It never ceases to amaze me how so many "based White Christians" think that Christianity is European in origin, while simultaneously resenting native European religions.
@@apachewraiththe entirety of objective morality hinges on whether or not Christianity is true? Who appointed Christianity as the arbiter of objective morality? And if Christian morality is not subjective, why has its views on what is moral and what is not changed?
@@apachewraith That has to be the most arrogant statement I have read in these comments for some time. Christianity is not even the majority religion in the world. What evidence backs up the claim that “the entirety of objective morality depends on whether Christianity is true?” The multiple sects of Christianity can’t even agree on the rules of objective morality. Look at all of the blood shed during the reformation over dogmatic disagreements, which apparently - to those involved - trumped any kind of objective morality. Finally, can you even define “objective morality” without recourse to circular reasoning (i.e., objective morality is a set of moral tenants espoused by Christianity, the truth of which determines objective morality)? I am not a Christian ; I am a very ethical person. My worst experiences with morality-challenged people have been interactions with Christians. And finally, there are multiple moral definitions in the Christian Bible, and multiple examples of God encouraging and committing transgressions of those morals by people and by himself. So which morals are the “objective ones?”
Are there a lot of native European religions? I thought most Christian dogma describe a middle eastern origin for Christianity. Most Reformation religions (i.e., Protestant) originated in Europe, but the basic concept was certainly not of European origin.
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov
@@ChomoBidensMules Why do you think so? Or should I say.... check out the flat earthers, the mudflood believers, et al who get hundreds of thousands of views on their RU-vid channels. They reject all known science, and instead believe what they want to believe. They believe that rocks that look like dragons, for example (or at least, the spines of dragons) are actually fossilize dragons!
The more history I learn, and the more cultures I am exposed to, the more I am convinced that this is a description that applies to features of the human condition. I.e., it doesn't take a cult to maintain a level of ignorance amongst the public at large. At the same time, it would appear that cults are a rather efficient means of harnessing the potential of this malady.
It’s crazy to me how much white Europeans have changed so much of a Semitic religion, and fashioned it into a god of their own likeness. Truly astonishing.
What did they change though? The Eastern Orthodox Church and Nestorian Church, are all largely based out of the Mediterranean world and claim to follow the faith of the Apostles.
@@apachewraith and you do have my sympathy for whatever that's worth that you feel life can only have any meaning or relevance based on one of the stories man has told ever since he figured out how to tell one. Nobody knows with certaintity what the magic of it all is but there certainly is no evidence that it's some man behind the curtain in the sky. If the day ever comes when we realize that the magic is simply that we "are" and decide to work together to make "being" as good as it possibly can be then maybe most of the ugly this world has to offer will fade away, but I'm not holding my breath. Meanwhile, open up another cold one.
It's said that journalists and church leaders should afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted. Looks like the third role who can do that with gentle aplomb is Bible scholar. You are one of my favorite tricksters on RU-vid. You do it with truth and data and integrity, the best way of all.
I did a lot of hobbyist interfaith dialogue, alongside getting my history and comparitive religion degrees. I ran into 3 or 4 Christians who had a white nationalism spin to their faith. I noticed they would deemphasize Paul (so the universal aspect of Christian teaching gets distorted.) Guys like Nick Fuentes despite being Catholic have this kind of spin. Then they would emphasize Jesus' commitment to his own culture, over others. And finally, they would embrace replacement theology to say that they as white europeans were the new Israel and tne people of God. Very selective readings of both Jesus and a calculated use of Paul to prop up tbeir nationalism. Very sad, and disturbing.
Comparative Religion! Come on, don't play fainting sheep on me. I really do not understand how The Pleiades connection is a blind spot. Constrained to The Americas there is The Feathered Serpent and The Thunderbird, both from this star cluster and the number seven. In The Old World it is the God of Fire and the Bull and the number seven e.g., Tauroctony with the blade at the shoulder and star spangled cape, which is the location in the group (host, pile, etc.) of stars. It is everywhere, why is it so incredulous that the newest meteor stream is the germane of this phenomena?
