Winston Smith | 07 Aug 2014 3:46 p.m. PST |
I am so sick and tired of yahoos throwing around accusations of Puritanism at people they disagree with. And then the indignant "How DARE you accuse me of that!" That is all. Let's add "puritan" to the Bleep-o-Matic. |
Dances With Words | 07 Aug 2014 4:09 p.m. PST |
I thought that was the brand name of some 'butter-like' product…or oil…or soap or life insurance???? |
tberry7403 | 07 Aug 2014 4:20 p.m. PST |
You want some with that . |
Virtualscratchbuilder | 07 Aug 2014 4:26 p.m. PST |
Then we would have USS Bleep in the ACW boards. |
corporalpat | 07 Aug 2014 4:34 p.m. PST |
Oh, never mind…nothing good to say? Say nothing. So…how about those new Khurasan releases? |
tberry7403 | 07 Aug 2014 4:56 p.m. PST |
Then we would have USS Bleep in the ACW boards. And the s came over on the Mayflower. |
darthfozzywig | 07 Aug 2014 5:51 p.m. PST |
|
Pictors Studio | 07 Aug 2014 6:02 p.m. PST |
Puritan is actually a derogatory term. The acceptable term is usually Calvinist. I had a professor that wouldn't let us use it when talking about 17th century related stuff because it was used to demean people. So I guess we should ad it to the list. But then what do we call all the puritans in here? |
altfritz | 07 Aug 2014 6:22 p.m. PST |
It's times like these that the wise ask "what would the OFM do?" |
corporalpat | 07 Aug 2014 7:14 p.m. PST |
Start this post with his sock puppet! |
doc mcb | 07 Aug 2014 7:16 p.m. PST |
In American terms the Puritans were non-separating Calvinists, in contrast to the Pilgrims who were identical except for being separatists. But in Britain the term could mean any dissenting (non-CofE) Protestant, so would include as diverse as Scots Presbyterians and Quakers. Lots of people thought the CofE was too papist -- but didm't agree on how to "purify" it. I've never thought of it as a derogatory term. King James himself was a Calvinist, pretty much, but obviously not a Puritan. |
skippy0001 | 07 Aug 2014 7:41 p.m. PST |
Just as long as there aren't any Pesky Episcopalians!(say that fast 10 times)..:) |
John the OFM | 07 Aug 2014 7:48 p.m. PST |
|
Endless Grubs | 07 Aug 2014 8:10 p.m. PST |
Of course not--he's the legitimate ruler of Russia!! |
tberry7403 | 07 Aug 2014 8:12 p.m. PST |
… Pesky Episcopalians! As I was raised in the Episcopal Church I guess I am now entitled to bellow out my pseudo moral outrage and demand The Editor rain all sorts of Doom upon skippy0001. |
Tin Soldier Man | 07 Aug 2014 9:40 p.m. PST |
Yet another divisive and ultimately pointless thread started by the OFM which serves only to dilute the wargaming content on this site and fill it with utter dross. BORING. |
PzGeneral | 08 Aug 2014 2:05 a.m. PST |
|
alien BLOODY HELL surfer | 08 Aug 2014 3:39 a.m. PST |
'But then what do we call all the puritans in here?' Hypocrites. |
doc mcb | 08 Aug 2014 5:31 a.m. PST |
So how do we discuss the New Model Army if we can't use the word? |
Doug MSC | 08 Aug 2014 5:32 a.m. PST |
What do we call those that aren't puritans? |
ubique1 | 08 Aug 2014 6:08 a.m. PST |
|
Doug MSC | 08 Aug 2014 6:59 a.m. PST |
Ubique1, So then everyone in your opinion who has not voted the way you want them to are insane? I voted to eliminate the board. would you call me insane and yourself sane? |
doc mcb | 08 Aug 2014 7:10 a.m. PST |
The Puritans weren't even that puritanical (i.e. they were not ascetics). See Morgan's classic essay "The Puritans and sex." |
Repiqueone | 08 Aug 2014 7:52 a.m. PST |
So that scarlet letter stuff and all the burning of witches was just further proof that the Puritans were, like most "puritans," members of the Hypocritical Faith? Puritanism has been, and wil always be, a very American thing, as will hypocrisy, which is the bedrock of many religious and social beliefs. Remember the core tenet of hypocrites "Do unto others." None of this has any bearing on the NMB board whose name remains embarrassingly stupid. |
Doug MSC | 08 Aug 2014 8:07 a.m. PST |
So Repiqueone, in your opinion, everyone who is religious is a hypocrite? Or do you mean there are religious people who are hypocrites and don't practice the true Biblical teachings, such as you stated, "do unto others", but there are also others who walk with the Lord and do practice true Biblical teachings? Or do you lump everyone into the same category? Of which,in you opinion, I would be a hypocrite if you did. |
doc mcb | 08 Aug 2014 8:30 a.m. PST |
