Has Social Justice supplanted Religion? - Listen and Believe

Destacado
Comandante Marcos dijo:
As for the problem of discouraging reproduction, the Shakers solved that by operating orphanages where abandoned youths were indoctrinated into the faith. The end of the American orphanage system after WW2 destroyed the last remnants of the Shakers. It remains to be seen how the Woke solve the issue. This is their biggest achilles heel IMO.
Presiona para expandir...

There's a lot to process in this; your words on Neo-Crowleyism, Hitlerism and LaVey particularly struck a cord with me and has provided me with a lot of food for thought. Thank you for taking the time to share this.

While I mull that over, I might have an answer to this last bit. Wokeness might not be " officially aware" its not reproducing in the same way a centralized authority like the Mormons would know their membership lists but perhaps this is why they are so desperate to move into fields involving children?

It's usually only the oldest, and usually as a result the most trusted, institutions that try and move directly into the realms of childcare and education. In Europe at least, while Catholics and State Churches might have the tradition that grants them the right to organize schools with mandatory attendance less established powers tend to restrain themselves to optional Sunday schools, camps and weekend activities and only very gently offer their "services" to outside agencies.

It's not unusual for a cult to have a missionary aspect, but I can't think of one that prioritizes children above all other converts; there are people ready to convert and induct people of all ages in other religions but when it comes to wokeness it's almost entirely directed at minors and college kids. Missionary activity in the form of Drag Queen book readings, LGBTQ/Race themed lessons, Bias training, Privilege awareness sessions...A lot of them purposefully bypass the older generation with little to no effort to convert them with the now infamous refrain of "Ok Boomer". Woke twitter will go out of its way to destroy heathens, but it's very rare they try and evangelize an older person ("It's not my job to educate you").

It feels almost as if it's trying to bypass the need to reproduce entirely; cut the head off the snake and maybe people will forget that there even was an alternative to begin with. It's not as if they will have easy access to another opinion if Wokeness/Twitter further expanded and their cancellation powers/ability to proclaim their equivalents of a Fatwah increased.
 
@Fagatron, this may be partially due to the intense focus on children and teens in American culture. Dinesh D'Souza, for example, has noted how in much more long lived cultures (such as his own, Hinduist/East Indian, whose roots go back into the mists of ancient time), the healthy, mature, productive adult is at the center of society, but that in America "the whole culture seems oriented around 14 year olds" (paraphrased off my head, but he said something very much like it in one of his books).

He has also noted such American oddities as senior citizens heartily pursuing sexual gratification, which is unheard of in India. And also, just look around the Farms, there is no shortage of 35 year old "men" with rooms full of Transformers and Legos, living off their parents or the government, whose largesse they use to purchase more toys and vidya. And the Woke themselves tend to live on Twitter, whining all day about muh oppression.

I wonder if it's the endgame of a teen-infatuated culture: people who never grew up trying to get people who are the same age physically as they are mentally into their cult of childishness. I can't recall a civilization that has faced this precise cause of decline-the institutionalization of immaturity to the point where the leaders are all very elderly, as are the people who put them into office. The subsequent generations have no clue how the world works, just that they know when the internet goes down.

I deleted a bunch of shit as I pondered your last paragraph: the idea that Wokeness seems to want adherents to remain children forever, apparently believing that they can live forever if they never grow up. OPL never seems to ponder the future, certainly, even as 14BLC crumbles around him and his mom slowly rots away in the next room. And he is not unique. The new thing in American society is to disregard the future-and the old-entirely (OK BOOMER!) in favor of keeping an eternal childhood going. Maybe it's some sort of "crisis cult"-the belief in retreating to an idyllic past to avoid the oncoming trainwreck of civilizational collapse.
 
Última edición:
It is, it's filling the vacuum left by a secular society.

Human beings want their lives to have meaning, whether atheists are right or wrong most people will not be able to live their lives as if life is just a random, meaningless accident.
 
Comandante Marcos dijo:
Likewise, Wokeness emphasizes the supremacy of tribal lineage in determining one's place in the hierarchy
Presiona para expandir...
In risk of sounding like "dem's de real ray-zists", I'm not surprised, the progressive movement has always been obsessed with race.
While they put black people higher up morally on this incarnation, by everything say say and do, they imply they still believe white people are superior.
 
