h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Watched an interesting documentary on the (apparently now rubbish) BBC last night about the rise of the Mahdi in Sudan.

It highlighted how in the power vacuum of a waning Empire sectors within an occupied and oppressed region rose up and gained power on the basis of instituting an unltra orthodox interpretation of what had gone before.

Obviously for me this compares with other situations, other might disagree but that's not what Id like this thread to be about. We have done that ,if not to death, certainly to a bloody pulp its own mother wouldnt recognise on numerous other threads.

What I'd like to ask you good people and SWL

Do you consider yourself to be fanatical?

Are the things which for you are beyond question right or wrong based on your set of lets call them "Truths".

For instance I always vote and I think its my duty to vote. Moreover I believe that anyone who doesnt should be in some small way punished. I go out of my way to vote on things I voted three committees in the last month alone. I didint get paid for any of that I just gave up three evenings when I could have been watching porn or annoying people here so I could take part in a democratic process.

My fanatiscism is based directly proportional to the threat against the "truths" as I see them. Ive helped orgnise events anti -democratic parties and instituions but when they arent threatening things Im a lot less active in pushing it.

Basically i think fanatiscism is a reaction a threat.

Are you fanticall without there being a threat or would you remain unmoved even in the face of a threat?

one love

The thing the topic title brought to mind was how unbelievably irritating I find people who take the centrist / least unpopular / most conciliatory ground at all costs - often including the cost of The Truth (Tm).

But that's another thread entirely .

In some cases, yes, certainly.

It seems however, that people will justify, to themselves, pretty much whatever they do. eg, "I need some of that, they've got plenty and never had to work for it".



Yeah, but what *is* truth? - the right truth, the wrong truth or *my* blo*dy truth?

For a liberal democracy to work certain values have to be absolute - free speech, tolerance of differing views etc - so I'd be uncompromising (rather than fanatical which implies an unwillingness to consider other points of view) in defence of them.

I agree with BC

There are numerous things that I am uncompromising in. Voting is one, litter is another. I 'think' I am generally 'moderate',( though I'm sure Blicky may disagree with that statement ), and I agree with BC's list of essentials.

If I am fanatical about anything, it is disrespect and bad manners. Of course I mean in contrast to those I was bought up with. Finally I detest inconsiderate behaviour. For example the half dozen young men who occupy the office across the corridor on our floor, one of whom ( or perhaps more ) thinks his mother follows him to work, since he uses the last sheet of the toilet roll, gets up, and leaves, never thinking to take a fresh roll from the cupboard and leave it for the next 'guest'.

I don't mind if he/they cannot master the insertion of the roll, I can do that myself,but the sheer selfishness apalls me.

Novo

-The thing the topic title brought to mind was how unbelievably irritating I find people who take the centrist / least unpopular / most conciliatory ground at all costs - often including the cost of The Truth (Tm).

But that's another thread entirely .-

I would have thought that WAS the theme of this thread. The centre in any debate is the most dangerous place to be. We're caught in the crossfire. Both sides see us as the enemy.

It's possible that we centrists are like the drunk looking for his keys under a streetlamp. He doesn't know that he lost them there; it's just that that's the only place he can look as there's no light anywhere else.

Surely anyone who has a passion for a topic or activity, which they pursue at all opportunities (sometimes at a cost to their health & relationships) could be described as a fanatic. Probably one of those gentic differences in characteristics.

I'm not sure that someone who doesn't have that tendancy could become a fanatic even in response to a threat, though I guess that even the most phlegmatic personality could be roused given the right scenario.

No, I don't think a threat is the key. More a matter of being with like-minded individuals, spurred on by an extremist dominant member.