[Vision2020] [link added] We, Intoleristas . . .

[Joe Campbell]

Let me just discuss the first point for now.

The first two examples are about a specific person who is progressive. But
two comments by one person -- even if they constitute genuine examples of
"harassment and coercion" (which is absurd in this case) -- does not
justify a general claim about all progressives.

In the third case no specific names are mentioned. "Members of the viz"
could refer to Gary and Paul. They were progressives? Who? And if you can't
see how it is inappropriate for communion to be served at a public, state
university, I'll just refer you to the US constitution.

How did the 4th case work out, by the way? And who were the people? Are we
up to more than 4 folks by now? Again, no names mentioned.

I've talked to people about the 5th case and as far as I know it was true.
Do you know it wasn't true? I talked specifically to friends of the lesbian
couple involved, who I also know, and it seemed to me to be credible. You
know it wasn't credible because ...?

With respect to the 6th case, who was the (single) person who issued the
flyer? Does she/he post on the V? And you are certain of his/her political
affiliation because ...? You don't know who it was but you know it wasn't a
conservative because ...? By the way, a flurry of kids from NSA came into
the Co-op -- her place of work -- shortly afterwards to harass her. So
obviously, THEY don't seem to see any boundaries between business and
politics. Still, as far as I know (which appears to be more than you do)
just ONE person created the flyer. So what are we up to now, 6 people? 6
people speaking for all progressives? Should I use these same standards to
start trashing conservatives?

Why don't you be fair and list the reasons why someone might have
circulated the flyer? You yourself say that you would "not want a single
penny of [yours] going into Doug Wilson's coffers." Why is that? We're
skipping over a lot of the history, aren't we? Do you think it would be
difficult for me to find 6 folks associated with CC/NSA who were guilty of
"harassment and coercion"? Heck, if the standard of "harassment and
coercion" is simply calling someone "unethical" I'm pretty confident that
most of use are guilty at one point or other.

Politic discussion is difficult and I applaud folks on the viz who have the
courage to try to talk about these issues in public, especially given that
there are careless folks like you and Paul around to make unfounded and
vague charges of "harassment and coercion." If you're going to partake in
political conversation some feathers will get ruffled. I challenge you to
find a counterexample. Hopefully this won't inhibit folks from continuing
to try to converse about difficult issues in public, since I think the
benefits outweigh the costs.

By the way, you've mentioned exactly ONE person who is a progressive to
support your general claim, but still feel fine about calling other unnamed
people out for "post[ing] an unfounded rumor on this viz." Holy crap!

Happy New Year!

On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 3:41 PM, Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com>wrote:

