Both require accepting assertions without proof (faith)


Both claim to have the "real" truth irrespective of fact-based objective reality


Both give believers an emotional "high" (i.e. "warm fuzzy feeling") and sense of community

This is an intensely interesting and complex question--and I think the answer depends on the specific religion being considered.

Some religions (and I would place most sectors of Christianity in this first group) are definitely "belief" religions: a given person's beliefs are generally essential to determining whether or not a given person is a member (or is a member in good standing) of that particular group.

Other religions (Hinduism, in addition to many global tribal religions such as Native American religions) do not depend on belief as an essential element. If a given person "believes," that is fine--but it is not required. What IS required is that that person's behavior (either in their religious life, or in their daily life, or both) conforms to certain expectations.

And a third group (Judaism, for example) would be religions where some people who identify as that religion believe, and others in the same group do not believe, and it is a non-issue to the group (either as a whole, or from the perspective of whoever is acknowledged as leadership) whether a given person "believes" or not.

My answer to your question is: It depends on the specific religion being considered. Without knowing if a specific religion is a "belief," or a "behavior," or a "tradition" religion (and also where a given individual "sits" on that religion's spectrum), I don't think the question can be adequately answered.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Both require accepting assertions without proof
> (faith)

This is true for some religions, definitely not true for others. I can guarantee that right now, at this moment, there are numerous people fervently arguing Jewish law/"belief" around the planet (and others who are sitting somewhere by themselves, doing the same thing in their heads)--and those arguments come as close to "proof" as those arguing are able to conceptualize and verbalize.
>
>
> Both claim to have the "real" truth irrespective
> of fact-based objective reality

Again, this is often true of Christianity--but not true of many other religions.
>
>
> Both give believers an emotional "high" (i.e.
> "warm fuzzy feeling") and sense of community

Academic-level argument often provides these kinds of warm, fuzzy feelings--whether the subject is physics, math, history, medicine, literature, or religion...and the often comforting sense of community is frequently omnipresent also. Just being part of this kind of group, when this kind of academic argument is going on, is a definite high--and it is fun.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 07/20/2020 05:37AM by Tevai.

This is a good summary of the religious aspect. OP makes some generalizations about religion. Although CTs can have some overlap with religion, they are not the same at all. In Christianity, the big conspiracy rheory I suppose is that there is an invisible war going on around us.

Twenty years, for example no one talked about Bilderbergers apart from "conspiracy theorists". Now news media reluctantly admits that they exist, but they always deal with that matter in a flippant or dismissive manner that means it and other groups are never properly scrutinized. Yet the Bilderberg group is very real. Its very existence is a problem. You have politicians and businessmen going to an expensive junket (problem one), to which press aren't invited (problem two), where they discuss international issues that are not publicized (problem three). So even before you get into the deeper issues, and the more silly speculation you have an organization which is built on anti-democratic and arguably corrupt grounds (politicians being treated to free vacations to a luxurious location). And alongside the Bilderbergers you have numerous other such summits which have varying degrees of publicity such as Davos and others we've never heard of.

Despite the Peter Parker image of journalists in popular media, no mainstream journalist will touch the Bilberberger issue, so it's left to the Alex Jones types who make the whole issue look ridiculous.

Nicely argued.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Both require accepting assertions without proof
> (faith)

Wrong.

> Both claim to have the "real" truth irrespective
> of fact-based objective reality

Wrong.

> Both give believers an emotional "high" (i.e.
> "warm fuzzy feeling") and sense of community

Wrong again.

The implications of some of those theories would be extremely frightening if they were true. There is nothing "warm and fuzzy" about them at all. Unlike religion, some of these conspiracy theories offer very little hope at all. In fact, when I have asked such people what their solutions are, they are often quite vague (raising of consciousness etc) - there are exceptions to that though; if you are anti-vaxxer you just don't use vaccines, but with others no solution is really offered.

The trouble is that the phrase "conspiracy theory" is yet another mantra that is used to stifle critical debate. The most lurid and ludicrous ideas (like Flat Earth Theory, Apollo Moon Hoax, Lizard People) are used to put down much more serious ones (like the notion of the War on Cash which is a long term project but which has ample evidence, especially recently; the push towards a global superstate; astroturfing - i.e. the corporate funding and co-ordination of many supposed grass roots orgs etc)

The first simple fact is that most news goes unreported. That is partly just because there is so much of it. It is also because news outlets are partisan and select, or even invent stories. When you couple that with the fact that very few corporations control mainstream media (and yes, that includes Fox), and don't investigate stories, you end up with a very dangerous situation indeed. News media lies and distorts on a regular basis.

Secondly, the nature of government is that many aspects of its operation are confidential or to be found in documents which are designed to be barely readable.

