Wednesday, March 5, 2014

Common ground, liberal Christians and an end to willful blindness.

For a long time, I've been an advocate of trying to find common ground with fellow theists. Mormons, jews, hindus, certainly protestants... really, anyone of sincere (mono)theistic faith. I have also been, despite being at times argument-prone, a big believer in trying to make common cause with liberal Christians in particular - especially where secularism and atheism are concerned. I've denounced the habit of, say... conservative protestants opening rhetorical fire on conservative Catholics and vice versa, and I've likewise rejected conservative Christians casting off liberal Christians as non-believers, as heretics, or worse - as enemies. I have liberal Christians on my small blogroll, and I have for years been a regular at Victor Reppert's website, despite Victor trending rather left-wing (at least in terms of economics.)

In short, I have generally and consciously tried to be fair-minded with fellow, sincere theists. I've had political disagreements, but in order to get me to out and out be hostile towards a theist, I either have to get the sense that they are loyal to their political party/wing first and foremost (which is a great way to get shitlisted with me, even if you're conservative), or that they ultimately regard me - and by extension, socially and/or politically conservative Christians - as an enemy. While I've gotten that feeling at times, there have been other times where I did not - such complexities are inevitable. But the point is, I always tried to give self-described liberal Christians the benefit of the doubt. We were, after all, ultimately on the same side - weren't we? Surely we could respect each other, and work out our differences when we paid attention to them, and put them aside otherwise - right?

I can no longer maintain that belief.

This has been bothering me for a long time, and I wish I could find the quote I'm about to tell you about - but for now, I'll have to be vague. I recall Richard Dawkins being asked why he was so hard on religion, period, when there were all these liberal Christians out there who basically was on his side with regards to so many things - social issues, etc. What Dawkins said in reply was that, while that was true, he saw religious belief, period, as the problem - and that by regarding liberal Christians as somehow rational and acceptable in their beliefs, he would be at the same time lending support to the beliefs that ultimately sustained the wicked and terrible conservative Christians. So, he was no longer going to differentiate between the liberal Christian and the conservative on that front - better to strike at the source and do the most damage to the conservative ones.

What's key there - what you really have to pay attention to, though obviously this is being reported to you second-hand - is that Dawkins was actually explaining a kind of schism. Liberal Christians and atheists were, up until the rise of the New Atheists, actually *allies*. They both tended to be social and political liberals. They both saw conservative Christians as their enemies. And they both covered each other's backs - the atheists would talk about how the liberal Christians were 'the good ones', and the liberals would denounce any conservative criticism of non-belief and insist that atheists were quite morally upstanding and righteous. But the atheists have broken that pact, leading liberal Christians to be cast out as favored exceptions to religious criticism.

You can actually see this if you look at liberal religious believers in their interactions with the Cult of Gnu leadership. There's usually this sense of... 'But look at me, Richard/Sam/Christopher! I don't believe in all that hokey stuff. I attack the creationists too! I support gay marriage!' at one point or another in the interview, and it always comes with this subtext - "See? Aren't I one of the *good* ones?"

And then they wait for the pat on the head, that token of acknowledgement, that scrap that at the very least they're not AS BAD as the conservative Christians. But that's thin gruel. They don't want to merely be 'not as bad'. They want to be good - they want to be told that they are smart, and nice, and kind, and progressive, and their ideas aren't a complete load of shit. That, unfortunately for them, is less on offer nowadays.

So, now we're starting to see more and more liberal Christians get a bit fiery towards the Cult of Gnu. I've welcomed that because, hey - the Gnus deserve all the criticism they can get. But lately, whenever I see these criticisms, I am forced to ask where they're springing from. And I can't help but think what motivates a good chunk of liberal Christians isn't a dislike of militant atheism - but a feeling of betrayal. Gnu Atheism is unacceptable because the Cult of Gnu wouldn't give them a place at the table. If the gnus were to turn around and say that liberal Christian belief was just dandy, but it was those evil conservative Christians who were the rotten ones? They'd change their tune, collectively, in a heartbeat.

