The Good Post Gallery

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

None of my posts are good.

This is one of the most ridiculous things you have ever said.

It's how I feel right now. (See 'Opinion of Memphis' thread; I spend my Friday evenings presiding over discussions of philosophy; I should remember these things, especially if I'm going to use them as insults.)

So you’re not fussed about the fact you insulted someone whose actually a quite a good and quite a considerate poster, just that you messed up your insult. You have interesting priorities

I know you disagree with and are disappointed in me on this, and I'm sorry that's the case (insofar as that kind of apology is ever really worth much), but whether or not Joe is a good poster on other grounds and in other areas (and he is; a very good one), I don't actually think the substance of my observation was either inappropriate or incorrect. I suppose I am sorry for couching it as an insult but I'm not sure how else I really could have and maintained the desired effect.

Gustaf, the post under discussion was one directed at Joe, not memphis.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The Puritan influence has always been moralistic, communitarian, and also relatively egalitarian.  Why New England doesn't look what most people would think of as "Puritan" today is because of the transformation from Calvinism to theological liberalism that happened here more than elsewhere, but those values remain in other forms to a great extent.  For example, something like gay rights then becomes a matter of importance for a more equal and moral community. 
The emphasis on educational pursuits goes back a long way too - colonial New England was possibly the most literate society in the world at its time.   More openness to social transformation over tradition has often gone along with that.

Why has the West side of the Connecticut River has switched so far to the Democrats - and apparently to the Left - in so short a time?  Why has New Hampshire always swam against the flow?   I'm not quite sure.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This is all a gross oversimplification for space.

Liberalism has its earliest philosophic roots with thinkers like John Locke and his Enlightenment heirs who believed that mankind had an unlimited set of rights from birth in the state of nature and surrendered certain rights to live in society (the social contact) and that governments only had the legitimate ability to restrict rights that infringed upon others (my "right" to murder you infringes on your right to live).  Philosophers like Rousseau elaborated on Locke's social contract and propounded a doctrine that government should be based on consent of the governed rather than divine right.  This dovetailed nicely with the lessons of England's 1688 "Glorious Revolution," a rejection of Stuart Absolutism, which culminated in the English Bill of Rights.  (This is a very positive view of these events, which were actually far more complicated and ambiguous, but I'm skimming).  Enlightenment projects like Cesare Beccaria's campaign to ban torture dovetailed nicely with this viewpoint.  Radical attempts by thinkers like Mary Woolstonecraft and Olympe de Gouges to lay claim to the liberal intellectual tradition in favor of equality for women met sharp ends (literally in Olympe de Gouges' case).  Against this doctrine, Edmund Burke would lay down his theory that rather than illusory fundamental rights, people should look towards their privileges granted in a murky medieval past and attempt to revive ancient privileges rather than destroy the order of society around them: Burke's reaction to the French Revolution was the founding of intellectual conservatism.

In the late 18th century, the followers of Adam Smith rejected the Mercantilist economic dogma that had dominated the 18th century.  Smith rejected the idea that there was a finite amount of wealth in the world and that economics was a zero-sum game of trying to amass the most gold bullion into your own treasury in favor of the idea that trade and mutual competitive advantage could leave both parties richer.  Smith's free-trade economic dogma, refined by David Ricardo in the early 19th century, merged with the political ideas of the Social Contract Theory to form the Classical Liberalism package: free markets and free men.  Jeremy Bentham and James and John Stuart Mill furthered the intellectual side of Liberalism into a new doctrine called "Philosophic Radicalism" which merged Liberalism's tenets with Bentham's moral philosophy of Utilitarianism, seeking the greatest good for the greatest number.  Philosophic Radicalism, at its worst, embraced a Malthusian disregard and contempt for the poor (Social Darwinism) and the notion that any recreational activity for the poor should be balanced with pain to encourage hard work in that group.  All the same, Mill advocated for religious tolerance and extension of political rights and female emancipation.

In most of Europe, Liberalism aped its British form, arguing for free trade and lassiez faire capitalism and against the privileges of the traditional aristocracy.  It had great appeal among the rising bourgeois orders and its promise of extended political rights appealed somewhat to the masses, but the rise of Social Democratic parties in the late 19th century came mostly at the expense of Liberalism's support among the working classes, and Conservatives also rapidly adapted to mass politics and did not suffer nearly as much from the increasing democratization of politics as Liberalism's (and Socialism's) partisans had assumed.

