A requested topic for Vexen:

Because we are imperfect fallen being who can't save ourselves and only botch things up when we try.

Hey I love everyone, man.  <peace sign waves in the ari> :)

We do have to accept that people are not good by nature. By nature they are sinful.

This is observed by the many selfish and hurtful actions people do every day. Demons influencing people are also a factor.

We cannot be friends because 90% of the worlds population have a heirachial religion base.  Therefore they believe there must always be leaders, which everyone wants to be.

Instead of us all being teated like the equals we are.

Let me preface this with an article, or rather, a series of recent events.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200.../mccain_angry_crowds











There's been a level of partisan conflict and distain, and maybe this isn't even the worst time in history for that, but recently, it's gotten pretty bad. These crowds at the Republican rallies have gotten a very spiteful feel to them.  I don't mean to be racial with this, I'm not insinuating that they're hating the man for his skin (in fact, I'm sure it's not exactly the case), but it has a very lynch mob-esque feeling to it. I've felt for a long time, that politics is the last bastion of hated. If people said this sort of thing about a religious figure, or a racial figure, it would be heavily scrutinized. But this kind of hatred is allowed in politics. It's okay for people like Rush Limbagh, Sean Hanney, and Chris Mathews to criticize the character and intelligence of people, simply because they disagree politically. It's okay to chastize them, make fun of the way they look or say things, be down right cruel, because they're not the same as us.

"Off with his head"? "Kill him"? "Terrorist!"? How could we had come to this point? And, what's worse is that the rallies want the candidate to be even more aggressive against Obama! What's next after kiling him? Killing his family? For being the Democratic candidate?

I give McCain all the credit in the world for standing up against this, it really does seem to come too little, too late. Over the past weeks, Republicans been feeding this idea that Obama is a terrorist, a traitor, abusive, a muslim, a foreigner, anything to denegrade his character, no matter how outrageous. And now, some people have started to believe it, to the point that they want to see bad things happen to him. He's not just the opposing party candidate. He's evil incarnate. I don't want to sound like I'm harping on one side only, it's simply that I'm not hearing calls for McCain's head, nor any accusations that he's evil.

This isn't a single incident, however, or even a recent problem. For years, we've been hearing the same sorts of rediculous accusations. That liberals want to destroy family. That they want a totalitarian government. That they're unamerican. That they're trying for the destruction of American values. That they're antireligous, and elitist.

But, Democrats aren't completely blameless, of course. I was recently watching a political show, where one of the guests, a very liberal one, said the Democrats are, statistically speaking, more decent people than than Republicans. That they're uneducated, Bible thumpers. That they're greedy and selfish. That they're racist, sexist, classist amoral tyrants. That they're war hungry, and bloodthirsty, who believe that might makes right.

Even in this forum of fairly inteligent, educated people, we see this very often. Heath has insinuated in the past on several occassions that anyone who's read up on the issues, reasonably intelligent, and sane will see that conservativism is the only logical way, even so far as to say that conservatism is clearly superior. Katisara has insinuated that Democrats are bad for the country. Faulkus has instigated on many occassions that conservatives and religious fundamentalists are simply ignorant and in denial. Even Tycho has had instances of implicating that a more libral stance is simply more ethical. And even I'm sure I've said a few things here and there in my frustrations.

McCain, bless him, says something that I think is right in this instance. Can't we accept that, for the most part, we're all decent people, who don't have malicious intents, or serious defects? Why can't it be that we simply disagree on things? Why must it be that one is better than the other? Is there no such thing as agreeing to disagree anymore?

I can accept that people have weaknesses. I can accept that sometimes, people have negative impulses. But for that reason alone, is that why we should be okay with this? Is that why we should let people hate each other for simply disagreements? Does that make it okay to wish someone ill because their life philosophy is different than yours? Why is this okay because people are capable of evil?

By the same token, why must the people and policies we support be flawless? Partisan supporters seem to love to point things in one side that they refuse the acknowledge on the side. They'll criticize the hollywood and media elite, and in the same breath, praise Reagan, a hollywood elite. They'll recall the patriotism of New York and it's people on 9/11, then in the next paragraph, tell how urban cities like New York are immoral centers of national decay. They'll point out how Obama has ties to Fannie and Freddie, but refuse to hear the ties McCain has. They'll hear about radical pastor of one candidate, but not the radical pastor of the other. They'll both talk about how their candidate took action against the financial crisis, and refuse to hear how the other one helped, or how little each actually did. Yes, McCain did coauthor a letter to the Feds about a warning in Fannie and Freddie, but it was about accounting practices, not about the loans themselves. Yes, Obama did write a letter to the Feds talking about how action neeeded to be taken about the morgate crisis, but it was only "after" things started to go downhill. Is it not possible that both candidates have suspicious connections and major flaws, much like each and every one of us do? Is it not possible that both Republicans and Democrats are responsible for good and bad things, neither any more or less really than the other?
This message was last edited by the player at 01:59, Sun 12 Oct 2008.

I don't think acceptable form to be hateful of others, but I accept that it occurs. That is our nature to be sinful.

While it natural to have disagreement, even people who fight to allow others their opinions have ridiculed those with differing opinions. Sinful people want to see others fall into sin. People by themselves really don't stand a chance of fighting that.

I'm sorry, but you seem to be rather indifferent towards it. How do you know people can't fight this kind of hatred? We've done it before. We've faught bigotry against racism, and made significant progress. We've faught against sexism and made significant progress. We've established a nation on the principle of the freedom of religion, and while it's not perfect, we're more free than ever before against the oppression of one dominant religion rulling everything.

Just because people can have negative tendancies doesn't mean that we should just sit back and let it happen within ourselves. Maybe we can't force everyone, but we can see this sort of development in our own behavior, can't we? Reexamine our views? Not spew hatred where it isn't warrented?
This message was last edited by the player at 02:06, Sun 12 Oct 2008.

We can't fight it on our own because we are sinful. Only with God can we even get past the sin.

I'm not say we accept it and be okay with it. I'm saying I accept that it exists.

What do you mean, we can't fight it on our own? I'm not calling God for this. I'm not sure if there is a God. Yet I am trying to question this, and do this. Isn't it possible that we, as people, can fight this? Do you honestly believe I'm not sincere because I'm not a theist? Are you saying that I will fail because I'm not with God? I'm sorry, but this seems like victim blaming to me.

What is your solution then, TitL? Must we all be Christians in order to solve this? Religious people can provoke hatred. Religious people can promote demonizing others. Maybe there are problems that we have to solve ourselves, instead of God. Can a person not simply look at themselves critically and try to understand their own views, as well as the perspective of others, without God's guidance? Is what I'm doing really not possible?
This message was last edited by the player at 02:51, Sun 12 Oct 2008.

