https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1CqqaqwNMZ/?mibextid=wwXIfr
I could 100% see Dan accosting someone who was peacefully and respectfully standing in a public space with a sign that he didn’t like.
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1CqqaqwNMZ/?mibextid=wwXIfr
I could 100% see Dan accosting someone who was peacefully and respectfully standing in a public space with a sign that he didn’t like.
48 comments:
Well, given I'm not sure Dan has a pair, I don't believe he would. He'd walk away as flustered as the dude in the video did, that's for sure.
Projection, much?
Of course, I do not do that kind of thing. I think you're thinking of the "pro-life" and "anti-gay" haters who go to events and places they're not wanted and tell people they're going to hell for disagreeing with their opinions about their human religious traditions.
In fact, I recently HAPPENED upon such individuals at this year's Pride event. I respectfully passed them by one time. Respectfully passed them by a second time when one of them noticed my Jeff St Baptist rainbow shirt and HE said, "You're part of a fake church and you're going to hell." I respectfully responded with something like, "what are you doing here? Do you truly think this is helpful in any way at all? That anyone wants to hear your hateful preaching coming from a place of ignorance of our lives and our faith?" And then I noticed his "crusader" White power Jerusalem cross on his hat. And I pointed to that and said, again, "What are you even doing with that sort of parephenalia? You're only making things worse..." all while he heaped abuse upon me.
Me harass people in public? You got it backwards.
Dan
I guess that I’m not welcome to express my opinion based on my interactions with Dan over the years.
Perhaps my mistake is in concluding that Dan is just as vitriolic in real life as he is behind a keyboard.
As noted below, you could be right. Dan might save his aggression for his online activities.
You certainly harassed those guys of whom you just spoke, pretending they were wearing "nazi" hats because some progressive told that symbol is nazi.
And then of course you scolded them for noticing your belong to a fake Christian church with a woman pretending to be a pastor who preaches homosexual unions are something God would bless. In short, you were harassing dudes who were simply telling the truth.
So, as I re read the post I see that Dan did accost someone with a sign (clothing, but close enough) that he didn’t like.
Dan then denies that he’d do this, right before admitting that he’s done it.
I guess I’m wrong about being wrong or something.
So, pro-life protesters who peacefully stand off to the side of an event but are not wanted are a problem, but leftist protesters who engage in violence or threats of violence where they are not wanted isn’t a problem.
I’m sorry that Dan finds it inconvenient when those who disagree with him exercise their 1st amendment rights.
Of course, that assumes he actually did what he says he did. I can never take him at his word, and thus I don't. He's proven himself far less than an honest boy.
Define, accost. I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Dan
Accost:
It means to approach and speak to someone in a way that is rude, bold, threatening, or aggressive. Often, it happens when a stranger stops you in a public place to demand something or make you feel uncomfortable.
In this situation what happened was that I passed by them, as did thousands and thousands of others, and they were shouting damnation and warnings of Hell to all the passers by, using a megaphone to do so. I passed them and said nothing. I passed them a second time and when he looked at my shirt (which included rainbow colors and the horrifying message of "all are welcome", as well as the name of my church) one of the guys said, "You're not going to a real church. You're going to Hell." That is literally threatening me with Hell and spoken in an aggressive manner coming from 5 or 6 Nazi-looking white dudes wearing Nazi paraphernalia or at least Christian nationalist paraphernalia.
My response was much like some of my responses to you, "Friends, what are you all doing here? This is a day of grace and joy. You don't have to harass people." This was said in a soft-spoken, respectful manner. manner.
At that point I saw his Nazi paraphernalia and said, "And what are you doing? (Pointing to his hat) You don't have to bother people. Go home." When he said again that I'm going to hell, I said, "Fortunately that's not your decision to make." Then I politely asked permission to take a photo of his hat and he allowed it and then I walked on. Everything I had spoken was said respectfully in response to his accosting me.
Now who is accosting who in that scenario?
Dan
I could have written this self congratulatory, self promotional, hagiography myself. It’s exactly what anyone who’s engaged with Dan and been the target of his vitriol would have expected.