For adherents of SocJus, it is their creed they live by (however hypocritical they can be at times) and their zealots are quick to perform inquisitions on those who fail to live up to their standards (or should I say "tenets"?). Nonbelievers are condemned in the Court of Public Opinion and punished by having their reputations crucified.
While they may not have deities, they do have saints (minor ethnic groups and the alphabet soup lifestyle people) and devils (white Christian males). If there is a deified entity, then I think there is a corrupted form of Humanism at the center of it.
 
White privilege (or cis straight male whatever else have you) privilege is the new doctrine of original sin.
 
Kacchan dijo:
I've always wondered what the non-religious reasons people would be against abortion for. What would those be?

Because religious purposes are the big one I think of.
Presiona para expandir...
I'm in the pickle of reconciling my eugenicist views with my Catholic faith.

As a eugenicist, I firmly believe that the world would be better off if congenital defects were screened for and selected against. I believe that no woman should have to carry a rape baby to term and raise the pitiful soul. Moreover rapists should have their genetics selected against and their ill-gotten offspring should be dashed against the rocks. Incest is straightforward, Habsburg jaws are bad and people who want to make them should feel bad. Also their incest babies should not be allowed to go to term and pollute the gene pool.

As a Catholic I believe life begins at conception. Making decisions about life and death of the innocent is by scripture the domain of the Almighty. Playing God is beyond arrogant, never a good thing, and often leads to truly horrific outcomes. Getting down to brass tacks, abortion is sanctioned infanticide. Wanton killing is a repugnant act, wantonly killing an innocent child -- in-utero or postnatal -- is truly evil. Trying to reconcile the evil desire to screen out the lame and the meek from existence with a faith that explicitly proclaims how evil it is isn't exactly easy for someone to do. To be honest, it's funadamentally impossible to reconcile both stances without being a hypocrite.

That being said, society is built on hypocrisy after hypocrisy, so what's one more to throw on the pile?
The best compromise I can think of is that the three pro-eugenics scenarios I mentioned are the only options for allowing an abortion, all other pregnancies should go to term. Furthermore, all terminations should be carried out in the 1st trimester before key neurologic pathways develop for the hollow sake of being humane. The only exception would be a case of 'terminate the pregnancy or both mother and child die'. Even so the act of ripping a human child apart in the womb isn't something to be taken lightly, every option should be explored prior to termination. Abortion should be a last resort, not birth control. Unwanted children should be put up for adoption, not ripped from their mother's womb and their desecrated bodies sold to the highest bidder.

As for a nonreligious rebuttal to abortion, killing your offspring is actively detrimental to mental health of all parties involved, women's physical reproductive health, and a society's future. A few others in this thread have pointed out that modern leftist ideologies-turned-faith are already beginning to die off due to either tacit support or outright encouragement of childlessness and abortion. Environmentalism is this way, feminism is this way, athiesm is as well.

I suspect that Woke SJW culture will peter out like its antecedents but metastasize into something just as pervasive and intolerable.
 
From what I've seen, I can certainly buy into SJW culture being just like the Fundie "EVERYTHING IS A PRODUCT OF SATAN! YOU'RE A PRODUCT OF SATAN IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH US!" scare of the 1980s. Just swap out demonism with forced diversity.

Either way it'll die out eventually, it's just a matter of when, not if. Because way things are going, It'll be just like the Fundamentalist scare and last for a good 15 or so years before people realize "Wait, this is stupid" and stop fucking things over for everyone.
 
Última edición:
Jewelsmakerguy dijo:
From what I've seen, I can certainly buy into SJW culture being just like the Fundie "EVERYTHING IS A PRODUCT OF SATAN! YOU'RE A PRODUCT OF SATAN IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH US!" scare of the 1980s. Just swap out demonism with forced diversity.

Either way it'll die out eventually, it's just a matter of when, not if. Because way things are going, I'll be just like the Fundimentalist scare and last for a good 15 or so years before people realize "Wait, this is stupid" and stop fucking things over for everyone.
Presiona para expandir...

This is what people call "the pendulum".

One generation, you're a satanist for not agreeing with the conservatives. The next generation, you're a racist for not agreeing with the liberals. Repeat ad nausium. You, the average man, will forever be vilified for merely existing.
 