It was Einstein who said, "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
We see it over and over and over and over.

We cannot fight on our own because we are sinful.

Yes, accepting Jesus will makes things better. That doesn't mean perfect people. That means you will be able to forgive, and be forgiven. To be able to love others. It won't be perfect, but that's okay.

I'm not capable of forgiveness? I'm not capable of loving others? When, after a fight with a friend, after he shoved me to the floor, later that night, I hugged him, and we apologized to each other, that wasn't really forgiveness? When my mom got in a serious car accident and I was in tears with worry, that wasn't love? When I stood up all night to help my brother with a school project because he needed my help, that's not love? What is it then?

I disagree with your notion that because we are sinful that we cannot fight sin. If this was true, no one would seek Jesus. It takes a will to fight against sin in order to seek help, and get yourself out of it. Maybe we can't be sinless without God, but to say that we are completely incapable of fighting sin within ourselves seems to be underestimating the human spirit. There are plenty of people who went to live good, respectable lives with and without God. Surely that is proof enough that we can do this.

Take us for example, TitL. I can see why you fight for creationism so much. I can see why a perfectly logical human being, with healthy emotions, morality, and intelligence could believe in creationism. There are logical points to Creationism, even if I don't happen to think it's necessarily the truth. Can you seek within yourself to do the same for your opponents? Can you understand why a perfectly rational, sane, intelligent person would believe Evolution and not believe in Creationsm? Could you see how someone could logically come to that conclusion that has nothing to do with deception, ignorance, or malice?

We can't fight it on our own because we are sinful. Only with God can we even get past the sin.

Nonsense, humanity is inherently good. The existence of the social contract proves that, people, in general, are willing to give up their own freedoms and rights for the good of society as a whole,

It's written in the bible that anyone can love those close to them. It's when one has to love their enemies that one needs help.



It's been a few thousand years now. How many people starve to death every day? How many wars are going on right now. How many lies are told every day? How many families are broken up through adultery? The victory is in the path we take. That path cannot be won on your own.

Of course. I don't think one need be the opposite of those points to come to the same conclusion either. Well no. Only with Jesus can you really understand what is going on. Even saying that I understand why you think the way you do. I used to think that way too.

Now you're saying something different. Saying that you can only love and forgive through Jesus is different than saying you can only love and forgive your enemies through Jesus. That's a very keen difference.

Still, however, what would you call what I'm calling for right now? I'm trying to reach understanding and commonality between people who have differences of opinion. Is this not part of loving your enemies? Is this not part of being respectful towards all people, not just the ones you agree with? Or is this all some farse? How about people like Ghandi, who sought respect and peaceful resolution without God? Was he a failure? Did he give into sin? Did he secretly hate and wish malice on others?



Ihat is evidense of sin, and imperfection in humanity. However, that is not evidense that people cannot fight sin or try to better themselves. How many people try to help those less fortunate? How many people try to live an honorable life? How many people try to raise the hopes of other at the cost of themselves? How many people give their lives to protect others, including those that hate them? How many people have lived in loving strong relationships? I'm not trying to prove that humanity can be sinless on their own. But I am trying to show that people can try to do what they can to better themselves, and there are people out there every day who do just that, and even without the belief in a Christian God. If there is a God, I'd say he gave us enough strength to at least do that. I believe your Bible even sited that, even before the gospels were written and the word of God reached people's ears, that there were some people who were in fact decent people, who did go and have familes and live a good life.



I don't think that either. But just by acknowledging this fact, aren't we comming to share with each other? To understand, and be more accepting? Aren't we doing this of our own will and power?



What about people with a medical degree? Can they not understand what is happening with our bodies? What about people who hold a geological degree? Can they not understand what is happening to the Earth? What about people with training in business, or economics, or engineering? Can they not understand what is going on in their various fields?

I'm not saying we understand the totality of existence and the universe. I don't think we need to understand that to relate to each other. To place faith in each other. To believe that the person I'm arguing with is a good, intelligent, decent person who lives a respectable life.

I understand that I am young, and that I might not believe the same things I do when I am your age. People rarely stay the same in every way. But can't you understand how I can be honest in my interpretation? That I can relate to you on some level? That I do not wish you any ill will, despite how much we conflict? Is that really too hard to grasp?

Sure, I'll go with that. Loving others is part of the issue though.

I think this is my point. I'm not saying we must sin. I'm stating without Jesus we will not get past sin. Our actions that are good do not remove our sins.

I do realize you believe that is true. Ultimately though, we as people cannot do it on our own.

I'm not so sure. Noah and his family were the only ones worth saving at one point of Earth's history. Even then, it was God who gave the grace to Noah.



I feel we're here because of God. God has something here in this forum that He wants us to see. Maybe it's not even for you or me, but just someone who clicks on this thread, and just reads it, not even a reply from them.



It's not about intelligence, it's about the way we look at things. With God, blinders come off. It's about the spiritual world that exists, and the war that is being fought.

Were not good or decent. We're sinful. The same reason I get smart ass or you belittle someone, or other users make fun of someone. None of us are perfect. All of us are sinful. However, having said that, you are going to live forever. I'm going to live forever. Through God, I hope to add influence as to where that forever will be spent. Your spirit is designed, created to live forever. Your body is not. We will all die. But that's only the beginning. With God, He wants us all to not settle for the world. When you aim for God, you get everything including the world. When you aim for the world, you get nothing but the world. Don't aim so low. There's way more out there then what you see in this physical world.

Age has nothing to do with it. Children have gotten it. I understand where you're coming from, and hold no ill for you. I can relate with many people. I hang out with sinners every day. This includes my family and friends. I'm not trying to disassociate with sinners, I want to associate with them. I come here and do my part. Spread the word. I tell the truth, and sometimes that results in conflict. I don't hate the person I am in conflict with. Personally, I would assume that most people in conflict will not hold ill will, but sinful nature sometimes means there will be ill will.

I'd think there are several things which really don't help.  Alcohol and drugs, charasmatic people saying that we should be killing other people, jealousy and envy, pride, none of these help.  But much of the problem is a lack of respect, and people forgetting the so-called Golden Rule 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.'.  In other words, treat people the way you would like to be treated.
I believe that people are generally good and decent, but too many have been taught to ignore their conscience, that winning is everything, that the ends do justify the means.  Much of the hatred would not be there if people would remember that winning is not everything.

People are inherently sinful. We can see this by the repeated actions of with examples like Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc  This has happened in the past, and continues still to this day.

You mention society as a whole gives up their freedoms in exchange for the good of society. But don't people benefit from this? Is it not in their interest to be safe? To have people protect them from thievery, mugging, murder?

Look at communism. The idea that people are equal is a good goal. But when people realize they get paid the same if the job is poor, mediocre, good or excellent, then they more often than not get done poorly. Their sinful selfish nature takes the easy road.

Ever hear of road rage? Why do good people get so angry if they are good?

Gang initiation is now more horrible then ever. Beating people up, raping, and random violence are some of the most common ways to be brought into the gang.

Terrorist action is now more horrible than ever. Where it is designed to create fear, where children are strapped with bombs so that people will not know safety because anyone can be a suicide bomber.

Stanley Milgram created an experiment that had people on the opposite side of a barrier, and had them set up to learn with a stimulus of electric shock. Wrong answers were supposed to have these people apply a shock to a person on the other side of this barrier. 65% of the people were willing to continue and apply increasing dosages of electric shock against another person even when it was obviously painful.

People are not inherently good. These actions could not continue without support.

We can see this by the repeated actions of with examples like Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc  This has happened in the past, and continues still to this day.

It's decreased. The atrocities of the past are worse than the ones today.

You mention society as a whole gives up their freedoms in exchange for the good of society. But don't people benefit from this? Is it not in their interest to be safe? To have people protect them from thievery, mugging, murder?

People benefit the most when other people sacrifice their rights and freedoms for society, not when they sacrifice them.

Ever hear of road rage? Why do good people get so angry if they are good?

Anger is evil?

Gang initiation is now more horrible then ever. Beating people up, raping, and random violence are some of the most common ways to be brought into the gang.

Crime has been decreasing steadily since the nineties.

Terrorist action is now more horrible than ever. Where it is designed to create fear, where children are strapped with bombs so that people will not know safety because anyone can be a suicide bomber.

Child soldiers have been around for a long time, but there's never been more awareness of the problem than now, and there never has been more people working to stop it than now.

Stanley Milgram created an experiment that had people on the opposite side of a barrier, and had them set up to learn with a stimulus of electric shock. Wrong answers were supposed to have these people apply a shock to a person on the other side of this barrier. 65% of the people were willing to continue and apply increasing dosages of electric shock against another person even when it was obviously painful.

That's because while man is good, we're also, unfortunately, somewhat obedient to authority. That's what the experiment was testing.

People are not inherently good. These actions could not continue without support.

People are not inherently evil. Society could not exist if they were.

You're talking about the way they die? Not the number who are killed off right? Would you agree that this last century has resulted in the most deaths to previous centuries, right?

A benefit is something that would be good for people though. Selfish is benefit for oneself.

Road rage is not a good anger. It's an example of being sinful. Anger doesn't have to be evil, but anger for no good reason is sinful.

Ok. That doesn't change that gang activity is more dangerous than before.

If you're saying that child soldiers have been around for a long time, and they are still around, isn't that an agreement to the sinful actions being around still?

It doesn't really matter what they were testing for. It's evidence people will inflict pain on others knowingly. Good people do not inflict pain on others. Bad people do that.

Were the americans who tortured Iraq prisoners in jail good americans, or bad americans? I suspect you're answer will be they are good people who do bad things. Why do good people do bad things? I say because they are sinful.

They have been plenty of evil supported by society. Germany supported going after those "nasty jews". They were not oblivious to the pain they caused.

You're talking about the way they die? Not the number who are killed off right? Would you agree that this last century has resulted in the most deaths to previous centuries, right?

There have been no atrocities on the scale of the Holocaust since World War II.

A benefit is something that would be good for people though. Selfish is benefit for oneself.

I don't really see how this relates to my statement.

Road rage is not a good anger. It's an example of being sinful. Anger doesn't have to be evil, but anger for no good reason is sinful.

Sin is a christian concept. I'm not a christian. I define morality through utilitarian ethics.

Ok. That doesn't change that gang activity is more dangerous than before.

What? Yes it does. There is less crime today than there was ten, fifteen years ago. Crime is decreasing, the chance that an individual will be victimized is lessened.

If you're saying that child soldiers have been around for a long time, and they are still around, isn't that an agreement to the sinful actions being around still?

If people are working to end the problem, isn't that an indication that they aren't inherently evil?

It doesn't really matter what they were testing for. It's evidence people will inflict pain on others knowingly. Good people do not inflict pain on others. Bad people do that.

It's because people can be misled by authority.

They have been plenty of evil supported by society. Germany supported going after those "nasty jews". They were not oblivious to the pain they caused.

Is it possible you misunderstood what I was saying? Are you familiar with the concept of the social contract?

Yea, that's what I'm talking about. We have had these atrocities throughout history, and still have things going on all the time. We can be glad it doesn't happen to the scale of millions, but we have things in the recent past past with plenty of horrible wrongs done to people based on a variety of things such as ethnicity, and gender.

Selfishness is sinful. People want things that protect themselves, and saying that because there are laws that are helpful at the cost of freedom is not saying people are selfless, as they are still doing it for themselves.

I'm a christian, I cannot define morality through utilitarian ethics. It's a non christian concept.  ??? That doesn't really change the arguments, does it?

In other words, changing the definitions doesn't change that people are inherently sinful. Look at their actions through out history. Anger, selfish, murder, hate, adultery, rape, addictions, etc.


That doesn't change that gang activity is worse. I'm saying gang activity is getting more barbaric. You're saying it is less likely to affect you. Those are two entirely different points.

Let's also point out more people are behind prison bars than ever. Only a portion are getting help. In other words, while crime is slightly on the decrease, it's a direct result of simply removing the people into a jail setting where they learn more ways to become criminals. When they get out, the number of criminals will be higher in the end. We are not actually preventing crime, we are removing them from society. That has a result on the stats, but it has a poor impact of society. Less fathers to raise their children which will increase likely hood of another generation of criminals.

Quite frankly, with the economy the way it is, civil servants have much to be worried about. California is close to going bankrupt, and so are other states. When they run out of money at some point, the prison guards, police force, etc will not get paid. That will result in these criminals seeing their way back to the street someday, worse then ever. Add the fact that police and public servants will not be as able to deal with such actions if they are not getting paid.


I'll take that as a yes to my question. The response to your question is no. Good actions can occur while someone is sinful.

The experiment gave the people a small does of the shock. They knew it would hurt. They inflicted pain on others knowingly. I really do understand the experiment revealed other results such as authority, but do you understand that the people knew they would inflict pain on others knowingly?

It's possible I didn't understand. I'll try and go over this. You stated society could not exist if they were evil. I pointed out a society that was evil,and existed. Could you clarify your point? I pointed out an evil society that existed. To me that counters your point it could not exist.

