Page 42 of 47

Re: Monastics protesting social injustice

Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2020 1:30 pm
by Ceisiwr
Dan74

It is only a universal truth, if you define a SJW to be someone who fits the qualities you ascribe to them, but in that case it becomes a tautology. Someone who fights for social justice maybe a person who is trying to help the newly arrived refugees in their community, for example, or oppose racism in their city by organising community festivals and celebrations of ethnic diversity. Rather than the armchair warriors you may tend to encounter on the internet, such people are doers and care about bettering their communities. Nothing whatsoever to do with totalitarianism or even any absolutes.
I think you are missing the "warrior" part in SJW. SJW are totalitarians, with a penchant for mob behaviour.

Perhaps you'd like to come up with some substantial examples, but it appears that the voters are invested in the values you might be decrying here, which is the reason the Conservative Govenrment doesn't "stand up to them". Like your "loathsome hate speech laws" which punish vilifying people on the basis of race, sexuality, nationality or religion, which seem the minimum decorum a diverse society requires to actually get along. A wiki page with selected cases does not list anything particularly loathsome, as silly as the sieg heil pug case may be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_spee ... ed_Kingdom
As we have a FPTP system the two parties that dominate become "broad churches". In effect that means that people who aren't really conservative or right wing end up joining the party in order to get elected. The Equalities and Diversity Act in conjunction with hate speech legislation set the ground work for the ever growing "equality and diversity" drive throughout the civil service and the private sector, with a knock on effect to the rest of society. The civil service is now full of middle managers whos only job it is it to promote E&D ad nauseam and with ever increasing ideological fervor. I know, for example, that within the NHS some trusts enforce mandatory "unconcious bias training" in an Orwellian attempt to indoctrinate people into believing "white priviliedge" and other dogmas of critical and conflict theory. It is now to the point where right wingers like I dare not even voice criticism of said ideological dogmas for fear of losing our livelihoods. Instead of heading down this "progressive" totalitarian hell hole we could instead, if the Tories actually got their act together, go for classical liberal values of free speech, equality of opportunity and meritocracy. For example, in way of speech we could opt for something along the lines of the first amendment in the US. Sadly we don't. If you think this is because there is wide voter support for such things, that hasn't been my experience. Once again, due to the FPTP system people will vote either Tory or Labour even if they do not fully agree with their policies. There simply is no other viable choice if what you want to do is keep the other party out of office.
the minimum decorum a diverse society requires to actually get along.
It is not for you nor anyone else to tell people which opinions they can and cannot voice. What gives you this special right to decide in advance which ideas other adults can and cannot hear? Why do you want some faceless bureaucrat to decide in advance what Dan74 can and cannot hear, see or read? No real need to answer. These are things for you to think about, for when you call for hate speech you call for a censor. That is, another human being to decide what ideas are and are not acceptable.

The best society for me to live in is one in which I can be offended, where it will be possible that I will hear homophobic and other distasteful views. It would be the best society because that would be a free society.
I think all monks have views. Even our own Bhante Dhammanando has posted political stuff in the past and continues to do so on his FB. The difference I think is that Bhante Dhammanando's views align much more closely with yours, hence your lack of concern.
To my knowledge Ven. Dhammanando is not a political activist.
I think regardless of one's personal feelings of compassion, it is wrong to give a platform to someone who espouses the ideology that was both predicated upon and responsible for the worst war and genocide of the past 100 years.
You can of course dislike it. That is up to you.

If the monk was behaving in a deeply immoral way and I had the evidence, yes, it would be my responsibility to make it public. But this is not the case. The most you can claim here is that Bhante Sujato has strong political convictions, displays bias and perhaps overstates his claims. I don't think this is behaving inappropriately. It is just stating views you disagree with.
So you are ok when monks engage in slander. Got it.

We are now, however, getting off topic.

:focus:

Re: Monastics protesting social injustice

Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2020 1:53 pm
by robertk
mod note: minimize politics comments on this thread please.

Re: Monastics protesting social injustice

Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2020 2:23 pm
by Mr Man
Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Aug 04, 2020 1:30 pm
So you are ok when monks engage in slander. Got it.

Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Aug 04, 2020 1:30 pm I don't doubt that for a moment, but innocent until proven guilty is an important maxim to uphold.
Cough

Re: Monastics protesting social injustice

Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2020 2:24 pm
by Ceisiwr
Mr Man wrote: Tue Aug 04, 2020 2:23 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Aug 04, 2020 1:30 pm
So you are ok when monks engage in slander. Got it.

Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Aug 04, 2020 1:30 pm I don't doubt that for a moment, but innocent until proven guilty is an important maxim to uphold.
Cough
Trump hasn’t been convicted of rape or child abuse. Therefore, it’s slander in terms of the law.

Re: Monastics protesting social injustice

Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2020 2:32 pm
by Mr Man
Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Aug 04, 2020 2:24 pm
Mr Man wrote: Tue Aug 04, 2020 2:23 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Aug 04, 2020 1:30 pm
So you are ok when monks engage in slander. Got it.

Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Aug 04, 2020 1:30 pm I don't doubt that for a moment, but innocent until proven guilty is an important maxim to uphold.
Cough
Trump hasn’t been convicted of rape or child abuse. Therefore, it’s slander in terms of the law.
Oh has Bhante Sujato been convicted?

Re: Monastics protesting social injustice

Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2020 2:43 pm
by Ceisiwr
Mr Man wrote: Tue Aug 04, 2020 2:32 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Aug 04, 2020 2:24 pm
Mr Man wrote: Tue Aug 04, 2020 2:23 pm



Cough
Trump hasn’t been convicted of rape or child abuse. Therefore, it’s slander in terms of the law.
Oh has Bhante Sujato been convicted?
If I watch a friend steal sweets then they are a thief.

Re: Monastics protesting social injustice

Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2020 7:16 am
by Dan74
Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Aug 04, 2020 1:30 pm Dan74

It is only a universal truth, if you define a SJW to be someone who fits the qualities you ascribe to them, but in that case it becomes a tautology. Someone who fights for social justice maybe a person who is trying to help the newly arrived refugees in their community, for example, or oppose racism in their city by organising community festivals and celebrations of ethnic diversity. Rather than the armchair warriors you may tend to encounter on the internet, such people are doers and care about bettering their communities. Nothing whatsoever to do with totalitarianism or even any absolutes.
I think you are missing the "warrior" part in SJW. SJW are totalitarians, with a penchant for mob behaviour.
You first used the term SWJ in this sentence:
First he seems to think that progressives are full of self doubt. Any cursory encounter with an SJW would fix that wrong perception.
I was not sure whether your were using it as another term for "progressives" or a particular kind of progressive. That's why I opined that you and Bhikkhu Sujato may have had different experiences that would explain the differing image of progressives you hold. That internet armchair warriors and people who actually try to remedy concrete social injustices in their communities are two different breeds, so to speak.

Of course if you define SWJ by its right-wing caricature, then yes, as I said, it's a bit of a circular argument, but it's a big world out there and I'm sure such people do actually exist.
Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Aug 04, 2020 1:30 pm
Perhaps you'd like to come up with some substantial examples, but it appears that the voters are invested in the values you might be decrying here, which is the reason the Conservative Govenrment doesn't "stand up to them". Like your "loathsome hate speech laws" which punish vilifying people on the basis of race, sexuality, nationality or religion, which seem the minimum decorum a diverse society requires to actually get along. A wiki page with selected cases does not list anything particularly loathsome, as silly as the sieg heil pug case may be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_spee ... ed_Kingdom
As we have a FPTP system the two parties that dominate become "broad churches". In effect that means that people who aren't really conservative or right wing end up joining the party in order to get elected. The Equalities and Diversity Act in conjunction with hate speech legislation set the ground work for the ever growing "equality and diversity" drive throughout the civil service and the private sector, with a knock on effect to the rest of society. The civil service is now full of middle managers whos only job it is it to promote E&D ad nauseam and with ever increasing ideological fervor. I know, for example, that within the NHS some trusts enforce mandatory "unconcious bias training" in an Orwellian attempt to indoctrinate people into believing "white priviliedge" and other dogmas of critical and conflict theory. It is now to the point where right wingers like I dare not even voice criticism of said ideological dogmas for fear of losing our livelihoods. Instead of heading down this "progressive" totalitarian hell hole we could instead, if the Tories actually got their act together, go for classical liberal values of free speech, equality of opportunity and meritocracy. For example, in way of speech we could opt for something along the lines of the first amendment in the US. Sadly we don't. If you think this is because there is wide voter support for such things, that hasn't been my experience. Once again, due to the FPTP system people will vote either Tory or Labour even if they do not fully agree with their policies. There simply is no other viable choice if what you want to do is keep the other party out of office.
If there is an issue that is not well addressed by the mainstream parties that people sufficiently care about, it opens up a niche for a minor party or even a new party to step in. Cue in UKIP. A minor party can play the role of a king-maker in a FPTP system, so the issue can get serious clout.

