briar patch

[temporal1]

Goodness gracious.

saying the quiet part out loud. not a day following the funeral.
further testament to Robert’s broad tolerance of the undeserving (including you+me). Robert knew. he didn’t tolerate in ignorance.

unfortunately, there are signs some want “gloves off”; pray for wisdom;
pray for the forum’s future. prayers for Sherry+family. for their difficult journey ahead.
gratitude for solid mods.

- - - - - - -

briar patch is busy right now.

Sometimes I think we need a Briar Patch to the Briar Patch.

[Grace]

You didn't answer my question... "How would you talk about this event in a way that you would characterize as not-political?" If you're so good at not-politicking a current event (and I'm not) then you help me out here and show/tell how it should be done...

And furthermore, No, I didn't find Robert's approach to be a role model. Quite the opposite. His approach was unhelpfully partisan and 1-party biased, which IS the political aspect I think we can/should avoid. So that probably explains our contentions. Like JohnH alluded to elsewhere, we have different understandings of the term "political".

If Robert's approach wasn't a role model, was unhelpfully partisan, 1-party biased, and is something we should avoid, why do you continue to do that very thing.

This is the typical response seen over and over from certain factions here. They boss others telling them what not to do, yet they themselves do that very thing.

Aside from that, I find the denigration of Robert, sad.

Wife: there were times that I didn’t agree with him, but I remember especially how surprising it was that he was so insistent everybody stop harassing do not perish, even though that guy was being angry with everybody, and Robert exposing himself to being denounced just to try to have a reasonable conversation with him on the phone.

I also liked his heartening stories, and the fact that he usually ruled with decency. nobody’s perfect and politics is pretty divisive, but I got the feeling that he wanted to follow God.

Agreed. Although Robert and I probably agreed on many issues, he called me out numerous times. Especially when I vented about Biden, and my choice of words describing him weren't the greatest. I will miss Robert.

[JohnL]

If you want to see a person’s true nature, do not give them what they want and observe the reaction.
This is truly revealing and truly sad.

So if a current event unveils / reveals the bad character or bad theology of a leader and/or his followers/voters/etc, we shouldn't talk about it or especially not the characters at the center of the happening? Why are big picture, principalities and powers etc - which are Always part of current events, off limits?

How would you talk about this event in a way that you would characterize as not-political?

Two words sunshine. Politics section.
For the sake of Robert’s memory and common sense I still find the political bashing shocking. Robert didnt do it. He was an excellent role model.

You didn't answer my question... "How would you talk about this event in a way that you would characterize as not-political?" If you're so good at not-politicking a current event (and I'm not) then you help me out here and show/tell how it should be done...

And furthermore, No, I didn't find Robert's approach to be a role model. Quite the opposite. His approach was unhelpfully partisan and 1-party biased, which IS the political aspect I think we can/should avoid. So that probably explains our contentions. Like JohnH alluded to elsewhere, we have different understandings of the term "political".

[Jazman]

And furthermore, No, I didn't find Robert's approach to be a role model. Quite the opposite. His approach was unhelpfully partisan and 1-party biased,

Goodness gracious.

I was unaware that some personal things were happening with Robert when I wrote this, but regardless, I should have stated my disagreement differently some how or left him out of the discussion entirely. Yes, I disagreed with Robert's approach on numerous things, including discussing politics and I'll continue to do so with some of you. But that doesn't mean my intention was to put down his entire time or leadership here.

[GaryK]

And furthermore, No, I didn't find Robert's approach to be a role model. Quite the opposite. His approach was unhelpfully partisan and 1-party biased,

Goodness gracious.

I was unaware that some personal things were happening with Robert when I wrote this, but regardless, I should have stated my disagreement differently some how or left him out of the discussion entirely. Yes, I disagreed with Robert's approach on numerous things, including discussing politics and I'll continue to do so with some of you. But that doesn't mean my intention was to put down his entire time or leadership here.

Did you see the post where his wife announced that Robert died?

[Jazman]

I think this crew talks about this event in a non-political way...with a focus on the religious/theological ideas/actions related to the event.

