4 ms·

> see what the negative externalities are of a system that assumes the driving force between human interactions to be economic (one of which is the commodificat

> see what the negative externalities are of a system that assumes the driving force between human interactions to be economic (one of which is the commodification of everything including relationships) Absolutely agreed. We've gone from a community-based culture where you took care of your neighbors because it's the right thing to do to "rugged individualism" where things like healthcare are "privileges" you have to _earn_ through labor. I think we need to stop making the assumption that all the systems we have today are the best and take a long hard look at what upholds society, piece by piece.

Dalewyn 4y ago
Being a good neighbor is a fundamental part of being a man of good character and maintaining a working society. Taking care of a neighbor is none of my business because other peoples' lives are none of my business. Being a good neighbor and taking care of a neighbor are two very different things.
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  What we're saying is that they aren't, though.
  - Dalewyn 4y ago
    Let me put it this way then: Individualism and a community are not mutually exclusive.
    - giraffe_lady 4y ago
      When taking care of a neighbor is none of your business, what you have with them is not community.
      - notch898a 4y ago
        What you have with them is not the community you envision.
        anonymouskimmer 4y ago
        Arguments over definitions don't add to the conversation.
        notch898a 4y ago
        Yes that would be preposterous. What adds to the conversation is to snipe arguably at least 2nd if not 3+rd comment regarding the use of the word, then simply say the comment doesn't add to the conversation and nothing more. I truly appreciate this non-hypocritical value add.
        anonymouskimmer 4y ago
        The previous commenters are disagreeing over whether "community" (in the locale sense) is distinct from "neighborhood". Not (from what I see) the extent to which "unified body" or "common interests" are present when the individuals of such a body do not see to the interests of members of the body. The fundamental argument between jackson1442, Dalewyn, and giraffe_lady is this argument as to whether a "good neighbor" can exist if a community does not exist. Dalewyn is saying "yes", jackson1442 and giraffe_lady are saying "no". You're stating that "community" encompasses both. And by stating that you're effectively ignoring the definition of the term that giraffe_lady and jackson1442 are using. If ignoring this distinction was not your intent, then your original comment needed to be more verbose.
        notch898a 4y ago
        giraffe used the pattern of "X is not A" I used the same pattern to further weaken it to "X is not A of type B" (which, logically, must be true if giraffe's statement is true). They've said it's not 'A.' My statement was COMPATIBLE in fact with their original statement being true, it just leaves open the door that it may not be. It's certainly possible something could be both not a community and not the community they envision, and in fact if it weren't a community it couldn't possibly be the one they envision. Nothing I said necessarily conflicts with their definition. Given that the comment I responded to and my comment used very similar patterns with mine only weakening the 'not' possibilities I'm really struggling to understand why my comment suddenly crossed the line to you. It didn't even assert the previous comment or definition was incorrect.
- green_man_lives 4y ago
  > Taking care of a neighbor is none of my business because other peoples' lives are none of my business. For a lot of human history this was simply not the case. I am not saying that this level of social cohesion is better or worse for mental health, but you can't use your own cultural viewpoints to debunk the previous commenter's claim. You have this view because you have been conditioned to have it in our current society.

Dalewyn 4y ago

Being a good neighbor is a fundamental part of being a man of good character and maintaining a working society. Taking care of a neighbor is none of my business because other peoples' lives are none of my business. Being a good neighbor and taking care of a neighbor are two very different things.

giraffe_lady 4y ago
What we're saying is that they aren't, though.
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  Let me put it this way then: Individualism and a community are not mutually exclusive.
  - giraffe_lady 4y ago
    When taking care of a neighbor is none of your business, what you have with them is not community.
    - notch898a 4y ago
      What you have with them is not the community you envision.
      - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
        Arguments over definitions don't add to the conversation.
        notch898a 4y ago
        Yes that would be preposterous. What adds to the conversation is to snipe arguably at least 2nd if not 3+rd comment regarding the use of the word, then simply say the comment doesn't add to the conversation and nothing more. I truly appreciate this non-hypocritical value add.
        anonymouskimmer 4y ago
        The previous commenters are disagreeing over whether "community" (in the locale sense) is distinct from "neighborhood". Not (from what I see) the extent to which "unified body" or "common interests" are present when the individuals of such a body do not see to the interests of members of the body. The fundamental argument between jackson1442, Dalewyn, and giraffe_lady is this argument as to whether a "good neighbor" can exist if a community does not exist. Dalewyn is saying "yes", jackson1442 and giraffe_lady are saying "no". You're stating that "community" encompasses both. And by stating that you're effectively ignoring the definition of the term that giraffe_lady and jackson1442 are using. If ignoring this distinction was not your intent, then your original comment needed to be more verbose.
        notch898a 4y ago
        giraffe used the pattern of "X is not A" I used the same pattern to further weaken it to "X is not A of type B" (which, logically, must be true if giraffe's statement is true). They've said it's not 'A.' My statement was COMPATIBLE in fact with their original statement being true, it just leaves open the door that it may not be. It's certainly possible something could be both not a community and not the community they envision, and in fact if it weren't a community it couldn't possibly be the one they envision. Nothing I said necessarily conflicts with their definition. Given that the comment I responded to and my comment used very similar patterns with mine only weakening the 'not' possibilities I'm really struggling to understand why my comment suddenly crossed the line to you. It didn't even assert the previous comment or definition was incorrect.
green_man_lives 4y ago
> Taking care of a neighbor is none of my business because other peoples' lives are none of my business. For a lot of human history this was simply not the case. I am not saying that this level of social cohesion is better or worse for mental health, but you can't use your own cultural viewpoints to debunk the previous commenter's claim. You have this view because you have been conditioned to have it in our current society.