Has Social Justice supplanted Religion? - Listen and Believe

[von Hapasbourg]

More like these """progressives""" used Christian humanist teachings and co-opted it with their masonic movement. This is what real social justice would look like

 

[Spatula]

When one is part of a religion, ultimately their end goal is to be a good person to go to heaven.


What I don't understand is what is the end game of social justice people?

 

[wrangled tard]

I believe in Social Justice
I believe in equality
Believe Victims

How many times have you heard statements similar to these? Sure seems like a lot of believes for something that's not a religion or cult.

I've wondered often if humanity actually craves a religion of some sort. After all most of the greatest civilizations and monuments came off the backs of worshipping a deity of some kind. I just find it odd in the age of "logic and reason" there seem to be so many people blindly following Social Justice tenets of some type on Twitter, often repeating phrases over and over, like a prayer, as if it's gospel scripture and can't be disputed.

You'd think for people that have criticized religion for being corrupt and controlling the populace, it seems like they have simply fallen for the same thing under a different name. Remember how the media tried to use disgruntled old Ghostbusters fans and reframe them and angry white non-progressive dinosaurs attacking the new way of life? Seems like accusing someone of being a heretic doesn't it?

I really do wonder if many of these people, if they existed in the past, would've been going door to door trying to save peoples souls from hell every sunday.

Most things in society follow the same pattern as a religion. You have the hierarchy of people on top and people bellow all following one main figure, even if said figure doesn't really have any power. Whether it be Yahweh praise be unto his blessed name to continue my wealth, The President, a CEO or even just a personal role model, people need something to follow and somewhere to aim, something to dedicate themselves to. But where there's one Church, another is just around the corner to take the basic learnings of one religion and expand upon them or bastardize them depending on your perspective. Things will always be like this, it's human nature, we are essentially just advanced pack animals and when there's a pack there's an alpha. Just replace the Pope with Bernie Sanders and God with Carl Marx and you pretty much have the current social justice movement.

TBH all fits in with the theory of Ernest Becker, humans innately want an ‘immortality project’ to stop them feeling existential dread (What Terror Managment Theory is based on):

Spoiler

Becker describes human pursuit of “immortality projects” (or causa sui), in which an we create or become part of something that we feel will outlast our time on earth. In doing so, we feel that we become heroic and part of something eternal that will never die, compared to the physical body that will eventually die. This gives human beings the belief that our lives have meaning, purpose, and significance in the grand scheme of things.

Theories – Ernest Becker Foundation

Spoiler

TMT is derived from anthropologist Ernest Becker's 1973 Pulitzer Prize-winning work of nonfiction The Denial of Death, in which Becker argues most human action is taken to ignore or avoid the inevitability of death. The terror of absolute annihilation creates such a profound – albeit subconscious – anxiety in people that they spend their lives attempting to make sense of it. On large scales, societies build symbols: laws, religious meaning systems, cultures, and belief systems to explain the significance of life, define what makes certain characteristics, skills, and talents extraordinary, reward others whom they find exemplify certain attributes, and punish or kill others who do not adhere to their cultural worldview. On an individual level, self-esteem provides a buffer against death-related anxiety.

Terror management theory - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Before it was religion on a societal scale (With also personal creative things such as art, music or writing) but now with people believing less in religion they focus more on changing culture, especially those with low self esteem, are depressed or have other mental health issues.

The same policy applies for pretty much any social movement that doesn't effect us directly right now like global warming and hopping on a social movement that only applies to another group. People need a reason to make themselves feel good about what they do, thinking that they'll help others in the future so even when they die their efforts will live on. While what they do could possibly eventually help someone, the effects would be minor unless you're a massive figurehead. The same thought process goes into karma and being good in life to end up in heaven. People in general need a reason to do things otherwise why do them, even if that reason is as retarded as muh social justice. Maybe I'm just self centred but I genuinely don't understand the rationale behind doing shit that will never effect me personally.

 

[Mysterious Capitalist]

You'd think for people that have criticized religion for being corrupt and controlling the populace, it seems like they have simply fallen for the same thing under a different name.

The more things change, the more they stay the same

 

[Lemmingwise]

When one is part of a religion, ultimately their end goal is to be a good person to go to heaven.

To be seen as a good person and be on the right side of history.

It's almost entirely built on vanity and depression.

On the one hand you have life ruining practices, from transgenderism, to caligula like sex overindulgance, to indulging and broadcasting every degenerate fetish, to selling sex for women, to acting overly emotional for men and not getting career in order, and then on the other hand you have programs like the daily show telling you how much smarter you are, how silly the people who are different from you are, a whole network and billion dollar lobby to your brain to convince you that you are doing the right thing, that you are on the right side of history, clowns in suits telling you how silly the people who disagree with you are, habituazing you to laughing every 20 seconds at them.

It's attractive because on the one hand you are hollow inside by the poor choices you made and there is a propaganda tower urging you to take a little extra step in that direction every time.

You don't need an afterlife with social justice, because the hell is readily apparent as soon as you leave the deathmarch; people unfriend you. You've seen what happened to others who break faith. They're maligned, rejected, their secrets are laid bare and exaggerated. That one rough sex session is now rape and considering everyone fucks each other, those are now five rape stories floating around about you.

 

[Truthspeaker]

At the risk of sounding like Jordan Peterson, it's hard to define what a religion even is.

But, to keep from sounding too much like the Canuck Doctor, I'll tell you "no" right now, and here's why:

Spoiler

There are religions where idolotry is the worst thing you can do (Islam), and religions where it's the best thing you can do (Hinduism). There are religions where only God can provide salvation and enlightenment (Christianity), and religions where the gods are incidental to both those things when they're not outright obstacles (Buddhism). There are religions where converts are forbidden from joining (Zoroastrianism), religions where they're explicitly discouraged (Judaism), and religions where converts are better than sex (Mormonism). Then there are systems which their followers will cut a bitch for saying are religions, but the systems still have more in common with religions than differences (Marxism and Objectivism).

It's hard to say what they all have in common, but I'll venture a guess anyway.

Unlike Reason, religions are explicitly about what's always true, which is why reason can never substitute nor supplant them. Religions are formed in response to finding solutions to observed problems. Solutions which are usually contradictory to other religions, but they still manage to produce the same results fairly often: social stability; action plans; societal continuity; and, most importantly, devotion.

Social Justice does a few of these things. They're big on devotion and action plans, and is fills a hole found in every traditional religion: all of them, Dharmic to Semitic, were founded before the concept of human rights existed. No traditional religion, except the ultimately unworkable Jainism, forbids slavery or torture implicitly. No traditional religion supports freedom of expression, nor free society, implicitly. Fucked up as they are by modern standards, Islam and Orthodox Judaism are by far the most sexually liberated of traditional religions; including Jainism, which forbids adultery, fornication, masturbation, non-vaginal intercourse, and divorce, and encourages celibacy. Though at least they're better to widows than other Dharmic religions.

Social Justice exists because of that chasm I just mentioned, but it's not a religion because it offers no solutions. Partially because solutions make SJWs squeamish. Marxism was founded in the human rights era, and shares many of the same concerns as Social Justice; but Marxists like Stalin and Mao in the past and Xi Jinping today were more than willing to take action to solve their problems, up to and including the annihilation of entire cultures (Chechens, Tibetans, the Uyghur) whose values were incompatible for the sake of Marxism.

Social Justice doesn't have that: there's a surface-level deference to "marginalized" groups; but no SJW actually knows about any tradition older than the 1980s beyond the most superficial, and no amount of wokeness is enough to get them to live a lifestyle that demands any restrictions they'd actually have difficulty obeying.

"Not having solutions" isn't a minor problem. Joseph Smith Jr. had several solutions by the time Mormonism took off to counter for the inadequicies of Protestantism, even though the Catholic Church mostly had superior solutions anyway. L. Ron Hubbard had several solutions at the Dianetics' stage of Scientology, even though he plagarized many and his own additions cause worse psychological harm than any prior religion in history. Ayn Rand had several solutions all the way back with The Collective, even though she plagiarized more than Hubbard and her own additions are even less workable than L. Ron's.

All religions run into problems that can't be solved from within, but they're still significant steps up from Social Justice, and these people could use real faith in their lives. After that, they can make the next step, realize that systems themselves are tools to be used, accept that the contradictions never wind up being dealbreskers, and make use of the best systems for the best times.

