Is modern secular society headed down the path to Sodom and Gomorrah.

[BCP1928]

Who said I was referring specifically to the United States?

Well, there is the final carving up of the old Ottoman territories. That was an existential crisis for some people.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It was. The commies were after us so bad that we had to put "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

You sound like you've studied history, sociology and culture in some scholarly capacity. I'd love to here about your studies.

 

[BCP1928]

You sound like you've studied history, sociology and culture in some scholarly capacity. I'd love to here about your studies.

The pledge is a real American story, written by a socialist, popularized for school classrooms by a flag salesman, maybe that's why we are fond of it.

 

[stevevw]

I don’t watch the mainstream pop industry, but I’ve seen glimpses.

I think part of the intent maybe to shock and grab attention, part of it maybe ironic subversion of conventional values, and part of it may just be rebellion against religion.

Its interesting you call it "pop industry". I think thats a pretty good description as I think much of this is about popularism. Trying to be all things to all people and adopting the popular position regardless of whether they believe in it.

It also includes making bad short term choices to appeal to be popular.

Maybe it depends on context, if people are not satisfied with the choices they have in the shopping aisle of faith then they may rebel or be unhappy - I personally found I never really got into churches, especially protestant ones.

Yes the church, the building and the traditions and rituals of each church is the expression of something deeper which should be the church of Christ which should be a uniting factor and you don't necessarily need a physical church to have that.

But it does help to be able to unite in fellowship as this is the fundemental aspect that builds belief. Christians of different denominations should be able to unite on the core beliefs of Christ.

I was attracted to “dark metaphysics” not ethically or ideally but simply as a form of rebellion but when I studied Buddhism for example (and here I think I’ve been influenced by cultural programming / and influences through the media in the 70s and 80s when I grew up like kung fu and punk rock on the screens and radios) I wasn’t triggered in the same way to be rebellious because I took the religion a bit more seriously. Also when I finally went to a Catholic Church even though I’m not Catholic now I saw some beauty in the and some of the Scriptures seemed wise.

I think fundementally as spiritual beings we look for this connection to the metaphysics. Something in us is drawn to this aspect of life in how we express ourselves. That is why we see many different beliefs being expressed from pagan to New age spiritualism and even the idea of aliens with god like abilities.

But as you say at least for me and many others that search seems to lead to Christ, the answers seem to fit best with the Creator God in the bible.

Therefore, I fully get your reference point about Sodom and Gomorrah - whereas in the past I would’ve thought it’s just silly religious nonsense with no realistic relevance to my life.

At least for humans we have this aspect where we can be evil intentionally and without God we can believe that we are the gods of our own lives. But then we look back through history and see time and time again that we decieve ourselves and end up doing evil and not realisimg or perhaps knowing but denying because our flesh natures get the better of us.

So I’m introducing an idea of axiomatic networks here, like the belief systems people have and the axioms they use are relative to the individual and subculture .

Yes I think there is a real foundation for the basic belief of something spiritual beyond us, its within us when we are born so in that sense its not a comeplete assumption. But the different cultural influences will express this in many ways based on the assumptions different groups make of that basic real belief in all of us.

If you talk to a young atheist Liberal about Sodom and Gomorrah then they may just reject what you say as nonsense without considering it seriously therefore you may have to translate the wisdom into secular terms and philosophy terms in order to have them relate to your intention and meaning without the religious, scriptural connotation they automatically reject ? You might want to translate religious ethics into a form of culture for secular success, and justify religion indirectly.

Yes and we can also see paraelles of this idea or perhaps archetype belief in stories from other cultures which can help give an overall idea of what Sodom and Gomorrah represents in human history regarding belief and morality. In that way it becomes more about Anthropology or cultural psychology and shows that its an innate belief in humans and not just some myth that is ingrained in us.

The beauty of S&G is that we may have real evidence at least for the event in archeology, in science. So cultures over and over again have these stories relating to humankind based on real events and our relationship with some god and the consequences for rejecting that god.

Thats the archetype truth or mesaage that keeps getting repreated about who we are in relationship to God and will continue to happen when we reject Him.

But with some of these people, they even reject secular success because of the ideologies and stratification in society which they oppose ethically and sometimes with good cause.

Yes theres this metaphiscal battle going on regardless of religion, perhaps more spiritual and moral that plays out in the background that underlies much of what we do and believe. Some may try to attribute this as nature, as myth, or ideology and it can be confusing to navigate.

The idea is, why would I even want to be too successful in a messed up world which is a bit of a punk attitude? What’s happening with the pop culture? As far as I know is sometimes these impulses and instincts are being exploited by the commercial pop industry and people are being herded into satanic and antisocial behaviour as “artistic and legitimised” forms of rebellion against a society they may not like.

I think all those ideas and beliefs about the world, who we are and whats beyond are competing for our attention and our allegiance. But I think fundementally its all about our senses, its trying to appeal to our senses in one way or another and often disguised as something metaphiscal and moral.

I think thats the basic difference, one is making our senses, feelings, subjective asperations rather than something beyond that claims a greater good and order that requires people to put our senses and self second. Rather than make sacrifices to the gods of our selves its putting ourselves on the alter to God.

Notice how people with political issues against the mainstream I often targeted by sex, drugs and rock ‘n’ roll commercialised counterculture rather than anything more politically serious which isn’t really on the airwaves…

Yes its always the self indulgent and self fullfillment first. Its captured in the classic morning after the night before when everyone got wasted and trashed the place. Waking up with hangovers and a big mess and then vowing to change but always doing the same until it catches up lol. I know I have been there.

But I don't think you have to give up the idea of having a good time. Larry Norman wrote that song "Why should the Devil have all the good Music". Its just a different measure of what is a good time.

I think we can determine that certain behaviours do lead to certain outcomes and despite saying its ok to do and won't harm anyone or society it does. But I think people want to do that anyway and rebel which I think is more about a spiritual rebellion than just wanting to be different or progressive.

 

[Hans Blaster]

True, the concept itself is open to a large amount of speculation among Christians, but for the most part its a meme that has been used as an allusion to certain things we find in the New Testament. And in this case of my own reference to it, I only intend to mean what Paul the Apostle meant by it.

Anyway, I won't elaborate further about since I know it's not something you're concerned about really.

That would be correct.

Right, which is why in my last few posts in talking to Steve, I stated that I think what Christians perceive to be "battling" today has a long history of development. It's not a recent thing but the accumulation of many changes going back multiple centuries.

It's a known social fact that the destruction seen and experienced during both world wars brought about a disinclination among Europeans and Jews to believe in God.

It was in reference to the human rights abuses in WW 1/2 and the "psycho-social" fallout. I just don't see any negative impact on society generally from them.

Oh, I don't know about that. There's a small but growing bad of atheists who insist that trauma caused by having been exposed to Christian Doctrine (such as 'hell') has affected their personal sanity.

Again, I was referencing the ease at which we forget the latest human rights abuse de jour, especially when far away, not any abuse suffered by indviduals within our society.

I don't know that punching itself in the face is an appropriate anthropomorphism that really explains the lack of thought that some people bring to their engagement with Christianity.

Institutional Christianity has spent most of the last few decades punching itself in the face with corrupt, self-serving, and immoral behavior.

And the 'black-eye' descriptor I was using was meant to convey for the idea that scientific advances, critical studies and ideological movements have all provided elements of the ongoing trend to hold the Bible as being utterly passé.

Meh.

 

[stevevw]

Here is the text I was referring to. Do you want to go over it point by point?

"Evenso if this is the case the point is that the Left have reacted in kind with their own extreme and enforced ideology. That is what usually happens with identity politics. One side goes to the extreme and the other reactes with an equal and opposite extreme.

Ok so I fail to see how this is filth or slanderous. Its actually a balanced and realistic determination. I am not saying that one side is at fault but that at present both sides are engaging in identity politics.

From memory you made a claim that the Right is engaging in politicising and personalising everything with identity politics such as DEI ideology. I said that the reaction against this is natural and based in truth that its a divisive ideology. But that also as a result the extreme Right is reacting with their own political games.

That is what is racheting up the polarisation between people. Like I said when the centre is lost things gow to the fringes, the extremes become dominant.

All I know is that today with the rise of PC, Cancel Culture and Woke identity politics this has primarily been introduced by Leftist governments throughout the world because they are the ones in power at the moment. Its no coincident that all the radical groups we see today such as Extinction Rebellion, BLM, ANTIFA, Trans Activist, Anti Semetism, University activist groups, all have Leftist beliefs.

This is fact and not filth or slanderous. Even if it wasn't fact what is the problem. Plenty of people say all sorts of things about Christians, you have been tearing down Christian polititicians. So long as it is not inciting violence its not illegal for people to express their opinions and beliefs.

But its a fact that PC, CC and Woke which I know some hate the word. Thats why PC or identity politics is better or even DEI ideology. But this is a fact, we can trace its influence from academia to institutions and into politics and mainstream society. Its well written about.

