Cleanup in Aisle Lunatic (h/t romad1)

[romad1]

1 hour ago, Motown Bombers said:

I keep a small social circle and live in or desire to live in a city and am not conservative. I actually hate meeting new people and managed to avoid my neighbors for years. 

as a fellow introvert i salute you

[gehringer_2]

2 hours ago, chasfh said:

Conservatism is predicated more or less on fear..

Yeah - a lot of ways to drill even deeper into this and pickup some more specific things at maybe finer grain.

There is solid research that GOP voters score higher as apprehensive personalities and living in cities probably can act somewhat to force an apprehensive personality into a higher engagement level with other people, which in turn might modify their world view, so I don't argue the base the premise, but I think you can break it down more. For instance, I don't know if the rural/urban fear axis is the best correlate. For instance, not all Midwest Farmers have always been conservative - out state dems were once strong in MI and you have the example of the Farmer/Labor party in MN. And TBF, many 'suburban' areas are the most strongly conservative even though life in those areas still involves a lot of public interaction - certainly much more than in truly agricultural areas. But the people that now live in US cities are from the same gene pool that lived in US rural areas before the urban migrations yet the segregation in US politics is clearly geographic so something is driving a clear difference in world views based on geographies as opposed to say - genetics: Two suggestions to narrow  down subfactors:

The first is very close to the original premise, but tweak it just a little. It's not population density - meeting strangers per se, but population diversity - meeting *strangeness*. By and large US suburban areas are just as segregated as US rural areas. So make the analysis not numbers of strangers in general, but strangers who also look/talk/feel different and I think the correlation between the politics and geography tightens. Or another way to put it is that living in segregation is going to condition people (mostly white)  to a higher level of cultural discomfort around anything that departs from their Whiteness even in people who have no explicit ideological predisposition to overt racism. The cultural piece operates at a much more subliminal level. The idea being a more specific cultural kind of fear/disorientation rather than just broad fears of anything new. 

The second is religion. And I think there is some chicken and egg intertwining of the two effects, but white religious conservatism is strongly geographically correlated. I think here the original premise about urban living per se may apply more directly and again it goes to cultural segregation.  It's easy to be religiously doctrinaire when everyone around you agrees with you. Harder when faced daily with people that circumstance forces you to acknowledge as your peers don't see any particular validity to your parochial truths - add the effect of cross cultural romance and marriage in cosmopolitan areas as another moderating driver. To me the effect is easy enough to understand, but I don't really have a good clue as to why conservative strains of Christianity have such particular appeal today in the West and Upper midwest rural areas. I don't know if that's always even been the case. In the South, ties between the 'Lost Cause', conservative religion and racism are easier to understand/trace.

A little side note on that intermarriage point. The old Ottoman empire was a place with a lot of cosmopolitan cross interaction between different ethnic and religious groups yet people never overcame their prejudices about each other. I think the difference again being religion and the strict taboo against inter-religious marriage. Christians and Muslims lived shoulder to shoulder with each other in the Ottoman world for centuries, but they did not marry one another. The communities forced themselves to keep each other at that minimum arms-length distance where they could still more easily deny each other's humanity when it was politically expedient.

 

Edited June 7, 2023 by gehringer_2

[chasfh]

4 hours ago, oblong said:

The religious portion of the right wing needs victim status.  That gives them a share sense of suffering, like Jesus suffered.

 

They do this by characterizing those on the left as their enemies, and the reason is their enemies is because the left made those on the right their enemies and are trying to destroy them (when in fact most liberals basically barely think about right-wingers at all). Not only does they reflect victim mentality, but even more dangerously, they labor under a siege mentality, and the reason that's dangerous is because when you're under siege, you have to counterattack, and woe betide the "enemy" being counterattacked who doesn't even realize he's assumed to be trying to destroy the right.

[gehringer_2]

3 hours ago, chasfh said:

, and the reason that's dangerous is because when you're under siege, you have to counterattack, and woe betide the "enemy" being counterattacked who doesn't even realize he's assumed to be trying to destroy the right.

