Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Ihave never told him this, but I was tremendously disappointed when I first met Monsignor Fred Dolan, the Canadian vicar of Opus Dei.
It was about six or seven years ago, around the time The Da Vinci Code was published, and frankly I was hoping that he would be a dark and conspiratorial figure -- someone who would fit the words "ultraconservative" and "shadowy." I didn't quite want him to be an assassin, like the Opus Dei priest was in the book and film, but I surely wanted someone who was mysterious and secretive and powerful.
Like if the Pope had a CIA agent.
I admit it: I wanted an Opus Dei friend so I could shock the liberals in my life, and perhaps seem like I had a few exotic secrets of my own. And I thought it would be nice to have a friend who was more right wing than me.
To my regret, Msgr. Dolan is just a mild-mannered priest and worse, Opus Dei doesn't have any secret handshakes or midnight meetings. I don't want to sound lazy or selfish, but joining Opus Dei sure looks like a lot of do-goodery and just plain work (I asked Msgr. Dolan for a brochure and I read it carefully, even looking for hidden clues). I already had enough pro bono commitments and I didn't need any more. (As a Jew, I could join Opus Dei as an associate member).
I've stayed in touch with Msgr. Dolan since then and we're friendly. I admire his charity and his ecumenicalism. He sends me notes from time to time, about Passover or Holocaust remembrance, and he always asks when I'll be in Montreal again. In seven years, he's never tried to put the shadowy moves on me, and I'm starting to worry that he never will.
Pat Martin worries, too. Oh, does he worry.
Mr. Martin is the NDP MP for Winnipeg Centre. And his secret sources told him that Msgr. Dolan met with a dozen or so MPs in the Parliamentary dining room last week. (Actually, every MP received an invitation, and not even in invisible ink.)
Mr. Martin didn't attend. But he sought out reporters to tell them that Opus Dei members "give me the creeps."
That's fine, if rude. Though someone ought to tell Martin that The Da Vinci Code is not a documentary.
But then Mr. Martin went further: he criticized MPs for even meeting with Msgr. Dolan. "I can't imagine why a member of parliament would invite [Opus Dei] for a meeting on Parliament Hill," he said. "I certainly wouldn't attend anything associated with them."
Mr. Martin wasn't the only one worried that Msgr. Dolan might wave a wand and turn him into a newt. Gilles Duceppe, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, actually asked about it in Question Period. Duceppe named two Conservative party volunteers who apparently are members of Opus Dei, noted that "a Conservative" invited Msgr. Dolan to the dining room and demanded that the Prime Minister "admit that his policy is influenced" by such people.
Neither of the women named by Mr. Duceppe works for the government in any way, and neither was known for their religious views-- until Mr. Duceppe took it upon himself to discuss their private lives in Parliament.
A reporter asked Mr. Duceppe if he wasn't being "a little Mc-Carthyite"; Mr. Duceppe brushed off the accusation and went further: Opus Dei members should not be allowed to participate in political life--even as volunteers --if they identify "as a group."
Stop for a moment and try that sentence out again, substituting the words "gay" or "Jewish" for "Opus Dei members." Jews shouldn't be allowed in politics if they "identify as a group." Sikhs shouldn't be allowed in politics "if they identify as a group." How does it feel?
Mr. Duceppe then went a little Dan Brown himself, claiming Opus Dei "have people in place ... so a lot of things prove that something's going on." He really said that.
Try our substitution experiment again. Gays "have people in place." Gays have "something going on." How does that sound?
Sounds to me like Mr. Duceppe is channelling a bit of Jacques Parizeau's "money and the ethnic vote" xenophobia again.
So what do we have here?
The obvious: Anti-Christian bigotry remains an acceptable form of intolerance in Canadian politics, and this bigotry has infected the parties of the left.
The mainstream media, and indeed the rest of the political establishment, ignores or even approves of this (CBC's Evan Solomon being a noteworthy exception).
Like Marci McDonald's book about Christians, Mr. Duceppe's comments are error-ridden and hysterical. For example, Duceppe implied that the meeting was for Conservatives only. But one of the MPs who attended is Mario Silva -- a Liberal MP who just happens to be gay. Lemme guess: That just proves how diabolical Opus Dei's master plan must be!
