4 ms·

Pros and cons. A big challenge with rigid social expectations is identifying the beneficial ones and removing the harmful ones. In practice, there tends to be

Pros and cons. A big challenge with rigid social expectations is identifying the beneficial ones and removing the harmful ones. In practice, there tends to be little introspection about which traditional expectations help and which ones hurt. Instead, people appeal to tradition itself as evidence that an expectation is helpful. If we could more effectively iterate on these social expectations then we'd be able to more effectively optimize. But efforts to do this (e.g., discussion of topics like "toxic masculinity") are by-and-large rejected out of hand by traditionalists. Another challenge is that social expectations may help on average but they may completely fail in individual cases. For example, having both parents raise a child will, on average, lead to improved outcomes. But if we codify this as a rigid rule, then people are unable to escape abusive relationships where the presence of both parents is a negative. Social expectations are necessarily generalizations and people need the freedom to identify when they are not helpful for their particular situation and adjust accordingly.

DeathArrow 5y ago
The tentatives to artificially engineer the society to be more just, fair and inclusive only resulted in a less just, less fair and less inclusive society. The society should be left to evolve on its own, in a natural way. If we don't want to replace small disasters with big disasters.
- UncleMeat 5y ago
  Civil rights for gay people and black people were criticized "artificially engineering society". As were voting rights for women or access to birth control. Subservient roles for women and labor roles for black people were seen as "natural." I think you'd be absolutely crazy to consider rights for these populations to have led to a "less just and less fair society." There is no such thing as natural society. Society is constructed by humans.
  - dc-programmer 5y ago
    I think the crux of the current debate is the tension between cultural liberalism and cultural socialism. The philosophy of the cultural liberals is to remove restrictions that inhibit people from living the social lives they want. The cultural socialists want to use the power of institutions to distribute a culture across the population. They believe their culture is societally optimal so reducing liberties to propagate it is morally justified. I’m sure most peoples beliefs lie somewhere in between the two. But the cultural socialism maximalists in the west have been getting louder and louder and it’s beginning to terrify me. I predict in the next 5 years, womens’ voting rights will be an actual political topic. It will start with “ironic” jokes and “rational” thinking but will get increasingly normalized in discourse.
    - UncleMeat 5y ago
      We've already seen Thiel float the "the world would be better if women couldn't vote" thing. Far right communities online already express sanitized versions of this belief system. You can see it when far right women end up in discussion spaces. Their participation is ultimately contingent on the approval of the men they are around, with sexist rejections of their contributions showing up frequently. We are already at the "ironic" jokes and "rational" thinking phase. Terrifying.
      - dc-programmer 5y ago
        There’s a whole online subculture of women adopting traditional aesthetics and dressing like pilgrims. It’s hard to gauge their sincerity, but they are “converting” to Catholicism and fundamentalist Islam. Being transgressive is definitely cool for disaffected trust fund kids who didn’t get into Deloitte, but I think there are darker undercurrents like you are implying. The real irony in all of this is the post-modern and Marxist influences of the movement. Which is hilarious due to the Red Scare level of hysteria reactionaries have about those ideologies.
        usrn 5y ago
        I think this subculture you've noticed might actually be part of that "Red Scare." I really don't like the "cultural socialism" phrase. There are too many connotations in it and it's probably too vague for everyone. The way I see it there are really three extremes you can take on any political issue: One is an authoritarian preservation (or restoration) of culture, another is the authoritarian deconstruction (or liberation) of culture, and one is the libertarian position (which is almost moderate by definition; the individual communities are left to figure out what they want.) The socialists/communists/bolsheviks (and in a more moderate sense, progressives) or in other words "The Left" are near the "authoritarian deconstruction" extreme. Examples of these might be the American progressives trying to take control of children's sexuality away from parents or the people writing laws against the cast system in India. The Fascists, monarchists, religious fundamentalists, and in a moderate sense conservatives, or in other words "The Right" are near the "authoritarian preservation" extreme. Examples of these include the Taliban, America First etc. The libertarians/liberals/anarchists are what we already know. Something I don't think people appreciate about them though is that they allow for consensus in some situations where none is achievable. People often confuse them for the Right because of the US's tradition of liberty and because of the freedom of association thing. They confuse them for the left because of how destructive anarchy is. None of these extremes are ideal. All degenerate into something horrible if you lean hard into any one. It's much easier to understand your own position on any topic along with someone else's because they become a vector of sorts made up of these. I think you've grouped the two authoritarian extremes under "cultural socialists" and are confused because they're different phenomena (often reactions to each other.)
- raxxorraxor 5y ago
  Partially. You have to have some rules to ensure people can participate. Accommodation for disabilities for example. Even if people would try to accommodate them out of a sense of duty, you cannot skip to have binding rules because it just simply isn't on peoples mind all the time. What isn't helpful at all, on the contrary, is thinking about new words how to call disabled people.

DeathArrow 5y ago

The tentatives to artificially engineer the society to be more just, fair and inclusive only resulted in a less just, less fair and less inclusive society. The society should be left to evolve on its own, in a natural way. If we don't want to replace small disasters with big disasters.

UncleMeat 5y ago
Civil rights for gay people and black people were criticized "artificially engineering society". As were voting rights for women or access to birth control. Subservient roles for women and labor roles for black people were seen as "natural." I think you'd be absolutely crazy to consider rights for these populations to have led to a "less just and less fair society." There is no such thing as natural society. Society is constructed by humans.
- dc-programmer 5y ago
  I think the crux of the current debate is the tension between cultural liberalism and cultural socialism. The philosophy of the cultural liberals is to remove restrictions that inhibit people from living the social lives they want. The cultural socialists want to use the power of institutions to distribute a culture across the population. They believe their culture is societally optimal so reducing liberties to propagate it is morally justified. I’m sure most peoples beliefs lie somewhere in between the two. But the cultural socialism maximalists in the west have been getting louder and louder and it’s beginning to terrify me. I predict in the next 5 years, womens’ voting rights will be an actual political topic. It will start with “ironic” jokes and “rational” thinking but will get increasingly normalized in discourse.
  - UncleMeat 5y ago
    We've already seen Thiel float the "the world would be better if women couldn't vote" thing. Far right communities online already express sanitized versions of this belief system. You can see it when far right women end up in discussion spaces. Their participation is ultimately contingent on the approval of the men they are around, with sexist rejections of their contributions showing up frequently. We are already at the "ironic" jokes and "rational" thinking phase. Terrifying.
    - dc-programmer 5y ago
      There’s a whole online subculture of women adopting traditional aesthetics and dressing like pilgrims. It’s hard to gauge their sincerity, but they are “converting” to Catholicism and fundamentalist Islam. Being transgressive is definitely cool for disaffected trust fund kids who didn’t get into Deloitte, but I think there are darker undercurrents like you are implying. The real irony in all of this is the post-modern and Marxist influences of the movement. Which is hilarious due to the Red Scare level of hysteria reactionaries have about those ideologies.
      - usrn 5y ago
        I think this subculture you've noticed might actually be part of that "Red Scare." I really don't like the "cultural socialism" phrase. There are too many connotations in it and it's probably too vague for everyone. The way I see it there are really three extremes you can take on any political issue: One is an authoritarian preservation (or restoration) of culture, another is the authoritarian deconstruction (or liberation) of culture, and one is the libertarian position (which is almost moderate by definition; the individual communities are left to figure out what they want.) The socialists/communists/bolsheviks (and in a more moderate sense, progressives) or in other words "The Left" are near the "authoritarian deconstruction" extreme. Examples of these might be the American progressives trying to take control of children's sexuality away from parents or the people writing laws against the cast system in India. The Fascists, monarchists, religious fundamentalists, and in a moderate sense conservatives, or in other words "The Right" are near the "authoritarian preservation" extreme. Examples of these include the Taliban, America First etc. The libertarians/liberals/anarchists are what we already know. Something I don't think people appreciate about them though is that they allow for consensus in some situations where none is achievable. People often confuse them for the Right because of the US's tradition of liberty and because of the freedom of association thing. They confuse them for the left because of how destructive anarchy is. None of these extremes are ideal. All degenerate into something horrible if you lean hard into any one. It's much easier to understand your own position on any topic along with someone else's because they become a vector of sorts made up of these. I think you've grouped the two authoritarian extremes under "cultural socialists" and are confused because they're different phenomena (often reactions to each other.)
raxxorraxor 5y ago
Partially. You have to have some rules to ensure people can participate. Accommodation for disabilities for example. Even if people would try to accommodate them out of a sense of duty, you cannot skip to have binding rules because it just simply isn't on peoples mind all the time. What isn't helpful at all, on the contrary, is thinking about new words how to call disabled people.