Forgive me for assuming that since we had been talking specifically about elites for this whole discussion I could refer to them as people.

The people we are obviously discussing.

Yes you were the 'he' in that example and i suspected you would give a good faith answer.

I care what goes down in BFI. I just dont see any merit in discussing it here. There's also long been a good idea about keeping forums out of each others business. There's ATF if necessary

The main reason I find the continual references to BFI just super weird is that I've never posted on that forum and know nothing about it. So I don't have any way to evaluate whether any of Cuepee's claims about it are true, whether his comparisons are fair, whether the quoteless characterizations are accurate, etc. It just isn't useful as a metaphor when a lot of the people don't know anything about what is being compared to.

I haven't followed it at all closely but at some point QP was maybe trying to contrast the one-sided nature here with the similar but alternative one-sided nature somewhere else. I dont hink it's required anymore as it's not one-sided here these days. However, I can understand, if trying to make the one-sided case, then referencing a similar place taking a different side makes sense. That's a problem if there's no common reference point for the alternative side.

I think the BFI analogy is CP's idea of a teaching moment where he can explain he is always driving the absolute correct speed when criticing these forums.

I just see this constant reference as a simple daily affirmation that CP can be the chief antagonist of multiple forums.

It's a feature, not a bug.

Again there has been lots of analysis and writings on how SM and forum chat is leading to bubbles where people create false impenetrable bubbles of perception that are self reinforcing (circle jerk) and they all start to get a very inflated sense of the rightness of their positions and a growing intolerance to anyone who would pierce that bubble with contrary positions.

But worse is that those bubbles continually slide to the more and more extreme left or right of their members.

Example, is that not everyone in BFI was as extreme about Trump perfect, Obama and dirty dems (POC) bad as Toothsayer was, but since he was the most vocal there and constantly on that refrain, everyone there heard that often, and since no one refuted it (no sympathy for Obama or Dems in that forum) , many of the things he would say just seemed to get more normalized over time. So he could say 10 incredibly terrible and inaccurate things and NO ONE would call him out, but if someone like me was to rebut him and say even 1 thing considered inaccurate, suddenly others in the forum, considered more moderate would be calling the person like me out for that perceived error.

they were either so socialized to their bubble view that they did not see or did not care to see the much worse errors on the right side of the ledger while they became hyper sensitive to any perception of any error from the left side.

And yes i absolutely do understand why people in those bubbles do not want any penetration as it is much more peaceful and no one is offended. it is absolutely natural and expected that the bubbles will continue to be on a slope of greater polarization and increasing offense to penetration.

Sure thing, Don Quixote. Keep up the good work!

so was Toothsayer and group exiled from this forum before you join date?

There was no "exiled group." Toothsayer was booted before the Old Forum got nuked.

Afaik no "group" has ever been exiled from P&S.

Tooth has been perma-banned many times from many different venues, I don't know why we're talking about him here.

(Copying over from Trump thread for appropriate place to reply)


I would be interested in your answer on the below if you care to share.


Why do you think the Evangelicals as a whole have, outside a very short recent history, always typically been far more supportive of Pro Choice positions and that only changed when a few key Republican advisers trying to figure out ways to increase GOP voter turnout theorized and strategized that if they could 'weaponize Evangelical resentment over the constant losses in the courts in trying to maintain segregation and limit POC in society getting more rights', and turn that rage instead to 'anger against abortion', they could then build a loyal voting base?

We both agree that the Bible itself, cannot in any way be argued to be against abortion, when it is never directly mentioned and in fact abortions are commanded or proscribed numerous times, so where do you think this 'Evangelicals against abortion' stance came from?

Do you think it was just a way to get back at the more liberal folks who kept handing Evangelicals losses with regards to them trying so hard to keep racist policy and laws in tact to harm POC?

Lastly do you feel i have worded the above unfairly? Meaning I am over emphasizing or not being accurate or truthful in any way in describing it as such, above?

As I've said to you many times, I know basically nothing about Toothsayer. You endlessly comparing me to some inverse of him is just not informative of anything at all. I have no shared basis to understand or critique your comparisons. I did post in the forum in the era prior to politics unchained, but almost exclusively in the Israel/Palestine thread with good old Gamblor and maybe a couple other threads. I was primarily an RGT person back then.

Fair enough. I was not here then but the way it has been described to me, in this forum's threads by others, is that it was a near consuming conflict between his faction on the extreme right and others here. So i was trying to understand how you, as a poster here, and one whom i have got to know, is super drawn to picking fights with perceived 'bad people' on the right would have missed him.

I also struggle to understand how you have missed all the descriptions numerous others have given me, on more than one occasion in threads more recently explaining it and it is still some black box to you.

I also struggle to understand how you have missed all my descriptions of him and how that forum behaved.


But if you are saying he is still some great unknown to you i say 'ok', and then ask why i should care? Why do you feel the need to keep asking me this or bringing this up?

Since I am not "Evangelical", I won't speak to that group. I do have some standing to speak for Fundamentalist Baptists (currently being one myself). Historically, Baptists were for the most part apolitical. A number of events lead to more and more Baptists getting involved in politics, among them: The Civil Rights Movement, Vietnam, the banning of prayer in public schools, The Pill, and so on. This motivated Jerry Falwell to start his Moral Majority in the late 1970's. Conservative politicians recognized quickly that the Moral Majority members and their sympathizers would be extremely useful in getting them elected. (Interestingly, Senator Barry Goldwater didn't approve of courting this new voting bloc, as he thought issues like abortion shouldn't be a matter for politicians to decide.)

I don't remember agreeing with you that "The Bible itself cannot in any way be argued to be against abortion" (emphasis added). At the risk of over-simplifying a complicated issue, I'll just say that a recurring theme throughout Scripture is valuing and protecting innocent life. Perhaps no other book in history has ever even come close to the Bible in encouraging folks to help the poor, the hungry, widows, orphans, etc. (And who is more innocent than an unborn baby?)

That could certainly be the motivation of many.

I found your wording to be "fair and balanced" (to coin a phrase).

Why do you say that you are not Evangelical? I thought the word described people who want to spread the Gospel to more people, and you told me that you did (at least at times) try to talk to non-Christian friends about Jesus. Is there some other meaning of the word with which you do not identify that I'm not aware of?

The only other definition I found online was basically "someone who believes in the Gospel", which I would think describes any Christian.

Here's an article that traces the history of the term and how its definition differs between groups.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...istian/418236/

Thanks, browser.

That's a very informative article.


From the article:


The most widely accepted definition of evangelical is probably the one put forward by historian David Bebbington in 1989. It’s called the “Bebbington quadrilateral” because it identifies evangelicals as Christians who share four main qualities:

Biblicism: a high regard for the Bible

Crucicentrism: a focus on Jesus’s crucifixion and its saving effects

Conversionism: a belief that humans need to be converted

Activism: the belief that faith should influence one’s public life

In my opinion, this criteria is overall way too broad. For example, the term "evangelical" is sometimes used to distinguish a conservative Christian from a Roman Catholic.

In a smaller way, the definition is too narrow, because many Fundamentalist Baptist Churches have at least historically tended to be "separatists" in the sense that they didn't engage much in political activism. More importantly, the vast majority of Fundamentalist Baptists don't participate in parachurch organizations like The Gideon's Society.

There is a reference in the article by a similar four-point criteria put forth by the National Association of Evangelicals.


*The Bible is the highest authority for what I believe.

*It is very important for me personally to encourage non-Christians to trust Jesus Christ as their Savior.

*Jesus Christ’s death on the cross is the only sacrifice that could remove the penalty of my sin.

*Only those who trust in Jesus Christ alone as their Savior receive God's free gift of eternal salvation.


Only those who strongly agree with each of those statements should be considered “evangelical by belief,” according to the NAE.

“We’re not saying these are the only evangelicals, but we are saying this will define someone as having evangelical belief,” said Scott McConnell, vice president of LifeWay Research.

I think the N.A.E. definition is a bit more accurate in keeping with actual usage of the term.

"The bible is the highest authority for what I believe" would remove most confessing Catholics from the evangelical camp.

Anyway, by the N.A.E. definition, Baptists like myself would indeed be "evangelical." By the Beddington definition, many "separatists" (i.e. most Fundamentalist Baptists) may not be part of the group, which is why I said earlier that i was not evangelical.

Somehow, being evangelical as a matter of faith and being labeled evangelical in the political world have ended up as two different things (although with a lot of overlap). For example - The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America considers itself evangelical (it's right in the name). In no way would it consider itself as part of the group that is "evangelical" when used to describe a segment of the population by political writers in the US.

Excellent point.

Which is why the N.A.E. definition is in my opinion more accurate than the Beddington definition, because there is no reference at all to politics in the N.A.E. definition.

Both definitions are overly restrictive, IMO. I'll stick with "spreading the gospel through words and/or deeds". As far as a political definition, I wish it wasn't used that way.

SS, which part(s) of those definitions do you not identify with, if you don't mind telling us?

I agreed with the N.A.E. definition.

The purpose of the classification "evangelical" is to identify a particular demographic in polling results.

So the NAE things all fit you? Which part in the other definition doesn't fit?

So I found this pretty funny. The Pink Floyd website has been updated to show a triangle and the number 50, with rainbow stripes in the 0.

Lots of people seem to be upset that the band has gone "woke" and displaying the pride flag.

It's definitely either that or they're celebrating the 50th anniversary of their most popular album, which has always had rainbow stripes on the cover.

But how would they be expected to know that? It's only one of the most popular albums of all time, with maybe the most iconic album art of all time, and they only had since 1973 to notice.

https://twitter.com/CDCarter13/statu...BjxP4yC4Mto9Bg