5 ms·

Incorrect. The United States was a nation, until recently, very recently. There was a time when boys in Normandy left their guts out on the beaches there, so o

by papito 5y ago

Incorrect. The United States was a nation, until recently, very recently. There was a time when boys in Normandy left their guts out on the beaches there, so other Americans could live in peace. They were not dying for a geographic area. What makes a nation is the belief in personal sacrifice for public good. Look at us now. A pandemic of toxic individualism, a place where public service is no longer a virtue and is being openly villainized instead. "You are part of the Deep State, aren't you, boy, infringing on ma' freedoms, yeah?" To be fair, this is NOT a US problem. The Western world seems to be rapidly devolving, quickly jettisoning values and social norms that are not only characteristic of a country, nation (whatever), but a civilization. Not to mention the concept of democracy, which is probably not going to survive this decade here. A place where half the population lives in an alternate reality cannot last. A place where working for the government is not "public service", but a grifting operation, and anything higher up there is just a vestibule, a waiting area on a plumpy gig for a cartel you helped enrich by screwing over the citizens. We are neither a nation, nor a country.

anoncake 5y ago
The defining characteristic of a country is being a souvereign state (if you consider the UK "[constituent] country" a homonym).
ElViajero 5y ago
> A pandemic of toxic individualism That is by design. The public sphere has been under attack to make it private and profitable (for the few). The idea that greed is positive and that helping others only "enables laziness" is damaging the capacity of citizens to organize and work towards common goals. And what applies to the individual also is pushed for countries. Brexit is the result of a real discontent based in real situations plus blaming that situation to "others". Cynicism is winning. "all politicians are the same","everybody is greedy","there is nothing that can be done", all lies repeated again and again to create division and passivity.
- TheFreim 5y ago
  > The idea that greed is positive and that helping others only "enables laziness" Who says this? I've never met someone who thinks charity is a bad thing.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - ElViajero 5y ago
    "“Welfare makes people lazy.” The notion is buried so deep within mainstream political thought that it can often be stated without evidence. It was explicit during the Great Depression, when Franklin D. Roosevelt’s WPA (Works Progress Administration) was nicknamed “We Piddle Around” by his detractors. It was implicit in Bill Clinton’s pledge to “end welfare as we know it.” Even today, it is an intellectual pillar of conservative economic theory, which recommends slashing programs like Medicaid and cash assistance, partly out of a fear that self-reliance atrophies in the face of government assistance." https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2018/03/welfare-childhood/555119/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2018/03/welfare...
    - TheFreim 5y ago
      > “Welfare makes people lazy.” The notion is buried so deep within mainstream political thought that it can often be stated without evidence. How does this somehow translate to "greed is good" and that "helping others" is bad? Is the government directly giving people money the sole way to help others? I'm not taking issue with the direct issue, mainly with youre statements which are untrue about those who disagree. Someone who thinks greed is a positive thing would also think welfare is good if they think receiving welfare is for lazy, greedy people. Is that clear enough? If you need any clarification just ask since I feel a bit jumbled.
      - cudgy 5y ago
        “Someone who thinks greed is a positive thing would also think welfare is good …” Wouldn’t a greedy person dislike welfare because welfare is paid out of taxes that are required to be paid by that greedy person? I guess it would depend on whether the greedy person pays taxes.
zhdc1 5y ago
The US is still a nation. American culture is arguably far more homogeneous now than at any point in it's history. The difference now is that everyone is able to see what remains of the differences between different groups of people, including the ugliness - such as racism and bigotry - that was hidden when the average person only had access three television channels and a local news paper.
