"burn your house down… brew you a cup of tea in the still-glowing embers" - good and evil in people

1234689

Comments

  • Penny SPenny S Shipmate
    edited August 2020
    So there's a boy who has this high idea of what faith entails for a good life, and he knows about these wonderful gifts. Like Alfred Doolitle, he's willing to accept them, he's wanting to accept them, he's waiting to accept them. He will even talk to others about what it would be like to accept them, to bring them in to a position to accept them for themselves.
    But every now and then, out of the blue, pop up some out of the hierarchy of those who should be in the business of encouraging people to accept those gifts, and point at him and tell lies about him, and he thinks "If a school chaplain does this, how can I trust anything I am taught?" "If a preacher does this, how can I trust anything that is told about these gifts?" "If a priest believes these lies, how can I believe that what I am told is the truth?"
    God, I am sure, will not judge the depressive who has been deliberately attacked when he is obviously in a low state, in grief for his mother, if in reaction he is crying out against the giver of the gifts he has been driven from. God can cope with it. God, also like Doolittle, is willing to give, is wanting to give, and is waiting to give. But it would be nice if He were to have a word with those of his servants who see someone down and kick him, so that the gift cannot be accepted.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Why does he even need someone to predispose him against believing the gift exists? He only has the word of the person claiming it is there. It's invisible. That's the problem here. We have not only to accept it, but also to believe it's there in the first place. And on what basis?
  • It's all in the premises, isn't it? You are sick, erm, God might help you. Ta very much. And he might not. My mum lost 2 kids, what a gift.
  • Moo wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Moo wrote: »
    Finally the present-giver lays the package at the feet of the other boy, who makes no move to pick it up or even acknowledge its existence.

    As lb says above; why do only some pick their presents up? What is the difference between the two individuals?

    Why do you care? Pick up the damn present. What somebody else chooses is somebody else's story.
    Most elements of their story - which may have a powerful influence on what they do - are not under their control (see lb's strawman example).
    How is that a strawman? It a continuation of Moo's simplistic analogy.

    Fair enough, your extension of Moo's strawman analogy - in general I agree with the critique.

    I deny that this was a strawman argument. The point was that you can't give someone a gift if they will not take it. The boy rejecting the present may have had excellent
    reasons. The fact is that he did no receive the present =. That's the point.
    One problem is that is is massively over-simplistic.
    Another is that the being responsible for the gift, the situation of offering and reception doesn't make it clear or easy for everyone.
    And a massive one is the point KarlLB has raised more than once:
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Why does he even need someone to predispose him against believing the gift exists? He only has the word of the person claiming it is there. It's invisible. That's the problem here. We have not only to accept it, but also to believe it's there in the first place. And on what basis?
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    And a massive one is the point KarlLB has raised more than once:
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Why does he even need someone to predispose him against believing the gift exists? He only has the word of the person claiming it is there. It's invisible. That's the problem here. We have not only to accept it, but also to believe it's there in the first place. And on what basis?

    And even if you take case 2 from Dafyd's post and assume that people can make a completely free choice that is unconstrained by circumstance, there is still the problem of why some accept the gift and others don't.

  • Invisibility is an asset and a deficit. On the debit side, cynics can demand to know where X is, even though it's invisible. On the plus side, it's anywhere, and the fact you can't see it, is partly because you are it. Maybe not strictly Christian, but a nice Sufi idea of "the image of God in one's heart". Still invisible, I suppose, but you can experience it.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    And a massive one is the point KarlLB has raised more than once:
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Why does he even need someone to predispose him against believing the gift exists? He only has the word of the person claiming it is there. It's invisible. That's the problem here. We have not only to accept it, but also to believe it's there in the first place. And on what basis?

    And even if you take case 2 from Dafyd's post and assume that people can make a completely free choice that is unconstrained by circumstance, there is still the problem of why some accept the gift and others don't.

    Some people can't accept love. I know this for a fact, after 30 years work as a therapist. Some of them have formed defensive armouring, to keep love out, as it brings pain and fear and awful memories. They are like the damned, but some them do soften over time, others have a break down, some die, and so forth. Of course, they are not free of circumstance, I doubt anyone is.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    And a massive one is the point KarlLB has raised more than once:
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Why does he even need someone to predispose him against believing the gift exists? He only has the word of the person claiming it is there. It's invisible. That's the problem here. We have not only to accept it, but also to believe it's there in the first place. And on what basis?

    And even if you take case 2 from Dafyd's post and assume that people can make a completely free choice that is unconstrained by circumstance, there is still the problem of why some accept the gift and others don't.
    Dafyd admits that he thinks it implausible. But even it it were and God put everyone in that place, then WTF is the point of life? WTF is the point of creation as it exists?

