> you may have different ethical standards
Isn't this the exact opposite of zealotry? Zealotry is imposing your ethical standards on others.
Isn't this the exact opposite of zealotry? Zealotry is imposing your ethical standards on others.
But after reading that article, I was definitely left feeling judged because I choose to do exactly the things he's talking about, for exactly the reasons he's suggesting. Maybe that's on me, but I certainly felt his standards imposed on me, disclaimer or not.
Also, given the conviction with which he argues with in the article, that disclaimer feels a little weak -- kinda like when someone says "No offence, but... <very offensive thing>".
It’s even more specific than that though isn’t it? A fanatical belief in a single cause to the exclusion of all else.
The commenter somewhat retracted their use of this word in a sibling comment, but it seems important to me that we don't confuse strong views with zealotry. Drew's views are certainly very strong.
Strong views can be rational and well thought. I even believe they are often the ones that can push the world to a better place. Usually you can even argue with someone yielding strong views if they are rational (unless the person is bad at communication / is an asshole, of course it's possible). Strong views can shake you up and are not always enjoyable.
Zealotry is just plain irrational and dangerous and there's no way you can have a constructive discussion with a zealot.