Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
![]()
If he didn't fit their version of Jesus they'd probably burn him at the stake for being a heretic. Or for extra irony points crucify him. Again.
Frankly, a lot of the more prominent religious righters in this country exhibit behavior that marks them as followers of Mammon.
Why yes, I do think the "Prosperity Gospel" is horseshit.
edited 16th Apr '17 6:32:18 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprised
Now, that's not entirely true. Some want it the other way around. I have relatives in the US who are loopy evangelical conservatives and as far as I can tell, they couldn't care less about race (they have no problem with welfare being extended to minorities), but they hate the idea of abortion being legal.
In general though, Conservative Evangelicalism is full of single issue wonks where they only care about one thing. White supremacy is one, abortion is another, and the big third one is homophobia.
edited 16th Apr '17 8:11:53 PM by Zendervai
And that more than anything is the biggest problem with a lot of them — they are so committed to dealing with their single issue that they are willing to do anything, or support anyone *cough* Trump *cough* that they think will help them deal with that issue. Even if it means betraying the rest of their supposed principles and values. The ends justify the means for these people.
edited 16th Apr '17 8:21:23 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprised![]()
you sure about that?
Give these links a read.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2016/08/the-white-supremacist-roots-of-evangelicalism/
Why? The Religious Right isn't just composed of evangelicals. It includes conservative Catholics, Mormons, and members of numerous other denominations as well. And, like it or not, the Religious Right typically refers to itself as standing for Christian values, and it's followers as Christians. It does not differentiate, because it figured out a long time ago that no one group of Christian fundamentalists can be counted upon to form a reliable voting block. It has to pander to the things that all the factions hold in common in order to be the political force that it is.
If I wanted to paint you all with the same brush, Caspase, I wouldn't beat around the bush. I would damn well paint you all with the same brush.
You ever consider that maybe, just maybe, I consider the people in that "particular corner of the Internet" to be a clear and present danger to the future of both the Democratic Party and the progressive movement in general and that I therefore believe that, even as we go forward on fighting Trump, we should keep an eye on them to make sure they don't a) screw up our message or b) gain actual power?
I disagree with you vehemently on a lot, but I don't accuse you of arguing in bad faith. Kindly return the favour.
edited 16th Apr '17 9:26:03 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
New topic, new post. Article on whether the "Fearless Girl" statue erected as part of one of the women's marches should be taken down
. While I personally appreciate the reason for erecting her, I also have to say that I can sympathize with the artist behind "Charging Bull", the statue she was placed in front of. Her presence does alter the meaning of his work notably. Thoughts?
I think Di Modica's concerns about it changing his work's message are valid.
I suppose if supporters of the "Fearless Girl" statue really want it to stay just in case the city does side with Di Modica, they could maybe move it somewhere else and chip in to have another statue of a bull (or a bull and a bear) in front of her.
edited 16th Apr '17 10:20:10 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedDi Modica knows a thing or two about using public acclaim to force an art piece onto city property. He didn’t have a permit when he erected his piece outside the New York Stock Exchange, but after it became a tourist attraction, the city agreed to let it stay. Likewise, sculptor Kristen Visbal’s Fearless Girl was meant as a temporary month-long installation. But Mayor Bill de Blasio announced in March that, in part due to the sculpture’s booming popularity, it would remain until February 2018.
Before Fearless Girl came on the scene, the bull was an encouraging representation of a booming economy. Now, charging toward a tiny human, it’s a stand-in for the gendered forces that work against women’s success in the workplace.
Men who don’t like women taking up space are exactly why we need the Fearless Girl.
The article speaks about a class divide aggravated by focusing on sex ratios in corporate boards, pointing out a not unimportant problem, but in this case, Slate's grasping at straws. The argument was narrow and oddly self-unaware. For an article that ends with calling the thing apolitical, it failed to note that its a political article about the statue. Furthermore, tis rather difficult for one work to speak to every facet of a movement at once, even if parity in the halls of power were unimportant or even not disproportionately important.
Di Modica may feel bad about his statue being part of a new message, but he set it up in a public place in what is effectively a heavier and more expensive version of graffiti tagging. Someone added a word in front of his marking, and the city isn't washing either off. Full stop. Look with century eyes... With our backs to the arch And the wreck of our kind We will stare straight ahead For the rest of our lives
I thought about adding something in this spirit too as an Edit to my previous post as an "OTOH...", but you beat me to the punch.
I didn't originally draw the parallel to graffiti tagging, but now that I think about it, it seems fitting.
If he had originally applied for a permit or something, he'd have more legal grounds to have it removed. If you flaunt the law to force your artistic vision on to others, you'll look kind of silly complaining when someone else does the same thing.
Ultimately, this is up to the public. The public originally deemed his work should stay. The public should decide whether or not the alteration to it should remain until next February.
edited 16th Apr '17 10:06:51 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprised

I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't recognize Jesus if he walked up to them wearing a sign that said I'm Jesus, the son of God.