|
myron cope posted:I was talking to a guy at work and he was saying how he doesn't care about gay marriage, "let them be as miserable as the rest of us". Cool reaction, I thought, until he continued: it's unnatural. If "they" had their way, everybody on earth would be gay. That's what they are trying to do, convert everyone. And then humanity would stop, because who would have the babies? Reminds me of this horridly bigoted pastor who has the idea that we could just put all the gays inside a big fence and leave them there. Then there'd be no more. Because I guess only gay people have gay babies. edit: Now that Cooper has said he's gay publicly, this video is different to watch. His reaction here for instance. FoiledAgain fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Jul 3, 2012 |
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 22:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 08:52 |
|
|
It's always wonderful to discover someone who is genuinely and objectively dumb. The look on her face when confronted with the fact (which they agree with) that gay people are not finite, was just wonderful. Everyone likes to talk about how stupid conservapedia type people are, but I'm sure there are quite a lot of them who could beat me at chess any time of the day, know way more about various non-political and non-religious subjects, and are genuinely thoughtful and smart, just in a completely weird and factually wrong direction. This woman, and the entire idea that gay people would die out if you put all the current gay people in camps, are so fundamentally stupid that it's entertaining. And Anderson Cooper is so loving awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 22:43
|
|
|
Black Griffon posted:Everyone likes to talk about how stupid conservapedia type people are, but I'm sure there are quite a lot of them who could beat me at chess any time of the day, know way more about various non-political and non-religious subjects, and are genuinely thoughtful and smart, just in a completely weird and factually wrong direction. This woman, and the entire idea that gay people would die out if you put all the current gay people in camps, are so fundamentally stupid that it's entertaining. The very premise of Conservapedia sort of precludes the "thoughtful and smart" thing for the most part. Not trying to be smarmy, but "An encyclopaedia with articles written from a conservative viewpoint" should raise a suspicion for bullshit for anyone who could be described as thoughtful and smart. My point: don't give the average Conservapedia user more credit than is warranted, and work on your chess game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 06:40
|
|
|
Well, my point is that these people think about it as much as we do, just in completely different ways. They have seminars, meetings at least once a week, all sorts of congregations where they discuss in length just how to justify their unscientific beliefs. They read thousand upon thousands of pages written by people who in many cases are very well read (they just choose to ignore facts). They spend inordinate amounts of time on combing through news articles, science books and interviews for that one sentence or word that can be twisted beyond recognition. If we simply dismiss them as stupid, we're underestimating them. To me, the idea of a conservative christian who has thought about why he believes what he believes is much scarier than one who is programmed to scream "NO NO NO" and believes just to believe. I'm not saying Conservapedia is smart, but we shouldn't call all of them stupid, simply because that would be underestimating our enemies. For an anecdote: I have conservative christian family, and my uncles (twins, career choices and all) know more about astronomy and computer science than me, much more. They're family, so I know that they're not stupid, but they are still the kind of people you could find on Conservapedia. I can say that some of their beliefs are dumb, but I really can't call them dumb. Just to take it to an absurd (and a little stupid) degree: Newton wasn't stupid just because he was a bible code weirdo. I hope it doesn't sound like I'm defending Conservapedia here though, not planning to do that anytime soon. I'm just saying that you can be smart and wrong. Even completely and utterly wrong to a degree that's hilarious (and that's why we have this thread). As someone who grew up in the Norwegian South (which is like the US South), it's much more interesting to consider why people decide to cling to beliefs like this, like my uncles did.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 08:23
|
|
|
Black Griffon posted:Well, my point is that these people think about it as much as we do, just in completely different ways. They have seminars, meetings at least once a week, all sorts of congregations where they discuss in length just how to justify their unscientific beliefs. They read thousand upon thousands of pages written by people who in many cases are very well read (they just choose to ignore facts). They spend inordinate amounts of time on combing through news articles, science books and interviews for that one sentence or word that can be twisted beyond recognition. If we simply dismiss them as stupid, we're underestimating them. You're right and it's an important point to make. Everyone thinks they're logical and rational, fools think the other guy is stupid. It's all about understanding other's perspective.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 10:06
|
|
|
About half of the article on July 4th is literally a copy and paste of a Reagan speech. Also does anybody understand this line on poll taxes? Conservapedia posted:Poll taxes required in order to vote; they are voluntary
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 16:59
|
|
|
