Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Yeah the people pushing all these different ideologies basically engineered a culture to be like this. With various ideologies replacing religion (which are themselves really modern religions) that don't really work out the implications of their ideas in any sort of consistent system... instead down with this and down with that, and sure individually those things might be bad but they form some sort of coherent system and when you get rid of a part of that system the whole thing falls apart.





My experience was that established religions got hungry for tithing and thus optimized their messages with new ideas that ignore tolerance and abuse pluralism. Former adherents are more than excused to dissociate with groups that lack transparency, foster cultures of abuse, or otherwise require rigid in-/out-group splits.

The new world views you refer to that former religious adherents adopt aren't usually terribly radical, and it's a thought-terminating pitfall to call them religions or even spirituality. Much improvement over the new cults of the 1970s.


> My experience was that established religions got hungry for tithing and thus optimized their messages with new ideas that ignore tolerance and abuse pluralism.

Monotheism is against pluralism where polytheism was not. That was there from the monotheist revolution.

> it's a thought-terminating pitfall to call them religions

No it's not. Just go listen to what Harari says in his book Sapiens. Ideologies like Feminism, Liberalism, Conservatism, Humanism, etc, are all parts of a modern syncretic religion and their adherents are syncretic believers that mix and match different ideologies to fit their tastes. It's just a bald faced lie that these things are so much different from the stuff they replaced. Buddhism has no necessary Gods as don't some forms of Hinduism.

https://www.ynharari.com/topic/science-and-religion/


Respectfully, I disagree with Harari's broad classification(s). As one who has left a high-demand religion in adulthood, I'm keenly aware what the exercise of dogma as a worldview looks and feels like.

A high-demand religion I would guess would be some sort of fringe cult? If so within every one of the modern religions/ideologies there are similar fringe cults that are hate-filled with dogma for everyone else not in line with their ideology. Some feminists hate all men, some communists hate all Capitalists and everything must be done according to Communist dogma even when it's clear that it does not work... etc. The mainstream is usually not what the experience of a fringe cult within that ideology is.

> high-demand religion I would guess would be some sort of fringe cult?

Typically less fringe than you may think. Quoting "Visualizing the Transition Out of High-Demand Religions":

> Subjects include disaffiliated Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Fundamentalist Protestants

Typically these groups express many of the same characteristics as "mainstream" religions due to their age, and share the same elements driving religious decline.


calling ideologies religions is such a blanket statement that it makes no sense once you actually think about it.

Humans, not thinking abut the ramifications of their actions since, well, forever. Could these changes and fractures be compared to past religious reformation movements? Reformers always like denouncing things.

Luckily for future generations humans are fairly adaptable and I'm sure the rich will be just fine.


I don't think it's a very good analogy. Martin Luther didn't blame early Christians that medieval Catholicism failed to look sufficiently like early Christianity; however, that's roughly what we see today--third-wave feminism wants something that looks very alike chivalry (esp with regard to sexual purity, women as inherently moral and men as inherently immoral, deference to women, etc) and blames traditionalists (not first-wave feminists) that we live in a less chivalrous world. I'm sure this observation will be unpopular; hopefully it at least sparks some interesting debate.

Analogies are never that great and I think it only works as a reminder that we have and, are continuing to evolve and change in many facets as a global cooperative group of individuals.

The observation does nothing to further the debate because it assumes a broad unified opinion about a group of individuals. Do third wave lesbians want chivalry?

'we live in a less chivalrous world'

chivalrous - adjective - (of a man or his behavior) courteous and gallant, especially toward women

Could just live in a more courteous and gallant world and leave out the gendered nonsense?

Also the idea that a specific gender is inherently moral / immoral is also ridiculous generalization and shouldn't be made my anyone.


> The observation does nothing to further the debate because it assumes a broad unified opinion about a group of individuals

These objections are exhausting. Yes, there are exceptions to every generalization. Generalizations are the only way we can reasonably describe large groups of people. In this case, the individuals in question are more or less defined by this shared opinion, so it's definitely a fair, constructive observation.

> Do third wave lesbians want chivalry?

I don't know what a "third wave lesbian" is. Also, to be clear, I doubt any third-wave feminist would say they want chivalry; but when you look at the things they advocate for ("believe all women", etc) and how they treat each gender, it looks like chivalry taken to extremes.

> Could just live in a more courteous and gallant world and leave out the gendered nonsense?

Sure we can, but it's not consistent with a traditional or third-wave-feminist worldview. Note that this isn't a criticism of any particular worldview.

> Also the idea that a specific gender is inherently moral / immoral is also ridiculous generalization and shouldn't be made my anyone.

Sure. I'm only making observations about different worldviews, not prescribing any particular worldview.


It is exhausting, but isn't not an objection, it is fact. You have to meet people where they are if you ever hope to know them. Using a single label, in this case 'third-wave', to describe someone is so incomplete and I would disabuse you of thinking about people this way.

"believe all women" is a slogan. Slogans are handy because they save time. They are easy to chant. They build unity. If you were to ask 100 'feminists' what does believe all women mean to you, there would be many answers.

> Sure we can, but it's not consistent with a traditional or third-wave-feminist worldview.

I never said I wanted a traditional or a third wave world, just kinder; there are other options.


> It is exhausting, but isn't not an objection, it is fact. You have to meet people where they are if you ever hope to know them. Using a single label, in this case 'third-wave', to describe someone is so incomplete and I would disabuse you of thinking about people this way.

"Generalization" doesn't mean that you believe the observation is true for exactly every individual in the group. That a generalization doesn't hold for every individual in the group doesn't imply that generalization isn't useful. Now can we be done errantly nitpicking well-established semantics?

> If you were to ask 100 'feminists' what does believe all women mean to you, there would be many answers.

Many variations of the same theme.

> I never said I wanted a traditional or a third wave world, just kinder; there are other options.

You're agreeing with me rather aggressively. I didn't claim or imply that you wanted any particular kind of world.


> Now can we be done errantly nitpicking well-established semantics?

These semantics are mental shortcuts that are harmful in this case to actually solving the problems we face. They frame the issue narrowly, which leads to a single viewpoint coloring the entire population.

> Many variations of the same theme.

Do you agree/disagree with all of them?

> You're agreeing with me rather aggressively. I didn't claim or imply that you wanted any particular kind of world.

I thought you were suggesting that only one or the other could exist, or that I needed to choose one.


> These semantics are mental shortcuts that are harmful in this case to actually solving the problems we face. They frame the issue narrowly, which leads to a single viewpoint coloring the entire population.

The population is largely defined by that fairly narrow viewpoint. Generalizing isn’t harmful for people who understand the term, and I won’t pander to those who don’t.

> Do you agree/disagree with all of them?

I disagree with the central theme—that gender is useful and perhaps even primary for establishing credibility and/or guilt. Theoretically some women may have used the slogan to mean “pizza is delicious”, in which case I would have to agree, but this falls well outside of the normal parameters of communication and sentiment (which have regrettably been challenged too often already over the course of this conversation).


They?

People pushing those ideologies.



Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: