The issue is...

that even priests like Matt Ashe can and are homophobic and misogynist, as they follow their religious beliefs seriously. That's the issue. You can be a humble, overall wonderful nice person that holds onto incredibly backward and harmful ideas because of the belief system. That is the issue, that is the contention, and that is why so many oppose such belief systems. It makes nice people, even wonderful people, believe seriously screwy things. There is no broad brush in condemning the entire belief system and everyone that chooses to associate with that belief system.

So people attack the belief system itself as well as those within the belief system that adhere to it, and they don't exclude the Matt Ashe's of the world from deserved criticism of homophobia and misogyny. Yes, the Pope may have been a friend to the poor in quite a few ways, but he also is, as a matter of course due to his religious beliefs, homophobic and misogynist. It is NOT a broad brush stroke to say that every person that promotes a belief system that is inherently misogynist and homophobic are doing harm. People CAN and DO go help others without such faith-based beliefs.

The real core issue is that faith itself, believing something just because, is a dangerous way to think, and no matter how nice and sweet a human may be, with faith they can be made to take some seriously illogical and harmful actions. That is the flaw in every priest, in every religion, and that is what is ultimately being criticized.

I realize there are priests (and many self-identified believers) who don't adhere to their faith or even believe what their belief system says, and this is worse in some ways, because they are validating a belief system they don't even adhere to, it's intellectually dishonest and hypocritical. The worst of it is the childhood indoctrination that spreads this poisonous way of thinking and keeps it going in the name of "tradition" generation after generation.

To DU Catholics: Commiserations on your new pope

As I write this we now know who the new pope is. He is a homophobe and a misogynist.

I am not Catholic, and I am not religious. But I would like to express my earnest sadness to you on this big day. Commiserations.

Seems a lot of DU can't handle criticism of religion yet...

Lots of people saying you are being hateful or disrespectful, but I see no hate, just a rational opinion with little bit of tongue in cheek jab, certainly nothing acidic or hateful. As for respect... honestly I have a hard time understanding why one should tone down criticism of an institution such as the Catholic Church. Your criticism is light in comparison to what it deserves, that's respect enough to me.

But religion seems to have this certain privileged status even here on DU.

I honestly see no reason any liberal of any sort would want to congratulate others or celebrate a new Pope of the Catholic church, it is fundamentally opposed to so many values we hold. I can see why people are interested in it, considering how unfortunately large of an impact the church still has.

It would be like Skinner starting a thread congratulating conservatives about the new head of CPAC or Americans for Prosperity, and criticism being shot down as "disrespectful" and "hateful".

Erm... those are the facts...

It's in their belief system that they are homophobic and anti-women. Nothing judgmental or close-minded about recognizing a spade for a spade.

Unless you don't want the truth.

That's not the issue quite a few people have with the post...

It's the black and white framing and defining of "privilege" and the patronizing/condescending tone.

Everyone is part of a privileged group of some sort, so to say that "members of a privileged group" (the implication is obvious here) shouldn't do such and such seems to ignore this basic reality and pretend that there are "privileged" and "non-privileged" groups, and you belong to one or the other, but not both. That's why people are asking the OP to define privilege, because it includes everyone, but the tone of the post was clearly not aimed at everyone.

Then to go on and lecture this now implied group not to be dismissive is condescending and implies that people without privilege in a certain context never or rarely are dismissive or even that it's alright if they're dismissive, because they're not privileged, which makes no sense.

The idea that a person shouldn't be dismissive of other's opinions is extremely obvious. It's like saying, "don't be an asshole". So if I were to tell a defined group, "don't be an asshole", the implication is that they already are assholes, or have more assholes relative to others, and that other groups are not or even cannot be such, or that if they are, it's really not a problem worth addressing in their case because it's so few.

If the OP thought some DUers were being dismissive of other's opinions, this was entirely the wrong way to go about it. If the OP thought that being privileged in a subject makes you more likely to be dismissive, or something to that effect, they should have said so. The way they wrote it was incredibly poor. DUers of all sorts, belonging to all kinds of privileged and non-privileged groups, are dismissive all the time. I see it all the time. I'm dismissive of certain opinions at times, which probably isn't right, but it does depend on the context. When it comes to certain right-wing talking points I've seen over and over, for example, and that have been debunked over and over, I can be dismissive. It's an emotional reaction, and it should be addressed, but to single out a group as the main offender is a pretty poor way to go about it.

You weren't pointing out societal privilege...

you were defining an (implied) group as "privileged" and lecturing them and only them for being dismissive of opinions in a very condescending and patronizing manner, telling them what they thought and even what they supposedly said (shut the fuck up) to "less privileged" people, which is about as dismissive as it gets. The obvious point is that, whether you are a member of a privileged group or not, you should never be dismissive, but your post implies that having less privilege means you are always right and can even be dismissive of those with more privilege, or doesn't even aknowledge that anyone can be (and has been) dismissive regardless of their privilege at some point. That somehow, only if you are a member of a privileged group will you be dismissive of others.

Not to mention, everyone is a member of a privileged group of some sort or other. Some people just have more privilege than others. The way you worded your post was very unfortunate, very black and white with no nuance. It was accusatory and condescending in tone, and divisive in the way you defined groups in absolute terms, and your implications were pretty clear.

I agree those are never prefereable...

but don't understand the "especially" part. That sort of dismissiveness is never preferrable, whether one is or isn't effected by the social injustice being discussed. And being effected by that social injustice shouldn't be an excuse for being dismissive of others, as I often see it being. If a woman is dismissive to another woman that way, is it preferable to a man being dismissive to a woman that way? I think they're equally not preferable. The reasons behind the dismissiveness may be different, but neither are more or less preferable.

I just saw a thread where the viewpoint that MacFarlane's skit was a parody was given, and responses that did not address this viewpoint at all, but rather dismissed the opinion as merely the product of a "good ol boy" system, for example. That's just talking over and not listening, and exacerbates the problem, regardless of who has what privilege.

Dismissiveness all around needs to stop, they just feed each other otherwise.

I think everyone should listen....

to each other, whatever people percieve of each other's privilege.

I see women who disagree with what is defined as "sexism" by some other women get talked over and shut down as much as men. I see men get shut down on account of their gender, even if they are listening. Shutting down and talking over people because of assumed experiences or percieved privilege is just as bad. Many times, their reasoning/logic isn't even addressed, they are just attacked personally in ad hom fashion, which is "talking over" and "shutting down" instead of listening.

That's what happens when you tell a person what they think...

you take away their own experiences/voice, then call it whiny BS? Good luck with that strategy.

For the same reason good women are passive nt