société/groupe/idéologie?

Je suis en train de voir un reportage sur Arte sur les blagues pendant le régime communiste dur de l'Europe de l'Est.
Ceci me fait d'ailleurs réaliser que Staline serait le plus grand criminel de l'histoire.

Ca me rappelle que la liberté des membres de tout système ou organisation se mesure selon les critères du fameux ABCDEF

http://www.neopagan.net/ABCDEF_French.html

l'un des critères étant justement "Degré de désapprobation à propos de plaisanteries concernant le groupe, ses doctrines ou son/ses dirigeant(s)."

Je profite de cette fortuite opportunité pour porter à votre attention cette série de critères subjectifs applicables universellement à tout groupe.

Et j'insiste sur la généralisation de ces critères, écrits à l'origine pour les sectes, à tout type de groupe envisageable à toute échelle.


PS: peu importe le système ou le mécanisme qui met un homme au pouvoir; une fois qu'il y est ..........


PPS: je ne savais pas dans quelle catégorie poster ce post, alors ici m'a semblé le moins éloigné ...
=>il manque de catégories ici.

trouvé dans les liens à partir de cette page de référence :

Citation :

Arguing with Fundamentalists

Many people of good will are naive enough to think that they can logically persuade Fundamentalists to be more tolerant. Unfortunately, trying to discuss religion with a Fundamentalist (and many Evangelicals) is like trying to discuss color theory with people who can only see black and white. When you try to point out, however diplomatically, that their vision is limited by their inability to see red, green, blue or yellow, they will insist that it is your view that is the limited one, because you can’t see that a black and white world view is more accurate in some ultimate way. If you suggest that the universe is more complex than their dogmatic divisions of 100% Truth vs. 100% Falsehood, they will accuse you of being dogmatic, because you refuse to concede that their dogmas might be 100% True. Their next step is usually to denounce you as demonic, or the dupe of demons, for thinking that there might be any Truth outside their particular denomination’s version of their scriptures.

When Fundamentalism’s prime philosophical opposition came from Scientistic atheists and agnostics, who were dualists themselves, it was relatively easy for Fundamentalists to get away with playing this game. They are much more confused — and threatened — by pluralism, relativity, and ambiguity, hence their urgent need to reduce all complexity to the psychologically soothing (if philosophically and spiritually bankrupt) simplicity of dualism. More dangerously, for those of us who care about human rights, this desperate need for a simple universe leads Christian and Islamic Fundamentalists to desire secular power to enforce their theological, economic, and social opinions (which they call “God’s Law”) upon every man, woman, and child on the planet, and to violently eliminate all competing worldviews. (Jewish Fundamentalists, however, only want to have total domination over the territory that their predecessors ruled 2,500 years ago, as well as over every Jewish family elsewhere in the world.) When Fundamentalists get into secular power, they use that power to shove their dogmas down everyone else’s throats using whatever violence is necessary to silence dissent, as any glance at Ireland, Israel/Palestine and most Islamic nations will reveal. And then their insatiable lust for power will lead them to try to export their Fundamentalism elsewhere, until the entire world is under their control.