You're viewing part of a thread.
A pride flag is a symbol of acceptance. It's saying that it's okay to be gay. It's not saying you have to be gay, it's not saying you have to like that people are gay, just that it's okay to be gay.
Well, in the same way you could say that the Ten Commandments are just a symbol of respect. You don't have to like them, you don't even have to follow them, but it would be nicer if you did.
The first one is not authoritarian. Not giving orders to anybody, and not restricting people outside the group that created it.
Try seeing what happens when someone dares to remove the flag, or even just says in its presence that they don't like gay people. I bet you the authoritarianism is going to show up real quick.
You mean see what happens when someone dares to remove the symbol of acceptance of an entire group?
It is like removing a sign that says "everybody welcome". You do that because you think some people are not welcome.
What do you expect to happen?
Ah, the old paradox of tolerance strikes again.
Your comparison is invalid because clearly, the rainbow flag does NOT mean "everybody is welcome". It means "everybody who agrees with us about who is welcome is welcome".
That's correct. If you'd just been invited into a tight-knit circle of friends, you wouldn't say "I don't like Joe. His nose is too big. I think he should be kicked out." and expect to be allowed to stick around.
Bro fr doesn't even understand the point of the "paradox of tolerance" and thinks it's a weapon in this argument lmao
He also just admitted that he doesn't believe LGBTQ people are "welcome."
Why would you say that, because it was a leftie who came up with it?
"The paradox of tolerance states that if a society's practice of tolerance is inclusive of the intolerant, intolerance will ultimately dominate, eliminating the tolerant and the practice of tolerance with them."
This totally applies to the supposed "all are welcome" of LGBT, because clearly, people who don't agree with LGBT aren't welcome. In the same way, it also explains why many Christians are wary of LGBT people because they tend to be explicitly anti-Christian, and those churches who do admit them often end up being completely overtaken by LGBT worship.
My point being, any group claiming to be more tolerant than anyone else is ultimately lying. Tolerance is always a matter of likeness and cohesion. Those who don't fit the norms will always be excluded.
Cool story bro
Again, I'm going to assume you're being serious here and respond as if it's a real conversation.
You say that the ten commandments are a sign of respect. A respect for whom or what?
Again, I'm going to assume you're being serious here and respond as if it's a real conversation.
I appreciate that, and I will do my best to honor that.
You say that the ten commandments are a sign of respect. A respect for whom or what?
They're a sign of respect for and recognition of the essential humanity of others. No one likes to be lied to, stolen from, murdered, or envied. There is no exception made for rich and powerful people, nor for different races, creeds, or sexual orientations.
Yes, you can make the case that they also proscribe a requirement to believe in the Christian God, in which case I would say that's no different than arguing that the pride flag is not saying that you have to be gay.
So the pride flag is necessary because, historically and very recently, non-straight people have been oppressed. Oppressed so badly that many kill themselves because of how they're treated. It is a travesty that we treat other Americans this way just because they're different.
Christians do not suffer like that. It's literally impossible for Christians to suffer like that, as they make up the vast majority of the country. No one can possibly oppress a majority. Hurt their feelings, maybe, but not oppress.
I think if we are putting up religious tenets as a way of showing respect, we should put up the tenets of a religion that is actually oppressed in this country. One that is treated with hostility, and whose members are hated for no reason other than their beliefs. That would show them that we're an accepting country, who actually follow Jesus' values of loving our neighbors.
Christians do not suffer like that. It's literally impossible for Christians to suffer like that, as they make up the vast majority of the country. No one can possibly oppress a majority. Hurt their feelings, maybe, but not oppress.
Right. It’s not like the symbol of their religion isn’t literally a dead guy hanging on a cross. Totally a sign of how much they don’t suffer.
You’re acting as if Christians are somehow a completely homogenous group who all constantly agree on everything all the time. If anything, this shows how blatantly ignorant you are of the reality.
It’s not just that there are hundreds of different denominations whose only commonality is that they agree on who God is, but who constantly feud about various aspects and interpretations of their theology, but even within individual churches you’ll rarely find two individuals who are in complete agreement with each other about everything.
And it’s not as if Christians are somehow immune to addiction, self-harm, or even suicide. The smallest minority is the minority of one, and that’s in fact what the crucifix stands for, because Jesus went up alone against a mob full of murderous rage to defend the rights of the individual to be free from religious prosecution.
