Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«151 »
  • Locked thread
wateroverfire
Jul 3, 2010



Cingulate posted:

Question for anyone in this thread: have you recently, or ever, at all, been convinced of something in a political debate?

No.

Cingulate posted:

Or have you undergone a longer process that resulted in you changing a previously-held assumption?

Sometimes.

Cingulate posted:

What was it, and how did it go down - what argument convinced you?

I had been arguing against Chile's criminal anti-defamation laws (summary: If you make a criminal accusation you can't back up you can end up in jail) in favor of American-style robust protection of free speech. Then in the Veronica Mars thread a bunch of people were like "It's fine to ruin someone's life with an accusation that may not be true and can't be proven because something something JUSTICE" and I was like "Oh. Thaaaaaaat's what it's for." Probably not what they were going for, but I find that is mostly how D&D affects me.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

pangstrom
Jan 25, 2003



Slippery Tilde

Cingulate posted:

Question for anyone in this thread: have you recently, or ever, at all, been convinced of something in a political debate? Or have you undergone a longer process that resulted in you changing a previously-held assumption?

What was it, and how did it go down - what argument convinced you?
Just a window into old D&D: the modal answer to this used to be "gun control". As in TFR folks would come in with semi-relevant statistics and make a big deal about terminology mistakes and how people would just get around restrictions etc. and people would become anti-gun-control.

D&D got me to be a lot more anti-Iraq-war a lot more quickly than I would have been otherwise, though helps that I was super wrong in being "ambivalent" about it in 2003. I'm sure there are a lot of other things but that sticks out. In general though reading things I agree with and mostly-dumb things I disagree with has caused "attitude polarization", though.

Golbez
Oct 9, 2002

1 2 3!
If you want to take a shot at me get in line, line
1 2 3!
Baby, I've had all my shots and I'm fine

Dr. Arbitrary posted:

The neat thing about Libertarianism is that frequently, once their philosophy butts heads with reality, they can swing around to the full blown Socialism.

Guilty. I was hardcore anarcho-capitalist for a decade, but then the right events happened that caused me to re-evaluate things and, bam, now I'm pretty socialist. A combination of realizing how horrible the American system of private health insurance is, and realizing the fundamental flaw of a philosophy that proclaims liberty and equality for all but enforces a two-class system of landowners and renters.

Triskelli
Sep 26, 2011

I AM A SKELETON
WITH VERY HIGH
STANDARDS


How do I deal with people grilling me on where I get my information? I got a full cross-examination by a really good family friend that just outed themselves as a "Sandy-Hook was a False Flag, global warming is happening but it's not because of what Al Gore told us, my niece is a welfare queen and covered with tattoos" conservative. Normally I feel like I could handle it, as we've got a pretty healthy of mutual respect over the years, but I had three additional republicans grilling me on the "oh you don't have practical experience, can't believe everything you read, you're being brainwashed by professors, where did you hear that, have you talked to these people" on and on doing everything to dismiss my opinion out of hand. How do I deal with that? Is there a handy way or site to have information at a moments notice?

Disinterested
Jun 29, 2011

You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

Triskelli posted:

How do I deal with people grilling me on where I get my information? I got a full cross-examination by a really good family friend that just outed themselves as a "Sandy-Hook was a False Flag, global warming is happening but it's not because of what Al Gore told us, my niece is a welfare queen and covered with tattoos" conservative. Normally I feel like I could handle it, as we've got a pretty healthy of mutual respect over the years, but I had three additional republicans grilling me on the "oh you don't have practical experience, can't believe everything you read, you're being brainwashed by professors, where did you hear that, have you talked to these people" on and on doing everything to dismiss my opinion out of hand. How do I deal with that? Is there a handy way or site to have information at a moments notice?

Can't you just say google and wikipedia like every other person in the world?

Zeitgueist
Aug 8, 2003

by Ralp


Triskelli posted:

How do I deal with people grilling me on where I get my information? I got a full cross-examination by a really good family friend that just outed themselves as a "Sandy-Hook was a False Flag, global warming is happening but it's not because of what Al Gore told us, my niece is a welfare queen and covered with tattoos" conservative. Normally I feel like I could handle it, as we've got a pretty healthy of mutual respect over the years, but I had three additional republicans grilling me on the "oh you don't have practical experience, can't believe everything you read, you're being brainwashed by professors, where did you hear that, have you talked to these people" on and on doing everything to dismiss my opinion out of hand. How do I deal with that? Is there a handy way or site to have information at a moments notice?