It may be basically True, but it’s almost certainly been framed in a way to make Dan look better and Dan's Target look worse.
Nothing new here.
Well that's the thing, isn't it? Almost anyone's gonna look better than a fascist Christian nationalist demonizing people in the streets.
Have you never been to - or seen on TV even - the far right-wing "christians" calling down judgment on LGBTQ folks attending joyful, gracious, inclusive Pride parades? Of course, they're abusive in their language. Of course, they're arrogant and condescending and not infrequently, of course they're almost always associated with the KKK or other white nationalist. Those types of conservatives have long hated gay folks and their allies and showed up to protest at otherwise gracious and loving Pride events... You can't be so detached from reality to not know that.
It's the danger of living in a silo surrounded by only people like you who agree with you. You become unaware and detached from the oppression real people face in the real world by abusers like these. Once again if y'all wanted to do something positive in reaching out to the LGBTQ communities, you could come and counter protest these counter protesters.
Also it's telling that when I just describe accurately instances like this, you have to imagine that I'm making something up to make myself look better. I'm just describing the reality that LGBTQ folks and their allies have to deal with in daily life. Would that you could be more holy as the LGBTQ community is holy.
Dan
Indeed. It reminds me of a comedy show using the technique of two or three people giving wildly different perspectives of an event in question.
I would also say, these guys about whom Dan pretends is described accurately, aren't "threatening" anyone with Hell. They're warning them that Hell for them is also warned in Scripture, by Jesus and Paul. Scripture also warns against the very enabling of sinfulness that Dan indulges in by his "all are welcome" pro-homosexual crap.
Well, you see what Dan has done here. He’s moved away from the video in my post, where we can actually see and evaluate what happened, to making vague and unsubstantiated claims about things we can’t evaluate.
Are there people on both sides who go to far, sure. But that’s not really the point.
Dan's self congratulatory paean to himself isn’t really the point either. It’s just amusing to see what a high opinion he has of himself.
I’m not imagining the hate filled vitriol you’ve spewed at me, nor the names you’ve called. Let alone the garbage you allow at your cesspool. I’m having a hard time believing that you don’t respond in person the way you hear.
But alas, we have no proof.
"You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments..."
One thing that I believe you gentlemen are missing is the context of oppressor and oppressed. If these conversations were just between two privileged white guys who were very opinionated about their sports ball teams and went back and forth, both from an equal footing position, no big deal. Team one, team two, you're wrong, you're right, okay, whatever.
This is not that.
In your example about the guy protesting abortion rights and health rights for women. In my example we're talking about equal rights and opportunities for LGBTQ folks and their allies. In other instances we might be talking about the rights of folks with disabilities or the rights of people of color or immigrants.
In each of those cases we are talking about groups who have been historically abused, oppressed, maligned, demonized, harmed, and killed on the one hand and the oppressors on the other. In that case even if an abortion opponent manages to be calm in delivering his message in a public protest, there is a historic memory of abuses towards women and denying the rights to women. That makes it a charged situation for those on the other side. Trauma is a real thing caused by traumatizing oppressors.
And in each of these cases the oppression is not ancient history. It's still a fresh, recent thing, in our lifetimes only - and truly into our children's lifetimes - has it started to get a little bit better. If LGBTQ folks and their allies or women or others get their ire up and respond a bit frantically in the face of oppression rising back up, that's understandable. We're talking about human rights and people are rightly, strongly and righteously emotionally defending human rights and warning against returning to days of oppression.
Picture Jesus pulling together a whip to drive out the money changers from the temple. Righteous burning active anger against oppression. God and reasonable people are rightfully outraged at oppression.
And so the trauma lives on, the curse from our repressive fathers into the third and fourth and fifth generations. It's not like you can flip slavery off, for instance, and say, "Okay you're free. All is forgiven. Everybody's cool now." There was and continues to be active harm, ongoing harm caused by that oppression and it doesn't go away in a day.
