I hear these comments for not wanting to help people, and it feels like we’re worshipping individuality to the detriment of community, which is necessary for survival.
- “I don’t want my money going to ___ .”
- “This is not a democracy, it’s a constitutional republic!”
- “You don’t have any freedoms under socialism/communism.”
- “They’re just looking for a handout because they’re lazy.”
- “I’m a self-made man. I didn’t need anyone’s help.”
- “Empathy is not a virtue.”
- “I don’t see how that’s my problem.”
Annoyed to report: successful and long standing communes/communities seem to all be highly selective, at least initially.
If you’ve got good examples that contradict this, please share.
Of course they are, they’re full and doing great lol
I might be starting one soon with mostly family… It’s a long shot, but I’d interview you then the time comes if you want. No promises
Yay more experiments! I’m interested in what you’re modeling the structure and system based on.
I feel like examples that prove it using some standard definitions are a prerequisite to that conversation.
Without standard definitions such as selection method/criterium and controlling for variables such as external factors your basically asking me to refute apples with oranges.
Selective: there is either a process which rejects a nontrivial number of applicants (in a way which is not random; the output distribution is different from the applicant population), or there is no open system to join the commune at all (and the initial members are again very much not typical).
Long-standing: a continuous group has existed with the same name for more than, let’s say, 25 years. Ideally in a similar place and with similar policies, but I’m flexible.
Commune/community: a democratically run sharing of resources and container of social connections. They must have things held in common, to which any productive member contributes and any needy member can draw from. The things must be controlled according to the groups intent. Participation in this process should be high. A significant portion of social life of most members should stay within the community.
Successful: a vibe, but not killing too many members and improving the quality of life for members seem like good minimums.
Definitions are meant to be broad here, because I would like to hear about your oranges. Close examples that miss:
Most governments (not communal or not democratic)
Most churches (quite selective, required beliefs for example)
I still think you need to present examples that fit your definitions first. Assuming we’re only talking about selectivity here. Also you’ve kind of raised the bar on yourself by stipulating democracy, egalitarianism, etc.
IMO if you control for selectivity you will find that it’s statistically insignificant and that the success of those examples was due to other factors not how selective they are.
Like the closest thing I would agree exists is mennonites/etc but you don’t count patriachial and religious.
I agree that the bar seems to have raised; the implicit assumptions were taken from the OPs quotes. That was the intended context, apologies if that was not clear.
Non-selective bodies: food banks that serve all who appear, common greens and parks, public libraries, perhaps some gyms or cellular networks. There were a few intentional communities that took a broad welcoming stance, I think New Harmony Owenites is one I’ve heard about.
Our president is a felon rapist pedophile.
That’s absolutely going to have an influence on young, impressionable minds.
The president is…well, used to be…a person that, among other things, acted as a role model. Now kids are going to be looking to that role model and seeing a felon rapist pedophile that reached the top of our societal structure and they’re going to emulate.
Our society was already sick. Now it’s terminal.
Remember when we used to say someone is “acting Presidential”, back then it didn’t mean tweeting a bunch of derogatory things and grabbing women.
The idea that the president used to act as a role model is so bizarre to me as a Swede. We’ve had prominent political figures that have had very good reputations, but I can’t imagine anyone considering a politician as a role model. They’re just people that, hopefully, are doing their job. Wanting to emulate a politician, like a prime minister, or a president, just feels scarily like hero worship. Very culty.
Trump voting farmers “12b bailout is not enough!”
This is largely an American problem, although it is spreading due to global media.
I blame it largely on Calvinism and the prosperity gospel:
“Good things come to good people” -> “If good things didn’t come to you, you’re not a good person” -> “Poor people are poor because they are bad people, and we should not help them” -> “It’s okay to help billionaires, they wouldn’t be rich if they weren’t good people”
A lot of poor people have this view in the US, which you would think would make them reconsider it, but they solve this with mental gymnastics: They and their in-group are good people, so obviously it’s okay to help them and the good things are coming any second. Another reason not to tax rich people, they’ll be one soon!
This is also true in Hinduism and Buddhism, it’s just always been convienient for rulers to convince peasents of this
From my own observations it appears that empathy is rapidly being worn away by hatred. Its hard to empathize with things that go contrary to one’s ideas of correctness
Yes.
These are age old comments, I heard all of them from a very young age. It’s been there the whole time.
And it’s been working. For a long time.
Yes. We have become a nation of de facto sovereign citizens. The average American thinks of nothing past the crummy job, the soul breaking commute, the mortgage, and another Ben Franklin for the third star on the fourth stripe on little Ayngylynn’s tae kwon do white belt. Frank Freeway and Susie Soccermom are too wrapped up in themselves to care what kind of people we are.
