6 ms·

In some areas a "community" culture¹ of "you shall behave - you will behave" has declined into a sort of anarchy of "everything passes"; once you were corrected

by mdp2021 4y ago

In some areas a "community" culture¹ of "you shall behave - you will behave" has declined into a sort of anarchy of "everything passes"; once you were corrected, and now you are no more; once people would stand and say "wrong behaviour" directly, today such framework is greatly weakened, which causes all kind of deviations. Such weakening encourages abuse and exploitation. ¹Note that said community culture was not restricted to small communities: it was present in metropolis of millions. And it is related to a vaster area of consequences of the "weakening of the "low-culture" (i.e. "the teacher and neighbour" as opposed to "the professor and professional") presence".

John23832 4y ago
I totally agree with this. The active removal of any (even semblance) of community in society, to be replaced with radical individualism, has been horribly detrimental. There is no shame, there is no right or wrong, there is no responsibility to others. And this extends to both sides of the political spectrum. The right glorify this "Don't step on me", "I don't care about others that don't exactly fit into my in-group", "no taxes (contributions to society)" mentality, while the left cultivates "we must take care of everyone and make everyone feel included as they are, no matter what, but we can't ask anyone to be responsible to society in any way in return". We descended in to madness.
- vt85 4y ago
  [dead]
- berkes 4y ago
  This is a very US centric concept, though. Whereas the original question was far more generic.
  - vladvasiliu 4y ago
    Anecdotally, this is something I notice in Europe, too.
    - tlarkworthy 4y ago
      I moved to Germany and find they are quite outspoken with enforcing community norms
    - berkes 4y ago
      There is far more division, in Europe too, certainly. But most European countries have far more plurality in their party systems. Main exception being Britain, with a two party system, but they don't even want to be European. So in Europe there's certainly a strong left and right. Just also a lot in-between. Not black-white, binary, but a spectrum of colors, analogue.
- rowtheway 4y ago
  In America, you don’t need to reach for philosophy to explain the destruction of high-trust communities when history will do: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2056992.Left_Behind_In_Rosedale https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2056992.Left_Behind_In_R... Summary of the book by a far-right nutjob: https://twitter.com/GodCloseMyEyes/status/1414619671056297984 https://twitter.com/GodCloseMyEyes/status/141461967105629798... Community culture still exists in some places. Those places generally aren’t trying to solve massively complex racial or mass-migration conflicts at the same time as healthcare, housing, education and so on. Voters and leaders have limited time and attention. Fewer problems to solve means more resources available per problem.
- gfxgirl 4y ago
  Your painting the right as "no taxes" I think they'd paint as "quit wasting money". As an example, SF has the highest tax revenue per capita in the USA https://www.usnews.com/news/cities/slideshows/us-cities-with-the-biggest-general-revenues-per-capita?slide=11 https://www.usnews.com/news/cities/slideshows/us-cities-with... So why is it so dysfunctional? My guess is the right would say because so much is wasted on the wrong things. Note: I'm not saying the right is correct. I'm only suggesting a different interpretation of their POV.
  - John23832 4y ago
    Everyone thinks that something they don't want to pay for is a "waste of money". When that something that you want to quit spending money on can be characterized as "other people who I don't identify with", you get the right. SF is a mess because of liberal mismanagement (I say that as someone who identifies as left). Spending money at massive scale without asking the people you're spending money on to fix something in society (whether it's their own actions, or something that they are responsible for). SF went from a 80B surplus to a 15B deficit... and what get it gain from that? How is the city better... It's not.
    - annyeonghada 4y ago
      >When that something that you want to quit spending money on can be characterized as "other people who I don't identify with" Everyone wants to spend money on something or someone they identify with. It's not like the left has showed any leniency against those it deems unworthy.
      - cyberge99 4y ago
        Sure they have. They believe in social safety nets for all (livable wages to reduce crime, for example). They also tend to be more socially inclusive (I rarely see a racist gay person for example).
        John23832 4y ago
- hiddencost 4y ago
  Meh. That's a straw man based on ignorance. The left puts effort into responsibility and care for community. Why do you think the right advocates for dismantling social services and the left champions them?
