Here is a quick philosophy post while I'm working on some bigger posts. There has been some intrigue and infighting in the libertarian movements after the Colbert Report's take on the FreeKeene group and other blogs got me thinking about a intragroup conflicts. Whatever your opinion of them, It reminded me of an amazing essay that lays out a strong case for in group and out group hostilities at the Slatestar Codex. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the essay. What critiques and thoughts really get your blood boiling? Is your actual outgroup who you thought it was?
It seems only more relevant with #Shirtstorm, Gamergate, Stefan Molyneux vs. Thunderfoot/Ana Kasparian, Atheism+, etc. These controversies paint themselves as humble and self-critical, but in reality, however well meaning, they are falling to the ingroup and outgroup biases instead of being truly noble. The most powerful point about the essay is how it suggests finding who your ingroup and outgroup are. The author suggests finding the group that is the hardest for you to criticize. If it is fun or enjoyable to criticize a group, then that group isn't your ingroup. I keep thinking back to times I was blood-boilingly angry and frustrated: when I had to look hard at justifications for the non-aggression principle, dissecting universally preferred behavior, trying to come up with ways that could falsify core libertarian principles, or figuring out an origin point for property ownership without violence. I have the most complete thoughts on a left versus right anarchist view of property rights. I think I'll take more time to think on it, but it will be "Who gets the land? First Comers or Current Users?". UPDATE 1/15/2015: I decided against working through this idea, go see that post about why.
Comments
Post a Comment