An experience I had

[Bob The Mercenary]

Originally Posted by Premmy

I'm interested in hearing about this, man.

Basically, I kept hammering them over time with facts regarding how evolution doesn't clash with Christian doctrine, but the argument that hit them hardest (and I've found this to be effective in several cases) is that God is incapable of deception. If that's the case, then the view of a recent-mature Earth falls apart. Then I gave them a book by Hugh Ross as a gift. Even though he isn't himself an evolutionist, he pushes for the 13.78 billion years coming from an evangelical background.

I'll stop there since our history of religious discussion on this board isn't exactly something to be admired. I guess the strategy is to first find common ground and attack from there.

[shiney]

Precisely. You need to counter their core beliefs, and what that entails is understanding them. It doesn't mean you need to disagree (like with your religion example)...but that you challenge the way they interpret those beliefs to guide them toward the reality of the situation instead of the delusion.

The evolution debate is an absolutely idiotic one anyways, I mean that is the epitome of head in the sand. Centuries of scientific evidence is a fair bit heavier than "well the guys in the robes told us this is how it is".

[Premmy]

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

Yeah, but as a Caucasian who is a Christian Protestant, I can tell you we aren't all Republican nutjobs. :P
(My predominantly Italian / Irish descent might eliminate "Anglo-Saxon" from the picture, though.)

I'd say the difference is certainly the fact that "WASPs", as beneficiaries of institutional privilege, lack many of the legitimate hardships faced by minority groups that members of those groups face solely due to their minority status. So I'd say stereotyping white Anglo-Saxon protestants is less offensive than stereotyping a minority group because there's no historical or cultural repression lacing the insult. Calling all whites "ignorant" or "rednecks" kind of loses its sting when those categorized still by and large have an institutional and socio-political framework in place that facilitates their success and ensures their acceptance.

That being said, suggesting that stereotyping a privileged group is less offensive than stereotyping a repressed group isn't the same as suggesting that it's not offensive at all. Stereotyping of all forms and kinds is objectively "bad," and while you can and should parcel it out in terms of variants and degrees, in the end an "enlightened liberal" only hurts his cause if, in the process of arguing against stereotyping gays or blacks, he or she stereotypes whites or Christians. That same person still is right to claim that his or her ethnic or religious stereotypes are "less offensive," but they still can offend, and thus they still detract from his or her argument.

(/my opinion)

My point was more that RPG was arguing that there was something wrong with the term WASP for.... some reason? It was racist somehow? and my point was that WASP just means... WASP.
edit: Granted, I can see how it would de-humanize a person by defining them more by their traits. It really just felt like RPG started to make one argument(WASP is a bad word) that was debatable then switched to make another(saying mean things about people is mean) that is sort of hard to dispute.

[rpgdemon]

Originally Posted by Premmy

My point was more that RPG was arguing that there was something wrong with the term WASP for.... some reason? It was racist somehow? and my point was that WASP just means... WASP.
edit: Granted, I can see how it would de-humanize a person by defining them more by their traits. It really just felt like RPG started to make one argument(WASP is a bad word) that was debatable then switched to make another(saying mean things about people is mean) that is sort of hard to dispute.

Well, I think I explained above, WASP seemed to be being used in the context given as, "Dude, the fact that these people are white protestants make them unable to make decisions about the current world, in the same way that being from the 1800s does", which to be fair -is- what the term WASP is used for in most contexts. And I'm saying that because the term literally means a white protestant, we should stop using it to mean an ignorant white protestant, as not all white protestants are ignorant.

[Aerozord]

me and RPG it was just a missunderstanding. I was using WASP in a literal and accurate sense, as simple short hand for their background not as a commentary or stereotyping the mindset of those people. While I just meant they share the same background, and thus could only speak of first hand experiences from that background.

RPG was under the impression I was adding weight to this fact with some subtext that by being WASP gave them some inherent disposition and world view as opposed to my intended meaning that it meant they had one frame of referance

Originally Posted by Bob the Mercenary

Basically, I kept hammering them over time with facts regarding how evolution doesn't clash with Christian doctrine, but the argument that hit them hardest (and I've found this to be effective in several cases) is that God is incapable of deception. If that's the case, then the view of a recent-mature Earth falls apart. Then I gave them a book by Hugh Ross as a gift. Even though he isn't himself an evolutionist, he pushes for the 13.78 billion years coming from an evangelical background.

I'll stop there since our history of religious discussion on this board isn't exactly something to be admired. I guess the strategy is to first find common ground and attack from there.

depends, I mean if they can accept that they are wrong, or they have been missinformed. I used to get in alot of fights with my grandpa simply because he refused to accept that what he was taught wasn't true. If something says otherwise, then clearly it is mistaken

[rpgdemon]

Originally Posted by Aerozord

me and RPG it was just a missunderstanding. I was using WASP in a literal and accurate sense, as simple short hand for their background not as a commentary or stereotyping the mindset of those people. While I just meant they share the same background, and thus could only speak of first hand experiences from that background.

RPG was under the impression I was adding weight to this fact with some subtext that by being WASP gave them some inherent disposition and world view as opposed to my intended meaning that it meant they had one frame of referance

Yeah, this.

[RobinStarwing]

Well, someone is starting to go after them and wants to debate them on what they quote.

High schooler challenges Michele Bachmann to Constitution showdown

A New Jersey high school sophomore has challenged Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) to a constitutional duel in an open letter that is making the rounds on political blogs.

Bachmann says she's a constitutional conservative and frequently cites the founding document when making arguments against policies or programs she doesn't support, such as the U.S. Census.

"I have found quite a few of your statements regarding The Constitution of the United States, the quality of public school education and general U.S. civics matters to be factually incorrect, inaccurately applied or grossly distorted," writes Cherry Hill, N.J., high schooler Amy Myers. She concludes: "I, Amy Myers, do hereby challenge Representative Michele Bachmann to a Public Forum Debate and/or Fact Test on The Constitution of the United States, United States History and United States Civics."

The full letter was posted on CNN's iReport, though we haven't been able to confirm Myers' identity. This may be her blog, where an Amy Myers who says she attends Cherry Hill East high school writes about education policy, Gov. Chris Christie, and her ninth-grade reading assignments.

This is the entire letter:

Dear Representative Bachmann,

My name is Amy Myers. I am a Cherry Hill, New Jersey sophomore attending Cherry Hill High School East. As a typical high school student, I have found quite a few of your statements regarding The Constitution of the United States, the quality of public school education and general U.S. civics matters to be factually incorrect, inaccurately applied or grossly distorted. The frequency and scope of these comments prompted me to write this letter.

Though I am not in your home district, or even your home state, you are a United States Representative of some prominence who is subject to national media coverage. News outlets and websites across this country profile your causes and viewpoints on a regular basis. As one of a handful of women in Congress, you hold a distinct privilege and responsibility to better represent your gender nationally. The statements you make help to serve an injustice to not only the position of Congresswoman, but women everywhere. Though politically expedient, incorrect comments cast a shadow on your person and by unfortunate proxy, both your supporters and detractors alike often generalize this shadow to women as a whole.

Rep. Bachmann, the frequent inability you have shown to accurately and factually present even the most basic information about the United States led me to submit the follow challenge, pitting my public education against your advanced legal education:

I, Amy Myers, do hereby challenge Representative Michele Bachmann to a Public Forum Debate and/or Fact Test on The Constitution of the United States, United States History and United States Civics.

Hopefully, we will be able to meet for such an event, as it would prove to be enlightening.

Sincerely yours,
Amy Myers

(Bachmann: AP)

Be stupid enough woman to do it and let's see if you are smarter and know more about the constitution than a High Schooler!