  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    And a massive one is the point KarlLB has raised more than once:
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Why does he even need someone to predispose him against believing the gift exists? He only has the word of the person claiming it is there. It's invisible. That's the problem here. We have not only to accept it, but also to believe it's there in the first place. And on what basis?

    And even if you take case 2 from Dafyd's post and assume that people can make a completely free choice that is unconstrained by circumstance, there is still the problem of why some accept the gift and others don't.
    Dafyd admits that he thinks it implausible. But even it it were and God put everyone in that place, then WTF is the point of life? WTF is the point of creation as it exists?

    To bring about the creation of persons beyond the Trinity, to allow the development of individuals that can love and be loved. Life is the process by which we are formed into that pattern.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    And a massive one is the point KarlLB has raised more than once:
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Why does he even need someone to predispose him against believing the gift exists? He only has the word of the person claiming it is there. It's invisible. That's the problem here. We have not only to accept it, but also to believe it's there in the first place. And on what basis?

    And even if you take case 2 from Dafyd's post and assume that people can make a completely free choice that is unconstrained by circumstance, there is still the problem of why some accept the gift and others don't.
    Dafyd admits that he thinks it implausible. But even it it were and God put everyone in that place, then WTF is the point of life? WTF is the point of creation as it exists?

    To bring about the creation of persons beyond the Trinity, to allow the development of individuals that can love and be loved. Life is the process by which we are formed into that pattern.

    But life brings that about, doesn't it? Why is the supernatural needed?
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    And a massive one is the point KarlLB has raised more than once:
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Why does he even need someone to predispose him against believing the gift exists? He only has the word of the person claiming it is there. It's invisible. That's the problem here. We have not only to accept it, but also to believe it's there in the first place. And on what basis?

    And even if you take case 2 from Dafyd's post and assume that people can make a completely free choice that is unconstrained by circumstance, there is still the problem of why some accept the gift and others don't.
    Dafyd admits that he thinks it implausible. But even it it were and God put everyone in that place, then WTF is the point of life? WTF is the point of creation as it exists?

    To bring about the creation of persons beyond the Trinity, to allow the development of individuals that can love and be loved. Life is the process by which we are formed into that pattern.
    Kinda misses the real question. In order to get to a place where people can make a completely free choice that is unconstrained by circumstance, One has to negate or neutralise all the experiences of life that would blind a person to the "gift". This negates the purpose of living and pretty much free choice.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    And a massive one is the point KarlLB has raised more than once:
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Why does he even need someone to predispose him against believing the gift exists? He only has the word of the person claiming it is there. It's invisible. That's the problem here. We have not only to accept it, but also to believe it's there in the first place. And on what basis?

    And even if you take case 2 from Dafyd's post and assume that people can make a completely free choice that is unconstrained by circumstance, there is still the problem of why some accept the gift and others don't.
    Dafyd admits that he thinks it implausible. But even it it were and God put everyone in that place, then WTF is the point of life? WTF is the point of creation as it exists?

    To bring about the creation of persons beyond the Trinity, to allow the development of individuals that can love and be loved. Life is the process by which we are formed into that pattern.

    But anything short of some form of universalism has exactly the same issue regarding the cost of this.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    And a massive one is the point KarlLB has raised more than once:
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Why does he even need someone to predispose him against believing the gift exists? He only has the word of the person claiming it is there. It's invisible. That's the problem here. We have not only to accept it, but also to believe it's there in the first place. And on what basis?

    And even if you take case 2 from Dafyd's post and assume that people can make a completely free choice that is unconstrained by circumstance, there is still the problem of why some accept the gift and others don't.
    Dafyd admits that he thinks it implausible. But even it it were and God put everyone in that place, then WTF is the point of life? WTF is the point of creation as it exists?

    To bring about the creation of persons beyond the Trinity, to allow the development of individuals that can love and be loved. Life is the process by which we are formed into that pattern.

    But life brings that about, doesn't it? Why is the supernatural needed?

    I don't think any theist ever thought in terms of why the supernatural was "needed". The supernatural IS. The question of "WTF is the point of life?" isn't about the supernatural. It is a close kin of "why does the natural world exist?" If God exists, it's not because God is needed, but because God exists. Our needs don't bring God into existence. She's already there (or not).
  • mousethief wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    And a massive one is the point KarlLB has raised more than once:
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Why does he even need someone to predispose him against believing the gift exists? He only has the word of the person claiming it is there. It's invisible. That's the problem here. We have not only to accept it, but also to believe it's there in the first place. And on what basis?

