Citing Charlie Kirk murder, Tennessee pastor demands removal of 'Hate Has No Home' signs

[BCP1928]

When it's specifically "power-fist/Antifa" style anti-racism (or BLM variety, where they're talking about dismantling capitalism)

Too late. The Republicans, in complicity with Neoliberal Democrats, have already dismantled capitalism.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Like what?

An example I've already posted before would apply, when they start advocating for dismantling capitalism in the name of <insert noble sounding premise here>, that's got nothing to do with basic human rights...that's an economic preference.

If someone is looking to redefine speech, and looking to have their new definitions codified by major institutions (with consequences for non-compliance), that's got nothing to do with basic human rights. For example, "A few of us got together and made up some new sets of pronouns in 2018 that we want to go by, and colleges and workplaces should penalize people who refuse to refer to us as that" isn't a "basic human rights" thing.


People from the left side of the fence seem to have an easier time detecting the difference when discussed within the framework of right-wing advocacy.

The "Religious freedom" debates would be a good example.

There's a big difference between
"I have the right to practice the religion of my choice"
vs.
"I have the right to not ever have anyone publicly challenge my religion, disagree with me, or refuse to participate in it"

 

[Stopped_lurking]

When it's specifically "power-fist/Antifa" style anti-racism (or BLM variety, where they're talking about dismantling capitalism)
View attachment 370715


...then it is far left.

These are the same types of conversations people had about anti-fascism/antifa a few years back.

They're out there waving the flags and using the symbols/slogans of an old German communist party, and then when people would critique them, it was the predictable insincere "what's wrong with opposing fascism?" rebuttal.

"Black Lives Matter DC (not part of the national BLM organization) is a member-based abolitionist organization centering Black people most at risk for state violence in DC, creating the conditions for Black Liberation through the abolition of systems and institutions of white supremacy, capitalism, patriarchy, and colonialism."

You seem to be overstating black lives matter dc's importance, quote taken from BLM DC homepage.

A quick look at at wikipedia seems to imply that there are more than possible meaning of black lives matter, due to to it being decentralized. Other than that what is wrong with the rainbow and trans flag? Science should inform our view of reality, feminism highlighting the struggles of women, saying asian hate is wrong, defend democracy, what is the problem with any of that? A quick google search also shows signs without BLM association high up in the shopping category. So if we exclude them what's your problem with the rest?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Too late. The Republicans, in complicity with Neoliberal Democrats, have already dismantled capitalism.

If you're referring to the cronyism that takes place, then I would agree (to a certain degree)

But if people are suggesting that the antidote to that are systems that have been tried numerous times (with an 0 for the century batting average), and that it's somehow a solution to a particular -ism or activism cause, then in reality, they're just hijacking that cause as a vehicle for making it about "their thing".


For instance if some person were to say "We've got a problem with shoplifting and car theft in this country, so the way to solve that is to criminalize alcohol, because when people drink, it leads to bad decision making", then it would be safe to assume that the theft isn't actually their primary concern, and that they were simply a teetotaler with a "solution in search of a problem" that just so happens to align with their preference.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Maybe it's an ideology of 'the progressive wing'. Or 'the liberal elite'. I can't keep track of which of the umpteen little pigeon-holes I'm meant to occupy. But they're all in a big room with THEM on the door.

It is tricky and I'm not sure which pigeon hole I should be in either. I was recently listening to a couple self-identified leftists discuss some of the differences, and as every time I pay attention to what self-identified leftists think about politics, that I am not one of them. The difference between "liberal" and "progressive" seems a bit harder to sort out in US political groupings.

However, given the broad application in American society and culture for decades, anti-racism can hardly be "far left". If it is "on the political spectrum" it is firmly in the center-left mainstream if not straight up centrist.

 

[BCP1928]

If you're referring to the cronyism that takes place, then I would agree (to a certain degree)

But if people are suggesting that the antidote to that are systems that have been tried numerous times (with an 0 for the century batting average), and that it's somehow a solution to a particular -ism or activism cause, then in reality, they're just hijacking that cause as a vehicle for making it about "their thing".

Maybe so, but free market capitalism has a pretty good batting average, even though it's now called "socialism."

For instance if some person were to say "We've got a problem with shoplifting and car theft in this country, so the way to solve that is to criminalize alcohol, because when people drink, it leads to bad decision making", then it would be safe to assume that the theft isn't actually their primary concern, and that they were simply a teetotaler with a "solution in search of a problem" that just so happens to align with their preference.

Well, criminalizing alcohol didn't really work out, so why do you think it will work with sex?

 

[BCP1928]

There's a big difference between
"I have the right to practice the religion of my choice"
vs.
"I have the right to not ever have anyone publicly challenge my religion, disagree with me, or refuse to participate in it"

I wonder why conservatives have so much trouble with that distinction.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

A quick look at at wikipedia seems to imply that there are more than possible meaning of black lives matter, due to to it being decentralized. Other than that what is wrong with the rainbow and trans flag? Science should inform our view of reality, feminism highlighting the struggles of women, saying asian hate is wrong, defend democracy, what is the problem with any of that? A quick google search also shows signs without BLM association high up in the shopping category. So if we exclude them what's your problem with the rest?

In purely semantic terms, nothing is wrong with those sentiments.

But as I noted, the semantic overload is the problem.

That'd be like saying "What so bad about religious freedom or parental rights?" (in a conversation about a Florida bill using that language) -- we all know it incorporates concepts beyond the simple definition.

The "women's rights are human rights" is a semantically true/non-controversial sentiment... However, when one understands that it's become a slogan for "abortion on demand for any reason with no limits" advocacy, then that changes things a bit.

When the "denying science" label has been used describe anyone who doesn't want to go along with every progressive proposal pitched in the name of addressing climate change (even if they actually acknowledge climate change), that complicates things as well.


With regards to the rainbow flag/"trans rights are human rights" schtick... There are codified protections for housing and employment discrimination, and the majority of the public supports nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ+ people. The points of division are biological males in female sports, and gender affirming care for minors. (along with some of the language changes/rules)

Most people don't tend to engage in advocacy for the things people already have, and that the majority of the public already agrees with, advocacy/activism exists in the areas of division. I'm not going to stick a sign in my yard advocating for alcohol being legal... it's already legal, and the majority of the public already agrees.

However, if there were a political divide over whether or not to lower the age back to 18 vs. the people who wanted to keep it at 21, and a "#ProhibitionDoesn'tWork slogan became the rallying cry for people who were in the camp of "lower the age to 18".

If I stuck a sign in the yard with that slogan on it, people disagreeing with the sign aren't necessarily suggesting that they thought blanket prohibition was a good idea when the US tried it before.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Well, criminalizing alcohol didn't really work out, so why do you think it will work with sex?

I've not suggested that we should criminalize anything... I'm a-ok with with whatever two (or more) adults want to do. I think one can make a good case for legalizing prostitution for that matter...

What I'm objecting to is the notion that "you have to go along with everything we want, and speak about it positively and publicly say it's something worthy of celebration" and "you're anti-XYZ" are the only two options.

 

[BCP1928]

I've not suggested that we should criminalize anything... I'm a-ok with with whatever two (or more) adults want to do. I think one can make a good case for legalizing prostitution for that matter...

What I'm objecting to is the notion that "you have to go along with everything we want, and speak about it positively and publicly say it's something worthy of celebration" and "you're anti-XYZ" are the only two options.

So why do you think that is something to be objected to if "the Left" does it but not the Right?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

However, given the broad application in American society and culture for decades, anti-racism can hardly be "far left". If it is "on the political spectrum" it is firmly in the center-left mainstream if not straight up centrist.

It depends on the particular advocacy/activism group that's doing it.

I think one can reasonably say that most of the views of the NAACP are pretty mainstream, but many of the views of BLM chapters are not. (dismantling capitalism, ditching the concept of the nuclear family unit, etc...)

...can't inject Marxist thought into an advocacy concept, and not have people associate it with the left wing.



Think of it in the same sense of the ASPCA vs. PETA.

"Animal welfare and protection" isn't a particularly controversial concept.

Most people would say they agreed with it if asked...most people are going to oppose things like dog fights and people beating their pets.


Yet, if you asked most people about their opinions of the two groups, you'd likely hear generally positive feedback for the former, but negative for the latter.


The reason for that? PETA has taken a concept that many agree with in a general sense, but escalated it to a pretty radical level and proposed much more radical sweeping public implications. "we need to do away with zoos" "committing arson at medical institutions is acceptable since it's done in the name of the oppressed" "you shouldn't say pets because it's demeaning, you have to say companion animals" "everyone should be forced to be vegan"


For the purposes of comparison
NAACP = ASPCA
BLM = PETA

 

[ThatRobGuy]

So why do you think that is something to be objected to if "the Left" does it but not the Right?

I have objected to it when the right does it. I've cited the "religious freedom" and "parental rights" semantic overload they use multiple times in this thread (and many other threads)

 

[Larniavc]

An example I've already posted before would apply, when they start advocating for dismantling capitalism

Woah there my guy! No one but you has brought up dismantling capitalism.

Stick to the topic dude.

 

[Larniavc]

"I have the right to not ever have anyone publicly challenge my religion, disagree with me, or refuse to participate in it"

This does seem to be what Christian Nationalists want.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

That's because neither of us are representative of "The US progressive Left"

So the fact you or I don't fit that mold doesn't "dismantle" my argument.

There are people here in the US on the progressive wing that apply a social ruleset that suggests "if you don't sign on to the furthest left premises, that makes you guilty of hate"

...basically any initiative that's done in the name of advancement of a group deemed to be marginalized, if you voice any objection to it, you get the "why do you hate group XYZ?" treatment.

This is 100% true. There are many closed minded people out there (I myself included at times) who say things to the extreme when it doesn't need to be. This whole topics discussion is a prime example. But before I say why, I'll throw out another example that is more local. Our county in Florida is cleaning up some of the "not meant for young eyes to read because they are not mature enough yet to understand" books from the elementary and middle school libraries here. The local newspaper covers the School Board Meetings where these books get either a yea or nay vote as to whether they should be included in the elementary or middle school libraries. And from those who oppose taking these books out of the libraries you hear, "conservative fascist censors". This gets printed in the local newspaper. A not so inflammatory label for the people wanting the books out of the libraries would have been "overly protected parents" but no the opposing side goes straight for the fascist or censoring or cancel culture label. I say calm down people, parents are allowed to state what their child should see and what they shouldn't see. If the opposing side really wanted their child to read that material then buy the book for them.

Now, I'm using the term "the opposing side" because I know all liberals, progressives, Democrats may not agree with what the opposing side wants ("not meant for young eyes to read because they are not mature enough yet to understand" books to be in every library K thru 12). So, as for this discussion's topic here "Love is love" or "Hate has no home here" so the pastor is offended because he feels that those who promote those slogans are labeling him as a hater and a person who doesn't understand that "Love is love". But in this forum and in the world these days, instead of explaining things to one another nicely and non-partisanly our knee jerk reaction is to attack the message. So, let's take the phrase "Love is love". The pastor is actually correct to condemn the statement because English doesn't really break down the different types of love that other languages do such as Greek:

1. Eros: sexual desire​

In Ancient Greek mythology, Eros (ἔρως) was a mischievous god of passion and fertility, who was shooting arrows into the hearts of people and immortals and making them feel a sudden overwhelming desire for each other. Although this desire can be interpreted as love, it is primarily physical attraction. That’s where the terms “erotic” and “erotica” came from that nowadays describe human sexuality.
It is common to mistake lust – or sexual desire – for romantic love. Sexual attraction can be a potent and overwhelming sensation, and even fool the brain into questionable decision-making. However, although the sexual desire is not a type of love in and of itself, it is frequently an essential component of love, especially between romantic couples.

2. Philia: soul connection​

In contrast to the physical, sexual nature of Eros, Philia (φιλία) is a platonic feeling. This Greek word for love implies spiritual connection, trust, and sharing of the same values. Philia usually grows between friends or family members. While it is not as overwhelming, euphoric, or exciting as Eros, it is often more fulfilling and rewarding in the long term.
Philia is not relegated to non-sexual and non-romantic relationships, however. It is a vital component of romantic love between couples, and any connection without it is not likely to last. A love that features Eros but not Philia is often a possessive, self-centered love.

Ancient Greek philosophers (as well as many psychologists today) believed that the two work best alongside each other, strengthening each other and the bond between two people. Adding Philia to Eros turns a possessive love into one built around shared goals and happiness. The Greek philosopher Plato believed that the combination of Philia and Eros led to the highest form of love – a “friendship between lovers.”

3. Storge: devoted love​

Storge (στοργή) can be classified as a variation of Philia and usually relates to love within a family. While the care and devotion of Storge is an integral part of Philia’s connection, it may also be one-sided. An excellent example of Storge is when a parent cares for a child, makes them feel secure, comfortable, and safe, and don’t expect anything in return.
Although Storge may seem like an antidote of Eros, they both tend to be highly natural, biological, and instinctual. Storge usually occurs between married couples who are raising a family together. This form of love is valued in Western culture, particularly within the Christian faith.

