Does this depend on how you define the group, and who gets to define it, or even whether it's sensible to start using group identity at all? Maybe group identity is always just a tool of manipulation? This is complex because Jesus didn't tell people to call themselves "Christians" and following Jesus does not have to mean belonging to a …
Does this depend on how you define the group, and who gets to define it, or even whether it's sensible to start using group identity at all? Maybe group identity is always just a tool of manipulation? This is complex because Jesus didn't tell people to call themselves "Christians" and following Jesus does not have to mean belonging to a church: if I follow his example quietly for myself I could still call myself a Christian, or not, as I wish. Or I can call myself a Christian but pick and choose about where I follow his example, if at all (or so it would seem). Do all these people belong to the same group? Very, very loosely, based on the lowest common denominator of perhaps believing Jesus was the son of God, or maybe even just that he was a wise man whose example I wish to follow? I was raised in a Christian family and have lived in several different Christian communities, but feel I have very little in common with e.g. high Catholics or charismatic Evangelicals. I possibly have more in common with you. Do we need some Venn diagrams?
Well, I push back against that logic, because a conversation environment where each person gets to pick and choose whom they accept as belonging to their favorite group would descend into weasely meaninglessness soon. Criticism of concepts with group identities attached would become impossible.
Do you mean that whoever assigns themselves an identity which has the same name as one you have either been assigned or choose to assign yourself automatically has to be accepted by you as having that very same identity you have?
This comment thread started with Kingsnorth bashing all of leftism (and quite explicitly, all of it), based on the bad examples that Rhyd mentioned in his article. Under that framing, I have to insist on Christians not weaseling out of bad examples of Christianity either.
Now, from you (but not from Kingsnorth) I could accept that you don't consider rightwing Neocons actual Christians. Then I would reply that woke cancellers aren't actual leftists either. That would be fair as well.
Does this depend on how you define the group, and who gets to define it, or even whether it's sensible to start using group identity at all? Maybe group identity is always just a tool of manipulation? This is complex because Jesus didn't tell people to call themselves "Christians" and following Jesus does not have to mean belonging to a church: if I follow his example quietly for myself I could still call myself a Christian, or not, as I wish. Or I can call myself a Christian but pick and choose about where I follow his example, if at all (or so it would seem). Do all these people belong to the same group? Very, very loosely, based on the lowest common denominator of perhaps believing Jesus was the son of God, or maybe even just that he was a wise man whose example I wish to follow? I was raised in a Christian family and have lived in several different Christian communities, but feel I have very little in common with e.g. high Catholics or charismatic Evangelicals. I possibly have more in common with you. Do we need some Venn diagrams?
Well, I push back against that logic, because a conversation environment where each person gets to pick and choose whom they accept as belonging to their favorite group would descend into weasely meaninglessness soon. Criticism of concepts with group identities attached would become impossible.
Do you mean that whoever assigns themselves an identity which has the same name as one you have either been assigned or choose to assign yourself automatically has to be accepted by you as having that very same identity you have?
This comment thread started with Kingsnorth bashing all of leftism (and quite explicitly, all of it), based on the bad examples that Rhyd mentioned in his article. Under that framing, I have to insist on Christians not weaseling out of bad examples of Christianity either.
Now, from you (but not from Kingsnorth) I could accept that you don't consider rightwing Neocons actual Christians. Then I would reply that woke cancellers aren't actual leftists either. That would be fair as well.