Identity

[plato85]

I'm not sure how talk about identity, it's not something I know much about. It seems to me that progressives put identity above logic and reason. So perhaps the best way to challenge their morals and politics is to challenge their identity. I don't really know how to go about it.

I've done a little bit of reading and I've read that Mazlow's hierarchy of needs says that higher level needs are abandoned to meet lower level needs. If someone needs belonging they will join a group and abandon their own thoughts and beliefs and conform to the group.

No wonder it doesn't matter how much you argue with these people it doesn't help. No wonder debating, arguing, reasoning doesn't affect these people. It probably has the opposite affect, because they'll see an argument as a personal attack for them being part of their group. Then how do we bring them across to independent reason?

20 years ago everyone was proud to be from our country including immigrants. Now it seems that national identity has been demonised, so there's no moral identity to bind everyone together. Perhaps 'identity crisis' is the best way to describe the post-modern world.

[M.2]

Could you talk a bit more about the identity crisis?

What is the identity worth wearing in you opinion? 

Do you think national identitarianism is the way to go, or should people adhere to an ideological identity?

[plato85]

Well, naturally we tend to identify with people with similar morals to us. I suspect interests are secondary.

A country could be brought together on common morals, or divided into different groups.

Morals should be based on truth, evidence, and rationality. Identity should be based on morals, not the other way around.

If society was open to argument and debate, and learning, and put our arguments to the test of reason, we'd find we all start to have more in common as all we start to agree with the best moral arguments.

if on the contrary people claim that all moral codes are equal and decide it's offensive to challenge someone's outlook, society is divided into multiple identities with not much to bring them together.

The identity worth wearing for me is one along my moral line. I identify with honesty, rational, grown up, independent, self reliant, responsible, mature. If people thought of identity in terms of their morals like this, identity politics wouldn't be a thing.

Having said that, identitarians are exposing the insanity of the left, and I'm optimistic that identiarians will destroy political correctness.

[ofd]

Quote

Well, naturally we tend to identify with people with similar morals to us.

Well, natually we tend to identify with people with a similar DNA to us. There I fixed it. Morals and the rest are an epiphenomenon.

[plato85]

Then the closer the relation the closer their morals are. Society is not divided along ethnic lines, it is divided along conservative/libertarian and Socialist/multicultural lines. And these groups are getting further apart.

The point is, how do we bring socialists across to unite society?

[M.2]

12 hours ago, plato85 said:

1. Well, naturally we tend to identify with people with similar morals to us. I suspect interests are secondary. A country could be brought together on common morals, or divided into different groups.

2. The identity worth wearing for me is one along my moral line. I identify with honesty, rational, grown up, independent, self reliant, responsible, mature. If people thought of identity in terms of their morals like this, identity politics wouldn't be a thing.

3. Having said that, identitarians are exposing the insanity of the left, and I'm optimistic that identiarians will destroy political correctness.

1. There is evidence to back your claim. Croatia, Bosnia and Serbia are not split along genetic lines, but along religious lines, and the same applies to Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. You can have a country comprised of multiple races, like Switzerland, Belgium, Russia, USA, China, Indonesia, but you cannot have a country with various ideologies. Or at least not a sustainable one.

2. I completely agree with you. It may be the new trend, but ethno-nationalism is not helping anyone. It is only a means to isolate yourself completely, and make yourself vulnerable. There will always be a nation bigger and badder than yours. The longest existing countries, like San Marino, Japan, Switzerland, Russia, UK, they have all placed an idea at their core, not their skin colour or their language. Sure, it helps when a people look like each other and speak like each other as well, but that is not the main pillar of a stable society.

3. You mean THE Identitarians, right? I don't really have a problem with them yet, and as far as I know they are doing a good job, but I am still sceptical of their values. They say they fight for "Europe", whatever that is. I'm not so sure their idea of Europe is worth fighting for. 

I myself am of the thought that Europe does not deserve to exist without Christianity. Quite simply because Christianity is the foundation of the Europe that we currently have. It is quite obvious that there is a correlation between religiousity and social stability.

5 hours ago, ofd said:

Well, natually we tend to identify with people with a similar DNA to us. There I fixed it. Morals and the rest are an epiphenomenon.

Hi, ofd .

I guess you feel like you just dropped the mic. Could you support that statement with something? Because I am not yet convinced.

[ofd]

Left to themselves, people tend to desegrate. Whites move to white neighbourhoods, African Americans to black neighbourhoods and so on. What people do ('white flight') speaks louder than what they claim to believe ('muh black friend').

 

[RichardY]

I guess Identity is associated strongly with the Psychological trait Agreeableness(I score Very Low btw) in the Big 5 Personality Test. Northern Europeans score the lowest in agreeableness as an ethnic group.

The Identitarians, from what I have heard they were a French group originally that formed in desperation in response to Mass Migration from the Middle East and Africa. If they are opposed to the affects of said migration, that is good enough for me. How exactly they are going to achieve self-preservation in the face of such insane numbers remains to be seen, I think there is only some semblance of a chance through succession. The Baby Boomers don't seem to care at all from what I have seen, though present company excepted from some members on the forum I guess.

Ending the welfare state would seem to be the best option, option 2 would be a military dictatorship, option 3 I guess wait and see people will go home to Africa well, if Africa is pumping people out and the Middle East doesn't want more people, civil war.

[plato85]

I wouldn't say it's that the boomers don't care. They have a meek culture of not being politically active, not talking about politics at the dinner table. 

There's probably no avoiding war, the Sunnis are on a war footing. They'll probably rise up on the streets one day under Erdogans orders one day.

[Grand]

On 8/28/2017 at 5:45 AM, plato85 said:

Then the closer the relation the closer their morals are. Society is not divided along ethnic lines, it is divided along conservative/libertarian and Socialist/multicultural lines. And these groups are getting further apart.

The point is, how do we bring socialists across to unite society?

Society is simply a larger construct of a tribe, mate. Every "social grouping" tends to occur from survival. Ancient humans decided to "group" together in the name of survival, because a group of humans is a much stronger force than any single human or animal. The same thing applies to modern society, just in less barbaric or violent ways. If you go to a job, are you going to actively avoid becoming acquainted with your co-workers? Probably not, because doing so puts you at a disadvantage compared to the other co-workers, who all know each other and have formed a group. They are more willing to lend aid to and defend each other than they would be for you, because you are the outsider compared to them being part of the group. If people only ever grouped up with others who hold the same strict beliefs, there wouldn't be any society as large as those today. People group together, as ofd said, based on DNA. People are going to actively seek to be with other people. Whether or not they actively aim to group with people of one particular race or to exclude one particular race is dependent entirely upon circumstance and context. I'll give you an example:

 

I'm a white guy who lives in Grapevine. I live in an area that's fairly diverse with a fairly low crime rate, there are people of various racial and ethnic groups and with various opinions, but the majority is white. About 20 miles from where I live is a city called Oakcliff, which has an exceptionally high crime rate and is majority Hispanic. Now on the surface that says very little, but with the context of experience in both of those cities, I as a white guy would actively be avoiding Hispanics in Oakcliff, and I'm just not going to Oakcliff at all if I'm alone or it's close to evening. There is a very strong resentment directed at whites in many Hispanic members of the community there, and it's fairly well known. This has very little to do with DNA, it has to do with the context surrounding the population of a specific area. If I was not shown any particular hostility, or if I'm not in Oakcliff, then I'm not going to have very much preference for who I end up "grouping" with beyond their actions, their skin color will have very little if any effect on it. Most people function on this level, they are going to simply group with "other people" who are not actively trying to kill them, or who give them an advantage. It doesn't have to be as radically similar as "We both like the same sky wizard" or "we both think weed should be legalized", we can have entirely different morals and opinions so long as those morals and opinions are not directly abrasive to each other. The reason Feminism, Islam and other hot button social groupings are causing so much trouble for everyone is because of how seriously radical and extreme they are. It's also why they are inevitably self destructing.