3 ms·

That was the wishful thinking of the left, but it seems it has backfired. The more people confront each other's differences (they massively do nowadays), the mo

by return0 10y ago

That was the wishful thinking of the left, but it seems it has backfired. The more people confront each other's differences (they massively do nowadays), the more they feel a need to show they are different (for example, the coming back in vogue of religious dress accessories). It seems group/kin segregation is part of our nature, and we can't really fight nature. That's why I don't believe that thought policing, "forced tolerance" or 'safe spaces' will amount to anything. We should think pragmatically and find a way to live non-violently, in a not-necessarily-tolerant world.

dracht 10y ago
>That's why I don't believe that thought policing, "forced tolerance" or 'safe spaces' will amount to anything. We should think pragmatically and find a way to live non-violently, in a not-necessarily-tolerant world. Interesting, I believe exactly that but I've never heard anyone else express it before. The idea of social constructivism, the notion that everything is a mere social construct, has been so ingrained in (western) societies that people assume every problem is one to be solved through social engineering. It just puzzles me why anyone would be so adamant to put naturally conflicting groups together. What is the goal? What are the benefits that are worth the hassle and friction? Maybe it's nothing but a naive attempt to achieve some utopian fantasy, or perhaps there is a less innocent agenda behind it. I honestly don't know. If you wish to expound on the subject or have any literary recommendations, I'm all ears.
- return0 10y ago
  > people assume every problem is one to be solved through social engineering. I actually believe it can solve many problems, but it is not a lowest-energy solution. Nationalist propaganda requires a lot of resources, and as people are seeing that the benefits outweight the costs, they are giving up on it, i believe. I don't know any books about this, I do think it's an interesting subject as well.

by return0 10y ago

dracht 10y ago

>That's why I don't believe that thought policing, "forced tolerance" or 'safe spaces' will amount to anything. We should think pragmatically and find a way to live non-violently, in a not-necessarily-tolerant world. Interesting, I believe exactly that but I've never heard anyone else express it before. The idea of social constructivism, the notion that everything is a mere social construct, has been so ingrained in (western) societies that people assume every problem is one to be solved through social engineering. It just puzzles me why anyone would be so adamant to put naturally conflicting groups together. What is the goal? What are the benefits that are worth the hassle and friction? Maybe it's nothing but a naive attempt to achieve some utopian fantasy, or perhaps there is a less innocent agenda behind it. I honestly don't know. If you wish to expound on the subject or have any literary recommendations, I'm all ears.

return0 10y ago
> people assume every problem is one to be solved through social engineering. I actually believe it can solve many problems, but it is not a lowest-energy solution. Nationalist propaganda requires a lot of resources, and as people are seeing that the benefits outweight the costs, they are giving up on it, i believe. I don't know any books about this, I do think it's an interesting subject as well.