*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[MadMojoMonkey]

People are people, though. It's convenient to say that the religions you were raised in and/or around are the good ones and the ones you weren't raised in or around are the less good ones, but it's the same story from all sides, so it's almost certainly a wash.

People on fundamentalist rampages say it's because of their religion. However, the people swooping in to help in the aftermath of such events also say they are doing so because of their religion, and the vast majority of the time (the world over), it's the same religion in both cases. If the same explanation is used to describe opposing outcomes, that explanation is wrong.

I.e. Why those people say they are doing what they're doing is definitely, definitely not the actual reason, not the whole story, NOT the motivating factor in their choices, but a rationalization.

[boost]

People are people, though. It's convenient to say that the religions you were raised in and/or around are the good ones and the ones you weren't raised in or around are the less good ones, but it's the same story from all sides, so it's almost certainly a wash.

You're making the argument that I parenthetically addressed. But lets dig in a bit. Imagine a religion that holds that the path to a glorious afterlife of eternal bliss can only be reached by doing your best to bring about hell on earth. Think of it as a sort of religion that applies the laws of conservation to happiness. If you can't make the case that this religion is worse than Buddhism, then I'd kindly ask you to take your head out your ass and try again.

People on fundamentalist rampages say it's because of their religion. However, the people swooping in to help in the aftermath of such events also say they are doing so because of their religion, and the vast majority of the time (the world over), it's the same religion in both cases. If the same explanation is used to describe opposing outcomes, that explanation is wrong.

This is all sorts of faulty. They aren't the same inputs and they aren't opposing outcomes. People who bought and sold human beings as slaves also loved their children. Culture and religions are complex systems which result in a plethora of outcomes if any one variable shifts. The point I'm aiming at is that on balance no two set of complex ideas are going to produce equally desirable outcomes. Take this point independently. Don't imagine where it will lead you. Actually contemplate how absurd the notion is.

I.e. Why those people say they are doing what they're doing is definitely, definitely not the actual reason, not the whole story, NOT the motivating factor in their choices, but a rationalization.

Is it your position that Nazi Germany had a disproportionate number of sociopaths? That Nazi rhetoric and doctrine had no influence over a large number of people's decision to carry out or stand by and watch a genocide? Nazism is an abhorrent set of ideas that, on balance, had atrocious outcomes. But guess what, Nazi's also produce engineering marvels, carried out marvelous public works projects, and had a great sense of style. What's wrong? Don't wanna play post-modernist mumbo-jumbo with this set of ideas?

[MadMojoMonkey]

You're making the argument that I parenthetically addressed. But lets dig in a bit. Imagine a religion that holds that the path to a glorious afterlife of eternal bliss can only be reached by doing your best to bring about hell on earth. Think of it as a sort of religion that applies the laws of conservation to happiness. If you can't make the case that this religion is worse than Buddhism, then I'd kindly ask you to take your head out your ass and try again.

I can say that Buddhism sounds like it appeals to me more. I can only hope I'm not in the minority, and that causing direct harm to people remains illegal on many levels across the world. But like... if the hell on Earth is to wear goth clothes or make film noir or be generally a dick to people, then meh. I'm cool with that about as much as Buddhism. If they're being criminals, whether they say their dog or their god told them to do it, they should be prosecuted as criminals. If not, then let them be their own kind of crazy.

I can only appeal to democratic rule. If the savages outnumber the sane, then the savagery reigns.
Historically, there've been some pretty dark times. It seems naive to think there wont be more. I don't think attacking someone's religion is a move in the right direction. Maybe, but Christians get all in a tizzy once a year over non-Christians suggesting that maybe shoving Christmas-themed crap into every corner of retail America is on the overkill side of things. They're all, "Ehrmagherd it's a war on Christmas!" and nothing changes.

This is all sorts of faulty. They aren't the same inputs and they aren't opposing outcomes. People who bought and sold human beings as slaves also loved their children.

Huh?
I'm saying a Muslim terrorist attack against Muslims is responded to by Muslim police forces and Muslim firefighters and Muslim EMTs and Muslim doctors. All of them say they do it for their religion.
It doesn't add up.
If the same thing - Islam - explains opposing outcomes - the terrorism and the fight against terrorism - then we're not getting at the truth.
The religion is a common factor used to explain disparate outcomes. Therefore, the religion is not the real, underlying, motivating factor. It's a false positive.

Culture and religions are complex systems which result in a plethora of outcomes if any one variable shifts. The point I'm aiming at is that on balance no two set of complex ideas are going to produce equally desirable outcomes. Take this point independently. Don't imagine where it will lead you. Actually contemplate how absurd the notion is.

"Equally desirable" can't be well-defined across all people.
In terms of socio-political-economic systems, history shows that different schemas excel on different scales and that humans can be quite adaptable to making a schema work beyond its optimal bounds.

Are North Korean people really any less happy than you or I on average?
I legit don't know, but I suspect you'd find about the same ratios of happy people, grumpy people, people that can tell a joke, people that are quick to anger, etc. in any human population. Cultures vary, but humanity doesn't really.

(1)Is it your position that Nazi Germany had a disproportionate number of sociopaths? (2)That Nazi rhetoric and doctrine had no influence over a large number of people's decision to carry out or stand by and watch a genocide? (3)Nazism is an abhorrent set of ideas that, on balance, had atrocious outcomes. But guess what, Nazi's also produce engineering marvels, carried out marvelous public works projects, and had a great sense of style. (4)What's wrong? (5)Don't wanna play post-modernist mumbo-jumbo with this set of ideas?

(1) no. Just a few prominent ones that got to ride the charismatic wave of Hitler and found themselves in positions of tremendous consequence. (I'm not trained to diagnose sociopathy, but for my layman's understanding, it seems like a safe bet.)
(2) no
(3) yes
(4) Nothing's wrong. Both are true. The morality of the non-fiction, irl world is rarely black and white. Evil can be charismatic. (IDK about the style thing, but I wouldn't)
(5) What? I'm not hip to the lingo. I'm totally fine with acknowledging that the holocaust part of Nazism was evil, but the technological and military advancements they made were impressive. For a while there, it was Germany against everyone, it seemed, and Germany's tech was keeping up with all of them. We love to brag about how we beat them at the end, but it was at the end. German tech is still impressive.

[boost]

(5) What? I'm not hip to the lingo. I'm totally fine with acknowledging that the holocaust part of Nazism was evil, but the technological and military advancements they made were impressive. For a while there, it was Germany against everyone, it seemed, and Germany's tech was keeping up with all of them. We love to brag about how we beat them at the end, but it was at the end. German tech is still impressive.

Why are you carving up Nazism here? I can't imagine you'd do it outside of the context of this discussion. If I had just posted in the Randomness thread "Nazism is a bad set of ideas." I could be wrong, but I don't imagine you'd have responded with "well, yeah, but they had some great engineering achievements, and really was 1930's/40's Americanism better?

To be clear, I am not equating Nazism with Islam-- I'm going to the extreme to make the point that not all sets of ideas are equal, and that some are in fact worse. Sets of ideas are better or worse because they in fact do cause people to act. Hitler was charismatic. His charisma was a large driving force in infecting people with this perverse set of ideas.

I don't even want to convince you that Islam is a bad set of ideas, or worse than whatever-- I'm just concerned that people who I think are intelligent don't seem to think that memes have power, that they cause people to act.