Can we include the theory of the "great beast" in that?

__________________
evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.

I stole that phrase "annoy the Great Beast" from Simone Weil which refers to those experiencing that they are in Plato's Cave and do not wish to be held there by the pressures of the group mind. It has nothing to do with "winning" but rather the willingness to acquire a more human perspective in spite of secular peer pressure. She explains:


This of course fits right into how you were describing fascism but with the function of the dictator taken over by political correctness. The grass unconsciously bending with the wind is the "Great Beast." One day it preaches wonderful thoughts and is involved with compassionate acts and when the wind changes induges in the most horrid crimes including genocide and genocide denial. Then when the wind changes again another variation appears.

If you have an interest in early American history you probably will appreciate Jacob Needleman's recent book on America called "The American soul" in which he explains a lot of how those like Jefferson are misunderstood.

Amazon.com: The American Soul: Rediscovering the Wisdom of the Founders: Books: Jacob Needleman

If you click on "search inside" and "excerpt" it is interesting and sheds new light onto normally accepted ideas.

>>> You may assume that I wanted laws passed to turn my "should" to a "must," but I never said so <<<

At one point in the debate you acquiesced to Tricky and agreed that it should only be a matter of politically correct virtue and good-manners. What transition did your acquiescence indicate?

I think it is all inclusive.

Lighthouse,

No, no. You drift. The issue was not that unnamed opinion of Confucian thought. It was Tricky’s use of it as a metaphor, like all metaphors, was only used to illustrate his point. Remember we are in the bleachers of the EH/Tricky debate on censoring religion in politics. Perhaps now that you may understand better my point you could examine my original quote critiquing the debate. The one which began so much confusion due to people’s lack of understanding the meaning of Fascism, or their emotional knee-jerk reaction to it.

>>> How fitting that the debate begins with a blunt call for the suppression of the right to free speech and ends with a Fascist-like metaphor of grass all bending the same way to the “virtue and good manners” of which we all agree … ALL that is of course, after the dissenters have been silenced. You all should read Orwell. <<<

The debate being “the suppression of the right to free speech” is self-evident. That Tricky called for all to conform to his view of “virtue and good manners,” which in the debate was developed as self-censorship, should also be self-evident. Read his final remarks of the debate. That Tricky also painted those dissenters with fans in a very un-charming light is also evident and is his answer to the second question; "What becomes of those who disagree?” Socially ostracize the dissenters, those without virtue and good manners, is the answer Tricky offered.

 This debate argued the censorship of an ideology (in all places political).
 Both debaters oppose the proposed censored ideology (both atheists).
 The censorship was deemed virtuous and well-mannered.
 It was resolved that politically correct ostracism of dissenters (those who hold the censored ideology) was the proper course of action.

These points are the 800 lb Gorilla metaphor I invoked, which most people here seem to have no problem ignoring.

What did you think of the debate beyond that it’s tone was good?

Thanks Nick. A very substanative post. I'll do the reading. I want to read more on Plato's cave. I have only read very minimal reviews of the cave allagory. If I have a question or comment I'll reply.

So, does this mean I don't get a T-Shirt?

Nah Z, I can see you are a person of potential and definitely worthy of a T shirt. If you would like to look at a page on how I understand Plato's cave, check out this link. It explains a great deal. Then when you read the analogy itself, it will open for you.

Simone Weil on Plato's Allegory of the Cave - 1 of 2

I don't think it's so much about people's lack of understanding of the meaning of fascism but more your more obscure (and little used) meaning of it. When you ask people what they think fascism means, you will get, almost exclusively I imagine, one answer. It has become an emotive word in our language for obvious reasons and if you wanted to convey a different message, perhaps a different choice of words would have been more useful.
And in case you're wondering, I personally wasn't upset or offended by the use of the word fascism nor what I thought (mistakenly) you were implying. It just seemed a rather odd way of looking at it to me.

It's not self evident to me, and I was in it! You said in the same post "Remember we are in the bleachers of the EH/Tricky debate on censoring religion in politics". That's what I thought the debate was about. I agree with you that suppression of religious views in politics is a branch of the suppression of the right to free speech but the debate was specifically about the former and not the latter.

Again, this isn't self evident to me either, and I was in it...Did I really call for all to conform to my view which you seem to think is self-censorship? I don't think I did. Incidentally, whilst the notion of 'virtue and good manners' in general appeals to me, I'm not a full on supporter of it at the exclusion of eveything else. Far from it.
After all, what one considers virtuous another may consider offensive. It really is a subjective, moving target.
Personally, I would like to see greater freedom of speech and not less -and that includes the things that society often thinks of as less 'politically correct'.

Is it really that self evident? If it came across that way to others as well as you then perhaps I could have chosen a better way of putting my point across. If the majority draws the same conclusion as you do here then I am happy to accept it and bend the way the wind blows

You say my answer is to "socially ostracize the dissenters"??
Firstly, I don't remember answering the question "What becomes of those who disagree?” anywhere in any of my posts either here or in the debate. Secondly, where on earth have I said (or even implied) that any dissenter should be socially ostracized?


I'm not sure what you mean by this. I find a lot of the language you use and the way you use it, quite confusing. Also,
I don't consider myself to be an atheist. My belief system would be closer to agnosticism - unless you want to argue that agnosticism is, by definition, atheism in disguise.

And where abouts in the debate would that be then? If you are trying to say that I support the idea of politically correct ostracism of dissenters then you are way off the mark - because I don't. Perhaps you can let me know what i wrote that led you to this conclusion.

As i said earlier in this post, to me at least, the debate wasn't really about "the suspension of the right to free speech" as you put it. Whilst I accept it is related to the actual debate topic, it was not the actual topic of the debate. In the UK, it is said we have "freedom of speech" but this is not entirely accurate. We can say pretty much whatever we like about anything but there are some 'no go' areas. For example, I would be arrested if I got up onto my soapbox and said "All Muslims shoud be exterminated" or "All black people are inferior to white people and should be burned at the stake". It is against the Law to say anything that may incite religious or racial hatred, so, in truth, there is no such thing as complete freedom of speech in the UK. That is why I didn't make a big issue of it during the debate. I though that it would be a whole can of worms that would be better suited to it's own arena. I hope you now understand why it didn't feature as a main issue in my side of the debate.

I liked it a lot. For me, the fact that the tone was good was the most important part of the debate and I thank EH for introducing me to the whole concept of formal debating and the way it is conducted. It was an enjoyable learning curve and as he said, it's unlikely to change the world just yet so the outcome wasn't really that important (to me).

This is pure speculation on my part, but I'm guessing that you weren't that impressed with it. Perhaps it wasn't the most skilful debate you've ever seen and if this is your opinion, I would tend to agree it!

In my opinion, you are a very skilled wordsmith, although I do (genuinley) have trouble understanding some of your posts and it would be nice to see your obvious talent with words shine in a formal debate here. I do however, have some less complimentary thoughts about your posts but will keep those to myself for the time being (btw. in case you're not sure, that's intended as good natured humour and I hope you see it as such)

I agree with Tricky on all points here. I thought it was a very good debate and the fact that it was done so respectfully made it a great debate.

Zerubabbel, I feel like you attended a different debate from some of us. I am wondering if confusing the issue is a method of debate. My feeling is that confusing the issue and trying to make it something it isn't makes the debate very uninteresting and I would probably not view it. Staying on point without runniing it off on a tangent would seem to me to be the best and most interesting route. However, I agree with Tricky that you have good verbal skills.

__________________
InterfaithForums.com-Where your ideas and beliefs count.

Oye Vey Tricky, A tome like point-counterpoint. Here I think I responded to all your points. But this could get old, I’ve stated as clearly as I can my perspective, restating it in different words won't help. A lack of understanding is seldom a simple issue of unaccustomed word smithing; it usually is an inability or unwillingness to adopt another’s perspective.


 I did my Fascism apologetics to EH in post #35.

 Semantics. Censorship is the suppression of the right to free speech. Both in effect simply say: “shut-up”

 This is my reply to a multitude of your points. At the end of the debate you departed from Socratic irony and got on the soapbox. Through a Confucian metaphor you painted a picture of a utopian society. Ask any child who read your sermon if they wanted to be the flowing grass in the breeze or the one with the fan going against the wind. The answer should be obvious. As a knuckle-dragging provincial American I appreciated your picture of “as we evolve socially” we blades of grass will all willingly and gently blow in the wind of peace and harmony. It gave me the urge to look around my cave for that woolly Mammoth femur bone.

EH will word things more explicitly than you will. Here he explains for us how the concept of politically correct self-censorship works through threat of social ostracism: “After all, most people do not really wish to do things that would be considered socially unacceptable, simply because most people don’t like to be laughed at or looked down upon as hopelessly provincial.” Political correctness, self-censorship and social ostracism are all part of the same package.

 Every time I write the word atheist I go wrong. I apologize for the mischaracterization. What I should have said, but I was trying to economize on words, is that should the censorship resolution be passed it would not have effected either debater, neither had anything to loose. It was other people, in other countries in fact that would bear the burden of what was being debated. It was the teetotaler debating the teetotaler about banning alcohol.

 You go to an extreme when you include incitement to violence in your censorship theories. Your examples sans incitement would be protected under UK free speech, No? "All burkas should be banned and all Mosques should be closed", "All black people are inferior to white people” Would your law defend the right of someone to say these things? Would you defend the right of someone to say these things? How about this? “Homosexuality is unnatural, abortion is murder, evolution is an unproven theory.” All of these things are protected by law, but in the socially evolved countries of Canada and Britain they are banned by politically correct self-censorship under threat of social ostracism. So now this debate considers the legality of a politician’s right to say, “I believe in God.” Resolved that it is unconstitutional/unlawful, we will just include it in that growing list of things that while legal to say are just considered by society as unvirtuous and ill mannered.