Why are liberals so condescending? - Page 6

Originally Posted by NoahJ

Questionable, grotesque and Extreme? So you do not approve of praying for people. or laying hands on them while doing so? What part was grotesque or extreme, let alone questionable?

Originally Posted by segovius

All of it.

I am not sure theologically that one can 'petition the Lord with prayer' (brownie points for who gets the reference) as it seems highly problematic that an omnipotent creator would change HIs mind at the behest of some of these less than desirable characters.

In any case, I do not believe in an interventionist God (more points for that one) so I find such actions as we are discussing futile and hence indicative of a certain lack of intellectual and philosophical rigour.

That is not my objection though - all that is just stupidity that I have described and God knows there is enough of that going round...no, my objection is that this is a means of control.

'Laying on hands' is itself a very interesting turn of phrase. It does of course denote some degree of violence ('don't lay your hands on me!' or 'He laid hand on her brutally') and it is no coincidence that some form of psychological violence is often the leitmotif of fundie sects.

Also of course there is - in the Lacanian/Freudian sense - the hint of sublimation of sex. 'Submission' or forcing a woman into submission.

By 'sublimation of sex' I mean diverted or displaced sex such as can happen when a traumatic experience makes someone incapable of the sexual act but still turned on by other means such as rubber or foot fetishism.

I think it is clear that fundie Xians have diverted sex in this way also - they are notoriously anti-sex and seem to hate the body - but they cannot become fetishists or perverts because they operate in a moralistic restrictive context but it seems likely that this sublimated sex impulse is manifested in such activities as this 'laying on of hands' and other rituals (I once witnessed a preacher foaming at the mouth shouting "Come Jesus Come!!! Come inside us now!!!" which I think needs no further elaboration).

There is also of course the masturbatory aspect to the phrase too..."to lay hands on xxxxx". I think this is also a phrase from the Old Testament story of the citizens of Sodom who wanted to 'lay hands on' the visitors.

Leaving sex aside there are other -perhaps more concerning - very sinister aspects. I believe that this is a practice overwhelmingly conducted BY men and practiced ON women. The woman must be 'in her place'.....laid hands on...branded...owned.

From a socio-political perspective this is undeniably a patriarchal anachronism that has no place in the 21st century and may well in any Feminist critique be a psychological equivalent of rape.

Laying hands on the sick was a common practice in the Early Church. Jesus often laid hands on people before healing them (Mark 6:5; Luke 4:40; 13:13). Paul laid hands on a sick person and he was healed (Acts 28:8). Jesus said concerning His followers, "they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well" (Mark 16:18).

Anointing with oil for many different purposes was commonly practiced throughout the Scriptures. The New Testament mentions it specifically in connection with praying for the sick. On one occasion Jesus sent out the twelve disciples on a mission; they "anointed many sick people with oil and healed them" (Mark 6:13). In a congregational situation, the usual procedure is for a sick Christian to call for the elders of the church to pray over him and to anoint him with oil (James 5:14-16).

In biblical times oil was commonly used as a healing agent (Luke 10:34). But when used by the early Christians for anointing purposes it was merely a symbolic reminder to God’s healing power. Today as then, the anointing oil itself has no healing power. Healing takes place by the power of the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:38), of whom oil is a symbol (Zechariah 4:4-6).

In the Assemblies of God we believe neither the laying on of hands nor anointing with oil is indispensable for healing, for often in Scripture healing takes place without either. But at times the touch of a praying person and the application of oil are an encouragement to faith, and such a practice is enjoined by Scripture (James 5:14-16).

Originally Posted by NoahJ

You are one disturbed person...

Originally Posted by segovius

It was disturbing gathering the research I admit...I did witness some very shocking and upsetting things.

But I realized something: that the disturbing aspects were exaggerated because of the context. Or, put another way, one expects people who talk about love and forgiveness and spiritual things to actually be nice people and not do bad things.

But then I had a road to Damascus moment (I actually WAS on the Road to Damascus literally at the time too which I think is significant but I digress) and I realized something that made it all alright:

These people have nothing to do with God, religion, faith, love, Jesus Christ or spirituality.

It was an epiphany.

Since then I've always had this deep insight to see right through the fundie cultishness...it's like God-given somehow...it can be frightening and sometimes I wish I could just turn it off but I try to use it to help those still caught in the web..

Originally Posted by NoahJ

Wow, God granted you an epiphany on the Road to Damascus... Did you go blind as well?

Originally Posted by segovius

It was an epiphany in reverse...I gained my sight.

You want to know something else funny...after that I met some REAL Christians.

Just outside Damascus is a village called Ma'lu'la - it is a large Christian community but the interesting thing is that it stretches back to more or less the time of St Paul. They still speak Aramaic there, probably the only place that does.

Originally Posted by NoahJ

So let me understand. You were granted an epiphany and were able to meet "real" Christians that speak actual Aramaic. And they can trace their lineage from the time of St Paul.

Congratulations?

Originally Posted by trumptman

Why are liberals so condescending?



The examples are clear and the M.O well understood. Worst still, such thought increasingly lends itself to authoritarianism. If the other side is actually evil, deluded, harmful, what have you, then you don't have policy disagreements, you have good versus evil with no possible compromise being available.

Why is it so hard to rid liberal thoughts of such patterns? The caricatures, ad-homs, intent game, and -ist and -ism labels allow a person to disengage mentally from any real discussion. It allows them to ignore real concerns and we have seen this over and over. The tea parties for example aren't real. They are "astro-turfing, tea baggers who are closet racists, homophobes, ignorant, stupid" and of course "dangerous."

Who could compromise with such labels? If someone is engaging in them, can they really said to be attempting honest discussion or to be legitimately considering such parties and their concerns in legislation or policy?

When I find such examples of condescending behavior be they in other places or here, I'm going to post them as examples. Likewise feel free to share your own examples or thoughts relate to the article. If we can stop a group from demonizing and disqualifying valid views, then perhaps real solutions can be arrived at and help the United States as a whole.

Originally Posted by O-Mac

Replace liberals with conservatives
Replace Obama with Bush/Cheney/Linbaugh/Beck/Palin/BOE-ner/FoxNews...

Same thing.

Originally Posted by segovius

What we need to understand about the Right in order to attempt a sane discourse is that they see things in opposite terms to what they really are....it's a kind of disease a bit like Alice through the Looking Glass.

Actually I think Lewis Carroll may even have written this as an allegory and a warning to history of the dangers of this type of 'non-thought' - sadly though he has not been heeded.

One example will suffice: Right-wingers who have no knowledge of a specific culture and do not speak any language other than English (and that quite badly) are often empowered to comment dogmatically on arcane philosophical minutiae quoted from Non-European language which relate to centuries old cultural references.

This is called 'FACT'.

On the other hand; academics who have studied these regions all their lives, are fluent in the languages - possibly even speaking them as a native tongue - and have lived in the cultures under discussion are not really enfranchised to voice an opinion.

Should they dare to do so this is called "LYIING"

Similarly, should it be necessary to bomb a culture to the stone age, rape the citizens, loot the museums and generally spread demonic chaos this is called :WINNING HEARTS AND MINDS" or possibly "REBUILDING".

Where the violence is excessive this is called "THE BASTARDS DID IT TO THEMSELVES"

Anyone questioning any of this and trying to work to make it better is a "SCUM-SUCKING BASTARD VIOLENT WHACKO"

Hope this clears things up...basically we need to speak in opposites or they won't understand.

Originally Posted by NoahJ

Your projection and condescension is growing. \

Originally Posted by trumptman

He's going late stage. Soon after this the foaming of the mouth the bans usually begin but not until they demand they happen first thinking the target will hit someone else.

Originally Posted by BR

And don't forget to use PM for sexy times, too.

Originally Posted by segovius

Just telling it like it is, just telling it like it is....

Originally Posted by trumptman

All correction of grammar requests and desires to probe my brain or the origins of words I use can be done via PM.

Originally Posted by trumptman

He's going late stage. Soon after this the foaming of the mouth the bans usually begin but not until they demand they happen first thinking the target will hit someone else.

Originally Posted by jimmac

Do you mean like the " Ted Kennedy " comment?

Originally Posted by trumptman

Excuse me Mr. Indisputably True. Would you care to support that bolded claim. I'll be happy to see any quotes where I claimed you've been censured.

