You seem to forget that we came to terms with the controlling nature of cult living, to normal free people living in a PC world this stuff is unimagineably proscriptive.
No 'Tight Pants' policy is now official - classed as 'disturbing'
by wizzstick 362 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
ListlessWitness
Right, I'm gonna get Krishnan Guru-Murphy all over this shit like a rash. Have a hat you can eat Simon?
-
Simon
It really depends on your definition of shocked. Yes, people are "shocked" ... but then change TV channel and immediately forget about it. They are not "outrage"-type shocked or care beyond a mild morbid curiosity. The shock is as much about why people would tolerate being controlled by a group in that way or believing in things so obviously nuts.
I watch the programme on Scientology a couple of weeks ago - I was shocked at the crap they put up with. Man, those people are in a Cult with a capital C.
That's what we're competing with - grade A level nuts and ISIS. It's hard to win on the shocking scale when those clowns are around.
I will go buy a novelty liquorice bowler hat just in case ...
-
Oubliette
I think many unconnected 3rd parties would find it perfectly reasonable and expected for a conservative christian group.
I for one couldn't give a shit about what anyone OUTSIDE the cult thinks about this. I'm concerned for people I know and care about that are INSIDE the cult and that will be adversely affected, now so even more than before.
-
cofty
it is shocking to normal folk
Overly-camp men should not be recruited to work at an almost all-male environment at Bethel, and people who wear clothes that disturb the congregation might be told not to represent the organisation door-to-door.
Why is this shocking? It's a cult, they are obsessed with sexuality and with their public image. We already know this.
There was a talk about "androgynous" clothing back in the '80s. It was how I met my wife. She looked great on the assembly platform playing the part of the rebel.
-
ListlessWitness
I'm not bein' funny or anythin' like, but Simon, have you not noticed that the type of shocked you describe is pretty much standard these days? Most people presumably yawned and went to bed after the Scientology expose. Doesn't mean we should measure it as insignificant, this is people's lives after all.
-
Simon
Doesn't mean we should measure it as insignificant, this is people's lives after all.
We have clearly just been talking about how compelling it was to independent 3rd party observers, something you brought up, not what impact it had on the people concerned. This bait-and-switch over what is being talked about has been a problem with this entire discussion.
First you say it's shocking to them, now you say it isn't and observers don't matter.
That lack of real interest and concern is what I've been talking about though. People only really know and care about 2 things with Jehovahs Witnesses:
- They let their kids die over blood.
- They come to your door and try and 'sell' magazines
They only know those mostly because of the WTS own publicity machine over decades.
Hopefully people will soon be equating them with child abuse coverups and force some changes on them.
I just think a few extra rules about fashion is a tough sell.
I for one couldn't give a shit about what anyone OUTSIDE the cult thinks about this
That's fine, but that doesn't mean other people can't have and shouldn't express an opinion about that aspect of it.
Some have been talking about making complaints over human-rights issues - it seems reasonable to discuss whether we think that would likely be successful or not and what such a presentation would contain.
-
ListlessWitness
Actually Simon, YOU have been fixated on how compelling this issue is to observers, YOU started that angle and have hung on to it like a dog with a bone! I was simply trying to make the point that a sustained and meaningful state of shock leading to proactivity is unlikely among anyone who hasn't tangled with JWs because it is a fleeting feeling soon forgotten or displaced by the next source of outrage (be it ISIS or a Jeremy Kyle episode) Momentary shock is as good as it gets and this issue has the potential for that. Only those affected or their loved ones will ultimately give a monkeys and this forum is presumably for those people. Do you comment on every single thread to point out that most people will carry on with their lives regardless of the misery being caused to JWs? This forum's popularity might quickly wane if you used the tack you used on this thread on every subject. Because essentially you are saying "who gives a shit?" and most people are here precisely because others 'get it', understand and care. -
Oubliette
We were clearly talking about how compelling it was to independent 3rd party observers, not what impact it had on the people concerned.
Not so.
I just re-read the first three pages of this thread and none of the comments were concerned with what "3rd party observers" would say, not even your first comment on the thread on page 3. They were all concerned with the internal effects on congregation members.
I just think a few extra rules about fashion is a tough sell.
How is it we are on page 36 of this thread and you STILL think it's about clothing?
-
Simon
Not so.
Erm yes, the discussion of the word "shocked" to 'normal folk in my discussion with ListlessWitness over the last few pages. Try and keep up.
How is it we are on page 36 of this thread and you STILL think it's about clothing?
Because it's now blindingly clear that you are obviously intentionally misreading things or decided everyone's opinion on page 1 and never bothered to read what I've actually said. You just keep repeating the same thing over and over as though that will make it true.
All through it you have added your own extra pieces and supposition to what is actually written in the document and then ranted against your own inventions, all the while trying to deny other people their opinion on the matter. Sorry, that's not how discussions work.
If you read what it actually says then you see it isn't a big change, it is just bringing the language up to date and addressing the latest "worldly fashion trend". It is about fashion, mostly dress and grooming. Just read what it actually says, not what is in your imagination.
I get that some people are emotional because they may have friends or relatives who are gay and have / had a bad experience because of the WTS. This letter isn't going to change that but me saying that it isn't a monumental change isn't the same as saying that they haven't been negatively impacted by the WTS stance toward homosexuals as you are trying to imply. If you do know someone in the WTS who is gay you may do them more good by helping them recognize that they probably have no future there instead of quietly watching their life drive headlong toward a waiting cliff or getting angry at me for thinking beyond one narrow viewpoint.
Gay people were already always going to suffer within the WTS just as they would in any other conservative christian group than condemns homosexuals. The WTS doesn't have a monopoly on this and this letter doesn't change the fact.