That kind of person is not going to be convinced by your sources or links, they already stated that they want practical experience and dislike academia/reading.

You need to just debate them, which is more of a back them into a logical corner type of game, and probably an unwinnable one.

Depends on how much you care to convince this person, it might not be worth it.

spacetoaster
Feb 10, 2014
No you see it's the democrats who are the real racists Not the party who is running a Nazi.

Too long? I'm garbage.

Zeitgueist posted:

which is more of a back them into a logical corner type of game, and probably an unwinnable one.

Depends on how much you care to convince this person, it might not be worth it.

If it's just a game, sure, but the poster says they respect this person and are friends with them.

When someone makes a statement, I just ask them why they believe that and continue to go that route. Either they display an ignorance about whatever it is that they claimed (and have to own up to it), or they actually know what they are talking about and you learn something.

Although I'm not sure how far you can go with someone who thinks that Sandy Hook was a false flag operation.

Zeitgueist
Aug 8, 2003

by Ralp


spacetoaster posted:

If it's just a game, sure, but the poster says they respect this person and are friends with them.

When someone makes a statement, I just ask them why they believe that and continue to go that route. Either they display an ignorance about whatever it is that they claimed (and have to own up to it), or they actually know what they are talking about and you learn something.

Although I'm not sure how far you can go with someone who thinks that Sandy Hook was a false flag operation.

'game' metaphorically, not really a game if you care about the person

But yeah that's kind of a dead end and either you stop talking to the person or stop talking to them about politics.

Bates
Jun 15, 2006


Triskelli posted:

How do I deal with people grilling me on where I get my information? I got a full cross-examination by a really good family friend that just outed themselves as a "Sandy-Hook was a False Flag, global warming is happening but it's not because of what Al Gore told us, my niece is a welfare queen and covered with tattoos" conservative. Normally I feel like I could handle it, as we've got a pretty healthy of mutual respect over the years, but I had three additional republicans grilling me on the "oh you don't have practical experience, can't believe everything you read, you're being brainwashed by professors, where did you hear that, have you talked to these people" on and on doing everything to dismiss my opinion out of hand. How do I deal with that? Is there a handy way or site to have information at a moments notice?
Well if you want to engage them you need them to explain exactly what they believe and why they believe it. Concrete opinion - not clichés, talking points or vague generalizations/assumptions - they have to be specific. If you get them to that point you can engage the data or lack thereof they base it on. Also it seems to be a "sceptic" you're dealing with so look at his sources and tell him why you are sceptical of them and why you are more inclined to believe your own sources. I mean these people dismiss reputable sources because it's the mainstream or sheeple or whatever but then happily gorge on random bloggers and websites some guy put up so you really got to keep beating on that disconnect. Don't be surprised if you don't get anywhere though.

spacetoaster
Feb 10, 2014
No you see it's the democrats who are the real racists Not the party who is running a Nazi.

Too long? I'm garbage.

Zeitgueist posted:

'game' metaphorically, not really a game if you care about the person

But yeah that's kind of a dead end and either you stop talking to the person or stop talking to them about politics.

I get it. My best conversations are with a Roman Catholic who knows his stuff and isn't offended by different views. We can go back in forth in a friendly manner for hours.

If you honestly want to bring someone around to seeing your point of view do not try to "get them".

Instead honestly show interest in their statement/belief and ask them to explain it to you. Hopefully they might, in the process of explaining it to you, see the errors. At the least they can let you voice your belief later because you were respectful and listened to their side.

Zeitgueist
Aug 8, 2003

by Ralp


spacetoaster posted:

I get it. My best conversations are with a Roman Catholic who knows his stuff and isn't offended by different views. We can go back in forth in a friendly manner for hours.

If you honestly want to bring someone around to seeing your point of view do not try to "get them".

Instead honestly show interest in their statement/belief and ask them to explain it to you. Hopefully they might, in the process of explaining it to you, see the errors. At the least they can let you voice your belief later because you were respectful and listened to their side.

Yeah, but that doesn't sound like the situation in question.

Grognan
Jan 23, 2007

Money And Power Through Homicide!



spacetoaster posted:



Instead honestly show interest in their statement/belief and ask them to explain it to you. Hopefully they might, in the process of explaining it to you, see the errors. At the least they can let you voice your belief later because you were respectful and listened to their side.