modig posted:Also does anybody understand this line on poll taxes? Voting is voluntary. That way we can exclude the poors without taking away their civil rights. Happy 4th of July. Edit: okay, the article on poll taxes does mention that it disenfranchises poor voters. It was just the one line description that made it seem like they thought poll taxes were okay. BAD AT STUFF fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Jul 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 17:25
|
|
|
nsaP posted:You're right and it's an important point to make. Everyone thinks they're logical and rational, fools think the other guy is stupid. This is something we all need to keep in mind, too often both the right and left love to characterize their opponants as "dumb and so goddamn crazy" , maybe I'm just feeling patriotic for once because of the date but it's possible to disagree with and even hate someone's actions without hating the person themselves. We're all human and we're all in this together.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 17:44
|
|
|
Nckdictator posted:This is something we all need to keep in mind, too often both the right and left love to characterize their opponants as "dumb and so goddamn crazy" , maybe I'm just feeling patriotic for once because of the date but it's possible to disagree with and even hate someone's actions without hating the person themselves. Every televised political debate should have to stop every ten minutes for them to show that picture of earth taken from Voyager. Give us some perspective.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 17:47
|
|
|
angrytech posted:Every televised political debate should have to stop every ten minutes for them to show that picture of earth taken from Voyager. Give us some perspective.  drat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 18:52
|
|
|
The wonders of science/universe do not effect or interest conservatives. They are all but immune to the powers of even the grandest of sagans. If anything it will just give them a talking point about cutting NASA funding and the money we waste on science that COULD be going to tax cuts and the military.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 18:55
|
|
|
Reminds me of a quote from Metal Gear Solid:quote:In 1960 I saw a vision of the ideal future from space. Three years earlier the Soviet Union had succeeded in launching Sputnik, the first manmade satellite in history, into orbit. This came as a huge shock to the United States.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 19:02
|
|
|
Pesky Splinter posted:Reminds me of a quote from Metal Gear Solid: A true patriot. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 00:04
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:The wonders of science/universe do not effect or interest conservatives. They are all but immune to the powers of even the grandest of sagans. If anything it will just give them a talking point about cutting NASA funding and the money we waste on science that COULD be going to tax cuts and the military. I don't know if that's entirely fair. There are plenty of conservative scientists, the problem is just the religious ones (not all conservatives are religious, e.g. Randroid atheist libertarians) who implicitly disbelieve any science that refutes their religious beliefs. poo poo, the Catholic Church is pretty right-wing, especially now with Pope Benedict XVI in power, but it still accepts evolution and various other forms of established, uncontroversial science that Evangelicals and other fundamentalists automatically reject. That's not to say that there aren't major threads of anti-intellectualism and anti-science in many conservative circles or to make some stupid false equivalence that both liberals (e.g. anti-vaxxers, anti-GM crop people, homeopaths, etc.) and conservatives are equal offenders in these regards, but rather just that there are plenty of conservatives that not only accept science, but are also scientists or otherwise quite interested in science. Pesky Splinter posted:Reminds me of a quote from Metal Gear Solid: I loving love that game. The camouflage and first aid systems are so awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 02:14
|
|
|
Out of curiousity I looked their article on MGS up. It's all boringly accurate, which is a shame.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 02:25
|
|
|
Mimetic posted:Voting is voluntary. That way we can exclude the poors without taking away their civil rights. Ohh I see, voting is voluntary, unlike say... buying things or earning an income.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 05:57
|
|
|
nsaP posted:You're right and it's an important point to make. Everyone thinks they're logical and rational, fools think the other guy is stupid. The gay marriage issue is probably more complex than we make it out to be. I don't think the majority of people against it really believe there's some "magic power" that enables homosexuals to make others homosexual. I don't think the majority believes they hate gay people either. But I do believe that most of them don't have any significant experience with gay people, which allows them to project onto them just about any argument or attitude they happen to believe at the moment. I also think there's the fear of the unknown coupled with a general revulsion to the idea. Some are worried that someone might think they're gay, and in some small towns even standing up for gay rights is enough to get you branded with that label and shunned. I think some of the more socially conservative are also legitimately worried about the idea becoming "mainstream". They really do believe it's a choice like choosing how you're going to dress -- if fashion decides that low cut dresses are in, then everyone is suddenly wearing low cut dresses. They're worried that if homosexuality is "ok", then more people -- maybe their loved ones! -- might chose to "try it out" or "convert" or "be gay". From our standpoint, it's just a matter of being who you really are and not having to hide it, but from theirs it would appear have the effect of "making people gay" who would have otherwise lived out "happy heterosexual lives". It's easy to create strawmen and knock them down, it's much harder to understand a person and slowly work to change their beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 18:53
