The big difference is that religion usually believes in some kind of forgiveness and repentance. I can't say I see the same things in the current society.

Repentance — yes, galore, it's exactly the expexted action from the one accused of transsgression. Write a long blog post condemning the bitter mistake, step out from your post, if you have any.

But on the banner on this religion is not Love, but Justice. So, forgiveness is hard to obtain. It takes either converting into a zealot, or hiding in oblivion. "If God were to show justice instead of His endless grace, we would all end up in Hell", wrote one medieval theologician.

This whole thing is thoroughly medieval, if you look at it at a certain angle. While declaring that it stands for progress, it rejects the values of the Enlightenment much more deeply than many alt-right philosophers who flaunt this rejection.

If you ever wondered what highly westernized Iran might look like before the revolution, this may provide a glimpse. Feeling righteous and rejecting doubt is a powerful and addictive drug :(

Reminds me of criminal records. Time in jail is not the real punishment. You have not really paid your dues in this system. You can never be forgiven, you will pay for whatever crime your whole life without respite by being unhirable and all the other side effects. I forget which hn post made me think about this but it’s bugged me for years now

Do you have the source for the quote of the medieval theologian? It's very interesting.

Apparently it was Isaac of Niveneh, a Middle Eastern Christian theoligian from 7th century: https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2013/03/17/st-isaac-the-syrian...

I think Christ himself pushes this view in a number of fables and sermons, right in the canonical gospels.

Thanks.

> But on the banner on this religion is not Love, but Justice. So, forgiveness is hard to obtain. It takes either converting into a zealot, or hiding in oblivion.

No, it takes saying some words and then going about your day.

> Feeling righteous and rejecting doubt is a powerful and addictive drug :(

Well that explains your post here! ;)

> This whole thing is thoroughly medieval

Actually, Medieval Scholastics had a vibrant discourse from a wide array of sources that would look practically libertarian by comparison to contemporary woke discourse. It sounded way more fun too.

Scholasticists were careful though not to overstep the dogmata and say heresy. Discussing heresies was very much allowed, as long as they were considered heresies and thus wrong by definition.

Different churches at different times and places were more lenient or more strict, but always kept the One True Faith which could be discussed but not put to doubt. At least, this is how it looks to me after some superficial reading about the topic.

The structure of a revolution-- it usually begins when the rabble acts up and no authority is willing or able to stop them. So, 1 out of 1,000 users seek quasi-religious vengeance on Twitter and the mechanisms that used to inform the other 999 don't work. The NYT picks up toxic views of the rabble and reports them as mainstream, which the rabble have converted to a weapon in itself.

Most revolutions I've read about, large and small consist of an authentic breakdown in or reorganization of, society. Here and now, seems like we're actually discussing an antifeature of manufactured social technologies combined with capture or weakening of traditional media.

I think you mischaracterize these people as "rabble". Many of the vocal "woke" figures are highly educated, highly intellectual, and well-off. Professors, top business officers, high-achieving scientists, writers, engineers.

They do it not because they are stupid, for they are not. They truly believe that what they do is right, that it's the shining path to the better future.

> I think you mischaracterize these people as "rabble". Many of the vocal "woke" figures are highly educated, highly intellectual, and well-off. Professors, top business officers, high-achieving scientists, writers, engineers.

That is the actual structure of a revolution. Your parent comment is misguided; revolutions that aren't led by elites are rare and, when they occur, generally don't go anywhere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasants%27_Revolt

Yes, despite slavery being horrendous and very common there was basically 1 successful slave revolt in all recorded history Haiti. Gaspar Yagna's Rebellion was arguable as they hid and became independent. Spartacus grew to ~120,000 then failed, Zanj Rebellion came closer and still failed.

This is also why killing all the intellectuals after a successful revolution is so popular.

And most of the worlds biggest atrocities has also been done on "the shining path to the better future".

So have the world's biggest advances, from the Enlightenment, the Scientific Revolution, or the advent of liberal democracies in the past ~200 years.

This crowd seems to be pretty much against enlightenment values or science or democracy.

None of those things were really the result of some top down utopian master plan, though. The closest might be the enlightenment if you consider the rewards for book finding granted by wealthy benefactors, but it was fundamentally a backward looking "Revolution" that was based on worship of the ancients.

The "scientific revolution", is not really a well known or unambiguous label, the growth of science being a long term trend. And it's worth observing that a major part of the present day corruption of science with the replication crisis, the junk sociological sciences and so on, are the result of an explicit top down utopian plan by governments to make a better tomorrow by funding academics.

Exactly my reference :(

Some are removed from reality that it might seem like a good idea. I believe them not to be too well informed though and much support stems from the fact that these people don't know what is done under their banner. Bipartisanship in the US heavily influences this too.

Most intellectuals have identified the problem pretty quickly but they also stay mostly silent.

