After the lockdown ...

luka

Well-known member
Dunno, dunno. But Trump doesn't have all that many die hards. It's nothing like a majority. It's all up in the air at the moment so the best we can do is conjecture
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
True but they will blame it on Obama, the media etc etc it's insane but people find it very hard to admit that they were wrong about something and many are so invested in Trump..
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
It seems as though he is letting the states do their own lockdowns (although approving of them when they happen) - possibly hoping that people who can't work as a result will blame their governors or whatever. Having his cake and eating it in other words.
 

pattycakes_

Can turn naughty
There's no way the rich and powerful are giving anything up after (if) this passes. They will find a way to wangle it in their favour yet again and we won't be able to do anything about it. This is the message we've been delivered over and over again. And I really don't think physical action is a good idea anymore. Theyre just too well armed
 

luka

Well-known member
It could go either way I think. We could end up much more tightly controlled with the powerful vastly more powerful than before. They could use the demolished economy against us or vice versa.
 

luka

Well-known member
Or someone could find the disease is cured by eating bananas or something and the whole thing dies down tomorrow. But I'm inclined to think big here.
 

luka

Well-known member
Yeah it's a question of how much anger builds up and how it can be translated into political will. I'm not optimistic to be honest cos of the things we were talking about in the Trump thread.

This is damning. Lobbyists rule Washington.

 

IdleRich

IdleRich
Bad if true obviously... just more "money before people" stuff that we are seeing more and more of... and also more blatantly these days, they just don't bother to hide it any more.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
eg
Easyjet will go ahead with a £174m dividend, including £60m which will go to its founder Sir Stelios Haji-Ioannou, payout to shareholders despite appealing for taxpayer support.
Saw that just now with perfect timing.
 

catalog

Well-known member
I know what you mean but I would also like to know what distinguishes a specifically religious fervour from any other sort of fervour.

I suppose what distinguishes a religion is a rigid demarcation between what is considered sacred and what is considered profane. So there are lines drawn. Proscriptions are made. From that rules and law follow.

There's other stuff to tho, like the charisma/visionary factor. So it's people who stop at nothing, they are possessed, they've gone beyond normal. And like you say, this sort of thinking tends to be forged in solitary conditions, cut off, isolated.

So with these two bits, you can see veganism or climate activism, at certain levels, sociologically speaking, as religions.

I would say.
 

catalog

Well-known member
Are the kinds of the behaviour linked to climate change activists specifically religious? Is the willingness to martyr oneself for a cause specifically religious for instance? My instinct is to say no, it's not.

Specific behaviours are less important than the relationship they have with others. So what I mean is that it's not A or B that are important, it's the A:B relationship. The : is the important thing.

Re martyrdom, I think for now I'll just say that it's a religious word isn't it? Might be wrong, not checked
 

catalog

Well-known member
compared to 1300s Europe, it is absolutely a far more mundane time

mundane may not be the best word

what I mean is the Black Death occurred at a time that had no experience with a scientific mindset

i.e. there was no way to explain what was happening other than God's wrath or judgment or whatever

I'm not saying that we live in a time of uniform or even widespread individual rationality

but we know what a virus is and how it works

that doesn't preclude God etc as an ultimate cause for believers, but it's a massive buffer

I don't agree with this argument. As you've said yourself, we still have unanswerable questions. Whether or not the science is better is a bit irrelevant no?
 

catalog

Well-known member
the problem with a new religion or 'way' is that we're all too individually segregated now. there is almost no true 'us' anymore in the developed world. there will be endless fighting over tiny details on what it should be about etc. and it's exactly that lack of a collective that makes it so easy to manipulate people en masse and sucker so many people into religions and sects because i think we innately need to belong. if you can tend the strings of the consensus, you're pretty much god

Yeah but what we are seeing now has the potential to irrevocably change what we consider and accept as normal life. I mean, this has the power to create an entirely new way of being. At least for a certain amount of time
 

catalog

Well-known member
not all fervor is religious, also

environmentalism largely lacks the spiritual/supernatural element of religion. even when it does exist, it's not intrinsic.

Joan of Arc claimed to have been inspired by visions of angels. Greta Thunberg obviously isn't. it's a bad comparison.

I'm thinking about the sociological facets of religion here, how it plays out in groups of people, rather than belief. Belief and religion are not really necessarily connected.

Greta doesn't have to say she's been inspired by angels. You can see it. No one would say that now, we don't love in a world where they are a factor
 

catalog

Well-known member
I should've been more clear maybe, I don't mean no new sects will arise. they very well may.

new sects are always arising. they will as long as people seek answers to unanswerable questions, so likely for as long as human existence is a thing.

I just don't think there will be - barring a massive jump in death toll - a large swell of religious faith/zeal, or anything like the flagellants.

Yeah I can agree to this deffo. But everything I'm seeing so far suggests that we can't cope with even the projected death numbers
 

luka

Well-known member
Specific behaviours are less important than the relationship they have with others. So what I mean is that it's not A or B that are important, it's the A:B relationship. The : is the important thing.

I don't understand this. Can you explain a bit more? I've never been convinced by the vegetarianism/vegan is is a religion argument I gotta admit. Seems silly. But convince me.
 

catalog

Well-known member
I mean that religions are about boundaries more than anything else, about establishing what, for example, you consider holy, and what you consider isn't. The specific items are not as important as the fact that you are ascribing positions to them where you classify one thing different to another. Does that make better sense?
 
Top