We can also evidence the influence it has had socially, morally, economically and with our institutions. So its not an ideological view but a fact and reality in modern society. Most people don't bother to educate themselves on this and tend to believe what they see and read.

Buts its a real social and cultural phenomena that has been socially engineered rather than naturally evolve. So why wouldn't people speak up about it, raise their concerns and want to speak about the elephant in the room. The problem is though those caught up in the ideology see just talking about it as a threat which is exactly how people react when their beliefs are threatened. Thats beliefs rather than facts and reality.

All I know is that its the Right, Conservative and Christian views that are being cancelled. A speaker at any university who may dare to speak about the reality of biological sex, that DEI is a descriminating ideology, that open borders in unreal will be shut down. All I know is that opinion polls and surveys show that a growing number of people are fearful of expressing the beliefs and views against what the Left push. Thats the reality."

Yes this is part of the evidence I mentioned. We can track that the majority of cancellations have been against ideas, beliefs and views on the Right side of the spectrum. The traditional views especially. Not just disagreed with and perhaps argue4d down. But cancelled before they even get in the room like the view or belief is not welcome.

This is a logical consequence of the predominant ideology which believes that only certain mindsets, langauge, beliefs are acceptable. Much like the Church did in the past except now its a ideological belief. This is evidenced by the shaming, ostracising and even destructions (cancellation) of what amounts to a moral determination and not a factual or real one. Which is exactly what the definition of rel;igious belief is about.

The point is I can back all this by facts and its not based on belief or ideology which at the end of the day is the only way to determine what is really going on and which is what I think more on the middle Right support and don't have any problems in talking about to establish the truth.

 

[BCP1928]

All I know is that today with the rise of PC, Cancel Culture and Woke identity politics this has primarily been introduced by Leftist governments throughout the world because they are the ones in power at the moment. Its no coincident that all the radical groups we see today such as Extinction Rebellion, BLM, ANTIFA, Trans Activist, Anti Semetism, University activist groups, all have Leftist beliefs.

Then you said

This is fact and not filth or slanderous.

In fact it is a bald faced lie, a fact-free smear, you have attributed ideas and motivations to people you really know nothing about and you are doing it for self-serving reasons.

. Even if it wasn't fact what is the problem. Plenty of people say all sorts of things about Christians, you have been tearing down Christian polititicians.

What Christian politicians are those? There are some who think the Gospel of Christ is more important than the political success of the Republican Party. Too bad you don't know any.

So long as it is not inciting violence its not illegal for people to express their opinions and beliefs.

But nobody has to provide you with a free podium or publication, especially for the kind of hateful polemic you produce.

But its a fact that PC, CC and Woke which I know some hate the word. Thats why PC or identity politics is better or even DEI ideology. But this is a fact, we can trace its influence from academia to institutions and into politics and mainstream society. Its well written about.

We can also evidence the influence it has had socially, morally, economically and with our institutions. So its not an ideological view but a fact and reality in modern society. Most people don't bother to educate themselves on this and tend to believe what they see and read.

Buts its a real social and cultural phenomena that has been socially engineered rather than naturally evolve. So why wouldn't people speak up about it, raise their concerns and want to speak about the elephant in the room. The problem is though those caught up in the ideology see just talking about it as a threat which is exactly how people react when their beliefs are threatened. Thats beliefs rather than facts and reality.

Yes this is part of the evidence I mentioned. We can track that the majority of cancellations have been against ideas, beliefs and views on the Right side of the spectrum. The traditional views especially. Not just disagreed with and perhaps argue4d down. But cancelled before they even get in the room like the view or belief is not welcome.

This is a logical consequence of the predominant ideology which believes that only certain mindsets, langauge, beliefs are acceptable. Much like the Church did in the past except now its a ideological belief. This is evidenced by the shaming, ostracising and even destructions (cancellation) of what amounts to a moral determination and not a factual or real one. Which is exactly what the definition of rel;igious belief is about.

The point is I can back all this by facts and its not based on belief or ideology which at the end of the day is the only way to determine what is really going on and which is what I think more on the middle Right support and don't have any problems in talking about to establish the truth.

No you can't. You never have, and I've got a government map of the Mississippi to prove it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The pledge is a real American story, written by a socialist, popularized for school classrooms by a flag salesman, maybe that's why we are fond of it.

And what would you prefer that I say to this? That everything I think about the world is just a random coincidence?

That would be correct.


It was in reference to the human rights abuses in WW 1/2 and the "psycho-social" fallout. I just don't see any negative impact on society generally from them.

Ok. I can't help it if you've chosen to focus primarily on physics at the expense of all other scholarly fields, Hans.

What is it you think I'm supposed to do here at this point? Disregard everything I've read and studied through my own degrees and personal research?

Again, I was referencing the ease at which we forget the latest human rights abuse de jour, especially when far away, not any abuse suffered by indviduals within our society.

And which specific cases are you referring to?

Institutional Christianity has spent most of the last few decades punching itself in the face with corrupt, self-serving, and immoral behavior.

I'd rather say, instead, that specific individuals who identify as "Christian" have spent time punching themselves in the face with their own corrupt, self-serving and immoral behavior.

Meh.

Then I'm not understanding clearly why you felt the need to chime in a post or two ago about the things I was saying to Steve.

 

[Hans Blaster]

But its a fact that PC, CC and Woke which I know some hate the word. Thats why PC or identity politics is better or even DEI ideology. But this is a fact, we can trace its influence from academia to institutions and into politics and mainstream society. Its well written about.

What "we" hate most is the way these terms are used as attempts to define *our* positions, demonize groups, target people, and be slippery and vague at the same time.

I see you are putting "DEI" in this group now. As I understand it, since I only heard of it a couple years ago when it became a RW culture war target, it is a corporate initiative to get a workforce that matches the communities they operate in and their customer bases. For some reason, some people repeatedly complain about it. The latest has been to label minority workers as "DEI hires" repeating the same bigoted claims that a few decades ago were levied on "Affirmative Action" hires (or university admits).

We can also evidence the influence it has had socially, morally, economically and with our institutions. So its not an ideological view but a fact and reality in modern society. Most people don't bother to educate themselves on this and tend to believe what they see and read.

Buts its a real social and cultural phenomena that has been socially engineered rather than naturally evolve. So why wouldn't people speak up about it, raise their concerns and want to speak about the elephant in the room. The problem is though those caught up in the ideology see just talking about it as a threat which is exactly how people react when their beliefs are threatened. Thats beliefs rather than facts and reality.

Socially engineered? Hardly. I don't know about your country, but mine is getting more diverse, racially, ethnically, and religiously. No "social engineering" can drive that.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Ok. I can't help it if you've chosen to focus primarily on physics at the expense of all other scholarly fields, Hans.

That is the nature of expertise. One must devote large amounts of intellectual effort on your chosen field. The notion of a "general expert" is nonsense.

What is it you think I'm supposed to do here at this point? Disregard everything I've read and studied through my own degrees and personal research?

It's not my fault that you focused on the intellectual things I find most boring and irrelevant (philosophy, theology). As for this supposed "psycho-social fallout from WW I/II, I've not yet seen any presentation that it exists or your expertise matters to it. (Mine certainly doesn't matter to it.) As best I can gleam, it is a sub-text about the decline of your religion in society. We had a thread about that, but the mods deleted everything I wrote and blocked me out. So much for that kind of discussion. (And to restate the now deleted record, my interest was to understand the phenomenon, not to root it on or find a way to fight it.)

And which specific cases are you referring to?

I wasn't referring to any specific distant human rights issue that faded in US (or Western) attention with time, but rather the general existence of that pattern.

I'd rather say, instead, that specific individuals who identify as "Christian" have spent time punching themselves in the face with their own corrupt, self-serving and immoral behavior.

Nah, it's institutions that have done the most reputational harm to Christianity in recent decades (at least in our country). When individuals are IDed, they are just the heads of a corrupt or corrupted organization.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That is the nature of expertise. One must devote large amounts of intellectual effort on your chosen field. The notion of a "general expert" is nonsense.

Right, but I was making a different point about the boundaries of specialization. Your education is in physics, mine is in philosophy, education and social science, and I wasn't making a veiled insinuation about either you or me having any sort of "general expertise" on anything and everything. Sure, I know I tend to take on a more generalist engagement with a number of topics, but despite that fact, I do have and know my own epistemological boundaries.

It's not my fault that you focused on the intellectual things I find most boring and irrelevant (philosophy, theology). As for this supposed "psycho-social fallout from WW I/II, I've not yet seen any presentation that it exists or your expertise matters to it. (Mine certainly doesn't matter to it.) As best I can gleam, it is a sub-text about the decline of your religion in society. We had a thread about that, but the mods deleted everything I wrote and blocked me out. So much for that kind of discussion. (And to restate the now deleted record, my interest was to understand the phenomenon, not to root it on or find a way to fight it.)

Why would I present evidence to someone who tells me flat out that they're not interested in anything that is of interest to me, whether it's a social science or a historical issue?

