Seems like an overall W for ADL imo. Elon didn't ban the ADL or start a lawsuit and X is going to stop users from viewing quote tweets which is probably a result of the hashtag.
You can say the ADL has suffered harm to their reputation but there's not really any way of measuring this and if it doesn't cause positive change then what is the point?
I don't understand. ban the adl hashtag required elite support in the form of tweets by big accounts, when big account signaled support through tweet it was screenshot and shared as epic win
It didn't require big account support. It was wholly organic and grew to over 100k tweets. Showed the masses agree. Also showed you don't have to tip toe around the issue, you can name them and not get banned for it. Now Elon is talking about suing them which would bankrupt them completely. It was an epic win
Good article generally agree, but a bit rash and an over simplification to call those things “ideas”.
Judaism, Catholicism, Islam are historic forms of allegiance/membership/identity aka religions not ideas as such. Liberalism/utilitarianism - Protestantism minus God - and Marxism, their ideological spawn. To assimilate such disparate phenomena under the term “ideas” doesn’t do them justice.
Everything intelligible to that extent is an idea. We all have an idea of a chair but we don’t call chairs ideas. Churches, Mosques, Synagogues, Torah, Gospel, Hadith, along with any number of other accoutrements, as the material form of those religions/allegiances, are no more ideal than my chair.
This false characterisation repeats that of the blogger Moldbug who defines religion as “belief in paranormal anthropomorphic entities”. He proposes that we “call ideologies like Marxism religions”.
It’s well known that many Jews reject theism but maintain their ancestral loyalties. Muslims often appear more motivated by political considerations than theistic. The same has been true of the Catholic faith historically, otherwise if men hadn’t been prepared to fight for their inherited allegiance, Europe would have long been Muslim.
This definition of religious phenomena as “ideas” or “beliefs” is akin to defining football by the offside rule, belief in which is indispensable to the game, eliding its material form.
Or even the ball. People aren’t drawn to football because of the ball any more than inherited allegiances are sustained purely by ideas either of God or anything else. Football can’t be played without the ball. It no more follows that football can be defined *by* the ball than that religion depends solely on an idea of God, an idea which unlike a ball is purely ideal.
The best definition of ideology I know is from ‘Darwin of the human sciences’ Rene Girard: “machinery for legitimating conflict.” Otherwise consider it a compliment that what you’ve written pretty much echoes Girard’s mimetic theory of culture.
Keith Woods never misses
The bap circle needs to be shunned publicly. Mock them openly for being gay zionists
True intelectual takes unlike woke phds
It’s not just AA, it’s all of the BAP sphere.
Seems like an overall W for ADL imo. Elon didn't ban the ADL or start a lawsuit and X is going to stop users from viewing quote tweets which is probably a result of the hashtag.
There's also this blog post: https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2023/supporting-peoples-right-to-accurate-and-safe-political-discourse-on-x1
You can say the ADL has suffered harm to their reputation but there's not really any way of measuring this and if it doesn't cause positive change then what is the point?
I don't understand. ban the adl hashtag required elite support in the form of tweets by big accounts, when big account signaled support through tweet it was screenshot and shared as epic win
if you remove elon's engagement, and the neocon grifter picking up on the newest thing—which precedes the success—then what was the success?
It didn't require big account support. It was wholly organic and grew to over 100k tweets. Showed the masses agree. Also showed you don't have to tip toe around the issue, you can name them and not get banned for it. Now Elon is talking about suing them which would bankrupt them completely. It was an epic win
Good article generally agree, but a bit rash and an over simplification to call those things “ideas”.
Judaism, Catholicism, Islam are historic forms of allegiance/membership/identity aka religions not ideas as such. Liberalism/utilitarianism - Protestantism minus God - and Marxism, their ideological spawn. To assimilate such disparate phenomena under the term “ideas” doesn’t do them justice.
Everything intelligible to that extent is an idea. We all have an idea of a chair but we don’t call chairs ideas. Churches, Mosques, Synagogues, Torah, Gospel, Hadith, along with any number of other accoutrements, as the material form of those religions/allegiances, are no more ideal than my chair.
This false characterisation repeats that of the blogger Moldbug who defines religion as “belief in paranormal anthropomorphic entities”. He proposes that we “call ideologies like Marxism religions”.
It’s well known that many Jews reject theism but maintain their ancestral loyalties. Muslims often appear more motivated by political considerations than theistic. The same has been true of the Catholic faith historically, otherwise if men hadn’t been prepared to fight for their inherited allegiance, Europe would have long been Muslim.
This definition of religious phenomena as “ideas” or “beliefs” is akin to defining football by the offside rule, belief in which is indispensable to the game, eliding its material form.
Or even the ball. People aren’t drawn to football because of the ball any more than inherited allegiances are sustained purely by ideas either of God or anything else. Football can’t be played without the ball. It no more follows that football can be defined *by* the ball than that religion depends solely on an idea of God, an idea which unlike a ball is purely ideal.
The best definition of ideology I know is from ‘Darwin of the human sciences’ Rene Girard: “machinery for legitimating conflict.” Otherwise consider it a compliment that what you’ve written pretty much echoes Girard’s mimetic theory of culture.