>  <Please support your claim. If "they" -- meaning progressives, liberals,
> or Intoleristas -- "resort quickly to the instruments of harassment and
> coercion" you must have plenty of cases to back up your claim, enough to
> support the claim that "they" are doing, as opposed to a select few. Please
> give those examples and make sure you have enough of them to support this
> very general, over-the-top claim.>
> Joe - there were just two recent examples of this. 1) Tom posted a twitter
> link charging it as inappropriate and that the poster is 'unethical'.  I'd
> say that borders on harassment in trying to drum up any more hatred toward
> the real Dale, 2) Tom trumped up a charge that a city council member was
> not a resident of Moscow.  There were several posts on the viz that this
> would disqualify this city council member from continuing his term.  I'd
> say this a threat of coercion - by some on the viz - to run this member off
> the council, 3) going back a few years, Christ Church was hosting an event
> at the UI and when members of this viz found out he would be serving
> tradition communion, they went to the UI to successfully block this.  It's
> not that far fetched to see how Christ Church could view this as both
> 'harassment and coercion', 4) Also a few years ago, there was fervent
> discussion on the viz about Christ Church claiming 501c3 non-profit tax
> exempt status in a building where they were running for profit businesses.
> There was some investigation into this which if I recall resulted in a
> split decisions where the activities qualifying as tax exempt remained so,
> and the other activities that did not were not allowed to be tax exempt.
> Again, it's not a stretch for Doug and his flock to consider this both
> 'harassment and coercion', 5) Someone posted an unfounded rumor on this viz
> to the effect 'Is is true that the coffee shop (might have been Bucer's)
> refused to serve a gay couple?'.  There was a flurry of posts about this.
> If this wasn't harassment, it certainly gave the coffee shop a bad name. 6)
> There was a list being circulated with names & businesses of Christ Church
> members urging a boycott of these businesses.  Personally, I have mixed
> feelings about this one as I'd not want a single penny of mine going into
> Doug Wilson's coffers and yet at the same time I think it's unjust to
> punish a whole congregation just because of their rogue pastor.  I'm sure I
> could find more examples.
>
> <And of course "No conservative has ever told [you, Paul] that [you]
> shouldn't make posts of a certain type." Why should they? You are there
> mouthpiece.>
> I'll let Paul chime in on this, but I think he was referring to his posts
> that are more moderate and that conservatives don't tell him not to make
> those posts.
>
> <The two posts are ironic because I've posted a slew of questions about
> gun control over the last few weeks, asking some straightforward questions
> and trying to engage in thoughtful discussion. None of the questions
> received any serious answers. There were some sarcastic posts by Paul but
> no serious attempt to engage in discussion.>
> I think for the most part, their has been OK discussion on this.  I don't
> recall any sarcastic posts by Paul, but there have been a lot of posts.
> The one positive take away on the gun control discussion is that the folks
> who presently enjoying their nearly unfettered gun rights are at least
> engaging in the discussion.  It's better than having them just walk away
> which they certainly could do.  I'd find it hard to believe that fun
> enthusiasts wouldn't be just as heartbroken as anyone else over the Sandy
> Hook massacre so I believe it's counter productive to demonize them or even
> the NRA - but that's just my opinion.  I'd like to see the discussion on
> gun control continue even though I think gun control is the wrong answer
> and there should be unified goal of 'reducing/eliminating gun violence'
> even though there are a wide variety of opinions on who has the right
> answer on this.
>
> <I've refuted several arguments given by conservatives on this these
> issues but guess what? Conservatives keep using those bad arguments anyway,
> without attempting to respond to them. I can't count the times that Paul or
> Gary or others, for instance, have jumped from "let's talk about gun
> control" to "let's ban all firearms.">
> Slippery slope to hyperbole comes into play in most discussions of where
> to draw the line (if any) on rights as can be seen on topics of gay
> marriage, abortion, etc.  I can't help you much on that one.  In most
> cases, moderation seems to be the key and maybe there is some middle ground
> that can be reached.
>
> <I'm ready to talk and I can talk without insulting anyone. Can either of
> you? Is it even possible for Scott, Paul, or Gary to have a conversation
> without insulting someone, or making the kinds of unsupported general
> claims in these two posts? This is not an insult, it is a challenge.>
> Yes.
>
> -Scott
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 13:53:42 -0800
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [link added] We, Intoleristas . . .
> From: philosopher.joe at gmail.com
> To: scooterd408 at hotmail.com
> CC: ngier at uidaho.edu; moscowcares at moscow.com; vision2020 at moscow.com
>
> Scott,
>
> Can you give some specific examples? Or is it just enough to say "This is
> happening"?
>
> Wilson says "But they would rather not talk at all, and so they resort
> quite quickly to the instruments of harassment and coercion" to which Scott
> responds "This is happening."
>
> Please support your claim. If "they" -- meaning progressives, liberals, or
> Intoleristas -- "resort quickly to the instruments of harassment and
> coercion" you must have plenty of cases to back up your claim, enough to
> support the claim that "they" are doing, as opposed to a select few. Please
> give those examples and make sure you have enough of them to support this
> very general, over-the-top claim.
>
> Or maybe Paul could provide evidence backing up this claim: "I would like
> to point out that it's the liberals on this list (or 'Intoleristas', if you
> prefer) that come across as the most dogmatic of the two main groups on
> this list (Intoleristas/liberals vs. conservatives/Christ Church members)."
> Come across as dogmatic to whom? And how many liberals come across as
> dogmatic? Why not name 10 since there are enough, on your view to make such
> a general claim.
>
> Paul also writes: "It was the Intoleristas that spent a lot of time and
