How Ideological And Philosophical Identifiers Have Different Meaning and Different Effect For Individuals Compared To When Used For Groups.

In a group about "Stoicism",
someone asked:
What group tends to be more stoic, liberals, progressives or conservatives?

------

 On person replied this way:

"Groups are not “Stoic.” Individuals are. The question itself is a rejection of Stoicism and demonstrates a bigoted mind."

-------

My initial reply:

That reply was neither kind nor fair.

--------
The rest of the conversation:

He then asked:
" Why? Bigotry is judging people by the group we put them in rather than as individuals, isn't it?"

--------
My further thoughts about it:

He was just asking a question.
He wondered about what perspectives/correlations other people perceive between those things.


As for groups,
I certainly agree that people can frame their narrative were those terms refer to groups.
I'll even agree that's usually how those terms get used.
But it doesn't necessarily have to be.
Those terms can be used to roughly convey a general attitude or moral philosophy of individuals.


For example, I consider myself to be progressive.
But I don't identify as part of a progressive group, camp, or movement.
If there was a local meeting for a local group of "progressives", I would not be interested in attending. Because I agree with what Carlin said about it.





-Bearing in mind that his use of the word "hate" isn't meant to convey an emotional extreme.
He just meant "regard very definitively as a negative".


It's like how I agree with the core principal of feminism. So "in that sense" I'm a feminist. But I'm not part of,
nor do I have a good opinion of
the sociopolitical camp/movement called "Feminism".

---

People have a curiously ironic quirk.

We even see it happening here (in the Stoicism group).

Whenever people gather in groups to share/encourage for a common values-driven philosophical or ideological theme, ...

More and more people become polarized,
the environment becomes toxic,
and they start splitting off into factions.

I've even seen it happens for large groups of humanists and groups of atheists. 

Over a longer period of time,
similar to what's happening to Christianity these days, ...

More and more people will become so fed-up with all the toxic posturing and divisive controversies, that they'll disenfranchise themselves.

They'll become either an entirely independent subscriber,
or they'll be so disgusted with the whole mess they'll just find or forge some entirely different narrative to identify with.

Gathering to take a common stand
gradually brings out the worst in people;
generally speaking.
Obviously, the effect varies for each person. 

Ultimately, 
we're more noble and more reasonable, as  individuals;
- connected through informal social networks,
rather than special-interest groups and sociopolitical rallies. 

It's possible that the person who asked the question (which started this conversation)
already realizes this.

He never said what he thought about it. 
 
https://youtu.be/WPMMNvYTEyI