Saturday, April 28, 2012

Gay Anti-Bullying Speaker Promotes Bullying of Christians

Tolerance has never been the goal. As Mark Shea now and then says, LGBSA and like organizations do not want tolerance. What they want is praise - and they want anyone who would ever criticize their acts to be bullied, shamed, shunned, fired from their jobs, or worse. This video shows some of this in action - along with the great hypocrisy of an anti-bullying speaker bullying others and encouraging them to do the same. Naturally, everyone who disagrees with him is automatically considered a bully in his mind.

And this just helps to highlight why "dialogue" is something I don't regard as valuable. People always forget that what makes dialogue possible is shared values - and even then, there has to be enough shared values present to foster mutual respect and understanding. With many people, particularly nowadays, dialogue is not possible. There's not enough common ground.

That doesn't mean conversation or debate isn't possible. It just means that there's no actual dialogue or interaction had, or even desired.

Thursday, April 26, 2012

The Cult of Gnu Advances

Given a questionable definition of "Advance", anyway. More below.


Friday, April 20, 2012

Men's Organizations of the Past

Want to feel nostalgic sometime, for an era you may not have even been born into? Go and pick up some 30, 40, or 50 year old guidebooks or pamphlets for the all-men organizations of the time. Read through their guidelines, and find yourself grinning at the standards they held. They're not perfect, of course. You will now and then run into guidelines that are racial, etc. But otherwise you'll see standards like "being of fine moral character", "someone his community can rely on" - generally upholding this ideal of being moral, faithful, hard-working, and committed to improving and maintaining life in his community. I think many - hell, maybe most - people would laugh at the very idea nowadays. Must be some of that progress I've heard so much about.

Sunday, April 15, 2012

Happy Orthodox Easter!

For any orthodox who may stumble here!

Sunday, April 8, 2012

Happy Easter!

 Christos voskrese! Voistinu voskrese!

Saturday, April 7, 2012

Alert! Derbyshire Being Derbyshire Again!

I won't link the piece, only because I'm feeling pretty lazy right now - and earlier, Takimag was going down under the weight of traffic. Anyone hard at work linking this to the Cult of Gnu? Not that Derb's clearly part of that as far as I know, but hey.

I've read a few responses. I'm waiting for someone to try a point by point takedown on Derb's article, specifying where the racism was, and what he got factually wrong. If no one steps on and does this (at least, no one at the appropriate major/minor media outlets), I'm going to be a little worried.

So far the closest anyone has come in my brief glance over responses was a blog entry over at First Things. Said blogger denounced what they saw as Derb's denial of human exceptionalism (not sure what the grounds were at this moment), and some weird claim that there are no races. They lost me at the last one. Yes, yes, I know some scientist claims to have taken genetic samples from a wide variety of races and argued that in terms of genetic diversity there's more difference between various people living in africa than an african and a non-african in the US. But no, if you say 'there are no races' you either have to qualify your point so ridiculously that it becomes non-applicable in the Derb conversation, or you're bullshitting, or you're delusional. And the fact is, you can argue that all of the differences between supposed 'races' come down to environmental and cultural factors, and you still haven't blunted Derb's attack at all. And that's the point, isn't it?

So I'm waiting to see if anyone steps up and takes a scalpel to his article. If no one does and the response consists entirely of "Derb is a racist, he said racist things, for SHAME", then it's going to start to look like an Emperor's Clothes situation.

Friday, April 6, 2012

Bullshit from the Media

Altering Zimmerman's 911 call to make him sound racist was an accident!

Really!

Totally unintentional. They were shocked - shocked! - when this show went live. It was an honest mistake. Oh, they fired him by the way. But they can't say who it was. And no one there will say who it was.

That would be the act of a journalist, after all.

Edit: I'm being too brief with this. Not doing the subject justice.

Look, it wasn't an accident. No one should believe it was an accident. It has all the makings of a very intentional muckraking act, happening at the absolute height of tension in the case. But, here's the funny thing.