4. Pragma: mature love​

Although probably the least exciting type of love, Pragma (πράγμα) is an essential component of making relationships work in the long term. Pragma is love based on duty, reason, and shared goals. Like Philia, Pragma is not limited to romantic partnerships, although it is a vital part of romantic love. It is essential within families and even close friendships. Examples of Pragma manifestation are personal sacrifices for your partner’s benefit, making life and career choices that are best for your relationship rather than just yourself, and carrying out the daily chores and tasks needed to maintain a happy home.
Pragma love is perhaps the most difficult to develop and maintain, as it requires continual effort, dedication, and often selflessness. However, the results are often extremely worthwhile in the long-term. Even arranged marriages have been sustained and made satisfying through Pragma, and many failing relationships have been saved.

This type of love can be seen as the day-to-day “admin” of maintaining a relationship, but partnerships without Pragma are unlikely to withstand the challenges of time.

5. Ludus: playful love​

Ludus (Παιχνίδια) is another Greek word for love that is perhaps the polar opposite of Pragma. While Pragma is long-term, cerebral, and based around responsibilities, Ludus is carefree and playful love.
Imagine a hedonistic casual relationship that is focused on fun and living in the moment, and you’ll have an excellent example of Ludus. It is often expressed through flirting and teasing, seduction, and casual sex. Although the thrill of sexual conquest is a form of Ludus, these relationships are not necessarily selfish or shallow – they may be fulfilling to both parties if mutual respect is shown, and come with less responsibility and commitment than other kinds of love.
Ludus shares many qualities with Eros, but it is not limited to physical or sexual relationships. Ludus love can also comprise non-sexual activities such as dancing, drinking, and other sensory pleasures that one can enjoy.

6. Mania: obsessive love​

Have you ever met anybody obsessed with a particular individual to the point where it seems unhealthy? And maybe you even called them a maniac? Greek philosophers labeled this type of love as Mania (μανία).
It can be combined with sexual and hedonistic Eros and Ludus but will hardly accompany Pragma or Philia. Mania often manifests through anxiety, emotional instability, jealousy, and possessiveness.
These days “mania,” and its derivation “manic” are used in the field of psychiatry to describe components of certain mental illnesses, as well as being used in less formal settings to define hyper obsession or fixation.

Even though a slight obsession can be fairly common during the early stages of a relationship, in the long term, excess of Mania that is unbalanced by other forms of love can lead to dependency and even stalking or violence.

7. Meraki (modern greek): creative endeavors​

A modern Greek word, derived from the Turkish “Merak” (μεράκι) means to do something with love, creativity, and devotion when you wholeheartedly put yourself into what you are doing.
Meraki is often used to describe creative or artistic expressions such as painting, singing, or composing music. Also, it can manifest in cooking, decorating a room, or nicely setting up a table.
You do not have to paint a gorgeous portrait of your partner or compose a stunning piece of music for them to express your love. Making a nice dinner is a perfect manifestation of Meraki!

8. Philautia: self-love​

The Greek philosopher Aristotle believed that self-love or Philautia (φιλαυτία) is a prerequisite to loving others. Healthy self-love is beneficial to every aspect of life, including relationships, and individuals who love themselves are usually more capable of both giving and receiving all kinds of love.
Many destructive behaviors in a relationship can often be rooted in a lack of self-love. However, self-love can quickly turn into an unhealthy form when a person loves themselves more than anyone else. Unhealthy self-love can be expressed through an inflated ego and usually dependent on social status, abilities, or accomplishments rather than genuine virtues.
Healthy self-love is defined by self-esteem that is not dependent on status or competition with others. Instead, it is based more on forgiveness and acceptance of the self.
People with a healthy level of self-love are not arrogant and do not hold themselves superior to others, but are resilient and accepting of their limitations without feeling ashamed of them. These people are less likely to seek external validation through compulsive behaviors, and as a result, can devote themselves better to relationships.

9. Agape: unconditional love​

Agape (ἀγάπη) is an unconditional love that is not dependent on any external factors. Acts of charity and altruism are often born out of Agape love. It seems fair to argue that a society without Agape would be unable to function, as we are dependent on one another as a species.
Agape is the least selfish form of love and does not require anything in return. However, it does also often result in immense benefits to the one practicing it – not just in terms of people reciprocating it with love or rewards, but benefits for the mental and emotional well-being of the practitioner. Practicing Agape love can often increase self-love, and higher levels of healthy self-love usually result in an increased ability to feel and show Agape – it is a cycle!
Greek is one of the richest languages in the world with an extensive vocabulary. However, love is often more complicated than any words can describe.

In our society some loves are noble and beautiful while some loves are just lustful and wrong. As a Christian, we are taught this. Jesus taught this, "There is no greater love than to lay one's life down for another" or "The man and the woman are joined together and the two become one" (I'm paraphrasing here)

So, in presenting this this way, am I a hater, fascist or am I just conveying a truth. Some of the people here unfortunately just want to argue for the sake of arguing. None of them really ever hearing anything you say (which makes sense). They may as well just have an automatic response that says, "I'm tuning your words out, I don't hear you, I am arguing for the sake of arguing". They are arguing against our beliefs and what they feel are contradictory thoughts. God bless you ThatRobGuy, you are making sense and doing good.

 

[BCP1928]

This is 100% true. There are many closed minded people out there (I myself included at times) who say things to the extreme when it doesn't need to be. This whole topics discussion is a prime example. But before I say why, I'll throw out another example that is more local. Our county in Florida is cleaning up some of the "not meant for young eyes to read because they are not mature enough yet to understand" books from the elementary and middle school libraries here. The local newspaper covers the School Board Meetings where these books get either a yea or nay vote as to whether they should be included in the elementary or middle school libraries. And from those who oppose taking these books out of the libraries you hear, "conservative fascist censors". This gets printed in the local newspaper. A not so inflammatory label for the people wanting the books out of the libraries would have been "overly protected parents" but no the opposing side goes straight for the fascist or censoring or cancel culture label. I say calm down people, parents are allowed to state what their child should see and what they shouldn't see. If the opposing side really wanted their child to read that material then buy the book for them.

Now, I'm using the term "the opposing side" because I know all liberals, progressives, Democrats may not agree with what the opposing side wants ("not meant for young eyes to read because they are not mature enough yet to understand" books to be in every library K thru 12). So, as for this discussion's topic here "Love is love" or "Hate has no home here" so the pastor is offended because he feels that those who promote those slogans are labeling him as a hater and a person who doesn't understand that "Love is love". But in this forum and in the world these days, instead of explaining things to one another nicely and non-partisanly our knee jerk reaction is to attack the message. So, let's take the phrase "Love is love". The pastor is actually correct to condemn the statement because English doesn't really break down the different types of love that other languages do such as Greek:

1. Eros: sexual desire​

In Ancient Greek mythology, Eros (ἔρως) was a mischievous god of passion and fertility, who was shooting arrows into the hearts of people and immortals and making them feel a sudden overwhelming desire for each other. Although this desire can be interpreted as love, it is primarily physical attraction. That’s where the terms “erotic” and “erotica” came from that nowadays describe human sexuality.
It is common to mistake lust – or sexual desire – for romantic love. Sexual attraction can be a potent and overwhelming sensation, and even fool the brain into questionable decision-making. However, although the sexual desire is not a type of love in and of itself, it is frequently an essential component of love, especially between romantic couples.

2. Philia: soul connection​

In contrast to the physical, sexual nature of Eros, Philia (φιλία) is a platonic feeling. This Greek word for love implies spiritual connection, trust, and sharing of the same values. Philia usually grows between friends or family members. While it is not as overwhelming, euphoric, or exciting as Eros, it is often more fulfilling and rewarding in the long term.
Philia is not relegated to non-sexual and non-romantic relationships, however. It is a vital component of romantic love between couples, and any connection without it is not likely to last. A love that features Eros but not Philia is often a possessive, self-centered love.

Ancient Greek philosophers (as well as many psychologists today) believed that the two work best alongside each other, strengthening each other and the bond between two people. Adding Philia to Eros turns a possessive love into one built around shared goals and happiness. The Greek philosopher Plato believed that the combination of Philia and Eros led to the highest form of love – a “friendship between lovers.”

3. Storge: devoted love​

Storge (στοργή) can be classified as a variation of Philia and usually relates to love within a family. While the care and devotion of Storge is an integral part of Philia’s connection, it may also be one-sided. An excellent example of Storge is when a parent cares for a child, makes them feel secure, comfortable, and safe, and don’t expect anything in return.
Although Storge may seem like an antidote of Eros, they both tend to be highly natural, biological, and instinctual. Storge usually occurs between married couples who are raising a family together. This form of love is valued in Western culture, particularly within the Christian faith.

