全 103 件のコメント

[–]ChuggoBuggo 61ポイント62ポイント  (1子コメント)

I can't speak much to what makes something a "religious" kind of belief system, but there is a parallel here.

I guess it's the idea that a person can get away with anything because they're "saved/forgiven." I see this same mentality in anti-GG all over the place.

Randi Harper is an anti-harassment activist with a history of harassment/doxing. Brianna Wu sells games with characters that have ridiculous body images. Chris Kluwe doesn't report statutory rapes committed by team mates. It goes on and on with a lot of these people, but everyone seems to think it's fine because "they're feminists?" I guess that's the modern day equivalent of "salvation."

That was what drove me away from religion. The sheer number of people that would engage in really awful behavior and then act like they have some kind of moral standing to judge me because they believe in "the one true god."

It's the same shit I see in anti-GG.

What's really creepy is that once they get to that point, they seem to target the same things as the overly religious. They don't like seeing scantily clad women. They don't like violent imagery. They don't like sexual imagery. All those lustful thoughts need to be purged from our dirty little minds.

The sad part is their actions seem to suggest they're just as fallible as they believe us to be. Actually, they often strike me as violating their own "codes of ethics" more egregiously than anyone in GG. Plenty of them seem to engage in pretty constant harassment and shaming despite claiming to fight against harassment and shaming.

Kind of reminds me of the religious pastor that's constantly railing about the dangers of homosexuality while he's out in shady bathroom stalls sucking stranger's dicks.

[–]Ergheis 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

The word you're aiming for is "justification." You can do a lot with that, and it should be the defining word for quite a bit of what's going on here, and in pretty much everything in our society post globalization.

[–]BrimshaeSun Tzu VII:35 / Survived #GGinDC 2015 / Dined #GGinNC 2015 42ポイント43ポイント  (0子コメント)

Anon's Cult of SJW post. Now with plain text!

“I was pretty strong into the “social justice” crowd. Looking back, that whole thing seems like a cult. It lures in vulnerable people, especially young people. People who are going through puberty and trying to figure out their sexuality. People who might be dealing with disability or mental illness, or those whose family is breaking up.

It sucks them in by spoon feeding the idea that they are special and worthy. It guilts them if they don’t treat everybody else as special and worthy too. It starts forcing you to see everybody as being in a hierarchy Then it gets you to alienate yourself from your friends. Your friends sometime makes racist/sexist jokes? Cut her out of your life. Got any conservative friends? Cut them out of your life. Got any friends who are white straight men? Cut them out of your life. They are oppressors. Constantly berate people if they slip up, because everybody else must be held to the same standard that you are and no other ways of thinking are ”right”.

Then it tells you to start criticising and trying to change your family. It tells you to “call out” any little thing they do “wrong”. It warps your perception until you are a victim and constantly on the defence. It breaks you off from everybody and makes you feel awful for things you cannot control, and then, if you disagree or start questioning, it cuts you off from the only support you have left, and you are attacked and viciously berated. Maybe if you grovel enough they’ll let you be redeemed and come back, but if you will never be allowed to forget the one mistake you made.

Eventually I found anti-SJW blogs, where people were actively critiquing these concepts and the SJW culture. Originally I felt nothing but hatred for them, but then the words started to sink in. I started questioning whether this was really “right”. I saw how so many people leading the crowd were hugely hypocritical. I realised that I had been causing the problems in my life, not “oppression”. I apologised to my family for how I had been acting and I am lucky that they still supported me. I had lost a lot of friends, including some people I was very close to. It has taken me a long time to rebuild those relationships. It was a very bad period of my life, and one that took me a lot of effort to drag myself away from.”

[–]GoonZL 33ポイント34ポイント  (22子コメント)

I have been saying this for a long time.

My experience differs from that of most of you. Modern day Christianity is very tame compared to Islam, which is the religion I have grown up with and have extensive knowledge of. The attempts at controlling every aspect of life by the SJW ideology is similar to that of Islam. I see parallels every day and find it disheartening that the majority of people can't seem to notice.

I have always maintained that people like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and the late Christopher HItchens fight a losing battle, when they accuse religions of countless atrocities and think that by eliminating the source, we may succeed at making the future better, This ignores the fact that humans have been creating religions since time immemorial. There's no indication that if we weaken the current religions, people will not create new ones. Indeed, new cults and religion-like ideologies have been coming to life steadily.

By abandoning a traditional religion, people flock to new ideologies to fill the void in their lives. They may flock to something like New Age spirituality, or they may transform activism into a religion. There are animal rights activists and there is PETA, which is nothing short of a cult. There are people advocating for equal rights and then there's feminism, which is turning into a dangerous cult before our eyes.

Who knows, someday some people may turn GamerGate into one of those cults too.

I used to think that people in the past were stupid to allow religions to grow and become what they are today. But I'm seeing the same happen again in this day and age. We aren't smarter than out ancestors.

[–]pieuvre776 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

I've also been saying this for quite a while. It really burns me to see people placing the sole blame on religion for other people just being assholes.

I would disagree with you a bit on turning activism into a religion - that's probably true for some, maybe a majority, but I've met atheists who manage to not fall into that trap. I have no idea what the proportions are, though.

I agree with you in general, though. I've been around the block a few times, religious and no, and I've also dealt with a number of truly awful people (usually personality disordered) and the common trait they all have is using whatever existing apparatus is most convenient to exert control over people. They don't care what the trappings of the apparatus are.

[–]silver_nuke13 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

So religion is simply a product, not a cause of this phenomenon

Everything is suddenly more complicated

[–]pieuvre776 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

I wouldn't go that far. It's a bitter pill to swallow for some people, but religious people are often driven by a real desire to leave the world a better place than they found it. That's part of a lot of these movements, actually, whether religion is involved or not - it dovetails nicely with the tactics used by these types of parasites. They get their jollies by co-opting an existing apparatus manned by people with benevolent intentions, since you often find benevolence in people who avoid conflict.

I've... kind of made a study of it over the years, just from personal experience and observation. The process is the damndest thing. People set out to do something good - or even just have an interest group - and everything works out pretty well until suddenly the McCarthyesque politics start. I've seen it in the Southern Baptist church I was raised in, not to mention some of my old role-playing groups, programming classes, hell, I've even seen it in my grandma's quilting club ("You just don't care as much about quilting as I do!").

It's almost always the same pattern, and it's almost always enabled by other, kinder people who are either too naive or too submissive to do anything about it.

... shit, I'm ranting. Sorry. Pain meds!

[–]silver_nuke13 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Interesting perspective

[–]silver_nuke13 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

I have always maintained that people like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and the late Christopher HItchens fight a losing battle, when they accuse religions of countless atrocities and think that by eliminating the source, we may succeed at making the future better, This ignores the fact that humans have been creating religions since time immemorial. There's no indication that if we weaken the current religions, people will not create new ones.

My mind is blown. Never considered that... D:

[–]sunnyta 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Modern day Christianity is very tame compared to Islam

they all have the potential to be just as bad as one another. it totally depends on the individual, but the judeo-christian religions lend themselves to hardcore traditionalism more than anything

[–]AcidJiles [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

A lot of what Richard Dawkins ,Sam Harris, and the late Christopher HItchens argue/argued for is using reason to guide your life. They see religion as the current greatest anti-reason thought process and that is why it is their focus.

[–]kalphis -3ポイント-2ポイント  (14子コメント)

Modern day Christianity is very tame compared to Islam...

They can still be as bad as each other when there's enough ignorance being disseminated in its people. Ignorance of science and logical reasoning is what makes devotion to any of type religion or ideology regressive.

[–]rms141 5ポイント6ポイント  (13子コメント)

Ignorance of science and logical reasoning is what makes any type religion or ideology regressive.

Christians have been scientists since science was invented, and in fact helped solidify original and contemporary understandings of what science is and should be. Names like Galileo and Newton should not be separated from their religion when discussing their contributions to scientific understanding.

[–]kalphis 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Not sure what that has to do with the religion itself, just because they happen to have belonged to a certain religion at a certain time does not make that religion superior. I am talking about anyone devoted to their religion or ideology here, without knowledge, reason, and logic as a counterbalance, even in the present day, you get ideologues who convince people to pass legislation to kill gays.

[–]rms141 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

even in the present day, you get ideologues who convince people to pass legislation to kill gays.

ISIS doesn't need legislation for that.

[–]kalphis 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm sure they would if they didn't have numbers for an army and controlled a recongnized government, like what has been done in Iran.

[–]silver_nuke13 1ポイント2ポイント  (9子コメント)

So did islam

Remember the golden age of science in the mideast?

[–]Iconochasm 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

That was basically killed off by a wave of religiosity, though. Some of the oldest Muslim thinkers sound like they could have been best friends with Jefferson, but they lost that cultural battle hard a few centuries in.

[–]silver_nuke13 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

You could say the changes were quite....

radical

YEEEEEEEEEEE

[–]Iconochasm 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

You're a bastard. Have an upvote.

[–]rms141 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

Islam never pulled itself from the dark ages even in its "golden age". There's a clear difference in the amount and type of contribution to science made by adherents of the two religions at discussion.

[–]silver_nuke13 -3ポイント-2ポイント  (4子コメント)

Check your privilege islamophobe

Srs now, while islam was playing with numbers and mapped stars, your european ancestors were living like pigs, smelled bad, died of a lot of diseases that could be prevented by sanitization etc

You clearly don't know what islam was before it's downfall, when that cunt king came and changed the religion from a tool of understanding to a tool of control.

[–]GoonZL 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Before the Mongolian invasion, the Islamic world during the Abbasid Dynasty could indeed be likened to today's First World countries. It never recovered after the bloody and destructive invasion of the Mongols though.

[–]rms141 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

Srs now, while islam was playing with numbers and mapped stars, your european ancestors were living like pigs, smelled bad, died of a lot of diseases that could be prevented by sanitization etc

Are you seriously playing master race over this?

[–]silver_nuke13 -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

Nah, whites did a lot of shit too.

Just that medieval ages were way behind east and mideast, technologically and socially.

[–]rms141 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Just that medieval ages were way behind east and mideast, technologically and socially.

This is not in debate, which makes me question your sincerity.

[–]StillSearching11 29ポイント30ポイント  (17子コメント)

Agree, I just call it a cult instead of religion.

[–]oconnomiyaki 18ポイント19ポイント  (12子コメント)

A cult, outside of the pop-culture term, is what religious people call religions they find absurd to combat cognitive dissonance.

'Scientology is a cult, so it's okay to ridicule their crazy beliefs. But believing in an omnipotent overlord who created the world in seven days and flooded the whole thing because he was like "Do over!" is totally okay because that's a religion.'

[–]ThaneOfTas 11ポイント12ポイント  (4子コメント)

That may have been your experience, however I've always identified cults by how they treat their members, If a member of a church/group can leave without recriminations or excommunication and if giving money is voluntary then it probably isn't a cult, oh and if people are all dressed in white with weird sounding names and they are asking for your social security number then its probably a cult too haha.

[–]Nlimqusen -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Your definition doesn´t really seem to hold up with how religion&cult is getting used in general. Otherwise large parts of even the major religions would be classified as cults (Apostates are always a fun topic with a certain group). Espescially the non-voluntary money part since church taxes aren´t uncommen in some places (like Austria for example).

[–]oconnomiyaki -4ポイント-3ポイント  (2子コメント)

I don't think you've ever seen what happens to Jehovah's Witnesses or even Catholics if they want to leave their religion. The former is far more strict, but I've see members of the latter play along, including my own father (RIP), for fear of being shunned by the family.

[–]trulygenericname1 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

(Most) Catholics really don't give a shit.

[–]JQuiltyJohn Quilty, TechRaptor 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I haven't been Catholic in years and I haven't heard a peep out of the church or family members.

[–]FrinkleMcDoo 6ポイント7ポイント  (4子コメント)

There's a distinction between a religion and a cult. A religion can be a "safe group," whereas a cult cannot. What defines a safe group is one where the leadership is transparent, doesn't engage in shaming or isolation tactics, members are free to come and go, etc. A cult has a very distinct set of criteria to qualify as such, giving it a much more narrow definition than a religion.

[–]oconnomiyaki 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

Then there are very few religions and many, many cults.

Ask someone who is Catholic how much fun it is to marry a non-Catholic.

[–]FrinkleMcDoo 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

You must have come from a Shiite Catholic Church. Most Catholics I know are the extremely loosely-goosey Christmas-and-Easter only variety.

[–]oconnomiyaki 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not sure is Islam pun.

Anyway, it's more about "If they're not Catholic, they have to agree to raise the kids Catholic." Otherwise, you don't get permission to marry in a Catholic ceremony. Which might not be a huge deal for the individual, but often has consequences for the family.

Given that I'm an O'Connor, you might see we are from a family of Irish Catholics.

But Catholicism aside, next time you get door knocked by a Jehovah's Witness, tell them you used to be one and see how long the conversation, let alone the conversion, continues.

I'm sure a lot of this religion vs cult thing comes from wishy-washy Protestants and their "I believe but Sundays are for hangovers and roast dinners" lark. ;)

[–]kaian-a-coel 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Brb, asking my mother.

Oh right, nobody ever gave a shit.

[–]KDulius -3ポイント-2ポイント  (0子コメント)

The difference between a cult and a religion is purely a number game

[–]Onithyr -4ポイント-3ポイント  (0子コメント)

In a cult there is a person (or set of people) at the top who knows it's all a bullshit scam. In a religion that person (or those people) has been dead for more than a hundred years.

[–]Pkeod 8ポイント9ポイント  (2子コメント)

Cult and religion are the same things but something called a cult has more negative connotation while religion still has an air of legitimacy to common everyday people.

Ideologues go on and on about the truth. They don't care about the facts if they are inconvenient they get pushed aside - it's why they seem so immune to getting exposed, in the same way believers in a religion still believe despite massive evidence their holy books are fully of insane contradictions and so on. Truth to ideologues such as those who are radical with social justice treat truth as a religious concept. They have the truth, their dogma, their presuppositions, and they only want facts which support them in building their narrative. It's little different from creationists who start with the conclusion and look at what data they can find to back up what they believe. In the same way religious people see the world as a facade and of the devil, the ideologues see the world as a social construct and of the patriarchy. This is sinful. This is problematic. This is retrograde. This is satanic. They both ultimately come from human nature toward altruism, which makes people more vulnerable to mind traps like religions or ideologies that are presented in a way which is righteous and for the greater good, but ultimately are ignorant and hurtful.

[–]doomsought 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

Actually there is a known clinical psychology to cult behavior. It is a form of brainwashing.

[–]Pkeod 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Brainwashing tools/indoctrination/thought reform can be used by things called cults, religions or simple ideologies, but are not always strongly used. Something as simple as excommunicating non-believers is a very strong pressure to keep people in line and in fear of being ejected from the group enough to not ask questions - dependency. The Emperor's New Clothes style of group think where most individuals may understand what's going on but have been gas lighted enough, or are too afraid of being singled out - dread. They other everyone else, everyone else is sinful, everyone else is problematic, and only those within the group are going to heaven / not perpetuating the patriarchy - isolation. People within the group may self isolate without really wanting to due to them becoming annoying to their friends as they no longer can stand sinful/problematic media and call it out enough for others to not want to be around them. Information is controlled, the dogma is already decided and is ridged and cannot be questioned, and so anything anyone says against it is a heretic/misogynist - deception. All of these things can happen online. Many religions/cults and ideologies use these methods.

[–]Radspakr -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

the only difference between a cult and a religion is tax exempt status. When they start going for that then you've really got to worry.

[–]xu85 24ポイント25ポイント  (2子コメント)

Don't forget the parallels with Original Sin in Christianity. SJW have supplanted this ancient notion if being born into sin with the sin of racism and colonialism. Thus good, new pious people are expected to spend their entire lives repenting cleansing themselves of this ancestral guilt. To go against this or to challenge this is idea is to proclaim yourself a heretic and be completely out grouped and ostracised.

[–]yutt0 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm almost clear of cis-thetans.

[–]zerodeem 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Social Justice derives from Judaism and Christianity.

You can see the basis for many of their ideas in those religions.

[–]Marsmar-LordofMars 11ポイント12ポイント  (5子コメント)

It's rather amusing to see these feminists who are also atheists. They haven't done away with the belief in an all encompassing, all powerful, yet completely unprovable and seemingly horribly incompetent invisible force, they've simply replaced the word God with Patriarchy and cited their gender studies degree, a realm of academia with less intellectual merit than even religious studies.

Religion or not, feminism has certainly turned into a sacred cow of society. With the growing evidence of how far removed from reality it's become and worse yet, with it's growing number of anti-science beliefs (gender or even biological sex is a social construct) and practices (mobbing after the likes of Matt Taylor, Tim Hunt, Dawkins, Brian Cox, etc for saying/doing things they don't like) it's become apparent this sacred cow must be sent to the slaughter house of rigorous unapologetic scrutiny. Not many sacred cows come out as anything more than scraps after that and I don't think this new religion would fare much better.

In the very least, I don't trust sides that it's biggest figureheads refuse to debate on what it's talking about. I have seen creationists have a formal debate against evolution and I have seen climate change skeptics hold a formal debate against climate science, I have not seen any feminist hold a formal debate on any of the things they've been screeching about over the last decade. When even the likes of Ken "No amount of evidence will change my mind" Ham stands above you when it comes to intellectual honesty, you have some major problems.

[–]silver_nuke13 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

they've simply replaced the word God with Patriarchy

Nope, that would be satan

Obviously matriarchy=god

[–]Tral123[🍰] 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

It's rather amusing to see these feminists who are also atheists.

Why is that? Last I checked being atheist does not instantly make one rational. This is where I get annoyed with a lot of atheist in that they confuse the two concepts. Atheism is simply the disbelief in a God. That's it. If you meet that criteria you are an atheist.

You can very much not believe in a God while still believing all sorts of strange things. So be careful not to confuse atheism with rationality.

[–]Marsmar-LordofMars 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Read my comment again and carefully in which I explain how both God and the Patriarchy are equally convenient unprovable entities used to explain away everything.

[–]Tral123[🍰] 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I read your comment, and I am saying you are confusing two very different ideas together.

Atheism is just the disbelief in God. That's it. If you think atheism=rationality then you've made a logical error. Rationality might lead to atheism, but atheism is not rationality.

That's what I am getting at. So when you make statements like

It's rather amusing to see these feminists who are also atheists.

You act as if that as if feminism and atheism are two incompatible concepts. Which can only happen if you assume that atheism and rationality are both the same thing. They are not. You can be atheist while also being completely irrational.

That's what I am getting at. Too many atheist seem to conflate the two ideas.

[–]Yesofcoursenaturally 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'd agree with the idea that Social Justice/RadFem is a religion, and I lean towards the view that it's not just a religion, but a cult.

SJ/Rads have dogma, that much is clear - dogma about right/wrong, good/bad, metaphysical views about how the world works, how humans work, things that go off into the realm of philosophy and metaphysics.

But I think what kicks them from 'religion' to 'cult' is that questioning their dogma is forbidden. To question it is to suggest that it can be questioned and may be false, and that's unforgivable - these guys don't have a mental space allotted for 'individual who questions or possibly rejects some of our views, but they are a good person nonetheless who is trying to improve the world as they can'. Seriously, it is vastly easier to find hardcore devout Christians talking about good (if very wrong) muslims or jews or atheists than it is to find SJWs who say 'This person rejects fundamental parts of our views about sex or race or justice, but they're still good people'. It's also vastly easier to find hardcore religious apologists who admit to the in principle possibility that they are wrong than it is to find SJWs who cop to the same.

[–]ExamplePrime 10ポイント11ポイント  (2子コメント)

I've been saying this for who knows how long. Feminism has been religious as long as I've been aware of it.

From indoctrination to it always being correct to zealous attacks on non-believers to the final stage of 'requiring' it be involved in EVERY part of your life.

[–]silver_nuke13 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

"You are not a Feminist (mind the capitalization). How dare something not cater to you?"

Actual quote of a cancermod here on tumbl i meant reddit, after i admitted i am not a feminist. Therefore, i hate women and feminism.

[–]Voyflen 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I find it weird that someone would use "how dare" unironically. I would add that feminists have a religious use of language which I call feminese.

[–]shitpostingscumbagGawker recruiter 9ポイント10ポイント  (1子コメント)

I remember a time when I scoffed upon hearing people say, in reference to religion and secularism, "people who don't believe in something will believe in anything".

They were right all along! Most people have a religion-shaped hole in their brains, and if you take traditional religion away, they'll just find something else to fill it with.

[–]kalphis 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Reason and knowledge keeps faith in check. It's good to have a moral compass for social well-being. It's scary to see that there are those without it at all.

[–]NeonMan 8ポイント9ポイント  (2子コメント)

The defining characteristic lf a religion of any sort is the rejection of any criticism or dissent.

My usual rule to check who is (probably) being right is that dissent is OK.

[–]StJimmy92 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

The defining characteristic lf a religion of any sort is the rejection of any criticism or dissent.

I think you mean cult.

[–]NeonMan 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thin line segregating both but yeah, cult fits better.

[–]DwarfGate 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I've been saying this since the beginning. Look at how the elites control and use their followers; Zoe Quinn had followers dox and take down TFYC, Randi Harper had followers attack 73 year old Anne Rice. Sound familiar? Kinda like Charles Manson having his followers kill people? Or Jim Jones having his followers migrate to a self-built actual hugbox (whereupon he and his followers forced themselves to drink cyanide Kool-Aid)?

It's all hyper-religious bullshit and we can only hope when the whole thing comes crashing down nobody innocent dies.

[–]mansplain 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Exactly this, their belief structure needs to be framed as, and proven to be, religious in nature.

[–]cuteman 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

DBA works better than SJW.

Dogmatic bullying Asshole.

Dogma satisfies the quasi religious element. Bullying fits perfectly because they actively seek out people to badger. Asshole, because, well, they're assholes.

Someone twit that shit. I don't get on the line often

[–]GoggleHeadCid 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

But then it sounds like you're shitting on database administrators.

[–]T0kenAussie 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

You don't need to believe in God to live your life by an ideology. Unfortunately there are a lot of people these days who are more extreme with there ideologies on the internet.

It's like a paradox, the more free thought that came out on the Internet the more close minded some groups on the Internet became.

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

"Socio-political movement" and "(quasi-) religious belief system" aren't mutually-exclusive categories.

The US religious right is a good example of this - sure, its actually a group of closely-related religious belief systems working together on shared political goals, but its fair to say for the purposes of the argument it counts as a belief system AND a social-political movement.

[–]nothinfollowsme 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think the movement itself is very much like Scientology. Listen and believe, donate generously to people's patreons, attack your detractors every chance you get be it with litigation, threats, or whatever means you can because you don't have to play fair, attack your own when they leave the fold using the same tactics. Accuse anyone who speaks out against you of slander and harassment(especially people who used to be part of the movement).

The similarities between Scientology's "beliefs" and SJW's/SOCJUS are striking.

[–]mnemosyne-0000#BotYourShield 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Archive links for this post:


I am Mnemosyne, goddess of memory. I remember so you don't have to.

[–]jpz719 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

It's a fanatical cult, dedicated to the concept of laziness. And that's fuckin sad, mainly because I think most religious establishments are little more than people shouting at eachother of which buttock of their particular deity was sacrificed first for no particularily explainable reason.

[–]silver_nuke13 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

They want to create a lowest common denominator and obligate everyone to abide to it, since those fat underachieving whores are already at the bottom

Oh are you hot? OBJECTIFIED SEX TOY. YOU ARE HELPNG THE PATRIARCHAY.

But wait I WEAR WHAT I WANT.

[–]aprobo 0ポイント1ポイント  (20子コメント)

I'd like to add one more:

6) Unlike actual sciences, (but quite like religion) learning feminism doesn't give you any super powers. You can't use it to create results like you could if you studied chemistry, physics, mathematics, or even psychology and economics.

If you are learning a subject that describes the world, you should be able to make better predictions, and then use those predictions to create awesome things. It's not just that The Patriarchy is hard to define, it's that it's a hypothesis which doesn't make predictions. It's not a scientific hypothesis. The Patriarchy's main purpose is as a curiosity stopper -- "there's a wage gap? clearly the patriarchy" -- it's an excuse used to avoid additional analysis. It's a lot like Élan vital and phlogiston. If you haven't read Yudkowsky on the topic of false models, you should. It's great.

[–]Steely_Tulip[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (8子コメント)

I would disagree with you on that. The theory of the patriarchy predicts that people will do anything to discredit, disprove or oppress you (unless you're a white male), in order to protect the patriarchy.

There has to be some model for that kind of recursive trap

[–]aprobo 4ポイント5ポイント  (5子コメント)

The theory of the patriarchy predicts that people will do anything to discredit, disprove or oppress you (unless you're a white male), in order to protect the patriarchy.

Okay, I'm happy to debate this. I think it will show you why the patriarchy is so hard to define, as any specific version is easy to disprove.

First I want to point out that while it's impossible to fully prove a scientific hypothesis, it is possible to falsify a hypothesis, which is what I'll do here. If you find yourself succumbing to the (natural, normal) impulse to say "no! don't test those those predictions!" please provide examples of your own along with the reason why you've chosen those examples... Namely, if you don't like these predictions, but you do like other predictions, you're going to have to explain the logic behind which examples are Patriarchal predictions and which are not.

So, let's start. Imagine a world where people will do anything to discredit, disprove, or oppress women. Really picture it, imagine it's real. Treat it like a novel you're writing and think of some of the worst, most oppressive things that would be happening to women. Got a couple? So do I.

Surely there's nothing more oppressive than severely limiting someone's freedoms by locking them in jail. Okay! Great! The Patriarchy hypothesis predicts most prisoners are female. Let's just look it up and we should have great evidence for the patriarchy... damn. ~90% of inmates are male.

Hmm... well... I think I remember from US History that one of the things you use slaves for is the front line of war. Maybe there aren't enough women to go to jail because they were used as human shields in war! It wouldn't make sense to protect the oppressed, right? Great! This will fix the previous failure even! Just a quick google and it'll be solved! damn. ~99% of war injuries and deaths happen to men

Okay, but at minimum if you're oppressing a group you'd make sure they didn't get the good stuff. I mean, getting the good stuff is the whole point! Great! The Patriarchy hypothesis predicts most luxury good purchases are made by men! Let's just look it up and we should have great evidence for the patriarchy... damn. 60% of luxury goods are bought by women.

Okay, but surely you wouldn't vote for these people you're discrediting, disapproving of, and oppressing. Right? Great! The Patriarchy hypothesis predicts the number of elected female politicians is near zero! Okay! Let's just look up the numbers and we'll have proved that The Patriarchy exists! Oh... it's 20%? damn

Okay, enough of this. I think that's sufficient to thoroughly disprove that formulation of The Patriarchy Hypothesis. If you'd like to play again, I'm game... just remember to use a formulation that predicts the above inequalities, rather than predicts their absence. My prediction for that is we'll rapidly end up with a toothless version I'll lovingly call The Patriarchy of the Gaps.

[–]Steely_Tulip[S] 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

That's great, i think i'll save this for future arguments.

The problem is if you're show this to a feminist they will 1) accuse you of 'mansplaining', 2) declare that your facts have been cherry-picked, or are false, or somehow prove the presence of institutionalized sexism... "60% of luxury goods are purchased by women? They think they can just buy you off with shiny objects!" etc etc.

So the mere fact that you have created a well-supported rational argument against the patriarchy is itself proof of the patriarchy in action :s

[–]aprobo 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

declare that your facts have been cherry-picked, or are false, or somehow prove the presence of institutionalized sexism

The beauty of science is that you're allowed to cherry pick when falsifying. That's the whole point. A hypothesis has to work everywhere. If I tell you that the boiling point of titanium at sea level is 3560 K that has to be true in Peru just as surely as it has to be true in France... any evidence to the contrary has to be fatal, or else it's not science.

If you're going to use this in argument, the main point I was making above is that if you look at the actual bottom of society (prisons, mental institutions, drug addicts, unemployed, homeless, migrant workers, etc) it's almost entirely men, and that seems incompatible with almost every formulation of The Patriarchy Hypothesis I've seen. If you state it like that I think it'll have the highest likelihood of getting through.

So the mere fact that you have created a well-supported rational argument against the patriarchy is itself proof of the patriarchy in action :s

LOL. Finally we have clear evidence for The Patriarchy! :p

[–]Alzael 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

LOL. Finally we have clear evidence for The Patriarchy! :p

Sadly,that actually is a real idea. Feminists call it Lewis' Law.

[–]aprobo 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

The greatest trick the Patriarchy ever pulled was convincing the world it didn't exist (source)

[–]Katallaxis 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

There is a difference between an implication and a prediction. Feminist theories have plenty of implications, but not so many predictions. Why? Because their theories have built-in excuses for any apparent falsification. Whenever it looks like they've made a prediction, and you try to test that prediction, and the prediction is falsified, they always fall back on these built-in excuses for why the evidence doesn't count. Which is to say, the theory was never really testable to begin with, so the "prediction" was arbitrary, because all evidence is ultimately interpreted as a confirmation.

Edit: for example, the Patriarchy theory "predicts" that people will use science to try and disprove Patriarchy theory. Patriarchy theory includes a rationale for why this evidence should not be trusted, and how it's just a further attempt to oppress women. Therefore, the existence of evidence contradicting Patriarchy theory is itself a "prediction" of Patriarchy theory and so actually confirms Patriarchy theory. This works even if the evidence comes from your own firsthand experience, because Patriarchy can brainwash you through unconscious internalised misogyny.

[–]aprobo 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, essentially those hedges are what makes feminism non-science. A hypothesis gains strength when it either (1) predicts that something will happen, or (2) predicts something will not happen... and it loses strength by being poorly defined, complex, or only making weak predictions.

For example, if I say that Cthulhu has claimed the soul of every feminist on earth, perverting their ethics and darkening their gaze... but I also say that the devious Cthulhu will thwart all efforts to measure this change (for example, Cthulhu will leave alone the souls of those who major in women's studies as part of a RCT)... my hypothesis is functionally identical to the more mundane "some feminists are assholes"... and so (by Occam's razor), "some feminists are assholes" is probably the right answer here.

If, however, I also claimed that Cthulhu sharpened the teeth of feminists and made them thirst for blood... and that could be verified through observation... well! "some feminists are assholes" doesn't predict that... that Cthulhu idea is starting to look a little more sane...

