[–] [deleted] 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago
[–] HoocOtt [S] 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Only two choices really:
One that exposes you as an SJW
and
One that exposes you as a cuck.
I am guessing cuck. Not many SJWs left here but there are more then a few Marxists (statist atheists) who confuse themselves into thinking they are classical liberals
[–] ponchoman275 ago (edited ago)
Primarily because the enlightenment is an advanced philosophy centered around science and the fairly new idea of human rights. Thus it required an elite to create it and a fairly advanced society for it to thrive, especially and elite to foster these ideas. Not every peasant can read The Wealth of Nations or one of the encyclopedias. This is why Europe and some new world colonies took the idea and others didn't. By this point Europe was a dominant force and other places were lagging behind. China and Japan at this point weren't that far behind economically and scientifically but they were closed off, hostile to foreign ideas and the strong individualist sentiment of the enlightenment ran against the collectivist culture of these nations. The enlightenment happened despite Christianity, not because of it. Most enlightenment writers were secularists, and it's still a question of lively debate as to how many were actual atheists.
Marxism was also created by an educated western elite and Marx wanted it primarily for the most advanced societies. Marx wanted the UK or Germany to be the first Marxist countries since they had the largest and most advanced proletariat. This Marxist sympathizing proletariat forced politicians to make concessions, improve living quality, and create the welfare state. This prosperity and quality of life meant less people cared strongly about Marxism. Perhaps the reason Marxism never was popular in the US is because at that point in the late 19th, early 20th century it had the best life quality. Now there is a resurgence of this type of thinking and a huge reason is because the economy isn't doing well and people are struggling to get by. Gradually it stopped being a working man's ideal into an ideology of certain intellectuals. People could also see how it failed in the USSR and grew more weary of it. At the same time the decolonization process happened and now there was the question as to how these young, unstable, poverty stricken coutnries with essentially no elite were to be governed. Marxism promised to usher in a new era of prosperity for all and it's anti-imperialist sentiment helped immensely to propagate it. Core Marxist texts are also complex but they can be easily reduced to stuff like Mao's little red book. Marxism also thrived because there was very little individualist sentiment in the third world. It looked like a simple cure to a complex disease, unfortunately it wasn't.
[–] HoocOtt [S] ago
See your error?
Hint: How many times has Christianity split into factions? Also a big one happened nearly 1500 years after its founding....
Where did that come from?
Almost as if the doctrines of the faith itself places a high value on an individual's moral authority over himself. A unique quality don't you think? A quality that would effect how collectivist or individualist a culture is. Very different then say a faith based on fate and reincarnation or one that calls, in its text explicitly, for war and conquest in order to expand its collective influence.
[–] ponchoman275 ago
I believe I have committed no error. All religions generally have a very collectivist mentality. Most of the factions arose either because they saw the church as corrupt and that it was breaking the rules laid down by the Bible or for political reasons. Many of the early protestants were by no means individualists or enlightened, in fact some were hardcore fundamentalists. Christianity certainly doesn't encourage you to be a free thinking individualist. In most religions, Christianity included, moral authority comes from God, the holy text, or the Church. Also your point is flawed, Islam also had a split into many factions yet I believe you wouldn't call it a religion that enhances individual freedom. Most major religions go through various splits, Buddhism has too.