But I like your suggestion, so in the spirit of reconciliation, might I offer the following compromise: instead of the Ten Commandments, we use Jesus’s version found in Matthew 19:18:
- You shall not murder
- You shall not commit adultery
- You shall not steal
- You shall not bear false witness
- Honor your father and your mother
- You shall love your neighbor as yourself
There, no more reference to any God, creed, or mandatory holy days. Gay or straight, male or female, brown or white, Muslim or Buddhist, no one is excluded or unduly put upon. Except people whose religion tells them it’s good to kill or steal from other people I guess…
Right. It’s not like the symbol of their religion isn’t literally a dead guy hanging on a cross. Totally a sign of how much they don’t suffer.
Tell me you are not dredging up literal ancient history from 2000 years ago to justify why you are oppressed today
Those are worded in an inaccessable way. "You shall not...". How about "don't lie"? It's the same message without the clear religious overtones that are obviously steeped in the Christian translation from Latin and Greek.
I also disagree with #5. Not everyone's parents deserve honor. Some are horrible and we shouldn't make children feel bad for not loving shit parents.
But even if I agreed to the rest, it wouldn't work. Those things are the basis of social emotional learning. The GOP is explicitly legislating against teaching that.
Those are worded in an inaccessable way. "You shall not...". How about "don't lie"? It's the same message without the clear religious overtones that are obviously steeped in the Christian translation from Latin and Greek.
If that's the worst you have to say about them... sure, I'm not married to a specific translation.
I also disagree with #5. Not everyone's parents deserve honor. Some are horrible and we shouldn't make children feel bad for not loving shit parents.
Honoring them isn't the same as loving them, you know. And even if they're complete shitbags who don't deserve any respect at all, you can still honor them for having given you life by becoming a better person then them. But sure, we can strike that one if you can accept the rest.
But even if I agreed to the rest, it wouldn't work. Those things are the basis of social emotional learning. The GOP is explicitly legislating against teaching that.
Ah well, but of course you can't... because Republicans exist. But if rules like this are the basis of social emotional learning, and Republicans want to legislate putting them into the classroom, how exactly does that prove that they are against this sort of thing? Or are you arguing that these rules are getting in the way of such learning? If so, how?
Republicans want to legislate putting them into the classroom, how exactly does that prove that they are against this sort of thing?
Well that's a great question. Let's brainstorm.
Republicans have pushed against SEL, which is all about being empathetic and kind to your neighbors, and being aware of your own emotions and how to handle them. These are all things Jesus would love. These are things that the portions of the ten commandment I highlighted support.
At the same time, Republicans are pushing for the ten commandments to be included in the classroom.
These are both objectively fact, right? We can see this happening, there are news stories, there are people talking about it. So how would you explain this dissonance?
I'm always a little suspicious when people who don't even believe in Jesus try to tell me what he would have loved but let's have a look at why those evil, evil Republicans might have been on the fence about it, shall we?
A number of conservative publications and groups, including National Review and The Federalist, have criticized social-emotional learning as a "Trojan horse" used to bring in ideas such as critical race theory, sexual orientation and gender identity, and other left-wing politics to the classroom.
Ah well, that sounds pretty typical, doesn't it. And it's funny because SEL lists self-awareness and responsible decisionmaking among its primary goals, but somehow, the people who are pushing for it can't seem to
- resist shoehorning their own ideology into it
- resist blaming their critics for when they're found out
Not the best advertisement for SEL's effectiveness, don't you think?
Oh no! Those filthy liberals might use this program as a Trojan horse to teach our children that checks notes
- black people gained the right to vote within living memory and there are still organizations and people that think of you as lesser depending on the color of your skin, and we must take care that we do not allow ourselves to do the same
- it's okay to be gay and no one is forcing you to like one gender or the other
- it's okay to not feel like the genitalia your momma gave you really fit you, and that if you want to be called a boy or a girl or neither or both irrespective of what's in your pants then that's A-OK
Scary buzzwords, to be sure. The second two topics are about accepting people for who they are. The first is about recognizing that our current laws are unfair to some people.
These are not unreasonable things. But I will not be able to convince you of that. I imagine nothing would.
So regardless. If they wanted to teach ethics, they can do so by posting a short list of things everyone should do. They aren't doing that. They're pushing one religion's agenda, and we don't do that in America.
Calling you an asshole is not authoritarian
That’s true. It’s just childish and immature.