What is, in Your Opinion, the Most Abhorrent Ideology?

[Formaldehyde]

I think any ideology which leads to the advocation of hatred and fear is abhorrent to at least some degree. Which one is the most abhorrent? Count the victims?

 

[Imrahil91]

If you can go ahead and successfully argue that raping your neighbour is moral, I'll be very impressed.

I'll give you a hint, you won't succeed

Some crazy people come to you and say they will rape 10 people and torture 10 other people to death if you don't rape your neighbor? (And you're absolutely sure they will do it). Not likely, but some crazy people would probably have pleasure from it, and I'm sure something similar has happened before like in the Mongol invasions or in any other lawless society.

I think any ideology which leads to the advocation of hatred and fear is abhorrent to at least some degree. Which one is the most abhorrent? Count the victims?

Poor China will always be worst off when counting victims

 

[bhsup]

Some crazy people come to you and say they will rape 10 people and torture 10 other people to death if you don't rape your neighbor? (And you're absolutely sure they will do it). Not likely, but some crazy people would probably have pleasure from it, and I'm sure something similar has happened before like in the Mongol invasions or in any other lawless society.

performing a wrong to prevent other wrongs sure as hell doesn't make it a right or even remotely okay or acceptable.

 

[JollyRoger]

Moral relativism probably. That there are no absolutes is is ridiculous and disgusting.

"Hey, it's all relavent, so give me some time and I'll figure out how to justify raping my neighbor. Woo, moral relativism!"

Whereas a religious text can give one squinting hard enough absolute justification to rape ones neighbor.

 

[Dachs]

English nationalism

 

[warpus]

Some crazy people come to you and say they will rape 10 people and torture 10 other people to death if you don't rape your neighbor? (And you're absolutely sure they will do it). Not likely, but some crazy people would probably have pleasure from it, and I'm sure something similar has happened before like in the Mongol invasions or in any other lawless society.

I didn't say: "come up with a crazy hypothetical scenario under which rape is morallly okay", I said "argue successfully that rape of your neighbour is moral"

People who say: "Oh noes, moral relativism is bad, cause then people could do anything!" forget that there are certain things you would never able to argue successfully.

But if anyone thinks they can, go ahead.

 

[JollyRoger]

Rape is morally ok because the urge to rape is a sign from God of His will that you procreate and ignoring that urge kills a baby.

 

[bhsup]

People who say: "Oh noes, moral relativism is bad, cause then people could do anything!" forget that there are certain things you would never able to argue successfully.

Then you just blew the whole relativism part out the window by finding an absolute.

 

[warpus]

Then you just blew the whole relativism part out the window by finding an absolute.

There's nothing absolute about that.

 

[Souron]

Tribalism would take humanity to its lowest level in almost all ways. It would ensure no scientific progress, or any other progress except for evolutionary maybe. There would be no legal protection for any people except a little the chief decides. Diseases would ravage, half the infants die, and freedom individuality would be almost non-existent. All of humanity would also be very vulnerable to all kinds of natural disasters.

You need to separate technological primitiveness with a tribal ideology. Many of the things you describe have little to do with ideology.

Living in a small tribe has one advantage. Everyone knows everyone else in the tribe. They may not care about other tribes, but within a tribe their is mutual empathy. The chief may have the final say, but tribalism isn't feudalism where the ruler lives seperate from his subjects. He is a member of the tribe too. So naturally tribes tend to be orderly and fair in the eyes of the members of the tribe.

 

[Phlegmak]

Any totalitarian ideology is loathesome, and the worst of those is Communism.

 

[Bei1052]

I second the notion of moral relativism. It's wholely stupid, and self-refuting.

 

[The Imp]

The ideology of Pentti Linkola is particularly abhorrent to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentti_Linkola

He has admired Stalinist and Nazi massacres, especially The Holocaust where "six million" died by "ideally painless means".

He has suggested that big cities should be attacked with nuclear weapons. Linkola has described humans as the cancer of nature. When some particular war has started somewhere in the world, he has occasionally responded to press interviewers provocatively by saying that the war has a good side since it decreases population.

In my opinion, the most abhorrent.

 

[Theige]

I submit nihilism

 

[ParkCungHee]

For those of you saying "Totalitarianism, but either Nazism/Communism is worst" you don't have to decide anymore! Now we have National Bolshevism!

 

[Narz]

Cannibalism?

Cannibalism is eco-friendly. Graveyards could all be turned into national parks (ask John HSOG for the Carlin sketch on graveyards) & millions of factory-farmed animals could be spared thru the adoption of this practice.



Of course it's instinctively repulsive but hardly even up on the list in terms of worst idealogoy overall.

The question is hard to answer but I'd say putting short-term-capital gain over long-term-sustainability is up there. Especially doing it knowingly so. Also, lying to the people you are supposed to be serving & accepting lobbyist money & creating policy that kills millions (just as massive subsiding junkfood so it's the only affordable option for poor people, indirectly killing many of them).

 

[warpus]

Well, it isn't really an ideology, I was just kidding. I suppose you could easily make it into one.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Anarchists and even economic libertarians are pretty disgusting people to be frank, selfish self absorbed kill or be killed. That said though the opposite socialism or communism can be just as bad so any extreme fascism/communism libertarianism.

Having been a far-right and far-lefty at different times in my life, I can endorse this statement. I think all these extremes are bad, and the idea that all individuals should be left to their own devices(in terms of competing against eachother) sounds rather anarchic. Shouldn't everybody have a fair chance at success, after all? Since people are inherently created (physically and mentally) unequal, the ideology of economic libertarianism sounds insane to me, amounting to a form of non-legislated economic privelege(as certain people will naturally be better than others).

It does? So I take it you are against that socially conservative effort to keep incest illegal then?

Give yourself the moral high ground if you wish, but I don't think you, I, the government, or any other authority has the right to tell a couple that's fully consensual and loves eachother that they can't be together. In the case of incest, my only concern would be for the offspring of such a union. I would base any bans against it on the consequences of inbreeding and not the incest itself.

1.) Your idea of the motive behind social conservatism is a self serving invention.

I have not seen any other apparent goal behind social conservatism. Not to sound hostile, but please inform me if there are any other goals(from your experience). I see no logic in limiting freedom if there is no freedom to gain(such as outlawing the right to murder in favor of the right to live), and conservatism seems to be all about legislating "morality" and upholding traditional values, never mind what new ideas bring to the table.

2.) Your broad definition of the goals you attribute to it means EVERY ideology besides anarchism is social conservatism.

I don't think every ideology necessarily has to legislate morality if it gets into power... if you can prove that policy x is economically beneficial regardless of what personal costs some might endure, it's not so much legislating morality as legislating efficiency.

More to the point, what is a minarchist-flavored libertarianism then? It's not so much about legislating morality(from my experience) as preventing that from happening. And you might extend your argument to say both that and anarchy are the only exceptions to social conservatism, but as I am generally libertarian and generally minarchist...

Social conservatism is worse than fascism or communism?

I see no merit in social conservatism. I can see some merit in fascism or communism(in their ideology and not their application): Fascism seeks to build a stronger country, while communism seeks to abolish inequalities and create a utopia. Naturally, however, I do have issues with both, and I'm by no means advocating them.

Tribalism would take humanity to its lowest level in almost all ways. It would ensure no scientific progress, or any other progress except for evolutionary maybe. There would be no legal protection for any people except a little the chief decides. Diseases would ravage, half the infants die, and freedom individuality would be almost non-existent. All of humanity would also be very vulnerable to all kinds of natural disasters.

This sums up many of my views on anarchy. How can we prosper without a government to protect our rights and invest in things the "hand of the market" (read, self-interest) seems to ignore most of the time, like green energy? Of course, on the opposite side of the coin, totalitarianism isn't much better, though at the very least it can get things done.

If you can go ahead and successfully argue that raping your neighbour is moral, I'll be very impressed.

I'll give you a hint, you won't succeed

Well, in some ideologies, if the person isn't considered human at all...

Has it ever occurred to you that there might be a reason a culture says it's bad?

But of course. I'd say that most of these opinions are based on the follow justifications:

A. It's genuinely bad(i.e. if infringes upon freedoms with no gain for other freedoms), such as murder or rape.

B. Our culture is too unwilling to change/bases it's traditions on century/millenia-old texts. While not all change is good, I fail to see the benefit of maintaining a family(rather than individual)-oriented society, or one based on independence(rather than interdependence), when the latter of each example has far more benefits.

 

[cardgame]

Deus Vult-ism, aka religious extremism

 

[Graceheart the Leopard]

What is the most abhorrent ideology to you?



Mine would be social conservatism. It seeks to restrict liberty for no purpose other than legislating "morality" or maintaining traditions. In my opinion, unless some other liberty is at stake, the government - or any authority, church or business, or otherwise - has no right to restrict a liberty. Please inform me what liberty is at stake that we have to keep homosexuals separated and under "soft persecution."

Social conservatives can defend the pro-life stance on abortion pretty well, as a life is involved, but after that, their arguments tend to become pretty much stupid. The death penalty's morality is questionable, it's more expensive than life imprisonment, and there's always the chance that you might execute an innocent person, however slim. I've already mentioned how I see no benefit in restricting the right to gay marriage(other than to please some religious deities; whatever happened to separation of church and state?), and all you posters already know that if we aim to protect marriage, then we should logically ban divorce as well. Furthermore, provided we establish standards(such as STD tests), why should prostitution and gambling be illegal? The same goes for soft drugs. These are all controversial economic activities, but think of the tax revenue that could be generated if these were legalised, regulated and taxed, and how much money would be saved if we were to cut the enforcement of laws against them. As a small concession, we could at least decriminalise these activities( I see no reason to put a pothead in jail; if he wants to screw himself up, that's his choice).

For those who argue about the issues arising from legalising x(STDs from prostitutes, common high states with drugs, and bankruptcy from gambling), should we not pour the tax revenue into covering these problems them? Some may see it as defeating the point of taxing(to create revenue), but at the very least, we end up with more net liberty, even if all the taxes are drained for therapy and related activities.

That concludes my stance. I can appreciate the merits of interventionism vs. isolationism, universalism and imperialism vs. self-determination, democracy vs. autocracy, socialism vs. capitalism, and numerous others, but I cannot see any merit in social conservatism, other than restricting freedom for no reason other than "book x/culture x says it's bad."

Social Conservatism? Try Fundamentalism: imagine Social Conservatism, and then take it to the power of 100.