[user104658]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

Lets cut to the chase. You mentioned this in the other thread about moral absolutes, but until you expand on what areas you think these exist, then I'll never really know the definitions and parameters of the discussion, so would ask that you're specific in what areas these exist.

Gender and general identity philosophy, race issues, issues relating to and interwoven with mental health (slightly more complex and highly related to identity politics)... to give specific examples... but it’s broader than that.

As a summing up, it’s whenever and wherever someone is deciding what “feels right” and then creating the intellectual structures to prove that it is in fact right after the fact. Deciding on the conclusion and then developing the thinking to fit the conclusion rather than the other way around. Then the secondary aspect where it becomes about group identity; it becomes not even about deciding what feels right as a starting point, but rather “accepting the group consensus on what is right” and going from there. It doesn’t apply to everyone who holds any opinion or set of opinions obviously but it is easy to spot because people immediately fall apart when asked to elaborate. They can’t offer any real advice on reaching their conclusion because they didn’t reach the conclusion for themselves, so the result is frustrated (often young) people insisting “what I think is right, you just think as I think!” Whilst being totally unable to tackle the “why?”.

Again that’s where my thoughts on it get complicated. Often the conclusions are perfectly sound and reasonable. But the aggression that comes with frustration at being unable to justify those conclusions when pushed is significant and offputting . So people have to be categorised, and some people are right, and some are wrong, and they are the enemy.

It’s not a partisan left-right issue it applies across the board. A gammon is no better-reasoned than a woke. But the key point is that both are fundamentally positive that they are RIGHT, based mostly on things they have been told rather than their own reasoning, and being asked for their reasoning is deemed an offensive challenge and will most likely see you labelled as [something] and others warned that you are [something].

But yeah basically my observation (worry?) is that I see a lot of the same types of people with the same types of thinking (or lack of thinking) right across the political spectrum, and that is the real problem. That is the massive well of emotion-driven crude oil that the politicians are more than happy to exploit.

The major differences are that the driving factor on the left is the concept of moralism and group-wellbeing whereas the right tends towards impulses for selfishness and individualism.

I’d argue that that’s why the right finds it so much easier to “get the numbers” too... at the base level, humans are instinctually driven towards selfish gains; the survival of self first and foremost and then small groups with close ties. Genuine concern “for mankind” or larger groups isn’t something that comes to people easily and actually REQUIRES a deeper level of philosophical and introspective thought. Divide and conquer is part of it but divide and conquer isn’t even difficult when all you actually have to do is distract and people will automatically tend towards self-interest.