What is a Tory?

[Jacob]

I suppose my point is someone's politics is rarely so cut and dried I can have beliefs and opinions that might fit in both camps. So is it a sum of the balance of your opinions as to what you're labelled?

Which way do you vote? That's usually taken as a reliable indicator, unless voting "tactically".
Even more so if you are a paid up member of the party.

 

[AJB Temple]

People who are knowingly disingenuous Jacob are generally narcissistic.

 

[Jacob]

What? You mean it is simplistic to assume that someone who votes tory, supports tory ideas, or even is party member, might actually be a tory?

 

[woodieallen]

Surely, the point is that it identifies someone's politics, and certain of their values, but it doesn't describe the complex that is the person. It's like saying someone is white or black - in that case, it's just one attribute, maybe certain attitudes, but not the whole person.

I disagree. The context in which any of these words is often derogatory.

 

[woodieallen]

Second post is interesting, so presumably it was intended as an insult.

I don't think so. If there was no exclamation mark at the end then perhaps yes.

 

[Jake]

People who are knowingly disingenuous Jacob are generally narcissistic.

It's not possible to be unknowingly disingenuous. It's dishonesty, accusations of it triggered me on another thread, it's a serious accusation.

 

[Jake]

I don't think of Tory as an insult per se, there are very many good and decent people who are Conservative. Some aren't so great and some are atrocious, but the same is the case on the left. I think the problem is the Conservative party has ostracised a lot of the more reasonable and decent people it had as members and MPs, so now Tory seems more antagonistic (from both sides) than it should be - it's now got associated with being rather wing-nutty because that's how the party has gone for now - not quite as bad as Trump/GOP but seemingly doing its best to find those depths. Shame really, hope they find a better path or get replaced, maybe the orange book libdems can have a go at that.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

The origin of the word "Tory" is 17th century and linked to outlaw and brigand. How it evolved to be used interchangeably as a member or supporter of the Conservative Party s unclear.

Attributing common social and economic beliefs to all who vote C/T is grossly over simplistic. It merely means on balance that the C/T Party best reflects a supporters view.

Some seem to have difficulty understanding the concept. It is (and has always been) possible to support the C/T party and be wholly supportive of decent funding for NHS. education, support for those in society in genuine need, etc.

Assuming the Labour party inhabit the other side of the political spectrum, a similarly simplistic (and unfair) view of policy would be aligned to:

• socialism - economic and political philosophy characterised by social ownership of the means of production, or even
• communism - characterised by "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”

A graphical distribution of political views could be represented by a bell curve - most policies and politicians actually inhabit the centre ground. A few sit on the extremes of left and right.

Electoral success relies upon shifting public opinion a little to the right or left of centre, using rhetoric and selective statistics to suggest the opposition actually inhabit the extremes of the bell curve. Hence~:

• Tories insist Labour = nationalisation, high taxation, nanny state, support for scroungers etc
• Labour insist Tories = uncaring, privatise all, screw the poor, enrich the rich, etc

Neither model is "decent honest and truthful" - those supporting such stereotypical descriptions are worthy of no more credibility than the politicians who fed them the claptrap in the first place.

 

[Rewound]

Totally Outdated Rubber Yuppies

 

[Sideways]

Harking right back to an observation in the first post, about people looking for differences, I thought about what some people value from the experience of travel.
I've visited and lived in a few countries over the years and I'm always struck by how similar we all are, and how ingenious we are at finding different ways to solve universal problems.
They do say travel broadens the mind...

 

[Scruples]

We as a species are really good at 'othering' people, or groups of them.

I was reading a thread on here where a generalisation was made 'I can see it would be a problem for a tory'. I will point out at this stage that this is not intended as an attack on the individual who made the remark. Nor is it a critique of a political position, the statement got me to thinking and is purely the example from which my thought process extrapolated.

I am as guilty as anyone else of othering people and generalising.

I'm fascinated by the idea that something as complex at the human persona can be reduced to a single (in this case four letter) word that can be used as a way to describe the entirety of someone's character. What is a Tory? Will I know one when I see them, do they all look alike? Does your voting history make you one? Is it your economic outlook? The amount of money you have in the bank? How willing you are to accept government involvement in your life? Did Tories exist by another name when we were hunter gatherers? Am I a Tory?

What is it about us as a species that can take a single attribute of an individual and seeming cease to look any further beyond that? It seems so ingrained in our make up to see and focus on the differences than to search for the similarities. Or is it that we assume similarities, and then when we come across a difference we are stopped in our tracks and cannot get back to seeing the similarities?

Is this some sort of evolutionary response developed in our past, and if so does it serve a purpose in modern society? We are the single life form in the known universe that has the ability to communicate with each other on such a large scale in such a complex manner, it seems logical that we should be able to come the mutual understandings on most topics.

