Better be an extremist

I know militant behaviour is prone to work against the moral cause itself, but I personally find it an improvement over the "be a martyr" idea.

Martyrdom always stroke me as intellectually dishonest, having your way by apealing to moral worth. You essencially rely on "looking good" in order to have your cause have any resemblance of success.

Yet, as a strategy, it doesn't seem to work. There's a reason why extremism erupts sooner or later; under very few circunstances is pacifism going to win. Moral high grounds are greatly valued, but for a society that constantly talks about that idea, we sure are hypocrital.

There's a reason why the cult of personality has so much success; people simply are more easily convinced by reactionary rhetorics and following actions.

edited 4th May '12 5:00:02 PM by Gannetwhale

A single phrase renders Christianity a delusional cult

People very rarely look at a tame idea and are passionately inspired by it. They are usually inspired by equally or even more passionate rhetoric.

It takes a certain type of person to look at something either too simple, or so complicated that it takes great effort to understand, and stoke fire within themselves to be passionately devoted to it.

So, what, I'm super special because of my passion for Keynesian economics?

Take joy in the merely real, huh?

edited 4th May '12 6:15:38 PM by TheHandle

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

Depends, OP. You want a short term victory now, or play for the long game?

edited 4th May '12 6:16:33 PM by DeMarquis

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

How is that related to martyrdom at all?

Martyrdom is not something anybody (well, anybody sane) wants; but it is what happens when one is unwilling to compromise on some principle or belief, even in the face of violent persecution. Of course, one would prefer that persecution did not exist; but they'd rather be persecuted than give up on some principle.

It has nothing to do with factual truth — the fact that there exist martyrs for all kinds of religions and cause kinda proves it. But nonetheless, it is a highly honourable act, if the circumstances require it.

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

So, for the sake of example, let's say I'm a hardcore Beatles fan (which I am, but that's not the point) and I encounter people who vehemently despise The Beatles (especially Ringo, but for the sake of this example, it doesn't matter who they hate the most). Does that mean that it wouldn't be better if I just tried to ignore them and it'd be better if I got all up in their grills and shouted, "OB-LA-DI OB-LA-DA YOU BASTARDS!"?

If not, then I got a horribly warped view of what you're trying to say.

Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.

I'm not sure if I understand what you are saying. Is your post a reply to me, or to the OP?

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Often extremists become martyrs when they get shot or whatever. Many martyrs are extremists, though not all are. Militancy and martyrdom are merely tools that can be used to achieve a goal.

I think you (the OP) are underestimating the power of self-sacrifice. Gandhi's fasts-until-death managed to stop India and Pakistan from fighting (sadly temporarily). Some bloke in Tunisia set himself alight and kickstarted the Arab Spring.

edited 5th May '12 2:48:25 AM by betaalpha

You want a short term victory now, or play for the long game?

The problem with this notion is there is simply no way to begin result achievements without some degree of unsavoury action. Even after gaining the moral high ground for being persecuted for centuries by the romans, Christianity got to play for the long game by inciting violent uprisings as soon as it ways legal.

@Carciofus: For the most part, yes, but there is this strange notion that martyrdoom achieves more than anything that is so prevalent in modern culture.

@betaalpha: Which is my point. Passiveness is a wild card that can't be relied on for most of the time.

A single phrase renders Christianity a delusional cult

What qualifies you as an extremist exactly? If it's the use of violence as you guys seem to suggest, then a good number of well respected historical figures were extremists.

I vowed, and so did you: Beyond this wall- we would make it through.

Not violence per se - though I'm not against that, that's for sure -, but taking whatever it takes to get the job done. That aproach has had much more success than the doormat position of appealing to moral worth.

A single phrase renders Christianity a delusional cult

@Carcio: I was replying to the OP.

Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.

Ah, OK.

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

What do you exactly mean by appealing to moral worth?

Doing whatever takes to get things done: sure, as long as you remain reasonable and not start to lose your sanity.

Martin Luther King Jr. is a good example of a martyr that did accomplish things, while keeping things in an orderly fashion, without being an "extremist".

Now using Trivialis handle.

Jesus: not an extremist (Jewish national extremists were rather disappointed with his message at the time, as I recall), definitely a martyr, major long-term impact.

edited 6th May '12 6:24:12 AM by Euodiachloris

If one manages to have a crushing enough victory that frustrates an enemy's plans for the conceivable future, it doesn't matter if it is a short term or a long term victory. It is still a defeat and those are always hard to deal with. Then again, if you take your gauntlet from around the throat of your enemy before they have stopped twitching, you can have no comebacks if they manage to re-emerge as a threat.

Jesus: not an extremist (Jewish national extremists were rather disappointed with his message at the time, as I recall), definitely a martyr, major long-term impact.

1- He is only remembered thanks to extremists

2- Again, countless martyrs lost to the sands of time. One abomination does not dictate the rules.

A single phrase renders Christianity a delusional cult

So every Christian for the last 2000 years has been an extremist?

Somehow you know that the time is right.

The question I would have to ask you is this.

Is this viewpoint really news to you?

Because it sure as shit wasn't news to the Huguenots, Cathars, Lollards, or whoever else got in the way of the Crusaders of all stripes that the Pope used as his attack dogs. As a Christian (nominally, anyways) and more than that a Roman Catholic - so my part of the religion goes way back further than any other branch of Christianity, much of the stuff that my religion got up to for centuries - and received praise for much of that time - was sickening.

It's been argued that Christianity ceased being Christian when Constantine gave it the nod to go official. I'm not saying I agree with that view, but just putting it out there. As, there's another view that says the Saint Paul started the rot.

However, this does't negate the fact that Joshua bar-Joseph's message was very moderate in tone, considering much of the Judean nationalism that was bubbling to the surface during his years of personally making an impact. Not his fault a nut-job like Saul decided this would be a good, growing movement to exploit quite a bit after he was nicely dead (this from a certain point of view).

However, even as these things go, St Paul wasn't exactly a mouth-frothing, suicide-bomber kind of guy: seriously peddling agape doesn't really put you in this category. His skill was in organising the paperwork and logistics, for a start.

edited 6th May '12 5:57:49 PM by Euodiachloris

You see, I cannot make that split between the two incarnations of Saul of Tarsus. I never took his conversion seriously, I don't really know why. That he did end up getting executed was undeniable. The rest is up for debate.

Even a narcissist can fake a conversion well enough to actually start kidding himself he meant it (and, thus improving his chances, ironically, of looking good by being better due to a moderating influence). Particularly if he may have shopped around a bit to find an organisation to fit his psychotic, but high-functioning, tendencies.

Well, that's one explanation. Without having him sitting in front of us, it's hard to tell from this distance.

edited 6th May '12 6:20:33 PM by Euodiachloris

I guess it depends on whether we're talking about what's morally better, or what's more effective in producing results. And if it's the latter, that basically shows that there's corruption in the world. Extremism might seem to be effective in the short run because otherwise much of the world won't listen.

Now using Trivialis handle.