So in other words, the modern West is being run like the Tower of Babel: usurping God by reaching "heaven" through human effort. Some "heaven" this seemingly endless cyberpunk dystopia is...
Is Modern Social Justice a Cult? - Equality to Extremism
- Thread starter tampax pearl
- Start date
More or less.
The Protestant concept of "Whig History" merged with Marxism and postmodernism to morph into "The Right Side of History" and it's basically a modern-day Tower of Babel, and 2020 is now looking like the year it hits the breaking point and comes apart at the seams.
Everything's reaching a climactic moment and it's going to get a lot worse before it even can start to get better, especially as we get closer to November.
If Trump wins four more years despite all this insanity, then even the most stubborn of the corporate establishment Dems will have to secretly admit 2016 was not a fluke or aberration and will do what they can to disown, disavow, and effectively disenfranchise the Woke Left since they failed as useful idiots (same as how the Religious Right got cast out like yesterday's garbage once they stopped being useful for the neocons in the mid-late 2000's)
If there's any hope, it's in the Boomers and the Karens. A second term of Trump in 2020 will be the kick in the balls to make them realize what's going on and shut it all down before more of the Millennial Left gets let into the pantry, and given how much of a thorn The Squad have been in the side of the Democratic Establishment, the second win of Trump will lead to the old guard disowning and doing what they can to memory hole their endorsement of the Antifa/BLM coup and doing everything they can to make sure the Millennial Woke Left is defanged. This will likely happen more intensely if the Dems also have midterm losses in 2022.
I know I'm voting for Trump because he will need every vote he can get to win 2020, and if he wins 2020, I think we'll see a major realignment of the two-party system.
If Biden wins, we'll be closer to that cyberpunk dystopia.
If Trump wins, say goodbye to "Current Year" and hello to the Seventh Party System. I don't know if the era that follows the end of Current Year will be better, but it will be very different and likely not woke either.
I happen to be a victim of SJWs and the alt-right(!) since 2012 after the failure of Russia's Phobos-Grunt space mission. Recently, I've been stalked by Koncorde, a British Wikipedian who seemed to spin BatteryIncluded's narratives and being called "Britain BatteryIncluded." Looking up to him, his birth date is 1980, and his birth place is St. Helens, Lancashire, England. He is anti-Democrats, anti-liberal and anti-globalism, which leads me to him being a Russian agent / useful idiot / fellow traveler cultivated by President Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin. He has a Reddit account, and he nowadays conspires with JustARandommer. Both Koncorde and JustARandommer are GamerGaters, whose controversy helped Donald Trump and Brexit alongside Facebook.
when it all comes crashing down, I'll still be me and these weasels will be crying.
I don’t have any recommendations, sadly. That said, I don’t think that the BITE model is entirely wrong, it just needs to be more precise and an actual scoring system. Without a scoring system, it leaves it up to more interpretation (which can be bad if you’re trying to think objectively). I’ll give an example of how the think one of the criteria for the BITE model should look:
Does the group allow outside contact?
1- lots of outside contact, no restrictions in who you associate with
2- lots of outside contact, some restrictions in who you associate with
3-some outside contact, some restrictions in who you associate with
4-little outside contact, lots of restrictions in who you associate with
5-no outside contact, not allowed to associate with anyone outside of the group
The improved BITE model would be a series of questions related to cult behavior and each question would specify what each number on the scale means (as shown above). The higher the score, the closer it is to a cult. At the end, all points would be tallied up and there would be ranges for cult versus not a cult.
Bum Driller
Cultural Appropriator & Cowboy Chemist
While I don't necessarily disagree with OP, your post is incoherently written and isn't exactly communicating the intent behind it in the best possible way. To be frank, it's quite fucking dumb, which is reflected in the rating I gave it.
- Thread starter
- #47
That's a better way to score things! I'm kind of surprised there hasn't been one like that developed already, or that the BITE model was not updated to accurately score the different categories. Hmm. Will think about this and potentially update it. Thank you!
I don't blame you, friend. I wasn't entirely sure how to make an OP without making it absurdly long, but I think I may need to revamp it and just insert spoilers. No hard feelings!
What's the story of "Whig History" and why is it called that?
Whig History emerged in the Victorian Era and was named after the more left-leaning party in the British Parliament, the Whigs (the direct predecessor of the Liberal Party) and it more or less made the assumption that history is always moving in a more "progressive" or left-leaning direction.
This was more or less the foundation to the Marxist idea of the "worker's paradise" and most of the SJW concepts of "the right side of history" as well as the "End of History"-style neoliberalism that was famously preached by Francis Fukuyama in the 90's.
The Wikipedia article on "progress" says that in the Renaissance, "the individual potential was seen as a never-ending quest for being God-like, paving the way for a view of Man based on unlimited perfection and progress" - that could be the root of this so-called "Whig History".
Such a view does seem somewhat cult-like.
There definitely is somewhat of a cult-like mentality. Look at Scientology and their "suppressive people," for example. If anyone is deemed a "suppressive person," which is basically anyone who doubts Sceintology, you're pretty much forbidden from associating with them in any way. You see that a lot with the current Social Justice movement, only the non-believers are considered "toxic" and not "suppressive." Family member supports Trump? They're toxic, cut them out of your life. Friend made a racist joke? Toxic, cut them out of your life. Your brother listens to a band where the singer had accusations of misconduct made against him? Clearly, your brother supports abusers, and you need to cut him out of your life.
Hell, I saw a post floating around the other day about how you should never refer to Trump by name, just refer to him as "45" as though he's fucking Voldemort or some shit. They treat this guy like the literal devil, who's so evil, you shoudn't dare utter his name, nor should you engage in any discussion with his supporters, as though they're terrified that his supporters might actually have a point.
And, SocJus forbid, you tweeted something "impure" as a teenager. No matter how much you've changed, no matter how much you beg, and grovel for forgiveness, you're still dirty, and unclean, for daring to tweet something not ideologically pure. And, should someone hold views that they disagree with, that person should be banned from all social media, and not allowed to share their thoughts or opinions on anything. Only the opinions they agree with should be available for consumption. Can't have anybody questioning the "approved" opinions, can we?
Hell, I saw a post floating around the other day about how you should never refer to Trump by name, just refer to him as "45" as though he's fucking Voldemort or some shit. They treat this guy like the literal devil, who's so evil, you shoudn't dare utter his name, nor should you engage in any discussion with his supporters, as though they're terrified that his supporters might actually have a point.
And, SocJus forbid, you tweeted something "impure" as a teenager. No matter how much you've changed, no matter how much you beg, and grovel for forgiveness, you're still dirty, and unclean, for daring to tweet something not ideologically pure. And, should someone hold views that they disagree with, that person should be banned from all social media, and not allowed to share their thoughts or opinions on anything. Only the opinions they agree with should be available for consumption. Can't have anybody questioning the "approved" opinions, can we?
Similar threads