> effort trying to convince me that boycotting businesses run by Christ
> Church members wasn't somehow intolerant of another religion." Please be
> sure to name the Intoleristas that "spent a lot of time and effort trying
> to convince" you to boycott Christ Church businesses? Be specific. Name
> enough of them to justify this slander of a whole group of people who
> happen to disagree with your views.
>
> And of course "No conservative has ever told [you, Paul] that [you]
> shouldn't make posts of a certain type." Why should they? You are there
> mouthpiece.
>
> The two posts are ironic because I've posted a slew of questions about gun
> control over the last few weeks, asking some straightforward questions and
> trying to engage in thoughtful discussion. None of the questions received
> any serious answers. There were some sarcastic posts by Paul but no serious
> attempt to engage in discussion.
>
> I've refuted several arguments given by conservatives on this these issues
> but guess what? Conservatives keep using those bad arguments anyway,
> without attempting to respond to them. I can't count the times that Paul or
> Gary or others, for instance, have jumped from "let's talk about gun
> control" to "let's ban all firearms."
>
> I'm ready to talk and I can talk without insulting anyone. Can either of
> you? Is it even possible for Scott, Paul, or Gary to have a conversation
> without insulting someone, or making the kinds of unsupported general
> claims in these two posts? This is not an insult, it is a challenge.
>
> Joe
>
> On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com>wrote:
>
>  It's got some substance Dr. Gier, you just need to cut through a lot of
> Doug's crap to see some of it:
>
> <Everything goes great in this world of monochrome diversity until someone
> actually disagrees with them in their town>
> This happened.
>
> <They cannot handle disagreement and debate, and so to the extent that
> they have to talk at all they resort immediately to shrill invective.>
> This is still happening and you can see it in the threads about 'gun
> control & the NRA' and 'global warming'.
>
> <But they would rather not talk at all, and so they resort quite quickly
> to the instruments of harassment and coercion.>
> This is happening.
>
> <This is what has happened in every place in the world where they have had
> their way.>
> This is true.  Might makes right.  We're lucky to live in a country where
> individual rights are protected against mob rule.
>
> <These people we are up against are as intolerant as it gets. While I
> grant they are not as dangerous as they used to be, they are certainly as
> noisy as they used to be.>
> Intolerance cuts both ways.  Atheists can be just as intolerant and Fundy
> religious types.  Again, we're lucky to live in a country where individual
> rights are protected against mob rule.
>
> As for your comment that <[Doug's] is a very narrow world indeed>, I
> agree with this as it's quite obvious.  Even so, Doug and his gullible
> flock deserve the exact same Constitutional rights and protections as
> everyone else even though they doesn't believe in the Constitution and do
> not believe in an egalitarian society.
>
> <Happy New Year to all beings> I couldn't agree more. :)
>
> -Scott
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:45:59 -0800
> From: ngier at uidaho.edu
> To: moscowcares at moscow.com
> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [link added] We, Intoleristas . . .
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> Thanks for posting this.  I had not read it either before now.  It is
> vintage Wilson--all rhetoric and sarcasm with little substance.  Much like
> his papers for my philosophy classes.
>
> Some time ago a Kirker accused me of being a "Hindu-Lover," or something
> like that.  I had to inform him that I have supported four Indians for
> their studies:  one Christian who is now practicing psychotherapy in
> Australia, one Hindu for his art career, and a man and wife team (both
> devout Christians). My Hindu friends may have good reason to charge that
> I'm a "Christian-lover."
>
> The husband just finished his Ph.D. at the University of Denver on the
> psychology of being a Christian untouchable. (I thought that they did not
> exist.) It was a brilliant analysis that gained him a dissertation prize of
> $2,000.  The wife just graduated summa cum laude from the School of Nursing
> and the University of Houston.
>
> I had a great weekend celebrating with them (Indian food at every meal)
> and a wonderful church service for Telegu-speaking Christians.  What a
> change when they switched from the stodgy English hymns to the ones in
> Telegu.  The tamborines and tabla came out, and I was able sing along
> because an IT guy projected the phonetic equivalents on a screen.  A
> weekend of total immersion in Indian culture that will never be forgotten.
>
> Wilson praises that fact that many, but not as many as he implies, Latin
> Americans have converted to Pentecostal Christianity. (The highest
> percentage of them in coffee producing countries is 20 percent in
> Gautemala.) As he does with his right hand, he calls American Pentecostals
> less than Christian on the left.  (I can play the right and left hand game
> as well as he can.)  There is absolutely no healing, speaking in tongues,
> prophesying, and holy rolling at Christ Church.
>
> The only foreign travel Doug Wilson did was on U.S. subs.  He doesn't have
> a clue what multiculturalism is or what seasoned travelers experience and
> learn in foreign lands.  His is a very narrow world indeed.
>
> Happy New Year to all beings,
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> A society grows great when old men plant the seeds of trees whose shade
> they know they shall never sit in.
>
> -Greek proverb
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com on behalf of Moscow Cares
> Sent: Sun 12/30/2012 5:40 PM
> To: Joe Campbell
> Cc: viz
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [link added] We, Intoleristas . . .
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------
>
> Seeya round town, Moscow, because . . .
>
> "Moscow Cares"
> http://www.MoscowCares.com
>
> Tom Hansen
> Moscow, Idaho
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ======================================================= List services made
> available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse
> since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com=======================================================
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20121231/a62c6ba2/attachment-0001.html>