How to Challenge Conservative Superiority

[GaryK]

for whatever reason, you decided to publish one specific perspective on vaccines and then ignore all others. I don't think you can hide behind a commitment to mainstream science, since, to be frank, you have published outright pseudoscience on other topics. So the real question is why you are creating the perception that you are operating the Plain News in a manner to try to promote a view on vaccines specifically.

It would be nice if those making accusations would at least know what they are talking about.

Please feel free to correct me, then.

Perhaps ask questions rather than making accusations.

[JohnH]

It would be nice if those making accusations would at least know what they are talking about.

Please feel free to correct me, then.

Perhaps ask questions rather than making accusations.

My observations were made from a first-hand perspective of being a (former) subscriber, or else reading excerpts of articles that were published. It was obvious that only one rather biased perspective was being given on vaccines.

Now, I am simply the messenger here that some conservative/plain people think that the Plain News has a bias, and aren't interested in reading it about science/medicine related topics. I actually think that's a shame, but I think the Plain News didn't do itself any favours by deciding to pick a side in the vaccine debate.

As far as saying I don't know what I'm talking about... well, I can be corrected, and pointed out where what I said was wrong. I do believe some of the articles on medicine have devolved into pseudoscience, although it doesn't bother me that much - articles with nonsense about nutrition, diet, and exercise are very common in the plain world.

In any case, if the presentation is that "Plain News is a business its owner can run anyway he wants", then sure - but that doesn't change the opinion of plain people that it's become a biased newsletter that is, to quite someone else, "not really fit to read".

[GaryK]

Please feel free to correct me, then.

Perhaps ask questions rather than making accusations.

My observations were made from a first-hand perspective of being a (former) subscriber, or else reading excerpts of articles that were published. It was obvious that only one rather biased perspective was being given on vaccines.

Now, I am simply the messenger here that some conservative/plain people think that the Plain News has a bias, and aren't interested in reading it about science/medicine related topics. I actually think that's a shame, but I think the Plain News didn't do itself any favours by deciding to pick a side in the vaccine debate.

As far as saying I don't know what I'm talking about... well, I can be corrected, and pointed out where what I said was wrong. I do believe some of the articles on medicine have devolved into pseudoscience, although it doesn't bother me that much - articles with nonsense about nutrition, diet, and exercise are very common in the plain world.

In any case, if the presentation is that "Plain News is a business its owner can run anyway he wants", then sure - but that doesn't change the opinion of plain people that it's become a biased newsletter that is, to quite someone else, "not really fit to read".

It seems you are a messenger for a lot of people who aren't on MN. I'm not sure why anyone feels the need to take on that role. Why can't we just give our own opinions rather than allegedly speaking for folks who would also have a problem with MN itself. And if you find yourself so much in alignment with them, so much so that you are their messenger, it raises a lot of questions. Would they support you being on this forum, is the first to come to mind.

[Soloist]

anonymous:
Menno net forum. You will never find a more wretched hive of controversy and arguments. We must be cautious.

There’s something wrong with all these conservatives being on Mennonet…

[JohnH]

It seems you are a messenger for a lot of people who aren't on MN. I'm not sure why anyone feels the need to take on that role. Why can't we just give our own opinions rather than allegedly speaking for folks who would also have a problem with MN itself. And if you find yourself so much in alignment with them, so much so that you are their messenger, it raises a lot of questions. Would they support you being on this forum, is the first to come to mind.

I am simply sharing opinions from other people I have heard. I have been surprised by just how negative the opinions are of some things I had slight disagreements with, such as the Plain News or Anabaptist Perspectives.

The term "Anabaptist" itself is now associated with liberalism-progressivism, in fact.

As far as their support of me on this forum... no, most of them would consider MennoNet to be a hive of worldliness and false doctrine, although some might be supportive of my own activity if I speak out against it. Others would consider it best to simply be abandoned as a place not fit for a Christian.

I think it's important to consider what other conservative and plain Anabaptists think about the various movements we create, and those on the barely-conservative end of things should perhaps pause a bit and consider why their reputation is so poor - and take a look at the things they keep supporting/promoting.