  - nailer 4y ago
    The left champions not working, rather than social care. In the UK it’s common to hear ‘I’m on benefits’ as an excuse in itself, rather than ‘I am disabled’ or ‘I am elderly’ or some other legitimate reason for receiving money.
    - andrelaszlo 4y ago
      I wonder what you hear then. To me it sounds like "I'm out of options". It makes me think of this aid program that gave people in really poor countries money instead of food. With money they could of course buy food, but also save to improve their life in general, for example by improving their housing, buying a goat, sending their children to school, etc. Previously, they were just dependent on the food, medicines, and whatever was provided by the system and the situation rarely changed for the better. I think it's similar, at least where I live. With a better support system, people seem to be less likely to get dependent on it. Seems like a good thing to do in the long run, even if you just think about it economically. Unless, perhaps, you need a class of people that are in a sort of benefits bondage. I don't really want to think that this is by design though.
      - nailer 4y ago
        My expectation is that healthy adults should work.
  - rowtheway 4y ago
    Broadly speaking, the community-oriented left in places like the US support bureaucratic government welfare programs, while community-oriented conservatives support more organic, often religious, and non-government charitable organizations. My preference runs toward the latter, for reasons best explained by John Carmack: https://archive.ph/0tHg4 https://archive.ph/0tHg4
- coding123 4y ago
  I am not religious but I do see the general fall of religion as a huge part in this. I've warned people that an individuals moral compass is not a strong as the influence a communities moral compass has on the individual. Currently we are set to just keep legalizing everything because it's good for somebody.
largepeepee 4y ago
I'll add that the decline of community culture was in part due to the greed of the current leaders, like Google and Facebook. Think the dislike button or the normalization of exploiting any data that was previously made to reduce storage pressures. In fact many features like search seem to be performing worse now than a decade ago, because they want to extend user time for ads. They kill an organic culture that had its own safety checks for slightly more money, and in turn make the internet more dangerous as the vacuum is filled by predators who happily fork pennies to Google to hunt new prey.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
This neglects that many scams were perpetuated on these tight communities because it was easy to exploit that existing trust system. This is especially true when the scam was being done by the leadership because then the community had to follow based on authority. See every cult that ever existed. In fact I think that these communities are in fact the REASON more scams seem to exist today because with the internet all types of communities are possible because you can connect with like-minded people from all over to form one, rather than having to rely on those in your specific geographic area. These communities form trust relationships which are then exploited by scammers (either internally or externally). Crypto bros are a great example.
- mdp2021 4y ago
  Though I was not speaking of «/tight/ communities», but of a social method that remained the standard also among strangers (it would be indifferent if the corrigendum is familiar or not - he would receive a lesson of similar tones). And in such environment, under the "you shall behave - you will behave rule", scams are not tolerated by society and are eliminated as soon as they show up through the force of radical opposition that meets the active intention of Enforcement. On the contrary, in the "anarco-decadent" society, the enforcement itself will be hindered and burdened ("I wish I could", "What can you do about it", etc).
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
    > scams are not tolerated by society and are eliminated as soon as they show up This is already the case currently. Once scams are identified as such, then they are eliminated. But the problem of course is that scams start off as seeming legitimate. That's the definition of scam, something that appeared legitimate but wasn't. Even in "anarco-decadent" societies, scams would not flourish once they are revealed as scams because, why would anyone participate in something with a 100% chance of them losing all their money? The scammers may not face punishment from an overseeing authority like the state, but may very well by individual victims of the scam. Either way, scams can't continue as known scams in any arrangement of society. edit An exception to this is a fully corrupted authoritarian society. In this special case there could be 'approved scams' by some officials or people in power that everyone knows to be a scam, but they have to go along with over fear of violent reprisal.

