Does that mean that Associate Justice of the SCOTUS Clarence Thomas is a "collectivist" ? (from https://archive.li/pS4ck ):
"These guys are sitting there watching the destruction of our race while arguing about Ronald Reagan," Thomas said. "Ronald Reagan isn't the problem. Former president Jimmy Carter was not the problem. The lack of black leadership is the problem."
What if a "white" person (or person of European descent) said the same? Would that person then be "collectivist"? And you aren't the person I wrote to, so how can you be certain that you are using the same definition of "collectivism" (and why did you answer in place for him?)?
I respond because this is a forum and everybody can respond to comments and posts. That is normal. If you want the other person to respond, you'll have to settle with hoping he will.
What if a "white" person (or person of European descent) said the same?
Well, I'd say duh' of course you want a white person in a majority white country as a leader, especially the highest office. This should be barely controversial in Europe. As of general perception, a tiny minority of people would be outraged and hysterical, and a plurality would feel forced to condemn it ritually because of optics.
Would that person then be "collectivist"?
The main difference in Individualism and Collectivism is that one side argues to sacrifice the individual and its rights and liberties for the sake of the higher good (the group, the ideology, the deity), and the other trusts the individual to make best choices if they are left to it - or rather assumes that best choices are overall made if that happens.
Mere hierarchy and leadership are social structures that occur naturally, basically everywhere where humans interact. This is not rooted in ideological beliefs and start even in family units.
Given that you distract from it on purpose and do not address it, I repeat:
And you aren't the person I wrote to, so how can you be certain that you are using the same definition of "collectivism" (and why did you answer in place for him?)?
And as for your own definitions of "individualism" and "collectivism", is it for instance possible to have a system where people have great individual freedom and also great individual responsibility (both to themselves and overall), but at the same very much also have duties overall? Is it possible to have a system that is very "individualist" and also "collectivist"? Are your definitions even coherent and meaningful?
And given the rest of your comment, you aren't even describing or treating the original quotation accurately or meaningfully, or answering the questions meaningfully. So I repeat it here (from https://patriots.win/p/12hkTntQjm/x/c/4Dx6XGv8t3G ):
Does that mean that Associate Justice of the SCOTUS Clarence Thomas is a "collectivist" ? (from https://archive.li/pS4ck ):
"These guys are sitting there watching the destruction of our race while arguing about Ronald Reagan," Thomas said. "Ronald Reagan isn't the problem. Former president Jimmy Carter was not the problem. The lack of black leadership is the problem."
And what if a "white" person (or person of European descent) said the same? Would that person then be "collectivist"?
Does that mean that Associate Justice of the SCOTUS Clarence Thomas is a "collectivist" ? (from https://archive.li/pS4ck ):
None of that relates to Collectivism.
What if a "white" person (or person of European descent) said the same? Would that person then be "collectivist"? And you aren't the person I wrote to, so how can you be certain that you are using the same definition of "collectivism" (and why did you answer in place for him?)?
I respond because this is a forum and everybody can respond to comments and posts. That is normal. If you want the other person to respond, you'll have to settle with hoping he will.
Well, I'd say duh' of course you want a white person in a majority white country as a leader, especially the highest office. This should be barely controversial in Europe. As of general perception, a tiny minority of people would be outraged and hysterical, and a plurality would feel forced to condemn it ritually because of optics.
The main difference in Individualism and Collectivism is that one side argues to sacrifice the individual and its rights and liberties for the sake of the higher good (the group, the ideology, the deity), and the other trusts the individual to make best choices if they are left to it - or rather assumes that best choices are overall made if that happens.
Mere hierarchy and leadership are social structures that occur naturally, basically everywhere where humans interact. This is not rooted in ideological beliefs and start even in family units.
Given that you distract from it on purpose and do not address it, I repeat:
And you aren't the person I wrote to, so how can you be certain that you are using the same definition of "collectivism" (and why did you answer in place for him?)?
And as for your own definitions of "individualism" and "collectivism", is it for instance possible to have a system where people have great individual freedom and also great individual responsibility (both to themselves and overall), but at the same very much also have duties overall? Is it possible to have a system that is very "individualist" and also "collectivist"? Are your definitions even coherent and meaningful?
And given the rest of your comment, you aren't even describing or treating the original quotation accurately or meaningfully, or answering the questions meaningfully. So I repeat it here (from https://patriots.win/p/12hkTntQjm/x/c/4Dx6XGv8t3G ):
Does that mean that Associate Justice of the SCOTUS Clarence Thomas is a "collectivist" ? (from https://archive.li/pS4ck ):
And what if a "white" person (or person of European descent) said the same? Would that person then be "collectivist"?