4 ms·

You're reacting emotionally to handfuloflight's witty remark and now you're caught in this strait-laced and dignified bit to mask you being offended by the rema

You're reacting emotionally to handfuloflight's witty remark and now you're caught in this strait-laced and dignified bit to mask you being offended by the remark and caught making a very poor argument. Would it be fair for me to assume that you are an Evangelical who doesn't support Israel's genocide under the theological pretenses that other Evangelicals are known for (i.e., the "apocalyptic accelerationism" handfuloflight refers to)? Would it be fair for me to assume that handfuloflight's remark was solid but fell short in the generalizing way that jokes often lay, because of the possibility that there are Evangelicals who don't support Israel's genocide under the theological pretenses that other Evangelical's are known for because it's a terrible look and indicative of the contemporary fractures that capture the faith at large? Both of ya'll need to be more forthright with your positions instead of performing this constipated do-si-do along the HN guidelines. Give me a good flame war, get flagged, ring up dang and the new dude, or just downvote each other.

handfuloflight 1y ago
I came for the flame war, I stayed for the analysis.
RickJWagner 1y ago
My point is that evangelicals are not a monolith, and not all share the same beliefs. The originating comment makes no hint that it is referring to anything less than 100%. It’s like saying “Black people think…” or “Women want….”, which invariably leads to some not funny generalization. Suggesting all evangelicals want the world to end immediately is in the same vein, IMHO.
- handfuloflight 1y ago
  I qualified twice that I did not mean it that as a blanket statement, so what new point are you trying to make?
  - RickJWagner 1y ago
    I’m now making the point that generalizing evangelicals as a monolith that can ‘change their mind’ in unison is akin to generalizing people by race, gender, etc. I hope you are in agreement on that one. Had your first statement been clear in referring to the subset of evangelicals ( instead of using a pronoun that refers back to the whole, evangelicals ), the statement would not have been properly called ignorant. As it stands, it reads as if all evangelicals wish for Armageddon without delay, which is an ignorant statement.
    - handfuloflight 1y ago
      You need to look at things in context. This was about specifically about evangelicals who showed support for Israel, this in itself is a subset. Everyone else in this thread seems to have understood it was not a blanket statement.
- tolerance 1y ago
  > Suggesting all evangelicals want the world to end immediately is in the same vein, IMHO. But here's the thing. That wasn't the suggestion. The bunch of links that he gave you don't suggest that. At least my impression is that there are a considerable amount of Evangelicals that support whatever you think is going on in Israel under theological pretenses. Any notion of timing carried by his initial remark is likely attributed to this. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the sum of the links handfuloflight shared. Maybe he should have done us the courtesy of spelling it out for us instead, as in, when you asked him: > Do you believe all evangelicals believe the same thing, and that we want the end of the world to come immediately? He should've answered the question straight up instead of (what I interpret as) responding to the emotional side of your comment: > Where would you get such a strange idea? I can assure you it is an ignorant thought. With an indirect explanation of his point through a bunch of links. I get it, that's the responsible thing to do when the discourse is trying to present itself as something other than a flamewar, or something like that, which it might as well just be so we can all be more direct and upfront with what we think and feel instead of doing this half-bunned Socratic dialogue. On the other hand, if someone tries to insult your intelligence in a sophomoric way it makes sense to leave them to their own devices and if they're so smart themselves they can read between the lines on their own. Anyway, these are non-rhetorical, please-say-yes-or-no questions: * Would it be fair for me to assume that you are an Evangelical who doesn't support whatever you think is going on in Israel under the theological pretenses that other Evangelicals are known for (i.e., the "apocalyptic accelerationism" handfuloflight refers to)? * Would it be fair for me to assume that handfuloflight's remark was solid but fell short in the generalizing way that jokes often lay, because of the possibility that there are Evangelicals who don't support whatever you think is going on Israel under the theological pretenses that other Evangelical's are known for, because it has grave moral implications and indicative of the contemporary fractures that capture the faith at large? If you're offended, then suck it up and be open about your vulnerabilities instead of goading the other party into an exchange that they're better suited than you at carrying on. Maybe they'll show you the empathy you desire, within reason.
  - RickJWagner 1y ago
    No, your first assumption is not a fair one. Like many people, my religious views are not lock step with my political ones and the relationship is not straightforward. I see handfuloflights remark as an attempted joke, alongside jokes that assume all Black people think alike, all women want the same thing, etc. Like those diverse groups, evangelicals are not a monolith, especially in political matters. I’m not deeply offended, but I do want to signal that jokes generalizing people are generally not funny.

handfuloflight 1y ago

I came for the flame war, I stayed for the analysis.

RickJWagner 1y ago

My point is that evangelicals are not a monolith, and not all share the same beliefs. The originating comment makes no hint that it is referring to anything less than 100%. It’s like saying “Black people think…” or “Women want….”, which invariably leads to some not funny generalization. Suggesting all evangelicals want the world to end immediately is in the same vein, IMHO.

handfuloflight 1y ago
I qualified twice that I did not mean it that as a blanket statement, so what new point are you trying to make?
- RickJWagner 1y ago
  I’m now making the point that generalizing evangelicals as a monolith that can ‘change their mind’ in unison is akin to generalizing people by race, gender, etc. I hope you are in agreement on that one. Had your first statement been clear in referring to the subset of evangelicals ( instead of using a pronoun that refers back to the whole, evangelicals ), the statement would not have been properly called ignorant. As it stands, it reads as if all evangelicals wish for Armageddon without delay, which is an ignorant statement.
  - handfuloflight 1y ago
    You need to look at things in context. This was about specifically about evangelicals who showed support for Israel, this in itself is a subset. Everyone else in this thread seems to have understood it was not a blanket statement.
tolerance 1y ago
> Suggesting all evangelicals want the world to end immediately is in the same vein, IMHO. But here's the thing. That wasn't the suggestion. The bunch of links that he gave you don't suggest that. At least my impression is that there are a considerable amount of Evangelicals that support whatever you think is going on in Israel under theological pretenses. Any notion of timing carried by his initial remark is likely attributed to this. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the sum of the links handfuloflight shared. Maybe he should have done us the courtesy of spelling it out for us instead, as in, when you asked him: > Do you believe all evangelicals believe the same thing, and that we want the end of the world to come immediately? He should've answered the question straight up instead of (what I interpret as) responding to the emotional side of your comment: > Where would you get such a strange idea? I can assure you it is an ignorant thought. With an indirect explanation of his point through a bunch of links. I get it, that's the responsible thing to do when the discourse is trying to present itself as something other than a flamewar, or something like that, which it might as well just be so we can all be more direct and upfront with what we think and feel instead of doing this half-bunned Socratic dialogue. On the other hand, if someone tries to insult your intelligence in a sophomoric way it makes sense to leave them to their own devices and if they're so smart themselves they can read between the lines on their own. Anyway, these are non-rhetorical, please-say-yes-or-no questions: * Would it be fair for me to assume that you are an Evangelical who doesn't support whatever you think is going on in Israel under the theological pretenses that other Evangelicals are known for (i.e., the "apocalyptic accelerationism" handfuloflight refers to)? * Would it be fair for me to assume that handfuloflight's remark was solid but fell short in the generalizing way that jokes often lay, because of the possibility that there are Evangelicals who don't support whatever you think is going on Israel under the theological pretenses that other Evangelical's are known for, because it has grave moral implications and indicative of the contemporary fractures that capture the faith at large? If you're offended, then suck it up and be open about your vulnerabilities instead of goading the other party into an exchange that they're better suited than you at carrying on. Maybe they'll show you the empathy you desire, within reason.
- RickJWagner 1y ago
  No, your first assumption is not a fair one. Like many people, my religious views are not lock step with my political ones and the relationship is not straightforward. I see handfuloflights remark as an attempted joke, alongside jokes that assume all Black people think alike, all women want the same thing, etc. Like those diverse groups, evangelicals are not a monolith, especially in political matters. I’m not deeply offended, but I do want to signal that jokes generalizing people are generally not funny.