Why do we attack each other for ideology?

I've come to the philosophical revelation that attacking each other for differences in ideology (be it moral, religious, political, or spiritual) is one of the stupidest things we do as a species.

Debate and criticism is healthy, and it helps us improve our opinions. It should be constructive criticism IMO. What I've observed in my life, is when people are dicks to other people about differences in ideology, it typically doesn't lead to someone changing their mind, it leads to people becoming defensive, hostile, stubborn, and way too set in their ways. In my experience, my friends, and other people who have a civil conversation with me about ideology, and people who express a legitimate desire to help me improve my understanding of the world are the people who are most likely to change my mind about things. I've personally found that in civil discussions where I express a desire to help other people, people are more likely to truly consider my opinions with an open mind than if I attack them, put them down, and try and make them feel terrible about themselves.

As such, I think its a societal mistake that we're so hostile when it comes to ideology, because it leads people to become more concerned with who is right rather than what is right, and it leads people to close themselves off from the wisdom of others and consider people with ideological differences their enemies. If you try and make someone feel like shit for their opinions and assert yours as objectively superior, do you truly think you're helping them? Do you truly think they're gonna listen to what you have to say with an open mind? Because I don't think so.

And lastly, this post isn't an endorsement of PC ideology. What I am voicing my support for is behavior that promotes open-mindedness and open communication, whereas self-victimization seems merely another form of defensiveness and hostility, and censorship an obvious enemy of open-mindedness and open communication, and ultimately censorship is one of the worst possible attacks on ideology.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I've come to the philosophical revelation that attacking each other for differences in ideology (be it moral, religious, political, or spiritual) is one of the stupidest things we do as a species.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
And one of our defining traits. Just let me be who I am, Mom!

If it helps, the only ones who give a shit about our stupid traits and tendencies is us. We're our own worst critics.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
If it helps, the only ones who give a shit about our stupid traits and tendencies is us. We're our own worst critics.

When we hate ourselves on a certain level, it leads to arrogance, and between those two sides of the same coin we distort our perception of ourselves, which isn't fair to ourselves and isn't healthy. IMO, it's self love that truly leads people to view themselves as they truly are for their own sake, and leads them to actually strive for improvement.

Same with the Seven Sins thing, those linear skeins of emotion are a little too Yoda-esque to be valid as universal declarations or tendencies. One doesn't automatically lead to specifically this or that, and sometimes to get anywhere it needs to be paired with another mentality or attitude that could arise independently.

Psychologically and emotionally, we're far too complex for broad strokes to be declared definitive. Or for singular instances to be declared as examples of a universal rule. Self criticism and self hate are better tackled on a one-on-one basis, as the reasons and consequences for each are going to be different for everyone. Try to avoid absolute declarations, they tend to paint too many people into corners they don't deserve or earn.

People are different, but the fact that the self-loathing/arrogance thing is such a ubiquitous among religion/spirituality, psychology, fiction, teachings about bullies, and IRL experiences and observations leads me to believe that the relation between self-loathing arrogance is one of the more ubiquitous things among human nature, granted there are discrepancies in this nature from person to person and I don't wish to standardize the human being, but this understanding has lead me to take control of my own life, and feel an empathy for others I didn't before, even if I do think each individual's problems need to be tackled on an individual basis.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I've come to the philosophical revelation that attacking each other for differences in ideology (be it moral, religious, political, or spiritual) is one of the stupidest things we do as a species.

Debate and criticism is healthy, and it helps us improve our opinions. It should be constructive criticism IMO. What I've observed in my life, is when people are dicks to other people about differences in ideology, it typically doesn't lead to someone changing their mind, it leads to people becoming defensive, hostile, stubborn, and way too set in their ways. In my experience, my friends, and other people who have a civil conversation with me about ideology, and people who express a legitimate desire to help me improve my understanding of the world are the people who are most likely to change my mind about things. I've personally found that in civil discussions where I express a desire to help other people, people are more likely to truly consider my opinions with an open mind than if I attack them, put them down, and try and make them feel terrible about themselves.

As such, I think its a societal mistake that we're so hostile when it comes to ideology, because it leads people to become more concerned with who is right rather than what is right, and it leads people to close themselves off from the wisdom of others and consider people with ideological differences their enemies. If you try and make someone feel like shit for their opinions and assert yours as objectively superior, do you truly think you're helping them? Do you truly think they're gonna listen to what you have to say with an open mind? Because I don't think so.

And lastly, this post isn't an endorsement of PC ideology. What I am voicing my support for is behavior that promotes open-mindedness and open communication, whereas self-victimization seems merely another form of defensiveness and hostility, and censorship an obvious enemy of open-mindedness and open communication, and ultimately censorship is one of the worst possible attacks on ideology.

Sometimes constructive criticism isn't enough. Sometimes ideologies must be fought for the greater good.

Violence is the outcome of failed deplomacy.

Violence is required sometimes to do what's necessary.

I say, be open minded! Hear them all out. But only one road can be taken.

My ideology dictates that my ideology IS the greater good, and will lead to the best results for all humanity! Everyone who fights against it is against the greater good.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
My ideology dictates that my ideology IS the greater good, and will lead to the best results for all humanity! Everyone who fights against it is against the greater good.

Exactly.

Should Hitler have won WW2 we would see Roosvelt and Churchill as terrible people and Hitler would be call a Hero.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
And lastly, this post isn't an endorsement of PC ideology.

That's exactly what it is, fam. If you're only open to listening to people who've kissed your ass first, that's your problem.

The idea that everyone should operate under the pretense that all ideas are good ideas (lest you risk offending someone!) is silly. Legitimizing nonsense is also counterproductive. But by all means, have fun respectfully "agreeing to disagree" with Hitler.

I don't know the answer to this.

But I refuse to identify with an idealogy, so I get attacked by "both sides" anyways. Which, ironically, is exactly why I'm fed up with politics and the identity pushing "Lord of the Flies" bullshit that seems to be behind it.

Show me a group of people that are self critical enough to realize that comparing yourself favorably against "an other" just for the sake of maintaining group solidarity is a toxic practice, and I may jump on board.

Because I find many far-right ideologies disgusting and unless confront they lead to hell on Earth.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
And one of our defining traits. Just let me be who I am, Mom!

Nah... You should do what your Mom says...

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Because I find many far-right ideologies disgusting and unless confront they lead to hell on Earth.

...or you turn out like THAT!!!!!!

We attack people for ideology, only if our ideology tells us to do so. People that believe violence to be unnecessary and or tedious don't use it. People who are less mentally developed, and incapable of expressing themselves in a way other than physically, are inclined to become violent as a means to express their thoughts, which they view as validation for themselves.

Simply put, ideologies can be toxic. As long as ideologies praising violence exist, humanity will be doomed to a never-ending cycle of violence. Even a non-violent person will become violent if provoked, which is why violent ideologies can be so dangerous. As soon as one person is violent, everyone else follows suit in an effort to defend themselves.

In the end, there are far too many variables to sum up humanities plague of hatred and violence. Some people are just violent by nature. Whether it's the way they were raised, the life they've lived, a coping mechanism they've developed, etc., this behavior is unavoidable. Of course, there are ways to reduce the scope and intensity of violence on a large scale, but it's too hard for people to come together collectively and get along.

On a social level, I think justice is the only way to combat violence. If every case of violence was met with severe punishment by the law, violence would be far less common. Treating people to be tolerant is good, until someone abuses that tolerance- i.e. Islamic terrorism, Gay bashing, Racism, etc. Being too tolerant can be an enabler for violent people.

Which is why, like everything in life, ideology requires balance to achieve stability.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I've come to the philosophical revelation that attacking each other for differences in ideology (be it moral, religious, political, or spiritual) is one of the stupidest things we do as a species.

Debate and criticism is healthy, and it helps us improve our opinions. It should be constructive criticism IMO. What I've observed in my life, is when people are dicks to other people about differences in ideology, it typically doesn't lead to someone changing their mind, it leads to people becoming defensive, hostile, stubborn, and way too set in their ways. In my experience, my friends, and other people who have a civil conversation with me about ideology, and people who express a legitimate desire to help me improve my understanding of the world are the people who are most likely to change my mind about things. I've personally found that in civil discussions where I express a desire to help other people, people are more likely to truly consider my opinions with an open mind than if I attack them, put them down, and try and make them feel terrible about themselves.

As such, I think its a societal mistake that we're so hostile when it comes to ideology, because it leads people to become more concerned with who is right rather than what is right, and it leads people to close themselves off from the wisdom of others and consider people with ideological differences their enemies. If you try and make someone feel like shit for their opinions and assert yours as objectively superior, do you truly think you're helping them? Do you truly think they're gonna listen to what you have to say with an open mind? Because I don't think so.

And lastly, this post isn't an endorsement of PC ideology. What I am voicing my support for is behavior that promotes open-mindedness and open communication, whereas self-victimization seems merely another form of defensiveness and hostility, and censorship an obvious enemy of open-mindedness and open communication, and ultimately censorship is one of the worst possible attacks on ideology.

I knew you were his dad.

Yeah, using the form something is expressed in as an excuse to avoid the content is just self delusion.

IE:It's fine to call someone's idea stupid, just make sure you have clear coherent reasons for why what they're saying is stupid.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I've come to the philosophical revelation that attacking each other for differences in ideology (be it moral, religious, political, or spiritual) is one of the stupidest things we do as a species.

Debate and criticism is healthy, and it helps us improve our opinions. It should be constructive criticism IMO. What I've observed in my life, is when people are dicks to other people about differences in ideology, it typically doesn't lead to someone changing their mind, it leads to people becoming defensive, hostile, stubborn, and way too set in their ways. In my experience, my friends, and other people who have a civil conversation with me about ideology, and people who express a legitimate desire to help me improve my understanding of the world are the people who are most likely to change my mind about things. I've personally found that in civil discussions where I express a desire to help other people, people are more likely to truly consider my opinions with an open mind than if I attack them, put them down, and try and make them feel terrible about themselves.

As such, I think its a societal mistake that we're so hostile when it comes to ideology, because it leads people to become more concerned with who is right rather than what is right, and it leads people to close themselves off from the wisdom of others and consider people with ideological differences their enemies. If you try and make someone feel like shit for their opinions and assert yours as objectively superior, do you truly think you're helping them? Do you truly think they're gonna listen to what you have to say with an open mind? Because I don't think so.

And lastly, this post isn't an endorsement of PC ideology. What I am voicing my support for is behavior that promotes open-mindedness and open communication, whereas self-victimization seems merely another form of defensiveness and hostility, and censorship an obvious enemy of open-mindedness and open communication, and ultimately censorship is one of the worst possible attacks on ideology.

Because there's a lot of money and entire industries built on attacking and demonizing those who we disagree with - namely talk radio and the 24 hour news industry.

Originally posted by BackFire
Because there's a lot of money and entire industries built on attacking and demonizing those who we disagree with - namely talk radio and the 24 hour news industry.