- hans1729 5y ago
  >The difference now is that everyone is able to see [...] Yeah, no. The dynamics definitely changed, you're not just able to observe more. Think about this from a network-theoretical perspective: how is content- and sentiment-aggregation not only possible, but incentivized through the components which emerged from the economy of attention? How does this affect reflection? Which socio-psychological dynamics were enabled over the course of the last 20 years, and which systemic implications came with these dynamics? We're not simply playing the games we used to play, far from it. You used to have some contact to society, but that's over. Your neighbours and your reality aren't the same anymore - but they used to. Every feed is individualized, the meaning of social interaction was reinvented entirely. And this statement was already true 15 years ago, an entire generation rolled in in the meantime. We're not just seeing more, I would argue that the opposite is the case. We're seeing less, because everything we see online is catered to what we want to see. That's how the economy of attention works, its the whole point of it. The implications of these changes are abundant.
  - zhdc1 5y ago
    > Yeah, no. The dynamics definitely changed, you're not just able to observe more. Think about this from a network-theoretical perspective: how is content- and sentiment-aggregation not only possible, but incentivized through the components which emerged from the economy of attention? How does this affect reflection? Which socio-psychological dynamics were enabled over the course of the last 20 years, and which systemic implications came with these dynamics? The truth is that a majority of Americans don't pay attention to the news. Yes, there are divergences in the United States on some substantive factors (meaning things that are measured by actual statistical outcomes, and not Gallup Poll opinion surveys), such as life expectancy and general well-being. However: 1.) There is strong evidence that American culture (how people speak, what they wear, &c) is becoming more homogeneous. Look, for instance, at the continued decline in regional dialects, or the on going convergence of American music genres (e.g., the pop-ification of country music or hip-hop) 2.) The divergence in life expectancy and general well-being is largely due to urban <-> rural dynamics, and not regional or Facebook driven tribeification. America is becoming increasingly urbanized, and people in urban environments are more likely to walk more, have access to better food, and better employment opportunities. They are also more likely to come into contact with racial minorities and LGBTQ+ individuals, as well as alternative view points, which is why the American political divide is almost entirely driven by where people live, and why urban countries in otherwise deep-red states almost always vote Democrat 3.) The decline of America has been a constant theme in the American media for at least the last century and a half. It's picked up in the last twenty years, but this is mainly due to the proliferation of media sources combined with the decline of traditional media outlets. Negativity sells. However, this is very much a return to the historical norm and American society will eventually find a way to counter it, just like it did during the age of yellow journalism, or when local newspapers acted as political party outlets. There is also a lot of evidence that "perceived" divergences (the things that you see in Gallup surveys, for instance) are largely media driven. See https://www.moreincommon.com/ https://www.moreincommon.com/, for instance
TheFreim 5y ago
> toxic individualism > Not to mention the concept of democracy, which is probably not going to survive this decade here. These seem to be related. Democracy requires a high focused on individuals, right? Individual choice, individual voting, etc. The movement towards being more "democratic" seems highly correlated to the increase in "toxic individualism"
afthonos 5y ago
While I appreciate a lot of the sentiment, this is precisely what the author opens discussion with: the fact that “nation” is often a metonym, or even, as in the parent’s comment, a metaphor.
- notacoward 5y ago