I think some - perhaps most - of them still hold out hope for a change of tune. And I have little desire to find common cause with someone who is, let me be frank, only holding back from spitting in my and others' faces as much as they used to for purely pragmatic reasons.

I am tired of playing down the fact that liberal Christians, moment for moment, seem vastly more concerned with seeking out and finding any church that dares not promote women to the position of clergy and pastors, and - while their own churches rot and decline - talking openly about how they plan and agitate to pressure and force change on those fronts.

I am tired of seeing people shit on because they're young earthers or even ID proponents. I am tired of seeing atheists treated as great and decent people, but mormons are mocked and belittled because there is a sense that mormon culture is collectively on the wrong side of the political divide.

I am tired of watching one liberal Christian after another bend over backwards to defend not only forcing Christian small businesses to serve at gay weddings, but doing so even with full knowledge that LGBT activists at times target these businesses purely out of spite.

I am, in short, tired of pretending that the person who wishes cultural genocide on me, and who is shamelessly willing to turn to force of law to accomplish exactly this, is anything but an intellectual enemy.

This isn't to say I now think every liberal Christian is some kind of enemy. That's not true. But I'm not completely fucking blind to political and cultural realities. The fact is, for many - perhaps most - liberal Christians, it's better to have a conservative Christian become an atheist than retain their faith in God or Christ, and thus retain their dreaded belief that same-sex sexual behavior is wrong, that women cannot be priests, or that aborting your child is a moral 'don't'.

Whatever God demands that kind of devotion is not a God I recognize.

39 comments:

IlĂ­on said...

You're still a hypocrite.

The Fez said...

I've seen it argued several times by Maverick Philosopher (AKA William F. Vallicella)that cultural division between conservatives and liberals is now so thoroughly contrasting that finding appropriate middle-ground is now impossible. That is, there can be no more shared discourse of any productive nature. The well isn't just poisoned: it is poison.

I'm inclined to agree, and much of it has to do with trends becoming rapidly discernible amongst generation Y and younger. There is the sense among many youth that liberalism (or whatever instantiation of it you're feelin' for) is not simply an ideological position that any particular individual can have, but is, itself, a kind of unstoppable tide that will forever submerge inequality, sexism, and all the other liberal bogey-men. Swept away in such powerful currents, they are beholden to the zeitgeist, rather than masters of it.

That really is the worst kind of intellectual enemy of all. The one who is totally unthinking in their devotion, yet clinically apathetic to their own volition. They can't even be bothered to debate you. The game, for them, has already been won. They just have to sit back and watch the inevitable social change create the world we've always wanted.

Syllabus said...

Fair enough.

Slight quibble - I think the LDS would technically be henotheists, rather than monotheists.

BenYachov said...

In short I don't think I agree with you here.

Maybe part of it is because you don't go far enough?

Since as far as I am concerned there is the One True Church of Christ founded on a Rock then there is everybody else.

In short the most "conservative" Protestant Church in the world is Liberal to me because they deviate from the orthodoxy handed down by the Apostles.

In less then a hundred years the Southern Baptists and the Assemblies of God will be ordaining lesbian ministers(we see that today with a liberal evangelical movement). But we will still on that day have an all male priesthood & condemn gay sex as sinful.

For me the only difference between a liberal Protestant Christian and a Conservative one is a matter of degree not kind.

More later....

Cheers.

darrenl said...

"Liberal" Christians, are by definition heretics and have been since the Reformation...especially those who subscribe to sola scriptura or sola fide, which most in fact do. They are separated from the Church, but through Christ we can hope to be one again.

The type of Christian here is the one that is more influenced by the Enlightenment than by the early Church Fathers. I sense this is where your frustration comes because it is from the Enlightenment that most Gnu's tap from as well.

Crude said...

You're still a hypocrite.

Ilion, you're a bitch.

There is no other word for someone who deals with people they disagree with in as petty, catty, passive aggressive, yet obsessive a way as you do. I have given you ample opportunity to converse, make your case, and get over all the things that have your panties in a bunch. And at every opportunity you have not only declined, but declined in the most dramatic, look-at-me, foppish fashion.

But I have to admit - by now, you are at least unintentionally funny. Really, every time you comment towards me or someone else you dislike, I just immediately year the sound of a cat growling or hissing. It's so damn appropriate. ;)

Crude said...

Fez,

The thing was, in the past, I believed that at least with liberal Christians that this divide could really be overcome. At the very least there was that shared faith held in common, right?

But it finally dawned on me that what I always said was a key ingredient - not just common ground, but mutual respect - simply was not present for all too many in this case. What confirmed it was the reaction to the wedding cake and wedding photographer sort of incidents with LGBT activists. That's when I realized, there is not even a 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' bit of hope going on, because when it comes to that, liberal Christians want to be friends with the Gnus. The only reason they aren't is because the gnus rejected them.

Crude said...

Syllabus,

Fair enough.

Slight quibble - I think the LDS would technically be henotheists, rather than monotheists.


You're probably right.

That said? If you disagree with me, argue. And I mean that - I do not want to come to this conclusion. I would like to be wrong. I want someone to show me the light and tell me 'Look, the situation isn't what you think it is, because...' I would like them to be right.

I do not come to this conclusion with satisfaction. I had to be dragged here.

Crude said...

Ben,

In short the most "conservative" Protestant Church in the world is Liberal to me because they deviate from the orthodoxy handed down by the Apostles.

And I've run into 'conservative' Christians I can't talk with. See Triablogue.

But you know what? There's common ground there. There's some amount of mutual respect, even with disagreement. Even if there's division, even if there are extremists, they are in the minority.

With liberal Christians? I don't see the divide. I don't see the liberal Christian group or organization standing up and saying, you know, not wanting to bake a cake for a pair of LGBT activists isn't some terrible horror. Instead I see the constant comparisons between 'I don't want to bake that cake' and 'GET IN THE GAS CHAMBER YOU FUCKING JEW, DIE, DIE, I HATE YOU'.

Crude said...

The type of Christian here is the one that is more influenced by the Enlightenment than by the early Church Fathers. I sense this is where your frustration comes because it is from the Enlightenment that most Gnu's tap from as well.

And this, I am highly skeptical of.

I get your point, and it's of course a common claim, but I don't believe it anymore. I think the Enlightenment is to them a largely alien thing, a word carrying little meaning other than 'this is good.' There is something more primitive, more tribal, at work here.

It's like the 'Gnus just love science too much' refrain. That's funny - just about every one of the ones I talk to hardly understand the science they discuss and indicate they have no interest in changing that fact. They love to be thought of as speaking with the authority of science - but so do the YECs.

BenYachov said...

Maybe we don't really disagree?

Maybe we think of different things when we hear the term "Liberal Christian"?

Anyway I'm open minded.

Crude said...

Ben,

I am taking aim here specifically at social liberals - gay rights, abortion, feminism, etc. Economic liberals aren't really my concern.

The Deuce said...

Hi Crude, I didn't respond before, because while my answer is basically the same as what you've laid out here, I wanted to make some distinctions that I didn't feel like writing out, but which you've basically made here.

There's a difference, as I see it, between a genuine Christian who takes the same positions on certain things (particularly economics) that progressives tend to do, and an outright "progressivist Christian," which I consider to be very nearly a contradiction in terms, or something analogous to a phrase like "decoy duck," where the adjective actually denies the noun rather than modifying it.

Victor Reppert is a example of the former. While I think his type is naive in not seeing how different issues fit together practically and theologically (and hence why a left-wing outlook on something like economics is ultimately going to be at odds with Christian views on things more directly addressed in Scripture), their hearts are in the right place and they are brothers. Look at the name of Reppert's blog. The whole reason he started was to refute Daniel Dennett and materialism, in order to serve the Gospel. That's his ultimate motivation.

But that's not the ultimate motivation of the sorts of progressive "Christians" you're talking about here, the ones who crave the approval of secularists. In their case, their ENTIRE worldview and moral outlook is informed the secular liberal narrative, without remainder. Their views on sexual, social, and moral (and yes, economic) issues are indistinguishable from the rest of the Left on every point. There is NO sense in which they can be said to be "in the world but not of it."

