Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Always have been a problem. It was just a lot less consumerist-focused in the past.
I just read a text from Pascal that he wrote somewhere in the year 1656 and in which he was discussing how a bunch of people from the Sorbonne university (they were not your average angry lynching mob, they were scholars) were asking for another one to be severely punished for something he had said in favor of some text they deemed heretic (which was no joke, back then). Pascal then explains they refused to change their mind when they were faced first with the fact that all the guy said was that he could not find any occurence of that heresy in said text (they even refused to read the text to see by themselves when he proposed to do so); and then when they were told that this dude they wanted so badly to punishe (for something he did not say) was indeed agreeing with them on the condemnation of that heresy only refusing to blame it on that specific author since he never wrote that. Their reply? He still deserved to be punished because of his attitude. I have grossly over-simplified the thing but that is indeed the core idea: they did not like the dude and his tone and wanted to make him pay for that, they openly said fuck it to any fact demonstrating them wrong. And those people were scholars.
This happened some 370 years ago but it could be happening at this very moment in (too) many universities—one would just need to replace 'heresy' with any of the 'sensitive' topics we consider so much more important nowadays.
And I have little doubt it will keep on happening under a variety of guises. Probably even much more frequently, seeing the world-wide rise of proud idiocracies, and their proud idiot leaders, and the rise of all those communitarisms that that thrive on hating on one another, almost everywhere.
Edit: typos and a few minor changes.
Heresy in the 17th century actually wasn't as big a deal as it was in the past. This was a couple centuries after the Protestant Reformation shattered the Catholic hold on Europe, leading to decades of war in which millions died, eventually resulting in the shitloads-of-denominations we see today, where almost all of them are "heretics" of some sort to all the other ones. I mean, modern day Mormonism isn't really even a monotheistic religion anymore. This all has its roots in the breaking of Catholic domination back in the early 1500s.