Passenger on Nostr: Let me try again. You said "we shouldn't make assumptions about people even though we ...
Let me try again.
You said "we shouldn't make assumptions about people even though we disagree."
My response is, we can still classify people's ideologies broadly even if we disagree. I used the example of fascism to illustrate this. If you see a person wearing a swastika and a high-and-tight haircut talking about the need to raise the birthrate, you probably wouldn't stop to ask them about their ideology. You'd cross the road to avoid them, or punch them, or whatever.
This is especially the case because you often won't get a straight answer.
If I'm applying for a new job, and my boss asks me if I'm an anarchist, then of course I'll say no. But if he notices that I support non-state solutions, I engage in transformative justice, I'm active in a mutual-aid local, I regularly put my safety at risk to oppose fascism in the streets and I have an IWW card in my wallet, then he might reasonably conclude that in fact I am an anarchist.
You said "we shouldn't make assumptions about people even though we disagree."
My response is, we can still classify people's ideologies broadly even if we disagree. I used the example of fascism to illustrate this. If you see a person wearing a swastika and a high-and-tight haircut talking about the need to raise the birthrate, you probably wouldn't stop to ask them about their ideology. You'd cross the road to avoid them, or punch them, or whatever.
This is especially the case because you often won't get a straight answer.
If I'm applying for a new job, and my boss asks me if I'm an anarchist, then of course I'll say no. But if he notices that I support non-state solutions, I engage in transformative justice, I'm active in a mutual-aid local, I regularly put my safety at risk to oppose fascism in the streets and I have an IWW card in my wallet, then he might reasonably conclude that in fact I am an anarchist.