Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Sat Aug 01, 2020 8:48 pm
There is a lot of circumstantial evidence to support what the Bhikkhu is saying (apart from what was already mentioned, Trump's close friendship and frequent visits to Jeffrey Epstein).
I think the key word there is "circumstantial".
Whether or not he is correct to draw the conclusion he does, I think he is entitled to think so and feel that the case proven.
No one is entitled to slander.
The point is that we all, whether we like it or not, reach conclusions based on circumstantial evidence in the absence of an official verdict or a solid proof of some kind. One can argue against it, but that doesn't make it lying. That's a bridge too far.
Monks have a greater responsibility with their speech.
The Bhikkhu is the video makes a good point, though the picture he paints of progressives and conservatives is way too simplistic and only bears a slight resemblance to the real world, in my view. Yes, there are progressives who truly care about the welfare of all beings and consider this the principle cause of the progressive movement. And yes, there are conservatives whose modus operandi is each man for himself. They are the terms in which he sees the dichotomy, but in my experience, most of progressives are just as selfish as most of conservatives. Although I can understand how an Australian may think like that. Up until some years ago, richer people tended to vote for the more right-wing party in the hope of more tax cuts for themselves, while those who voted for the more left wing party, did so in the hope of a more equitable society. I think that was quite common in Australia up until maybe 20 years ago.
But now people support various movements for a variety of reasons.
I think the video was awful on a number of points. First he seems to think that progressives are full of self doubt. Any cursory encounter with an SJW would fix that wrong perception. The video also claimed that progressives are on the losing side of politics and the culture war. Once again, completely wrong. Progressives dominate in academia, the media, the workplace and, in the UK at least, in politics. If an employee voices support for progressive values he could be in for a promotion. If another employee voices support for conservative values they could find themselves without a job. He also strongly suggests that progressives are morally superior to those on the right. I disagree. I also find it ironic that a video about conceit and how progressives come off as too condescending was itself highly conceited and condescending.
Also, mandatory vegetarianism?
You say "Any cursory encounter with an SJW would fix that wrong perception." And this is the truth for you. Perhaps Bhikkhu Sujato's experience of SWJs does not match yours.
You say that in the UK, Progressives dominate in politics. This makes the Conservative Party progressive in your definition? Or do you mean something else by "dominate"? The workplace?? As if this is a monolith??
You make plenty of poorly evidenced assertions and yet, of course this passes below the radar while the Bhikkhu is responsible for all deadly sins and beyond.. You are seemingly unable, Craig, to countenance the possibility that the monk is a human being who deeply and sincerely cares about the world and its creatures and who, yes, like all of us, including your good self, has biases and sees matters wrongly, at times, and comes to false conclusions, as all sentients beings do.
Did you clutch your pearls as forcefully at Bhante Pannobhasa right-wing musings and consorting with Nazis? Why not examine your own biases, at least in this case, the work is likely to have beneficial results?
And isn't practice in general about turning that attentive beam back at ourselves rather than wasting energy being critical of socially engaged monks, whose politics you happen to disagree with?