It’s easy to see why they feel that way. Imagine an Affirmative Action style of law was passed to prioritize felons to get jobs. Non-felons (who have ALL the advantages) would suddenly find themselves occasionally losing a job a person who is different for genuinely wrong reasons. “I didn’t get the accounting job because someone who did time for 3 counts of Wire Fraud applied and got preferential treatment”. If that were me, I’d be pissed. In fact, I’d feel a little bit oppressed. I mean, same direction but hitting your later points. What if a law came out protecting people on the sexual predator registry against being discussed or discriminated against? I think you and I could agree to riot in the streets, no? Even though it be protecting a minority from the majority.
As wrong as their mindset is, they think Christianity is the one and only “right thing” wrt religion. So despite being the majority, if someone gets any protection from them for being “wrong”, they feel as oppressed as you might feel if you couldn’t stop a child predator across from the town’s elementary school… Now you and I know that there’s no foundation for Christians to say all other religions are wrong and theirs correct, but Christians who feel that way don’t.
Again, it might not help to understand why there’s some logic to their complaints, but it’s context and knowing our “enemy” can be valuable…
That’s not quite the same thing though because you’re talking about giving another group of people preferential treatment over everyone else.
But what things like abortion laws give people is the right to self-determination. No one saying that anyone who doesn’t want an abortion has to have an abortion they are just saying that it’s an allowable option.
In your example it’s like saying that exfelons have the right to have their record sealed once they’ve served their time. They’re not given preferential treatment they’re just equalized to everyone else.
That’s not quite the same thing though because you’re talking about giving another group of people preferential treatment over everyone else.
Obviously. I’m explaining how people with a flawed mindset think, not defending that mindset.
But what things like abortion laws give people is the right to self-determination
Also obviously true. There are some common-sense counterpoints (basically, anti-choice folks don’t act like abortion is murder, they pretend that it is, and that shows their lie), but if a person genuinely thought abortion was literally murder, it becomes an apple-to-apple comparison to their broken alt-right point of view; and importantly, it’s consistent. Consistent viewpoints are often harder to rebut than ones with obvious self-contradictions.
In your example it’s like saying that exfelons have the right to have their record sealed once they’ve served their time. They’re not given preferential treatment they’re just equalized to everyone else.
That’s why I didn’t use that example. I’m trying to show why certain twisted beliefs are consistent enough for millions of people to hold them. If my example were ex-felons (while it is a somewhat more appropriate comparison) it would not lead to an internally consistent viewpoint.
As I said to the other commentor, my explanation isn’t about trying to defend that user’s parents to him. It’s trying to help him understeand, a basis through which they can perhaps decide what to do next, or not do next.
I understand it just fine. And it’s still fucked up.
“It’s okay to bomb Palestinian civilians because the Jews are God’s chosen people and the land was given to them as their divine right” is unforgivable. Yet, it’s part of my da’s religious belief because “it says so in scripture.”
If you’re using religion to justify harm, direct or indirect, you’re a shit person who has no business telling others how to live their lives. And they can shut their fucking mouths if they try to tell me how they’re the real oppressed ones.
Then you missed my argument. I’m trying to help the reader get an understanding to his family’s insanity, not say their insanity is correct. There is no knowledge that is not power. So knowing how the other side thinks is important.
It’s easy to see why they feel that way. Imagine an Affirmative Action style of law was passed to prioritize felons to get jobs. Non-felons (who have ALL the advantages) would suddenly find themselves occasionally losing a job a person who is different for genuinely wrong reasons. “I didn’t get the accounting job because someone who did time for 3 counts of Wire Fraud applied and got preferential treatment”. If that were me, I’d be pissed. In fact, I’d feel a little bit oppressed. I mean, same direction but hitting your later points. What if a law came out protecting people on the sexual predator registry against being discussed or discriminated against? I think you and I could agree to riot in the streets, no? Even though it be protecting a minority from the majority.
As wrong as their mindset is, they think Christianity is the one and only “right thing” wrt religion. So despite being the majority, if someone gets any protection from them for being “wrong”, they feel as oppressed as you might feel if you couldn’t stop a child predator across from the town’s elementary school… Now you and I know that there’s no foundation for Christians to say all other religions are wrong and theirs correct, but Christians who feel that way don’t.
Again, it might not help to understand why there’s some logic to their complaints, but it’s context and knowing our “enemy” can be valuable…
That’s not quite the same thing though because you’re talking about giving another group of people preferential treatment over everyone else.
But what things like abortion laws give people is the right to self-determination. No one saying that anyone who doesn’t want an abortion has to have an abortion they are just saying that it’s an allowable option.
In your example it’s like saying that exfelons have the right to have their record sealed once they’ve served their time. They’re not given preferential treatment they’re just equalized to everyone else.
Obviously. I’m explaining how people with a flawed mindset think, not defending that mindset.
Also obviously true. There are some common-sense counterpoints (basically, anti-choice folks don’t act like abortion is murder, they pretend that it is, and that shows their lie), but if a person genuinely thought abortion was literally murder, it becomes an apple-to-apple comparison to their broken alt-right point of view; and importantly, it’s consistent. Consistent viewpoints are often harder to rebut than ones with obvious self-contradictions.
That’s why I didn’t use that example. I’m trying to show why certain twisted beliefs are consistent enough for millions of people to hold them. If my example were ex-felons (while it is a somewhat more appropriate comparison) it would not lead to an internally consistent viewpoint.
As I said to the other commentor, my explanation isn’t about trying to defend that user’s parents to him. It’s trying to help him understeand, a basis through which they can perhaps decide what to do next, or not do next.
I understand it just fine. And it’s still fucked up.
“It’s okay to bomb Palestinian civilians because the Jews are God’s chosen people and the land was given to them as their divine right” is unforgivable. Yet, it’s part of my da’s religious belief because “it says so in scripture.”
If you’re using religion to justify harm, direct or indirect, you’re a shit person who has no business telling others how to live their lives. And they can shut their fucking mouths if they try to tell me how they’re the real oppressed ones.
Comparing other religions to child abusers doesn’t quite seem the best way to make your argument.
Then you missed my argument. I’m trying to help the reader get an understanding to his family’s insanity, not say their insanity is correct. There is no knowledge that is not power. So knowing how the other side thinks is important.
Honestly, I’m sorry. That’s not very clear from your original comment.
Especially because often they’re the same thing