Mr. Skeltal dijo:
I'm in the pickle of reconciling my eugenicist views with my Catholic faith.

As a eugenicist, I firmly believe that the world would be better off if congenital defects were screened for and selected against. I believe that no woman should have to carry a rape baby to term and raise the pitiful soul. Moreover rapists should have their genetics selected against and their ill-gotten offspring should be dashed against the rocks. Incest is straightforward, Habsburg jaws are bad and people who want to make them should feel bad. Also their incest babies should not be allowed to go to term and pollute the gene pool.

As a Catholic I believe life begins at conception. Making decisions about life and death of the innocent is by scripture the domain of the Almighty. Playing God is beyond arrogant, never a good thing, and often leads to truly horrific outcomes. Getting down to brass tacks, abortion is sanctioned infanticide. Wanton killing is a repugnant act, wantonly killing an innocent child -- in-utero or postnatal -- is truly evil. Trying to reconcile the evil desire to screen out the lame and the meek from existence with a faith that explicitly proclaims how evil it is isn't exactly easy for someone to do. To be honest, it's funadamentally impossible to reconcile both stances without being a hypocrite.

That being said, society is built on hypocrisy after hypocrisy, so what's one more to throw on the pile?
The best compromise I can think of is that the three pro-eugenics scenarios I mentioned are the only options for allowing an abortion, all other pregnancies should go to term. Furthermore, all terminations should be carried out in the 1st trimester before key neurologic pathways develop for the hollow sake of being humane. The only exception would be a case of 'terminate the pregnancy or both mother and child die'. Even so the act of ripping a human child apart in the womb isn't something to be taken lightly, every option should be explored prior to termination. Abortion should be a last resort, not birth control. Unwanted children should be put up for adoption, not ripped from their mother's womb and their desecrated bodies sold to the highest bidder.

As for a nonreligious rebuttal to abortion, killing your offspring is actively detrimental to mental health of all parties involved, women's physical reproductive health, and a society's future. A few others in this thread have pointed out that modern leftist ideologies-turned-faith are already beginning to die off due to either tacit support or outright encouragement of childlessness and abortion. Environmentalism is this way, feminism is this way, athiesm is as well.

I suspect that Woke SJW culture will peter out like its antecedents but metastasize into something just as pervasive and intolerable.
Presiona para expandir...
There is historical precedent, the shakers, a group of people who lives in some cult like group as brothers and sisters with sexual intercourse prohibited. That group no longer exists. Now with the catholic church, yes there are monks and nuns but the church also encourages procreation of more children so I guess the surplus ones ended up there but they are slowly dying out from what I understand unless they make up for it with Africans.
 
Moreso in the US I think. They are to the lefty equivalent to the fundamentalist christians of Bush era politics. Remember when people wanted Creationism in the classroom? Now instead of learning about God they want kids to learn about the Cock.

In the UK it's more symbolic of a swing to the left than anything religious. If anything SJWs works in tandem with their rose tinted idea of Islam.
 
Comandante Marcos dijo:
@Fagatron, this may be partially due to the intense focus on children and teens in American culture. Dinesh D'Souza, for example, has noted how in much more long lived cultures (such as his own, Hinduist/East Indian, whose roots go back into the mists of ancient time), the healthy, mature, productive adult is at the center of society, but that in America "the whole culture seems oriented around 14 year olds" (paraphrased off my head, but he said something very much like it in one of his books).

He has also noted such American oddities as senior citizens heartily pursuing sexual gratification, which is unheard of in India. And also, just look around the Farms, there is no shortage of 35 year old "men" with rooms full of Transformers and Legos, living off their parents or the government, whose largesse they use to purchase more toys and vidya. And the Woke themselves tend to live on Twitter, whining all day about muh oppression.

I wonder if it's the endgame of a teen-infatuated culture: people who never grew up trying to get people who are the same age physically as they are mentally into their cult of childishness. I can't recall a civilization that has faced this precise cause of decline-the institutionalization of immaturity to the point where the leaders are all very elderly, as are the people who put them into office. The subsequent generations have no clue how the world works, just that they know when the internet goes down.

