quote:

ORIGINAL: imperatrixx

To me, there is no difference between a true believer and a nut job, because "true belief" in something is 100% certainty you are right without having any proof. And that is nuts.

I don't think all "true believers" are dangerous, or violent, or even incorrect sometimes, but that type of thought process/worldview is weak to me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto

The American philosopher Eric Hoffer wrote an interesting book "The True Believer" in 1951. A self-educated former longshoreman and migrant worker, his works have influenced many thinkers.

The book analyzes and attempts to explain the motives of the various types of personalities that give rise to mass movements; why and how mass movements start, progress and end; and the similarities between them, whether religious, political, radical or reactionary. As examples, the book often refers to Communism, Fascism, National Socialism, Christianity, Protestantism and Islam. Hoffer believes that mass movements are interchangeable, that adherents will often flip from one movement to another, and that the motivations for mass movements are interchangeable; that religious, nationalist and social movements, whether radical or reactionary, tend to attract the same type of followers, behave in the same way and use the same tactics, even when their stated goals or values different.

Hoffer argued that all mass movements such as fascism, communism, libertarianism, liberalism, conservatism and religion spread by promising a glorious future. To be successful, these mass movements need the adherents to be willing to sacrifice themselves and others for the future goals. To do so, mass movements need to glorify the past and devalue the present. Mass movements appeal to frustrated people who are dissatisfied with their current state, but are capable of a strong belief in the future. As well, mass movements appeal to people who want to escape a flawed self by creating an imaginary self and joining a collective whole. Some categories of people who may be attracted to mass movements include poor people, misfits, and people who feel thwarted in their endeavor to join or retain their position in the upper classes.

An aspect of the True Believer, the willingness to sacrifice themselves and others for the perceived future goal, could be said to be found in Andreas Beivik, the Norwegian shooter; Timothy McViegh, the Oklahoma City bomber; Eric Rudolph, the abortion clinic and gay bar bomber, suicide bombers in Iraq and Afghanistan and some of the Tea Party/Republican House members who are willing for the United States' economy to be destroyed in order to somehow "save" it. It can also be seen in Joan of Arc, Saint Thomas More and the early Christian martyrs thrown to the lions to entertain the Roman population. Lastly, it can be seen in Senator Edmund G. Ross of Kansas, whose refusal to vote for President Andrew Johnson’s impeachment because of his belief it would set a bad precedent and harm the United States in the future cost him his political career.

When does being a “True Believer” cross the line into being “nut-job”? Killing yourself? Killing someone else? Destroying something like a government building or an economic system/economy?

quote:

For example, a "True Believer" Roman Catholic sees a dying man, struck by a hit-and-run driver. The victim cannot communicate and clearly only has moments to live. The "True Believer" Roman Catholic administers Last Rites to the dying man - unaware that the man is a militant atheist. Did the "True Believer" Roman Catholic cross the line into "nut-case"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
While I notice you include the term "liberalism" in your groups that are "mass movements", your list of possible "nut jobs" only include Republicans, some non-left terrorists, Christians, and one of the Republican senators who decided that the fate of the nation was more important than partisan political gain (if he wasn't just bribed).

So, I guess you think that no Democrat, Atheist or "liberal" can be a "True Believer", huh?

Biased, much?

Firm

quote:

When does being a “True Believer” cross the line into being “nut-job”?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto

The American philosopher Eric Hoffer wrote an interesting book "The True Believer" in 1951. A self-educated former longshoreman and migrant worker, his works have influenced many thinkers.

The book analyzes and attempts to explain the motives of the various types of personalities that give rise to mass movements; why and how mass movements start, progress and end; and the similarities between them, whether religious, political, radical or reactionary. As examples, the book often refers to Communism, Fascism, National Socialism, Christianity, Protestantism and Islam. Hoffer believes that mass movements are interchangeable, that adherents will often flip from one movement to another, and that the motivations for mass movements are interchangeable; that religious, nationalist and social movements, whether radical or reactionary, tend to attract the same type of followers, behave in the same way and use the same tactics, even when their stated goals or values different.

Hoffer argued that all mass movements such as fascism, communism, libertarianism, liberalism, conservatism and religion spread by promising a glorious future. To be successful, these mass movements need the adherents to be willing to sacrifice themselves and others for the future goals. To do so, mass movements need to glorify the past and devalue the present. Mass movements appeal to frustrated people who are dissatisfied with their current state, but are capable of a strong belief in the future. As well, mass movements appeal to people who want to escape a flawed self by creating an imaginary self and joining a collective whole. Some categories of people who may be attracted to mass movements include poor people, misfits, and people who feel thwarted in their endeavor to join or retain their position in the upper classes.

An aspect of the True Believer, the willingness to sacrifice themselves and others for the perceived future goal, could be said to be found in Andreas Beivik, the Norwegian shooter; Timothy McViegh, the Oklahoma City bomber; Eric Rudolph, the abortion clinic and gay bar bomber, suicide bombers in Iraq and Afghanistan and some of the Tea Party/Republican House members who are willing for the United States' economy to be destroyed in order to somehow "save" it. It can also be seen in Joan of Arc, Saint Thomas More and the early Christian martyrs thrown to the lions to entertain the Roman population. Lastly, it can be seen in Senator Edmund G. Ross of Kansas, whose refusal to vote for President Andrew Johnson’s impeachment because of his belief it would set a bad precedent and harm the United States in the future cost him his political career.

When does being a “True Believer” cross the line into being “nut-job”? Killing yourself? Killing someone else? Destroying something like a government building or an economic system/economy?

While I notice you include the term "liberalism" in your groups that are "mass movements", your list of possible "nut jobs" only include Republicans, some non-left terrorists, Christians, and one of the Republican senators who decided that the fate of the nation was more important than partisan political gain (if he wasn't just bribed).

So, I guess you think that no Democrat, Atheist or "liberal" can be a "True Believer", huh?

Biased, much?

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Question to all;  the next time there's a terrorist act and I go around screaming, "RIGHT WING CHRISTIAN! RIGHT WING CHRISTIAN!"
What happens if I'm wrong?

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Question to all;  the next time there's a terrorist act and I go around screaming, "RIGHT WING CHRISTIAN! RIGHT WING CHRISTIAN!"

What happens if I'm wrong?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Well, nobody would know, because nobody listens to you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Question to all;  the next time there's a terrorist act and I go around screaming, "RIGHT WING CHRISTIAN! RIGHT WING CHRISTIAN!"

What happens if I'm wrong?

If when proved wrong, you went around screaming just as loudly "I WAS WRONG AND I'M SORRY!" - probably nothing except some people thinking, "Wow, someone who honestly admits their mistakes."

If, on the other hand, you were proved wrong and either

(a) denied you ever said it if even when someone played back the tape of you screaming it,

(b) claimed you were mis-interpreted or misunderstood,

(c) claimed you were just joking and a victim of people without a sense of humor, or

(d) claimed that you were really right and the media is falsely reporting that the person wasn't who you screamed he was -

You'd be treated like the boy who cried "wolf" in the famous fable - and we would probably never believe anything you said in the future.


[image]local://upfiles/42188/F0F92126298848118CEAB5295AC596B7.jpg[/image]

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Well, nobody would know, because nobody listens to you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto

When does being a “True Believer” cross the line into being “nut-job”? Killing yourself? Killing someone else? Destroying something like a government building or an economic system/economy?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
While I notice you include the term "liberalism" in your groups that are "mass movements", your list of possible "nut jobs" only include Republicans, some non-left terrorists, Christians, and one of the Republican senators who decided that the fate of the nation was more important than partisan political gain (if he wasn't just bribed).