Dewey's post
-
@taiwan_girl said in Dewey's post:
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@taiwan_girl said in Dewey's post:
For me, a minister is no more or no less perfect than me or anybody else.
They are in a position to be more hypocritical than anybody else. That hypocrisy is what I'm attempting to examine.
Seems like everyday, worldwide (for example monks in Thailand or Taiwan, ministers in the US, etc.) religious people break either moral or legal laws. Again, they are just ordinary people.
Just like ordinary people. LOL I remember having a discussion about religion with some friends, and one of them said that they remember their priest saying something like, "Christianity seems to end in the parking lot". It was meant as a joke that people are getting mad at each other in the parking lot because someone cut someone else off, took their spot, etc. but there is some truth to it.
As I said, I am not very religious but it seems that alot of religious people (again, worldwide, not just US christians) seem to think that they have a higher "moral" standing because of that. I dont agree with that and dont believe that, so maybe that is another reason why Dewey's post did not bother me. Maybe he will look back and say, "yup, I probably could have done that differently." Maybe not.
I think maybe I overstated the degree to which I'm interrogating your personal emotional reaction. I don't care about that. I was looking for some acknowledgment of an hypocrisy from a man who I'm very sure lives a life meant to convey he is above that sort of thing. But please don't overestimate the degree to which I'm looking to pry that acknowledgment out of you, personally. You are free to have your own view on everything, as always.
-
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
He wasn't really a religious person at all; the whole subject only mattered to him insofar as it bolstered his extreme right-wing politics.
One of the little peccadillos of (some/many) Protestants is to step into the shoes of God Almighty and declare judgement on some other Protestants that aren’t in full theological agreement as “unsaved” and “unbelieving.” This may be the case with Dewey here. I didn’t follow the Larry-Dewey wars all that closely but I’m sure Larry had a similar pronouncement. (As a Catholic I don’t get into these internecine arguments and actually the one thing that just about all these Protestants agree on is that Catholics are “unsaved” and “unbelieving.”) Anyway, I do take issue here with Dewey’s appraisal. I remember when Wacky Iraqi was on the board and had terminal cancer Larry stopped his usual harangue, changed his whole demeanor, and tried to convert Wacky to the Gospel and save his soul before he died. It is exactly what Christians are supposed to do. Larry really impressed me by how he took his faith and Wacky’s salvation so seriously. It didn’t even occur to me to do something similar. And not that I would have even if it did. But Larry did it and that would be a Christian.
Well, there’s that. As to the tone of Dewey’s missive—Dewey was butt hurt by Larry and he’s just expressing what he feels. Larry, I’m sure would do something similar is the shoe was on the other foot. Next door the people there are pretty much dancing on Larry’s grave. They were sometimes on the wrong end of Larry’s personal invectives and are venting. The gleefulness is a bit troubling, but that is the sandbox we all play in. But those over there tend to see the mote in Larry’s eye and not see the plank in their own—right from the beginning they expected to lecture the poor conservatives on the error of our ways with equal measures of condescension and pity and they expected us acquiesce to their wisdom, but instead to their surprise they got one hell of a fight. All good.
One think that troubles me though: Steve Miller said over there:
"The most memorable thing about that visit was learning that Larry in person was exactly the same as Larry on line."
I really wonder if that is true. -
@Horace Ah okay. But I guess I would answer - should people in certain positions (religion, law enforcement, politics, etc) be held to a higher standard?
I think most of us (me included) probably do that, even if it is not something that should be done.
(Off topic but not really). I remember (probably on a TV show or something) where the lawyer was asking a juror if witness testimony from a police man should be given higher priority than witness testimony from anybody else. My internal bias says that they should, but my reality brain says "nope", it should be the same.
Not sure I am answering your question. 555
Is it hypocritical for Dewey to post that? I honestly dont know. It was posted without names, and I dont know if he posted it as his position in the church.
I guess the only thing I am sure of is that it doesn't bother me that much. In my (small) knowledge of him, I think that Dewey is a good writer and pretty deliberate before he writes something. Maybe he himself struggled with posting it. Has anybody gotten any feedback from him?
-
All I can think of as I watch this piling on from both “sides” is that Larry would have loved this sh*t. It’s actually made me laugh out loud a couple of time. Sorry, I’m in a weird place in my mind lately. A weird and sometimes overwhelming grief that pops up at strange times from losing my Dad and both of our cats this year, along with my mom’s dementia that has taken her mostly away, even though her body is still there. Really hard. So death has been on my mind a lot lately.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Dewey's post:
@Horace Ah okay. But I guess I would answer - should people in certain positions (religion, law enforcement, politics, etc) be held to a higher standard?
I think most of us (me included) probably do that, even if it is not something that should be done.Yeah, you're supposed to. Gatekeepers get held to higher standards in their keeping of their gates, that's how positions of expertise and authority work. That's part of how people get together and form functional groups. We depend on people in positions of leadership to conform to higher standards of behavior, that's actually why they are there to begin with, especially as the group in question is entirely about standards for behavior. But I don't want to intrude on your opinions with anything that might seem too obvious or self-evident. That gets boring.
