10018 pts ยท March 9, 2014
I mostly Lurk
Short story: DEI is what determines in the sermon that who we should be compassionate towards is affected strictly by the people determined only by certain types of people, the way they look and what their identity is, and for each one of those people we choose compassion, we enforce and beat down others who are affected negatively, and actively determine that those people do not deserve compassion. It's textbook DEI actually.
who work strictly for cash and avoid taxes - I'm feeling a bit poor in spirit. I honestly don't hate they guys, but if I do whats right by me, it just sucks.
And if it seems like I'm focused on the category of people, it's not because I do personally. I do my best to treat each individual regardless of anything with the utmost respect at an individual level. It's the sermon itself that brought the issue back to this group identity politics, but that's the problem. These people aren't in any of the categories. If I'm at my SASS job, the LGBTQ people are the opposite of oppressed. If I'm working in landscaping competing against illegal immigrants
I think this is where I find fault with overly zealous liberalism here, because it "sounds" nice, but ends up being naive as to what the actual solutions are when the rubber hits the road. It's a sermon that says "Hey Trump, I'm making a statement about XYZ people, and you better remember them and be good to them", when everything being done is obviously going to crack down on those people, at the expense of other people who we apparently shouldn't include as any of the "mount categories".
As far as I can estimate, for every X person she mentioned, there is a Y issue person in that homily. If you take an illegal immigrant, then take the family of someone who was shot by a criminal illegal. If you take a person who feels oppressed because of some sexual or gender identity, then it directly ties into DEI, which is the entire system that deals with it, and all the people fed up with that system who feel forced to agree, or tempted to be silent or lie. That's what I'm saying.
explained elsewhere
Yet I'm religious, I'm just a white dude, I feel persecuted though I don't complain about it except on the internet. Yet I get laughed at, I get ridiculed, I get called a nazi. etc etc. It's the same game. Take an issue - make the issue about the sociological history of the issue. Show that it demonstrates how the people in power abused it over history. Make sure that those people are removed from power, and only make sure that our people can speak on it, and delete everyone else.
So what is the solution, and why can't we replace or talk about anyone else in those categories? Because it doesn't fit the message?And what is the practical solution to implement in order to benefit those people? Is it something different from DEI? Or what policies exactly is she prescribing?What if we talk about those who are "persecuted for sake of righteousness" as another group of people, that isn't of this identity politics? We get laughed at?
As I've mentioned before, the Gospel itself is about what?Poor in Spirit, Those Who Mourn, meek, hunger, merciful, pure in heart, peacemakers, and the persecuted for righteousness sake.So what does the sermon extrapolate? Well we can identify who these people are and they are a subset of people that fit a certain racial ethnic sexual identity politics.
There are plenty of people suffering and fit the criteria of the mount, yet we focus only on XYZ people? And if I named some other people who fit a criteria who were suffering who fit outside a liberal political message, I get laughed at? So what then? Back to "white fragility" back to the original thesis I laid out.
I imagine deciding to interpret and heed by the bible in this interpretation of the sermon might be a confusing exercise, along with attempting to hurdle whether religion and biblical value sets provide moral guidance. The sermon is DEI, the bible passage is not. It is replacing the subsets and assuming the specific identity of those who are meek, poor in spirit, etc. And it's DEI because it's saying the identity politics of those people is what matters, not the simple fact of circumstance.
Ah yes. So changing my mind is the only option to repent. This is also laid out in DiAngelo's work as well. Interesting. And no, I don't feel like there has been evidence of anything constructive here. I'm open to hearing something that would change my mind from you though.
How would a president enact this compassion then? What would the practical outcome be, if not what DEI has already attempted to offer?
Whatever helps you sleep at night buddy. I'm not. Sorry for you.
What is the practical solution that has been enacted for the last 15 years to solve the problems she spoke of then?
FYI I was curious and I just retook a political test from pewresearch, and I self tested as "ambivalent right".https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/quiz/political-typology/results/1f61f1b37f9e2bcee5af51a043eb20af/Does it make you feel better to simplify my opinions as a nazi? This is why you realize this platform is a complete cacophony of buffoons in their own bubble?
How is this constructive
But I'll refuse to let this create any bigotry or hate, or bitterness, or anything other than a pure desire for driving intellectual fervor on the topic. Even though I was probably discriminated at my last job for not towing the DEI line, even though I was laid off in the place of other DEI hires, even though every future job will potentially punish me if I as much as make a peep, I won't speak a word of dishonesty out of fear, or be silent and agreeable just to be safe.
Essentially explaining to him "sorry but it appears that you have to be careful with what you believe and be aware of your skin color and identity, bc this is what will happen". How atrocious. Yet somehow I'm trying to navigate this without teaching him he is "oppressed", but instead simply educate him fully so he can make his own decisions. But it still is just incredibly saddening. Yet I know out there many rejoice at the fact this is the case in my part. "Finally got them back"
And again - I have already had, and will continue to have conversations with my son when he encounters material - in which I have to juxtapose these ideas with our own religious and european slovak ethnic background which is only known as "white". Unironically slave being a term word-for-word adopted from "Slav", yet no one cares. The conversations I have, I'm 100% positive will mirror the conversations black americans had with their children in the 1970s - 1990s.
The DEI that was seeded as an idea as laid out in DiAngelo's work, along with it's rapid ontake from silicon valley executives and SASS companies, fueled endlessly by fear of lawsuits and the like has destroyed our ability to talk and function, and worse - has created both a hidden reward system for expressing infinitely divergent oppressed identities, along with developing an explicit system to punish people who even only mild express discomfort with the self same ideology.
To send a message of compassion is one thing. To defend people of all kinds is one thing. To ensure equality of opportunity is fine. I understand that the draw of DEI seems compassionate, but this is naive, and the election was lost as a result of the naivety. Think about how easy it is amongst even leftists to talk about all the most difficult issues and inclusivity. Even they themselves disagree about issues like this.
I understand the message and I sympathize. My mother is a first generation legal immigrant. She experienced issues as a result, and probably will never feel fully at home. I don't think I need to teach my son he should feel guilty for being white. I don't think he should be force fed sexual identity politics at schools. I don't think math should be a class about the sociological history of the white male power domination in math. This is what DEI does. With every instituion and structure.
Yes I agree, the people are people, and deserve to be treated as people. But the sermon is an equivocation on what the solution is. Mercy and treating individuals as people is one thing. Undermining every single institution and practice to corroborate, unearth, and demand a lifelong penance of repenting and acknowledging "white fragility" through a eternal examination of conscience is the work of Robin DiAngelo which is what the problem is. Which Trump did good work to get rid of IMO.
Big surprise
And also, look how dead Star Wars is now lmao!
Yeah but you're still a dumbass. :)
I left Imgur because it, like Reddit was increasingly a liberal censored bubble. Hm nothings changed. I think the message the bishop gave comes across as ideology based in everything DEI is based on, and everything wrong with it that has developed over the last decades - based on the work of Robin DiAngelo.I rejoice at any notion of removing any and all of this junk from everywhere possible. It's a religion masking as compassion, and its 100% the reason left lost the election.
It's funny how the 0.1% cases of rape and incest were not good enough for dems anymore. Now they have to go to the 0.00001% of cases.
The disconnect isn't on the policy necessarily, its on understanding and steel manning the reasoning for those positions.
Short story: DEI is what determines in the sermon that who we should be compassionate towards is affected strictly by the people determined only by certain types of people, the way they look and what their identity is, and for each one of those people we choose compassion, we enforce and beat down others who are affected negatively, and actively determine that those people do not deserve compassion. It's textbook DEI actually.
who work strictly for cash and avoid taxes - I'm feeling a bit poor in spirit. I honestly don't hate they guys, but if I do whats right by me, it just sucks.
And if it seems like I'm focused on the category of people, it's not because I do personally. I do my best to treat each individual regardless of anything with the utmost respect at an individual level. It's the sermon itself that brought the issue back to this group identity politics, but that's the problem. These people aren't in any of the categories. If I'm at my SASS job, the LGBTQ people are the opposite of oppressed. If I'm working in landscaping competing against illegal immigrants
I think this is where I find fault with overly zealous liberalism here, because it "sounds" nice, but ends up being naive as to what the actual solutions are when the rubber hits the road. It's a sermon that says "Hey Trump, I'm making a statement about XYZ people, and you better remember them and be good to them", when everything being done is obviously going to crack down on those people, at the expense of other people who we apparently shouldn't include as any of the "mount categories".
As far as I can estimate, for every X person she mentioned, there is a Y issue person in that homily. If you take an illegal immigrant, then take the family of someone who was shot by a criminal illegal. If you take a person who feels oppressed because of some sexual or gender identity, then it directly ties into DEI, which is the entire system that deals with it, and all the people fed up with that system who feel forced to agree, or tempted to be silent or lie. That's what I'm saying.
explained elsewhere
Yet I'm religious, I'm just a white dude, I feel persecuted though I don't complain about it except on the internet. Yet I get laughed at, I get ridiculed, I get called a nazi. etc etc. It's the same game. Take an issue - make the issue about the sociological history of the issue. Show that it demonstrates how the people in power abused it over history. Make sure that those people are removed from power, and only make sure that our people can speak on it, and delete everyone else.
So what is the solution, and why can't we replace or talk about anyone else in those categories? Because it doesn't fit the message?
And what is the practical solution to implement in order to benefit those people? Is it something different from DEI? Or what policies exactly is she prescribing?
What if we talk about those who are "persecuted for sake of righteousness" as another group of people, that isn't of this identity politics? We get laughed at?
As I've mentioned before, the Gospel itself is about what?
