4 ms·

No need to strawman. I think jiggywiggy is just pointing at the mental health issues demonstrably linked to atomization and loss of community in the modern worl

by YellOh 3y ago

No need to strawman. I think jiggywiggy is just pointing at the mental health issues demonstrably linked to atomization and loss of community in the modern world. As a starting point, consider the growing share of people who describe themselves as having zero friends, and the links between loneliness and mental health issues. Some issues are caused by interpersonal conflict / abuse, but we're delicate social creatures and a lack of family & friends can also be extremely damaging. I doubt people are going to therapy because of how their lover eats breakfast (except maybe extreme misophonia), but there are plenty of people justifiably upset about their complete lack of emotionally intimate relationships with other people. And, as mentioned above, many issues can be alleviated by support from friends and family. At least ideally, if your spouse hits you, you should be able to ask your family or community for support. People lacking those outside relationships only exacerbates mental health issues caused in other relationships.

watwut 3y ago
He is not strawmanning. He is pointing out to issue with argument. > At least ideally, if your spouse hits you, you should be able to ask your family or community for support. First, family and community usually do not know what to do in case of abuse. They are clueless. Second, this is not how this issue was dealt with in the past. If you are in violent relationships, your chances are now massively better then in the past. In the past, you had no real support and you was pressured to give aggressor yet another chance again and again. You was told to be more obeissant and you was blamed for the way abuse harmed you. There are even less marital murders now, that is how much better it is. Violence against wife was frequently normalized and male victims were seen as not men enough. What community all too often did was to support the abuser ... because abuser is stronger and more likely to retaliate. Plus victims were economically dependent (effectively by law) and supporting them would mean you need to financially help them too. Better for everyone to force victim back to abuser.
- YellOh 3y ago
  Yes, current anti-abuse law seems more likely to be able to physically intervene even when the abuser is popular and/or powerful. I do not think we should return to the past. However, after a negative event in a relationship (abuse, or your spouse dying, or your child getting sick), people in general were more likely to have more friends and a stronger communal relationship that resulted in mutual aid (emotional and/or material). This isn't gone today, just greatly diminished. As a prototypical example, think of small-town communities centered around a church, where members are able to reliably get both meaningful connection with others (social/emotional needs) and trust each other to help with things like childcare or a church group to go repair someone's house. It's not that community is completely nonexistent in the modern world, or that we should give up the benefits of modern life to try to recapture it. Just that the average person in the recent past was more likely to have useful & meaningful connections with others that they could depend on in hardship than does (for example) the prototypical modern professional in an atomized big city.
  - watwut 3y ago
    I think that abuse is particularly bad example, because nowadays you have way more commute support for that too. You have less childcare support and stuff like that. > However, after a negative event in a relationship (abuse, or your spouse dying, or your child getting sick), people in general were more likely to have more friends and a stronger communal relationship that resulted in mutual aid (emotional and/or material). This isn't gone today, just greatly diminished I would really need to see citatio for that. Because by all I know about past attitudes, pretty much the opposite happened. A lot of abuse was normalized. You even see that in memoirs - pre was memoirs frequently mentioned violent partners and the only respite was his death. The attitudes now are much different. Even today, in remote Amish or Mormon communities, victim gets blamed, told to be submissive a and that is that. I mean, I literally heard sermon from conservative priest about how men should hit table with fist and if he hits woman she should cook better soup to chill him out.

by YellOh 3y ago

watwut 3y ago

He is not strawmanning. He is pointing out to issue with argument. > At least ideally, if your spouse hits you, you should be able to ask your family or community for support. First, family and community usually do not know what to do in case of abuse. They are clueless. Second, this is not how this issue was dealt with in the past. If you are in violent relationships, your chances are now massively better then in the past. In the past, you had no real support and you was pressured to give aggressor yet another chance again and again. You was told to be more obeissant and you was blamed for the way abuse harmed you. There are even less marital murders now, that is how much better it is. Violence against wife was frequently normalized and male victims were seen as not men enough. What community all too often did was to support the abuser ... because abuser is stronger and more likely to retaliate. Plus victims were economically dependent (effectively by law) and supporting them would mean you need to financially help them too. Better for everyone to force victim back to abuser.

YellOh 3y ago
Yes, current anti-abuse law seems more likely to be able to physically intervene even when the abuser is popular and/or powerful. I do not think we should return to the past. However, after a negative event in a relationship (abuse, or your spouse dying, or your child getting sick), people in general were more likely to have more friends and a stronger communal relationship that resulted in mutual aid (emotional and/or material). This isn't gone today, just greatly diminished. As a prototypical example, think of small-town communities centered around a church, where members are able to reliably get both meaningful connection with others (social/emotional needs) and trust each other to help with things like childcare or a church group to go repair someone's house. It's not that community is completely nonexistent in the modern world, or that we should give up the benefits of modern life to try to recapture it. Just that the average person in the recent past was more likely to have useful & meaningful connections with others that they could depend on in hardship than does (for example) the prototypical modern professional in an atomized big city.
- watwut 3y ago
  I think that abuse is particularly bad example, because nowadays you have way more commute support for that too. You have less childcare support and stuff like that. > However, after a negative event in a relationship (abuse, or your spouse dying, or your child getting sick), people in general were more likely to have more friends and a stronger communal relationship that resulted in mutual aid (emotional and/or material). This isn't gone today, just greatly diminished I would really need to see citatio for that. Because by all I know about past attitudes, pretty much the opposite happened. A lot of abuse was normalized. You even see that in memoirs - pre was memoirs frequently mentioned violent partners and the only respite was his death. The attitudes now are much different. Even today, in remote Amish or Mormon communities, victim gets blamed, told to be submissive a and that is that. I mean, I literally heard sermon from conservative priest about how men should hit table with fist and if he hits woman she should cook better soup to chill him out.