3 ms·

Those poor people missed TikTok, Tiger King, and all the other amazing things we have to offer. Glad they lived what they wanted

ivan_gammel 2y ago
When I was 6 years old I was confused just like you about the age of things. I mean, they were discovered before the Digital Age and missed only The Beatles and TV.
- tetrisgm 2y ago
  I suppose the lazy ad hominem could be met with: and to this day, you are confused by things like sarcasm. Have a great day
  - ivan_gammel 2y ago
    Your sarcasm was factually incorrect to the point where it did not make sense. First, you chose the wrong tech for it. As a matter of fact, the only survivor from that group is in active contact with modern civilization - even being personally informed about certain space launches. She isn’t on TikTok, of course, but she is not different from many other people. Second, they didn’t live the life they wanted. They were refugees fighting for their survival in a very harsh environment. It‘s ethically questionable to say that they have chosen this life over TikTok.
drdaeman 2y ago
My first thought was rather that they missed modern medicine, balanced diet and even basic kitchen utensils. Not some entertainment. And I'm not even sure they truly wanted to live that way. I'm no psychologist, but it reads like they were severely traumatized by their religious zeal. While I respect their agency, I suspect their behavior was much less voluntary than they believed. I don't know how I should feel about it, but I'm not glad they had to suffer, even if it was voluntary (or "voluntary"). It's so fucked up. The only thing I'm sure is that [unregulated] religion can sometimes be such a memetic cancer. It's somewhat comparable to those modern-day homeless that are scraping by on the streets but refuse to do anything about it. (I don't really know what to make of those people either.)
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- beedeebeedee 2y ago
  > I'm no psychologist, but it reads like they were severely traumatized by their religious zeal. You seem to have missed the part where they were fleeing the bolsheviks > It's somewhat comparable to those modern-day homeless that are scraping by on the streets but refuse to do anything about it. You're missing some things there too
  - drdaeman 2y ago
    > You seem to have missed the part where they were fleeing the bolsheviks I have not. A lot of people fled from oppressive governments (myself included), but those people intentionally picked a deliberately self-harming way. And kept to it even after they certainly knew it's harming them. I think attributing self-harm to religious zeal as the primary cause is pretty obvious here. > You're missing some things there too Like what? Acting against of one's own best long-term interests because of inability to get through the short-term problems (be it religion abuse or substance abuse) is common in both situations. There are certainly myriad of differences, of course - I would not argue that the comparison is quite a stretch. (Disclaimer: this comment is not about religion, rather the focus must be put on zealotry. A non-religious belief cranked up to 11 could be equally harmful.)
    - beedeebeedee 2y ago
      > Acting against of one's own best long-term interests Acting against one's best interests is based on judgment and is fundamentally subjective. You are making dubious judgments without much apparent self-reflection and missing key things (and many things you and I cannot know). Let's flip it around. You seem to be taking an "establishment" view of the world. You seem to have done well within it (I assume, you have Dr. in your name and they are very much part of the elite in western society, even if they are not the pinnacle of wealth). You don't understand why other people like this family (or "modern-day homeless") would reject what you take to be the way of world and not "act in their best interests". But what if someone recognized that our society is polluting the world and decided to no longer participate (either by fleeing, or by just dropping out and living on the streets). They are no longer producing or consuming the garbage that is polluting the planet. They could claim, as validly (and perhaps more so), that you are not acting in your best interests by continuing to participate in this destructive system. We can imagine (and even find in reality) thousands of similar arguments. I think it is good that you voiced your concerns, but I also think it would be best if you reflected on them and reconsidered your beliefs and become more skeptical and philosophical about your own judgment. >>> The only thing I'm sure is that [unregulated] religion can sometimes be such a memetic cancer > A lot of people fled from oppressive governments (myself included) > I think attributing self-harm to religious zeal as the primary cause is pretty obvious here. > the focus must be put on zealotry. A non-religious belief cranked up to 11 could be equally harmful It sounds like you may have left Iran (or other religiously affiliated oppressive regime). If that is the case, I understand how that regime would loom large in your thoughts about religion, power dynamics, suffering, etc, but be careful not to project it into places where it can obscure other considerations. Regardless, you included "modern-day homeless" in your comments, and I doubt you would say that they are driven by religious zeal.

