Information icon.svg At All things in moderation, we are currently voting on restrictions on the use of LLMs (chatbots) in RationalWiki. Reminder: you need to have at least 75 edits and to have been registered for at least three months to be eligible to vote.

Talk:Oral Roberts

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon christianity.svg

This Christianity related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.



@GeeJayK Your strange brand of respectability politics for a homophobic preacher isn’t a real justification for the edit. Not being Hitler being the standard for respect is a pretty fucking low bar. Shit like this alienates the fuck out of queer people like myself. Ratwiki doesn’t need to exempt homophobic fraudsters of our SPOV policy simply because they are dead as a doorknob. The man isn’t entitled to respect or empathy from our editors. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk).

What? I said the joke is unfunny. I didn't say I have any respect for this fella (the only thing I know about him is what is written on this article), I'm just saying that we should keep the bare minimum of civility. GeeJayK (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
You are not the authority to decide arbitrarily what is and isn’t funny. Civility is something that people are entitled to when they didn’t live an extremely hostile life to marginalized people. When your justification for your edit was the man “wasn’t hitler” it’s fallacy of relative privation to whom can be considered bad enough to deserve snark. This sort of behaviour communicates that fraudulent behaviour and outright bigotry does not deny you the right to respect and dignity even if your behaviour indicates that say gay people for example don’t deserve such dignity. You can’t be neutrally civil in this sort of context. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC).
Did I ever say I was? That's one of the reasons why I said, ping me on the talk page if you disagree with me. The rest of your post is two wrongs make a right. You might think it's funny to be glad because people died (or whine because the lived longer than they expected), but honestly, that just makes you a bad human being. GeeJayK (talk) 22:21, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
No it doesn’t. Tolerating intolerance is just another form of intolerance. Respectability politics like this stems from a position of privilege. “Objective” values are a spook. I am no more good or bad then you are from any mind independent position. - 22:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
(ec} I didn't much care for the hitler comparison, but I do agree that the statement in question could be better written and retain our collective disdain for this person. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 22:32, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
(ec)Did I ever say we should tolerate intolerance? No, just like every other right, free speech should be limited. I said it's not funny to say "haha he's dead". If objective values are a spook, well, maybe Mr. Roberts wasn't wrong on his bigotry (tip, he was). Objective values might be abstract, but they do exist. I'm a consequentialist, and I don't think they arise from the human design, but from the human interaction. There are good things and bad things. Cheering because someone died is often a bad thing.GeeJayK (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
His “wrongness” is only an expression of the subjective undesirability of his position from yourself and myself. An opposition to such a position is one that I share and one I would enforce to the extreme. I don’t care what your personal opinion about normative ethics are, they don’t determine facts. You are not talking to a moral relativist. You are not objectively correct simping for dead homophobes and talking down to a queer person for calling you out for it simply because you identify as a consequentialist. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:47, 22 April 2022 (UTC).
So, saying that we shouldn't cheer his death is "simping an homophobe"? I even said he's a bigot! His wrongness arises to the fact that he said awful things about certain groups. Also, I don't see why it's important to tell me that you are part of one of these groups, that's just tokenism and red herring. You're talking to someone with an extremely low self-esteem. Is that important to our discussion? My point is simple. The joke was unfunny and over the top, we can show our contempt in the article without cheering his demise. That's all. GeeJayK (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── the truth of the matter is you found the edit personally offensive. But instead of admitting to yourself you are making edits and demanding they are not reverted on the basis of arbitrary and subjective whims; you express your will to power by insisting it’s factually unfunny, or objectively morally wrong. That isn’t actually true because nothing can actually be those things independent of subjectivity. And if they could be you wouldn’t have special access to know these things uncontroversially. You were just raised in a heteronormative patriarchal culture that insist that all patriarchs be treated solemnly upon death, and you never critically examined such assumptions.

Assumptions that are used to shame queer people when they celebrate Rush Limbaugh’s death, and insist upon a moral high ground of “civility”.

I personally don’t think we should simply allow offence to uncritically be a basis of what we should avoid in our tone. We need to ask ourselves. Who is this offensive to? And why does it matter?

My very identity is “offensive” to many a homophobe, fundie, and TERF. We have to make a choice upon whose offense we will allow, and to whom we want to avoid and why. Also calling a queer person simply existing an example of tokenism because they acknowledge their queerness and state it as relevant, shows you have no clue what that term means. -Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC).

Well, there are many problems with your post. First, you're assuming a lot of things about me. I already told you my problem with the "word" (that's it, one word). The rest is just a strange speculation. I'm not demanding anything or making edits (I've been on the Wiki business for over 16 years and I don't edit war), I'm just discussing the subject, and if others disagree, I'll be the first to support the status quo (so far only Cosmik posted in this thread too, and I agree with what he said). There's no "truth" other than I find the remark unfunny unnecessary. Please, stop making assumptions about me and my upbringing that do not make sense (and what is worse, are utterly irrelevant to our little discussion here).
Your identity is irrelevant to the discussion. Saying “I’m queer and I feel offended by this guy, so we should keep the word ‘unfortunate’” is textbook example of tokenism.

GeeJayK (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I am making inferences to the best explanation given your reasons are frankly bullshit, and they aren't exactly the sort of thing people are willing to admit to themselves or admit out loud. Telling a person whose queer there expression of an opinion is itself "tokenism" and their belief that being queer is relevant is also "tokenism" seems to me a pretty effective way to silence queer people whenever they think their point of view is relevant to the topic at hand. You basically handwaved a reason for any marginalized people referencing their status as a marginalized person as irrelevant as you see fit. Tokenism doesn't apply to marginalized people referencing themselves, and seeing their lived experience as relevant to the topic at hand. I am bringing this up because I view this behavior with deep suspicion. Every single one of your indicated reasons don't hold up to scrutiny. If you were genuinely a consequentialist, for example, you would not see such wording as inherently "immoral" without justification to why this behavior would lead to more harmful consequences than beneficial ones. If for example such "jokes" actually brought more joy to people then it did offend people then you would have to concede that it would actually not just be morally justifiable, but morally required. You don't even give a consequentialist justification for your edit, you just insists it's unfunny and wrong without any explanation. You just assume your judgement is infallible when by the standards of your own belief of so called "objective" morality there needs to be an adequate justification on the basis of the normative system you deem correct. That is not at all present here so that obviously can not be the real reason you did this. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC).
(EC) "You just assume your judgement is infallible". Come on, is this serious? Because I disagree with you? Do you think someone with low self-esteem would think their judgment is infallible? I've already explained what is wrong with the joke, just scroll a bit and you'll see. You are the one saying that we should keep it because he was a horrible person - a point that I've already addressed. 90% of your post is red herring and ad hominem, so I don't feel like answering you anymore. I'm sorry, but you're not engaging with good faith. I'll see what others have to say. So far we have, I believe a 2x1 against your case. GeeJayK (talk) 00:27, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Do you not believe what you say? If you state something as being "bad" and "unfunny" are you not working from the assumption that you are factual correct? Yes you said the joke was "bad" and "unfunny" and that bad people celebrate the deaths of bad people because they are "bad". These are not real reasons; they are viciously circular resting on the very conclusion you need to demonstrate. X is bad because X is bad is not a real point. The argument of two wrongs make a right fallacy rests on the very assumption that behavior is in fact wrong. That's begging the question the whole way through. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:35, 23 April 2022 (UTC).
This is just bad-faith. My argument is not only "bad" and "funny", I said it's uncivil. Yes, it is wrong to complain that people didn't die just because you disagree with them. Motte and bailey, textbook example. Again you're just making assumptions aboutme instead of arguing and this is extremely unhinged. Since no one seems to agree with you I'll revert your edit. GeeJayK (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)