It's one thing for Messrs. Martin and Duceppe and Ms. Mc-Donald to dislike Christians. But what's new -- and disturbing -- is that this once-passive intolerance is becoming active: There is a concerted effort to name Christians and drive them out of office, to delegitimize the very idea of Christians participating in public life.
It's an attack on Canada's pluralism and religious freedom. It's unfair and it's un-Canadian. We'd never accept it if it were targeting any other religious group. So why is it OK to pick on Christians?
- Ezra Levant blogs at ezralevant.com
The issue in question?
Are political figures really practicing the political correctness they preach?
Personally, I'd think twice about knocking part of my own religion. If you have something bad to say about a group you think you belong to, chances are you're not really a real member.
Blacks making fun of blacks? Not a good idea. The same with Liberals making fun of Liberals, etc. Just because you don't care doesn't mean that others don't.
Thoughts?
Night Watch SM
Kroot Mercenaries W 2 - D 3 - L 1
Manchu wrote: This is simply a self-fulfilling prophecy. Everyone says, "it won't change so why should I bother to try?" and then it doesn't change so people feel validated in their bad behavior.
dogma wrote:Wait, so Chris Rock and Bill Cosby aren't black now?
???
The NDP member in question has made claims to Catholicism, and then basically stated that part of it is "creepy".
Night Watch SM
Kroot Mercenaries W 2 - D 3 - L 1
Manchu wrote: This is simply a self-fulfilling prophecy. Everyone says, "it won't change so why should I bother to try?" and then it doesn't change so people feel validated in their bad behavior.
You said that making fun of a group tends to indicate that you aren't a part of that group. Chris Rock and Bill Cosby have both made fun of black people; seemingly implying that they aren't black.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
The modern American/Canadian left is extremely self-righteous, controlling and intolerant, no question.
While I wouldn't exactly call Christianity/Catholicism "oppressed" I would say that the left treats them by an entirely different set of rules from those they apply to, for example, Islam.
What's particularly interesting to me about the current state of affairs in the US/Canada, is that the left has convinced everyone that they're the source of "change" and they're an enemy of the status quo. They've managed to cast themselves as righteous outsiders, fighting to fix a broken culture.
In reality, they ARE the status quo. They control the mainstream media (for the most part), Hollywood (completely), academia (for the most part) and their ideology fills the great majority of all rank and file government positions. Democrats have dominated American politics since FDR. America has moved to the left for just as long, Republicans have never done more than slightly slow it.
Another major side effect of being in control of most forms of media, is that liberals rarely have to hear a viewpoint they don't like. By comparison, a conservative is constantly barraged with views they don't agree with.
Never having your views challenged both gives you the impression that there's no mainstream disagreement to your views, and also makes you ill prepared to deal with disagreement when it is encountered.
This is why the modern left is so intolerant of entities/organizations/views that are not their own. They believe VERY strongly that they're right, and they have no experience with viewing things any other way.
dogma wrote:You said that making fun of a group tends to indicate that you aren't a part of that group. Chris Rock and Bill Cosby have both made fun of black people; seemingly implying that they aren't black.
check and mate
Heralds of Rot CSM 4000 pts
"In short there is no Order only Chaos eternal so lament and be quelled with fear if you serve the False Emperor or accept the gifts bestowed by the pantheon of the four gods and rejoice as the galaxy burns." - Unknown Wordbearer
dogma wrote:You said that making fun of a group tends to indicate that you aren't a part of that group. Chris Rock and Bill Cosby have both made fun of black people; seemingly implying that they aren't black.
It might be possible to imply they are not "black" because they have been accepted by mainstream American culture, which is predominately "white."
In terms of "white" and "black," these are socially constructed identities to which we see that "white" implies the predominate culture that is accepted and "black" which is the less/misunderstood alien culture. Chirs Rock and Bill Cosby are "white" because they have been accepted by "white" culture and thereby imply they are not "black" anymore.
dogma wrote:You said that making fun of a group tends to indicate that you aren't a part of that group. Chris Rock and Bill Cosby have both made fun of black people; seemingly implying that they aren't black.
It might be possible to imply they are not "black" because they have been accepted by mainstream American culture, which is predominately "white."
In terms of "white" and "black," these are socially constructed identities to which we see that "white" implies the predominate culture that is accepted and "black" which is the less/misunderstood alien culture. Chirs Rock and Bill Cosby are "white" because they have been accepted by "white" culture and thereby imply they are not "black" anymore.
Wow thats some of the most insane logic I've ever heard. Believe me Chris Rock and Bill Cosby are most defiantly black. And why is mainstream culture white?
Heralds of Rot CSM 4000 pts
"In short there is no Order only Chaos eternal so lament and be quelled with fear if you serve the False Emperor or accept the gifts bestowed by the pantheon of the four gods and rejoice as the galaxy burns." - Unknown Wordbearer
Wow thats some of the most insane logic I've ever heard. Believe me Chris Rock and Bill Cosby are most defiantly black. And why is mainstream culture white?
Concepts of "white" and "black" are identities fashioned through social construction. They are dark skinned human beings. I will not dispute that. However, I should define "white" and "black" a bit more.
In Western culture, there is a sharp us vs them dichotomy. It was more prevalent in the past when people defined others by the color of their skin and even further back when eugenics and social darwinism existed (if we keep the context of what I am attempting to define within modern history). "White" is a term for the culture that is accepted while "black" is well, not. "White" is generally considered the superior, more advanced, and more accepted culture. "Black" is considered backwards, barbaric, and inferior.
Bill Cosby and Chris Rock are "white" because their humor and style of comedy have become iconic or accepted within "white" culture.
P.S. If you ever go for a history degree or participate in women's studies or studies not about Western culture, social construction of "white" and "black" are concepts that academics and liberals throw back and forth in an attempt to understand inequalities around the wurld.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/06/06 05:11:21
Phryxis wrote:The modern American/Canadian left is extremely self-righteous, controlling and intolerant, no question.
While I wouldn't exactly call Christianity/Catholicism "oppressed" I would say that the left treats them by an entirely different set of rules from those they apply to, for example, Islam.
What's particularly interesting to me about the current state of affairs in the US/Canada, is that the left has convinced everyone that they're the source of "change" and they're an enemy of the status quo. They've managed to cast themselves as righteous outsiders, fighting to fix a broken culture.
In reality, they ARE the status quo. They control the mainstream media (for the most part), Hollywood (completely), academia (for the most part) and their ideology fills the great majority of all rank and file government positions. Democrats have dominated American politics since FDR. America has moved to the left for just as long, Republicans have never done more than slightly slow it.
Another major side effect of being in control of most forms of media, is that liberals rarely have to hear a viewpoint they don't like. By comparison, a conservative is constantly barraged with views they don't agree with.
Never having your views challenged both gives you the impression that there's no mainstream disagreement to your views, and also makes you ill prepared to deal with disagreement when it is encountered.
This is why the modern left is so intolerant of entities/organizations/views that are not their own. They believe VERY strongly that they're right, and they have no experience with viewing things any other way.
You do realize the "Conservative Party" of Canada is in power and they are known to be a right-wing party and they fill most government positions (at the time being), not liberals.
You do realize the "Conservative Party" of Canada is in power and they are known to be a right-wing party and they fill most government positions (at the time being), not liberals.
A Canadian "conservative" is probably still to the left of many American Democrats. So, yes, I realize the OP was talking about Canada, but I was talking about the US, because, really, the US and Canada are pretty tightly related.
When it comes to government positions, I really don't know how it is in Canada... But I want to be clear, I'm not talking about appointed positions, which do, indeed, change with the dominant party. I'm talking about the rank and file positions. The people who get hired, and work a job, and are part of the government, but not really subject to any electoral process.
It's somewhat the nature of things that these positions are filled with people who favor big government. You don't usually go work for the government if you don't like the government (even though I did).
You do realize the "Conservative Party" of Canada is in power and they are known to be a right-wing party and they fill most government positions (at the time being), not liberals.
A Canadian "conservative" is probably still to the left of many American Democrats. So, yes, I realize the OP was talking about Canada, but I was talking about the US, because, really, the US and Canada are pretty tightly related.
When it comes to government positions, I really don't know how it is in Canada... But I want to be clear, I'm not talking about appointed positions, which do, indeed, change with the dominant party. I'm talking about the rank and file positions. The people who get hired, and work a job, and are part of the government, but not really subject to any electoral process.
It's somewhat the nature of things that these positions are filled with people who favor big government. You don't usually go work for the government if you don't like the government (even though I did).
WarOne wrote:
It might be possible to imply they are not "black" because they have been accepted by mainstream American culture, which is predominately "white."
In terms of "white" and "black," these are socially constructed identities to which we see that "white" implies the predominate culture that is accepted and "black" which is the less/misunderstood alien culture. Chirs Rock and Bill Cosby are "white" because they have been accepted by "white" culture and thereby imply they are not "black" anymore.
Yes, I had thought of that, but I'm not overly fond of that line of reasoning. I think it made a great deal more sense when considering the US prior to the Civil Right Movement, but that now classically 'black' culture is sufficiently integrated into the mainstream that the distinction is of minimal importance. Besides, at some point Cosby and Rock were just two black kids growing up in 'black' culture.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
WarOne wrote:
It might be possible to imply they are not "black" because they have been accepted by mainstream American culture, which is predominately "white."
In terms of "white" and "black," these are socially constructed identities to which we see that "white" implies the predominate culture that is accepted and "black" which is the less/misunderstood alien culture. Chirs Rock and Bill Cosby are "white" because they have been accepted by "white" culture and thereby imply they are not "black" anymore.
Yes, I had thought of that, but I'm not overly fond of that line of reasoning. I think it made a great deal more sense when considering the US prior to the Civil Right Movement, but that now classically 'black' culture is sufficiently integrated into the mainstream that the distinction is of minimal importance. Besides, at some point Cosby and Rock were just two black kids growing up in 'black' culture.
For Bill Cosby, I completely agree as he is old enough to of seen both worlds where African Americans were segregated and now accepted.
Chris Rock on the other hand may of been apart of a "black" culture at one point, but in today's day and age African Americans are fairly well integrated within "white" society that Chris Rock had less of a handicap being accepted than Bill Cosby, who helped pave the way for the appreciation of African Americans on sic-coms and comedy outlets. Chris Rock's childhood however is not my specialty and I can only assume he was raised and came to grips with an America that was more welcoming to African Americans rather than tolerating.
I try to think of what America thinks is acceptable today and find it interesting to note how ideology is becoming more a definition of "white" and "black" culture rather than ethnicity.
at some point the discussion of integration of subcultures into mainstream culture makes it harder for anybody to critique anything and not be a part of it.
Polonius wrote:at some point the discussion of integration of subcultures into mainstream culture makes it harder for anybody to critique anything and not be a part of it.
The good news is is that all humans are subjective and ergo there will always be someone to critique something because even though the majority of mainstream culture may accept something, there is always someone who disagrees and does not want it within that culture. It is just a good of a thing for people to not accept things so long as they can accept it first and then make a decision if they decide to like it or not like it. So even if a subculture does get integrated, there are those who may not like it and thus reject it. So long as there is no violence or violation of their rights, we can respect that decision.
WarOne wrote:
Chris Rock on the other hand may of been apart of a "black" culture at one point, but in today's day and age African Americans are fairly well integrated within "white" society that Chris Rock had less of a handicap being accepted than Bill Cosby, who helped pave the way for the appreciation of African Americans on sic-coms and comedy outlets. Chris Rock's childhood however is not my specialty and I can only assume he was raised and came to grips with an America that was more welcoming to African Americans rather than tolerating.
I agree with this; noting only that to the extent that Rock's experiences with what could be considered 'black' culture did not seemingly alienate him from it.
WarOne wrote:
I try to think of what America thinks is acceptable today and find it interesting to note how ideology is becoming more a definition of "white" and "black" culture rather than ethnicity.