  I think part of the problem is that the noun form "nation" easily becomes the adjective form "national" (something the author briefly alludes to). "State" as an adjective kind of works, but often means literally owned by the legal entity of the state rather than representing the people within it. It's also tainted by its prominence in Marxist rhetoric and subsequent overuse e.g. in USSR. "Countrial" is not a word, while "imperial" or "hegemonic" would require admissions few are willing to make. "American" is the only significant alternative, even though it has its own rather obvious problems. Thus, many things are called "national" even though that's technically inaccurate, and when people hear "national" they assume the existence of a "nation" to go with it.
  - papito 5y ago
    No offense, but this makes my head hurt. Is that the real problem, in your opinion? I tried to read the article. I don't understand the point of the point. It's a purely academic, useless bla bla at a time when we may be witnessing the actual sunset of American democracy, and in fact, Western democracy.
    - notacoward 5y ago
      > Is that the real problem, in your opinion? I suppose the best answer I can give is what I said in another sub-thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27711219 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27711219 > useless bla bla at a time when we may be witnessing the actual sunset of American democracy Must we devote literally 100% of our time to discussing "serious" issues? Looking at the front page of HN right now, I see a lot of stories that could be considered "useless bla bla" the only difference being that they're "useless bla bla" of interest to a particular audience. The OP might be of interest primarily to another - historical, etymological - audience, but that doesn't make it lesser. Discussing other topics, even those far more frivolous than this one, can be considered a form of rest and recreation. Even literal soldiers get time for that, because it avoids exhaustion and makes them more able to fight when it really matters. If it's not your cup of tea, or even not a high priority for you, that's OK. But I don't think suppressing discussion of it will help wrt getting people to discuss the issues you do consider important. It's not a zero-sum game.
djeyepshcoan 5y ago
If the rate of people defecting for their own benefit, and groups of people acting in their groups best interest rather than the country, is high enough then it's a loss to not defect.and prioritize yourself. Western liberalism is ideologically incapable of viewing selfish defection and in group bias that is harmful for the whole society as anything other than good in my opinion. I will continue to a be toxic individualist until I have reasonable expectation that other people can be trusted to not fuck me if I cooperate. My whole adult life has been nothing but the escalting erosion of that trust, so good luck with restablishing that.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  Yeah, community is a trust-based concept. We have to all trust each other to have shared values, and to turn away from defection, at a high enough rate that this kind of risk is low enough to allow cooperating to still be optimal. I wonder if there was some kind of social institution that used to encourage this behaviour, perhaps serving as the center of communal life, that the western world has been turning away from in the last 70 or so years?
ppf 5y ago
> A pandemic of toxic individualism Given the social constraints that the various lockdown measures imposed on us, I would argue that you are correct, but not for the reason you think. The response to the pandemic has, in a toxic and damaging way, turned us into atomised and isolated individuals. Those demanding freedoms back, are actually requesting that we return to an integrated, social society.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  I'm not sure I'd describe 2019 as an integrated, social society. "ships passing in the night" might be a more accurate description.
  - ppf 5y ago
    I agree with you. It would seem that the response to Covid has rapidly accelerated all that was going wrong with society, while largely halting all that was going well.
- papito 5y ago
  Are these the same people who insist that scientists are lying dirtbags and are trying to implant these freedom lovers with tracking devices?
  - ppf 5y ago
    You do yourself, and intellectual curiosity, a great dis-service when you paint with strokes that broad.

