Comment on Lemmy's gaining popularity, so I thought new people should see this.
JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world 2 days agoMany would say that this is disingenuous reasoning. The fact is that the brutality was committed in the name of the ideology, and that whenever the ideology has been tried out, it always - always - ends the same way. For exactly the reason you suggest: any ideology that precludes dissent is ripe for abuse.
Stovetop@lemmy.world 2 days ago
I don’t think any ideology has not had brutality committed in its name.
JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Disingenuous or ignorant. By definition a Quaker or a Jain cannot commit brutality in the name of their beliefs. Conversely, an ideology which puts the collective before the individual, such as fascism or communism, is, a straightforward recipe for brutality.
Stovetop@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Quakers are just an extension of Christian ideology. Jainism I don’t know enough about, but any religious identity will eventually develop the concept of justified violence when faced with the existential threat of a larger rival religion.
JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Hair splitting. Some ideologies are more dangerous than others.