The topic of this thread was "How to Challenge Conservative Superiority". I have given some tips on how I think that could be done. So far, though, I'm just hearing plans to double down and consider telling conservatives how wrong they are. In my experience, that isn't very persuasive.

[GaryK]

It seems you are a messenger for a lot of people who aren't on MN. I'm not sure why anyone feels the need to take on that role. Why can't we just give our own opinions rather than allegedly speaking for folks who would also have a problem with MN itself. And if you find yourself so much in alignment with them, so much so that you are their messenger, it raises a lot of questions. Would they support you being on this forum, is the first to come to mind.

I am simply sharing opinions from other people I have heard. I have been surprised by just how negative the opinions are of some things I had slight disagreements with, such as the Plain News or Anabaptist Perspectives.

The term "Anabaptist" itself is now associated with liberalism-progressivism, in fact.

As far as their support of me on this forum... no, most of them would consider MennoNet to be a hive of worldliness and false doctrine, although some might be supportive of my own activity if I speak out against it. Others would consider it best to simply be abandoned as a place not fit for a Christian.

I think it's important to consider what other conservative and plain Anabaptists think about the various movements we create, and those on the barely-conservative end of things should perhaps pause a bit and consider why their reputation is so poor - and take a look at the things they keep supporting/promoting.

The topic of this thread was "How to Challenge Conservative Superiority". I have given some tips on how I think that could be done. So far, though, I'm just hearing plans to double down and consider telling conservatives how wrong they are. In my experience, that isn't very persuasive.

I haven't heard anyone talk about telling conservatives how wrong they are. I've just read people giving their own opinions. Now, if you view others as also being messengers for groups of people not on MN because that's how you view yourself, then I can somewhat understand the tone you often use here. What if the rest of us don't view ourselves as messengers and are here to simply be involved in conversations where we at times strongly disagree with others' opinions?

[JohnH]

I haven't heard anyone talk about telling conservatives how wrong they are. I've just read people giving their own opinions. Now, if you view others as also being messengers for groups of people not on MN because that's how you view yourself, then I can somewhat understand the tone you often use here. What if the rest of us don't view ourselves as messengers and are here to simply be involved in conversations where we at times strongly disagree with others' opinions?

Well, going back to the OP:

It seems common for people to view a person or organization less conservative than they are with deep suspicion. I've done that myself at times; perhaps less frequently now than in the past. I've been trying to cultivate shallow suspicion, if any at all, rather than deep suspicion.

How can we avoid practicing and promoting this shameful behavior?

The thrust here is that conservatives view people less conservative than they are with deep suspicion, but also that this is somehow wrong.

One needs to no further than to visit a typical group of Mennonites and listen to their opinions on people more traditional than they are. If one is around Holdemans, suspicion will be shown for Wengers. If one is around Mid-West or Beachy type of people, there is a very, very poor opinion of ultra-conservatives who won't use smartphones.

If one is around ultra-conservatives, there is a quite poor opinion expressed of horse-and-buggy people.

If one is around Wengers, they are going to be sceptical of the Hoovers.

Note that all of these groups will express concern the people more conservative than they are have no spiritual life at all: so Mid-West or Beachy people will probably express they don't think the Wengers believe in born-again salvation. If one goes and visits Wengers, and discusses Hoovers, one will hear them likewise express concern the Hoovers aren't believing in salvation via faith. It is quite interesting to observe.

I am not sure what more-traditional groups Hoovers express concern and derision for.

At the same time, every group will pretty much be concerned about less-conservative people. This thread is a great example of that. So the challenge for the conservative Anabaptist is:

"How do challenge these people more conservative than I am who think they're superior, but are in fact misguided and lost?"

and then

"How do I challenge these people more liberal than I am, who are wallowing in the mire of sin and worldliness?"

Something is seriously amiss with almost everyone's perspectives, I think.

[GaryK]

Something is seriously amiss with almost everyone's perspectives, I think.

Including yours?

[AnthonyMartin]

This thread almost has me convinced that Derrida was right.

[barnhart]

This thread almost has me convinced that Derrida was right.

If he was right, no one should take his writing (or any other) seriously...
But I see your point. One can insist on boutique reality with specialized, technical language or one can have meaningful conversations with others. Both are not possible.