31–40 of 44 posts
It's only a sidenote in the article but I'm kind of interested in the part where facebook are taking qanon pages down. Which ones and with what justification?
Wouldn't the justification be that it is their platform and they are not required to permit free speech?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whataboutism isn't productive. Best to have conversations about the topic at hand or create a new one if you want to bemoan BLM twitter posts.
As I understood it, they're not bemoaning BLM twitter, but the (supposed) double standard.
"Evangelicals" is large group of people with a lot of different backgrounds. As with all groups let us take this with a grain of salt. I do know a dozen evangelicals that know about Qanon but I know far more that don't have a clue what Qanon is.
It's pretty sad how underdeveloped the BS detectors of a lot of people are. I find it hard to understand how people can fall for QAnon but then I also find it hard to understand how anybody can be swayed by campaign speeches or political advertising but obviously these things work.
These are things that are difficult to verify but that we take by faith from reliable institutions (the more inquisitive and those with the privilege to be able to do so would have independently verified a couple of these claims and taken the rest on faith). And there are also many seemingly reliable institutions that mix up falsehoods and unsubstantiated claims among the more readily verifiable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every religion is based on faith, in the exact way you portrayed it. Faith by definition regards things that cannot be proven. If they could be proven, it would be knowledge, not faith.
Exactly, but I wonder how does affect the mind of a child, being raised for years into believing something that cannot be proved and getting reprimanded (often punished in the past) for questioning it. Would an atheist be a better leader? In my opinion yes, but cannot prove it. What I'm sure about is that being educated into not questioning beliefs imposed from above makes people more easy to herd by bad leaders. I w…
What I've struggled with for a long time is the realization that the person I was, believing all of that, wasn't some brainwashed religious nutjob. I was just as 'rational' then as I am now.
Even worse, if I'm fully honest with myself the paradigm shift wasn't primarily a result of my own rational thinking, but significantly affected by social issues that made it hard for me to keep sweeping various realizations under the rug. If not for the non-rational issues, I might've still been convinced born-again evangelical christian.
I don't think that, day to day, an atheist is a better leader than, say, a born-again evangelical christian. In my experience the quality of a leader is largely unrelated to the 'paradigm' they buy into. There are so many aspects to being a 'good' leader that are entirely unrelated to the version of reality one ascribes to.
Where I /do/ think there's a really issue, is that by and large born-again evangelical christians are less 'anarchic' than atheists in their approach to leadership, and that they tend to operate in environments that are more homogenous. So it's possible that a terrible evangelical leader gets away with it because they keep moving within a very homogenous environment.
but I'd argue that this problem is possibly just as much the case with particular SV-style leaders. Or C-level people in a broader sense. I more than once felt that the processes that led to certain people occupying high-level positions in the companies I worked it were not that different from what I experienced back when I was 'in the fold'.
Perhaps it's not the same, but I'd definitely argue that it's a blind spot for 'atheists'. The idea that somehow they are not as susceptible to the dynamics of, among others, the Evanglicals.
"Evangelicals" is large group of people with a lot of different backgrounds. As with all groups let us take this with a grain of salt. I do know a dozen evangelicals that know about Qanon but I know far more that don't have a clue what Qanon is.
The term seems to be used as a catch all for trump’s base
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The term seems to be used as a catch all for trump’s base
Which is not entirely fair, speaking as an ex-evangelical. Plenty of fully dedicated evangelicals disapprove of Trump. And while a disappointing number of them do approve, it's by no means a unified base.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is not entirely fair, speaking as an ex-evangelical. Plenty of fully dedicated evangelicals disapprove of Trump. And while a disappointing number of them do approve, it's by no means a unified base.
I've met both kinds of Evangelicals. I think we need to figure out a term to differentiate between the normal Evangelicals and this strange subset of American Evangelicalism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've met both kinds of Evangelicals. I think we need to figure out a term to differentiate between the normal Evangelicals and this strange subset of American Evangelicalism.
Support for Trump among Evangelicals has always remained steady at or slightly above 80%. The "strange subset" of Evangelicals are the ones who don't support him, the "normal" ones are the ones who do, by a wide margin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've met both kinds of Evangelicals. I think we need to figure out a term to differentiate between the normal Evangelicals and this strange subset of American Evangelicalism.
Support for Trump among Evangelicals has always remained steady at or slightly above 80%. The "strange subset" of Evangelicals are the ones who don't support him, the "normal" ones are the ones who do, by a wide margin.
The word "subset" did trip me up for a second though.