Are you thinking of a sort of partisan doctrine here? Not a literal partisan doctrine, obviously, but something which approaches it in a more informal sense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WarOne wrote:
The good news is is that all humans are subjective and ergo there will always be someone to critique something because even though the majority of mainstream culture may accept something, there is always someone who disagrees and does not want it within that culture. It is just a good of a thing for people to not accept things so long as they can accept it first and then make a decision if they decide to like it or not like it. So even if a subculture does get integrated, there are those who may not like it and thus reject it. So long as there is no violence or violation of their rights, we can respect that decision.
Somebody just pissed on Herbert Marcuse.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/06/06 06:50:11
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Blacks make fun of blacks all the time. Watch boondocks on cartoon network. Left leaning people poke fun of ourselves as well.
Just look at the ratings and see if The left leaning media is beating the right.
Christians lean right, mostly. Non Christians lean left. things like abortion and the death penalty makes them political rivals, don't take it so damn personal.
The left are pot smoking hippies who have a million agendas and seem to not agree on anything.
Maybe at the end of the day we are just people with two points of view. Some on the right seem to make it a American/ un American thing.
Am I less black because my wife is white? Nope your race is in your genes.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/06/06 06:53:03
And whilst you're pointing and shouting at the boogeyman in the corner, you're missing the burglar coming in through the window.
Well, Duh! Because they had a giant Mining ship. If you had a giant mining ship you would drill holes in everything too, before you'd destory it with a black hole
WarOne wrote:
It might be possible to imply they are not "black" because they have been accepted by mainstream American culture, which is predominately "white."
In terms of "white" and "black," these are socially constructed identities to which we see that "white" implies the predominate culture that is accepted and "black" which is the less/misunderstood alien culture. Chirs Rock and Bill Cosby are "white" because they have been accepted by "white" culture and thereby imply they are not "black" anymore.
Yes, I had thought of that, but I'm not overly fond of that line of reasoning. I think it made a great deal more sense when considering the US prior to the Civil Right Movement, but that now classically 'black' culture is sufficiently integrated into the mainstream that the distinction is of minimal importance. Besides, at some point Cosby and Rock were just two black kids growing up in 'black' culture.
For Bill Cosby, I completely agree as he is old enough to of seen both worlds where African Americans were segregated and now accepted.
Chris Rock on the other hand may of been apart of a "black" culture at one point, but in today's day and age African Americans are fairly well integrated within "white" society that Chris Rock had less of a handicap being accepted than Bill Cosby, who helped pave the way for the appreciation of African Americans on sic-coms and comedy outlets. Chris Rock's childhood however is not my specialty and I can only assume he was raised and came to grips with an America that was more welcoming to African Americans rather than tolerating.
I try to think of what America thinks is acceptable today and find it interesting to note how ideology is becoming more a definition of "white" and "black" culture rather than ethnicity.
Are you saying "black" people have been assimilated into "white" culture to the point where they aren't really a distinguished or unique group of people?
The issue in question?
Are political figures really practicing the political correctness they preach?
Personally, I'd think twice about knocking part of my own religion. If you have something bad to say about a group you think you belong to, chances are you're not really a real member.
Blacks making fun of blacks? Not a good idea. The same with Liberals making fun of Liberals, etc. Just because you don't care doesn't mean that others don't.
Thoughts?
If you don't agree with something then why shouldn't you question it?
In particular if that something is a splinter group with a scary degree of influence which has suddenly emerged in the last 30 years to being in charge of the faith.
As to the bolded sentence, really? You honestly believe that critisizing another part of a very large group who falls within the same umbrella is grounds for you not being a part of that group.
The article is not even the least bit consistent in logic. Mps saying that they don't think an odd little sect should be influencing Canadian politics is not the same as "It's one thing for Messrs. Martin and Duceppe and Ms. Mc-Donald to dislike Christians. But what's new -- and disturbing -- is that this once-passive intolerance is becoming active: There is a concerted effort to name Christians and drive them out of office, to delegitimize the very idea of Christians participating in public life. "
Are you thinking of a sort of partisan doctrine here? Not a literal partisan doctrine, obviously, but something which approaches it in a more informal sense.
