Against following the herd

[Artaxerxes II]

Natural instincts suggest we should listen to the "group". The biggest of which is Society.

With Trump's rise, we've seen pedophobia go mainstream- the majority of Americans subscribe to it, and perhaps half the world itself.

Even on the left, liberal antis see pedophobia as the last permissible outlet for their penchant to judge and degrade others. (That's a hallmark of bourgeois culture, and functions independent of political orientation).

The problem is that the "group" fills your head with drivel. For example, they've actually convinced a lot of MAPs that "MAP liberation", "identity politics" and "self-interest" are bad, when they are just the conceptualisation of MAPs' self-consciousness.

If multiple people are saying it in America or any other pedophobic country, it's almost assuredly wrong. These are self-interested talking points from the anti majority.

Get in the habit of disagreeing and assuming what others say is wrong. If the majority supports it, ascribe no further value to it. Antis depend on the human instinct in all of us to acquiesce to the group - and impute meaning to that which has social proof. Our survival depends on identifying what's right for MAPs, and that only happens when we avoid the trap of heeding group sentiment - which today is right-wing thinly-veiled pedo “hunter” propaganda or liberal-centrist anti over-protectionism.

Antis can afford to be conformist and aligned with their own interests; in contrast, we as MAPs have no choice but to be distrustful of society and delight in disagreeing and contradicting, for there is no home within the mainstream parts of the political spectrum, not even the fringes that are closer to the mainstream than us.

[John_Doe]

That we tend to conform to group standards (and not even just to avoid a negative reaction, e.g. shaming or rejection) seems to be an undeniable general truth about mainstream human psychology. I think it explains why most 19th century white southerners supported slavery and virtually all Westerners today oppose it or why people in different cultures tend to have different ideas about what's moral or permissible or appropriate (because they are socialized differently, because of their environment, you can't really explain these statistical differences through free will or even heredity). It's worth noting that 'society' can be replaced by different sub-cultures that people who see themselves as atypical or estranged from mainstream society might now feel compel to conform to.

I've always prided myself on my lack of 'docility,' if I'm not misusing the term (I don't accept the authority of other people; in areas where they can't for all intents and purposes inter-subjectively demonstrate it, or what they think is ultimately good or bad because of their influence; because they think it's good or bad) but I'm not sure this has always been a core feature of my personality (I remember, as a nerdy 5th grader, thinking with some defiance that I would wear sweat pants in middle school if I wanted to when someone told me that I couldn't do that without being bullied), I think I developed that mindset in adulthood or at least to the degree that I have it now. I suspect that I'm very low on cognitive empathy, compared to average people, other people seem to be on the same 'wavelength' with each other (not just in terms of what they think is good, moral, just or reasonable but even just in their natural 'perspective' and 'inclination,' as if you could show a picture to several people and everyone would notice or fixate on something that went over my head or meant nothing to me emotionally; the preoccupation with it was either completely random and baseless on its own or in that they didn't feel the same way about some other identical feature, but other people will have the same response in the way that people in a crowd will all start chanting something or responding in sync at the same time as though they were of one mind; a lot of their judgments, responses and preferences are completely random to me and inconsistent in ways that I can't relate to or 'understand' but I won't elaborate) and I wonder if that has something to do with it (i.e. conforming is one consequence of connection, they can be influenced by others because they deeply relate to them; I realize that alone doesn't imply persuasion but normal social bonds often involve 'working things out' together, e.g. "do you prefer this dress or that dress" or "this is who you should be to be a high-value male," whereas my position starts with introspection, with an 'egocentric' preoccupation with my own happiness/suffering, and branches out from there. It's hard to explain but it's an interesting point to elaborate on, why people are so influenced by the beliefs of their parents as children or average adults in their environment, their friends, the perceived average person of a group, etc.).

I have to disagree about assuming that a position is probably wrong just because it's held by the majority. We should rebel against immoral, unjust or unreasonable standards but that's something different than rebelling for the sake of rebellion. In a society where the 'status quo' position was that everyone (every possible mind) deserved happiness and that nothing other than happiness/suffering mattered and our personal experience of happiness and/or pain justified this position epistemically I would never be the contrarian (at least not in regards to that basic position, I might disagree with other people about what that implies here or there etc.). Sometimes the mob is right (not in wanting someone to suffer, if that's implied by 'mob,' but in their judgment of something as immoral or unjust), sometimes someone who normally or often has bad takes gets it right.

[SCM123ABC]

Natural instincts suggest we should listen to the "group". The biggest of which is Society.

With Trump's rise, we've seen pedophobia go mainstream- the majority of Americans subscribe to it, and perhaps half the world itself.

Even on the left, liberal antis see pedophobia as the last permissible outlet for their penchant to judge and degrade others. (That's a hallmark of bourgeois culture, and functions independent of political orientation).

The problem is that the "group" fills your head with drivel. For example, they've actually convinced a lot of MAPs that "MAP liberation", "identity politics" and "self-interest" are bad, when they are just the conceptualisation of MAPs' self-consciousness.

If multiple people are saying it in America or any other pedophobic country, it's almost assuredly wrong. These are self-interested talking points from the anti majority.

Get in the habit of disagreeing and assuming what others say is wrong. If the majority supports it, ascribe no further value to it. Antis depend on the human instinct in all of us to acquiesce to the group - and impute meaning to that which has social proof. Our survival depends on identifying what's right for MAPs, and that only happens when we avoid the trap of heeding group sentiment - which today is right-wing thinly-veiled pedo “hunter” propaganda or liberal-centrist anti over-protectionism.

Antis can afford to be conformist and aligned with their own interests; in contrast, we as MAPs have no choice but to be distrustful of society and delight in disagreeing and contradicting, for there is no home within the mainstream parts of the political spectrum, not even the fringes that are closer to the mainstream than us.

I don't disagree with majority just I think that this lawful evil gangsterism of killing people for no reason or they haven't even done anything must stop this is Nazi/ISIS legal of evil and must stop honestly I agree with Iran and it's conservative authleft stuff over everything else.