In the USA, Liberalism originally mostly shared that definition.  The word was associated with abolitionists and free traders alike (movements like the Free Soil Party, with its claims of Free Trade, Free Land, and Free Soil being as Liberal as a platform could get).  In the post-Civil War era, as the GOP embraced Protectionism, the Democratic Party, despite being opposed to many other tenets of Liberalism, fully embraced Free Trade and became associated with Liberalism as a result.  When Woodrow Wilson was elected president, he was a self-proclaimed liberal who was a firm believer in free trade, but was also a believer in massive government reform projects including the foundation of a central banking system.  Franklin Roosevelt took the word liberal with him when he assumed the Presidency, and it's under his administration, that greatly increased the size of the Federal government, that made it what it is today in the USA.  Liberalism became a light form of social democracy in the USA as a result of the "liberal" Roosevelt being a light social democrat and leaving such a huge imprint on American politics.

In Europe, the aftermath of World War I and the subsequent Depression had left lassiez faire economics and the liberal political order both borderline discredited, as solutions relying more on planned economies and dictatorial fiat became more and more attractive.  Even in Britain, the Liberal Party nearly died in the 1920s as its nature of being "Conservatives but anti-tariff" simply wasn't enough to maintain broad popular support outside of a few minor demographics.  Until the 1980s (when it was reborn as neo-liberalism), the lassiez-faire liberal idea in Europe made way in the democratic ideological scene for social democracy on the left and a heavily government-oriented Christian Democratic/Gaullist ideal on the right.

In the USA, the turmoil of the 1960s on race and the war in Vietnam left the traditional liberal political class, with their faith in the government's ability to solve any economic or social problem, seriously discredited.  Many in the liberal government class like Daniel Patrick Moynihan embraced the social ideals of conservatism without losing their faith in government as a major transformative actor and agent for their ideals: they would be the pioneers of "neoconservatism" (a word that's since been majorly trashed...Moynihan wouldn't embrace that label today if he were still alive).

Neoliberalism, arising in both Europe and the USA, was a reaction to the Keynesian consensus and argued that the most deregulated and unfettered global economy would be the most productive one.  Following the collapse of the USSR, neoliberal economists had disastrous spells as advisers in several Eastern Bloc countries, overseeing the firesale divestment of those states' huge public sectors and the creation of bandit billionaires all over the former Communist Bloc.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Mental illness is very, very common (you will all know large numbers of people who have - or do, or sometimes do - suffer from some kind of depression, for instance) and the stigma around it is very, very unhelpful to all concerned. Most mental illness is not 'serious' in the sense in which that word is used (though can be debilitating and sometimes fatal), and those conditions that are 'serious' ought to be treated as the things that they are: extremely serious medical conditions. Oh the people that suffer from it, by the way, are people too.

Using accusations of mental illness (actually using it, that is: generic terms of abuse such as 'crazy' don't count because they are now just generic terms of abuse) as a stick to beat people you (small 'p') politically disagree with is an example of entrenching said stigma.

Moreover, labeling all forms of 'deviant' (from your perspective) behavior, views, beliefs or whatever as examples of 'mental illness' ought to be a massive no-no for all kinds of reasons that ought to be pretty obvious.

Etc, etc, etc.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Are you serious?  I have no problem with kissing a 'male' (that is a ladyboy) privately and purely of my own volition, but I would have a problem with doing it because someone asked me too for some kind of weird or controlling thrill.  My objection has nothing to do with homophobia and everything to do with a desire to be in relationships where mutual respect is observed and one isn't treated as a plaything.

I don't get all the hate for questions.  Relationships are supposed to be about communication.  Sure you have the right to say no, and she should respect that, but if you're criticizing her for asking you a question, you're the one with controlling thrills and mutual respect issues.

But as for me, sure why not?  As long as I thought the guy or girl I had to kiss was attractive.  I like to see my S.O. happy.

Come on, its not a normal request or question - like 'lets try this position' or 'could you buy some lube?' or 'what about going in this way for a change'.  Its more like a desire to put some kind of heavy twist on your partner's sexuality - which is not likely to be 'easy' or natural to him.  I would also never push a girl to fool around with another girl.  If she likes that she can propose it.  I'm no believer in monogamy, but for me group sex is fraught with opportunities to offend and hurt someone.  There's just no need, and for someone to request it I find a sign that they haven't a great deal of consideration or regard.

I'm very, very pleasantly surprised with opebo in this thread. It's interesting to see this side of his thinking.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Have I missed something?  Like at the point when "rural people" became a video game and the folks in question were just reduced to ghosts with eye-slits in their featureless sheets who are gobbled up by Pac-Man so long as he has enough energy?  My parents both grow up in big families on North Dakota farms, and I grew up with lots of friends who came from similar farms.  Some of them were provincial conservatives and some were flaming FDR liberals.  Some beat the crap out of their children or locked them in basements and some of them wouldn't lay a finger on a misbehaving child.  Some of them didn't know of or about anything that could be found beyond their own field, and some had kids that were incredibly gifted at math and art.  Some of them were mean and short-tempered and some were friendly and hospitable.  Some couldn't read past 6th grade level and some, once it was available, logged onto the internet every night to check worldwide commodities prices.  Some were Biblical literalists and some believed that people were no different from cows, and once both kinds of animals died, that was it.  Some were die-hard drunks and some drank nothing but Coke during all-night poker games.  Some like to hunt and fish, and some of them only like to fish.    They're individuals.  Sort of like, you know, their presumptuous counterparts that live in cities.

I know the citified people around here are making good laughs.  But, you know what?--people actually are different from one another no matter where they're from.  Imagine that.   

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I get to be the moderate hero and inform you that you are both wrong!

DC:  The reason why Wikipedia is highlighting those positions of Mussolini, while he was still a member of the Socialist Party, is because they are ironic in light of his movement's close ties with the Roman Catholic Church later on.  The Nazis were indeed much more sympathetic to atheism or neopaganism and hostile to preexisting religion.

Hockeydude:  You are shifting the goalposts and creating a tautology in a ridiculous manner, essentially saying "if we define social conservatism as fascism then fascism is socially conservative."  Fascism and Naziism were anti-traditionalist often to the point of absurdity; witness the enthusiasm for eugenics, the plans to demolish and rebuild Berlin or to pave over the canals of Venice, Hitler's plans to purge the former nobility, the Nazi effort to make everyone use Futura instead of Fraktur, etc. etc. etc.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Dear wormyguy,

Thank you for your explanation of how to get rich. Unfortunately I never have good ideas, I don't have the money to enter exclusive universities, I don't want to fake getting along with rich people (or their daddies), don't have time to learn how to program an app because I'm busy trying not to be homeless, and I hate the smell of old people. In fact, I don't even want to be rich. I don't have the motivation or energy to start my own business, be my own boss, or even think of an idea to sell.

I just want to work eight hours a day and get paid more than what I need. I would be interested in buying a house someday, and I promise I don't waste my money. I don't think I should earn as much as those who have exclusive skills. I just want to be comfortable. I have just as much worth to society as the more intelligent, more socially apt, and in fact perhaps I'm better because I'm not cunning, ruthless, or greedy. We live in a first world country. Why should I needlessly suffer when there is plenty of money for everyone? Why should they benefit so many orders of magnitude more than me, doing my small part?

Yours truly,
Most people

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Dear wormyguy,

Thank you for replying to my letter. I know you're quite busy, and I appreciate the sacrifice in time you made in order to explain why I should appreciate that you won't give us a raise.

I feel compelled to point out that in my original letter I said that I did not expect to make as much money as those with exclusive skills. I hope that makes you feel better. I am well aware that I owe my employment partially to folks who take such gambles to find their success. So, of course you should make more than us. But, please, then, consider that your employees contribute substantially to your success by giving you our labor and time.  It's also sometimes hard to buy the products and services of your peers when you don't let that success trickle down to us. I know, I know, you need to keep costs down. I'm sorry. I keep forgetting that despite your fabulous riches, my contribution to your business and, indeed, my livelihood itself is your "cost." I'm so sorry about that.

Again, I know you need at least a monetary incentive to take big risks. That's totally fair, boss, I applaud you. It's just hard to know that even though you do empathise with us and perhaps shared our struggles, you don't think that that struggle itself is worth easing. I suppose that struggle is how you became men of such generous character.

With apologies,
Most people

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

One of the biggest problems with BRTD's argument is that the only way to get rid of ethno-religious identity itself would be to have a global uniculture, and the global uniculture would have to be enforced to prevent the development of ethno religious identities. If you tried to do such a thing it would quickly become clear that you could only do so by massive repression. (In fact I can't think of much that would be more oppressive)

So you have to accept the existence of ethno religious identities. Once you do, you have to accept that once established, there are costs for switching. It's not the same thing to ask 16-year old Sally Smith to be a member of the Smith family, and to ask 16-year old Lucy Jones to be a member of the Smith family. Sally Smith is already a member of the Smiths. Lucy has grown up with the Joneses for 16 years. Even if the Smiths are a better family by "objective" measurements (like income, marital stability, moral values) Lucy would have very good reasons to stay a Jones.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Back to the original topic, now that I'm on my computer and have more time:

No one would argue that listing legitimate advice as to avoiding rape (don't go alone in dark alleys, don't get intoxicated or put yourself in a vulnerable situation) is blaming women that don't follow those who do get raped. But "Don't dress like a "slut" or you might be raped" is not that, since as noted it's about power exchange. "Don't go in creepy back alleys in shady areas after dark" is not bad advice, and no one would argue that a guy who gets assaulted and mugged in such an area deserved it or its his own fault, or even a woman for that matter. But if a woman is raped in such a situation, it doesn't matter if she was wearing a sweatshirt and jeans or a miniskirt. Neither is going to make a difference to such a rapist.

