It's individual analysis in the face of a systemic problem that's precisely the jig. Everyone is culpable and responsible but that doesn't make them bad humans. But racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia/classism all have always been viewed/treated as an individual disease that rots a person to their core. For some reason they not only fail to but refuse to parse that simple reality that we SJWs and pc police are talking about things bigger than individual shit.
You are advocating for collectivism. You are advocating for the "analyses" and opinions of the individual to be cast aside in the name of your brand of the perceived greater good. Do I need to explain why this is inherently anti-democratic and authoritarian? Do I need to explain how, when you make the individual's rights irrelevant in the face of the collective, you make it permissible to do anything to that individual so long as it's in the name of the "greater good"? Do I need to explain why this goes against virtually every principle modern Western society was built upon? Do I need to explain how collectivist systems universally lead to massive human rights infringements, without a single exception in the book? How about how it's inherently illiberal (and judging from your other posts, I assume you consider yourself a liberal)?
Well, I'm going to anyways. I will confess you've backed me into a corner here because I've never actually had to defend individualism before. Usually people aren't so proud of being a conformist, but nonetheless, what are principles if you can't defend them? At least I can check "militant conformity" off on the list of shit I've seen on the internet.
Okay, so first on the table, is collectivism inherently anti-democratic and authoritarian? Let me start out by answering... No, at least to the first part, in principle. Democracy and collectivism are actually not mutually incompatible, but the particular brand of collectivism you are advocating for where opinions you deem as hateful or harmful are dismissed is inherently undemocratic. Do you believe people who advocate against, say, homosexuality should be allowed to express those opinions? Should they be allowed to express them in a public setting? If not, why not? What makes their opinions more or less valuable than yours? I agree they're subjectively worse than yours, but then again I'm not the one advocating against their analyses or whatever. Can you make an argument for why they shouldn't be allowed to express those opinions that can't also be applied to
your opinions? Furthermore, while collectivism may technically be compatible with democracy it is also inherently authoritarian. If the individual as an individual has no rights, then power must lie exclusively with the government. You could not find me a better definition of authoritarianism anywhere. There's a reason why other systems you hate so much, and rightly so, (fascism, Nazism, etc.) all seek to abolish the individual's rights, and that's where we get to the second part of what I wish to talk about.
Collectivism, like all other authoritarian ideologies, inherently degrades the value of the individual and makes it permissible to do anything to them so long as it can be framed as being done "for the greater good". We've seen countless examples of this throughout history, but unfortunately I can't mention them specifically because a certain someone would somehow think I'm accusing you of being a communist or something, so instead I guess I'll talk about how this process works. Authoritarian systems universally seek to take as much power from the individual citizen and give it to the authority or authority body that governs said authoritarian system. This is why the first thing to go in an authoritarian system is usually personal or individual rights, because if the individual has no rights, than the individual has no defense if the government wishes to persecute or prosecute them for dissent. There is absolutely nothing the authority can't do to them or force them to do, because what recourse do they have? In a collectivist system, the authority is the collective greater good of society, but here's where we run into the first snare; who interprets what the greater good of society is? In a democratic collectivist system (which, it could be argued, most democracies are collectivist to at least some minor extent) that is determined by the common will of the people, in other words a vote or ballot of some kind. However, I imagine that isn't the kind of system you're advocating for, because guess what? The will of the people elected Donald fucking Trump, the complete antithesis to who you are and what you stand for as a person (and I won't defend him either right now, I find him to be no better than a collectivist). So I'd imagine (and I apologize for making a bit of an assumption here) you think that in this case the common will of the people is wrong. Is that a fair assessment? If that is a fair assessment, on what grounds are you making that argument (again, that can't also be applied to your own position)? If the will of the people can be ignored in favor of what you see as the collective greater good, have we not already begun to erode the rights of the individual? Have we not already begun to say that the individual can be ignored in the favor of the collective?
The third part of my argument, that collectivism goes against the principles of western society, should be fairly cut-and-dry because anyone who's taken a first look at the U.S. constitution already knows it to be true. I live in America so I'll take an American-centric point of view for a bit. America was founded on the basic principles of individual liberty and unalienable rights as can be clearly evidenced no better than by reading the founding documents of our country. Individual rights are entrenched in our constitution for a reason; because they protect the minority from the whims of the majority. If the majority of the country decides they want to suppress the rights of the minority, then the minority already has the constitution to defend themselves with. This is why both liberals and conservatives alike have so staunchly and rigorously defended the constitution throughout American history. It is why I defend the second amendment despite the fact that I hate guns and would greatly prefer if they had never existed in the first place, and despite the fact and I actually disagree with it on principle, because if I don't defend the second amendment, why should any of the others fare any better? As a nation the people must have certain rights that the government (or the collective) simply cannot touch to protect themselves from tyranny.
The fourth part of my argument, that collectivism has historically always led to automatic human rights violations, is quite tough to argue for without mentioning any of the three things I promised not to mention earlier. In addition, I believe collectivism is dangerous in a vacuum. That is to say, even if you removed the historical context of collectivism, I believe it would still be a harmful political philosophy. So, for the time being, we'll actually discard that argument.
Now we get to the last point I'd like to talk about; that collectivism is inherently illiberal, and I suspect this will be the one that irks you the most, being as you identify as a liberal yourself if I am not mistaken. The very definition of liberalism is "a political philosophy founded on the ideas of liberty and equality". I suspect you believe that what you are advocating for would lead to social equality (although I don't agree it would, we'll put that aside for now), but can you honestly say, despite everything I've just talked about, that collectivism is compatible with liberty? Have freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and freedom of expression on an individual citizen's level not traditionally always been liberal issues?
It's somewhat ironic to me that collectivists argue against their own right as an individual to have a politically relevant opinion. It is a catch-22, a self-defeating philosophy, in a way. Furthermore, what makes you think that the collective will agree with you? What makes you think that the people you stand against won't rise up, seize power, and turn the very system you wish to create against you?
Now, I suspect I know exactly where this discussion is going to go next, so I'm going to preempt it. Even if you say that I'm misrepresenting you and you aren't advocating for collectivism (although, given your post, I struggle to see how this is the case), I'm going to put forth the argument that political correctness is
itself inherently collectivist. Firstly, let's take a look at the definition of political correctness. The most charitable definition I could find is as follows:
": Conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated"
So why is this collectivist, in case it wasn't already obvious? It seeks to restrict or remove the right of the individual to say things that could be perceived to offend a collective group. I don't really think I need to say anything more, do I?