If you think that’s non political, then I can understand a little better why you keep bringing up politics in the non politics section.

Jazman, a little advice. Trump has less than 3 years left of his term. Life will go on. Probably very little will change. Move on from Trump and from caring about Trump.

Yep, it's clear, has been clear; we have different definitions/concepts... (This is old, but is basically where I'm at) and we'll have to agree to disagree on that. I'll try not to police you based on my understanding. If you'll notice, I'm generally not bothered by 'politics' happening in the Current Events discussions because to me they're fluid and interchangeable. Politics is current events and most current events are political or have political/civil arena aspects. Personally, I don't care about policing either of those - although I do actually attempt at times some self-policing in an attempt to lessen the triggering others with different filters (it's obvious I fail sometimes...)

But a suggestion for you or others who have a different definition/lens. When you think me or someone else is straying into the 'political' why not -instead of whipping out the yellow card of "That's political! How dare you!", why don't you restate, resay, reword whatever it is that went over your line in a way that still discusses the subject but in a not-political way? Demonstrate it. (I've seen similar with grammar police... they'll shout "hey, that's not grammatical" and then never tell/show what was actually not-grammatical)
I invite you to quote the words of those of us who 'sin' in this way so easily... with highlighted revisions that turn it into your ideal non-political discussion of a current event. Maybe then I could better understand the nuances of your filter/lines/boundaries.

[JohnH]

It's more of a simple request to confine political discussion to, well, the politics subforums. Then people who want to discuss politics can go join it there.

Jazman, part of the purpose of MennoNet is to be a place where Mennonites and others connect, and our primary nexus of connection is not political discussion, and it's not discussion about current events that cross over into politics, either.

There are lots of other places to discuss politics, too, but there aren't many places to discuss Anabaptism. And I think there should be a place to discuss current events that don't have to do with politics. Here is the subject matter for the Current Events forum:

Things that are not part of politics happening presently and how we approach or address it as Anabaptists.

So, things that are part of politics don't belong here.

[R7ehr]

And furthermore, No, I didn't find Robert's approach to be a role model. Quite the opposite. His approach was unhelpfully partisan and 1-party biased,

Goodness gracious.

I was unaware that some personal things were happening with Robert when I wrote this, but regardless, I should have stated my disagreement differently some how or left him out of the discussion entirely. Yes, I disagreed with Robert's approach on numerous things, including discussing politics and I'll continue to do so with some of you. But that doesn't mean my intention was to put down his entire time or leadership here.

How did you know he wasn’t handling things here any longer, without knowing he passed?

[Soloist]

It's more of a simple request to confine political discussion to, well, the politics subforums. Then people who want to discuss politics can go join it there.

Jazman, part of the purpose of MennoNet is to be a place where Mennonites and others connect, and our primary nexus of connection is not political discussion, and it's not discussion about current events that cross over into politics, either.

There are lots of other places to discuss politics, too, but there aren't many places to discuss Anabaptism. And I think there should be a place to discuss current events that don't have to do with politics. Here is the subject matter for the Current Events forum:

Things that are not part of politics happening presently and how we approach or address it as Anabaptists.

So, things that are part of politics don't belong here.

You have made it your business to counter “leftist” politics and you continue the political stuff by arguing about it. Can’t you just report it and move on?

[JohnH]

You have made it your business to counter “leftist” politics and you continue the political stuff by arguing about it. Can’t you just report it and move on?

We quite literally have a thread called "DjT" in the Current Events forum. I have yet to have anyone explain to me how a thread about Donald J. Trump meets this criteria:

Things that are not part of politics happening presently and how we approach or address it as Anabaptists.

I don't want MennoNet to continue its descent into being a cesspit that is mostly just political discussion; it repels new members who want to join here and talk about things other than that, and it does not represent Anabaptism or Mennonites well as a whole. I think it's a fight worth fighting for.

Alternatively I guess we can just let the forum die as the same handful of people argue about the same political topics over and over, and when the Politics forum isn't active enough, start bleeding it over into other subforums. I think that's a bad thing.