I'm reluctant to pursue the political subject as I'm aware of what this my descend (or escalate) into, but it is the topic that initiated my thoughts. It seems that we (Wester(?) humans) are becoming increasingly polarised and it appears that this is largely down political lines, many times on topics that have seemingly little to do with what would have been traditionally consider Left or Right. There are a number of things that I believe that people would say are 'Right Wing' ideas or ideals, there are probably an equal number that would be considered 'Left Wing'. I have no doubt that some on here who have read things I have posted and made a decision on 'what' I am, be that political or anything else. Based off posts on an Off Topic thread on a woodworking forum, I would anticipate a significant number of us have formed opinions on others that we fail to see beyond.

It becomes increasingly interesting to me that once that point of 'othering' occurs it seems difficult to return from it to (re)discover the similarities we all share.

I can't imagine any of us are one thing in isolation, even those of us who appear consistent to our internal image of what they are. Surely we are all far more alike than we would all probably feel is comfortable to acknowledge.

Is it possible we are hamstrung by an evolutionary mechanism to other people that prevents us from looking beyond the differences to a point that will diminish our ability to progress as a civilisation, or worse lead to its downfall?

Anyway, this is what my internal monologue looks like in Ariel font 15................rambling.

Happy Tuesday fellow humans I have more in common with than not.

I think a lot of species communicate in complex ways, especially the mammals of the sea. It's just that we haven't understood their communications.

 

[Scruples]

Tribalism has existed since the dawn of man. Banding together to fight over territory, waterholes, best hunting or whatever. We are not so different from our ancestors.

Or a lot of the other animals...

 

[Scruples]

If you put a bunch of people together, if politics was never discussed.....would they eventually form groups that echo their political beliefs

That would depend on their ages, their backgrounds, their experiences, their needs, their strengths their weaknesses, their goals and ambitions, their prejudices and who they'd feel more comfortable in the company of, and so on, and on, and on...
So yes, I think they'd 'group up' pretty quickly.

 

[Scruples]

I suppose my point is someone's politics is rarely so cut and dried I can have beliefs and opinions that might fit in both camps. So is it a sum of the balance of your opinions as to what you're labelled?

You are 100% right. It's the general agreements that determine a leaning towards any political group. It is obvious that the two main parties have adopted all the main attributes for attracting people to their cause. The other 'also ran' parties haven't enough left to work with.

 

[woodieallen]

Totally Outdated Rubber Yuppies

Oh dear.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

https://www.politicalcompass.org/

Is interesting.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Oh dear.

Yes, clutching at straws.

 

[Scruples]

Much of the theory comes down to unconscious bias and the evolutionary benefit these bring. To solve maths problem takes lots of brain power and hence energy expenditure, if we can simply jump to the answer this takes less effort and energy. Our brains like to generate these shortcuts and mental models. I would expect in a tribe or group we then reinforce these models through group think or common views.

One example is the fallacy of women drivers being worse. The data shows this is untrue, however many people (men and women) have heard the statement in their early life. As their life progresses every driver error they see by a women adds evidence and weight to their model. When they witness good driving or errors by men the brain does not subtract this from the model. This is called confirmation bias.

There are lots of other subconscious biases that are used as shortcuts and most of them can create the conditions for othering.

BTW I’m not debating how the latest round of conservative government screwed up most things, there is plenty of data showing the damage they did. Yes there are also some improvements in some data and if you wish to cherry pick only the good stuff to confirm your view the Conservative Party are ok well you’ve just proven the theory of confirmation bias.

Fitz.

Nicely put, but I don't believe it to be an accurate analysis of the attitudes regarding women drivers. It's a common theme in psychology to take a bunch of facts and formulate a conclusion which may, or may not, be true. They are just opinions based on selected crtieria.

So, let me counter your claim by using your methods:
Women have always been known to be poor at space awareness, so when they started driving and demonstrating their reversing and manoevering in tight spaces, it was noted, by men, that women were poor at those skills and joked a lot about their inabilities. Thoses observations, because this is what they were, were gradually reduced, for succinctness, from poor reversers to poor drivers, and there it sticks. The observation persists so the general consensus remains in tact.
Jasper Carrot once said, of his mother-in-law's driving, that she'd never had an accident but she had seen loads in her rear-view mirror.

 

[Chris152]

I disagree. The context in which any of these words is often derogatory.

Well, it can be, of course, but many things could be derogatory if spoken in the right tone/ context and depending on the speaker's intention.

 

[Jacob]

It's not possible to be unknowingly disingenuous. It's dishonesty, accusations of it triggered me on another thread, it's a serious accusation.

I just thought it was nonsense. Like a meaningless motto dropped out of a cracker.
In fact the whole thread seems pointless.