"They can't be trusted to behave unless there's someone stronger in control who's willing to scare them back into line when they misbehave."
That's a good description of religion!
Posted by Colin at May 4, 2009 03:18 AMYet liberals are the ones driving the imposition of authoritarian legislation and imperial decrees that criminalize thought, speech, success, self defense and good living. Only licentiousness gets free rein.
Posted by onar at May 4, 2009 06:12 AM>>Thirty years of conservative misrule have muddled Americans' understanding...
If there were only the misrule part of the equation, we might be in a better position to deal with it. But it's much more than that. Much of the muddling and misunderstanding stems from the more than 30 year, multibillion dollar campaign by a few rich, right wing families to convince Americans that greed is good (and up is down, black is white, etc.)
Until liberals address this problem, the right wing will continue to win political victories, especially since much of the muddle has taken root in the heads of some top Democrats.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
>>"They can't be trusted to behave unless there's someone stronger in control who's willing to scare them back into line when they misbehave."
>>That's a good description of religion!
And it's a good description of much internet commentary. Some people think they have to beat you over the head to make you conform to their way of thinking and believing, rather than trying to convince you with facts and understanding.
Some of those people call themselves progressives, too.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
Carolyn - if, as I assume, that's meant for me, would you please tell me exactly what was untrue or unfair about my comment?
Posted by Colin at May 4, 2009 07:26 AMSome people think they have to beat you over the head to make you conform to their way of thinking and believing,
Yeah, those damn Hillary dead enders and their constant mewling about events that ended over a year ago and no one cares about any more! If only everyone on the intertoobs would listen to their bitter bleatings, everything would be perfect by now.
Some of those people call themselves progressives, too.
And damn those authoritarians who insist their definitions are the correct ones! I'm glad you're finally getting it, Carolyn.
Posted by Twinky P* at May 4, 2009 07:29 AMColin, don't mind Carolyn; she's still nursing the stale bitterness of Hillary Clinton's decisive loss in the primary a whole year ago. These sad, so-called pumas just can't get over the fact that Obama is president. She's not talking to anyone in particular, it's just another "woe is me" moment from the self-appointed arbiter of what it means to be a progressive. Kinda like a teabagger, except more pathetic and less amusing.
Posted by Twinky P* at May 4, 2009 07:34 AMTwinky - I'm almost disappointed to read your remarks about Carolyn's motivation. I had been expecting a stern denunciation from a member of the God Squad!
Posted by Colin at May 4, 2009 08:19 AM>>"They can't be trusted to behave unless there's someone stronger in control who's willing to scare them back into line when they misbehave."
>>That's a good description of religion!
Also a good description of the global warming alarmist crowd.
I don't think there are any godbots here, Colin, though we do have some folks with spiritual leanings - nothing like the maniacal dorks you see on tv and in blog posts elsewhere. The noisy ones aren't spiritual or particularly devout, they just see religion as a means to control gullible sheep (which is the main purpose of religion anyhow, afaic). Don't assume that there are godbots lurking under every rock in the US, though; I've seen you generalize about us before. It'd be like saying all Brits have bad teeth, which I'm sure would annoy you in the same way.
Also a good description of the global warming alarmist crowd.
You can always tell a teabagging troll by the way they feel the need to torture anything - even an analogy - to make 'em feel all manly and shit. Sorry ape man, we already know that fear rules your life, especially the fear that people will realize you're a moron. You can relax, though. We knew about your...ahem...deficiencies the first time you posted!
Posted by Twinky P* at May 4, 2009 08:51 AM>>"They can't be trusted to behave unless there's someone stronger in control who's willing to scare them back into line when they misbehave."
>>That's a good description of religion!
That's also a good descripition how the Obama economic team is dealing with the economy.
http://finemrespice.com/node/56
"Confronting the head of a non-TARP fund holding Chrysler debt and unwilling to release it for any sum less than that to which it was legally entitled without compelling cause, this country's "Car Czar" berated the manager of said fund with an outburst of prose substantially resembling this:
Who the fuck do you think you're dealing with? We'll have the IRS audit your fund. Every one of your employees. Your investors. Then we will have the Securities and Exchange Commission rip through your books looking for anything and everything and nothing we find to destroy you with."
It's interesting that you reference Agile. Agile is the result, direct and indirect, of decades of research on what makes teams and organizations successful. It has its roots in "Theory X and Theory Y", Demming's work on quality in manufacturing, and more recently on the evolutionary improvements in software development models.
What all of these have in common, of course, is that the liberal (soft) approach to management works better than the traditionalist (hard) approach in general, but there many exceptions depending on the individuals involved and on the team situation. Sometimes you have to adopt a hard approach temporarily to get a team into shape (see the classic movie "Twelve O'Clock High", which is frequently taught in management schools as an example of intentionally adopting different styles to force a culture change).
I mention this only because I know a number of smart people who are excellent at the "soft" style of management, including an Agile expert, who tend towards liberal parenting styles, and yet who are Foxnuts that believe everything Fox tells them. Fortunately, these people are easier to argue with than most Foxnuts. For example: claim: "It's the media's fault that people see the Iraq war as a disaster." My answer: "Think about your own project management principles regarding expectation setting. Now think about all the rosy scenarios that were painted by pro-war advocates before the war began." Response: [pause] "Good point. Hmmm."
Of course, even when you win a point or two in arguments with such people they still go back to Fox. So, it appears that somehow, and in some way, there are people who can understand the power of "soft" management in their day to day lives, but who vicariously advocate the hardest of the "hard" approaches in their politics.
I don't understand the contradiction. But I've run into this frequently enough that I believe this is a common thread.
Posted by Anonny at May 4, 2009 09:15 AMVery nice post, btw, Mary. Sara is an amazing scholar and writer, she really knows her stuff. And I agree on the different ways people see power - simply, conservatives see power as a way to enhance their own lives at the expense of those with less power, while liberals see power as a way to lift others along with themselves. I think Annony's example isn't contradictory in that some might see an Agile approach as the best way to make their company more productive, which means more money for themselves, hence more power.
Posted by Twinky P* at May 4, 2009 09:31 AMYeah, I may slip into generalisation sometimes. It's only too easy, because any country's image tends to be created by those of its people who make the most noise.
As for teeth, at my time of life, I'm glad to have any damn teeth - not gleaming white, but all my own thanks to (shudder)socialised medicine.
By the way, your chosen names is rather cheeky. Brit I may be, but I know a few American slang terms!
That was clever - I forgot to say whom I was addressing. Sorry, Twinky.
Posted by Colin at May 4, 2009 12:10 PMHeehee - I had no idea there were so many slang meanings for Twinky, funny! None of them apply to me, though.
I pulled the teeth generalization off the top of my head as one I'd heard before - I suppose I could have used the "reticent" generalization that everyone else uses, but most Brits I know are pretty outgoing. Anyhow, you're right about the noisemakers making the image, and our noisemakers and pretty nasty, aren't they? And the godbots have been pretty noisy, too, since they got their first taste of real power under the latest republicans, though they may have finally realized that they weren't ever going to get their way, even from the scum that used them for votes. It'd sure be nice if they'd crawl back into the woodwork, now that normal people realize they're batshit crazy, but sadly, the whole GOP is now a clown car full o' nuts, so they're going to be around a bit longer, I guess. Too bad.
Posted by Twinky P* at May 4, 2009 01:52 PMTwink and twinkie are gay slang terms describing an attractive young or young-looking gay man (usually in his late teens or early twenties) with a slender build and little or no body hair. (see: Twink (gay slang))
This explains all the fan mail I've been getting from republicans, actually. Who knew? Besides Mark Foley, I mean. He won't stop trying to make a date with me. He'll be so disappointed I'm neither young, nor gay, nor male. Frikkin' pervert!
Posted by Twinky P* at May 4, 2009 01:58 PMTwinky, maybe this board ought to use those biological sex signs so we don't make assumptions (as I obviously did in your case). Don't, incidentally, base any assumptions on the fact that I knew what that word meant!
As for the teeth, I would say that perfectly even shining white teeth look weird to me, because they make a person look like a doll or an android, as indeed do those ugly silicone boobs so many American males seem to like.
Folks - bored with a thread? Don't like the topic? Call in Colin, and by the time he's finished with it, nobody will know what the hell the topic was!
Colin, I didn't have you in mind at all. If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it.
As for TwinkyP, now...
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
Interesting post, I really enjoyed it....as I was reading it I kept wondering where lizard brain repukes "blame mode" fit in. Then I went on to read the "justify stage" and immediately thought of Rumsfeld's quotes during the war. Imo, Repukes can't make it past the first two stages because they have no sense of shame...none whatsoever. They're stuck in the me, me, me it's all about me stages. Imo, with shame I believe there is a sense of morality for right/wrong and even guilt/ remorse outside of oneself). The turning point starts with the shame stage which I believe involves higher introspective, reflective more abstract thinking and the ability to empathize. The earlier 2 stages appear more reactive and instinctual, more self protective in nature.
As for the commenter who noted religion falling into the more authoratative scare the bejeebus out of you or else mode...I dunno, some religion has an element of "shame and guilt" and it can be useful as with everything if done in moderation in developing a good moral compass. I'm certainly not a huge preacher here, but the faith I was raised with but don't practice religiously now certainly taught and emphasized personal ownership of ones actions, as well as a huge emphasis on doing unto others as you would do to yourself, not being judgemental of others, and all having a shared human responsibility for sacrifice for the greater good, but especially for the least among us in this society...etc. Well, you get the giste. Those messages were certainly there, or I should say those types of messages are the ones that I took away from it....that was certainly far from being fearful of authority ....just sayin.
As for TwinkyP, now...
Concern troll is concerned.
Twinky, maybe this board ought to use those biological sex signs so we don't make assumptions (as I obviously did in your case).
Oh yeah, because people don't make any assumptions when they know a commenter's sex, right? Like the guy who suddenly started using rape metaphors a while ago on another blog when he learned I was female? In fact, a lot of good bloggers purposely have gender un-specific names because of the harassment. And why would you need to know the sex of someone when talking about politics? Are your responses to someone different depending upon whether they are male or female? That's not very nice, is it? For all you know, I've got a fetish for delicious snack cakes with creamy filling and no nutritional value. Or I could be a self-hating asian.
Maybe I'm just a silly girl, but it is sort of suspect that you'd make the immediate assumption that Twinky was a male name. It seems kinda girly to me. Of course, maybe you spend all of your time at Americablog, not that there's anything wrong with that. Perception is driven by experience, I believe. Curious.
As for the commenter who noted religion falling into the more authoratative scare the bejeebus out of you or else mode...
Depends on your church and family, I suppose. My childhood Catholic church was very hierarchical, without any hint of "god is love," and my dad was a violent authoritarian. Huh. A republican, to boot. Go figure, eh?
Posted by Twinky P* at May 4, 2009 03:31 PMTwinky, both my parents catholics, and raised us 5 kids as such ....but both democrats...neither authoritarian....both huge on humility, personal responsibility as well as sacrifice, (deeds not just words)... especially for the least among us in this society. Mom was orphaned at an early age, and rescued as a teen (her words) by a wealthy widowed Catholic woman who had a heart of gold (bless them both)....Dad from rural poverty.....just sayin, I guess it's the lessons they took from their religious beliefs and tried to instill in us...most definitely it was more along the lines that the "outcast" Jeebus was a very tolerant loving and giving liberal....imo.
Posted by emal at May 4, 2009 04:37 PMemal - Jesus a tolerant liberal? Not according to the Bible, which is after all the only source of information about him.
"Whosoever shall deny me before men, him also will I deny before my Father which is in heaven.
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I am come not to send peace but a sword.
I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother."
"He that is not with me is against me"
"Those my enemies which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither and slay them before me". The best thing about Jesus is that as a real historic person, he probably didn't exist.
most definitely it was more along the lines that the "outcast" Jeebus was a very tolerant loving and giving liberal....imo.
Obviously, it's the pastor or priest who sets the tone for the congregation, and one who prefers the authoritarian dogma will be more into OT-centric worship, rather than concentrate on what Jesus actually taught, like empathy, tolerance, community building. I grew up in the former kinds of churches, so it was all about guilt and shame and rules and regs. Plus, I was a hellion, so my view of the indoctrination process was from the principal's office. Prolly why I have a thing about authority, come to think of it. 'Cos like Colin says, Jeebus had strings attached. Still, if you're a follower, those strings are already there, huh?
And yeah, there were six of us. My gramma was Irish Catholic, got religiously drunk every holy day, and I guess she's the one who influenced my dad the most. I was four of six, so I only went to Catholic school through second grade, thank goodness, the older sibs endured it for much longer. One of my clearest memories of third grade - the first public school I went to - is this newfangled class called "science." I'd never heard of such a thing, and we had the Encyclopedia Brittanica at home! Finally, all those questions the nuns used to answer with "it's God's will" could be answered by empirical evidence, hard facts. Clearly, the nuns had been holding out on me, couldn't be trusted after that!
Posted by Twinky P* at May 4, 2009 05:50 PMI was four of six...
As usual, I was Seven of Six! ;)
Posted by Seven of Six at May 4, 2009 06:40 PMHeehee, I thought of you when I wrote that!
Posted by Twinky P* at May 4, 2009 07:04 PMTwinky...I'm not here trying to defend any religion or any one's religious beliefs and sorry if that is how people have construed my commentary. People are reading way too much into it. Also, I certainly did not mean to highjack the thread as I really enjoyed Mary's post. Our experiences and upbringing certainly were very different despite the one commonality of both being brought up with the religion. I guess what prompted my initial commentary is that I just found the ultimate irony in Colin's comment(s). Firstly painting a very broad brush regarding religion and authoritarian angle and then going on to cherrypick Bible quotes after obviously making some more assumptions based on my commentary. And you know what happens when people assume things.... or maybe it was the cherrypicked quotes...yowza anyway it reminded me of another authoritarian group. That's all.
Anyway have a good night.
Seven, glad to see you around again. But maybe you never left.
Posted by emal at May 4, 2009 09:18 PMemal - "cherrypick"?
For goodness sake, how can you possibly use that term? Those are quotes direct from the King James Bible, supposedly actual statements made by Jesus. Either he meant those things or he didn't, and if he did he was very different from the loving saviour so many believe in.
"Cherrypick"! Come off it.
Twinky P - maybe the image of Jesus depends on the attitude of the individual pastor. Or maybe, to take a more cynical view, the "gentle Jesus, meek and mild" image is presented to working class congregations to encourage them to be meek and mild, know their place and bow to authority. Which is, when you think about it, positively un-American
Sorry, emal, I didn't mean to give the impression I was arguing - I'm glad you had a good experience with religion growing up, even if I didn't. I was trying to tie it back to personal responsibility, which your family and church taught, and the lack thereof, which my early experiences insinuated. The authoritarian churches tend to lay all the responsibility for everything on God, imo, who gets credit for everything good that happens, and God's will when something bad happens. That's why it was easy for the supposedly God-fearing republicans to get away with what they did, using God as the scapegoat instead of themselves. And it worked with the fundies, because they understand that kind of equation. Of course, now that they realize the GOP is just empty promises, the numbers of followers have fallen off. They didn't stop believing in their gods, they just don't believe the GOP's slick talk any more. At least I hope not.
Posted by Twinky P* at May 5, 2009 05:20 AMTwinky, no need to apologize. You're experience is one that I've heard repeated often. My spouse had a similar one being seven of nine. That said, I guess I was giving an example (although personal)that there were/are execeptions to the very broad brush painting that was going on. My experience and ubringing also led me to question authority and to speak out about hypocrisy when I witnessed it....so well frankly that's fairly easy to do these days in regard to the catholic leadership.
Posted by emal at May 5, 2009 08:34 AMI guess I was giving an example (although personal)that there were/are execeptions to the very broad brush painting that was going on.
Thanks, emal, I was only giving a contrasting example that wasn't meant to cancel yours out. And it's not nice that the bad things get trumpeted while the good gets trampled, but that's the way of the world, isn't it?
Posted by Twinky P* at May 5, 2009 08:44 AM...maybe the image of Jesus depends on the attitude of the individual pastor.
It's only been that way since, like, the 1st century.
All of scripture is, in fact, a second hand interpretation of what "the teachings of Jesus Christ" were. And the "church" has struggled, often violently, within itself over just whose interpretation of what "Jesus' teachings" were would constitute orthodoxy. It's been a big power play for the last 2000 years.
Posted by snark at May 5, 2009 10:01 AMWell, obviously, snark, since organized religion is organized to maximize profit and centralize power thru coercion using the congregation's superstition to control their thoughts and actions. The power struggles weren't so much about doctrine as they were about who gets to control the purse strings. Buy into that shit, and you deserve to be fleeced by the shepherd, eh?
Posted by Twinky P* at May 5, 2009 10:34 AMThe power struggles weren't so much about doctrine as they were about who gets to control the purse strings.
Right you are Twinky, but the control of the purse strings was dependent on having the state (at that time the Roman emperors) on your side. Competing factions tried their best to get the emperor to support their version of orthodoxy. It was critical to embed one's version of doctrine before the purse strings would be opened. So the arguments over doctrine were critical. And often brutal. With the support of the state came patronage. And with patronage came the church as we know it today.
Posted by snark at May 5, 2009 10:49 AMYeah, I oversimplified - as soon as I posted, I thought about the Schism about whether transubtantiation was real or not. Oy. Of course, it helped to have the state endorse your sect, it still does, doesn't it?
Posted by Twinky P* at May 5, 2009 11:20 AMIs TwinkyP the same person as Twinky? Doesn't seem to be.
Snark, you quote my remark about pastors and say it's always been thus. Not for mere pastors, surely? Your local pastor in his little local church would, if he knew what was good for him, follow the official Church line. The struggles about interpretation, of which you speak, would be at a much higher level in the hierarchy.
I thought about the Schism about whether transubtantiation was real or not.
Not to mention the question of whether Jesus was in fact divine or mearly blessed amongst men. And whether he was indistinguishable from God or just of "similiar substance" to God. Whether Jesus was always or was created by God. And then throw in the Holy Spirit into the mix. Oy!
Posted by snark at May 5, 2009 11:30 AMSnark, you quote my remark about pastors and say it's always been thus. Not for mere pastors, surely?
Sorry, used your comment as a jumping off point to comment on the fact that "interpreting" Jesus has been the hobby horse of "the church" since day one.
Your local pastor in his little local church would, if he knew what was good for him, follow the official Church line.
And thus the shepard is exposed as but another sheep bleating the "party line".
Posted by snark at May 5, 2009 11:36 AMAnd thus the shepard is exposed as but another sheep bleating the "party line".
Heehee, good one.
Is TwinkyP the same person as Twinky? Doesn't seem to be.
I dunno, is this the same Colin. You seem kinda confuseded.
Posted by Twinky P* at May 5, 2009 12:26 PMI'm the same person (I think...). The reason I wasn't sure about the Twinky situation was the rather abrupt change of tone over the question of those sex-indicating synbols, the idea for which I got from the American site Tennis4You, where they don't seem to cause any problems.
When I said "assumptions" I meant simply what sex someone is, not any string of consequent assumptions.
Anyway, we all make assumptions all our lives, from the time our human intelligence begins to form, and we modify our assumptions through experience as we go. You say youself that perception is experience-driven.
If instead of being online, all of us here were sitting round a table somewhere, suppose we were all swathed in form-concealing robes, masked, and had out voices electronically modified to conceal sex. Would you find that comfortable? I think not.
If I am addressing a woman, being old I assume she doesn't like the coarser swearwords, so I'll avoid them. If she starts merrily effing away, I may follow suit, though probably not. There's an example of an assumption.
If I'm faced with a woman or a gay man, I quite reasonably make SOME assumptions, knowing they view the world, and important aspects of life, from a standpoint different to my own. I don't see how it can be otherwise. I shall have certain expectations, and look forward to hearing that person's slant on things, doubtless modifying those expectations to a greater or lesser extent.
The reason I wasn't sure about the Twinky situation
There's a Twinky situation? Howcum I wasn't told about this?
was the rather abrupt change of tone over the question of those sex-indicating synbols,
It pissed me off, what can I say?
the idea for which I got from the American site
Well, there's your problem. You shouldn't believe anything you read on the internets.
If instead of being online, all of us here were sitting round a table somewhere,
See, but, we're not. We're all ids here. Those guys sitting around the table, they're our egos. Apples and oranges, my friend.
I understand how, in the meat world, one must be aware of their audience, but the beauty of anonymity online is that you can say shit you wouldn't say in polite company. And if you figure everyone else is doing the same, you don't take anything online seriously. It's a different world. It's this generation's catharsis. Cheaper than therapy or drugs, I suppose.
Posted by Twinky P* at May 5, 2009 08:15 PM