8 ms·

If there’s a majority who support this then they should just self-regulate and go on their merry way. This is always about imposing one’s beliefs on others. “

If there’s a majority who support this then they should just self-regulate and go on their merry way. This is always about imposing one’s beliefs on others. “Social harmony” is intentionally vague. Everyone will imagine their own meaning of that and be inclined to think, “yeah that’s something I’m on board with.”

rayiner 3y ago
That’s just libertarianism applied to social issues, and has the same problems as libertarianism as applied to economic issues. People need social support to help them understand what decisions are good, and make good decisions. How many overweight and obese doctors and nurses are there? They’re only slightly healthier than the general population: https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/healthcare/why-don-t-doctors-and-nurses-have-more-healthy-lifestyles https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/healthcare/why-don-t-doctor.... Smart, educated Americans can’t force themselves to limit their eating. But in say east Asia, extensive social shaming over weight helps people stay slim. Humans didn’t evolve to be libertarian sovereign individuals. They’re members of communities and their welfare can be increased by allowing community reinforcement of good behaviors and decisions.
- Waterluvian 3y ago
  I dunno… I apply this sentiment to Christian Republicanism and it concerns me greatly. They also have a lot to say about what disrupts social harmony. And of course, it’s what they’ve decided “social harmony” means to them.
  - rayiner 3y ago
    What you’re calling “Christian republicanism” is just how the entire US was until the liberal social revolution of the mid-20th century.
    - Waterluvian 3y ago
      It’s true. And there will always be resistance to sociocultural evolution and those who want to freeze the status quo.
      - rayiner 3y ago
        From an “evolutionary” standpoint mid-20th century western liberalism seems to be a dead end, as its adherents are literally dying off and being replaced by people from more robust cultures.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - dukeofdoom 3y ago
    > it’s what they’ve decided “social harmony” means to them". I think both sides, the secular humanists and the religious are prone to make stuff up, as it suits their needs. I was watching the Matt Dillahunty Vs Andrew debate. And Andrew gives a very rational counter to the current secular world view. https://youtu.be/S8U34ezKvrU?t=864 https://youtu.be/S8U34ezKvrU?t=864
- viraptor 3y ago
  > But in say east Asia, extensive social shaming over weight helps people stay slim. Does it help people stay slim with fewer overall negative effects then if people didn't stay slim? Eating disorders and mental health do come into the equation. There's many ways to keep people slim that doesn't result in a healthier society.
  - kelipso 3y ago
    Being fat is in itself an eating disorder.
- spookie 3y ago
  You're generalising that small sample too much. Even their findings suggest healthcare professionals exercise more, and smoke less. As for "living in a community", I would trust more the kindness and humanity in general, than the same of a select group. By this I mean, alignment of good behaviour comes naturally from one's experience. And I guess I agree with you to an extent. But, I take the general sentiment of your post as advertising collectivism. Which, from personal experience, has a tendency to be non-inclusive. The worst of it comes in subtle ways. Causing considerable harm to anyone that steers just a little bit from the norm. But, that in no way is a harm to others.
  - rayiner 3y ago
    > But, I take the general sentiment of your post as advertising collectivism. Which, from personal experience, has a tendency to be non-inclusive. The worst of it comes in subtle ways. Causing considerable harm to anyone that steers just a little bit from the norm. Yes, I do think western society has become too individualist, to its detriment. I also agree that collectivist societies can be non-inclusive. But the flip side of that is that it can be better for the people in the middle 80%. I think your average person, especially your average young person, needs more social guidance than contemporary, highly individualist western society is willing to provide. It also makes it difficult to achieve anything that requires solidarity and social coordination.
- collaborative 3y ago
  I will join you in being downvoted. Social shaming is necessary. We need to hold each other accountable or future generations wont stand a chance Also, shame is a language everyone understands. All ages
  - Waterluvian 3y ago
    You can certainly try to shame people into adopting your rigid ideology, religion, and culture. People have tried time and time again. That doesn’t make it right.
    - collaborative 3y ago
      Nuh, dont want to use shame for that. Only for things like stopping 5 year olds from showing their private parts in class. Cant even do that anymore
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
  > People need social support to help them understand what decisions are good, and make good decisions. you mean to make the decisions you consider good.

rayiner 3y ago

That’s just libertarianism applied to social issues, and has the same problems as libertarianism as applied to economic issues. People need social support to help them understand what decisions are good, and make good decisions. How many overweight and obese doctors and nurses are there? They’re only slightly healthier than the general population: https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/healthcare/why-don-t-doctors-and-nurses-have-more-healthy-lifestyles https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/healthcare/why-don-t-doctor.... Smart, educated Americans can’t force themselves to limit their eating. But in say east Asia, extensive social shaming over weight helps people stay slim. Humans didn’t evolve to be libertarian sovereign individuals. They’re members of communities and their welfare can be increased by allowing community reinforcement of good behaviors and decisions.

Waterluvian 3y ago
I dunno… I apply this sentiment to Christian Republicanism and it concerns me greatly. They also have a lot to say about what disrupts social harmony. And of course, it’s what they’ve decided “social harmony” means to them.
- rayiner 3y ago
  What you’re calling “Christian republicanism” is just how the entire US was until the liberal social revolution of the mid-20th century.
  - Waterluvian 3y ago
    It’s true. And there will always be resistance to sociocultural evolution and those who want to freeze the status quo.
    - rayiner 3y ago
      From an “evolutionary” standpoint mid-20th century western liberalism seems to be a dead end, as its adherents are literally dying off and being replaced by people from more robust cultures.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- dukeofdoom 3y ago
  > it’s what they’ve decided “social harmony” means to them". I think both sides, the secular humanists and the religious are prone to make stuff up, as it suits their needs. I was watching the Matt Dillahunty Vs Andrew debate. And Andrew gives a very rational counter to the current secular world view. https://youtu.be/S8U34ezKvrU?t=864 https://youtu.be/S8U34ezKvrU?t=864
viraptor 3y ago
> But in say east Asia, extensive social shaming over weight helps people stay slim. Does it help people stay slim with fewer overall negative effects then if people didn't stay slim? Eating disorders and mental health do come into the equation. There's many ways to keep people slim that doesn't result in a healthier society.
- kelipso 3y ago
  Being fat is in itself an eating disorder.
spookie 3y ago
You're generalising that small sample too much. Even their findings suggest healthcare professionals exercise more, and smoke less. As for "living in a community", I would trust more the kindness and humanity in general, than the same of a select group. By this I mean, alignment of good behaviour comes naturally from one's experience. And I guess I agree with you to an extent. But, I take the general sentiment of your post as advertising collectivism. Which, from personal experience, has a tendency to be non-inclusive. The worst of it comes in subtle ways. Causing considerable harm to anyone that steers just a little bit from the norm. But, that in no way is a harm to others.
- rayiner 3y ago
  > But, I take the general sentiment of your post as advertising collectivism. Which, from personal experience, has a tendency to be non-inclusive. The worst of it comes in subtle ways. Causing considerable harm to anyone that steers just a little bit from the norm. Yes, I do think western society has become too individualist, to its detriment. I also agree that collectivist societies can be non-inclusive. But the flip side of that is that it can be better for the people in the middle 80%. I think your average person, especially your average young person, needs more social guidance than contemporary, highly individualist western society is willing to provide. It also makes it difficult to achieve anything that requires solidarity and social coordination.
collaborative 3y ago
I will join you in being downvoted. Social shaming is necessary. We need to hold each other accountable or future generations wont stand a chance Also, shame is a language everyone understands. All ages
- Waterluvian 3y ago
  You can certainly try to shame people into adopting your rigid ideology, religion, and culture. People have tried time and time again. That doesn’t make it right.
  - collaborative 3y ago
    Nuh, dont want to use shame for that. Only for things like stopping 5 year olds from showing their private parts in class. Cant even do that anymore
PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
> People need social support to help them understand what decisions are good, and make good decisions. you mean to make the decisions you consider good.