I wasn't referring to any specific distant human rights issue that faded in US (or Western) attention with time, but rather the general existence of that pattern.

I've studied Human Rights and its history and I'm going to guess that you and I will have a different understanding about what "human rights" are and what they're "supposed" to be all about.

Nah, it's institutions that have done the most reputational harm to Christianity in recent decades (at least in our country). When individuals are IDed, they are just the heads of a corrupt or corrupted organization.

Whatever. We both know that there has always been hypocrisy in and among Christians. This is a 2,000 year old bit of social data; it's nothing new.

In further reflection on all of this, I'm not Steve and I will not argue like Steve. My agendas are concentrated upon other things and, moreover, my goals are different than his and my methods of analysis come to different conclusions. So, arguing about nuances of issues about which we'd probably both agree upon to some extent isn't a discussion I think will offer us a valuable use of our time.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Right, but I was making a different point about the boundaries of specialization. Your education is in physics, mine is in philosophy, education and social science, and I wasn't making a veiled insinuation about either you or me having any sort of "general expertise" on anything and everything. Sure, I know I tend to take on a more generalist engagement with a number of topics, but despite that fact, I do have and know my own epistemological boundaries.

Why would I present evidence to someone who tells me flat out that they're not interested in anything that is of interest to me, whether it's a social science or a historical issue?

I said I wasn't interested in theology or philosophy. History and social sciences aren't those topics.

I've studied Human Rights and its history and I'm going to guess that you and I will have a different understanding about what "human rights" are and what they're "supposed" to be all about.

So what is the "humans rights" ( I use your quotes) issues that you think are relevant here?

Whatever. We both know that there has always been hypocrisy in and among Christians. This is a 2,000 year old bit of social data; it's nothing new.

In further reflection on all of this, I'm not Steve and I will not argue like Steve. My agendas are concentrated upon other things and, moreover, my goals are different than his and my methods of analysis come to different conclusions. So, arguing about nuances of issues about which we'd probably both agree upon to some extent isn't a discussion I think will offer us a valuable use of our time.

This is what you were arguing to Steve:

On a more immediate level that involves all of us who live today and have been alive for the last 20 years, I'd say that what we're seeing currently in Western culture is the ongoing psycho-social and existential fallout over Human Rights abuses of all kinds in the larger world brought about by both World Wars 1 and 2, and the Holocaust. And of course, the advent of technological advancements and modern commerce we've seen during just the past 100 years has made the gripes about those abuses quicker and more efficient to communicate, and hence, we increasingly see more and more calls for liberation and the legal recognition of rights.

Think of it as a kind of domino effect; and in the middle of that ongoing effect, Christianity as a whole has been given a big ugly black-eye.

You've made no connection between WW 1 & 2, human rights abuses brought about by them, and the "pyscho-social and existential fallout" from those abuses to the current cultural state of affairs that you decry. It's just a bit of vague language at this point with no real evident meaning. If there is some meaning in your head, you have not shared it.

As for the "black eye" for Christianity "as a whole", from an outsider's perpective, it certainly has, but it is the failures of the big Christian institutions that draw that attention. If that includes the hypocrisy of individual Chrisitians, it only matters to the larger society because they *are* prominent leaders of institutions. It's not doctrinal deficiencies.

 

[stevevw]

Then you said

In fact it is a bald faced lie, a fact-free smear, you have attributed ideas and motivations to people you really know nothing about and you are doing it for self-serving reasons.

I am not sure if it was you who I linked the evidence but here it is again.

First I said
"the rise of PC, Cancel Culture and Woke identity politics this has primarily been introduced by Leftist governments throughout the world because they are the ones in power at the moment".

The Long March Through the Institutions

The Long March Through the Institutions

The “long march through the institutions” is the skeleton key for understanding the modern Left: it’s how they captured power, how they shape the narrative, and how they influence what you think about the world around you. This video is sponsored by Manhattan Institute. Subscribe to City Journal...

manhattan.institute

This article is good because it goes through every aspect of the culture wars, cancel culture, PC, IP, DEI and then looks at the individual ideological activist groups and then how this has affected western nations.

The Destructive Impact of Identity Politics and Cancel Culture on Society
https://medium.com/@arkhanguelski/the-destructive-effects-of-identity-politics-and-cancel-culture-on-society-3354194e1ef8

Identity Politics: A Marxist View
https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1155&context=classracecorporatepower

Douglas Murry has a couple of great books as well on this subject and probably has more factual and first hand knowledge of of how this is affecting modern society including much several countries in Europe and the rise of terrorism.

The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam

https://www.amazon.com.au/Strange-Death-Europe-Immigration-Identity/dp/1472942248

But we don't really need factual evidence we can just ask the people, the ones that have experienced the phenomena in recent years.

Oxford thinks woke culture has gone too far
Oxford thinks woke culture has gone too far – The Oxford Student

More than two-thirds of Australians believe that political correctness has "gone too far"
Has 'PC gone mad'? Australians have made a call

Overwhelming majority say cancel culture has gone too far
https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-ame...majority-say-cancel-culture-has-gone-too-far/

What Christian politicians are those? There are some who think the Gospel of Christ is more important than the political success of the Republican Party. Too bad you don't know any.

Actually I know plenty. I am not really interested in politics. I tried to avoid voting after coming back from England and got away with it for around 10 years lol. I could stand voting for any leader except only on two or three occassions from memory when I was more ideological years ago.

But then I voted for the Left or what we call Labor as they had a good bloke Bob Hawke who was what we Aussies call 'Fair Dinkum'.The US should know him as he was the leader when Australia won the America's Cup and it was a big thing in Oz because we are mad sports fans and like winning lol.

Hawky said "any boss who doesn't let his workers have the day off as he was sipping a beer at the pub is lousy" lol. The other was Honest John Howard on the Right, the Conservatives as they were the right fit for that time with economic management.

I think its hard to mix politics and religion, it just doesn't work. It gets hard for Christians knowing how to position themselves within society as a voice on their controversial issues. Obviously from a social justice point of view Christians should speak up for the needy and poor. But I think the best way is through practical examples and advocacy on behalf of the needy themselves. Thats way more powerful though its sometimes hard to get through the politicking.

But nobody has to provide you with a free podium or publication, especially for the kind of hateful polemic you produce.

Don't mistake pointing out what some see as damaging to people, children and society as hateful. They see this as important enough to speak up, speak the truth as its important to our sanity, reality and stability. Not doing so would be neglegence and uncaring.

But I am still waiting for you to show me exactly where I have been hateful. You said it was the quote I made at the top but I have for the second time linked evidence for this. So its not some agenda its plain and clear reality. If we cannot agree on this then we obviously have a fundemental ideological different worldview.

Thats ok but don't claim that you know the truth by making out the common view of many people is somehow wrong, not welcome, hateful and should be cancelled. That is exactly the problem.

No you can't. You never have, and I've got a government map of the Mississippi to prove it.

Please refer to above. It seems the majority of people think the same, they are sick of this IP, PC & CC. Most are just too afraid to speak up for fear of beaing cancelled.

 

[stevevw]

What "we" hate most is the way these terms are used as attempts to define *our* positions, demonize groups, target people, and be slippery and vague at the same time.

I'm certainly not being slippery about it. I'm not targeting any individual but rather the ideology. Like people criticize religions and not the individual.

Its hard to put a label or word to define such an ideology. I mean you could say its a mix of Marxism, Postmodernism and Social Constructionism as the theory and philosophy that underpins it. But that takes a lot of explaining. It seems some labels stick because they are so descriptive of the mind set and belief.

But what you will notice is that I don't just label it and leave it. But try to explain and support the basis behind this ideology. Give practical examples and evidence for its reality. So there is substance to the phenomena rather than hot air. I see it no different to someone criticizing and explaining how relious belief can be a danger or unhealthy for society.

I see you are putting "DEI" in this group now. As I understand it, since I only heard of it a couple years ago when it became a RW culture war target, it is a corporate initiative to get a workforce that matches the communities they operate in and their customer bases. For some reason, some people repeatedly complain about it. The latest has been to label minority workers as "DEI hires" repeating the same bigoted claims that a few decades ago were levied on "Affirmative Action" hires (or university admits).

DEI has always been a part of it and stems from the Critical theories that within academia during the 80's and 90's that eventually infiltrated the curiculum with a massive growth in the Humanities which brough an army of ideologues into the institutions in positions of influence. This then became the basis for policy.

If your unfamiliar I would say you have more Left leanings because most in the middle but especially on the Right know of this. I just linked surveys showing the majority of people dislike Identity politics and PC which today are about DEI.

The ideology is more or less reverse descrimination and actually hyper exentuates race, sex and gender and other identities rather than seeing people as equal humans made in Gods image. The articles I link go into some explanation of this but I can link further detail which may help.

This is actually the study of a real social phenomena and its good to get an understanding as it helps understand ourselves and how we can decieve ourselves into thinking and believing unreal ideas which we have been doing for millenia over and over again.

Socially engineered? Hardly. I don't know about your country, but mine is getting more diverse, racially, ethnically, and religiously. No "social engineering" can drive that.

Its not so much about stopping diverrsity or equality, everyone wants that. Its how this can be achieved. My country is probably one of the most diverse nations, similar to Canada in some ways. We are a young nation founded on immigrants for many nations.

We had similar diverity when I was young. We grew up with Italians, Greeks, Lebonese and Vietnamese and many others and they were like Aussies and did the same things. We didn't think twice about race or have any culture wars.

But thats all changed and its happened mostly in the last 20 odd years. But the gender wars were the beginning, then the civil and race wars and now the sex and gender wars again along with 101 other dividisons we have created. And thats the point of IP, PC and all this DEI ideology, it actually divides us by our identity group as the measure of equality thuse making us all constantly seeing and defining others and everything, all differences as the result of race, sex, gender and many other identities.

We can trace the social engineering from the post 60's revolutions into academia, into the teachers and curiculum and then the insstitutions and mainstream society. You can find these basic ideas with present policies of the government and institutions as well as corporate and other state agencies who push this stuff.

Its no different to Creationism except Creationism is obvious as its a recognised religious assumption and belief. But the new ideology today is every bit as religious. Those who don't agree and oppose are shamed and cancelled and the ideologues who believe this stuff are every bit as deluded as people say Creationist are.

 

[BCP1928]

And what would you prefer that I say to this? That everything I think about the world is just a random coincidence?

No, just observing that the way we got our pledge, from a mixed collection of people and motives, struck me as a particularly American way of going about things. I was attempting to put the pledge in a good light for that reason.

 

[Adam56]

Fitting picture for end of Pride Month.

 

[BCP1928]

I'm certainly not being slippery about it. I'm not targeting any individual but rather the ideology. Like people criticize religions and not the individual.

Its hard to put a label or word to define such an ideology. I mean you could say its a mix of Marxism, Postmodernism and Social Constructionism as the theory and philosophy that underpins it. But that takes a lot of explaining. It seems some labels stick because they are so descriptive of the mind set and belief.

But what you will notice is that I don't just label it and leave it. But try to explain and support the basis behind this ideology. Give practical examples and evidence for its reality. So there is substance to the phenomena rather than hot air. I see it no different to someone criticizing and explaining how relious belief can be a danger or unhealthy for society.

DEI has always been a part of it and stems from the Critical theories that within academia during the 80's and 90's that eventually infiltrated the curiculum with a massive growth in the Humanities which brough an army of ideologues into the institutions in positions of influence. This then became the basis for policy.

If your unfamiliar I would say you have more Left leanings because most in the middle but especially on the Right know of this. I just linked surveys showing the majority of people dislike Identity politics and PC which today are about DEI.

The ideology is more or less reverse descrimination and actually hyper exentuates race, sex and gender and other identities rather than seeing people as equal humans made in Gods image. The articles I link go into some explanation of this but I can link further detail which may help.

This is actually the study of a real social phenomena and its good to get an understanding as it helps understand ourselves and how we can decieve ourselves into thinking and believing unreal ideas which we have been doing for millenia over and over again.

Its not so much about stopping diverrsity or equality, everyone wants that. Its how this can be achieved. My country is probably one of the most diverse nations, similar to Canada in some ways. We are a young nation founded on immigrants for many nations.

We had similar diverity when I was young. We grew up with Italians, Greeks, Lebonese and Vietnamese and many others and they were like Aussies and did the same things. We didn't think twice about race or have any culture wars.

But thats all changed and its happened mostly in the last 20 odd years. But the gender wars were the beginning, then the civil and race wars and now the sex and gender wars again along with 101 other dividisons we have created. And thats the point of IP, PC and all this DEI ideology, it actually divides us by our identity group as the measure of equality thuse making us all constantly seeing and defining others and everything, all differences as the result of race, sex, gender and many other identities.

We can trace the social engineering from the post 60's revolutions into academia, into the teachers and curiculum and then the insstitutions and mainstream society. You can find these basic ideas with present policies of the government and institutions as well as corporate and other state agencies who push this stuff.

Its no different to Creationism except Creationism is obvious as its a recognised religious assumption and belief. But the new ideology today is every bit as religious. Those who don't agree and oppose are shamed and cancelled and the ideologues who believe this stuff are every bit as deluded as people say Creationist are.