Falkus and TitL, I think this is once again an issue of definitions, and you're missing the substance of the disagreement because of it.

From what I can tell, Falkus thinks people are good, even if they ocassionally commit evil acts.  TitL thinks people are evil, even if they ocassionally commit good acts.  You're coming at this from different definitions of good and evil.  For Falkus, "good" means comitting good acts more than evil acts (correct me if I'm wrong, there, Falkus).  For TitL, "good" means not committing any evil acts, ever (correct me if I'm wrong, TitL).  You both would agree, I think, that people commit acts that are both good, and evil.  What you're arguing about is not the nature of people, but rather on the label to apply to it.

You're both looking at humanity, seeing some good things, and some bad things.  Falkus is saying "it's getting better, so let's call it good."  TitL is saying "it's not perfect, so lets call it evil."  You both agree that things are perfect.  You both agree that people can and do do good things.  You're just arguing over what to call it.

Vexen's original question was more along the lines of "what can we do to make things better?"
--TitL: is your answer "nothing, because we're by our nature bad?"  If so, do you really think non-christian people can't improve their behavior in anyway?  If so, is it possible for them to improve their behavior if they are christians?
--Falkus:  you clearly think people can improve their behavior.  How do you suggest we help that process along?

What can we do to make things better?

Everyone just submit to my rule and everything will be bubble gum and roses.

I swear.

;)

But seriously, I am on TitL's side that men are inherantly evil and, on our own, we can never truely get along.

Hitler tried, the Romans tried, all have failed miserably.

Communism is probably the best stab at it, but it still failed due to the ones in charge being too greedy.
This message was last edited by the player at 10:54, Mon 13 Oct 2008.

Are you suggesting we're doomed to fail no matter what, so we shouldn't even bother?  Are you saying that a christian theocracy is the only way likely to be successful?  If so, what do you say regarding past christian theocracies?

In reply to Tycho (msg #24):

Yep I am saying we are all doomed anyway.  We can't save ourselves and are doomed to fail when we try.  That is what the message of salvation is all about.  Christians are loosers as much as athiests are.

Theocracy doesn't work because of our fallen nature gets in the way.  The only theocracy that will work is when Jesus comes and sets up His kingdom.

Make sure you don't misunderstand that I am some doom and gloom guy.  Infact I have nothing but hope.  It just that I am a realist and understand what the human condition is.  I have been at the bottom, and almost ended it all, but I was helped by my beautiful wife and the saved by a reunderstanding of what I did it the past could be forgiven.

I know some of you will be saying "What?!?!".  Basically I lied to God in my early adult years and got so much guilt in my heart that it almost destroyed me.

Again, though, are you saying there's no point in trying to make the world a better place, because no matter what we try, we're going to fail?

Thank you Tycho. Indeed, this was becomming a bit too much about the nature of good and evil than I had intended. There are threads for them, if you want to continue that route, but this is a much more specific problem.

It's about belief and political positions in the philosphy of hate. We seem to allow, as a society, hatred on a massive level based on one's beliefs, against those who believe differently. Calling a black person out on a basis that he's black is unacceptable. Insulting a person who is a muslim, on the basis that he's a muslim, is unacceptable. But insulting a person because they don't have the same opinion on abortion, or the Iraq War, or on gay marrige, that seems to be completely acceptable. For example, a person is often called a surrender monkey, a faggot, a pinko, a commie, a traitor, and a terrorist sympathizer if they just happen to be a libral. And the implications can be even worse.

These shouts at the rallies really scares me, that people in our society can have such a feverent hatred for a man for simply having ideological differences. So much so that they call to kill him. And even boo their candidate for simply saying that he's a decent person. McCain didn't salute Obama, he just called him a decent family man, and appearently, that can't be true either. Why is such acidic vitriol allowed to be spewed?

Why? Why is this acceptable? Has America really adapted an "you have to agree with me, or there's something wrong with you" attitude? Shouldn't the political pundits who spout such things be reprimanded? Why can't we discourage such behavior, much like we did with the hatred of Mormons, Jews, Blacks, and Homosexuals?
This message was last edited by the player at 22:14, Mon 13 Oct 2008.

It's acceptable because people are sinful. :)

Seriously though, while your view is clearly one sided Vexen, it clearly is considered acceptable on all sides. The reasons behind it are due to man's nature. In order to change that, you have to change man's nature. There's only one way to change man's nature.

One sided? I said before the Democrats are just as responsible. I simply point the rallies because they're a clearly visible, extreme end of this point. Librals do it to Conservatives. And Conservatives do it to Librals. Not saying any party or believe system is immune to it.

Again, I have to disagree. You seem to imply that no one can change, and society will never change anything about itself, because we're all evil. As I've said, we change the hatred in this country before. It's no longer acceptable to hate on race. It's no longer acceptable to hate on religion. It's no longer acceptable to hate on sexual preference or gender. Why can't we include political beliefs to that list?

All of your examples were items where liberals were being made belittled. In other words, it kind of put liberals as the victims.

While I can appreciate that you feel those hates have been put to a stop, I don't see mankind as having changed. Look at USA as they fight against "foreigners". Or how about people who attack muslims as terrorists? How about countries who still use ethnic cleansing, such as in africa? How about the way boys are treated better than girls in China? This covers religion, race, and gender.

People have tried to do things on their own for a long long time, right from the beginning pretty much.

What I am saying is that we can try, but we will fail.  Working against the forces of evil is what we are called to do, like fighting injustices, but in the end as a species we will fail.

Like fighting for the down trodden is a nobel cause, and as individuals, we should do it, but as a society, we will botch it.

Like what is happening today in the US is a prime example.  The government takes our taxes and gives them to the "less fortunet".  This has two problems, this hurts the haves because they don't get personally involved and thus didn't actually do anything good and makes them hard nosed to the havenots.  The second problem is the havenots are not inspired to work harder and thus they stay were they are forever leaches on the system.

There is technically a third problem that I just thought which is the government can now drive a wedge between the two and use that to their advantage to get benefits, that if they were united, the normal populous would not stand for.

In one post, yes, I didn't portray a Republican victim in specific examples. In my first post here, I cited just as many libral accusations as I did conservatives. You could argue I have a slight bias for libral. Does that make my call for political consideration and respect any less honest? I'm sorry, but it really seems like you're focusing on a side issue.

It really seems like you're fighting an argument I haven't said. I never said stop all evil everywhere. I never said that we would be able to  make the world into a loving peaceful world completely devoid of malice or hurt. That's what you're seemingly arguing against.

All I'm aruging for is in this society. I never said that there aren't people wo are racist, sexist, antisemitic, anti-muslim, or what have you, in this society. You seem to address it as if I did. But those things, at large, are no longer acceptable. They are not considered positive things to do or say.

Did the civil right's movements never happen, TitL? Did women's liberation never happen? Were laws never passed to protect people's right to believe in the religion of their chosing? In your constant criticisms, you never seem to acknowledge any of this happening. This is the world you're seeming to indicate, that things never change, that people never change, that we've lived in a world that's completely static, except for those who are Christians. I'm not by any means saying that we've rid ourselves of selfish motivations, but we have make certain evils unacceptable, have we not?

Is it not possible that we can simply disagree with people and not hate them or find them deficient? It's really all the basis I need for this. We don't have to like or love people who think differently than us. But can we simply not hate them?
This message was last edited by the player at 23:18, Mon 13 Oct 2008.

It does make it a little less honest, yes. The way it would read would seem that one side is more at fault.

I thought the question was why people don't stop hating the "other side".  I thought I was answering questions and the responses put forth.


Of course they were. But I was addressing questions asked, or comments made.

Maybe this is why people don't come together. Because people criticize others for when they don't agree with what they have to say. Constant criticism though? Considering out of a handful of posts, I've been answering questions from you that's a bit much. Perhaps that's part of the problem though. Disagreement does seem to bring out the "best" of people.

Strangely enough, I think this reinforces the point about how disagreement really seems to leave some people unable to accept the other view.

Evil is unacceptable in all forms. No one has ever considered murder ok, unless they are angry enough to do it themselves, and it's for a "good" reason, such as terrorists should die, and so should those bad criminals. It's never been ok to commit adultery, unless your spouse has been neglecting you. It's never been ok to call someone names, unless they are so arrogant to deserve it. It's never been acceptable to lie, unless you want to avoid conflict, and need to get out of some trouble.

I'm not saying that people cannot change. As everyone can. I'm not saying the world is static, and that change doesn't take place. I'm saying the reason why people cannot be nice to each other is because they are sinful, and that will not change unless they put Jesus in their life.

Everyone can find salvation, and make changes in their lives through Jesus.

I'm am not saying you did, Mr/Mrs(?) Vexen just making a general statment and answering a question is all.

Also civil rights were not in the founding father's ideas.  There were two camps when the bill of rights were written up.  One was you must state the basic rights so that government can never take them away and the other was that if a bill of rights was written up then people would believe that these were their only rights.  It seems the second camp has been proven right.

Why do I make trouble for other people?  Well, it wouldn't be very interesting otherwise ;)  Truthfully, competition in ideas and methods is ultimately a good thing.  It forces us to challenge what we hold dear (whether within ourselves, our outside in the real world), to help us all determine which are truly the most worthwhile.

Why are we seeing such reactions in politics?  Because people are afraid.  Between the economy, terrorism, the war, etc., people are afraid, and with good reason.  I think Obama is more targeted than McCain because Obama is more revolutionary than McCain.  No one feels personally threatened by McCain because, at worst, he's Bush II, and we've already lived through 8 years of that, so it's a continuation of the current situation.  Obama seems interested in making substantial changes, with no real parallel.

I also think it interesting that Obama is the one who gets the stronger positive emotional reaction too.  His rallies seem like something out of an evangelican church, really.  Just absolutely crazy for a political rally.

More general than that, people are wired so they recognize 'in group' and 'other'.  They can only mentally handle up to a few hundred in their real 'in group', and everyone else is some degree of 'other'.  When people are afraid or angry, that is generally projected towards an 'other'.  The more emotional attention the other gets, the more anger and hate he attracts.




I find this statement inherently contradictory.  "Good" here is defined by 'working in support of their community'.  And of course, the only reason we are posting here on the internet is because people successfully made communities through people being good.  Creating communities is a evolutionary benefit.  So giving in to social norms isn't "good" in any objective sense, nor selfless.  It's, evoluntioarily speaking, simply a successful strategy.  There were just about as many people who were not selfless or did not give in to social norms and they generally failed to reproduce.  That the remainder were socially compatible is tautological.  Now the percentage of behavior contrary to society is naturally kept to a "safe" but effective percentage.  But I really don't think this has anything to do with people being "good" or "bad", but with some strategies being successful or not, and using the ideas "good" and "bad" to enforce that mentality.

*whew*

How can Obama's socialism be any better than McCain/Bush's socialism.  Both will destroy this country.  Carl Marx was seen as a revolutionary.  Just before he had all his buddies killed.



Actually I am hearing the reverse from Rush and Beck.  Do you know how he brought such a large crowd in Germany?  By having two free concerts just before, but the liberal media will never tell you that.

For proof go here http://newsbusters.org/blogs/r...ed-obama-s-big-rally

Now if Obama was such a good speaker, why does he need a warm up band?



I don't hate him, just don't trust him.  For that matter I don't trust McCain either.

McCain/Bush are more fascists than socialists.  The US has survived fascism several times before.  It's never undergone true socialism.



I was talking about his rallies domestically.  Getting the reports I've seen, "Obamamania" is absolutely, clinically insane.

Just want to check if you really meant "cannot" here, or if you just meant "are not."  Are you really going to say that non-christians are incapable of being nice to others?  I really, hope you agree that it's not only possible for non-christians to be nice to others, but that it happens all the time.

In reply to katisara (msg #37):

Amen to the insane part!!

It's almost like what The Anti-Christ will be like.

Can you be a bit more specific?  What, in particular, do you feel is insane?

Also, you seem to be more disturbed by people having positive feelings about their candidate, than you are by them having negative feelings about the opposition.  Is that actually what you were meaning to imply?  If so, why?

One man was quoted in the paper talking about how he touched someone who touched Obama, and that was special.  People are regularly fainting at his rallies.  There's a new term, "Obamessiah".  He's been called (and quoted in the MSM) the "Lightbringer".  I think that sort of fanaticism is dangerous.  That's why I think it's better to have strong negative feelings against someone, than strong feelings for them.  Strong negative feelings result in slowing momentum, a lack of change.  Strong positive feelings result in fanaticism, in crusades and witch hunts, with powerful people finding themselves unchecked.

Wait, I still don't get it.  Positive feelings about someone result in witchhunts, not negative ones?  I think you've got it very, very backwards there.  Witch hunts are caused by demonizing those you disagree with to the point that you think they're not people anymore.  I'm far more worried by people hating those they disagree with than I am of them loving those they do agree with.

What sort of "fanaticism" are you talking about?  What actions have fans of Obama taken that are frightening to you?  What crusades and witchhunts do you think will be the result?

Also, do you realize that Palin is now considered the most dynamic of 4 candidates?  That people are more excited to go and see her than Obama now?  That the crowds react to her more than they did to Obama?

