ZBB member photos, part 5. (Something for the weekend, sir?)

[Pthagnar]

Really? How does that work? Can we generalise this further, so that if one does not approve of every single choice somebody makes, then one does not love them and, in fact, hates them?

If the choice makes them happy and hurts no one, then yes.

Is there anybody you do not hate?

[Imralu]

Really? How does that work? Can we generalise this further, so that if one does not approve of every single choice somebody makes, then one does not love them and, in fact, hates them?

If the choice makes them happy and hurts no one, then yes.

Is there anybody you do not hate?

Many. I try not to oppose anything that does not lead to negative consequences for someone. Do you oppose harmless actions? If so, which ones, and why?

[Pthagnar]

Many. I try not to oppose anything that does not lead to negative consequences for someone. Do you oppose harmless actions? If so, which ones, and why?

Harmless actions are far and few between. To pick two examples, take the idea of Rape Culture and Bad Language. It is often said that nobody should ever use e.g. the words 'retard','cunt','nigger','fag' etc as an insult, or in a joke, *even to somebody who is not mentally handicapped, a woman, black, homosexual etc.* because *it is nevertheless harmful*. It reinforces stereotypes and so on, you know the argument -- it's easy to stop saying the words. You, therefore, hate everybody who says these words with a light heart. Except liberals are not the only people who have this trick -- one should *also* not say "Jesus Christ!", or "fuck" lightly for similar reasons -- it leads to a degeneration in society where people do not treat each other with civility. So you also hate everybody who blasphemes and swears. Except people who have Tourettes.

Rape Culture is a similar idea you are surely also familiar with -- you see all these things? They're all harmful. You hate everybody who does any of them. *Hate*.

Suppose somebody has a bad day at work, so they get angry. On the way home, they drive more aggressively, and it makes them feel good, in charge, on top of their life. They also annoy a few dozen other people, and the knockdown effects are incalculable. Or they get home and their child does something little like spilling their juice, and so they get unreasonably angry at the kid, again to make themselves happy. You hate those people, too. Hate them. To the complete exclusion of love.

So this is why I ask if there is anybody you do not hate.

[Imralu]

Many. I try not to oppose anything that does not lead to negative consequences for someone. Do you oppose harmless actions? If so, which ones, and why?

Harmless actions are far and few between. To pick two examples, take the idea of Rape Culture and Bad Language. It is often said that nobody should ever use e.g. the words 'retard','cunt','nigger','fag' etc as an insult, or in a joke, *even to somebody who is not mentally handicapped, a woman, black, homosexual etc.* because *it is nevertheless harmful*. It reinforces stereotypes and so on, you know the argument -- it's easy to stop saying the words. You, therefore, hate everybody who says these words with a light heart. Except liberals are not the only people who have this trick -- one should *also* not say "Jesus Christ!", or "fuck" lightly for similar reasons -- it leads to a degeneration in society where people do not treat each other with civility. So you also hate everybody who blasphemes and swears. Except people who have Tourettes.

Rape Culture is a similar idea you are surely also familiar with -- you see all these things? They're all harmful. You hate everybody who does any of them. *Hate*.

Suppose somebody has a bad day at work, so they get angry. On the way home, they drive more aggressively, and it makes them feel good, in charge, on top of their life. They also annoy a few dozen other people, and the knockdown effects are incalculable. Or they get home and their child does something little like spilling their juice, and so they get unreasonably angry at the kid, again to make themselves happy. You hate those people, too. Hate them. To the complete exclusion of love.

So this is why I ask if there is anybody you do not hate.

OK. Point made. Hate was not the right word. The reaction is proportionate to the action. It's not a binary distinction and I was wrong to imply it was. Something less than absolute benevolent love then.

[Pthagnar]

OK. Point made. Hate was not the right word. The reaction is proportionate to the action. It's not a binary distinction and I was wrong to imply it was. Something less than absolute benevolent love then.

So '"Love the sinner, hate the sin" is bullshit' because... people who believe it are not demonstrating absolute benevolent love? I think anybody should be able to live with this, don't you agree?

Although the implication here is that

If you are opposed to someone being happy with a consenting partner of their choice, you don't love them. Let's just be honest. It's hate. You just try to dress it up and pretend it's love as if you're taking the high road.

*really* means

If you are opposed to someone being happy with a consenting partner of their choice, you don't love them with a pure and perfect loving-kindness that surpasses all human understanding. Let's just be honest. It's just regular love. You just try to dress it up and pretend it's a pure and perfect loving-kindness that surpasses all understanding as if you're taking the high road.

Which people don't do. So what were you trying to explain in this quote? Or do you agree that that, too, is bullshit? If so, then do you *still* find something wrong with the idea of 'love the sinner, hate the sin'?

[faiuwle]

But when people who aren't Pthug talk about "love the sinner, hate the sin" the "sin" is always something that the "sinner" does not consider a sin, so they are not (as they claim) simply disagreeing with the sin itself, but with the attitude that it isn't a sin. I think most people can realize when they are being assholes because of bad moods, and at least some people would recognize rape culture if it were explained to them. It's not the same as "people fuck up sometimes, it's ok" - it's people trying to equate something that isn't a sin with something that is in such a way that they don't have to actually have discussion about it, because criticizing their position now makes it look like you're unforgiving and heartless. This isn't just a tactic that gets used with homosexuality, either, as the world is also full of people who say things like "oh, you know I love you, and I know you would be so much happier/healthier/etc if you had the kind of social life I'm trying to force on you/took up this more socially acceptable hobby/conformed better to traditional gender roles, and I still like you even when you do everything wrong." With the amount of time you spend complaining about patronization, Pthug, I'm surprised you're defending this kind of thing.

[Jipí]

Not the best picture ever taken of me, but it must do. My hair is weird.

[Viktor77]

I don't know why, but as soon as I see that photo I think, he looks so Northern European.

It could just be a bias since I already know you, or it could be that you really do somehow look "Northern European."

[Pthagnar]

But when people who aren't Pthug talk about "love the sinner, hate the sin" the "sin" is always something that the "sinner" does not consider a sin, so they are not (as they claim) simply disagreeing with the sin itself, but with the attitude that it isn't a sin. I think most people can realize when they are being assholes because of bad moods, and at least some people would recognize rape culture if it were explained to them. It's not the same as "people fuck up sometimes, it's ok" - it's people trying to equate something that isn't a sin with something that is in such a way that they don't have to actually have discussion about it, because criticizing their position now makes it look like you're unforgiving and heartless. This isn't just a tactic that gets used with homosexuality, either, as the world is also full of people who say things like "oh, you know I love you, and I know you would be so much happier/healthier/etc if you had the kind of social life I'm trying to force on you/took up this more socially acceptable hobby/conformed better to traditional gender roles, and I still like you even when you do everything wrong." With the amount of time you spend complaining about patronization, Pthug, I'm surprised you're defending this kind of thing.

until everyone in the world agrees with me, which is dependent on me *also* agreeing with me, or some other arbiter , there are going to be things that Primus does and thinks is right that Secundus thinks is wrong. Precisely because Secundus thinks they are wrong, Secundus thinks Primus should not do them, and thinks less of Primus for doing them because that is what it means for somebody to do wrong things. Everybody is going to have to come up with a way to Deal With This.

The issue you bring up is that of what the right way is to respond to people who do wrong things. I think the right way to respond to people who do wrong things can be summed up by the [not quite as catchy] motto 'love the sinner, hate the sin, not because people are really sparks of the divine Logos who fall into temptation but because the alternatives of 'hate the sinner because of the sin' means I have to end up hating *everybody*, really *hate* them, because even a brief analysis shows that people end up doing a lot of bad stuff and because 'love the sinner, don't give a fuck about sin' is as meaningless as "stop seeing ugliness"'.

I am puzzled by your suggestion that 'love the sinner, hate the sin' rather than being a summary of christian morality is, in effect, just a political slogan against gays, or what have you and that the reference is *always* to something that the sinner does not believe is a sin, like the only reason somebody would possibly sin is because they don't believe it is a sin. Do you have any evidence to back up this assertion? Is there an alternate saying for when the reason the sinner sins is because of the usual reasons?

Yes, it is annoying when people believe something is good when it is bad, or vice versa, and *yes* it is frequently patronising. But so what -- that applies to this, too. If somebody thinks something perverse like that sexual perversion is perverse, then what can I do? Only in really quite specific circumstances is violence going to do anything good, and only in *slightly* more [or perhaps you would say 'fewer'] is reason going to do anything, although I am lucky enough to live in a liberal society where the idea that it *can* has widespread respect. So I don't see what good going 'Well although this person has done nothing to harm me, I am going to decide to hate them!' does. Nor do I see that loving somebody means I have to do whatever they say, or let them do whatever they want, or be quiet when they say wrong things. I realise I give slightly less of a fuck about looking unforgiving and heartless, but think of what you are asking -- do you *really* want the world to be full of people who are as argumentative as me [and you?] over right and wrong?

[Jipí]

I don't know why, but as soon as I see that photo I think, he looks so Northern European.

Bullshit. Skin's a little paler than average, but regarding hair and eye color, I'm very averagely Middle European AFAIK.

[Viktor77]

I don't know why, but as soon as I see that photo I think, he looks so Northern European.

Bullshit. Skin's a little paler than average, but regarding hair and eye color, I'm very averagely Middle European.

You look Northern European lowlands to me, like Dutch perhaps. But again, it may just be because I just watched a Dutch movie and the actors there had very peculiar features that I'm somehow reading on your photo. Probably a bunch of BS.

[finlay]

Makes me look like a drunkard with my beer, but this is quite funny.