Of course no one would also argue that a woman who's raped in a back alley really enjoyed it or wanted it. But in the type of situations where most rapes occur, it becomes a frequent accusation, and this "advice" is just a way of shifting the blame onto the victim. It has its origins in old backwards thinking that all women are slutty and probably enjoy it anyway, and is the basis for why in so many Islamic countries the burden of proof is put on a rape victim to prove she didn't want to have sex and fought back to avoid prosecution. Even in countries where extramaritial sex isn't illegal, it can still be used as a source of "slut shaming" if that sort of thinking gets out, or ridiculous thinking like "OK he might've raped her and it is his fault, but if she didn't wear that outfit he probably wouldn't have been tempted" which once again is now what rapists seek.

And this also ties into why Todd Akin's comment was so messed up. It wasn't that it was factually innaccurate and scientifically garbage, while it was, even if that wasn't the case the implication was also there that it was only a "legitimate" rape if the woman was under physical duress and fought back, so if tricked or drugged and in other cases it's not truly rape. The old "Well she was asking for it". No defended in court would ever argue "well she was asking for it for walking in that alley so clearly it was consensual" but "she was asking for it otherwise she wouldn't have dressed that way" IS used. It doesn't always work of course, maybe not even a majority of the time when there is an obvious rape, but it's still used. It's not the same as "It's not OK to take your iPod, but you shouldn't have left it in that location", more like "Well if you left it there you clearly didn't want it anyway, so whoever took it didn't do anything wrong."

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Cory gave a detailed, point-by-point, well-considered response, so in the interests of fairness I'd ask anybody who follows the link to the thread to read that one, too.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

God almost always gets people lost.  That's how God does businesses and how people's lives become meaningful.  God doesn't let people stay at home with their feet up on the couch nursing their bubbly and Doritos, while the Toyota rests waiting in the garage.  God sends people into deserts, gives them missions to release people who don't trust them from slavery, sends people to give ominous prophecies to nations that ignore them, and, as the story goes, even let his own child be unjustly executed.  If you really want God to navigate your journey, you'd better be prepared to end up somewhere unsafe.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I should also mention that a lot of ignorant/absurd/horrible things that get said are often the result of obliviousness or ignorance rather than active malice, and I do think it's best to assume a lack of active malice from most everyone, most of the time- and furthermore, to realize that defensiveness regarding one's not-very-deeply-considered beliefs is both very common and still not a marker of active malice.  Of course, said defensiveness should be pointed out and challenged- but perhaps in a way that does not attempt to automatically taint the entire person as an HP?

I should probably remember this more often, myself.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Isn't it enough that she will lose 35 years of her life in prison? Why should she also be forced to also endure being psychologically unwell by being forced to live as a man? I'm biased, of course, but it makes sense to me. Yes, it costs the state money - but disallowing it amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. If you happened to have a chronic but not life threatening disease when you entered prison, would the services and medication you need remain unavailable? Only because people struggle to empathise with her specific condition do they question her. Some of you need to grow up.

HShe should pay for it himself. Any other (non criminal) American would have to.

Unlike any other (criminal or non criminal) Brit or Canadian (in almost all provinces) or German or Swede or Australian or Brazilian or Cuban or even Iranian (yes, really). You know, it upsets me too that Americans in prison have access to better healthcare than most Americans, but the solution to that is to give better healthcare to most Americans, not take it away from American prisoners.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