Thirdly, in many cases some powers have been transferred from "democratic" government to corporations (privatization etc) which are not transparent, or to military/security agencies which are even more secretive in their operations. Most operate in a don't ask, don't tell capacity which is how many things slip by the public.

So when it comes to these things, we honestly don't know most of what is going on. In some cases, things leak out and we learn of toe curling corruption or the Jeffey Epstein types etc. In others, we hear nothing until decades later if at all, by which time it is too late.

Nicely argued.

Which part? It was an incoherent post, internally inconsistent.

So which parts did you enjoy and why?

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Which part? It was an incoherent post, internally
> inconsistent.
>
> So which parts did you enjoy and why?

You posted your own personal conspiracy theory on here not ?two days ago. Within the past week anyway. When things like that happen they should challenge your paradigm, not reinforce it.

What you describe as "internal inconsistency" was my attempt to see the same problem from multiple angles, and to be even handed. I disagreed with the OP's generalizations about so called "conspiracy theories" and pointed out that they cover a wide range of levels of credibility.

Where did I post a "conspiracy theory?" I am not aware of having done so.

Your post got pulled. You said officials in black vans without plates were turning up out of nowhere and arresting people on the street. Something like that.

Yeah, that's not what I said.

My point was that conspiracists were constantly worrying about the UN and its black helicopters and outside forces invading US cities. Those theories were false.

Meanwhile we see masked secret police appearing in US cities and arresting at will. They have no personal identification, no identification of their institutions and are throwing people into vans without specifying charges and taking them to secret detention centers. In other words, they are violating several constitutional provisions and hence are effectively kidnapping citizens with complete impunity.

What I was saying, in other words, is that the conspiracy theories were blatantly false and have been supplanted by the demonstrable reality of Third World dictatorship in the streets.

The difference lies in evidence. There were no Black Helicoptors, no global government. By constrast, there are now brown shirts in Washington, DC and Portland, OR, and we are promised there is more to come. Videos of these thugs are all over the TV screens and the president has admitted that he ordered them, even trumpeted them.

So my point--and it is relevant here--is that the test of religion/faith/conspiracy is the presence or lack of evidence. It's an easy standard to apply.

I didn't find his/her comments to be incoherent at all. I noticed you had you rambled on about your own extremist conspiracy theories a few days ago in a post that you created. I think it was removed though.

Now, now, Ted.

Foiled Again made that erroneous claim yesterday and I replied to it. My post about what you term "my conspiracy theory"--which was in fact an ironic recapitulation of prominent right-wing conspiracy theories, the sort you are wont to spout.

If you try really hard, I bet you can locate my explanation and hence see why your post here is wide of the mark. I'll give you a hint to help you find it. Look very closely at your post. Got it so far? Now look immediately above. Yes, that's the one.

But let's toss your red herring in the garbage where it belongs and return to the question I posed to you. "So which parts [of Foiled Again's post] did you enjoy and why?" I mean, you have said twice that it was excellent and yet for some reason you seem unwilling to explain what you found so enlightening.

Take your time. I'll wait for your answer.

If you read my post, you would see that I mentioned left-wing CTs as well. Criticism of alleged corporate interference in public life is not the preserve of the right; it used to be what the left complained about most. I read leftist websites, articles and books as well as right-wing ones, and I see plenty of such conspiracy speculation in there.

FA, you are missing my point. All I did was correct your misinterpretation of my post in the other thread.

I ironically recapitulated the Black Helicopter nonsense. You interpreted that as a an endorsement of such conspiracy theories, but that was to take a joke at face value. I simply pointed out, and point out, that I have never taken the Black Helicopters as more than the delusions of deluded minds.

I repeat my question to Ted, who has moved into passive aggression rather than substance in his oblique retorts to my posts. I ask him to say what he means rather than simply repeating his "yeah, me too" declarations.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/21/2020 02:32PM by Lot's Wife.

This is probably out of place as a reply here, but here goes.

I did write a long winded diatribe about the Mafia. I can't be bothered writing it all out again, but basically I used this as an example of how CTs* can be grounded in reality. We now accept that the Sicilian Mafia operates in the USA; the question is how much influence and infiltration they have had. Like the security services, their history is plagued by secrecy on the one hand and liars on the other. (Many don't accept "The Irishman"'s account of how Jimmy Hoffa died.)

* I don't like the phrase CT, but use it here because the OP did.

This is just bizarre.

The difference between truth and delusion is facts. There is considerable evidence about the mafia and its involvement in the United States, so we can rest assured that such stories are true to the extent that there is supporting information.

There are other theories--Black Helicopters, George Soros trying to destroy "nations," a global government acting out of Davos--that are not supported by facts and hence can be rejected as nonsense.

The standard is facts. No one is hiding the ball.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
L.W. "> Which part? It was an incoherent post, internally
> inconsistent.
>
> So which parts did you enjoy and why?"