Yup - the whole DeSantis schtick revolves around it not being enough to win elections and carry policy, but you have to destroy your opposition - literally remove them from their existence: Freedom defined as not ever having to even hear from anyone that opposes you. A simply terrible, totalitarian, approach to politcs and a sad commentary on the emotional and moral sense of anyone that supports him. DeSantis could walk on to one the Russia Today news sets where the talk of genocide and nuclear annihilation of enemies runs 24/7 and find himself perfectly at home.

Edited June 8, 2023 by gehringer_2

[Crazy Cat Gentleman]

what a ****ing spineless-ass dip****.

 

[smr-nj]

Who the f was applauding his nonsensical answer?  Equal under the law… but not for Trump?

Laughable.. but tragic showing here.

[oblong]

"Why didn't I get the easy CNN?"

The fact we will indict a former President is the precise message you want to send to the rest of the world.

 

[romad1]

3 hours ago, Crazy Cat Gentleman said:

what a ****ing spineless-ass dip****.

 

He lit into Trump during his announcement.  I was thrilled to watch that but he is the most borringest man on this planet of Earth. 

[Crazy Cat Gentleman]

1 minute ago, romad1 said:

He lit into Trump during his announcement.

but still thinks he shouldn't be indicted, so it's all pretty hollow.

[romad1]

3 minutes ago, Crazy Cat Gentleman said:

but still thinks he shouldn't be indicted, so it's all pretty hollow.

dude is a mess of conflicting compulsory nonsense.   Whatever is at the bottom of that, he's not qualified to be president except in extremis.  His thwarting the coup would make him barely, barely, at the minimum level of acceptable for that standard.   

[Crazy Cat Gentleman]

2 minutes ago, romad1 said:

dude is a mess of conflicting compulsory nonsense.

right on.

[Crazy Cat Gentleman]

 

[Mr.TaterSalad]

Hopefully St. Peter gives Pat Robertson a big smooch on the lips and then kicks him down to hell. Rest in **** you homophobe.

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, romad1 said:

dude is a mess of conflicting compulsory nonsense.

Biblical literalism is good training for this.

Edited June 8, 2023 by gehringer_2

[Tigerbomb13]

9 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

Hopefully St. Peter gives Pat Robertson a big smooch on the lips and then kicks him down to hell. Rest in **** you homophobe.

Amen

[Tigeraholic1]

12 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

Hopefully St. Peter gives Pat Robertson a big smooch on the lips and then kicks him down to hell. Rest in **** you homophobe.

Guys like this have been giving good Christians a bad rap for years.. His bigotry came out the older he got. Quick check, his net worth is north of 100 million, smdh....

[chasfh]

23 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

Guys like this have been giving good Christians a bad rap for years.. His bigotry came out the older he got. Quick check, his net worth is north of 100 million, smdh....

Honest question: who do you think are the honest, above-board, even unimpeachable television evangelists? I'm not asking this as a springboard to criticize or as a gotcha—I'd like to get the impression from someone who might be sympathetic to them.

[Mr.TaterSalad]

33 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

Guys like this have been giving good Christians a bad rap for years.. His bigotry came out the older he got. Quick check, his net worth is north of 100 million, smdh....

"And again I say unto you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God.” - Matthew 19:24

[romad1]

10 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Honest question: who do you think are the honest, above-board, even unimpeachable television evangelists? I'm not asking this as a springboard to criticize or as a gotcha—I'd like to get the impression from someone who might be sympathetic to them.

I think for a while there was some believe that Billy Graham was unimpeachable but his son sure put a bullet i the family legacy. 

[Mr.TaterSalad]

18 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Honest question: who do you think are the honest, above-board, even unimpeachable television evangelists? I'm not asking this as a springboard to criticize or as a gotcha—I'd like to get the impression from someone who might be sympathetic to them.

I don't think there are many in the mainstream. First off, to call yourself a devout Christian, proclaim to care about the less fortunate, and hoard that type of wealthy is disgusting and goes against the very tenants of Jesus' teaching. Jesus went into the temple and flipped over the tables of the coin counters and bankers. Jesus didn't drive a brand new Ferrari and live in a multi-million dollar house with luxury items wall to wall like Pat Robertson, Joyce Meyer, Joel Osteen, Benny Hinn, Creflo Dollar, Kenneth Copeland, Jimmy Swaggert, Jim and Tammy Faye Baker, etc. all do. Jesus certainly didn't make a $50 million mega church built for his followers to gather in either.

