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

[Bradskii]

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)

I have no idea what point it is that you are trying to make.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I have no idea what point it is that you are trying to make.

The point is that in modern US discourse, "anti-racism" doesn't simply mean "being against racism", there's several other (unrelated) precepts that one needs to give lip service to in order to be considered as having their "anti racist bona fides".

If I went on social media and found an "Anti-racist" gathering (which would undoubtedly be a bunch of 20-something white kids), and I showed up and said "I'm against racism, but I'm opposed to reparations, and I still believe in the meritocracy and capitalism" how many seconds before they'd ask me to leave?

 

[Bradskii]

The point is that in modern US discourse, "anti-racism" doesn't simply mean "being against racism"

Absolute bulldust. Anti racism means being against racism. It says exactly the same except they threw in a bit of Greek.

If I went on social media and found an "Anti-racist" gathering (which would undoubtedly be a bunch of 20-something white kids), and I showed up and said "I'm against racism, but I'm opposed to reparations, and I still believe in the meritocracy and capitalism" how many seconds before they'd ask me to leave?

Here's a group of 20 organisations that cover all age groups, politics, race, gender etc. 20 Anti-Racism Organizations To Join & Help Implement Real Change

It was the first link I came across. There's be dozens if not hundreds more. I doubt if you'd fit in with The Black, Queer and Intersectional Collective, so maybe your best bet is Amnesty International.

One thing that you'll find that they all have in common is that they're all anti racist.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Absolute bulldust. Anti racism means being against racism. It says exactly the same except they through in a bit of Greek.

It's not "bulldust"

"Anti-racism" doesn't simply mean "against racism" in modern contemporary discourse.

The same way "religious freedom" doesn't mean "freedom to practice Christianity on a personal level" when Christian nationalists use the expression, it means "ban gay stuff" when they say it.

The fact that people still don't grasp the semantic overload routine is somewhat astounding/concerning, it's one of the cheapest tricks in the book, but yet somehow still one of the most effective apparently...

If self-purported "anti-racists" say "we need to dismantle capitalism and the idea of the nuclear family unit" and then when people oppose those precepts, they say "you must be pro-racism then" is the definition of dishonest politics.

Are people really that gullible?

 

[Yarddog]

"When you accuse someone of preaching hate, they are saying I hope somebody puts a bullet in your neck. That's what that means," [Andrew] Isker claimed in a live podcast Friday afternoon.

Isker derided what he described as “many foolish Christian leaders” who have urged people to follow the words of Jesus to love their enemies and to turn the other cheek.

“This great evil must not be tolerated. It must be rooted out and eradicated," he insisted.

That vengeance, he said, would come in the form of government crackdown, not from vigilante action.

[From his Facebook post to a Jackson County group]

The Hate Has No Home in Gainesboro/Jackson County signs did not bother me. I have always known I have opinions that some people will disagree with. It was no surprise that people would react strongly when the TV (falsely) told them that a Nazi had moved into the area.
But things have changed after yesterday. Gainesboro is my home now. I am not leaving. If the "hate" is me, and I am not leaving, "no home here" means the only way I don't have a home here is if someone kills me.
I don't think anyone who has these signs up supports radical leftist terrorism. I think you are decent Americans who disagree with my views. But you need to understand what your message is being associated with: it has been taken to mean you support violence against people you hate. If you really believe the rhetoric needs to be toned down, you will show it by putting these signs away.

[Sorry pal, just because you apparently take this criticism to mean that doesn't mean it does. It is by no means inciting or a threat. We are all allowed to opine that you are preaching hate.]

"I hope every scumbag journalist is shaking in his boots right now."

As Scripps News Nashville first revealed, Isker is leading an effort to establish a Christian nationalist community in Jackson County, Tennessee, about 90 minutes northeast of Nashville.

see also:

Sad that these guys can't see the sin in their souls.

 

[Bradskii]

It's not "bulldust"

"Anti-racism" doesn't simply mean "against racism" in modern contemporary discourse.

Well, I suppose that, heaven forbid, you don't want to be associated with anti racism. But hey, against racism is just fine. Maybe you wouldn't want to be described as antisocial. But being against socialising is OK. And if you have hay fever you ask the chemist for those tablets that are against histamines.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Well, I suppose that, heaven forbid, you don't want to be associated with anti racism. But hey, against racism is just fine.

That sounds like another mislabeling of the situation.

The fact that I don't want to buy in to all of the other unrelated initiatives of the people who claim to carry the "anti-racist" banner doesn't mean I'm "not sufficiently against racism"

If a group of people suggested that you had to be on-board with the Florida state legislature interpretation of what "Religious Freedom" and "Parental Rights" meant in order to be considered sufficiently "pro religious freedom" and "pro parental rights", wouldn't you take objection to that arrangement? The answer is 'yes', correct?

 

[Bradskii]

That sounds like another mislabeling of the situation.

Do I need to point out that it's exactly how you labelled it.

