[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by driveway

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?

I'm referring to the persecution complex present in too many churches where there is a sentiment, often, but not always expressed from the pulpit, that Christians are being oppressed or persecuted. It's very much used in an us vs them way.

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.

I have no issue with people being a bit snarky. There is a tribe of people who are anti-tribal, which is both necessary if anti-tribalism is going to really make headway as a movement and philosophically self-defeating. I'm not sure I would consider most social justice movements including the ones you listed as anti-tribalistic though. It seems to me that in general they are trying to change the tribalism of the dominant tribe to include more people. I should note I tend to use the word broadly; I consider a tribe to be a group of people organized around a cause or belief who will exclude people from that group if they don't hold that belief or support that cause. To be tribalistic then is to assert that one or more such tribes are the right ones.

EDIT: As promised, I have re-read it. I definitely misinterpreted what you said. That being said, the conclusion still doesn't follow from the premise as even if these groups are anti-tribal, they are often so in a tribalisitic way; you can say that you are anti-tribal and then refuse to identify with other tribes that share your goals in this area. There is far more to the movements listed than anti-tribalism, supposing they are indeed anti-tribalism, something I doubt (though I could be convinced)

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

Agreed; but then I didn't say that tribalism requires it, but rather, that dogmatism and intellectual arrogance (often) lead to tribalism.

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.

I would consider what you said about oppression to be a dogma; perhaps I use the word dogma too loosely, but asserting that the oppression / oppressor dichotomy is meant to promote inclusiveness seems dogmatic to me given how often I see it used to promote exclusiveness in the name of achieving equality or some other greater good. Of course, this might be a case where the theory and practice diverge.

That's where most people tend to stay. The issue I have is that to many people assume it's the other people that are ignorant rather than wondering, "What don't I know". Perhaps it's my familiarity with Christian and Islamic Worldview Apologetics (AKA presuppositionalism) which simultaneously makes good points about the nature of an individual perspective on the world (a worldview) and then make a completely unimpressive case for a particular one based on this.

I made no attempt appear informed on the topic of this thread. However, my issue is that it appears that what you consider informed about a topic in general is really being informed about a very particular perspective. I'm at best very lightly informed on the relevant information to most social issues; hence my hesitation to condemn or join any particular movement. I've read many of the plato.stanford articles (many of which are excellent if you can stand their dry structure), a few books on the topic, and that's about it. All these sources changed my perspective and opinion slightly, but I've never read any individual book that caused me to have a radically different opinion on a complex topic, no matter how highly recommended. Rather, the big swings have come about slowly.

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.

Sure, I'm projecting in my frustration around other posters on other sites onto your post. The books may indeed be very good; very often books people recommend are. However, if they make a particularly powerful case, at least summarize the argument instead on here, rather than saying, read these books, I "guarantee" they will change your mind.