PewDiePie - troll, racist, both?

[Malthus]

That doesn't get any less outlandish just because you put a  behind it Malthus.

I don't know Jacob - I find Malthus' argument interesting.  I wish to subscribe to his newsletter.

I think the "outlandish" comment is simply a symptom of the idea that "sin" is an inherently absurd concept. It triggers discomfort in the form of cognitive dissonance to be 'accused' of using such notions, if you happen to think that - as many on the political left do.

For those more used to 'sin' as a viable notion, it doesn't.

[Tamas]

It is interesting.

I'd also add the popular manifestations of the fight against global warming. Nowadays you can add some extra funds to some purchases to make them "carbon neutral". That's exactly how indulgence papers worked.

[Razgovory]

It's also how insurance works.

[Jacob]

What's wrong with it being outlandish?

Nothing wrong with being outlandish if you own it. The however makes it seem like you're not quite ready to stand behind your argument.

I'm certainly not the only person to have noticed this.

https://www.amazon.ca/Americas-Original-Sin-Privilege-America/dp/1587433427

More: https://sojo.net/articles/remembering-trayvon/racism-americas-original-sin

... are these folks "outlandish" too?

You're posting links to people whose social justice activism is explicitly motivated by their (evangelical) Christian faith. Jim Wallis (first link) is a Christian activist. The Sojourners' tagline is "faith in action for social justice". It is far from surprising that Jim Wallis or the Sojourners frame their approach to social justice in the language of Christianity, but that is not evidence for the construction you propose - that "for the left racism can be sort of like sin in Catholicism."

If your argument is that a commitment to Christianity implies a commitment to social justice - and that conversely being a racist is sinful for a committed Christian - then I'm happy to agree. I expect the Sojourners and Jim Wallis - whom you link - agree as well. The current Pope probably does as well, as I expect the Dalai Lama and Aga Khan and many other religious leaders do for their respective faith groups.

If your argument is that the existence of the likes of the Sojourners and Jim Wallis - evangelical Christian social justice activists - is evidence that "the left" as a whole approach social justice problems like the Catholic Church approaches sin then I think you are making a spurious and unsupported argument (or alternately that you are drawing parallels that are so overly broad that they could apply to almost any context).

There are leftists whose leftism is motivated by their faith - Christian, Sikh, Islamic, Jewish, Pagan, Buddhist etc. This does not make leftism as a whole religiously inspired, nor does it imply that leftism as a whole (however you define it) is therefore similar to a religion.

On the other hand, if your purpose is to paint "the left" as irrational and dismissable by equating it to a belief system you don't subscribe to then I think you've constructed a fairly successful piece of rhetoric - as evidenced by the interest of Spicy and Beebs both of whom are dismissive of Catholics and "the left". I don't, however, think there's much substance to it.

I think from your use of that that's what you were doing, but perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps there's some other argument that is advanced or objective served by examining the claimed parallels between "the left" and Catholicism?

[Jacob]

That doesn't get any less outlandish just because you put a  behind it Malthus.

Don't you believe in the checking of the privileges and all that jazz?

It is not a religious conviction, no.

[Jacob]

Actually, as the articles I posted demonstrate, there may be a more direct connection rather than a mere observed amusing similarity: many in the early civil rights movement were, of course, deeply religious. It would hardly be surprising that notions of sin would get imbedded into consideration of racism, as being, quite literally, sin.

The irony is not that, it is that the idea is taken up by folks who, presumably, don't believe in sin in other contexts.

Yes yes, it's so ironic. Those silly leftist humanists subscribing to a religion without even knowing that's what they're doing... and then they go on those over the top inquisitions too, persecuting innocent people for esoteric transgressions against their silly religious dogma amirite?

[grumbler]

I guess I just instinctively dislike situations where everyone's a lawbreaker but the enforcer decides who should be punished and when.  This creates a situation with undue leverage.  Either the law is reasonable and should be enforced uniformly, or it should be deemed unenforceable if it's so broad that it requires extreme discretion in order to not lead to idiotic outcomes.  In this case, it appears to me that the fair use interpretation is unduly harsh on the streamers.

I think you fail to distinguish here between criminal law and civil law.   It is true that criminals should be able to predict the consequences of breaking the criminal law, but I think you are placing an impossible burden on businesses if you require them to take legal action every time someone infringes on their property, or else lose all protection to their property.  Businesses should not be placed in the position of government.  They should be able to decide the level of effort they want to exert to protect their property, and should be able to ignore infringement that they do not think it worthwhile to try to stop.

[Admiral Yi]

It is interesting.

I'd also add the popular manifestations of the fight against global warming. Nowadays you can add some extra funds to some purchases to make them "carbon neutral". That's exactly how indulgence papers worked.

Completely different.  Offsets do actually decrease carbon release somewhere in the world.  Indulgences just lined the pockets of the church.

[Oexmelin]

What's wrong with it being outlandish? 

I don't think it's outlandish. I think it's an interesting tool to think with; but perhaps less so to judge with.

Does race, and racism, behave as sin does in Christian doctrine(s) among leftists? I think the answer will have a lot more to do with which leftists one examines.  There are leftists groups organized around churches who are familiar with the concept, and see it as a way to put words on a problem, and there are leftist groups who would see it as judgemental. That the language of political belief borrows heavily from the language of religion is nothing surprising. It has been so for centuries. We still speak of dogma, of purity, of true believers, of sin, of promised lands, of City on the Hill, etc. In that regard, the use of religious language to describe political commitments and ideals can be used to inspire, if one speaks to people who share in the belief, and can be used to disparage, and delegitimize, when one subscribes that political beliefs are arrived at "rationally" while others have blind faith (e.g., I, of course, hold my political belief out of dispassionate, rational, cool examination while my opponents slavishly and stupidly follow their gurus/pastor, etc.). 

Race, and racism, have long been described as the original sin of America. Again, nothing surprising there, as such language was deployed not just by civil rights leaders, but by abolitionists at least since the 18th century. So did the language of atonement.

That people inherit the social conditions in which they live (our previous discussions about systemic racism) independent of their will has a long history, and its modern incarnation is perhaps better linked with the birth of sociology and anthropology in the 19th century, than sin. What makes it closer to the concept of original sin is the issue of individual atonement. I think there is value to be gained by, say, reading some political assemblies as akin to Massachusetts' puritans anxieties - on the left and on the right, whenever issues of purity are involved (I recently attended a conference panel about Reagan. OMG). I think it brings attention to very similar dynamics on matters/dangers of pride and purity, etc, and the necessities to transform the check on one's hubris into collective action. 

I must admit, however, and from our past discussions on the topic, that I read your post more as a way to discredit the practice than a way to foster understanding. I would be happy to be told I am wrong.

[Valmy]

America's problem with race has deep roots, with the country's foundation tied to the near extermination of one race of people and the enslavement of another.

To be fair both of those things were pretty much already accomplished before we became independent.

[Oexmelin]

America's problem with race has deep roots, with the country's foundation tied to the near extermination of one race of people and the enslavement of another.

To be fair both of those things were pretty much already accomplished before we became independent.
[/quote]

Not at all. Groups of indigenous people had been exterminated, certainly not all of them. And while slavery existed, so did abolitionism at the moment of the US foundation.

The idea of it being an original sin, is that both of these ideas informed profoundly the making of the United States as a political community, which saw westward expansion as a right, and slavery as a necessity, while erasing both from its foundational documents.  That's the sin: to believe as if it had nothing to do with the birth of the American Republic, and thus, to continue to hold it has nothing to do with it still today.

[Barrister]

Actually, as the articles I posted demonstrate, there may be a more direct connection rather than a mere observed amusing similarity: many in the early civil rights movement were, of course, deeply religious. It would hardly be surprising that notions of sin would get imbedded into consideration of racism, as being, quite literally, sin.

The irony is not that, it is that the idea is taken up by folks who, presumably, don't believe in sin in other contexts.

Yes yes, it's so ironic. Those silly leftist humanists subscribing to a religion without even knowing that's what they're doing... and then they go on those over the top inquisitions too, persecuting innocent people for esoteric transgressions against their silly religious dogma amirite?

I think you're imputing bad intentions on Malthus that are not warranted.

It's a simple observation, nothing more.  For many on the left it's no longer enough to do what the political left wants, but you need to believe it in your heart, as well.  As a couple of examples, think of Lib-Dem leader Tim Farron who ultimately resigned as leader because he personally took a dim view of abortion and homosexuality, despite having a 100% positive voting record in favour of gay and abortion rights.  Or think of Gay Pride parades not allowing certain organizations to march with them because of various political disagreements.

Of course the analogy breaks down if you push it to far.  Malthus isn't saying the political left is a religion.

[Oexmelin]

For many on the left it's no longer enough to do what the political left wants, but you need to believe it in your heart, as well.  As a couple of examples, think of Lib-Dem leader Tim Farron who ultimately resigned as leader because he personally took a dim view of abortion and homosexuality, despite having a 100% positive voting record in favour of gay and abortion rights.  Or think of Gay Pride parades not allowing certain organizations to march with them because of various political disagreements.

What would you say are the equivalent, on the right (if any)?

[Valmy]

Not at all. Groups of indigenous people had been exterminated, certainly not all of them. And while slavery existed, so did abolitionism at the moment of the US foundation.

The idea of it being an original sin, is that both of these ideas informed profoundly the making of the United States as a political community, which saw westward expansion as a right, and slavery as a necessity, while erasing both from its foundational documents.  That's the sin: to believe as if it had nothing to do with the birth of the American Republic, and thus, to continue to hold it has nothing to do with it still today.

Disease had decimated the indigenous folks and they were politically divided and had a low birth rate. There are several times more indigenous people living the present borders of the US today than there were in 1783. They were small in number and politically divided and easy prey for every asshole out there, like Texas' own notorious John Robert Baylor. Yet it seems to be repeated often that there was some kind of mass slaughter. I mean yes there was plenty of horrible shit and there small scale massacres but there was never some kind of genocidal crusade.

That is not to say there might not have been one if they were more of a good reason to be afraid they might win. Certainly plenty of people were in favor of that. But I feel like just casually throwing around the idea that some kind of mass genocide took place, when it really did not, obscures the actual events. It also puts me in the really annoying position of having to defend our policies in this area, which might have seemed alright on paper (negotiate with each tribe and try to keep the settlers separate from them and so forth) in practice were disastrous since the indigenous people were comparatively powerless and had few powerful lobbyists and supporters to guard their interests. Actually that remains a big problem today.

Now I think considering the attempt to 'civilize' them and destroy their cultures it could be considered a cultural genocide. That was very effective at permanently destroying many languages and cultures.

[The Brain]

What's up with J-man?