No, Bob, Puritanism is a very Anglo thing; only a few ps came to America (and they came with the goal of proving their theory and then returning to England to apply it). The rest stayed home and became the New Model army and stuff. How many witches were burned between, oh, say 1500 and 1700? Thousands, right? How many of those were in America? Well, none, though a double handful were hanged. The rest were inEurope, and mostly not in England. And here's the thing about hypocrisy. No one fully lives up to all of his ideals, and the higher those ideals the harder that is. Who is not a hypocrite? easy, that would be the guy with NO ideals. No shame. Hypocrisy is the compliment vice pays to virtue. I know how I should behave, and when I fail -- regularly -- I at least may be ashamed of myself enough to pretend to be good. Better to be truthful and repentant, of course; but better a hypocrite than someone who either lies to himself that he does no wrong, or else cheerfully admits to wickedness and has no shame. |
Repiqueone | 08 Aug 2014 9:08 a.m. PST |
No, Doug, that's not what I said. I just said that hypocrisy seems to home in on the uber-righteous like iron shavings to a magnet. I do not lump everyone into the same category, although the way birds of a feather flock together is depressingly predictable. I repeat, the NMB board's name is not, in my mind, an immoral issue,or a pornographic issue, or a religious issue, it is simply one of bad taste, and insultingly low humor. Doc, never said that Europe lacked for religious overreach, superstition, and sectarian wars. I thought the US was premised on setting aside such tumult, but the last few years seem to see that attempt being challenged. I think Mark Twain in all his works, but particularly in Huckleberry Finn, captured the US penchant for hypocrisy rather well. It has long been with us. I honestly think I prefer mild levels of human "wickedness" and a lot more focus on positive solutions rather than wallowing in shame. There's always a short supply on truthful and repentant, and much of that is hypocritical. Repeat note: None of this has any bearing on the NMB board whose name remains embarrassingly stupid. |
OSchmidt | 08 Aug 2014 9:41 a.m. PST |
Dear Doc Mcb Right you are. Puritans, to take one small area, were marvelously tolerant of pre-marital sex. They were tolerant provided the young couple had clearly stated their intentions to marry, had pledge to each other, and were working to where they could amass enough money and goods to make a go of it on their own. They saw nothing wrong in sex with commitment. The laughable thing about this question is the paucity of understanding. Do people think that one word has a single meaning? It's all taken in context. While "Pewter Puritan" obviously refers to narrow minded sex-phobic people on the TMP board, Puritan in other contexts an mean different things. |
kevanG | 08 Aug 2014 9:43 a.m. PST |
Well, I think we should consider banning Megatron. Its a much bigger insult in Sci fi robot gaming circles |
Wulfgar | 08 Aug 2014 9:50 a.m. PST |
The modern definition of a Puritan involves a belief that its somehow a moral obligation to control or censor what other people see, think, read, and do, presumably for their own spiritual good. Its ironic that a small number of people who choose to control what others see, think, read, and do would object to the use of the word, "Puritan." Now someone is calling for censorship of a word because it accurately describes their own activity? Duh. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, its probably a duck. |
Doug MSC | 08 Aug 2014 10:02 a.m. PST |
Wulfgar, what would you call yourself then? |
Repiqueone | 08 Aug 2014 10:33 a.m. PST |
Wulfgar, How do you feel about the name of a board that accurately describes its content if the figures were of blacks, Asians, Italians, or Hispanics, by calling itself the NMN,NMSE, NMG, or NMS if every one of those titles were a racial or ethnic slur? We all practice censorship in our daily lives if only to preserve the patina of civilized living. You don't tell your boss what you think of him or use the same words to describe him in public that you might at home. In some cases you do this to avoid consequences, but also because you know that many other people would just think you were being stupid and a social klutz. One test would be if you would just shout out at your wife's next house party that you need more boobies!? Would you tell your daughter that she needs more boobies? In front if her friends? The truth is that if a person doesn't have a good sense of appropriateness in the use of language he can expect to be told that frequently, and to offend many people, and losing polls and a forum name will be the least of his problems. |