    And even if you take case 2 from Dafyd's post and assume that people can make a completely free choice that is unconstrained by circumstance, there is still the problem of why some accept the gift and others don't.
    Dafyd admits that he thinks it implausible. But even it it were and God put everyone in that place, then WTF is the point of life? WTF is the point of creation as it exists?

    To bring about the creation of persons beyond the Trinity, to allow the development of individuals that can love and be loved. Life is the process by which we are formed into that pattern.

    But life brings that about, doesn't it? Why is the supernatural needed?

    I don't think any theist ever thought in terms of why the supernatural was "needed". The supernatural IS. The question of "WTF is the point of life?" isn't about the supernatural. It is a close kin of "why does the natural world exist?" If God exists, it's not because God is needed, but because God exists. Our needs don't bring God into existence. She's already there (or not).

    Yes, fair enough. I just meant that for me, life is enough, or life is complete. There is nothing beyond.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    lb--
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    If there are conditions to salvation, it is earned. The idea of the freely offered choice that must be accepted does not change this, especially when the offerer created the whole shebang.
    Golden Key wrote: »
    For me, it means that God wants everyone to be safe, and well, and Home with her--and won't rest until that happens. No matter how much work, learning, and healing it takes.
    If this is the truth, then it is better than the private club, Say the Magic Word sort of Christianity, but your described position is still earning. And that is still problematic when the judge created the starting positions, the false paths, the pitfalls, the mountains, etc.

    IMHO, ok?

    In my chosen truth, it's NOT about earning. It's about healing. So there may be medicine to take; assorted kinds of "therapy"; helping to heal someone you've hurt, which would be good for both parties (when they're both ready and willing); maybe unstopping various kinds of creativity, love, and possibilities that you didn't get to use in your Earth life; etc.

    Not a test, not a lab experiment, not limited to Christians. And no one left out, kicked out, or locked out.

    And something about the Tolkien story I linked to, which I'll put into a spoiler box:
    Tolkien was Roman Catholic, IIRC, and Purgatory is part of that package. While the places in the story aren't labeled "Purgatory", that's clearly where most of it takes place.

    So the story has people, particularly a main character, needing to bring "luggage" with them--basically, good deeds, kindness, personal growth, etc. If someone arrives in the afterlife without them, then they have to do a lot of work and healing in order to be ready to move on. And they do move on, and wonderfully.

    I don't like the idea of needing to bring luggage. But Tolkien's Purgatory isn't a matter of "do this, or go to hell". It's more "you need treatment; you need to take it; and then you can move on".

    If anyone gets bogged down in the treatment section of the story, skip ahead towards the end.

    CS Lewis said (paraphrase) that his idea of Purg was someone coming to you (gen.) with a bottle of nasty-looking medicine; pouring a spoonful of it; and holding it out to you. "Do I have to take it?" "Yes." "Do I really have to take it?" "Yes." "Do I really, really have to take it?" "Yes." So you take it, and it's awful, but it does the job.

    FWIW, YMMV.
    In my chosen truth, it's NOT about earning. It's about healing. So there may be medicine to take; assorted kinds of "therapy"; helping to heal someone you've hurt, which would be good for both parties (when they're both ready and willing); maybe unstopping various kinds of creativity, love, and possibilities that you didn't get to use in your Earth life; etc.

    Not a test, not a lab experiment, not limited to Christians. And no one left out, kicked out, or locked out.

    This part speaks to my heart, not only the substance, but the recognition that truth is chosen; that we are interpreting the Christian Truth for our purposes in our time.

    I was musing this morning about love and its lack, about how in my life I was gifted undeserved love from friends whose trust I had repeatedly abused. The realization that this is what it was, love undeserved, founded my call back to Christian faith. This morning while shaving I thought/remembered that this is the climax of salvation history - an act of undeserved love. Its not enough to drag us all into the light, but it sits there as a story in the background of our lives, waiting to be discovered again.

    It struck me that the conversion moment, practiced in the church of my youth as an (IMHO abusive) attempt to provoke a crisis and offer Christ as the way out, is not that at all. Rather, a conversion moment happens internally, when we recognise that we are loved despite ourselves. Perhaps evangelism really is about seeking to accept and know the people in front of us for themselves, whether they tell crap jokes or not; whether they interrupt us when we speak or not; whether they express unacceptable views or not; whether they smell, whether they smoke, whether they make the same mistake over and over again. Perhaps the coming of the Kingdom is not about spreading the doctrines and practices of our faith, or even in telling the story of Jesus, but just in the act of seeking to know and accept the people we come across for themselves. By doing this, other people might come to feel that they too are loved.

