[driveway]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

You've never spent much time in a church, have you? It's used precisely in the way you say it's not there. It may be that the intellectuals that invented the term use it differently, but in common usage, it's very much a tool that's contributes to tribalism rather than detracting from it.

No, I have not spent much time in churches. I don't understand what your point is in this paragraph though. What term are you referring to? How is it used?

Also, saying that people would be a feminist, a supporter of BLM, and a march in the Pride parade if they were just more informed is both dismissive and indicative of your own ignorance of the topic beyond the very narrow perspective you allow yourself to hold.

Generally I would agree with this statement, but in the specific case I was referring to someone who claims a specific belief (anti-tribalism), and then attacks movements which subscribe to exactly the same belief. I do not agree that this is an ignorant or dismissive position. I will agree I wasn't nice in how I phrased it.

Are you not even aware enough of human phycology to know that your response is a hallmark of dogmatism and intellectual arrogance, the very thing that tribalism thrives on?

I disagree that tribalism requires dogmatism or intellectual arrogance, I would argue they are symptomatic, not causal.

When dogma is challenged, have you not noticed that people that are either dogmatic or not intellectually honest and humble tend to do the following: 1. The person who disagrees with me is just stupid. 2. When it's clear that the person is not stupid, then they are just uninformed. 3. When it becomes clear they are informed, then they are written off as evil or bad people.

I don't believe I referred to or relied on any dogma in my post. I don't believe that the inclusionary nature of minority activism is dogmatic, but rather axiomatic. Nor did I at any point assume any posters were stupid or bad, merely uninformed. Likewise I didn't see anything in their, or your, post which provided any evidence of being informed, so I suppose I'm still on stage two.

Of course, often people don't like to write people off as bad, so instead they refer people to an endless list of books that contain arguments that are supposedly better than the ones presented in the discussion.

Forgive me for being so blunt. It's just not often I see such obvious tribalism used to claim that something is not tribalistic.

Well, I'd disagree with your characterization of three books as "an endless list," but I do agree that no posters on CP are "bad" ... well, Bingo is a CDC paste-eating troll, so let's say "almost no posters." Finally, no apology is necessary, I knowingly wrote in an inflammatory fashion.