Well I think that last part is right, but I think creating infinite microsexualities is a way of explaining that truth to people with an object lesson. Plus, making flags and neologisms is fun as hell. And what's the harm?
-
-
But less so. Big groups allow segregation. They allow you to immerse yourself in a sea of people whom you can assume to be just like you. But as a lithosexual or whatever, you can't hang out with only lithosexuals. Most people you meet will be outside your microgroup.
-
You know what these microidentities are like? High school subcultures. The punks, the metalheads, the skaters. Those subcultures were an important part of the way my generation discovered their individuality. They were a key stepping stone.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I’m with Alex on this, small groups make individuals more visible and accountable for their share of adding to whatever said group wants to accomplish. If it’s built on side traits that don’t really represent the person outside of a small aspect of themselves it’s usually dumb.
-
I'd agree with you more IF one microidentity was all that people defined themselves by. In practice they have a ton.
-
But an identity created to simultaneously create a community is usually p tribal(ish). People like to stick with a few communities at a time, not a ton.
-
But replacing macroidentities with microidentities ensures that any community is likely to be much more identity-diverse. You can't be friends ONLY with skater punks, at least past the age of 13.
-
Then I don’t see how this would be too different from the Squo, we already have spontaneous creations of subcultures all the time. Also skater punks just evolve to sitting at lunch with stoners.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.