There are also those in high positions without the necessary facilities of course.

Or perhaps, they do it because its the ideal weapon and means of control. We've seen that "sociopaths in management studies" bit. Wonder how it'd apply to wokism.

There is no difference. I've heard that Islam and Christianity, as religions, are good and forgiving. I've also witnessed the behavior of actual muslims and christians. I would not call these people good. I certainly wouldn't call them forgiving.

My feeling is that the poster is on the right track. Ideological groups, (not trying to pick on politics, but they are usually political ideologues), have become the new pseudo-religions. As people in the West have fallen away from church, we've witnessed the rise of ideologue communities on the right and left.

You can't argue with them. You can't question them. Some want to kill off half the people in the country. Others want draconian control over the other half.

And people are surprised that the only option available to a reasonable person is to opt-out?

If anything, I think people are being shortsighted in viewing the threat. For some people in the US, this ideology war is not only about a right to speech, it can come down to a right to live. Those people have to oppose the ideologues, or die.

I don't claim to know the solution, I do know that it's a tough, tough problem.

Just like with any belief system, there are many more moderates than zealots. The problem is, zealots help the leaders of those belief systems gain more power. Moderates, for the most part, just want things to keep working and not to feel the lash on their back. When the zealots can't let this happen and the powers that be lose control of the zealots, that's usually when revolution happens =(

I don't think they are capable of a revolution at this point. Their wrath can easily be redirected. You don't even have to put up a too convincing target, small overstepping of some arbitrary social rule is enough.

> I've heard that Islam and Christianity, as religions, are good and forgiving. I've also witnessed the behavior of actual muslims and christians. I would not call these people good.

Of course not; the movement isn't the ideology.

Whatever the ideology, the people in it will be flawed and fallible human beings.

Who is saying they want to kill half the population?!

thu2111 says "Who is saying they want to kill half the population?!"

He's speaking of mostly apparent desire, not what people have explicitly said (although it is sometimes explicitly said, too). On the surface it would seem to be political suicide to say one wanted, for example,

- all Trump supporters, or

- all woke activists, or

- all conspiracy theorists, or

- all Democrats, or

- all Republicans, or

- all blacks or all whites or all LGBTQ+ etc.

(pick a group)

to be dead. But there is plenty of such talk going around and it is not always cancelled or censored by FAANG and it is sometimes even encouraged. I believe that the OP's observation is correct about a significant part of the population.

Political affiliation and religious affiliation are both beliefs. Wars have been/are being fought over beliefs. There are plenty of quotes by various parties suggesting what should be done with unbelievers at all times through history.

At bottom, isn't everything we know really belief?

Yes, if you opt out you are fucked in the long run. It's use force on others so that you can live in peace, join them because you believe, or join them and just lie. There is no moderate option in a globalised internetworked world.

There's also the possibility of the opt-out'ers just getting smart and offing the ideologues before the ideologues off them. Which, in my view, is the most reasonable course of action if too many of these nut jobs turn to violence.

One of the main difference between Wokism and Christianity, in my opinion, is that in Christianity there is forgiveness, whereas in Wokism you can be endlessly dragged overf the coals for something you said ages ago when you were a teenager: https://pontifex.substack.com/p/no-redemption-for-the-woke

Just because a concept of forgiveness exists doesn't mean that Christians actually do any of it and some folks simply will never, ever get such a thing: You are expected to start "acting right" before you can consider getting forgiveness. Some churches will banish you from their church if you do the wrong thing, all the while claiming that forgiveness exists.

So, you know, don't be gay or bisexual. Don't be trans. Don't, for any reason, have an abortion. Don't even use birth control. Don't have the audacity to explore other religions or be atheist. If you live in some parts of the world, this stuff might be codified into law. I'm not sure how jail time for abortions shows any sort of forgiveness.

Not exactly forgiveness, but if you happen to have the crime of being poor, you might have forced religion and forced work in a thrift store to earn your charity.

Forgiveness? Hardly.

And your basing all of this off of experience? Some churches banish you so then all do? Did you read revelations where some groups are not following the word? So you and God have the same complaint. Interesting huh?

Also Christians are not the ones forgiving. You’re asking for forgiveness from God himself. They’re not supposed to judge in the first place. It’s considered a sin. So all you’ve discovered here is literally written in the Bible as a negative.

Which side do you think has a larger base of support for the death penalty or for prison reform?

I think most people are beginning to hate woke culture. The pendulum is swinging.

I think you are probably right.

Maybe Wokism will mutate into something less virulent. Or maybe the opposition to it will become overwhelming and destroy it.

You seem to have missed the log in your own eye.

Another big difference is that, from what I understand, in Christianity everyone bears the original sin. In Wokism, only white males do.

You forgot one adjective.

Straight? I don't think it's as relevant as it was 5 years ago. Cis? That's one I would agree on. I think you could make a case that "trans is the new gay", at least in their place in society.

old white men? rich white men?

I think the pattern of animosity is quite clear and nothing special. Same old, same old.

It is usually "straight white men", although the movement will readily make exceptions for Milo Y. et al.

Ah, of course, how stupid of me, thanks.

> The big difference is that religion usually believes in some kind of forgiveness and repentance

Usually? There's boatloads of sermons recorded out that that preach hate and fear. Very selective reasoning on both sides of this equation.

I don’t think the major organized religious institutions believe in anything but power and money.

What “Religion” believes in is very hard to define.

Zababa says "religion usually believes in some kind of forgiveness and repentance. "

Yes, they will forgive you, allow you to repent for your "errors" and then they will burn you at the stake.

Religion is just another belief system.

All belief systems are the same: communism, christianity, mohammedanism, buddhism, etc.

No organized belief system (includes any religion) is noteworthy for forgiveness and repentance. Such gems as the religious wars in Europe, CCP treatment of Uighurs today, the Inquisition, the Crusades, Genghis Khan, the current Middle East all showed little mercy for unbelievers.

They'll forgive you, maybe let you repent. But then they will kill you, your family, your friends and your business associates.

Gengis Khan, afaik, was not a religious fanatic, or even an ethnic supremacist. His army absorbed warriors from different places and of different religions. What he required was fealty, not faith. This is how he built a colossal empire, Earth's largest IIRC.

An empire has to be somehow tolerant towards differences between the many nations it consumes. The process of assimilation, even if forced, can and usually does take centuries.

Faith systems are not like that: they require an immediate conversion, and an immediate and willing following the norms.

You're quibbling about minor details. Khan was head of a belief system: believe and help him and you might not die. He and his men wanted the tundra cleared of cities. He did it.

nine_k says>""An empire has to be somehow tolerant towards differences between the many nations it consumes. The process of assimilation, even if forced, can and usually does take centuries."<

Khan didn't assimilate, he destroyed. Only after his death and the end of his generation of warriors, was his former empire "assimilated" by groups lucky(?) enough to be alive.

The words "tolerant" and "assimilation" have no place when speaking of the advancement of Gengis Khan's armies out of Mongolia.

Just like "faith systems" today have no tolerance, accept no "repentance" and refuse "assimilation".

Well current society has chosen "struggle sessions". You get forgiveness if you voluntarily admit to some sin and only then if the sin is mild. If you're found out without coming forth with your sins first, you're excommunicated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session

Isn't that the same way religion works? Confession and atonement for minor transgressions, "legal" punishment otherwise?

You should generalize that to "aggressively ideological society".

It doesn't matter what the ideology is based upon. It's the aggression that matters.

And the "solipsism" too, I guess. If that term can be applied to societies. I mean, when the hivemind detaches from all evidence, insulated from reality, self-affirming, self-amplifying, purity-seeking. Modern social media is, of course, great for achieving that.

Theocracy isn't religion at all. It's politics that assume a religious veneer, similar to how nationalism assumes a historical veneer. (And honestly... most 'aggressive' religions are really nothing BUT politics.)

The idea is that a theocracy forces religious norms on its subjects by the force of the state.

The contrast I'm making is that the state in the U.S. does not do that, but citizens themselves seem to act coercively and force the norms of their faith on anyone who voices any doubts loudly enough.

Totally agree. What's interesting is that "antiracism" (i.e. neoracism) has analogous tenets and catechisms of a secular religion. They even reinvented original sin.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/antiracism-our-flawed-new-reli...

> What good is the First Amendment if citizens themselves see free speech as a dangerous transgression?

Well, first and foremost, the First is about the government interfering with speech. I don't think that applies to what you're complaining about, which appears to be an increase of intolerance of intolerance.

And your usage of "religious" to those of that ilk is sloppy whataboutism. Religion is about believing is something that can't be proven, and countless atrocities have occurred in its name. Equating that to somebody who says "black lives matter" and believes that to be true is flat out dishonest.

Minor but important quibble; religion is about what cannot be disproven. It can potentially be proven (if we ever encounter an alien species that, for example, has a document fundamentally identical to the Qur'an, the weight of evidence would swing quite heavily, I think anyone would agree).

In that framework, the people comparing wokism to a religion might point out several unfalsifiable beliefs that it's adherents generally hold. For an example of a fairly common one, "[inequality] is the result of discrimination."

Minor quibble: religion is about social control, i.e., God says you can do this but not that.

I'm not trying to attack religion (happy to do that elsewhere), just trying to clarify the language being used. Specifically, this game of calling people who believe in a certain morality religious is dishonest. Just because I believe that all people should be treated equally regardless of race, creed, color, gender, sexuality, nationality, etc -- that doesn't make me religious. I hope at worst it makes me avoid being a "bad person".

> "[inequality] is the result of discrimination."

That's playing with words. If we can agree that discrimination exists then that clearly impacts "equality".

As to the nit about religion -- I was trying to be polite. Religion really exists because people were really ignorant in the beginning and wanted answers to the questions of life. Then it became a self-sustaining self-serving organization that exists because "god".

I'd posit that almost all religious people are of their faith because their parents were of that faith. Then it's turtles all the way up.

It's always the loudest few. I've read takes from conservatives in favor of BLM, racial justice, queer rights, etc from conservative principles. The "conservatives" who go feral over any queer representation in media or even discussing reparations probably don't represent the majority numerically, but the silence of the rest (probably out of fear) makes it hard to say they aren't, essentially, representatives.

I try to do right from my "side," but sometimes it's scary when popular checkmarked people on Twitter call for genocides of "red" states, where I happen to live, to thunderous applause.

I personally am entirely fine with queer people (some of my closest relatives and friends are queer), I think that racism is wrong due to many reasons, and certainly I'm totally fine with immigrants because this is how America came to be and later became great.

What I see as troubling is the "cancel culture", the force of the righteous mob. I believe that a society with more justice and grace than we have now can be built entirely without it, and that the intolerant fighters for inclusion and tolerance make the prospects of building such a society weaker.

You can't force people to be just, loving, and caring. You can force them feign that, but I suppose you very well understand how fraught such a society would be. There is a number of historical examples, all sad.

At the risk of self-promotion, I found some cause for empathy for the crusader types when writing about the subject:

"They’re mostly people whose elders, the people who might guide them to a fierce but strategic advocacy, were murdered by police or mob violence, thrown in prison for bullshit reasons, or allowed to die in a plague. If you can bring empathy for the guy who got fired from Google for circulating a paper that made his colleagues uncomfortable, you can bring it for people who are dealing with a strange world with no one to talk to who gets what they’re going through."

https://viewfinderfox.com/history-is-canceled/

This is the part where I'd anticipate a crusader type accusing me of infantalizing people if I were on Twitter. I don't think it's entirely people who have no guidance + people taking up their cause (often without asking), but I think it's a large part of it. Some of it, maybe most of it, is Well-Meaning Allies causing a lot of noise while not listening to the people they're trying to help. I had a cis woman on Twitter lecture me on nonbinary identity because she didn't realize I was describing my own experience. I think that type is what most people get annoyed at, and sometimes their anger/fear has splash damage on people who didn't ask for that help.

Indeed. The fury of revenge is totally understandable, but also not very constructive; it did a lot of sad things throughout history.

The founders of great spiritual movements, Buddha, Christ, Muhammad, all warned against revenge and called for forgiveness (even though Quran calls more to the due process and justice while gospels call to radical forgiveness). This is easy to understand rationally: a society with a lot of revenge keeps killing itself and keeps nurturing cruelty. Such societies tend to not survive for long.

I'm very sorry for all the Black, queer, Jewish, Arabian, East Asian, etc people who were victims of bitter oppression. I adore those of them who struggle for justice, cessation of oppression, peace, and reconciliation with the rest of the society. But I would not join those of them who strive for a war and a revenge.

Fighting against a powerful enemy, it's important to be watchful and not become the enemy's mirror image. I hope the people among them who possess more wisdom and compassion will eventually help most of them choose a better path.

Who do you think is fighting for war and revenge?

The OP is referring to issus which are faced by LGBTQI rights advocacy. Who do you think they're waging war on? How many people has radical gay rights murdered recently?

Fortunately, LGBTQ struggle is mostly avoids destruction and wounds from either side. Unfortunately, mass street protests very often do not. Even if every participant of such a protest had a very good reason to feel infuriated and destroyed stuff because of that, I say that it's not good for them, it's corrupting them. AFAIK Rosa Parks didn't break a single window.

The lure to use the fury of the crowd gathered for a just cause is always strong for their leaders. Holding this fury back and not allowing it to turn the gathering into a riot is always hard work for those leaders who strive for a non-agressive way to protest.

Same applies online.

So, again, which gay rights protests has this happened at recently?

Or is this that thing where shop windows are more important then lives?

More important than lives, no. Important nonetheless.

Perhaps you can name some people who fell victim to "cancel culture" who weren't utterly despicable people. Cancel culture is an utterance that seems to lack a singular clear definition.

When someone tells others to vote with their wallets against something that is contrary to their own interests if a conservative is effected by people's free choice not to associate with him we are told its "cancel culture" likewise when someone hires someone nearly entirely for their image then no longer desires to be associated with their former hire's flagging popularity which is flagging precisely because of their own bad behavior.

J.K. Rowling.

She seems to have survived the cancel mob, but not for lack of trying on their part.

You could imagine how someone with less clout than her wouldn't have fared as well.

In a long winded fashion what she said could reasonably be interpreted as trans women aren't women. While she doesn't support discrimination against people on the basis of being trans she is promoting the same thought process that is pervasively used by individuals justifying discriminating against trans people.

Imagine if someone said its totally wrong to put Jewish people in camps, after all they deserve the same rights as you and I, but maybe they really did cause us to lose WWI...

There are people who really are just mistaken and then there are others who are weaponizing this strategy to minimize their obvious racism.

I think she is merely incorrect not malicious but the reaction is easy to understand and it absolutely has to do with the size of her megaphone not just what she said. Someone who wasn't the world famous author of Harry Potter just wouldn't have got the same reaction in the first place.

JK rowling has a billion dollars and a bright future despite the reaction to her views. Can you give me an example of some people who have actually and in fact been canceled?

Protecting billionaires from people saying mean things about them on twitter doesn't seem like a worthy cause.

  "In a long winded fashion what she said could reasonably be interpreted as trans women aren't women."

Wasn't she saying that trans women have a possible biological advantage over non-trans women in performance sports such as weightlifting?

Isn't that a fair question to be asking and within the realm of scientific plausibility?

The frenzied cancel mob attacking her on Twitter was frankly insane. The fact that you need to be a billionaire to survive that and speak (or earnestly question) the truth is not good.

This is not even close to all she said on the topic. I think the biggest issue is her She support of an unapologetic bigot Maya Forstater but that is neither the beginning nor the end of her commentary on the topic and she ended up with her foot firmly planted in her own mouth. She not trans activists is the cause of her own discontent.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/j-k-rowling-s-maya-for...

I skimmed the article. Is the issue that JK Rowling thinks the terms men and women should refer to sex and not gender? That seems to be the basis for her tweet in support of Maya. Isn't this a widely held view in the general population? I mean, she's neither right nor wrong. Man/woman can refer to either sex or gender depending on the context, and appreciating that is in line with reality.

I think JK Rowling's main point is that trans activists conflate sex and gender and this creates unfair outcomes in areas like sports, not to mention there's a deeply anti-science bent to it (for example denying that trans women have any biological advantages).

For being one of the few cultural mainstream voices speaking against those aspects in particular, despite the vitriol she receives, I think she's brave and I appreciate that.

Some people, not so much you, but people in general who are uncomfortable with the larger sexual identity issues prefer to focus on the woman's sport's angle because its comfortingly simple and avoids the things that make people uncomfortable.

Maya didn't have her contract renewed because she said things like the senior director of Credit Suisse was "a man who likes to express himself part of the week by wearing a dress"

Not for advocating for fairness in woman's sports.

To be clear as far as athletics. Trans people make up 0.5% of the population. The female->male portion is most apt to experience on average a measurable disadvantage while the male->female portion if they start hormones when it is medically advisable to do so wont experience the same clear average advantage as a male athlete who simply declared himself a female one day and switched teams.

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/trans-women-retain-a...

From the British Journal of Sports Medicine

> “For the Olympic level, the elite level, I'd say probably two years is more realistic than one year,” said the study's lead author, Dr. Timothy Roberts, a pediatrician and the director of the adolescent medicine training program at Children's Mercy Hospital in Kansas City, Missouri. “At one year, the trans women on average still have an advantage over the cis women," he said, referring to cisgender, or nontransgender, women.

> For the first two years after starting hormones, the trans women in their review were able to do 10 percent more pushups and 6 percent more situps than their cisgender female counterparts. After two years, Roberts told NBC News, “they were fairly equivalent to the cisgender women.”

It's a tempest in a teapot. All things being equal you are likely to end up with a small percentage of woman's athletics being trans women and nothing else changes. This is especially true of school athletics which are after all supposed to be for the betterment of the student body as opposed to for objective success.

The science of women's sports performance is more complex than that. For a more complete explanation I recommend listening to this episode of The Real Science of Sport podcast.

https://play.acast.com/s/f3fb5c75-b943-4f5d-bd87-27c91611dd2...

Believing "trans women aren't women" isn't "despicable", it's what everyone believed only 50 years ago, and what most people alive still believe. It's not even despicable if they were a minority.

The only reason the phrase TWAW exists is as an ideological counter to "trans women are men". They're really not either one, and saying trans women are women, full stop, is just an indefensible position.

You got your example. Do you agree that she should get hate for proposing her position?

She deserved strong negative feedback on that issues. Given same she doubled down. If you believe trans rights are important then its perfectly logical for example to boycott her books/movies. Which is to say she deserved to be canceled. By which I mean people simply vote with their wallets not to give her any more money. This doesn't infringe on her rights to live her life as she chooses she will just have to do so with less of other people's money.