ivan_gammel 2y ago

When I was 6 years old I was confused just like you about the age of things. I mean, they were discovered before the Digital Age and missed only The Beatles and TV.

tetrisgm 2y ago
I suppose the lazy ad hominem could be met with: and to this day, you are confused by things like sarcasm. Have a great day
- ivan_gammel 2y ago
  Your sarcasm was factually incorrect to the point where it did not make sense. First, you chose the wrong tech for it. As a matter of fact, the only survivor from that group is in active contact with modern civilization - even being personally informed about certain space launches. She isn’t on TikTok, of course, but she is not different from many other people. Second, they didn’t live the life they wanted. They were refugees fighting for their survival in a very harsh environment. It‘s ethically questionable to say that they have chosen this life over TikTok.

drdaeman 2y ago

My first thought was rather that they missed modern medicine, balanced diet and even basic kitchen utensils. Not some entertainment. And I'm not even sure they truly wanted to live that way. I'm no psychologist, but it reads like they were severely traumatized by their religious zeal. While I respect their agency, I suspect their behavior was much less voluntary than they believed. I don't know how I should feel about it, but I'm not glad they had to suffer, even if it was voluntary (or "voluntary"). It's so fucked up. The only thing I'm sure is that [unregulated] religion can sometimes be such a memetic cancer. It's somewhat comparable to those modern-day homeless that are scraping by on the streets but refuse to do anything about it. (I don't really know what to make of those people either.)

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
beedeebeedee 2y ago
> I'm no psychologist, but it reads like they were severely traumatized by their religious zeal. You seem to have missed the part where they were fleeing the bolsheviks > It's somewhat comparable to those modern-day homeless that are scraping by on the streets but refuse to do anything about it. You're missing some things there too
- drdaeman 2y ago
  > You seem to have missed the part where they were fleeing the bolsheviks I have not. A lot of people fled from oppressive governments (myself included), but those people intentionally picked a deliberately self-harming way. And kept to it even after they certainly knew it's harming them. I think attributing self-harm to religious zeal as the primary cause is pretty obvious here. > You're missing some things there too Like what? Acting against of one's own best long-term interests because of inability to get through the short-term problems (be it religion abuse or substance abuse) is common in both situations. There are certainly myriad of differences, of course - I would not argue that the comparison is quite a stretch. (Disclaimer: this comment is not about religion, rather the focus must be put on zealotry. A non-religious belief cranked up to 11 could be equally harmful.)
  - beedeebeedee 2y ago
    > Acting against of one's own best long-term interests Acting against one's best interests is based on judgment and is fundamentally subjective. You are making dubious judgments without much apparent self-reflection and missing key things (and many things you and I cannot know). Let's flip it around. You seem to be taking an "establishment" view of the world. You seem to have done well within it (I assume, you have Dr. in your name and they are very much part of the elite in western society, even if they are not the pinnacle of wealth). You don't understand why other people like this family (or "modern-day homeless") would reject what you take to be the way of world and not "act in their best interests". But what if someone recognized that our society is polluting the world and decided to no longer participate (either by fleeing, or by just dropping out and living on the streets). They are no longer producing or consuming the garbage that is polluting the planet. They could claim, as validly (and perhaps more so), that you are not acting in your best interests by continuing to participate in this destructive system. We can imagine (and even find in reality) thousands of similar arguments. I think it is good that you voiced your concerns, but I also think it would be best if you reflected on them and reconsidered your beliefs and become more skeptical and philosophical about your own judgment. >>> The only thing I'm sure is that [unregulated] religion can sometimes be such a memetic cancer > A lot of people fled from oppressive governments (myself included) > I think attributing self-harm to religious zeal as the primary cause is pretty obvious here. > the focus must be put on zealotry. A non-religious belief cranked up to 11 could be equally harmful It sounds like you may have left Iran (or other religiously affiliated oppressive regime). If that is the case, I understand how that regime would loom large in your thoughts about religion, power dynamics, suffering, etc, but be careful not to project it into places where it can obscure other considerations. Regardless, you included "modern-day homeless" in your comments, and I doubt you would say that they are driven by religious zeal.