Which identities do you prioritise?

Watch this thread
TheCitizenAct
Badges: 2
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
Politics is no longer policy, it's identity. Everything is fought on identity - if it's not the 'working class' it's 'women', if it's not BMEs and ethnocentrism it's LGBTs, if it's not Islam it's 'young people.' Everything is group rights and individual liberty is an afterthought providing the group gets what it wants (typically preferential treatment) and shames and guilts decent, civil, rational individuals into giving it to them.

We no longer have political parties and we no longer have an absolute morality, we have interest groups campaigning in favour of specific groups and their interests, and exploiting genuine victims (i.e., victims of rape, victims of domestic violence, victims of actual racism, etc.), all for the purposes of amassing political capital, shoring up their own vote counts and playing divide and rule with the population.

So, with this in mind I'm curious:

1. How do you personally prioritise your identities?

Prioritise the following: your gender, your nationality, your ethnicity, your sexuality, your class, your religion and your age group.

Me: There's only one: my nationality. However, in the presence of challenging someone else's ethnocentricism, or gender-centric attitudes, or nationalism, or class warfare, I become more tribal and biased in favour of my own utterly arbitrary groups.

2. Which identities do you believe are more emphatically biased towards their own-group and likely to respond to being afforded preferential treatment by politicians?

Prioritise the following: a particular ethnicity, LGBTs, women, men, a particular group of a particular nationality in the UK, a particular religion, a particular age group, a particular political affiliation or movement, a particular class or the individual.

Me: white women (towards all women and their own interests), Islam, progressive voters, black people, young people.

3. Which do you believe is more important, individual liberty or group liberty? Is it right to erode individual liberty if it creates offence for certain groups, or to impose a morality on an individual for the 'common good' when he or she doesn't believe in it?

Me: individual liberty, even if it interferes with a religious like affiliation to the notion groups have a right to not be offended.

4. Do you believe you can simultaneously campaign in favour of group rights while championing individual liberty?

Me: absolutely not. Hence why I will never be 'progressive.' Progressivism is fundamentally regressive in relation to individual liberty.
0
reply
0range
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
Sin, Cos and Tan, I prioritise them?
1
reply
alexeiR
Badges: 4
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report 6 years ago
#3
your gender, your nationality, your ethnicity, your sexuality, your class, your religion and your age group.
From most to least important:

sexuality, gender, age group, nationality, ethnicity, class, religion.
0
reply
FireGarden
Badges: 14
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
Report 6 years ago
#4
(Original post by TheCitizenAct)

1. How do you personally prioritise your identities?
I don't with any from that list. I identify myself by what I do. For the most part, I would tell people I was a mathematician. The rest is largely irrelevant for most purposes.


2. Which identities do you believe are more emphatically biased towards their own-group and likely to respond to being afforded preferential treatment by politicians?
LGBT's and women.


3. Which do you believe is more important, individual liberty or group liberty? Is it right to erode individual liberty if it creates offence for certain groups, or to impose a morality on an individual for the 'common good' when he or she doesn't believe in it?
Individual liberty, massively.

4. Do you believe you can simultaneously campaign in favour of group rights while championing individual liberty?
Obviously you can. Human rights apply to all humans, yet they of course do not impinge on individuality at all, so we already have done.
1
reply
TheCitizenAct
Badges: 2
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#5
(Original post by FireGarden)
Obviously you can. Human rights apply to all humans, yet they of course do not impinge on individuality at all, so we already have done.
Is shaming or guilting someone into conforming to a particular group morality an erosion of individual liberty?
0
reply
It's****ingWOODY
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#6
Report 6 years ago
#6
Stereotyping is age-old.
0
reply
FireGarden
Badges: 14
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#7
Report 6 years ago
#7
(Original post by TheCitizenAct)
Is shaming or guilting someone into conforming to a particular group morality an erosion of individual liberty?
Not really. The person is free to remain deviant.
1
reply
TheCitizenAct
Badges: 2
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#8
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#8
(Original post by FireGarden)
Not really. The person is free to remain deviant.
Not really? Is that a yes? Note, I said 'erosion' rather than 'destruction.' I believe individual liberty still exists, however I also believe it's in great danger of being eroded and needs to be protected against the corrosive nature of own-group bias and identity politics.

If an individual has to apply a filter, or fears that by speaking his or her mind he or she risks their job or their livelihood (see Tim Hunt being forced into a resignation by UCL for making a comment about women, or Matt Taylor being forced into a grovelling apology live on air for wearing the wrong type of garment, etc.), is this an erosion of individual liberty?

More to the point, is this damaging to societal cohesion or any notion of effective democratic participation?

Is ingrained own-group bias within one particular group in society damaging to the rest of society if that group happens to be 'powerful'?
0
reply
FireGarden
Badges: 14
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#9
Report 6 years ago
#9
(Original post by TheCitizenAct)
Not really? Is that a yes? Note, I said 'erosion' rather than 'destruction.' I believe individual liberty still exists, however I also believe it's in great danger of being eroded and needs to be protected against the corrosive nature of own-group bias and identity politics.

If an individual has to apply a filter, or fears that by speaking his or her mind he or she risks their job or their livelihood (see Tim Hunt being forced into a resignation by UCL for making a comment about women, or Matt Taylor being forced into a grovelling apology live on air for wearing the wrong type of garment, etc.), is this an erosion of individual liberty?

More to the point, is this damaging to societal cohesion or any notion of effective democratic participation?

Is ingrained own-group bias within one particular group in society damaging to the rest of society if that group happens to be 'powerful'?
Well it was a soft "certainly not", because he can rightfully behave however he wants in spite of any social pressure. He'd have to accept the social consequences of that, though.

I don't think conforming to social standards is a bad thing by any means. My point is that people do have the liberty to behave as they like (because the law of the country allows it entirely. There are no legal restrictions placed upon them). But they can't expect there to be no social repercussions. They might claim this is an infringement on their liberty, but really, its "people are not happy with what I've done but I don't want to be held (socially) accountable for it".

Moreover, increased individualism is likely a bad thing for societal cohesion. A certain amount of homogeneity in a population increases the feelings of belonging, and relatability amongst the people, and the society functions better on the whole. Japan is a great example of this, actually. They're very "your time in public is where you must conduct yourself properly". It's not great for some on the individual level (looking at their suicide rates..), but as a country, they do very well.

Lastly, yes, perhaps this is not such an ideal thing for a diverse society. One of my most unpopular opinions is I believe diversity is not a good thing, and overall homogeneity simply works better. There are many arguments against this, which I agree with in principle, but they tend to ignore that our minds work on different levels at the same time. While everyone may know every human is just as valuable as the next, your unconscious mind is still favouring your own group. People do not behave in accordance with their beliefs, and not through any fault of their own, really.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest

How are you feeling about your results?

They're better than I expected (112)
40.58%
They're exactly what I expected (66)
23.91%
They're lower than I expected (98)
35.51%

Watched Threads

View All