What reporter is going to investigate this case?

Maybe a blogger will try to suss out the name of who was fired, but that's going to be the real extent of the investigation. NBC told everyone 'it was a mistake, this was handled' and... that's that.

Do you think it would end there if a similar 'gaffe' happened with, say... a politician? "Oh, a staffer did something like this. I won't say who. He was fired though. This was all an accident."? Particularly a Republican politician.

There's more that could be said here, but for now, I just want to cap it off with that. "They said it was an accident, it's utterly non-believable, but that's where it will end in all likelihood."

Thursday, April 5, 2012

Culture War: Grassroots-level Mentalities

So, apparently some of the more conservative groups in the culture war recently had a letter writing game to Electronic Arts, complaining about the homosexual "romance" options in the Mass Effect series. Not sure if any of you guys are gamers, but Mass Effect is a pretty huge game, so in a way I commend this attention to a normally ignored part of culture from the conservative/Christian end of things. I haven't looked at a single one of their arguments or moves on this subject, so I don't endorse them - I just am glad they're, apparently, paying attention.



Anyway, that's not why I'm writing this. Instead I want to call some attention to the reaction from a pretty popular (and frankly, normally pretty good) game review/news site. European, I believe. Rock Paper Shotgun.

Have a look at the article. Really, have a long, hard look at it. For fun, check the comments too. It's a sight to behold.

I'm not going to take out the scalpel on this one, or go through some line by line, or - God spare me - comment by comment examination of the acts and errors. There's plenty of targets there, front and center being the '1950s' line and equating homosexual acts with being black. But that's not the point here.

The point is this: just look at it. Look at that glorious, mindless fury. That - not to be too ironic about it - hate. The intolerance. But worst of all, the lack of thought behind it all. There is no reasoning there, because reasoning on this topic is terrifying for these people. So, they don't reason. They just act out. They scream, or the internet equivalent of it. They show their OUTRAGE.

Reasoning, however? That's right out.

Look at it, because it's yet more evidence - and this point, this blog may actually have a theme - of a point I'm trying to make. The culture war is not won on arguments exclusively, or even largely, because quite a number of people inoculate themselves against anything within the neighborhood of reasoning - either wholly, or on a topic by topic basis. You will not get through the "HATE HATE HATE HATE" mental shield John Walker and company have put up if you try to discuss this with them. If they sense you disagree with them - certainly if this conversation is public, seen by their friends and family - the conversation will very likely be on two different wavelengths.

There's a way to get through to these people. But rational discourse? Good, reasonable arguments? All I can say is, have a good look at the article. See what you're up against. You're going to have to explore other options.

Tuesday, April 3, 2012

On the Care, Maintenance and Feeding of Sluts


Here's a joke, for all you lovers of humor out there.

Q: What do you call a whore with a PhD in chemistry, an Olympic gold medal for the long-distance jump, and who was just elected as the president of the Unites States of America?
A: A whore.

Don't get it? Well, click to read on.

Bullshit from a Cardinal

Cardinal Schönborn said that he had initially intended to uphold the priest’s decision--but then, he said, “I ask myself in these situations: How did Jesus act? He first saw the human being.” Calling his decision “a decision for human beings,” the cardinal recounted that he invited Stangl and his partner to lunch and understood “why the community had given him the most votes, because he is really impressive.” “This man is at the right place,” the cardinal said of Stangl.
From here. Did the cardinal, at any point, happen to tell him "You know, sodomy is sinful. I sure hope you're not engaging in that."? Was that something Christ was known for? Turning a blind eye to open, defiant sin? Yes, cardinal, Christ would see the human. Why, he may even allow the man to serve on the council - AFTER the man repented of his sin. Christ wouldn't have ignored that sin. And He certainly wouldn't have preened about how holy and pure His actions were, as the cardinal so implied.