4 ms·

> "defending family values" Which is what I hear exclusively regarding Christian activists. They disregard any non-Christians whom have families, or of other v

by kefka 11y ago

> "defending family values" Which is what I hear exclusively regarding Christian activists. They disregard any non-Christians whom have families, or of other value systems.

ptaipale 11y ago
Yes, that's one funny name for a thing. Another is "social justice" as in SJW.
- kefka 11y ago
  Which means "twitter/Fb hate". Or more succinct, "social" justice is literally mob justice. We had mobs before. They hung black people and wore funny hats. Now they don't care what color you are, wear guy fawkes masks, and make you lose your job and residence. Economic murder, rather than real murder.
VLM 11y ago
This is an interesting side topic, social signalling and out of control holiness spirals. What do you get if you mix the tolerance of a religious inquisition with any side of contemporary politics? You get out of control holiness spirals as each author tries to outdo the previous at being just a little more holy, a little better of a true believer in the real story. Its a perverse game of "telephone". I propose VLM's law, that any large enough communications system that's not anonymous will devolve into holier than thou signalling warfare. Or rephrased you get three people together, one will slander another to show off to the third how much holier he is. It doesn't matter if we're talking about Jesus, physics, or emacs vs vi, same behavior. Some of it is a culture of assuming the worst. Because if you've seen what passes for journalism, usually what we see IS the worst. If you'd like the actual truth on a non-holiness spiral format, the reason why "family values" are described by Christian activists as coincidentally being Christian (well, as they see it, anyway) values is the same propaganda meme as the only opposition to traditional scientific evolution is the binary choice of Evangelical Christian biblical creationism. The same intentional thought process leads to it as a propaganda movement. The point is NOT to debate the issue with 3rd parties, but to assert primate dominance as the leaders of the Christians because they are the ones setting policy. The point isn't that Islam family values are not Christian or only families have values or whatever nonsense when internal doctrine is applied to outsiders who aren't supposed to be part of the conversation anyway, but to very publicly beat chest and tell competitors inside the in-group of Christians to "bring it on" because we are the leaders of the Christians so we decide whats a Christian family value... unless you'd like to argue and try to become top dog of the Christians yourself? Its sort of a misunderstood out of context quote used by outsiders almost as a slur when its really none of their (direct) business who is in charge of the Christian leadership. In a different age the Christians would be slandering each other over translations or various twisted out of context biblical readings, and back then it ALSO had nothing to do with outsiders and they can quite safely butt out and ignore the internal grindings inside the group. Unless you're personally involved in the dominance fight for Christian leadership I can assure you the whole topic is nothing personal, at least not intentionally, and was never meant for your ears.
- emp_zealoth 11y ago
  As a person that lives in a country that is being sabotaged by catholic church i have to disagree. They might be mostly fighting internally, but it spills over into actual law.
- humanrebar 11y ago
  I'm going to disagree. Any debate about definitions is fundamentally about power. There's no real reason why a word means one thing and not another. It's inconsistent to be frustrated with one group for insisting on a definition ("family values" means heterosexual couples and their progeny) and not be equally frustrated with other groups for doing exactly the same thing ("marriage" includes same-sex couples). I'm willing to be wrong on this point if someone cares to enlighten me. I find it sad to conclude that power struggles are inevitable. It's better than violence, but still distasteful.
david-given 11y ago
This is a shibboleth, is it not? A code phrase used by a particular in-group to signal membership of that in-group. (Although frequently they're terms of art to mean certain specific things by that in-group.)
- humanrebar 11y ago
  It's not a shibboleth, it's a dog whistle. Shibboleths are for identifying people in one-on-one or small group situations. Aluminium vs. aluminum could be a shibboleth. Dog whistles generally sound like platitudes to one group (family values, social justice, "let's have an honest conversation about race") and mean something entirely different to a particular demographic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics

by kefka 11y ago

> "defending family values" Which is what I hear exclusively regarding Christian activists. They disregard any non-Christians whom have families, or of other value systems.

ptaipale 11y ago

Yes, that's one funny name for a thing. Another is "social justice" as in SJW.

kefka 11y ago
Which means "twitter/Fb hate". Or more succinct, "social" justice is literally mob justice. We had mobs before. They hung black people and wore funny hats. Now they don't care what color you are, wear guy fawkes masks, and make you lose your job and residence. Economic murder, rather than real murder.

VLM 11y ago

This is an interesting side topic, social signalling and out of control holiness spirals. What do you get if you mix the tolerance of a religious inquisition with any side of contemporary politics? You get out of control holiness spirals as each author tries to outdo the previous at being just a little more holy, a little better of a true believer in the real story. Its a perverse game of "telephone". I propose VLM's law, that any large enough communications system that's not anonymous will devolve into holier than thou signalling warfare. Or rephrased you get three people together, one will slander another to show off to the third how much holier he is. It doesn't matter if we're talking about Jesus, physics, or emacs vs vi, same behavior. Some of it is a culture of assuming the worst. Because if you've seen what passes for journalism, usually what we see IS the worst. If you'd like the actual truth on a non-holiness spiral format, the reason why "family values" are described by Christian activists as coincidentally being Christian (well, as they see it, anyway) values is the same propaganda meme as the only opposition to traditional scientific evolution is the binary choice of Evangelical Christian biblical creationism. The same intentional thought process leads to it as a propaganda movement. The point is NOT to debate the issue with 3rd parties, but to assert primate dominance as the leaders of the Christians because they are the ones setting policy. The point isn't that Islam family values are not Christian or only families have values or whatever nonsense when internal doctrine is applied to outsiders who aren't supposed to be part of the conversation anyway, but to very publicly beat chest and tell competitors inside the in-group of Christians to "bring it on" because we are the leaders of the Christians so we decide whats a Christian family value... unless you'd like to argue and try to become top dog of the Christians yourself? Its sort of a misunderstood out of context quote used by outsiders almost as a slur when its really none of their (direct) business who is in charge of the Christian leadership. In a different age the Christians would be slandering each other over translations or various twisted out of context biblical readings, and back then it ALSO had nothing to do with outsiders and they can quite safely butt out and ignore the internal grindings inside the group. Unless you're personally involved in the dominance fight for Christian leadership I can assure you the whole topic is nothing personal, at least not intentionally, and was never meant for your ears.

emp_zealoth 11y ago
As a person that lives in a country that is being sabotaged by catholic church i have to disagree. They might be mostly fighting internally, but it spills over into actual law.
humanrebar 11y ago
I'm going to disagree. Any debate about definitions is fundamentally about power. There's no real reason why a word means one thing and not another. It's inconsistent to be frustrated with one group for insisting on a definition ("family values" means heterosexual couples and their progeny) and not be equally frustrated with other groups for doing exactly the same thing ("marriage" includes same-sex couples). I'm willing to be wrong on this point if someone cares to enlighten me. I find it sad to conclude that power struggles are inevitable. It's better than violence, but still distasteful.

david-given 11y ago

This is a shibboleth, is it not? A code phrase used by a particular in-group to signal membership of that in-group. (Although frequently they're terms of art to mean certain specific things by that in-group.)

humanrebar 11y ago
It's not a shibboleth, it's a dog whistle. Shibboleths are for identifying people in one-on-one or small group situations. Aluminium vs. aluminum could be a shibboleth. Dog whistles generally sound like platitudes to one group (family values, social justice, "let's have an honest conversation about race") and mean something entirely different to a particular demographic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics