I have a theory that with the decline of religion in the West, people replaced what they got from religious ideology with political ideology. The sense of belonging and community. The sense of certainty in basic tenets. The confidence of being able to reliably recite their 'scriptures'. (Which 'scriptures' all having been laid down by their prophets.) And they are all guided by faith, not necessarily data. They have become quasi-religious organizations, and I'm sure in the future, will probably crystalize into something fairly overtly similar to what we would call religions today.
I guess the point is that you can see some of the same behaviors of religious types being evoked in adherents to the various political ideologies. To the point of not really even being willing to listen to math, or data, or science. There is a very real perception among them that the scriptures allow a better understanding of nature and the universe than the systems nature and the universe provide to aid our understanding. Even more worryingly, as the article points out, they will often put forth ideologically pure 'domain experts' who can be relied on to give explanations grounded more in doctrinal alignment than scientific veracity. So we've already reached a point where explanations that are in accordance with 'scripture' have become a matter of great doctrinal import to these groups, and are being actively sought out. I guess by that I mean, the poison has leaked over from general society, into the sciences.
I honestly believe that, as these groupings of political ideologues coalesce to replace religion more and more, I'd bet dollars to donuts that extremism in the future will be fueled almost exclusively by these quasi-religious political groupings.
I stopped reading the news a long time ago. After reading this, I haven’t really put much thought into what would make me return to having a regular habit again. Or what would even signal to me that I suddenly have something to gain from it?
I there’s something to be said about keeping one foot in the public sphere while also having a degree of skepticism. The difference between Gary Numan and David Bowie.
This article appears to be a defense of priesthoods and the traditional media:
> But I still have basic trust that something in the New York Times’ non-opinion pages is 99% likely to be factually true - probably spun a bit, probably selected from the space of possible news articles because it supports the Times’ agenda, but factually true - in a way I don’t believe for random YouTubers.
Is the author perhaps overcomplicating the explanation on how 'wokeness' captured so many priesthoods, by invoking complex memetic virality? E.g. Marxism was very effective at capturing priesthoods in China and Russia (e.g. Lysenkoism) because it was politically powerful, as well as morally - it was considered immoral, even treasonous, to not be communist.
In the same way, modern Western morality is based on anti-racism, and wokeness is merely its next logical step.
The point was that there are too many people like you out in society in quasi-religious political groupings that adhere less to natural reason and more to ideological 'scriptures'. 'Scriptures' like woke-ness, or anti-woke-ness. You're clearly the anti-woke-ness jihadi type, but the idea is the same.
You have effectively gone out immediately after reading the article and proven the article's larger point. It makes responding to you awkward, since you appear to be unaware of how your comment validates so many of the article's larger implications in a way that you clearly did not intend. So most of the people interacting with this thread are just downvoting you in the hopes that your comment will disappear. They'd just as soon not have that uncomfortable conversation with you where they point out that your anti-woke-ness is as cringe as the woke-ness you're decrying.
> You have effectively gone out immediately after reading the article and proven the article's larger point.
You must misunderstand my position, because I don't really disagree with the article overall - it seems plausible to me. Just that it uses an over-complicated explanation for one of its points.
I have a theory that with the decline of religion in the West, people replaced what they got from religious ideology with political ideology. The sense of belonging and community. The sense of certainty in basic tenets. The confidence of being able to reliably recite their 'scriptures'. (Which 'scriptures' all having been laid down by their prophets.) And they are all guided by faith, not necessarily data. They have become quasi-religious organizations, and I'm sure in the future, will probably crystalize into something fairly overtly similar to what we would call religions today.
I guess the point is that you can see some of the same behaviors of religious types being evoked in adherents to the various political ideologies. To the point of not really even being willing to listen to math, or data, or science. There is a very real perception among them that the scriptures allow a better understanding of nature and the universe than the systems nature and the universe provide to aid our understanding. Even more worryingly, as the article points out, they will often put forth ideologically pure 'domain experts' who can be relied on to give explanations grounded more in doctrinal alignment than scientific veracity. So we've already reached a point where explanations that are in accordance with 'scripture' have become a matter of great doctrinal import to these groups, and are being actively sought out. I guess by that I mean, the poison has leaked over from general society, into the sciences.
I honestly believe that, as these groupings of political ideologues coalesce to replace religion more and more, I'd bet dollars to donuts that extremism in the future will be fueled almost exclusively by these quasi-religious political groupings.
I stopped reading the news a long time ago. After reading this, I haven’t really put much thought into what would make me return to having a regular habit again. Or what would even signal to me that I suddenly have something to gain from it?
I there’s something to be said about keeping one foot in the public sphere while also having a degree of skepticism. The difference between Gary Numan and David Bowie.
This article appears to be a defense of priesthoods and the traditional media:
> But I still have basic trust that something in the New York Times’ non-opinion pages is 99% likely to be factually true - probably spun a bit, probably selected from the space of possible news articles because it supports the Times’ agenda, but factually true - in a way I don’t believe for random YouTubers.
Is the author perhaps overcomplicating the explanation on how 'wokeness' captured so many priesthoods, by invoking complex memetic virality? E.g. Marxism was very effective at capturing priesthoods in China and Russia (e.g. Lysenkoism) because it was politically powerful, as well as morally - it was considered immoral, even treasonous, to not be communist.
In the same way, modern Western morality is based on anti-racism, and wokeness is merely its next logical step.
The point was that there are too many people like you out in society in quasi-religious political groupings that adhere less to natural reason and more to ideological 'scriptures'. 'Scriptures' like woke-ness, or anti-woke-ness. You're clearly the anti-woke-ness jihadi type, but the idea is the same.
You have effectively gone out immediately after reading the article and proven the article's larger point. It makes responding to you awkward, since you appear to be unaware of how your comment validates so many of the article's larger implications in a way that you clearly did not intend. So most of the people interacting with this thread are just downvoting you in the hopes that your comment will disappear. They'd just as soon not have that uncomfortable conversation with you where they point out that your anti-woke-ness is as cringe as the woke-ness you're decrying.
> You have effectively gone out immediately after reading the article and proven the article's larger point.
You must misunderstand my position, because I don't really disagree with the article overall - it seems plausible to me. Just that it uses an over-complicated explanation for one of its points.