Philosophy Religion, Belief, and Democracy

[LowlandsOfHolland]

Well, I’m against America as it currently stands today, yes. So is any reactionary, really. But I’m glad to hear that you’d basically do what Emperor Diocletian did while claiming to be tolerant. And you wonder why we’re so intolerant? Maybe it’s because of a lack of reciprocity, a lack that you freely expound. You deride Conservative Christians as wielding knives against you while openly claiming that, were the positions reversed, you’d do the exact same thing against us.

This naked hypocrisy is the beating heart of the AntiFa Left. Bigotry in the name of fighting “bigots.” Hatred in the name of fighting “haters.” Oppression in the name of fighting “oppressors.” Intolerance in the name of fighting “the intolerant.” And of course, whoever invents the civic religion defines what those words in quotations mean.

I would not say that I personally am tolerant. I am willing to accept tolerance because in the end it is simpler and better than actually maintaining the level and form of intolerance that I think would be an ideal.

What's odd, though, is that you foreclose any possibility that a conflict might be genuinely existential. That is, if conservative Christians seek my annihilation, (and certainly your comments on how the ideal state of society is one where I cannot exist as myself but must be forced into a rapine marriage or else into monastic segregation from society as a whole suggest that you desire my annihilation as a particular sort of person and reconstitution into an ideally submissive subject) how can I ever be safe in my existence until you have been totally and utterly disarmed? That is, if I desire a pluralist society, and you desire to end pluralism by any means necessary, there cannot be any kind of coexistence between us except as a temporary truce before inevitable violence.

Even if you were to credibly swear to limit yourself to democratic means to do so, it would just limit the extent of the conflict, not allow for genuine peace. That, itself, would require that either the side which seeks annihilation reject its ideology, or the side which is threatened with annihilation reject its own existence. I wonder which you think is more credible.

 

[LowlandsOfHolland]

In any case, if you want an understanding of my particular politics, I posted a thread in this very forum which you could peruse at your leisure.

 

[The Name of Love]

I would not say that I personally am tolerant. I am willing to accept tolerance because in the end it is simpler and better than actually maintaining the level and form of intolerance that I think would be an ideal.

What's odd, though, is that you foreclose any possibility that a conflict might be genuinely existential. That is, if conservative Christians seek my annihilation, (and certainly your comments on how the ideal state of society is one where I cannot exist as myself but must be forced into a rapine marriage or else into monastic segregation from society as a whole suggest that you desire my annihilation as a particular sort of person and reconstitution into an ideally submissive subject) how can I ever be safe in my existence until you have been totally and utterly disarmed? That is, if I desire a pluralist society, and you desire to end pluralism by any means necessary, there cannot be any kind of coexistence between us except as a temporary truce before inevitable violence.

Even if you were to credibly swear to limit yourself to democratic means to do so, it would just limit the extent of the conflict, not allow for genuine peace. That, itself, would require that either the side which seeks annihilation reject its ideology, or the side which is threatened with annihilation reject its own existence. I wonder which you think is more credible.

Ah, that explains it. I have the exact opposite disposition to you : I personally am rather tolerant, but I think that a certain level of intolerance is necessary, if not ideal. I'm comfortable being around people with different religious traditions and beliefs, but I don't think that's good for society as a whole. I think that society can only allow enough tolerance to allow for peace and virtue to thrive, but any more would result in an openness that could be taken advantage of by opportunists looking to upend the natural order of things. This is the history of the Social Justice Warrior Left. They were allowed to flourish in spaces that formerly allowed them because liberals and libertarians allowed them to do so, because tolerance was their principle. Then, when those institutions were firmly subverted, the ideological purges and intolerance began, because that is their principle. The moral of the story is that intolerance always wins, and Joe McCarthy had the right idea.

In any case, if you want an understanding of my particular politics, I posted a thread in this very forum which you could peruse at your leisure.

I rather not. I don't see us coming to any sort of agreement.

 

[LowlandsOfHolland]

Ah, that explains it. I have the exact opposite disposition to you : I personally am rather tolerant, but I think that a certain level of intolerance is necessary, if not ideal. I'm comfortable being around people with different religious traditions and beliefs, but I don't think that's good for society as a whole. I think that society can only allow enough tolerance to allow for peace and virtue to thrive, but any more would result in an openness that could be taken advantage of by opportunists looking to upend the natural order of things. This is the history of the Social Justice Warrior Left. They were allowed to flourish in spaces that formerly allowed them because liberals and libertarians allowed them to do so, because tolerance was their principle. Then, when those institutions were firmly subverted, the ideological purges and intolerance began, because that is their principle. The moral of the story is that intolerance always wins, and Joe McCarthy had the right idea.



