4 ms·

As noted by an earlier reply (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43905660 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43905660), I agree with the first 3 paragraphs.

As noted by an earlier reply (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43905660 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43905660), I agree with the first 3 paragraphs. The last paragraph, however, is a launch in accusations, and will be treated as such. ---- > What's interesting to me is that you seem to think that the status quo in the US is rightly defensible. You're already reading into something that doesn't exist. The underlying cultural axioms of the US are, in a reductive sense, focused more towards individual pursuits, with the accompanying effects that came from such a cultural choice being made self-evident. No defense was made towards those axioms, only that changing them requires the same toll that Japan paid to also be done by the US. > Looking in from afar with limited skin in the game I'd argue it looks really, really dumb. I've lived my entire life within a "3rd world" (S.E.A). To that end, I will say that I have isolated pockets of envy for what's allowed within the US. Other parts... I could do without, but I recognize that they're part of the "US' whole deal" bag, and adopting it requires taking on the whole bag, without exceptions. The cultural choices made are a mixed bag, and should be treated as such. Prescriptivist blanket statements like that serve no purpose other than tribal in-group signalling that can be done without. > This "individualism" (but where the courts get to tell people who they are and what they can believe when it comes to certain issues that have religious or historical undertones), seems to be leading to a fractured partisan nation where everyone hates anyone who even slightly disagrees with them. This is not something that's wholly exclusive to individualism. The same kinds of partisan rhetoric can similarly be achieved with "anti-individualism" cultures, simply because humans came from a tribal background: When more than one non-immediately-societally-lethal path exists for people to choose from, partisan support for a given path X will happen as a side effect of advocacy for X. The partisan rhetoric that comes when A clashes with B (and/or C, D, E...) is the conclusion of (1) only being able to choose one choice, & (2) that anything that is not A being chosen feeling like a loss. "Individualism bad because partisanship" does not mean that its alternatives avert this phenomenon. > Not a great way to bring kids up... perhaps y'all could try something else for a while, hmm? This is mud slinging, given the most charitable interpretation possible.

PaulRobinson 1y ago
The comment I replied to defended US individualism and criticised the Japanese "cultural toll". I am not "reading into something that doesn't exist", it's what I'm specifically replying to. Cultural choices are indeed a mixed bag, that was my point: everyone has them, and they're different, and you have to make choices. You might be right that partisanship occurs in alternatives to individualism, but my point is that individualism without a shared sense of society can accelerate partisanship. In the US, ironically there is tribalism (we now call them echo chambers, due to the dominance of media in this conversation), telling people that their individualism is being taken away. It's both what I'm worried about, and what you mention, in a feedback loop. I maintain that compared to every other Western liberal democracy, this is not a great way to bring up kids. That isn't mud slinging, it's an opinion.
- x-complexity 1y ago
  > The comment I replied to defended US individualism and criticised the Japanese "cultural toll". The comment you replied to came from *me*. It was *me* that you replied to with: > > > What's interesting to me is that you seem to think that the status quo in the US is rightly defensible. In response to: > > Whilst there can be pockets of local communities that can do this, the probability that the same thing can happen everywhere in the US is close to zero, given the cultural emphasis placed on individualism. > > It is also from this emphasis of individual exceptionalism where there can be no guarantees that everyone will pay the cultural toll. It must be everyone, or this proposal won't work: It'll just be another form of subsidization by another name. What was written noted the significant costs needed to get the program to both be (1) off the ground, and (2) self-sustaining via the community, *because* of the emphasis placed on individualism. Nowhere in the given statements *from me* was there a defense for US individualism. Despite my general positive attitude (approx 0.3, within the range -1 to 1) towards the ideal of such a cultural axiom, *in this specific case*, it hinders the adoption & maintenance of such a program. > I am not "reading into something that doesn't exist", it's what I'm specifically replying to. What you replied to was not there to begin with. ------ > Cultural choices are indeed a mixed bag, that was my point: everyone has them, and they're different, and you have to make choices. Any attempts at conveying such a point were torpedoed by these 2 sentences: > > > Looking in from afar with limited skin in the game I'd argue it looks really, really dumb. This "individualism" (but where the courts get to tell people who they are and what they can believe when it comes to certain issues that have religious or historical undertones), seems to be leading to a fractured partisan nation where everyone hates anyone who even slightly disagrees with them. Both stances cannot be maintained simultaneously: It's either the negative stance that was originally posted, *or* the more neutral stance given afterwards. Again, and as noted by another user, you mangled your own argument with the last paragraph.

PaulRobinson 1y ago

The comment I replied to defended US individualism and criticised the Japanese "cultural toll". I am not "reading into something that doesn't exist", it's what I'm specifically replying to. Cultural choices are indeed a mixed bag, that was my point: everyone has them, and they're different, and you have to make choices. You might be right that partisanship occurs in alternatives to individualism, but my point is that individualism without a shared sense of society can accelerate partisanship. In the US, ironically there is tribalism (we now call them echo chambers, due to the dominance of media in this conversation), telling people that their individualism is being taken away. It's both what I'm worried about, and what you mention, in a feedback loop. I maintain that compared to every other Western liberal democracy, this is not a great way to bring up kids. That isn't mud slinging, it's an opinion.

x-complexity 1y ago
> The comment I replied to defended US individualism and criticised the Japanese "cultural toll". The comment you replied to came from *me*. It was *me* that you replied to with: > > > What's interesting to me is that you seem to think that the status quo in the US is rightly defensible. In response to: > > Whilst there can be pockets of local communities that can do this, the probability that the same thing can happen everywhere in the US is close to zero, given the cultural emphasis placed on individualism. > > It is also from this emphasis of individual exceptionalism where there can be no guarantees that everyone will pay the cultural toll. It must be everyone, or this proposal won't work: It'll just be another form of subsidization by another name. What was written noted the significant costs needed to get the program to both be (1) off the ground, and (2) self-sustaining via the community, *because* of the emphasis placed on individualism. Nowhere in the given statements *from me* was there a defense for US individualism. Despite my general positive attitude (approx 0.3, within the range -1 to 1) towards the ideal of such a cultural axiom, *in this specific case*, it hinders the adoption & maintenance of such a program. > I am not "reading into something that doesn't exist", it's what I'm specifically replying to. What you replied to was not there to begin with. ------ > Cultural choices are indeed a mixed bag, that was my point: everyone has them, and they're different, and you have to make choices. Any attempts at conveying such a point were torpedoed by these 2 sentences: > > > Looking in from afar with limited skin in the game I'd argue it looks really, really dumb. This "individualism" (but where the courts get to tell people who they are and what they can believe when it comes to certain issues that have religious or historical undertones), seems to be leading to a fractured partisan nation where everyone hates anyone who even slightly disagrees with them. Both stances cannot be maintained simultaneously: It's either the negative stance that was originally posted, *or* the more neutral stance given afterwards. Again, and as noted by another user, you mangled your own argument with the last paragraph.