I'm pretty sure Dom saw this before he went offline.I specifically asked for this to be transferred to chat.This really belongs in chat.CalBear probably hasn't seen it yet.
I'm pretty sure Dom saw this before he went offline.I specifically asked for this to be transferred to chat.This really belongs in chat.CalBear probably hasn't seen it yet.
@drewmc2001: I agree wholeheartedly.
The whole reason I started this thread is because I am trying to cover some groundwork so that I can point people to it in order to provide context and thus reduce the likelihood of people taking what I say amiss.
I disagree. It can be very hard but is not impossible.@The Professor: As you probably know, it is impossible to "write exactly what one means". Words are polysemic and interpretation is always open. I know what I mean but is my reader going to understand my words the same way I intended? If we have sufficiently different backgrounds, it is unlikely. Therefore civil discussion requires that people do not immediately jump to the worst possible interpretation and instead, when they think something objectionable is being said, ask questions like "You said: 'XXXX'., What exactly did you mean by that ?".
@fi11222, oh, man, you've kicked the hornests' nest, IMO.
Here's the problem that I have with this. Everyone here is arguing from within their own belief system. And for the sake of civility, we should understand that, and remember that when we lay out our positions. Most of your comments, I believe, would have benefited by a smattering of "I think" or "IMO" or "I believe" or a qualifier that says, "I understand that my opinion or belief system may not be shared by other folks."
I don't believe you're bigoted, largely because I see your argument as grounded in your own worldview. Here's the thing about any of our worldviews (at least as I see it... see, this is a qualifier. For those who disagree with me, this lets them understand I'm not deliberately trying to piss on their leg), I think each person's worldview attempts to frame the world through a set of understandings, ranging from why are we here, what are we to do, how do we interact with each other and where do we go from here.
Because our worldviews are an existential component of who we are, they require a degree of exclusivity. That's why (IMO, here's that qualifier) when you and @Obergruppenführer Smith are in sharp disagreement, its because of opposing worldviews. I'd even argue that you're right and he's wrong as far as whether the comment which offended him was bigoted. My reasoning is because of the exclusive demands placed on each of your own worldviews. A lot of the time, we call someone else's view bigoted because it runs counter to our own worldviews' demands of exclusivity.
I'm not trying to piss you off, but in a semi-anonymous forum like this, civility is important, and in some ways, I think you failed in presenting your argument in a civil manner. I'm not in any way trying to give cover to those who leveled a charge of bigotry against you. The reason for this is that if we exclude from civil discourse those who do not share our worldview and it's inherent demand for exclusivity, it becomes an echo chamber, where everyone repeats similar set of mantras and beliefs. And at the end of the day, the forum benefits from having contrarian worldviews introduced. After all, sometimes it benefits the environment when we allow that voice in the wilderness to cry out.
CalBear probably hasn't seen it yet.
It also completely defeats the object of a discussion forum. The purpose of a forum is, yes, to understand one another, and even conflicting views, which is all well and good. But it is a means to reach a common understanding of each others positions. If one of our best methods of understanding each other (i.e. joint understanding of WORDS) is waived in favor of "It's his worldview man".
I deliberately stayed clear of Godwin's Law. I trust you didn't run to the most extreme of examples as a way to dismiss any view which falls outside your own. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
When I read your comment about a "common understanding" and your following commentary, it is unclear if by "common understanding" you actually meant a "shared view of the world." As I read your commentary, my tendency was to assign the latter, but that may be unfair of me to do so.
How we are educated, raised, and live our lives define how we use words. Pour different ingredients into the mix and you get different outcomes. Now I happen to agree that a shared definition of bigotry and racism are useful, but it is clear by the number of times Ian and the other mods have kicked people for false accusations of both, that we all don't share a common understanding of words. It is possible that you and I couldn't even agree to how precisely these words, which elicit such strong emotions in us, should be used. How many of our former forum members have fallen foul of the ban hammer precisely because of this reason?
Actually you are less a straight up bigot, as the term is used in common discussion and more of a truly offensive, unrepentant Christian Chauvinist (definition: a person displaying excessive or prejudiced loyalty or support for a particular cause, group, or gender).As Calbear remarked in his last message kicking me, I was kicked 3 times in the last 13 months.
I believe that this is the result of over-hasty judgment on the part of the moderators and I wish to explain myself before it happens again. I am not overly optimistic about my ability to get my point of view across but I will try nonetheless. This thread is being started in the "before 1900" section because it is directly related to a TL I published here. Also, I almost exclusively publish in this section so it is also where the people who know me are.
The reasons invoked for my latest kicking were "Religious bigotry and some Eurocentric nationalism/racism, all in one pithy post." I have also been called a "troll" multiple times and so I wish to explain why all these labels are wide off the mark as far as I am concerned.
Because I do believe that Christianity was superior to other religion in terms of its societal effects. Does that make me a racist or bigot? I do not believe so. The judgment I am making about Christianity, I do in the same spirit as a biologist would say that mammals are superior to reptiles. To me, Christianity is a natural artefact, a product of natural evolution, like the rest of human culture. The point I am making is that Christianity seems to have displayed better evolutionary fitness compared to other religions and I am trying to explain what I mean by that (please refer to my various posts for more details).
- I am not a "Troll": I never publish anything for the purpose of offending people. Of course, some of what I say or have said may have offended some but it was never my intention. Also, looking at my likes record (303 likes for 460 posts), it seems that quite a lot of people like what I say.
- I am not a religious bigot. First of all, I am not Christian and I do not support any established religion. Where I come from (France) religion has long become irrelevant (80% respond to polls that they do not believe in God, let alone attend Church) and you can say pretty much anything about religion without raising an eyebrow. In fact, nobody cares. Of course this is very different from Cold Civil War America where using the words "Christianity" or "Protestantism" automatically brands you a Trump supporter, with all the attendant assumptions. As a result, I was always surprised when I was kicked. In all three cases, I assumed that what I said was either non-controversial or sufficiently carefully worded to avoid any misunderstanding. Obviously, I was wrong.
- I am not even a conservative. I do not believe there is anything to "conserve". Civilization only moves forward and generally not under conscious human control. So for example "saving Western civilization" is certainly not something I believe in.
- I am not a "Eurocentrist" or "White Supremacist": The whole point of the TL I published here (which is stalled for the moment) was to explore a scenario in which Christianity spreads East instead of West and therefore produces the same effects in China/Japan that Europe experienced IOTL (Industrial revolution, etc).
If one takes the long view (this is why I always publish in the "pre-1900" section), it becomes pretty obvious that Christianity is not a European religion. Its roots are firmly in the Middle-East (especially in Mesopotamian culture) and most of its key developments took place in Egypt, Syria and Anatolia (modern Turkey) between 100 AD and 600 AD. For most of this period, Europe was a poor, cold, violent backwater which played little part in religious or cultural evolution. What happened later on is that, no one being a prophet in his own country, Christianity was wiped out from the Middle-East and eventually bore fruit, in its protestant incarnation, in far away Europe; the unlikeliest of places.
Again, I am making no metaphysical claim here. I am just saying that Christianity was a mental discipline, like Yoga or Buddhism, and that it has very strong effects, both psychological and social. My claim is that what we call "modernity" is the result of these effects.
Will I be kicked again if I keep arguing in favor of this position, either through TL writing or comments ?