8 ms·

I think that ideological groups "naturally" seek to quell all differing groups. Like dueling beehives. In decades past they could exist peacefully, insulated b

I think that ideological groups "naturally" seek to quell all differing groups. Like dueling beehives. In decades past they could exist peacefully, insulated by a natural inability to communicate. An inability to rub against each other. But now we are in the age of communication. We have the internet. The sensitivity and power of the hive has grown vastly. It touches much that it never touched before. Various ideological groups are now crowding each other. Grinding cheek and jowl. A thousand new "threats" become apparent. A thousand new demands for quelling. So now we see more of that inter-ideological friction happening. This is not a conscious act. It's more like gravity. Gallivanting glaciers. Or weather. Charles Fort examined this phenomenon a bit. Check out his "Book of the Damned" for more on that.

radomysisky 6y ago
It would be naïve to believe the west is immune. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution
- tspike 6y ago
  I am curious what (if anything) OP wrote that leads you to believe OP thinks the west is immune?
  - radomysisky 6y ago
    OP says: > This is not a conscious act. It's more like gravity. Gallivanting glaciers. Or weather. I'm saying it's naïve to believe this, along with the other incidents mentioned within the article, aren't intentional. As if the west is immune to concerted censorship efforts and the only explanation is unconscious bias.
    - swayvil 6y ago
      We might intentionally choose to quell the infidel, but the quelling-urge is implicit to ideology-attachment, I think.
MR4D 6y ago
If you’re correct, then democracy will devolve into mob rule, which means anarchy. That’s not a pretty thought.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  Mob rule is not anarchy. Arguably, it's one of the risks of democracy that motivates anarchists. (Now, there's a case to be made that anarchy also risks devolving into mob rule by a different path than non-anarchic democracy does, but they still aren’t the same thing.)
  - MR4D 6y ago
    Good point. Mob rule is arguably much more dangerous.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    Mob rule is not anarchism (the ideology). It is however anarchy (the term), which is much older, and used to convey precisely lack of order and mob rule.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > It is however anarchy No, it's ochlocracy; there's a reason the same people who named anarchy made a separate word for it.
      - coldtea 6y ago
        Ochlocracy is mob rule. Anarchy is lack of rule - not the same as anarchism (the ideology and ideal for self-government), as several oppressors can and are still at play in a state of anarchy, or everybody might be fighting each other and there can be constant power shifts... Ancient Greeks used the term with this meaning, not to describe some anarchist utopia. So ochlocracy is like the people turning into a mob carrying pitchforks. They are the law... Anarchy - in the ancient Greek sense - is like there's no state and no all-encompassing rule of law to turn to. It's the "law of the jungle".
briefcomment 6y ago
Is the solution numerous hyper localized governments, with highly limited federal government, so people can choose the policies they are subject to for the most part by changing where they live? In the situation where federal government has the clout it does, people feel slighted when they are not in the majority, and may find anarchy better than living under rules they don't like.
- wahern 6y ago
  I don't see how that would work any better than it has previously. For example, the American South has generally been the more laissez-faire region in the U.S. but the North has remained the industrial powerhouse, despite itself according to mainstream intuition. I think people misunderstand and chaff under many of the very same policies that make them wealthy. We want contradictory things. Anyhow, mobility is lower today than in recent American history, both in terms of costs but also in terms of desire. Decades ago moving around for a job was normal; it was a common motif in film and television. These days politicians literally run on platforms supposedly preserving your ability to never have to move. We expect jobs (and governance) to come to us, rather than the other way around.
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    >Decades ago moving around for a job was normal People don't move for jobs any more? When did this happen, to what extent, and what's the source of the information?
    - wahern 6y ago
      The trend has been quietly discussed in political-economic circles for many years. Here's a relatively recent media article about it: https://www.curbed.com/2019/11/22/20976309/migration-millennials-homes-census-2019 https://www.curbed.com/2019/11/22/20976309/migration-millenn... And somewhat recent academic summary: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/1209_migration_frey-1.pdf https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/1209_mi... (Choice quote: "Back in the 1950s, almost one fifth of all Americans changed residence annually.") In percentage terms it doesn't seem that large, there's some complexity to the trends when comparing short- and long-distance moves, and of course the primary cause is assumed to be our transition from an industrial to service oriented economy, as well as the closing of the Western frontier (e.g. end of the Cold War and loss of defense jobs put an end to the great California migration). But I think the trends are amplified in our cultural expectations, which is why I brought up the shift in film and television narratives, which makes it apparent even for people who never lived in the 1980s, when migration began to wane. Obviously people still move for work, just not as much they used to. Likewise, the notion that you can and could move to improve your economic position isn't gone, it's just relatively diminished.
anon_cow1111 6y ago
As a counterpoint, I would say it is a conscious act... but on the part of those who enable and amplify the ideological friction as a for-profit business model. Providing a public forum by itself isn't bad, of course. The algorithms driving that infinite-scrolling news feed and recommendations list definitely are, at this point.
- mc32 6y ago
  It’s like scientific communism where factions are set against each other and divisions crated where there were none with no other objective than to win.
- wasdfff 6y ago
  The noise is by design, signal is drown out, by design. The last thing the ruling class wants is for the working class to put down their idealogical arms against each other and unite around shared economic interests. A poor white Republican and a poor black Democrat have a lot more in common than either would like to admit, but the focus on things like stretching the roe vs wade debate out over the past 50 years, or gun ownership, are wedges to drive apart what should be an overwhelmingly large and unified working class voting block.
  - kortilla 6y ago
    Even if you take away the gun/abortion differences, the poor Republican isn’t suddenly going to be pro-union like be Democrat will.
_bxg1 6y ago
"Making the world more open and connected"
Spooky23 6y ago
This happened in the early 20th century. Eventually things will be regulated and locked down.

