4 ms·

I agree with you with regard to the historical specifics; however, the point about intentionally fracturing communities and suppressing communication is consist

I agree with you with regard to the historical specifics; however, the point about intentionally fracturing communities and suppressing communication is consistent with authoritarian oppression of all kinds.

watwut 6y ago
In that however, forcing you into to "right" network is as much if not more important. They don't want you all to be isolated. They want you all to have right social group that is naturally going to push you mold you toward "right" opinions and behavior. So you being part of church community is a problem, but alternative is not being alone, the alternative is being in party sport club or other institution. In that context, loners and isolated people are suspect and vulnerable, because they are different and not subject of normal peer pressures that comes with relationships.
- germinalphrase 6y ago
  Sure. Loners and isolated people are less useful, but they are also non-threatening beyond stochastic violent events. They may develop undesirable ideas or ideologies, but that’s generally irrelevant due to their social isolation.
  - watwut 6y ago
    Then again, it is not all strictly rational. If you are primed to look for internal ennemy then loners easily look like ones. Plus, maybe more importantly, they don't have stronger friends to protect them, to retaliate, to subtly help them. They are also less likely to be fully "in", so more likely to do misstep. I also remember reading that people who saved Jews during WWII were more likely to be "outsiders" to social. (Some Israel researcher claimed that.) Being outside facilitates such actions - either because you underestimate risk or because you did not absorbed the bad values.
    - germinalphrase 6y ago
      Yes - I certainly agree that loners are more vulnerable. I might argue that “outsider” is a broader category though and more likely garner the (destructive) attention of the dominant group.

watwut 6y ago

In that however, forcing you into to "right" network is as much if not more important. They don't want you all to be isolated. They want you all to have right social group that is naturally going to push you mold you toward "right" opinions and behavior. So you being part of church community is a problem, but alternative is not being alone, the alternative is being in party sport club or other institution. In that context, loners and isolated people are suspect and vulnerable, because they are different and not subject of normal peer pressures that comes with relationships.

germinalphrase 6y ago
Sure. Loners and isolated people are less useful, but they are also non-threatening beyond stochastic violent events. They may develop undesirable ideas or ideologies, but that’s generally irrelevant due to their social isolation.
- watwut 6y ago
  Then again, it is not all strictly rational. If you are primed to look for internal ennemy then loners easily look like ones. Plus, maybe more importantly, they don't have stronger friends to protect them, to retaliate, to subtly help them. They are also less likely to be fully "in", so more likely to do misstep. I also remember reading that people who saved Jews during WWII were more likely to be "outsiders" to social. (Some Israel researcher claimed that.) Being outside facilitates such actions - either because you underestimate risk or because you did not absorbed the bad values.
  - germinalphrase 6y ago
    Yes - I certainly agree that loners are more vulnerable. I might argue that “outsider” is a broader category though and more likely garner the (destructive) attention of the dominant group.