Recent Comments by bcglorf subscribe to this feed

Hail Satan?-Trailer

bcglorf says...

" I believe what is widely understood to be Christianity and the actual definition don't resemble each other"

I'd largely agree, although I think Christianity is widely understood to mean follower of Christ and the actual definition does match that far. I see Christianity in NA having a different problem with there being so many different opinions/beliefs of what following Christ should look like as to make the term almost meaningless.

To your point about widely understood versus understood correctly, good communication isn't just about speaking accurately, but being understood accurately.

ChaosEngine very succinctly made this point, National Socialism might accurately describe your group, but the public is going to misunderstand it, and I don't think yelling loudly that everyone else is wrong really helps.

newtboy said:

I believe in English speaking North America, "widely understood" and "correctly understood" are often divergent.
I believe what is widely understood to be Christianity and the actual definition don't resemble each other, so other religions (new or old) have no obligation to be better.
I believe what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
I believe that nothing shown denies the possibility that they actually believe in the biblical "Satan" or another deity so named, just because the public actions are political in nature doesn't deny the possibility of honest belief and the nature of any worship is 100% open to interpretation, so your entire premise is based on assumptions and an unwillingness to apply the same standards across the board, exactly what they're fighting against.

For these reasons, I find your questions moot.....

.....but yes, those are the "widely understood" connotations of the words, just not necessarily the ultimate denotations.
That...or Vicki Vallencourt....Vicki Vallencourt is the devil.

Hail Satan?-Trailer

bcglorf says...

Let me try stepping back to basics then. In English speaking North America, Do you believe the two statements are true?
1. The title/deity "Satan" is widely understood to refer to the Abrahamic Satan.
2. "Satanism" is widely understood to refer to the worship of that same Abrahamic Satan.

newtboy said:

I thought it's more two wrongs exposing an established and growing wrong.

No, if they COMMUNICATE what they're doing, and do that well, it's not bad communication, and they did. It's not an objective fact, it's only your opinion. Sorry. "Bad" is a subjective word, not objective.

No sir, Westborough is not more accurate. They claim to be Christian, followers of Jesus, but ignore the new testament entirely. That is the antithesis of accurate. Because they lie and claim something doesn't make it accurate, their actions contradict their claims every time to a much greater degree than these Satanists (who I don't think denied the existence of Satan, they could be incredibly devout for all we know, they're simply clear that their main current objective is to stop the government's illegal and immoral support of Christianity to the exclusion of other "faiths", which in no way denies belief in Satan and embodies their churches tenets, unlike "Christian" anti abortionists who compromise their own religious morals to tell others how they must think and live).

Perhaps you are simply confused about what "Satanist" means?
Because you have a specific definition in mind doesn't make it correct .....if you can call Westborough "Christian" then obviously your standards are sub basement low, and anyone is whatever they claim, any evidence to the contrary be damned.

Again, when they COMMUNICATE both their actions and intent, that's not bad communication just because you don't like it, and certainly not just because you make assumptions about their beliefs and their zealotry.

Hail Satan?-Trailer

bcglorf says...

That just sounds an awful lot like two wrongs making a right.

Claiming an established well defined name for your group/association, and then proceeding to define your group as something completely different is BAD communication. That is an objective fact, not something that varies depending upon your subjective POV. Whether that bad communication also has some morality attached to it sounds more like what your addressing, which is something I was saying nothing about.

Having groups like Westboro Baptists claiming to be either Christian or Baptist is like you said much the same. Morality wise, infinitely worse. Communication wise they might arguably be more accurate, although their words and actions look nothing like the Christ they claim to follow, I do understand that their group at least claims to truly believe in and follow their God. Secular Satanists apparently neither worship nor even believe in the existence of Satan, making the moniker more misleading. Their push for religious neutrality/separation of church and state however place them as far superior morally. Again, these examples are laden with my opinion regarding morality.

Morality aside though, you honestly can't say that claiming a name for your group with a strongly established meaning and definition isn't bad communication when your group shares neither the beliefs(grammar edit) nor practices of that established meaning and definition.

newtboy said:

No, it's not. You understand it, so did most people who listened. It's perfectly fine communication and that communication was clear about what they're doing. You may not like the fact they're using the system as they are, but their communication wasn't lacking imo.
If Christianity can abandon every tenet of the bible and stop following it's teachings yet continue to claim to believe in and worship Christ in order to receive the benefits of being a religion, bearing more false witness in the effort, Satanism can do the same without the lies and duplicity.

Um....many anti vaxers say EXACTLY that.

When words are misused by those attempting to control and harm you, misusing them in the same way to stop that is perfectly acceptable to me, especially when you're honest about it like they are (but Christianity isn't). The pretend lava daddy is just as valid as the pretend sky daddy and deserves exactly the same special protections and exemptions....none at all.

Hail Satan?-Trailer

bcglorf says...

That mission/purpose is clear enough, the miscommunication is in calling that 'Satanism'. To repeat myself, "Satanism" has been well understood to mean the worship of the Abrahamic center of all evil Satan. Calling your movement 'Satanism', and then clarifying that you neither believe in nor worship that Satan and your movement is an entirely separate and distinct secular one is deliberate bad communication.

It's like going around calling my group a antivaxxers, but then clarifying we don't actually oppose vaccinations, we are just against the high profit margins of pharma corps.

When words already have strong definitions deliberately failing to use them and choosing your own new definition isn't clever, it's just bad communication.

newtboy said:

There's no confusion or miscommunication.
They are using the lax rules designed to promote Judeo Christian religions against them to expose religion's hypocrisy and intolerance publicly, much like Pastafarians but with better organization and iconography.
Were they not clear?

Hail Satan?-Trailer

bcglorf says...

Is this the wrong place to point out a pet peeve with groups like 'secular' Satanists? The origin of the idea of Satan is clearly rooted in Abrahamic religion, and as the embodiment of all things evil. When I see self identifying Satanists upset that people presume that Satanism is the worship of the Abrahamic Satan, I lack any sympathy. The name, language and definitions already have existed for a long time, namely:
Satan: The embodiment of evil in Abrahamic religion
Satanism: The worship of the above

Defining your world view as a secular atheist and then labeling that as 'Satanism' is just deliberately communicating badly. I can understand the angle where people want to use it to provoke, but at some point you've gotta step back and acknowledge that yes you were just miscommunicating things badly to draw attention to something.

shinyblurry said:

There are many different kinds of Satanists. Some are just secular atheists, like Anton Levay. Others literally worship the devil and offer sacrifices to him. These are most likely the former

Sexual Assault of Men Played for Laughs

bcglorf says...

You kind of noted it yourself, but Saddam DID use hope as well. He spent lots of money on the people that were loyal, obedient or just kept their heads down. You just can't ignore that his approach of giving the people the choice of a decent life if obedient or the risk of a horrific suffering one for disobedience secured him great power for multiple decades.

newtboy said:

Using violence, torture, and the backing of the Russian military, and after numerous failed coup and assassination attempts he took and held tenuous control. Torture hardly played a huge roll or he would have been successful the first time, or the second. He retained and increased that power in the 70-80's by spending his huge amounts of oil money on the people, mostly not by torturing them (except for Kurds).

The "others in the room" we're his forces, not random people who murdered for him out of relief. He didn't hand weapons to an adversarial group he was convincing to follow his lead by having them kill those who wouldn't. I mean...WHAT?

You use fear mongering as proof torture works? Um... ok.

Since what I've been discussing is torture working to get sensitive, useful information, not the long term terrorism and brutal oppression of a population, I'll just move on.
Yes, despots can ride nations into the ground by making the populations powerless and fearful until those populations revolt. Yes, an iron hand and willingness to make your population stone aged can allow you to hold on a long time. Yes, torture can be part of that, but only one small unnecessary part, a strong military willing to murder unarmed civilians is what it takes, torture or not.

Wow, now you think the U.S. military taking out Saddam proves torture works because ...force and violence?

Strength vs weakness is what worked, not torture or terrorism, that's why he failed, brought down by a coalition of locals and Americans with his military deserting him in droves when he needed them most.

Torture is not a functional interrogation technique nor a means to foster loyalty, only fear. Fear only works until someone adds hope to the equation.

Sexual Assault of Men Played for Laughs

bcglorf says...

Saddam took control of an oil rich nation of 30+ million people using violence and torture. He had them record his clinching moment on video, where you can still watch him drag out a visibly broken man(well agreed to have been broken through torture, Saddam deliberately flaunted this), and has the man read out a list of names of co-conspirators. Sure, Saddam undoubtedly wrote the list himself, but he was already powerful and feared enough it didn't matter and this evidence was enough. The co-conspirators were hauled out for execution, and the others in the room were fearful/relieved enough that when they were ordered to perform the executions themselves they did.

