BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Anyone up for an anti-religion jihad?

 
  

Page: 12(3)

 
 
schwantz
14:55 / 07.11.02
PC also refers to the process of shutting down debate or honest questions with labels like "fundamentalist." Gimme a break here, folks. I'm from goddamn SANTA CRUZ. I vote green, and I would describe myself as liberal on most issues. However, I'm just having trouble figuring out how to channel my frustration with religion - and yes, not just fundamentalism. I'm not suggesting religion be outlawed (in fact, I never suggested anything like that). True, I suggested a "war," but there are wars of words and ideas. Perhaps the answer is atheistic evangelism. It would be a non-violent, non-coercive way to focus my frustration, no?

As for PC - C'mon. Listen to yourselves freaking out that anyone might have some slighty un-inclusive THOUGHTS. God forbid I think out loud a bit.
 
 
Linus Dunce
15:10 / 07.11.02
How does living in Santa Cruz qualify anything? Sorry, Schwantz, but the more you write, the less I understand about where you're coming from. It seems to be a jumble of knee-jerk reactions, generalisations and received opinion.

And would you please stop asking me to examine myself/give you a break. Not gonna happen any more than it already has.

And don't come knocking on my door with your atheist evangelism unless you've got some pretty good reasons why I should give up not believing in god and, er, become an atheist. Oh, sorry, forgot you live in SANTA CRUZ.
 
 
schwantz
15:21 / 07.11.02
expressionless - you really think that the tactics of the relativist are useful in the long run? I see where you're coming from, and it's an interesting idea, but doesn't that mean resorting to semantic arguments, or trying to point out hypocrisies? Doesn't that feel stifling when you actually have an alternate viewpoint?

It is clear that the "I'm right - you're wrong" method of arguing is futile in most cases, but isn't it more satisfying to try to make an argument FOR something than just to pick apart the details of someone else's argument?

And I'm giggling at Kit-Cat's post, where they talk about how "conservatives" and "right-wingers" do all this labelling.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:23 / 07.11.02
Schwantz - could you please tell me who the founders of the PC movement were, what their manifesto was, and how this manifesto has subsequently been modified?

Please?

You seem to know a lot about this sort of thing, and I am feeling most ashamed of my ignorance.
 
 
schwantz
15:38 / 07.11.02
Haus - Nobody "founded" the PC movement. There is nobody who actually called somebody "incorect" for having a "wrong" opinion.

Happy now?
 
 
schwantz
15:38 / 07.11.02
or even "incorrect"
 
 
Linus Dunce
15:54 / 07.11.02
Conversely though, there is at least one person who has called someone "PC" for having a "wrong" opinion ... :-)
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
17:49 / 07.11.02
So, if nobody foudned the PC movement, in what sense is it a movement? I mean, how can you look at somebody and say "this person is a member of the PC movement"?

Is there a membership system? Or is being a member of the PC movement like being a member of the Feminist movement, say, where you mean that somebody believes in certain things?

If so, then we can identify leading spokespeople and philosophers of the Feminist movement - Wollestonecraft, Steinem, Friedan and so on. Could you give me the names of some people who are leaders in PC thought? And any articles or books they have written in which they expound their understanding of what is "incorrect" and "correct"?

This all sounds jolly interesting - I'm amazed I've never heard of it before.
 
 
schwantz
18:24 / 07.11.02
If you're not just snidely taking the piss, here's a pretty objective (rather than rabidly-conservative) take on the issue:

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness
 
 
Sleeperservice
19:10 / 07.11.02
Gosh, I leave this thread for a few days & look what happens!

Schwantz: I think I know where you're coming from & tend to agree with you. Haus takes the piss. On a regular basis.

The fact that the word 'jihad' is in the title was something I saw initially as *humour*. Can no one else see this? /me checks... no this isn't the head shop.

There does seem to be a prevailing attitude on this board that genes have virtually no effect on our lives except to control basic physical things like eye colour. Now many of you have obviously read the relevant documents and dismiss the effects of genes on human social interaction (or so it seems to me). I find this wierd.

The Murder Moral: You can kill someone with no repercussions. Why don't you do it? Few higher species kill their own. (of course it happens sometimes but I would hope I don't have to explain in THAT much detail...) And how is this achieved? I'll give you one guess...
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
19:20 / 07.11.02
Well, schwantz, I did use the terms 'conservatives' and 'right-wingers' with some thought... I've checked out some internet sites where those kinds of views are espoused, and they actually are generally run by political conservatives (I haven't come across one which isn't, actually). Such as this article:

"The classic hallmark of ideology is all over it, in that it demands that people live a lie. In fact, it demands we all accede to many lies: that men and women are interchangeable, that there are no differences among races or ethnic groups within races (when those groups are taken as wholes, as PC demands), that homosexuality is normal. This is, in fact, the unholy trinity that Political Correctness requires we all bow down and worship: "racism, sexism, and homophobia."

Which was written by the president of thsi lot:

Free Congress Foundation is politically conservative, but it is more than that: it is also culturally conservative. Most think tanks talk about tax rates or the environment or welfare policy and occasionally we do also. But our main focus is on the Culture War. Will America return to the culture that made it great, our traditional, Judeo-Christian, Western culture? Or will we continue the long slide into the cultural and moral decay of political correctness? If we do, America, once the greatest nation on earth, will become no less than a third world country.

So I don't think I was unjustified in my comments...
 
 
schwantz
20:12 / 07.11.02
Sleepservice - could it be...

NATURAL SELECTION?
 
 
Seth
22:28 / 07.11.02
schwantz: There are many ways of advancing a viewpoint, and using the tactics of cultural relativism are only one valid way of doing this. You're absolutely right in saying that there are times when the most successful strategy is to advance your own ideas in a firm and gentle manner, allowing for the possibility that you may be misunderstood. The crucial thing to remember is that people will always be more important than ideas (ideas are bulletproof, people aren't), and sometimes the best way to reach a person is to adopt a different approach. The meaning of your communication is the response that you get.

Suppose I advanced my ideas not by confronting hypocrisy, but by asking the right questions at the right time. Questions that are posed in a non-confrontational manner require thought from the person who's asked, and making a "fundamentalist" think in a way that opens up an issue is half the battle. You can usually draw upon their experience of an issue upon which they do not take a polarised stance in order to prove that the person is capable of considering life outside a dualistic mindset, and use that as a foundation. The object is to undermine the certainty that they are right about that particular subject under all circumstances, nothing else. When they display doubt, don't jump on them and beat them to death with their misunderstandings: leave it to ferment for a while, say something reassuring like "I don't know everything, either."

The idea is to win friends and influence people. A "fundamentalist" (if such a rigid concept genuinely exists. I'd say one-hundred percent of the time that you're looking at a unique individual who happens to have a few misguided opinions that need informing, rather than polarising things into "goodies" and "baddies." I have dumb opinions, doesn't mean I'm a dumb person. I'm a work in progress) who likes to chat with you is better than one who doesn't: the former can be worked with, the latter can't. Asking pertinent questions in a timely and kind manner is just one other tactic: there are many others. Work on a range of communication tools and learn when to use them and, more importantly, when not to.
 
 
Linus Dunce
00:14 / 08.11.02
Sleeper> Few higher species kill their own.

Indeed, but one of these species has made an industry of it, in both senses of the word. And it's the highest. How does that work?

If you go on to say that wars are caused by religion, I will argue that all wars are actually caused at root by economic conflict, and the religious aspect (if there is one at all) is part of the governmental demonisation of the enemy.
 
 
Torquemada
08:12 / 08.11.02
Ignatius - We're wonderful at killing 'cos we're (by far) the most 'successful' species on the planet -the comparison with the lower animals can only be taken up a point before it can be argued both ways. Chimps have been seen to kill each other for fun/ food - if they could learn, they'd probably be using weapons, but we'll never know for precisely the reason above.

However, in terms of wars, It might possible that both Sleeper and Ignatius right.

Religions usually form a large part of early-developing countries' governments - then as the country advances, the religion and government divide so that the religion is left holding almost no real power (in the 'law' sense, at any rate), and almost no financial control either. Wars could start for either Sleepers' or Ignatius's reasons, with one being the catalyst for the other. As for which is the most frequent cause...is there one?
 
 
schwantz
16:19 / 08.11.02
expressionless - That is exactly how I tend to conduct conversations in real life. And you are right - especially in one-to-one conversations. Most people are surprisingly open to new ideas when they are gently and honestly couched.

Larger groups are tougher, but if you have a pulpit, I would imagine that STILL the gentle way would be more effective.

Thanks for the response.
 
 
schwantz
17:35 / 08.11.02
and BTW, notice how YOUR style of conversation was more convincing, even in this forum.

I guess the only place where that style falls apart (and Noam's talked about this) is in the soundbite-driven world of news and talking-head shows, where there just isn't time within the format for a reasoned, thoughtful argument or discussion. It's too bad that that format ends up being one of the only broadcasted forms of debate...
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:48 / 09.11.02
Schwantz: Sorry, but your link still gives no idea of who the leading thinkers in the field of advancing the causes of the Political Correctness Movement might be. Could you name a few? There seems to be a supposition that it evolved organically and simultaneously, like, say, the Civil Rights Movement, but even still there must be leaders, totemic figures, champiuons of various forms of the ideology. Think King. Think Malcolm X.
 
 
Seth
12:56 / 09.11.02
I agree, schwantz: the format of the news is terrible in most places. There are decent sources, but not a great many people who actively seek them out. Wonder whether there's room for a thread on this (I dunno whether there has been one already, I remember one called News Sources).

Thanks for reading anyway, and I apologise for the snarkiness of my original post to this thread. To understand my reaction (and that of many of the regular posters) you have to realise that we've had this debate a lot, particularly post 911. I'd been getting increasingly upset by the attitude of many people on the site to religion, particularly christianity. I'm a christian: when I tell people that they mostly treat me as though I'm stupid and gullible regardless of anything I say or do. I get judged and pigeonholed before I've even opened my mouth, and people never seem to tire of telling me what I believe, and indicate that they know more about christianity than me when I let them know what I actually believe, as if I've somehow answered wrongly (I guess in a way I just answer wrongly according to their prejudice and assumptions).

That's no request for sympathy, BTW. The church is responsible for the reactions of most of the people who react against it. Our history stands on dodgy ground, to say the least. I can understand people's grievances (and a great many on this thread understand yours, schwantz), I just believe there are better ways of coming to terms with the broader issues.

So my initial response to you was informed by the frustration of having to read people's comments, or even the tone of their posts, in other forums. You'd be amazed at how often some little remark gets dropped into an otherwise great post that betrays someone's inate prejudice. Nevertheless, I'm sorry that I flamed you without thinking. It's a lot easier to drop into a thread like this and throw off random remarks, especially if you're tired of having the debate.

My last comment is if a christian can relate to an atheist in such a heated debate and make a case against people who exhibit prejudice and intolerance whether they're a part of religion or not, it proves that religion doesn't always fit the popularly percieved pattern. It doesn't take much more digging to see that there's nothing special about me, and that religion is an amazingly complex beast made up of a huge variety of people and ideas (positive and negative), and one which will shirk most generalisations aimed towards it.
 
 
Char Aina
11:29 / 10.11.02
schwantz, you are making a mistake in thinking that you are not the product of the society you live in.
it would just 'feel' wrong because you have been conditioned to feel that way. or do you believe in inherently evil people? if you dont, then explain why in some cultures some things are not seen as evil, but are in ours? like cannibalism, for a boat rocking exmample.

i also disagree with ignatius a little...
if you stop religious fervour, why must you stop talking about it?
we still feel the force of the roman empire and talk about it, and it has been non existent for a while. same goes for alchemy, or the search for the philosophers stone. we see iot now as stupid, or unscientific, and yet, lo and behold, we stil know and discuss the concept occasionaly.
your way of defending religion is flawed, we dont have to give up any of the authors and institutions who namecheck gods, we just have to stop allowing them the power they have.

ps:
has everyone heard of the case going to the european courts about the anglican ministers? they argue that they are employees of the church of england, and the church argues that they are the employees of god, and therefore not subject to the rules of the UK regarding employment rights and regulations. i dont know what sparked the case off, but it might be an interesting precedent...
 
 
Char Aina
11:49 / 10.11.02
and yes, they are a bunch of PC fascists here and other places..but i think the web exagerrates that. its so hard to tell if you are screaming "FAGGOT!" or "fuck you whitey", or even "jihad!" in the sense that it reads, and so you project some intent in there.

i thought what you(schwantz) were saying was funny.
and highlghted some of the issues you were angry about. it lead me to think about the religious fervour, and has given rise to some interesting points.
we all understand the punks are never gonna eat the rich, and ice t will not likely kill a cop, and hey, i bet slayer have never killed a virgin maiden on an Altar of Sacrifice.
but, somhow, we are to safely safely on the web, in case you actually are a nazi-apologist/supporter, or a Bad Person.
 
 
Lurid Archive
12:21 / 10.11.02
PC fascists. hmmm. I can see Haus goose-stepping toward you now, the vein in his temple quite visibly throbbing.

Many of us sympathise with the cause of schwantz frustration, if not the articulation. But it strikes me as odd that declaring a "jihad" against religious fundamentalism can be seen as an innocent opinion whereas a call for religious tolerance is "fascism".

Does anyone else feel that there should be a Barbelith FAQ so that the same points don't have to be addressed again and again? We could even include the manifesto of the PC movement.
 
 
Linus Dunce
13:06 / 10.11.02
Torquemada -- my point was that if unwillingness to murder had a Darwinian root, how come the highest species is so good at it? Not the other way around.

toksik -- The Roman Empire and the Philosopher's Stone are thousands of years away. They're history and despite their importance to our understanding of the world, are no longer applicable. Belief in God etc. is -- and even if you disagree, you're still relying on a faith of some sort. A more appropriate analogy would have been the suppression of free discourse in totalitarian societies (see Orwell). Moot point though, in the end, Schwantz didn't really want a total ban.
 
 
Linus Dunce
13:11 / 10.11.02
Lurid -- Maybe a PC FAQ or thread would be a good idea. Sample questions:

1. Why is "PC" a right-wing fiction?

2. Why wouldn't it work anyway?
 
 
Seth
21:58 / 10.11.02
Anyone who thinks alchemy is "thousands of years away" really ought to... oh, sorry, I've decided not to be snarky. I'm just firmly of the opinion that you ain't seen shit til you've tried to clean the Prima Materia off your clothes. Stuff clings to fabric worse than semen, and still manages to run rings around the Aurora Borealis. Tricky dicky.
 
 
Nietzsch E. Coyote
22:39 / 10.11.02
What you mean its not just a spiritual metaphor?!!!
Fuck you Isreal Regardie!
 
 
Linus Dunce
22:54 / 10.11.02
How does one, er, extract(?) Prima Materia? And have you tried Vanish? It's very good. :-)
 
  

Page: 12(3)

 
  
Add Your Reply