    I feel like this is an obligatory health warning: you are not required to stay in situations or relationships that are damaging to you.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    And a massive one is the point KarlLB has raised more than once:
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Why does he even need someone to predispose him against believing the gift exists? He only has the word of the person claiming it is there. It's invisible. That's the problem here. We have not only to accept it, but also to believe it's there in the first place. And on what basis?

    And even if you take case 2 from Dafyd's post and assume that people can make a completely free choice that is unconstrained by circumstance, there is still the problem of why some accept the gift and others don't.
    Dafyd admits that he thinks it implausible. But even it it were and God put everyone in that place, then WTF is the point of life? WTF is the point of creation as it exists?

    To bring about the creation of persons beyond the Trinity, to allow the development of individuals that can love and be loved. Life is the process by which we are formed into that pattern.

    But life brings that about, doesn't it? Why is the supernatural needed?

    I don't think any theist ever thought in terms of why the supernatural was "needed". The supernatural IS. The question of "WTF is the point of life?" isn't about the supernatural. It is a close kin of "why does the natural world exist?" If God exists, it's not because God is needed, but because God exists. Our needs don't bring God into existence. She's already there (or not).
    There are a number of religions that present as: This is the way it is: Deal
    But Christianity present as: This is the way it is because God Loves you And that is a different kettle of fish and loaves.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    And a massive one is the point KarlLB has raised more than once:
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Why does he even need someone to predispose him against believing the gift exists? He only has the word of the person claiming it is there. It's invisible. That's the problem here. We have not only to accept it, but also to believe it's there in the first place. And on what basis?

    And even if you take case 2 from Dafyd's post and assume that people can make a completely free choice that is unconstrained by circumstance, there is still the problem of why some accept the gift and others don't.
    Dafyd admits that he thinks it implausible. But even it it were and God put everyone in that place, then WTF is the point of life? WTF is the point of creation as it exists?

    To bring about the creation of persons beyond the Trinity, to allow the development of individuals that can love and be loved. Life is the process by which we are formed into that pattern.

    But life brings that about, doesn't it? Why is the supernatural needed?

    I don't think any theist ever thought in terms of why the supernatural was "needed". The supernatural IS. The question of "WTF is the point of life?" isn't about the supernatural. It is a close kin of "why does the natural world exist?" If God exists, it's not because God is needed, but because God exists. Our needs don't bring God into existence. She's already there (or not).
    There are a number of religions that present as: This is the way it is: Deal
    But Christianity present as: This is the way it is because God Loves you And that is a different kettle of fish and loaves.

    What does this have to do with what I said?
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    And a massive one is the point KarlLB has raised more than once:
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Why does he even need someone to predispose him against believing the gift exists? He only has the word of the person claiming it is there. It's invisible. That's the problem here. We have not only to accept it, but also to believe it's there in the first place. And on what basis?

    And even if you take case 2 from Dafyd's post and assume that people can make a completely free choice that is unconstrained by circumstance, there is still the problem of why some accept the gift and others don't.
    Dafyd admits that he thinks it implausible. But even it it were and God put everyone in that place, then WTF is the point of life? WTF is the point of creation as it exists?

    To bring about the creation of persons beyond the Trinity, to allow the development of individuals that can love and be loved. Life is the process by which we are formed into that pattern.

    But life brings that about, doesn't it? Why is the supernatural needed?

    I don't think any theist ever thought in terms of why the supernatural was "needed". The supernatural IS. The question of "WTF is the point of life?" isn't about the supernatural. It is a close kin of "why does the natural world exist?" If God exists, it's not because God is needed, but because God exists. Our needs don't bring God into existence. She's already there (or not).
    There are a number of religions that present as: This is the way it is: Deal
    But Christianity present as: This is the way it is because God Loves you And that is a different kettle of fish and loaves.

    I've just finished Doris Lessing's "The Making of the Representative for Planet 8". In place of God (perhaps) Lessing's cosmology has Canopus, in fact a species that orders itself according to a never-defined "necessity". Canopus guides and teaches Planet 8. When the planet is about to go into an Ice Age and extinguish its present crop of species, Canopus instructs the people to build a wall to their specifications around the planet. The idea was to protect the people from the glacial north so that Canopus could return and take them to a new home. But that plan is foiled, and Canopus does not come.

    The book is about the extinction of the people, what it might be like to know that not only you, but everything in your world will be no more. In the last days, Canopus comes in the form of Johor. Johor comes not to save, but to be present with the people and to die with them. He comes to evoke stories of their lives, and to listen. To their questions of why, he gives no answer.