Saddam then ruled Iraq for another 24 years before he was forcibly removed by foreign powers, not any manner of domestic uprising.

Don't tell me that nobody else in Iraq wanted the job for that quarter century, instead Saddam's brutal methods were successful in keeping his hold on power throughout that time. None of that makes his methods 'right', but to declare that the methods are ineffective is just silly. Doubly so if you observe his hold on power wasn't removed by crowds of peaceful protesters rising up removing him in a bloodless coup, but rather through the use of more force and violence than Saddam could muster in return.

newtboy said:

Torture is good for getting someone to name any person they know. It is not good for getting useful information....so it's only barely useful if you torture someone weak who knows the name of others you are looking for, and gives them up. That's useless information, even to a monster like Saddam. He would never know if the important names were withheld and only acquaintances named, so would be forced to murder the entire country eventually. Only unknown hermits would be "safe".

Your example assumes dissidents with families would be allowed to have sensitive information.
Clearly it didn't work, too. There was a strong opposition to Saddam he utterly failed to destroy even though he tortured without pause. You create more enemies than you could ever catch by torture. Smart leaders start to wonder if torture for information is worth the cost. (Hint, it's not)

Torture for coercion, a different topic, that often works, but only until the tortured decide death is preferable and try to revolt, which requires you to keep them in N Korea conditions to keep any revolt from winning. Hardly a net gain for even third world nations.

Sexual Assault of Men Played for Laughs

bcglorf says...

No, I understand just fine you only want to discuss torture as a means of interrogation and even then with more caveats on what counts as meaningful results. What I am pointing out is that torture, violence and rape ARE used for other purposes and do so successfully. You insist on entirely ignoring that, you might as well stuff your fingers in your ears and yell 'i'm not listening'.

JiggaJonson said:

I'm sorry, you have misunderstood me.

What I mean to say is that your post that included the example does not contain an actual example, only a generalization devoid of any reference.

I don't trust that you are a reliable source of information on the history of Saddam Heussane's use of torture and whether or not his results could deem an interrogation effective.

You are speaking generally enough that I'd like evidince I can inspect for myself before I take your word on this or that point being factual or definite.

In other words, I did read your comment and found it unconvincing in terms of substance.

Or in other words, I don't believe you know what you're talking about.

Sexual Assault of Men Played for Laughs

bcglorf says...

Would you do me the courtesy of reading what I say before rejecting it? I specifically said: "Somebody like Saddam Hussein usually didn't care about Jack Bauer style, minutes count specific intel."

Jack Bauer style meaning like your revelation of a closely guarded secret after waterboarding...

Saddam would do things like sending his police to a disloyal man's home, and them simply handing over a video of them torturing his son or raping his wife/daughter whom they still had in custody. We don't have to like it, but it absolutely was effective in crushing dissent from not only that guy, but as word spreads a lot of other start wondering if resistance is worth the cost.

Our world is absolutely filled with examples of violence, rape and torture being used as powerfully effective weapons and ignoring it doesn't wish it away. The fact it these things are so powerful makes them all the more awful and more important we discuss it.

JiggaJonson said:

@bcglorf

Use is not evidence of efficacy. Ask the homeopathic medicine industry about that.


I'd like to see some solid evidence of torture producing the results you'd want to see. A closely guarded secret revealed only after X amount of hours on the rack or under the water board.

From what I've read, universally, people who are tortured see their torturers in a rapidly increasing negative light. What could your worst enemy do to get you to betray a good friend? What if you began to harbor feelings that were even more I tense hatred for your worst enemy and they wanted you to betray your best friend? Would you be more likely to work with them then ?

I think the premise itself is flawed when it comes to torture, and more importantly the evidence is on my side.

Sexual Assault of Men Played for Laughs

bcglorf says...

@JiggaJonson,

When you say:
...I'm against promoting the idea that torture works...

I can see where you are coming from on this. In the sense that it might then encourage people to accept using it, because it works.

My problem with that line of reasoning though is that torture actually is effective. The simplest proof being that we wouldn't have every single national intelligence agency using it(directly or indirectly by a less squeamish ally as we 'civilized' nations prefer to do it).

Your links to the ineffectiveness of torture only look at the narrowest possible goals from it. Somebody like Saddam Hussein usually didn't care about Jack Bauer style, minutes count specific intel. Getting the names of everyone you knew or 'conspired' with mattered, and torture IS effective at getting people to talk. The trouble your links note is that torture victims will say literally anything to get you to stop. When looking for information though, victims can't name real people unless they know them. Better still for guys like Saddam, if you get yourself 3 victims in the same movement, you can cross reference things and build a list of suspects. To more ethical nations like us that's unactionable intelligence, but if you don't care if you sweep up 5 innocents along with the 5 people that really were a threat to you, it still 'worked'.

Torture also is widely used simply as a tool to instill fear. When your citizens have seen the broken shells of people who's loyalty was deemed questionable, fear keeps them in step. It worked for Saddam until external forces stopped him, and it's helped keep 3 generations in power in North Korea.

Getting back closer to the video, things we don't like don't go away just because we refuse to talk about them. Rape, torture, and violence aren't like the boogeyman that will go away if we just stop talking and thinking about them so much. We need to accept that there are terrible things in our world that people do and benefit from doing them. These are things that people use to gain a feeling of power, or to truly gain real tangible power over other people.

Of course we have to discuss them responsibly, and the danger of shaming victims is an equally real thing to be aware of. At the same time though, humor is one of the ways of bridging the gap to people dealing with trauma, so jokes about things that cause trauma like rape, violence and torture have an honest place in making things better as well.

Sexual Assault of Men Played for Laughs

bcglorf says...

Are we talking about the same video?

I'm very simply meaning that making jokes about horrible things like rape and murder isn't automatically endorsing them, and that depending on context the jokes can make the problem better, worse or somewhere in between. Not sure where objectification came in atop that?

At the very least a lot of war vets with PTSD have been helped by humor as a coping mechanism or as an opening to harder topics of conversation...

newtboy said:

I'm curious...in what way do they imply objectification is bad?
This is normalizing objectification.
It's not like someone saying jokingly "I'll kill you" and the office laughing, it's someone saying "I'll kill you" while sticking a knife into your liver and smiling, and the office laughing.
This isn't a joke about objectification, it's simply objectification, just like if they were all huge breasted sexy women in tight thin tank tops and little else.
If you want to excuse or allow objectification, do it. Someone will debate you on that. Don't just pretend it's not happening please. There's no discussion if one party denies reality.

Sexual Assault of Men Played for Laughs

bcglorf says...

I kind of swing the other way on this. We live in a cruel, violent, unjust world. Talking about that is not automatically an endorsement of it. Making jokes about it is part of talking about it and an important coping mechanism. Yes, talking and joking about it CAN be done in a way that encourages it, but it's NOT automatic.

As per your Toy Story examples, the ultimate take away for the young audience exposed to it is that the violence/torture was a clear cut bad thing. When someone in your office pulls a prank on someone and the other party responds by jokingly threatening to kill them for it they aren't normalizing murder. Nobody comes away from that interaction with the idea that murder is somehow more acceptable or less bad.

We need to relax a little bit about looking for micro-aggressions and 'bad' culture in every little thing that people say or joke about,

JiggaJonson said:

*quality

As someone who watches a LOT of kid's movies with my daughter, I notice an alarming regularity of torture in children's media.

You like Pixar movies, right? Pick a Pixar film, ALL of them have a torture scene. It's bizarre.

It's late, so I'll be succinct about these, but let's define torture as follows:
Torture - noun - the act of deliberately inflicting severe physical or psychological suffering on someone by another as a punishment or in order to fulfill some desire of the torturer or force some action from the victim

Fair?

This is a short list I can think of off the top of my head

Toy Story
Sid tortures Woody "Where are your rebel friends NOW?" as he burns his forehead

Toy Story 2
Stinky Pete tortures Woody "You can go to Japan together or in pieces. Now GET IN THE BOX!"

Toy Story 3
Buzz gets put in the "time-out chair" with a burlap bag put over his head and is forced to turn on his friends

Monster's Inc.
Mike is put in the "scream extractor" and is interrogated "Where's the kid?" as the extractor inches towards his face.

Wreck it Ralph
Ralph asks "What's going on in this candy coated Heart of Darkness?" Sour Bill tries to run away but Ralph picks him up and threatens to lick him. "I'll take it to my grave" "Fair enough" and Ralph pops Sour Bill in his mouth "Had enough?" "OKAY OKAY I'LL TALK!"

Cars 2
The green-gasoline in his tank, the spy car is put in front of the radiation shooting camera and is interrogated about who the other spy is and who has the information about the green gas he recovered that could unravel their plan to get revenge for being discriminated against for being "lemons." His engine explodes (he's killed?) in spite of giving up the information.

The Incredibles
Mr. Incredible is restrained via some black goop and asked about his family's whereabouts on the island.

Finding Nemo
Near the end of the film when Dory finds Nemo but Marlin has wandered off thinking Nemo was dead, they need to know which way Marlin went and come across the little crabs sitting on the pipe "heyyyyyyyyheyyyyyyyyyyheyyyyyyyy" "Yeah I saw where he went, but I'm not telling you, and there's no way you're gonna make me." Dory lifts him up and threatens to feed him to the seagulls sitting on a small rock until he starts screaming "OKAY ILL TALK ILL TALK HE WENT TO THE FISHING GROUNDS!!!"

I could go on, but I hope to make this simple point:
These films do NOT have to include a torture scene. It's simply odd to me that it appears so often, instilling the idea early on that torture works for getting information or cooperation out of people.

Finally, I point to one of many pieces of research on the matter https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5325643/

MAGA Catholic Kids Mock Native Veteran's Ceremony

bcglorf says...

@newtboy,

missed your reply, you need to check the video again as you clearly didn't watch what I'm watching.
You said:
"I disagree 100%. Sane people did this to stop the rapidly escalating anger between the kids and (disgusting) black Israelites before the kids attacked the Israelites, which seemed inevitable because no one was controlling the kids (or the small group of Black Israelites) and the kids were getting more and more rowdy."
At 1:09 the Black Israelites are making fun of the kids specifically because they are "keeping their distance". At 1:11 the kids are presumably standing/jumping doing one of their school chants, moving no closer to the black Israelites. At 1:12 after the chant, the kids all sit down. After the kids have been not only 'keeping their distance', but sitting down now for a minute is when Nathan Phillips comes in to 'de-escalate' things. You can not honestly paint that as looking like an 'inevitable attack' was coming from the kids. The reality is the kids were staying back, and sitting down while the Black Israelite adults continued trying unsuccessfully to escalate things.

You later said:
"and note smirk boy is not there, he gets into the stationary elders face later. "

If you look at 1:13, smirk boy is 3 rows back from the elder. If you watch till 1:14 you notice that the camera man isn't moving, but Phillips gets further and further away because is walking slowly into the crowd of students. The students don't so much surround him, they make way as he invades their personal space until they move until about 1:15. If you watch 1:15, the camera is the same place as it was back at 1:11, the kids are at the same distance from the camera and the same location on the stairs, but now you can't even see Phillips because he's so far into the group.

I gotta admit, I'm a little floored you can come away still seeing what you want to see...

MAGA Catholic Kids Mock Native Veteran's Ceremony

bcglorf says...

Did you check out the summary of the video evidence posted by eric3579? Or in the nearly 2 hr one I linked skip to 1:11 and check out the interaction between the drummer and the kids.

The kids stay in their group, and the drummer and his followers wade right into them, with lots of room to go around. Phillips is on audio recording declaring that he did NOT feel that he was blocked from any closing ceremony, but that he wanted to go in and separate the kids from the black Israelites to 'descalate' the situation. Eric3579's video again has Phillips audio statement about what he was doing, listen to that and then watch the longer video for a minute or two at 1:11 when Phillips wades in. He's clearly lying, he went in aggressively pushing into the middle of the crowd of kids, hardly what any sane person wanting to deescalate the situation would do.

newtboy said:

Sorry...some details that were hastily reported have turned out to be more nuanced than originally thought, for instance it's now being reported that there were adult chaperones there, but the kids absolutely surrounded, taunted, and acted threatening to the native American elder, mocking his ceremony with racist chants and tomahawk chops to derisive laughter, they were not trying to join him as some have tried to claim.
They also blocked the progress of the planned, permitted closing ceremony, intentionally or not.

More video has surfaced of what appears to be some of these kids shouting at and harassing other people (the video I saw was 6+ MAGA boys screaming at a pair of girls) on this trip, away from this incident.
These aren't angels caught up and unfairly painted, these are kids who have reportedly posted videos of at least 4 of themselves dressed in black face and the whole school's bleachers chanting "caramel" at lone black basketball players at their school functions apparently with the full support of their teachers and school....that video just removed from the school website, but after going public.
They've already been invited to the Whitehouse.

MAGA Catholic Kids Mock Native Veteran's Ceremony



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon