Jump to content

The objective standard of brainwashing (Theory)


xephier102

Recommended Posts

I've been hearing the phrase "brainwashing" tossed around a fair bit over my years, "the cult is brainwashing you", "the government is brainwashing us", "religion has been brainwashing us since early childhood" .etc, but even in many less mainstream cases. The question has to come into play "how do you know if you're being brainwashed?"; because by definition, you don't, but I think I may be onto something..

 

I actually think I had a bit of an epiphany a short while ago when thinking about people's stance on "Stuff on TV isn't real!" even when the reference I'm making from the show/movie is literally a real life thing. I think the only way that any of us can consider ourselves to not be brainwashed, is to look at all information sources objectively, and use our own common sense to parse the facts from each. Because even the stupidest person can teach you something that the smart people don't know, or may have overlooked, and by continuing to ignore the sensible option based on source bias alone, is effectively allowing yourself to be brainwashed by whichever source gave you the less sensible option. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquatic Paradox

You're brainwashed if you consider information given by a media source (regardless of its stance or topic) unquestionable gospel (money is almost always the objective, not accuracy).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brainwashing is systematically controlling your information and your trust in different forms of information. So if you believe what's coming from CNN only, or the church only, or the president only, then you're brainwashed. It's being unable to open up and listen to other sources and actually try to understand them. This happens regularly because people will self-isolate themselves in things they agree with and Echo Chambers can often brainwash those stuck inside them. I believe it's how extremists are created. 

 

And I agree that the solution would be to get people to look at a lot more information from a variety of sources and try and have them remain objective when assessing the truth of the information. But unfortuantely it's harder than it seems. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, xephier102 said:

look at all information sources objectively, and use our own common sense to parse the facts from each

But isn't our own common sense inherently subjective? Common sense is like really baseline ethics--the decisions that don't even feel ethically complex because they're so deeply rooted in our consciousness. Also, you can never know you're brainwashed while you're brainwashed. It is only after the fact that you can look back and realize what was happening. I think actually a lot of people recognize that they were once brainwashed. The hard part is then having the vulnerability to admit you were wrong, the mental strength to start thinking for yourself, and the courage to strip yourself down and rebuild.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SithApprentice said:

unfortuantely it's harder than it seems.

Actually, it's fairly simple. Just that unfortunately, too many are stuck in those "echo chambers", and will never really see the light.

 

9 minutes ago, Cassowary92 said:

You're brainwashed if you consider information given by a media source (regardless of its stance or topic) unquestionable gospel

Obviously, fact checking must be done in order to ensure that the information obtained is pure and untainted.

 

14 minutes ago, Salmakia said:

The hard part is then having the vulnerability to admit you were wrong, the mental strength to start thinking for yourself, and the courage to strip yourself down and rebuild.

I read this and instantly thought of something I said in a facebook post just over two years ago now.

 

"By asking yourself why things don't work out for you then having the humility to dissect your own actions (or inactions) as the possible cause and then the conviction to force change in spite of your own pride and ideals; life can be improved 100 fold for both yourself and those around you."

 

16 minutes ago, Salmakia said:

But isn't our own common sense inherently subjective?

You do realize that the word "common" isn't like "common, hurry up!" right? Lol.. I jest, but the point is, how can something that's common, be subjective? Common sense is something that should be self derived. You need to ask yourself such things as, "would I believe in an all powerful santa clause floating around in the sky and watching me while I shower, if I hadn't been told to believe that by others?", and "What is the factual evidence to support the reality of that theory?"

 

Common sense is knowing things like, psychotically murdering someone at random is wrong. Murdering someone that is trying to kill you or someone that you care about is not wrong, given such common sense factors that you aren't shooting at them with a sniper while they're running across a field towards you with a knife, lol.. Common sense is basic, it's nothing about ethics, Ethics is separate from common sense. That's the thing with common sense in it's purest form; it overrides things like ethics, law, and even justice in some cases. It's also not just about right and wrong, but also things like "the elevator door is open, should I enter?" common sense can easily be used to parse that answer. Questions like "is it full", "is it going in the direction I'm going (up/down)?", "is it plummeting down the shaft, and full of screaming individuals?"

 

However it is correct that some people's common sense can be twisted if they refuse to believe anything that conflicts with what they've been taught. For example, you might hear someone say "well, of course we should believe in god, duh.. that's just common sense!". But one may have the common sense to dissect the reality of such things before calling them common sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, xephier102 said:

Actually, it's fairly simple. Just that unfortunately, too many are stuck in those "echo chambers", and will never really see the light.

No, it really isn't. I would refer to specific cases, but I think referring to past threads of a specific individual is against the ToS. 

 

Suffice to say, I think more people are in Echo Chambers than think they are. People who think they're having civil discussions with opponents but not actually listening to them. People who make sweeping claims against other races, genders, religions, groups, etc. without ever really listening to the other party. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, xephier102 said:

 

I'm impressed. I hadn't gotten that impression but am willing to admit I was wrong. 

 

I also have similar discussions with my partner in order to expose when I'm being too limited in my line of thinking. He and I promised to agree to call each other out on when we think the other is being a dick or close-minded. When I'm being too anti-male and when he's being anti-female, or other situations where we aren't thinking. He's persuaded me to be more in favor of guns than I previously was, for an example that isn't about gender/sex. 

 

But yes, to no derail this thread, I still think it's harder than people think. It's hard to be friends with your enemies or opponents, but that's often what makes them consider your side. I won't consume Fox because I think they're too openly hostile against left-leaning people, but I try and find articles or news sites that aren't my preferred ones when it's on an important topic so I know if I'm being biased. But doing so takes a lot of time and effort. 

 

And I think that's why our country has gotten so bipartisan lately. We're pushing each other away, claiming the other is brainwashed without thinking we might be or that we all might be. We dismiss any news or information we don't like as "Fake News" or "biased media" and just making everything worse. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, SithApprentice said:

It's hard to be friends with your enemies or opponents, but that's often what makes them consider your side.

I think this is a fantastic insight. We often think that the best way to convince someone you're right is to argue with them. However, from my experience arguing usually only pushes people deeper into their respective camps since the natural instinct when someone attacks my position is to defend it. You can convince people's minds with facts, overwhelming evidence, and even emotional appeals, but the only way to change what they truly believe at the core of their being is to live peaceably alongside them until they independently recognize the virtue of your path. I believe the only way to do this is by learning to love the people whose ideals you oppose, thereby opening the way for them to love you too. Only when someone loves you will they be open to the idea that you might actually be right. Now, this kind of persuasion takes a lot longer than just arguing, and it also takes a lot more courage. Because of course, in the process of learning to love your opponent, you might come to the realization that you yourself were wrong. And that's a scary thought. So we argue instead, because we are afraid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SithApprentice said:

But yes, to no derail this thread, I still think it's harder than people think. It's hard to be friends with your enemies or opponents, but that's often what makes them consider your side. I won't consume Fox because I think they're too openly hostile against left-leaning people, but I try and find articles or news sites that aren't my preferred ones when it's on an important topic so I know if I'm being biased. But doing so takes a lot of time and effort. 

 

And I think that's why our country has gotten so bipartisan lately. We're pushing each other away, claiming the other is brainwashed without thinking we might be or that we all might be. We dismiss any news or information we don't like as "Fake News" or "biased media" and just making everything worse. 

Well, I've learned to be careful when gathering facts. It's becoming more and more difficult to find solid facts on google without allowing an endless stream of popup ads, and/or paying for the information. Wikipedia still seems to be surprisingly accurate, despite how much people will bag on it for the fact that anyone can alter the information on there. If you want solid facts, the libraries still have a good bit of it, but even those are subject to potential flaws dependent on who wrote the books. Politics has been altering mainstream information for probably as long as there's been politics. It's worse in some countries than others, but it's like has been said, the 'heroes' are always the ones that win the wars.

 

But ya.. on the subject, politics is the worst form of systematic brainwashing. And ya, I suppose I've been in a bit of an "echo chamber" on this one, but it's hard not to be when it's a fact that's so undeniably wrong that one may consider it 'evil'. And that would be things like millionaires and billionaires getting big tax loopholes. And yet most people seem to act like it's not a big deal or shouldn't affect me.. Yet it affects us all as a country.  For one, no, having a million dollars tied up in stocks or assets, does not mean that you are not a millionaire. For two, if you have a million dollars or more, as well as a house and vehicle that are paid off, then you set for life (so long as you don't spend like an idiot).

 

That said, if you've got millions or billions of dollars, and you get 300k per year of taxed pay, and the taxes from that are largely written off due to things like donations (which also increase your PR), then get 6 million a year in un-taxed bonuses (roundabout corporate tax evasion).. Well, that to me is just a disgusting amount of greed, these people are nowhere close to NEEDing that amount of money, but they still manage to get away with removing the taxes from it. There's another issue, why should the CEO get a bonus of that size, as if he/she are the only ones that do anything for the company? That money should be making it's way downward when there are successes within the company, and so in a sense, all of that money getting bottle necked at the top, could also be seen as roundabout embezzlement. That's where my other issue with government corruption/brainwashing comes in; the ability for government officials to accept "donations"(Bribery). There's only one reason that someone would donate to them, and that's to get what they want in terms of government implemented policies and laws. And no one has more to give, than the rich. Besides, we all donate to them already, it's called taxes..

 

On the flip side, if it wasn't for all this financial corruption at the top creating a top heavy economy, then either the lower income folk wouldn't need to pay taxes, or the extra money could be used to fund better public schools, free college education, better medical system (I know for a fact the US could use that..), .etc.. In other words, that one or few issues being taken care of could create a much happier society mostly free of poverty and financial hopelessness.

 

Imho, the biggest lie of all is "freedom".. You know what freedom was? That was before all these governments came along, planted their flags everywhere, then threw up boarders all over the place, THAT was freedom. As well, when you could get an honest job and work for several years and buy a plot of land and build a house on it. THAT was freedom..

These days unless you've got a fancy education, or some crazy luck, you'd be lucky just to own a house by the time you're 60.. and even luckier to also not be dead/debilitated by that point. But also depending on where the house/apartment is, you'd also be stuck paying a stream of taxes for that property that you basically gave your life for, and unless you gave that property to someone in your will, then when you die, the gov will scoop it right back for free and sell it to some other poor sucker at a premium...

 

I know, I can come across a bit conspiracy theorist with this stuff, but if anyone can offer objective evidence that anything that I've said isn't true, and/or logically probable, then  I'll shut up on the topic, but I'm not one for spewing BS without at least putting a good amount of thought into it first, and attempting to stick to the talking points that are typically factual to the best of my knowledge. So you'll never hear me say "American government did the 9-11". Cuz the people that say shit like that are the ones that make the ones on my level, look like nutbags.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, on the topic of reinforcing people’s beliefs by arguing against them, there’s a theory in psychology called Terror Management Theory, and whilst I don't believe all of it’s points it provides an interesting insight as to why negative reinforcement came to be.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_management_theory

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Salmakia said:

I think this is a fantastic insight. We often think that the best way to convince someone you're right is to argue with them. However, from my experience arguing usually only pushes people deeper into their respective camps since the natural instinct when someone attacks my position is to defend it. You can convince people's minds with facts, overwhelming evidence, and even emotional appeals, but the only way to change what they truly believe at the core of their being is to live peaceably alongside them until they independently recognize the virtue of your path. I believe the only way to do this is by learning to love the people whose ideals you oppose, thereby opening the way for them to love you too. Only when someone loves you will they be open to the idea that you might actually be right. Now, this kind of persuasion takes a lot longer than just arguing, and it also takes a lot more courage. Because of course, in the process of learning to love your opponent, you might come to the realization that you yourself were wrong. And that's a scary thought. So we argue instead, because we are afraid.

Fully agree with this method, love, not war and all that. Although admittedly only truly relevant on arguments that have solid meaning. I'm not going to go through the trouble of getting you to love me, just to convince you that frozen pizzas are actually pretty good. 

 

Side note, they aren't as good these days.. Delicio, the main brand I buy of them, has really gotten cheap with their toppings.. I mean, it's enough toppings, but for example, I keep getting chunks of grizzle on my Hawaiian pizzas.. it's gross.. when I'm eating pizza, I shouldn't have to pull anything back out of my mouth.. Also another point for corporate greed.. The products continue to get worse and cost more, all so the person at the top can make more money that they don't need... 

 

5 minutes ago, Lichley said:

Oh, on the topic of reinforcing people’s beliefs by arguing against them, there’s a theory in psychology called Terror Management Theory, and whilst I don't believe all of it’s points it provides an interesting insight as to why negative reinforcement came to be.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_management_theory

Interesting, I opened in another tab, will have to look into it later.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquatic Paradox
6 hours ago, xephier102 said:

Obviously, fact checking must be done in order to ensure that the information obtained is pure and untainted.

It’s obvious in theory, but that’s not to say it’s common practice. Those that refuse are essentially brainwashed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/15/2020 at 11:46 PM, Cassowary92 said:

It’s obvious in theory, but that’s not to say it’s common practice. Those that refuse are essentially brainwashed.

Suppose like with many more difficult parts of psychology, it can be summed up to one simple fact; some people (whether they're aware of the fact or not) simply don't want to know/deal with the truth. Like people that go on about how they "want" to quit smoking but "cant". Honestly, the dumbest concept out there.. the idea that you "can't" not do something.. That's like a serial killer saying "I want to stop stabbing people, but I cant!". Umn.... You could start by puttin the feckin knife down? lol..

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Jade Cross

The fact is that everything you are told from the ground up, first by parents/guardians, then by teachers/educators and even further then by media and the government is all brainwashing because they want you to think a certain way and behave a certain way. The longer you are exposed to that, the harder it is to break free, unless you naturally curious and start asking "what if?", which will not be well received by opposing parties, especially in this day and age. It amazes me at times how something simple creates huge controversies, but then I remember, those who do deviate from the pack, are probably on to something.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Jade Cross said:

The fact is that everything you are told from the ground up, first by parents/guardians, then by teachers/educators and even further then by media and the government is all brainwashing because they want you to think a certain way and behave a certain way. The longer you are exposed to that, the harder it is to break free, unless you naturally curious and start asking "what if?", which will not be well received by opposing parties, especially in this day and age. It amazes me at times how something simple creates huge controversies, but then I remember, those who do deviate from the pack, are probably on to something.

Exactly.. I mean, we were all taught in school that at one time the majority believed the earth was flat, these days we call those people 'crazy'.. And yet we keep repeating the same mistakes by believing majority, over logic. We have to take the time to consider that this country (Canada, but also America) is lead by charismatic/rich people, not smart people, at least not in the sense of being selfless intellectuals, they've got plenty of smarts in how to get the most for themselves while screwing the people that require the most help.

 

Actually, I even question that last statement.. I don't really know enough about the intricacies of the political system to be confident in stating that. That is to say, the charismatic/rich idiots, probably just have the smart people that work directly under them make all the thought thinking, so they don't have to brain hurt.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquatic Paradox
2 hours ago, xephier102 said:

Exactly.. I mean, we were all taught in school that at one time the majority believed the earth was flat, these days we call those people 'crazy'.. And yet we keep repeating the same mistakes by believing majority, over logic. We have to take the time to consider that this country (Canada, but also America) is lead by charismatic/rich people, not smart people, at least not in the sense of being selfless intellectuals, they've got plenty of smarts in how to get the most for themselves while screwing the people that require the most help.

 

Actually, I even question that last statement.. I don't really know enough about the intricacies of the political system to be confident in stating that. That is to say, the charismatic/rich idiots, probably just have the smart people that work directly under them make all the thought thinking, so they don't have to brain hurt.

You have to be smart to play the political game well. But being smart and being selfless are two different things. Take Putin and Merkel, for example. Both are very smart politicians, but their morals are completely different.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Cassowary92 said:

You have to be smart to play the political game well.

I can't say that I know this for certain, but I have a strong theory that a lot of people in politics are akin to the bullies in school that get the nerds to do their math homework for them in order to appear smart. I mean, one thing ya gotta remember is that a lot of politics is smoke and mirrors. It's more about appearance than encompassing solid traits. Then you've got people like Trudoh that are total dumbasses and rode into politics on daddies money.. The rich generally win because they can afford the most advertising and smear campaigns.. And the people are too stupid to do any research for themselves. It doesn't help that google is turning into more of an advertising/sale machine than a legitimate search engine.. Also that the richer you are, the easier it is to hide the dirty secrets (unfortunate for trudoh that he was too stupid to hide/scrub the blackface stuff from the internet).

 

6 hours ago, Cassowary92 said:

Take Putin and Merkel, for example. Both are very smart politicians, but their morals are completely different.

I'm not from Russia, so I'll have to take your word for that.

 

6 hours ago, Cassowary92 said:

But being smart and being selfless are two different things.

Actually, I can't say I agree with that. You see, a smart person knows that they need other people in order to build on success, and that happy people are much more efficient/productive than angry, stressed out people. If this country was being ran by smart people, then the majority of people would be happy, rather than just ignorant, and contented.. Politics has spent too long working on things like neuro linguistic programing (look it up, it's not as tinfoil hat as it sounds), and cognitive dissonance. Instead of actually trying to keep people happy.

 

They keep the bulk of them contented, and the rest fighting with each other, rather than directing their frustration towards the source. That's where the entire voting system comes in; instead of having large populations of people pissed at the gov, you've got the leftists pissed at the rightists. I mean, it's obviously the people's fault for not voting for the right person, despite the fact that things continue to flow in the same direction regardless of who gets voted for.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquatic Paradox
21 minutes ago, xephier102 said:

Actually, I can't say I agree with that. You see, a smart person knows that they need other people in order to build on success, and that happy people are much more efficient/productive than angry, stressed out people. If this country was being ran by smart people, then the majority of people would be happy, rather than just ignorant, and contented.. Politics has spent too long working on things like neuro linguistic programing (look it up, it's not as tinfoil hat as it sounds), and cognitive dissonance. Instead of actually trying to keep people happy.

 

They keep the bulk of them contented, and the rest fighting with each other, rather than directing their frustration towards the source. That's where the entire voting system comes in; instead of having large populations of people pissed at the gov, you've got the leftists pissed at the rightists. I mean, it's obviously the people's fault for not voting for the right person, despite the fact that things continue to flow in the same direction regardless of who gets voted for.

A smart, but immoral person in a country with weak laws knows they need other people to build on success, until they have reached the top. Once they’ve reached the top, they can create the political system in their image without opposition (like Putin). You can’t do that without being devious and to be devious, you need to be smart. 

 

Then once you or your legacy has been in power for long enough, your form of government is in the history books and considered indisputable by the public (as is the case in China and North Korea).

 

That’s brainwashing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Cassowary92 said:

A smart, but immoral person in a country with weak laws knows they need other people to build on success, until they have reached the top. Once they’ve reached the top, they can create the political system in their image without opposition (like Putin). You can’t do that without being devious and to be devious, you need to be smart. 

 

Then once you or your legacy has been in power for long enough, your form of government is in the history books and considered indisputable by the public (as is the case in China and North Korea).

 

That’s brainwashing.

Perhaps, but a truly smart person would be able to get to that position without painting a target on their back. I mean, there's more to life than money and power, and having all of that wouldn't be nearly as enjoyable if you couldn't go anywhere public without worrying about catching a bullet in the head. Also if you couldn't walk down the streets of your own city and have people legitimately praise you because of all you're doing for the country, and not just because your rich/famous, or they're scared shitless of you.

