One fundamentalism exchanging for another doesn’t seem sustainable. Negotiation, discussion, diplomacy, however, is sustainable.

My issue is the whole war metaphor and all that results from it.

It’s great for those who are already within your grouping but for people outside the grouping, it appears just as Loony Tune as anything coming out of religious fundamentalism.

One fundamentalism exchanging for another doesn’t seem sustainable.

Negotiation, discussion, diplomacy, however, is sustainable.

==

Well actually, I think generally speaking (unrelated to the particular topic at hand), you’re likely more intelligent than I am.

I suppose it’s the company I keep. I like the company I keep. It’s just I sometimes feel painted into a corner anytime this kind of topic comes up. If I voice criticism it’s perceived as a kind of foundational attack on the whole thing. But that’s not what I’m doing at all, at least not my intent.

I don’t care for war or battle. Reds vs Blues, Us’ vs Thems’.

In the realm of ideas that’s one thing of course. But it goes beyond.

War Rhetoric combined with positions of power (which I believe will happen eventually, beyond the level of ideological influence via Twitter and books and shared Memes) won’t lead to a happy, functioning society.

“All Will Be Well Once We’ve Won”. That is a line of thinking that I believe _isn’t_ particularly intelligent, to be honest. I don’t see a paradigm shift in all of this. It has all the appearances of a subculture seeking dominance through cultural influence for the purposes of obliterating a perceived enemy.

I don’t want obliteration. I want peace, which is an awkward state. Perhaps that itself is a form of obliteration but not really. I expect ideological extremism to crop up now and again like today. It happens. But I guess I seek tempering the flames to a slow simmer rather flame throwers.

“enough is enough” is a frightening attitude because, whatever the subject matter is, it’s a series of cascading victories until all traces of the enemy are obliterated. It doesn’t stop at a single victory. Once the enemy is obliterated, members of the party begin to turn on each other, split off into subgroups and war with each other.

Of course I’m thinking further into the future here, but replace one ideology with another and it’s something that we’ve been through before as a species and I see no good reason why it wouldn’t continue with this as well.

By ideology, I don’t mean religion, or New atheism, or patriotism or anything specific. I mean “common cause”, whatever that happens to be.

I would be equally nervous if people who believed as I did gathered en mass and decided to change everybody to think as I do, swarming the Internet with memes and battling and such. There’s extremist moderates as well and I try to be careful to avoid that as well, as I could be tempted into that fold.

==

I would’ve considered joining the battle against religious extremism but i can’t do it by being extremist myself. This is what my beef is. I can’t join the group even though I’m ideologically VERY VERY similar. There’s a wall there. People that _should be_ working together instead attack one another. There’s no room for me in this fight because I cannot raise a voice to critique without being painted as “other”. Happens over and over again.

I must be a theist. I must be putting everybody under the bus.

Thing is, I’m not.

==

That would be nice, but you can’t get past fighting by fighting.

The next level would just be more fighting about different things, new dictatorships of new ideologies.

=

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


4 + = seven

Leave a Reply