5 ms·

That sounds nice and all, except "kinship, long-term friendships and intergenerational family obligations" is still forming the fabric of western societies and

by bserge 6y ago

That sounds nice and all, except "kinship, long-term friendships and intergenerational family obligations" is still forming the fabric of western societies and up to as late as the 1960's (and even later), most people were not freely able to "gather in groups based on their levels of competence, interests and views". Western liberalism and individual freedom is really a very recent development. Just 100 years ago, people were being forced to work on ships, in factories, on farms, in wars and 3-4 generations living in one home was normal. Just 60 years ago, many people were heavily discriminated against and had little freedom. Imo, these "more effective social associations" just lead to an increase in mental problems and perhaps ultimately, to the unraveling of such societies. Long term *ships are good, the focus on hyper efficiency just means more and more people are being left behind, and groups simply have no idea what other groups are thinking or how to work with them. See all the antimaskers, antivaxxers, authoritarian supporters. All dismissed as stupid/irrelevant and considered a minority by the other side. And vice versa. The reality is different, but there's such a disconnect that no one knows how to fix this.

crankyoldcrank 6y ago
>Just 100 years ago, people were being forced to work on ships, in factories, on farms, You know those jobs are still necessary, right? Still exist? People are just as forced into them now as they were in 1920 especially outside the developed world. You're complaining that life in antiquity was hard and attributing it to a failure of society. What if it's just the nature of reality that life is hard, brutish, and short, and the slice of modernity we've enjoyed briefly for the last half century has been a reprieve offered by liberalism? Also how do you even bundle anti maskers and authoritarians in one sentence? Anti maskers aren't telling people not to go to church or visit their families, or to die alone. The authoritarians are on the other side, like Mr Andrew Cuomo. He's the one literally persecuting Jews in New York for practicing their beliefs in a way that is politically unfashionable due to a disease with a 99.9% survival rate. You might disagree with them but anti maskers are anti authoritarian. They are literally fighting authority.
- bserge 6y ago
  It's not much of a consolation, but "forced" back then meant "no other options" (except death). People were Shanghaied onto ships, forced to work for someone else for little to no pay, or because they simply had debts, and they had no state-mandated rights. Lots of people have sacrificed their lives to give us a better one. I'm only from an ex-USSR country, and I've never been to countries worse off, but from what I read, workers rights have taken hold pretty much everywhere. The anti-maskers/pro-authoritarians part was in reply to "people are gathering in groups based on their levels of competence, interests and views". Yes, everyone gathers in their own groups with narrow views, and they don't have to live or even communicate with people who have different views. So they don't even try to understand the opposing point of view. It's automatically just them "being dumb", "just wrong" or "fake news" or whatever. It might make for more effective social associations in the short term, but I don't see how it's sustainable in the long term. It's the same exact type of divide that exists between the wealthy and the rest.
bluetomcat 6y ago
Indeed, the pre-1960s working class was in a much less privileged position, but liberalism was still important among those at the higher end of the social ladder – the intellectual, scientific, entrepreneurial and political elites. A child from a wealthy upper-class family whose father owned a cotton factory would first receive high quality education, and then would, for example, become a credible scientist or an engineer. Post-WW2, the working class was largely replaced by a well-off middle class, and that created other problems in itself.
- bserge 6y ago
  People on the higher end of the ladder have always been more liberal, thanks to the education and free time they had. Irrespective of religion, unlike what the article insinuates. Indeed, we do owe our modern lives to the privileged people who nonetheless chose to fight for the commoner, raising everyone's living standards.
  - TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
    Was this the case before WW2 as well? I thought that it was different before then.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

by bserge 6y ago

crankyoldcrank 6y ago

>Just 100 years ago, people were being forced to work on ships, in factories, on farms, You know those jobs are still necessary, right? Still exist? People are just as forced into them now as they were in 1920 especially outside the developed world. You're complaining that life in antiquity was hard and attributing it to a failure of society. What if it's just the nature of reality that life is hard, brutish, and short, and the slice of modernity we've enjoyed briefly for the last half century has been a reprieve offered by liberalism? Also how do you even bundle anti maskers and authoritarians in one sentence? Anti maskers aren't telling people not to go to church or visit their families, or to die alone. The authoritarians are on the other side, like Mr Andrew Cuomo. He's the one literally persecuting Jews in New York for practicing their beliefs in a way that is politically unfashionable due to a disease with a 99.9% survival rate. You might disagree with them but anti maskers are anti authoritarian. They are literally fighting authority.

bserge 6y ago
It's not much of a consolation, but "forced" back then meant "no other options" (except death). People were Shanghaied onto ships, forced to work for someone else for little to no pay, or because they simply had debts, and they had no state-mandated rights. Lots of people have sacrificed their lives to give us a better one. I'm only from an ex-USSR country, and I've never been to countries worse off, but from what I read, workers rights have taken hold pretty much everywhere. The anti-maskers/pro-authoritarians part was in reply to "people are gathering in groups based on their levels of competence, interests and views". Yes, everyone gathers in their own groups with narrow views, and they don't have to live or even communicate with people who have different views. So they don't even try to understand the opposing point of view. It's automatically just them "being dumb", "just wrong" or "fake news" or whatever. It might make for more effective social associations in the short term, but I don't see how it's sustainable in the long term. It's the same exact type of divide that exists between the wealthy and the rest.

bluetomcat 6y ago

Indeed, the pre-1960s working class was in a much less privileged position, but liberalism was still important among those at the higher end of the social ladder – the intellectual, scientific, entrepreneurial and political elites. A child from a wealthy upper-class family whose father owned a cotton factory would first receive high quality education, and then would, for example, become a credible scientist or an engineer. Post-WW2, the working class was largely replaced by a well-off middle class, and that created other problems in itself.

bserge 6y ago
People on the higher end of the ladder have always been more liberal, thanks to the education and free time they had. Irrespective of religion, unlike what the article insinuates. Indeed, we do owe our modern lives to the privileged people who nonetheless chose to fight for the commoner, raising everyone's living standards.
- TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
  Was this the case before WW2 as well? I thought that it was different before then.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]