At this point, I think the Silicon Valley VC douchebag has surpassed the Manhattan PE douchebag on the douchebaggery scale. At least private equity makes their money slicing and dicing actual companies that make actual things and firing actual workers, as opposed to having a bunch of on-paper money from an iPhone app that nobody actually uses.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Came here to post that.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Again, Catholicism has never been a sola fides faith.  Francis' answer of "Do good things anyway, there's benefits for people of all faiths" is a useful one as far as it goes, but the element of whether or not non-Catholics will be saved is based on the point of doctrine that God is, well, God and will be letting whomever He wants into Heaven and it's not the Pope's job to determine whether someone's condemned or saved.  The Church is still the easiest, best way to get into Heaven, but a good person who follows his moral compass as best he can who lived before Jesus or in a society without Christian presence can still save himself (in contrast to Protestant doctrine of total depravity and the inherent damned nature of non-Christian life).  Basically, there's nothing new here, just a bunch of people that don't know anything about Catholicism freaking out because it doesn't have the same "faith alone saves" rules as Protestantism.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Both of these posts, one a response to the other, are quite good in different ways, with one thing about the first one that isn't so good corrected and explicated by the second one:

My church seems to do this a lot too, and it annoys me a lot.  Some examples:

All the Way My Savior Leads Me

You must be logged in to read this quote.

(Probably done because Adventists are mortalist and don't believe people go directly to heaven or hell when they die.)

Christ the Lord is Risen Today (Second verse)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

An entire verse of "Jesus Loves Me" was changed:

Original

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Updated

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This was probably, at least in part, for the same reason as the "All the Way" one.

Rock of Ages (Last verse)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

(See above)

A classic example in the vein of the "Amazing Grace" one (one that my pastor fully acknowledged):

At the Cross

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even Christmas carols aren't immune.  "Good Christian Men Rejoice" became "Good Christians Now Rejoice" (probably to make it more "gender neutral"), and nearly all the traditional verses of "Silent Night" (except for the first) were changed into something completely foreign.
One of things that annoys me the most, though, is when they set the hymns to music that isn't used for them in any other church.  "I Sing the Mighty Power of God" is set to a tune that I've never heard in any other denomination, as is "I Gave My Life for Thee," "My Lord and I," and "Hark the Voice of Jesus Crying," among others.  (In fact, the latter got its title changed as well, to "Hark the Voice of Jesus Calling.")  I'm assuming that most of these "new" tunes were written by Adventist composers (There are a few that I know were.)Honestly, I think the mortalist updates are unnecessary too, because even if people don't go to heaven or hell immediately after death, they do at some point after death.

I could go on and on, but simply put, hymns are poetry, and poetry is fine art.  Some of these hymns were beautiful the way they were.  Why change them?  If you disagree with the theology, then don't sing them (or those verses, if they're not in the first one.) 

One of things that annoys me the most, though, is when they set the hymns to music that isn't used for them in any other church.  "I Sing the Mighty Power of God" is set to a tune that I've never heard in any other denomination, as is "I Gave My Life for Thee," "My Lord and I," and "Hark the Voice of Jesus Crying," among others.  (In fact, the latter got its title changed as well, to "Hark the Voice of Jesus Calling.")  I'm assuming that most of these "new" tunes were written by Adventist composers (There are a few that I know were.) Honestly, I think the mortalist updates are unnecessary too, because even if people don't go to heaven or hell immediately after death, they do at some point after death.

Keep in mind that many older hymns were not originally associated with any particular tune.  So it's probably just that the first Adventist hymnal to use it picked "I Sing the Mighty Power of God" at a time when it had not yet become associated with any tune.  Indeed, according to hymnary.org, there are two different tunes most commonly associated with "I Sing the Mighty Power of God".  The arranger of the tune Adventists use "Varina" doesn't appear to have been an Adventist, and certainly not the composer or lyricist since  they both lived in the 18th century. According to hymnary.org the tune "Varina" is most commonly associated with the hymn "There is a Land of Pure Delight".  It was not uncommon in older hymnals to print the lyrics and score separately and use one score with several lyrics that have the same metrical scheme.  This allowed the hymnal to either be smaller or include more hymns.  It also saved money as typesetting music back then was considerably more expensive that typesetting lyrics, especially if you embed the lyrics in the music as is now customary.

The most probable course of events here is that an early Adventist hymnal included both "I Sing the Mighty Power of God" and "There is a Land of Pure Delight" at a time when the former did not yet have a customary tune associated with it. The website I keep citing in this post  has both being used in the 1941 Adventist hymnal, altho "There is a Land of Pure Delight" is not in the 1985 Adventist hymnal.  So I doubt there was any intent at separatism, at least at first.  Choosing to retain "Varina" as the tune instead of switching to either "Ellacombe" or "Forest Green" may have something to do with trying to maintain Adventist particularism, but more likely it's just that by now using "Varina" as the tune for that hymn is traditional to Adventists and with "There is a Land of Pure Delight" no longer competing for the tune, there is even less need to consider switching.  Besides, Adventists use "Forest Green" as the tune for "Eternal God, Whose Power Upholds". which is one of several common choices for that hymn.