Likewise the trauma experienced by all these other groups: women, LGBTQ folks, those with disabilities, immigrants. That trauma is a curse in their and all of our lives. Those who would downplay the trauma from that oppression need to understand what they're asking when they're asking people to be calm in the face of oppression rising back up.
Dan
Because, heaven forbid we disagree strongly with someone Dan decided is “oppressed”. Kind of like expecting everyone wait idly by while cities burned in 2020.
It’s always refreshing when Dan cites some OT rules as if they’re somehow binding in exactly the way he wants them to be.
Craig, missing the point entirely, said:
when Dan cites some OT rules as if they’re somehow binding in exactly the way he wants them to be.
Not binding. Not anything that I said. Rather, I find the language here instructive, informative to conditions that we can see in history and in the real world. The bad behavior of oppressors IS a curse... just not in the sense of some mystical voodoo placed on you by a God. Rather, it establishes extremely harmful patterns and attitudes that can't just be shirked off in a day or even in generations. It takes deliberate efforts and time and intention to move past the ripples of harm caused by oppressive behavior. We can see that NOT because there is a line in the Bible, but in just observed history.
Craig:
heaven forbid we disagree strongly with someone Dan decided is “oppressed”.
There's nothing to agree or disagree with. It's just reality. LGBTQ folks HAVE been oppressed throughout history. Women HAVE been oppressed throughout history. Folks with disabilities, people of color, others all HAVE been oppressed throughout history.
AND that history of oppression includes right up into our current days and times and, indeed, there are people who are actively trying to undo gains we've made.
You can disagree about the best way to be allies to historically oppressed groups, but you can't deny the oppression that has happened. Not if you want to live in reality.
But then, that's "alternative reality" is just the blinder that the "make america great again" crowd embraces. It just doesn't change reality that you all can't see it or won't admit to it.
The problem you seem to find confusing is that the topic of this post is the video and the behavior in the video.
You see the difference between an interaction where we can see a significant amount of the interchange and we can see the anger and vitriol on the leftists, contrasted with the calmness of the guy on the right.
In the case the thing you related, we have no evidence, no context, no video, no audio, just you bragging about how awesome you were and how evil the other guys were. That’s just you relating an anecdote, which is certainly biased and less than objective. Given how you act here, and the vitriol, lies, and arrogance you exhibit I see no reason to uncritically accept your narrative as objectively factual.
It’s strange that you find YHWH announcing “unfair” punishment to be worthy of interest, you’d think this’d be one of those “mythy” parts you dismiss.
The eisegesus is strong with this one. And the incantations are still going strong.
Speaking of an alternate reality…
Dan pulling out the racist card--Privileged white men. Lying nonsense.
Craig:
The problem you seem to find confusing is that the topic of this post is the video and the behavior in the video.
In this video, we see what appears to be three people disagreeing. We see one man promoting a position that would pose limits on women's liberties and he does so in a fairly soft-spoken manner. Do not confuse "soft-spoken" with "respectful." He's presuming that he and others like him are the ones who should decide about women's pregnancies - an affront to their human rights and arrogant in the extreme. THAT is violence towards others' human rights, even if he's soft spoken when he promotes that oppression.
The others, on the other hand, disagree strongly with him - he uses curse words in describing the oppression of the soft-spoken man. He doesn't engage in violence or abuse, other than the curse words addressing the oppression.
Being a soft-spoken, condescending arrogant promoters of abuse doesn't make him a nicer guy than the guy cussing.
Craig responded suggesting I was engaging in eisegesis. Of course, what I said is not eisegesis.I'll remind you of what I said:
The bad behavior of oppressors IS a curse... just not in the sense of some mystical voodoo placed on you by a God. Rather,
oppressive behavior establishes extremely harmful patterns and attitudes that can't just be shirked off in a day or even in generations.
It's an observation of reality, not an interpretation of Scripture.
Do you agree that oppressive behavior establishes harmful patters and attitudes... problems that can last generations?
It's just observable reality, isn't it?
It takes deliberate efforts and time and intention to move past the ripples of harm caused by oppressive behavior. We can see that NOT because there is a line in the Bible, but in just observed history.
Again, I'm speaking of observable reality. Do you think I'm mistaken about negative repercussions from abuse and oppression that can last generations?
I'm not saying that THIS is the meaning of the text that the author intended (and I'm not saying it isn't... we literally don't know in any objective sense, any more than we know who the author(s) was/were). I'm saying that this text speaks to ME of this reality, which is more rational than trying to suggest that a vengeful god might impose voodoo-like curses upon innocent children and grandchildren of abusers. Do you disagree?
Blah, blah, off topic. Blah, blah, “oppression “. Same shit, different day.
Well you’re certainly reading a lot into the interaction that isn’t explicitly there, and soft pedaling the response of the majority and those who want to curtail free speech, which seems oppressive.
I point to oppression and ask you a reasonable real-world question about the real-world oppression of women, people of color, LGBTQ folks, et cetera. You choose not to answer and then just put "oppression" in quotation marks and say blah blah blah.
You're worried about two people not being nice enough to a white man out protesting abortion rights and women's rights, but have no time to answer simple easy questions about actual oppression in our history. Have you no shame sir?
Dan
What did you expect. Virtually everyone in the US is “privileged” when compared to the rest of the world.
Coming from someone who’s shown a definite problem answering questions, you’re a bit too upset that I missed one while on my phone.
But yeah, I have a hard time getting to worked up about someone feeling “opposed” because they can’t end the life of their own child on a whim, at any time, for any reason and on the taxpayers dime. Sorry, not seeing the oppression in someone having to (99% of the time) deal with the consequences of their voluntary choices.
Yeah, it’s just your same old talking points and BS, nothing that hasn’t been addressed before.
You do realize that whatever “historical” oppression there might have been has been more than addressed legally, don’t you?
I’m not worried so much as pointing out that the ASPL were the aggressors and the ones trying to oppress the protestor. Does he not have the right to express himself in public without being threatened?
Yea, I disagree with your eisegesus. Don’t I usually?
Craig...
"You do realize that whatever “historical” oppression there might have been has been more than addressed legally, don’t you?"
Perhaps more than anything else this has become the opiate of the Maga movement: their own addiction to their own unreal reality.
Dan
He wasn't threatened. People had their free speech to say they don't like what he's saying and wish he would go away. It's not aggressive. Any more than his aggression of telling women they can't manage their own bodies. That's actual aggression and oppression by law that conservatives are engaged in on the streets and in legislatures where conservatives rule.
That's yet another problem with modern MAGA so-called conservatives. They're so emotionally frail that they cannot stand having people dare to disagree with them. They want "their" America back where they get to say who is going to be oppressed and disagreed with. It is not and never was their or your America to begin with.
Dan
Dan indulges in deceit again. He moves from his alleged encounter with a small group of dudes he NEEDS the listener to believe are "nazis" because of a hat worn by one of them with a symbol nazis have allegedly appropriated, though which doesn't in any way guarantee that ONLY nazis wear it...a symbol which has no nazi origin of any kind. He maliciously perverts their righteous warnings regarding the Biblical teaching regarding the unambiguous eternal destination of those Dan enables rather than encourages repentance.
Then, when his obvious treachery is called out for the treachery it is, he then pretends that Christians who publicly oppose this factual abomination are somehow tied to actual nazis or his mythical "white supremacists" (because in DanWorld, only white people oppose the abomination Dan loves so much), or are actually nazis and white supremacists, too.
Perhaps the leftists Dan pretends are right-wingers DO show up to Pride In Perversion events which thrill fake Christians like Dan. Perhaps they DO show up and rain down hateful comments worse than Dan's hateful comments toward real Christians he's unable to convince people he's actually counted among. But that's just like Dan to do what he can to pretend they're all the same simply because Dan hates that they all oppose abomination. That's easier...to disparage real Christians speaking God's truth to the detestable...than to side with the God Dan pretends to worship in encouraging his beloved perverts to repent of their evil.
Dan's as twisted a pervert as any he defends against real Christians seeking their salvation by preaching to them God's Truth.
---Art
What a rank and blatant load of crap. There is no "oppression" history which has any connection to the truths Dan and his kind seek to stifle:
---LGBTQ people have not been denied Constitutionally enumerated rights. They continue to seek (and gave acquired) special privileges to which they're in no way entitled. Past "oppression"....real or imagined or invented...doesn't change that.
---Whatever alleged "opporession" has been visited upon people of other nations doesn't entitle people from those nations to invade our nation contrary to our established immigration laws and border policies without immediate deportation upon their presence being discovered.
---No "oppression" of slavery in the past or past discrimination entities black people to special privileges now, be it altering admission or hiring qualifications, lighter sentences for criminal actions or the like.
---No past misogyny or patriarchal policy entities women to special treatment beyond equal treatment.
Dan pretends that all who oppose bad proposals benefiting any of these or other groups in ways similar are wrong for not falsely pretending that past wrongdoing means they get whatever they demand.
How stupid.
---Art
Good point. The people Dan describes do not have the authority to "threaten" people with hell, they do have the authority to warn them. What the people do with that warning is their choice. It's akin to arguing that putting up a "bridge out" sign is threatening people to throw them in a canyon. The warning is there and people can heed it or not.
Not only that, but in Dan's described encounter, Dan himself is there to reassure people that they will not end up in hell for their actions. I'm not sure what the problem is.
Dan definitely needs to make these sorts of character attacks to reassure himself of how righteous he is.
The problem with the whole "oppression/conquest" framework which Dan sees everything through is that it chooses not to apply the same standards to all worldviews/cultures. It doesn't treat the two most oppressive/conquering worldviews with the same scorn that it treats others. In fact, it de facto exempts some worldviews from criticism.
Dan also seems to think that someone not getting their every wish indulged is "oppression".
"Do you agree that oppressive behavior establishes harmful patters and attitudes... problems that can last generations?"
If left unchecked, sure. If only we had an current example of an ideology/worldview which is "oppressive" and attempting to expand and "oppress" more and more people that we could examine. Which doesn't make your eisegesus any more accurate, you haven't demonstrated that YHWH agrees with your hunch.
"It's just observable reality, isn't it?"
Again, if only we could watch what happens when an ideology/worldview was actively engaging in "oppressive" behavior right now.
Nothing in the proof text you posted supports the conclusions you've stated.
"Do you think I'm mistaken about negative repercussions from abuse and oppression that can last generations?"
I think that your mistaken in your eisegesus of your proof text.
But I do appreciate your acknowledgement that you don't care about the original meaning of the text, but simply choose to interpret in in a way that feels right to your personally, while expecting others to agree with your personal feelings about your proof text.
"I point to oppression and ask you a reasonable real-world question about the real-world oppression of women, people of color, LGBTQ folks, et cetera."
The problem is that you "point to" "oppression" in the past which has been addressed through appropriate legal processes. Yet, you ignore actual large scale oppression happening right now, today. You're obsessed with things recorded in the OT as of they're happening today or with things that happened decades or more ago as if nothing has changed, while decidedly less obsessed with what is actually happening right now.
What opiates are you on? Speaking to the US, the things you call "oppression" have been addressed through the legal/legislative process.
Not getting every single thing you want is not "oppression".
Well, I guess you are free to live in your own reality if you choose.
Standing quietly on a public street is not "aggression" by any definition. Free speech has always been understood to protect "offensive" speech. If these people were offended, they could have moved on or engaged in a reasonable, respectful, discussion. Instead they chose vitriol, threats, foul language, and hatred. It's strange that the "manage their own bodies" argument only applies to women choosing to end the life of their children for any reason at any time, perhaps the reason women want abortion is because they failed to "manage their bodies" or their minds.
It's strange that we have a massive amount of video evidence of various conservatives willingly placing themselves in "hostile" environments (college campuses, TV talk shows, public spaces, and the like) and encouraging people to disagree with them and to discuss contentious topics. We can see with our won eyes and hear with our own ears how those interactions go. In this interaction you somehow think that the crowd of people who chose to try to intimidate and force this individual from exercising his right to free speech are the ones who welcome disagreement, and that the individual who quietly and respectfully responds to them is the one who "cannot stand having people disagree with" him.
I guess that living in a fantasy world has its benefits.
"You shall not bow down to them [false idols] or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God,..."
When you proof text an out of context snippet of Scripture to try to anoint your political position, maybe using one that actually relates to the point you are trying to make would be beneficial.
In this Scripture, YHWH is clearly and directly speaking of worshiping false gods. Maybe worshiping false gods is the problem.
"Any more than his aggression of telling women they can't manage their own bodies."
I haven't seen anyone telling women that they can't manage their own bodies. Killing the separate human being in their body isn't taking away their right to THEIR OWN bodies--the baby is not part of the woman's body. If the women WOULD manage their own bodies they would be screwing every Tom, Dick, and Harry without contraception. If you don't want to get pregnant, then manage YOUR OWN body and don't murder the baby that YOU caused to be conceived.
Dan doesn't seem that concerned by the individual, unique, living human beings whose life is brutally ended at any time and merely for the convenience of the mother. If you think about it, it's almost oppressive to kill those innocent humans for convenience.
The body management seems like it should start long before there is a separate human growing inside of a woman. It's not like we don't have the ability to regulate our sexual activities, prevent pregnancy, or are ignorant about how pregnancy works. Perhaps a little forethought and body management earlier would be a good thing to be discussing.
The one common factor in the video and Dans anecdote, is that the conservative was standing peacefully and waiting for engagement while the liberal chose to go out of their way to engage and escalate. Seems like it’d be much easier to simply ignore the conservative. Yet, it’s almost like there is something on liberals that compels them to confront and escalate.
https://x.com/katiedaviscourt/status/2086863973362946394?s=46&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
Earlier Dan used “where they are not wanted” as a reason to exclude certain protesters from certain places (probably not legally) but the implication was that protesters should not be in places where they are not wanted. Or that doing so would subject them to harassment and aggressive responses.
Yet forcing their way into places where they are not wanted, with no consequences, is literally the ASPL playbook. From BLM, to Greens, to “trans”, it’s all about demanding to be in places where they are not wanted.
Craig...
"Yet, it’s almost like there is something on liberals that compels them to confront and escalate."
Reality: Six white men with Nazi paraphernalia using a megaphone to shout condemnation upon literally thousands of people innocently walking by, going to enjoy a party to celebrate love and kindness and grace. These men shouting condemnation and using the name of God to call down destruction and hell upon those they were yelling at, they were just innocent bystanders doing nothing, in your imagination?
And then Dan comes along and says, "What are you doing here? Why are you doing this?
THAT'S escalating in your mind?
What's wrong with you?
What are you doing here?
Why are you on the side of the oppressors against a historically oppressed and abused group?
Which side are you on boy, which side are you on?
What would Jesus do?
Dan
Given the number of claims you make that cannot be proven, to the best of my knowledge, I absolutely believe that you choosing to go out of your way to engage with them was absolutely an escalation.
You took what was some guys peacefully exercising their 1st amendment right to free speech and escalated to a confrontation. You could have passed by and ignored them, you chose to give them what they wanted.
Arrogance, narcissistism, and hubris are a bad combination. You decided that you had to be the cis white guy who took it upon himself to defend the poor helpless ABC folx. Plus you gave the other guys the attention they wanted.
Good job.
And of course, if Dan's kind didn't have double standards....
Dan did a post at his Blog of Lies And Perversions where he repeats the false claims he makes in this thread. I've responded and copied and saved my responses, because he's more likely than not to delete me rather than address my criticisms and objections. I'll be transferring my comments to a post of my own at my Blog Of Truth and Wisdom (too wordy. I'll stick with "Marshal Art's").
You know I’m not going to intentionally delete anything, but I understand your concern.
Post a Comment