Hoping to meet some Duggars today!!

[sheryl]

 

You're saying people are hateful judgmental and trollish on this thread. You're not referring to words but intent, as if you know what they're thinking when they write. Is it your intent to declare your hatred for them? Or is the word "awful" more important than "judgmental" and "troll" with regard to determining hateful intent? 

 

 

But more importantly, "hate speech" is a particular thing, it's not a matter of feeling animosity towards another person, it's a matter of inciting fear and distrust against a group, and in turn an individual belonging to or thought to belong to that group.

 

The Duggars do routinely engage in "hate speech" by virtue of the generally accepted and used definition of the term. This is demonstrably true (as has been discussed earlier in the thread). This doesn't mean that opining this family is "awful" falls under the category of "hate speech." Not by any conventional use of the term. 

 

It was more than intent  The word awful was used.  How does anyone know for sure?  It's opinions of people.  I've met them and they were very nice.  That's my opinion.  Do I think they are perfect? No.  Do I think you, I or anyone is?  No. 

 

I know my Lord and Savior is perfect but mankind is not.

 

You say the Duggars engage in hate speech.  Maybe to some and maybe not to others.  Let me ask you this....not even looking at it through very filtered lens.  Can you entertain that perhaps non-Christians "speak hate" of Christians?   Or, is it only Christians that hate?

 

To me it's a condition of the heart and everyone makes errors. 

[sheryl]

And, I'm sorry Stacey. I wasn't going to respond but just can not find the reasoning in some of these replies.

[unsinkable]

tough luck.

 

That is how the internet works. Unless you post at Storknet. Does storknet still exist?

This board has a long tradition of spin-offs. And the vast majority of people, when asked to start a new thread, do so.

 

Maybe a handful say no. If something is so important, the people who say no are simply shooting themselves in the foot if they continue to be obstinate.

 

"Tough luck" is really a dismissive, rude way to respond.

[Spy Car]

The Duggars use their celebrity and fame to campaign against the rights of LGBT people. I think that is awful. 

 

Showing up to support Josh Duggar on his anti-gay road show ain't too groovy either. 

 

Good grief.

 

Bill

 

 

[unsinkable]

Poor dead kitten

[zoobie]

It was more than intent  The word awful was used.  How does anyone know for sure?  It's opinions of people.  I've met them and they were very nice.  That's my opinion.  Do I think they are perfect? No.  Do I think you, I or anyone is?  No. 

 

I know my Lord and Savior is perfect but mankind is not.

 

You say the Duggars engage in hate speech.  Maybe to some and maybe not to others.  Let me ask you this....not even looking at it through very filtered lens.  Can you entertain that perhaps non-Christians "speak hate" of Christians?   Or, is it only Christians that hate?

 

To me it's a condition of the heart and everyone makes errors. 

 

Of course non-Christians can be guilty of hate speech. The fact that the FRC self-identifies as a Christian organization should not make it above reproach. To me, the FRC does not represent the "Christian community" (to paraphrase the Ferguson discussions). Many people don't know what the Family Research Council or their parent organization, Focus on the Family, really represents. They see the name, and think it's something benign or maybe even positive. Same with the Duggars. I'm sure they are perfectly polite and well-mannered at restaurants, but that doesn't mean you should support them without investigating what they are truly selling. Most of the people watching the show have no idea how out of the mainstream "Christian community" they lie with their beliefs. It seems all sweet and innocent on TV.

[sheryl]

Of course non-Christians can be guilty of hate speech. The fact that the FRC self-identifies as a Christian organization should not make it above reproach. To me, the FRC does not represent the "Christian community" (to paraphrase the Ferguson discussions). Many people don't know what the Family Research Council or their parent organization, Focus on the Family, really represents. They see the name, and think it's something benign or maybe even positive. Same with the Duggars. I'm sure they are perfectly polite and well-mannered at restaurants, but that doesn't mean you should support them without investigating what they are truly selling. Most of the people watching the show have no idea how out of the mainstream "Christian community" they lie with their beliefs. It seems all sweet and innocent on TV.