|
|
|
It's really really sad. I was friends with a few very anti-gay but otherwise nice conservatives online. When I tried to dig in and really understand WHY they were so against gay marriage or any sort of general cultural acceptance it was very hard. They'd launch bible quotes, and when it was clear that was a lovely argument suddenly their reasons were purely secular. They'd go on about everything from "it's not natural" to increased aids risks to tax issues. Finally when all the bullshit was stripped away I found a few few sad roots. One guy had an uncle who was gay but had a wife and kids and all that, finally it all came out and he left his wife and pretty much had to leave the entire family/town because of it. This would have never happend if liberals didn't fill his head with ideas that it's ok to admit your gay. I tried to say that if society didn't give a poo poo if someone was gay or not the whole situation wouldn't have happened in the first place but it didn't help. Society needs to continue to shun gays to protect families because if closest cases come out it will destroy many families. He also gave me a strong impression he had some gay desires that he keeps in check in the name of his future family. The other guy was even sadder. He finally admitted he was gay, but went to a few christian camps to be cured. He fully admitted he was and would always be "biologically gay" but what seperately humans from animals is our god given free will to be what we choose. He was gay, but he was making a CHOICE to be straight. He hates gay-rights and gay-acceptance movements because he saw them as demonizing people like him to choose to be in the closest and tell him he's wrong. I tried to tell him that if he was born into a different society that didn't have hang-ups about gay people he wouldn't have this terrible inner-conflict. But he's very adamant that his deeply conservative christian upbringing has NOTHING to do with him CHOOSING to live a straight lifestyle and just wishes those homo-nazi's would stop trying to take away people's choice to live miserable lives in the closet. Another sad case was a guy who eventually admitted/confided in me that obviously all dudes probably rather gently caress other dudes, but it's wrong and humanity would die out cause who wants to deal with women? You get a lot of people deeply in denial about their own sexuality who assume they are totally normal and thus everyone has the same homosexual urges they do and the only reason not everyone is gay is because of social pressures/religion since it's the only reason they aren't. The others all came down to basically thinking they've never met "a gay" before and they're all gross pride parade people in drag that want to stick their aids-covered cocks in their children (all gays are pedophiles remember). So just pure ignorance. Some of them grew out of this by simply existing in the real world for long enough (as opposed to christian/conservative education system) Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 19:12 on Jul 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 19:06
|
|
|
einTier posted:Very true. You can't hope to change someone's mind unless you understand the circumstances that led them to think the way they currently do. I'm in agreement with you on all these points, and would add that a considerable percentage of the anti-gay crew picked up that viewpoint purely because everyone they know was anti-gay. It's easy to go with the flow when the alternative is that everyone else you know is completely wrong. What gets me is that, if there are preachers, politicians, and other major figures that literally come out and say "the gays are trying to take over the world"... then there must be some significant subset of conservatives that do really believe such things. There's too many people saying stuff like that to dismiss them all as "crazies." So who are these people that honestly, literally believe in a "gay agenda" that seeks to teach third-graders about blowjobs, outlaw the Bible as hate speech, and replace the Stars and Stripes with a rainbow flag? What engenders the level of intense xenophobia and paranoia that could support a belief like that? It's beyond my comprehension.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 19:16
|
|
|
Alien Arcana posted:
For others, I think it leads back into what I was saying -- they do think that if it becomes mainstream, it will be a choice that many people will experiment with and ultimately choose. Remember, they really believe this is a choice. They don't like it and don't want to see it become "mainstream". It never occurs to them that gay people are already gay and either hiding it or in insincere relationships with heterosexuals. It never occurs to them that people that aren't gay won't somehow be "persuaded" into it. If you pair those ideas up with the idea that there is some kind of agenda to mainstream the idea, it's not a big leap to assume that those trying to mainstream it will immediately launch into "converting" as soon as it's acceptable. For many fundamentalists, it's not enough to simply believe in an idea, you must also sell that idea and grow the faith. It often doesn't occur to them that you could support an idea while not taking an active part. This is also why atheism often comes off to them as "anti-God".
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 19:40
|
|
|
Alien Arcana posted:So who are these people that honestly, literally believe in a "gay agenda" that seeks to teach third-graders about blowjobs, outlaw the Bible as hate speech, and replace the Stars and Stripes with a rainbow flag? What engenders the level of intense xenophobia and paranoia that could support a belief like that? It's beyond my comprehension. Someone here posted a while back that one of the reasons why they do what you're talking about is because these type of people believe the world is a zero-sum game. If gays "win", then they'll treat the conservative evangelical Christians just like the Christians treated gays. This is where the "they'll ban the Bible and teach little Timmy about sex at age 7!" scare tactics come from. The people who say these things don't understand that the world doesn't operate on retribution.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 20:07
|
|
|
Much of the "gay agenda" complaining is about things that are quite real, with the catch being that they are only problems in the first place if you're looking at it from their perspective. They want to teach YOUR KIDS that gay relationships are okay! They want to adopt kids and raise them! Hell, Scalia's Lawrence v. Texas dissent pretty much touched on the same thing: quote:Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct. These sorts of complaints only make sense when you realize what the root problem is, even more root than the religious angle (which draws from it): A ton of people think that homosexuality is just a bizarre sexual fetish. They view gays as sexual deviants because of that, which is why they can make the pedophilia hints so easily. I doubt most of them even really know what bad thing will happen if homosexuality is viewed as okay, all they know is that IT'S GROSS so I guess it being "okay" will mean society will be full of really creepy sex fiends. e: One thing that I think illustrates this perfectly is a lovely piece from the WSJ when Lady Gaga got banned from Indonesia. Now, in the response at the 1-minute mark, why do you think they felt it was necessary to insert the little "alternative lifestyles" tag? Answering that question should tell you everything you need to know, and it's actually pretty ironic that they view it as an attempt to promote an "alternative lifestyle" when the entire push for gay marriage has been an attempt by gays to adopt what is a very socially normal lifestyle. OneEightHundred fucked around with this message at 21:35 on Jul 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 21:18
|
|
|
Is this some kinda meta humor I'm not getting where we pretend people don't legitimately believe in 'the gay agenda' and thus need to be treated with kid gloves?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 21:40
|
|
|
Glitterbomber posted:Is this some kinda meta humor I'm not getting where we pretend people don't legitimately believe in 'the gay agenda' and thus need to be treated with kid gloves?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 22:38
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:Not sure what you mean. The problem with the "gay agenda" is it's a vague umbrella term so whether it exists or doesn't exist and why it's dumb to worry about it depends on what it's even being defined as. Indeed. Depending on the person, it can mean one of a dozen things and be used for just as many different reasons. I think what we're saying is that in order to debate with the goal of changing opinion, you have to understand why someone is using that term and how they arrived at that conclusion. That's not to say there isn't a time and place to openly scorn and mock. But if you do that in a one-on-one conversation, you won't change anyone's mind about the issue.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 22:54
|
|
|
That's rather beyond the scope of the thread, since if they're posting on Conservapedia, they're probably beyond the point where "changing their mind" is even possible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 23:47
|
|
|
einTier posted:I think for some, it's easy way to maintain control of power or to put one's self in a position of power. I agree but there's also a huge element of projection for these kinds of people. They are frequently projecting their own thoughts and beliefs on other people, especially their opponents, which causes them create these strawmen of other groups based on their own thoughts and behavior. So, when you have religious fundamentalists talking about evil gays "converting" people to homosexuality, this is likely because they themselves are constantly trying to convert people away from homosexuality, liberalism/progressivism, other religions, atheism, etc., so they expect everyone else to be doing the same counter-conversion on conservative, anti-gay Christians, turning them into liberal gaytheist members of the Muslim Brotherhood. They generally don't give any consideration to gays simply wanting to be equals who are left alone, because they consider things like equality and not being closeted as being forms of militant conversion and oppression, e.g. conservatives calling equal rights for gays "special