4 ms·

> We are not individuals, but persons who are born into society, into social relations, molded by them, made in their image. I think this is a fundamental diff

> We are not individuals, but persons who are born into society, into social relations, molded by them, made in their image. I think this is a fundamental difference between the East and the West. It’s also why in situations like the pandemic, the East can band together with less friction whereas places like the US fall apart completely. There are few reasons for westerners to rally toward a cause in unison - the last time it happened was during the civil rights movement. Hard to imagine people coming together like that today.

mikewarot 2y ago
I hear what you're saying. That individualism in the west makes us far less likely to engage in activities that are beneficial to all of society at some cost to ourselves. It can seem like that's true based on the view that those in authority in the United States and elsewhere had correct information, and disseminated it as soon as they could. However, the authorities in the US and in other countries did NOT properly use their authority, and acted in a manner that betrayed that trust. We in the West are far less trusting of authority, and this was reinforced by their failures during that public health emergency. Trusting completely in Authority was the main thing we fought against in WWII. "Just following orders" isn't a valid excuse for war crimes. On the smaller scale, we midwesterners, at least, band together to help each other out during the Winters when things get snowed in, and to recover from other urgent situations, it's deep in our DNA.
- unclebucknasty 2y ago
  The individualism of the West is largely a myth, excepting perhaps early pioneer days. The West's social organization is just tribal vs national. For instance, all of U.S. politics fits neatly into just two political parties. And, ironically, the idea of individualism itself is a prominent membership hook for one of the two binary tribes.
  - paulryanrogers 2y ago
    Agree with a few caveats. In suburbia some folks prefer to go buy a tool, extra vehicle(s), or call family far away than knock on the doors of a few neighbors. Of course even that is mostly an illusion since suburbia is subsidized by food from rural communities and income from rich clusters. It's also kind of unhealthy to live such atomized lives, at least for many people. Alone time is important to me, yet I've come around to appreciating friendly community of all kinds.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
    > For instance, all of U.S. politics fits neatly into just two political parties. Except ... it doesn't. There are American Marxists. There are anarcho-capitalist libertarians. There are ethno-Christian nationalists. And more ... If it appears to "fit" into two political parties, that has more to do with what aspects of American politics appears in whatever media you see, which in turn reflects both the formal powers of those two parties, and their informal power (e.g. the Overton window).
    - unclebucknasty 2y ago
      >Except ... it doesn't. I take your point, but "all" in my comment wasn't intended to be taken literally. In fact, your list could've actually been much longer, but the point is that all of these parties must find a way to express their preferences through one of the two predominant parties—or not at all. >If it appears to "fit" into two political parties, that has more to do with what aspects of American politics appears in whatever media you see, which in turn reflects both the formal powers of those two parties In practice, it actually does fit into two political parties, by definition and for exactly the reason you mentioned: they are the only two parties with the formal power to compel the media to express their will. How did that come about in a nation that supposedly embraces individualism? I didn't intend to say that there are no individualistic beliefs in the U.S. I'm saying the idea that individualism is a dominant or defining characteristic of the U.S. in any practical sense is largely a myth. The overwhelming majority of Americans are happy to fit themselves into one of two political parties. That includes the party that fancies itself one of "rugged individuals", while its members adopt a laundry list of exactly the same beliefs.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
        > The overwhelming majority of Americans are happy to fit themselves into one of two political parties. I don't know about overwhelming. Typical voter turnout for US presidential elections over the last few decades has been right around 50% (it ticked up notably in 2020). Many people who do not vote report disillusionment with both major parties as a significant reason for their choice.
  - mikewarot 2y ago
    > all of U.S. politics fits neatly into just two political parties. There are Anarchists, Communists, Marxists, wtf Antifa is (actually quite Fascistic in their anti-Fascist stance), neoNazis, the Trump faction, normies, leftists, progressivesm (the last 3 definitely kept out of the DNC), actual conservatives, the Religious Fundamentalists(of all religions), then the DNC and RNC duopoly, which is an influence pedaling racket that claims to represent the majority of US citizens, as a fig leaf of legitimacy.
    - krapp 2y ago
      The anarchists, communist and marxists don't count. They have absolutely no political relevance or power outside of social media. They're a no-op. Leftists and progressives, when they vote, tend to vote Democrat, and never vote Republican. Except for that one time when they really wanted Bernie but we don't talk about that. Antifa's politics would have put them solidly hard left, but like all black activist movements they were commoditized by white liberals, infiltrated by the CIA and rendered impotent and useless. They would either opt out or vote Democrat, simply because that's what black voters and leftists tend to do. neonazis, trumpists, and religious fundamentalists, when they vote, tend to vote Republican, and never Democrat. Those groups basically form the modern Republican base at the moment. >the DNC and RNC duopoly, which is an influence pedaling racket that claims to represent the majority of US citizens, as a fig leaf of legitimacy. They do represent the majority of US citizens. Most US citizens aren't extreme enough not to have their views representable by the mainstream.
