stevus can point out the mean, meaner, meanest game and beg people not to play it but then goes on to play it himself to prove they really ARE meaner!
Wallflower, you missed my point. "Mean" v. "meaner" was an example of the emotion based game they want to turn this into. The analysis on this thread is falling into the emotional child level where all criticisms = "being mean". That's the game they play. You were mean to me, I was mean to you (if they even admit that much) we were BOTH wrong, so let's move on and not criticize each other at all. So we at CI are in effect silenced by this devil's bargain, while they continue spewing their feminism, modernism, word-loving, errors with reckless abandon, while we sit here twiddling our thumbs. Then we are silenced. That is the game. That is what they want.
I'm not saying FE is "meaner." What the Hell does "mean" even "mean"? It is an empty word based on subjective reactions to statements. Stating a truth elicits an angry reaction. Calling someone a name elicits an angry reaction. Because both acts elicited an angry reaction, were both acts "mean"? They are trying to play a sleight of mind game, hoping we don't spot the flaw in their premise.
It sounds great to make out CI's case out as being all Faith and common sense based, would that it were true!, but let's be real. I've read many posts here that are just as emotional and name-calling to FE as anything on FE to here. Blame it on the difference in moderation style if you will, the fact remains. I do agree that you all don't seem to go ruffle feathers over there for the fun of it, that's something I have noticed. But in the quality of posts about each other I am a little less inclined to agree.
This is why I said, "in large part." Am I going to say every single CI poster has never called FE people names? Of course not. But, you'd have to be blind to not see the overwhelming disparity in CI criticisms v. FE name calling. We've had all sorts of CI threads discussing the theological, spiritual, moral, cultural, political reasons the FE forum has gone down the crapper. The FE criticisms of CI are the equivalent of a potty mouthed 12 year old ranting about a kid he hates.
And even when CI posters are "name calling" the "name" is typically a description of a certain political, theological, or moral outlook many of the Fishies have. Matthew touched on this. We may call the Fishies liberals, modernists, worldlings, relativists, Neo-Trads, amoral, feminists. This is not what I'm talking about the left doing. The left's name calling are pure pejoratives meant to humiliate, embarass, intimidate, harass, and silence the opposition and they are 9 times out of 10 patently false, unsupportable, and based on blind anger.
Like I said talk about each other all you want, but then to object that the other is talking ... that's what doesn't sit right. It's not good for you in your ownership and leadership positions to engage in it. But calling her out for not being cordial seems tit for tat to me. The truly moral high ground that CI claims to have would mean letting it go as an act of humility or contacting her privately, not starting a whole new thread to discuss how they discuss you and why your discussions are better.
I don't think he's calling her out for not being cordial. I think he's calling her out for being a hypocrite. CI doesn't have a rule not to bash other forums. FE does, put in place by none other than Vox. It is entirely appropriate to hold liberals up to their own standards. They are living contradictions and never obey their own rules. Their rules are to be applied selectively at their whim and to their enemies.
If Vox wants to get rid of the rule and unleash the Fishies to spew their hate at CI, go for it! We'll expose each one of them in their own words. She'll never do it because she doesn't want that. In a war of ideas they lose. She wants US to shut up and leave them alone so they can (intentionally or not) keep infecting more and more minds with a false impression of Tradition through their forum with no resistance. Some here are buying into this game. False guilt can be a very effective weapon to shut someone up. Just ask the VCII Prelates who have played on the natural virtue of conservative clerics to shut them up. Meanwhile souls pour to Hell because the false guilt was a trick and they fell for it. They should have been exposing the errors from the rooftops. This is what CI needs to be doing, every time, all the time, no matter if it is FE, CAF, AQ, or even modernists on our own forum.
Topic: Fisheaters (Read 4739 times)