Emerging Political Cults

[jt_knight]

Americans Are Embracing Dangerous Secular Cults

On the right and the left, pseudo-religious cults are ensnaring a growing number of Americans as traditional religions decline.

thefederalist.com

An excellent examination of two emerging political cults. QAnon from the political right, and critical social justice theory (Woke-ism) from the political left. Though they differ radically in their content,"[w]hat these cults share is a belief in a millenarian struggle in which the faithful sweep away the wicked, and an epistemological certainty that makes debate impossible."

It's a helpful reminder that when engaged in social/political discussions, it's essential to understand the presuppositions and worldviews at play. For decades the American cultural consensus was liberal-democracy and judeo-christian ethics. As those values recede, these two emerging phenomena are taking their place.

 

[Crazyhole]

Americans Are Embracing Dangerous Secular Cults

On the right and the left, pseudo-religious cults are ensnaring a growing number of Americans as traditional religions decline.

thefederalist.com

An excellent examination of two emerging political cults. QAnon from the political right, and critical social justice theory (Woke-ism) from the political left. Though they differ radically in their content,"[w]hat these cults share is a belief in a millenarian struggle in which the faithful sweep away the wicked, and an epistemological certainty that makes debate impossible."

It's a helpful reminder that when engaged in social/political discussions, it's essential to understand the presuppositions and worldviews at play. For decades the American cultural consensus was liberal-democracy and judeo-christian ethics. As those values recede, these two emerging phenomena are taking their place.

Its not a new phenomenon. At its core, this comes down to the Marxist principle of replacing morals with ethics. It can be applied by both ends of the political spectrum and has been.

 

[firm_bizzle]

Both clowns.

 

[Cubs79]

Americans Are Embracing Dangerous Secular Cults

On the right and the left, pseudo-religious cults are ensnaring a growing number of Americans as traditional religions decline.

thefederalist.com

An excellent examination of two emerging political cults. QAnon from the political right, and critical social justice theory (Woke-ism) from the political left. Though they differ radically in their content,"[w]hat these cults share is a belief in a millenarian struggle in which the faithful sweep away the wicked, and an epistemological certainty that makes debate impossible."

It's a helpful reminder that when engaged in social/political discussions, it's essential to understand the presuppositions and worldviews at play. For decades the American cultural consensus was liberal-democracy and judeo-christian ethics. As those values recede, these two emerging phenomena are taking their place.

I dont think the Qanon and "wokeism" are remotely the same thing. Qanon is nothing more than a conspiracy theory that isnt based on any sort of rationale, facts, or analysis. "Wokeism", does have some truths to it that should be confronted. In saying that, there are plenty instances of "wokeism" going too far by all means so I am not saying in this defense of it, but it at least arose from real issues where as Qanon is completely baseless (and potentially even an intelligence psy-op, but that is another discussion).

 

[Crazyhole]

Are you saying I can't burn down a building because I'm mad? Or maybe cold clock an innocent old lady in the name of "justice"? The lefties are always right. Criminals are just misunderstood.

I'm saying that its the forgotten aspect of Marxism, but probably the most important one for people to understand. Ethics are fluid, determined by popular opinion. Morals are static and come generally from religious faith. The most simple form of this is in finances, where a person who bases their opinion on ethics can believe that someone doesn't deserve what they have because its inequitable and that means there is a right to take it, as opposed to morals which tell us that what someone has is their own so we can't take it from them.

 

[NinjaKnight]

Totally agree. Believing that the hollow earth is being run by reptilian overlords disguised as humans who control us all by spraying chemtrails is definitely the same as thinking we should treat people the same regardless of skin color or sexual preference.

 

[Cubs79]

I'm saying that its the forgotten aspect of Marxism, but probably the most important one for people to understand. Ethics are fluid, determined by popular opinion. Morals are static and come generally from religious faith. The most simple form of this is in finances, where a person who bases their opinion on ethics can believe that someone doesn't deserve what they have because its inequitable and that means there is a right to take it, as opposed to morals which tell us that what someone has is their own so we can't take it from them.

Except rich people take from other people all the damn time, just look at the bank bailouts or some of these wealthy companies who took PPP loans.

 

[DaShuckster]

Qanon is nothing more than a conspiracy theory that isnt based on any sort of rationale, facts, or analysis.