4. Pragma: mature love​

Although probably the least exciting type of love, Pragma (πράγμα) is an essential component of making relationships work in the long term. Pragma is love based on duty, reason, and shared goals. Like Philia, Pragma is not limited to romantic partnerships, although it is a vital part of romantic love. It is essential within families and even close friendships. Examples of Pragma manifestation are personal sacrifices for your partner’s benefit, making life and career choices that are best for your relationship rather than just yourself, and carrying out the daily chores and tasks needed to maintain a happy home.
Pragma love is perhaps the most difficult to develop and maintain, as it requires continual effort, dedication, and often selflessness. However, the results are often extremely worthwhile in the long-term. Even arranged marriages have been sustained and made satisfying through Pragma, and many failing relationships have been saved.

This type of love can be seen as the day-to-day “admin” of maintaining a relationship, but partnerships without Pragma are unlikely to withstand the challenges of time.

5. Ludus: playful love​

Ludus (Παιχνίδια) is another Greek word for love that is perhaps the polar opposite of Pragma. While Pragma is long-term, cerebral, and based around responsibilities, Ludus is carefree and playful love.
Imagine a hedonistic casual relationship that is focused on fun and living in the moment, and you’ll have an excellent example of Ludus. It is often expressed through flirting and teasing, seduction, and casual sex. Although the thrill of sexual conquest is a form of Ludus, these relationships are not necessarily selfish or shallow – they may be fulfilling to both parties if mutual respect is shown, and come with less responsibility and commitment than other kinds of love.
Ludus shares many qualities with Eros, but it is not limited to physical or sexual relationships. Ludus love can also comprise non-sexual activities such as dancing, drinking, and other sensory pleasures that one can enjoy.

6. Mania: obsessive love​

Have you ever met anybody obsessed with a particular individual to the point where it seems unhealthy? And maybe you even called them a maniac? Greek philosophers labeled this type of love as Mania (μανία).
It can be combined with sexual and hedonistic Eros and Ludus but will hardly accompany Pragma or Philia. Mania often manifests through anxiety, emotional instability, jealousy, and possessiveness.
These days “mania,” and its derivation “manic” are used in the field of psychiatry to describe components of certain mental illnesses, as well as being used in less formal settings to define hyper obsession or fixation.

Even though a slight obsession can be fairly common during the early stages of a relationship, in the long term, excess of Mania that is unbalanced by other forms of love can lead to dependency and even stalking or violence.

7. Meraki (modern greek): creative endeavors​

A modern Greek word, derived from the Turkish “Merak” (μεράκι) means to do something with love, creativity, and devotion when you wholeheartedly put yourself into what you are doing.
Meraki is often used to describe creative or artistic expressions such as painting, singing, or composing music. Also, it can manifest in cooking, decorating a room, or nicely setting up a table.
You do not have to paint a gorgeous portrait of your partner or compose a stunning piece of music for them to express your love. Making a nice dinner is a perfect manifestation of Meraki!

8. Philautia: self-love​

The Greek philosopher Aristotle believed that self-love or Philautia (φιλαυτία) is a prerequisite to loving others. Healthy self-love is beneficial to every aspect of life, including relationships, and individuals who love themselves are usually more capable of both giving and receiving all kinds of love.
Many destructive behaviors in a relationship can often be rooted in a lack of self-love. However, self-love can quickly turn into an unhealthy form when a person loves themselves more than anyone else. Unhealthy self-love can be expressed through an inflated ego and usually dependent on social status, abilities, or accomplishments rather than genuine virtues.
Healthy self-love is defined by self-esteem that is not dependent on status or competition with others. Instead, it is based more on forgiveness and acceptance of the self.
People with a healthy level of self-love are not arrogant and do not hold themselves superior to others, but are resilient and accepting of their limitations without feeling ashamed of them. These people are less likely to seek external validation through compulsive behaviors, and as a result, can devote themselves better to relationships.

