[–] [deleted] 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago
[–] quizzicalpepperoni [S] 1 point 1 point 2 points (+2|-1) ago
Upvoated for originality
I actually got this from an episode of Let's Drown Out. Though in my defense they didn't go into nearly this much detail.
[–] user2033 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago (edited ago)
Stay as far away from ideology as you can. Think independently, speak the truth, and don't go all-in with any particular group. Associate with whoever you see fit, but don't pigeon-hole yourself. When you do that, part of you becomes dedicated to defending the ideology/group instead of seeking truth. Not only is your impartiality compromised, but you're now spending time putting out fires. Being independent doesn't make you impervious to attack, but it gives you the freedom to conduct yourself honorably without having to cover for anyone else. Every group/ideology has its downsides and its bad aspects, and many of them will never be ironed out because a large group will never fully agree. If you're locked in, your own reputation now depends on you downplaying or hiding the group's deficiencies. This is why you see so many people wasting time squabbling over "your side did this" and "your side did that". When it's about teams, and which team is good or bad, it's impossible to have a proper discussion on anything.
Stefan Molyneux is a good example of doing it right. He's not part of a group, he's not locked into a rigid ideology, he's just going with his own honest views on things. You would think that he would be getting constant and rampant negative press with the stuff he talks about, but they seem to leave him alone. I think one reason is they can see that his arguments are good, and they don't want to risk giving him exposure. Another reason is he's independent, so he can't be used against anyone, nor can anyone else be used against him. Although the media would love guilt by association to be a legit thing, it's weak sauce. They go with it when they truly have nothing, and it usually doesn't do much.
I'm glad that you mentioned islam, because I've noticed that a post like yours can go both ways unless it's specified which side you're on. The fact that you had to put in this disclaimer suggests that we may have a conflict here. We want to be able to point out the patterns that we see in islam, and we put islam under great scrutiny. Fair enough. But with our own groups, we have to understand that there are people putting us under equal scrutiny. We see people blowing themselves up for islam, and we see patterns of similar belief is rampant in the religion, and we are rightly concerned about the group as a whole, even though not every individual member is a problem. Now, when there are a few radicals doing stupid things in your own group, who hold similar beliefs to the group as a whole, naturally there will be people getting concerned about the group as a whole. Maybe they're right about your group and maybe they're wrong, but we can see (from our own scrutiny of islam) why looking at the group as a whole is valid to some extent.
The only solution I see is, as explained above, looser associations. Let each man speak for himself, to the best of his knowledge and ability, and be responsible for his own words and actions. Right now, most of the worthwhile discussion I'm seeing that's actually reaching people is coming from independent guys, not people locked into ideologies and groups. The groups are too busy defending themselves and demonizing the others, and the neutral people on the outside aren't being convinced by this. Neutrals are being convinced by people like Molyneux, Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan, fucking Alex Jones even. PewDiePie, as independent of political groups as anyone can get, is redpilling the shit out of people. I think that ultimately this is why the far left is going to lose. Who is independent on the far left? Almost nobody. I can't even think of any. They're all locked into an ideology that cannot possibly win the argument, and it's getting harder and harder to defend or downplay the deficiencies.