L.W. this is the best part of the argument:

"> Both require accepting assertions without proof
> (faith)

Wrong."

But what can I say, I love blind irony.

When you open your law school, I want to be in the inaugural class!

Foiled Again Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> anybody Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Both require accepting assertions without proof
> > (faith)
>
> Wrong.
>
> > Both claim to have the "real" truth
> irrespective
> > of fact-based objective reality
>
> Wrong.
>
> > Both give believers an emotional "high" (i.e.
> > "warm fuzzy feeling") and sense of community
>
> Wrong again


Yes. Exactly right.

I really don't see how most CTs give their believers a "warm fuzzy feeling". Can you tell me how they would? The implications - if the theories were actually true - would be horrific in many cases.

One thing nearly all of these theories have in common is that something unpleasant is happening behind the facade of reality.

Christianity thinks there is an invisible war for people's souls. However, it also believes that there are easy solutions (repentance) and fixes (atonement) and that we can go somewhere better when we die if we love one another.

If we think the world is run by flesh-eating millipedes (I just made this one up) who keep us asleep in tanks like "The Matrix", where would the warm fuzzy feeling be in "knowing" that? Yet that is what many CTs are really like.

no, I can’t, which is why I agreed with what I quoted from you. Warm fuzzies seems like the last thing the CT group would feel. But I don’t think the hard core religionist group is feeling many warm fuzzies, either.

The question posed is: Is belief....the same as belief....[and then bringing in the general question of religion, which impacts the focus of the subject].

Religions tend to orthopraxic [centered on practice]....OR [in the particular sense we are talking about in this thread] orthodox. [Ritual-centered religions are another important category, but are not really relevant to this thread.]

Orthopraxic religions are generally highly concerned with correct "practice," correct "action," and correct "conduct" (as opposed to "faith" or "grace" or "belief").

In contrast: Orthodox [used in this particular sense] religions ARE generally concerned with "belief," frequently including "faith," "grace," and/or ritual.

Judaism is a highly orthopraxic religion: As a general rule, no one Jewish cares what any other Jew "believes."

[I am reminded of my Bet Din ("rabbinical court") which was one of the last formal steps in my (or anyone else's) conversion to Judaism process. As required by Jewish law, my Bet Din was composed of three rabbis, all of whom questioned each of us--at that moment, still only potential--converts, in turn.

None of the questions we were asked had ANYTHING to do with our personal beliefs--not in my case, and not in the case of any of my fellow converts.

In turn, we were all asked some variation of: "Why are you doing this?" (We expected this question--and it was easy to answer for each of us.)

We were asked our favorite book in the Bible [means: the "Old Testament"], and this was easy to answer. [For converts to Judaism, "Ruth" is always an appropriate answer, since Ruth is memorialized as the "first" convert to Judaism--which is not a historical fact, but IS "true" according to Jewish tradition.]

I don't remember the third question exactly, but I'm pretty sure it had something to do with Jewish PRACTICE, as in: "What is your favorite [Jewish thing] to do?" I think I answered "lighting Shabbat candles" (which is, in actuality, one of my favorite Jewish things to do). I could have answered "tikkun olam" ("repairing the world"), or going to High Holy Day services which occur once each year, or studying Jewish archaeology or Jewish writings, or getting appropriately drunk on Purim--which is a religious obligation for observant Jews when the festival of Purim comes each year. All would have been acceptable answers to the three rabbis serving on our rabbinical court.

But note the emphasis: What do you most like to DO, rather than "what do you believe?"

Judaism does have beliefs, and those beliefs have now been enthusiastically argued for thousands of years, and will continue to be just as enthusiastically argued until the very last Jew alive finally dies.

Basically, though, Judaism is an orthopraxic religion--and anyone's personal beliefs are of little or no interest to anyone.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/20/2020 07:40AM by Tevai.

If we're going to take the orthopraxic/orthodox line with CTs, then yes, that does work here:

Orthopraxic (practice): Anti-vaxxer won't have vaccinations.

Orthodox (abstract): Faked Moon landing. There isn't much you can do with this "knowledge" but moan.

Most of the ones I list here are right wing, but CTs (if we call them that) can be found across politics. They vary a lot in credibility.

Orthopraxic: Survivalists/anarchist communes, ?anti-Freemasonry/Catholicism/Semitism, tax avoidance, surveillance avoidance, Hollywood/music industry (you can at least avoid their product), water fluoridation (you can drink other stuff)

Most of these are lurid, but not all.
Orthodox: 9/11 bores, shapeshifting lizard people, Kennedy assassination theories, Flat Earth, Creationism, pedophile rings*, extraterrestrial infiltration

People who are interested in these can talk

CTs with some factual content:
Certain secret(ive) societies such as Skull & Bones, Bohemian Grove, and Bilderbergers, Council on Foreign Relations, Communist/Russian infiltration.