    I like to think that God would do that, if it was necessary.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    I hesitated to resurrect this thread, but I came across an incident that seems on point. Thom Brennaman, a sportscaster for the Cincinnati Reds, was caught on a hot mic (which he thought was off) calling some city "one of the [ homophobic slur ] capitals of the world". This caused him to be yanked mid-game, though he was allowed the dignity of a parting apology.
    I made a comment earlier tonight that I guess went out over the air that I am deeply ashamed of. If I have hurt anyone out there, I can't tell you how much I say from the bottom of my heart I'm so very, very sorry. I pride myself and think of myself as a man of faith - as there's a drive into deep left field by Castellanos that will be a home run. And so that will make it a four-nothing ballgame. I don't know if I'm gonna be putting on this headset again. I don't know if it's gonna be for the Reds. I don't know if it's gonna be for my bosses at Fox. I want to apologize for the people who sign my paycheck - for the Reds, for Fox Sports Ohio, for the people I work with, for anybody that I've offended here tonight. I can't begin to tell you how deeply sorry I am. That is not who I am. It never has been. And I'd like to think maybe I could have some people ... that could back that up. I am very, very sorry, and I beg for your forgiveness.

    First off, the implication that if one is "a man of faith" there's no way he could be homophobic is . . . at odds with most of history and current reality.

    But what I mostly wanted to focus on was his claim "That is not who I am. It never has been." Brennaman is asking us to believe him rather than our lying ears, since he was clearly heard using a homophobic slur so he obviously is the kind of person who would use homophobic slurs. If that's not Brennaman on the air saying that, who was it?

    This gets back to the claim some earlier posters made that we shouldn't judge people by their bad acts because there's more to them than just those acts. Which is true enough; Thom Brennaman isn't just a guy who uses homophobic slurs on live television. But he is a guy who who uses homophobic slurs on live television. Demonstrably so. Claiming "that is not who I am" is an attempt to deny that reality. That's always been one of my concerns about the dismissal of people's bad acts being a way to pretend they didn't happen at all. I will say that usually what someone says in an unguarded moment of (presumed) privacy is a more sincere reflection of who they are than when they're making a public plea to keep their job.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    I hesitated to resurrect this thread, but I came across an incident that seems on point. Thom Brennaman, a sportscaster for the Cincinnati Reds, was caught on a hot mic (which he thought was off) calling some city "one of the [ homophobic slur ] capitals of the world". This caused him to be yanked mid-game, though he was allowed the dignity of a parting apology.
    I made a comment earlier tonight that I guess went out over the air that I am deeply ashamed of. If I have hurt anyone out there, I can't tell you how much I say from the bottom of my heart I'm so very, very sorry. I pride myself and think of myself as a man of faith - as there's a drive into deep left field by Castellanos that will be a home run. And so that will make it a four-nothing ballgame. I don't know if I'm gonna be putting on this headset again. I don't know if it's gonna be for the Reds. I don't know if it's gonna be for my bosses at Fox. I want to apologize for the people who sign my paycheck - for the Reds, for Fox Sports Ohio, for the people I work with, for anybody that I've offended here tonight. I can't begin to tell you how deeply sorry I am. That is not who I am. It never has been. And I'd like to think maybe I could have some people ... that could back that up. I am very, very sorry, and I beg for your forgiveness.

    First off, the implication that if one is "a man of faith" there's no way he could be homophobic is . . . at odds with most of history and current reality.

    But what I mostly wanted to focus on was his claim "That is not who I am. It never has been." Brennaman is asking us to believe him rather than our lying ears, since he was clearly heard using a homophobic slur so he obviously is the kind of person who would use homophobic slurs. If that's not Brennaman on the air saying that, who was it?

    This gets back to the claim some earlier posters made that we shouldn't judge people by their bad acts because there's more to them than just those acts. Which is true enough; Thom Brennaman isn't just a guy who uses homophobic slurs on live television. But he is a guy who who uses homophobic slurs on live television. Demonstrably so. Claiming "that is not who I am" is an attempt to deny that reality. That's always been one of my concerns about the dismissal of people's bad acts being a way to pretend they didn't happen at all. I will say that usually what someone says in an unguarded moment of (presumed) privacy is a more sincere reflection of who they are than when they're making a public plea to keep their job.
    Well, he could have meant "I'm not the kind of person who would use that word knowing the mic was hot."

    But no, he seems to be going with some kind of plea for actual innocence. In a second, follow-up apology, he made the ludicrous claim that "In the past 24 hours, I have read about [the word's] history; I had no idea it was so rooted in hate and violence..." as if somehow he was a 6-year-old child and not a grown-ass 56-year-old man.
  • Dave W wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    I hesitated to resurrect this thread, but I came across an incident that seems on point. Thom Brennaman, a sportscaster for the Cincinnati Reds, was caught on a hot mic (which he thought was off) calling some city "one of the [ homophobic slur ] capitals of the world". This caused him to be yanked mid-game, though he was allowed the dignity of a parting apology.
    I made a comment earlier tonight that I guess went out over the air that I am deeply ashamed of. If I have hurt anyone out there, I can't tell you how much I say from the bottom of my heart I'm so very, very sorry. I pride myself and think of myself as a man of faith - as there's a drive into deep left field by Castellanos that will be a home run. And so that will make it a four-nothing ballgame. I don't know if I'm gonna be putting on this headset again. I don't know if it's gonna be for the Reds. I don't know if it's gonna be for my bosses at Fox. I want to apologize for the people who sign my paycheck - for the Reds, for Fox Sports Ohio, for the people I work with, for anybody that I've offended here tonight. I can't begin to tell you how deeply sorry I am. That is not who I am. It never has been. And I'd like to think maybe I could have some people ... that could back that up. I am very, very sorry, and I beg for your forgiveness.

    First off, the implication that if one is "a man of faith" there's no way he could be homophobic is . . . at odds with most of history and current reality.

    But what I mostly wanted to focus on was his claim "That is not who I am. It never has been." Brennaman is asking us to believe him rather than our lying ears, since he was clearly heard using a homophobic slur so he obviously is the kind of person who would use homophobic slurs. If that's not Brennaman on the air saying that, who was it?

    This gets back to the claim some earlier posters made that we shouldn't judge people by their bad acts because there's more to them than just those acts. Which is true enough; Thom Brennaman isn't just a guy who uses homophobic slurs on live television. But he is a guy who who uses homophobic slurs on live television. Demonstrably so. Claiming "that is not who I am" is an attempt to deny that reality. That's always been one of my concerns about the dismissal of people's bad acts being a way to pretend they didn't happen at all. I will say that usually what someone says in an unguarded moment of (presumed) privacy is a more sincere reflection of who they are than when they're making a public plea to keep their job.
    Well, he could have meant "I'm not the kind of person who would use that word knowing the mic was hot."

    But no, he seems to be going with some kind of plea for actual innocence. In a second, follow-up apology, he made the ludicrous claim that "In the past 24 hours, I have read about [the word's] history; I had no idea it was so rooted in hate and violence..." as if somehow he was a 6-year-old child and not a grown-ass 56-year-old man.

    Brings to mind that famous radio guy, Don Imus,
    who was heard commenting on a college women's basketball team,
    "a lot of nappy-headed hos" there ...

    It essentially ended his career in 2007 ...
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited August 2020
    Crœsos wrote: »
    I hesitated to resurrect this thread, but I came across an incident that seems on point. Thom Brennaman, a sportscaster for the Cincinnati Reds, was caught on a hot mic (which he thought was off) calling some city "one of the [ homophobic slur ] capitals of the world". This caused him to be yanked mid-game, though he was allowed the dignity of a parting apology.
    I made a comment earlier tonight that I guess went out over the air that I am deeply ashamed of. If I have hurt anyone out there, I can't tell you how much I say from the bottom of my heart I'm so very, very sorry. I pride myself and think of myself as a man of faith - as there's a drive into deep left field by Castellanos that will be a home run. And so that will make it a four-nothing ballgame. I don't know if I'm gonna be putting on this headset again. I don't know if it's gonna be for the Reds. I don't know if it's gonna be for my bosses at Fox. I want to apologize for the people who sign my paycheck - for the Reds, for Fox Sports Ohio, for the people I work with, for anybody that I've offended here tonight. I can't begin to tell you how deeply sorry I am. That is not who I am. It never has been. And I'd like to think maybe I could have some people ... that could back that up. I am very, very sorry, and I beg for your forgiveness.
    I think he should have reversed the italicised words in the part I bolded.
    Less sarcastically, I think his apology came from his wallet.
    Fixed broken quoting code. BroJames, Purgatory Host
  • I heard about that guy. I don't know anything about him, whether this is typical of him and the mike just happened to catch it; or if he's mostly been in settings where the slur is a normal word and no one (straight) really thinks about it--the way some people swear routinely and don't think about it at all.

    He might be lying; or working it out aloud; or he may have done one bad thing he normally doesn't do, without any conscious choice--and now, he's totally startled and confused.

    Whatever the truth is, he said something awful.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Brings to mind that famous radio guy, Don Imus,
    who was heard commenting on a college women's basketball team,
    "a lot of nappy-headed hos" there ...

    It essentially ended his career in 2007 ...

    By "ended his career" @Fr Teilhard means "had to take an eight month vacation before taking a job at a different broadcaster". Imus continued to work in broadcasting until retiring in 2018, just shy of his 78th birthday. He died about a year and a half later.
    Golden Key wrote: »
    I heard about that guy. I don't know anything about him, whether this is typical of him and the mike just happened to catch it; or if he's mostly been in settings where the slur is a normal word and no one (straight) really thinks about it--the way some people swear routinely and don't think about it at all.

    If that's the case then maybe a job in broadcasting doesn't really suit Mr. Brennaman.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    Whatever the truth is, he said something awful.

    Yep. And now that one slip, that one careless moment, is going to become the defining moment of his whole life in the public perception.

    We should all thank god above that our own careless moments don’t come at so high a price. And maybe have a little sympathy for those whose do.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Whatever the truth is, he said something awful.

    Yep. And now that one slip, that one careless moment, is going to become the defining moment of his whole life in the public perception.

    This is a well-known hazard of working in live television, Mr. Brennaman's chosen career. If you don't want your use of [ racial / gender / homophobic ] slurs to become public knowledge, either don't use them at all, don't use them on air, or consider a job that doesn't involve publicly broadcasting everything you say for several hours every Reds game night.
  • Fr TeilhardFr Teilhard Shipmate
    edited August 2020
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Brings to mind that famous radio guy, Don Imus,
    who was heard commenting on a college women's basketball team,
    "a lot of nappy-headed hos" there ...

    It essentially ended his career in 2007 ...

    By "ended his career" @Fr Teilhard means "had to take an eight month vacation before taking a job at a different broadcaster". Imus continued to work in broadcasting until retiring in 2018, just shy of his 78th birthday. He died about a year and a half later.

    Don Imus never again had the glowing reputation that he had before he was caught ... He lost $$$ and status over his self revelation ...

    Fixed broken quoting code. BroJames, Purgatory Host
  • And now is the time for an instructive story from those old "blooper" (/mistake) tapes that used to be sold on TV.

    Went something like:

    Narrator: You remember that kids' show host from the Golden Age Of Radio, who thought the microphone was off?

    Host, at end of show: Are we off the air? Good! That ought to hold the little {bleepers}!
  • An old old comedy album -- "The Buttoned Down Mind of Bob Newhart" -- had a wonderful skit about the "Uncle Freddie Show" ...

    A young listener of tender age wrote in about having sent in his entry to win the Secret Decoder Ring and Three Rooms of Carpeting ... but in the mail instead he received some "pictures of older girls, in sort of bathing suits" ... Uncle Freddie explained that this was a little service he provided for the older boys and girls ...
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    That was supposedly Don Carney, host of a children's radio show in New York between 1928 and 1947. Sadly, it seems it's just an urban legend.
  • I'm guessing the broadcasting setup at the stadium doesn't have a built-in delay of a few seconds, so any forbidden words/comments can be bleeped out before the audience hears them?

    AIUI, that's required in regular live radio shows, and I've heard it used many times--generally, if a guest is startled, or a caller is really upset.

    Though for sports, a slightly-delayed play by play broadcast could be irritating for the fans in the stands.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    I think his apology came from his wallet.

    Fabulous imagery. Quotes file.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    Whatever the truth is, he said something awful.

    Yep. And now that one slip, that one careless moment, is going to become the defining moment of his whole life in the public perception.

    We should all thank god above that our own careless moments don’t come at so high a price. And maybe have a little sympathy for those whose do.

    1. Boo
    2. Fucking
    3. Hoo
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Quite. Carelessness + being the sort of person who uses slurs like that in the first place.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Quite. Carelessness + being the sort of person who uses slurs like that in the first place.

    BINGO
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    Whatever the truth is, he said something awful.

    Yep. And now that one slip, that one careless moment, is going to become the defining moment of his whole life in the public perception.

    We should all thank god above that our own careless moments don’t come at so high a price. And maybe have a little sympathy for those whose do.
    Everyone makes mistakes, but if one is not the sort of person who uses slurs, that is one mistake they will not make.

  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited August 2020
    Adding, he had the moment, twice, to confess and contextualise. He chose to apologise to his employer. It does not suggest he was sorry for what he said as much as he was for being caught.
    People make mistakes all the time, it is in the way they handle the aftermath that defines who they are. Thus far, he has failed.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Adding, he had the moment, twice, to confess and contextualise. He chose to apologise to his employer. It does not suggest he was sorry for what he said as much as he was for being caught.
    People make mistakes all the time, it is in the way they handle the aftermath that defines who they are. Thus far, he has failed.

    William Jefferson "Slick Willie" Clinton ...
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Adding, he had the moment, twice, to confess and contextualise. He chose to apologise to his employer. It does not suggest he was sorry for what he said as much as he was for being caught.
    People make mistakes all the time, it is in the way they handle the aftermath that defines who they are. Thus far, he has failed.

    William Jefferson "Slick Willie" Clinton ...
    You know that doesn't make any actual point?
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Adding, he had the moment, twice, to confess and contextualise. He chose to apologise to his employer. It does not suggest he was sorry for what he said as much as he was for being caught.
    People make mistakes all the time, it is in the way they handle the aftermath that defines who they are. Thus far, he has failed.

    William Jefferson "Slick Willie" Clinton ...
    You know that doesn't make any actual point?

    "Slick Willie" was *repentant* when he was CAUGHT ...
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Adding, he had the moment, twice, to confess and contextualise. He chose to apologise to his employer. It does not suggest he was sorry for what he said as much as he was for being caught.
    People make mistakes all the time, it is in the way they handle the aftermath that defines who they are. Thus far, he has failed.

    William Jefferson "Slick Willie" Clinton ...
    You know that doesn't make any actual point?

    "Slick Willie" was *repentant* when he was CAUGHT ...
    Again, so what? What does that have to do with the discussion of the announcer about whom we are speaking?
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Whatever the truth is, he said something awful.

    Yep. And now that one slip, that one careless moment, is going to become the defining moment of his whole life in the public perception.

    We should all thank god above that our own careless moments don’t come at so high a price. And maybe have a little sympathy for those whose do.

    1. Boo
    2. Fucking
    3. Hoo

    Have you never had a careless moment yourself? Never said something that others may find offensive?
  • RussRuss Deckhand, Styx
    I suspect all of us practice a degree of self-censorship, both to avoid hurting those we care about, and to be seen to live up to our ideals.

    And that the profession of radio commentator requires a certain lack of reticence - a mode of operation in which one's reactions to the game get vocalised spontaneously.

    Failing to switch out of that mode when the game is over or paused and one's attention turns to other matters is probably an occupational hazard.

    To say that a man in his fifties has lived through changes in attitudes to homosexuality shouldn't be any great revelation. Of course he has some patterns of thought in his head that are from how society was fifty years ago and are considered socially unacceptable now.

    Quite why this guy is being discussed on a thread about evildoers isn't clear...
  • Russ wrote: »
    Quite why this guy is being discussed on a thread about evildoers isn't clear...

    Because saying something someone else finds offensive is an evil for which no punishment can possibly be too much, and that once done automatically overrides everything else that person may ever have done.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited August 2020
    Russ wrote: »
    Quite why this guy is being discussed on a thread about evildoers isn't clear...

    Because saying something someone else finds offensive is an evil for which no punishment can possibly be too much, and that once done automatically overrides everything else that person may ever have done.

    Rather, using a term that shows that you hold millions of people in utter contempt may indicate that you're not an ideal representative for an entity which doesn't want to alienate those millions of people.

    It's not "just a slip". It's on a par with referring to Golders Green as "K*** central".
  • RussRuss Deckhand, Styx
    KarlLB wrote: »
    It's not "just a slip". It's on a par with referring to Golders Green as "K*** central".

    The word "K***" is in your vocabulary. You have just used it, having carefully considered how to avoid giving offence, to make a point. Which is fine. You've made clear both your point and that no offence is intended.

    If - in circumstances involving some level of pressure, or some level of alcohol consumption, or both together - you were to find that it had somehow bypassed your conscious consideration and been uttered by you, thereby causing offence to a Jewish person in your vicinity, that would be a slip-up. It would not mean you're a horrible person - you're not.

    Marvin is just suggesting that you apply to others the same level of sympathetic understanding that you would like others to apply to you in those circumstances.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    No. The K-word is not a word I ever use apart from as an example of a word I wouldn't use, paradox notwithstanding. It is most definitely not something that might slip out if my filters were down, because it wouldn't be there to be filtered in the first place, on account of my not being antisemetic.
  • It must be nice being so perfect. Still, try to spare a thought for those of us who do actually make mistakes from time to time.
  • Yeah well -- think it may be at-will firing and the rights of employers vs their employees that you may want to look at there.
  • Re Bill Clinton:

    He did many awful things, treated his wife despicably, and was part of dragging America through the muck. (Those who'd been after him for years for anything they could come up with bear at least 50% responsibility.)

    He also got into therapy, and publicly admitted he's a sex addict.
Sign In or Register to comment.