rights." closeted republican posted:Someone here posted a while back that one of the reasons why they do what you're talking about is because these type of people believe the world is a zero-sum game. If gays "win", then they'll treat the conservative evangelical Christians just like the Christians treated gays. This is where the "they'll ban the Bible and teach little Timmy about sex at age 7!" scare tactics come from. The people who say these things don't understand that the world doesn't operate on retribution. See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. This is why these conservative Evangelicals have so much animosity towards other religious faiths, they figure that the faithful of those other religions will be just as domineering and oppressive with their faith as the Evangelicals are with theirs, so they have to stop other faiths from gaining a foothold. They even develop these elaborate conspiracy theories that defy logic, like gays being allied with Sharia-pushing Muslim fundamentalists. Glitterbomber posted:Is this some kinda meta humor I'm not getting where we pretend people don't legitimately believe in 'the gay agenda' and thus need to be treated with kid gloves? It's not mutually exclusive to analyze why people believe the crazy poo poo they believe and still mock occasionally them for believing those things, nor is believing stupid, irrational things mutually exclusive to being smart. Michael Shermer addresses these in his book "Why People Believe Weird Things." He covers topics ranging from creationism to Holocaust denial and discusses how even otherwise intelligent and successful people can fall into the trap of believing weird, stupid, and potentially even hateful poo poo despite evidence to the contrary. In fact, he demonstrates how these people actually think they are the ones following the evidence and everyone else is truly irrational. Just think about how many creationist Christian apologetics websites there are that claim to have concrete scientific evidence for Young Earth Creationism even though the actual science supports the exact opposite. If we want people to relinquish their irrational beliefs, we first need to understand why they hold them and then use this information to untangle their irrational, unsupported beliefs. Just treating these people as caricatures who we should exclusively mock isn't helpful. We can mock them in general, but when there is obvious openness to real conversation about these matters, we need to treat them fairly instead of just being smug assholes. Here's Neil DeGrasse Tyson putting it more eloquently than I ever could: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vReuF0rjUsY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQucyuKsrOE When someone as loving brilliant as Sir Isaac Newton goes "God must have done it" when he can't figure something out (in this case, the stability of planetary orbits in our solar system), we probably shouldn't treat everyone who believes something irrational as just a drooling retard who has to use safety scissors.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 01:44
|
|
|
Small Frozen Thing posted:That's rather beyond the scope of the thread, since if they're posting on Conservapedia, they're probably beyond the point where "changing their mind" is even possible. Anyone's mind can be changed, but the guys sitting on the sidelines and endlessly mocking their point of view/the websites they like to go on isn't going to do it. (Note: This is not an attempt to say that this thread is bad, conservapedia deserves any and all mocking it gets.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 02:54
|
|
|
prahanormal posted:Anyone's mind can be changed, but the guys sitting on the sidelines and endlessly mocking their point of view/the websites they like to go on isn't going to do it. (Note: This is not an attempt to say that this thread is bad, conservapedia deserves any and all mocking it gets.) Exactly, we should be trying to discuss these issues like rational adults with these people using facts and evidence, but that's not really what this thread is about. This thread is more like a text-based MST3K on the internet, we're poking fun as something absurd for our own enjoyment, just like the MST3K crew would make fun of lovely movies. We're not trying to debate anything with these right-wingers from Conservapedia, that's a completely different topic for a completely different thread.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 03:39
|
|
|
prahanormal posted:Anyone's mind can be changed, but the guys sitting on the sidelines and endlessly mocking their point of view/the websites they like to go on isn't going to do it. (Note: This is not an attempt to say that this thread is bad, conservapedia deserves any and all mocking it gets.) That's a nice sentiment, but pretty misplaced. People like Andy Schafly and Conservative are so broken, so firmly wrapped up in their own delusional worlds, that it would take some pretty drat extreme circumstances to change them. I don't know about Andy (other than he's evil as hell and incredibly arrogant, but he could have gotten that from mom), but Conservative is definitely disabled, and he'd need a lot more help than just trying to reason with him over the internet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 04:05