This, 110% of the way. The worst case if you're polite and they can't actually explain why they're right, they go ahead and switch the subject. Which is nice at a family event when you're not out for blood.

Zeitgueist
Aug 8, 2003

by Ralp


Ya know, I actually misread that post, after reading your guys advice and it didn't jibe.

I didn't see the part where it was 3 other people grilling him with "oh you don't have practical experience, can't believe everything you read, you're being brainwashed by professors, where did you hear that, have you talked to these people" and instead read it as the same friend saying all of those things.

My bad.

Disinterested
Jun 29, 2011

You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

I think with people who are firmly anti-intellectual and/or don't want to be reasoned with, you really have to decide ahead of time how much you really give a poo poo before you argue with them.

Disinterested fucked around with this message at Jan 22, 2015 around 19:16

Cognac McCarthy
Oct 5, 2008

It's a man's game, but boys will play


spacetoaster posted:

Instead honestly show interest in their statement/belief and ask them to explain it to you. Hopefully they might, in the process of explaining it to you, see the errors.
This works really well, at least at making it really apparent to everyone else how loving crazy the other person is. New Left Media does this superbly. Well, when they were still making new videos.

spacetoaster
Feb 10, 2014
No you see it's the democrats who are the real racists Not the party who is running a Nazi.

Too long? I'm garbage.

Disinterested posted:

I think with people who are firmly intellectual and/or don't want to be reasoned with, you really have to decide ahead of time how much you really give a poo poo before you argue with them.

This is pretty much why my family gatherings are so focused on food and sports.

Triskelli
Sep 26, 2011

I AM A SKELETON
WITH VERY HIGH
STANDARDS


spacetoaster posted:

I get it. My best conversations are with a Roman Catholic who knows his stuff and isn't offended by different views. We can go back in forth in a friendly manner for hours.

If you honestly want to bring someone around to seeing your point of view do not try to "get them".

Instead honestly show interest in their statement/belief and ask them to explain it to you. Hopefully they might, in the process of explaining it to you, see the errors. At the least they can let you voice your belief later because you were respectful and listened to their side.

Yeah, I did try to do this specifically. But again, had an entire cadre of people that wanted to get their opinion in. The Sandy Hook thing was kinda a parting shot, and I'm sure if the conversation went too much further the peanut gallery would have turned against him, his wife was already rolling her eyes when he brought it up.

spacetoaster
Feb 10, 2014
No you see it's the democrats who are the real racists Not the party who is running a Nazi.

Too long? I'm garbage.

Triskelli posted:

Yeah, I did try to do this specifically. But again, had an entire cadre of people that wanted to get their opinion in. The Sandy Hook thing was kinda a parting shot, and I'm sure if the conversation went too much further the peanut gallery would have turned against him, his wife was already rolling her eyes when he brought it up.

Yeah, if I'm actually going to go full on debate mode with a friend I make sure we're pretty much alone, or somewhere where we'll be left alone.

We live in a FB/twitter/snapchat/etc/etc world where everyone wants to be involved in all the conversations occurring around them all the time, and think that their views on everything are super important.

pangstrom
Jan 25, 2003



Slippery Tilde

I mean if the person is nuts then yeah, disengage, but otherwise I'm kind of opposite. I'll usually only bother to wade in if there are other people around or it's on FB (or here) or something. I keep it brief and stay more polite/understated when it's in person or on FB, but since you're not going to convince the other person you might as well do it in a place where third parties can be informed/convinced. Climate change, vaccines, nuclear power and maybe the bankrupt nature of American conservatism/libertarianism are the ones I've engaged on enough times that I feel like I can "win" against any non-pro (helps to be right in the first place, of course). You want to spend most of your time being a normal human being so you're not "that guy", though, and unless the guy is comfortable with conflict the confrontation will loom large in the relationship with the person you engaged going forward.

Shame Boy
Mar 2, 2010

THE HORROR
THE HORROR



Does this person spend a lot of time in 4chan's gun nut section? Because they're the only ones I've seen seriously pushing that sandy hook was a false flag besides fringe conspiracy nuts.

If the answer is "yes" then sever and seek therapy.

Cognac McCarthy
Oct 5, 2008

It's a man's game, but boys will play


Parallel Paraplegic posted:

Does this person spend a lot of time in 4chan's gun nut section? Because they're the only ones I've seen seriously pushing that sandy hook was a false flag besides fringe conspiracy nuts.

If the answer is "yes" then sever and seek therapy.