      - unclebucknasty 2y ago
        First I'm hearing of Antifa originally being a "black activist movement". Citation?
        krapp 2y ago
        My citation is that I'm stupid and got them confused with BLM. That said (and I'll take my lumps for it,) Antifa basically came up as an anti-Trumpist reactionary movement, so still leftist. Probably all wanted Bernie.
- PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
  "Banding together" with neighbors, while conceptually related to forming government and taking cohesive social action together, is not really the same thing. One of the primary arcs in human history has been to recognize the presence of "in-group" and "out-group" others, and, over the long haul increase the number of people considered to be in-group and decrease the size of the out-group. Doing stuff with people clearly recognizable as part of your in-group is excellent and to be encouraged, but the hard work of making government work is related to figuring out how to function with your out-group(s) too.
unclebucknasty 2y ago
>There are few reasons for westerners to rally toward a cause in unison Disagree. It's just as advantageous for the West to rally together as it is for the East. But, there are those who are purposely dividing us for their own gain.
glitchc 2y ago
Except the West was able to develop a cure (multiple actually) whereas the East struggled. Sure we had some issues roling the vaccines out initially, but we resolved those pretty quickly. Not only that, we resolved supply shortages to the point where we could guarantee that everyone received multiple doses. In the end, the West had far fewer mortalities compared to the East, so I'll take the West's way of doing things any day of the week.
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  > Except the West was able to develop a cure (multiple actually) whereas the East struggled. No, we weren't. The vaccines aren't cures, they are prophylactics that mitigate the severity of symptoms. (Also, several were developed in the East.)
  - glitchc 2y ago
    There's some strong delusion equating a vaccine to a prophylactic. Going from high mortality to a minor cold is a huge win for any drug, vaccine or otherwise. Additionally that's how vaccines work. You still get sick but the illness is minor. They're not a force field. > (Also, several were developed in the East.) Oh? Do tell about their efficacy.
    - dragonwriter 2y ago
      A prophylactic is an advance intervention that prevents or mitigates the severity of disease. Vaccines in general, and all COVID vaccines, are prophylactics. Vaccines could be cures as well, but COVID vaccines are not. Sufficient distribution of prophylactics for infectious disease can achieve eradication which, while distinct from a cure, is as good or better, but COVID vaccines haven't done that.
      - glitchc 2y ago
        You seem to be confusing treatments with vaccines by lumping them under the same broad definition. A vaccine must be taken prior to contracting the disease, and will not work if taken after. This is exactly how COVID vaccines behave, therefore they are vaccines. Now whether a vaccine is effective or not is a separate, almost orthogonal, dimension for consideration. No single vaccine is 100% effective, so we will always have certain % of cases where vaccines did not prevent the spread of infection and resulting adverse outcomes.
BrandoElFollito 2y ago
Current electrons in France are an example. People who hate reach other work together to account a majority of the extreme right. This will stay in place for one more day, staying from Monday we will have the usual political mess.
lo_zamoyski 2y ago
We have to be careful here. Individualism is not the same thing as respect for person. Individualism is a recent development in the West, specifically a tenet of liberalism in the tradition of Hobbes, Locke, and Mill. The liberal tradition cannot be understood completely except as a Christian heresy as it takes a properly Christian anthropology and distorts it by, in this case, exaggeration. So, in this case, while Christianity elevates the human person by recognizing his dignity as a rational and free agent, liberalism atomizes persons in a manner that effectively destroys or distorts their social nature, and in doing so, diminishes their humanity (Aristotle once famously said that a man who does not need society is either a beast or a god; I have my opinion about which tends to characterize our relationships today, and which tends to characterize our opinions of ourselves.) Now, the East does not have this Christian respect for persons. Indeed, it tends toward the opposite error of subordinating the person to society and instrumentalizing persons and making them expendable for the "greater good". We see something like this in the old pagan societies in the West as well (though, as we often see, this "greater good" is a tyranny). In the traditional, pre-liberal Christian vision, still taught by the Catholic Church, there is a simultaneous recognition and respect for persons, and a recognition of Man's social nature and the common good which precedes him and toward which he has a moral duty. We are born into societies (the family is the first and most important society from which the entire tapestry of mankind is woven). And it is the common good: it isn't the "greater good" of society that permits the sacrifice of others, but a good held in common, and also by which many goods are had, including things like private property, which follows from the common good (liberalism has it exactly backwards, because it conceives private property as prior and proper to the individual first, and the common good as something grudgingly ceded by individuals for common benefit).

mikewarot 2y ago

I hear what you're saying. That individualism in the west makes us far less likely to engage in activities that are beneficial to all of society at some cost to ourselves. It can seem like that's true based on the view that those in authority in the United States and elsewhere had correct information, and disseminated it as soon as they could. However, the authorities in the US and in other countries did NOT properly use their authority, and acted in a manner that betrayed that trust. We in the West are far less trusting of authority, and this was reinforced by their failures during that public health emergency. Trusting completely in Authority was the main thing we fought against in WWII. "Just following orders" isn't a valid excuse for war crimes. On the smaller scale, we midwesterners, at least, band together to help each other out during the Winters when things get snowed in, and to recover from other urgent situations, it's deep in our DNA.

unclebucknasty 2y ago
The individualism of the West is largely a myth, excepting perhaps early pioneer days. The West's social organization is just tribal vs national. For instance, all of U.S. politics fits neatly into just two political parties. And, ironically, the idea of individualism itself is a prominent membership hook for one of the two binary tribes.
- paulryanrogers 2y ago
  Agree with a few caveats. In suburbia some folks prefer to go buy a tool, extra vehicle(s), or call family far away than knock on the doors of a few neighbors. Of course even that is mostly an illusion since suburbia is subsidized by food from rural communities and income from rich clusters. It's also kind of unhealthy to live such atomized lives, at least for many people. Alone time is important to me, yet I've come around to appreciating friendly community of all kinds.
- PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
  > For instance, all of U.S. politics fits neatly into just two political parties. Except ... it doesn't. There are American Marxists. There are anarcho-capitalist libertarians. There are ethno-Christian nationalists. And more ... If it appears to "fit" into two political parties, that has more to do with what aspects of American politics appears in whatever media you see, which in turn reflects both the formal powers of those two parties, and their informal power (e.g. the Overton window).
  - unclebucknasty 2y ago
    >Except ... it doesn't. I take your point, but "all" in my comment wasn't intended to be taken literally. In fact, your list could've actually been much longer, but the point is that all of these parties must find a way to express their preferences through one of the two predominant parties—or not at all. >If it appears to "fit" into two political parties, that has more to do with what aspects of American politics appears in whatever media you see, which in turn reflects both the formal powers of those two parties In practice, it actually does fit into two political parties, by definition and for exactly the reason you mentioned: they are the only two parties with the formal power to compel the media to express their will. How did that come about in a nation that supposedly embraces individualism? I didn't intend to say that there are no individualistic beliefs in the U.S. I'm saying the idea that individualism is a dominant or defining characteristic of the U.S. in any practical sense is largely a myth. The overwhelming majority of Americans are happy to fit themselves into one of two political parties. That includes the party that fancies itself one of "rugged individuals", while its members adopt a laundry list of exactly the same beliefs.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
      > The overwhelming majority of Americans are happy to fit themselves into one of two political parties. I don't know about overwhelming. Typical voter turnout for US presidential elections over the last few decades has been right around 50% (it ticked up notably in 2020). Many people who do not vote report disillusionment with both major parties as a significant reason for their choice.
- mikewarot 2y ago
  > all of U.S. politics fits neatly into just two political parties. There are Anarchists, Communists, Marxists, wtf Antifa is (actually quite Fascistic in their anti-Fascist stance), neoNazis, the Trump faction, normies, leftists, progressivesm (the last 3 definitely kept out of the DNC), actual conservatives, the Religious Fundamentalists(of all religions), then the DNC and RNC duopoly, which is an influence pedaling racket that claims to represent the majority of US citizens, as a fig leaf of legitimacy.
  - krapp 2y ago
    The anarchists, communist and marxists don't count. They have absolutely no political relevance or power outside of social media. They're a no-op. Leftists and progressives, when they vote, tend to vote Democrat, and never vote Republican. Except for that one time when they really wanted Bernie but we don't talk about that. Antifa's politics would have put them solidly hard left, but like all black activist movements they were commoditized by white liberals, infiltrated by the CIA and rendered impotent and useless. They would either opt out or vote Democrat, simply because that's what black voters and leftists tend to do. neonazis, trumpists, and religious fundamentalists, when they vote, tend to vote Republican, and never Democrat. Those groups basically form the modern Republican base at the moment. >the DNC and RNC duopoly, which is an influence pedaling racket that claims to represent the majority of US citizens, as a fig leaf of legitimacy. They do represent the majority of US citizens. Most US citizens aren't extreme enough not to have their views representable by the mainstream.
    - unclebucknasty 2y ago
      First I'm hearing of Antifa originally being a "black activist movement". Citation?
      - krapp 2y ago
        My citation is that I'm stupid and got them confused with BLM. That said (and I'll take my lumps for it,) Antifa basically came up as an anti-Trumpist reactionary movement, so still leftist. Probably all wanted Bernie.
PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
"Banding together" with neighbors, while conceptually related to forming government and taking cohesive social action together, is not really the same thing. One of the primary arcs in human history has been to recognize the presence of "in-group" and "out-group" others, and, over the long haul increase the number of people considered to be in-group and decrease the size of the out-group. Doing stuff with people clearly recognizable as part of your in-group is excellent and to be encouraged, but the hard work of making government work is related to figuring out how to function with your out-group(s) too.