|
|
|
No don't you get it, if we just explain to the guy who spends entire days spamming a wiki with rambling screeds on how atheists are fat sissy baby men how the world really works he'll figure it out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 04:53
|
|
|
Hell, if someone is legit incapable of feeling cognitive dissonance, saying "You can try to reason with them" is like going "Can't you just explain how red looks" when confronted with the colorblind.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 05:02
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:Exactly, we should be trying to discuss these issues like rational adults with these people using facts and evidence, but that's not really what this thread is about. This thread is more like a text-based MST3K on the internet, we're poking fun as something absurd for our own enjoyment, just like the MST3K crew would make fun of lovely movies. We're not trying to debate anything with these right-wingers from Conservapedia, that's a completely different topic for a completely different thread. While this would be nice, its been proven that facts and evidence have no effect on people who are effectively brainwashed. There have been studies showing that even highly educated far right conservatives not only reject what they were taught (and refuse to believe in regardless), but use their "educated" status as leverage against facts. The idea is since they're among the learned elite that their opinions should hold more weight, so now they know for sure that evolution is false, gays are the devil, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 05:33
|
|
|
Mercury_Storm posted:While this would be nice, its been proven that facts and evidence have no effect on people who are effectively brainwashed. There have been studies showing that even highly educated far right conservatives not only reject what they were taught (and refuse to believe in regardless), but use their "educated" status as leverage against facts. The idea is since they're among the learned elite that their opinions should hold more weight, so now they know for sure that evolution is false, gays are the devil, etc. To be fair, if I'm thinking of the same studies, it was just a more general trend in learned elite to use their education as leverage against facts that contradicted their opinions. Just like you have conservatives denying evolution, there are quite a few progressive intelligentsia that promote stuff like anti-vaccination and alternative medicines like homeopathy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 06:22
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:I agree but there's also a huge element of projection for these kinds of people. They are frequently projecting their own thoughts and beliefs on other people, especially their opponents, which causes them create these strawmen of other groups based on their own thoughts and behavior. So, when you have religious fundamentalists talking about evil gays "converting" people to homosexuality, this is likely because they themselves are constantly trying to convert people away from homosexuality, liberalism/progressivism, other religions, atheism, etc., so they expect everyone else to be doing the same counter-conversion on conservative, anti-gay Christians, turning them into liberal gaytheist members of the Muslim Brotherhood. They generally don't give any consideration to gays simply wanting to be equals who are left alone, because they consider things like equality and not being closeted as being forms of militant conversion and oppression, e.g. conservatives calling equal rights for gays "special rights." I think part of this may derive from the fact that these people live in places where everyone is expected to have similar attitudes on subjects. They've lived their entire lives in a system where one line of thinking is shared by everyone and that if you're not for us, you're trying to destabilize us. When they become exposed to the rest of the world and the many different ideologies, philosophies and religions out there, they freak out and assume that these people are operating on the same principles they are because they don't know any better. That's what makes them adopt ideas such "evil LIEbral gays and Muslims will take over your school and make your kids pray to a god with a foreign-sounding name and watch porn if you don't stop them RIGHT NOW!"; they go under the assumption that everyone sees the world as they do and they need to fight them off before the (to them) foreigners take over and eradicate you and your group simply because they were given equal rights, which makes them as dominant as you. It also may explain why Paul's works are much more popular than Jesus' sermons to these types of Christians; his ideas tend to be based on "us vs them" (such as the flesh vs God) and encourages followers that they will get their victory in time. In this case, Paul goes from helping elaborate on the spiritual side of Christianity Jesus did not mention to an overglorified morale booster/internal propaganda that makes them feel God is on their side because the idea of a zero-sum game is presented as a good thing and something endorsed by God. Jesus' sermons are much more ambiguous and suggest that the world is not a zero-sum game (such as his love for the downtrodden and the ideas that the least of us will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, not the "winners" of life), so he tends to be ignored except as a figure for them to rally around.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 06:27