@@macgonzo OK, I'll Try. James (The Original Poster) said he is educated in comparing complicated religions like apples, oranges, limes, etc. All of these have a common relationship of seven seeds highlighted by all groups around the world. The shooting stars are produced when crossing the pathway of an ancient comet that will radiate from a certain point in the starry night, the newest of these appears to come from this "seven seeds" stars - the Pleiades. Many groups of people in far off reaches of the world even refer to them as seeds, by the way, a pile of seed, a mound, etc. Practically every religion contains this information. I am asking him not to just go silent, thus avoiding the on topic question. I also want to know why this concept is so unbelievable that people will not even consider it as a possibility. My life long work is fixing things, ignoring the problem will not fix something, so, it is strange how even scientists while identifying relations to each of the foods/religions can not see the obvious seven even though it comes up everywhere and most likely is what started all the religions.
@@bardmadsen6956 What has any of that got to do with what James's comment was about? You're forcing your own ideas on someone who didn't ask for them, and doing it in a rude and utterly disjointed manner. Plus, you're cherry picking the number 7 as it's a number that fits your hypothesis. That's bad science. Why not pick 12? It's the number of apostles and the number of zodiacal symbols. You claim that "practically every religion contains this information", referring to 7, the Pleiades and cometary debris, but you give no examples to back up your claims. Your entire argument in your first comment was a badly written screed that made no sense, and you were extremely aggressive and insulting in your presentation of it. You should really reconsider how you go about approaching people with your hypothesis, especially if you want a dialogue. Tell me, are you a fan of Graham Hancock?
It's fascinating, and truly nauseating, how common it is that everyone wants a piece of the action when it comes to.. Jesus Christ. I can't say I know exactly what he thinks of being a favorite object of appropriation, but it's a good bet that he's not happy about it.
You do know, the primary gospel message is, that all human governments are going to be replaced by the government of God, administered by Jesus, on earth, ruling from Jerusalem. Puts him bang in middle of everybody's attention wouldn't you say?
@@glenwillson5073 But not in any way in the spirit you suggest! I'm talking about hairbrained reaches-- inventions of the manipulative egoistic mind, exploitative tricksters. You have really misunderstood me. I'm not discussing the dominion of Christ. I'm talking about the manipulation of Christ, which has occurred since the very beginning-- as soon as it was established that faith in him was leading toward ultimate power and control, even in the secular world.
@@JEQvideosThis is good to know, but I would also be interested in a McClellan-style short that elaborates more on the meaning of the term. Love Dan and his work, but some terminology he uses isn’t as intuitive to those of us who haven’t spent years in academia. This isn’t a dig at you or McClellan, but in the interest of offering this kind of subject matter to a broader audience I consider it important for the audience to fully understand the language used.
As Christians, we have to guard ourselves from picking up the noise of the surrounding culture and amplifying it through our faith. Its a subject that I invite fellow Christians to seriously consider.
Don’t you think that is what religion has ALWAYS done? That’s why the Bible condones slavery, it was written by members of a society that practiced slavery. And the interpretation of the text by people two thousand years ago is much different than how people today interpret it.
@jeffreylehman1159 the interpretation of scripture belongs to the same people who wrote it, edited it, and preserved it. It is the product of a living community, and it's interpretation hangs on that community's understanding of it. If it depended on the intentions of the original author(s), it would have stopped speaking to the world a long time ago.
@jeffreylehman1159 it's transjective, to use another youtuber's term. The Orthodox/Catholic church believes the bible is subject to the church's authority, as they were responsible for collecting and canonizing it. There is no "bible" without the church determining what belongs in it, and what doesn't. Likewise, only the church has the authority to interpret it and understand it. The Bible obviously would not have been organized and preserved without the church, and apart from the living church no one can even begin to understand it. Reading scripture without the church is like ripping a branch off a tree, and marveling that it shrivels and dries apart from the mother organism.
There are a lot of " White Christian Nationalists " out there and " Whiteness " , expressed as being " A Real American " or " Legacy American " or some such IS what they are all about, and some of them are quite loud about it But even I think a lot of people who call themselves " Christian " are NOT like that
I've been watching a ton of Dan's content and have found another scholar I like watching called Bart Ehrman. Do you, fellow commenters, have any recs for similar religious studies content creators?
I've always been interested in how White is defined; I currently think it's one of those "I know it when I see it" things that requires a community panel to answer legally. But I'm more interested in how the US will define "Christian" or even "Christ." Could I worship my own Christ, for example. Or should I just add the title "Christian" to my name?