by papito 5y ago

anoncake 5y ago

The defining characteristic of a country is being a souvereign state (if you consider the UK "[constituent] country" a homonym).

ElViajero 5y ago

> A pandemic of toxic individualism That is by design. The public sphere has been under attack to make it private and profitable (for the few). The idea that greed is positive and that helping others only "enables laziness" is damaging the capacity of citizens to organize and work towards common goals. And what applies to the individual also is pushed for countries. Brexit is the result of a real discontent based in real situations plus blaming that situation to "others". Cynicism is winning. "all politicians are the same","everybody is greedy","there is nothing that can be done", all lies repeated again and again to create division and passivity.

TheFreim 5y ago
> The idea that greed is positive and that helping others only "enables laziness" Who says this? I've never met someone who thinks charity is a bad thing.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- ElViajero 5y ago
  "“Welfare makes people lazy.” The notion is buried so deep within mainstream political thought that it can often be stated without evidence. It was explicit during the Great Depression, when Franklin D. Roosevelt’s WPA (Works Progress Administration) was nicknamed “We Piddle Around” by his detractors. It was implicit in Bill Clinton’s pledge to “end welfare as we know it.” Even today, it is an intellectual pillar of conservative economic theory, which recommends slashing programs like Medicaid and cash assistance, partly out of a fear that self-reliance atrophies in the face of government assistance." https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2018/03/welfare-childhood/555119/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2018/03/welfare...
  - TheFreim 5y ago
    > “Welfare makes people lazy.” The notion is buried so deep within mainstream political thought that it can often be stated without evidence. How does this somehow translate to "greed is good" and that "helping others" is bad? Is the government directly giving people money the sole way to help others? I'm not taking issue with the direct issue, mainly with youre statements which are untrue about those who disagree. Someone who thinks greed is a positive thing would also think welfare is good if they think receiving welfare is for lazy, greedy people. Is that clear enough? If you need any clarification just ask since I feel a bit jumbled.
    - cudgy 5y ago
      “Someone who thinks greed is a positive thing would also think welfare is good …” Wouldn’t a greedy person dislike welfare because welfare is paid out of taxes that are required to be paid by that greedy person? I guess it would depend on whether the greedy person pays taxes.

zhdc1 5y ago

The US is still a nation. American culture is arguably far more homogeneous now than at any point in it's history. The difference now is that everyone is able to see what remains of the differences between different groups of people, including the ugliness - such as racism and bigotry - that was hidden when the average person only had access three television channels and a local news paper.

hans1729 5y ago
>The difference now is that everyone is able to see [...] Yeah, no. The dynamics definitely changed, you're not just able to observe more. Think about this from a network-theoretical perspective: how is content- and sentiment-aggregation not only possible, but incentivized through the components which emerged from the economy of attention? How does this affect reflection? Which socio-psychological dynamics were enabled over the course of the last 20 years, and which systemic implications came with these dynamics? We're not simply playing the games we used to play, far from it. You used to have some contact to society, but that's over. Your neighbours and your reality aren't the same anymore - but they used to. Every feed is individualized, the meaning of social interaction was reinvented entirely. And this statement was already true 15 years ago, an entire generation rolled in in the meantime. We're not just seeing more, I would argue that the opposite is the case. We're seeing less, because everything we see online is catered to what we want to see. That's how the economy of attention works, its the whole point of it. The implications of these changes are abundant.
- zhdc1 5y ago
  > Yeah, no. The dynamics definitely changed, you're not just able to observe more. Think about this from a network-theoretical perspective: how is content- and sentiment-aggregation not only possible, but incentivized through the components which emerged from the economy of attention? How does this affect reflection? Which socio-psychological dynamics were enabled over the course of the last 20 years, and which systemic implications came with these dynamics? The truth is that a majority of Americans don't pay attention to the news. Yes, there are divergences in the United States on some substantive factors (meaning things that are measured by actual statistical outcomes, and not Gallup Poll opinion surveys), such as life expectancy and general well-being. However: 1.) There is strong evidence that American culture (how people speak, what they wear, &c) is becoming more homogeneous. Look, for instance, at the continued decline in regional dialects, or the on going convergence of American music genres (e.g., the pop-ification of country music or hip-hop) 2.) The divergence in life expectancy and general well-being is largely due to urban <-> rural dynamics, and not regional or Facebook driven tribeification. America is becoming increasingly urbanized, and people in urban environments are more likely to walk more, have access to better food, and better employment opportunities. They are also more likely to come into contact with racial minorities and LGBTQ+ individuals, as well as alternative view points, which is why the American political divide is almost entirely driven by where people live, and why urban countries in otherwise deep-red states almost always vote Democrat 3.) The decline of America has been a constant theme in the American media for at least the last century and a half. It's picked up in the last twenty years, but this is mainly due to the proliferation of media sources combined with the decline of traditional media outlets. Negativity sells. However, this is very much a return to the historical norm and American society will eventually find a way to counter it, just like it did during the age of yellow journalism, or when local newspapers acted as political party outlets. There is also a lot of evidence that "perceived" divergences (the things that you see in Gallup surveys, for instance) are largely media driven. See https://www.moreincommon.com/ https://www.moreincommon.com/, for instance

