The idea of
redefining radicalism holds; however employed. But ethos - being the ingrained
habitual beliefs of a culture - are more telling, IMO. Look at the comments and
look for hate language if you need proof?

The thing we should
keep in mind. Rather than hate language would likely be admonishment of guilt.
This is certainly a thing lacking proper context. So excluding rhetoric is
sharp. But looking at Islam as a venerable place to start is going to be
difficult. The ethos and the ethics are intertwined in such a way that there is
little change until most people see race as a tool of oppression and religion
its counterpart rebuttal.

This scenario, of
course, implies that the most recent of Abrahamic traditions is the least
susceptible to technological progress. Doesn’t this mean defining
"progress" to mean a thing done with respect to race; and not without
religion or gender, or even platitudes, for fucks sake?!?

 If progress is learning from mistakes and
moving toward a common goal then there's a reason to call out any religious
indignation. But to revere religion above the character of a martyr? I think
that isn't even done by Mao Zedong. So, that leaves us wanting to find more
implicit value in a system of race and irrational dissonance unto which  we are obviously beholden

 What is progress, then? It's:

1. admitting guilt
in technological denigrations.

2. using such racial
technology to better humanity; providing opulence of ethos

3. issuing that
redefinition of purpose in a way that suits the character AND religiosity of
its afflicted classes.


Popular posts from this blog

The AI Analogy is Absurd.

Hilary Putnam (1926-2016)