(Feb 11 2025, 10:02 PM)Clover Badgroove This is what happens when your morals are based in authority rather than compassion and empathy.
This is what terrifies me so much about Christians (and religion as a whole I suppose, but U.S. Christians/Christianity are a unique kind of horrible on top of the regular-horrible) : their breed of authoritarianism isn't just "oh I'll go along with whoever's in charge because the fact that they're in charge means they probably deserve to be" but "I will actively and rabidly defend whoever's in charge because
I think they deserve to be, and anyone who has even a minor criticism of Dear Leader is inherently evil and must be stopped."
It's not just that they don't want to think for themselves, and that having an authority figure and/or book that tells them what to do alleviates that burden for them, but that they actively try to stop or mock anyone who does think for themselves. Not even just people who are directly deconstructing their beliefs, either by debating them or having left the church, literally anyone who decides to use the brain in their head at all is viewed by them as an attack on their right to live in their bubble. They don't only want to be NPCs, they want
everyone to be NPCs (and the same type of NPC) and that makes anyone who shows signs of free will or free thought a threat to them.
I remember the very potent and specific despair I felt when I learned how common of an ""argument"" it was that religion exists and is worth keeping around because it teaches people morality and empathy. Meanwhile I never was on-board with the thing even as a kid but I still somehow felt doing harm to other people was wrong because it makes them (and by extension, me) feel bad. Just the explicit, unintentional admission from religious people that "yeah if this book with inconsistent rules and morality didn't exist I probably would be okay if I or someone else killed you where you stand and feel nothing from it". But somehow non-religious people are the amoral and evil ones with no empathy.
I just don't know how to convince people who think that way. I don't know if it's even possible. The thought that I live alongside them and they seem otherwise normal is terrifying to me.
(Feb 11 2025, 10:02 PM)Clover ThatTallBrendan Hijacking the top reply to link [this](https://youtube.com/shorts/tqYpxWOgLR8)
It got posted on reddit a while back but it's extremely relevant. Vertical vs. Horizontal morality
[quote="Pstam323"]
Once you understand this, it brings you peace.
Christians are directed by a higher authority than you what to prioritize, so your arguments (as someone with no religious authority) have no validity.
Even though I always had this feeling of frustration and despair at recognizing that they think this way, this video did such a good job explaining it (and did so with a framework I somehow hadn't heard of before) that it was still really insightful. Thank you for sharing!
It made me wonder, since it's apparently just a fact that there's a large population of people who have a "vertical morality" (and not all of them are even religious either), if we could somehow convince them that someone who has a "horizontal morality" was the Dear Leader Worth Respecting And Obeying Unquestioningly (like, idk, some historical figure who did good things), if that would be the most feasible way to cope with the fact that these people exist. Because as much as I'd love organized religion to be torn down, their followers' whole "religion taught me morality" argument makes me fear what these people would
turn into show themselves to be afterward.
The problem is that, again, it really does feel like at least some of them are actively aware that they are this way, actively notice when someone is not, and just shut them out completely like they do the thought of free will.
(Feb 11 2025, 10:02 PM)Clover ConnectPatient9736 This video is also a great explanation of left vs. right, egalitarian vs. hierarchical thinking
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agzNANfNlTs
Ah, the alt-right playbook guy. I really do like his videos and (most of) his points, but it's so hard to not think about the fact that he thinks ""TERFs"" are genuinely part of the alt-right whenever I hear about him. I wonder if we'll live long enough to see the tide turn and what variety of apologies or non-apologies TRAs will come up with for it all. Maybe this is just my pessimism but I feel like at this rate (both the rate of trans ideology support and the rate we're destroying the ecosystem) our species might still support this lie up until the last day before extinction.
(Feb 12 2025, 9:21 AM)Lemonade I've been trying to express to people who say "Christianity is the least influential as it has ever been in this country" (speaking from a purely American standpoint here) that it's not only about the number of Christians, but that Christian morality has such a deep hold in our culture that it persists regardless of the number of people that actively call themselves one.
Yes,
thank you!! I cannot begin to understand how people seriously think that a minor dip in supporters* means "the problem is completely solved, we don't have to worry about it anymore!" I've seen this sentiment a few times with gay rights too, where people say that once gay marriage was legal in the U.S., our gay rights organizations and charities chose to (or had to?) pivot to supporting trans ideology because "now that
that's finally been solved there's simply no other aid that gay people need", as though a guy signing a piece of paper somehow Thanos-snapped an entire oppression and prejudicial mindset out of existence. Like, I get that legalizing gay marriage was the major legal goal of the gay rights movement, so maybe it makes sense that people already on board with the whole "trans-identified people are just like gay people and are lacking certain rights like them" mindset would think trans-identified people are now "more in need of legal aid." But even
if that were true, that doesn't mean the one (1) victory for gay rights means all same-sex-attracted people have a solid safety net to catch them and the social prejudices they face definitely will go away over time, and that one (1) victory definitely won't ever need to be defended because of that, without them needing any help. If all that really is true, did these ""pro-gay rights"" orgs even really understand the depth of the battle or care about the people they were fighting for in the first place?!
Maybe this whole thing really is about money. It seems most things are.
*Even if they're technically correct about Christianity being "the least influential it's ever been", that minimum is 1.
still influential (and
wayyyyyy more influential than it should have been in the first place) and 2. is ridiculously higher than people expect, because I think they seriously underestimate how absurdly widespread and extremist Christianity (or whatever corrupted version of it they've made) is in the U.S. Like, we still swear in officials by using a Bible. Come the fuck on, Christian domination hasn't gone anywhere.
(Feb 12 2025, 9:21 AM)Lemonade And it extends beyond just social interactions. A lot of the religious right that I know in real life are people who you would think would be pro-environment. Hunters, fishermen and the like. But they all roll their eyes at the idea of taking steps to keep their rivers and forests clean. But it makes sense because they aren't part of nature. They are humans! Nature is given to humans by God because we are his favorite. It is their God given right to rule over nature, and use it as much as they want without giving back.
I don't have much to add here, everything you said is spot on and so worth highlighting. These people were taught (often as young children, before they were able to think for themselves—if their parents would even allow them to) and really do believe that the entire world and everything in it was made for them to do what they want with, that they have a divine right to bleed the world dry because an invisible man said so (and, more importantly, they wanted to do it anyway. Now they just have a ""justification"" for why they should be allowed to.)