Yeah, they refer to themselves as "Christians," but a mere word does not constitute genuine common ground. What matters is the substance behind the word, and there is nothing there. Progressivism is an intrinsically secularistic ideology, with a secular notion of morality and progress, and based on a subjective and collectivist narrative-based concept of truth, which is directly incompatible with the Christian concept of sin and man's fallen helplessness without the grace of God poured out through Christ's sacrifice.

Yes, they'll say they believe in "God," but what does that mean for them? What does it have to do with Christianity, when their "God" is not a source of moral authority, but a mere afterthought that is simply adapted to the Left-wing narrative?

The Deuce said...

(cont.)

The whole point of the Christian Gospel is to call men to repentance from their sin, so that by the grace of God, redemption in Christ, and the work of the Holy Spirit dwelling within them, they may be forgiven and renewed from their helplessly fallen estate unto eternal life. What interest do the "progressives" show in that message, when they spend all their time attacking real Christians for even acknowledging what Christianity teaches is sin rather than celebrating it? You cannot actually believe it while simultaneously denying that sin is really sin, or believing that we can achieve secular "enlightenment" and moral "progress" toward an earthly utopia through the dominance of an ever-evolving secularist moral narrative vanguarded by atheists.

What makes them Christian? That they think Jesus was a fairly decent chap ("given his place and time" of course) who makes a reasonable role model, at least in those areas where he wasn't being too politically incorrect, in which case who knows if it really happened or not, you? I've met plenty of atheists who say the same. Heck, the *demons* (who they don't believe in) believe that too (except that the demons believe the politically incorrect parts too), and tremble!

Again, in what respect are they Christians rather than, say, Muslims? After all, they don't take the Bible as being any more authoritative than the Koran. Is it supposed to be because they merely ignore the Koran and leave Muslims alone, whereas they actively attack and distort the Bible (and for Catholics, Tradition) while waging cultural warfare on faithful Christians and demanding they get on board with the secular progressivist moral narrative? Well, that's certainly not a point of common ground. It makes them specifically anti-Christian rather than specifically Christian. On the contrary, it merely makes them particularly dangerous and implacable enemies. Judas is more of a threat than Pilate.

And that last paragraph, I believe, holds the answer. The "Christian" in "Progressivist Christian" ultimately just means, in practical terms, that they direct their bullying at Christians rather than people of other faiths, and try to distort the Bible with their secularism rather than other books. It doesn't inform their morality and the metaphysical worldview that really drives them (except to the extent that even Western atheists inevitably borrow from Christian morality without attribution).

If anything, their "Christianity" often makes them particularly fascistic, because they justify their actions with an added religious fervor despite ignoring the actual tenets of their religion, and because they get this notion that because they're "Christians" themselves, they have a special right and license to "clean house" from the inside, including by using coercive statist tactics that we all recognize as hostile war by an external enemy when carried out by self-identified atheists. In fact, I have far more common ground with a lot of irreligious people I know who simply don't care much, and aren't on some sort of crusade.

As I see it, when somebody is trying to stab you in the back, it's time to *stop* standing on common ground with them where they're in knifing range, and to get them to the other side of you where you can see them for what they truly are.

Syllabus said...

If you disagree with me, argue. And I mean that - I do not want to come to this conclusion. I would like to be wrong. I want someone to show me the light and tell me 'Look, the situation isn't what you think it is, because...' I would like them to be right.

Frankly, I didn't disagree because I don't disagree with way too damn much of what you wrote. I just wasn't interested in starting up a big ol' conversation at that moment.

I think that there is a significant swath of progressive Christianity - probably even most of it - which would like to see conservative Christianity come to an end (some, by any means necessary). Many of them are even willing to help along the process, or make utter ninnies of themselves in the process. I think it's a matter of them letting their politics override their religion, to the point of being a substitute religion. Bible disagrees with (insert preferred social issue here)? "It's written by old white males, and thus can't be taken seriously." The Bible says that we should care for the poor? "Why are all you conservatives so anti-Christ?" And so on.

I guess where I would make a distinction would be between the "thinking that it would be much better if everyone agreed with me, and that I'm obviously right" type of progressive and the "I'll badmouth you, browbeat you, and coerce what I can out of you until you agree with me" type. So, basically, when it comes down to people, I take them as they come. The movement itself, yeah, that can be pretty toxic.

The Deuce said...

Crude:

But it finally dawned on me that what I always said was a key ingredient - not just common ground, but mutual respect - simply was not present for all too many in this case.

I think what it comes down to is, mutual respect requires some common ground, and in this case there is only the illusion of common ground rather than the real thing. On the surface, we believe in Christianity, and they likewise claim to be members of something called "Christianity," but when you delve down into the details, it turns out that there aren't any real points of overlap after all. What they mean by "God" is simply a foreign concept to orthodox Christianity. Their idea of morality and its source is entirely secularistic. What they call "sin," if they call anything sin, means something totally different, and hence the need of repentance and salvation from sin is fundamentally jettisoned, and with it the whole of Christ's sacrifice and hence all of Christianity, even if they continue to use much of the same verbiage we do in church.

On top of that, they are leftists, and hence as Fez puts it, they are beholden to the anti-Christian eschatology that "liberalism (or whatever instantiation of it you're feelin' for) is not simply an ideological position that any particular individual can have, but is, itself, a kind of unstoppable tide that will forever submerge inequality, sexism, and all the other liberal bogey-men" and as such, "They can't even be bothered to debate you. The game, for them, has already been won. They just have to sit back and watch the inevitable social change create the world we've always wanted."

I said before that I have more common ground with a lot of irreligious folks than with the "progressivist Christians." In each case, it's because they share with me the belief in the primacy of truth, and of the necessity of reason and logic to ascertain truth, and they reject the utopian cult of inevitable progress, according to which the liberal zeitgeist overcomes all reality, and all attempts at reasoned debate are nothing more than the false consciousness of backwards reactionaries about to be swallowed by glorious Progress. As such we can at least reasonably discuss our differences.

Crude said...

I have a cold today, so pardon me if I miss some responses.

Again, I find myself skeptical of this idea that liberals of that variety are, at heart, truly concerned about 'making the world a better place' and 'ridding the world of evil'.

Every shitty dictator and wannabe dictator has said the same lines. Were they really sincere?

Frank Keefe said...

Crude Ive watched you debate over at Randals blog and though you impress me in your defence of the faith against the atheists over there I was taken back by how you also had to defend that faith against Christians who in my view lean heavily to the left...When the align themselves with the atheists on SSM and abortion i feel depressed and my anger rises more towards them than any of the non believers as in my view they are in darkness and reject the light of Gods truth.

BenYachov said...

I think the problem is not liberals but hardcore leftists.

Wild Bill D of the CATHOLIC LEAGUE my favorite guy and inspiration said this of the Communist Mayor that rules my city.

"De Blasio is not a liberal: He is a hard-core left-wing ideologue.".

I don't think they are the same.

Your thoughts Crude my dude?

darrenl said...

"It's like the 'Gnus just love science too much' refrain. That's funny - just about every one of the ones I talk to hardly understand the science they discuss and indicate they have no interest in changing that fact"

Meh. I don't claim that Gnu's understand science, nor do liberal Christian's understand early Christianity. Both, though, are clearly ignorant of history....hence the love of the idea but the total lack of understanding.

Liberal Christians think they can have Christ without the Cross. Gnu's think they can have science without God. It's the heresy of either/or in both cases.

Crude said...

Darren,

Do not mind me. I have a knack for what seems like hair-splitting jn these conversations, so I always end up clarifying little points like that. Partly in the hope that it will reduce the repeating of that refrain.

Frank,

I understand. For me the final straw has not been disagreement, but leftist Christians embracing some of the nastiest slurs against conservatives. When so many cannot even bring themselves to even regard fellow Christians as anything short of monstrous, my sympathy dies.

I will reply later Bob, back to bed and nyquil for me.

Acatus Bensley said...

I assume you've ran into liberal Christians who's political ideologies override their theism. If so then you probably realize why I'm so hostile to liberals indiscriminately be they Christian or not. Although I must admit a belief in God reassures me that they're not totally indoctrinated, but still off the deep end.

Acatus Bensley said...

Take this liberal Christian for example who's fed up with the bullshit. http://www.salon.com/2014/03/02/atheisms_radical_new_heroes_richard_dawkins_sam_harris_and_an_evolving_new_moral_view/ It's impressive. (Comment section)

The Fez said...

Crude,

That's when I realized, there is not even a 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' bit of hope going on, because when it comes to that, liberal Christians want to be friends with the Gnus. The only reason they aren't is because the gnus rejected them.

I'm very curious about why, in particular, the Progressive Christians seek such affirmation from the New Atheists in the first place (or from the secular forces that be). Is it simply a matter of indoctrination? Are they being pressured into such a position? What's the common thread?

I've been aware of this distinction for some time between the Christian and the Progressive Christian. My brother and I discuss the difference frequently, and we both have labored to explain why they are the way that they are. We do know with certainty that they are exactly of the sort of lukewarm do-nothings that God said He would spew out his mouth (Revelation 3:15-16).

There are a few characteristics, whether they be known by instinct or perception, seem to be common among all Progressive Christians. For instance, it has always seemed obvious to me that Progressive Christians are very modern people. Not simply people who worry about modern things (we all do), but people who find modernity singularly appealing, and who take it as a source of pride to keep up with its trends and fads. Instinctively, as a Christian, I have always been aware of this sense that while I am in time, I have never really felt as though I were a part of any particular time. I do not "feel" modern, nor do I seek to place myself in the threshold of day.

Subsequently, I would opine that Modern people, and subsequently Modern Christians, lack a genuine sense of cathartic timelessness about the world in which we live. They do not seem to realize that the temporal domain we happen to inhabit is fleeting. Living "in the moment" is to live without contemplation and wisdom. Ignorance of time.

This, too, is reinforced by the thoroughly modern notion that we inhabit a gentler patch of time than our historical predecessors due to our technological prowess and social sensibility (the sort of goofy illusion that is obliterated the moment one reads international or (hell) domestic news). Ignorance of history.

The Fez said...

Part 2:

It has also occurred to me that most Progressive Christians I know have a strong, and vocal, online presence. There is no point in ingratiating yourself to New Atheists and the like unless their is a platform from which to do it. The emotional high of having people agree with you (or affirm you) can be a dangerous opiate. They are part of the "Status Update" culture where distribution of information or ideas is almost always self-serving. They are looking for immediate positive feedback as stimulus even if the position they're affirming is also something they happen to agree with and support. Many Progressive Christians I know are hesitant to discuss topics one-on-one, and lack the fervor and confidence of their online persona when they do.

As a Christian, I am keen to debate anywhere at any time and for the Lord. Progressive Christians lack meaningful conviction even as they are convinced of the Liberal world-view (which is why McGraff just floated from one wild rebuttal to the next).

Progressive Christians likely identify as Christians because there is, at some level, the innate desire to avoid Hell. There is also the sense among Progressive Christians that the moral teachings of the church are "useful" and that it's generally "good" to be instilled with morality. You can give them that.

The problem, here, is that like all modern people, they view institutions as a utilitarian apparatus. They church is a means to an end (avoiding eternal damnation and doubling down their perceived self-goodness).

Suffice it to say, Christians are simply Modern People who don't want to go to hell, and who generally see Christian morality as something from which they can pick and choose at their leisure. Because, really, you only have to be so good in order to get into Heaven.

The Deuce said...

Liberal Christians think they can have Christ without the Cross.

Or even more to the point, they think they can have Jesus ben Joseph of Nazareth but not Jesus Christ.

lotharlorraine said...


Hello Crude.

