The fundamental point of division.

The fight has never been between good people or bad, or compassion or not, or racism or equality.

It's always been the individual vs. the collective.
Group politics, race theory, gender studies, demands for nationalized services, healthcare, universal welfare, and the destruction of individual rights, even something we'd never have imagined under threat such as free speech, the press, or the simple right to participate in the economy.
The people accused of racism aren't racist you know, they're just not collectivist.  They view every person as an individual, the same as they view themselves.  Every individualist is a feminist because they believe in individual rights and equality, not group judgements.  But they'll be called a sexist or misogynist.  Racism is officially not about anyone's personal biases or beliefs or behaviors any longer.  It's about your group.  It's about compliance to a collectivist outlook on all issues.
Lets be certain to address our divisions where they EXIST rather than wasting time addressing those divisions where they manifest.

Comments

Anonymous said…

Excellent point and succinct. I have often wondered about this - though not as pointedly as you.
It has always struck me as odd that people will express their individuality by doing and dressing as all the fashionable people.
'Isms' are very attractive to group-thinking as they shift responsibility?
"I was just doing it 'cause everyone else was."
"I was just following orders."
The Banality of Evil.
If Existentialism is Catholicism without God, then GroupThink is anti-existentialism.
No Responsibility, No God, Just the Collective.

6:50 AM

Tyranny.gov vs Tyranny.com

Compulsion is Compulsion, no matter who does it. This is Brilliant Theft is Theft, no matter who does it. Freedom of Association has no room in it for *private* action that takes that away Freedom of Association. If I have a business and have voluntary associations such that I choose to serve some people and to not serve others, that might make me a jerk and it might lose me business, it might make me smart and it might gain me business, but it's got to be my choice. If I would normally serve the current disliked minority in my shop except for the fact that if I'm SEEN to serve them by the wrong people I'll have a private campaign against me as those people do everything possible to ruin me by preventing me from doing business physically or by attacking my customers or suppliers, then I am NOT free to make those choices. Does it really make a difference to losing my CHOICE to voluntarily associate if there's a law that says I may not serve "those people" o...

Some times some people.

What Cancel Culture is NOT

Maybe we should talk about what cancel culture isn't. It's not a boycott. It's not deciding to no longer go to a business. It's not giving a bad review for bad service. It generally involves two things. First, the offense is a matter of opinion. Second, secondary or even tertiary targets are threatened. Cancellation does not need to be successful, and often with very famous and wealthy people it is not successful. But it serves as a warning to vulnerable people who are not in a position to weather that kind of attack. The goal is terroristic in that it's about forcing social behavior in people who are not currently the subject of the attack. The message is always, this could happen to you. And the tactic invariably includes seeking out vulnerable people to threaten in order to put pressure on businesses or on the target of the attack. So it works like this: JK Rowling is invulnerable. But they can try, right? So what they do is they find out who works for the pub...

Synova

Search This Blog