|
Post by hibernicus on Jun 11, 2018 20:36:50 GMT
Actually, the German national flag does not have the same problem as the anthem, because its black-red-gold colours are historically associated with liberalism since the unsuccessful Frankfurt Parliament of 1848. The Weimar Republic used black-red-gold for that reason, and the Nazis reverted to the old Prussian imperial colours of black-white-red (incorporating the swastika). Far-right demonstrators in Germany fly the black-white-red imperial naval ensign,since Nazi emblems are prohibited. So the relative absence of the German flag in Bavaria has more to do with regional identity (like the present-day dominance of the saltire over the Union Jack in Edinburgh) than with the sort of historical baggage that surrounds "Deutschland Uber Alles".
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Jun 12, 2018 12:18:01 GMT
Should remembered über in Deutschland über alles means before as in Germany before anything else rather than Germany over everything-patriotism rather than jingoism. The main problem with the German anthem is setting German's eastern border at the River Memel and the southern border at the Adige. This reflects a 19th century idea of how big Germany was.
Many anthems have problems. Like French L'etandard sanglant est levee - the bloody standard is raised. Or the US "and conquer we must, when our cause it is just and this be our Motto in God is our trust and the Star spangled banner shall triumphantly wave o'er the land of the free and the home of the brave" or the British "our Lord and God arise scatter thy enemies foes let them fall" Many more where they came from. Cringe at our own, but cringe in context
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jun 12, 2018 12:33:15 GMT
I must say I've always liked "Confound their politics, frustrate their knavish tricks" from God Save the Queen!
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 2, 2018 21:04:22 GMT
Last week Fintan O'Toole had a column suggesting that the family separation policy towards immigrants of the Trump administration was a step towards fascism because it involved actual delight in cruelty. I thought this was hopelessly over the top at the time, but after discussing it with a friend who has been watching online videos of immigrants being rounded up (with yee-haw gloating in the combox) I must say there is something in it. That doesn't mean I agree with open borders (or with our own disgraceful "direct provision" scheme). It's the gloating and the willed absence of empathy (which I often see on discussion sites) that angers me. I might add that it also reminds me of some of the posters on Politics.ie who were jeering about "dead babb-eh" signs - not that they denied babies are being killed, they just didn't give a damn. Of course talk of fascism is a bit rich coming from Fintan O'Toole, who devoted so much effort to demonising anyone who feels empathy for the unborn and whose version of "republicanism" entails the absorption of civil society by state absolutism.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jul 3, 2018 9:11:21 GMT
Last week Fintan O'Toole had a column suggesting that the family separation policy towards immigrants of the Trump administration was a step towards fascism because it involved actual delight in cruelty. I thought this was hopelessly over the top at the time, but after discussing it with a friend who has been watching online videos of immigrants being rounded up (with yee-haw gloating in the combox) I must say there is something in it. That doesn't mean I agree with open borders (or with our own disgraceful "direct provision" scheme). It's the gloating and the willed absence of empathy (which I often see on discussion sites) that angers me. I might add that it also reminds me of some of the posters on Politics.ie who were jeering about "dead babb-eh" signs - not that they denied babies are being killed, they just didn't give a damn. Of course talk of fascism is a bit rich coming from Fintan O'Toole, who devoted so much effort to demonising anyone who feels empathy for the unborn and whose version of "republicanism" entails the absorption of civil society by state absolutism. How often is opposition to gay marriage, gender ideology, abortion and Communion for the divorced and remarried presented as a lack of empathy? Don't you care about the gay teen who will commit suicide because the latest gay rights demand isn't met and that makes him feel like a second class citizen? Don't you care about the trans kid who will self-harm if he is mispronouned? What about all the scared girls who would travel to England "forced" into having an abortion? Don't you care? How can you be so inhuman? Isn't Christianity meant to be about love? What about the woman who left an abusive husband and must submit to her new man's sexual demands in order to give her children a home? Should she really be denied Communion? Don't you care? The selective appeal to emotion is enormously abused in our time. I think it's understandable when people push back against it even at the risk of seeming callous.
|
|
|
Post by assisi on Jul 3, 2018 10:39:24 GMT
Last week Fintan O'Toole had a column suggesting that the family separation policy towards immigrants of the Trump administration was a step towards fascism because it involved actual delight in cruelty. I thought this was hopelessly over the top at the time, but after discussing it with a friend who has been watching online videos of immigrants being rounded up (with yee-haw gloating in the combox) I must say there is something in it. That doesn't mean I agree with open borders (or with our own disgraceful "direct provision" scheme). It's the gloating and the willed absence of empathy (which I often see on discussion sites) that angers me. I might add that it also reminds me of some of the posters on Politics.ie who were jeering about "dead babb-eh" signs - not that they denied babies are being killed, they just didn't give a damn. Of course talk of fascism is a bit rich coming from Fintan O'Toole, who devoted so much effort to demonising anyone who feels empathy for the unborn and whose version of "republicanism" entails the absorption of civil society by state absolutism. How often is opposition to gay marriage, gender ideology, abortion and Communion for the divorced and remarried presented as a lack of empathy? Don't you care about the gay teen who will commit suicide because the latest gay rights demand isn't met and that makes him feel like a second class citizen? Don't you care about the trans kid who will self-harm if he is mispronouned? What about all the scared girls who would travel to England "forced" into having an abortion? Don't you care? How can you be so inhuman? Isn't Christianity meant to be about love? What about the woman who left an abusive husband and must submit to her new man's sexual demands in order to give her children a home? Should she really be denied Communion? Don't you care? The selective appeal to emotion is enormously abused in our time. I think it's understandable when people push back against it even at the risk of seeming callous. Yes, indeed, emotion is all. If you oppose any of the above emotionally presented arguments you appear callous and are immediately on the defensive. One way to respond is to assert, using equally emotional (and true) arguments. For example that it is a horrible thing to heap trans propaganda on a young person while they are still very immature, basically children, and encouraging them into a world of drugs and surgery that could cause irreparable damage and that many transgenders regret their decision. And the scared girls going to England? Wouldn't it be better for the girl to give birth? Wouldn't you like to see mother and baby healthy and happy? Don't you know that many women are desperately sad that they have aborted and are plagued by this in later years? The emotional counter arguments are many.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jul 3, 2018 11:02:07 GMT
How often is opposition to gay marriage, gender ideology, abortion and Communion for the divorced and remarried presented as a lack of empathy? Don't you care about the gay teen who will commit suicide because the latest gay rights demand isn't met and that makes him feel like a second class citizen? Don't you care about the trans kid who will self-harm if he is mispronouned? What about all the scared girls who would travel to England "forced" into having an abortion? Don't you care? How can you be so inhuman? Isn't Christianity meant to be about love? What about the woman who left an abusive husband and must submit to her new man's sexual demands in order to give her children a home? Should she really be denied Communion? Don't you care? The selective appeal to emotion is enormously abused in our time. I think it's understandable when people push back against it even at the risk of seeming callous. Yes, indeed, emotion is all. If you oppose any of the above emotionally presented arguments you appear callous and are immediately on the defensive. One way to respond is to assert, using equally emotional (and true) arguments. For example that it is a horrible thing to heap trans propaganda on a young person while they are still very immature, basically children, and encouraging them into a world of drugs and surgery that could cause irreparable damage and that many transgenders regret their decision. And the scared girls going to England? Wouldn't it be better for the girl to give birth? Wouldn't you like to see mother and baby healthy and happy? Don't you know that many women are desperately sad that they have aborted and are plagued by this in later years? The emotional counter arguments are many. I think this is what Trump was trying to do here. www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/trump-defends-border-policy-meets-families-of-crime-victims/I don't want to get into the argument about how valid this was. I'm simply suggesting we shouldn't get into the whole area of appealing to peoples' supposed motivations or emotional state.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jul 3, 2018 14:59:32 GMT
Yes, indeed, emotion is all. If you oppose any of the above emotionally presented arguments you appear callous and are immediately on the defensive. One way to respond is to assert, using equally emotional (and true) arguments. For example that it is a horrible thing to heap trans propaganda on a young person while they are still very immature, basically children, and encouraging them into a world of drugs and surgery that could cause irreparable damage and that many transgenders regret their decision. And the scared girls going to England? Wouldn't it be better for the girl to give birth? Wouldn't you like to see mother and baby healthy and happy? Don't you know that many women are desperately sad that they have aborted and are plagued by this in later years? The emotional counter arguments are many. I think this is what Trump was trying to do here. www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/trump-defends-border-policy-meets-families-of-crime-victims/I don't want to get into the argument about how valid this was. I'm simply suggesting we shouldn't get into the whole area of appealing to peoples' supposed motivations or emotional state. So I suppose that the pope and all of the American bishops, including Cardinal Burke by the way, and all those who have denounced the family seperation policy are simply being emotional then?
|
|
|
Post by Account Deleted on Jul 3, 2018 15:01:18 GMT
Isn't Christianity meant to be about love? You've touched upon the heart of the difficulty for them in understanding Christianity today - what is love? They know Christianity is about love, but they can't reconcile some Christian's attitudes and behaviours with their understanding of 'love'. Most nominal Christians seem to have a skewed understanding of what Christianity is. They equate it with 'compassion' (as we've heard used to cajole Christians to vote for abortion and gay marriage). It's an attitude they get from today's prevalent MTD view of Christianity, that God just wants us to be good, nice, and fair to everyone - the 'compassionate' nature of love. In the Gospels, Jesus used the term compassion just once (- I stand to be corrected on that - ), but he used the term 'love' numerous times, and predominantly as translated from the greek agape, which is the form of love that personally costs us something, when showing love for the other - as exemplified by Him. How often in our world do we hear the world love used in that sense, of sacrificial love? The word 'love', in public media, seems mostly to be used where there is an implicit sexual connotation associated with the meaning. I'm reminded of the recent Eurovision entry with the male couple dancing, where the performer said its message was that "Love is love". So using the word love in any other sense in modern speech becomes difficult, if not forbidden. Some of the weaker forms of the word love (from the greek senses) - compassion, or care, or affection, or fraternity, or romance - all become easier replacements, but weaker ones. "Love Both" was the closest usage yet to the sense of agape. So how can we know what true love is? Christ shows us the way, every day. Christian love is the kind that dares to speak its name, for the good of others, to steer from personal calamity, or causing harm (scandal) to others, even if it costs us personally to do so. That is what they don't 'get' about Christians - we speak against abortion, and against damaging active homosexual lifestyles, because we love them. That is our choice. Maybe someday they will 'get' that about Christianity.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jul 3, 2018 15:25:14 GMT
So I suppose that the pope and all of the American bishops, including Cardinal Burke by the way, and all those who have denounced the family seperation policy are simply being emotional then? Once again missing the point. The point at issue is not the family separation policy (although the point has well been made that people who commmit crimes are generally separated from their families). The point is whether it reflects a fascist, sadistic regime as Fintan O'Toole was arguing, and Hibernicus seemed to be partly agreeing with, because of second-hand reports of some Americans being unduly jubilant.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jul 3, 2018 15:27:32 GMT
So I suppose that the pope and all of the American bishops, including Cardinal Burke by the way, and all those who have denounced the family seperation policy are simply being emotional then? Once again missing the point. The point at issue is not the family separation policy (although the point has well been made that people who commmit crimes are generally separated from their families). The point is whether it reflects a fascist, sadistic regime as Fintan O'Toole was arguing, and Hibernicus seemed to be supporting, because his friend told him about comments on a video. No, you simply dismissed those opposing the family separations as being emotive. Do you agree with the policy?
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jul 3, 2018 15:30:14 GMT
I defer to the bishops and I see the desirability of keeping families together, but I think the hysteria about the policy is overblown. Dave Cullen made a very good video about it. www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSXIDec_U_UReally, the American bishops seem to be against ANY kind of border enforcement. If they were put in charge of it, I wonder what they would do?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 8, 2018 21:30:10 GMT
I'm afraid I didn't make myself clear. I didn't mean to say that anyone who supports restrictions on immigration is necessarily cruel and sadistic. What I was thinking of was a certain type of person who posts videos of immigrants being rounded up with comments expressing gloating at their distress, jeering at them, etc. I don't think that people who comment in comboxes are representative of the whole population - if I did, I'd think we were in the last days of the Weimar Republic - but they can't be ignored either. Perhaps I tend to be sensitive to this because I am aware of a voyeuristic and cruel streak in my own personality, which I suspect reflects my solitary and detached personality.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 12, 2018 23:30:37 GMT
One point that struck me about what O'Toole is doing is that he is performing a bait-and-switch. He talks about the need for authority to be made accountable when he is preaching his version of republicanism, but at the same time he declares that certain issues must be kept off limits for discussion because there is a perpetual risk that the populace will turn into slavering attack dogs. These can be squared if by "accountability" he means that power must be accountable,not to the vulgar many, but to enlightened persons who think like Fintan O'Toole. This entry on Rod Dreher's blog, about the bizarrerie of scientists proclaiming space travel must only be conceptualised in politically correct terms,has a quote from the Polish political philosopher Ryszard Legutko which gives a sense of what Fintan is up to: www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/mars-needs-social-justice-warriors/EXTRACT As it happens, this weekend I finished re-reading the Polish philosopher and statesman Ryszard Legutko’s book The Demon In Democracy, which discusses the disquieting similarities between what communism was and liberal democracy has become. In it, Legutko talks about how under communism, authorities policed language with extreme care — as is happening now in our liberal societies: [LEGUTKO QUOTE] A slight offensive remark must always be regarded as a manifestation of mortal sin. What seems a barely visible mark on the surface conceals underneath swirling currents of hatred, intolerance, racism, and hegemony. … The language discipline is the first test for loyalty to the orthodoxy just as the neglect of this discipline is the beginning of all evil. [END QUOTE] Scientist-comrade L. Walkowicz understands quite well what she’s up to, saying, “The language we use automatically frames how we envision the things we talk about.” She knows that controlling language is key to establishing control over people, because you teach them to absorb the ideology as second nature. This woman is a hardcore ideologue. If you think science is immune to this ideologization, let Comrade Walkowicz and National Geographic, which popularizes science to the masses, disabuse you... END OF EXTRACT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 2, 2020 21:04:14 GMT
So far during the 2020 election campaign Fintan O'Toole has compared the voters to performing poodles for not supporting the radical parties he favours. This from someone who likes to trumpet how true republicanism means everyone is equal -unless they disagree with Fintan O'Toole, apparently. In another column he exhorts the electorate to realise that great reward entails great risk, and therefore they should vote for his favourites. He doesn't note that the great reward is to offset the increasing likelihood of total disaster, nor does he recall excoriating FF and the developers for their reckless risk-taking putting the country at stake. Fintan has only another week in which to outdo himself in the production of sophistry, but I'm confident he will rise to the challenge.
|
|