9. Agape: unconditional love​

Agape (ἀγάπη) is an unconditional love that is not dependent on any external factors. Acts of charity and altruism are often born out of Agape love. It seems fair to argue that a society without Agape would be unable to function, as we are dependent on one another as a species.
Agape is the least selfish form of love and does not require anything in return. However, it does also often result in immense benefits to the one practicing it – not just in terms of people reciprocating it with love or rewards, but benefits for the mental and emotional well-being of the practitioner. Practicing Agape love can often increase self-love, and higher levels of healthy self-love usually result in an increased ability to feel and show Agape – it is a cycle!
Greek is one of the richest languages in the world with an extensive vocabulary. However, love is often more complicated than any words can describe.

In our society some loves are noble and beautiful while some loves are just lustful and wrong. As a Christian, we are taught this. Jesus taught this, "There is no greater love than to lay one's life down for another" or "The man and the woman are joined together and the two become one" (I'm paraphrasing here)

So, in presenting this this way, am I a hater, fascist or am I just conveying a truth. Some of the people here unfortunately just want to argue for the sake of arguing. None of them really ever hearing anything you say (which makes sense). They may as well just have an automatic response that says, "I'm tuning your words out, I don't hear you, I am arguing for the sake of arguing". They are arguing against our beliefs and what they feel are contradictory thoughts. God bless you ThatRobGuy, you are making sense and doing good.

And if "the Left" doesn't sign on to that, it's them who are guilty of hate, right?

 

[Hans Blaster]

When it's specifically "power-fist/Antifa" style anti-racism (or BLM variety, where they're talking about dismantling capitalism)
View attachment 370715


...then it is far left.

I didn't ask about BLM DC, or even BLM, Inc. I asked about "anti-racism". I did so because I wanted to avoid your usual "whatabout this" nonsense and deflection and ask the very basic question about being opposed to racism and why that is "leftist" or "liberal" (or "woke" as it is often said here). Such things were quite mainstream in my childhood and yours on network television. I'm sure we could each come up with dozens of examples of "racism is bad" TV or movies from our youths.

I thought about putting such a statement like these two paragraphs into my response to bardskii's post #137 as a prophylactic to what I saw as you inevitable response about BLM HQ being self-proclaimes socialists, or whatever, but I wanted you to respond to my question. Alas, I gave you too much credit.

The short answer to your counter "but BLM are leftists" is: I don't care. The mass march movement of 5 years ago lead by BLM, inc. with their recognizable lettertype logo on signs, banners, and T-shirts. The vast majority of the marchers and non-marching supporters were engaged in BLM's primary mission to combat racism, and especially police violence against Black people. They were not their for some anti-corporate or socialist agenda. BLM inc, was just a group of the leaders of the original movement that turned the best slogan of the movement into a non-profit activist organization.

These are the same types of conversations people had about anti-fascism/antifa a few years back.

They're out there waving the flags and using the symbols/slogans of an old German communist party, and then when people would critique them, it was the predictable insincere "what's wrong with opposing fascism?" rebuttal.

Ah here we go with the red flag of whatabout...

First the symbols adopted by some leftist groups resisting far-right violent extemists gangs under the "Antifa" banner are from similar groups in post-war Germany fighting the fascist remnant under the "Antifaschistische Aktion" banner. Which does include some red-black anarchist-communist iconography, but not the familiar hammer and sickle iconography of Soviet/international communism. American Antifa groups (and there aren't that many of them) who have adopted this iconography (in part) are focused on confrontations with violent facist (hence the name), skinhead, and other RW gangs.

It is unfortunate that so many Americans have neglected to push back on these far right groups and left it to the anarcho-leftists in "Antifa". Sad.

(Now I wait for the power to come back up and with it my internet.)

 

[ThatRobGuy]

This does seem to be what Christian Nationalists want.

Correct, which is why you won't see me supporting their positions on such matters. Which is why if you dig around in some of my past posts where I've been critical of some of the concepts where they try to invoke "religious freedom" as a means of denying service to certain groups, and have criticized certain tactics like when a "independent street preacher" will harass people on the sidewalk with a megaphone, and then when they get arrested, claim "I was persecuted for being a Christian"

I think it goes without saying that we atheists don't want a Christian theocracy to be the "law of the land".

Where some lines gets blurred is that methods and tactics that wouldn't be tolerated if a religious ideology were doing it, get a pass simply on the basis of "well, this ideology isn't a religion, so those rules don't apply".

The issue with that is that some ideologies (despite not being religious), are held with a certain religiosity. (held with the same determination and conviction that one might hold a religious belief)

And it's not so much whether or not ideologies are religious in nature that makes them volatile enough that they need to be separated from state action, it's the traits that typically went along with it.

A belief that one knows a truth so profound and meaningful that they're:
- willing to kill and die for it
- willing to curtail the rights of others in the name of upholding it
- willing to foist it on others (with the force of government) based on a "we know what's best for everyone else because we're the enlightened ones" basis.

When the founders were setting up the framework, I can understand why they made that carveout pertaining to religion in particular, because back then, religious ideologies were the ones that had that propensity more than any other. Even up until the 1990s & mid-2000's, I would've suggested that's still the case.

But in today's political environment, there are many ideologies that have those exact same traits and carry those exact same liabilities, despite not pertaining to any deity or afterlife.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I didn't ask about BLM DC, or even BLM, Inc. I asked about "anti-racism". I did so because I wanted to avoid your usual "whatabout this" nonsense and deflection and ask the very basic question about being opposed to racism and why that is "leftist" or "liberal" (or "woke" as it is often said here). Such things were quite mainstream in my childhood and yours on network television. I'm sure we could each come up with dozens of examples of "racism is bad" TV or movies from our youths.

I thought about putting such a statement like these two paragraphs into my response to bardskii's post #137 as a prophylactic to what I saw as you inevitable response about BLM HQ being self-proclaimes socialists, or whatever, but I wanted you to respond to my question. Alas, I gave you too much credit.

The short answer to your counter "but BLM are leftists" is: I don't care. The mass march movement of 5 years ago lead by BLM, inc. with their recognizable lettertype logo on signs, banners, and T-shirts. The vast majority of the marchers and non-marching supporters were engaged in BLM's primary mission to combat racism, and especially police violence against Black people. They were not their for some anti-corporate or socialist agenda. BLM inc, was just a group of the leaders of the original movement that turned the best slogan of the movement into a non-profit activist organization.



Ah here we go with the red flag of whatabout...

First the symbols adopted by some leftist groups resisting far-right violent extemists gangs under the "Antifa" banner are from similar groups in post-war Germany fighting the fascist remnant under the "Antifaschistische Aktion" banner. Which does include some red-black anarchist-communist iconography, but not the familiar hammer and sickle iconography of Soviet/international communism. American Antifa groups (and there aren't that many of them) who have adopted this iconography (in part) are focused on confrontations with violent facist (hence the name), skinhead, and other RW gangs.

It is unfortunate that so many Americans have neglected to push back on these far right groups and left it to the anarcho-leftists in "Antifa". Sad.

(Now I wait for the power to come back up and with it my internet.)

It's not "whatabout", the "anti-racism" moniker has gone hand in hand with Marxist thought for quite some time.

Anti-capitalist rhetoric has been a staple in "anti-racism" going back to the Black Panthers. The US Communist party of the 20s and 30's depicted racism as a feature of "class warfare" (that's probably where the connection started)

And you mentioned the Antifaschistische Aktion group...ironically enough much like the modern Antifa groups, they also labelled everyone who wasn't far left as "fascists". Fun fact, the original Antifa and the KPD labelled the Social Democrats (the center-left entity in Germany at the time) as "fascists" specifically because they weren't full blown communists.

The Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) was included by the KPD in the category of "fascists"[13] based on the theory of "social fascism" proclaimed by Stalin and supported by the Comintern in the early 1930s, according to which social democracy was a variant of fascism and even more dangerous and insidious than open fascism.[8] The KPD doctrine held that the communist party was "the only anti-fascist party" while all other parties were "fascist".[14]

The KPD did not view fascism as a specific political movement, but primarily as the final stage of capitalism and the KPD's anti-fascism was therefore synonymous with anti-capitalism. Throughout this period, the KPD regarded the centre-left SPD as its main adversary.[8]

Fast forward to modern times, there are parallels... Like Mayor Jacob Fray (social democratic mayor of Minneapolis) getting booed by BLM rally attendees, and Antifa/BLM protestors showing up at Mayor Jenny Durkan's house (liberal mayor of Seattle) for not being sufficiently "down with the cause"

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Woah there my guy! No one but you has brought up dismantling capitalism.

Stick to the topic dude.

Hang on a minute... When I said that they advocate for things beyond just basic human rights, you asked "like what?"

I was providing an example of what BLM chapters advocate for that's outside of advocacy for basic human rights. I showed a screenshot from the BLM DC chapter showing where they list dismantling capitalism as one of the goals.

I was just answering your question.

You can't ask a question, and then accuse me of going off topic when I answer it, that's not fair.