This! ^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[UCFKnight85]

Wokeism is literally leading to cult like performative religious exercises in the streets and enforcing the idea that dissent is treason (or racism).

QAnon is a bunch of losers in their basements. Woke Zealots are born out of academia and are very much real and trying to gain power and influence, and they’re influencing the gullible by the thousands.

They are by far the bigger threat

 

[Cubs79]

Wokeism is literally leading to cult like performative religious exercises in the streets and enforcing the idea that dissent is treason (or racism).

QAnon is a bunch of losers in their basements. Woke Zealots are born out of academia and are very much real and trying to gain power and influence, and they’re influencing the gullible by the thousands.

They are by far the bigger threat

There is no question there are some woke zealots, I wont disagree with you on that. But it still stems from real issues, just like the protests in the 60s stemmed from real issues.

 

[ChrisKnight06]

Actually had to look up QAnon. I've seen it mentioned a cpl times and always associated it with 4chan but that's the extent of it. Did they start the 🍕 stuff?

 

[jt_knight]

Both ideologies are a response to what the adherents to the cult view as real world problems. The cult of wokeism is a response to racism and systemic inequality. Qanon is a response to corrupt global institutions. We can all agree that, to an extent, these are real issues worth addressing. The problem with both movements is that they embrace illiberal and irrational responses to those issues. They exaggerate the scope of the problems and consequently, embrace the most extreme measures in response.

The issue isn't which one is worse. The issue is that both ideologies embrace irrationality and both are gaining popularity.

The question is whether these are limited movements which will run their course and die out, or as I suspect, representative of a generalized shift away from liberalism and rationality, which will take different forms but endure? If so, how did this come about? Is this the fruit of post-modernism?

 

[DaShuckster]

Qanon is a response to corrupt global institutions.

Qanon is nothing more than a crackpot conservative conspiracy theory fueled by social media. It’s not based on any ‘real issue worth addressing.’

 

[Crazyhole]

Except rich people take from other people all the damn time, just look at the bank bailouts or some of these wealthy companies who took PPP loans.

Not inconsistent with what I was talking about.

 

[jt_knight]

Qanon is nothing more than a crackpot conservative conspiracy theory fueled by social media. It’s not based on any ‘real issue worth addressing.’

My friend, with all due respect, if you can't see the underlying real-world issues animating both movements, nor see the problems created by their response to those issues, then you are not appreciating the depth and breadth of phenomena. All effective lies contain enough truth to seem convincing. That's why otherwise rational people are seduced by cultic ideas. And once one begins down the road of non-reason, there is no limit to what becomes plausible (reptilian-human hybrids, etc.).

But if you're correct, and the conspiracy has zero correspondence to reality, then you have a more difficult burden of explaining the origin, propagation, and teleology of the movement. How did it begin? How does it spread? And what are the ultimate goals/purpose?

 

[Cubs79]

My friend, with all due respect, if you can't see the underlying real-world issues animating both movements, nor see the problems created by their response to those issues, then you are not appreciating the depth and breadth of phenomena. All effective lies contain enough truth to seem convincing. That's why otherwise rational people are seduced by cultic ideas. And once one begins down the road of non-reason, there is no limit to what becomes plausible (reptilian-human hybrids, etc.).

But if you're correct, and the conspiracy has zero correspondence to reality, then you have a more difficult burden of explaining the origin, propagation, and teleology of the movement. How did it begin? How does it spread? And what are the ultimate goals/purpose?

Qanon is nothing more than a rumor mill of batshit crazy conspiracies. The idea that JFK jr faked his death is ridiculous, the idea that wayfair is selling children online is ridiculous, that Tom Hanks is a pedophile etc etc etc.

Its purpose and goals are to support Trump and make him out to be a superhero and that anyone who is against him is a pedophile or pedophile sympathizer, that is pretty much the goal. The spreading and growth of the movement isnt that hard to explain either. Our country is filled with idiots who get their news from memes, so anything they read that they want to be true, they will believe and pass on as truth. There is also a pretty high likeliehood it is being pushed by either an intelligence agency or some sort of Cambridge Analytica style research firm.

 

[Cubs79]

Not inconsistent with what I was talking about.

Of course it is consistent with what you are talking about. You are trying to frame marxism as essentially "stealing" from others, but this country has plenty of corporate welfare, that somehow never gets discussed under the guise of "marxism".

 

[Crazyhole]

Of course it is consistent with what you are talking about. You are trying to frame marxism as essentially "stealing" from others, but this country has plenty of corporate welfare, that somehow never gets discussed under the guise of "marxism".

I do, but rarely do people engage in the conversation because the prevailing sentiment is that its all about (crony) capitalism. Its kind of like how fascism was outwardly critical of Marxism but in practice it was comparable to it.

 

[ChrisKnight06]

Just came across my feed

https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/aug/12/qanon-pizzagate-conspiracy-theories-co-opt-savethe/

 

[Ace of Knights]

QAnon Followers Are Hijacking the #SaveTheChildren Movement (Published 2020)

Fans of the pro-Trump conspiracy theory are clogging anti-trafficking hotlines, infiltrating Facebook groups and raising false fears about child exploitation.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Boosted87]

My friend, with all due respect, if you can't see the underlying real-world issues animating both movements, nor see the problems created by their response to those issues, then you are not appreciating the depth and breadth of phenomena. All effective lies contain enough truth to seem convincing. That's why otherwise rational people are seduced by cultic ideas. And once one begins down the road of non-reason, there is no limit to what becomes plausible (reptilian-human hybrids, etc.).

But if you're correct, and the conspiracy has zero correspondence to reality, then you have a more difficult burden of explaining the origin, propagation, and teleology of the movement. How did it begin? How does it spread? And what are the ultimate goals/purpose?

I'm with you like halfway here. Humans always struggle with putting themselves in someone elses shoes. So I agree with you that we need to seek to understand the root causes of people's beliefs, especially when they differ from our own.

But this Federalist article is trying to relate a movement for social change (which has warts - yes) with a nutcase conspiracy theory. These two things are not the same. This is an effort from the right to justify their own crazies, and it's total nonsense.

Both sides arguments are not always wrong, but they are not always right either. Historically, we often look back and say "yup - those were definitely the bad guys." Is it complex? Of course. Should we try to understand the conditions that made the crazy possible and fix them? Absolutely.

The suffrage movement had violence. There were militant aspects to the civil rights movement. Major movements are going to attract extremists and radicals. That doesn't change whether or not the underlying cause is valid.

"Wokism" or whatever you want to call it - is trying to fix perceived flaws in society. You may disagree with every tactic employed or solution proposed, but there's little doubt that many of these flaws exist. They are not made up. It's driven by the experience and perceptions of real Americans.

Q-Anon is literally a conspiracy theory originating from 4-Chan. It's not a movement for social change with millions of people marching in cities. Sports leagues around the world are not taking a knee in honor of Pizza Gate or Q. Corporations are not putting giant Q logos up on their social media pages. While this Q crap may have started with a dude in a basement, it has clearly been co-opted for political purposes.

These two things are not the same.

 

[jt_knight]

I'm with you like halfway here. Humans always struggle with putting themselves in someone elses shoes. So I agree with you that we need to seek to understand the root causes of people's beliefs, especially when they differ from our own.

But this Federalist article is trying to relate a movement for social change (which has warts - yes) with a nutcase conspiracy theory. These two things are not the same. This is an effort from the right to justify their own crazies, and it's total nonsense.

Both sides arguments are not always wrong, but they are not always right either. Historically, we often look back and say "yup - those were definitely the bad guys." Is it complex? Of course. Should we try to understand the conditions that made the crazy possible and fix them? Absolutely.

The suffrage movement had violence. There were militant aspects to the civil rights movement. Major movements are going to attract extremists and radicals. That doesn't change whether or not the underlying cause is valid.

"Wokism" or whatever you want to call it - is trying to fix perceived flaws in society. You may disagree with every tactic employed or solution proposed, but there's little doubt that many of these flaws exist. They are not made up. It's driven by the experience and perceptions of real Americans.

Q-Anon is literally a conspiracy theory originating from 4-Chan. It's not a movement for social change with millions of people marching in cities. Sports leagues around the world are not taking a knee in honor of Pizza Gate or Q. Corporations are not putting giant Q logos up on their social media pages. While this Q crap may have started with a dude in a basement, it has clearly been co-opted for political purposes.

These two things are not the same.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. And agreeing halfway is better than we usually get on this message board so I'll take it.

I totally agree the two ideas are not the same, nor even proportional in the absurdities of their claims. I'll even grant, for the sake of discussion, that only one side is truly absurd. But that's why the Federalist article comparing the two was interesting--because it's not obvious on their face that they have anything in common. The author's thesis was that both ideologies are filling the vacuum created in the wake of traditional religion's decline. Why is that noteworthy? Because the emergence of "secular cults" cuts against the popular theory that a decline in traditional religion would yield a more secular and rational culture. Instead, what we are getting is not less religion, but "worse" religion, in that these new orthodoxies reject reasoned discourse. And in the case of wokeism, the fundamentalist adherents expect absolute conformity, punishing blasphemers with exile (cancellation).

Perhaps the author's thesis is wrong and these two movements can be explained by something other than the decline of traditional religious belief in America but it's something to consider.

 

[Cubs79]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. And agreeing halfway is better than we usually get on this message board so I'll take it.

I totally agree the two ideas are not the same, nor even proportional in the absurdities of their claims. I'll even grant, for the sake of discussion, that only one side is truly absurd. But that's why the Federalist article comparing the two was interesting--because it's not obvious on their face that they have anything in common. The author's thesis was that both ideologies are filling the vacuum created in the wake of traditional religion's decline. Why is that noteworthy? Because the emergence of "secular cults" cuts against the popular theory that a decline in traditional religion would yield a more secular and rational culture. Instead, what we are getting is not less religion, but "worse" religion, in that these new orthodoxies reject reasoned discourse. And in the case of wokeism, the fundamentalist adherents expect absolute conformity, punishing blasphemers with exile (cancellation).

Perhaps the author's thesis is wrong and these two movements can be explained by something other than the decline of traditional religious belief in America but it's something to consider.

Keep in mind The Federalist is a conservative publication. They can't defend Qanon (nor should they want to), so instead they try and discredit the other side for being just as bad. This is simply whataboutism. What we are seeing from the left is nothing new, fighting for racial equality has been going on in some way shape or form since the country was founded. The Qanon stuff is just straight up cult like behavior and stuff you would find from an episode of the X Files or something. You dont have to agree with everything that is going on from the left, I am on the left and dont agree with all of it, but it isnt even in the same stratosphere of nuttiness as the Qanon stuff is.

 

[Boosted87]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. And agreeing halfway is better than we usually get on this message board so I'll take it.

I totally agree the two ideas are not the same, nor even proportional in the absurdities of their claims. I'll even grant, for the sake of discussion, that only one side is truly absurd. But that's why the Federalist article comparing the two was interesting--because it's not obvious on their face that they have anything in common. The author's thesis was that both ideologies are filling the vacuum created in the wake of traditional religion's decline. Why is that noteworthy? Because the emergence of "secular cults" cuts against the popular theory that a decline in traditional religion would yield a more secular and rational culture. Instead, what we are getting is not less religion, but "worse" religion, in that these new orthodoxies reject reasoned discourse. And in the case of wokeism, the fundamentalist adherents expect absolute conformity, punishing blasphemers with exile (cancellation).

Perhaps the author's thesis is wrong and these two movements can be explained by something other than the decline of traditional religious belief in America but it's something to consider.

The water cooler would be way more fun if there was actual discussion!

There was a great South Park episode where Cartman freezes himself because he can't wait 3 weeks for the Wii to release. He ends up hundreds of years in the future in a society with no religion. Instead, 3 competing factions of Athiests exist and are fighting over who's science has the right answers.

I'm totally sympathetic to the basic premise of the argument. People predisposed to extremism can be radicalized by religion, environmentalism, animal rights, etc. Eliminating religion does nothing to eliminate our ability to reject reason. So I wholly agree that a decline in traditional religion does not equal a more rational culture.

But again I pause in relating these two things. There's a broad social movement happening that has some crazy folks as a part of it. The crazies tend to be the most outspoken, so their voices are amplified. But overall, they make a small chunk of something gaining broad support. I just don't see this as being all that different from past social movements (save the social media part). Were suffragettes "secular cultists"? Maybe - but from an era that pre-dates the decline in traditional religion discussed here. I don't think we need to invent a new reason (decline in religion) to explain this particular social movement, when it didn't explain past social movements.

