8 ms·
The big difference is that religion usually believes in some kind of forgiveness and repentance. I can't say I see the same things in the current society.
by Zababa 5y ago
The big difference is that religion usually believes in some kind of forgiveness and repentance. I can't say I see the same things in the current society.
- unyttigfjelltol 5y agoThe structure of a revolution-- it usually begins when the rabble acts up and no authority is willing or able to stop them. So, 1 out of 1,000 users seek quasi-religious vengeance on Twitter and the mechanisms that used to inform the other 999 don't work. The NYT picks up toxic views of the rabble and reports them as mainstream, which the rabble have converted to a weapon in itself. Most revolutions I've read about, large and small consist of an authentic breakdown in or reorganization of, society. Here and now, seems like we're actually discussing an antifeature of manufactured social technologies combined with capture or weakening of traditional media.
- nine_k 5y agoI think you mischaracterize these people as "rabble". Many of the vocal "woke" figures are highly educated, highly intellectual, and well-off. Professors, top business officers, high-achieving scientists, writers, engineers. They do it not because they are stupid, for they are not. They truly believe that what they do is right, that it's the shining path to the better future.
- type0 5y agoAnd most of the worlds biggest atrocities has also been done on "the shining path to the better future".
- nine_k 5y agoExactly my reference :(
- andrepd 5y agoSo have the world's biggest advances, from the Enlightenment, the Scientific Revolution, or the advent of liberal democracies in the past ~200 years.
- raxxorrax 5y agoThis crowd seems to be pretty much against enlightenment values or science or democracy.
- thu2111 5y agoNone of those things were really the result of some top down utopian master plan, though. The closest might be the enlightenment if you consider the rewards for book finding granted by wealthy benefactors, but it was fundamentally a backward looking "Revolution" that was based on worship of the ancients. The "scientific revolution", is not really a well known or unambiguous label, the growth of science being a long term trend. And it's worth observing that a major part of the present day corruption of science with the replication crisis, the junk sociological sciences and so on, are the result of an explicit top down utopian plan by governments to make a better tomorrow by funding academics.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago> I think you mischaracterize these people as "rabble". Many of the vocal "woke" figures are highly educated, highly intellectual, and well-off. Professors, top business officers, high-achieving scientists, writers, engineers. That is the actual structure of a revolution. Your parent comment is misguided; revolutions that aren't led by elites are rare and, when they occur, generally don't go anywhere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasants%27_Revolt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasants%27_Revolt
- Retric 5y agoYes, despite slavery being horrendous and very common there was basically 1 successful slave revolt in all recorded history Haiti. Gaspar Yagna's Rebellion was arguable as they hid and became independent. Spartacus grew to ~120,000 then failed, Zanj Rebellion came closer and still failed. This is also why killing all the intellectuals after a successful revolution is so popular.
- kingsuper20 5y agohttps://peterturchin.com/cliodynamica/intra-elite-competition-a-key-concept-for-understanding-the-dynamics-of-complex-societies/ https://peterturchin.com/cliodynamica/intra-elite-competitio...
- esyir 5y agoOr perhaps, they do it because its the ideal weapon and means of control. We've seen that "sociopaths in management studies" bit. Wonder how it'd apply to wokism.
- raxxorrax 5y agoSome are removed from reality that it might seem like a good idea. I believe them not to be too well informed though and much support stems from the fact that these people don't know what is done under their banner. Bipartisanship in the US heavily influences this too. Most intellectuals have identified the problem pretty quickly but they also stay mostly silent. There are also those in high positions without the necessary facilities of course.
