Can we admit that the biggest problem on this planet are ideologies that are firmly held?
Certainty both denies the opportunity for mediation and carries with it the duty to prosthelytize. No ideology is safe from radicalization, and all eventually devolve to radicalization -- maybe not even in the majority of those who hold the ideology, but enough to make life a pain in the ass for everyone else.
This isn't to claim that some ideologies are inherently more prone to being twisted into something damaging and evil, just saying from religions to social movements to environmental movements to economic stances and the like, it can and will happen to every ideology.
Getting hung up in the particulars of each one or arguing the superiority of one over another does nothing to address the root of the problem: ideologies themselves.
Agreed. People need to learn to have more humility so we can keep learning and more pragmatism so we can actually get shit done.
Parker Wright
The problem with ideologies (including religions), is that they dont force people to think for themselves.
Centrism and pragmatism is the way to go.
Ideology makes it difficult to analyze an issue from a detached emotionless perspective.
Charles Barnes
*sniff* well said *fixes shirt* *sniff*
Henry Mitchell
Holy shit it is...looked fine when I grabbed it, no clue what happened. >is that they dont force people to think for themselves. That's not fully true. There's often a lot of thought; although it's strongly influenced by echo-chambering and misinformation. Hell, look at how feminists keep spouting the pay gap thing. It's not even that they were wrong, it's that they weren't able to understand the data (at least some, some willfully ignore the reality even if they do understand because it doesn't fit with their narrative)...and in that nugget is kind of the root of it. People decide how they think the world works, and more often than not, they just reinforce and justify that view. Thanks, something I've always been curious about: Do y'all like the American version of pizza or spaghetti btw...
Justin Parker
> pragmatism Killer of progress
Samuel Watson
>ideologies
you mean religion
John Lee
Nope. I mean ideologies. Look at the radicalization of things like environmental activism.
Liam James
>thinks dangerous religions are the only dangerous ideologies off yourself please.
Cute, but again, thinking for yourself is how you end up with nutcases who rant on youtube for hours about how the Lefthanded Zionist Dentist association paid off the MAFIA to shoot JFK because of Joe Kennedy's antisemitism.
Aiden Robinson
Yeah, it most certainly is not. Peple attaching themselves to ideologies is a sign of a broken spirit and lack of identity and leads to zealotry.
David Diaz
You're making the mistake of believing that people know how to think -- I don't mean this in a SJW/Big Brother way, but the ability to recognize when they lack understanding, if understanding is necessary (like I don't need to understand why my car's timing belt is the size it is to drive it), and how to gain understanding.
Often, you'll see people who have latched onto a factoid or two, then spin layer upon layer of reason based off of their understanding of those factoids, that structurally is correct but is based off of erroneous data (i.e., perfectly logical reasoning, but false base assumptions). The failure comes not in "thinking for themselves" but in evaluation of data to accept.
Please don't bother with a no true scotsman argument of "they aren't thinking for themselves if they accept" because honestly even with all the access to data we have these days, you still have to take some things on faith.
Zachary Sullivan
banning the Internet and retstricting access to information is the ONLY way to keep people sane and non-degenerate.
Ignorance is bliss for most people
Ryder Ramirez
The other question to ask though is to what point does "not having an ideology" become an ideology?
You're trying to sell us on the idea of not having an ideology... which itself is an ideology , since it can be radicalized to the view that all ideologies must be destroyed .
William Cruz
I'd honestly settle just for people to have to demonstrate a basic understanding of how statistics work.
Add in fucking slaughtering any media outlet that plays fast and loose with facts/Murdoch's sensationalistic reportage style, and I think we'd be pretty good.
Lucas Wood
>you still have to take some things on faith.
Which is why religion is actually better than "ideology" because it ADMITS that faith is a central component. All these godless ideologies refuse to see this.
William Rogers
Statistics work for many things, but there are truly things that defy perfect math /reason, and this is why religion exists. The belief that statistics can be used to explain anything and personal experiences are worthless, is in itself an ideology.
Connor Bell
Not having an ideology or being a moderate or being independent or noncommittal just has the effect of endorsing whatever the status quo is.
Sounds like what you're really complaining about is democracy. Most people have other things to occupy them than politics and many aren't even smart enough to figure it out even if they were given the necessary time and tools. It's an unrealistic goal to have everybody politically informed.
Jackson Barnes
Marxism in particular considers itself "not an ideology" instead it is supposed to be a "criticism of all ideologies" This is using ideology in the specifically Marxist definition as "the worldview created by the ruling class in order to help secure their rule" but it's interesting in regard to your post since I and most people here would agree that it definitely IS an ideology and pretending it's not as a rule is just one of its sickly totalitarian features.
In the common definition of ideology, anybody has to have one. You can't not have one, and if you try not to it just means shrinking away from the world in fear of having to take a side on anything. It's like not having a worldview, well then just close your eyes?
Parker Bell
Actually the biggest problem is modern liberalism that believes all cultures, races and people are absolutely equal in every way instead of recognizing that traditional western culture is objectively the best, if it wasn't then nobody would be trying to move into western countries.
Hunter Diaz
Yeah, it is definitely a snake trying to eat itself, but I think honestly it's more a matter of degree than kind. Certainty in belief in the ideology is the problem, not necessarily the ideology itself. It's like how in the US, while homosexuals might have to deal with a bunch of insults and *very* rarely be attacked for their sexuality, they won't be thrown off the top of a building like in the Middle East. The US is a very Christian country (not claiming an ideological monopoly, but compared to most other first world countries, we're really damn religious) and Christianity has the same flavor of punishments and prohibitions against homosexuality as the Koran. The difference comes in how strongly people believe. You're missing my meaning -- I just want people to know statistics because a lot of the bullshit that flies these days is because people have no fucking clue how to interpret statistical results. >Sounds like what you're really complaining about is democracy. Most people have other things to occupy them than politics and many aren't even smart enough to figure it out even if they were given the necessary time and tools. It's an unrealistic goal to have everybody politically informed. Maybe. I would more characterize it as complaining about how incorrectly people assess their own abilities, but I guess it can be framed like that.
Joseph Mitchell
>>You're missing my meaning -- I just want people to know statistics because a lot of the bullshit that flies these days is because people have no fucking clue how to interpret statistical results.
this is true but this is not your original thesis which is that ideologies are all inherently bad (and that it's even possible to "not" have one)
seems your real complaint is directed toward a combination of democracy, radicalism, stupidity, and ignorance.
Blake Perry
>In the common definition of ideology, anybody has to have one. You can't not have one, and if you try not to it just means shrinking away from the world in fear of having to take a side on anything. It's like not having a worldview, well then just close your eyes? It seems to me as though it's not something you have to have. Ideology carries with it an implication that it's more difficult to dissuade someone from than mere belief. Like, take a strongly left leaning person. You might be able to convince them that their belief on x or y topic is the wrong approach, but you won't as easily change their ...higher level, for wont of a better phrase, beliefs.
Sebastian Miller
>this is true but this is not your original thesis which is that ideologies are all inherently bad (and that it's even possible to "not" have one) group polarization+confirmation bias=ideologies are bad, but yeah, I admit that's a tangential topic. >seems your real complaint is directed toward a combination of democracy, radicalism, stupidity, and ignorance. Yes, but I posit the idea that ideologies are the focal point that magnifies the problems that would otherwise be caused by those. Look at something like tumblrinas -- without the focal point of identity politics (or another ideology), they'd just be sad little people living sad little lives without being mobilized attempting to effect change.
Asher Garcia
>sad little people living sad little lives without being mobilized attempting to effect change.
That's me and you as well.
In an ideal world we wouldn't even have to think about any of this shit. which is why I'm starting to think mass literacy was a mistake and most people were happier as serfs in the fields
Lincoln Hill
>That's me and you as well. Eh, maybe it's the same in kind, but definitely not degree.
>in an ideal world... “All that is very well,” answered Candide, “but let us cultivate our garden.”