Somebody just pissed on Herbert Marcuse.
Starting with line one:
I love how liberals and conservatives snipe each other in the U.S. via the media. As America has resolved *most* racial issues of a civil rights note, we now have this interesting split between the left and right that could or could not be an indicator of the next battle for mainstream media. I am sure there are studies out there indicating that there is a media bias of one leaning or another about news companies and general media perception, but in the last few years (and by few the few years I have become aware of such a divide, the left/right media divide appears to of been going on for some time now) it appears to me that the media has been fighting a competitive battle for dominance for their point of view rather than an objective as possible point of view. I turn to CNN and get a plethora of legal experts and activists condemning the Israeli embargo of Gaza. I turn to FOXnudes and they are trying to justify for Israel the need for the blockage and falling just short of asking the President to fully endorse the Israeli government rather than condemn it for their actions.
Second line: Not too sure who he is, but if he is anything like Angela Davis who is an ardent women's activist of liberal, communist leanings, then I get a vague sense that yes, you are correct as I am a right leaning realist who attempts to step back to critically view all sides of an argument before I make a decision and ergo at least opposed to what a person on the left has to say about things that people on the left speak of.
P.S. Going to now wikipedia that guy.
EDIT: Urg....should of know about him as he was apart of the Frankfurt School of thought, and I took a German Post WWII class about Germany and learned about the Frankfurt School. >_<
Cheesecakecat: I suggest that "black" culture is anything not accepted by "white" culture. Bill Cosby is African American, but his humor and comedic style have become so integrated into society that almost all people accept him and what he represents from an entertainment point of view. Ergo, he has become apart of "white culture."
People of hispanic descent who live in America illegally today are probably a prime example of "black culture" as they are an alien subculture within our own that is currently being expulsed because of their legal status and their ability to live in America. Few of them are considered acceptable by the "white" culture today.
A non-ethnic example of "black" and "white" culture:
Communism was a "black" culture in America in the 1950's. While it may still be considered a "black" culture today, there are more people willing to accept Communism today than there were 50 years ago. If social trends continue, Communism may become so accepted it could become apart of "white" culture.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/06/06 07:19:38
I love how liberals and conservatives snipe each other in the U.S. via the media. As America has resolved *most* racial issues of a civil rights note, we now have this interesting split between the left and right that could or could not be an indicator of the next battle for mainstream media. I am sure there are studies out there indicating that there is a media bias of one leaning or another about news companies and general media perception, but in the last few years (and by few the few years I have become aware of such a divide, the left/right media divide appears to of been going on for some time now) it appears to me that the media has been fighting a competitive battle for dominance for their point of view rather than an objective as possible point of view. I turn to CNN and get a plethora of legal experts and activists condemning the Israeli embargo of Gaza. I turn to FOXnudes and they are trying to justify for Israel the need for the blockage and falling just short of asking the President to fully endorse the Israeli government rather than condemn it for their actions.
Yeah, that's what I thought you meant. I was forming two ideas in my mind when I read your post. One, a sort of stratified system in which ideology is a determinant of other factors in an individual's life, which I think is a nonsensical concept; though I do believe that the media barrage you describe often assumes otherwise. The other pretty much what you just outlined.
WarOne wrote:
Second line: Not too sure who he is, but if he is anything like Angela Davis who is an ardent women's activist of liberal, communist leanings, then I get a vague sense that yes, you are correct as I am a right leaning realist who attempts to step back to critically view all sides of an argument before I make a decision and ergo at least opposed to what a person on the left has to say about things that people on the left speak of.
P.S. Going to now wikipedia that guy.
He was a critical theorist from the Frankfurt school most famous for writing a book titled One Dimensional Man. The book essentially argued that, through various processes resultant from technological change, society was destined to become more uniform as people were all subject to the same dominant influences. I think he was right in the general sense that technology has invaded people's lives with information to such an extent that it has fundamentally changed the nature of society. However, I think he was wrong to suggest that the conversion of all people into the titular one dimensional man was inevitable without the presence of a forceful counter-culture. People naturally rebel, as you have pointed out.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/06/06 07:33:06
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
The book essentially argued that, through various processes resultant from technological change, society was destined to become more uniform as people were all subject to the same dominant influences.
I was actually thinking about this (in reverse) the other night while playing Red Dead Redemption, which gives you an idea what I'm doing while you're reading books.
If you're living on your own in the desert for years on end, you start to come up with your own perspective on things, totally unformed by other people's views. Even a small town could end up functioning this way.
People naturally rebel, as you have pointed out.
Sure, but in this case, they're still orbiting around the same worldview as everyone else. They're not thinking their own thoughts, they're thinking "NOOOO" at what everyone else is thinking.
Phryxis wrote:
I was actually thinking about this (in reverse) the other night while playing Red Dead Redemption, which gives you an idea what I'm doing while you're reading books.
If you're living on your own in the desert for years on end, you start to come up with your own perspective on things, totally unformed by other people's views. Even a small town could end up functioning this way.
Its certainly happened. I'm reminded of company towns where the only way out is a football scholarship, despite the presence of alternatives shouted down as impossible. Yes, I just referenced October Sky.
That said, you're still informed by everything from the Cacti to the Gila Monsters (I know you only referred to people, just making a point). Not by other people, sure, but you still lack a fully independent reference.
Phryxis wrote:
Sure, but in this case, they're still orbiting around the same worldview as everyone else. They're not thinking their own thoughts, they're thinking "NOOOO" at what everyone else is thinking.
Sure, a lot of people will jump when the agreed ideology dictates, but in even making this type of comment you are not. You natural rebel you.
Additionally, I find the idea of 'their own thoughts' a little wonky. Everyone thinks there own thoughts, its just that sometimes those thoughts are in agreement with those of others. When that happens great (pretty much every technological convenience we now enjoy) and terrible (the holocaust, war, etc.) things can be accomplished. Group think, as a necessary element of society, is both a boon and a curse.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/06/06 12:05:09
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
As to the bolded sentence, really? You honestly believe that critisizing another part of a very large group who falls within the same umbrella is grounds for you not being a part of that group.
I'm sorry, I did word that pretty badly. I meant to say that just because you yourself do not take offense at the mockery or insult of a group you belong to does not give you the right or grounds to offend such a group, as there are definitely other people who belong to that group who do care about it.
If you don't agree with something then why shouldn't you question it?
In particular if that something is a splinter group with a scary degree of influence which has suddenly emerged in the last 30 years to being in charge of the faith.
1) Opus Dei is by no means in charge of the faith, or trying to do so.
2) If you don't agree with something, you should question it, or perhaps why you disagree with it. What I don't like is when people make statements without backing them up with evidence, like "(insert anything here) is creepy". It is very offensive.
While I don't agree with everything said in the article, what really stood out for me was the line about substituting gay, muslim, or sikh for Opus Dei. It would be intolerable.
Finally, not directed at you in particular, many practicing Christians find them stuck between the right and left. Both have objectionable practices, and for that reason many Christians choose to separate themselves from both parties.
Liberals
1)abortion
2)euthanasia
Conservatives
1)death penalty
These aren't the only points, but the main ones.
Night Watch SM
Kroot Mercenaries W 2 - D 3 - L 1
Manchu wrote: This is simply a self-fulfilling prophecy. Everyone says, "it won't change so why should I bother to try?" and then it doesn't change so people feel validated in their bad behavior.
Not by other people, sure, but you still lack a fully independent reference.
In real life, everything tends to be scalar/analog. Digital is pretty much for computers only.
Everyone thinks there own thoughts, its just that sometimes those thoughts are in agreement with those of others.
I dunno, dude.... Certainly everyone's thoughts go on in their own head, but there's a difference between accepting a thought given to you by somebody else, and constructing a thought on your own.
Look at emo kids. Do you really think they ALL decided, completely independantly, to dress in the same ridiculous, uncomfortable fashion, and style their hair in the same floppy, stupid looking way? Of course not. They just took somebody else's bad idea, and stuck it in their heads.
W 2 - D 3 - L 1
Heralds of Rot CSM 4000 pts 
