At the risk of being called a pseudo-academic again by Craig, I think the "research report" is a load of crap.
Firstly the methodological problems of an internet survey run deep. Given this is Maxim I have considerable doubts as to the identity of who actually completed the survey. Secondly the catogerisation exercise outlined in the report lends itself to some very strong value judgements about what people were "really trying to say". Thirdly the questions that were asked were unlikely to throw much light on actual views- except for the very specific one on role of the individual, which as I said in the post is where Maxim want to take this 'debate'.
anyway, my point is not that there are not a variety of views on the meaning of social justice (be they naturally occuring or forced out), more that Maxim have very deliberately chosen this phrase because it has been associated with the left of politics for so long.
Given this is Maxim I have considerable doubts as to the identity of who actually completed the survey.
Given this is Maxim, I have considerable doubts about pretty much everything to do with it.
A man came up to her and asked her if she'd like to come with him. She could drink some coke, play some Xbox, hang out with other kids, it'd be cool. After about ten minutes of trying to persuade her that no, she didn't really have to ask her parents first, he admitted that what he was inviting her to was a Christian Youth Group.
I'm a bit hesitant to take this at face value - your common-or-garden youth group leader isn't generally stupid enough to approach a young girl in such a fashion. Established churches are hella careful about how they attract new members, and there's no way they'd endorse recruiting someone that young without their parents' knowledge/permission. If he is affiliated with a christian group, and you know what it's called, I think you should complain. Plenty of penty churches have members that are all enthusiasm and no clue, but that's behaviour that the church'd want to address & discourage.
I think the "research report" is a load of crap.
I think your critique is unconvincing.
Maxim have regularly produced complete crap but this actually is an interesting piece of research. It's worth dealing with the issues it raises rather than complain that conservatives are stealing liberal's words.
I think liberalism is robust enough to survive not completely owning particular figures of speech but it is in danger when liberals don't actually engage with what their opponents are saying.
Not that Maxim haven't set themselves up for no being taken seriously.
I find it equally nauseating when people who are fundamentally illiberal pretend a liberal face
as a gay man with a sense of history, I know the fight for homosexual law reform began long before Fran Wilde put the Homosexual Law Reform Bill into the member's ballot. It was the work of people who made an argument one bloody, painful step at a time over years. Ditto for women's suffrage, the battle to abolish the slave trade in Britian (a bicentennial worth celebrating BTW), the struggle for civil rights in the United States. Heck, any social reform worth the having.
Well, gee whiz thanks Craig. I think you meant to thank all those woolly headed liberal thinkers responsible for the above :-) It's ok if you don't though, because guess what, they also fought for your right to disagree.
Firstly the methodological problems of an internet survey run deep
And here's where I get pissed with the media... too much credence is given to the tag "research" by the media. A webpage, cute corporate logo and bodgy survey appear to be sufficient to elevate what would otherwise be soapbox splutterings to the first 3 pages of the newspaper. Is it possible that rather than only reading the Exec Summary, journos also spend a few minutes looking at the methodology - sample size, survey instrument would be enough I'd have thought.
Paul, there was a great story on this on mediawatch RNZ a few weeks back talking in particular about the story the Dompost ran following one of their bogus online polls that had been alledgedly hijacked by 'someone in the beehive', who'd apparently voted 17,000 times (yeah, exactly). very funny when they even try to make a story out of how shit their polls are what?
anyway the mediawatch item asked the question 'would they have still printed the result (and disavowel thereof) had they expected or wanted the result they got to their push-poll. it had clark as preferred pm you see.
Actually, it's rather funny how many prominent abolitionists, suffragettes and folks in the US civil rights movement would probably be derided nowadays as Bible-thumping Jesus freaks who should STFU with all the God crap. :)
abolitionists, suffragettes and folks in the US civil rights movement would probably be derided nowadays as Bible-thumping Jesus freaks
sure Craig. the fundy church groups supporting National's opposition to s59 taking away their god given right to hit their kids are all really big time social justice types. (unless of course you're being raped by your husband, or gay, or a sex worker, or in need of an abortion, or being thrashed by your teacher, or not what they call a christian.)
from my experience the real christians who actually do campaign for social justice are repulsed by "Bible-thumping".
Actually, it's rather funny how many prominent abolitionists, suffragettes and folks in the US civil rights movement would probably be derided nowadays as Bible-thumping Jesus freaks who should STFU with all the God crap.
Craig, I doubt it. They were from a long and honourable line of Christian social democrats. Nothing particularly bible thumping, just a belief in world that they believed (and still believe) reflected the teachings of Jesus and the will of God.
I don't know if Maxim spent all that long in the wilderness. They still have a presence as a contributor to DayStar, a Christian niche periodical. I don't know about Challenge Weekly. Perhaps they are choosing the forums in which they are heard.