Trying to relate this to Q is a false equivalency meant to undermine the movement for social change by giving them the same root cause (lack of religion).

 

[UCFKnight85]

Keep in mind The Federalist is a conservative publication. They can't defend Qanon (nor should they want to), so instead they try and discredit the other side for being just as bad. This is simply whataboutism. What we are seeing from the left is nothing new, fighting for racial equality has been going on in some way shape or form since the country was founded. The Qanon stuff is just straight up cult like behavior and stuff you would find from an episode of the X Files or something. You dont have to agree with everything that is going on from the left, I am on the left and dont agree with all of it, but it isnt even in the same stratosphere of nuttiness as the Qanon stuff is.

Sorry but what is going on in the streets right now is largely not about “racial equality”, it’s now mostly about leftist extremists enacting out their violent wet dreams and throwing around dumbshit Marxist ideology while co-opting the actual black lives matter (lowercase) rally cry for their own gain.

Q may have attracted nuts in their basements but BLM and the leftists are out rioting, looting, assaulting cops, killing cops, assaulting store owners,fire bombing court houses, leadings mobs to people’s private residences, demanding people give up their homes and turn them over to black people, defunding police departments, etc etc

If your point is that the two really aren’t comparable I would agree for reasons above.

 

[DaShuckster]

There's a broad social movement happening that has some crazy folks as a part of it. The crazies tend to be the most outspoken, so their voices are amplified. But overall, they make a small chunk of something gaining broad support. I just don't see this as being all that different from past social movements ...

I agree. I would also point out that 'the crazies' on both ends of the political spectrum tend to dominate the discussion on both sides by characterizing their crazy minority counterparts as 'evil boogiemen' in an attempt to scare the majority of people in the middle.

Case in point:

Q may have attracted nuts in their basements but BLM and the leftists are out rioting, looting, assaulting cops, killing cops, assaulting store owners,fire bombing court houses, leadings mobs to people’s private residences, demanding people give up their homes and turn them over to black people, defunding police departments, etc etc

😨😨😨😨😨

 

[Cubs79]

Sorry but what is going on in the streets right now is largely not about “racial equality”, it’s now mostly about leftist extremists enacting out their violent wet dreams and throwing around dumbshit Marxist ideology while co-opting the actual black lives matter (lowercase) rally cry for their own gain.

Q may have attracted nuts in their basements but BLM and the leftists are out rioting, looting, assaulting cops, killing cops, assaulting store owners,fire bombing court houses, leadings mobs to people’s private residences, demanding people give up their homes and turn them over to black people, defunding police departments, etc etc

If your point is that the two really aren’t comparable I would agree for reasons above.

THere are basically two cities with much of anything going on in the streets right now, and you admit it is being co-opted, which means it isnt what the movement in general is about. THese events are also in direct response to actual things that happened, not made up stuff from an anonymous message board.

And it isnt just nuts in a basement.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/antho...-qanon-far-right-sites-even-trump-lawyer-says Murderer influenced by Qanon.

https://www.9news.com/article/news/...aring/73-c8438d31-76cc-4a62-881c-95ec95a92c75 Kidnapping.

https://tucson.com/news/local/pedop...cle_0fa9bf80-a32d-5bf3-914c-a19d172c60a0.html Vandalism of a place he accused of being used for sex trafficking.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/man-plead...rge-blocking-bridge-armored/story?id=68955385 terrorism charges in the name of Q.

http://rockrivertimes.com/2020/05/1...an-arrested-with-knives-i-am-the-coronavirus/ Plotting to take out Biden.

And there are numerous other events, which could have turned out really badly (and at some point 1 probably will). This shit isnt just people typing on their computers in a basement.

 

[ChrisKnight06]

So a couple of people on both sides have now mentioned the movement being co-opted. My question is why can't progressives be more aggressive in distancing themselves from it? I would have the same expectation for anyone on the right when it comes to their extreme element.

Maybe we just can't agree with how large these groups are? The left feels the extreme element of the right is larger than the right believes it to be and vice versa. In the end everyone thinks there are a lot of extremists but their team is only responsible for a few.

Another problem with this specific discussion is that I feel "woke" is more of a spectrum compared to QAnon. You're going to have a lot of pushback when you consider anyone critical of our institutions "woke", lumping them in with the chaos in places like Seattle and Portland.

I don't know precisely where the line is drawn but it's very clear there's a separation on the left. Both extremes are sick and not really interested in the degree to which one is complete fantasy vs taking their "awakening" way too damn far.

 

[UCFKnight85]

So a couple of people on both sides have now mentioned the movement being co-opted. My question is why can't progressives be more aggressive in distancing themselves from it? I would have the same expectation for anyone on the right when it comes to their extreme element.

Maybe we just can't agree with how large these groups are? The left feels the extreme element of the right is larger than the right believes it to be and vice versa. In the end everyone thinks there are a lot of extremists but their team is only responsible for a few.

Another problem with this specific discussion is that I feel "woke" is more of a spectrum compared to QAnon. You're going to have a lot of pushback when you consider anyone critical of our institutions "woke", lumping them in with the chaos in places like Seattle and Portland.

I don't know precisely where the line is drawn but it's very clear there's a separation on the left. Both extremes are sick and not really interested in the degree to which one is complete fantasy vs taking their "awakening" way too damn far.

A lot of black people - a lot - are pissed off with the violent bitch white left wing Marxists undertaking rioting and violence under the banner of BLM. They should be.

 

[DaShuckster]

So a couple of people on both sides have now mentioned the movement being co-opted. My question is why can't progressives be more aggressive in distancing themselves from it?

My take is that these groups are so fringe that they are not worthy of giving undo attention to--but that's the same reason why the right-wing crowd picks them up. Screw reality, they want to paint the most frightening and extreme picture possible.

 

[Cubs79]

So a couple of people on both sides have now mentioned the movement being co-opted. My question is why can't progressives be more aggressive in distancing themselves from it? I would have the same expectation for anyone on the right when it comes to their extreme element.

Maybe we just can't agree with how large these groups are? The left feels the extreme element of the right is larger than the right believes it to be and vice versa. In the end everyone thinks there are a lot of extremists but their team is only responsible for a few.

Another problem with this specific discussion is that I feel "woke" is more of a spectrum compared to QAnon. You're going to have a lot of pushback when you consider anyone critical of our institutions "woke", lumping them in with the chaos in places like Seattle and Portland.

I don't know precisely where the line is drawn but it's very clear there's a separation on the left. Both extremes are sick and not really interested in the degree to which one is complete fantasy vs taking their "awakening" way too damn far.

Qanon isnt co-opted, Qanon is what it is. It is either a movement someone agrees with, or they dont. Any time their are protests or forms of unrest, or natural disasters, etc, there are people who take advantage of those situations by looting and what not, but that isnt a "left" thing. Even with the protests, more than a few right wingers have been outed as being in the middle of things trying to stir things up, and I am sure plenty of people who arent overly political at all have taken part in looting and vandalism. And the more extreme elements on the left, get called out all the time by people who think they are taking things to far. And you are absolutely right, people on the right often times try to paint everyone on the left as antifa or some other sort of radical progressive, when in reality, most people on the left are just for basic and mainstream things. People on the left dont really associate everyone on that right as Qanon.

 

[Cubs79]

A lot of black people - a lot - are pissed off with the violent bitch white left wing Marxists undertaking rioting and violence under the banner of BLM. They should be.

Agreed, which shows that it isnt a mainstream left thing.

 

[ChrisKnight06]

People on the left dont really associate everyone on that right as Qanon.

No but they group far too many people in to the Alt Right category.

Like I don't even know the damn levels anymore. Does alt-right come before Qanon or is it the same thing? Same thing on the left. Is SJW synonymous with woke? Where does woke begin and end and switch over to the Portland and Seattle level lunacy?

 

[ChrisKnight06]

Agreed, which shows that it isnt a mainstream left thing.

It doesn't need to be mainstream to have outsized impact and that's the problem with both sides. Mobs get a reaction.

 

[ChrisKnight06]

My take is that these groups are so fringe that they are not worthy of giving undo attention to--but that's the same reason why the right-wing crowd picks them up. Screw reality, they want to paint the most frightening and extreme picture possible.

My frustration is I see both groups doing this. Right points to Antifa and left points to Proud Boys or whatever. Do you see that also or do you see this as one sided?

 

[Cubs79]

No but they group far too many people in to the Alt Right category.

Like I don't even know the damn levels anymore. Does alt-right come before Qanon or is it the same thing? Same thing on the left. Is SJW synonymous with woke? Where does woke begin and end and switch over to the Portland and Seattle level lunacy?

I dont really see it as "coming before or after". Qanon is a specific thing that someone either believes or they dont. I would suggest that pretty much everyone who does buy into it are likely alt-right, but I dont think everyone considered alt-right believes in Qanon.

I would think SJW and woke are pretty closely related, but unlike Qanon, there are degrees to these things. There is a difference for example, in someone thinking cops have a tendency to treat minorities poorly, wanting justice reform, etc, and wanting to rename anything named after an old white guy or wanting to cancel someone who has said something stupid in their past. There are legit political issues, and then there is a lot of virtue signaling more or less. With Qanon, there is nothing legitimate to it. It is just basically trying to paint everyone who doesnt support Trump as a pedophile.

 

[UCFKnight85]

My take is that these groups are so fringe that they are not worthy of giving undo attention to--but that's the same reason why the right-wing crowd picks them up. Screw reality, they want to paint the most frightening and extreme picture possible.

At least 5 major cities have mindlessly voted to gut their police force and defund the police - as the violent mobs in the street are demanding - even as violent crime and homicides sky rocket in every one of these cities.

Yea, sounds real “fringe”

 

[ChrisKnight06]

I dont really see it as "coming before or after". Qanon is a specific thing that someone either believes or they dont. I would suggest that pretty much everyone who does buy into it are likely alt-right, but I dont think everyone considered alt-right believes in Qanon.

I would think SJW and woke are pretty closely related, but unlike Qanon, there are degrees to these things. There is a difference for example, in someone thinking cops have a tendency to treat minorities poorly, wanting justice reform, etc, and wanting to rename anything named after an old white guy or wanting to cancel someone who has said something stupid in their past. There are legit political issues, and then there is a lot of virtue signaling more or less. With Qanon, there is nothing legitimate to it. It is just basically trying to paint everyone who doesnt support Trump as a pedophile.

My contention isn't with sjw or even woke as you described here. Bc yes I agree, most of it at worst is just misguided and comes from a real place.

I'm talking about the group a step even further, the ACAB/abolish (not just defund) the police group. We'll just have to agree to disagree with the size of the group and what their actual influence.

 

[DaShuckster]

Yea, sounds real “fringe”

The fringe are the nutjobs who go around characterizing the defund the police movement as an effort by cities to "gut their police force."

 

[jt_knight]

The water cooler would be way more fun if there was actual discussion!

There was a great South Park episode where Cartman freezes himself because he can't wait 3 weeks for the Wii to release. He ends up hundreds of years in the future in a society with no religion. Instead, 3 competing factions of Athiests exist and are fighting over who's science has the right answers.

I'm totally sympathetic to the basic premise of the argument. People predisposed to extremism can be radicalized by religion, environmentalism, animal rights, etc. Eliminating religion does nothing to eliminate our ability to reject reason. So I wholly agree that a decline in traditional religion does not equal a more rational culture.

But again I pause in relating these two things. There's a broad social movement happening that has some crazy folks as a part of it. The crazies tend to be the most outspoken, so their voices are amplified. But overall, they make a small chunk of something gaining broad support. I just don't see this as being all that different from past social movements (save the social media part). Were suffragettes "secular cultists"? Maybe - but from an era that pre-dates the decline in traditional religion discussed here. I don't think we need to invent a new reason (decline in religion) to explain this particular social movement, when it didn't explain past social movements.

Trying to relate this to Q is a false equivalency meant to undermine the movement for social change by giving them the same root cause (lack of religion).

Well said. And you may be totally right that the appearance of these two worldviews have little to nothing or do with the corresponding decline in mainline religious affiliation. I probably won't add any other thoughts to this discussion as I would only be repeating what has already been stated. But I did come across this interview a moment ago and it fleshes out the thesis that the modern social justice movement is taking the place of traditional religion. I'll post it here in case anyone is interested.

(I've never heard of the site before but obviously the website is irrelevant. What matters is the content.)

Wokeness: old religion in a new bottle

Joseph Bottum on how the decline of Protestant America fuelled the rise of identity politics.

www.spiked-online.com