Why has this gotten worse

2»

Comments

  • mousethief wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Feedback sandwiches people.

    What does that mean?

    Is it anything like a turd sandwich?

    AFF
  • It is. Think of two good things, shove your criticism in the middle.
  • This is a community of ‘Christian unrest.’ I’m pretty sure it’s in the blurb. But that’s about all I’m sure of.

    Has anyone actually defined evangelical in this thread. One of my associations is people who assume if you don’t agree with them it’s because you just haven’t got it yet so they will repeat the same thing over and over whilst failing to acknowledge that you do ‘get it’ but just don’t agree - it becomes tedious arrogance. Another association is people being so grateful for their faith & God’s love that they want others to know the same.
  • Perhaps Simon missed out the punctuation?

    'Feedback sandwiches, people?'

    Or is that a pedantic grammatical or linguistic point?

    I wonder if a feedback sandwich is similar to a 'shit-sandwich'?
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    I’d rather have a ham sandwich.
    There does seem to be a lot of confusion over what an Evangelical is. There is of course the good old pond difference. Most, not all, but most British Evos are not the right wing One you seem to have in abundance over there. They tend to lean a little more to the left. They tend to care about social justice and other big issues. Plus the small local ones as well.
    I know there are those kind one of Evo over in the US. We tend to see the former on the news not the latter
  • ....
    The issue with conservatives--and fundamentalists are conservatives using religion as a prop to justify their conservatism--is they think they know how everyone should live and sometimes some of them go to considerable length, starting with ranting and insisting everyone (but them and their cohorts) are damned, and ending in murder, terrorism, and waging war. ....

    But they only wage war on certain issues. Hardly any North American fundagelipentehostiles advocate government programs to care for the poor, or visit prisoners, or heal the sick, for example. However, government programs that force women to have babies or try to make gay people straight are perfectly acceptable to them. They don't speak out against greedy big pharma or chemical producers or sweatshop companies responsible for thousands of injuries and deaths, but they'll openly conspire to murder medical professionals who do abortions and brag about it.

    At least liberals pick and choose because they want to reduce human misery. At least Catholics are consistently pro-life. These guys are the worst cafeteria Christians - their good news is "Hey, sinners, we'll punish you in life, God will punish you after death!"

    The problem is that they set themselves up as judges - but only God can Judge, and He Judges everyone, including them.
  • Mark BettsMark Betts Shipmate
    edited April 2019
    …..Has anyone actually defined evangelical in this thread. One of my associations is people who assume if you don’t agree with them it’s because you just haven’t got it yet so they will repeat the same thing over and over whilst failing to acknowledge that you do ‘get it’ but just don’t agree - it becomes tedious arrogance.
    Such a description defines militant ultra-liberals perfectly.

  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    Actually it is about a willing engagement with arguments. People who are not prepared to do that can be found throughout the political and religious spectrums.

    When all else fails (i.e when your argument does not stand up to serious critical examination) assert, assert, assert!

    Dead Horses threads, particularly the legacy threads, are actually full of serious engagements with arguments and there are also many examples of assert, assert, assert, even when an argument has been reduced to absurdity.
  • Mark Betts wrote: »
    The problem is that they set themselves up as judges - but only God can Judge, and He Judges everyone, including them.
    'Said' by someone:" but He? That's a bit exclusive isn't it?"
  • Mark Betts wrote: »
    The problem is that they set themselves up as judges - but only God can Judge, and He Judges everyone, including them.
    'Said' by someone:" but He? That's a bit exclusive isn't it?"

    Well OK - perhaps you need to contact Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press and tell them that their Bibles are exclusive and request that they therefore amend them. I am flabbergasted to think that they could have overlooked this all these years - shame on them!
  • Mark Betts wrote: »
    …..Has anyone actually defined evangelical in this thread. One of my associations is people who assume if you don’t agree with them it’s because you just haven’t got it yet so they will repeat the same thing over and over whilst failing to acknowledge that you do ‘get it’ but just don’t agree - it becomes tedious arrogance.
    Such a description defines militant ultra-liberals perfectly.

    Militant anything. Those minds are firmly closed whatever side of the divide the person is on. But they're frantically pretending they're better than those nasty, incorrect people over there ...
  • My inner pedant wants to ask why Hugal, as, I think, a British Shipmate, is using terms like 'gotten.'

    We aren't living in either the 17th century nor Seattle ... ;).

    He'll be saying, 'I got me a ...' next.

    Just a little aside. In the British part of the UK called Northern Ireland 'gotten' is a completely normal use of contemporary English. To some British people with different linguistic uses and the mistaken idea that what others do therefore has to be incorrect, that might seem strange. But it's not wrong. I don't know where Hugal hails from but his use of 'gotten' is absolutely fine with this regular user of the phrase, among a nation of other regular users.

    Funnily enough, there's something in this argument that nicely defines one of the problems with certain kinds of fundamentalist evangelicalism!

  • mousethief wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Feedback sandwiches people.

    What does that mean?

    Maybe he meant 'sandwiches feed people'?

    I'll get me coat...
  • Sure. I was teasing again, I'm afraid.

    I have no problem whatsoever with 'gotten' being preserved in US English nor with being current in Northern Irish or other regional speech within the UK.

    I was riffing with the thing about inner pedantry. I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition, to pinch a phrase.

    Ok. I have form. I can tease and I have started Pond Wars in the past. That wasn't my intention this time hence the smiley.

    I don't know what I can do to please some posters. Probably shut the adjectival up and stop posting in Hell. Come to think of it ...

    I don't know what's more tedious, ultra-conservatives like Mark Betts whining about ultra-liberals or ultra-liberals whining about ultra-conservatives.

    From where I'm standing - or fence-sitting - one doesn't have to be that liberal to qualify as 'ultra' in Mark's book nor do you have to be that conservative to be considered as 'ultra' by other posters.

    Hugal can use 'gotten' as much as he likes. It's not down to me and that was the point of the smilie.
  • Tubbs wrote: »
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    …..Has anyone actually defined evangelical in this thread. One of my associations is people who assume if you don’t agree with them it’s because you just haven’t got it yet so they will repeat the same thing over and over whilst failing to acknowledge that you do ‘get it’ but just don’t agree - it becomes tedious arrogance.
    Such a description defines militant ultra-liberals perfectly.

    Militant anything. Those minds are firmly closed whatever side of the divide the person is on. But they're frantically pretending they're better than those nasty, incorrect people over there ...

    Also, I think it's the characteristics of the militancy which irritate the most when it concerns others, and why we're not very good at recognising our own militancy.

    Liberal militancy eg, characterised by an assumed ownership of 'common sense', 'the obvious evidence', 'intelligent reading of scripture', crusading for right and justice, and the priority of love etc, as if the evangelical church brigade are somehow incapable of these things.

    Or evangelical militancy as characterised eg, by claims to 'holiness', 'the moral high ground', 'scriptural fidelity', being in possession of a Spirit-inspired 'conscience' that won't let them think differently about certain subjects, again, as if more liberal Christians are somehow devoid of these attributes.
  • That. And as with everything else there's a sliding scale.

    There are grades and shades.
  • At the risk of telling you something you already know @Hugal, a 'shit-sandwich' is form of feedback. Hence my referencing it in relation to Simon Toad's obscure comment about feedback sandwiching people.

    With a shit sandwich you start with the good stuff, 'Your tango steps were fluid and efficient.' Then you give them the bad news, 'I would have liked to see more conviction and interaction with your dancing partner.' Then you bracket/sandwich the 'shit' with some positive feedback, 'But you've definitely improved since last week and I'm recommending you go forward to the next round of Strictly subject to the people's vote and despite what reservations those ultra-conservative evos may have about ballroom ...'
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    I currently live in London have done over 25 years. I am from Preston in North West England. I do have Irish heritage and picked a lot up from my grandad, who was from Dublin. As I said I also worked a while with some Americans my vocabulary is very mixed.
  • Beautiful, Gamma. I'm tearing up here.

    On the issue of punctuation, I tend to write using the bumps on my forehead, hangovers from my time as a gridiron player. It's hard to focus on the screen when you are face down on the keyboard. I'm surprised anything gets through.

  • But they only wage war on certain issues. Hardly any North American fundagelipentehostiles advocate government programs to care for the poor, or visit prisoners, or heal the sick, for example. However, government programs that force women to have babies or try to make gay people straight are perfectly acceptable to them. They don't speak out against greedy big pharma or chemical producers or sweatshop companies responsible for thousands of injuries and deaths, but they'll openly conspire to murder medical professionals who do abortions and brag about it.

    At least liberals pick and choose because they want to reduce human misery. At least Catholics are consistently pro-life. These guys are the worst cafeteria Christians - their good news is "Hey, sinners, we'll punish you in life, God will punish you after death!"

    Oh, of course. I have yet to see any conservative Christian pick a fight with the clothing industry or argue that wearing a cotton/polyester mix shirt is the road to hell. I don't have a Christian viewpoint, but I suspect picking and choosing from scripture to support your bigotry and phobias is not Christian behaviour.
  • Anselmina wrote: »
    Tubbs wrote: »
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    …..Has anyone actually defined evangelical in this thread. One of my associations is people who assume if you don’t agree with them it’s because you just haven’t got it yet so they will repeat the same thing over and over whilst failing to acknowledge that you do ‘get it’ but just don’t agree - it becomes tedious arrogance.
    Such a description defines militant ultra-liberals perfectly.

    Militant anything. Those minds are firmly closed whatever side of the divide the person is on. But they're frantically pretending they're better than those nasty, incorrect people over there ...

    Also, I think it's the characteristics of the militancy which irritate the most when it concerns others, and why we're not very good at recognising our own militancy.

    Liberal militancy eg, characterised by an assumed ownership of 'common sense', 'the obvious evidence', 'intelligent reading of scripture', crusading for right and justice, and the priority of love etc, as if the evangelical church brigade are somehow incapable of these things.

    Or evangelical militancy as characterised eg, by claims to 'holiness', 'the moral high ground', 'scriptural fidelity', being in possession of a Spirit-inspired 'conscience' that won't let them think differently about certain subjects, again, as if more liberal Christians are somehow devoid of these attributes.

    But they are! And if you stand too near them you'll get liberal cooties. ;)

    As one of my FB friends has just proved, you can pretty much justify anything with a few Bible verses ...
    Brexit (sorry) is God's will for the UK because < insert random Scripture here > that they found after a lot of prayer. The EU is the Devil's construct because European museums have things from Babylon in them. And we all know Babylon is very, very bad. And the flag has stars on. Which God doesn't like. So we need to lay off the marching, lobbying etc and get with the programme.

    I couldn't even ... so I bunged them on mute. And I didn't mention the raft of stuff they've got in the British Museum either.

  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    I don't know what's more tedious, ultra-conservatives like Mark Betts whining about ultra-liberals or ultra-liberals whining about ultra-conservatives.

    Heh, this is pretty much my feeling about all this. I used to worship at evangelical churches, and what would really irritate me was the attitude I would hear expressed that Catholics aren't real Christians, that they are idolators and unbiblical, and that any church that has liturgy isn't really worshipping from the heart, that it's all empty repetition. When I became Catholic (not, I might add, from any idea that Catholicism is superior to other denominations, but more because it was where I felt God leading me) I remember thinking that an advantage of Catholic worship would be that I wouldn't be always hearing that 'them and us' view of other denominations being wrong/bad. But I have heard it - from Catholics, and from Anglicans too. And I do find it tedious, whichever side it comes from.

    FWIW, re. 'gotten,' I find it's used quite a bit by younger people here in the UK. It seems that these days there is not so much of a clear line between UK and US English, as there is much more international communication. I have a friend on FB who sometimes scolds me for using what she sees as dreadful Americanisms. I always point out that I have quite a few American friends (who are also on Facebook, so she shouldn't be rude about their language), that I lived in Canada for several years and picked up certain expression there, and that half the time her idea of what constitutes an Americanism is inaccurate anyway.

  • Indeed.
  • Re gotten: In 'Mother Tongue', Bill Bryson said it is English as carried over (to |America)from here and is therefore fcorrect.
  • That ought to teach me to keep my big fat gob shut more than Leaf's scorching contribution to the Gamaliel Hell thread.

    I make a throwaway remark and everyone starts to debate it. I acknowledged I was joffing with the inner pedant trope and then everyone starts discussing US English and regional UK English usage as if this is a Purgatory thread about Webster's Dictionary, The Chicago Manual of Style (16th edition) or Hart's New Rules.

    Serves me right.

    For the record, no, I don't object to 'gotten' or 'got me a ...' . They are Americanisms. Americans are entitled to use them. So are British people or Australians, Kiwis, Canadians, South Africans, Indians, Nigerians or anyone else if they feel so inclined.

    I use Americanisms in my own speech. My comment was simply about Hugal using the term 'gotten' in the OP title as he's not American. That's all. The smilie was there to show that I wasn't making a serious point.

    Yes, I've had my arse roasted over this issue a number of times so I should have known better.
  • Y'know, GG, sometimes it's better to put down the shovel. I'm sure someone can find a ladder, or maybe a winch?
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Y'know, GG, sometimes it's better to put down the shovel. I'm sure someone can find a ladder, or maybe a winch?

    I think he's working on the theory he's dug so deep it'd be quicker to keep going and come out in Australia.
  • Fair dinkum, cobber.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    Heh, Gamma, my comment wasn't to roast your arse, but because I find discussing language differences and attitudes to them interesting. Though that is a subject for Heaven, really.

    SusanDoris, I have Bryson's Mother Tongue on my bookshelf and have long being looking forward to reading it. I wonder if that would be a book shipmates would like to read in the book club.
  • I know you weren't out to roast my arse. The point isn't that my arse is being roasted but ... oh never mind ...
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    The problem is Gamma that there is a big cross over of Shipmates between Hell and Purgatory. Discussion is inevitable.
  • Can we stop talking about roasts? I'm getting hungry...
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    Heh, I mean it's less about you than you think, Gamma. Some people got briefly annoyed with you, then we moved on, and were discussing 'gotten' more broadly. You didn't need to make another post repeating that you had no problem with the word - you'd already posted saying that.
  • But you wouldn't want to eat my roasted arse, would you, Lamb Chopped?

    I can understand Hugal preferring a ham sandwich to a shit one, but roast arse ...

    @Hugal ... granted, there are overlaps between Purgatory and Hell and discussion is inevitable. Indeed, plenty of Hellish threads end up more Purgatorial in tone. This could end up as a Heavenly one if fineline's suggestion about language comes to fruition.

    I'm sure there have already been threads about English as she is spoke.

  • Mark Betts wrote: »
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    The problem is that they set themselves up as judges - but only God can Judge, and He Judges everyone, including them.
    'Said' by someone:" but He? That's a bit exclusive isn't it?"

    Well OK - perhaps you need to contact Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press and tell them that their Bibles are exclusive and request that they therefore amend them. I am flabbergasted to think that they could have overlooked this all these years - shame on them!

    Oxford University press said it, I believe it, and that settles it!
  • I don't have a Christian viewpoint, but I suspect picking and choosing from scripture to support your bigotry and phobias is not Christian behaviour.

    On the contrary, it's as Christian as it gets, if we define "Christian" as "what Christians actually do" rather than "What Christians ought to do"


  • People diss shit sandwiches all the time Gamma, but they usually work, especially if you widen your eyes and tilt your head to one side during delivery. Plus, if someone takes offence at your criticism you get to say, 'but look at all the nice things I said about you.'

    HR strategies are usually garbage, but this strategy is a good one. It reduces conflict and there is a better chance of the shit reaching its destination. Julie Andrews did a song about it.
  • Indeed.
This discussion has been closed.