Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
Anyway, it's true that at this point gatherings like http://reasonrally.org/ aren't as significant as they were in the 1990's or even early 2000's, simply because society has changed and the religious right holds far less cultural power than it used to. But that pendulum can pretty easily swing back, as you've just demonstrated by suggesting that humanism can lead to "heinous ideas", which I think is a pretty clear correlation / causation disconnect. That particular argument has been settled for me for a while, though.
Nothing really turns on it, because ideological labels aren't terribly useful, but I don't think it's unfair to describe your politics in that way, given that not only do you take the left's view on literally every issue as far as I can tell, but also are in favour of identity politics and the like. I certainly wouldn't describe it as centrist. But like I say nothing turns on it and it's totally not worth arguing what if any "category" your beliefs should go in. |
Nothing says "this argument has been settled for me" like repeatedly engaging in it. But right, I get it. Religion generally bad, humanism good. Weigh importance of historical moments based on how they help the bias.
That far left comment though... it's funny. Is your quick dependency on categorisation any better than the same things the RL is accused of doing? Isn't this one of the huge problems that is being highlighted in the aftermath of the Trump election? The same people being blamed for pushback from the alt-right? Do we benefit overall by taking the individual views of someone, prescribing them a set category, and then generalising their views as being common with that
entire category? Don't you reject this tactic both because it's uselessness and it's like to tribalism? Why utilise it so often?
It's interesting to me at least.