I rather not. I don't see us coming to any sort of agreement.

I assure you, you didn't have to explain that you personally wish to displace antisemitic violence to ensure proper conformity onto some other person that your own hands might remain clean. Reactionaries are generally cowards.

 

[The Name of Love]

I assure you, you didn't have to explain that you personally wish to displace antisemitic violence to ensure proper conformity onto some other person that your own hands might remain clean. Reactionaries are generally cowards.

So, you have nothing but namecalling? Antisemitic is pretty weak sauce, as far as accusations though, as I haven't even talked about my views of Jewish people. What definition of antisemitism are you using, the ADL's?

Calling reactionaries cowards is a lot more interesting though. Is it because a lot of them are keyboard warriors? It's true, I haven't been able to display my virtue, and am not a very brave person. I do hope that, when my courage is actually put to the test, I will not lose my nerve.

 

[LowlandsOfHolland]

So, you have nothing but namecalling? Antisemitic is pretty weak sauce, as far as accusations though, as I haven't even talked about my views of Jewish people. What definition of antisemitism are you using, the ADL's?

Calling reactionaries cowards is a lot more interesting though. Is it because a lot of them are keyboard warriors? It's true, I haven't been able to display my virtue, and am not a very brave person. I do hope that, when my courage is actually put to the test, I will not lose my nerve.

You have said that it is necessary to oppress members of non-Christian religions, which would include Jews. Perhaps you genuinely believe that if you quote Aquinas at enough length you might convince people to peaceably accept oppression, but if we are dealing with reality, increasing oppression necessitates violence. Thus, unless your understanding of reactionary Christian thought is such that Judaism must be held as equal with Christianity, which would be very divergent indeed, my description is correct. That you think it's "name-calling" and that antisemitism has no descriptive power certainly says quite a bit.

I was actually suggesting that you were a moral coward more than a physical one, but it seems you're both? Unless you do somehow have the guts to tell gay people what you think should happen to them, e.g.

 

[The Name of Love]

You have said that it is necessary to oppress members of non-Christian religions, which would include Jews. Perhaps you genuinely believe that if you quote Aquinas at enough length you might convince people to peaceably accept oppression, but if we are dealing with reality, increasing oppression necessitates violence. Thus, unless your understanding of reactionary Christian thought is such that Judaism must be held as equal with Christianity, which would be very divergent indeed, my description is correct. That you think it's "name-calling" and that antisemitism has no descriptive power certainly says quite a bit.

I was actually suggesting that you were a moral coward more than a physical one, but it seems you're both? Unless you do somehow have the guts to tell gay people what you think should happen to them, e.g.

So, you are just being a bigot then. You don’t have an argument, you just have assumptions about what my position is and moral outrage.

Just stop while you are ahead, for both of our sakes. I don’t think I can handle people like you.

 

[LowlandsOfHolland]

So, you are just being a bigot then. You don’t have an argument, you just have assumptions about what my position is and moral outrage.

Just stop while you are ahead, for both of our sakes. I don’t think I can handle people like you.

You have said that it is necessary to exclude people and to have a more closed society on the basis of religion, because pluralism leads to "SJWs" oppressing people like you. You have not made any specific accommodations for Jewish people and Judaism. Conservative Christianity does not offer such accommodations as a general rule- the overall effect has been to relegate Jewish people to a subsidiary level, though higher than that offered to Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Shintoists, etc.

So, I drew a conclusion. Your response has not been to offer any kind of factual correction, even with my explicit acknowledgement that you might indeed have such a divergent vision which allows for Jewishness to be held equally to Christianity. Instead your response has been to say that I am obviously morally outraged because I have, in plain, clear, language, simply described what you have said, drawn upon my general knowledge, and added 1 + 1 + 1 to equal 3.

You seem distraught, though. Are you saying that I should stop because this is genuinely hurtful for you to hear, that to read these words is the verbal equivalent of a stiff blow to the solar plexus? Or are you saying I should stop because, at any second now, you might well get really mad?

 

[ShieldWife]

So, you are just being a bigot then. You don’t have an argument, you just have assumptions about what my position is and moral outrage.

Just stop while you are ahead, for both of our sakes. I don’t think I can handle people like you.

Keep in mind that LowlandsOfHolland is a troll who posted a diatribe about how everybody needs to be a lesbian in order to have democracy, or something to that effect, including such gems as “titlove”

So I wouldn’t get too emotionally invested arguing with them. Though if you read that thread. I guess you’d get to see some of my arguments for why equality isn’t real or good.

 

[The Name of Love]

You have said that it is necessary to exclude people and to have a more closed society on the basis of religion, because pluralism leads to "SJWs" oppressing people like you. You have not made any specific accommodations for Jewish people and Judaism. Conservative Christianity does not offer such accommodations as a general rule- the overall effect has been to relegate Jewish people to a subsidiary level, though higher than that offered to Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Shintoists, etc.

So, I drew a conclusion. Your response has not been to offer any kind of factual correction, even with my explicit acknowledgement that you might indeed have such a divergent vision which allows for Jewishness to be held equally to Christianity. Instead your response has been to say that I am obviously morally outraged because I have, in plain, clear, language, simply described what you have said, drawn upon my general knowledge, and added 1 + 1 + 1 to equal 3.

You seem distraught, though. Are you saying that I should stop because this is genuinely hurtful for you to hear, that to read these words is the verbal equivalent of a stiff blow to the solar plexus? Or are you saying I should stop because, at any second now, you might well get really mad?

Listen to yourself. You are basically castigating me for not making “specific accommodations” for a bunch of different religious groups when my own views were never part of this. You assumed I was an evil bigot worthy of contempt based on the fact that I wanted prayer in schools! And no, I’m not mad or hurt. Just disappointed.

What’s the point of carrying on? Do you think that if you call me enough names, I’d change my mind?

 

[LowlandsOfHolland]

Keep in mind that LowlandsOfHolland is a troll who posted a diatribe about how everybody needs to be a lesbian in order to have democracy, or something to that effect, including such gems as “titlove”

So I wouldn’t get too emotionally invested arguing with them. Though if you read that thread. I guess you’d get to see some of my arguments for why equality isn’t real or good.

You really did not read my manifesto at all if you that's what you took from it.

I said that lesbianization, which I delineated clearly as distinct from an actual conversion to lesbianism, is a means to further a democratic society, not that a world of solely lesbians is necessary for democracy.

Listen to yourself. You are basically castigating me for not making “specific accommodations” for a bunch of different religious groups when my own views were never part of this. You assumed I was an evil bigot worthy of contempt based on the fact that I wanted prayer in schools! And no, I’m not mad or hurt. Just disappointed.

What’s the point of carrying on? Do you think that if you call me enough names, I’d change my mind?

No, I did not at any point say you were an "evil bigot worthy of contempt", in those words, and if I implied that, it was certainly not based solely or primarily on the fact that you wanted prayer in schools. Furthermore, if you interpret what I am saying as castigating you, I must ask whether you have actually experienced someone seriously criticizing you in your life. Nor did I talk about you making accommodations for a "bunch of different religious groups."

Again. I noted that you were a moral coward because you believe in the necessity of oppression and violence to reinstate the natural order from its disruption by the SJWs and the liberals, but you are unwilling to communicate this fact and maintain a facade of tolerance around the people you feel need to be oppressed. This is entirely from your own words on the subject. If you feel that this description of you constitutes a castigating attack on you, you might want to reevaluate yourself, ne c'est pas?

 

[ShieldWife]

See what I mean?

 

[The Name of Love]

You really did not read my manifesto at all if you that's what you took from it.

I said that lesbianization, which I delineated clearly as distinct from an actual conversion to lesbianism, is a means to further a democratic society, not that a world of solely lesbians is necessary for democracy.

Does it work in the opposite direction? Like, if we reduce the amount of lesbians, we’ll have less democracy?

 

[LowlandsOfHolland]

Does it work in the opposite direction? Like, if we reduce the amount of lesbians, we’ll have less democracy?

Why would that be the case? Can you offer an explanation for why that would be so?

 

[The Name of Love]

Again. I noted that you were a moral coward because you believe in the necessity of oppression and violence to reinstate the natural order from its disruption by the SJWs and the liberals, but you are unwilling to communicate this fact and maintain a facade of tolerance around the people you feel need to be oppressed. This is entirely from your own words on the subject. If you feel that this description of you constitutes a castigating attack on you, you might want to reevaluate yourself, ne c'est pas?

No, I’m not really sure you understood what I said any more than Shieldmaiden understood what you said about lesbianization.

