QueequegsHead
Loves Spam
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2020
- Posts
- 965
Yesterday this topic was thrown in my face by one of our brethren posters insisting that another poster hates gays because he starts so many threads bashing them when what he really targets is the organized movement. But it’s not limited to this one poster and this one instance, it’s just that “gay” has become a touchstone; an untouchable shibboleth, like abortion, or Civil Rights. But, in our internet culture we see this same hate employed against religion. Against political parties. Against Conservatives. Against Liberal-Progressives. In short, I surmise that it is a defensive hate that is driven by the nature of movements. My personal example is that I really hate, and that might be too strong a word, perhaps it is better expressed as disgusted, the Atheist that has to proselytize, denigrate and attack all public displays of religion: the one that is always in the news suing somebody.
Movements start out noble. The Civil Rights movement was a movement with cause, but when the remedies to that cause were realized, the movement still had power, backing and momentum, so they went after more and more esoteric goals until we got to where we are now, from the not too distant shake-down industry to the drive to make CRT the guiding principle in the teaching of history, much like Zinn took his history of white oppression right over the shark with Fonzi.
Religions that proselytize tend to end up in your face much like the aforementioned Atheist. But here’s the thing, I’m an Atheist, but I do not wish to push it on the religious because I see religion as a net positive in our society. It’s just that some people have so much zeal for belonging to a movement that they lose all sense of proportion knowing that they are part of a righteous cause. (I would urge everyone to read Eric Hoffer’s book of essays, The True Believer.)
It’s the same with politics and the parties and people losing sense of perspective by losing themselves in the movement and thusly achieving an importance larger than themselves, sort of an alter ego, and the internet just exacerbates that type of crusader mentality which is every bit as religious as the proselytizer, the lawsuit-happy Atheist and the LGBT+ woke militant who achieved the original, basic, stated goals, but now, having an identity of some import cannot stop and rest on their laurels, they must push into normalizing ever-specific niche behaviors with an urgency that belies the real need for reform(s).
So, it is a completely compatible concept that you can be tolerant and inclusive of the gay community, even if you have a personal/cultural reluctance to personally embrace it, but still hate the never-ending militant antics of a movement that has lost its core purpose, but is still overly active, seeking visibility and demanding irrational, radical changes driven by a small, vocal core of True Believers who can never, ever be contented or placated, for that would render much of their life meaningless.
Those True Believers are why I refuse to be a part of the major political parties; the Libertarians lack the power of a movement (even though many of them are idealists) and they're not out in the public arena in a confrontational manner. Good ideas do not need to be shouted, a whisper will suffice. It’s why many people quietly believe in God but eschew the institution of the church. It’s why the majority of Atheists, when in the public square, will quietly bow their head in reverence when respectful prayers are offered at official/community/school gatherings; we understand the spirit.
Hating the militant “moral” movement is nowhere near to hating the individual(s) of any group.
So be careful of how you interpret attacks on the dangerous superciliousness of the motivated moral busybodies who want to control your attitude, thinking and behavior and put the machinations of their detractors into the proper framework of intent and personal purpose.
Movements start out noble. The Civil Rights movement was a movement with cause, but when the remedies to that cause were realized, the movement still had power, backing and momentum, so they went after more and more esoteric goals until we got to where we are now, from the not too distant shake-down industry to the drive to make CRT the guiding principle in the teaching of history, much like Zinn took his history of white oppression right over the shark with Fonzi.
Religions that proselytize tend to end up in your face much like the aforementioned Atheist. But here’s the thing, I’m an Atheist, but I do not wish to push it on the religious because I see religion as a net positive in our society. It’s just that some people have so much zeal for belonging to a movement that they lose all sense of proportion knowing that they are part of a righteous cause. (I would urge everyone to read Eric Hoffer’s book of essays, The True Believer.)
It’s the same with politics and the parties and people losing sense of perspective by losing themselves in the movement and thusly achieving an importance larger than themselves, sort of an alter ego, and the internet just exacerbates that type of crusader mentality which is every bit as religious as the proselytizer, the lawsuit-happy Atheist and the LGBT+ woke militant who achieved the original, basic, stated goals, but now, having an identity of some import cannot stop and rest on their laurels, they must push into normalizing ever-specific niche behaviors with an urgency that belies the real need for reform(s).
So, it is a completely compatible concept that you can be tolerant and inclusive of the gay community, even if you have a personal/cultural reluctance to personally embrace it, but still hate the never-ending militant antics of a movement that has lost its core purpose, but is still overly active, seeking visibility and demanding irrational, radical changes driven by a small, vocal core of True Believers who can never, ever be contented or placated, for that would render much of their life meaningless.
Those True Believers are why I refuse to be a part of the major political parties; the Libertarians lack the power of a movement (even though many of them are idealists) and they're not out in the public arena in a confrontational manner. Good ideas do not need to be shouted, a whisper will suffice. It’s why many people quietly believe in God but eschew the institution of the church. It’s why the majority of Atheists, when in the public square, will quietly bow their head in reverence when respectful prayers are offered at official/community/school gatherings; we understand the spirit.
Hating the militant “moral” movement is nowhere near to hating the individual(s) of any group.
So be careful of how you interpret attacks on the dangerous superciliousness of the motivated moral busybodies who want to control your attitude, thinking and behavior and put the machinations of their detractors into the proper framework of intent and personal purpose.