Bunkermeister | 08 Aug 2014 10:45 a.m. PST |
Well written Doc mcb. Mike Bunkermeister Creek Bunker Talk blog |
The Virtual Armchair General | 08 Aug 2014 11:03 a.m. PST |
I must agree with Doc mcb's sentiments and argument. TVAG |
Wulfgar | 08 Aug 2014 11:23 a.m. PST |
@Doug A husband. A father. A teacher. A Christian. An American. @ Repiqueone I'd like to see the name changed, as I have already stated. I do not believe that the board should be eliminated at the behest of a minority who seem to believe they know what is best for everyone else. My family has nothing to do with the board. No one is shouting Boobies at my wife or my daughter. Its a straw man argument. If the name is offensive, change the name. I have already argued for this. I have seen many good reasons to change the name. I have seen not even one argument as to why the board should be eliminated. Is it because making that argument would smack of puritanism? Is it because other people feel that they know better than I do regarding my spiritual welfare? |
Weasel | 08 Aug 2014 11:59 a.m. PST |
I've sort of grown accustomed to the idea of calling people "humans". If you know their specific name, that works well too. |
doc mcb | 08 Aug 2014 3:28 p.m. PST |
Weasel, yes, when possible. But we do sort of need categories. Sometimes they are relevant and matter. It seems as foolish NEVER to think in terms of groups as it is to assume that ONLY group membership matters. One reason for this is that in the modern world we daily come into contact with hundreds and even thousands of people whom we do not know. Just walk through a big mall or go to a major sporting event. We CANNOT treat everyone as an individual because we cannot know them well enough. Assigning them to groups (aka stereotyping) is unavoidable, There's not a person on this thread who does not weigh how safe he is among strangers, based on visible characteristics. |
Repiqueone | 08 Aug 2014 7:18 p.m. PST |
However, the degree that people deal with people not like them, and reactions of xenophobia, nativism, and paranoia varies widely among groups from easy assimilation to extreme fear. There does seem to be some correlations that can be made in this area that are not flattering to certain geographic, social, religious, ethnic, and political beliefs. The triggers of fear are not intrinsic but learned, and often exaggerated and destructive. There is a huge difference between accurate judgement of risk and concern and stereotypical knee-jerk reactions. |
doc mcb | 09 Aug 2014 7:29 a.m. PST |
Not saying that, and I have no strong opinion either way vis a vis that board. I was responding to Repiqueone's implication that one side -- presumably the Right -- is less tolerant. There's plenty of examples of extreme statements by the Left. |
Wulfgar | 09 Aug 2014 8:04 a.m. PST |
Then we agree that there are plenty of examples of stupidity from both sides. Back to NMB. |
doc mcb | 09 Aug 2014 9:19 a.m. PST |
From a historian's viewpoint, every ideological or theological or socially self-conscious group will have extremists and also more moderate members, in varying degrees. The relevant question is generally which temperament prevails. In MOST cases the moderate majority restrains its extreme minority. But when that is not the case -- as when the radical underground in Boston came to dominate the moderate merchants during 1770-1774, leading to the Tea Party and Intolerable Acts and ultimately to war -- then upheavals may result. It would be an interesting thread for the Blue Fez as to which party today is doing the better job of controlling its more extreme elements. |
combatpainter | 10 Aug 2014 6:38 a.m. PST |
Assassination is the extreme form of censorship. GBS "They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up." – Pastor Martin Niemöller
|
dejvid | 16 Aug 2014 6:37 a.m. PST |
First Puritan can have valid uses. Second do people really think that a post full of bleeps is really less offensive than if the original words had remained. Indeed worse because people will insert the worst possible. A list of bleeps is counterproductive if more than the most extreme words are on the list. |
MarescialloDiCampo | 20 Aug 2014 12:48 p.m. PST |
I like combatpainter's post |
monash1916 | 30 Aug 2014 12:08 a.m. PST |
I am so sick and tired of yahoos throwing around accusations of Puritanism at people they disagree with. So if you call someone a puritan you are a yahoo yourself? Talking about giving people names……. |
Dasher | 05 Nov 2014 3:59 p.m. PST |
|