Dan I will read the book but how does it explain the extreme religiosity of minorities in America versus the white population? For that matter, when you're referring to modern Christianity using right wing authoritarian identity politics, doesn't that discount a lot of "fundamentalist" left leaning people, like the majority of black Christians?
they have to overcome a fair bit of cognitive dissonance to get to that place, minds like pretzels, mobius pretzels, all unidimensional. Doing that to your mind must make you kind of stupid in other ways I would imagine.
In looking forward to these upcoming videos. I think some will argue that “whiteness” as a structural organizer really isn’t a thing, that it’s a construction used by the left to rile up minorities. My experience is this: I am a product of a racially mixed marriage. Most of the time I didn’t think much of it because I could pass as white. As far as I was concerned I was a middle class white kid. Until one day I I was discussing sexism with my best friend. I made a claim in which I identified the both of us as white males. And my best friend stopped me to explain that I wasn’t white and could never be white. There was a line that was clearly visible to him. And this line was important to him. My friend wasn’t an unkind person. Nor was he unintelligent or ignorant. He understood how society worked and, in his way was trying to help me understand it. It felt like a punch to the gut. I’d endured more overt racism before (when I was younger my non-white facial features were more pronounced). But for some reason this really hurt. Maybe it was because he expressed no interest in trying to change society. What he was teaching me was “just the way it was”. I think he meant to help me move forward in my life by accepting my non-whiteness. This was a single experience, but now that I knew what it was, it explained a lot of previous experiences with some whites. And I certainly began to notice the phenomenon a lot more.
The truth is, a boy born with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS) Looks like a woman. Has even a vagina, but he still is not a girl. That is because his DNA has both, the x and the Y chromosome. To be a girl means you have only 2 x-chromosomes. To be white means your parents are white. Do I maybe have some non-white ancestors? Possibly. My skin is not that white as you may be would expect from someone who has all white parents and grandparents. But to the best of my knowledge, I am white. Now if I was to take a DNA-test, I may be convinced that I am in fact partially hispanic or black or Chinese. And if I had done a test, and someone where to ask me, I would embrace my Chinese or black ancestry and say that I am partially Chinese. But again, to be a girl, you have to have 2 x-chromosomes. Or at least until recently. To make my statement correct, I would have to say to be a biological female, you have to have two x-chromosomes. Not every person born with CAIS is aware of their condition. My point is simply this; To be a man does not mean one is better. To be a woman does also not mean one is better. To be white does also not mean one is better. And I understand that in todays society, the biological evidence of your sex has become pointless; I do not know how to correctly identify this being; Is it a biological boy, as it has xy chromosomes? Is it a biological girl, as it had female genitalia? Now this is a rare condition, yet I suspect racial purity to be an even more rare condition. And to point out that this boy/girl is a boy/girl is like pointing out that you are non-white. Perhaps the solution is to stop thinking in black and white; So you can be a white, and the boy with a Vagina who identifies as a girl can be girl. But I am guessing your white friend who did not let you be white to be a bigoted supremacist; He probably will not use my preferred pronouns and judge me by my looks. I mean by my biological xy chromosomes as he will not accept me for a real gurl because my boobies are not real. I mean it is pretty hard to please me anyways; In fact I am so confused after this statement, I forgot what my point was… Probably somewhere along the lines of; If you do not accept preferred pronouns, and yet you where hurt by his words, well, not only are you a hypocrite, but you are also my best friend, for I am a troll who thinks it is funny; Bot per se funny, but really sad actually, because the true part is that I do not believe that I would be offended if I am a Jew. Because we Jews rule this world, and because I am partially jewish, I can say that. Not that I am really jewish, but I identify as a Jew. A white supremacist Jew who really hates the white race though, and therefore I do not understand why a person who has the luck to not be white, would even want to be White; I mayself have to identify Jewish to get rid of this white guilt. But that maybe just me. If I offended, just know that that was not my objective. My objective was to point out that not everything is black and white. But if hose things that are black and white are not gray; gray is a mix between black and white. And grey is actually my favorite colour. That is why I love you my brother. Sister? Not sure. But you get my point. I hope anyways.
Depends on whether he meant skin color or race. You can be racially white and have black skin (India, Trinidad, for example). Or you can be racially "black" and be an albino with pale white skin. Huge difference. Especially in reproducing offspring. Members of one race cannot produce offspring of another race. Think 2 German Shepards having golden retriever puppies. A form of genetic divergence essentially.
