religion is the opiate...

[stevehein]

tonight i had the thought "facebook is the opiate of the masses"

then i found this - talking about what marx said...

Religion deadens one’s senses; it is both the cry of injustice, and the purported solution to the injustice of a cold world. Just like opium. And like opium, it is destructive. The religious will-to-power allows believers power to control and subdue the proletariat. The lower classes are kept in subjugation by religious maxims about obeying one’s master, and they are kept from uprising by placating hopes of the hereafter.

---
i made a fb page for use here in uruguay- i have seen how teenagers use it.

thats why i thought of the opiate quote...

so now.. how does fb keep the "lower classes" in line?

it doesnt need to reinforce the idea of obedience or reward - that has been done pretty well by society/ie controlling needy adults

so it isnt like religion in that sense. it is more like opium - just sense deadening or numbing. but it has advantages - it is cheaper - more accessible - and less destructive in terms of physical health - so id say all in all facebook is serving those in power very nicely

i am guessing most of u here dont use it much - u are too smart basically - but it is amazing to me how much time the teenagers here in uruguay spend on it. or waste on it. while they mindlessly keep going to school so they can get a job and be rewarded - they dont need the idea of a reward in heaven. just the idea of a job and being "sucessful" is enough to keep them in the system - and the fear of disapproval and punishment from parents of course. or of being kicked outof school and socially isolated, ostracized - and the fear of not gettin a job and being homeless. --- the whole system is working pretty well.

for now

but p and i dont think it is sustainable....

and in any cause it is causing some of us a hell of a lot of pain

-- pain which we dont or cant numb with facebook or drugs --and definitely not with religion

[Sharpie]

Heroin is the opiate of the masses. You've got it all wrong, my friend!

[Cianna200]

Not true for all religions, only a few religions involve madness, specially the abrahamic religions. My religion is about loving the world and seeking spiritual growth, this religion is not a cult since there is no leader. My religion also states how all living things including humans are special and connected to the divine. However, I still have reasoning, and question things as well as using common sense.

[brainiac3397]

Buddhists were supposed to be peaceful(or at least far less inclined to violence) too...we can see how well that's working out.

The real problem here is man. Beliefs don't kill, believers do.

[Ky]

Our society has numerous opiates; Facebook is but one.

[KFC Nyan Cat]

The problem isn't religion, it's right-wing people who take their religions too literally.

[SoulRiser]

By wasting time on Facebook, I'm guessing you mean browsing the random meme pics and things that random "friends" post there?

I ignore most of that and only pay attention to a small group of people I care about, and they don't post all that much usually. And I block most of the silly apps/games that show up in my feed. I have no interest in what fake pie XYZ baked, or whatever.

But I've seen people browse stuff like 9GAG... it's addictive. I mean, when I'm watching them scroll through it, I'm also looking at the stuff, and it's like my brain keeps wanting more. Easy entertainment... with no real benefit.

[WalterScottDempsey]

(06-20-2014 09:35 AM)anakin9000 Wrote:  wats an opate?

An opiate is a drug taken during pain and healing to bring ease.

[KFC Nyan Cat]

The difference between YouTube, DeviantArt, Vimeo, etc. vs. Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Instagram? YT, DA, and Vimeo are talent showcases. FB, Twitter, G+, and Instagram are mindless social sites where people post mindless things for 99.3% of it's users. You COULD argue Instagram is a photography showcase, but most it is self-portraits (nope, not gonna use the dumbed-down version of that word) and pictures of food with Instagram's bad filters applied.

[brainiac3397]

Instagram is a nice way to keep track of people though...like how a co-worker of mine in Vegas for a business trip got to take picture with both Ms.Universe and Ms.USA.

Damned lucky guy...

[Alistoriv]

[SoulRiser]

"In this moment, I am feeling very full of myself" - That guy with the quote

[thewake]

(06-20-2014 12:12 PM)KFC Nyan Cat Wrote:  The difference between YouTube, DeviantArt, Vimeo, etc. vs. Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Instagram? YT, DA, and Vimeo are talent showcases. FB, Twitter, G+, and Instagram are mindless social sites where people post mindless things for 99.3% of it's users. You COULD argue Instagram is a photography showcase, but most it is self-portraits (nope, not gonna use the dumbed-down version of that word) and pictures of food with Instagram's bad filters applied.

DeviantArt is full of enough weird shit that would make me WANT to spend time on Instagram. XD But yeah there's a minority of people on there who are actually talented and do cool stuff.

[(´・ω・`)]

I would disagree with your assertion that G+ is a mindless social site, KFC Nyan Cat.

[Dikont5]

G+ to me is a waste of time. I'm pretty sure it is like a localized version of Facebook to Google. But I don't utilize social networking, so it is pretty pointless.

[no]

I have a brilliant idea. Antisocial network sites! It's basically the same thing as a social network site, except nobody will bother you with friend requests or messages or any of that shit.

[brainiac3397]

We can press "nuke" buttons and have middle finger pings.

[I Must Enter a Username]

(06-20-2014 01:38 AM)DoA Wrote:  Our society has numerous opiates; Facebook is but one.