 

Imho, it's the stupider (or more ignorant) person that can't figure out how to make the people around them happy while also reaching their own goals. And the rest are most likely just following a formula to how politicians have been screwing people for hundreds of years. Following the recipes  of a chef, does not make you a chef.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquatic Paradox
14 minutes ago, xephier102 said:

Perhaps, but a truly smart person would be able to get to that position without painting a target on their back. I mean, there's more to life than money and power, and having all of that wouldn't be nearly as enjoyable if you couldn't go anywhere public without worrying about catching a bullet in the head. Also if you couldn't want down the streets of your own city and have people legitimately praise you because of all you're doing for the country, and not just because your rich/famous, or they're scared shitless of you.

 

Imho, it's the stupider (or more ignorant) person that can't figure out how to make the people around them happy while also reaching their own goals. And the rest are most likely just following a formula to how politicians have been screwing people for hundreds of years. Following the recipes  of a chef, does not make you a chef.

There is more to life than money and power, but people that believe so don’t try to become politicians. And the original ‘chefs’ e.g Kim Il Sung and Mao are intelligent enough to deviously find a way to power from a state of chaos and brainwash their citizens for generations 

 

This thread was about the objective standard of brainwashing, which these tyrants managed. If brainwash people, but not have people scared of you, you become a religious figurehead (like Jesus or the Prophet Mohammed)

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Cassowary92 said:

his thread was about the objective standard of brainwashing

I tend to get lost in conversation and forget the direction of the thread.

9 minutes ago, Cassowary92 said:

There is more to life than money and power, but people that believe so don’t try to become politicians

But isn't that just in agreement of what I said originally? Politicians aren't (typically) smart).

 

11 minutes ago, Cassowary92 said:

And the original ‘chefs’ e.g Kim Il Sung and Mao are intelligent enough to deviously find a way to power from a state of chaos and brainwash their citizens for generations 

Just on the topic of intellect; to be smart is to be original, to be innovative; if all you're going to do is follow a preordained set of instructions, then as a politician, you're only a slightly more advanced version of the rest of the imbeciles in this country that can't figure anything out for themselves (and hence, allow themselves to be brainwashed in the first place).

 

16 minutes ago, Cassowary92 said:

you become a religious figurehead

One could hypothetically go down this path without the brainwashing. If you do right by your people and fight for them, and offer them a voice instead of trying to silence them, then they will love you for that. This is why I won't vote and hate politics.. Cuz they're all liars, backstabbers, and too full of self interest. The few that aren't are too easily silenced by the rest..

Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquatic Paradox
2 hours ago, xephier102 said:

I tend to get lost in conversation and forget the direction of the thread.

But isn't that just in agreement of what I said originally? Politicians aren't (typically) smart).

 

Just on the topic of intellect; to be smart is to be original, to be innovative; if all you're going to do is follow a preordained set of instructions, then as a politician, you're only a slightly more advanced version of the rest of the imbeciles in this country that can't figure anything out for themselves (and hence, allow themselves to be brainwashed in the first place).

 

One could hypothetically go down this path without the brainwashing. If you do right by your people and fight for them, and offer them a voice instead of trying to silence them, then they will love you for that. This is why I won't vote and hate politics.. Cuz they're all liars, backstabbers, and too full of self interest. The few that aren't are too easily silenced by the rest..

You have to be smart to be sly. It’s not the same type of intelligence as what Mark Zuckerburg (for example) has, but his lack of emotional intelligence is why pretty much everyone hates him.

 

People’s emotions don’t have instruction manuals. Those that can cleverly talk the emotional talk win followers, those that can’t are hated.

 

To become a top figure from nothing in a broken society and consequently brainwash people like Hitler, Putin, or Mao (if you have bad intentions) or a well known religious prodigy (if you have good intentions) you still need to master the control of people’s emotions, which requires intelligence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Jade Cross

I don't believe that most political or religious leaders are genuinely concerned for the well being of their followers. They are concerned with their own personal well being and if they can, in the process, make it appear as if they care about the others, to gain people backing them, that will usually pave the way to power.

 

Now I'm not a political expert but in religion, I've had my first person view of some of the underhanded things pastors and/or religious leaders do as I served for a time. And coincidentally, religion is in part about indoctrination. You get just one generation under your fist, and you're that much more likely to get the subsequent ones too, especially by using fear. Once they are under your control, you can make them do anything from hoping on one leg, to funding your very expensive and lavish lifestyle, all in the name of God or whatever deity you choose to follow, without question. 