The point is that in modern US discourse, "anti-racism" doesn't simply mean "being against racism"

It do, Rob. It do. But it's where you've ended up trying to convince people that putting a rainbow or an ant-racism comment on a 'Hate Doesn't Live here" yard sign is somehow Marxist or uber liberal or whatever dopey moniker you feel the need to use.

Unless you have something useful to add..?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Do I need to point out that it's exactly how you labelled it.

It do, Rob. It do. But it's where you've ended up trying to convince people that putting a rainbow or an ant-racism comment on a 'Hate Doesn't Live here" yard sign is somehow Marxist or uber liberal or whatever dopey moniker you feel the need to use.

Unless you have something useful to add..?

To be blunt, the fact that I oppose racism (my SO is an Indian woman from a Hindu family...much to their dismay) wouldn't be considered to be "enough" to be considered "truly anti-racism"... unless you oppose any/all traditional viewpoints of western civilization and embrace the furthest most left definition of "anti-racism", you get the "racist" label in the eyes of the folks who tout the "anti-racism" label.

 

[Bradskii]

To be blunt, the fact that I oppose racism (my SO is an Indian woman from a Hindu family...much to their dismay) wouldn't be considered to be "enough" to be considered "truly anti-racism"... unless you oppose any/all traditional viewpoints of western civilization and embrace the furthest most left definition of "anti-racism", you get the "racist" label in the eyes of the folks who tout the "anti-racism" label.

You're repeating yourself. I asked if you had anything else...

 

[Hans Blaster]

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

I think my power-outage delayed response this afternoon should explain why--- I just don't care about these pointless "comparisons".

 

[Hans Blaster]

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.

What?

blinking_eye_guy.gif

 

[Hvizsgyak]

What?

blinking_eye_guy.gif

That bad, huh? I tend to lose my train of thought at times when I write too much. I feel bad for ThatRobGuy. My rambling response is forever attached to his good and meaningful comment. Sorry .

 

[rjs330]

Well, I suppose that, heaven forbid, you don't want to be associated with anti racism. But hey, against racism is just fine. Maybe you wouldn't want to be described as antisocial. But being against socialising is OK. And if you have hay fever you ask the chemist for those tablets that are against histamines.

Being against racism isn't enough. Anti-racism is FAR MORE than that.

Here is just a bit:

Key principles of anti-racism include:

Active Engagement: It goes beyond passive non-racism, requiring individuals and institutions to challenge racism actively.
Systemic Focus: Anti-racism explicitly focuses on privilege and power relations embedded in social institutions and the social construction of racial categories. It challenges the notion that racism is merely an individual character flaw and instead addresses it as a systemic issue.
Inclusive Scope: While initially concerned with issues affecting Black people, anti-racism now encompasses oppression towards cultural and ethnic groups, language, and religion, not just race.
Goal of Equal Outcomes: Anti-racism recognizes that a uniform approach in the face of existing inequality only reinforces those inequalities. The focus must be on achieving equal outcomes, not just uniformity of treatment.

What Is Anti-Racism? A Beginner’s Guide to Becoming an Ally - Anti-Racism Commitment Coalition

At ARCC, we believe that understanding anti-racism is the first step towards creating a truly equitable world. While its presence is increasingly felt in modern society, anti-racism can sometimes feel…

joinarcc.org

 

[BCP1928]

The point is that in modern US discourse, "anti-racism" doesn't simply mean "being against racism", there's several other (unrelated) precepts that one needs to give lip service to in order to be considered as having their "anti racist bona fides".

If I went on social media and found an "Anti-racist" gathering (which would undoubtedly be a bunch of 20-something white kids), and I showed up and said "I'm against racism, but I'm opposed to reparations, and I still believe in the meritocracy and capitalism" how many seconds before they'd ask me to leave?

If you still believe in "(the?) meritocracy and capitalism" you would definitely be in the wrong meeting and it would be a kindness on their part to point it out to you.

 

[BCP1928]

To be blunt, the fact that I oppose racism (my SO is an Indian woman from a Hindu family...much to their dismay) wouldn't be considered to be "enough" to be considered "truly anti-racism"... unless you oppose and embrace the furthest most left definition of "anti-racism", you get the "racist" label in the eyes of the folks who tout the "anti-racism" label.

Here it is at last: "any/all traditional viewpoints of western civilization." You need say no more.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

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.

Aren't you awfully close to committing a strawman fallacy now? You are ascribing the most extreme interpretation to these signs just because it is easier to argue against them. Couldn't it be just to make a public statement that persons that feel that they are represented by the symbols on these signs can feel safe at this location? That would be my interpretation. It would also be in line with "hate has no home" here slogan.

 

[Larniavc]

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)

Don’t equivocate please.

 

[Larniavc]

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

And I’m saying that the ‘like what?’ you describe is going beyond the remit of this discussion.

As in it’s not really relevant.

 

[Larniavc]

"Anti-racism" doesn't simply mean "against racism" in modern contemporary discourse.

It does. You are trying to muddy the waters by attaching irrelevant additions to a thing you disagree with.