5 ms·

The idea that shifting "norm enforcement" from local communities towards impersonal institutions is somehow "bad" is extremely wrong and harmful. Large imperso

by elurg 5y ago

The idea that shifting "norm enforcement" from local communities towards impersonal institutions is somehow "bad" is extremely wrong and harmful. Large impersonal institutions are much easier to hold accountable than local communities. In small groups all sorts of abuse can be hidden and sometimes even outright accepted in the name of "cohesion". Small communities with informal power dynamics can be extremely toxic in a way that is far more harmful than google knowing what videos you watch. Small town may seem idyllic but they are often hell for that one gay resident.

AutumnCurtain 5y ago
>Small town may seem idyllic but they are often hell for that one gay resident. Precisely. And that enforcement of the orthodoxy often takes far more severe forms than online criticism.
xondono 5y ago
> Large impersonal institutions are much easier to hold accountable than local communities. It’s clearly easier to get CocaCola to change course than say, my local butcher. /s
titzer 5y ago
> Large impersonal institutions are much easier to hold accountable than local communities. I think this is exactly backwards. > but they are often hell for that one gay resident. Contrarily, people are way more likely to accept a person once they know them personally as part of their community. Small towns don't operate like high school locker rooms.
- elurg 5y ago
  > > Large impersonal institutions are much easier to hold accountable than local communities. > I think this is exactly backwards. No it is not. States and corporations are bound by law and to a great extent by public opinion while smaller communities are much freer to tyrannize their members. Being part of the same "community" didn't stop school segregation in the south, the federal government did.
  - pessimizer 5y ago
    Large communities will literally genocide you and everyone who shows a hint of sharing your belief system, do it through euphemism so he general populace has plausible deniability, burn all the books that refer to you with any sentiment other than poison, and imprison anyone who mentions you in passing while smiling. With your reasoning, feudalism is the most accountable form of government, safest for minorities.
    - prompttt1 5y ago
      Feudalism is just governance in arbitrarily-sized lordship-fiefs, it has nothing to do with community dynamics or scale. If anything, most forms of feudalism began and ended in a historical age of small, isolated communities and unresolved barriers to cross-community communication.
    - elurg 5y ago
      Small communities will literally lynch you and after the fact they will all agree you were a rapist. It's not clear why you brought up feudalism but systems in which a local lord is responsible for dispensing justice allow for far more abuse that those with centralized legal systems. It is always better for judges to be as far removed from the outcome of the case as possible.
  - titzer 5y ago
    > States and corporations are bound by law and to a great extent by public opinion In theory. In practice, corporations do risk analysis and compute liabilities and flout the law all the time. Particularly environmental laws. One disaster after another. Coverups, bribery, corruption, evading accountability. You're living in an alternate universe, because this one is full of malfeasance and screwups from huge organizations with zero consequences.
- bluetomcat 5y ago
  In the case of a large institution adhering to some law-encoded conducts and held accountable by the wider public, there is less chance for targeting random individuals based on their specific views, relationships and personal states of affairs. Again, it is key that the institution is accountable and not some repressive apparatus of a totalitarian state.
  - jimbokun 5y ago
    > Again, it is key that the institution is accountable and not some repressive apparatus of a totalitarian state. In that case, doesn't the institution become the totalitarian state?
- prompttt1 5y ago
  > Small towns don't operate like high school locker rooms. On the one hand we have endless accounts of people deathly afraid of coming out, even to families that "know them personally" (and grave consequences in cases where the truth inadvertently comes to light), even when the larger community/law explicitly protects them. On the other we have your vague assertion that it'll be all right. I doubt "just get to know the other" works outside of specific constraints that are absent from most "organic" threats to the local orthodoxy.
huetius 5y ago
I just look around every day and say, “look at all these large, powerful, impersonal institutions being held accountable!”
- NikolaNovak 5y ago
  but they are; compared to tiny communities that have no external or internal methods or frameworks for change or improvement or accountability, large corporations are a veritable cornucopia of paths for change! I treat original post as a relative comparison, not an absolute claim.
goodpoint 5y ago
On the contrary, big tech is completely unaccountable. Governments are also unaccountable when it comes to invisible breaches to citizen's privacy. See Snowden's revelations.
AnthonyMouse 5y ago
What "large institutions" are good for is preventing norm enforcement. > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Prohibits the Department of Defense or Department of Education from doing a form of norm enforcement. Prohibits the states of Alabama or California from doing a form of norm enforcement. Good. Laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race/sex/religion/etc. Prevents the CEOs of Walmart or Apple from doing a form of norm enforcement. Good. The things done by China or the USSR to people with the wrong ideas. Direct norm enforcement by a large institution. Serious candidate to be the worst thing ever.
- throwawaygh 5y ago
  On the other hand, such constraints on large communities can sometimes allow small communities to perform norm enforcement. For example, that same amendment makes it illegal to prevent a church to subjecting gay minors to various forms of norm enforcement. Size seems like a misnomer here.
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    It makes it unconstitutional for a law to do that. It doesn't stop private citizens from exerting social pressure on churches to not do that, e.g. by shaming them in public.
    - throwawaygh 5y ago
      1. Not always. Small institutions often have totalizing influence, and escaping small communities is often easier said than done. 2. There's nothing stopping private citizens from exerting social pressure on large corporations either. Again, institutional size is a red herring in this conversation. Every argument that small is better than large or vice versa works symmetrically with plenty of real world examples. It's almost like size is a totally orthogonal issue.
goodpoint 5y ago
> Small town may seem idyllic but they are often hell for that one gay resident. This is wrong on two levels. 1) Norm enforcement implemented by a faceless institution does not make the neighbor less bigoted. 2) The institution can implement discriminatory behaviors just like the neighbors, but with the power to capture and kill people from being part of some unwanted minority.
snarf21 5y ago
I don't know. Look at Texas and their recent changes. I think the larger the group, the harder it is to have opposition and discourse. Making a whole state hell for a whole group of people isn't any better than for one resident. It also prevents other more reasonable towns from not doing so because it is the law.
paulpauper 5y ago
>Large impersonal institutions are much easier to hold accountable than local communities. In small groups all sorts of abuse can be hidden and sometimes even outright accepted in the name of "cohesion". Look at all the congregational hearings about Facebook and other large tech companies, or the endless anti threats against google. they all amounted to nothing. Twitter can arbitrary ban anyone from its platform, sometimes for politically motivated reasons, without any recourse for whoever was banned. Same for YouTube.
- csee 5y ago
  And look at the reality of small tribes that put a spear through someone's leg for a social infraction. Large, modern and democratic institutions and the rule of law are a blessing.
NikolaNovak 5y ago
Based on some of the responses, it feels like most people have not experienced / cannot imagine a small community exerting moral, behavioural, cultural pressure; either because they haven't been part of such a community or because they haven't been pressured due to pre-existing conformity. Sure, Google/Coca-Cola/BigCorps are hard to change course. But small communities can be far, far nastier to an outsider / different person and sometimes far more insidious / damaging / harder to influence. And it can be difficult to see. My wife has joined a Mommy's group at a neighbouring church; she's gushing how open and welcoming and friendly they all are. Then I asked to consider that a) She happens to be a nominally-christian white middle-class straight anglo-saxon white-collar mother with kids b) How do you think somebody without those characteristics would be welcomed at the church? How many characteristics would have to change for environment to transform? We then read the church's website, attended an actual sermon to see what they heard, and boy oh boy, has her perception of friendly welcoming fellow mommys changed :<. It's all smiles and friendliness until/unless you cross some cultural/instilled/assumed line and norm.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by elurg 5y ago

AutumnCurtain 5y ago

>Small town may seem idyllic but they are often hell for that one gay resident. Precisely. And that enforcement of the orthodoxy often takes far more severe forms than online criticism.

xondono 5y ago

> Large impersonal institutions are much easier to hold accountable than local communities. It’s clearly easier to get CocaCola to change course than say, my local butcher. /s

titzer 5y ago

> Large impersonal institutions are much easier to hold accountable than local communities. I think this is exactly backwards. > but they are often hell for that one gay resident. Contrarily, people are way more likely to accept a person once they know them personally as part of their community. Small towns don't operate like high school locker rooms.

elurg 5y ago
> > Large impersonal institutions are much easier to hold accountable than local communities. > I think this is exactly backwards. No it is not. States and corporations are bound by law and to a great extent by public opinion while smaller communities are much freer to tyrannize their members. Being part of the same "community" didn't stop school segregation in the south, the federal government did.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  Large communities will literally genocide you and everyone who shows a hint of sharing your belief system, do it through euphemism so he general populace has plausible deniability, burn all the books that refer to you with any sentiment other than poison, and imprison anyone who mentions you in passing while smiling. With your reasoning, feudalism is the most accountable form of government, safest for minorities.
  - prompttt1 5y ago
    Feudalism is just governance in arbitrarily-sized lordship-fiefs, it has nothing to do with community dynamics or scale. If anything, most forms of feudalism began and ended in a historical age of small, isolated communities and unresolved barriers to cross-community communication.
  - elurg 5y ago
    Small communities will literally lynch you and after the fact they will all agree you were a rapist. It's not clear why you brought up feudalism but systems in which a local lord is responsible for dispensing justice allow for far more abuse that those with centralized legal systems. It is always better for judges to be as far removed from the outcome of the case as possible.
- titzer 5y ago
  > States and corporations are bound by law and to a great extent by public opinion In theory. In practice, corporations do risk analysis and compute liabilities and flout the law all the time. Particularly environmental laws. One disaster after another. Coverups, bribery, corruption, evading accountability. You're living in an alternate universe, because this one is full of malfeasance and screwups from huge organizations with zero consequences.
bluetomcat 5y ago
In the case of a large institution adhering to some law-encoded conducts and held accountable by the wider public, there is less chance for targeting random individuals based on their specific views, relationships and personal states of affairs. Again, it is key that the institution is accountable and not some repressive apparatus of a totalitarian state.
- jimbokun 5y ago
  > Again, it is key that the institution is accountable and not some repressive apparatus of a totalitarian state. In that case, doesn't the institution become the totalitarian state?
prompttt1 5y ago
> Small towns don't operate like high school locker rooms. On the one hand we have endless accounts of people deathly afraid of coming out, even to families that "know them personally" (and grave consequences in cases where the truth inadvertently comes to light), even when the larger community/law explicitly protects them. On the other we have your vague assertion that it'll be all right. I doubt "just get to know the other" works outside of specific constraints that are absent from most "organic" threats to the local orthodoxy.

huetius 5y ago

I just look around every day and say, “look at all these large, powerful, impersonal institutions being held accountable!”

NikolaNovak 5y ago
but they are; compared to tiny communities that have no external or internal methods or frameworks for change or improvement or accountability, large corporations are a veritable cornucopia of paths for change! I treat original post as a relative comparison, not an absolute claim.

goodpoint 5y ago

On the contrary, big tech is completely unaccountable. Governments are also unaccountable when it comes to invisible breaches to citizen's privacy. See Snowden's revelations.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago

What "large institutions" are good for is preventing norm enforcement. > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Prohibits the Department of Defense or Department of Education from doing a form of norm enforcement. Prohibits the states of Alabama or California from doing a form of norm enforcement. Good. Laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race/sex/religion/etc. Prevents the CEOs of Walmart or Apple from doing a form of norm enforcement. Good. The things done by China or the USSR to people with the wrong ideas. Direct norm enforcement by a large institution. Serious candidate to be the worst thing ever.

throwawaygh 5y ago
On the other hand, such constraints on large communities can sometimes allow small communities to perform norm enforcement. For example, that same amendment makes it illegal to prevent a church to subjecting gay minors to various forms of norm enforcement. Size seems like a misnomer here.
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  It makes it unconstitutional for a law to do that. It doesn't stop private citizens from exerting social pressure on churches to not do that, e.g. by shaming them in public.
  - throwawaygh 5y ago
    1. Not always. Small institutions often have totalizing influence, and escaping small communities is often easier said than done. 2. There's nothing stopping private citizens from exerting social pressure on large corporations either. Again, institutional size is a red herring in this conversation. Every argument that small is better than large or vice versa works symmetrically with plenty of real world examples. It's almost like size is a totally orthogonal issue.

goodpoint 5y ago

> Small town may seem idyllic but they are often hell for that one gay resident. This is wrong on two levels. 1) Norm enforcement implemented by a faceless institution does not make the neighbor less bigoted. 2) The institution can implement discriminatory behaviors just like the neighbors, but with the power to capture and kill people from being part of some unwanted minority.

snarf21 5y ago

I don't know. Look at Texas and their recent changes. I think the larger the group, the harder it is to have opposition and discourse. Making a whole state hell for a whole group of people isn't any better than for one resident. It also prevents other more reasonable towns from not doing so because it is the law.

paulpauper 5y ago

>Large impersonal institutions are much easier to hold accountable than local communities. In small groups all sorts of abuse can be hidden and sometimes even outright accepted in the name of "cohesion". Look at all the congregational hearings about Facebook and other large tech companies, or the endless anti threats against google. they all amounted to nothing. Twitter can arbitrary ban anyone from its platform, sometimes for politically motivated reasons, without any recourse for whoever was banned. Same for YouTube.

csee 5y ago
And look at the reality of small tribes that put a spear through someone's leg for a social infraction. Large, modern and democratic institutions and the rule of law are a blessing.

NikolaNovak 5y ago

Based on some of the responses, it feels like most people have not experienced / cannot imagine a small community exerting moral, behavioural, cultural pressure; either because they haven't been part of such a community or because they haven't been pressured due to pre-existing conformity. Sure, Google/Coca-Cola/BigCorps are hard to change course. But small communities can be far, far nastier to an outsider / different person and sometimes far more insidious / damaging / harder to influence. And it can be difficult to see. My wife has joined a Mommy's group at a neighbouring church; she's gushing how open and welcoming and friendly they all are. Then I asked to consider that a) She happens to be a nominally-christian white middle-class straight anglo-saxon white-collar mother with kids b) How do you think somebody without those characteristics would be welcomed at the church? How many characteristics would have to change for environment to transform? We then read the church's website, attended an actual sermon to see what they heard, and boy oh boy, has her perception of friendly welcoming fellow mommys changed :<. It's all smiles and friendliness until/unless you cross some cultural/instilled/assumed line and norm.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]