Back in 1997, my sociology professor said the US would become the meanest society in history. And OMFFSM, I see it everywhere. There’s no more sense of community or even common courtesy. Hurt the other guy or get hurt. Violence over small things will soon be commonplace and inescapable. We will all have to be armed, much as we may hate it. This is all by design.
OMFFSM
What is this acronym
Oh my fucking god, where their god is the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Ohhhhh. Thanks boss
“I hate insert group of people”
deleted by creator
Meh….
Ignore. Empathy is hot.
It’s been like that for a while (how did they get stomach chattle slavery, or the native genocide, or murdering brown people around the globe like Nam?), it’s the reason the rest of the world is very wary of Americans even if they don’t come in tanks and jets. Even Western Europeans are wary of Americans at this point, and they’re basically the same community!
I think that Roman Catholicism and offshoots (not the message of Jesus, but the unholy creation of the empire) are partly to blame, primarily the disinfo of Paul, the fed, with his “faith without works” and “you’ll be saved if you become a man worshipping polytheist!”. Ideology is very malleable, so we can do something about it, but Nietzsche already pointed to the struggle like 200 years ago and a solution proposed by the locals with local ideological tools hasn’t been found yet. Islam is the path forward for the West (and the rest of the world), but ofc you hate to hear it, even if it would offer an ideological framework based on the belief in God and objective morality (you gotta act right to save yourself, more or less Jesus’ message for everyone who’s actually read the Sermon of the Mount, for instance)… don’t forget that that gut reaction has been fostered by the powers that be in the same way that it was for the Japanese, the Vietnamese, the natives, the Africans, and now the Mexicans and Chinese. Maybe there’s something there, huh?
Replacing godheads and debating minute dogmatic differences between colonizer/authoritarian religions is not going to change things for the better. We’ve been doing that for millennia.
Emphasizing historical learning and perspectives from the breadth of the world as well as modern civic humanist principles in our communities sounds a lot more effective to me than replacing one fictitious narcissistic sky daddy with another. Go peddle your ancient brainrot elsewhere.
I really don’t think “we” have, certainly the West hasn’t (with even the term “sky daddy” showing the clear anthropomorphic nature of God in the Western man’s mind, because amoral paganism/polytheism never left, it was just superficially transformed…). The vast majority of people won’t hold themselves accountable when the pleasures of this world are too enticing if they don’t feel like they’ll be unavoidably held accountable by a higher power. With discernment, integrity, selflessness and a clear heart it’s possible to do so to a certain/great extent, but these traits are secondary in the West, where overpowering violence, trickery and the capacity to acquire goods and satisfy yourself are paramount. But whatever, I guess we’ll see.
I personally think people who do things because they fear retribution from sky daddy are the weakest of minds easily exploited by propaganda. Religious thought leads to malleable minds easily exploitable by religious leaders.
Religion is not the source of our social bounds and morality rather a parasite of control left over from ancient times. A vestigial organ that no longer has a use in the face of science but lives on in the body regardless.
Religious thought leads to malleable minds easily exploitable
I would say all magical thinking does this. This is why I say that things like astrology and homeopathy are not “harmless” but are rather actively harming the fabric of society by being accepted.
Religion is not the source of our social bounds and morality rather a parasite of control left over from ancient times.
Not the person you’re replying to, but I’m an atheist or an agnostic and even I’m not so sure about that.
When given the idea that there is no retribution or reprocussion for their actions, many people become nihilistic and act terribly.
I agree that it’s weak to need a “sky daddy” to act properly, but many people are weak.
When given the idea that there is no retribution or reprocussion for their actions, many people become nihilistic and act terribly.
This is what you call a sociopath. If you need fear of eternal retribution in order to not do awful things, then you’re just a piece of shit.
There is good scientific evidence that people do not think about the consequences of their actions before they commit to them.
Criminals don’t think of the punishment they will receive by society but suddenly a far removed sky daddy will convince them not to rob a store? This is not how any of this works.
Morality is developed by our social bounds, otherwise every agnostic or atheist would be wildly out of control.
People are mentally weak because of religion, not despite it. It is the antithesis to critical thinking. The lack of critical thought is why our society is so easy to control.
I have seen this play out countless times in my life where people realize how fucked up their religion was once they have left it.
As their eyes open and they realize that they were being controlled by their religious leaders who abused them, they have to wrestle with the life that was stolen from them.
I am even to the point now where I no longer believe certain people need religion anymore. They need community and a sense of belonging and religious leaders like to highjack that basic need for their own selfish interests.
I am even to the point now where I no longer believe certain people need religion anymore. They need community and a sense of belonging and religious leaders like to highjack that basic need for their own selfish interests.
I think I agree with basically everything you’ve said here and especially this conclusion. The problem is that for many the only type of these things they can find is couched in religion. As a child-free atheist, I basically have no sense of belonging nor a community.
In addition, some people’s only exposure to even the very concept of morality or ethics comes through religion.
You have a community here which is probably more real and fulfilling than going to a church service. Here we are having a discussion you would never get in a typical church. We are both thinking together, discussing, without any authority to tell us otherwise.
Our sense of right and wrong simply don’t come from religion. It initially comes from our familial bounds but is reinforced through our many interactions with our social groups.
You can see this in gangsters that believe in God, but also will deal drugs and shoot each other. Their morality is determined by their social group, not their belief in religion.
As I said. I used to believe like you that religion is needed by some people, but I have begun to doubt this premise.
Islam is the path forward for the West (and the rest of the world)
Yeah no
Islam is the path forward for the West (and the rest of the world)
… wut.
If anything, Atheism is the way forward.
Atheism is no way, it’s intellectually lazy, and cowardly fence-sitting that leads to/reinforces hedonistic nihilism and moral relativism. It’s just noticeably more internally consistent than Roman Catholicism and its trinitarian offshoots, but that’s like never dating again because your middle school boyfriend was mean… Atheism is the way like suicide is, and mostly something fall into by default, or emotional pain, or the need to feel unwatched and unaccountable so one can do nonsense, not some sort of “transcendental wisdom” that Europe came up with, lol. Even for Nietzsche, this is a tragedy (because he’s not a dummy!) without precedent, and something that needs to be corrected ASAP. If God is dead in the West, something needs to fill the God-shaped hole. Ideally, it’s God, but evidently it hasn’t been for ages (if some form of righteous monotheism even “trickled down” from Roman Catholicism to begin with!) and the results in their societies (amoral and selfish “get the bag” mentality, sexual depravity that’s applauded and openly talked about and taken as virtue/lightly, people living by inertia and for pleasure because they have no purpose nor do they even care to think about it, the “loneliness epidemic”, etc etc.) are very noticeable.
I think believing things without evidence is intellectually lazy. Atheism is the default position. I only believe in one less god than you.
What is the “evidence” behind moral stances?
For me it’s at least partially based on mutual aid, something that we also see in nature. Helping other people helps me (and the entire species as a whole).
That said, I’m not sure why you’re so convinced that morals need to be based on anything. I have empathy, that means I don’t want harm to come to others. It’s really that simple.
Of course you do, you were made that way, we all were! Religion/belief in a set of principles in an axiomatic, non debatable way just provide good guidance, a handrail in case your eyes get too big and, idk, you end up president of the free world and Raytheon wants to bribe you and you want a new yacht so you push for war in a far away land. Our nature can only go so far, for the rest of the time you will need a code and something to keep you accountable to it that’s bigger and outside of yourself, and Abrahamic monotheism helps us do that.
You’re right, only nonreligious people have done bad things. Do you really want to go down that route? Religion is responsible for more death and destruction than any other force in human history. Tell me about how it wasn’t used to justify chattal slavery. Tell me how countless religious leaders have been systematically raping children since at least the middle ages.
Shitty people are shitty people.
Further, I actually find it kind of offensive what you’re implying here about my morality.
Sorry, the absence of god isn’t a hole. It means being a moral person for rational reasons and not because some author of a fairy tale, who also say things like “it’s cool to kill some people”, said so. Even if it ‘was a hole’, filling it with proper education is far superior in all respects.
Edit: and this is the first time I’ve seen someone argue that following a religion is NOT the intellectually lazy thing to do. Amazing.
You can’t science/big brain yourself into morals, you either believe in it or not (again, check Hume’s fork and the is-ought problem, the wise men in your tribe already talked about this!). And it’s not about believing in tales, but finding yourself in/agreeing the words of the prophets (like their moral lessons) enough that you start considering the background ideology of what they’re saying and then one day you’re a well-read God fearing man.
and this is the first time I’ve seen someone argue that following a religion is NOT the intellectually lazy thing to do. Amazing
It’s kind of wild… But I used to watch atheist call in shows, and you’d be shocked about some of the things these people try to argue.
I used to watch AXP and still watch Matt Dillahunty every now and then. It really is wild how shocked and offended most of the callers get when they actually face resistance and are told to back up their beliefs with evidence. None ever can.
The worst is when they’d get someone literally defending slavery, every now and then.
They’re sure trying their best.
The new “hyperindividualism” trend is sad to look into too.
deleted by creator
