4 ms·

> (Americans fetishize a sort of "rugged individualism" where you alone can solve every problem you're faced with or else it's not a real problem) Nearly any a

> (Americans fetishize a sort of "rugged individualism" where you alone can solve every problem you're faced with or else it's not a real problem) Nearly any attempt paint American Culture with broad strokes is going to fail.. but using absolute terms like you're doing here A) is wildly inaccurate, and B) negatively portrays a pretty neutral personal ideology. I value individualism for the same reasons I devalue conformity -- I generally want to be left to my own devices to do pretty much whatever I want. This trope about detrementally fetishizing rugged individualism, which is unbelievably common and doesn't seem to ever be subject to a skeptical eye, is a subtle dig at people who want what I want: To be left alone and to be free.

taborj 7y ago
Yes, thank you! This is exactly right.
lotsofpulp 7y ago
I don’t think it negatively portrays any ideology. No one is alone in this world, and no one’s actions happen in a vacuum. The consequences can not be contained to those who commit the action, so while you might want to be left alone and free, the world you live in doesn’t allow for it. There are compromises to be had between freedom and lack of freedom for the benefit of the community.
- hestipod 7y ago
  >The consequences can not be contained to those who >commit the action, so while you might want to be left >alone and free, the world you live in doesn’t allow for >it. Also nobody does it all alone, with the possible exception of some rare frontiersman who chops down trees and builds his own house in some wilderness. People want to be left alone, but still use the benefits of society that suit them. People aren't as independent as they imagine but want to feel as such. I live amongst people who happily use services and comforts and infrastructure, but take every opportunity to attack the communal systems that create them as evil and have some idea it should be hundreds of millions of individuals doing what they want how they want.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
rdiddly 7y ago
There aren't really any negative words in the comment though. It's correlating individualism with "atomized," "alone" and shallow family ties. To the extent that one fits into this so-called "rugged individualist" trope (which I agree is a little hackneyed, but also not totally unfounded), I would think those would all be and sound like positives. Because every friend, every relative - everyone you could possibly get into any kind of mutually non-hatred-based relationship with - is someone you have to please. You're no longer doing whatever you want; you're balancing that against what the other person wants, or what you might owe them, or what you might someday want from them (Golden Rule) etc. Relationships survive on mutual interest and mutual aid. It's about cooperating with people and doesn't have much to do with freedom. [Because hey, you're free to abandon those relationships. You can completely ignore those people and their concerns, desires and interests. But they'll soon start ignoring yours, and there you go, the units that were joined are now separate, but since they can't themselves be divided they are how do I say this, atomized.]

taborj 7y ago

Yes, thank you! This is exactly right.

lotsofpulp 7y ago

I don’t think it negatively portrays any ideology. No one is alone in this world, and no one’s actions happen in a vacuum. The consequences can not be contained to those who commit the action, so while you might want to be left alone and free, the world you live in doesn’t allow for it. There are compromises to be had between freedom and lack of freedom for the benefit of the community.

hestipod 7y ago
>The consequences can not be contained to those who >commit the action, so while you might want to be left >alone and free, the world you live in doesn’t allow for >it. Also nobody does it all alone, with the possible exception of some rare frontiersman who chops down trees and builds his own house in some wilderness. People want to be left alone, but still use the benefits of society that suit them. People aren't as independent as they imagine but want to feel as such. I live amongst people who happily use services and comforts and infrastructure, but take every opportunity to attack the communal systems that create them as evil and have some idea it should be hundreds of millions of individuals doing what they want how they want.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

rdiddly 7y ago

There aren't really any negative words in the comment though. It's correlating individualism with "atomized," "alone" and shallow family ties. To the extent that one fits into this so-called "rugged individualist" trope (which I agree is a little hackneyed, but also not totally unfounded), I would think those would all be and sound like positives. Because every friend, every relative - everyone you could possibly get into any kind of mutually non-hatred-based relationship with - is someone you have to please. You're no longer doing whatever you want; you're balancing that against what the other person wants, or what you might owe them, or what you might someday want from them (Golden Rule) etc. Relationships survive on mutual interest and mutual aid. It's about cooperating with people and doesn't have much to do with freedom. [Because hey, you're free to abandon those relationships. You can completely ignore those people and their concerns, desires and interests. But they'll soon start ignoring yours, and there you go, the units that were joined are now separate, but since they can't themselves be divided they are how do I say this, atomized.]