 

Actually, it always makes me laugh how, whenever you hear some news about a pastor who did something outlandish like demand children be placed on the floor so he could walk on them as his holy feet could not touch the ground, many of the followers from a similar religion will call out the act but quietly go back to their own, which could be the same or worse and nobody bats an eye.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquatic Paradox
1 hour ago, Jade Cross said:

I don't believe that most political or religious leaders are genuinely concerned for the well being of their followers. They are concerned with their own personal well being and if they can, in the process, make it appear as if they care about the others, to gain people backing them, that will usually pave the way to power.

 

Now I'm not a political expert but in religion, I've had my first person view of some of the underhanded things pastors and/or religious leaders do as I served for a time. And coincidentally, religion is in part about indoctrination. You get just one generation under your fist, and you're that much more likely to get the subsequent ones too, especially by using fear. Once they are under your control, you can make them do anything from hoping on one leg, to funding your very expensive and lavish lifestyle, all in the name of God or whatever deity you choose to follow, without question. 

 

Actually, it always makes me laugh how, whenever you hear some news about a pastor who did something outlandish like demand children be placed on the floor so he could walk on them as his holy feet could not touch the ground, many of the followers from a similar religion will call out the act but quietly go back to their own, which could be the same or worse and nobody bats an eye.

 

 

I’m not a religious expert, but I believe the original icons that religions are centred around had good intentions (I don’t believe they were mystical, etc). It’s just everything that followed their death and original intentions that turned things sour (because people are people).

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cassowary92 said:

You have to be smart to be sly. It’s not the same type of intelligence as what Mark Zuckerburg (for example) has, but his lack of emotional intelligence is why pretty much everyone hates him.

 

People’s emotions don’t have instruction manuals. Those that can cleverly talk the emotional talk to win followers, those that can’t are hated.

 

To become a top figure from nothing a in broken society and consequently brainwash people like Hitler, Putin, or Mao (if you have bad intentions) or a well known religious figure (if you have good intentions) you still need to master the control of people’s emotions, which requires intelligence.

But, if you are intelligent enough, you can win over the people, while also keeping your people happy. Unless I miss my mark, Hitler came close to this, if not for the systematic murder of millions of people..

 

1 hour ago, Jade Cross said:

I don't believe that most political or religious leaders are genuinely concerned for the well being of their followers. They are concerned with their own personal well being and if they can, in the process, make it appear as if they care about the others, to gain people backing them, that will usually pave the way to power.

 

Now I'm not a political expert but in religion, I've had my first person view of some of the underhanded things pastors and/or religious leaders do as I served for a time. And coincidentally, religion is in part about indoctrination. You get just one generation under your fist, and you're that much more likely to get the subsequent ones too, especially by using fear. Once they are under your control, you can make them do anything from hoping on one leg, to funding your very expensive and lavish lifestyle, all in the name of God or whatever deity you choose to follow, without question. 

 

Actually, it always makes me laugh how, whenever you hear some news about a pastor who did something outlandish like demand children be placed on the floor so he could walk on them as his holy feet could not touch the ground, many of the followers from a similar religion will call out the act but quietly go back to their own, which could be the same or worse and nobody bats an eye.

 

 

Yea.. that's the thing I've always found about religion.. Is when one religion looks down on another and calls it's ideas ridiculous, and doesn't consider the equally ridiculous ideas of their own religion.. That's like one person saying "you believe in dragons?!?! That's stupid.. Fairies may be real, but not dragons..

 

We're going to look back on all this bullshit 100, maybe 1000 years down the road (if we haven't allowed the rich greedy fucks to effectively genocide the human race), and think of these times as.. well.. both the dawn of technology, but also the dark age of intellect.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cassowary92 said:

I’m not a religious expert, but I believe the original icons that religions are centred around had good intentions (I don’t believe they were mystical, etc). It’s just everything that followed their death and original intentions that turned things sour (because people are people).

I'm not a religious expert either. Don't ask me to quote bible verses.. But I've argued religion enough and done enough research into it myself. From what I understand of it, it started with cavemen that would worship spirit animals and the like, and kinda expanded from there. Eventually the people in power go ahold of the narrative and started using it like a leash to control the people, an excuse for public executions, and a method to brainwash people into fighting wars for them. I mean, it's a hell of a lot easier to tell people that they're fighting for their god, and if they die, they will float off to magical happy land (heaven), where they will reap eternal bliss, than to tell them to fight for their king so that he can own more land.. Nowadays though, most of that is done under the guise of patriotism. You're going to fight a war to protect the standards made possible for the last people that fought in a war... 

 

But then no one stops to consider how much those so-called standards have been twisted over time.. When the "American dream" is some dude that's busted his ass working his entire life (or even gone off to fight in wars), and now he's sitting in the gutter and begging for spare change; I think it's time we re-evaluate the meaning of patriotism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquatic Paradox
10 minutes ago, xephier102 said:

I'm not a religious expert either. Don't ask me to quote bible verses.. But I've argued religion enough and done enough research into it myself. From what I understand of it, it started with cavemen that would worship spirit animals and the like, and kinda expanded from there. Eventually the people in power go ahold of the narrative and started using it like a leash to control the people, an excuse for public executions, and a method to brainwash people into fighting wars for them. I mean, it's a hell of a lot easier to tell people that they're fighting for their god, and if they die, they will float off to magical happy land (heaven), where they will reap eternal bliss, than to tell them to fight for their king so that he can own more land.. Nowadays though, most of that is done under the guise of patriotism. You're going to fight a war to protect the standards made possible for the last people that fought in a war... 

 

But then no one stops to consider how much those so-called standards have been twisted over time.. When the "American dream" is some dude that's busted his ass working his entire life (or even gone off to fight in wars), and now he's sitting in the gutter and begging for spare change; I think it's time we re-evaluate the meaning of patriotism.

True. I do think religions that don’t follow the carrot and stick method of control (I.e heaven and hell) are healthy and non-brainwashing though (like Sikhism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc).

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Cassowary92 said:

True. I do think religions that don’t follow the carrot and stick method of control (I.e heaven and hell) are healthy and non-brainwashing though (like Sikhism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc).

Agree, some do stick to the more virtuous values that bring religion closer to it's ideal purpose. Sadly the mainstream religions that most follow, do not embody those values in the same way. Also, burying the old testament and writing a new one, doesn't erase the fact that the old testament still happened, and is truer to the original intentions of the religion. They shoulda just buried the old one and left it at that.. The only saving grace in that not happening is that hypothetically without the Christians and  Catholics, then Judaism likely would have taken over and caused a monopoly across the board, rendering circumcision an unstoppable crime.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquatic Paradox
1 minute ago, xephier102 said:

Agree, some do stick to the more virtuous values that bring religion closer to it's ideal purpose. Sadly the mainstream religions that most follow, do not embody those values in the same way. Also, burying the old testament and writing a new one, doesn't erase the fact that the old testament still happened, and is truer to the original intentions of the religion. They shoulda just buried the old one and left it at that.. The only saving grace in that not happening is that hypothetically without the Christians and  Catholics, then Judaism likely would have taken over and caused a monopoly across the board, rendering circumcision an unstoppable crime.

Islam follows the practice of circumcision too, unfortunately.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/18/2020 at 2:25 PM, Cassowary92 said:

Islam follows the practice of circumcision too, unfortunately.

It likely got stuck into religions because it was a viable medical practice until the 1900's (due to the inability to always clean properly).. And how else do you convince people, so ignorant that they make the people of modern day look enlightened, to cut the ends off their baby's dicks...

 

Actually, I consider the people from back then to be mostly more (relatively)stupid than ignorant. Of course they were still ignorant because they demonized intelligence. But the people of modern day are far more ignorant due to the fact that they are all privy to a massive wealth of information, along with the guise of freedom, yet still keep their heads in the sand..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...