Which is to say that feminism hedging it's points isn't really the problem. The problem is that people are ignoring evidence, and not really looking for / listening to good alternative theories. For example, I pointed out in another branch of this thread that men seem to inhabit both the top and bottom of society (there are more male fortune 500 CEOs, but also more homeless men). One way to account for this difference is the Cthulhu-like Patriarchy -- a devious force keeping women away from the top of society, but also protecting women from the bottom of society... another hypothesis is that gender differences are a thing, and that women seem to have less genetic variation than men do (so they have less birth defects, but are also less likely to get the sort of mutations that allow for truly world-class chess play). This alternative hypothesis has a lot going for it... it predicts a lot, and those predictions are basically correct. Try it -- pick a thing (so: height, weight, IQ, charity donations, etc) and look up gendered bell curves for it :)

[–]silver_nuke13 -1ポイント0ポイント  (10子コメント)

What's so hard to define?

Patriarchy - a form of cultural bias, that has appeared about 5-10 k years ago, and has been reinforced by both men and women, that took the idea for granted and never asked questions.

[–]aprobo 4ポイント5ポイント  (7子コメント)

1) This isn't really a hypothesis, as it doesn't make predictions... you might as well have said "Patriarchy - a giant invisible dragon that appeared about 5-10 k years ago, and has been ignored by both men and women ever since"

However, if I assume the cultural bias you are talking about involves gender roles, this hypothesis has additional problems...

2) If I could show gender roles existing before 10k years ago, are you're saying those were not caused by the Patriarchy?

3) Given that mass communication didn't exist 5-10k years ago, and cross cultural gender roles did, how did the patriarchy spread between cultures?

4) Other animals seem to have sexual dimorphic behavior. Is this also the Patriarchy, or do you explain these via a separate hypothesis? Why does that hypothesis apply to chimps but not humans?

edit: added 4 and the reference to 3

[–]silver_nuke13 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

Hmm i see the distinction hyou are trying to make.

If you wanna talk about gender roles, then patriarchy is an effect, not a cause, a product of those biological tendencies to specialize social parameters. In fact, all social (or most, i don't like absolute statements) have a biological underlayer.

I usually avoid to use the word. A certain philosopher called terrence mckenna said that a much better term would be "dominant-type society" since it puts emphasis on one sex taking the leading role, AND ALL THAT WITHOUT BLAMING MEN, since whichever gender taking the power position would become demonized trough this kind of polarized buzzwords. Yes, in an alternative universe, humanity is a matriarchy, and i bet it's not so much better. But that is just a speculation of mine.

As for the spread, trough major religions. They have been a powerful vector for culturally imbuided ideas, and many of those religions were probably made up by men mostly.

[–]aprobo 2ポイント3ポイント  (5子コメント)

The definition of Patriarchy you're putting forward now is essentially "Patriarchy: a derogatory term for a society, generally used by people who aren't doing most of the work" -- I don't have a problem with this (actually, I think it's a hilarious definition)... however I feel compelled to point out it's not a scientific definition. It's like the word "asshat" -- you don't really know more about the world for having learned it.

in an alternative universe, humanity is a matriarchy, and i bet it's not so much better. But that is just a speculation of mine.

I believe this is wrong. There is a strong cross cultural (and cross species) bias towards protecting the gender with the limiting sexual resource. In humans, the fact is that it doesn't take a lot of men to populate the earth, but it does take a lot of women. Look at the population of Germany over time. If women had gone to war, the population would have tanked after WW1 and WW2. With men doing the fighting, the population hardly skipped a beat... Which is to say I believe any matriarchies in human history were wiped out, and would also be wiped out in an alternative universe.

Walter Block did a great job presenting this and other anti-feminist theories if you're interested. Karen Straughan has a quite good version of her own.

As for the spread, trough major religions. They have been a powerful vector for culturally imbuided ideas, and many of those religions were probably made up by men mostly.

This has the problem that, for example, ancient Japanese culture had similar gender roles to ancient Greece culture... even though they didn't share a religion, and (to the best of my knowledge) didn't even know each other existed. To put this another way, modern uncontacted tribes have insane religions but relatively sane gender roles.

edit: added the Straughan link.

[–]silver_nuke13 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

The definition of Patriarchy you're putting forward now is essentially

Still better thank to think there is a secret men only kabbalah that conspires against women. Shit happens yo. Collective ignorance leads to way more problems than whatever elitist scapegoats we make up.

I believe this is wrong.

Dammit dawkins, you ruined my argument

Tho matt ridley had a simlar thesis, how did i not remember that?

While i agree that i overlooked that, uh, life, um, finds a way? There are quite a lot of species where the females are dominant, spiders, to mention one.

This has the problem that, for example, ancient Japanese culture had similar gender roles to ancient Greece culture

Convergent evolution of ideas? Since they had the same biological underlayer i mentioned?

Thanks for the links, i will try to document myself

[–]aprobo 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

Hah, thanks :) glad to see another person thinking critically (and referencing Ridley!)

You should also really check out Mysterious Answers to Mysterious Questions and LessWrong (or HPMoR) generally -- you sound like the sort of person who'll love them :)

Convergent evolution of ideas? Since they had the same biological underlayer i mentioned?

Or perhaps some ideas (fire, mathematics, chemistry, physics, gender roles) occur cross culturally because they capture what is true in this world...

[–]silver_nuke13 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Thanks for the recommendation, but i fail to see how patriarchy could be a tool for understanding (unless you wanna play one of these is unlike others). It's just a path we took, out of many that were possible, only that the circumstances led to this as being the optimal one at the time.

Women making babies is not patriarchy. "A woman should be submissive and listen to her husband and never talk unless asked" is. "Guys should not have long hair, it's just for women" is.

[–]aprobo 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yeah, thought I'd ninja edited it to "gender roles", but apparently I was too slow.

There are a lot of left leaning ideas that seem to happen as societies become more economically developed. For example, child labor is a thing of the past in the US, but for the uncontacted peoples I mention earlier (and many third world countries) it's still very much a thing.... basically when your society is having trouble feeding everyone, then everyone needs to work.

In the case of gender roles, when caring for the home really was a full time job, I think gender roles nicely codified that protecting the women was good from a reproduction perspective. Also: attacking neighboring tribes and taking their women was quite good from a reproduction perspective. Also: being captured by more warlike tribes and having warlike babies was quite good from a reproductive perspective. This all happens in chimps too by the way.

However, now that keeping a home is absolutely not a full time job, and working is not generally dangerous, I think it makes sense to have women in the workforce... not because we're overcoming some sinister patriarchy, but because it's one of the ways we can make our societies richer and make life better for our women. Okay, time for meetings. Great meeting you!

[–]silver_nuke13 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Which is why i love evolutionary psychology. Have a lovely night/day.

[–]zerodeem 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

ZOG - a form of cultural bias, that has appeared about 5-10 k years ago, and has been reinforced by both jews and non jews, that took the idea for granted and never asked questions.

etc

[–]silver_nuke13 -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Zog? Anything related to zionism?

[–]T-Husky 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

The present SocJus movement is merely an outgrowth of political correctness; its closest tie to religion lies in the shared belief of 'original sin', because SocJus requires absolute and unchallenged acceptance of the notion that anyone from one or more 'privileged' classes of people (eg. whites, males, heterosexuals) is unconsciously bigoted against 'underprivileged' classes of people and are therefore complicit in any 'oppression' they experience, whether past or present, real or imagined, actual or merely possible.

In a way, its not all bad because at least its causing a lot more people to critically examine political correctness and conclude that constantly censoring oneself out of fear of offending others doesnt actually help anyone, it just leads to the development of oversensitivity and an entitlement to appeasement among minorities, which is also readily exploited by those with type-B personality disorders.

[–]zerodeem 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

its closest tie to religion lies in the shared belief of 'original sin'

There's more than that.

Their ideas about transgenderism, equality etc all come from religious concepts of the soul.

Humans are biological robots, no one is more than the sum of their parts but because of the religious chaff about souls they've developed this concept of equality. Gender fluidity and that other nonsense comes from these religious concepts.

[–]ozzien20 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Absolutely agree!

[–]Ginx13 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

I don't understand why anyone would waste any time with labels of any kind. If it makes you happy to imagine one group or another as one type or another... that's your prerogative, I suppose.

Personally, I find the whole idea of trying to religionize something in an attempt to demonize is incredibly silly in light of the fact that the particular subject of labeling in this instance is so intent on defining everything and everyone in terms of labels.

Just saying... it all seems pointless.

[–]mansplain 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

the point being that these people have quite a bit of power in educational and government institutions, if it could be logically reasoned in a manner which could have legal ramifications that they are imposing their personal religious beliefs through state mechanisms to the detriment of others, specifically those of an opposing viewpoint, or those who are irrationally targeted as "privileged", it would be illegal as a violation of the separation of church and state.

this is why you can't pray in public schools in the USA.

classifying not just the statement or personal profession of adhering to or following a particular religion itself as meaning having faith in a divine authority unbeholden to reason, but instead classifying a type of thought as itself religious and outside of the scope or doctrine of the government, which really is pretty clearly the intent in the founding documents to begin with.

[–]Argent108 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Point of fact: you can pray in public schools in the USA if you so choose; the first amendment means the principal can't compel you to pray.

[–]mansplain 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

thanks for that clarification.

[–]arcticwolffox 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

IMO there's kind of a spectrum of cultishness within the Social Justice movement. Most people just want to feel fulfilled for a few seconds and jump on the bandwagon when some SJW hashtag appears on Twitter. Only a minority completely believe in the bullshit and can be considered a cult.

[–]Kinbaku_enthusiast -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

But I am a feminist.

You are conflating radfem and feminism.

[–]Aurondarklord [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

SJWs absolutely display similar patterns of behavior to a religion, there are many direct parallels, colonialism, privilege, and patriarchy provide their own concepts of original sin and a fallen world. I think some people just suffer from an innate sense of irrational guilt and unworthiness and look for a philosophy that allows them to explain why they feel that way and provide them a sense of atonement, historically, many religions have offered that, and the SJWs have created a secular alternative, allowing them to flagellate themselves rhetorically for their privilege instead of physically for their sins and feel the same sense of catharsis and purity.

[–]silver_nuke13 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I totally agree, both modern feminism and christianity derive from what nietzche called "slave mentality"

The bullied becomes the bully