What is a Tory?

[Jacob]

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.

Depends on your definitions of "decent" and "genuine". In any case modern governments, in terms of public spending, go very much further than merely supporting people "in need". They are the least of their problems.

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”

...

I agree. "a similarly simplistic (and unfair) view of policy".
Why confuse yourself with these simplistic "definitions"?

 

[selectortone]

Why is the term Tory suddenly derogatory? It was actually the name of the party that was the predecessor of the Conservative Party. The name was in use for centuries. Come on now, we lefties are supposed to be the snowflakes looking to take offence!

 

[Jacob]

Why is the term Tory suddenly derogatory? It was actually the name of the party that was the predecessor of the Conservative Party. The name was in use for centuries. Come on now, we lefties are supposed to be the snowflakes looking to take offence!

It's just loose shorthand for right-winger, presumed conservative voter and believer in the current conservative party ideology.

 

[Fitzroy]

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.

You seem to be dismissing a whole branch of scientific study, with psychologists just stating opinion, wow! Pretty sure there is some well formulated research in to subconscious biases, their formation and impact. Not just a bunch of psychologists sat around making stuff up.

Regards women drivers, here’s an interesting article concluding pretty much the same as my brief statement. And here’s another with a with a whole slew of references to a topic that is well studied and demonstrated as erroneous. But perhaps I’ve just picked two articles that support my view and am in fact just confirming my existing bias

Fitz

 

[evildrome]

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.

Socialism literally fights the evolutionary desire to other.

Any Socialist will tell you we're all brothers regardless of colour or station.

The neo-liberal ideology which is the centre point of Tory belief is that there is no society, we are all individuals and we must all strive to individually maximise our utility in a mano-e-mano fight to the death with every other individual. Devil take the hindmost.

This sort of belief inevitably leads to the "winners" making life so horrible for the "losers" that the losers gang up on the winners in some sort of "revolution".

Sometimes these revolutions are bloodless but more often, they're not.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

- tank the economy

= so that the wealthy can get wealthier

- Create the highest tax burden since WWII

= just for the plebs though - and reduce the tax liabilities of the wealthy as an explicit aim

- Cause Record NHS waiting lists

= so that the NHS can be generously berated in the explicit aim for it to be turned over to Private Ownership "because they can run it better", at the additional expense of the Nation (the plebs), but whilst also enriching the wealthy

- Implement huge energy bills

= for Private Ownership to record extra profit and enrich the already wealthy further

- Enact the biggest ever fall in living standards

= Only for the plebs. Inequality has increased markedly so the standard of living crisis does not affect the wealthy

-- Cause strikes

= A direct result of the plebs/workers being further squeezed while also seeing that the wealthy Private Owners of some of those sectors are making huge profit and paying huge dividends

- Suppress protesting

= so that the plebs cannot steer the agenda and can be legally sanctioned for attempting to do so

- Allow water companies to create rivers of sh*t

= while also extracting huge dividends for the wealthy Private Ownership and allowing the plebs to pick up both the tab (by paying more) and the disadvantages of a broken ecology and poisonous waters


I don't know if there is a golden thread about what a Tory is within all that?

 

[Jacob]

= so that the wealthy can get wealthier



= just for the plebs though - and reduce the tax liabilities of the wealthy as an explicit aim




= so that the NHS can be generously berated in the explicit aim for it to be turned over to Private Ownership "because they can run it better", at the additional expense of the Nation (the plebs), but whilst also enriching the wealthy



= for Private Ownership to record extra profit and enrich the already wealthy further



= Only for the plebs. Inequality has increased markedly so the standard of living crisis does not affect the wealthy



= A direct result of the plebs/workers being further squeezed while also seeing that the wealthy Private Owners of some of those sectors are making huge profit and paying huge dividends




= so that the plebs cannot steer the agenda and can be legally sanctioned for attempting to do so



= while also extracting huge dividends for the wealthy Private Ownership and allowing the plebs to pick up both the tab (by paying more) and the disadvantages of a broken ecology and poisonous waters


I don't know if there is a golden thread about what a Tory is within all that?

No I think that seems pretty clear.
There are variations of course:
old fashioned tories resisting all change - except as unavoidable to avoid active resistance - the French revolution really gave them the willies!
post war tories accepting the new Attlee/socialist model but resisting further change as far as possible,
crackpot Thatcherite tories with a childish free-market ideology which they pretend will somehow benefit everybody in the long term - some of them actually believe in it but most know it's just about protecting the 1%.
then even madder variations - leading to Brexit, Reform, UKIP, BNP, Homeland Party, etc.
Boundaries are never clear. What's the difference between peasants, plebeians, proletariat, working class, the 1%, common people, riff-raff, etc?