'Til they come up with solutions, Social Justice'll never be a religion. And they won't, since all solutions lead to problematic outcomes.

 

[GethN7]

I'd argue Social Justice is a substitute for religion more than a religion in and of itself.

It lacks a godhead, there is no afterlife or concept of concepts beyond the mortal, and it has no agreed upon theological basis.

However, it does have some core tenets, a psuedo saints/venerated figures (that unlike religion can change on a whim), and it has a bastardized parody of morals.

I'd argue if it resembles anything, it's like a really asshole inverse version of Confucianism.

Kong Fuzi established a system of morals to set a framework for societal harmony based on a series of relations between people, and it was firmly based on dealing with men in the mortal world. It promoted a societal hierarchy, such as child-parent, subordinate-superior, and so on, but in order to ensure societal harmony.

Social Justice takes this, but replaces societal harmony as the goal with societal hierarchy as the primary goal, with the harmony coming AFTER this, at least in theory.

The result is that while most religions say effort won't make you perfect but exerting it is still a noble goal, social justice says the best you can do is ensure your betters have their efforts be more rewarded than your own, especially if you are lower on the social scale. Unlike Kong Fuzi's teaching, which were bilateral, as in, both sides benefited from following their side of the bargain in ensuring their relations led to societal harmony, Social Justice is constant sacrifice so those perceived better than you benefit, meaning it's a constant crab bucket of people sacrificing pride and dignity for others, not seeking mutual pride and dignity.

 

[Medicated]

'Til they come up with solutions, Social Justice'll never be a religion. And they won't, since all solutions lead to problematic outcomes.

Isn't that like Sunday service though? You are inherently sinful, therefore you must repent?

However, it does have some core tenets, a psuedo saints/venerated figures (that unlike religion can change on a whim), and it has a bastardized parody of morals.

 

[Lemmingwise]

'Til they come up with solutions, Social Justice'll never be a religion. And they won't, since all solutions lead to problematic outcomes.

The solutions don't need to actually work. When more moderate muslims discover their son is gay, instead of throwing him off a rooftop, they sometimes send him to an imam to purge the devil out of him. Christians have their conversion camps. They may offer solutions, but the solutions don't work.

Scientology, when you're enough of an insider to be receive more secret truths... and you don't believe them, they tell you: "It's okay if you don't believe them, but you have to act like you do"

Of course social justice will fail inevitably; much like modern christianity or islam fail inevitably. You can't build a religion when you oppose truth. Islam and Christianity were built when there were no obvious holes in the truth they told. However, evolution more than anything has pierced that mirage. Too much scripture has to be abandoned to be able to unite christianity with truth.

The same holds true for social justice. Of course social justice like christianity is a whole host of different ideas and the lack of a holy book allows it to off-load responsibility for some of its claims, but some of the central, commonly held, long championed ones are the very root of its downfall: Clamping to the the idea that everything is socialization, that we are tabula rasa formed purely by the way we are raised; that anyone can be "re-educated", which is not such a nice term if you've looked read about the practices of communist re-education camps, which are built on a similar understanding. They too get to the scientology position; you have to act like you believe.

I think one of the reasons social justice warriors are so spastic is that their very own being revolts against what they at some level know to be untruths; so they overcompensate, like many of the male sjw types being convicted of sexual offences, similar to the image of the virulantly anti-gay priest.

Social justice is poised to be in a state of permanent resolution, to be permanently opposed to those who seek to build order and bring justice, as social justice, by it's definition and practice, is opposed to justice.

All solutions in social justice are utopian and unreachable and thus a constant demand for change is achieved. Though this is really not different from other religions, as the demands of any other religion can not be perfectly fulfilled either, even if it's your life goal with all your energy and passion poured towards it.

 

[GethN7]

The solutions don't need to actually work. When more moderate muslims discover their son is gay, instead of throwing him off a rooftop, they sometimes send him to an imam to purge the devil out of him. Christians have their conversion camps. They may offer solutions, but the solutions don't work.

Scientology, when you're enough of an insider to be receive more secret truths... and you don't believe them, they tell you: "It's okay if you don't believe them, but you have to act like you do"

Of course social justice will fail inevitably; much like modern christianity or islam fail inevitably. You can't build a religion when you oppose truth. Islam and Christianity were built when there were no obvious holes in the truth they told. However, evolution more than anything has pierced that mirage. Too much scripture has to be abandoned to be able to unite christianity with truth.

The same holds true for social justice. Of course social justice like christianity is a whole host of different ideas and the lack of a holy book allows it to off-load responsibility for some of its claims, but some of the central, commonly held, long championed ones are the very root of its downfall: Clamping to the the idea that everything is socialization, that we are tabula rasa formed purely by the way we are raised; that anyone can be "re-educated", which is not such a nice term if you've looked read about the practices of communist re-education camps, which are built on a similar understanding. They too get to the scientology position; you have to act like you believe.

I think one of the reasons social justice warriors are so spastic is that their very own being revolts against what they at some level know to be untruths; so they overcompensate, like many of the male sjw types being convicted of sexual offences, similar to the image of the virulantly anti-gay priest.

Social justice is poised to be in a state of permanent resolution, to be permanently opposed to those who seek to build order and bring justice, as social justice, by it's definition and practice, is opposed to justice.

All solutions in social justice are utopian and unreachable and thus a constant demand for change is achieved. Though this is really not different from other religions, as the demands of any other religion can not be perfectly fulfilled either, even if it's your life goal with all your energy and passion poured towards it.

Decent analysis, but with some key differences.

Social Justice and most religions say perfection is unattainable, but at least most of the latter reward people who try. SJ only insists you give more effort with no long term reward and very fleeting short term rewards at best.

Another difference is that the hierarchical aspect of SJ (a black tranny is more important than a mere black person for example) means the rules change constantly, whereas most religious faiths have the rules set in stone regardless what you are.

Even in a caste based religion like Hinduism, the rules generally tend to cover the same basic ground with little core variation, but rules for thee but not more me is an endemic flaw in SJ, as it's utter lack of consistent creed and ever changing standard of who is better and deserving of certain conduct and rules means moral consistency is a clusterfuck at best.

Christianity and even Islam can adapt to the modern world just fine, they even have built in mechanism for it, as Jesus pretty much did away with the ritualized aspects and just said following the basics of the moral code was sufficient (and a lot of said moral code is pretty easy to adapt to any time period), and the bureaucratic aspects of Islam (the word of Allah can always be modified to fit X situation depanding on the interpretation the local authority on Islam says it is) mean in theory Islam could adapt to the modern world if it so chose.

Social Justice, however, lacks consistent rules nor a mechanism for adapting in a manner that can be orderly or rationalized, as a large basis of it is pure kneejerk emotion, while most religions tend towards some things being objectively wrong, like saying theft is a sin and is punishable by certain legal and moral circumstances.

 

[Lemmingwise]

Social Justice and most religions say perfection is unattainable, but at least most of the latter reward people who try. SJ only insists you give more effort with no long term reward and very fleeting short term rewards at best.

In what ways do different religions reward you for doing so? The reward of christianity is heaven, the reward of buddhism is nirvana, the rewards are no less hypothetical.

Another difference is that the hierarchical aspect of SJ (a black tranny is more important than a mere black person for example) means the rules change constantly, whereas most religious faiths have the rules set in stone regardless what you are.

But that's not how the hierarchy in SJ really works. A black tranny can fuck off if they don't prescribe subscribe to the tenets and says we should listen or debate what that republican over there has to say, or if there is a suggestion that the wage gap as commonly understood is fictional.

And it's not like these other religions didn't have their rule changes in their formative years; the entire life of muhammed after conceiving islam is riddled with ad-hoc changes to suit his current needs and christianity went through many formal changes. It took christianity 300 years before it had its first council of nicaea, which created the first uniform christian doctrine.

 

[GethN7]

In what ways do different religions reward you for doing so? The reward of christianity is heaven, the reward of buddhism is nirvana, the rewards are no less hypothetical.

I phrased that poorly. I meant to state that religions in general reward effort with the things you mentioned. Social Justice doesn't really provide any long term benefit regardless of any level of effort.

For example, even Jesus said just doing the bare minimum would get one into Heaven, albeit their place there would likely be the lowest they could have, whereas you can bust your ass for Social Justice and still be damned if even one misstep is committed, and redemption is iffy for SJ while religions allow for it by guaranteed rules.