You're more worried about someone feeling it was "special" that he touched someone who touched obama, than you are about the people yelling "kill him!" at Palin rallies?  I have to say, I find that very strange.

Most witch hunts don't start with a witch in mind.  You start out with an individual, perhaps someone like McCarthy, who drives up support for his cause.  Then, after you support the cause (in this case, fanatical support of democracy), you find an 'other' to attack for it.  After all the years here, I've never heard anyone claim witch trials were conducted because the victim was scary, it's always been because Christianity drove people to it.  No one goes on suicide attacks because they're fighting something they fear, they do it because they're fighting FOR something.  People only fighting what they fear fight long enough to get away from it.



Comparing Obama to Jesus is definitely a warning bell.  Seriously, Jesus?  What does this say about a man who is obviously a flawed human like the rest of us?  I fear anyone who says he is fighting for his god.



I don't think Obama will lead any.  When it comes down to it, he is a rational person and I don't think he would intentionally look to marginalize people, muchless start violence.  However, given his comments about people clutching their religion and their guns, and especially given the racial rift that has come up, and those people he surrounds himself with, I could see him accidentally being the touch-point for this.  I'm worried about what those people who seem to associate Obama with God will do.  Obama will just pass a bunch of stupid laws that inadvertently support them.



Palin has been on the scene for about a month now.  I'm still forming my opinions about her.  Plus, again, I've not heard Palin compared to any religious figure.  If I see pictures of her holding the baby Jesus and stepping upon a serpent, I'll definitely worry.



The person who yelled to kill Obama is most likely reacting out of fear (having nothing else to go on, it's hard to say).  Fear will push him to drive people away, but he's not going to actually try to kill anyone (because he would be giving up his own life in exchange.  The cost is too high to address one's fear.)  However, someone who regards Obama as related to God does give me cause for concern, because dying for God is certainly considered acceptable.  I don't want to see any politician inspiring any martyrs.

Fair enough, but do you really feel many people actually believe Obama is Jesus or God, or otherwise divine?  I just don't see this as a particularly large movement.  I've heard a lot more people say he's the antichrist than that he's a god.  I've never heard Obama claim any divine power or insight, either.  Whereas Palin told her church that the pipeline project was the "will of God."

I don't think anyone is actually going to kill anyone for any of the candidates, but I do think those at Palin's rallies are showing much more of a desire to do so, and that frightens me more than some kooks thinking Obama is the second coming.  If he starts saying he's the second coming, I'll be worried.

I've never met them, so I can't say anything with certainty.  I can say that there are a LOT of people around here who are way to heated up about this, and most of them go into his physical characteristics (how charismatic he is, how nice he is, how he's black, etc.) with no focus on what he stands for (well, except for "Hope".  I'll admit, the campaign platform of "Despair" did not work as well as I expected.)  This tells me there's a blind following on the lowest level, people following because of what they think he is, not because they know what he will do.

It could be there are pro-McCain folks like this too.  I haven't seen them.  The MSM doesn't seem to be following McCain with even close to the same intensity, and I've never had anyone come and tell me they're voting for McCain for any reason.  I'm not quite sure what the McCain pins look like.  (I have had one person say he'd vote for McCain because Obama is black.)  So I'm just not getting that vibe, not from the people on the bus, or the people on the news stations.  Obama meanwhile is set up like some sort of rock star (literally, touring with rock bands).



Everyone knows God is an oilman.



Jesus was considered the first coming well before he said anything, or before his words were published.

I'd have voted for Jesus, if didn't claim to be God. ;)

I can understand of being frightened by fanatics.  But being frightened of a candidate because of his fanatics, when the candidate doesn't claim any of the things about himself that they claim for him, seems off to me.  Though, if it works, maybe I should start makin' those Palin-with-the-baby-jesus posters you were mentioning... ;)

Ms. Vexen, actually. I am not married. But please, Vexen is fine.



I do think these is a good point, and we are seeing plenty of that this time around. However, I'm more inclined to believe the latter, simply because, even in times where things were much better, in the mid 2000s, or much of the 90s, for example, partisan hatred was still rather rampant.

However, I don't see why we can't get rid of it as acceptable behavior. Yes, some people still do get angry with people's race, ethnicity, religion, and gender, but it's not really considered acceptable to anymore. Such things, expressed too loudly, will be reprimanded, sometimes even punished. And those who hurt and threaten on those bases are often taken exception with the law. Yes, people do tend to get angry or fear those that aren't like them, but in the past, we had taken strides against this sort of behavior.

Shouldn't we with partisanship? I simply don't see the value of denegrading others on the basis of their political beliefs. Debate is one thing, but personal attacks and group character assassination are quite another. Even if I'm not entirely objective, as TitL seems to point out, that doesn't mean that I don't think that I shouldn't be repirmenanded for this any less than others.



Just to get this straight...are you insinuating that Obama is the Anti-Christ?



To be fair, these aren't exactly entirely religious behaviors. We've seen them before in other areas. People used to regularly faint at JFK rallies as well. And at Elvis, Beatles, and U2 concerts. Are you infering that they thought that Kennedy or McCartney were God or messiahs? Idols, certainly, but meessiahs? I'd say that would be a hard case.

I've seen the touching thing before as well with many celebrities. I remember personally seeing one involving a man and Angelina Jolie several years ago. I've heard it happened often with Michael Jackson, Michel Jordan, and Justin Timberlake as well. It's silly fandom, really.

And, to be honest, I'm not sure about where you'e from, but around here, I hear a lot more of the religious connections being made by the opponents to Obama than I do with the supporters. The only times I've heard him be called the Messiah and divine was in mock of him, not in sincerity.

These are much more common phenominon than just with religion.




Yes, there are a lot of people like this. I don't believe this is the majority of those that will vote for him, but it is a rather disturbing amount. To be fair, there are also a lot of people who will vote against him for superficial reasons as well (because he's a "muslim", a terrorist, unamerican, foreigner, a radical black revolutionary, or simply black; two of my own uncles seems to have problems with the latter). It's certainly not a very good example of how a democracy is a good thing.


I don't really see much support for your theory that positive emotions are more dangerous than negative ones in campaigns though. I'm rather with Tycho on that. It seems like most everything you say reguarding it seems to be able to be applied to the other side. A month ago, this killing stuff wasn't around. Palin was introduced, and people started to instantly love her, and get to know her. It didn't start with hatred, it's just not comming to that point, as she 'is' giving the fanatics something to hate. Without directly doing so, she's pretty much pointing at Obama at saying "fear him!" McCarthy did to that. The Inquisition did do that. Obama hasn't. But you fear that you will. In essense, you're seemingly holding against him things that he hasn't done, but could possibly do.

Beyond that, it hasn't proven to work with Obama in the past. Obama generally has to keep a fairly positive point. In the primaries, when he would try to get aggressive against Clinton, it would ususally backfire. And when he would say anything remotely extreme, the GOP jumps all over him. I don't think this is quite as uncontested as you seem to imply.

At any rate, I do think we're getting off task here. Are you saying we should discourage positive feelings about people as well as negative?
This message was last edited by the player at 21:39, Tue 14 Oct 2008.

No the Anti-Christ will have every one snow balled.

One thing that might be encouraging, is that the attacks by the McCain campaign seem to be backfiring, causing people to view him more negatively instead of viewing Obama negatively.  The reason campaigns engage in negative ads, is because they think they work.  If they don't work, then they'll stop using them.  To a degree, this seems to show that people (at least some of them), are indeed taking the position that this kind of hatred isn't appropriate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10...politics/15poll.html

Oh, I agree, that sort of behavior is not acceptable, and it paints you poorly if you seem to support it.  It does have a value, but I think it is ethically questionable and ultimately dangerous.



Of course not!

Maybe

(teasing, teasing)



Did they?  Perhaps my historical memory is simply too short.  However, no one called JFK "JFChrist".

But I have seen people get irrational about rock stars.  Check out what punks did following Sex Pistols concerts.  Entire social movements have been started by rock stars.  Do we want a politician leading a full social movement?  That sounds dangerously like it's removing checks and balances, in fact, removing just about all of them.



Palin could be dangerous.  She could sputter out and die.  I don't know.  I initially expected Obama's popularity to crash, but he's stayed strong.  IF Palin continues to have that sort of support, and if she becomes more than your common V-P (who does just about nothing), I'll be worried.  Of course, all of this puts that after the election.  So for me, she's an unknown.



I'm not holding things against him he could do.  I'm holding things against him that may happen if he's elected.  It's like saying McCain is a dangerous choice because, given his age, he might die during his term.  That isn't McCain's fault, but it's a factor which has to be concerned.



No, I'm saying we should be wary of fanaticism in either direction on either side.  The more fanaticism, the more we should be wary of it.

*** 'Cos I distrust him less than Obama?


*** Um ... yes? I don't know about the rest of you guys (and girls), but I'd love it if we had a President who wanted to change things for the better. Lincoln led a social movement by legalising the equality of black people. FDR led one by overhauling the way the US Government worked. JFK is seen as leading the civil rights movement by some. What's wrong with the President ("Leader of the Free World") leading a social movement, so long as it's a good one? (And yes, I know there is debate about whether FDR's was good or bad.)
This message was last edited by the player at 15:27, Wed 15 Oct 2008.

Liberation of black people was a political ploy to win a war.  Why else did the Emancipation Proclamation come until the war was nearly half over?

And don't even get me started on the damage FDR caused.  He didn't get us out of the depression, WWII did.  He just started a program which will swell to 40% of our debt in twenty years, seized American's property illegally, and violated the Constitution in half a dozen other ways.

Was JFK good or bad?  Hard to tell, he didn't even live out a full term.  But one out of three is not a great track record.

Socialism is the government coming in and taking what you worked hard for once you get to a certain level.

I heard on Rush today of a man that is buying out a partner of his so that he can run the business, build it up, and hire more people.  Obama's plan of increasing taxes on those the make 250,000 per year would hurt him hiring new people.  Obama's plan to give 3,000 for hiring a full time worker, by his admition, is a slap in the face.  He said that a 40,000 per year employee actually cost him 54,000 because of mandated insurance and benefits.  So 3K does nothing to off set his cost.

I've said it once, Beck as said it everyday, "I have never gotten a job from a poor person, only from a rice person."

Socialism is the government coming in and taking what you worked hard for once you get to a certain level.

Socialism is the government protecting the citizens of the country. Taxes are the rent you pay for the privilege of living in a civilized society.

Yes, but when it comes to rent I can choose wether to pay or not.  The government doesn't give me that option.

And when do I need the government to protect me? <sound of rifle cocking> I's gots all da protection I's needs. :)

es, but when it comes to rent I can choose wether to pay or not.

Really? Your landlord let's you stay in your apartment without paying rent? I'll have to try that next time my lease renewal comes around.

And when do I need the government to protect me?

The simple fact that we live in a civilized states protects you on many levels. Things aren't nearly so pleasant in a natural state.

I do believe we've sorta gotten off task. This isn't a thread about socialism and expanding government. This is about respecting those we have a disagreement with, by not treating them as stupid, immoral, or somehow deficient.

Tycho, yes, this is a good sign, but it's only a reaction to extreme. This has been going on for much longer. It's no real surprise that, historically speaking, talking bad about candidates on a personal level works. Yes, when it gets out of hand, it tends to backfire, which it seems to be in this case. But to say this is our general reaction to this sort of thing I simply cannot agree with. People like Jessie Jackson, Al Franken, Rush Limbagh, and Ann Coulter aren't just new phenominon, but they've been around a long time, spewing out complete and utter disrespect for people who disagree with them or follow a different ideology, and these people have many millions of faithful listeners, watchers, and followers who enjoy their rhetoric.

Here's an interesting excersize. Seeing as this seems to give the highest level of interaction at the moment in this thread, and it's bordering on the personal, how about I suggest a different course of action. Gammaknight, say 5 good things about librals. Five things you think they do well in their intentions, in their philosophy, in things that librals have contributed to society, in historical movement, etc. Say five positive things in that regard, about the other side.

Falkus, how about you do the same with conservatives?

That's actually a good idea, Vexen!

here's my five:
1.  they do honestly want what they think is best for the country
2.  some of them are fiscal conservatives, and that's a good idea
3.  for the most part, they do like the rules to be followed
4.  usually they're nice people in one-on-one situations, when you're not talking politics
5.  it's always good to have people who disagree with me around, just to keep me in check ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs41JrnGaxc

A very nice TED talk on morality and the differences between conservatives and liberals.  It's a topic we've touched on here before, with the studies into the "5 pillars" of morality, and how liberals and conservatives differ on them (spoiler alert: liberals care mostly about fairness and care/harm, conservatives are more evenly balanced among the five pillars; loyalty, purity, and authority being the other three).  I liked the talk because he encourage us to use the information to avoid the tribalism and self-righteousness that is natural to humans, which is something I think is really important for us all to do (even though it's really hard, and I certainly can't claim to be great at doing it).  The video is about 20 minutes, so it'll take a chunk of time out of your day, but if you got a free half hour, I'd recommend it.

Was pointed to this blog entry today, and found it very good.  It discusses what the author calls "the distress of the privileged," and the way some christians and other conservatives feel under attack or threatened by the gay-rights movement or other sources of change.  Something we've heard here on this discussion forum many, many times is lines like "you're asking for tolerance, but you don't tolerate my religious views that say homosexuality is wrong, so it's YOU who's really the intolerant one!"  The blog talks about the problem with this being the difference in scale;  it's not that the Christians feelings aren't legitimate, or that they're not deserving empathy, it's just that they're not equivalent to the suffering that their position imposes on others.

The author puts it much better than I've been able to do here, so I should probably just quote some:


Another quote that I particularly like was addressing the idea that many christians feel like an embattled minority, and that they've got it much harder than gays and other minorities.




Anyway, give it a read if you've got a few seconds.  It's more even-handed than I'm usually able to be, and I'm not sure I've done it justice with my description here.  Let me know what you think.

I find that blog post more balanced than your quotes from it. I'm glad I went back to the source. He does go overboard with a couple of false equivalences ("Christians may feel bashed by criticism, but gays get literally bashed by hate crimes"), and straw men ("the rich feel “punished” by taxes; whites believe they are the real victims of racism; employers’ religious freedom is threatened when they can’t deny contraception to their employees; English-speakers resent bilingualism"), but overall his position is reasonable.

On the specific issue, I personally feel that both sides are right. Gays deserve equal rights. Those who believe homosexual acts are immoral also have the right to believe so and say so; what they shouldn't have is the ability to legislate based on those beliefs.

Out of curiosity, why do you call these straw man arguments?  I've seen all of those views expressed by people before, and most of them here on this forum.  Quite a few people really do seem to hold all those positions, as far as I can tell.


I can certainly agree with that.

Good find.

I do agree the author makes a strong point. One line that especially resonated with me was 'George deserves compassion, [but] Betty deserves justice'; this recognition that both parties have needs, and these needs aren't the same. It's easy to assume that both groups are asking for the same thing, and to a large degree, they aren't. And so any attempt to meet the demands of both sides are already doomed to failure.

And I'll also agree that a large part of the problem is one side changing (and accusing) with the other side being shocked and surprised at the change. To a degree, I think the warning about impending change is extremely helpful. It's just like everything else. I finished a review of a large document and sent it to QA, but I forgot to cc: my boss. My boss got upset, not because I did a bad job, but because things are happening and he's hearing about it after the fact. No one likes to be surprised like that.

I'll also say that there are a lot of aspects that just make it uncomfortable (or dangerous) for priviledged or outside people to even recognize the transition. In some cases I am afraid to even engage in the discussion for someone deciding I'm a bigot or a wierdo or whatever. There's such a list of hot words (enforced by people both in and outside of that culture), that the best thing for me to do is to be quiet and ignore it. This isn't saying I don't care, but that the environment creates an unnecessary risk that makes it beneficial to me to pretend it just doesn't exist. The LGBT community seems, generally, to be pretty good at providing a unified public face, but this isn't the case among the black community, which seems a lot more fractured.

The first may not be much of a straw man. The rich feel "thieved" by taxes, but they manage to dodge a lot of the taxes people throw at them anyway. I don't know any genuinely rich people I can query about this.

Some whites people believe they are also victims of racism, but I have yet to meet a white person who thinks whites suffer more racism than blacks.

Recent arguments about contraception weren't about prohibiting employees from getting and using contraception. They were about employers paying for it.

Some English-speakers resent those in the USA who can't speak English. Bilingual people, though, are an asset, not a problem.
This message was last edited by the player at 23:32, Thu 13 Sept 2012.

Might be a difference of who we've heard talk then.  I've heard people express this sentiment before, usually in regards to affirmative action and the like.  During that trial a couple years back about the white fire-fighter who considered it unfair that the department decided to redo the employment test when no (almost no?) black people passed it, there were quite a few people saying things like "the REAL victim of racism is the white male in this country!"  I've heard many people express the view that being a minority in the US makes your life easier, rather than harder, etc.  Again, though, may just be a sampling issue.


For some people, but many of them were still unhappy with it when the employers weren't required to pay for it.  It wasn't about the money, it was about not being able to send the message "I disapprove of you using this."  The compromise that was reached was that employees don't have to offer it, but the insurance companies will allow employees to add it to their plan for free.  But many people are still upset about this, and feel it violates the employer's religious rights because they have to offer a plan that the employee can extend to include contraception.


This might be a different interpretation of what the author meant by bilingualism, I think.  I think what he meant was the idea that some people speak languages other than english, and that's okay, as opposed to the "English only" view, that thinks all government forms should only be in English, etc.  So he's less talking about an opposition to bilingual people, so much as opposition to the acceptance of languages other than english being spoken in the US.  I've heard things like "why on earth should I have to push 1 for english?!  This is america!" plenty of times, which I think was what the author was talking about.

Actually just went back to the blog post, and realized that he gave links for each of the examples you listed.  The one for bilingualism was actually more about people upset by the view that speaking two languages would be a good thing.  The author of the post he linked to considered it unfair that some jobs were being advertised that required the ability to speak spanish.  As the article he links to says:


The link for whites feeling they're the victims of racism talked about a study that survey ~200 white people and ~200 black people and found that as a group, the white people thought that whites suffered more racism today than black people do. Says the link:

When using the term 'bias' instead of 'racism', it could (and, well, did) elicit such responses. It's considered okay to be openly biased against whites, but not okay to be openly biased against blacks (not that that stops some people from being non-openly biased against blacks). I'd still have to ask "Really?" of any white person who labeled anti-white bias a 10; I just don't know what those people are thinking.

Doesn't sound racist, but it does sort of sound like what the author of the blog was talking about.  You expect not to have to speak spanish, and when a job that in the past wouldn't require it starts to demand it, it feels uncomfortable/wrong/maddening/whatever.  You expect your co-workers to have to learn your language, not the other way around, because that's how it's largely always been for you.  It does suck for you that's changed, and we shouldn't tell you otherwise.  But it's only by luck that you've been in that fortunate position up until now, so we shouldn't resist changing that just because it makes your life less convenient.  If I've got a team of 9 guys who're already working for me, and who primarily speak spanish, it doesn't make sense for me to fire them all (or force them all to take language classes, or whatever) and hire 9 english speakers just so I can give you the job instead of some other person who can speak spanish.  The feeling that "hey, I speak English, I shouldn't need to learn spanish to get a job in the country" is a good example of the kind of loss of privilege that the blog-author was talking about.


Yeah, I think "Really?" about things people say quite a lot these days.  But they really are thinking them, as far as I can tell.