 

zoobie,  I get where you're coming from but let's don't take too many bunny trails here.  taking that premise that one is well-mannered but that should not dictate supporting them w/o investigating what they are truly selling.  again, what is junk to one is treasure to another.  how does any one actually ever know? 

 

think of a person you support.  no, not talking politics here, but just one you respect, admire, support.  that person could be any combo. of Christian/non, conservative/liberal or whatever.....you agree with this person.  they are nice in public, etc.   but, they made an error.  an awful reproach occurred years ago that  just surfaced.  do you pull your support from them?  how do you handle that?  would it be based on whether they are truly repentant?  or does that even matter?

 

"really selling something" is subjective.  there are the whacko's like jim jones who committed suicide along with his "followers".  what was he selling?  

 

selling or holding an opinion?  hmmm.  these are 2 vastly different entities.  I used to sell a cosmetic line.  my opinion of that very well known cosmetic line is that it's nice but I don't need to buy it at those prices.  it doesn't mean it's any less nice because my opinion says no to buying it for whatever reasons.

[Cindy in FL.]

Jesus saying to love one another does not mean that we have to approve of, agree with, or support what people do.

 

I absolutely do not engage in hate speech against Christians. I do not wish for Christians to be persecuted, jailed, despised, abused or maligned. I would venture a bet that most atheists, if not all, feel this way.

 

What a terrible shame that members of the FRC can't extent that wish to LBGTIQ people.

 

The problem is not the 'Christian' in this group. For Christ said 'love one another.' I wouldn't even call this group Christian, to be frank, as they are ignoring Christ's instructions.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Jesus saying to love one another does not mean that we have to approve of, agree with, or support what people do.

 

 

But it doesn't mean that you should be discriminating or trying to force them to live by your beliefs.  In no way can that be defined as love.

[zoobie]

zoobie, I get where you're coming from but let's don't take too many bunny trails here. taking that premise that one is well-mannered but that should not dictate supporting them w/o investigating what they are truly selling. again, what is junk to one is treasure to another. how does any one actually ever know?

 

think of a person you support. no, not talking politics here, but just one you respect, admire, support. that person could be any combo. of Christian/non, conservative/liberal or whatever.....you agree with this person. they are nice in public, etc. but, they made an error. an awful reproach occurred years ago that just surfaced. do you pull your support from them? how do you handle that? would it be based on whether they are truly repentant? or does that even matter?

 

"really selling something" is subjective. there are the whacko's like jim jones who committed suicide along with his "followers". what was he selling?

 

selling or holding an opinion? hmmm. these are 2 vastly different entities. I used to sell a cosmetic line. my opinion of that very well known cosmetic line is that it's nice but I don't need to buy it at those prices. it doesn't mean it's any less nice because my opinion says no to buying it for whatever reasons.

I'm not sure I follow you. Who made an error?

 

The FRC is (among other things) a lobbying organization whose mission is to shape legislation to restrict the civil rights of gay people. Josh Duggar works for them. He was hired to work for them because of his family's popularity. (Unless maybe his mad skillz at the used car lot catapulted him into a nationally prominent political lobbyist role? Stranger things have happened I guess.) His tour promotes the FRC to raise money for them. The money they raise is used to advance their anti-LGBT goals.

 

The Duggars make lots of money on their tv show and book sales. They get invited to speak because of their popularity, even if their beliefs don't align with the hosting/paying organization. They get paid for the speaking engagement and they sell books and signed photos at the events. They're selling the Duggar brand and subtly (or not, depending on the event and market) evangelizing their beliefs. ATI and Gothard are not mainstream Christian beliefs. The Duggars are evangelists! Of course they're trying to sell their brand of religion. They're also selling themselves in some respects--becoming reality tv stars can be lucrative. They are very shrewd marketers of their brand and have gained national popularity through guarding the more...extreme views and appearing wholesome and non-threatening.

[Cindy in FL.]

I am certainly not saying that I approve of everything the FRC says or does.

 

OMG.

 

Go read what the FRC says.

 

Come back and tell me if that sounds loving.

 

I honestly feel like I might be sick, reading people defend a group that defames people just like my beloved daughter.

[Cindy in FL.]

I don't see where I did that. All I did was say that Jesus doesn't require us to approve of, agree with, or support what people do.

[Cindy in FL.]

Sadie, I just had the opportunity to spend time with my bonus sister (step) and her partner of 26 years. I thoroughly enjoyed our time together and I love them both. They even joked with my dh about him doing their wedding when the law changes in Florida (he had just performed my other step sister's wedding). They know where we stand on the issue of homosexuality, but they also know we love them.

 

I am sure that you could not love your daughter more than you do and that she is a wonderful, delightful person. I would love my child if I was in your situation, too.

[Cindy in FL.]

I'll be honest and say that I am not very familiar with the FRC. I will read up on them when I have time. Just to clarify, I was not posting in defense of them.

 

No, he requires you to love one another. Do you see any love towards LBGTIQ people from the FRC ?

 

[Audrey]

Couple of things:

--I have no obligation to tolerate intolerance. When you want your personal beliefs to dictate the private lives of other consenting adults , you have crossed a line and you can expect backlash. Hint: losing the right to marginalize/control others does not make you a victim. Hope that helps!

 

--The Duggars are not an awful family. The kids seem really sweet. However, the parents are bigots who are using their fame in an effort to restrict the rights of others. In my book that makes them awful. IMO.

I also suspect Jill practices blanket training which makes them even more awful.

 

 

And the oldest son -- the FRC lackey -- he's a bigot, too.  That apple didn't fall far from its tree.  Sadly.

[ktgrok]

Yes, some people sure can be hateful... and I'm not talking about the Duggars.  Some people on here are way more judgmental and hateful than the Duggars will ever be.  Just because they believe the Bible and don't support homosexuality does not make them hateful.  Some of you act like everyone has to believe exactly like you do. 

 

The definition of a troll is someone who goes to an article (or post) and posts just to cause trouble.  I think we have quite a few trolls on here ... and some of them are regular posters.

 

i have never been accused of trolling. If you mean to include me, it would be a first.

 

If someone posted "hey, i'm so excited, I'm going to get to see the Westboro Church in person today!" would it be "hateful" to point out that hey...they stand for some not very nice things. 

 

If she said, "hey, I get to meet the Pearls today! They are signing their copies of their child raising book" would it be hateful or trollish to point out hey, they stand for some not very nice thing?

 

If she said, "hey, I get to see a KKK parade today!" would it be "hateful" to point out, hey, they stand for some not very nice things?

 

At what point, exactly, is it better to be "polite" about issues that are important, versus addressing those issues? Being "tolerant" sometimes means people will be hurt, abused, or worse. I'm not going to be silent on issues like that. Those are not live and let live issues. If it was just that they don't like or agree with homosexuality, that would be one thing. But they are trying to legislate those beliefs onto others. They are trying to force others to live according to their beliefs. They are actively working in the political process to force their version of religion on others. Worse, their family is now working with a group that although they now say they are against the death penalty for homosexuals, seems to have zero problem with life imprisonment for homosexuals. So no, I don't think we should just all be polite and nice about something so important. If that makes me a troll, or "hateful" or "intolerant" then, well, whatever. 

[ktgrok]

That is the most farfetched comparison I have ever seen.

I don't think so.

[fraidycat]

With all due respect, Stacey is not a newbie here. She is well aware what the Duggar name can (and most often does) do to a thread.

[rmtzc2009]

I was thinking Anna must not practice blanket training well enough bc I saw the kids move on a recent episode.

 

Feeling a little judgmental this evening??  Leave it alone.  Your point, as always, has already been made clear.

[albeto.]

It was more than intent  The word awful was used.

The word "awful" is arguably an appropriate word to use when expressing one's personal opinion referring to a family business that capitalizes on oppressing a marginalized group. To expect people to censor themselves so that others don't have to hear negative feedback is not only unrealistic, but detrimental to a community that exists to support educators. People who are incapable or unwilling to critically think about statements they make and profess to be true and good are doing a disservice to those who count on them to teach them critical thinking skills. This is of course my opinion. At what point should my uncomplimentary opinion be censored?

 

How does anyone know for sure?

Irrelevant. The accuracy or value of claims made stand or fall on the merits of the argument, not the intent or desires of the person presenting them.

 

It's opinions of people.  I've met them and they were very nice.  That's my opinion.

And you are free to share this opinion, even when it offends others. To suggest the Duggars are nice people is no different to me than suggesting David Duke is a nice person. People who work to oppress other people are not doing nice things. When they do so with a smile on their face, they're deviant as well as dangerous. I think this is why the Duggars are so popular actually, and I spoke about this in the s/o thread. I think one reason this family is so popular is because their pleasant facade is welcome in a society that no longer welcomes what they promote. It sweetens the pot when seemingly friendly, nice people push a damaging agenda. It doesn't feel so dangerous when coming from the beautiful smiles of the Duggar brides and seemingly happy children.

 

Do I think they are perfect? No.  Do I think you, I or anyone is?  No.

Irrelevant.

 

I know my Lord and Savior is perfect but mankind is not.

You don't know, you can't know, you believe. Nevertheless, it's irrelevant to the topic. I don't mean to sound mean about it, but let's pick apart this argument and see what it's really proposing, kwim?

 

You say the Duggars engage in hate speech.  Maybe to some and maybe not to others.

By definition, verbally supporting ideologies and public policies that function to oppress marginalized groups by virtue of spreading fear and distrust is hate speech. There's more to it, but that's the component we're talking about here. Hate speech is a particular term used to identify a particular kind of communication.

 

Let me ask you this....not even looking at it through very filtered lens.  Can you entertain that perhaps non-Christians "speak hate" of Christians?

In regions where christians are a marginalized group (like Iran, for example), hate speech can be, and is used against them. In regions where christians are the oppressive group (like Uganda, for example), no. 

In the context of FRC, let's look at a more subtle example of how speech is used to protect the oppressive group.

 

Consider the following portions of this thread. Catwoman told me to "give [my argument] a rest" and provided a smiley that shows the rolling eyes of irritation and exasperation.

Later, calandalsmom told Catwoman that one can't expect a public forum conversation to be expected to be censored to accommodate the wishes of people who don't want to hear anything unflattering was "tough luck." because that's not how the internet works.

 

Both comments convey the same idea: I don't agree with your argument, I wish you'd stop. Interestingly, only one was considered by anyone to be rude or inappropriate. unsinkable suggested the "tough luck" comment is "really a dismissive, rude way to respond." There were other comments, accusations of turning every conversation into debate, being judgmental, etc. So which one of these comments is "hateful"? Any? All? I don't think so. Do some comments provide a more reasonable argument? I do think so, but ultimately, without articulating these reasons, we're left with an appeal to emotion. Well, why is the emotional consideration of the marginalized group secondary to the emotional consideration of the OP or those who similarly support oppressive ideologies and public policies? Why is an appeal to emotion more important than an appeal to reason and rational thought? The question I have is, why is an appeal to emotion more valuable than an appeal to reason and rational thought?

 

Or, is it only Christians that hate?

I assume you're being facetious here because I can't imagine anything I've said that could be construed as suggesting only Christians hate.

 

To me it's a condition of the heart and everyone makes errors.

That definition is not the standard definition the rest of society goes by, but I think I can see what you're getting at nevertheless.

[Catwoman]

The word "awful" is arguably an appropriate word to use when expressing one's personal opinion referring to a family business that capitalizes on oppressing a marginalized group. To expect people to censor themselves so that others don't have to hear negative feedback is not only unrealistic, but detrimental to a community that exists to support educators. People who are incapable or unwilling to critically think about statements they make and profess to be true and good are doing a disservice to those who count on them to teach them critical thinking skills. This is of course my opinion. At what point should my uncomplimentary opinion be censored?

 

 

Irrelevant. The accuracy or value of claims made stand or fall on the merits of the argument, not the intent or desires of the person presenting them.

 

 

And you are free to share this opinion, even when it offends others. To suggest the Duggars are nice people is no different to me than suggesting David Duke is a nice person. People who work to oppress other people are not doing nice things. When they do so with a smile on their face, they're deviant as well as dangerous. I think this is why the Duggars are so popular actually, and I spoke about this in the s/o thread. I think one reason this family is so popular is because their pleasant facade is welcome in a society that no longer welcomes what they promote. It sweetens the pot when seemingly friendly, nice people push a damaging agenda. It doesn't feel so dangerous when coming from the beautiful smiles of the Duggar brides and seemingly happy children.

 

 

Irrelevant.

 

 

You don't know, you can't know, you believe. Nevertheless, it's irrelevant to the topic. I don't mean to sound mean about it, but let's pick apart this argument and see what it's really proposing, kwim?

 

 

By definition, verbally supporting ideologies and public policies that function to oppress marginalized groups by virtue of spreading fear and distrust is hate speech. There's more to it, but that's the component we're talking about here. Hate speech is a particular term used to identify a particular kind of communication.

 

 

In regions where christians are a marginalized group (like Iran, for example), hate speech can be, and is used against them. In regions where christians are the oppressive group (like Uganda, for example), no.

In the context of FRC, let's look at a more subtle example of how speech is used to protect the oppressive group.

 

Consider the following portions of this thread. Catwoman told me to "give [my argument] a rest" and provided a smiley that shows the rolling eyes of irritation and exasperation.

Later, calandalsmom told Catwoman that one can't expect a public forum conversation to be expected to be censored to accommodate the wishes of people who don't want to hear anything unflattering was "tough luck." because that's not how the internet works.

 

Both comments convey the same idea: I don't agree with your argument, I wish you'd stop. Interestingly, only one was considered by anyone to be rude or inappropriate. unsinkable suggested the "tough luck" comment is "really a dismissive, rude way to respond." There were other comments, accusations of turning every conversation into debate, being judgmental, etc. So which one of these comments is "hateful"? Any? All? I don't think so. Do some comments provide a more reasonable argument? I do think so, but ultimately, without articulating these reasons, we're left with an appeal to emotion. Well, why is the emotional consideration of the marginalized group secondary to the emotional consideration of the OP or those who similarly support oppressive ideologies and public policies? Why is an appeal to emotion more important than an appeal to reason and rational thought? The question I have is, why is an appeal to emotion more valuable than an appeal to reason and rational thought?

 

 

I assume you're being facetious here because I can't imagine anything I've said that could be construed as suggesting only Christians hate.

 

 

That definition is not the standard definition the rest of society goes by, but I think I can see what you're getting at nevertheless.

Holy cow.

 

How long did it take you to come up with that massive post? :svengo:

 

You should get some sort of award for Most Effort Put Into a Single Post. I can't imagine caring enough to do that, but I have to give you credit for tenacity and determination.

 

Now go have some cupcakes -- you deserve at least two (but save one for me, OK?). ;)

[albeto.]

nm 

 

Edited December 6, 2014 by Susan Wise Bauer
That was quite rude.

[Catwoman]

nm 

 

Edited December 6, 2014 by Susan Wise Bauer
And that was rude too.

[Luanne]

Regular posters can not be trolls IMO.  They are people who want to discuss things.

 

In my case I would guess that despite my numerous likes and all that jazz I am being cast as a troll bc I like to engage in discussions even when they are apparently contentious and uncomfortable.  Ok.  if that's your definition. I guess.

 

If you go to a post you don't agree with merely so you can cause trouble, then yes, you are a troll regardless of how often you post on here.

 

[Spy Car]

If you go to a post you don't agree with merely so you can cause trouble, then yes, you are a troll regardless of how often you post on here.

 

 

One could argue that starting threads about going to a rally to cheer on hate-groups and their leaders is trollish behavior. What sort of response does one expect?

 

Bill

[Susan Wise Bauer]

And...we're done. This doesn't appear to be heading in a remotely useful direction. 

 

SWB