Well, "Cancel Culture" doesn't seem to have cancelled you very effectively, but I would be satisfied if it limited you to single-topic posts of no more than 500 words.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The Long March Through the Institutions

The Long March Through the Institutions

The “long march through the institutions” is the skeleton key for understanding the modern Left: it’s how they captured power, how they shape the narrative, and how they influence what you think about the world around you. This video is sponsored by Manhattan Institute. Subscribe to City Journal...

manhattan.institute

This article is good because it goes through every aspect of the culture wars, cancel culture, PC, IP, DEI and then looks at the individual ideological activist groups and then how this has affected western nations.

Come on man. The Manhattan Institute *creates* half of this stuff. They invented the "woke" definition you are using. They are the instigators in the "culture wars" and not a credible source of "information".

 

[Hans Blaster]

DEI has always been a part of it and stems from the Critical theories that within academia during the 80's and 90's that eventually infiltrated the curiculum with a massive growth in the Humanities which brough an army of ideologues into the institutions in positions of influence. This then became the basis for policy.

If your unfamiliar I would say you have more Left leanings because most in the middle but especially on the Right know of this. I just linked surveys showing the majority of people dislike Identity politics and PC which today are about DEI.

I was unaware of "DEI" because I don't work in a corporate space. I also don't watch RW media, so it takes months after they start slowly obsessing about something for it to filter over.

The ideology is more or less reverse descrimination and actually hyper exentuates race, sex and gender and other identities rather than seeing people as equal humans made in Gods image.

"Reverse descrimination" -- I heard it all 30 years ago when it was the attack on Affirmative Action (especially in university admissions). "Diversity hire", "unqualified minority", "AA hire", etc., etc., etc. Nothing about this is new, only the terminology used.

Let me bring up one example from a couple decades ago. It involved hiring at elite institutions -- big symphony orchestras. The traditional audition process would have the prospective player perform before a panel of expert selectors (including the conductor). In an experiment auditioning performers played from behind a screen so that the panel had no clues as to the age, race, or gender of the player. The top candidates were less male and less white with the screen. Clearly some (unconscious) bias was entering the evaluation process. Blind auditions are now the norm in orchestras. Another study examined resumes submitted for job applicants. In that study they took a group of resumes and submitted them for jobs with some having stereotypical Black names and others with names that sounded "white". The "white" resumes got better responses (call backs, interviews, etc.) in the stages when everything was just documents (resumes, transcripts, etc.).

Diversity programs, are just that, attempts to diversify work places, schools, etc., with qualified applicants that earlier stages have discriminated against.

The articles I link go into some explanation of this but I can link further detail which may help.

No need, I get *quite* the picture from your selection of articles. It is not a pretty one for you.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Its not so much about stopping diverrsity or equality, everyone wants that. Its how this can be achieved. My country is probably one of the most diverse nations, similar to Canada in some ways. We are a young nation founded on immigrants for many nations.

I wish I could believe that, I really do. You say these things, yet seem to struggle against them.

We had similar diverity when I was young. We grew up with Italians, Greeks, Lebonese and Vietnamese and many others and they were like Aussies and did the same things. We didn't think twice about race or have any culture wars.

We can start here: the other groups "were like Aussies". It starting to feel like there isn't some sort of ethno-racial utopia going on down under.

But thats all changed and its happened mostly in the last 20 odd years. But the gender wars were the beginning, then the civil and race wars and now the sex and gender wars again along with 101 other dividisons we have created.

The "gender wars" came first, what were those, feminism, or were somehow, trans people a bigger issue before gay people? Then the "race wars" (not a good phrase to use) and "now the sex and gender wars"? Unlike complaining about immigrants of different racial or ethnic (or religious) backgrounds, the complaints about sex and gender doesn't have anything to do with it. There have always been female, gay, and trans people in your country. New ones are born every day. "Warring" about the is a choice you make.

And thats the point of IP, PC and all this DEI ideology, it actually divides us by our identity group as the measure of equality thuse making us all constantly seeing and defining others and everything, all differences as the result of race, sex, gender and many other identities.

First you classify everything as "ideology", then you finally get to the "social engineering" question:

We can trace the social engineering from the post 60's revolutions into academia, into the teachers and curiculum and then the insstitutions and mainstream society. You can find these basic ideas with present policies of the government and institutions as well as corporate and other state agencies who push this stuff.

This is just an allegation of "social engineering". It does not even demonstrate how anything mentioned *is* social engineering. I am unimpressed by your claim.

Its no different to Creationism except Creationism is obvious as its a recognised religious assumption and belief. But the new ideology today is every bit as religious. Those who don't agree and oppose are shamed and cancelled and the ideologues who believe this stuff are every bit as deluded as people say Creationist are.

Nope, nothing you wrote about up to mentioning "creationism" is religion. Stop pretending that it is.