-
@Tom-K said in Dewey's post:
One think that troubles me though: Steve Miller said over there:
"The most memorable thing about that visit was learning that Larry in person was exactly the same as Larry on line."
I really wonder if that is true.They probably saw each other for five minutes.
The magic of "in person meetings" and the forging of deep understandings of who a person truly is, way deep down, is one of the most consistently overstated bits of nonsense one finds on online forums.
-
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@Tom-K said in Dewey's post:
One think that troubles me though: Steve Miller said over there:
"The most memorable thing about that visit was learning that Larry in person was exactly the same as Larry on line."
I really wonder if that is true.They probably saw each other for five minutes.
The magic of "in person meetings" and the forging of deep understandings of who a person truly is, way deep down, is one of the most consistently overstated bits of nonsense one finds on online forums.
I think you're very wrong about that. Steve didn't look into the deepest parts of Larry's soul for those five minutes, but there's much more information that gets conveyed in person which you would otherwise never get reading what someone wrote.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Dewey's post:
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@Tom-K said in Dewey's post:
One think that troubles me though: Steve Miller said over there:
"The most memorable thing about that visit was learning that Larry in person was exactly the same as Larry on line."
I really wonder if that is true.They probably saw each other for five minutes.
The magic of "in person meetings" and the forging of deep understandings of who a person truly is, way deep down, is one of the most consistently overstated bits of nonsense one finds on online forums.
I think you're very wrong about that. Steve didn't look into the deepest parts of Larry's soul for those five minutes, but there's much more information that gets conveyed in person which you would otherwise never get reading what someone wrote.
One unequivocally true thing is that it would allow someone to credibly handwave a judgment.
Education is extremely important.
-
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Dewey's post:
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@Tom-K said in Dewey's post:
One think that troubles me though: Steve Miller said over there:
"The most memorable thing about that visit was learning that Larry in person was exactly the same as Larry on line."
I really wonder if that is true.They probably saw each other for five minutes.
The magic of "in person meetings" and the forging of deep understandings of who a person truly is, way deep down, is one of the most consistently overstated bits of nonsense one finds on online forums.
I think you're very wrong about that. Steve didn't look into the deepest parts of Larry's soul for those five minutes, but there's much more information that gets conveyed in person which you would otherwise never get reading what someone wrote.
One unequivocally true thing is that it would allow someone to credibly handwave a judgment.
The only reason that works is because everyone understands that meeting in-person provides more information than reading text.
Please love yourself.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Dewey's post:
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Dewey's post:
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@Tom-K said in Dewey's post:
One think that troubles me though: Steve Miller said over there:
"The most memorable thing about that visit was learning that Larry in person was exactly the same as Larry on line."
I really wonder if that is true.They probably saw each other for five minutes.
The magic of "in person meetings" and the forging of deep understandings of who a person truly is, way deep down, is one of the most consistently overstated bits of nonsense one finds on online forums.
I think you're very wrong about that. Steve didn't look into the deepest parts of Larry's soul for those five minutes, but there's much more information that gets conveyed in person which you would otherwise never get reading what someone wrote.
One unequivocally true thing is that it would allow someone to credibly handwave a judgment.
The only reason that works is because everyone understands that meeting in-person provides more information than reading text.
Sure. But only in the context of talking about denizens of online forums, do in-person encounters count as deep experiences with another human being. If you met someone in person casually who you didn't happen to know in an online context, you would never claim to know the first thing about them. The in-person meeting would be nearly meaningless.
-
I guess one could be wrong with the initial in-person impression but as someone who has met scores of forumites over the years there are some who are pretty much the same as online and there are some who are very different in person, often times in the latter case it’s people who are far more argumentative online but not so much in person. (Quirt is an excellent example of the latter).
-
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Dewey's post:
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Dewey's post:
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@Tom-K said in Dewey's post:
One think that troubles me though: Steve Miller said over there:
"The most memorable thing about that visit was learning that Larry in person was exactly the same as Larry on line."
I really wonder if that is true.They probably saw each other for five minutes.
The magic of "in person meetings" and the forging of deep understandings of who a person truly is, way deep down, is one of the most consistently overstated bits of nonsense one finds on online forums.
I think you're very wrong about that. Steve didn't look into the deepest parts of Larry's soul for those five minutes, but there's much more information that gets conveyed in person which you would otherwise never get reading what someone wrote.
One unequivocally true thing is that it would allow someone to credibly handwave a judgment.
The only reason that works is because everyone understands that meeting in-person provides more information than reading text.
Sure. But only in the context of talking about denizens of online forums, do in-person encounters count as deep experiences with another human being. If you met someone in person casually who you didn't happen to know in an online context, you would never claim to know the first thing about them. The in-person meeting would be nearly meaningless.
That's because you wouldn't also have, say, a decade's worth of text-based information about them. You don't know their body language or intonations prior to meeting, but over time, text ain't nothing either.
-
@Renauda said in Dewey's post:
I never much cared for Dewey’s tendency to proselytise through the back door.
Is that what they call it?
-
@jon-nyc said in Dewey's post:
I guess one could be wrong with the initial in-person impression but as someone who has met scores of forumites over the years there are some who are pretty much the same as online and there are some who are very different in person, often times in the latter case it’s people who are far more argumentative online but not so much in person. (Quirt is an excellent example of the latter).
He's still kinda like that, though.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Dewey's post:
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Dewey's post:
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Dewey's post:
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@Tom-K said in Dewey's post:
One think that troubles me though: Steve Miller said over there:
"The most memorable thing about that visit was learning that Larry in person was exactly the same as Larry on line."
I really wonder if that is true.They probably saw each other for five minutes.
The magic of "in person meetings" and the forging of deep understandings of who a person truly is, way deep down, is one of the most consistently overstated bits of nonsense one finds on online forums.
I think you're very wrong about that. Steve didn't look into the deepest parts of Larry's soul for those five minutes, but there's much more information that gets conveyed in person which you would otherwise never get reading what someone wrote.
One unequivocally true thing is that it would allow someone to credibly handwave a judgment.
The only reason that works is because everyone understands that meeting in-person provides more information than reading text.
Sure. But only in the context of talking about denizens of online forums, do in-person encounters count as deep experiences with another human being. If you met someone in person casually who you didn't happen to know in an online context, you would never claim to know the first thing about them. The in-person meeting would be nearly meaningless.
That's because you wouldn't also have, say, a decade's worth of text-based information about them. You don't know their body language or intonations prior to meeting, but over time, text ain't nothing either.
We are all the product of millions of years of evolution to maximize our ability to be shrugged off and disregarded as a normal acceptable human, regardless of what's going on inside our heart of hearts. Not that there's anything particularly deep going on inside a person's heart of hearts, no matter how far you dig. We are pretty simple creatures.
-
@Ivorythumper said in Dewey's post:
@Renauda said in Dewey's post:
I never much cared for Dewey’s tendency to proselytise through the back door.
Is that what they call it?
Anything else would be construed as lewd.
-
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Dewey's post:
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Dewey's post:
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Dewey's post:
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@Tom-K said in Dewey's post:
One think that troubles me though: Steve Miller said over there:
"The most memorable thing about that visit was learning that Larry in person was exactly the same as Larry on line."
I really wonder if that is true.They probably saw each other for five minutes.
The magic of "in person meetings" and the forging of deep understandings of who a person truly is, way deep down, is one of the most consistently overstated bits of nonsense one finds on online forums.
I think you're very wrong about that. Steve didn't look into the deepest parts of Larry's soul for those five minutes, but there's much more information that gets conveyed in person which you would otherwise never get reading what someone wrote.
One unequivocally true thing is that it would allow someone to credibly handwave a judgment.
The only reason that works is because everyone understands that meeting in-person provides more information than reading text.
Sure. But only in the context of talking about denizens of online forums, do in-person encounters count as deep experiences with another human being. If you met someone in person casually who you didn't happen to know in an online context, you would never claim to know the first thing about them. The in-person meeting would be nearly meaningless.
That's because you wouldn't also have, say, a decade's worth of text-based information about them. You don't know their body language or intonations prior to meeting, but over time, text ain't nothing either.
We are all the product of millions of years of evolution to maximize our ability to be shrugged off and disregarded as a normal acceptable human, regardless of what's going on inside our heart of hearts. Not that there's anything particularly deep going on inside a person's heart of hearts, no matter how far you dig. We are pretty simple creatures.
I don't think that's true, either. Everyone is a mix of fascinating, profound, boring, cringey and a host of other things.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Dewey's post:
se you wouldn't also have, say, a decade's worth of text-based information about them. You don't know their body language
I'm sorry that Dwain posted what he did about Larry. I understand why he did, and why he defends it, and I don't see him as one to take the high road or be self reflective or do anything but do what he did. It's also quite predictable that he censored others who tried to moderate his views or give context to what he wrote about Larry. That's just Dwain being Dwain.
-
@Ivorythumper said in Dewey's post:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Dewey's post:
se you wouldn't also have, say, a decade's worth of text-based information about them. You don't know their body language
I'm sorry that Dwain posted what he did about Larry. I understand why he did, and why he defends it
That's pretty much my take, too.
-
@Horace said in Dewey's post:
@Tom-K said in Dewey's post:
One think that troubles me though: Steve Miller said over there:
"The most memorable thing about that visit was learning that Larry in person was exactly the same as Larry on line."
I really wonder if that is true.They probably saw each other for five minutes.
I think it was way more than five minutes. But, yeah, Steve always said that about Larry.
As for Dwain....I'm actually really disappointed. My memory of him is vastly different from the man who wrote this post.