But that's not how the hierarchy in SJ really works. A black tranny can fuck off if they don't prescribe to the tenets and says we should listen or debate what that republican over there has to say, or if there is a suggestion that the wage gap as commonly understood is fictional.

And it's not like these other religions didn't have their rule changes in their formative years; the entire life of muhammed after conceiving islam is riddled with ad-hoc changes to suit his current needs and christianity went through many formal changes. It took christianity 300 years before it had its first council of nicaea, which created the first uniform christian doctrine.

Again, poor example by me.

The hierarchical aspects of SJ are constantly in flux, meaning it's critically flawed in that regard.

As for rule changing, "love your neighbor" is a Christian tenet that has survived intact since it was first coined. The finer details of Christianity have changed for sure, but the core tenets have remain the same, much like the five pillars of Islam have survived since their founding despite all the modifications Islam has had since.

Social Justice, however, even the core tenets are in flux because hardly anyone who practices them can agree on their most rudimentary implementations most of the time.

 

[Lemmingwise]

As for rule changing, "love your neighbor" is a Christian tenet that has survived intact since it was first coined. The finer details of Christianity have changed for sure, but the core tenets have remain the same, much like the five pillars of Islam have survived since their founding despite all the modifications Islam has had since.

Right, but those are the parts that were codified. Pointing to those is survivor's bias. We won't know what parts of SJ will be the surviving part. And due to its various parts that point toward constant revolution, it might not ever have any such codified part, simply an ever-evolving revolution.

 

[Truthspeaker]

In what ways do different religions reward you for doing so? The reward of christianity is heaven, the reward of buddhism is nirvana, the rewards are no less hypothetical.

Earthly rewards are huge components of all traditional religion. The pious are themselves rewarded with communal prestige, but more earthly rewards include answers as not only how to act, but how to behave in daily life. For Catholics and Muslims, the immortal soul means that troubling youself with time or status is no longer necessary, since God judges all souls the same way, and kings have no better chance of getting into Heaven than serfs. For Jews and Protestants, God rewards prosperity in this life, so seeking it out's encouraged.

The heavier and more intimate practices -- such as hypnosis, fasting, enthenogens, magic, even meditation and prayer -- can be quite dangerous, and have been abused terribly by the likes of Bhagwan Sri Rajneesh. Indeed, they're so dangerous, at least a few of 'em are discouraged by all mainstream religious figures. To the extent they survive, they're rendered extremely bland to keep the dumb dumbs ftom starting a compound in Oregon. But we live in a sophisticated world, where information is plentiful, so more risk should be explored in intelligent fashion.

 

[Cool kitties club]

Nietzsche wrote about how the fundamental ideas of Christianity has transcended the vessel of Christianity and turned into new forms.
From On the Genealogy of Morals:

What, in all strictness, has really conquered the Christian God? The answer may be found in my Gay Science (section 357): "Christian morality "itself, the concept of truthfulness taken more and more strictly, the confessional subtlety of the Christian con .. science translated and sublimated into the scientific conscience, into intellectual cleanliness at any price. To view nature as if it were a proof of the goodness and providence of a God; to interpret history to the glory of a divine reason, as the perpetual witness to a moral world order and moral intentions; to interpret one's own experiences, as pious men long interpreted them, as if everything were preordained, everything a sign, everything sent for the salvation of the soul-that now belongs to the past, that has the conscience against it, that seems to every more sensitive conscience indecent, dishonest, mendacious, feminism, weakness, cowardice: it is this rigor if anything that makes us good Europeans and the heirs of Europe's longest and bravest selfovercoming.

In this way Christianity as a dogma was destroyed by its own morality; in the same way Christianity as morality must now perish, too: we stand on the threshold of this event.

 

[Mewtwo_Rain]

To me personally all ideologies, religions, philosophies, belief systems, opinions end up at a threshold of dogma and conformity (psychosis I guess?)...

SJW's are a mix of extreme self-righteous beliefs as Lemmingwise made mention of vanity I have to agree there. However, it's also part of brainwashing (Yuri Besmenov --->Communist infiltration) and misguided Utopian over protective parenting. Most SJW's are just useful idiots for the communist infiltration and undermining of our culture, and the over protective parenting they observed growing up gave them a world view of needing to treat everyone and everything like children and to either create or become a nanny state within their own threshold.

Another seeming requirement is a lack of self-reflection or I'd even argue a devolving into heavy handed sociopath/psychopathic traits. Which could have happened to humanity outside of social media as a defense mechanism, in a sense evolution from being targets for said groups has led people to evolving to adapt similar traits from said groups. Not as far fetched as it seems as empathy is sliding downhill in recent studies, sympathy is at all times low, along side other emotional stabilities.

Most of these people could have easily have been religious followers, cultist (which they are in a sense), subverters (Also which they are in a sense), regular towns folk.

Personally, I think what seperates normal people from SJw's is even the most ignorant "normal person" has some sense of self-reflection. Some more than others, but SJW's and their ilk seem to lack it so strong, it's basically like having a rod attached to your back and a steak in front of your nose leading you through life . They act on bare impulse with no care to facts or any regard for things that question their manufactured version of reality.

The problem is at the extreme level for SJW's is this ends up forcing purity tests that no SJW can live up to which is where we see them eat each other alive. It's also why I call most of them useless foot soldiers or useful idiots because whoever is fully pulling the strings is trying to use them to force change, and the best part is since they have no real grop cohesion other than being vain about themselves, if they succeed they'd be the first ones to eat a bullet from the puppet master themselves. Using their own self-importance, and heavily misguided moral compass as a means to an end.

They are dangerous fanatics, and it also explains why they have such a heavy handed love for Islam, because in a sense they see a reflection of themselves and how they act within it. Almost like looking in a mirror I would assume. Just that they see themselves as "protective parents of society/enforcers of justice" with extreme actions instead of "Wretches following an angry violent god." Why they see themselves as superior to everyone who doesn't live up to their code of conduct, when in reality I'd argue they are not only dumber than the opposite group but possibly the lowest common denominator of any group. Sure suicidal people are suicidal but these people are suicidal merely because they seem to have no full concept of cause and effect.

To reanswer the topic title:

It's less that it's supplanted religion, dogmatic groups have always existed and in a world where religion doesn't' exist would still do as such. SJW's as far as can be seen are almost like a pure dogmatic view becoming the focal center of a cult/ideology with the irony the group can't stomach its own members or handle it's own beliefs but manages to become en-rooted in these cultist because of their beliefs it will make them known in history (Delusions of grandeur ) or because they lack any self-reflection to realize they can neither live up to its expectations or end goals in a literal fashion, it would be suicidal.

One other thing I contemplate is maybe this is what happens when there are too many stupid people allowed to populate the Earth or come together without another means of control within society. Many authoritarians have postulated throughout history that most of general society is idiotic, and self-destructive, and often times I come back wondering if SJW's and this extreme self-sabotage from within western nations. Maybe Mother nature is correcting itself from such a poor imbalance. If so SJW's would be a great case study in the future if they don't destroy us all with them.

 

[QI 541]

Yes, but it's not really unprecedented for culture, religion, and political ideologies to blend together. A large portion of western culture derives from Christianity.

 

[The best and greatest]

First of all "Social Justice" is a tautology. Justice is an inherently societal concern necessary to hold things together so we don't all kill each other over our differences. I also take issue with describing these individuals as "Justice warriors" generally as that gives them too much credit at best, and disparages the concept of justice at worst.

Social Justice Warrior(Ism?) is not a religion, more of a political zeitgeist than anything.

 

[Lemmingwise]

First of all "Social Justice" is a tautology. Justice is an inherently societal concern necessary to hold things together so we don't all kill each other over our differences. I also take issue with describing these individuals as "Justice warriors" generally as that gives them too much credit at best, and disparages the concept of justice at worst.

Social Justice Warrior(Ism?) is not a religion, more of a political zeitgeist than anything.

Social justice, is justice taking modern sociology into account, that the west is inherently oppressive, that white people are inherently racist and so forth, which is why social justice is not a tautology. It is an inversion of justice; it's codified prejudice.

 

[The best and greatest]

Social justice, is justice taking modern sociology into account, that the west is inherently oppressive, that white people are inherently racist and so forth, which is why social justice is not a tautology. It is an inversion of justice; it's codified prejudice.

Okay but if their position isn't actually just then why even give them that much? Seems overly charitable imo.