3 ms·

> 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 yo

> 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 must express some confusion. The distinctions between "nativism" and "nationalism" are less distinct than I thought they were. If an ethnic German from Austria moves to Germany and is looked down upon for being a foreigner, then I think of that as nativism, while if an ethnic German from South Tyrol moves to Rome and is looked down upon for being a German, then I think of that as nationalism. I am no longer sure that is a valid description of how the two differ. My working definition is close to Wikipedia's: "Nativism is the political position of supporting a favoured status for certain established inhabitants of a nation as compared to claims of newcomers or immigrants." However, later on it says nativism is a form of nationalism, and not distinct from it. > "Not fracture. Fractal" I assure you that I know what fractal means, starting from Mandelbrot's 1982 "The Fractal Geometry of Nature", and related topics like the Hausdorff dimension, space-fulling curves, and the ties between fractals systems and chaos theory, along with the observation that in the real world, the largest known fractal-like systems are only perhaps 6 orders of magnitude in scale. There is no need to assume I am using a different term than the correct one. I used the the Germanic cultures because they were the most self-similar, from the personal level up to the kingdom level. It was definitely more self-similar than Rome; the expression "all roads lead to Rome" is the definition of a non-fractal system. (Rather, with low fractal dimension.) > "Come on" Certainly. Like I said, if you define it in a way that requires the internet, then you have something which requires the internet. If you cut off internet to the Middle East, your hypothesis is, I believe, that ISIS will disappear. My hypothesis is that it will continue, and use other (yes, older) mechanisms of communication. They will be "crippled", to use your term, but I see no reason to believe they will be "absolutely crippled." Not that it matters, since it doesn't seem feasible to do as you propose, and take the internet way from ISIS. Which make it impossible to tell if your statement has any real meaning. Is there any other political movement which has withered away without internet? Or is it ISIS which is special, and not the internet? > "most social change is cyclical and not linear" The problem with your belief is that it's impossible to predict which change is in which class. Otherwise, when do we cycle back to the divine right of kings again? It also has a built-in assumption that phase space is very simple. Your study of fractals must surely have taught you of strange attractors, and the danger of applying simple terms like "linear" and "cyclical" to intrinsically chaotic systems. Why continue with that metaphor if it isn't something you really believe? > "Its feedback loop has genuinely sped up human society" As has every other communication method before it. When I read your writings, I see a trivialization of the radical changes that our predecessors have gone through. How do you even measure speed up? More specifically, how much more do you think we've sped up in the last 40 years, compared to, say, the 40 years before 1916? 2x? 10x? 100x? Bear in mind too that with 3.5x the population now as 1916, you would expect more change simply because more people are working on the same ideas and problems. > "I doubt there's a woman in the neighborhood who would self describe as feminist" Walking around Oxford, England just today I saw a young woman wearing a shirt saying something like "Feminism: the radical idea that a woman should be treated like a person". Which means you don't live in Oxford. I live in Sweden, where the Feminist Initiative got 3.1% of the vote 2 years ago, and where the Social Democrats and the Leftist Party call themselves a feminist party. Which means you don't live in Sweden. "Feminist" has a long history of being demonized, just like in the US how "socialist" and "liberal" were turned into abusive phrases in the first Red Scare and the 1980s, respectively. One technique is to equate "feminism" with "feminazi" or other words that twist and ridicule the term by associating it with its extremes. The true test, therefore, is not if someone is willing to self-identify as a feminist, but if they agree with feminist principles, like 1) women and men should have equal political voting power, 2) women and men doing the same job should get the same pay, 3) men and women should both receive equal education, 4) have the same rights to own property, 5) have the same rights to make legal agreements, etc. It would be nice to know which "huge swathes" of feminism you think are being dropped.

dalke 10y ago

I must express some confusion. The distinctions between "nativism" and "nationalism" are less distinct than I thought they were. If an ethnic German from Austria moves to Germany and is looked down upon for being a foreigner, then I think of that as nativism, while if an ethnic German from South Tyrol moves to Rome and is looked down upon for being a German, then I think of that as nationalism. I am no longer sure that is a valid description of how the two differ. My working definition is close to Wikipedia's: "Nativism is the political position of supporting a favoured status for certain established inhabitants of a nation as compared to claims of newcomers or immigrants." However, later on it says nativism is a form of nationalism, and not distinct from it. > "Not fracture. Fractal" I assure you that I know what fractal means, starting from Mandelbrot's 1982 "The Fractal Geometry of Nature", and related topics like the Hausdorff dimension, space-fulling curves, and the ties between fractals systems and chaos theory, along with the observation that in the real world, the largest known fractal-like systems are only perhaps 6 orders of magnitude in scale. There is no need to assume I am using a different term than the correct one. I used the the Germanic cultures because they were the most self-similar, from the personal level up to the kingdom level. It was definitely more self-similar than Rome; the expression "all roads lead to Rome" is the definition of a non-fractal system. (Rather, with low fractal dimension.) > "Come on" Certainly. Like I said, if you define it in a way that requires the internet, then you have something which requires the internet. If you cut off internet to the Middle East, your hypothesis is, I believe, that ISIS will disappear. My hypothesis is that it will continue, and use other (yes, older) mechanisms of communication. They will be "crippled", to use your term, but I see no reason to believe they will be "absolutely crippled." Not that it matters, since it doesn't seem feasible to do as you propose, and take the internet way from ISIS. Which make it impossible to tell if your statement has any real meaning. Is there any other political movement which has withered away without internet? Or is it ISIS which is special, and not the internet? > "most social change is cyclical and not linear" The problem with your belief is that it's impossible to predict which change is in which class. Otherwise, when do we cycle back to the divine right of kings again? It also has a built-in assumption that phase space is very simple. Your study of fractals must surely have taught you of strange attractors, and the danger of applying simple terms like "linear" and "cyclical" to intrinsically chaotic systems. Why continue with that metaphor if it isn't something you really believe? > "Its feedback loop has genuinely sped up human society" As has every other communication method before it. When I read your writings, I see a trivialization of the radical changes that our predecessors have gone through. How do you even measure speed up? More specifically, how much more do you think we've sped up in the last 40 years, compared to, say, the 40 years before 1916? 2x? 10x? 100x? Bear in mind too that with 3.5x the population now as 1916, you would expect more change simply because more people are working on the same ideas and problems. > "I doubt there's a woman in the neighborhood who would self describe as feminist" Walking around Oxford, England just today I saw a young woman wearing a shirt saying something like "Feminism: the radical idea that a woman should be treated like a person". Which means you don't live in Oxford. I live in Sweden, where the Feminist Initiative got 3.1% of the vote 2 years ago, and where the Social Democrats and the Leftist Party call themselves a feminist party. Which means you don't live in Sweden. "Feminist" has a long history of being demonized, just like in the US how "socialist" and "liberal" were turned into abusive phrases in the first Red Scare and the 1980s, respectively. One technique is to equate "feminism" with "feminazi" or other words that twist and ridicule the term by associating it with its extremes. The true test, therefore, is not if someone is willing to self-identify as a feminist, but if they agree with feminist principles, like 1) women and men should have equal political voting power, 2) women and men doing the same job should get the same pay, 3) men and women should both receive equal education, 4) have the same rights to own property, 5) have the same rights to make legal agreements, etc. It would be nice to know which "huge swathes" of feminism you think are being dropped.