John23832 4y ago

I totally agree with this. The active removal of any (even semblance) of community in society, to be replaced with radical individualism, has been horribly detrimental. There is no shame, there is no right or wrong, there is no responsibility to others. And this extends to both sides of the political spectrum. The right glorify this "Don't step on me", "I don't care about others that don't exactly fit into my in-group", "no taxes (contributions to society)" mentality, while the left cultivates "we must take care of everyone and make everyone feel included as they are, no matter what, but we can't ask anyone to be responsible to society in any way in return". We descended in to madness.

vt85 4y ago
[dead]
berkes 4y ago
This is a very US centric concept, though. Whereas the original question was far more generic.
- vladvasiliu 4y ago
  Anecdotally, this is something I notice in Europe, too.
  - tlarkworthy 4y ago
    I moved to Germany and find they are quite outspoken with enforcing community norms
  - berkes 4y ago
    There is far more division, in Europe too, certainly. But most European countries have far more plurality in their party systems. Main exception being Britain, with a two party system, but they don't even want to be European. So in Europe there's certainly a strong left and right. Just also a lot in-between. Not black-white, binary, but a spectrum of colors, analogue.
rowtheway 4y ago
In America, you don’t need to reach for philosophy to explain the destruction of high-trust communities when history will do: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2056992.Left_Behind_In_Rosedale https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2056992.Left_Behind_In_R... Summary of the book by a far-right nutjob: https://twitter.com/GodCloseMyEyes/status/1414619671056297984 https://twitter.com/GodCloseMyEyes/status/141461967105629798... Community culture still exists in some places. Those places generally aren’t trying to solve massively complex racial or mass-migration conflicts at the same time as healthcare, housing, education and so on. Voters and leaders have limited time and attention. Fewer problems to solve means more resources available per problem.
gfxgirl 4y ago
Your painting the right as "no taxes" I think they'd paint as "quit wasting money". As an example, SF has the highest tax revenue per capita in the USA https://www.usnews.com/news/cities/slideshows/us-cities-with-the-biggest-general-revenues-per-capita?slide=11 https://www.usnews.com/news/cities/slideshows/us-cities-with... So why is it so dysfunctional? My guess is the right would say because so much is wasted on the wrong things. Note: I'm not saying the right is correct. I'm only suggesting a different interpretation of their POV.
- John23832 4y ago
  Everyone thinks that something they don't want to pay for is a "waste of money". When that something that you want to quit spending money on can be characterized as "other people who I don't identify with", you get the right. SF is a mess because of liberal mismanagement (I say that as someone who identifies as left). Spending money at massive scale without asking the people you're spending money on to fix something in society (whether it's their own actions, or something that they are responsible for). SF went from a 80B surplus to a 15B deficit... and what get it gain from that? How is the city better... It's not.
  - annyeonghada 4y ago
    >When that something that you want to quit spending money on can be characterized as "other people who I don't identify with" Everyone wants to spend money on something or someone they identify with. It's not like the left has showed any leniency against those it deems unworthy.
    - cyberge99 4y ago
      Sure they have. They believe in social safety nets for all (livable wages to reduce crime, for example). They also tend to be more socially inclusive (I rarely see a racist gay person for example).
      - John23832 4y ago
hiddencost 4y ago
Meh. That's a straw man based on ignorance. The left puts effort into responsibility and care for community. Why do you think the right advocates for dismantling social services and the left champions them?
- nailer 4y ago
  The left champions not working, rather than social care. In the UK it’s common to hear ‘I’m on benefits’ as an excuse in itself, rather than ‘I am disabled’ or ‘I am elderly’ or some other legitimate reason for receiving money.
  - andrelaszlo 4y ago
    I wonder what you hear then. To me it sounds like "I'm out of options". It makes me think of this aid program that gave people in really poor countries money instead of food. With money they could of course buy food, but also save to improve their life in general, for example by improving their housing, buying a goat, sending their children to school, etc. Previously, they were just dependent on the food, medicines, and whatever was provided by the system and the situation rarely changed for the better. I think it's similar, at least where I live. With a better support system, people seem to be less likely to get dependent on it. Seems like a good thing to do in the long run, even if you just think about it economically. Unless, perhaps, you need a class of people that are in a sort of benefits bondage. I don't really want to think that this is by design though.
    - nailer 4y ago
      My expectation is that healthy adults should work.
- rowtheway 4y ago
  Broadly speaking, the community-oriented left in places like the US support bureaucratic government welfare programs, while community-oriented conservatives support more organic, often religious, and non-government charitable organizations. My preference runs toward the latter, for reasons best explained by John Carmack: https://archive.ph/0tHg4 https://archive.ph/0tHg4
coding123 4y ago
I am not religious but I do see the general fall of religion as a huge part in this. I've warned people that an individuals moral compass is not a strong as the influence a communities moral compass has on the individual. Currently we are set to just keep legalizing everything because it's good for somebody.

largepeepee 4y ago

I'll add that the decline of community culture was in part due to the greed of the current leaders, like Google and Facebook. Think the dislike button or the normalization of exploiting any data that was previously made to reduce storage pressures. In fact many features like search seem to be performing worse now than a decade ago, because they want to extend user time for ads. They kill an organic culture that had its own safety checks for slightly more money, and in turn make the internet more dangerous as the vacuum is filled by predators who happily fork pennies to Google to hunt new prey.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago

This neglects that many scams were perpetuated on these tight communities because it was easy to exploit that existing trust system. This is especially true when the scam was being done by the leadership because then the community had to follow based on authority. See every cult that ever existed. In fact I think that these communities are in fact the REASON more scams seem to exist today because with the internet all types of communities are possible because you can connect with like-minded people from all over to form one, rather than having to rely on those in your specific geographic area. These communities form trust relationships which are then exploited by scammers (either internally or externally). Crypto bros are a great example.

mdp2021 4y ago
Though I was not speaking of «/tight/ communities», but of a social method that remained the standard also among strangers (it would be indifferent if the corrigendum is familiar or not - he would receive a lesson of similar tones). And in such environment, under the "you shall behave - you will behave rule", scams are not tolerated by society and are eliminated as soon as they show up through the force of radical opposition that meets the active intention of Enforcement. On the contrary, in the "anarco-decadent" society, the enforcement itself will be hindered and burdened ("I wish I could", "What can you do about it", etc).
- Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
  > scams are not tolerated by society and are eliminated as soon as they show up This is already the case currently. Once scams are identified as such, then they are eliminated. But the problem of course is that scams start off as seeming legitimate. That's the definition of scam, something that appeared legitimate but wasn't. Even in "anarco-decadent" societies, scams would not flourish once they are revealed as scams because, why would anyone participate in something with a 100% chance of them losing all their money? The scammers may not face punishment from an overseeing authority like the state, but may very well by individual victims of the scam. Either way, scams can't continue as known scams in any arrangement of society. edit An exception to this is a fully corrupted authoritarian society. In this special case there could be 'approved scams' by some officials or people in power that everyone knows to be a scam, but they have to go along with over fear of violent reprisal.