No, your first assumption is not a fair one. Like many people, my religious views are not lock step with my political ones and the relationship is not straightforward.
I see handfuloflights remark as an attempted joke, alongside jokes that assume all Black people think alike, all women want the same thing, etc. Like those diverse groups, evangelicals are not a monolith, especially in political matters.
I’m not deeply offended, but I do want to signal that jokes generalizing people are generally not funny.
In a way, I understand why his initial remark was stupid to make.
Especially when you say,
> I’m now making the point that generalizing evangelicals as a monolith that can ‘change their mind’ in unison is akin to generalizing people by race, gender, etc. I hope you are in agreement on that one.
And this is exactly why I raised my initial assumptions to you and why your answer was helpful.
When I asked:
> Would it be fair for me to assume that you are an Evangelical who doesn't support whatever you think is going on in Israel under the theological pretenses that other Evangelicals are known for (i.e., the "apocalyptic accelerationism" handfuloflight refers to)?
What I tried to communicate was that my assumption is that your religious views are not in lock step with your political views in the ways that the generalization in question would suggest.
So when you say:
> Like many people, my religious views are not lock step with my political ones and the relationship is not straightforward.
This makes we want to understand what your views and their greater relationship are.
Additionally, are you upset that he made a generalization and that's all this is about? Or are you upset that he made a generalization that doesn't apply to you and you're trying to explain to us why that isn't the case. =
> I’m not deeply offended, but I do want to signal that jokes generalizing people are generally not funny.
Right. But I don't want to meander toward a discussion on humor, dry wit, et cetera, because although I identified the remark in question as a joke, that's all it is on the surface and it's implications are a lot more serious than that. Which is exactly why I would assume it isn't funny to you. And what makes the remark all the wiser in some ways, although not to you.
What I really want to figure out is what about his remark specifically upset you post-generalization, If according to your own answer to my assumption, you are an Evangelical who supports whatever you think is going on in Israel under the theological pretenses that other Evangelicals are known for.
[Previously I described that as "genocide", but I modified it because I don't to make it sound like I'm trying to manipulate you into agreeing to a part of a premise that you don't agree with. I'm trying to dialogue in as best of faith as I can].
I love handfuloflight. He doesn't know this. But I do. And he does know now. And I think his wit backfired, for the reasons I've already explained.
And as much as your offense constrains you to this odd posture that I feel so compelled to unravel, I think that his wit constrained him to come up with a concept ("apocalyptic accelerationism") that constrains him to now having to argue his way outside of a an ad-hoc generalization.
At this point, the generalization that handfuloflight makes isn't about "accelerating the apocalypse" as much as the influence that Israel's geopolitics have on Evangelical beliefs concerning the apocalypse.
From your side, this is what I want to learn. If you don't want to keep beating this HN thread, my email is in my profile.
And if handfuloflight feels like I've wronged him in anyway, he should let me know however he feels is suitable.
Could I have had added more rigor to make it air tight that my remark was not a generalization? Yes.
Did I? No. Because I thought that was not necessary when the response was in context about a specific group of people already: evangelicals who support Israel. Those who would understand what my remark was referring to, would already know that these evangelicals are a specific set; hence I saw no need to qualify it.
When Rick asked me for clarification twice if I meant that as a generalization, I said in clear terms that I did not.
If someone knows about these tendencies among the evangelicals, they would have the requisite knowledge to know it is not held among all evangelicals.
So if what I said was meant to be a joke, then it was more of an "in joke." But I didn't mean it as a joke, as much as I meant it as, I admit, a reactionary opening to discussing about this specific group's influence on US politics. But now I see that possibility was derailed, because reactionary responses only birth the same.
I see handfuloflights remark as an attempted joke, alongside jokes that assume all Black people think alike, all women want the same thing, etc. Like those diverse groups, evangelicals are not a monolith, especially in political matters.
I’m not deeply offended, but I do want to signal that jokes generalizing people are generally not funny.