TheFreim 5y ago

> toxic individualism > Not to mention the concept of democracy, which is probably not going to survive this decade here. These seem to be related. Democracy requires a high focused on individuals, right? Individual choice, individual voting, etc. The movement towards being more "democratic" seems highly correlated to the increase in "toxic individualism"

afthonos 5y ago

While I appreciate a lot of the sentiment, this is precisely what the author opens discussion with: the fact that “nation” is often a metonym, or even, as in the parent’s comment, a metaphor.

notacoward 5y ago
I think part of the problem is that the noun form "nation" easily becomes the adjective form "national" (something the author briefly alludes to). "State" as an adjective kind of works, but often means literally owned by the legal entity of the state rather than representing the people within it. It's also tainted by its prominence in Marxist rhetoric and subsequent overuse e.g. in USSR. "Countrial" is not a word, while "imperial" or "hegemonic" would require admissions few are willing to make. "American" is the only significant alternative, even though it has its own rather obvious problems. Thus, many things are called "national" even though that's technically inaccurate, and when people hear "national" they assume the existence of a "nation" to go with it.
- papito 5y ago
  No offense, but this makes my head hurt. Is that the real problem, in your opinion? I tried to read the article. I don't understand the point of the point. It's a purely academic, useless bla bla at a time when we may be witnessing the actual sunset of American democracy, and in fact, Western democracy.
  - notacoward 5y ago
    > Is that the real problem, in your opinion? I suppose the best answer I can give is what I said in another sub-thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27711219 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27711219 > useless bla bla at a time when we may be witnessing the actual sunset of American democracy Must we devote literally 100% of our time to discussing "serious" issues? Looking at the front page of HN right now, I see a lot of stories that could be considered "useless bla bla" the only difference being that they're "useless bla bla" of interest to a particular audience. The OP might be of interest primarily to another - historical, etymological - audience, but that doesn't make it lesser. Discussing other topics, even those far more frivolous than this one, can be considered a form of rest and recreation. Even literal soldiers get time for that, because it avoids exhaustion and makes them more able to fight when it really matters. If it's not your cup of tea, or even not a high priority for you, that's OK. But I don't think suppressing discussion of it will help wrt getting people to discuss the issues you do consider important. It's not a zero-sum game.

djeyepshcoan 5y ago

If the rate of people defecting for their own benefit, and groups of people acting in their groups best interest rather than the country, is high enough then it's a loss to not defect.and prioritize yourself. Western liberalism is ideologically incapable of viewing selfish defection and in group bias that is harmful for the whole society as anything other than good in my opinion. I will continue to a be toxic individualist until I have reasonable expectation that other people can be trusted to not fuck me if I cooperate. My whole adult life has been nothing but the escalting erosion of that trust, so good luck with restablishing that.

beaconstudios 5y ago
Yeah, community is a trust-based concept. We have to all trust each other to have shared values, and to turn away from defection, at a high enough rate that this kind of risk is low enough to allow cooperating to still be optimal. I wonder if there was some kind of social institution that used to encourage this behaviour, perhaps serving as the center of communal life, that the western world has been turning away from in the last 70 or so years?

ppf 5y ago

> A pandemic of toxic individualism Given the social constraints that the various lockdown measures imposed on us, I would argue that you are correct, but not for the reason you think. The response to the pandemic has, in a toxic and damaging way, turned us into atomised and isolated individuals. Those demanding freedoms back, are actually requesting that we return to an integrated, social society.

beaconstudios 5y ago
I'm not sure I'd describe 2019 as an integrated, social society. "ships passing in the night" might be a more accurate description.
- ppf 5y ago
  I agree with you. It would seem that the response to Covid has rapidly accelerated all that was going wrong with society, while largely halting all that was going well.
papito 5y ago
Are these the same people who insist that scientists are lying dirtbags and are trying to implant these freedom lovers with tracking devices?
- ppf 5y ago
  You do yourself, and intellectual curiosity, a great dis-service when you paint with strokes that broad.