2/ I thought this based on the 2 things the author said
1. He originally thought the geneology of Matthew established Jesus was Jewish
2. He says his thoughts were folly he realized Jesus was mixed race.
I took this to mean we was saying Jesus was not jewish.
I was wrong.
3/ The author @caseybhough offered a clarification. Right off the hop he acknowledges that Jesus was and remains Jewish.
This means I accused him of something for which he is not guilty based on my reading of his article.
I was wrong.
4/ I also said the article was written to seek cultural relevancy in terms of cultural approval rather than cultural relevancy in terms of seeking to reach across cultural boundaries.
That was an interpretation based in cynicism, not evidence.
Again, I was wrong.
5/ So, @caseybhough, I apologize for what I said about your article.
I was wrong to have said it.
My interpretstion of what you said was incorrect, and my assesmemt of your reasons for publishing the article were based in cynicism, not evidence.
I apologize.
6/ I brought disrepute to you. I was wrong to have done so. My actions flung mud on you that you did not deserve, and I cast aspersions on your ministry.
I am sorry. I was wrong.
7/ For this reason, I will share some of your blog entry's that reflect well on you with my 27k followers to mitigate some of the damage my tweet caused. I will also delete the tweet in recognition that it was wrong, but leave the screen cap it in this thread so it is not hidden.
8/ I cannot unring a bell, but I can do what I can do to let people know that I was wrong and to restore your reputation to whatever degree it is possible for me to do so.
I am sorry @caseybhough. I ask humbly that you would forgive me.
/fin
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The New York Times helped destroy the life of a college freshman over a 3 second video while it's staff repeatedly tweet abhorent racial insults at white people.
For those asking, the latest jnfo I have is that Jeong still works for the NYT.
Again: THE POINT IS NOT TO CANCEL SARAH JEONG. DO NOT CANCEL HER.
The point is the NYT should not be pouring gas on the fire of cancel culture by giving it the oxygen of credibility...
Destroying a girls life with a snapchat video should not be national news. This is glorified Gossip. A story like that might be the subject of an editorial about how having a digital foot print reaching back into your teens carries consequences we don't know how to handle yet
1/ Jimmy Galligan got a 3 second video of a White 15 year old girl saying the N-word while singing along to a rap song. He posted the clip publicly 4 years later when the girl started university to maximize impact and ruin her life.
Guess what, he left his social media public...
2/ it turns out Jimmy Galligan, who ruined a girls life over a 4 year old snapchat video, made a video where he complains about being depressed in his freshman year of highschool because things he did in 6-8th grade followed him into highschool and he got judged for them.
3/ THE POINT HERE IS NOT TO CANCEL HIM. DO NOT CANCEL HIM
Jimmy Galligan knew how it felt to have things from his past follow him into his next stage of life and be to judged for them. Then he went and did that exact thing to someone else. However...
The goal of this exercise is to force you to overanalyze yourself and intellectually seperate your gender from yourself. They want you to treat your gender as though it is seperate from yourself so you begin to think about it as though it was a costume you wear...
The goal here is to get you to make gender a part of your thinking about the world, so that you start actively making gender an explicit part of how you think about the world rather then something you see as natural and typical. The hope is that in thinking about your gender...
As a social construct invented to oppress people. The assumptions of woke ideology are baked into the questions in that thread, so using them as a starting point to think about gender forces you to think in terms of the woke worldview that's built right into the questions.
I did an entire thread on this, but Mr. Veggie Tales is wrong.
The article he links to sanitizes the commitments of CRT in ways which are, I think, misleading.
2/ The article whitewashes the use of postmodernism, and the actual beliefs of CRT scholars.
I outline the beliefs of CRT scholars using their own words here: