And if you buy this definition, you get this philosophy FREE!
From there, the big idea is to start killing off humanists (“Liberals, conservatives, Christians, Jews, most Buddhists, every businessperson”) along with anybody useless or cancerous to society (our sole discretion, natch).
Thankfully, most of the posts on the blog seem to be not about some neo-Nietzschean jackoff scenario of crushing the weak of the earth, but about the comparatively innocuous topic of death-metal. Heh.
I think you might have a disagreement in terminology, nothing more. Humanism can also be associated with materialism, “the philosophical theory that regards matter and its motions as constituting the universe, and all phenomena, including those of mind, as due to material agencies.” If you saw a mention that such-and-such is too “materialistic” on a shopping blog, would you argue with that definition?
The rest of it seems to be some ZPG-type nonsense. Stupid, sure. But Pit-worthy?
It’s a rhetorical move the neocon right frequently uses: associating some “ism” with its opposite or contradictory goals, then putting oomph behind the assertion by insisting that lazy thinking, gummint mind control tactics, or good old nasty-ass human nature are the reason Nobody Knows The Truth.
As a true anti-humanist, I find it offensive that they are trying to co opt the term for dishonest purposes. What about those of us who disregard most of the basic tenets of humanism and don’t care about the well-being of others at all? What are we supposed to call ourselves?
Remember when the Taliban blew up those ancient Buddhist statues? Did you hear them make threats? Call for sanctions? Retaliate? Take to the streets in protest? Carry a grudge? No, you didn’t, because that’s not their gig.
As they are so anti materialistic, usually vegetarian, and don’t engage in war, this seems unfair in the extreme.
The first problem I noticed is that, even if killing people for the good of society is okay, the blanket killing of people in certain groups is certainly not going to do more good than harm, especially since you’d be killing about half of the world’s population, if not substantially more.