radomysisky 6y ago

It would be naïve to believe the west is immune. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution

tspike 6y ago
I am curious what (if anything) OP wrote that leads you to believe OP thinks the west is immune?
- radomysisky 6y ago
  OP says: > This is not a conscious act. It's more like gravity. Gallivanting glaciers. Or weather. I'm saying it's naïve to believe this, along with the other incidents mentioned within the article, aren't intentional. As if the west is immune to concerted censorship efforts and the only explanation is unconscious bias.
  - swayvil 6y ago
    We might intentionally choose to quell the infidel, but the quelling-urge is implicit to ideology-attachment, I think.

MR4D 6y ago

If you’re correct, then democracy will devolve into mob rule, which means anarchy. That’s not a pretty thought.

dragonwriter 6y ago
Mob rule is not anarchy. Arguably, it's one of the risks of democracy that motivates anarchists. (Now, there's a case to be made that anarchy also risks devolving into mob rule by a different path than non-anarchic democracy does, but they still aren’t the same thing.)
- MR4D 6y ago
  Good point. Mob rule is arguably much more dangerous.
- coldtea 6y ago
  Mob rule is not anarchism (the ideology). It is however anarchy (the term), which is much older, and used to convey precisely lack of order and mob rule.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > It is however anarchy No, it's ochlocracy; there's a reason the same people who named anarchy made a separate word for it.
    - coldtea 6y ago
      Ochlocracy is mob rule. Anarchy is lack of rule - not the same as anarchism (the ideology and ideal for self-government), as several oppressors can and are still at play in a state of anarchy, or everybody might be fighting each other and there can be constant power shifts... Ancient Greeks used the term with this meaning, not to describe some anarchist utopia. So ochlocracy is like the people turning into a mob carrying pitchforks. They are the law... Anarchy - in the ancient Greek sense - is like there's no state and no all-encompassing rule of law to turn to. It's the "law of the jungle".

briefcomment 6y ago

Is the solution numerous hyper localized governments, with highly limited federal government, so people can choose the policies they are subject to for the most part by changing where they live? In the situation where federal government has the clout it does, people feel slighted when they are not in the majority, and may find anarchy better than living under rules they don't like.

wahern 6y ago
I don't see how that would work any better than it has previously. For example, the American South has generally been the more laissez-faire region in the U.S. but the North has remained the industrial powerhouse, despite itself according to mainstream intuition. I think people misunderstand and chaff under many of the very same policies that make them wealthy. We want contradictory things. Anyhow, mobility is lower today than in recent American history, both in terms of costs but also in terms of desire. Decades ago moving around for a job was normal; it was a common motif in film and television. These days politicians literally run on platforms supposedly preserving your ability to never have to move. We expect jobs (and governance) to come to us, rather than the other way around.
- perl4ever 6y ago
  >Decades ago moving around for a job was normal People don't move for jobs any more? When did this happen, to what extent, and what's the source of the information?
  - wahern 6y ago
    The trend has been quietly discussed in political-economic circles for many years. Here's a relatively recent media article about it: https://www.curbed.com/2019/11/22/20976309/migration-millennials-homes-census-2019 https://www.curbed.com/2019/11/22/20976309/migration-millenn... And somewhat recent academic summary: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/1209_migration_frey-1.pdf https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/1209_mi... (Choice quote: "Back in the 1950s, almost one fifth of all Americans changed residence annually.") In percentage terms it doesn't seem that large, there's some complexity to the trends when comparing short- and long-distance moves, and of course the primary cause is assumed to be our transition from an industrial to service oriented economy, as well as the closing of the Western frontier (e.g. end of the Cold War and loss of defense jobs put an end to the great California migration). But I think the trends are amplified in our cultural expectations, which is why I brought up the shift in film and television narratives, which makes it apparent even for people who never lived in the 1980s, when migration began to wane. Obviously people still move for work, just not as much they used to. Likewise, the notion that you can and could move to improve your economic position isn't gone, it's just relatively diminished.

anon_cow1111 6y ago

As a counterpoint, I would say it is a conscious act... but on the part of those who enable and amplify the ideological friction as a for-profit business model. Providing a public forum by itself isn't bad, of course. The algorithms driving that infinite-scrolling news feed and recommendations list definitely are, at this point.

mc32 6y ago
It’s like scientific communism where factions are set against each other and divisions crated where there were none with no other objective than to win.
wasdfff 6y ago
The noise is by design, signal is drown out, by design. The last thing the ruling class wants is for the working class to put down their idealogical arms against each other and unite around shared economic interests. A poor white Republican and a poor black Democrat have a lot more in common than either would like to admit, but the focus on things like stretching the roe vs wade debate out over the past 50 years, or gun ownership, are wedges to drive apart what should be an overwhelmingly large and unified working class voting block.
- kortilla 6y ago
  Even if you take away the gun/abortion differences, the poor Republican isn’t suddenly going to be pro-union like be Democrat will.

_bxg1 6y ago

"Making the world more open and connected"

Spooky23 6y ago

This happened in the early 20th century. Eventually things will be regulated and locked down.