These last ones all exist. I even used to buy CFR's magazine occasionally. But they have also contained people of influence. Even if you strip away the frat boy elements of S&B and BG, you see a lot of major figures which leads one to question power structures and how people get to where they are. Whether these are just country clubs, frats and business seminars with a bit more power than usual is debatable. With Communist infiltration, many people have been caught but the extent is up for debate. (I think the truth on that matter is complex.)

Funnily enough, chem trails have some factual content too, because regardless of what you think is in those trails, there is a serious pollution issue going on. Also from personal experience, while I don't believe mind control chemicals are in the back of those planes, I have stood under skies where much of the cloud cover is formed from plane condensation trails.

* I've never bought into the Pizzagate scandal, it just never rang true for me, but I do think sexual abuse has been allowed to carry on high levels. But what do you do when you see a story like this? The son of a judge investigating Jeffrey Epstein has just been killed and her husband shot:

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/federal-judges-son-shot-killed-husband-injured-attack-022500867--abc-news-topstories.html

From my perspective it appears that the United States has a disproportional propensity towards both cults and conspiracy theories than any other country I am familiar with. What is it about American culture, political development, and society that makes this appear to be so?

kentish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> From my perspective it appears that the United
> States has a disproportional propensity towards
> both cults and conspiracy theories than any other
> country I am familiar with.

Absolutely true. :)


> What is it about American culture, political development, and
> society that makes this appear to be so?

A guess would be that--at heart, and despite all the three-dimensional realities of various kinds--we remain a pioneer country in our sensibilities.

The improbable fantasies of the often impoverished immigrants who came here (beginning with the 15th-century Spaniards), and the immigrants who continue to come here to this day, actually "came true" in ways that would have been unlikely, or flat-out impossible, in any other countries I know of.

Our national mythos is that, in the United States, seemingly improbable or impossible fairy tales CAN come true--because the factual reality is that they so often HAVE come true in real life.

This fantasizing about "what might be," as it has played out over five centuries, is not so far removed from conspiracy theories (even if the individual theories are, in reality, batshit crazy)--and the same goes for cults.

I think this phenomena of cults and conspiracy theories is the shadow side of what really does, quite often, make us the country we--at least much of the time--are proud to be.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/20/2020 11:01AM by Tevai.

Mormonism plays right into conspiracies. Witness:
* Hidden treasure and teachings
* Gadianton Robbers and secret combinations.
* Master Mahan and a contradictory attitude to Freemasonry.
* The Temple and Second Endowment.
* Polygamy.

kentish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> From my perspective it appears that the United
> States has a disproportional propensity towards
> both cults and conspiracy theories than any other
> country I am familiar with. What is it about
> American culture, political development, and
> society that makes this appear to be so?

1) The USA has the biggest military and intelligence sector in the world. It spends more on these than the rest combined. This is by its very nature secretive.

2) The USA is a highly individualistic country and pays lip service to individual freedom. People are immediately alert to anything they think impinges on that. Sometimes they draw the wrong conclusions.

3) The USA requires internal and external enemies. And it has them for real. The Cold War is the most famous manifestation of this but it goes back to when there was a fear of Native American raids and being reinvaded by the English. Other manifestations of this paranoia include the Mafia, Freemasons, Catholics, Southern Rebellion, Mexicans, African American rebellion, Japanese, Chinese, Nazis and more recently Muslims. (Don't shoot the messenger!)

4) Last but not least many of the early European settlers were from sects, or convicts, or eccentrics.

Is belief in a conspiracy theory cult the same as belief in a religion?

COMMENT: An important distinction between conspiracy theories and religious claims is the idea of "verification." A conspiracy theorist believes in facts that could -- at least in principle --be verified by ordinary experience. Although there might be little or no evidence in support of the theory, the facts claimed could be true *and* there could and probably would be "conclusive" evidence supporting such facts if we could only find it. And if there were such evidence it would all be in accordance with ordinary human experience. No miracles or gods required. There just isn't any such evidence.

Religion is another matter. Its claims (the existence of God, divine miracles, etc.) relate to facts that cannot in principle be confirmed by ordinary human experience, and thus "transcend" ordinary human experience. In other words, such claims cannot be verified even in principle.

Now, there may be some overlap between the distinction noted above, but that is the main underlying distinction which relates to your question.

That said, when someone raises the issue of "belief" we enter the realm of psychology--not just proof or verification, which is about facts and evidence. We might ask whether *belief* in a conspiracy theory differs from *belief in religion.

In general beliefs are formed by a person's natural genetic endowment (nature); their environment and experiences (nurture), and --most importantly--their values and choices (free will). This makes belief highly personal, and takes the question of belief out of any simplistic generalization.

(Yet, I am sure there is some social psychologist out there who will be happy to write a book on this subject explaining it all as a product of evolution by natural selection! And, like the conspiracy theorists and the religious, there will be those who choose to believe it.)

Even religion has tangible provable aspects.

In the case of Mormonism, there is the social aspect (community) and the music which many enjoy. Some of the morality, if practised properly is positive e.g. don't steal. Note I say *when* it's practised! That's why it hasn't completely disintegrated. None of these aspects are pie in the sky. I don't know any ex-Mormon who has complained about being taught not to steal. They complain about hypocrisy and the magical elements.

Some Eastern Religions such as Buddhism practise meditation which has proven benefits. They try and get meditators to observe what happens. I can't argue with that. Scientific research has been done into some of that, and there are apparent reductions in stress and aggression.

Any group of people that do not accept individual thoughts and views on anything is a problem. Likewise any group that believes they control another persons thoughts or views or has the right to is a glowing red flag. Run.

Healthy groups can hold conversations on views and subjects without the fear of being attacked or manipulated.

Just mho

> Healthy groups can hold conversations on views and subjects without the fear of being attacked or manipulated.

I agree with this statement and using this standard I would argue this forum isn't a healthy group.

> Likewise any group that believes they control another persons thoughts or views or has the right to is a glowing red flag. Run.

I agree with this statement up to a point. Institutions, corporations (LDS Church) and organized groups such as Bilderbergers that control much wealth have a stake in influencing how people think. They must control the narrative without which they begin to loose their influence and wealth.

Any institution, group or individual that allows all points of view and encourages all opposing facts and points of view to be laid on the table without censoring should be encouraged to participate in the discussion and has as much right as anyone to influence and persuade others to their point of view.

There's a difference between censorship and criticism. It often appears that you confuse the two.

I agree there is a difference between criticism and criticism thru judgement. It appears at least two of the responders are the same person. It seems the judgement and criticism is beyond discussion tho.

I am enjoying the entertainment offered by those who are trying to create discord on this board. Everyone is in a different place in recovery so everyone responds and reacts accordingly.

Some trolls keep trying to disrupt people. Perhaps they will learn some facts by visiting here.

I really am enjoying the remarks of some posters. The outcome is always interesting to me.

I enjoy your posts, wondering. Always thoughtful.

I find this group has a balance of healthy and unhealthy posts. No group would only post one main thought and expect everyone to immediately follow the leader. Oh that is right tscc does.

I have hung around this site for a long time. The views change, the balance differs. Like everything, even tscc, changes.


It is pleasant to have discussions with people who are just healing, just pulling away from the cult, those in the middle, and those who have healed quite a bit.

The one thing that remains is the characteristics that were formed by the cult. Characteristics probably isn’t the correct word. An example: the leaders are taught and expected to keep others in line. They employ other members to help guide the ones lost or not cooperating and acting appropriately for the cult. It becomes a large synchronized game. It works. When people leave some still want to keep others in line. They try to employ others to join into the witch-hunt. But depending on how healed people are they react differently. Some get triggered and lash out, others sit back and laugh, even others feel the need to criticize a post, tear it apart and hurt the poster.

That is why a board is a balance. That is what in my humble opinion is healthy and has endured time. That is why this board needs to be here.

I thank Eric and Concrete Zipper for the selfless work they do to keep it going. It has made a difference in my life. I am not a mental health professional, I just came to these realizations after over two decades of posting on this site.

So we need to keep ideas and conversation flowing and try not to attack others while doing it. Ok off my soap box.

I can try to reach people through examination and critical thinking.

Any group of people that do not accept individual thoughts and views on anything is a problem.

COMMENT: Whenever you have a group that is committed to some ideology; e.g. a religious view (or view about religion), a political view, or a social stance, that group is not required to "accept" an opposing view, or even allow it in its circle of discussion. The group may "accept" the right to hold such an opposing view outside its inner circle, which is a different question.
______________________________________

Likewise any group that believes they control another persons thoughts or views or has the right to is a glowing red flag. Run.

COMMENT: Here, again, you are conflating a group's ideological commitment, and the group's interest in propagating and preserving that commitment, with their view of their own and other people's rights as related to such commitment.

Ideological groups --almost by definition-- seek to influence the thoughts and views of others, and thus to "control" them by this influence. They have the right to do that. It is called "free speech" and involves the right to attempt persuade others to accept the group's point of view. There is nothing wrong with this per se. It just means that you should be cautious when confronting such groups. But that is the same injunction of caution that you should take to any discussion about ideological beliefs.
______________________________________

Healthy groups can hold conversations on views and subjects without the fear of being attacked or manipulated.

COMMENT: "Healthy groups" are not required to hold any conversations about anything; particularly conversations about contrary views and ideologies. RfM has restrictions against discussing views supporting Mormonism because its (RfM's) ideological commitment is anti-Mormonism. Does that mean it is not a healthy group? No. It just means it has an ideological commitment it wants to preserve within the context of this particular forum.

This is precisely true with respect to Mormonism. In Mormon church contexts, the Church wants to preserve and propagate its ideological commitment to Mormonism by restricting the discussion. No problem. In neither case (Mormonism or RfM) is there a need to run. And, make no mistake, manipulation of the thoughts and beliefs of others is part of the art of ideological persuasion, and it is why arguments are presented--for better or worse. Such manipulation of thoughts and beliefs (not actions) occurs here on RfM just as it does in Sacrament Meeting. The difference is not about what is a "healthy" group, or about a group's interest in manipulating people's thoughts. The difference is to what extent such attempts at manipulation meet with facts and evidence. I give RfM higher marks there.

Lastly, there *are* techniques within ideological groups that are not just about persuasion, but are about aggressive exploitation of vulnerabilities. I don't know where to draw this line, but when such becomes obvious, there *is* something uniquely offensive about this practice and the results it generates.

Thank you for feeling the need to micromanage the post of my opinion and thoughts.

I noticed you continued the discussion with your thoughts.

Gotta go, bye!

Thank you for feeling the need to micromanage the post of my opinion and thoughts.

COMMENT: Please forgive me. I stupidly interpreted your moniker "wondering" as someone who would be open to other people's comments on your thoughts and opinions--and even, God forbid, a bit of civil criticism. (Oh the horror of it!)

In any event, I will not bother you again. And you can sleep comfortably in the meaningless but oh so sweet praise: "I enjoy your posts, wondering. Always thoughtful."

Good night!

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Any group of people that do not accept individual
> thoughts and views on anything is a problem.
>
> COMMENT: Whenever you have a group that is
> committed to some ideology; e.g. a religious view
> (or view about religion), a political view, or a
> social stance, that group is not required to
> "accept" an opposing view, or even allow it in its
> circle of discussion. The group may "accept" the
> right to hold such an opposing view outside its
> inner circle, which is a different question.
> ______________________________________

Right. Unionists would rather not have corporate toadies/spies in their ranks, peaceful protesters don't want violent agitators/provocateurs amongst themselves, and an LGBQT support group need not put out a chair for homo/transphobes.



> Likewise any group that believes they control
> another persons thoughts or views or has the right
> to is a glowing red flag. Run.
>
> COMMENT: Here, again, you are conflating a group's
> ideological commitment, and the group's interest
> in propagating and preserving that commitment,
> with their view of their own and other people's
> rights as related to such commitment.
>
> Ideological groups --almost by definition-- seek
> to influence the thoughts and views of others, and
> thus to "control" them by this influence. They
> have the right to do that. It is called "free
> speech" and involves the right to attempt persuade
> others to accept the group's point of view. There
> is nothing wrong with this per se. It just means
> that you should be cautious when confronting such
> groups. But that is the same injunction of caution
> that you should take to any discussion about
> ideological beliefs.
> ______________________________________

Again, exactly right. I'm grateful for the ideological commitments of those who advocate for (attempt to persuade others of) human rights, liberty, peace, etc


The problem is that we're a long way from the ACLU, which numbered many Jews, arguing on behalf of a KKK parade through the streets of Chicago's Skokie neighbourhood, where many Holocaust survivors lived. Even today's ACLU is a long way from that old ACLU, alas.

The idea of a principle holding universally is dying right before our eyes. It astonishes me how many people, leftists especially, are advocating for various forms of censorship and all that falls too easily and readily under the rubric "cancel culture". It's extremely disheartening, actually.

The problem is that we're a long way from the ACLU, which numbered many Jews, arguing on behalf of a KKK parade through the streets of Chicago's Skokie neighbourhood, where many Holocaust survivors lived. Even today's ACLU is a long way from that old ACLU, alas.

COMMENT: It is very difficult to separate our own firmly held moral values from the broad, unrestrained, principle of freedom of speech--especially when the opposing view is seen as "radical" (right or left) or rhetorically "dangerous." I have to admit, I have that problem too.

Having said that, part of the problem is the realization that some ideologies actually *are* radical and dangerous; and really *do* need to be suppressed. The problem is in drawing the appropriate line.
_________________________________________

The idea of a principle holding universally is dying right before our eyes. It astonishes me how many people, leftists especially, are advocating for various forms of censorship and all that falls too easily and readily under the rubric "cancel culture". It's extremely disheartening, actually.

COMMENT: I agree. (And, as you know, I am a lefty!) Notwithstanding (again), I think much of this is a battle to establish the cultural center. I don't think Confederate monuments are morally or socially acceptable given US history and what they represent, regardless of free speech. But geez, do Washington and Jefferson have to go too? And how about Louis Armstrong? Wasn't just a "white" enabler?

