Demands to take things seriously

[peter_speckhard]

I am not afraid of being mocked or excluded or whatever. I’m simply pointing out that any discussion to be had with progressives inevitably leads there. If one does not begin to “progress” in their desired direction, one simply becomes an object of scorn. There is such a thing as an impasse. Further discussion serves the progressive cause, not the conservative cause, because the only purpose of the discussion is to put the conservative position up for further consideration.

[George Rahn]

I am not afraid of being mocked or excluded or whatever. I’m simply pointing out that any discussion to be had with progressives inevitably leads there. If one does not begin to “progress” in their desired direction, one simply becomes an object of scorn. There is such a thing as an impasse. Further discussion serves the progressive cause, not the conservative cause, because the only purpose of the discussion is to put the conservative position up for further consideration.

This is true for some who are "woke" in the ELCA.   Especially in synod offices...

[Richard Johnson]

Maybe this would be the time to remind you all of an incident at the last ELCA CWA. A seminary professor told me that she had been in a group in a local church of mostly lay people. The group leader asked everyone to go around and introduce themselves and indicated their preferred pronouns. One sweet little old lady replied, "Goodness, I really enjoy all the pronouns."

[Charles Austin]

Peter writes:
I am not afraid of being mocked or excluded or whatever. I’m simply pointing out that any discussion to be had with progressives inevitably leads there.
I ponder:
You mean like being told you are un-Biblical, non-Lutheran, incapable of understanding the Bible, doing theology on the basis of modern trends rather than theology and scripture?

Peter:
If one does not begin to “progress” in their desired direction, one simply becomes an object of scorn.
Me:
You mean like... (see above)

Peter:
There is such a thing as an impasse. Further discussion serves the progressive cause, not the conservative cause, because the only purpose of the discussion is to put the conservative position up for further consideration.
Me:
What? You have no faith in your part of the discussion ever - ever? - prevailing? Or is it - as I suspect - all or nothing. We could agree on 11 matters, but if we did not sign on 100 percent to three others, the agreement would fail.
You simply do not trust the possibilities of fraternal discussion. But I think you are just afraid that you might end up letting go of some favored "thing", that you or some of your company might walk away from the all-or-nothing we-got-the-Word-of-God camp.

[Randy Bosch]

Re: Those Who Disagree with You
It might be because they are misinformed.
It might be because they are misguided in what they seek.
It might be because they are short-sighted.
It might be because they are controlled by demons.
It might be because they are demonstrably wrong.
Or, It could simply be that they disagree with you.
               - Seth Godin, Feb 2020, and still might be today...

[peter_speckhard]

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/joseph-epstein/joseph-epstein-misogyny-charges-jill-biden/

Here is an example of kind of exclusion that happens when people offend progressives. We’ve talked about using honorifics and titles elsewhere. This is about the aftermath of Epstein expressing a perfectly mainstream opinion on that topic.