But my guess is that the British generally value decorum over unbridled freedom of speech and you are actually in a minority, or do you have evidence to the contrary? The UK does not have a Constitution, so nothing to amend, but an act of parliament could try to enshrine a more libertarian approach to speech if there were a concerted push from the electorate, or is it not how things work, you think?
Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Aug 04, 2020 1:30 pm
the minimum decorum a diverse society requires to actually get along.
It is not for you nor anyone else to tell people which opinions they can and cannot voice. What gives you this special right to decide in advance which ideas other adults can and cannot hear? Why do you want some faceless bureaucrat to decide in advance what Dan74 can and cannot hear, see or read? No real need to answer. These are things for you to think about, for when you call for hate speech you call for a censor. That is, another human being to decide what ideas are and are not acceptable.

The best society for me to live in is one in which I can be offended, where it will be possible that I will hear homophobic and other distasteful views. It would be the best society because that would be a free society.
These things are regulated by laws passed by your elected representatives. You don't like it? Lead a push to change it. If there are enough people who think like you, the MP's will be forced to change laws or risk being voted out.
Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Aug 04, 2020 1:30 pm
I think all monks have views. Even our own Bhante Dhammanando has posted political stuff in the past and continues to do so on his FB. The difference I think is that Bhante Dhammanando's views align much more closely with yours, hence your lack of concern.
To my knowledge Ven. Dhammanando is not a political activist.
I don't know anything about B. Sujato's activism beyong what people here post. Does a video addressing a political theme make one an activist?
Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Aug 04, 2020 1:30 pm
If the monk was behaving in a deeply immoral way and I had the evidence, yes, it would be my responsibility to make it public. But this is not the case. The most you can claim here is that Bhante Sujato has strong political convictions, displays bias and perhaps overstates his claims. I don't think this is behaving inappropriately. It is just stating views you disagree with.
So you are ok when monks engage in slander. Got it.

We are now, however, getting off topic.

:focus:
Standards are different when applied to high-profile politicians than ordinary people. If B. Sujato made similar claims about Ceisiwr based on similar evidence, I would tend to agree with you. When it is about POTUS, even courts recognise the difference. High-profile political figures tend to polarise people due to various factors, including their perceived misdeeds. B. Sujato, I suppose, is simply speaking out of his concern for the suffering he sees Trump causing, and sees it as totally in line with the Dhamma. You can of course dislike it. That is up to you.

Re: Monastics protesting social injustice

Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2020 10:13 am
by BrokenBones
Dan74... So the Dhamma is different when applied to high profile politicians? Seems a bit thin.

Metta

Re: Monastics protesting social injustice

Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2020 1:13 pm
by Dan74
BrokenBones wrote: Wed Aug 05, 2020 10:13 am Dan74... So the Dhamma is different when applied to high profile politicians? Seems a bit thin.

Metta
I think kamma is to do with intention, isn't it? When it comes to high-profile politicians, it is likely that the intention behind our speech is different to when we speak about our equals, say.

But I was addressing Ceisiwr's accusation of slander, which is more of a legal than a dhammic term.

Re: Monastics protesting social injustice

Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2020 1:25 pm
by Ceisiwr
Dan74
But I was addressing Ceisiwr's accusation of slander, which is more of a legal than a dhammic term.
Monks should also obey the law of the land. Slander is illegal in most countries. Monks should also refrain from:
He speaks falsehood. If he is summoned to a council, to an assembly, to his relatives’ presence, to his guild, or to the court, and questioned as a witness thus: ‘So, good man, tell what you know,’ then, not knowing, he says, ‘I know,’ or knowing, he says, ‘I do not know’; not seeing, he says, ‘I see,’ or seeing, he says, ‘I do not see.’ Thus he consciously speaks falsehood for his own ends, or for another’s ends, or for some trifling worldly end.

Re: Monastics protesting social injustice

Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2020 1:38 pm
by Mr Man
Ceisiwr wrote: Wed Aug 05, 2020 1:25 pm
He speaks falsehood. If he is summoned to a council, to an assembly, to his relatives’ presence, to his guild, or to the court, and questioned as a witness thus: ‘So, good man, tell what you know,’ then, not knowing, he says, ‘I know,’ or knowing, he says, ‘I do not know’; not seeing, he says, ‘I see,’ or seeing, he says, ‘I do not see.’ Thus he consciously speaks falsehood for his own ends, or for another’s ends, or for some trifling worldly end.
I know that Trump has not been convicted of rape. I do not know if he has committed rape.

Does Ceisiwr know if Trump has committed rape?

Re: Monastics protesting social injustice

Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2020 1:46 pm
by Ceisiwr
Mr Man
Does Ceisiwr know if Trump has committed rape?
Nope. Apparently Sujato does.

Re: Monastics protesting social injustice

Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2020 2:19 pm
by BrokenBones
Ceisiwr wrote: Wed Aug 05, 2020 1:46 pm Mr Man
Does Ceisiwr know if Trump has committed rape?
Nope. Apparently Sujato does.
:goodpost:

And that really is the crux of the matter... not knowing he says he knows. And for what reason?... trifling political point scoring? A demonstration of wokeness? Enhancing Liberal credentials? Who cares... it's not propagating Dhamma that's for sure.

Metta

Re: Monastics protesting social injustice

Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2020 3:09 pm
by Mr Man
Ceisiwr wrote: Wed Aug 05, 2020 1:46 pm Mr Man
Does Ceisiwr know if Trump has committed rape?
Nope. Apparently Sujato does.
So if Ceisiwr does not know if Trump has committed rape Ceisiwr cannot know if Bhante Sujato has committed slander. It's that simple.

Apply the Sutta quote to yourself, don't worry about Bhante Sujato
He speaks falsehood. If he is summoned to a council, to an assembly, to his relatives’ presence, to his guild, or to the court, and questioned as a witness thus: ‘So, good man, tell what you know,’ then, not knowing, he says, ‘I know,’ or knowing, he says, ‘I do not know’; not seeing, he says, ‘I see,’ or seeing, he says, ‘I do not see.’ Thus he consciously speaks falsehood for his own ends, or for another’s ends, or for some trifling worldly end.
In this thread Ceisiwr, you seemed to make the claim that Bhante Sujato advocates theft, imply that he is lying and that he has committed slander. None of which have yet been showm to be true.

Both you and BrokenBones seem to think he is breaking the monastic rule in the clip but no one has yet been able to show how.

BrokenBones has said Bhante Sujato has offered a defence of law breaking which he hasn't (in the linked article).

What is going on?

Re: Monastics protesting social injustice

Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2020 4:22 pm
by Ceisiwr
Mr Man
So if Ceisiwr does not know if Trump has committed rape Ceisiwr cannot know if Bhante Sujato has committed slander. It's that simple.
I do not know that Trump has committed rape. Trump has not been found to have committed rape. If I say that Trump is a racist that is lying and slander.

In this thread Ceisiwr, you seemed to make the claim that Bhante Sujato advocates theft, imply that he is lying and that he has committed slander. None of which have yet been showm to be true.
Stealing from the rich is theft.
Both you and BrokenBones seem to think he is breaking the monastic rule in the clip but no one has yet been able to show how.
It has been shown, repeatedly over and over again ad nauseam.