4 ms·

And I that the conflict with nationalism and globalism is a red herring. The Net has enabled bi-directional communication for many to many for the first time i

And I that the conflict with nationalism and globalism is a red herring. The Net has enabled bi-directional communication for many to many for the first time in history. These feedback loops will produce effects familiar and unfamiliar. Of course we pick up first what we see, our bias is toward what we already understand. In truth it is weirder than than we may think and old-new forms of conflict are likely to emerge. For example; ISIS is based on an older interpretation of Islam, but could it exist without the Net? I'd say not. The implication of that could be that old conflicts thought to be irrelevant will rear their heads once more. You see something beginning here with feminism being abandoned, that was not in the script of the progressives. On the other side you have 'international meetings of anti-internationalists' and other such interesting paradoxes. There is something fractal-like going on with the evolution of ideas because of the Net.

dalke 10y ago
I didn't say nationalism, I said "nativism". Nor did I say "globalism". Because yes, that would certainly be a red herring. We've been a global economy since at least the 1830s, when the cotton mills of an English county was able to produce most of the world's cotton fabric, and collapse the economy of several Asian cities. Since no one mentioned them here, I find it odd that you felt necessary to raise that point. Every single communications form has enabled similar feedback loops for centuries; the printing press, cheaper paper to enable the penny-dreadfuls, Linotype to enable yellow journalism, radio, telegram, TV, telephone, record players, transoceanic cables, microwave and satellite repeaters, and now, yes, internet. You wrote "could [ISIS] exist without the Net? I'd say not." I see no meaning in that statement. If you define ISIS to include how it transmits messages over the internet, then you are surely right, but trivially so. Just like a 10 year old child in the US could not exist as-is without the internet. Regional uprisings, including those which are part of a religious movement, are not new, and don't require the internet to happen. The 1979 Iranian Revolution is one relatively recent example. The rest of what you wrote is a mixture of the obvious and the unsupported. Of course "old conflicts thought to be irrelevant will rear their heads once more"; history is full of examples where the powerful forget or trivialize a problem which was never fully forgotten among the oppressed, who eventually fight. As a feminist, I am flummoxed by the statement "with feminism being abandoned". It seems to be ever more mainstream, with, e.g., recent declarations by Barack Obama and Patrick Stewart of being feminists. The early feminist fought for the right to vote. Are you seriously saying that there's a general retreat from woman suffrage? If not, which of the many aspects of feminism do you refer? The seeming paradox of organized anarchism is one that has long been pointed out and discussed by anarchists. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/common-cause-ottawa-organized-anarchism-in-the-anti-capitalist-struggle https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/common-cause-ottawa-... says: > The debate between organizationalists and anti organizationalists is not at all new. It has been ongoing in the anarchist community for at least a century. Finally there has always been "something fractal-like going on with the evolution of ideas", including, yet, long before the internet. There's a reason for the joke about the "People's Front of Judea" vs. "Judean People's Front", mocking perhaps Marxism factions, but otherwise little different than the joke with the punchline: > [Are you] Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over. Even the Germanic peoples, without a written language, still had "fractal-like" evolution of ideas, as seen in their laws, language, and religion/mythology. What you describe is a part of how human ideas develop, and not something special about the internet.
- internaut 10y ago
  > Since no one mentioned them here, I find it odd that you felt necessary to raise that point. It is because the narrative (aptly called an 'iconography' if you're familiar with Neal Stephenson) of nationalism vs globalism is becoming increasingly emphasized in political discussions, with Brexit being the latest installment. I accept that nativism isn't necessarily a synonym for nationalism but in my European context it really is. America (not assuming you're an American, this is an example) has a different context because of repeated migration waves but this is exceptional. My country for example was 98% native born until a decade or two ago. Contrary to popular perception in some circles, migration does not have much to do with the capacity of modern transport, especially for islands. It is politics. > Every single communications form has enabled similar feedback loops for centuries; the printing press, cheaper paper to enable the penny-dreadfuls, Linotype to enable yellow journalism, radio, telegram, TV, telephone, record players, transoceanic cables, microwave and satellite repeaters, and now, yes, internet. Here we disagree most severely. There are two/three criteria depending on context. The direction of feedback (uni or bi). The strength of feedback (weak or strong). The feedback relationship (one to one, one to many, many to one, many to many). Almost all the things you mentioned there are uni-directional communications. If they are bi-directional, it is the weak forms or selective. The Net is uniquely different to forms of communication that have preceded it. Its feedback loop has genuinely sped up human society in politics, culture, you name it. > I see no meaning in that statement. Come on. Their funding comes from people who noticed their videos online. Their gear, their money, even the fighters. The reality is turning off their Net access would absolutely cripple them. Yes, insurrections occur without Net access, but global recruitment drives and fund raising from huge numbers of people does not occur without the Net. Writing letters and making a phone call wouldn't exactly cut it. > As a feminist, I am flummoxed by the statement "with feminism being abandoned". It seems to be ever more mainstream, with, e.g., recent declarations by Barack Obama and Patrick Stewart of being feminists. The early feminist fought for the right to vote. Are you seriously saying that there's a general retreat from woman suffrage? If not, which of the many aspects of feminism do you refer? First, this is not a personal attack. I say so because this is an easily inflammatory topic. Second, I believe that most social change is cyclical and not linear. Just as dresses get longer or shorter, values change over enough time in a mean reverting manner. This is a description of what I see. This may be hard to believe depending on where you are and who you mix with, but social change in trajectory tends to be first noticed at the peripheral rather Hollywood or the Whitehouse. Increasingly women and men are dropping the belief in equality between the sexes. Some elements, such as the right of women to work and vote are likely to be kept if not exercised, but huge swathes of feminist ideals are being dropped. I am not a women myself, but I have heard the ones around me talk about it, I doubt there's a woman in the neighborhood who would self describe as feminist. Some of them despise feminists and most of them think of feminism as an old fashioned idea with not much relevance to the world. I suppose they are technically counter-revolutionaries ;-) This will be a rather esoteric example of the tide going out because they're altogether unusual (and fun!), but this couple do express similar sentiments to the ones I've heard more generally. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqvc1Yx3U7s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqvc1Yx3U7s > Finally there has always been "something fractal-like going on with the evolution of ideas", including, yet, long before the internet. I'm sorry but you have perhaps misunderstood me, I didn't disagree with your observations. Not fracture. Fractal. I'm afraid it is an idea which is hard to articulate without sounding slightly mad and certainly sound contradictory so I shall nurture the slippery fellow to maturity for a different occasion.

dalke 10y ago

I didn't say nationalism, I said "nativism". Nor did I say "globalism". Because yes, that would certainly be a red herring. We've been a global economy since at least the 1830s, when the cotton mills of an English county was able to produce most of the world's cotton fabric, and collapse the economy of several Asian cities. Since no one mentioned them here, I find it odd that you felt necessary to raise that point. Every single communications form has enabled similar feedback loops for centuries; the printing press, cheaper paper to enable the penny-dreadfuls, Linotype to enable yellow journalism, radio, telegram, TV, telephone, record players, transoceanic cables, microwave and satellite repeaters, and now, yes, internet. You wrote "could [ISIS] exist without the Net? I'd say not." I see no meaning in that statement. If you define ISIS to include how it transmits messages over the internet, then you are surely right, but trivially so. Just like a 10 year old child in the US could not exist as-is without the internet. Regional uprisings, including those which are part of a religious movement, are not new, and don't require the internet to happen. The 1979 Iranian Revolution is one relatively recent example. The rest of what you wrote is a mixture of the obvious and the unsupported. Of course "old conflicts thought to be irrelevant will rear their heads once more"; history is full of examples where the powerful forget or trivialize a problem which was never fully forgotten among the oppressed, who eventually fight. As a feminist, I am flummoxed by the statement "with feminism being abandoned". It seems to be ever more mainstream, with, e.g., recent declarations by Barack Obama and Patrick Stewart of being feminists. The early feminist fought for the right to vote. Are you seriously saying that there's a general retreat from woman suffrage? If not, which of the many aspects of feminism do you refer? The seeming paradox of organized anarchism is one that has long been pointed out and discussed by anarchists. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/common-cause-ottawa-organized-anarchism-in-the-anti-capitalist-struggle https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/common-cause-ottawa-... says: > The debate between organizationalists and anti organizationalists is not at all new. It has been ongoing in the anarchist community for at least a century. Finally there has always been "something fractal-like going on with the evolution of ideas", including, yet, long before the internet. There's a reason for the joke about the "People's Front of Judea" vs. "Judean People's Front", mocking perhaps Marxism factions, but otherwise little different than the joke with the punchline: > [Are you] Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over. Even the Germanic peoples, without a written language, still had "fractal-like" evolution of ideas, as seen in their laws, language, and religion/mythology. What you describe is a part of how human ideas develop, and not something special about the internet.

internaut 10y ago
> Since no one mentioned them here, I find it odd that you felt necessary to raise that point. It is because the narrative (aptly called an 'iconography' if you're familiar with Neal Stephenson) of nationalism vs globalism is becoming increasingly emphasized in political discussions, with Brexit being the latest installment. I accept that nativism isn't necessarily a synonym for nationalism but in my European context it really is. America (not assuming you're an American, this is an example) has a different context because of repeated migration waves but this is exceptional. My country for example was 98% native born until a decade or two ago. Contrary to popular perception in some circles, migration does not have much to do with the capacity of modern transport, especially for islands. It is politics. > Every single communications form has enabled similar feedback loops for centuries; the printing press, cheaper paper to enable the penny-dreadfuls, Linotype to enable yellow journalism, radio, telegram, TV, telephone, record players, transoceanic cables, microwave and satellite repeaters, and now, yes, internet. Here we disagree most severely. There are two/three criteria depending on context. The direction of feedback (uni or bi). The strength of feedback (weak or strong). The feedback relationship (one to one, one to many, many to one, many to many). Almost all the things you mentioned there are uni-directional communications. If they are bi-directional, it is the weak forms or selective. The Net is uniquely different to forms of communication that have preceded it. Its feedback loop has genuinely sped up human society in politics, culture, you name it. > I see no meaning in that statement. Come on. Their funding comes from people who noticed their videos online. Their gear, their money, even the fighters. The reality is turning off their Net access would absolutely cripple them. Yes, insurrections occur without Net access, but global recruitment drives and fund raising from huge numbers of people does not occur without the Net. Writing letters and making a phone call wouldn't exactly cut it. > As a feminist, I am flummoxed by the statement "with feminism being abandoned". It seems to be ever more mainstream, with, e.g., recent declarations by Barack Obama and Patrick Stewart of being feminists. The early feminist fought for the right to vote. Are you seriously saying that there's a general retreat from woman suffrage? If not, which of the many aspects of feminism do you refer? First, this is not a personal attack. I say so because this is an easily inflammatory topic. Second, I believe that most social change is cyclical and not linear. Just as dresses get longer or shorter, values change over enough time in a mean reverting manner. This is a description of what I see. This may be hard to believe depending on where you are and who you mix with, but social change in trajectory tends to be first noticed at the peripheral rather Hollywood or the Whitehouse. Increasingly women and men are dropping the belief in equality between the sexes. Some elements, such as the right of women to work and vote are likely to be kept if not exercised, but huge swathes of feminist ideals are being dropped. I am not a women myself, but I have heard the ones around me talk about it, I doubt there's a woman in the neighborhood who would self describe as feminist. Some of them despise feminists and most of them think of feminism as an old fashioned idea with not much relevance to the world. I suppose they are technically counter-revolutionaries ;-) This will be a rather esoteric example of the tide going out because they're altogether unusual (and fun!), but this couple do express similar sentiments to the ones I've heard more generally. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqvc1Yx3U7s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqvc1Yx3U7s > Finally there has always been "something fractal-like going on with the evolution of ideas", including, yet, long before the internet. I'm sorry but you have perhaps misunderstood me, I didn't disagree with your observations. Not fracture. Fractal. I'm afraid it is an idea which is hard to articulate without sounding slightly mad and certainly sound contradictory so I shall nurture the slippery fellow to maturity for a different occasion.