What leftists have to realize is that pretty soon, all of their own "heroes" will be gone, and the only monument that will pass scrutiny will be the one in Athens "To the Unknown God."

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Having said that, part of the problem is the
> realization that some ideologies actually *are*
> radical and dangerous; and really *do* need to be
> suppressed. The problem is in drawing the
> appropriate line.

Disagree profoundly. Nothing much more dangerous than KKK ideology, which was *precisely* why the ACLU defended them. If their free speech is safe, all our free speech is safe. And dangerous ideologies are much safer in the sunlight and more dangerous when suppressed, anyway. Besides, who do you want choosing what to suppress? Who gets to decide this “need” that you feel?
> _________________________________________
>

> What leftists have to realize is that pretty soon,
> all of their own "heroes" will be gone, and the
> only monument that will pass scrutiny will be the
> one in Athens "To the Unknown God."

Nicely said!

(I use to follow a lot of Palestinians and Palestinian activists on Twitter. Just after the idiotic centrist/corporatist celebration of the deplatforming of Alex Jones, 600 Palestinian accounts were scrubbed from Twitter in a day, and dozens more since on a daily basis. It is the Left, Progrssives, those who want societal redress etc, who are hurt most by censorship, and it’s a crying shame that many of them don’t understand that.)

> Having said that, part of the problem is the
> realization that some ideologies actually *are*
> radical and dangerous; and really *do* need to be
> suppressed. The problem is in drawing the
> appropriate line.

Disagree profoundly. Nothing much more dangerous than KKK ideology, which was *precisely* why the ACLU defended them. If their free speech is safe, all our free speech is safe. And dangerous ideologies are much safer in the sunlight and more dangerous when suppressed, anyway. Besides, who do you want choosing what to suppress? Who gets to decide this “need” that you feel?

COMMENT: If you start with a principle that "transcends" government, and which must be protected and respected at all costs--e.g. freedom of speech and freedom generally, what happens when that very principle is itself undermined by an ideology that seeks to exploit it in order to abolish it?

As long as an inherently dangerous ideology (right or left) remains on the fringe, we can afford to accommodate its parades with a wink and a nod, while congratulating ourselves as to how open we are. But when such an ideology takes root, and we can see where it is taking us, and that it is progressing steadfastly to that end, at some point our commitment to freedom itself requires an exception to the general principle and the suppression of the offending ideology. We can see numerous historical examples where this line was not drawn, and freedom was lost.

As to who is to make this decision, and when, ideally such things should be built into law by Constitution, such that free speech is protected, within carefully circumscribed limits. But, your right, sooner or later some individual or political force will make this decision, and the temptation will be to make it on political grounds. I don't have an answer to that. But one thing is certain; and that is that society--that is, the people--must be committed to the principle of freedom, and be willing to take whatever steps are necessary to preserve it--even if that means suspension of it when it is truly being threatened by a group whose mission is to destroy it. I shutter myself as I write this, but freedom of speech carries the seeds of its own destruction.

May I ask, what group, what ideology you are specifically speaking about?

I need to know what you find so frightening to warrant the idea that the only way to save the 1st Amendment is to curtail the 1st Amendment. That’s sooooo much more dangerous than whatever it is you fear. Maybe I can be persuaded by some specifics.


I find the most egregious examples of censorship/de-platforming/etc coming from Centrists who pose as Leftists. For example, consider the trouble, and the precise reasons why, Glenn Greenwald is experiencing difficulty in making a film about Martina Navratilova (one of Glenn’s very best pieces):

https://theintercept.com/2020/07/14/cancel-culture-martina-navratilova-documentary/

Snippet:

But the major factor that delayed the film, perhaps permanently, was a series of episodes associated with what is often called “cancel culture.” That is a term I dislike due to its lack of definitional precision and inaccurate connotations that it is something novel — it is not — but it is also unavoidable when referencing ongoing debates about “free discourse.”

May I ask, what group, what ideology you are specifically speaking about?

I need to know what you find so frightening to warrant the idea that the only way to save the 1st Amendment is to curtail the 1st Amendment. That’s sooooo much more dangerous than whatever it is you fear. Maybe I can be persuaded by some specifics.

COMMENT: My comments on this topic were hypothetical from the beginning, and never expressed as a personal "fear" of any ideology. I do not know of any current ideologies that warrant US censorship. But I can identify ideologies whose well-established doctrines and principles are dangerous, and that historically when taking root, human freedom was the price. Islamic theocracies, such as in Iran, and elsewhere, come to mind. I am also concerned when in the US 40 percent of the population support a man who has repeatedly shown by his words and conduct that autocracy is his preferred system of government.
____________________________________

I find the most egregious examples of censorship/de-platforming/etc coming from Centrists who pose as Leftists. For example, consider the trouble, and the precise reasons why, Glenn Greenwald is experiencing difficulty in making a film about Martina Navratilova (one of Glenn’s very best pieces):

https://theintercept.com/2020/07/14/cancel-culture-martina-navratilova-documentary/

Snippet:

But the major factor that delayed the film, perhaps permanently, was a series of episodes associated with what is often called “cancel culture.” That is a term I dislike due to its lack of definitional precision and inaccurate connotations that it is something novel — it is not — but it is also unavoidable when referencing ongoing debates about “free discourse.”

COMMENT: I don't have knowledge of the specific instances you mention. But, as I said, I am in agreement with your general point.

There is also a difference between civility and the lack thereof.

Also between the confidence to defend one's own views and the timorous attitude that my views must be respected regardless of whether they are factually realistic.

I have limited time to sit and debate. The few times I felt I effectively did so I was either ignored (no response) or deleted. I will no longer engage unless admin commits to not delete my responses along with accompanied evidences to support my arguments unless I am rude and uncivil as you often are.You seem to be one of those who is constantly present in these discussions and always on the attack.

> I have limited time to sit and debate. The few
> times I felt I effectively did so I was either
> ignored (no response) or deleted.

Well, you can't make people pretend interest in statements that they don't find interesting. It's not censorship to say, "well that was insubstantial."

As for the admins deleting your posts, perhaps you should review the rules.


------------------
> I will no longer
> engage unless admin commits to not delete my
> responses along with accompanied evidences to
> support my arguments

You are asking that the admins commit to violating their own rules for your sake?


-----------------
> unless I am rude and uncivil
> as you often are.You seem to be one of those who
> is constantly present in these discussions and
> always on the attack.

Well, I don't shrink from challenging a stupid argument if that is what you mean. If that offends you, there is a way to move forward: start your own site and see if people find your posts more interesting there than they do here.

But asking for special treatment seems more a reflection of egocentrism than anything reasonable.

It's the way you challenge. I will spell it out to you; You are unnecessarily rude and uncivil.

As far as the "non response". It was at least my opinion I had provided evidence that couldn't be refuted or dismissed and my adversaries simply found not responding easier than refuting.

In another discussion that seems to be a popular topic on this forum;ridiculing conspiracy theories and those who entertain the belief that some of them can be established in fact, I provided what I felt to be substantive evidence that one of the favorite ridiculed conspiracy theories is in fact real. It was promptly deleted without any rebuttal of the evidence provided.

I understand you consider me rude and uncivil. I share those feelings for you and have done so since we interacted on that other board years ago.

But that is beside the point. Perhaps the reason your arguments and the supporting evidence are given short shrift here is because they are impermissible under RfM rules--or else they are too trivial to excite attention.

Again, there are doubtless other places more hospitable to your views and you always have the option of starting your own discussion board.

Something to consider.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/21/2020 04:17AM by Lot's Wife.

Try not to be so triggered by people.

The problem Ffelix has, and you share, is the presumption that I care what you think. I sincerely do not.

Some people here disagree with me and express their disagreement in logical, coherent thought. Such are worth engaging. Others merely throw out passive aggression, which is a poor man's substitute for argument.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The problem Ffelix has, and you share, is the
> presumption that I care what you think. I
> sincerely do not.

You seem to spend a lot of time typing a lot of words in response to people’s words that you don’t care about.

Felix and Ted might have a good recovery point for you, you do seem to get “triggered” a lot. —But I presume you don’t care what I think either, and you may spend time typing out precisely how much you don’t care.

Thank you for your advice, Human. I will give it all due consideration.

From my point of view every time you and those who share your point of view are on the loosing end of a debate you bail or delete. I find no shame in being wrong but and admitting it only in not caring enough to learn others point of view and being able to admit it when you are wrong.

I am not a moderator; I have no power over threads or posts; I have not deleted a damn thing. As for bailing out of arguments, I believe the majority opinion on this board would be precisely the opposite.

You are blaming me for the actions of others. Take it up with them.

What if you believe in reincarnation solely without religion is what i want to know. Am i a hinduist without even realizing it?

Adam the Empath Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What if you believe in reincarnation solely
> without religion is what i want to know.

There is no inherent "religious" requirement for a belief in reincarnation, even though reincarnation is a component of certain religions (including Judaism). Atheists can, and often do, believe in reincarnation too!


> Am i a hinduist without even realizing it?

I've never heard of the word "hinduist" before, but following or affirming certain beliefs common within Hinduism does not necessarily mean you are a Hindu.

Because of the amazingly fruitful efforts of native of India, Swami Vivekananda (a follower of the Indian holy man Ramakrishna), in the late 1800s-early 1900s (Vivekananda was a kind of early rock star of his era, complete with women throughout North America literally swooning over him), many previously Hindu beliefs, such as reincarnation and karma, entered into the American mainstream, and were then amplified by the literary works of what we now call the American transcendentalists.