@@apachewraiththere is no two population of humans that are so genetically distinct that they can’t reproduce with each other. Irregardless pf the race/subspecies discussion (which human races doesn’t meet the criteria for subspecies either), what you are proposing is that there are multiple human species present, which of flatly untrue.
While Jesus and the apostles were certainly Semitic, Christianity mostly gained popularity in the eastern Mediterranean portion of the Roman Empire. Which explains the Greek language of the gospels.
Hmmmm. What could possibly have gone wrong here? Well, human hierarchies tend to be common in history. Recent research in pack animals are throwing doubt on the concept of an alpha male [eg wolves] alpha female, [eg hyenas] and alpha pairs [dominant mating pair]. it is not that these conditions don't exist in animal societies, but they are assumed as defaults. The real picture is often more nuanced than the cliche's would suggest. If this is true, then hierarchies, and even patriarchies are not the natural or default organization for humans either. Or to put it another way, power pyramids in human or other ape groups is not a necessary trait of those groups. Other structures could have fitness and functionality. ["flat" type social organizations, eg democracy] Humans and other social animal groups work cooperatively, because an increase in group wellness nearly always means a MEAN increase in wellness for its members. [mean wellness does not automatically imply there is no exploitation, so put a "pin" in that]. If I can also suggest that morality is an emergent property that arises from biological and cultural evolution in social animals, then we can proceed with an explanation. Just having a morality, does not imply that it is necessarily a perfect one. It just means that most moralities try to enhance cooperation/compliance, and discourage cheating. There can still be an exploiting elite and a downtrodden minority. Morals, to survive, must be functional as a group fitness thing, they don't have to be equitable. So anyway, back to our pyramidal/ hierarchical human group. Commonly, this would devolve into some sort of Sovereign/warlord, and various classes down to the lowest order. [The one's with less power/influence.] Interestingly, many indigenous cultures often had counsels of elders rather than a single "top-god" , and there are reasons for the disappearance of such structures. And just as interestingly, they had many gods of "limited jurisdiction" So what if you put A god on top of these social hierarchies? Usually, nothing good if you look at the bigger picture. Of course, I have already pointed out that an evolution of a moral system by transactions and interactions of individuals in groups over generations can be less than equitable for individuals, even if GROUP FITNESS is enhanced. So adding a god and religion can magnify this dysfunctionality, because you are adding an additional layer of authority, power and control. Or to put it another way, an exploited group does not only have to fight "city hall" for some remedy to their plight, but also the "deity" and his representatives. So not only can this be viewed as sedition/rebellion, but blasphemy/heresy as well. A great scam, and effective. And sure, a religion can be "set-up" with more aspirational goals for a common and universal "wellness for all" thing. And indeed, in most religions you will find these sentiments. So even if a religion starts out with the very best of intentions, things can go off the rails very quickly. This can, and in fact, does happen. And the example in this discussion is white "Christian" fascism. Of course, I am not trying to be "holier than thou". But both a creator-god was NOT a good explanation for human origins or an explanation of morality. "God ergo everything" was an understandable mistake to make, given our lack of knowledge about how the world worked. So was: "god, ergo morals". However, there are now better explanations for both of those subjects. If we understand, thorough science, that race is not a biological reality, but a socio-religious construct, then we take the wind out of the sails of the bigot. And the same can be said for bigotry towards LBGTQI folks. if we understand that biologically, sex and gender are NOT binary, then holding on to some ancient notions, religious or cultural, that they are somehow a lesser people, or even sinful or evil, becomes untenable. Science by its nature and methodology, is amoral. Ergo, it cannot dictate morals, but it CAN inform them.
Alphas do not exist in wolves. Claiming they extend anywhere else requires proof within those species. And it was bigots who built the socio-political construct using pseudoscience as a tool. No wind is removed by knowing this.
I've seen some of their videos and it's nothing but a bunch of gibber jabber. Christian Identity/British Israelism is basically the white version of Black Hebrew Israelites.
Ethnocentrism and religious observance are connected, that's true, and it can be observed in non-white cultures too: Judaism, Mandaeism, Druze, etc. But it illustrates an ideological bias of, dare I say, white liberal academics (as well a sizeable contingent of POC academics) that they will readily problematize (what is already a pejorative) 'whiteness' but will absolutely never problematize 'blackness' or 'Jewishness.' They will also seek to exonerate, rather than to problematize, the non-European religion of Islam. What the 'white Christian nationalism' meme being promulgated by elite intellectual and media centers indicates is a consolidation and reification of their own neuroses and ideological tendencies; the meme is a distillation of everything the progressive liberal fears and despises rolled into one. Progressivism must be seen for what it is: a revolutionary ideology, just like its ideological precursors. The progressive revolution is thus to overthrow the old order of America, that white (ethnically European), Christian America. Therefore it should come to us as no surprise that the remnant of the old America should now find itself so consistently in the crosshairs of the hegemonic liberal order. That progressive liberalism is hegemonic in the US need not be difficult to accept given the uniformity of liberal ideological messaging emanating from every elite institution in the country (White House, NYT, WaPo, academia, corporate uniformity in flying rainbow flags for LGBT month, etc.).
Dan, I first started watching your videos about three months ago, and I am frankly quite impressed by your scholarship in general. I'm an atheist who has been reading in great depth about the historical and cultural impact of Christianity for 40 years now, and there aren't many people in this field whose work I respect. So well done, sir. That being said, I think you're caught in something of a critical theory echo chamber when it comes to white supremacy. This concerns me because I think it will hurt your career in the long run. Inside the academy, it has become almost universally agreed that Foucault's approach is correct, that all social relations are power relations. But outside the academy, the idea that society is pervaded by racism and sexism has suffered a catastrophic collapse in popularity. Third-wave feminism, critical race theory, gender queer theory, have all seen their non-academic audiences disappear. Their websites have gone bankrupt and shut down, or are surviving on a fraction of their former traffic. I devote two chapters of my book, The Decline Effect, to this crisis on the left. (This collapse is the main reason why right-wing populism is on the rise everywhere in Europe, America, Canada, Argentina, and so on.) Institutional inertia will ensure that the "market" for the Foucault model will survive for a while longer. The universities can still generate some modest rewards for those who keep to the critical theory dogma. However, in a decade or two, it will have faded away. You are young enough, and your work in general is good enough, that you can rise above this collapse. All I am trying to do here is save you from a lot of misspent effort. In 2024, time spent attacking white supremacy is simply time wasted. Best wishes in your future endeavors from an admirer.
@@BradyPostma Just to be clear, the collapse of critical theory is a crisis for the left as a whole not because all leftists are committed to critical theory, but because so many institutions are. There are lots of non-woke leftists, e.g. Matt Taibbi, Glenn Greenwald, Tara Henley, Jimmy Dore, Ana Kasparian. I would not equate "the left" with wokeness. But they are all allied with center-right forces in attacking the left-leaning establishment. Black men are deserting the Democrats, Hispanics are deserting the Democrats, and Jews are deserting the Democrats, all for woke stances taken by a minority within the party. Hence the state of crisis within the left.
That has to be one of the worst-reasoned responses to what Dan has been sharing, that I’ve ever heard. You use erudite-sounding words to hide the underlying idea that critical race theory, third wave feminism, etc should be abandoned because of your assertion that Foucault’s ideas are in ascendancy. No. One does not abandon what one perceives as good and true principles because some other belief system appears to be growing stronger. That’s the way of the coward and grifters Get that junk outta here and stop disrespecting Dan like that.
Time spent attacking white supremacy is never wasted and it is in no way necessary to base this on Foucault or his writing. The idea that these various academic left wing theories have lost their non-academic audiences is bizarre given not only the level of activism in recent years (BLM, LGBTQ+, etc) but also the constant rightwing handwringing over everything becoming too woke.
Sociologist here. Thanks, Dan. Will order a copy shortly. Currently reading "Angry White Men" by Michael Kimmel so this dovetails with that reading in several interesting ways.
I think that Christianity is very much European, as it was influenced by Greek philosophy and then expanded under the Roman Empire and then Medieval Europe. I believe that those long influences outweigh the influence of its birth in the Near East.
@@meej33Early Christianity was primarily based out of Alexandria, Carthage, Antioch, and the Persian empire. None of these places are Europe, yes there were Christians in Europe but they were converting at a much slower rate. Even in the 12th century several hundred years after the rise of Islam, the Syriac Orthodox Church made up a population on par with Christians in western Europe. So when you take all this into account there is not a period in time where you could say Christianity was just European.
@@thedude9941I'd agree with you. In the great commission,Jesus told his disciples to go and make disciples of ALL NATIONS. I'm fairly sure that he wasn't just referring to Europe and white people. Today there's an estimated 130 million Christians in China and 685 million Christians in Africa. These Christians certainly aren't white or European.
@@thedude9941 Early Christianity actually expanded over the Eastern half of the Roman Empire, as the Roman Empire made expansion easier. There were fewer borders and better roads in the Roman Empire. It is true that Alexandria was one of the earlier sites, but as soon as they made the jump from modern day Turkey into Greece they moved all over the Empire into Europe. And they remained there for centuries while Christian communities in Northen Africa and Middle East were swept by the Muslims in the 7th C.
I love it how the historical Jesus as Messiah came to conqueror the despised Gentiles and make them submit to Judaism,. "I have ONLY come to save the Lost sheep of Israel." "Do NOT preach to the Gentiles or Samaritans." Bit like the despised "Kuffar" in Islam grovelling to Mohamed instead of Allah.
The whole Bible from start to finish is about having theological dominion over the nations. All the messianic prophecies point to a time when the whole world is brought to worship the God of Israel. The best example of this is Isaiah and Jeremiah.
@@thedude9941Groan, how many times have I heard this tosh? The Gospel writers made up stories about Jesus they copied from so called prophecies in the OT (often taken wildly out of context) and verses in the Psalms etc. There is no such thing as magic or telepathic powers. Plain and simple forgery and plagiarism. It ain't rocket science....read my lips HARRY POTTER IS NOT AND NEVER HAS BEEN REAL! Got it?
Why comparing with islam,the kuffar disbelievers have the choice to be believers but reject it,the gentiles don't have that luxury,stop writing about what you don't know
Idk what that data set is but the burden of proof is huge, generally i dont like your political takes and i think all the accusations you make really cheapens the good content you have, but if the argument is similar to the faulty and nonsensical logic presented in your argument for christian zionism being antisemitic, you will lose any bit of political credibility ypu currently have, so on the one hand im curious for what you will bring forth, on the other hand i feel like you slowly turn this channel into a political propaganda channel in which case ill have to unsub
Most of what I’ve heard Dr. McClellan say about politics has only enhanced his credibility. He does not, for example, tell us what policy should be. I don’t hear him telling listeners how Israel/Palestine should be organized politically; I don’t hear him opine on women’s inherent right to choose; he doesn’t opine on the right to die with dignity; etc. He identifies groups of people typically marginalized or oppressed and then presents a POV in which the marginalized should be heard and the oppressed lifted up, and that anyone who resists the hearing and the lifting should be scorned. That sounds sane, approachable, generous, and in far too short a supply in the mainstream.
@@81caspen with some things i agree with you and with some i dont. I think he inflates the value of the bad "right wing authoritarian that changes everythung to fit things into their agenda", a lot of people he criticizes imo are sincere and well intentioned, but he uses these ad hominems in order to enhance his own political goal which is ironic because thats what he accuses them of doing. Now aside from the fact that he completely disregatds the idea that some people are sincere and not ignorant yet disagree with him, always taking the side of the marginalized even when they are on the wrong side of things (for example the palestinians but i digress) is stupid, but dan seems to prioritize any will of the marginalized group over the will of the supposed non marginalized because the political stance a large portion of academics has been for a long time neo marxist, whether it is crt, radical feminism or flat out marxism (and they are proud of neo marxism, it is what it is), and we can discuss why its that. But these ideologies are harmful because they in essence strup the individual of his own agency, everything he has achieved is because he was a part of this group and everything he hasnt is because he wasnt in that group, aside from the fact that these are extremely reductionist and dont represent truth (fact of the matter these ideologies have no predictive power, they are only imposed on history retroactively) they are extremely harmful and cause a race to the bottom of whos the bigger victim, but dan doesnt care about that because to him, having these position is an identity markers for his fellow academics, exactpy what he criticizes others for.
@@idan654321 , you speak of the people who earnestly disagree with McClellan’s conclusions and of genuine right wing authoritarianism as if the two are mutually exclusive. This is a fallacy in a lot of American conservatism particularly, as if in order to be a real racist or sexist, etc., you have to be a mustache twirling caricature of a villain. That leaves little or no room for self-reflection. “Am I just parroting the boundary-enforcing claptrap of my parents? Is it possible that’s unfairly harmful?” The black and white fallacy you appear to hold lets those people off. “Unfair to gay people? Pfft. Sorry, mate. This is a sincere belief, this is. I can’t be one of the bad guys *inadvertently*. To be a bigot you have to *intend* to be a bigot!” I also notice that McClellan doesn’t even call people bigots, you know? He doesn’t make it personal in that way. He describes their positions, with the difference being that he doesn’t imply the problem is with the creators’ intrinsic character, but just with a thing they happen to be saying. They can stop being described as promoting right wing authoritarianism when they stop saying things which happen to promote that POV, whether they really mean to be the bad guy or not. You also speak of reductionism, and you instance the Palestinians. I’m aware I introduced the term, but you’ve made a specific point of them. I have never heard him characterize them as a group except to point out factually the enormous power differential which exists between them and Israel. That differential is a fact and it colors our perception of that situation. Have you heard him say more than any of that?
@@81caspen about the palestinian point, i brought it as an example not because dan or anyone else promotes them per se but because as an israeli who has suffered personally due to wars and knows personally that a lot of them have very little regard to civilian innocent life, i feel that that is a great example for a supposed marginalized group that holds an immoral and extremely harmful belief, and that blindly supporting that "marginalized" group would be unjust (when i say palestinians i mean the culture that they represent which educates to devalue the lives of people, take it as an example and view the argument as what it is. Tge fact that dan rarely (yet he evidently did) call people bigots doeant take from him bashing their character as a means to promote his own agenda, calling jordan peterson evangelical, even though he isan agnostic as far as im aware (he usually refuses to answer the question of faith but, from his answers most people i think would categorize him as an agnostic, but even if not hes far from preaching the gospels as authoritative texts), and repeateely he tells apologists (of which im not a fan of most) whats their intentions and how awful and manipulative they are. Im with you that homophobia per se is bad, we may discuss its bounderies and its prevalence but the bottom line is that we have that discussion while there are things that cost far more lives in the west such as accessibility to healthcare and the pharma lobby, increasing the qualoty of education, maintaining borders and peace, but the fact that that became the hot political topic is a demonstration of that race to the bottom of who is the boggest victim, and imo dan promotes that and its extremely harmful.
@idan654321, while I can’t rule out that McClellan has called people bigots, I did not say that he had and neither do I have any reason to believe he has. What he has done is to call out agendas that are about preserving extant power already accrued on unfair bases, such as race, sex, and religion. I believe your characterization of his remarks is off the mark. I doubt he has called Peterson evangelical, but rather I expect what he said was to call Peterson’s remarks as promoting an evangelical POV. This allows for the possibility that JP is whatever - an agnostic, a Buddhist, an all-out Satanist - but that what he says falls in with an evangelical Christian agenda. You may disagree on the point, but it is not calling Peterson an evangelical. My experience so far is not that he tells apologists that they are awful. OTOH, if they produce videos and other content which conveniently overlooks critical data to paint a picture, surely that *is* manipulative, isn’t it? How much room do we want to give flat earthers, for example, to promote their fallacies while we pretend they’re all perfectly reasonable and well-meaning? Isn’t their ignorance at some point necessarily willful or at least inexcusable? We’re not talking about genial homebodies who just happen to harbor serious doubts about settled questions - we’re talking about public figures or would-be public figures trying to convert or reinforce the members of their audience and through them politics. They need to be held to a high standard of evidence, not only in what they present, but in what they choose to minimize or ignore as evidence. No one that I know of is interested in this phantom ideology of “the biggest victim” to which you refer. OTOH, complaints about such an ideology would be a handy way to dismiss any inconvenient or painful accusations of harm without ever having to consider the evidence. Re: Palestinians, it sounds like you want to generalize and to demonize. That’s a game available to everyone. Plenty of blame and demons to go around. But there are also pragmatic realities and everyone deserves to live their lives in peace - or at least, not to be condemned as a class or a race or an ethnic group or a nationality. Do you seriously not agree with that?
You could read it to engage with the substance of the book, and then come back and educate everyone on why their arguments are bad, or just continue to complain about ideological phantoms living rent-free in your own mind.
Oh, ffs. Maybe get out of your bubble. Every time I hear some one use this term, I roll my eyes. It reveals so much more about the user of the term than using the term to describe a thing ever could.
Funny how that word was coined in a positive sense of awareness of oppression; but then because it's grammatically bad, the fascists reclaimed it as their own slackjaw term as a catchall for anything good