|
|
|
colonelslime posted:Just like you have conservatives denying evolution, there are quite a few progressive intelligentsia that promote stuff like anti-vaccination and alternative medicines like homeopathy. I got into a conversation with a friend of mine about this when the subject of gay marriage came up. I'd previously thought of him as a well-read, intelligent and rational person but then it turned out he's extremely against vaccinations ("because they put mercury in them!"), pro-'alternative' medicine/therapies ("scientists don't want you to know that you can cure your own cancer!") and anti-homosexual marriage ("because marriage is about having babies!"). That last one in particular really struck me as ridiculous. I can almost understand why people would have these elaborate conspiracy theories about vaccinations and science, thanks to the sheer amount of highly-emotive nonsense out there that appears rational until properly scrutinized. However "marriage is about having babies" is utterly mad. All I could respond with is "Why is it? Who decided that?", which got the predictable response of "that's the way it's always been.". "What about heterosexual couples that can't have children for one reason or another?" only got confused looks and handwaving about how there may have been the potential for offspring at some point so it doesn't matter and blah blah... *sigh*
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 12:03
|
|
|
President Anime 2008 posted:("scientists don't want you to know that you can cure your own cancer!" Rub the death of Steve Jobs in his nose.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 12:47
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:Rub the death of Steve Jobs in his nose. Rubbing something in people's noses only makes them more attached to their beliefs. People generally really hate being wrong. At least I managed to convince this guy that there isn't literally a big old dose of mercury in vaccinations, that it's part of the preservative (thiomersal) that prevents fungal contamination and doesn't poison the poo poo out of humans, especially in such tiny quantities, and that Wakefield is a corrupt, massively evil bastard responsible for the entirely preventable deaths of children in order to try and make some cash on new medical tests. Also pointed out that pure sodium and pure chlorine are pretty drat terrible for humans to ingest but guess what, sodium chloride doesn't make you die a horrible death when you eat a couple of grams of it every day (although not eating enough of it, or too much of it, can obviously cause a horrible death). This sort of thing doesn't occur to anti-vaccination conspiracy nuts, but I was pretty surprised that he listened and agreed to go and read up credible sources on the 'controversy'. Quote-Unquote fucked around with this message at 13:45 on Jul 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 13:41
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:I don't know if that's entirely fair. There are plenty of conservative scientists, the problem is just the religious ones (not all conservatives are religious, e.g. Randroid atheist libertarians) who implicitly disbelieve any science that refutes their religious beliefs. poo poo, the Catholic Church is pretty right-wing, especially now with Pope Benedict XVI in power, but it still accepts evolution and various other forms of established, uncontroversial science that Evangelicals and other fundamentalists automatically reject. This is true, but the Pale Blue Dot thing is a matter of perspective, not really a matter of science. When Carl Sagan looked at that image, he felt small and irrelevant and it made him see human conflict as petty and meaningless. But when certain brands of Christians look at that image, even if they are aware of how physically small they are on the cosmic scale, and even if they are astronomers themselves who know all about the scale and the the physics of the universe, they won't have that same sort of reaction because they truly believe that they have a deep personal relationship with the almighty maker of everything, and that they really are significant. There are plenty of people who will look at that picture and think, "Yep, the universe is vast and amazing, and God made it all for us!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 14:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 08:52 |
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:Rub the death of Steve Jobs in his nose. Didn't he try to cure his own cancer by jumping the line for a transplant? He lived years longer than most people diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. That poo poo is nasty.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2012 16:19
|
|
