Horrifying Republican response to Bishop's sermon

And here we are, a week on, and several unanswered questions later, and we still don’t know who “you” is, and what “support Trump” actually means. C’est la vie. Again.

It's that tired old assumption again. The deliberate choice of language to Imply that women on FWR support Trump. A tactic regularly used by certain posters.

I've just reread your OP, and you seem to make some very odd assumptions about the people you're talking to. For example, you said "Do you still support Trump after this?"

Hardly any FWR regulars support Trump. Possibly none. Who did you think you were talking to?

Oh believe me, I don't support everything Trump says and does. I'm watching with horror as he milks an aircrash for political gains.

@selffellatingouroborosofhate oh ok I didn't recognise the OP.

I agree with what you say about sides wholeheartedly. #bekind and women being responsible for men is absolutely not my position. That doesn't mean I agree with all trump stands for. I certainly don't align with people who use witch and lesbian as insults, my comment was to add my voice to calling that sort of language out regardless of whose "side" those voices come from.

1. I covered that. tl;dr: men insulting women who say things they don't like is a day ending in Y, for all women.
2. The regulars on this board know from experience that the thread starter believes that women should #bekind and let men who wish they were women into female-only spaces. There is hence a shaming subtext to that OP of "see, look what your side has said about this woman who was doing her job" abd an attempt to make us feel guilty about that. There are so many inaccurate assumptions underpinning that, like the idea that FWR regulars have "a side" that we are all on, that Trump has "a side" other than Trump, that FWR regulars who are feminist are on any side other than that of women as a class united by our inherent and universal inability to father children and our actual or presumed ability to become pregnant, and that women are responsible for what men say and do. My responses, and I suspect other posters' responses as well, reflect that understanding.

Anyhow, in a recent exercise with some 18 year olds, they uniformly thought an online forum comment about using bear spray on someone breaking work rules was threatening and even obscene. Not a single person interpreted it as possibly joking. Made me wonder if constantly living your life through texts and online has reduced nuance and shades in communication exchanges. In turn, this has fed into more entrenched positions about gender. But certainly good intentions about trigger warnings and removing any potential offense seem to be leading to infantilising young adults.

@DrBlackbird 👍

I’ve wondered the same thing about online exchanges generally.

I wonder if people are going to get tired of posting and texting as a result.

I thought this post was about the responses to the bishops speech. I've only skimmed but don't see many comments on the tone of the responses.

I think wether we agree with a person or not they have a right not to be abused for speaking. I find it very very concerning that it's comments like witch and looking like a lesbian that are thrown at a woman. Blasphemous.

Witch was used to burn women who didn't bow to the male dominated society. Often older women who had experience and knowledge trying to share it with younger women. Lesbians are hated because they do not satisfy men, they are overly targeted by the man's rights movement. Is it blasphemy for a woman to speak within a religion or should we only allow men to guide those who seek moral guidance this way?

For me I'm not reading this thinking there's no such thing as a transgender child (there isn't) I'm not interested in debating if illegal immigrants pay tax (I've not the knowledge to comment). I'm reading this and similar to OP I'm concerned about the tone and choices of insults and words used against a woman speaking publicly. Someone else commented that Americans are shuffling towards handmaids tale and I think that's what I took from this op too. Witch is a dangerous word for women historically and we must not forget why

@TempestTost makes good points. We won't want to pay the full amount for Ukraine if US stops funding. Not sure if it's possible anyway. So we'll want cessation of that funding ends

Also agree on some international organisations which are unelected and have their own skews

Spot on, great post.

I think once you start to think critically, it's difficult to stop. I keep wondering when people say - as if it's a bad thing - 'Trump will stop the war between Ukraine and Russia' - how is that in and of itself a bad thing?

There's a whole grift / culture around climate change. Hundreds of people flying around the world to climate conferences all the time. It kind of tells on itself as virtue signalling hypocrisy and not doing anything practical to address the problem. Then they decide poor people can't have a short flight once every 5 years for the only holiday they can afford (which is much cheaper than in the UK). There's a lot of punching down on poor people in the environmental movement, which is ironic as poorer people are already way more environmentally friendly than the jet setting class as tend to get public transport and are much less consumerist out of necessity and not choice.

@TempestTost I definitely don’t make claims for any multilateral institutions being perfect. On balance, I believe they do help global security. I doubt Trump’s administration will create a settlement per se. More likely Zelenskyy will have no options when the military hardware stops. Russia can manufacture its own, Ukraine can’t. Yes of course all European countries would love the cessation of active hostility but Finland and Sweden are likely to remain highly nervous.

I think a lot of European countries will be very happy if the Americans end up creating a settlement of some kind between Russia and the Ukraine. And it's because that will mean they no longer have to look like bad guys when they stop supporting Ukraine's military action - and that's going to happen sooner or later.

As for international bodies, I've become incredibly cynical. I don't think the ParisAccord is accomplishing much for the environment. The WHO has shown it's colours on the gender question, it seems to now be an organization mainly interested in pushing their values on nations. Their COVID response was horrific and scary, politically motivated and unscientific And their push for more more power to enforce rules during a pandemic is seriously problematic.

I share in celebrating how his administration has taken steps to stop the harm done to young people and women with respect to the protection of single sex spaces. However, I fear he will be the larger evil. Time will tell.

Excellent analysis, DrBlackbird

Harris had little to commend her other than she wasn’t Biden and I’m angry that Biden did not build a successor into his time at the WH. However, she would still have an effective and experienced team around her. That is arguably more important than anything else. Do you think Trump is some international or policy expert? Like Johnson, I’m pretty sure he doesn’t do details. He’s repeating what those closest to him say.

Do you think it’s right or good that Trump has pulled out of the Paris Climate accord? And approve of him withdrawing the US from WHO? In the past he refused to nominate judges for WTO thus bringing it to halt. He’s threatened to withdraw from NATO. He’s withheld funds for the UN. These multilateral institutions, for better or worse, have been key instruments for global peace since WWII. Trump being an isolationist is not good for the world. The US has carried out terrible covert operations but largely we have counted on the US to use its economic and military might to maintain global security.

The Trump effect? I beg to differ. He had nothing to do with the ceasefire. Or, if he had any role it was because Netanyahu agreed to it knowing that he had Trump as an absolute supporter. Re the controversial move of the US Embassy to Jerusalem in his last presidency. Now we hear him musing about Palestinians leaving Gaza to go to Jordan and Egypt. This is the talk of a sophisticated peacemaking politician?

He’s long been in thrall to Putin and Russian money. Zelenskyy is a true politician and will be doing his damnest to keep Trump onside but it doesn’t look good. Does Ukraine count it as a win if Russia stops bombing them but gets to keep the whole of the eastern Ukraine? With time for the Kremlin to build up Russian arsenal?

At this moment in time I am very afraid of a Trump presidency. Possibly the right people will say the right things. We can only hope.

Glad to see this article posted on this thread. The deceitful use of language to conceal the reality of the terrible harm that's happening to children caught up in this ideology is a major issue.

I think this describes very accurately why many people found the sermon disturbing.

In fact, her sincerity was part of what made it disturbing.

So often now what is defined as "being kind" seems to be something else entirely. Not just that there is nuance - to me I increasingly feel it means the opposite of being kind, it means surrendering to a kind of selfishness.

I can't believe that anyone is actually naive enough to think that Trump ordered the ceasefire in Gaza. There were numerous countries involved for months, one single Trump staffer attended some of the meetings, over the course of a few weeks.

JessaWoo Personally, I think Budde's message is courageous and beautiful, and clearly deeply Christian at its core.

Or deeply un Christian, depending:

"Don’t get me wrong. I believe there’s a great deal that all Christians and all people of goodwill can agree with in Bishop Budde’s sermon. I’m not remotely implying she had dubious motives. In many ways I admire her. But once you’ve been up close with a cult, and walked with a cult survivor, you learn to recognise thought-terminating clichés – even when the speaker is unaware they are using them. And you feel a shiver down the spine whenever you hear the weaponised language of kindness."

https://www.flaneurnotes.com/post/weaponised-kindness-the-language-of-the-cult

In this case, not the Middle East, they have a very limited infrastructure capacity which can't really be increased, and limited land base. And a small population. They want as much as possible full employment. (They also severely restrict outside ownership of businesses.)

The thing is, to get someone to come for 5 years under those conditions, you have to make a pretty good offer, and the jobs they do offer pay well. People come without any expectation they will stay permanently, so they know what they are getting into.

There's a big contrast to me right now with the recent issues we've had in Canada. Because of a change in federal regulations there came to be an expectation that anyone who came on a student visa would be allowed to stay if they found a job. There were quite a few articles in the CBC basically saying that not allowing everyone who came on a student visa to stay and work was racist.

Read it in context.

The middle east (UAE etc) can do that because they are not liberal democracies - despite some relaxing of some rules they are still extremely authoritarian and this doesn't just affect migrants, it affects women's freedoms too. It actually also restricts the freedom of everyone that lives there, but that matters less because oil money can pay for cradle to grave employment etc. Usually absolute monarchies fall when there are bread shortages for example. UK people wouldn't actually accept the sort of rigid control over their own lives that ultimately being a citizen of those places entails (even if it is lightly felt it is always there). And of course, that rigid control is a lot more restrictive if you are female. Expats on temp visas have more freedom in some circumstances but no rights. So while it is good for them to live that way if it makes them happy I would not want to see that system in the UK even if it were achievable. And the rigid/exploitative rules for migrants come out of that system. You couldn't replicate it here.

In terms of takeup - some countries have already started banning their citizens travelling to some of those places following horrendous news stories of abuses. As a result the places workers are recruited from keeps shifting.

For "the sake of the world?" ( a small violin plays in the background 😢)

Already the Trump effect has initiated a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas ( even if it doesn't last); he is talking to both Zelensky and Putin, invited the Chinese leader to Washington.......Kamala had no credibility and no kudos on the international stage.