I deleted a bunch of shit as I pondered your last paragraph: the idea that Wokeness seems to want adherents to remain children forever, apparently believing that they can live forever if they never grow up. OPL never seems to ponder the future, certainly, even as 14BLC crumbles around him and his mom slowly rots away in the next room. And he is not unique. The new thing in American society is to disregard the future-and the old-entirely (OK BOOMER!) in favor of keeping an eternal childhood going. Maybe it's some sort of "crisis cult"-the belief in retreating to an idyllic past to avoid the oncoming trainwreck of civilizational collapse.
Presiona para expandir...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Coddling_of_the_American_Mind
Lukianoff and Haidt argue that many problems on campus have their origins in three "great untruths" that have become prominent in education: "What doesn’t kill you makes you weaker"; "always trust your feelings"; and "life is a battle between good people and evil people". The authors state that these three "great untruths" contradict modern psychology and ancient wisdom from many cultures.
[...]
The authors define safetyism as a culture or belief system in which safety (which includes "emotional safety") has become a sacred value, which means that people become unwilling to make trade-offs demanded by other practical and moral concerns. They argue that embracing the culture of safetyism has interfered with young people’s social, emotional, and intellectual development.
Presiona para expandir...
 
Fagatron dijo:
It's not unusual for a cult to have a missionary aspect, but I can't think of one that prioritizes children above all other converts; there are people ready to convert and induct people of all ages in other religions but when it comes to wokeness it's almost entirely directed at minors and college kids. Missionary activity in the form of Drag Queen book readings, LGBTQ/Race themed lessons, Bias training, Privilege awareness sessions...A lot of them purposefully bypass the older generation with little to no effort to convert them with the now infamous refrain of "Ok Boomer". Woke twitter will go out of its way to destroy heathens, but it's very rare they try and evangelize an older person ("It's not my job to educate you").
Presiona para expandir...

I think that's a core part of woke dogma, though: Old people in general are dumb and out-of-touch and problematic, and young people are smart and tolerant. Individual old people might get recognized and praised as being woke disciples, but as a group, they're seen as being a hinderance to progress, at best. Hence why "right side of history" is their fundie-style god: They believe that once all those problematic old people die, the woke will finally be the ones in charge, and things will be a paradise. It's the same mentality as the hippies' "don't trust anyone over 30", except not as self-aware.
 
I don't agree. Religion has to have some sort of unified doctrine and people who practice it and identify as being a part of that thing. I haven't really cared too much about this social justice stuff in awhile, but I don't really think they have a unified belief system. The way I see it 'SJW' is a broad term used to describe a lot of people. I'm not saying that as a lefty who thinks that anyone who says 'SJW' is an 'alt-right MAGA chud', I'm just looking at the people who get called SJW and I think that alot of them are different. TERFs get called SJWs, troons get called SJWs, BLM people get called SJWs, third wave feminists get called SJWs, white people who don't like the fact that they are white get called SJWs (and probably more types of people get called SJWs). All of these agree on some broad ideas and some of them might find some of the others very agreeable, but these are all different people pushing for different goals. Compare that with Protestants. Protestant Christians may disagree on more minor things, but they all originate from the idea that Jesus is good and sin is bad.

Then there is the matter of how most people who are called SJWs never call themselves that. It's not an identity like 'Christian' or 'Muslim', it's just an insult.
 
Comandante Marcos dijo:
As for the problem of discouraging reproduction, the Shakers solved that by operating orphanages where abandoned youths were indoctrinated into the faith. The end of the American orphanage system after WW2 destroyed the last remnants of the Shakers. It remains to be seen how the Woke solve the issue. This is their biggest achilles heel IMO.
Presiona para expandir...
The answer is intense grooming of children via private and state controlled interactions. In the UK there is a diversity program called ‘no outsiders’ which is being pushed in schools. It’s by a guy called Andrew Moffat who is a big proponent of queer theory and imo dodgy as. It’s extremely inappropriate in that it is introducing children to sexualised concepts at a very young age (4 onwards.) I think wrote about it elsewhere here, I’ll edit the link in in a minute.
Kids are being exposed to this stuff with the blessing of the state. At school it’s fed to them, the NHS is onboard. For older kids and young adults the police are onboard and so are the judiciary. The BBC push gender ideology and wokeness. They swim in a sea of it.
That’s how they reproduce. It has the extra effect of alienating the child from the parent as well, and again in the UK we are putting legislation in place (named person in Scotland) that will weaken parental control over children and allow the state to remove them from parental care, not for abuse but effectively for wrongthink.
Edited to add the post I wrote on this before. You don’t need orphanages when you’re in every state classroom in the land, on every social media outlet and have the state backing you.
 
Otterly dijo:
The answer is intense grooming of children via private and state controlled interactions. In the UK there is a diversity program called ‘no outsiders’ which is being pushed in schools. It’s by a guy called Andrew Moffat who is a big proponent of queer theory and imo dodgy as. It’s extremely inappropriate in that it is introducing children to sexualised concepts at a very young age (4 onwards.) I think wrote about it elsewhere here, I’ll edit the link in in a minute.
Kids are being exposed to this stuff with the blessing of the state. At school it’s fed to them, the NHS is onboard. For older kids and young adults the police are onboard and so are the judiciary. The BBC push gender ideology and wokeness. They swim in a sea of it.
That’s how they reproduce. It has the extra effect of alienating the child from the parent as well, and again in the UK we are putting legislation in place (named person in Scotland) that will weaken parental control over children and allow the state to remove them from parental care, not for abuse but effectively for wrongthink.
Edited to add the post I wrote on this before. You don’t need orphanages when you’re in every state classroom in the land, on every social media outlet and have the state backing you.
Presiona para expandir...
So Boris Johnson is pushing for this?
 
MrJokerRager dijo:
So Boris Johnson is pushing for this?
Presiona para expandir...
Boris hasn’t been in power long - this was something snuck through under previous administrations. I’m hoping he may have a different opinion but honestly I don’t know.
 
Otterly dijo:
The answer is intense grooming of children via private and state controlled interactions. In the UK there is a diversity program called ‘no outsiders’ which is being pushed in schools. It’s by a guy called Andrew Moffat who is a big proponent of queer theory and imo dodgy as. It’s extremely inappropriate in that it is introducing children to sexualised concepts at a very young age (4 onwards.) I think wrote about it elsewhere here, I’ll edit the link in in a minute.
Kids are being exposed to this stuff with the blessing of the state. At school it’s fed to them, the NHS is onboard. For older kids and young adults the police are onboard and so are the judiciary. The BBC push gender ideology and wokeness. They swim in a sea of it.
That’s how they reproduce. It has the extra effect of alienating the child from the parent as well, and again in the UK we are putting legislation in place (named person in Scotland) that will weaken parental control over children and allow the state to remove them from parental care, not for abuse but effectively for wrongthink.
Edited to add the post I wrote on this before. You don’t need orphanages when you’re in every state classroom in the land, on every social media outlet and have the state backing you.
Presiona para expandir...

Take this with a pinch of salt because I'm getting this as Chinese whispers from someone else who works in education....

Supposedly Moffat's LGBT program is getting pushed so hard and fast is to get around "The Muslim Problem". Religion is a protected quality under the Equality Act 2010 and the government is mostly powerless to move against beliefs that while extreme are perfectly normal within Islam; especially in their epicenters of Bradford, London and Birmingham. The very same places that were trialing and are the only places really pushing Moffat's scheme and similar programes like CHIPs.

It's illegal to criticize Islam's beliefs within UK Schools at the moment; even faith schools of other religious denominations can only say "We believe X", saying "X is a false doctrine" will get them a visit from Karen's legal team. But it's perfectly legal for the only political non-religious characteristic (Veganism has only very recently become a protected characteristic, long after Moffat's program began, and Atheism has been ruled not to be a protected belief back in the Blair era) to present a lifestyle in total opposition to all religions collectively (hence no discrimination/race legislation can be invoked) and directly challenge Waahabist/Salafist doctrine in those three hotspots.

I can see this being a work around the issue of not legally being able to say "You're wrong" to a religion that teaches the government is Satanic and everyone who lives under it deserves death. Do I think it will work? Not really, I think it'll just fan the flames and "confirm" what their parents teach them that Westerners are peverts who need to all die.
 
Destacado
Debes iniciar sesión o registrarte para responder aquí.
Atrás
Top Abajo