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 pre-empt active resistance - the French revolution really gave them the willies - then all those Russian peasants getting in a tizz!
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, anti-vax, climate change sceptics, pro capital punishment, anti-abortion, islamophobes, racists, royalists, landlords, creationists, fundamentalists of many persuasions, conspiracy theorists, banjo players, Trumptards, Freemasons, Farageists.........ad infinitum.
Boundaries are never clear. Definitions a moving target.
What's the differences between peasants, plebeians, proletarians, working classes, the 1%, common people, riff-raff, etc?

 

[NickDReed]

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.

Agreed, I didn't mean to make the point that humans are the only animals capable of complex communication, but that we are the only ones who can do it across language barriers and instantly across continents.

I remember watching a documentary in which it was suggested that orcas had distinct languages that differed between geographic areas and pods.

 

[NickDReed]

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.

If that were true then is it reasonable to presume a Socialist would engage their political opposite and brother in constructive conversation rather than 'othering' them by dismissing them as simply a Tory, or fascist etc? The reality is that is often not the case so it isn't quite as simple as Socialists fight the desire to 'other' sections of society.

The thread has got hung up on the political nature of 'othering' which is my fault as it was the subject matter of my original post. The part that I felt was the most interesting was actually the human nature element of seeing differences rather than similarities and why we as a species are so good at it.

I suppose it was a fanciful idea that my post would stimulate conversation about that, rather than prompt the same discussion or slanging match that is going on on several other threads. Oh well.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

If that were true then is it reasonable to presume a Socialist would engage their political opposite and brother in constructive conversation rather than 'othering' them by dismissing them as simply a Tory, or fascist etc? The reality is that is often not the case so it isn't quite as simple as Socialists fight the desire to 'other' sections of society.

The thread has got hung up on the political nature of 'othering' which is my fault as it was the subject matter of my original post. The part that I felt was the most interesting was actually the human nature element of seeing differences rather than similarities and why we as a species are so good at it.

I suppose it was a fanciful idea that my post would stimulate conversation about that, rather than prompt the same discussion or slanging match that is going on on several other threads. Oh well.

I agree with the post that you're referring to. It is a matter of fact that socialist/left leaning people DO try to engage in discussion. It is also a matter of fact that conservative(small c)/right leaning people often view that discussion as an argument instead of as a discussion. This is the most common root of why discussion breaks down, and after that we're all human, right?

For instance - I often put forward the view that the "common good", "society" and "community" is more important than one individual's viewpoint - IF that viewpoint means that the individual gains advantage at the direct and deliberate expense of the majority.

For instance, on education - I went through University with fees paid - as did everybody in my time. Much later in life I often hear the individualist (let's call them right leaning) "why should I pay for someone else's children to get a University education? Only them will benefit". To which I always answered that it is not a simple as that and the people who "select themselves" and "gain entry" to a University are the ones who will contribute "their learning" to the overall economy. The entire Economy benefits as a result and your lot in life is elevated on the back of their work - both in terms of improved Economy and in terms of the increased tax that those people will pay towards the public services that YOU use. But that often didn't wash with them and they dug their heels in. They were totally unwilling to look facts in the face and accept them because of their feelies. So I brought it back to their children and said - "if you want to go down that route, you might be talking to the wrong guy - I have no kids - why should I pay for your kids to get a school education?" Bear in mind that I do want my tax £ to go towards better education of the population - because they are the future of the Economy. (See other threads = I've said this before = the Economy and the People are not separate and distinct - as some people claimed during the Pandemic = the Economy IS the People.)

Only then does the penny begin to drop with the individualist - not out of beginning to understand "the greater good" - but more because they can see that THEY are benefitting FROM OTHERS. They are right-leaning, after all. Lefty and righty are wired differently. Being forced to resort to turning their silly and unfounded bleating directly against them is the only way to make them understand. Sadly, they often HATE you after the discussion, because they were forced to face the reality that we are a society and that they could not survive without it. Sadly that feeling often continues to shape their view that they often still hate left-leaning people and they often take very little away from the discussion than the dislike of being wrong and the hatred of the one not of my clan. Pretty sad, really, but that's my experience through life. The individualist often relies far more heavily on the feelings of self (and therefore of selfishness) than the material facts of the world around them and others in it.

 

[Jacob]

If that were true then is it reasonable to presume a Socialist would engage their political opposite and brother in constructive conversation rather than 'othering' them by dismissing them as simply a Tory, or fascist etc? The reality is that is often not the case so it isn't quite as simple as Socialists fight the desire to 'other' sections of society.

Rubbish!

The thread has got hung up

No it hasn't, but you have!

on the political nature of 'othering' which is my fault as it was the subject matter of my original post. The part that I felt was the most interesting was actually the human nature element of seeing differences rather than similarities and why we as a species are so good at it.

Do you think other species don't see differences? I can assure you that our dog is very discriminating about all sorts of things! Do you really want to talk about other species? What is your view on tortoises and how they negotiate around each other?

I suppose it was a fanciful idea that my post would stimulate conversation about that, rather than prompt the same discussion or slanging match that is going on on several other threads. Oh well.

This "othering" idea is nonsense - except of course that others do have other ideas .
Why not address the ideas themselves instead of beating around the bush?

 

[Chris152]

Do you think other species don't see differences? I can assure you that our dog is very discriminating about all sorts of things! Do you really want to talk about other species? What is your view on tortoises and how they negotiate around each other?

That's interesting, we could be onto a whole new field of research here - I've noticed that my dog doesn't seem to like other creatures, such as cats, and will happily chase and kill a rabbit. Bizarre. What's more, he seems to think we (our family) are his pack and he gets the hump when he sees other families (packs) with their dogs. Maybe he's just a prejudiced bigot, but it could be bigger than that. Definitely worth looking into, surprised it's not been done already.

 

[Jacob]

That's interesting, we could be onto a whole new field of research here - I've noticed that my dog doesn't seem to like other creatures, such as cats, and will happily chase and kill a rabbit. Bizarre. What's more, he seems to think we (our family) are his pack and he gets the hump when he sees other families (packs) with their dogs. Maybe he's just a prejudiced bigot, but it could be bigger than that. Definitely worth looking into, surprised it's not been done already.

Mine chases squirrels. Never caught one yet. He barks at them instead of creeping up cautiously, as a lion would. I say shush but he can't take a hint. He "bothers" them, which is only a b away from othering!! Maybe Nick is on to something?
Apparently we are among a small number of mammals who show the whites of their eyes. This includes apes, dogs and tories!
It ends up as a form communication - a passive gesture, from which things can be deduced.

 

[Amplidyne]

That's interesting, we could be onto a whole new field of research here - I've noticed that my dog doesn't seem to like other creatures, such as cats, and will happily chase and kill a rabbit. Bizarre. What's more, he seems to think we (our family) are his pack and he gets the hump when he sees other families (packs) with their dogs. Maybe he's just a prejudiced bigot, but it could be bigger than that. Definitely worth looking into, surprised it's not been done already.

He probably doesn't like the way that cats keep on voting for Cat food, instead of dog food.
No basic difference between them of course, but he has his principles.

 

[Jake]

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

Agree with the latter but not the former. I'm sure you get called it loads for expressing your views - usually forthright, often robust, commonly mischievous, sometimes utterly deluded (Corbynism), but none of those count. Disingenuousness requires deliberate dishonesty not some lesser mortal flaw.

I know I've got followers who don't understand this so you are not alone.

 

[Jameshow]

What happens when your left, right and a bit in the middle! Depending on the issue??

 

[Scruples]

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

Medical and other related 'studies' are based on relatively shaky evidence. If humans were machines, diagnoses would be a cinch, for every problem or fault would be easily detected and resolved. But, as it is, the medical fraternity rely on the 'odds are' method of diagnosis. 'The odds arer these symptoms are caused by this ailment so it must be this ailment'. If only that wer true' right? Only the obvious ailments always get the correct treatment.

As regards women drivers, the psychologists attempt to turn their 'difficult' work into some sort of science. I stand by my study that tells me that the vast majority of women are poor ar space awareness, reversing and manoeuvring a vehicle in tight spaces. That is nearly 70 years of personal observation supported by a lot of agreement from men. This is where experience is more believable than theoretical psychology.

Writing something down, even with the endorsement of others in your group, doesn't make it fact. It just makes another theory available for others to review.

The articles you cite are based on data. I would assume that that data can only be based on records of insurance claims. As I mentioned before, incidents caused by women are either low-impact or where a woman causes an incident but is not involved in it. Therefore, the data is questionable.

 

[Jacob]

Agree with the latter but not the former. I'm sure you get called it loads for expressing your views - usually forthright, often robust, commonly mischievous,

just avin a laff guvnor

sometimes utterly deluded (Corbynism), but none of those count. Disingenuousness requires deliberate dishonesty not some lesser mortal flaw.

Come to think, our OP is himself is extremely disingenuousness - one description of the meaning is "giving a false appearance of simple frankness".
How about
"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",
"I am as guilty as anyone else of othering people and generalising".
"I'm reluctant to pursue the political subject"

He's done it before, along the lines of "I'm not antivax..but.." etc.

I think we've caught him with his trousers down! Pot calling the kettle! He's a master of the art! Maybe perusing his other posts will bring up other examples? Can't be bothered.

 

[NickDReed]

I had hoped my post would encourage a discussion around why we appear to be able to label people as one thing and let that shape our entire opinion of them (specifically relevant in a forum like this where we know very little of an individuals and their complexities). And further to that whether the ease in which we do this, and our technical progress as a civilisation may be exacerbating divisions in society.

Clearly that is not the discussion that ensued, but I think it is interesting to read what the post did encourage which largely appears to division and dismissal.

 

[Jacob]

I had hoped my post would encourage a discussion around why we appear to be able to label people as one thing and let that shape our entire opinion of them (specifically relevant in a forum like this where we know very little of an individuals and their complexities). And further to that whether the ease in which we do this, and our technical progress as a civilisation may be exacerbating divisions in society.

Clearly that is not the discussion that ensued, but I think it is interesting to read what the post did encourage which largely appears to division and dismissal.

Quite interesting to learn the meaning of "disingenuity" - I wasn't too sure.
Are you aware that your own approach/style is quite exemplary on the subject, almost in every post?