The spectrum between individualist and socialists v.03b

I kind of creeped out by people who like to be a representative of a group in casual life, I wonder if he/she would always prefer not being an individual but being a part of some community always. 

So if we get everybody what they wanted, socialists to group up on their own, individualists on their own, and each would make their own country separate from each other. That should be relieving. 

But then there must be moments when a person wanted to be a part of a group sometimes, well that's wrong cause that's just how an individualists' country would be (...the "But" is wrong). There must be moments when a socialist would want to be an individual sometimes, so it's not fair for a country to be purely a socialist country.

Therefore basically being against individualism is actually the lack of understanding of individualism itself. Bad prejudices that stemed out of socialists propaganda. 

Individuals won't associate his/her identity as part of a group because he/she was being upfront and honest about his/her position when interacting with people. While socialists, when they made it difficult for other people for not being a part of a "respectable" community, were being dishonest as if groups are good enough as a measure of identity. It is not, it is good only for contractual interactions not for life. 

-------------------------

Sometimes it's relevant to refer to a group than to individuals within it, because they shared the same characteristics or problems. I often called out on a group of people regardless of "not all people" nuances because I knew that myself knew that "not all individuals" are like that. It was a generalization, and it's only bad when it's used for injustice. I believe in "Justice" as the priority of all social interactions, and my generalization is only for practicalities. Aren't all languages like that? humans that demanded me to use non generalization tones all the time are being robotic and dishonest, we don't always have to do that. 

Harsh sayings against a group is necessary when some habits or some problems were not being checked by the community, or the problems were endorsed, or encouraged instead. Some individuals within the group themselves were being dismissed for pointing out the problems as bad, such problems were indeed prevalent/unchecked within the group. 

Why are we lashing out against different enriching perspectives? was it because they were from "different" people? Again justice/injustice is the word you wanted to hold on to. Was the criticism being just / unjust? Was it for the sake of hopelessness or for the sake of relief instead? 

True discrimination lies in the lack of acceptance, true family lies in the sharing of the Truth

Intercourse won't make a family, empowering each other would. How could you pretend that you're families while the other side is blatantly hostile against you for being Truthful / expecting you to be pretentious towards them?