A few recent posts made me consider that this might be a worthwhile question. One example is /u/moonbases's comment that, "Satire is inherently ideological", which was surprisingly well received. Most times people here would completely deny that their group has any common de facto ideologies, or dodge via semantics/rhetoric… so I didn't think we'd get honest responses on this subject.

Another comment, which inspired this topic is this one (linked). I made an offhand comment that may have inadvertently compared men and women to cats and dogs, to make a point about how meaningless it was to me to compare them in terms of "overall superiority". I was considering using the other idiom "comparing apples and oranges", but thought "cats vs dogs" was a more apt (considering the contentiousness of that comparison between cat lovers and dog lovers).

There was no other hidden agenda. There wasn't intent to offend. The vast majority of people I know wouldn't have thought twice about my intentions.

And yet the response I got was a lecture about how I was dehumanizing both men and women. I'm downgrading them. I'm objectifying them.

The criticism/lecture I received is not something I'd expect to hear from average "chill" people. After all, I wouldn't assume a normal person would get offended while reading Aesop's fables comparing humans to animals. I'd have thought this was a troll response trying to rustle my jimmies, despite the upvotes… but we all know this isn't exactly an isolated incidence. I've seen this level of (what I consider) hypersensitivity often enough among ultraliberal, ideological friend IRL.

The first IRL incidence that made me question the groups I was hanging out with was when a feminist acquaintance complained about a compliment two other friends were sharing.

"You and your daughter look very pretty!", said one friend to another. Truly words from demonic enforcers of the patriarchy.

There were no perceived victims. The daughter and mother were both very pleased with the compliments. Everyone was happy except one person who felt her ideal future was being harmed. "You could have complimented them using different words."

The explanation given for the inevitable "huh?" response was that women shouldn't be complimented on their looks. It helps perpetuate the patriarchy. Supposedly, if more women were complimented using different words, they might eventually be influenced into valuing "the right traits" for women.

All of this sounds reasonable (it sounded somewhat reasonable to me back then), but not to make people feel better now (if anything, it just made the guy giving the compliment feel awkward and shitty). The goal was to possibly achieve some ideological future. No guarantees for it happening or studies to back it up, just some wishful thinking based off ideology.

I'm not saying that the end goals of these ideologies are "wrong".

^(What a wonderful world it would be if everyone had equal opportunities and every individual was judged by his/her merits... rather than what he/she was born with and could not change about himself/herself.)

I just wonder if the attitudes people have while implementing these ideologies are counterproductive. The fanaticism was off-putting for me. I know I'm not the only one for whom it is off-putting.

It doesn't take much effort to find this stuff on reddit. On tbp, there was one notable thread in which OP talked about concerns over her friend. This friend expressed some "toxic rp" ideology. OP guessed that it had to do with her friend's past (she had cheated once, and the guilt made her think AWALT, or something of that effect). IIRC, the top responses basically told the OP to make it perfectly clear that she disagreed with her friend on a fundamental level, and that if the friend doesn't change her tune, then OP should distance herself from that friend… because you shouldn't associate with people with toxic ideologies. For various reasons. Maybe they'll corrupt you.

That kind of advice is stuff my liberal, younger self would have expected to hear from nutty religious cultists. "Ostracize people who don't follow your faiths, because it'll pressure them to change. If you don't keep your distance, they might corrupt you / infect your mind with their demonic/toxic ideas!"

How productive do you guys think that is? To me, it doesn't make much sense. If someone is your friend, and you disconnect yourself from them just because of one ideology (ignoring all other reasons you were friends in the first place), then who is that supposed to help? To me, that seems to just be encouraging extremism. People are encouraged to become more disassociated from each other by ideology.

I know this subject is talked about a lot among feminists, bpers, and others in the PC, pan liberal alliance, because I was part of it myself. And I see topics sharing that theme on reddit now. Before I wrote this post a few days ago I was checking out the feminism sub, and sure enough someone was asking about how to deal with her misogynist fellow expats in Asia.

I know expats living in Asia. A lot of them can be pretty crude, and are only encouraged by the lack of concern for political correctness there. OP was asking how to how to respond moderately. Not sound like a feminazi. The top response, unsurprisingly, is essentially, "Don't worry about sounding like a feminazi. Don't compromise your ideology."

So guys... At what point are you willing to compromise on your ideology? How much faith do you have in your ideologies and how productive do you think your particular attitudes/behaviours supporting these ideologies are?