We need a new "ism" ?

professore

Mods please move if this is the wrong place.

This is an opinion I've formed over the last several years.

In today's world there are lots of "isms" - racism, sexism, feminism, most religions etc (can't think of others off the top of my head) which started out with the goal of getting equal rights for a disadvantaged group, and were sorely needed at the time, and still do to some extent (except religions, they were never about equal rights). Now however it seems that the main role of all of these, or at least as portrayed in the mainstream media, is to elevate the group in question above the other groups, and to label and stigmatise anyone who dare question anything the appointed gurus of the ism say.

Often this takes the form of picking a problem that is not unique to one group - may be more prevalent in one group than another, then try to make out it is only an issue to that group, and look for government funding, positive discrimination (a ridiculous concept), while simultaneously ignoring or minimising other groups with the same problem. This just breeds antagonism, especially if you are not in the group in question, but being accused of being "the cause" of the problem when you are a victim of the problem because of a member of the group saying your "group" is the cause of the problem is the one doing it to you ! Literally it is just the same as racism or sexism back in the day !!!!

For example, saying that domestic abuse is a "women's issue" or poverty is a "black issue". This also has the effect of victims saying "ah well I'm a woman or black or whatever, that's just how it is, all men / whites etc are like that." while simultaneously doing nothing to address the problem. It also makes a poor white person or a man being domestically abused actually not want to support the campaign in question as they are ignored and marginalised. I realise these are not great examples, but can't think of more off the top of my head.

I think we need some form of modern humanism, where people who don't want to be labelled like this can have some sort of lobby for them, where humans of all sorts treat each other with respect, and equally important are willing to call out others who are clearly just playing fast and loose with the truth and trying to grab headlines - i.e. a movement of decent human beings.

Am I completely off here? Interested to hear people's views.

Dardania

a sort of anti-activism...ism?
Or selfless-activism?

professore

Dardania wrote: »

a sort of anti-activism...ism?
Or selfless-activism?

Yeah that sounds about right ... but wouldn't want it to be about bashing activists ... it's not a well formed philosophy I have to admit

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

professore

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Of course this makes sense - but it's a terrible way to run a society. This sums it up what this new political movement would be fighting against very well:

Our new humanism will be at the trough looking for lots of funding.

fullclip

Humanism is out there, in everyday individual human relations based on simple mutual respect. It gets no recognition or credit though, as blurred background in the picture of society. I think basic, humane reasoning could and should apply to every ism and issues they touch, ridicule the stupid ideas, acknowledge the important ones, and leave the emotions and feelings out of the equation.
Equality is an idea, just as beautiful as utopian. Only by widening the perspective we all become equally... meaningless. Like snowflakes.
But I would be careful with waging war against fighting isms, as humanism could find itself under attack from all flanks, similarly to atheism hated by all religions. I'd rather try to show how every struggle for the oppressed can be boiled down to humanism.
Also in our modern, monetized world, the problem with all those new trendy isms is, as mentioned above, how profitable they are, for those involved but also for the political class, who would encourage and support them. Society actively dividing itself, calling for more control and censorship - a win win scenario for the rulers, isn't it?

Just my humble opinion, I may be wrong. I'm new here, so need to post to be able to attach things.