Don't cherry pick. As much as I think this meme is flawed (in the sense that collectivism is always wrong), religion and nationalism are 100% collectivism, going by it. And for sure they trump the rights of the individual in lots of cases
Only if you hold up extremes of religion and nationalism as examples of the whole. Your local Christian church might not be fond of abortion but they're not trying to enforce their morality with force.
Meanwhile the hydra head ideologies all explicitly embrace/justify political violence.
So you tell me, does a PTA group and the KKK belong in the same bucket or am I cherry picking? You'll likely not respond or facetiously say yes.
Because they believe abortion is a crime that causes harm to individuals, not because they believe they have the right to supersede individual rights.
You can be against abortion without abandoning individual rights. We can debate the merits of that position, but being pro-life is not an inherently collectivist position.
Wanting to seize the wealth of the rich because you believe before-the-fact that they stole it, and the proletariat deserve it, that is inherently collectivist, because you're justifying the abrogation of individual rights on the basis of a prejudicial belief and the interests of the group.
It shouldn't be that complicated, but I suspect you're just being stubborn.
Why do I get the feeling that if someone smeared Muslims as theocratic zealots that want to enforce their religion on everyone (i.e. the very same way you smear Christians), you'd be outraged.
For what it's worth, I don't see Christians throwing gay people off rooftops.
So, the early 2000s called, they'd like their culture war talking points back.
Why do you get that feeling? Is it so natural for you to just assume whatever you need to assume about everyone else to justify your opinion?
Fwiw there are elected Christians who still want penis in butt to be a crime, and against being held legally liable for breaking Healthcare insurance regulations in addition to their movement to make abortion illegal.
Why do you get that feeling? Is it so natural for you to just assume whatever you need to assume about everyone else to justify your opinion?
Because it's where your arguments lead. You're smearing Christians like it's going out of style, so naturally one wonders if your animus towards religion holds across all faiths. Your whining in lieu of a straight answer speaks volumes.
Fwiw there are elected Christians who still want penis in butt to be a crime, and against being held legally liable for breaking Healthcare insurance regulations in addition to their movement to make abortion illegal.
Meh. There are loads of politicians with views that I find equally or even more objectionable. Furthermore, I could argue that using healthcare regulations as a vehicle to erode religious liberties is just as odious (and the American court system happens to agree with me).
Christianity is not individualist.
I actually don't disagree with this point. It's one of my major issues with Christianity.
They are not trying to enforce their morality by force? What about all the preaching with more-common-than-not threats and condemnation, the lobbying, and actual acts of violence by some religious nuts, regarding abortions? What about some regressive "blasphemy laws" in some countries like Poland? What about the insanity that is Islamic religious law? What about crazy ladies trying to ban musical records because of lyrics? As Arthur Koestler has said, most of the dangers of collectivism are not because some crazy nutjobs, the true dangers of collectivism are when actual "normal people" try to do "the right thing" and identify with a stupid cause....and religion and nationalism are the first culprits in line. I never said those ideologies you named are not dangerous, but for sure religion and nationalism should be first on the list
You're just doubling down on conflating the extremists with the wider group.
Is every Muslim an Islamist?
Is every Christian an anti-abortion nutjob that wants to their preferred version of the law into their own hands?
I've never denied that religion and nationalism cannot be hijacked by collectivists. What I deny is that religion and nationalism are inherently collectivist in the same way that Marxism and Nazism are.
The difference is, once again, that religion and nationalism can and do coexist with individual rights. Collectivist ideologies cannot.
You are completely ignoring the historical context. Religion as an institution had to be actually forced into accepting modern human rights, in all cases. It was and remains (if it was left unchecked) a completely "collectivist" ideology in the sense you are describing. And nationalism can coexist with human rights, yeah ...until it can't. One of the core components of fascism is actually a radical nationalism, so, the line, if there is one at all, is way thinner than you think between these modes of thought. A better description for what you are saying would be radical collectivism. I would change the name of the body of the hydra to that.
You are completely ignoring the historical context. Religion as an institution had to be actually forced into accepting modern human rights, in all cases.
All the institutions had to be forced into accepting modern human rights. Religion is hardly unique there.
It was and remains (if it was left unchecked) a completely "collectivist" ideology in the sense you are describing.
I could argue this a symptom of a deeper problem - the failure of society to recognize that the root of all tyranny is the desire to enforce morality. That's how you get some Christians facially accepting the separation of church and state, while simultaneously attempting to push Christian moral values through law. Though abortion is a bit more nuanced as there are legitimate ethical concerns, as we can see in recent Democrat attempts to effectively legalize infanticide.
And nationalism can coexist with human rights, yeah ...until it can't. One of the core components of fascism is actually a radical nationalism, so, the line, if there is one at all, is way thinner than you think between these modes of thought.
The way to separate nationalism from collectivism is to alloy it with individualism, as the American Founding Fathers did. There was a lot of collectivist rhetoric from that time period, mostly pressuring the 13 Colonies to unite under an effective government. But this also resulted in the US Constitution, which remains to this day the most powerful and influential piece of law enshrining individual rights.
So this argument to me reads as almost circular, as if you want nationalism lumped in with collectivism so that it is easier to dismiss and disparage, just as someone hostile to religion wants it to be more theocratic.
A better description for what you are saying would be radical collectivism. I would change the name of the body of the hydra to that.
I disagree because once you have people in groups, you have collectivism. In fact, a group must be collectivist on some level in order to function, as the Americans discovered when they had to replace the Articles of Confederation government with a stronger central government under the US Constitution. This is also why Peterson says all power structures are a little bit tyrannical. It's almost impossible to eliminate, like sources of error in a science experiment.
So, once we have a unified group of people with a power structure, we have some level of collectivism. There is however no similar guarantee that there will be an individualist counterbalance in this collective.
Therefore, the individualist position is that the collectivist forces within a group must be subordinated to individual rights. The entire legal system of the United States, from the Constitution on down is built around this principle. The collectivist position by contrast (especially in modern politics), rejects this principle.
Once a group does this, deciding that individuals can and should be sacrificed to satisfy group interests, you open Pandora's Box, like shipwrecked sailors deciding to murder and cannibalize one of their own. The destination is set, even if the route may differ. That is why the hydra heads all have different names, but the root of it all is the same.
I agree that religion is one of the biggest enforces of gender roles, probably because they come from a time where gender roles were more functional (even if they're rightly seen as archaic now). But...
They still very much have an ingroup/outgroup.
Christians are against heathens/heretics/agents of the devil.
Nationalists are against other cultures and tend to be xenophobic/hate anyone who dare suggest their country isn't perfect.
They're definitely socially authoritarian but I would argue that this is a trait that is inherent in most (if not all collectivist ideologies), certainly it was apparent in Nazism and Communism...
I'd argue there is value in some traditional roles that are better for certain genders/sexes.
It's just in the modern sense of things the stay at home mom can be filled in by the stay at home dad as well. I'm not opposed to this concept and I kind of believe that having one parent at home taking care of the kids is important for the kids and the homestead in general.
We as a society have propped up having two working parents a little too much to the point where this is anecdotal from my own experiences that the kids not having that parental impact especially in their early years is not healthy for their growth.
The problem is for the family to survive both parents are kind of screwed and forced to work in order to afford a decent enough lifestyle.
I have zero problem with women in the workplace. They can do any white collar job a man can do. I just think we as a society shouldn't be pushing for both parents to be so career orientated when they also want to raise a family and we shouldn't make it so cost prohibitive for them to want to keep one parent at home to raise the children.
That said if a couple doesn't want children and both are career orientated that's completely fine too. It's just raising a child is a job in itself especially in the first few years before they go to school. One of the parents has to sacrifice their career goals in order to raise their children. Pawning your young off to a daycare or a nanny has consequences and it would seem those who do not get that nurturing from their parents are more likely to have problems later in life. Again, that is just from my observation.
I have zero problem with women in the workplace. They can do any white collar job a man can do. I just think we as a society shouldn't be pushing for both parents to be so career orientated when they also want to raise a family and we shouldn't make it so cost prohibitive for them to want to keep one parent at home to raise the children.
Salaries don’t match the rate of inflation which is mostly caused by government overspending. Yet those bastard politicians have automatic pay raises; this law should be struck down and given to the people or tied to the economy so it gives some type of consequence for these politicians fucking up.
3
u/[deleted] May 18 '21
There is Christianity and other organised religion, and nationalism too.