[Astraios]

Backwards clock!

[linguoboy]

Makes me look like a drunkard with my beer, but this is quite funny.

The hell is your companion wearing?

[patiku]

Looks like neopagan garbage.

[masako]

Backwards clock! :o

You focused on the clock?

[linguoboy]

Backwards clock!

You focused on the clock?

In retrospect, I wish I had, too.

[Astraios]

Backwards clock!

You focused on the clock?

Well, I looked at the other things in the photo too. But I thought the clock was more exciting (no offence finlay or finlay's friend ).

[faiuwle]

(Maybe this discussion should be moved to a different thread...)

until everyone in the world agrees with me, which is dependent on me *also* agreeing with me, or some other arbiter , there are going to be things that Primus does and thinks is right that Secundus thinks is wrong. Precisely because Secundus thinks they are wrong, Secundus thinks Primus should not do them, and thinks less of Primus for doing them because that is what it means for somebody to do wrong things. Everybody is going to have to come up with a way to Deal With This.

Right, and the usual way to deal with minor disagreements like that is to just not talk about things that you know neither person will compromise on. My problem is the people who insist on telling you about how they are nobly forgiving you for all of the sins you are committing - if they were happy to let them slide, they wouldn't say anything, and if they were really bothered by them, they should openly admit to hating you. And yes, if you have someone who does things that you think are wrong, and which they think are not, and would happily continue doing them, then if you really, actually, think that those things are wrong, you should hate them. It doesn't make any sense to pull this "love the sinner, hate the sin" stuff on, say, serial killers, or other kinds of career criminals - it only really makes sense for people who generally believe that these things are wrong, but do them anyway sometimes just because it's not really rational to expect everyone to be perfect all the time. If you would hesitate to take a confrontational stance against someone who commits the alleged sin openly and happily every day, then perhaps it is not actually a sin, or at least not one that deserves any kind of public discussion at all.

I am puzzled by your suggestion that 'love the sinner, hate the sin' rather than being a summary of christian morality is, in effect, just a political slogan against gays, or what have you and that the reference is *always* to something that the sinner does not believe is a sin, like the only reason somebody would possibly sin is because they don't believe it is a sin. Do you have any evidence to back up this assertion?

I don't really know or care what people actually think in the privacy of their own heads; this is just about what people say, so yes, it is politics. And as I said, it's not just anti-gay politics, although that certainly seems to be a popular application of it. I can't really say if this kind of passive-aggressive patronization is some kind of standard way of enforcing norms in Christianity, but it doesn't actually change my opinion of it either way.

Is there an alternate saying for when the reason the sinner sins is because of the usual reasons?

You wouldn't have to say anything then, presumably, since ideally everyone is already familiar with the idea that people mess up sometimes, and that's ok.

So I don't see what good going 'Well although this person has done nothing to harm me, I am going to decide to hate them!' does.

Well then, maybe this is a good place to start when working out what should and should not actually be a sin.

Nor do I see that loving somebody means I have to do whatever they say, or let them do whatever they want, or be quiet when they say wrong things.

Arguably, though, if you like someone's company, and would prefer to keep it, you would not go out of your way to start fights with them about things you know they will never agree with you about. You might try to change their ways if you thought it was possible, but "love the sinner, hate the sin" is a rhetorical trick precisely designed to avoid any discussion or argument that might convince anyone of anything.

do you *really* want the world to be full of people who are as argumentative as me [and you?] over right and wrong?

It would certainly be more interesting, and by far preferable to a world full of people who don't think about it at all.

[finlay]

Makes me look like a drunkard with my beer, but this is quite funny.

The hell is your companion wearing?

I'm not sure. The party was Doctor Who themed, and I don't actually watch Doctor Who, so... Something to do with Time Lords. I think the thing I'm pointing is someone's sonic screwdriver, and the red zip on my head is to signify an alien race that dresses in human skin (basically, a simple way to get out of wearing a proper costume).

As for the clock, there are two groups of friends in York that own them, including the guy whose party it was. They also tend to be the friends whose sofas I'm most likely to stay on during a visit to York (except not this time). Basically, I end up telling the time by the backwards clock if I'm sleeping in a room with one, which makes it then actually more disorientating getting used to a normal clock again, annoyingly.

And yes, faiuwle, please take your drivel elsewhere.

[faiuwle]

I was just responding to Pthug's drivel.

[masako]

Backwards clock! :o

You focused on the clock?

In retrospect, I wish I had, too.

Agreed.

[Dewrad]

Looks like neopagan garbage.

It's Doctor Who! (Finlay: your friend is dressed as Rassilon, no?)

[Astraios]

Backwards clock!

You focused on the clock?

In retrospect, I wish I had, too.

Agreed.

I think I wish I hadn't. Imagining time being backwards but still going forwards is messing up my head. Maybe it wouldn't if I spoke Aymara. Or if I was more awake.

[TomHChappell]

.