Going In Progressive Circles…

So–fantastic news if you aren’t a fan of ISIS.
The United States is conducting strategic airstrikes on the proudly violent jihadist group known as the Islamic State of Iraq (ISIS), at the behest of Kurdish, Iraqi, Syrian, and French governments. The international community was pretty much on board. It’s actually a moment where one, who may not usually agree with the WH, could give the President some credit. A few even managed to find humor at the idea of clearly needed American intervention, mocking the ominous nostalgia. A few did… Others, namely the hard progressive left, took the opportunity to gripe about how a few people who don’t agree with the WH, but agreed with the administration on this issue, were possibly hypocritical. This wasn’t shocking or jarring because of the content, but because of the source. I had been called a baby killer, islamiphobic–I had seen house wives bombarded with graphic images, while being called even worse names for simply agreeing with Israel’s right to defend itself. I’ve written about it in another post. Those were kids anonymously creating accounts to push a radical agenda. They dubbed themselves The Electronic Intifada, but I use the term “digital intifada”, they seem to be interchangeable. So, all this is mentioned to say, this writer is used to the aggressive tactics of individuals who claim to protest Israel on Palestine’s behalf.

This was different, it was a person I spoke to on a regular basis, a person I respected a great deal. He’s incredibly educated and an immense source for resources on educating one’s self about Christianity as a faith, not just one denomination or sect. One can imagine I was quite shocked to be told I was using the same rationalization as Hamas, essentially I was the same, visa vie being no better. And it was masked with a passive-aggressive punctuation-wink-face, one of these things, šŸ˜‰. When I pointed out the ridiculousness of the comparison, I was told not to take it so personally. Frankly, I’m not really sure how else one could take it. When, I brought the discussion to a larger medium without limitations, meaning I had more than 140 characters to explain myself. I used a screen shot of how an algorithm had arranged both our post. You can see it here. I was called “dramatic”, told again, I was perpetuating “redemptive violence” and this quote below was sent in a private message, which I did not respond to:

Grant,

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. We seem to have a history of you taking things I say very personally and then taking them out of context to lash back out at me. I don’t appreciate it. Its taxing and I frankly don’t have the time to walk on egg shells around you when I’m purposefully not trying to cause you harm. I’d appreciate it if you’d step back a little bit and give me some slack.

I haven’t the foggiest idea what he meant by being “fooled”. I don’t appreciate being compared to Hamas. Tyler, you weren’t walking on eggs shells, you fell though the thin ice, that was your justification.

Instead, I stayed on the visible thread, because twitter is very, very visible. Continuing to ask the same questions I had on the other social media medium. I was called “illogical” (fancy for stupid), I was poorly paraphrased (fancy for lied about), and was “rejected”, figuratively and literally, this individual blocked all means of social media correspondence when I responded this way:

1) That’s terrible paraphrase.
2) Post the whole thing, including the many points you ignored, namely the bait you just threw out about “separation of church and state”. Theory and application: sovereignty of the state.
3) Your point on twitter? Was to demonize Christian who don’t have your exact same view on the surge of kids from S. America.
4) Reject what ever you want. I give zero f*cks.
5) I’m actually someone who called BS on the first Iraq invasion not that it changed shit; called for humanitarian aid at our border; called for action when girls were snatched by boko haram; and was way ahead of any of you pompous mennonerds on the plight of those facing the reality of ISIS.
6) I know where I stand on Hamas.
7) I call rude intellectual bullying when I see it. “Redemptive rhetoric” is what I called it.
8) You don’t know the first thing about stopping real brutality, so, you have zero credibility to critique my stance on the ME.
9) And as a man you won’t slap labels on me.
10) Congrats on being anabaptist, you seem super trendy.

Essentially, saying I’m not the people he was attempting to criticize, yet he still went to a radical length to feel he was right about his position on Israel.

Upon, being silenced, I took my voice to a social media community called the Mennonerds, Tyler had actually invited me to be apart of, originally. Posted my thoughts on the matter, with the same photo I had posted on Tully’s wall and was told it was “crap”. Then the moderator of the group started deleting things, namely my responses to people who were criticizing me, having no frame of reference as to what had occurred. They just blindly agreed with the member of “their tribe”, as Tully once wrote. I was offered a place for arbitration, but it was in private. I am not interested in having this mediated privately, I was insulted publicly and the individual who did that, “blocked and ran” as the term is used in social media circles. The moderator privately messaged me and informed me I would be removed from the group if I continued to speak on the matter.

Private message from the moderator Robert Martin:

Third warning will do that… I’m saying please stop…you are drawing others into your argument with tyler unecessarily..so…let it drop.

This was the moderator’s right to do, he has the control. It should be said, he sided with Tyler publicly, but at least admitted to not knowing the facts. I didn’t draw anyone into anything, they chose to comment.

Here’s some of the context I provided back privately:

I am not a “war monger” for taking a dedicated, violent group at it’s word. Their (Hamas/ISIS) rhetoric is terrifying, because it isn’t rhetoric, it’s what they hope to accomplish.
Which is why I take GREAT exception to being compared to them in anyway.

If I was the mediator in your shoes, I’d have Tully explain himself. But I’m sure he’ll say he’s too busy. But he wasn’t too busy to be tweeting about the Christians he didn’t like. And he wasn’t to busy to tweet AT ME on prior occasions. So, it feels like a cop out on his part. An excuse of convenience.

Which is the truth as I see it. And ain’t we all about the truth?

He could have just said sorry, but he wouldn’t. He just doubled-down on his rationalization of comparing my “rhetoric” to Hamas.
I don’t even know you, but I’ve soundly supported the Mennonerds with my social media platform, check it.

I love Tully too, but he was wrong in what he did on public communication lines. This didn’t happen in private.

Man, I grow tired of the Christian religion, not the faith, reconciliation, and relationship with Christ. The religion is just a collection of different echo chambers. One echo chamber bombastically criticizing another echo chamber. No one wants to hear different perspectives, they just want to hear people agreeing with them. That’s true in all academic (especially theology) echo chambers.

That’s what I did, I interrupted an echo chamber. My apologies Mennonerds…

Advertisements

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: