Doesn't that kinda make Scar correct in his dismissal of Mufasa and Simba and make him the good guy? And yes I'm aware some societies had adoptable heirs, like the Roman emperors.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (46)
sorted by:
Unfortunately, Kai Winn is a basically just an insert for "religion is bad, m'kay" logic that the liberals who watch the show believe. Star Trek normally fails when it comes to religion, and DS9 is the series that actively tries to force the writers to try and give religion some value in the universe, and they still can't help themselves but insert a "evil conservative" character into show that has no redeeming qualities and is the cause of all problems.
I've never seen a Star Trek, but reading his description really jumped out to me as some Leftist's idea of how people who "don't hear god talk to them" become evil over it because they are obsessive dumb religoids. So I guess its spoton as what they always do.
Religion ends up being a corrupting influence to the Left, the same way every totalitarian ideology does. Frankly, it's what happened to a lot of atheists.
I always considered the atheists who adopted Leftism to (as many have pointed out) swapped one religion for another. In the atheist cultural experience, you would say these people didn't engage in "Deconversion".
Deconversion is the actual process of truly leaving all religious behavior and magical thinking. It is a point where I would agree with the edge lords on Reddit that if someone claimed they were an atheist and found God, it's because they weren't really an atheist because they didn't engage in deconversion.
What that really looks like is that you genuinely don't replace God with anything, you drop the concept altogether. You don't search for a replacement, because you don't actually need one at all. You have to actually place the mantel of moral responsibility onto yourself and deal with it in an appropriate manner.
But, because Leftists always shirk responsibility, particularly moral responsibility to deontological assertions and historical meta-narratives, they never actually de-convert from religious thinking. In fact, they engage in worse magical thinking than some of the worst religious zealots. They are the ones dragging Carrie into the closet.
Ironically, only an atheist would be so narcissistic and delusional to think such a thing is possible.
Psychology is filled with concepts and names of fundamental human mental traits that are magic thinking in all its forms, and while it doesn't name drop religion specifically it sets all the foundations for how religion comes to be. The Fundamental Attribution Error and Loci of Control are two that comes to mind immediately, and I'm sure I could pull more if given a refresher (its been a long time, I'm losing my education from disuse).
It is inherently anti-science to think such a thing is possible, because it denies Psychology as a whole to basically say "nu uh I'm more special." Which is the same traits they decry in religious folks.
Its in this way they leave themselves so open to that Leftist indoctrination, because they keep cutting off the branches (religion and God) while ignoring the roots (human instincts) that are easily hijacked once those branches are out of the way. Even worse, because they think themselves above it and absolved of the "silly superstitions" they pay less attention to those roots and their effects.
Not sure why you're trying to go so hard at me, but w/e.
The fact that they are errors in thinking is why you don't actually have to have them. Religions and magical thinking aren't requirements for being human, they are merely and outgrowth of the how the human brain tends to work. I don't see correcting attribution errors as an inhuman act.
I feel like your argument wouldn't make sense when applied towards religion rather than away from it. Couldn't you say the exact same thing about human behaviors regarding sex or violence, and that claiming there might be a need to control them is also anti-human?
I don't think it's particularly anti-human to ask people to discipline themselves.
I wouldn't entirely say that, especially when you have multiple foil examples of religious figures who aren't assholes and do challenge Winn quite often (Bareil, Opaka, Sisko to some extent).
She is however playing a somewhat common kind of villain though. The uptight, controlling, power hungry, self-serving, finger wagging sort of virtue-signaling villain who tries to pretend like they're a self-sacrificing hero for the people.
In a way she's practically reprising her role as the bitch-nurse from One Flew Over Cuckoos Nest.
I agree that it's not entirely that, because after Gene Roddenberry died, they tried to add depth to the character. I think Gene couldn't see the character outside of his bias.