There was a thread on revleft a while ago that had some interesting responses about this "modern opiates" thing:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/video-games-op...index.html

Quote:If there is no opium then where would I find my pleasures? Just because I enjoy engaging in sex, drugs, video games, and reading does not mean that I am "being keep in line", it means that I enjoy said things. Communism is not aesthetic and I'd be damned if someone starts to dictate which of my vices is good or bad.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p...ostcount=5

Quote:Brilliant analysis, reducing most aspects of human culture to figments of ruling class ideology instead of trying to understand why people find them appealing at all. What is the criteria for an "awakened" person? Is it those who do not at all take part in bourgeois culture? And what determines an "opium"? Perhaps it's whatever can "distract" or divert us from the struggle for socialism? Taking this to its logical conclusion, any and everything can become an "opium" whether it be basic interests, entertainment, or lifelong passions. While culture has been used for such purposes as "opium", by itself it is not a vast, intricate, or overarching conspiracy to keep us penned up like fledgling sheep.

Let me know when you decide to descend from your ivory tower to stop despairing about those who haven't "awakened" yet.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p...ostcount=6
Also, the thread starter spoke of this weird "awakening" thing so the above responses were especially attacking that.

The thread eventually became about that quotation by Marx, and the same user who I quote in the 2nd quote paragraph responded with this

Quote:Yes, because that phrase completely and neatly sums up everything Marx had to say concerning religion and its role in society. Hooray for contextual reading.

and this

Quote:Your act of isolating that phrase from the context in which Marx wrote it, and summarily dismissing it as "flowery" or "meaningless", is exactly how you made it come off. It's not my job to properly interpret your writing from your own state of mind.

to someone who said this

Quote:Opium of the people" was an already stupid, flowery and meaningless phrase when Marx applied it to religion. Lets just further perpetuate this 19th century stupidity for no reason. Hooray for innovative thinking.

Someone else interestingly responded with this to the user who said the above quotation:

Hidden stuff:

Quote:I half-agree with you. He definitely meant that phrase in a disparaging way toward religion, since he immediately thereafter talks about the necessity of the abolition of religion, but I think it's important to keep in mind the preceding passage and to chew it over. About it being a heart in a heartless world, the soul of soulless conditions, etc.

Religion is the crutch of which a lot in the working class use to prop themselves up. I personally don't like the idea of depriving people of crutches. I think it's important to not so much directly struggle against religion, but to recognize that a larger struggle is an indirect struggle against it. In other words, it's not religion that is the reason for the system, but it is what's used to help people cope with the shittiness of the system. That's still not going to absolve the system of its irreconcilable contradictions and, as we've seen, there are a great many religious folks who struggle against the system itself.

So, in that sense, if my interpretation is at all valid, I think there's room for an argument that says the overconsumption of video games, etc., could be counted as an "opium" but it, like religion, are not the direct causes for "pulling the wool" over people's eyes, so to speak. If you struggle against the alienation that pushes people to overconsume things like that, then you're also struggling against that overconsumption.

That doesn't mean we need to go around chastising people for it, though, just like I think it's ridiculous to go around and chastise religious folks, a lot of whom would -- at once -- struggle against their shitty conditions, but also seek refuge and solace in their religious beliefs.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p...stcount=40

[I Must Enter a Username]

(06-21-2014 01:43 AM)Alistoriv Wrote:  

Here's an interesting post:

Quote:Now it is a no-brainer that Marx was an atheist, but he certainly wasn't an anti-theist (at least in the modern sense of the word), nor did he see religious people as inherently reactionary like many Marxist atheists do today; in fact, he saw attacking religious people for their beliefs as reactionary.

So my question is, considering Marx's views on militant atheism and anti-theism with this quote from 1842:

Quote:"I desire there to be less trifling with the label ‘atheism’ (which reminds one of children, assuring everyone who is ready to listen to them that they are not afraid of the bogeyman), and that instead the content of philosophy should be brought to the people".

and you also have to take into account the fact that Marx saw an attack on the religious as an attack on the proletariat:

Quote:“The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is indeed the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man, state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, ... its moral sanction, its solemn complement and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is therefore indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.
“Religious suffering is at one and the same time the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.”

So while you can conclude that Marx was indeed anti-theist, the sense that he wanted to get rid of theism was through the implementation of communism, not through the bourgeois means of those like Dawkins and Hitchens.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p...ostcount=1
The last sentence in the post means that the material conditions under communism would mean the eventual disappearance of organized religion.

Quote:

Quote:How do you actually draw your claim that "Marx saw an attack on the religious as an attack on the proletariat...?"

Considering he states that religion is the inverted conscious of the oppressed creature, you can draw the conclusion that any attack on religious proletariat is an attack on the proletarians themselves.

Thread (lots of interesting discussion and criticism):
http://www.revleft.com/vb/marxs-views-mi...?p=1843260

[KFC Nyan Cat]

(06-21-2014 07:45 AM)Neue Wrote:  I would disagree with your assertion that G+ is a mindless social site, KFC Nyan Cat.

Most of it's users post the same Twitter and Facebook stuff, it just used to be easier to find intelligent people due to it being unpopular, and not anymore because of the YouTube merger. Here's an accurate sentiment about G+:

0.1% Intelligent People
0.2% Normal Social Networkers
99.7% People who just wanted to use YouTube