3 ms·

It will probably be difficult to have any mainstream support of that idea, because allowing people to be alone and think by themselves goes against the society

It will probably be difficult to have any mainstream support of that idea, because allowing people to be alone and think by themselves goes against the society we’ve built for centuries. Sure, the concept is praised. But even monks were supposed to live in small communities. There’s of course the not so cynical take of people not bound by networks being harder to rope in a common direction. It’s supposed to be a virtue, but from a position of power it’s a pain in the side.

kibwen 4y ago
>There’s of course the not so cynical take of people not bound by networks being harder to rope in a common direction. It's the opposite. People who are isolated are easier to control. Populations that are isolated find it harder to organize against people in positions of power. If you occupy the upper rungs of the societal ladder, you don't need to be a part of a social group, because your power (from wealth, politics, etc.) can be exercised unilaterally. The only check to their power comes from the people on the bottom rungs of the ladder banding together.
- makeitdouble 4y ago
  It’s more complex. When people belong to a group you don’t have to target individuals, you can deal with the group. For instance the audience of a specific magazine can be reached through that magazine, members of an union will follow the union’s decisions, etc. You might need to fight the influencers of the group to have them align with your interests, but that’s only a few people vs multiple thousands of individuals. A different way to look at it: cults and ideologies also try to rally isolated individuals as they are easier to target, but in the end they need them part of the group to be manipulated, they can’t stay stray sheeps doing what they want in the wilderness.

3 ms·

It will probably be difficult to have any mainstream support of that idea, because allowing people to be alone and think by themselves goes against the society

by makeitdouble 4y ago

kibwen 4y ago
>There’s of course the not so cynical take of people not bound by networks being harder to rope in a common direction. It's the opposite. People who are isolated are easier to control. Populations that are isolated find it harder to organize against people in positions of power. If you occupy the upper rungs of the societal ladder, you don't need to be a part of a social group, because your power (from wealth, politics, etc.) can be exercised unilaterally. The only check to their power comes from the people on the bottom rungs of the ladder banding together.
- makeitdouble 4y ago
  It’s more complex. When people belong to a group you don’t have to target individuals, you can deal with the group. For instance the audience of a specific magazine can be reached through that magazine, members of an union will follow the union’s decisions, etc. You might need to fight the influencers of the group to have them align with your interests, but that’s only a few people vs multiple thousands of individuals. A different way to look at it: cults and ideologies also try to rally isolated individuals as they are easier to target, but in the end they need them part of the group to be manipulated, they can’t stay stray sheeps doing what they want in the wilderness.