Support the claim or withdraw it.

He's going late stage. Soon after this the foaming of the mouth the bans usually begin but not until they demand they happen first thinking the target will hit someone else

Originally Posted by segovius

Well...actually being a radical and having a mind of my own, I object to be told what to do and have neither to withdraw or support particularly as supporting any fact is not ever really an issue in your case - but besides that I have problems with authority you see.....makes me want to do the opposite and tell the person exerting it to fuck off. That's what happens when you have a mind of your own I suppose..it's a curse sometimes.

But in your case, I make an exception because I think I can help. You said this:



Now of course - this being the looking-glass world - this does not mean 'bans' in the sense of censure or indeed being banned. And I fully realize that 'begin' does not mean 'start' but rather probably 'ends' or even 'not happen at all because nothing exists'.

Originally Posted by segovius

What we need to understand about the Right in order to attempt a sane discourse is that they see things in opposite terms to what they really are....it's a kind of disease a bit like Alice through the Looking Glass....

One example will suffice: Right-wingers who have no knowledge of a specific culture and do not speak any language other than English (and that quite badly) are often empowered to comment dogmatically on arcane philosophical minutiae quoted from Non-European language which relate to centuries old cultural references.

On the other hand; academics who have studied these regions all their lives, are fluent in the languages - possibly even speaking them as a native tongue - and have lived in the cultures under discussion are not really enfranchised to voice an opinion.

Should they dare to do so this is called "LYIING"

Similarly, should it be necessary to bomb a culture to the stone age, rape the citizens, loot the museums and generally spread demonic chaos this is called :WINNING HEARTS AND MINDS" or possibly "REBUILDING"... "THE BASTARDS DID IT TO THEMSELVES"

Anyone questioning any of this and trying to work to make it better is a "SCUM-SUCKING BASTARD VIOLENT WHACKO"

Hope this clears things up...basically we need to speak in opposites or they won't understand.

Originally Posted by MaxParrish

Well then, what we need to understand about the Left before attempting a sane discourse is that they see things in opposite terms to reality....it's a kind of disease a bit like Alice through the Looking Glass....

One example will suffice: Left-wingers who believe they have superior knowledge of a specific culture because they speak foreign language (even if quite badly) often comment dogmatically, only informed by simple minded clichés derived from insular peers.

On the other hand; non-academics, those who have lived in these regions all their lives, are fluent in the languages - possibly even speaking them as a native tongue - and have lived in the cultures under discussion are not really enfranchised to voice an opinion if their opinion confirms right wing thinking.

Should they dare to do so this is called "selling out" or "puppets" or "lackeys" of globalists, capitalism, or right-wingers.

Similarly, should it be necessary to use force against left dictators to defend western interests, or democratic interests and values in their culture, is is called criminal and motivated by conspiratorial sinister forces.

Anyone questioning any of this and trying to work to make it better is a "working for the oil companies "rape(ing) the citizens, loot(ing) the museums and generally spread(ing) demonic chaos"

Hope this clears things up...basically we need to speak in opposites or they won't understand.

Originally Posted by segovius

Tsk..this is very poor.

Is that the best you can do? Plagiarize a post? What happened to original thought? Wait...your're a winger aren't you???

Originally Posted by MaxParrish

Only a left-winger would complain that obvious parody is a form of plagerism. LOL..

Originally Posted by segovius

There's a lot of truth in it though isn't there? The inability of the political right to produce original thought. I mean right-wingers really aren't that creative or original are they?

Trumpt is right to have Ayn Rand in his sig - she is the only significant right-wing writer there has ever been and even then, she's really very bad...

If you think of all the great works of original art and literature, none are politically 'right' are they? I can't think of one...

There is no right-wing equivalent of 1984 or Animal Farm..not even a right wing 'Das Kapital' - I suppose Mein Kampf is the nearest but again, that is not any form of original thought is it?

Picasso's "Guernica"... Kandinsky...Dali..

You know the Nazis famously banned all left-wing art and burnt all such literature..the only culture allowed was that of Right-wing thinkers (I use the term loosely) and artists...And you know what? No-one can remember any of them....and no-one knew who they were...