Poor in Spirit, Those Who Mourn, meek, hunger, merciful, pure in heart, peacemakers, and the persecuted for righteousness sake.
So what does the sermon extrapolate? Well we can identify who these people are and they are a subset of people that fit a certain racial ethnic sexual identity politics.
There are plenty of people suffering and fit the criteria of the mount, yet we focus only on XYZ people? And if I named some other people who fit a criteria who were suffering who fit outside a liberal political message, I get laughed at? So what then? Back to "white fragility" back to the original thesis I laid out.
I imagine deciding to interpret and heed by the bible in this interpretation of the sermon might be a confusing exercise, along with attempting to hurdle whether religion and biblical value sets provide moral guidance. The sermon is DEI, the bible passage is not. It is replacing the subsets and assuming the specific identity of those who are meek, poor in spirit, etc. And it's DEI because it's saying the identity politics of those people is what matters, not the simple fact of circumstance.
Ah yes. So changing my mind is the only option to repent. This is also laid out in DiAngelo's work as well. Interesting. And no, I don't feel like there has been evidence of anything constructive here. I'm open to hearing something that would change my mind from you though.
How would a president enact this compassion then? What would the practical outcome be, if not what DEI has already attempted to offer?
Whatever helps you sleep at night buddy. I'm not. Sorry for you.
What is the practical solution that has been enacted for the last 15 years to solve the problems she spoke of then?
FYI I was curious and I just retook a political test from pewresearch, and I self tested as "ambivalent right".
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/quiz/political-typology/results/1f61f1b37f9e2bcee5af51a043eb20af/
Does it make you feel better to simplify my opinions as a nazi? This is why you realize this platform is a complete cacophony of buffoons in their own bubble?
How is this constructive
But I'll refuse to let this create any bigotry or hate, or bitterness, or anything other than a pure desire for driving intellectual fervor on the topic. Even though I was probably discriminated at my last job for not towing the DEI line, even though I was laid off in the place of other DEI hires, even though every future job will potentially punish me if I as much as make a peep, I won't speak a word of dishonesty out of fear, or be silent and agreeable just to be safe.
Essentially explaining to him "sorry but it appears that you have to be careful with what you believe and be aware of your skin color and identity, bc this is what will happen". How atrocious. Yet somehow I'm trying to navigate this without teaching him he is "oppressed", but instead simply educate him fully so he can make his own decisions. But it still is just incredibly saddening. Yet I know out there many rejoice at the fact this is the case in my part. "Finally got them back"
And again - I have already had, and will continue to have conversations with my son when he encounters material - in which I have to juxtapose these ideas with our own religious and european slovak ethnic background which is only known as "white". Unironically slave being a term word-for-word adopted from "Slav", yet no one cares. The conversations I have, I'm 100% positive will mirror the conversations black americans had with their children in the 1970s - 1990s.
The DEI that was seeded as an idea as laid out in DiAngelo's work, along with it's rapid ontake from silicon valley executives and SASS companies, fueled endlessly by fear of lawsuits and the like has destroyed our ability to talk and function, and worse - has created both a hidden reward system for expressing infinitely divergent oppressed identities, along with developing an explicit system to punish people who even only mild express discomfort with the self same ideology.
To send a message of compassion is one thing. To defend people of all kinds is one thing. To ensure equality of opportunity is fine. I understand that the draw of DEI seems compassionate, but this is naive, and the election was lost as a result of the naivety. Think about how easy it is amongst even leftists to talk about all the most difficult issues and inclusivity. Even they themselves disagree about issues like this.
I understand the message and I sympathize. My mother is a first generation legal immigrant. She experienced issues as a result, and probably will never feel fully at home. I don't think I need to teach my son he should feel guilty for being white. I don't think he should be force fed sexual identity politics at schools. I don't think math should be a class about the sociological history of the white male power domination in math. This is what DEI does. With every instituion and structure.
Yes I agree, the people are people, and deserve to be treated as people. But the sermon is an equivocation on what the solution is. Mercy and treating individuals as people is one thing. Undermining every single institution and practice to corroborate, unearth, and demand a lifelong penance of repenting and acknowledging "white fragility" through a eternal examination of conscience is the work of Robin DiAngelo which is what the problem is. Which Trump did good work to get rid of IMO.
Big surprise
And also, look how dead Star Wars is now lmao!
Yeah but you're still a dumbass. :)
I left Imgur because it, like Reddit was increasingly a liberal censored bubble. Hm nothings changed.
I think the message the bishop gave comes across as ideology based in everything DEI is based on, and everything wrong with it that has developed over the last decades - based on the work of Robin DiAngelo.
I rejoice at any notion of removing any and all of this junk from everywhere possible. It's a religion masking as compassion, and its 100% the reason left lost the election.
It's funny how the 0.1% cases of rape and incest were not good enough for dems anymore. Now they have to go to the 0.00001% of cases.
The disconnect isn't on the policy necessarily, its on understanding and steel manning the reasoning for those positions.