One thing at a time. If an institution does harm on an institutional scale,

[MineralMan]

it deserves the fate it deserves. It stands on its own in that. What other institutions do is not at issue. One case at a time.

Trying to diffuse the harm done by one organization by pointing out that other organizations have similar issues accomplishes nothing. It merely diffuses the issue. There is no solution that is aided by misdirection and substitution.

An organization is what it is. It could be religious, commercial, public, or private. It is that organization, not another one. We look at individuals as individuals. We need to look at institutions and organizations in the same way. Each stands on its own merits or is destroyed by its own faults.

There is nothing wrong with focusing on the wrongdoings of an organization. There is nothing to be gained by pointing out similar problems in other organizations. We need to deal with each on its own.

Whataboutism is a common diffusion method. It's very popular with people who are trying to somehow excuse the failings of an organization by pointing at the failings of another. That doesn't work. It's inappropriate. Instead, we should deal with each failing organization in turn. Diffusion does not change the evil that is done...it simply distracts from it.

This is the Religion Group. We discuss religion and religious organizations here. That is the group's focus. Let's not divert from that focus by diffusing harm through pointing at other types of organization.

[marylandblue]

1. +1 And denying you are excusing behavior while engaging in such tactics

furthers any putative goal towards excusing the behavior.

[MineralMan]

2. Exactly.

Pretending that you are not attempting to distract attention from wrongdoing doesn't work if you ARE attempting to do that.

I suggest that anyone who is doing that should stop. It's not going to work and we all see through the attempt.

[trotsky]

3. This right here has been repeated and repeated:

This is the Religion Group. We discuss religion and religious organizations here. That is the group's focus. Let's not divert from that focus by diffusing harm through pointing at other types of organization.

But some individuals choose to instead try and minimize any "bad news" concerning religion through whatever methods they can - whataboutism, false equivalencies, straw men, accusing individuals of having an "agenda," etc.

Fortunately right now it's mainly just ONE individual trying to do that - and he's getting no support, despite his claims to having a massive invisible fan club.

[MineralMan]

4. Whataboutism is the refuge of those who have no real argument.

Diversion is their only hope.

As for "invisible fan clubs," they do exist, and are made up of people who can no longer post here, I think. Some people who cannot post still have DU Mail privileges, I believe and anyone can read posts here.

I'm sure there is support coming in, but it's misdirected through a poor spokesperson.

[Voltaire2]

5. I understand our apologists are on a mission

but do their gods really want them to defend child abusers?

[MineralMan]

6. Well, you know, I don't think that's really an issue

with them. I have this sneaking suspicion that it's all about the argument, really, rather than the substance.

Christianity, in whatever form, isn't always about gods and the offspring of gods. Often, it's about organizations, influence, and sometimes money. I have long suspected that true faith is not what drives organized religion in the first place. There are some very smart people involved in those organizations - too smart to fall for weak apologetics, really.

Now, that doesn't mean that all of their followers are equally bright, of course...wink wink, nudge nudge...

[Mariana]

8. I don't see why not.

Is there any indication that said god(s) disapprove of child abusers, or of the defense and protection of same?

[Voltaire2]

9. None as far as I can tell.

There certainly is no evidence of divine disapproval. No smiting. Nothing.

[guillaumeb]

7. How interesting.

A personal attack disguised as a post about tactics and such.

And again, a misuse and misunderstanding of the tu quoque fallacy.

[Major Nikon]

10. So it's not OK to examine behavior and deduce motive?

Orwell had a word for this.

[guillaumeb]

12. I engage in it when discussing the tactics of the choir,

and when referring to the 11th Commandment.

[Major Nikon]

13. And then whine incessantly when reciprocity happens

At least you are consistently self-righteous and hypocritical.

[guillaumeb]

14. Apply what you said to yourself.

And let me know your conclusion.

[Major Nikon]

15. Nobody else is claiming a personal attack over your 11th commandment bullshit

[guillaumeb]

16. Interesting how your various attempts at analysis stop short of your own door.

[Major Nikon]

20. Horseshit

Nobody else is crying personal attack over your made up rule which you use ad nauseum to ascribe nefarious motives to numerous members of this group. Then when numerous people point out your constant efforts to defend and divert from RCC child rape amounts to apologia, you get all butthurt and cry personal attack.

Most people are going to perceive that behavior as childish at best. If you can’t take it, don’t dish it out. Most learn that by primary school.

[guillaumeb]

22. Indeed, it is.

Speaking of your response, that is.

I have pointed out the various group attacks, as well as the focus on theists going back to 2012. And when I do so I am accused of digging up the past. Sorry, the written record here supports my analyses and contradicts your own attempt.

[Major Nikon]

33. Ah, a clever repackaging of the old "I'm rubber, you're glue line"

Who could have ever anticipated banality?

[guillaumeb]

38. No, simply pointing out the obvious.

If it makes you uncomfortable, I understand.

[Major Nikon]

40. Sure, hard to get more obvious than repeating exactly what I just told you

[Mariana]

18. The 11th Commandment bullshit is bullshit.

Gil does, in fact, post positive stories about religion and religious people in the Religion group. As far as I know, none of his posts of that nature have been removed. He has not been blocked from this group, nor has he been banned from DU. The only conclusion to draw is that the 11th Commandment he cites is a figment of his imagination.

[guillaumeb]

21. I also post negative stories.

Did you miss them? Or would mentioning them distract from your meme?

[Mariana]

26. But your imaginary 11th Commandment is about positive stories.

You should remember this, Gil, since you made it up in the first place.

[guillaumeb]

28. So your ignoring of the negative stories,

which I have labelled bad news, is part of supporting your meme?

[Mariana]

29. You brought up your silly 11th Commandment, Gil.

If I post about your silly 11th Commandment, there's no reason for me to mention pink flamingos, or oil painting, or the negative stories you post, because those things are irrelevant. If I post about your silly 11th Commandment, I post about your silly 11th Commandment.

[marylandblue]

32. Gil appears to have invented another variation of whataboutism

Now instead of asking about the bad others have done, he asks about the good he himself has done. Like being caught speeding, then asking the cop, "What about all the times I wasn't speeding."

[Mariana]

17. Yes, people who disagree with you are allowed to post here, too.

How unspeakably awful that must be for you.

[guillaumeb]

19. And if they engage in certain tactics,

I will point that out.

Is it unspeakably awful for you when I do so?

[Major Nikon]

24. ... and then you squeal "personal attack"

When someone points out what your behavior is.

Since you neglected to meantion that part I will point it out.

[guillaumeb]

27. Is using the word "squeal", normally applied to a pig noise,

a personal attack?

I was accused of defending the RCC, ironically enough in a post where I call sexual predation a crime, and the cover up worse.

Is that accusation a personal attack, or is it a demonstration of tota misreading by the accuser?

[marylandblue]

35. See my post on Guillaumeb's Fallacy

I think what we are looking for is an admission that this cover-up is worse than other cover-ups. Many people think so, including Catholics. Read the grand jury reports for evidence.

[Major Nikon]

36. If you are trying to be ironically funny you succeeded brilliantly

There’s a much simpler explanation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_playing

[Mariana]

25. There are groups on DU for sensitive religious people.

They were set up by and for privileged religious people like you, Gil, who just can't tolerate hearing differing opinions or disagreement about religious matters. There's only one group that allows the kind of discussion we have here, and it appears that you consider that to be one too many.

[guillaumeb]

39. Utter nonsense.

I expected better.

[marylandblue]

34. Your tactics also get pointed out. Does that bother you?

[Voltaire2]

11. It is very hard to avoid feeling attacked when one has set out to defend an institution

that is setting world records for child abuse. I feel your pain.

[guillaumeb]

23. Point out such attempts.

We both know that you will not, mainly because such posts of mine do not exist.

[Voltaire2]

30. Lulzd.

[guillaumeb]

37. Confirming my point.

As if it really needed confirmation.

[MineralMan]

31. I'm glad you found my observations interesting.

There was no personal attack, however.