PewDiePie - troll, racist, both?

[Malthus]

The other point, though, was that the right - many of whom are supposed to actually believe in actual sin - have apparently given up any thought of it, when it comes to 'their' politicians.

To be fair, those of the political right who believe in sin are almost certainly Christians.  And Christians believe in more about forgiveness than they do sin.

Not that Donald Trump for one ever claimed he needed to be forgiven for anything, but in other situations that might be a large part of the explanation.

As others have noted, forgiveness is supposed to come after (1) acknowledgement of sin, (2) genuine repentance and (3) an effort not to sin any more.

Nowadays, it seems to be all about tribalism. My tribe good, your tribe bad. Be damned to whether the chiefs of my tribe are morally rotten. At best, it is 'let's hold our noses and vote for the rotter, maybe he will pass legislation that we approve of'. 

To be fair both sides do that to some degree ... but I see more of that, with less justification, on the political right in the US. Nothing else can explain believing Christians supporting Trump, who is in his own person almost an absurd parody of lust, greed, wrath and pride.   

Edit: you could probably make a case for sloth, envy and gluttony too, to round out the seven - but that's more of a stretch.

[derspiess]

As others have noted, forgiveness is supposed to come after (1) acknowledgement of sin, (2) genuine repentance and (3) an effort not to sin any more.

It is?  Which church has this as their doctrine?

[Malthus]

As others have noted, forgiveness is supposed to come after (1) acknowledgement of sin, (2) genuine repentance and (3) an effort not to sin any more.

It is?  Which church has this as their doctrine?

Catholicism, for one.

Acknowledgement of sin = confession.

Genuine repentance = the supposed outcome of the sacrament of penance.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c2a4.htm

This is supposed to end with genuine turning away from the sin:

1431 Interior repentance is a radical reorientation of our whole life, a return, a conversion to God with all our heart, an end of sin, a turning away from evil, with repugnance toward the evil actions we have committed. At the same time it entails the desire and resolution to change one's life, with hope in God's mercy and trust in the help of his grace. This conversion of heart is accompanied by a salutary pain and sadness which the Fathers called animi cruciatus (affliction of spirit) and compunctio cordis (repentance of heart).

1451 Among the penitent's acts contrition occupies first place. Contrition is "sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with the resolution not to sin again."

Despite the fact Jesus forgave original sins way back when, a post-baptism sinner must be reconciled with the Church:

1443 During his public life Jesus not only forgave sins, but also made plain the effect of this forgiveness: he reintegrated forgiven sinners into the community of the People of God from which sin had alienated or even excluded them. A remarkable sign of this is the fact that Jesus receives sinners at his table, a gesture that expresses in an astonishing way both God's forgiveness and the return to the bosom of the People of God.44

1444 In imparting to his apostles his own power to forgive sins the Lord also gives them the authority to reconcile sinners with the Church. This ecclesial dimension of their task is expressed most notably in Christ's solemn words to Simon Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."45 "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of the apostles united to its head."46

1445 The words bind and loose mean: whomever you exclude from your communion, will be excluded from communion with God; whomever you receive anew into your communion, God will welcome back into his. Reconciliation with the Church is inseparable from reconciliation with God.

In short, you only get "forgiven", in the sense of "reconciled with the Church" (and thus "with God") if you do the whole nine yards: confess, be penitent, and resolve not to sin again ...

[derspiess]

But you're talking about forgiveness from God. God gets to set all those prerequisites. He also gets to take vengeance and do other things people don't get to do.

[The Minsky Moment]

I think that's close to it.  Getting back to Trump-- he may be an unrepentent sinner, but at least he's staking out positions (publicly anyway) on the right side of the culture war.

Conversely, Bill Clinton was beloved by feminists and others on the left because of what was called his "public morality" (positions on abortion, etc.), in spite of the fact that he had harassed, took advantage of, and possibly raped women in his personal life.

Problem is - godless lefties are supposed to accept distinctions between private and public morality. But good conservative Christian aren't - which is why so many of them declared Billy to be "unfit" for office based on his private conduct alone.  No talk about forgiving the sinner then.

There's no escaping the fact that tribal political identification Trumps principle, even when those principles are handed down from on high.

[Admiral Yi]

Problem is - godless lefties are supposed to accept distinctions between private and public morality.

Not sure I buy this.

[HVC]

Problem is - godless lefties are supposed to accept distinctions between private and public morality.

Not sure I buy this.

i'm with you, the focus is different, but the acceptance, or lack there of, is the same.

[Jacob]

Problem is - godless lefties are supposed to accept distinctions between private and public morality.

Not sure I buy this.

i'm with you, the focus is different, but the acceptance, or lack there of, is the same.

Who, if anyone, accepts distinctions between private and public morality?

[Razgovory]

Problem is - godless lefties are supposed to accept distinctions between private and public morality.

Not sure I buy this.

i'm with you, the focus is different, but the acceptance, or lack there of, is the same.

Who, if anyone, accepts distinctions between private and public morality?

Evangelicals apparently.

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/23/498890836/poll-white-evangelicals-have-warmed-to-politicians-who-commit-immoral-acts

In 2011 white evangelicals were the least likely to believe that a politician who has behaved immorally could be expected to act ethically and dutifully execute the functions of their office.  In 2016 they were the most likely to believe it.

[DGuller]

If that's the slippery slope then it seems to me that it can be safely ignored since the effect is negligible. All business negotiations can impact on people's revenue streams, I don't see what the big deal is.

And you can review and criticize products without using copyrighted material. No one is stopping criticism per se.

I guess I just instinctively dislike situations where everyone's a lawbreaker but the enforcer decides who should be punished and when.  This creates a situation with undue leverage.  Either the law is reasonable and should be enforced uniformly, or it should be deemed unenforceable if it's so broad that it requires extreme discretion in order to not lead to idiotic outcomes.  In this case, it appears to me that the fair use interpretation is unduly harsh on the streamers.

Like I said earlier I think that non-enforcement likely should be regarded as implicit consent, which can be revoked. In that situation "everyone's a lawbreaker" isn't true, no one is a lawbreaker as long as they stop when the owners say stop. If your business depends on the use of material that is owned by someone else then you can always talk to them and make sure they're OK with what you're doing before you make huge commitments (if you don't your CRO should slap you, if you're a one man operation you can slap yourself).

Telling someone to stop streaming their games is one thing.  Taking down the content that has been created long time ago with an implicit consent at the time is a whole other ball game.  If the concept of implicit consent applies, then it can't be withdrawn retroactively.

[DGuller]

Most people do not make judgments based on their ideology, whether that ideology is political or religious.  They make judgments for other reasons and then use ideology as an after-the-fact justification (but only when it fits their judgment).

[Ancient Demon]

So what does qualify as racist?

Him saying or doing something that indicates he values people differently based on race.

You have to admit his timing was rather bad

Yes.

[Ancient Demon]

I have yet to meet a single person who used derogatory terms on a race/ethnic group and did not have derogatory views on them to match.

He didn't use the word in the context of insulting a race of people.

If we don't have to pretend that the antifa types are anything else than violent oppressor-wannabes, we don't have to pretend that people who talk and act like racists, are racists, either.

I don't think using a bad word, outside of it's original context no less, is equivalent to using violence and inciting others to be violent.

[Valmy]

Him saying or doing something that indicates he values people differently based on race.

Give me an example of such a thing if using slurs is insufficient.

[The Brain]

If that's the slippery slope then it seems to me that it can be safely ignored since the effect is negligible. All business negotiations can impact on people's revenue streams, I don't see what the big deal is.

And you can review and criticize products without using copyrighted material. No one is stopping criticism per se.

I guess I just instinctively dislike situations where everyone's a lawbreaker but the enforcer decides who should be punished and when.  This creates a situation with undue leverage.  Either the law is reasonable and should be enforced uniformly, or it should be deemed unenforceable if it's so broad that it requires extreme discretion in order to not lead to idiotic outcomes.  In this case, it appears to me that the fair use interpretation is unduly harsh on the streamers.

Like I said earlier I think that non-enforcement likely should be regarded as implicit consent, which can be revoked. In that situation "everyone's a lawbreaker" isn't true, no one is a lawbreaker as long as they stop when the owners say stop. If your business depends on the use of material that is owned by someone else then you can always talk to them and make sure they're OK with what you're doing before you make huge commitments (if you don't your CRO should slap you, if you're a one man operation you can slap yourself).

Telling someone to stop streaming their games is one thing.  Taking down the content that has been created long time ago with an implicit consent at the time is a whole other ball game.  If the concept of implicit consent applies, then it can't be withdrawn retroactively.

I support implicit consent. If there actually has been implicit consent then how could it be withdrawn retroactively?