Marxism begins in the 1840s.What Century ?
This version of it in the 1970s.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Marxism begins in the 1840s.What Century ?
Very interesting.Marxism begins in the 1840s.
This version of it in the 1970s.
You are talking about subjectivism there's no truth in subjectivism.
There are people on the internet I've enclosed who seem to live for hating people because they aren't the same race gender and generation as them why is this ?
You are talking about subjectivism there's no truth in subjectivism.
There are people on the internet I've enclosed who seem to live for hating people because they aren't the same race gender and generation as them why is this ?
Abstract said:Intolerance appears to be commonplace worldwide. There are near-daily reports of intolerance toward refugees and immigrants, people from different religious and ethnic groups, and people who hold ideologically differing viewpoints. However, not all forms of intolerance are the same. In the present work, we discuss the psychology of three understandings of intolerance that are concealed within the literature: (a) prejudicial intolerance based on rigidity, closedmindedness, and antipathy toward a group of people; (b) intuitive intolerance involving disapproval of out-group beliefs or practices based on unreflective responding; and (c) deliberative intolerance, which involves interfering with specific beliefs or practices that are considered to violate moral principles and values. We argue that these three understandings have different implications for (a) how to respond to intolerance and (b) how disagreements on interpretation of examples of intolerance can result in irreconcilable differences among cultural, religious, and ideological groups.
ThanksSee, for example:
There's an entire field of literature - thousands upon thousands of papers - dedicated to studying this. Have fun.
See, for example:
There's an entire field of literature - thousands upon thousands of papers - dedicated to studying this. Have fun.
I think we were on the right track when society was influenced by Martin Luther King. But today, sadly, some people on the right AND on the left have devolved. I think most of us would agree that "the right" is guilty of racism and misogyny. It's probably harder to see or admit that the "far left" or "progressives" or the "social justice warriors" (who won't stand up and name themselves), are also guilty of racism and misogyny. One way in which this manifests on the far left is via an extreme approach to identity politics. The far left now views many things through a simplistic and damaging "oppressed vs. oppressor" worldview. Taken to extremes (which happens a lot), we hear things like "white guilt" or "systemic racism". These ideas put everyone into identity politics buckets, and judge them by the bucket they fall into. So MLK's idea of judging people by the content of their character has been replaced with these crude, ham-handed identity politics divisions.
I haven't heard that before, can you elaborate?What people now see as "woke" or "politically correct" or associated with identity politics is, for all intents and purposes, a corporate contrivance. It's not really "the left," even as much as some people might associate it with the left.
But who is dividing the people of there is something overarching division them and not just themselves doing it.A few points come to mind while reading this. For one thing, it's natural for "the left" to take the side of the oppressed against the oppressor. Sometimes it depends on the context, but overall, that's been a common core principle.
However, the problem that's happened for the left is that they have seemingly painted themselves into an ideological corner. For example, the left, by and large, supported the liberation of nations from colonial and imperial rule. This entailed supporting some elements and concepts of nationalism which are/were antithetical to a more internationalist, globalist perspective on the world and geopolitics. Once upon a time, a leftist ideal was for all the workers of the world to unite under a single banner, and presumably a single world government. That's not likely to happen in a world where there are nearly 200 sovereign nations with independent governments.
A good way to keep people under control is to divide them against each other.
Back during MLK's time, the Civil Rights Movement was in full swing, but still in largely a grass-roots period, somewhat raw but sincere and full of zeal. However, 20 years later, during the Reagan era, it was brought up to the establishment-level, which was still predominantly right-wing (as it has remained ever since). What people now see as "woke" or "politically correct" or associated with identity politics is, for all intents and purposes, a corporate contrivance. It's not really "the left," even as much as some people might associate it with the left.
The left actually seems at an extreme disadvantage these days, as capitalism still rules the roost, and the world order still centers upon the inviolability of the nation-state, thus fueling a nationalist resurgence. During the Cold War, the primary focus was on ideological alignment, whereas since the Cold War, the focus has been more on national identity and national sovereignty, as seen in the break up of the USSR, the former Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia. It got even more complicated in Africa, as the boundaries of nation-states were drawn haphazardly, by European colonialists, and not really congruent with the settlement patterns and indigenous territory of the local populations. As a result, there have been tribal and civil wars in many of these countries.
It seems a problem for the left is that they seem to want to fight the right-wing on the right-wing's terms.
I haven't heard that before, can you elaborate?
1960s ?It's just my own observation over the years. Many of the ideas and catch phrases seem to be derived from establishment-level, institutional and corporate settings. What people commonly call "political correctness" didn't come out of some grass-roots protest movement in the 60s, but more from corporate boardrooms in the 1980s. Maybe they do it for public relations, or maybe to boost their image.
But who is dividing the people of there is something overarching division them and not just themselves doing it.
Have these people that you enclosed on the Internet said they hate people who arent the same race gender or generation as them? It is it that you just know they hate people who aren't the same race gender or generation as them? Or you?There are people on the internet I've enclosed who seem to live for hating people because they aren't the same race gender and generation as them why is this ?
Have these people that you enclosed on the Internet said they hate people who arent the same race gender or generation as them? Or is it that you just know they hate people who aren't the same race gender or generation as them? Or you?There are people on the internet I've enclosed who seem to live for hating people because they aren't the same race gender and generation as them why is this ?
How do you suppose he knows the people he enclosed on the Internet hate the people he claims they hate?Because a haters got to hate
Some people are brought up by parents who were brought up by parents full of anger and hate, and devoid of Love, compassion and empathy.There are people on the internet I've enclosed who seem to live for hating people because they aren't the same race gender and generation as them why is this ?
How do you suppose he knows the people he enclosed on the Internet hate the people he claims they hate?