Good news: 34 arrested while advocating for a $15 minimum wage and better conditions for NC poor

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

Thirty-four protesters were arrested at the North Carolina Legislative Building on Monday while fighting for higher minimum wages and unions in North Carolina.
This is the fifth week of protests by the Poor People's Campaign, a coordinated effort across the country to push the plight of the poor to the top of the agenda in statehouses and the U.S. Congress.
The Rev. William J. Barber II, the former head of the state NAACP and architect of the Moral Monday protest movement, co-founded the campaign.
The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. outlined a multi-faith, multicultural plan in the late 1960s to draw attention to income inequality, working conditions and economic injustices that he thought the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 failed to address.

To read more: https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article212941824.html#storylink=cpy

[Maraya1969]

1. Don't understand the "Good news" part

[guillaumeb]

2. It is good news, in my view, when people are fighting for the poor

and the working poor.

[slumcamper]

3. The goals of civil disobedience are aided through self sacrifice...

...and when the injustice of oppressors is elevated to the public consciousness (such as reports of mass arrests), public attitudes toward the oppressors shift against them, and their own conscience ultimately becomes enemy.

(at least in principle)

[trotsky]

8. It upsets guillaumeb to see negative news items about religion.

He believes in fictional boogeyman atheists who harbor hatred for all things religious, who believe religion to be responsible for all evil in the world, and who want to ban religion and quite possibly round up or kill all believers. His world is very scary.

Anyway, to counter the evil atheist agenda, he takes it upon himself to editorialize and make sure that everyone knows there are religious believers doing good things too. Doesn't matter that no one has ever denied this - remember, in his world, those evil imaginary atheists hate ALL religion and think it ONLY brings bad things, and so every post like this helps vanquish them.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

9. Don't forget the strawman atheist

that doesn't believe there are liberal, progressive Christians. Apparently that is a thing on DU, too.

[Voltaire2]

10. we are also authoritarian fascists

or so I've been told. I'm wondering what the other sort of fascist is - is there anarcho-fascism?

[trotsky]

11. We are?

Well damn, I need to update my membership card. I don't see that listed at all.

[guillaumeb]

13. And one by one, the choir rehearses.

All together now.....

[Voltaire2]

15. anyone ever call you fascist in this forum?

[guillaumeb]

16. I have been called many names here.

Perhaps you should read a bit about fascism. You might find it enlightening.

[Voltaire2]

21. Really? Perhaps you could explain the difference

between a regular fascist and an authoritarian fascist. You being so much better informed and enlightened and everything.

[guillaumeb]

23. I am waiting for the proof of your earlier assertion.

I have patience.

[Voltaire2]

24. Oh ok, so you haven't a clue either.

[guillaumeb]

26. What a bizarre response.

You made an assertion, and now refuse to substantiate that assertion.

[Voltaire2]

28. Here is a clue: it is in one of your recent op's.

I'm sure you can find it.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

34. If a lot of people are saying the same thing about you,

maybe it's with reflecting on whether it might, in fact, be something you could change and not actually a tin foil conspiracy.

[guillaumeb]

39. "A lot"?

You seem confused as to what constitutes a lot.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

41. That's your answer?

Not even a tiny little but if self reflection? Figures.

[guillaumeb]

43. I tailored the answer to your response.

Interesting how almost no one commented about the action, preferring to pivot to other things.

Why do you think that is?

Does no one here care about such combined actions, or is it that when theists engage in such actions it contradicts the preferred meme?

[guillaumeb]

17. So where and when have you been called a fascist?

I am certain that you have the many instances bookmarked.

[Voltaire2]

18. I'm sure you know exactly where.

I ain't playing.

[guillaumeb]

19. You started the playing with the assertion.

But I understand your move.

[Lordquinton]

36. So you don't read your own threads?

interesting...

[guillaumeb]

40. Feel free to help your friend with citations.

He seems unable to provide any at all.

Interesting how some few, agenda firmly in mind, ignore the actual substance of the article so they can focus on literally anything but the actual substance.

[Lordquinton]

42. It's all over your thread about believers not being a bloc

Some are hidden tho.

[guillaumeb]

44. So nothing about the substance of the post?

I understand. Progressive theists contradict the preferred (by some few) meme.

