5 ms·

We live in New Middleages. Just substitute religion for ideology and suddenly it all makes sense.

• micromacrofoot 4y ago
  maybe read a book or a wikipedia article about what the middle ages were like
  • emerged 4y ago
    what they ended up like, or how they got there? because I’d rather note and correct the trend /before/ we start torturing and killing people in public display.
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    • otterley 4y ago
      The two eras and their initial conditions aren’t even comparable. We have strong state constitutions and the procedural rule of law now. We use science instead of religion to explain mysterious phenomena. Those aren’t being torn down any time soon over spite. We’re simply not going to end someone’s life over a differing opinion; our entire system of government would have to change first. Your argument is basically a “slippery slope” argument, and this is a good example of why these types of arguments are so weak and problematic.
      • emerged 4y ago
        Oh ok. I was thinking patterns have occurred throughout history and that we could learn to identify those patterns to avoid repeating history. But good point, no two times in history are completely identical so we shouldn’t bother.
        • otterley 4y ago
          Of course we can learn from history. But deep and thoughtful analysis is important. The time to freak out would be when there’s a serious threat to our constitutions or laws that would enable criminal punishment for holding controversial opinions. And we just don’t see that on the horizon yet.
          • emerged 4y ago
            The seeds have been sowed into the youth through media, technology and educational systems for years now. Do you think it stops there?
            • otterley 4y ago
              Until we see otherwise, yes.
        • Apocryphon 4y ago
          What we shouldn’t bother with is making facile and insipid comparisons that disservices both modernity and history.
      • Aeolun 4y ago
        > We’re simply not going to end someone’s life over a differing opinion Unless that opinion is about who owns a specific piece of land.
        • otterley 4y ago
          Can you elaborate? Are you talking about national territorial disputes (i.e., war), or a dispute over where two domestic neighbors’ land boundaries lie? In any event, this feels like an attempt to win an argument by stretching it to cover something out of scope.
          • Aeolun 4y ago
            I wasn’t really attempting to win the argument. Just wanted to point out that while we believe we are above such things, given the right motivations humans will happily kill each other over a belief.
• otterley 4y ago
  No it isn’t. Nobody is literally losing their life over this.
  • alexashka 4y ago
    You think it is due to some virtue these braindead activists possess that they don't kill people? Sorry, I mean 'intolerant people'.
    • otterley 4y ago
      I’m not exactly sure what you are trying to say. Can you rephrase?
      • deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  • h2odragon 4y ago
    they only burned a few witches, back when. It wasn't that big a deal...