This is fundamentally a different question from should someone hate her or say hateful things to her. Anything that stirs up strong emotions and reaches millions will result in both reasonable dialogue and insane screeching. The people who reasonably disagree with her can't do anything about the nutjobs nor are they responsible for same.

> Which is to say she deserved to be canceled

I disagree, because she doesn't want to strip anyone of any rights. I think people scolding others on these issues could seriously profit from a bit of headwind.

If you cannot be convinced to let people have their standpoints, I am for canceling you. Believe me, I would not enjoy it like you do.

I'd be remiss if I didn't speak up against this sub-thread. I mostly lurk here...but as you can see from my short post history...there was a point in 2019 when I didn't understand what was so wrong -- and SO dehumanizing -- about JK Rowling's actions.

I now see them for the attacks that they are.

Unfortunately...it took overcoming my repression, a lot of soul searching, and a lot of educating myself about all manner of topics in orbit of trans people.

I'm proud to say I'm a trans woman. J.K. Rowling and her hate-mob would like to see a genocide of anyone like me.

If you're earnestly interested in learning more, here's a recent-and-relevant video essay on just that topic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQ2s_bjMpZY

PLEASE do not be another hate-mob to her, because after all, that's what we're all proclaiming our disgust with in this thread.

I truly wish everyone reading this could see it from my perspective...and I wouldn't wish --on anyone-- the suffering that entails.

Ignorance may well be bliss, but if things had stayed the same, I'd be hating who I turned into. ♥

Edit: Ooh, and for those earnestly edifying themselves, explore "Falsehoods about Gender 1 + 2", found here: https://github.com/kdeldycke/awesome-falsehood#human-identit... -- I think you'll find out the edge cases are far greater in scope than we (even yours truly, previously) presume.

Her opposition to trans rights is enough to term her despicable, her blatant and repeated use of racial, ethnic, and cultural stereotypes in her body if work is also rather bad.

I want to explore a hypothetical to understand your perspective a bit better.

Let's say the only thing she said on the topic was that she thought trans women shouldn't be allowed in competitive women sports because they probably have a biological advantage over non-trans women, or at least that there's insufficient evidence that they do not.

Would this be enough to justify the label of "despicable" in your mind?

No, it's not. But that's a pretty ridiculous hypothetical, very few people who aren't actually transphobic care so much and spend so much time griping about such a miniscule issue.

You keep saying this but that isn't close to the only thing she said on the topic nor was it the genesis of any of the drama surrounding the issue. If you haven't read more on the issue it purely down to ignorance but if you have its not an honest portrayal of the issues.

No, in the first sentence I clearly stated that it was a hypothetical. I wanted to see if that particular subset of what she has said is enough to classify her as "despicable".

> Perhaps you can name some people who fell victim to "cancel culture" who weren't utterly despicable people.

Off the top of my head: Scott Aaronson, Scott Alexander, Richard Stallman, Eric S Raymond. I could list more if I could be bothered to research it.

Thank you those are some reasonable examples. So in your opinion how do we separate the notion of pulling down legitimate bad apple's and trying to punish thought crime.

Dixie Chicks

They wont call it cancel culture because they were "canceled" by conservatives. Although they experienced substantial fall out for not supporting the Iraq War a move that now looks prescient they ultimately recovered.

They did a world tour in 2016 that sold out stadiums then did the Country Music Awards. In 2019 they released a new album and reportedly sold 33 million albums.

Also the idea that "cancel culture" is even a left-wing thing is laughable.

There is not a week that goes by that a conservative group of some stripe is not calling for the boycott of something or someone. There hasn't been a year that has gone by that this is not the case - anyone who grew up in the 90s would remember that this was generically video games in response to every social issue, then specific developers, before that it was comic books. For some reason in the 80s it was the imagined cabal's of Satan worshipers and the very real lives which were ruined by it in an actual way (they went to jail).

Historically that is undoubtedly correct. Doesn't mean you should repeat that mistake for your own party.

Anyone remember Milo Yiannapolous?

Milo in 2018

"I can't wait for vigilante squads to start gunning journalists down on sight"

2 days later when 5 are killed at the Capitol Gazette

"jk"

Then there was the article he wrote ""Birth Control Makes Women Unattractive and Crazy" where he argued that the pill made women fat crazy and promiscuous and then declared his birthday "World Patriarchy Day"

Then the time he said that being gay was "a lifestyle choice guaranteed to bring pain and unhappiness." Just reroll as hetrosexual folks!

Then there was the time he said it was OK for sexually mature 13 year olds to have sex with adults then claimed being the victim of sexual abuse made him say it. He also said abuse victims were "whinging selfish brats" for "suddenly" remembering they were abused, and "suddenly" deciding it was a problem, 20 years after the abuse occurred.

How about the fact that he used his tenure at Breitbart to court white supremacists and promote their views.

He was canceled in fact by none other than Breitbart not for this of course but for the pedophile comments which was apparently a bridge too far.

Is this an example "cancel culture" gone too far?

>where he argued that the pill made women fat crazy and promiscuous

I'm not aware of psychological side effects, but weight gain while taking the most common form of birth control pills is expected and normal. At least that's what the doctor told my wife and I.

Milo was basically a professional troll though. His banning was inevitable.

He's not merely a professional troll he's a dishonest, hostile, malicious person who has made the world a worse place by being born into it.

No offense intended, but people like you fed the troll. He obviously didn't believe a damn thing he wrote. You made him everything he became. Also, I would argue that every single person born into this world has made it a worse place. Where man stands, he leaves damage.

Well, he obviously knew where to poke. I think his banning was an overreaction. People could have opted no to listen to him. But he knew what sentiment was moving people, therefore he had quite a following.

I was mostly just referencing him being famously cancelled by the right....

give up the "side" and the labels like "conservatives" and "red states". those are cognitive traps.

you'll never be able to reconcile all the beliefs of a "side" with your own, or another side with your "opponents", so are relegated to either paralysis by cognitive dissonance or selective rationality.

most people are generally decent and most people have some odd beliefs and proclivities. that's just life. it's not reducible to some "sides", much less two sides, no matter what the dominant mediopolitical narratives want you to believe.

two sides are chosen by tribal groups like political parties because it simplifies the quest for power. 2 is the lowest common denominator of power, and it's chosen exactly to simplify choices, and neatly bypass the inherent frictions of nuance and humanity. it's done for power, not to realistically represent the world or to cleanly align with your beliefs. instead, each side exerts pressure on you to conform to it (that is, coalescing its own power). in exchange, you get little random hits of dopamine, which is oddly as lopsided as it is surprisingly effective.

It's not the political parties. They're as much victims of this as the rest of us [0].

It's social media, optimising for "engagement". The most engaging content is not the normal, run-of-the-mill commentary from normal people with normal opinions. It's the far-out nut-job stuff that makes you mad. So that's what get prioritised in your feed.

I signed off of Twitter and was able to completely ignore it while being publicly abused on it. I've recently uninstalled Facebook and my rage at the culture wars has subsided noticeably. Now it's just Imgur and HN that spark this. I'm working on getting off here too (unsuccessfully).

The vast majority of people (I think, I have no proof) are not zealots for the cause (any cause). But the self-censorship effect of our society-wide Purity Spiral[1] means that we never hear from them. We hear the worst, most deranged, opinions out there first because human psychology isn't suited to this kind of situation.

I think the answer is to stop optimising for engagement, because we can't hack human psychology.

[0] I can't find it now, but there is a blog post out there explaining how politicians are getting hurt by the increasing extremism. The need to be more extreme than your rivals in your gerrymandered district where any sign of "weakness" or ambiguity can be taken advantage of on social media isn't good for politicians either.

[1] https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Purity%20Spi...

i’m sorry, no, political parties are not victims insofar as they were unaware of those dynamics. political parties aim to amass power and if that requires becoming more extreme, so be it, in the logic of the party in-group, no matter how they lament outwardly.

social media does distort towards the extremes but that’s marginal, only flattening the distribution of opinions, not fundamentally changing the distribution’s shape. the real problem is the mediopolitical machine amplifying certain of those opinions and ignoring others in service of its own pursuit of power.

Awful bigotry.

Please explicate what precisely you mean by bigotry.

56% of Republicans believe the Qanon conspiracy is partly or entirely true.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/09/02/majority-o...

60% of them believe in imaginary voter fraud and support undemocratically overturning the election. 43% of them would support doing so via a military coup as long as someone else does it and it doesn't overmuch interfere with their beer drinking.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/11/military-cou...

Please note that this is from 2015 long before any claims of election fraud could have been informed by any real concerns. The desire for violent over throw of the government generated the fake election fraud concerns not the other way around.

A former general has a public event where he openly discussed the merits of overthrowing our government like Myanmar.

https://newrepublic.com/article/162586/michael-flynn-trump-m...

There is little difference in my mind between Hitlers supporters in the 30s and Trumps supporters in the 2020s and in the modern day Republican party if you aren't a Trump supporter you aren't welcome near anywhere.

I mean precisely the dictionary definition: intolerance towards those who hold a different opinion.

If what you call opinions can be broken down into those we have judged true and false, moral and immoral, promoting of peace and justice or liable to breed hate and death why on earth would anyone be expected to tolerate equally the expression of opinions that by their own standards were evil and destructive as those they viewed as good and constructive.

I tolerate your ability to possess either because by no means do I count myself the master of your mind or soul but that doesn't mean that I will tolerate the idea of your opinion running unopposed. Subject to the rules of this forum I will happily call it out.

Perhaps you can tell me what part of what I said was objectively wrong? More than half of your fellows believe that a satanic cabal of pedos has stolen the country and almost half want the military to end democracy in the name of saving it and install a reality TV star.

Who is this "we" doing the judging of true and false? People of good conscience have debated weighty issues like political philosophy for thousands of years. Thinking that one half of the country is good and true and the other is hateful and evil is simplistic and wrong (I would go so far as to say that it is a form of evil.)

Republicans aren't half of the country any longer a mere 29% identify as Republicans and another 15% identify as independents who lean right.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/06/02/in-changing-...

50-60% of that shrinking minority espouse beliefs that are crazy, dangerous, or both. Members of that shrinking minority are losing control of this nation and they are taking it badly. With shifting demographics voter suppression and disinformation isn't going to be sufficient to retain control and they are going to choose between violence and irrelevance and I don't think they will willingly choose irrelevance.

Using your numbers, it adds up to 44%. Dismissing my point because 44% is less than 50% is unwarranted.

Rounding. More relevant only 29% are willing to call themselves republicans.

To your point, I also am no longer willing to call myself progressive, or even "left-wing"....I don't want to be confused with the youthful, thoughtless, destructive, mob...and I'm a European anarcho-communist, so hopefully that means something. :-P I think in this regard, many, many, many people on both the "right" and "left" are in agreement.

Every time I’m tempted to actually get involved in the left-wing causes I support, I read something like this.

You’re saying there’s no difference between my Mom and Dad, and the Nazis. There’s no difference between my sister and the Nazis. There’s no difference between my in-laws and the Nazis.

Seriously. This is why people hate the Democrats, even though they agree with them in most issues.

I don’t care if we agree on everything. I’d never vote for someone who said the things you just did about my family.

Do you expect that the Nazis were uniquely evil? What trends in German society made them 'evil' that we lack?

Ordinary people are capable of great evil when they limit their sphere of empathy.

Most of the people are neither heroes nor monsters. The atrocities committed by the Nazis were committed by a minority of the population and ignored or tolerated by the majority of folks like your family.

I am deeply sorry that your family has fallen in line behind evil and hate because they simply cannot tell the difference between evil that tells them what they want to hear and decency that tells them things that make them uncomfortable. For you I hope that their innate quality as human beings enables them someday to see through the con and I hope you continue to love them regardless for the qualities they possess that are good and worthy. I don't hate you and I don't hate your family.

Your condescension speaks volumes.

How is that condescension? Odds are, iin Nazi Germany, everyone would have been a passive observer.

If your mom and your dad sincerely believe in the QAnon conspiracy, it doesn't make them inherently inferior people, but yes that's an absolutely abhorrent belief that is impossible not to compare to these situations.

But odds are most of us would be functionally the same by then.

I’m the only family who has heard of QAnon. They have no idea who she is.

You weren’t comparing QAnon supporters to Nazis. You were comparing Trump supporters to Nazis.

> There is little difference in my mind between Hitlers supporters in the 30s and Trumps supporters in the 2020s and in the modern day Republican party if you aren't a Trump supporter you aren't welcome near anywhere.

I think religion is a poor analogy, because except in a few extreme cases like Iran, religion doesn't seek to create a totalitarian framework for every personal thought or action. And I don't view the Iranian revolution as much as a religious revival as a movement in the sense that a totalitarian movement must stay "in motion". The motion is the point. The revolution carries on, eating its own.

To me as a liberal it took a long time to realize that "wokism" has no fixed goal; it's more like a millenarian cult or a utopian movement that is willing to constantly redefine language in the service of forever one-upping its own followers. The winner is whoever can create the most visceral mob anger at last month's winner. It survives without an articulable final goal precisely because each iteration of the dogma pushes the last under a bus. Power comes from staying ahead of the permanent motion of the movement, an impossible task.

Similar phenomena can be observed in right wing movements, of course. But the far right is open about its hate, so anyone who demures can ultimately fall back on personal conscience. The far left uses love, not hate, as the grindstone for its acolytes. Thus any dissent leaves the dissenter questioning whether she was insufficiently loving. This kind of "love", detached from its real world object or any true objective, used as a measure of fealty, is one of the key hallmarks of totalitarianism, because it requires absolute obeisance in thought and action, while totally atomizing each member of the community into a fearful, self-censoring follower of whoever claims the mantle of radicalism and motion today.

> I think religion is a poor analogy, because except in a few extreme cases like Iran, religion doesn't seek to create a totalitarian framework for every personal thought or action.

Sure, now tell that joke to Giordano Bruno.

The left and the right today share so many traits with how religions operate that it freaks me out.

The point wasn't to excuse any facets of religion, simply to point out that there are stronger similarities in operational tactics to totalitarian movements than there are to garden-variety religious organizations, which in the modern age tend to calcify around dogma rather than act as engines of motion via constant revolutionary purges.