[Lordquinton]

46. wut?

Read your thread, one of your friends was calling people who disagreed with him fascists.

[guillaumeb]

51. All I see is avoidance of any substantive discussion

about the actual post. Instead, the same few prefer to divert to a more familiar and constantly repeated meme.

[Voltaire2]

53. Lulzd.

[guillaumeb]

54. The 11th can be difficult to avoid. eom

[Lordquinton]

66. Well, you got your answer and are still replying

so that's a step forward for you.

[trotsky]

69. Straw man.

No one has denied the existence of progressive theists.

Why do you use falsehoods to spread hatred, gil?

[guillaumeb]

72. Speaking of straw,

you certainly put a lot of straw into a small space.

[trotsky]

81. That's the best insult you could come up with?

Thanks for admitting you used a straw man, though.

[Eko]

64. Nice!

Interesting how some few, agenda firmly in mind, ignore questions so they can focus on literally anything but the actual question.

[guillaumeb]

70. All save 1 person who replied ignored the actual post.

So yes, I do find it interesting.

[Eko]

78. I agree.

Its very annoying when you are trying to have a conversation about something and the other person is not engaging. Disrespectful even. Or, when you are having a conversation with them and you ask a question and they just go away and never answer that question.

[Lordquinton]

79. ...

[guillaumeb]

84. Especially when the question is totally off topic.

Agreed.

[trotsky]

88. You mean like in post #12? n/t

[guillaumeb]

89. I mean like every post save one.

Rather than discuss the substance of the post, nearly every responder pivoted to attacking religion. A perfect illustration of the 11th in action.

[trotsky]

90. Oh yeah.

You get to follow different rules than you lay out for everyone else. You can ask any question, derail any thread, insult anyone you want, throw out dehumanizing terms like your 11th commandment or the "choir," gaslight, engage in whataboutism, and yet it's the mean old atheists who ask questions who are the problem.

Sorry, I forgot.

[guillaumeb]

92. So nothing to say about the actual post?

First, do you agree or disagree with the positions and actions of the group?

Or does it bother you that anything might be posted that reflects theists in a positive way?


When I see a response about the actual post, rather than an immediate pivot to the standard "bash the bad theists" silliness that passes for discussion among some few, dialogue might take place.

[trotsky]

93. "nothing to say about the actual post"

Says you, the preacher of the "11th Commandment," who screams it at anyone voicing an opinion you don't like.

Guess what, gil, you DON'T get to control how other people respond. That's not dialog. I understand how this burns you up something fierce. But you just need to learn to accept it. Some people just don't have the same fawning opinions about religion that you do, and that's OK. Instead of bashing them for daring to disagree, why don't you try to ask THEM questions and understand their position better? I mean, if you're truly all about dialog.

[Mariana]

94. It has to be the right kind of dialog, or it doesn't count.

Maybe it's time to review what makes for good and bad dialog. Some posters consider the following to be good dialog:

OP: "The human mind is a pale reflection of the Creator..."
Good: "You're absolutely right!"
Good: "That's so profound!"
Good: "Praise the Lord!"

These kinds of exchange are unacceptable:

OP: "The human mind is a pale reflection of the Creator..."
Bad: "Please describe this creator."
Bad: "Which human mind?"
Bad: "How do you know this?"

There are groups on DU that were set up specifically so religious people can have the first kind of conversation, and avoid the second type altogether. This one lone group permits the second kind, and some posters don't like it one little bit.

[MineralMan]

95. But...but...those protected groups...nobody goes there!

What fun would that be?

[Mariana]

99. Yeah, well, that's only because of mean atheists.

It's a matter of magical thinking, you see. I was here when one of those protected groups was formed. Some atheists thought the group was redundant and would be deadly dull, with all the conversations going like the "good" ones in my post above. Nevertheless, they supported its formation. The atheists predicted the new group would quickly become a ghost town, and guess what? That's exactly what happened! So then, the atheists were accused of making it fail by making the prediction. Kinda like how we made Ken Ham's idiotic ark park fail, because we think it's idiotic. Did you have any idea we were that powerful? If only prayer was so effective!

[MineralMan]

100. I suppose you're right. I've looked in on some of those groups,

but no discussion was taking place. Of what use is that? Here in the Religion Group, there's plenty of discussion, along with the expected hijacking of such discussion. It's an interesting place to read and post, at least much of the time. I suppose there are some here who wish it were free of disagreement about religious matters, but then, it would be like those empty protected Groups.

[trotsky]

96. I love that example and it's still in my bookmarks.

I don't think you could have illustrated it any more clearly.

And it's very telling that guillaumeb, for all his claims about wanting dialog, has never responded to this.

[MineralMan]

97. Well, on the brighter side, that DUer has been around a lot less, lately.

He is coming in, dropping a few dingleberries, and then fleeing the interview until the next run.

[guillaumeb]

102. So the answer is no, you have nothing to say about the actual topic.

Thank you for clarifying.

[trotsky]

106. When I can tell you are actually interested in dialog, then I shall respond in kind.

I have given you way too many chances, only to have you spit in my face, to ever bother trying again.

[trotsky]

98. Talking about people who ignore the actual post...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218284074#post13

You try to derail other people's threads, gil. Why do you insist everyone stay directly on topic in yours?

[guillaumeb]

12. More 11th Commandment compulsion?

I understand, as do others.

[Voltaire2]

22. not quite as many others as previously though.

[guillaumeb]

25. Perhaps you confuse the choir with the group as a whole?

Understandable, but that does not make your assumption correct.

[Voltaire2]

27. I feel for your loss.

[guillaumeb]

29. And I for yours.

One of the leading lights for you.

[guillaumeb]

32. Including the large loss in the choir?

[Voltaire2]

33. What loss was that?

[Lordquinton]

35. What loss?

| ||
|| |_

[Voltaire2]

37. Maybe the recently departed was actually part of the choir?

I could see how someone could think that, given the positions he took, many of which undermined the theists here.

[Lordquinton]

45. The one who went out in a blaze of McCarthyism?

that was calling everyone who disagreed with him a fascist? Gil doesn't even acknowledge that happened, even though it was in his own thread.

I feel vaguely threatened...

[guillaumeb]

38. One of the biggest names, and a leader, as it were.

[trotsky]

47. There is nothing in the rules that prohibits you from linking to a user's profile.

Clearly no one has any idea which member of this fictional and childishly insulting "choir" you are referring to.

Please link to their profile.

For instance, here's your FFRed close friend and ally:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=343644

[Voltaire2]

48. I'm now fascinated. Who could it be?

We need to take attendance at choir practice.

[trotsky]

49. I wonder if he realizes the fact that we have no idea puts the lie to his "choir" nonsense?

If it even matters. He seems to have an extreme need to dehumanize those who disagree with him.

[Mariana]

55. How are we going to do that?

We don't even have choir practice! You'd have to ask Gil, since he's the one who determines the membership status of each poster.

[guillaumeb]

52. And there is nothing that prevents you from doing basic research.

Agreed?

[trotsky]

56. You've got a lot of fucking nerve, gil.

Someone else makes a throwaway statement about things they've seen on DU, and you DEMAND they provide a bibliography of links.

You make a specific, simple claim and REFUSE to provide a link to a profile. Doesn't even require a search to find.

I guess the big question here is, can you even be surprised anymore why no one takes you seriously?

[Act_of_Reparation]

50. Do explain.

I want to know who I should be missing.

[trotsky]

57. He is, of course, lying through his teeth.

Only his believing friends have been booted lately, but this doesn't fit with his narrative of atheists causing all the problems, so he lied.

[Mariana]

58. As usual, he could be talking about literally anything.

"Large loss" might actually mean "oak tree", "windowsill" or "cumulus cloud".

[trotsky]

59. The "choir" is a very dynamic group.

If at least two people raise the same objection to whatever he's pushing, then he can dismiss EVERYONE raising the same objection because obviously they're all just in a "choir" and have no valid opinions worth countering.

It's a despicable and dehumanizing tactic, but it is one he adores.

[trotsky]

68. Gaslighting. n/t

[trotsky]

31. I honestly have no idea what you mean by that anymore,

so I'm going to interpret that post as "WHARRGARBL".

[guillaumeb]

60. Anything to say about the actual post?

Or is diversion the preferred tactic?

[Mariana]

61. What does this story have to do with religion?

It's true that the protesters, the legislators, and probably the cops are all religious, but that doesn't make it a story about religion.

[guillaumeb]

62. It is a story of people engaging in progressive politics.

Perhaps you missed the bit about the Reverend Barber, and following in the tradition of Reverend King?

[marylandblue]

63. Black preachers organizing protests?

Last edited Tue Jun 19, 2018, 12:04 AM - Edit history (1)

This is news? Very nice, but in terms of religion, so what. It's an old story. They've been doing it a long time. And we have in fact discussed it on this website many times. What's so special about it? You've said many times that religious people do bad things because they are people, not because they are religious. So if they do something good, are they not also doing it because they are people, not because they are religious?

[guillaumeb]

71. Are the religious progressives not both?

Religious and progressive?

[marylandblue]

77. Yes so? As another poster said, the legislators and police are religious too

What conclusion should we draw from this?

[guillaumeb]

83. That religious progressives are people that we can work with. eom

[marylandblue]

85. Ok, has someone here denied that?

[Mariana]

65. We have one group of religous people, the protesters

demonstrating against the policies and actions of another group of religious people, the NC legislators, and being arrested by a third group of (probably) religious people, the cops. What conclusions about the effect religion has on people may be drawn from this story?

[trotsky]

67. Speaking of tactics, looks like you were gaslighting everyone about the "choir member."

Stay classy, gil. Continue to be a great example of what a Christian should be, and you'll do more damage to your religion than the most militant atheist could even dream of.

[guillaumeb]

73. If you are unable to find the member,

and evidently that is so, the member does not cease to exist.

[trotsky]

82. You are gaslighting.

Link to this mystery member's profile.

If you cannot, then you are admitting you are gaslighting.

Your move, gil.

[guillaumeb]

86. No, you simply cannot find the member.

A fact does not cease to exist simply because you are unaware of its existence.

[trotsky]

87. You claim to know who it is, but you won't tell anyone.

You're so proud of your fact, share it with everyone.

Unless you're lying, of course. But good Christians don't lie, do they gil?

[NeoGreen]

91. This sounds like a game of...

..."Who's Spartacus?"

or is it "Who's Brian?"...

"I'm Brian and so is my wife!"

[Docreed2003]

76. But we do have a lovely choir...

Look forward to seeing you at practice Thursday night!

[Lordquinton]

80. Never light a match

in one of Gil's threads.

[msongs]

4. not really a religion story now is it

[Mariana]

6. Well, most or all of the people in this story are religious.

The protest was organized by a preacher, and most or all of the protesters are religious themselves. The protestees are religious, too - I don't believe there are any atheists in the North Carolina legislature. Also the cops who arrested the protesters are probably religious.

Does that make it a religion story?

[Major Nikon]

7. Meanwhile...

https://tifwe.org/would-jesus-raise-the-minimum-wage/

[guillaumeb]

74. Meaning:

I cannot say anything positive about the post so I must divert. The 11th Commandment requires it.

[Major Nikon]

75. I'm rather used to your canned posts, just not when I didn't reply to you

This is a new level of ridiculousness, but thanks for the

[guillaumeb]

20. I disagree. eom

[sprinkleeninow]

5. 'Allo, mon cher!

😍

[guillaumeb]

14. Allo s.

Ca va bien j'espere.

[sprinkleeninow]

30. Thank you for your thoughtfulness, dear heart.

Doing my level best to keep afloat.

Will send a 'note' to you later today.

💛

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

101. Protestors will be arrested on sight/while protesting

PEACEably, But dt hasn't had even one charge against him or Invanker or Kushner.
This is a beginning shot and a warning to people for this weekend. Do not be afriad people. Go with your gut instinct. WE are marching for our country this weekend and for the wrongs we see developing over a YEAR AND A HALF. This isn't knee jerk protesting.

[guillaumeb]

103. I will be out with many others.

The fact is that most people agree with us, and public protests are vital because they let others know that. In addition, protests are inspiring and energizing.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

104. I see in the city paper

there's protests around the county!

[guillaumeb]

105. There are 2 very close to me, in Chicago and in the suburbs.

If you are going to one, or not, have a great day.