wait, so it's the American Left that threatened to alter libel laws?
Libel is already illegal.
That argued that corporations should have unlimited donations to political campaigns?
Corporate donations to "private citizens" doesn't preclude anybody else from speaking. It's not speech suppression, and this isn't relevant.
That sought an exception based on religion for corporations to deny equal protection under the laws?
If refusing to hire homosexuals for religious reasons is speech suppression, then I don't see how refusing to hire people for voting wrong is speech suppression.
No, please, do tell.
Modern, white Americans have no idea what suppression or oppression means or is. I'll wager you haven't had an entire branch of your family imprisoned and then killed for trying to read books that were banned by the government.
>white Americans
Says the guy who thinks corporate campaign contributions are speech suppression but revocation of domain names and punitive termination for voting habits aren't. You have no idea what speech suppression is.
But, sure. Go on. Tell me how bad the American Left is, please! Continue.
(Don't get me wrong, the American Left is stupid, naïve, and fascist on a lot of other levels, but this ain't it.)
How is rioting specifically to suppress speech not "fascist" (if by that I assume you mean "authoritarian"), exactly?
@Three-Eyed-Crow said in RL Anger:
No, please, do tell.
My policy is not to feed the 4channers. Definitely don't want to tell anyone what to do but...eh, mostly I just wanted to paste the scarlet Fucking 4channer letter on this @Lain asshole. Which I've done, so.
You've got a good start, but unfortunately your post falls flat. I'll give you an A for effort this time, but if you want to say something actually biting, you'll have to go get a clue first.
In fact, they are the ones being suppressed; notice how the Daily Stormer, a semi-satirical Neo-Nazi site, had its domain names revoked on multiple occasions.
The difference between the Rohingya suppression in Myanmar and the neo-Nazi suppression here shouldn't be difficult to understand.
Keep making false equivalences as you will.