Originally Posted by MaxParrish

"There's a lot of truth in it though, isn't there"? What, that only 'the right' can write parody and the left can write serious or original thought? Admittedly the committed left has a poor sense of humor (while we South Park conservatives do enjoy poking at idols) but what is called "right-wing" does have a large scope of original thought - unless a person slept through their history courses (of course, i think the left-right taxonomy is somewhat crude for in depth discussions).

Have you not read Adam Smith, John Stuart Mills, or Thomas Jefferson or Jame Madison? How about St. Augustine, Alexnder Solzhenitsyn, or Edmund Burke? Milton Friedman or Frank Knight? How about the novelist Tom Wolfe, or Jean Raspail, Allen Drury or Saul Bellow? Maybe Leo Strauss? F.A. Hayak?, James Burnham? C.S. Lewis? Ezra Pound? T.S. Elliot? H.L. Menchen?

How about the Agrarian Conservatives: Robert Penn Warren, Richard Weaver, or John Crowe Ransom?

And there are some that may (or may not) consider themselves right of center that carry a conservative-libertarian bundle of original thought: Jane Jacobs, Banfield, Gordon Woods, Bernard Bailyn, and Oscar Handlin.

Of course, when I speak of the right I mainly speak of conservatives, classical liberals, or libertarians of the right - the right of center alignment that has something in common - in contrast to left populism and leftist groups (National Socialism, Peronism, Communism, communalism, Socialism). There are few right-wing statists of note: Hegel comes to mind.

So yes, lots of original thought for those that are interested.

Sorry, these are not thinkers, they are artists. In fact, they are "feelers", subjectivists who express political feelings through art.

Excuse me? The Chinese Communists burned thousands of religious texts in Tibet (as well as over a thousand monasteries). Of course, burning is only one way of suppressing welcome texts and plenty of the left 'thinkers' justified their censoring or outright confiscation in a score of Communist regimes.

Frankly, your stereotype snideness towards "right wingers" is what is lacking in original thought, and its not even funny.

Originally Posted by segovius

I would say that the main dynamic of 'the Right' is an ability to transmute malleable subjects/statements into use for their own purpose.... hence they have the capacity to co-opt aspects of undefined culture for their own use. True original thought is rare imo.

One other thing - when I say 'Right' I use the term in the current post-modern sense: ie the sort of people who now define themselves as 'Right'...often these are characterized by a certain lack of incisiveness and a reluctance to use argument and reason.

Many of the people you list below are not 'Right' in this sense...they may be 'conservative' but many of them were actually thinkers and could use reason. I am not so sure that many of them would ally themselves to the current crop but let's have a look...

St Augustine was a moralist for sure...and quite insane in many respects. Maybe he was right-wing now I think of it...

Solzhenitsyn; might have a point, clearly he was a religious maniac. Was he an original thinker? I would say not...

...fact, surely the only significant original contributors in that list have to be Bellow, Strauss (surely not Right???), CS Lewis, Pound (a Nazi) and Eliot. Menchen was a laugh and for that we can forgive a lot but I see him more as an iconoclast.

It was you shooting yourself in the foot and destroying your credibility...NATIONAL SOCIALISM is Right..ok yeah...

Not really...and really no-one is interested...that in itself speaks volumes...as does the fact that there are quite a few REAL Right-wing contributors I never mentioned so as not to defeat my argument but you don't seem to know who they are...

Originally Posted by trumptman

Max, this is some of the sharpest writing I have read in quite a while. It is very appreciated as are all of your posts. Nicely done!

Originally Posted by MaxParrish

Thanks, nice to know that us "unoriginal" 'rightists' are having an impact.

Originally Posted by trumptman

Excuse me Mr. Indisputably True. Would you care to support that bolded claim. I'll be happy to see any quotes where I claimed you've been censured.

Support the claim or withdraw it.

I'm still waiting.



Seg, is Jimmac being a proper bottom for you? When you make him scream your name does he do so in authentic Aramaic?

Originally Posted by trumptman

It's fun to joke around about.

That said, since you cannot support the claim, I consider it withdrawn. Your credibility now reflects the fact that you'd rather laugh away your accusations rather than support them.

I'll be laughing right along with everyone else.