This is true for both political and religious totalizing ideologies - the one who disagrees is always either an idiot or a traitor, never just a honest, smart person who looked at the same stuff and just happened to reach a different conclusion.

And all of them hate heretics more than infidels - the early Catholic Church spent more time on fighting Arians than on converting Pagans, Stalinist USSR was willing to cooperate with Social Democrats, Liberals and even Nazis (the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) - but never with Trotskyists. Modern radical movement also spend a disproportional amount of time on internal purges and policing boundaries, sometimes more than on pursuing their stated goals.

Edited yesterday at 09:49 PM1 day by Otto Kretschmer

13 minutes ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

This is true for both political and religious totalizing ideologies - the one who disagrees is always either an idiot or a traitor, never just a honest, smart person who looked at the same stuff and just happened to reach a different conclusion.

And all of them hate heretics more than infidels - the early Catholic Church spent more time on fighting Arians than on converting Pagans, Stalinist USSR was willing to cooperate with Social Democrats, Liberals and even Nazis (the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) - but never with Trotskyists. Modern radical movement also spend a disproportional amount of time on internal purges and policing boundaries, sometimes more than on pursuing their stated goals.

Sadly that's a big part of human nature for you, though there are usually only a few real zealots and a lot of folks being led by the nose.

+1

Edited yesterday at 10:04 PM1 day by studiot

Just now, studiot said:

Sadly that's a big part of human nature for you, though there are usually only a few real zealots and a lot of folks being led by the nose.

+1

There's the third thing I forgot about in the OP - they split constantly. So the one truth turns out to be not so one in the end...

(since this doesn’t belong in the lounge I’m moving it. I chose ethics for lack of a better idea, though psychology might be a fit)

3 hours ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

This is true for both political and religious totalizing ideologies - the one who disagrees is always either an idiot or a traitor, never just a honest, smart person who looked at the same stuff and just happened to reach a different conclusion.

That’s a decent description of MAGA. There are ones not toeing the party line who get cast aside, and the enemy is the dumbocrats.

I think the traitor aspect speaks to the fanaticism and initial focus one one or two aspects of the ideology, but as the movement matures you find that not everybody shares the same vision for a wider range of issues. Dissent is probably a distraction and has to be stamped out. As fanaticism, though, it’s emotion and not reason so good faith doesn’t make an appearance

It seems to me there are usually some small number who profit from chaos and do everything they can to sow dissent and ensure that institutions don't work the way intended. Pretty strange since very few people I have ever met fall outside a pretty narrow spectrum of wants and desires but many think their worldview is vastly different from a significant portion of the human race.

11 hours ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

This is true for both political and religious totalizing ideologies - the one who disagrees is always either an idiot or a traitor, never just a honest, smart person who looked at the same stuff and just happened to reach a different conclusion.

And all of them hate heretics more than infidels - the early Catholic Church spent more time on fighting Arians than on converting Pagans, Stalinist USSR was willing to cooperate with Social Democrats, Liberals and even Nazis (the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) - but never with Trotskyists. Modern radical movement also spend a disproportional amount of time on internal purges and policing boundaries, sometimes more than on pursuing their stated goals.

Surely all you have done here is to define "totalising", when applied to an ideology? There are plenty of political and religious ideologies that do not do this, but then you would presumably not call them "totalising". So then toleration of good faith disagreement in "totalising ideologies" is impossible, by virtue of your own definition.

But there are quite a few of them around, it is true, from exclusivist religious sects to political movements. I think it is a form of tribalism. You have to be either with them 100%, or against them, in which latter case you are designated as the enemy. One sees this among football supporters, for instance. The demand for allegiance to an "in group" of some kind seems to be quite deeply embedded in human nature, which can all too easily lead to intolerance of those who are in some way different.

Edited 12 hours ago12 hr by exchemist