I think you should transcend the labels "liberals" and "conservatives" which create the illusion of a two dimensional divisions between people while reality is actually far more complex and interesting, as my last post on abortion illustrates:
http://lotharlorraine.wordpress.com/2014/03/07/abortion-and-the-pride-of-the-western-world/

By the way, you might also be interested in a post I wrote about the difference between liberal and progressive Christians.
http://lotharlorraine.wordpress.com/2013/08/31/on-the-definition-and-meaningfulness-of-progressive-christianity/

I agree that liberal Christians can get as dogmatic as Conservative ones, and I got bullied BY THEM several times because I challenge some of their cherished ideas (absurdity of miracles, and the inexistence of anti-white racism and sexism towards men).
The self-righteousness you expose is a true problem everywhere:
http://lotharlorraine.wordpress.com/2013/10/12/the-rational-tail-and-its-emotional-dog-and-its-practical-ethical-implications/


I oppose the New Atheists for the same reason I oppose nasty fundamentalists: they are intolerant, arrogant and irrational ashholes.


I advocate respect towards every respectful opponent.

Cheers.

Goldenrush Apple said...

A little OT and I apologize (though we are talking about liberals): I just stumbled across a rather interesting discussion between three people on politics. It's an odd discussion and me paraphrasing would do a disservice to it. Anyone know where I can get an opinion on it, may it be a political site or anyone willing to read (and later laugh while saying "Rush, you wasted five minutes of my life. You are forever banned!")?

Goldenrush Apple said...

>> Living "in the moment" is to live without contemplation and wisdom. Ignorance of time.

Yes, I have come across this many times and I always think to my self "That's fine. That's cool, even. I enjoy bonfires with friends and just relaxing. Maybe someone will take an instagram-ish picture and post it on tumblr." I immediately think where's the wisdom? There might be contemplation, but it's rather shallow and whatever passes as "deep" has been done before. As a Millennial I am starting to not like my generation.

Acatus Bensley said...

^^^^ Are you a liberal? What are your political views?

BenYachov said...

Lothar and I agree here.

Goldenrush Apple said...

@ Acatus: No. I use to be, though. Do I come across as one?

Acatus Bensley said...

You know what tumblr is. That's a red flag. Lol

Goldenrush Apple said...

@ Acatus: I know of it because I have my own (I got on the wagon when it was fairly new)!

Though a microcosm, I have concluded that it's a decent measure of current attitudes of the Millennials -- especially the 'of the world' types.

Plus, I don't think a liberal would mock a YOLO instagram-ish bonfire pic. He would probably say "So what? Don't be so judgmental. What's wisdom got to do with it?" Or something like that.

Acatus Bensley said...

I have a tumblr because liberals are so deluded and extreme that it's entertaining to watch. Plus I'm a minority within a minority so I'll admit watching people bend over backwards to appease people similar to me is like a form of self gratification.

Goldenrush Apple said...

@ Acatus: You have people appeasing you? Interesting. Tell me more, please.

Acatus Bensley said...

Actually I said appeasing people similar to me. You know how liberals treat African Americans and people who aren't straight. The ass kissing, compliments, and what not. I happen to be both of these so I witness a ridiculous amount of flattering.

Goldenrush Apple said...

You many not read this, Acatus, since it's a been over a week since our last reply. Thanks for the explanation - now I "get" it.

I was once told my opinions weren't weighted because I was an Asian, and Asians were looked at differently than African-Americans.

Another incident was when I mentored a young black teenager through a university sponsored program. During a social work conference, which the mentor program was jointly connected through a few professors, a graduate student said that the young teenager I was mentoring would be better off with a black male mentor, so to "instill confidence in himself and see that other black males were finding success in a very racist country," or something along those lines. When I volunteered the person interviewing me was happy since they wanted males - regardless of race - to be present in the program. I guess I wasn't enough to be a mentor (not parent or legal guardian, just a mentor) according to this grad student.

Acatus Bensley said...

Typical liberal lunacy. You know how many role models African Americans have? They also seem to be unaware that you can have a role model of a different race as well. All this does is divide people. I'm almost convinced that they don't actually care about minorities either. They seem to just want people to depend on them. It's like they get self gratification from appearing to be protector for the "little guy".