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

[Hvizsgyak]

We all do. Editing is a skill.

Some posters (and Rob is certainly not the only one) have a severe tendency to over write. When combined with a thin understanding of the topic and a need to be right it is a dangerous combination. Cheers.

Okay, I'm more focused now and ready to tackle your snappy comebacks. I would hope that you would at least agree that those who overwrite and overthink their arguments here come from both sides. This was a simple "the pastor is offended/threatened by the signs he sees placed by the others (Hate has no home here) but then offends others (not sure who) by saying, "When you accuse someone of preaching hate, they are saying I hope somebody puts a bullet in your neck. That's what that means." So, the pastor (who I guess declares himself as a Christian Nationalist or did someone decide to give him that title because they felt like it) said something a little reckless and over-the-top because he is ticked off by those signs message.

And the reason we are here arguing about this is because of the "old Jesus rule" "Turn the other cheek". And some people on the left hold Christian firmly to always obey that rule. And some people on the right don't practice it enough. I don't know really anything about this Andrew Isker but on this forum, we've managed to make a big stink about it. Was it story placed on this forum to get a reaction from Christian. To show that we are hypocrites some time. Hello, we are all hypocrites. If posters are going to put stories here on the Forum just to provoke a response - stop. If there is a story that people want to have a decent and meaningful dialogue then you are very much welcomed.

So, I agree with that pastor somewhat those signs to alot of people have more meaning to them than what some on the opposing side feel they do. For example COEXIST. In my eyes someone who portrays that signs is telling me, "you religions fight amongst yourselves too much and you drag the rest of the world into your differences - learn to get along with each other." Is that what the sign means? All the stuff ThatRobGuy said about those signs and how they send more of a message out to some people I agree with. Am I a hater if I feel people under 18 years of age should not be give any transgender drugs to change them? Am I a hater because abortions should be abolished except for maybe rape, incest or the life or death of the mom? Am I a hater because I along with 100s of thousands of other parents don't want our kids K - Middle School reading material that is for high school aged kids and older? It was called common sense to think that way until recently.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Okay, I'm more focused now and ready to tackle your snappy comebacks. I would hope that you would at least agree that those who overwrite and overthink their arguments here come from both sides.

Sometimes both in the same post (cough, rob, cough)...

This was a simple "the pastor is offended/threatened by the signs he sees placed by the others (Hate has no home here) but then offends others (not sure who) by saying, "When you accuse someone of preaching hate, they are saying I hope somebody puts a bullet in your neck. That's what that means." So, the pastor (who I guess declares himself as a Christian Nationalist or did someone decide to give him that title because they felt like it) said something a little reckless and over-the-top because he is ticked off by those signs message.

I think the pastor doth protest too much. He reveals himself.

And the reason we are here arguing about this is because of the "old Jesus rule" "Turn the other cheek". And some people on the left hold Christian firmly to always obey that rule. And some people on the right don't practice it enough.

I think it is bad advice, in the same vein as "obey your oppressors". Ugh.

I don't know really anything about this Andrew Isker but on this forum, we've managed to make a big stink about it. Was it story placed on this forum to get a reaction from Christian. To show that we are hypocrites some time. Hello, we are all hypocrites. If posters are going to put stories here on the Forum just to provoke a response - stop. If there is a story that people want to have a decent and meaningful dialogue then you are very much welcomed.

I don't know who that is.

So, I agree with that pastor somewhat those signs to alot of people have more meaning to them than what some on the opposing side feel they do. For example COEXIST. In my eyes someone who portrays that signs is telling me, "you religions fight amongst yourselves too much and you drag the rest of the world into your differences - learn to get along with each other." Is that what the sign means?

I thought those "COEXIST" bumper stickers were from lefty supernaturalists. I have no use for supernaturalism or these signs.

All the stuff ThatRobGuy said about those signs and how they send more of a message out to some people I agree with. Am I a hater if I feel people under 18 years of age should not be give any transgender drugs to change them? Am I a hater because abortions should be abolished except for maybe rape, incest or the life or death of the mom? Am I a hater because I along with 100s of thousands of other parents don't want our kids K - Middle School reading material that is for high school aged kids and older? It was called common sense to think that way until recently.

i don't care what you hate or don't. You are not the subject of the thread or discussion. I just think calling "anti-racism" part of "leftism" is nonsense.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

How are the logos connected with wanting to end religious violence? I've seen that you said the text is there now! I would read it that they want to end religous violence in different ways.

The logos would be connected in that they're making a statement about who they see as "the problem" with regards to the issue of religious violence in that scenario.

If someone sticks the BDS emblem and a Palestinian flag next to it, they're suggesting that Israel is the cause of the violence. If someone sticks the IFCJ and Israeli emblems next to it, then they're suggesting that the Palestinians are the cause of the violence.

...and those positions don't seem to leave a lot of wiggle room for nuance or "finding middle ground". For people that are so passionate about an issue that they feel compelled to make sign about it, it's typically not "balanced position" they hold. The people who show up for demonstrations pertaining to that conflict are never the "there's blame to go around, I feel bad for both entities, but they've both engaged in some tit-for-tat violence so both peoples need to acknowledge their own wrongdoing and try to make peace moving forward" moving forward.

Quite the opposite, it's very much the "this is the good guy, this is a bad guy...no room for debate. It's my way or the highway" -- "From the River to the Sea" vs. "If you criticize Israel, you're an Antisemite"


The same is true of the slogans and activism surrounding the issues whose emblems and symbols show up on the "Hate has no place here" signs.

People who are passionate enough about an issue to acquire signage and attend demonstrations aren't "middle of the road" types of people.

The people who show up with the "Women's rights are Human Rights" iconography at Women's marches defending abortion don't have nuanced positions on abortion by any stretch of the imagination. They're very solidly in the camp of "if you support any restrictions on the procedure whatsoever and don't agree that it should be taxpayer funded, you're anti-woman"

Same goes for the modern LGBTQ+ activism movements. It's very a much a "we should be able to do whatever we want, and unless you go along with it, you're anti-Trans"

"Stop Asian Hate" was just a slogan that was made up in response to Trump calling covid the "China virus", and the "Science is real" is meant to signal ones bona fides on the topics of covid vaccines and climate change.

I've already covered the BLM stuff ad nauseum, so no need for me to repost all that stuff again.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

They both want to end religious violence. They just have different opinions about who is responsible for that violence.

Correct...and that's my point, the same semantically stated phrase can convey divergent messages.

So if "End Religious Violence" became a quasi "official" tagline or slogan for one side of that debate, the other side would have an understandable gripe about it.

For instance, if that slogan became synonymous with the "Pro-Israel" side of the debate

And all of the Pro-Israel people with those signs disingenuously responding to any criticism of their signage with "Well, you see... the pro-Palestine side seems to have a problem with "Ending religious violence"...otherwise, why would they have a problem with my sign???"

The people who are in solidarity with the Palestinians (and the centrists on the issue for that matter) would have a valid complaint about the premise that they either have to be 100% on the pro-Israel side, else "you don't care about ending religious violence".

 

[Larniavc]

My assertion

That you need to support with evidence.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

That you need to support with evidence.

I have supported it with numerous examples and evidence.


Let's go through a word exercise....
"I want to defend innocent lives", in a purely semantically framed sentiment, would be something the overwhelming majority of people would claim to agree with, yes?
(the answer is yes)

A staunch conservative would say they want to accomplish that by banning abortion
A staunch progressive would say they want to accomplish that by restricting gun ownership
(those are both factually correct statements)

Those two positions are light years apart on the current US political spectrum. correct?
(the answer is yes)

If either one of those two positions branded or officially coopted "Defend innocent lives" to the degree that it became synonymous with their cause, the people on the opposing side would have some rightful objections to that particular framing, correct?
(the answer is, again, yes)

 

[RocksInMyHead]

My assertion was that those slogans are leveraging semantic overload.

Have you even considered the possibility that it might be you semantically overloading the sign?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Have you even considered the possibility that it might be you semantically overloading the sign?

No, because I'm not... I'm not the one who suggests that saying "hey, maybe there's a bit of a fad component to this" is tantamount to "hate"

I'm basing it on what the activists who chant those slogans say their agenda is...

I've never personally encountered a person who says "Trans rights are human rights" (and believes in it so strongly that they're willing to put signage in their front yard) who simultaneously believes that there's room for reasonable discussion about changing rooms and sporting leagues, and room for disagreement pertaining to minors.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

No, because I'm not...

Hm.

"I haven't considered the possibility that I'm wrong because I know I'm right" isn't really an attitude conducive to discussion. Just sayin'.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

I don't know who that is.

It's the name of the pastor who wanted the signs removed.

I just think calling "anti-racism" part of "leftism" is nonsense.

Well, who started using the term?


Impact Factor: 2.0

​

Open access
Research article
First published online November 2, 2021
Request permissions

Who Identifies as Anti-Racist? Racial Identity, Color-Blindness, and Generic Liberalism​

Samuel L. Perry ORCID samperry@ou.edu, Kenneth E. Frantz, and Joshua B. GrubbsView all authors and affiliations
All Articles
https://doi.org/10.1177/23780231211052945
Contents

PDF/EPUB

• Cite
• Share options
• Information, rights and permissions
• Metrics and citations
• Figures and tables

Abstract​

Although decades old, the terms “anti-racism/antiracism” and “anti-racist/antiracist” have grown in usage by scholars, authors, and activists to convey the necessity of active opposition to racial injustice. But as the terms have become more mainstream, researchers have yet to examine the social and ideological correlates of actually describing oneself as “anti-racist.” Drawing on nationally representative survey data fielded at the height of national interest in “antiracist/anti-racist” language, the authors find that Blacks and Hispanics are significantly less likely than whites to describe themselves as “anti-racist,” and only the “very liberal” are more likely than other political orientations to identify with the label. Considering ideological correlates, progressive racial ideology is the strongest predictor of identifying as “anti-racist.” However, the second strongest correlate is describing oneself as “color-blind.” Analyses of quadratic terms suggests that this correlation is curvilinear for nonwhites but more linear for whites. Although originally conveying more radical and subversive ideals, those currently most likely to self-describe as “anti-racist” are white progressives with what we call “generically liberal” racial views.


Are the people described in bold (in the above paragraph) not Leftist too?

 

[Hvizsgyak]

Have you even considered the possibility that it might be you semantically overloading the sign?

No, because I also feel the same way as well as others around me. Coincidence? Nah, we just know how to read between the lines better than you do.

 

[BCP1928]

Correct...and that's my point, the same semantically stated phrase can convey divergent messages.

So if "End Religious Violence" became a quasi "official" tagline or slogan for one side of that debate, the other side would have an understandable gripe about it.

For instance, if that slogan became synonymous with the "Pro-Israel" side of the debate

And all of the Pro-Israel people with those signs disingenuously responding to any criticism of their signage with "Well, you see... the pro-Palestine side seems to have a problem with "Ending religious violence"...otherwise, why would they have a problem with my sign???"

The people who are in solidarity with the Palestinians (and the centrists on the issue for that matter) would have a valid complaint about the premise that they either have to be 100% on the pro-Israel side, else "you don't care about ending religious violence".

You're concerned about advertising copy?

 

[Hans Blaster]

It's the name of the pastor who wanted the signs removed.


Well, who started using the term?

I don't know.

Impact Factor: 2.0

​

Open access
Research article
First published online November 2, 2021
Request permissions

Who Identifies as Anti-Racist? Racial Identity, Color-Blindness, and Generic Liberalism​

Samuel L. Perry ORCID samperry@ou.edu, Kenneth E. Frantz, and Joshua B. GrubbsView all authors and affiliations
All Articles
https://doi.org/10.1177/23780231211052945
Contents

PDF/EPUB

• Cite
• Share options
• Information, rights and permissions
• Metrics and citations
• Figures and tables

Abstract​

Although decades old, the terms “anti-racism/antiracism” and “anti-racist/antiracist” have grown in usage by scholars, authors, and activists to convey the necessity of active opposition to racial injustice. But as the terms have become more mainstream, researchers have yet to examine the social and ideological correlates of actually describing oneself as “anti-racist.” Drawing on nationally representative survey data fielded at the height of national interest in “antiracist/anti-racist” language, the authors find that Blacks and Hispanics are significantly less likely than whites to describe themselves as “anti-racist,” and only the “very liberal” are more likely than other political orientations to identify with the label. Considering ideological correlates, progressive racial ideology is the strongest predictor of identifying as “anti-racist.” However, the second strongest correlate is describing oneself as “color-blind.” Analyses of quadratic terms suggests that this correlation is curvilinear for nonwhites but more linear for whites. Although originally conveying more radical and subversive ideals, those currently most likely to self-describe as “anti-racist” are white progressives with what we call “generically liberal” racial views.

That was a survey to find people who already identfied as "anti-racist". It was not a definition of the term. Did you actual try to understand this abstract, or were you just looking for "keywords" to bold?

Are the people described in bold (in the above paragraph) not Leftist too?

They are not. "Liberals" and "progressives" are not "Leftists". When you find a Leftist they can explain it to you.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

No, that's not how I read it. If you identify with any of these symbols you will find not find hate here seems more likely, it is a statement about those that put up the sign not anyone else.

So please interpret then what these people who put the sign up are trying to say. Is it that the people who put the sign up have no hate for the people associated with each of the slogans in hearts? Wouldn't it be more meaningful to just say "We identify and are one with these groups of people" instead of saying "Hate has no home here"? Because it implies to me (hate has no home here) that if you don't support any of these groups, you probably hate them or at the least don't support them.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

I don't know.

That was a survey to find people who already identfied as "anti-racist". It was not a definition of the term. Did you actual try to understand this abstract, or were you just looking for "keywords" to bold?

They are not. "Liberals" and "progressives" are not "Leftists". When you find a Leftist they can explain it to you.

Yah! Wasn't that so smart of me? It told you who identifies as an anti-racist, doesn't it? When you take a survey and you say you are something, you usually are. Or are you saying they are lying to themselves and they have no idea really what an anti-racist is or they really aren't leftists. As far as I know, we all use the words interchangeably here (we don't have time to get too technical, we just use the first word that pops into our head). So liberal is slightly left of center and leftist is way out left. Yippee! Maybe saying anti-racism is a liberal thing sounds better? If you do answer this comment try not to be too condescending this time, just talk kindly, thank you.

​

leftism​

noun​

left·ism ˈlef-ˌti-zəm

variants or less commonly Leftism
Synonyms of leftism
1
: the principles and views of the political Left (see left entry 2 sense 3a)
also : the movement embodying these principles

2
: advocacy of or adherence to the doctrines of the Left

leftist
ˈlef-tist
adjective
leftist noun
or less commonly Leftist
pluralleftists also Leftists

Synonyms​

• liberalism

Notice the synonym, Hans.
.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

So please interpret then what these people who put the sign up are trying to say. Is it that the people who put the sign up have no hate for the people associated with each of the slogans in hearts?

Yes, my interpretation would be that those who put those signs have identified that those that feel represented by those symbols are worried about encountering hate in society, and that they wish say that hate against those who feel represented are absent at that particular location. That seems to me like a straightforward interpretation.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

The logos would be connected in that they're making a statement about who they see as "the problem" with regards to the issue of religious violence in that scenario.

If someone sticks the BDS emblem and a Palestinian flag next to it, they're suggesting that Israel is the cause of the violence. If someone sticks the IFCJ and Israeli emblems next to it, then they're suggesting that the Palestinians are the cause of the violence.

...and those positions don't seem to leave a lot of wiggle room for nuance or "finding middle ground". For people that are so passionate about an issue that they feel compelled to make sign about it, it's typically not "balanced position" they hold. The people who show up for demonstrations pertaining to that conflict are never the "there's blame to go around, I feel bad for both entities, but they've both engaged in some tit-for-tat violence so both peoples need to acknowledge their own wrongdoing and try to make peace moving forward" moving forward.

Quite the opposite, it's very much the "this is the good guy, this is a bad guy...no room for debate. It's my way or the highway" -- "From the River to the Sea" vs. "If you criticize Israel, you're an Antisemite"


The same is true of the slogans and activism surrounding the issues whose emblems and symbols show up on the "Hate has no place here" signs.

People who are passionate enough about an issue to acquire signage and attend demonstrations aren't "middle of the road" types of people.

The people who show up with the "Women's rights are Human Rights" iconography at Women's marches defending abortion don't have nuanced positions on abortion by any stretch of the imagination. They're very solidly in the camp of "if you support any restrictions on the procedure whatsoever and don't agree that it should be taxpayer funded, you're anti-woman"

Same goes for the modern LGBTQ+ activism movements. It's very a much a "we should be able to do whatever we want, and unless you go along with it, you're anti-Trans"

"Stop Asian Hate" was just a slogan that was made up in response to Trump calling covid the "China virus", and the "Science is real" is meant to signal ones bona fides on the topics of covid vaccines and climate change.

I've already covered the BLM stuff ad nauseum, so no need for me to repost all that stuff again.

My interpretation would be that those who put those signs have identified that those that feel represented by those symbols are worried about encountering hate in society, and that they wish say that hate against those who feel represented are absent at that particular location.

If someone put up a sign with the text "hate has no home here" with the israeli flag in a heart, I would interpret it like that those who live there don't support hateful retoric directed against israelis. You could have both the israeli and palestinian flag on the same sign, then I would interpret it that hateful retoric against both groups is absent at that place.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yah! Wasn't that so smart of me? It told you who identifies as an anti-racist, doesn't it?

And the conclusion was: "Although originally conveying more radical and subversive ideals, those currently most likely to self-describe as “anti-racist” are white progressives with what we call “generically liberal” racial views."

Note, the change to be "generically liberal" rather than "radical and subversive".

When you take a survey and you say you are something, you usually are.

I find those 'rate your position' surveys to be very annoying. I've taken one or two on the phone not to mention other similar analytics for "evaluating" things (or people).

Or are you saying they are lying to themselves and they have no idea really what an anti-racist is or they really aren't leftists.

I'm saying "liberal" and "leftist" are not the same. Go find a "Leftist" and ask them what they think of "Liberals". It might be as nice as your opinion of liberals.

As far as I know, we all use the words interchangeably here (we don't have time to get too technical, we just use the first word that pops into our head). So liberal is slightly left of center and leftist is way out left. Yippee!

Roughly.

Maybe saying anti-racism is a liberal thing sounds better?

It's more accurate to say that it is not a primarily or exclusively "leftist" thing.

If you do answer this comment try not to be too condescending this time, just talk kindly, thank you.

​

It's hard.

leftism​

noun​

left·ism ˈlef-ˌti-zəm

variants or less commonly Leftism
Synonyms of leftism
1
: the principles and views of the political Left (see left entry 2 sense 3a)
also : the movement embodying these principles

2
: advocacy of or adherence to the doctrines of the Left

leftist
ˈlef-tist
adjective
leftist noun
or less commonly Leftist
pluralleftists also Leftists

Synonyms​

• liberalism

Notice the synonym, Hans.
.

Ah dictionaries, the last refuge of the scoundrel.

 

[rjs330]

is a statement about those that put up the sign not anyone else.

As opposed to what? Its a statement. Especially when you take in the larger accusations. Why not just say love here? No its a statement that we don't hate these groups or activism like others do.

 

[rjs330]

Which of the messages in those little hearts do you reserve the right to hate?

See you make my point for me. If I dont support I hate. You either love or you hate the activist message. Thanks for proving what I have said.