- potatoineyes 5y agoWell I am well educated, but none of the other categories you have mentioned above and I have reasoned, with continued and constant personal experience reinforcement that a society that tolerates the existence of lgbt people etc, and is also in adherence to liberal principles, is a society that had no future. I have gone from liberal to basically Nazi (with liberal and liberalism replacing the Jew as evil target), and every attempt to see whete I might have gone wrong, for noone else seems to think the things I do, just leads, over and iver again, to reading arguments allegedly for liberal values that seem either orthogonal entirely to the point, or are, to me, arguments against liberal values. Spending my 20s in highly liberal, educated environments has lretty much destroyed all the mainstream base assumptions about people, socjety, and morality that I had and replaced with, to be glib, the sentence "the crazy right wing extremists were actually right about all you people all along". This is an experience that has, in conjunction with a failure to self censor and attempts to ask for people to explain their positions, seek new knowledge, etc led to a near and complete total collapse of my life. Former friends of decades will not speak to me because I genuinely cannot understand why anyone would think e.g. homosexuals are anything other than broken deviants, etc based purely on the fundamental nature of their catwgory classification, fundamental inability to have biological children, the empiral evidence concerning higher disease rates from the type of sex they disproportionately practice relative to the heterosexual population, etc. I do not honestly think any of you here on hacker news are seriously against censorship, because I expect you would be unwilling and incapable of discussing something like this (and there are many other issues too) with me. I have no religious faith, am bot a conservative, was not brought up like that ,etc but have simply followed my own reason, conscience, and the evidence that is available for me to see and read about, yet I get very different conclusions. I will be starting to just lie to everyone about anything and go along with whatever the apparant consensus is, no matter how much harm I think it will do, and not matter how obvious from now on. I am bot stupid, I have leart that social conformity is more important than truth.
- raxxorrax 5y agoDon't try to go in that direction as to define yourself as the opposite of indignant bullshit. A lot of homosexuals don't like that either. As long as you don't hurt or discriminate in a professional setting, you should be fine. Some of this behavior developed because people were shunned. That is no excuse for Twitter woke, that is more an addiction to outrage. Societies can function with homosexual people because they were always prevalent.
- bilbo0s 5y agoThere is no difference. I've heard that Islam and Christianity, as religions, are good and forgiving. I've also witnessed the behavior of actual muslims and christians. I would not call these people good. I certainly wouldn't call them forgiving. My feeling is that the poster is on the right track. Ideological groups, (not trying to pick on politics, but they are usually political ideologues), have become the new pseudo-religions. As people in the West have fallen away from church, we've witnessed the rise of ideologue communities on the right and left. You can't argue with them. You can't question them. Some want to kill off half the people in the country. Others want draconian control over the other half. And people are surprised that the only option available to a reasonable person is to opt-out? If anything, I think people are being shortsighted in viewing the threat. For some people in the US, this ideology war is not only about a right to speech, it can come down to a right to live. Those people have to oppose the ideologues, or die. I don't claim to know the solution, I do know that it's a tough, tough problem.
- UnpossibleJim 5y agoJust like with any belief system, there are many more moderates than zealots. The problem is, zealots help the leaders of those belief systems gain more power. Moderates, for the most part, just want things to keep working and not to feel the lash on their back. When the zealots can't let this happen and the powers that be lose control of the zealots, that's usually when revolution happens =(
- raxxorrax 5y agoI don't think they are capable of a revolution at this point. Their wrath can easily be redirected. You don't even have to put up a too convincing target, small overstepping of some arbitrary social rule is enough.
- PontifexMinimus 5y ago> I've heard that Islam and Christianity, as religions, are good and forgiving. I've also witnessed the behavior of actual muslims and christians. I would not call these people good. Of course not; the movement isn't the ideology. Whatever the ideology, the people in it will be flawed and fallible human beings.
- nine_k 5y agoRepentance — yes, galore, it's exactly the expexted action from the one accused of transsgression. Write a long blog post condemning the bitter mistake, step out from your post, if you have any. But on the banner on this religion is not Love, but Justice. So, forgiveness is hard to obtain. It takes either converting into a zealot, or hiding in oblivion. "If God were to show justice instead of His endless grace, we would all end up in Hell", wrote one medieval theologician. This whole thing is thoroughly medieval, if you look at it at a certain angle. While declaring that it stands for progress, it rejects the values of the Enlightenment much more deeply than many alt-right philosophers who flaunt this rejection. If you ever wondered what highly westernized Iran might look like before the revolution, this may provide a glimpse. Feeling righteous and rejecting doubt is a powerful and addictive drug :(
- Zababa 5y agoDo you have the source for the quote of the medieval theologian? It's very interesting.
- nine_k 5y agoApparently it was Isaac of Niveneh, a Middle Eastern Christian theoligian from 7th century: https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2013/03/17/st-isaac-the-syrian-the-scandalous-injustice-of-god/ https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2013/03/17/st-isaac-the-syrian... I think Christ himself pushes this view in a number of fables and sermons, right in the canonical gospels.
- Zababa 5y agoThanks.
- nyokodo 5y ago> This whole thing is thoroughly medieval Actually, Medieval Scholastics had a vibrant discourse from a wide array of sources that would look practically libertarian by comparison to contemporary woke discourse. It sounded way more fun too.
- PontifexMinimus 5y agoOne of the main difference between Wokism and Christianity, in my opinion, is that in Christianity there is forgiveness, whereas in Wokism you can be endlessly dragged overf the coals for something you said ages ago when you were a teenager: https://pontifex.substack.com/p/no-redemption-for-the-woke https://pontifex.substack.com/p/no-redemption-for-the-woke
- echelon 5y agoI think most people are beginning to hate woke culture. The pendulum is swinging.
- PontifexMinimus 5y agoI think you are probably right. Maybe Wokism will mutate into something less virulent. Or maybe the opposition to it will become overwhelming and destroy it.
- shkkmo 5y agoYou seem to have missed the log in your own eye.
- Zababa 5y agoAnother big difference is that, from what I understand, in Christianity everyone bears the original sin. In Wokism, only white males do.
- andrei_says_ 5y agoI don’t think the major organized religious institutions believe in anything but power and money. What “Religion” believes in is very hard to define.
- malandrew 5y agoWell current society has chosen "struggle sessions". You get forgiveness if you voluntarily admit to some sin and only then if the sin is mild. If you're found out without coming forth with your sins first, you're excommunicated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session
- remram 5y agoIsn't that the same way religion works? Confession and atonement for minor transgressions, "legal" punishment otherwise?
- pstuart 5y ago> The big difference is that religion usually believes in some kind of forgiveness and repentance Usually? There's boatloads of sermons recorded out that that preach hate and fear. Very selective reasoning on both sides of this equation.
- giardini 5y agoZababa says "religion usually believes in some kind of forgiveness and repentance. " Yes, they will forgive you, allow you to repent for your "errors" and then they will burn you at the stake. Religion is just another belief system.
- giardini 5y agoAll belief systems are the same: communism, christianity, mohammedanism, buddhism, etc. No organized belief system (includes any religion) is noteworthy for forgiveness and repentance. Such gems as the religious wars in Europe, CCP treatment of Uighurs today, the Inquisition, the Crusades, Genghis Khan, the current Middle East all showed little mercy for unbelievers. They'll forgive you, maybe let you repent. But then they will kill you, your family, your friends and your business associates.
- nine_k 5y agoGengis Khan, afaik, was not a religious fanatic, or even an ethnic supremacist. His army absorbed warriors from different places and of different religions. What he required was fealty, not faith. This is how he built a colossal empire, Earth's largest IIRC. An empire has to be somehow tolerant towards differences between the many nations it consumes. The process of assimilation, even if forced, can and usually does take centuries. Faith systems are not like that: they require an immediate conversion, and an immediate and willing following the norms.
- giardini 5y agoYou're quibbling about minor details. Khan was head of a belief system: believe and help him and you might not die. He and his men wanted the tundra cleared of cities. He did it. nine_k says>""An empire has to be somehow tolerant towards differences between the many nations it consumes. The process of assimilation, even if forced, can and usually does take centuries."< Khan didn't assimilate, he destroyed. Only after his death and the end of his generation of warriors, was his former empire "assimilated" by groups lucky(?) enough to be alive. The words "tolerant" and "assimilation" have no place when speaking of the advancement of Gengis Khan's armies out of Mongolia. Just like "faith systems" today have no tolerance, accept no "repentance" and refuse "assimilation".