Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 06/28/20 in all areas

  1. Dude tracks the rise of the concept of Mao's "political correctness", with the rise of it in the western world. He's not comparing Mao at his height (or depth) with US today, he's comparing Mao's early developing years with the US today.
    5 points
  2. Excellent counsel as received from Elder Bednar:
    1 point
  3. I listened again to Elder Bednar's talk from this last GC about the importance of temples and the work for the dead. As I thought about this topic and how the earth would be wasted at the Second Coming without it (pretty serious stuff right) but then how the Lord allowed this virus to spread and effectively stop all temple work for the dead around the world it suddenly put what we are going through in a new light. Two thoughts came to mind. 1. It seems to me that whatever the Lord intends the potential outcome of all this to be must be pretty darn important to be worth stopping temple work for the dead (not to say anything about the missionary work slow down). Yes we can still get names ready but the Church has never suffered for lack of names. So while what Elder Bednar says here is really important is it important enough to bring about the stoppage of this work? If so then we sure should give it extreme consideration. If not then what else is at work here? 2. Considering the importance of what has been paused due to covid-19 how long can we reasonably expect it to last? People keep talking about a "new normal" but it seems to me that new normal restrictions would greatly hinder temple work even if it did start again. So again, is the reason behind all of this worth a long term slowing in temple work or can we expect this issue to be largely resolved in the not too distant future? My personal opinion is that there is more to what's going on then what we currently see. What exactly I don't know. And I do believe that one way or another this isn't going to be a long term issue we have to deal with. There is far too much work we have ahead of us to accomplish. But that's just my opinion.
    1 point
  4. Our funds seem to have been well spent. I actually don’t mind the Church’s donation—it seems to have been for a good cause. But it’s a lot of fun to see a group of people who were dedicated to using SJW-theory to make life a living hell for the people they perceived as too “establishment”, self-destruct after all the accusatory torpedoes they’ve launched over the years (“discrimination!” “Nepotism!” “Wrong pronouns!” “Cis privilege!” “Lack of diversity!” “Talking over minorities during meetings!” “Microaggressions!” “Lack of transparency!”) circle back against themselves. How do you like that guillotine now, Citizen Robespierre?
    1 point
  5. Carborendum

    So It Begins

    Not really, but I'll listen. Understood. Yes. Some, yes. But many American slaves (and hirelings) fought on the American side as well. That is an interpretation with problems. No one ever asked him. And he never told anyone about the meaning. e.g. Was it about those "trying to escape"? Or was it simply about the entire British army (which were commonly called an army of "hirelings and slaves" because it was mostly true). They were the enemy after all. As for the "gunning down..." Should they only fight with nerf pellets? Where does it refer to those in the act of escaping being "gunned down"? That's just creative excrement dressed up to look like liberal wokeness. Where is the proof that this is what was intended? Words mean something. While that is interesting historical information (albeit biased and incomplete) that really doesn't change what I said. 1. If you take out the word "slave" from that line, is there ANY connection to that historical background that you're talking about? So, it is just "one word." Sure, you could make some argument for "hireling". But that actually refers to hirelings who were not black and not slaves equally. It really is a generic reference to all hirelings. In other words, it is raceless. So, how is that racist? 2. As it stands now, what is racist about the lyrics themselves? It apparently references accurate historical information. How is relating accurate historical information somehow racist? 3. It actually speaks positively about the slave as a thinking, moral person who has struggles and difficult choices to make. How is that racist? Is there anything derogatory about it? Is there some carelessness about it? Does it praise slavery as an institution? No, it is actually focusing on their plight. And you want to call it racist because of that? 4. There were slaves and hirelings on both sides. Which ones was he referring to? NO ONE KNOWS. No one asked. And he never told anyone. The phrase "hireling and slave" was a common epithet leveled at the ENTIRE British army. That they were only fighting because they were hired or bought to do that job. Whereas (the intent of the song) the American armies had a much nobler cause of defending their homes and families. But we don't know which he meant. IN THE END, given the broader context of the song and the history surrounding it, the complaint is only about the use of a single word. There is no offense in using the word. It was actually very inclusive to show that they were part of the battle. I'd like to point out the contradiction here. One major complaint from liberals is that we have a cultural denial regarding slavery -- we want to forget slavery ever happened. We try to brush it under the rug. But then you want to remove the national anthem because "gasp" we dare mention slavery in our national anthem? I thought the idea was that we were supposed to be open and honest about our slavery past. So, are we supposed to admit it happened in proper historical context? Or are we supposed to erase all memory of it? SPECIAL NOTE: Scott, I'd ask you to consider the rest of my OP. You can point to this one sentence and debate that all you want. But the grander point I'm making is that the US is about to fall to a rebellion and destroy the Contitution to replace it with a government very similar to what the Russians have right now. Do you really want that? I know you said that you don't believe in toppling statues, etc. But to ignore the rest of my post just so you can argue about a single word (which is what I was originally rolling my eyes at) is missing the forest for the trees. Don't be so blinded by partisanship as to buy into the idea that the US is done and it is time for a new empire. Voting for your candidate of choice is one thing. But to decide to destroy the system altogether? The nation is at a tipping point, and you're arguing about the background of a single word being "offensive". If it meant getting rid of any and all "protected classes of people" in the law, to preserve the Constitution, would you accept that?
    1 point
  6. Well, considering Gomer Pyle was played by gay actor Jim Nabors . . .
    0 points
  7. A few more months like this, dear Vort, and schadenfreude will be pretty much all any of us have got left.
    0 points
  8. Schadenfreude is beneath you, JAG. (I know this because I can see you up there.)
    0 points