> While you've made valid points for consideration about the blue tribe's blindspots, you're riffing off a different definition of anti-social than I used.
I know—my point is that you’re using a quite liberal sense of what’s “anti-social.”
> You're talking about larger appreciation of social conformity, where I'm talking about creating immediate conflict.
During her confirmation hearing, Judge Ketanji Jackson Brown claimed that she “wasn’t aware” that the Christian school where she was a board member espoused traditional views on gender and abortion. Why did a Black woman feel the need to not only clarify her own views, but actively disassociate herself from an organization that is completely normal for a Black woman to be associated with? Why did she need to imply that she might have acted differently had she known that a Christian school affiliated with a Black baptist church taught traditional Christian doctrine (as if that was a surprise?) You don’t think it was because of the threat of conflict from the activist left?
> Furthermore, US society is deeply rooted in individualism and so professing individualism is not leftist.
The US is more individualist than say China, sure. But most of the US, from the Puritan-descended WASP northeast, to the Midwest, to the South, never struck me as especially individualist. The west coast, sure, and maybe Colorado or Arizona. Recall, the US is the most religious developed country in the world—in terms of how many people pray daily, it ranks up there with Iran. The rhetoric of rugged pioneer individualism yields to communalism pretty readily in most of the country. In the small Iowa town where my wife went to high school, sports practices were all scheduled to allow kids to also attend church youth groups.