Second off, the way in which most of these TV hucksters make their money and keep it flowing in is deceitful and dishonest. Call now and give me a tide, sow a seed for only $100 a month and I'll send you a little green prayer cloth and a bottle of miracle water that I "blessed". They pray upon old people who live on fixed incomes, the poor, and uneducated often times. People who can barely afford what they are asking them to give. Furthermore, they scam them by making their donations reoccurring each month, often times when the person donating doesn't realize it will be a reoccurring donation.

Third off, Jesus never picked up prostitutes and banged them at the Inn (Jimmy Swaggert), snorted coke on the church's dime with a gay prostitute (Ted Haggard), or denied desperate people into his church after a hurricane (Joel Osteen). He helped people during their time of need and shared with others everything he had. 

"But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.” - Luke 14:12-24

Edited June 8, 2023 by Mr.TaterSalad

[gehringer_2]

14 minutes ago, romad1 said:

I think for a while there was some believe that Billy Graham was unimpeachable but his son sure put a bullet i the family legacy. 

Was Billy G even really a 'televangilist' though? A lot of his events were televised but I don't remember that he ever did any kind of scheduled TV where it was the major focus, though I could be wrong. He did do a regular radio program at one point.

The granddaddy for TV would have to be Fulton Sheen I suppose. Sheen had all the standard RCC hang-ups about human sexuality but I don't know that anyone ever accused him of being a grifter. Maybe the 1st, last and only for whom that's still true?

Edited June 8, 2023 by gehringer_2

[Tigeraholic1]

41 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Honest question: who do you think are the honest, above-board, even unimpeachable television evangelists? I'm not asking this as a springboard to criticize or as a gotcha—I'd like to get the impression from someone who might be sympathetic to them.

None of them. To me, you need to make relationships at your local level Church's. Example, my local Church is very active in the community and offer english classes for our local Burmese community that are mainly former rufugees. They also help the find jobs and housing. Our same little Church sponsor at last check 150 orphans at Grace Pointe an orpahnage/school in Kasigau region of SE Kenya. Many members of our church have traveled to Grace Point and help build a new wing of the school or bulid a new mud hut for a local family, etc. They do great things there! I mean the impact is amazing, every dollar helps these kids. My wife the nurse and I plan to go next year to help with medical concerns for two weeks. These kids all come from slums and most of their parents have died from AIDS.

My pastor drives a Honda accord that he will proudly tell you has 300K miles and lives in a simple home. Guys like this don't hide behind their beliefs but stand out front and inspire folks to do the same. TV jokers are just that, wolves in sheeps clothing.

Edited June 8, 2023 by Tigeraholic1

[oblong]

26 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

Was Billy G even really a 'televangilist' though? A lot of his events were televised but I don't remember that he ever did any kind of scheduled TV where it was the major focus, though I could be wrong. He did do a regular radio program at one point.

The granddaddy for TV would have to be Fulton Sheen I suppose. Sheen had all the standard RCC hang-ups about human sexuality but I don't know that anyone ever accused him of being a grifter. Maybe the 1st, last and only for whom that's still true?

Graham's about as good as you can get for the big name ones.  The knock against him is his lack of pushback against Nixon when he was making racial and antisemetic comments on tape.  Other than that I can't think of anything really controversial.  I can say that many in the fundamentalist evangelical circle actually didn't like him because they thought he was too accommodating to other Christian denominations.

I recall an interview on King where Larry was pressing him on whether Jews and Hindus and others would go to hell because they didn't believe like Christians do.  Graham wouldn't say they would, only that his religion teaches him that he will go to Heaven.

 

 

[Mr.TaterSalad]

Didn't Graham's son whip his dingy out on a boat and post pictures on social media or am I thinking of someone else?

[chasfh]

1 hour ago, romad1 said:

I think for a while there was some believe that Billy Graham was unimpeachable but his son sure put a bullet i the family legacy. 

I never believed Billy Graham was unimpeachable, and I don't think the son fell all that far from the tree. But I could agree to disagree.