When Two Tribes Go To War ...

Taking this topic out from the conspiracy thread here at Friends and Foes. I  want to look at how we discern tribalisms, membership, shibboleths and associated markers. 

On 11/26/2017 at 1:45 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

My question is: do you ever examine your tribe's sacred cows for foolishness?

1. Define: William's tribe.
2. Define: Michael's tribe.

Quote

I don't mean keeping the core belief and blasting the foolish behavior of certain tribe members who suffer from an excess of zeal. I mean questioning a core belief of your tribe

List: core beliefs of Michael's tribe (sacred cows)
List: core beliefs of William's tribe (sacred cows)

Quote

[a core belief of your tribe] (which is often morphed into "science" by sciencey sounding language and presentation format and even includes scientists at times) and teasing out the differences in that belief between propaganda and fact.

Once a core belief of Michael's / William's tribal affiliates is identified, plug the details into the above quote.

Quote

I often see you engage with people who hold different views, but I have yet to see you go down to the core and, as Rand said, "question a premise" when it is a core belief of your tribe.

Denote, clearly: a core premise/belief of each of the two tribes identified above.

Quote

That is, you may talk about it, but you never find the belief itself wanting.

Provide at least one example from OL of each tribe's unquestioned core belief. Ask each of the tribe members whether or not they actually hold the identified belief.

Quote

I don't find this behavior and attitude deplorable (it's just human nature) and I'm not going to level aggressive language against it. I merely think you would gain by doing some core belief premise questioning since you so often mock the core beliefs of those you disagree with.

Once a/the "core belief/s" of the respective tribes are identified, set up a "premise-checking" operation.

Quote

I could go deep into the epistemology of myths and things like that (which makes me far more tolerant of loopy-sounding ideas than I used to be), but I find it very difficult to probe and discuss why someone like David Seaman has been right on some really nasty social things when the whole world was roasting him for it, and is proving to be right once again re widespread pedophilia among the ruling class, when the person I am talking to is mocking him for being a fruit-cake.

For another time.  

On 11/26/2017 at 1:45 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

[Y]our tribe blew it

Again, can we put a name to it? Can we define William's Tribe so that there is no mistaking what you mean?