unclebucknasty 2y ago

>There are few reasons for westerners to rally toward a cause in unison Disagree. It's just as advantageous for the West to rally together as it is for the East. But, there are those who are purposely dividing us for their own gain.

glitchc 2y ago

Except the West was able to develop a cure (multiple actually) whereas the East struggled. Sure we had some issues roling the vaccines out initially, but we resolved those pretty quickly. Not only that, we resolved supply shortages to the point where we could guarantee that everyone received multiple doses. In the end, the West had far fewer mortalities compared to the East, so I'll take the West's way of doing things any day of the week.

dragonwriter 2y ago
> Except the West was able to develop a cure (multiple actually) whereas the East struggled. No, we weren't. The vaccines aren't cures, they are prophylactics that mitigate the severity of symptoms. (Also, several were developed in the East.)
- glitchc 2y ago
  There's some strong delusion equating a vaccine to a prophylactic. Going from high mortality to a minor cold is a huge win for any drug, vaccine or otherwise. Additionally that's how vaccines work. You still get sick but the illness is minor. They're not a force field. > (Also, several were developed in the East.) Oh? Do tell about their efficacy.
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    A prophylactic is an advance intervention that prevents or mitigates the severity of disease. Vaccines in general, and all COVID vaccines, are prophylactics. Vaccines could be cures as well, but COVID vaccines are not. Sufficient distribution of prophylactics for infectious disease can achieve eradication which, while distinct from a cure, is as good or better, but COVID vaccines haven't done that.
    - glitchc 2y ago
      You seem to be confusing treatments with vaccines by lumping them under the same broad definition. A vaccine must be taken prior to contracting the disease, and will not work if taken after. This is exactly how COVID vaccines behave, therefore they are vaccines. Now whether a vaccine is effective or not is a separate, almost orthogonal, dimension for consideration. No single vaccine is 100% effective, so we will always have certain % of cases where vaccines did not prevent the spread of infection and resulting adverse outcomes.

BrandoElFollito 2y ago

Current electrons in France are an example. People who hate reach other work together to account a majority of the extreme right. This will stay in place for one more day, staying from Monday we will have the usual political mess.

lo_zamoyski 2y ago

We have to be careful here. Individualism is not the same thing as respect for person. Individualism is a recent development in the West, specifically a tenet of liberalism in the tradition of Hobbes, Locke, and Mill. The liberal tradition cannot be understood completely except as a Christian heresy as it takes a properly Christian anthropology and distorts it by, in this case, exaggeration. So, in this case, while Christianity elevates the human person by recognizing his dignity as a rational and free agent, liberalism atomizes persons in a manner that effectively destroys or distorts their social nature, and in doing so, diminishes their humanity (Aristotle once famously said that a man who does not need society is either a beast or a god; I have my opinion about which tends to characterize our relationships today, and which tends to characterize our opinions of ourselves.) Now, the East does not have this Christian respect for persons. Indeed, it tends toward the opposite error of subordinating the person to society and instrumentalizing persons and making them expendable for the "greater good". We see something like this in the old pagan societies in the West as well (though, as we often see, this "greater good" is a tyranny). In the traditional, pre-liberal Christian vision, still taught by the Catholic Church, there is a simultaneous recognition and respect for persons, and a recognition of Man's social nature and the common good which precedes him and toward which he has a moral duty. We are born into societies (the family is the first and most important society from which the entire tapestry of mankind is woven). And it is the common good: it isn't the "greater good" of society that permits the sacrifice of others, but a good held in common, and also by which many goods are had, including things like private property, which follows from the common good (liberalism has it exactly backwards, because it conceives private property as prior and proper to the individual first, and the common good as something grudgingly ceded by individuals for common benefit).