It's actually quite common among InfoWars-brand libertarians, who pop up pretty often these days.

Triskelli
Sep 26, 2011

I AM A SKELETON
WITH VERY HIGH
STANDARDS


Parallel Paraplegic posted:

Does this person spend a lot of time in 4chan's gun nut section? Because they're the only ones I've seen seriously pushing that sandy hook was a false flag besides fringe conspiracy nuts.

If the answer is "yes" then sever and seek therapy.

Dude's a cabinet maker in his 50s, I highly doubt it. I probably should've used the term "family friend" a little more strongly. I might broach the topic again next time we meet, he never struck me as a conspiracy nut until last night. I would peg him as being misinformed and prejudiced by the fact we live in a pretty white-trash area. To elaborate, politics came up because a phone survey called in from Nevada asking about Climate Change and I was dumb enough to go through the whole thing. I mention I'm Democratic but I'm just ready to get back to dinner and the shitshow started when he asked me "why?"

Biggest thing that kept things going was my sister wasn't there and while she's fairly conservative too she really hates hearing people talk about politics. When she got home a few "oh my god"s and "are you still talking about this"s helped end the discussion.

poopinmymouth
Mar 2, 2005

PROUD 2 B AMERICAN (these colors don't run)

Anyone have a good quote or link explaining that a bit of media needs some kind of point or narrative to be critique? I was talking about American Sniper being nationalist propaganda and a mutual friend claims it's a critique of war and the affect on the sniper character.

Without some kind of actual commentary, that would make snuff films anti violence.

spacetoaster
Feb 10, 2014
No you see it's the democrats who are the real racists Not the party who is running a Nazi.

Too long? I'm garbage.

poopinmymouth posted:

Anyone have a good quote or link explaining that a bit of media needs some kind of point or narrative to be critique? I was talking about American Sniper being nationalist propaganda and a mutual friend claims it's a critique of war and the affect on the sniper character.

Without some kind of actual commentary, that would make snuff films anti violence.

I thought Clint Eastwood went out and made a more modern day cowboy movie. Tell your friend to quit forcing some deep meaning on a fun weekend movie.

Sinnlos
Sep 5, 2011

Ask me about believing in magical rainbow gold



Posting a series of examinations of various protestant denominations in the US, cross posting here to ensure they are not lost.

Sinnlos posted:

Baptists are the largest protestant denomination is the US, however, the Baptist belief in a personal relationship with God has lead to a dizzying array of factions all claiming to be the TRUE Baptists.

These factions do have a core set of beliefs however:

- There are two sacraments, which they call "ordinances".
- The first is baptism, you can only be baptized if you are old enough, and the only thing that qualifies is baptism by immersion. One individual can be baptized multiple times.
- The second is communion. Communion is symbolic for Baptists.
- Baptists also staunchly believe in the autonomy of congregations. Specific beliefs can vary greatly from congregation to congregation. Like-minded congregations can group themselves into associations, or conventions, however.

Speaking of which:

The Southern Baptist Convention is the largest of the Baptist conventions, with about 16 million members claimed. Southern Baptists are biblical literalists, believing that the Bible is without error, and everything in it is the direct inspired word of God. This anchors many of their other beliefs that cause them to diverge from other Baptists, namely that women may not teach, and that homosexuality is a grave sin. Southern Baptists also believe that salvation is only obtainable through accepting (Baptist) Jesus as Lord and Savior. Once saved, one cannot fall from grace. Everyone NOT saved burns in Hell for eternity. You can only accept Jesus by saying it out loud a whole bunch and having a personal relationship with him, so having a Pope to do all that for you doesn't count. Southern Baptists are Hardcore Conservatives and are generally terrible. They are (surprise) primarily concentrated in the south.

The northern cousin of the SBC is the American Baptist Church. They believe that the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God but maybe someone misheard once or something was lost in translation and maybe some of this is metaphorical guys. Even if you don't believe in Jesus you can be saved by embodying his spirit through how you live. Some member churches allow women to teach and gays to marry.

The National Baptist Convention is pretty much in line with the SBC on most things theologically, but tend to have better views on social issues. Still oppose gay marriage and abortion. Iffy on women preaching. The NBC accounts for about 50% of all African-Americans.

The National Baptist Convention of America broke off from the NBC in 1915 due to an argument over the publishing board. Third largest African-American denomination in the US. Pretty much the same as the NBC.

The National Missionary Baptist Convention of America spilt off from the NBCA in 1988, once again due to a publishing board fight.

You also have dozens of smaller Baptist conventions, including Primitive Baptists (secret Calvinists), Regular Baptists, Old Regular Baptists, Union Baptists (hate the Confederacy, they still exist), Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Predestinarian Baptists, and United Baptists (hate conventions and treat the washing of feet as a sacrament).

Next up: Methodists

Shame Boy
Mar 2, 2010

THE HORROR
THE HORROR



Sinnlos posted:

Posting a series of examinations of various protestant denominations in the US, cross posting here to ensure they are not lost.

This is helpful, please keep going and thanks

Sinnlos
Sep 5, 2011

Ask me about believing in magical rainbow gold



More cross posting from chat thread.

Sinnlos posted:

Methodists are the second largest protestant denomination in the US. They split off from the Church of England because they didn't do enough to help the poor and were generally a bunch of stuffy old dudes who took the wrongs things too seriously. The Wesley Bros founded the Methodist movement, but the split didn't occur until the Methodists started ordaining their own priests in America, rather than waiting around for the Anglicans to do it. This makes Methodists the second most American group after the Mormons. Because they inherited their organizational structure from the Anglicans, Methodists are far more organized than Baptists. There are about 40 Methodist denominations in the US, and they all associate with each other, rather than being petty dicks (Baptists).

The real core of Methodism is Wesleyanism/Arminianism, the belief that everyone has an obligation to accept Jesus and be saved. This is a straight up rejection of Calvinism and predestination, being saved requires a conscious exercise of free will.This gets a bunch of Calvinists riled up and then you get accusations of heresy thrown around a whole bunch but it doesn't matter because all protestants are heretics anyways. The idea is that we all are born with sin, but God gave us free will to do our best to reject that sin, which we can do by accepting the grace of Jesus. Methodists embrace the Godhead and believe in the consubstantiatiality of Jesus, the idea that God is composed of Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit but is also only one being, and that Jesus is both mortal and divine simultaneously.

Other core tenets:
- Two sacraments, consisting of baptism and communion
- You can baptize babies, but not dead people
- Communion is open to everyone, is metaphorical, and it is cool if you do it like once every 3 months. They also serve grape juice instead of wine.
- Bishops appoint priests, you don't just get to declare yourself one

The United Methodist Church is the largest Methodist Church, and is the result of a series of mergers. They are so big on mergers that they are constantly opening dialogues and exploring further mergers with literally everyone they can find. They are pretty mainline and are are pretty much what someone is talking about when they say that they are Methodist. They lean pretty darn right, opposing homosexuality and abortion, but feel that the death penalty is something only to be used in extreme cases.

The three big African-American Methodist churches are the African Methodist Episcopal Church, the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, and the Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, all of these will probably be assimilated into the UMC at some point in the future.

The Congregational Methodist Church is in the deep south, and are normal Methodists that don't like bishops telling them who can preach.

The First Congregational Methodist Church split from the CMC when they decided that the CMC was too liberal and that they should hate gays more.

There are smaller groups, like the Calvinist Methodists who I have no loving clue how they work because the two straight up do not get along theologically but whatever floats their boat I guess. Don't talk to them because you will just end up with a headache.

Next up: Presbyterians and Pentacostalists

Cognac McCarthy
Oct 5, 2008

It's a man's game, but boys will play


I'll put those in the OP, thanks. If you have more, feel free to post them. Also, just a reminder that I once again have the time to update the OP so if there are things you want added or updated, just post them here.

Cognac McCarthy fucked around with this message at Feb 9, 2015 around 10:39

Zeitgueist
Aug 8, 2003

by Ralp


Cognac McCarthy posted:

I'll put those in the OP, thanks. If you have more, feel free to post them. Also, just a reminder that I once again have the time to update the OP so if there are things you want added or updated, just post them here.

Oh I'm sure I got some poo poo to put in there, but to start I've found this one useful in climate change discussions:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

it's a massive list of canards that the climate deniers/skeptics trot out, with explanations why they are wrong and links to the evidence


it's similar to the famous Talk Origins list of creationist claims, though arguing with creationists isn't very common these days

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Cognac McCarthy
Oct 5, 2008

It's a man's game, but boys will play


Added, thanks!

Zeitgueist
Aug 8, 2003

by Ralp


A large, recent metastudy(February 2013) detailing how raising the minimum wage appears to have no effect on unemployment Almost any study that folks will trot out to cry about job-killing minimum wage hikes is covered.

Zeitgueist
Aug 8, 2003

by Ralp


The Ferguson Masterpost In case you get stuck in any sort of time warp arguing with racists about Mike Brown

Zeitgueist
Aug 8, 2003

by Ralp


IMF paper(April 2014) Detailing how wealth inequality is bad for job growth.

Sinnlos
Sep 5, 2011

Ask me about believing in magical rainbow gold



Sinnlos posted:

The Pentecostals are the new kids on the block, arising in the early 1900s through a bunch of really charismatic folks that sincerely believed that the world was going to end any day now. They are big on the bible and don't like adding to it, so they just forget or strech interpretations instead. They cite four main passages of the gospels and the cornerstone of their doctrine, Jesus saves according to John 3:16; baptizes with the Holy Spirit according to Acts 2:4; heals bodily according to James 5:15; and is coming again to receive those who are saved according to 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17.

Pentecostals are the third largest protestant denomination in the US. Pentecostals, like the Southern Baptists, believe that the Bible of inerrant. Pentecostals are more likely to embrace the "King James Version only" school of biblical scholarship, where they believe that only the original English translation commissioned by King James of England in 1604 is the 100% accurate word of God. Aramaic? Greek? Hebrew? What are those?

Pentecostals, like some Baptists, are considered Evangelicals for their embrace of the Charismatic Movement and their focus on the need to be "born again" and go through conversion. Essentially, this is a way to tell Catholics, Anglicans, and Orthodox Christians they are going to hell even though everyone is Christian. Like the Baptists, Pentecostals believe that salvation is not pre-ordained, and that one must make the choice to be saved. Once someone has been reborn through Christ, they have secured themselves a place in heaven, though reaffirmation is necessary through baptism of the spirit (more on that in a bit). Actual water baptism is not necessary, but nice sometimes. Heaven and Hell are both real places to Pentecostals, and Hell tends to be the "on fire forever with a goatman wielding a pitchfork" sort. It is really important to get saved now because Christ is coming back any time now, and if you ain't on board, you don't get a second chance (maybe).

Communion is symbolic and they serve you grape juice most of the time.

Baptisms exist in 3 forms:
- Baptism into the body of Christ: Accepting Jesus
- Water baptism: Symbolic way of dying to be born again after accepting Christ
- Baptism with the Holy Spirit: Speaking in tongues, rolling around on the floor, and proclaiming that you can work miracles through these bottles of holy water for only $29.99! Includes a free prayer book if you order in the next 15 minutes!

Pentecostals are the snake oil salesmen, the street preachers, the over-enthusiastic person protesting outside Planned Parenthood. Furthermore, they are heretics. They tend to love the prosperity gospel.

There is no unifying body for Pentecostals, every church is separate, though some operate as networks, with a central church setting doctrine for satellites. This has lead to an interesting split where some Pentecostal groups have embraced a more thorough sort of heresy.

Oneness Pentecostals have rejected the trinitarian aspect of God, believing in one spirit that manifests in different forms. This may seem like trinitarianism, but it flat out isn't. Oneness Pentecostals also enjoy making up languages more than others, and get real loving mad about seeing ladies bellybuttons. They also believe that if you are not water baptized you are screwed.

There are two big Pentecostal associations in the US:
- Assemblies of God which is white people in the US
- Church of God in Christ which is black people who don't think that it is ok to baptize babies

Other fun ones:
- Kingdom Now: God has put forth a mandate that Christians occupy all secular positions of power. Big proponents of Dominion Theology
- Word of Faith: Say the right words and God will serve YOU, rather than the other way around.

I don't like them.

Up next: Presbyterians

Shame Boy
Mar 2, 2010

THE HORROR
THE HORROR



Does anyone have a good deconstruction of the whole "SJW" idea? I have a friend who's trans and as a result is severely marginalized by society in very real ways, yet is convinced that "SJW's are ruining it for the rest of us" and that SJW's are actually very narrowly defined as "people who take advantage of social justice to attention whore" which is clearly not what pretty much everyone else, especially gamer gators, mean by it.

Here's my write-up on it, please tell me if I'm on the wrong trail:

The term SJW, even in its original state, only exists to de-legitimize and "other" social justice advocates. While there are actually tumblr people who think they're multiple-headmate-animal-otherkin or whatever, those people are exceedingly rare and 14 year olds with imaginary problems is not really an issue social justice movements need to address in the first place. The term has expanded from that original fairly limited usage to now mean anyone who advocates for something too far from the status quo and does so in a setting normally dominated by "traditional" ideas - most obviously talking about women and videogames, trying to get people to not use the word enjoyable human being as a perjorative, things like that. To these people social justice has a "time and place" and if it steps outside it's bounds it's obviously just doing it to be annoying and get attention, I mean "that woman criticizing our videogames even said she doesn't like videogames" after all! It's packaged bigotry into a catchy, easy-to-use label that instantly demotes and other-izes any idea the user doesn't find comfortable.

Even if it were 100% true that annoying internet activists who are only doing it for attention were the primary driver in social justice circles, it still wouldn't change the core arguments being made, nor would it change the fact that the term SJW is mostly used outside of this narrow definition to the point where using it at all is simply backing the cultural idea that social justice advocates are all annoying busybodies who don't know their own place.

Armchair Psychology Time: I think the primary users of the term are 4channers, and they're used to 4chan being a place ruled by "anarchy", where anyone can just yell friend of the family DICK BONER HITLER at each other and have it not even phase them at all, since "that's just how 4chan works." I think they got used to communicating that way, especially back in the early to mid 2000's when the internet was far whiter and male-r than it is now. In their minds they don't associate it with malice or bigotry at all because "hey it's the internet, it's just for shock value, that's just how we talk" or whatever. The internet since ~2008 has changed in many ways, mostly due to a lot more people being on it than before, and so a lot of parts of the web aren't nearly as conductive to casual racism as they used to be. But of course, this push-back must be from annoying busybodies with nothing better to do, because "hey it's the internet, that's just how people talk on the internet!" has been a fact of life for a long time. "SJW" is just this concept distilled into an easy-to-use meme.

Zeitgueist
Aug 8, 2003

by Ralp


Parallel Paraplegic posted:

Does anyone have a good deconstruction of the whole "SJW" idea? I have a friend who's trans and as a result is severely marginalized by society in very real ways, yet is convinced that "SJW's are ruining it for the rest of us" and that SJW's are actually very narrowly defined as "people who take advantage of social justice to attention whore" which is clearly not what pretty much everyone else, especially gamer gators, mean by it.

Here's my write-up on it, please tell me if I'm on the wrong trail:

The term SJW, even in its original state, only exists to de-legitimize and "other" social justice advocates. While there are actually tumblr people who think they're multiple-headmate-animal-otherkin or whatever, those people are exceedingly rare and 14 year olds with imaginary problems is not really an issue social justice movements need to address in the first place. The term has expanded from that original fairly limited usage to now mean anyone who advocates for something too far from the status quo and does so in a setting normally dominated by "traditional" ideas - most obviously talking about women and videogames, trying to get people to not use the word enjoyable human being as a perjorative, things like that. To these people social justice has a "time and place" and if it steps outside it's bounds it's obviously just doing it to be annoying and get attention, I mean "that woman criticizing our videogames even said she doesn't like videogames" after all! It's packaged bigotry into a catchy, easy-to-use label that instantly demotes and other-izes any idea the user doesn't find comfortable.

Even if it were 100% true that annoying internet activists who are only doing it for attention were the primary driver in social justice circles, it still wouldn't change the core arguments being made, nor would it change the fact that the term SJW is mostly used outside of this narrow definition to the point where using it at all is simply backing the cultural idea that social justice advocates are all annoying busybodies who don't know their own place.

Armchair Psychology Time: I think the primary users of the term are 4channers, and they're used to 4chan being a place ruled by "anarchy", where anyone can just yell friend of the family DICK BONER HITLER at each other and have it not even phase them at all, since "that's just how 4chan works." I think they got used to communicating that way, especially back in the early to mid 2000's when the internet was far whiter and male-r than it is now. In their minds they don't associate it with malice or bigotry at all because "hey it's the internet, it's just for shock value, that's just how we talk" or whatever. The internet since ~2008 has changed in many ways, mostly due to a lot more people being on it than before, and so a lot of parts of the web aren't nearly as conductive to casual racism as they used to be. But of course, this push-back must be from annoying busybodies with nothing better to do, because "hey it's the internet, that's just how people talk on the internet!" has been a fact of life for a long time. "SJW" is just this concept distilled into an easy-to-use meme.

Not a bad writeup. It's simply the new version of the term "PC Police" or "Hippies" as a reaction to the criticism of conservative social thought. I don't know that there's a good article as it's largely an internet phenomenon and shibboleth at this point.

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

Trophy-ko says:
~death to capitalism~

Hilalry is 45


Parallel Paraplegic posted:

Does anyone have a good deconstruction of the whole "SJW" idea?

About 5 years ago it was what a few people who actually cared about other people called those who didn't seem to care but instead just wanted to yell at people (they were also the people who would rarely help out in running support organizations, refused to donate to things etc). It meant people were both belligerent and frankly insincere in beliefs.

Now it's about "literally anyone I don't like if I have a conservative viewpoint on something". And everyone who used it originally has stopped using it because of that. See for example the claim that GBS has ever been "full of sjws" because you weren't allowed to type racial slurs.

You don't need to go further than that.

Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at Feb 11, 2015 around 21:08

Zeitgueist
Aug 8, 2003

by Ralp


It's somewhat of an intentionally obfuscatory term, similar to "Feminazi"

Feminazi was coined by Limbaugh to poo poo on any form of feminist, but many use it to also mean a strawman of feminism that largely doesn't exist.

These terms tend to be used in the sense that you use them against anyone to the left of you, but when questioned you don't say "I'm not against social justice, I'm against those people, you know the ones" implying a deranged edge case, but in practice you are not using it for that.

Disinterested
Jun 29, 2011

You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

Absolutely the core thing with SJW is to realise that it went from being a loose pejorative about people who advocated social justice in a grandstanding way on the internet to being a dogwhistle for calling someone something like a cultural Marxist. A few people on SA still use it in the former sense very occasionally because there's no good term for that other than poseur.

I've noticed that it has also been appropriated by some of its targets, on occasion.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Jerry Manderbilt
May 31, 2012

gerrymandered the steak

Parallel Paraplegic posted:

Does anyone have a good deconstruction of the whole "SJW" idea? I have a friend who's trans and as a result is severely marginalized by society in very real ways, yet is convinced that "SJW's are ruining it for the rest of us" and that SJW's are actually very narrowly defined as "people who take advantage of social justice to attention whore" which is clearly not what pretty much everyone else, especially gamer gators, mean by it.

Here's my write-up on it, please tell me if I'm on the wrong trail:

The term SJW, even in its original state, only exists to de-legitimize and "other" social justice advocates. While there are actually tumblr people who think they're multiple-headmate-animal-otherkin or whatever, those people are exceedingly rare and 14 year olds with imaginary problems is not really an issue social justice movements need to address in the first place. The term has expanded from that original fairly limited usage to now mean anyone who advocates for something too far from the status quo and does so in a setting normally dominated by "traditional" ideas - most obviously talking about women and videogames, trying to get people to not use the word enjoyable human being as a perjorative, things like that. To these people social justice has a "time and place" and if it steps outside it's bounds it's obviously just doing it to be annoying and get attention, I mean "that woman criticizing our videogames even said she doesn't like videogames" after all! It's packaged bigotry into a catchy, easy-to-use label that instantly demotes and other-izes any idea the user doesn't find comfortable.

Even if it were 100% true that annoying internet activists who are only doing it for attention were the primary driver in social justice circles, it still wouldn't change the core arguments being made, nor would it change the fact that the term SJW is mostly used outside of this narrow definition to the point where using it at all is simply backing the cultural idea that social justice advocates are all annoying busybodies who don't know their own place.

Armchair Psychology Time: I think the primary users of the term are 4channers, and they're used to 4chan being a place ruled by "anarchy", where anyone can just yell friend of the family DICK BONER HITLER at each other and have it not even phase them at all, since "that's just how 4chan works." I think they got used to communicating that way, especially back in the early to mid 2000's when the internet was far whiter and male-r than it is now. In their minds they don't associate it with malice or bigotry at all because "hey it's the internet, it's just for shock value, that's just how we talk" or whatever. The internet since ~2008 has changed in many ways, mostly due to a lot more people being on it than before, and so a lot of parts of the web aren't nearly as conductive to casual racism as they used to be. But of course, this push-back must be from annoying busybodies with nothing better to do, because "hey it's the internet, that's just how people talk on the internet!" has been a fact of life for a long time. "SJW" is just this concept distilled into an easy-to-use meme.

Yeah I remember in the ancient PYF mock thread and tumblr threads from like 2011-2012 SJW exclusively referred to the "transethnic" and otherkin and transfat and headmate folks.

  • Locked thread
«151 »