From my perspective, you are basically calling me all kinds of names without any provocation, which makes me think you were emotionally distraught by what I said. I just started talking about my views of pluralism, and your response is to call me an antisemite and a coward for reasons I have yet to understand. It just comes across as if you are a deeply unreasonable and intolerant person.

Why would that be the case? Can you offer an explanation for why that would be so?

So the answer is a no then.

 

[ShieldWife]

Does it work in the opposite direction? Like, if we reduce the amount of lesbians, we’ll have less democracy?

We could delesbianize the lesbians, so that their relationships became all very heteronormative.

 

[LowlandsOfHolland]

No, I’m not really sure you understood what I said any more than Shieldmaiden understood what you said about lesbianization.

From my perspective, you are basically calling me all kinds of names without any provocation, which makes me think you were emotionally distraught by what I said. I just started talking about my views of pluralism, and your response is to call me an antisemite and a coward for reasons I have yet to understand. It just comes across as if you are a deeply unreasonable and intolerant person.


So the answer is a no then.

OK. Your views of pluralism necessarily demand antisemitism and Islamophobia and violence against many other religions if they were put into practice. I, foolishly, assumed that you had spent enough time thinking about your beliefs to understand that when you say "We must reestablish natural order where (conservative) Christianity is on top" that this would require the use of force to lower the condition of other religions in American society absent their willing consent to be reduced to the status of second-class, or third-class, citizens.

Terms like "antisemitism" are not meaningless names, they have definitions. The use of violence to oppress Jewish people to force them into a status of formal inferiority constitutes antisemitism. I called you a coward initially because you believe in the necessity of oppressing groups of people but from what you have said you do not inform people of those groups of the necessity of their oppression to their face, and you also wash your hands of any participation in said violence that, again, is necessary under your views of restoring "the natural order". That is cowardice in a moral sense, in that you lack the strength in your convictions to engage in any unpleasant activities that might flow from those convictions. Then you admitted you were also a coward in a physical sense.

If I had any hope of doing more than sharpening my own understanding of my thinking by placing it against highly oppositional modes of thought, I would suggest to you at this point that if your beliefs are ones that you lack the courage to carry through, you might want to find ones that don't demand actions you apparently find impossible to undertake.

Finally, the point is that I laid out, in my manifesto, a chain of reasoning for why "lesbianization" leads to increased democratization. You can disagree with this and attack it, in various respects, but without engaging with the reasoning it almost feels as if you're making glib comments for the sake of possibly provoking an angry response. Wasn't somebody talking about trolling earlier?

We could delesbianize the lesbians, so that their relationships became all very heteronormative.

What exactly would this entail?

 

[The Name of Love]

OK. Your views of pluralism necessarily demand antisemitism and Islamophobia and violence against many other religions if they were put into practice.

Your views of pluralism also demand violence against beliefs that disagree with yours too. That's the nature of politics: one point of view is forced upon the rest. The only way you can get around this is if you are some kind of pacifist-anarchist. By necessity, by prohibiting Christian expression in public spaces, you are doing violence against Christians. Are you "Christophobic?"

The question is one of justice, or what one is due. What do Jews deserve? What do Muslims deserve? What do Christians deserve? These are the questions we ought to be asking ourselves. What we can't do, however, is go around calling everyone names and expect to get anywhere productive.

Terms like "antisemitism" are not meaningless names, they have definitions.

Another point of disagreement. I don't think antisemitism and Islamophobia have serious, meaningful content. They are just pejoratives denoting someone as a wrong-thinker. They are words that shut down honest conversations and terminate thought. This conversation is more than proof of this, as we've stopped actually discussing my views on pluralism and are instead talking about how bad a person I am for disagreeing with you.

That is cowardice in a moral sense, in that you lack the strength in your convictions to engage in any unpleasant activities that might flow from those convictions. Then you admitted you were also a coward in a physical sense.

So because you are a bigot and I don't act in accordance to your bigoted notions of what conservative Christians should act like (which I assume involves mustache-twirling, Dick Dastardly-style skullduggery), you assumed I'm being dishonest, and this is "moral cowardice." And then, when I expressed my hope that when people like you come after me with intentions to do harm to me, I'll display my courage, I'm a "physical coward."

 

[LowlandsOfHolland]

Your views of pluralism also demand violence against beliefs that disagree with yours too. That's the nature of politics: one point of view is forced upon the rest. The only way you can get around this is if you are some kind of pacifist-anarchist. By necessity, by prohibiting Christian expression in public spaces, you are doing violence against Christians. Are you "Christophobic?"

The question is one of justice, or what one is due. What do Jews deserve? What do Muslims deserve? What do Christians deserve? These are the questions we ought to be asking ourselves. What we can't do, however, is go around calling everyone names and expect to get anywhere productive.


Another point of disagreement. I don't think antisemitism and Islamophobia have serious, meaningful content. They are just pejoratives denoting someone as a wrong-thinker. They are words that shut down honest conversations and terminate thought. This conversation is more than proof of this, as we've stopped actually discussing my views on pluralism and are instead talking about how bad a person I am for disagreeing with you.


So because you are a bigot and I don't act in accordance to your bigoted notions of what conservative Christians should act like (which I assume involves mustache-twirling, Dick Dastardly-style skullduggery), you assumed I'm being dishonest, and this is "moral cowardice." And then, when I expressed my hope that when people like you come after me with intentions to do harm to me, I'll display my courage, I'm a "physical coward."

Hmm, I don't believe that that's actually the nature of politics, otherwise all "democracies" would be one-party police states. That does not seem to be the case.

Anyways, you are conflating your own reactionary Christianity with all Christianity. It is not oppressing Christians to suggest that public spaces be neutralized with regards to religion to allow for a nonsectarian government, even though this means allowing non-Christian religions to share space and also requires the tragic, painful, violent brutality of not allowing people in positions of authority to demand prayers.

So you do not believe that there is any such thing as prejudice against Jews or Muslims? Hmm. I wonder why you believe that to be the case.

Well. I happen to think that if you believe, say, that lesbians, gay men, and bi people need to be forced into heterosexual marriage or celibacy, you would have the guts to say this upfront to LGB people so they can decide whether they really want to be friendly with you or not. Because interacting with people you want to do such things without letting them know is really very dishonest. That you classify this as "mustache-twirling, Dick Dastardly-style skullduggery (sic)" is yet another indication that you really aren't cut out for this kind of belief system.

I said you were a physical coward because you said yourself that you were not a brave person! I don't get why you're expressing masochistic fantasies about some lesbian beating you up, though. Are these fantasies... common... for you?

 

[The Name of Love]

Hmm, I don't believe that that's actually the nature of politics, otherwise all "democracies" would be one-party police states. That does not seem to be the case.

I disagree. I think that even two-party states require this, even if to a lesser degree than totalitarian societies. There has never been nor will there ever be an open society of the liberal sort.

Anyways, you are conflating your own reactionary Christianity with all Christianity. It is not oppressing Christians to suggest that public spaces be neutralized with regards to religion to allow for a nonsectarian government, even though this means allowing non-Christian religions to share space and also requires the tragic, painful, violent brutality of not allowing people in positions of authority to demand prayers.

I never said that non-Christians shouldn't be allowed their spaces. I simply expressed skepticism that there could ever be any "neutralized" spaces with regards to religion, given how central religion is to our lives. Even its absence is noticeable.

So you do not believe that there is any such thing as prejudice against Jews or Muslims? Hmm. I wonder why you believe that to be the case.

Once again, misrepresenting my views. Replace antisemitism with "prejudice against Jews" and watch your argument deflate. Because antisemitism doesn't mean "prejudice against Jews." It means "something I don't like." I suggest reading this article here.

In summary, I do believe that there is such thing as prejudice against Jews. What I deny is that antisemitism actually means anything at all.

Well. I happen to think that if you believe, say, that lesbians, gay men, and bi people need to be forced into heterosexual marriage or celibacy, you would have the guts to say this upfront to LGB people so they can decide whether they really want to be friendly with you or not. Because interacting with people you want to do such things without letting them know is really very dishonest. That you classify this as "mustache-twirling, Dick Dastardly-style skullduggery (sic)" is yet another indication that you really aren't cut out for this kind of belief system.

I do say think that lesbians, gay men, and bi people should only be allowed heterosexual marriage or celibacy as choices. But I don't see this as evil. You do.

I said you were a physical coward because you said yourself that you were not a brave person! I don't get why you're expressing masochistic fantasies about some lesbian beating you up, though. Are these fantasies... common... for you?

"Masochistic" implies I have sexual desire for them. I most certainly don't. You must certainly have some kind of masochistic desire if you keep replying to me. Or is this pride? Are you determined to not let me have the last word? I myself enjoy bringing out more and more of your disgusting nature into the foray. It allows me to build a profile of you for future reference.