@LotheronPrime Yes, if it wasn't for so much of our social fabric to be left leaning, by nature of being collectivist, we would talk far more freely.

Considering the campaigns people will run against people who speak out

I mean

They ran a sexual assault allegation against someone JUST BECAUSE OF A JOB INTERVIEW

That is something conservatives used to understand: we have to collectivize at times, too, to defend freedom and liberty.

No.

The degree to which the Left is collectivized is Borg-like.

We shouldn't do that.

Well, that's why we are always on the defensive.

So to rephrase your point, we need to start speaking up, speaking out, facing down bullshit where we see it unafraid, and stick up for one another.

We are too often atomized.

There was one other conservative in this thread. I was running backup.

so I think the distiction needs to be made

between forming orgs and the like
and collectivism

The subthread that got me banished, the one I linked, was all me.

because I see the two getting used interchangeably a lot

Look what's happening all over the place:

They have their mobs, they roll over one of us, as soon as they speak up.

And who stands up to defend them?

you form a group on the basis of individualist principles, you fight for those principles

How many of Petersons colleagues stood up?

you know, like the United States

I am telling you: we are too atomized.

If you believe in something, stand up for it.

Take note: The arguments that this guy was using against me were all regurgitated lines assumed to be true.

They will keep rolling over us until we had that lesson driven into us.

THAT is what collectivism does.

Beeman is right in his distinction.

Yes, and that is the saddest part:

They are regurgitated, but if they are regurgitated by enough people, without the same scale of pushback, they are unchallenged and often are assumed to be true.

It needs to be less borglike and more like that old hands-in-a-circle meme

We do not have the same degree of solidarity and that is one of our weaknesses.

Why do we WANT that degree of solidarity?

Look around.

I brought up Keith Ellison in another subthread, and they discarded it as irrelevant to Kavanaugh's case.

I look around and I see tribes.

I do not want solidarity purely for the sake of solidarity.

We won't solve tribalism with more tribalism.

I want solidarity around principles and ideals.

That is what used to make us strong and righteous.

The problem with a social movement like Feminism or Black Lives Matter is that there is no end, there's no point where you say 'job done' and dissolve.

^^^

Yes, because it is not for the sake of an ideal.