[Vision2020] Question, V-Peeps . . .
Paul Rumelhart
godshatter at yahoo.com
Sun Mar 25 18:39:54 PDT 2012
On 03/25/2012 03:34 PM, Saundra Lund wrote:
>
> Paul wrote:
>
> “I don't particularly care what views a person holds about antebellum
> slavery”
>
> Bully for you. Personally, I believe that revisionist history
> whitewashing the real horror of antebellum slavery is not only wrong,
> but it’s also incredibly offensive, disrespectful, and morally
> indefensible for self-professing Christians. I subscribe to the maxim
> that those who don’t remember history are bound to repeat it.
>
Great. I'm not trying to get you to agree with the Kirk, I'm trying to
get you to be tolerant of the fact that they believe things that you
think are utter garbage.
> Paul also wrote:
>
> “If the Intoleristas had instead been of the frame of mind of "sorry,
> we're not going to let you turn the Palouse into a theocracy, but
> we're still happy to have you as part of our community", then they
> might not have been so quick to accuse some of you of vandalism”
>
> There ya go again with your revisionism. The fact of the matter is
> that’s exactly what happened for years and years, and you can see
> where that got us. Christ Church became bolder & bolder about
> flouting the law and bolder in their local attacks against all who
> disagreed with them. For instance, Wilson et al were beyond livid
> that two UI historians wrote a book review refuting the nonsense in
> Wilson’s & Wilkin’s heavily plagiarized monograph, “Southern Slavery
> As It Was,” and went whining all the way to the governor not
> threatening the UI (you know the kind of non-threat: the same game
> they’ve played at least twice in trying to get V2020 shut down, filing
> completely bogus zoning complaints against the UI, the “Topless &
> Proud” stunt using stolen UI resources – they still think that was the
> best prank ever, etc.), demanding “discipline” (presumably not the way
> they allow schools to physically discipline students) for the two
> profs for – gasp – actually doing their jobs & so forth.
>
> Since your memory is . . . curiously selective, how about checking out:
>
> http://hnn.us/articles/9142.html
>
> This is the perspective of one of the “Intolerista” professors Wilson
> & his minions demanded be disciplined. Note: Ramsey certainly didn’t
> consider himself an “Intolerista,” but that’s the label Wilson painted
> him with simply for daring to disagree with Wilson’s & Wilkin’s
> revisionist history by writing a scholarly critique of SSAIW. That’s
> the Kirk’s idea of “working together.”
>
First of all, my memory is not selective. I'm not trying to choose a
winner in this fight of yours, I'm hoping that "you guys", the liberal
crowd in this town that I used to have so much respect for, take back
the upper ground and at least try to bridge this gap. I realize that
some of the Christ Church members have not played nice all the time. It
takes two to tango, is all I'm saying.
> Paul, I had been concerned that you appear to post to V2020 during UI
> working hours. Another favorite tactic used by the Kirk to
> “discipline” dissenters is to “go after” UI & WSU employees in
> attempts to get them fired for doing things like posting to V2020
> during working hours . . . and sometimes, for what they do in their
> personal hours (i.e., Prof. Dale Graden having the nerve to write a
> letter to the editor). As a staff person, you are a much easier
> target than are professors.
>
I thank you for your concern. I will be more careful in the future. I
usually only post quick simple posts when I happen to be checking my
personal email at work.
> I quit worrying, though, because since you only selectively “care”
> about the Constitutional freedoms that are the basis of this country,
> you relish attacking those of us (“you people”) who vocally disagree
> with attempts to use laws to wage culture wars against all who don’t
> share their particular flavor of Christianity. They won’t go after
> you because you have never offered any substantive criticism of their
> antics.
>
Your right, I don't care about Constitutional freedoms. When have I
ever posted about that stupid piece of paper and it's so-called
"freedoms"? I suppose it's my complete lack of compassion and empathy
for others that's to blame.
> *You are, in fact, intolerant of our beliefs and freely toss around
> inaccurate and dishonest stereotypes & imaginary events about those
> opposed to any flavor theocracy why while trying to convince us that
> you are some kind of “Tolerance” poster boy.*
>
> Not even close, and definitely no cigar for you J
>
Let me get this straight. You're calling me out for being intolerant of
your intolerance. I really don't know what to say to that.
> In another post, you wrote:
>
> “They coined the term, you all chose to use it as a badge of honor,
> and you're surprised they refer to you by that name?”
>
> Huh – is that your attitude about Traynor Martin being targeted
> because he wore a hoody in the “wrong” neighborhood? Or about Shaima
> Alawadi being targeted because she was an Iraqi woman in American who
> wore a hajib? Sounds pretty close to blaming the victims to me.
>
So, what's the connection between the death of Trayvon Martin and some
Christ Church members using the term "intolerista" as a pejorative? You
have claimed the term as your own. It only makes sense that they would
use that term when referring to you.
> You don’t like the fact that some of Wilson’s targets took his
> pejorative and accurately & appropriately redefined it – too bad for
> you, and too bad for Wilson. I know he & his ilk were desperately
> hoping his neologism would catch on and become another weapon for his
> culture war. It didn’t *because* those of us he targeted had the
> mother with to take the wind out of his sail – even Wikipedia booted
> the word & original definition out J You *weren’t* the target, so I
> really don’t give a rip that you don’t like that some have claimed the
> weapon wielded against them.
>
What I don't like is when you use the term as a rallying cry against
another group in this community. I don't like the fight that has been
going on in this community, and I'm working with the people I most
identify with to see if I can get anyone interested in stopping it. So
far, I've had zero luck. If I were a Christ Churcher, I would be trying
to convince them to stop doing the things they do to widen this divide.
> One other thing . . . in a more recent post, you wrote:
>
> “When you actually converse with someone from Christ Church on these
> topics, you can often-times see where they are coming from. You might
> not agree, but you can see where they are coming from based on their
> specific world view.”
>
> Oh, get over yourself, Paul! You seem to think you are the *only* one
> to have done so, and you couldn’t be more wrong. Nick, Keely, Rose,
> and I here as well as others not here have *all *engaged in extensive
> discussion with Wilson and his followers over the years and had
> cordial relationships with some, not-so-cordial with others (i.e., I
> take offense at being told by one of Wilson’s head minions that God
> had deafened & blinded me).
>
> But, intelligent people can’t get away from the fact that what they
> want is a theocracy so that the teeth of the law will force those of
> us who disagree with their moral code to follow it or Be Punished here
> on earth.
>
I doubt that they are the only group in town that would institute laws
favorable to them if they had half a chance. I don't want a theocracy
any more than you do, but I don't fault them for wanting one. They
think their God demands it, or that they would have a chance at saving
people from eternal torment if they could get that put in place.
Luckily for me, there is a political process that they have to go
through, and a Constitution that expressly forbids much of what they
would propose.
> Just as I have no interest in “hanging” with racist Kluckers or the
> anti-choice crowd that advocates violence or the anti-gay crowd that
> wants death for gays or the anti-women crowd who thinks women belong
> barefoot & chained to the stove with the chain only long enough to
> reach the bedroom, I have no interest in “hanging” with those who want
> nothing more here on earth than theocracy and “forced salvation” for
> “Believers” and “unbelievers” alike.
>
Aside from the groups that actively promote violence, I would have no
problem hanging out with a group whose beliefs or ideals I disagree
with. I don't see this as a bad thing. I'd hate it if everyone in the
world though the exact same way I did.
> Does that mean I wouldn’t shove someone – anyone -- out of the way of
> a bus, or not turn my garden hose on their house fire, or drive past
> someone with car trouble?
>
> Of course not, no matter how much you desperately want to convince
> people otherwise.
>
I am not surprised at all that you would help someone out whose ideals
you disagree with. It's the fact that "you guys" are good people that
really puzzles me in this. To me, the obviously right thing to do is to
stop fighting them and to welcome them with open arms, despite your
differences.
Paul
> Saundra
>
> *From:*Paul Rumelhart [mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 25, 2012 11:07 AM
> *To:* Tom Hansen
> *Cc:* Saundra Lund; vision2020
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Question, V-Peeps . . .
>
> This is a nice example of the intolerance I'm talking about. I don't
> particularly care what views a person holds about antebellum slavery,
> or who they think should be in charge of the finances in their
> marriage. I'll still sit down and have a beer with them.
>
> If the Intoleristas had instead been of the frame of mind of "sorry,
> we're not going to let you turn the Palouse into a theocracy, but
> we're still happy to have you as part of our community", then they
> might not have been so quick to accuse some of you of vandalism when
> they reported the incidents to the police. Go out of your way to make
> yourself someone's enemy, and they will think of you first when
> something like that happens to them.
>
> Paul
>
> On 03/25/2012 04:37 AM, Tom Hansen wrote:
>
> */Intoleristas/*
>
> *(in tol er és ta), n.*
>
> * A person holding anti-slavery sentiments
> * A committed feminist.
> * A supporter of the Constitution, human rights, and equality for
> all, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, economic
> status, or sexual orientation.
> * A person with a wholesome proclivity for outing shifty
> hypocrites, shameless liars, and sham historians.
> * A person who is neither intimidated nor silenced by right-wing,
> theocratic bullies, or their sycophantic toadies.
> * A person who wears the title proudly as a reminder that he/she
> is about the business of democracy.
>
> */"It is not so much what we are as much as what we are about."/*
>
> A flash from the past . . .
>
> http://www.tomandrodna.com/sounds/Intoleristas_020405.mp3
>
> Who can forget . . .
>
> http://www.notonthepalouse.com/documents/Crouch_LMT_071506.pdf
>
> Let the whine flow . . .
>
> http://www.notonthepalouse.com/Wilson_MPDcomplaint_071506.pdf
>
> http://www.tomandrodna.com/stuff/Dickison_RecReq.jpg
>
> http://www.tomandrodna.com/writofmandate
>
> ----------------------
>
> There is, literally, loads and loads more, Mr. Rumelhart . . . like
> letters sent from the un-pastor to then-Governor Kempthorne and
> then-UI President White . . . Doug "Charlie Brown" Wilson's speech at
> the Public Civility Forum at the Hamilton Indoor Recreation Center a
> few years ago . . . the Great Christ Church Debate between the
> Un-Pastor and the Intoleristas' own Keely Mix on KRFP. I could go on
> and on and on and . . .
>
> I'll jus' leevya with His Whineyness' own words . . .
>
> http://www.tomandrodna.com/protest/Doug_Wilson_Liers_013107.mp3
>
> Thanks for the promo, though.
>
> image.jpeg
>
> Seeya there, Moscow.
>
> Tom Hansen
>
> Wallace, Idaho
>
> "If not us, who?
>
> If not now, when?"
>
> - Unknown
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20120325/c7bf223c/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 248047 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20120325/c7bf223c/attachment-0001.jpe>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list