slug.com slug.com

2 2

It is a network failure that is causing the breakdown in American society.

Life is a compilation of networks that form themselves into larger networks and again into even larger networks. A single cell organism is a network of organelles, a tree a network of single cells and an ecosystem a network of multicellular organisms. Each depends on the internal and external networks functioning well enough to maintain a livable environment.

Humans from a network of individuals for the same purpose of maintaining a successful society. Failure of leadership, mistrust and the isolation of the individual through misinformation and social media are breaking our network. We receive an overload of information that is not easily verifiable and so choose the most satisfying to believe. Social media gives us meaningless memes that sound wonderful. Freedom, liberty, autonomy, rights, America. Who could argue with that? Virtual contacts are much easier than real interaction and makes us anonymous and gives us a false sense of community and righteousness by being able to shut out opposing points of view.

So the real network is breaking down, and we are moving rapidly toward a dissolution of our social structure.

Pand0ro 7 Oct 10
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

2 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

The social structure is dynamic, resilient, and self adjusting. We have orders of magnitude more nodes to interact with than at any time in history, to develop both more-extensive and more-specialized niche networks from a wildly diverse palette of potential peers.
Those lack some of the face-to-face interaction of familiar, physical-proximity networks. And they lack the need to reconcile with less-than-ideal social matches, just because "these are the people you're stuck with...". That interaction and reconciliation represent the "self adjusting" feature of the network, that serves to normalize the whole network.
But, those physical, localized networks do still exist; though they have been weakened to the extent that we have become more transient as a culture over the past century or so. And they may seem relatively less important, with all the new virtual social networks, but I wouldn't call them broken down or inconsequential quite yet.

What is being purposefully broken down is the underlying framework of the society, the context within which those networks function.
The lines in the road are simply being ignored, and traffic is a mess as a consequence.
We "drivers" are still quite capable of working together within a functional, cooperative system... if we had one. But, the collectivist "Left" has been making that Progressively difficult for over a hundred years now... persistently and incrementally erasing the lines, all because they have this nebulous fantasy about someday painting all new lines... and then everything will be great you'll see... [eyeroll]
They can't jack up the entire culture and install a new framework beneath... even if they had another framework that was coherent and remotely feasible, which they don't.
But they insist on pressing forward blindly anyway, tearing down anything that looks like America to make room for the utopia that will never come.

I agree but see the ignoring of lines coming from both extreme left and extreme right. The perception is that all on the right can be grouped as extreme right and all on the left grouped as extreme left. Both extremes are living a fantasy where eliminating the opposition will create a utopia. It does not work that way, never has and never will. As soon as one side is eliminated the other side will find fault with groups of their former allies and it starts all over again. We have to be able to live with imperfection and getting along with different points of view to achieve a functional system.

@Pand0ro true, but that all has to take place within a common set of mutually-understood principles.
In baseball: two teams can disagree on how to strategically order their batters, how to arrange the outfield, etc... that just makes for an interesting game, and helps to advance the whole sport as they discover what works and what doesn't.
But, they cannot disagree on the rules of the game, or they're just not even playing baseball anymore.

In politics: it depends on how you define the "Right" and "Left"... but I think the only useful way to describe them is "Collectivists" vs "Individualists".
You can't lump everyone on the right together with the "extreme" Right. First of all... if you define the "extreme Right" as racist White nationalists; then that's actually collectivism. i.e., just another branch of "the Left".
The ideology that counters "the Left", is that of Individualism. An "extreme" Individualist would be an Anarchist, ignoring the authority of the collective to establish/enforce order in the society at all. The vast majority of "the Right" does not agree and does not support that position.
But I'm afraid you can lump (almost) everyone on the left together with the "extreme" Left... and it's their own fault. The extreme Left uses race and other identity traits as blunt objects to stifle any opposition to their policies... policies that actually have nothing to do with identity in the first place.
Many of their so-called "moderate" peers may not quite agree with their lawless brownshirt tactics or even with their end-goals entirely; but still they speak in unison and vote in lock-step exactly as they are told to speak/vote by their own radical element.
That makes them all on the same team.
It should be no surprise... you can't join the side of tyranny and expect to be treated like you matter at all as an individual. The "collective" has no use and simply doesn't care who you are... they only care what you are, so they can add another tally to that identity pigeonhole/inter-sectional matrix.
And... otherwise just do as you're told and stay in-step with the Herd, or you'll be publicly ostracized and driven from the Herd as a "traitor", "Uncle Tom", etc., etc... whatever fits.
That's how they maintain compliance and conformity within the Herd, so we're not really lumping them together at all... they lump themselves.

@rway I consider myself on the left but there has to be a balance between collectivism and individualism. The great achievements of humanity have been accomplished with necessary coordinated collectivism. Individualism alone is chaos and lawlessness. I believe that minority communities are often disadvantaged in existing social structures, no matter who they are or where they are, be it America, Africa, Asia, Middle East, Far East.

The black population born in America are in a difficult situation having been slaves' then freed where the stain of former slavery still affects their status and treatment. That does not excuse them from not taking responsibility for their own future and treatment. Those who pile blame on outside communities and expect to be compensated for their ancestors situation are doomed to failure. Black lives matter only if they include the black lives in their own communities also.

I have no truck with identity politics be it LBGTQRSTUV or White Supremacists or whoever. I think if someone you don't agree with is giving a talk, don't demand their removal, just don't go and let others know why you don't agree. Far leftists are pushing extreme individualism by insisting that everyone having one ball or two different sized breasts being recognized for their particular difference and expect it to be celebrated by all according to the individuals wishes at how they want to be referred to. I haven't got time for that.

I do have time for due respect for everyone, for the enormous redistribution of wealth going on where the super-rich are getting even richer during this pandemic while the majority of people are loosing wealth daily. I am concerned about the breaking up of America. How can peoples ideas have taken a reversal in such a short time where the concept of America has been completely lost.

@Pand0ro Unconstrained Individualism is just Anarchy, in which you have no rights whatsoever.
America adopted a Constrained Individualism, wherein we each still have absolute individual sovereignty... but we exercise it within the rules that protect other people's rights as well as our own.
There is no correct 'balance' between Collectivism and Individualism... they are mutually exclusive.

No human being has ANY sovereignty over you. By extension, no agent of human beings does either... including the Government.
The only sovereignty the U.S. Government has over you, is that specific portion of your own sovereignty that is necessary and sufficient for it to constrain your behavior under ONE very specific condition; that is... to protect somebody else's rights.
Government can only legitimately do so through due process, in pursuit of the Law that came from you in the first place, and the rest of us as well, through our Representatives; and consequently by our consent.

There is never any reason to debate what the Government should do about the cultural status of one group or another. Culture exists in the private sector.
You have the right to do anything you'd like to do, if you think it will help out, including trying to generate voluntary participation from others.
You don't have the right to force anybody else to do it with you, and neither does the Government.

I believe that is the core concept of America that has been largely lost.

@rway In times of crisis such as the outbreak of WWII the government was violating human rights by enforcing military conscription. In the case of protesters killing other protesters you are free to do what you believe will help out. So I can refuse to obey an order from my boss and expect no consequences because even if I signed up for the job he has no right to make me to something against my will. A police officer can stop me and I can tell him he has no sovereignty over me.

There are restraints on individuality. It comes from the necessity of cooperation needed to accomplish what cannot be done by one individual. There has never been a time when all cooperation has been voluntary. Someone has to be in charge and not everyone is going to be a happy volunteer, there will always be plenty of people for whom the volunteering is a choice between the lesser of two bad choices. We can feel that paying taxes is a form of punishment for being successful, yet we take it as a right to enjoy the convenience of the benefits that infrastructure brings us.

The more people there are, the more contact we have with each other, the more restrictions that have to be imposed to maintain a reasonable stable society. We all have personal dependence on and duty to a number of other people. The concept of independence is a fantasy unless you are the only person in the world. It springs from our genetic instincts structure where all people want to have control and the control goes to the one who successfully convinces or intimidates others to follow.

@Pand0ro Free people cooperate. Forced "cooperation" is not cooperation at all... it's tyranny.
You can refuse an order from your boss any time you want. But I don't know why you would "expect no consequences"... because in doing so, you would be violating the arrangement that the two of you entered into voluntarily.

If you think something is just so urgent and so important that it supersedes my individual rights... you're trying to exercise sovereignty over me that you don't have.
That's just wrong. It's actually a great way to encapsulate the whole concept of "wrong".
What I do is not up to you, no matter how "right" you may be.
What you have the right to do, is to try and convince me... not to force me.

0

The organism analogy is very useful because the only sound epistemology we have is science. All other epistomologies are subjective. The problem is of course that science relies on reduction and complex chaotic systems such as societies are irreducible.

We can see the failure of science in how it has been applied to global warming and now the pandemic. In both cases it has walled itself off from the more complex question of how to deal with the facts without isolation from economic concerns. A scientific morality is at the moment an oxymoron.

It is possible that what we are witnessing is growing pains. An organism evolves by replacing itself with a mutation. Left to change one in a million mutations are beneficial and the mutation represented by the left is a spiteful one. It sits in the corner grooming itself on virtue signals while contributing almost nothing to society. It's the way colonies collapse.

The scientific method is the most reliable way to determine how things work. Efforts at determining can be straight forward or very difficult where unknowns are hidden behind unknowns. Whee science fails is when it gets filtered through politics. In 2009 some Italian geologists were jailed for 6 years for failure to warn of an earthquake. That is politics interfering with science, and it is sobering. When scientists feel liable for predictions they are going to go with what offers them the best cover, which is not good science. It is not the job of scientists to deal with consequences, only the facts that have been discovered. It is social leaderships job to decide how those facts affect society. There is an arrogant and thoughtless fringe on the left. To group all those people on the left or tend to the left is irresponsible. Left is not a homogeneous group. Most are responsible citizens who work, raise families, pay taxes and love America. I agree that we are experiencing "growing pains" and we are on the road to even more pain as we are well past the point of not return.

@Pand0ro

If you define the U.S. as a constitutional republic committed to a liberal democracy then no one on the left loves the U.S.

Now it may be possible that they simply don't understand what a constitutional republic or liberal democracy is and simply "love" their own understanding of what the U.S. is. It is complicated by the fact that they may indeed have deep attachment to the place, people and culture but that is a separate issue.

Personally I don't think love is the appropriate way to describe the relationship between a constitution and someone who admires it. I don't love the U.S. I respect the constitution. Nationalism for the most part can be a healthy respect for tradition and a basic level of social organization. Likewise national competition is constructive if not carried to excess. In the game of life we should all strive to be gracious winners and losers and work to create a game that is iterative and that everyone wants to participate in.

@wolfhnd If you are defining anyone on the left as Communist or pure Socialist you are targeting a small percentage of people. If you are talking about anyone who accepts the slightest hint of socialism as leftist then you are talking about a majority of Americans. If you are talking about having open and free elections among political parties, separation of powers, the rule of law, private property, with a market economy that has reasonable regulations to keep the playing field level and protect citizens from coercion then most of the liberals I know agree to that type of government. If you are talking about laissez-faire capitalism where there is 1% rich, 9% comfortable and 90% in poverty we are looking at banana republics.

National competition is constructive and necessary for progress, but in my opinion it is being carried to excess today with efforts to completely wipe out ideas that are not accepted by political groups. There is a refusal to accept any idea that does not conform to the party line. As you state we should all strive to be accepting that not everything is going to go our way. Each position needs to come to a balance with other positions, where we all have to give up somethings to get what is more important to us. As unwieldy and imperfectly the results often are, that is how we got along until about 4 decades ago when intolerance started taking over our politics.

@Pand0ro

What I'm saying is a little bit left is like a little bit pregnant when it comes to loving the U.S. The idea that the constitution is a living document is ludicrous. It's just another way of saying it's outdated, we know better and will ignore it.

I have no problem with constitutional amendments but the left has self righteously decided that the rule of law is secondary to their vision of progress. In the process they have destroyed one of the foundations of civilization.

You will get no argument from me that many laws have been unjust. And clearly it required the Federal government and federal courts to intervene in some cases. But most of those cases had little to do with the constitution.

@Pand0ro

On the issue of capitalism the social justice movement seems to have no problem with censorious tech monopolies, banksters like Soros, or the Fascist government of China. Even worse the same corporatistism that has plagued the U.S. since the 19th century has gotten no better under left leaning administrations than under conservative ones. It seems to be more a matter of raw politics than principles.

@Pand0ro

I think I need to offer a better explanation.

Only a ideologue would suggest that government is unnecessary or that government intervention in the economy undesirable. Capitalism is an abstract idea that can never exist in an ideal state. That said it's not about what is or what ought to be but about goals. The goal of liberal democracy is for there to be as much liberty as practical. Capitalism is an integral part of creating a responsible population, without the use of force, to allow for the maximum liberty. Part of that liberty is the ability to vote with your "dollars". A planned economy takes away your vote and puts control over you in the hands of the planner.

Every thing we do effects someone else. It's why the libertarian idea that you can not have a right that infringes on someone else's rights falls flat. Our rights are constantly being negotiated in the physical market place and in the market place of ideas. Liberal democracy recognizes that absolute rights are highly restrained and limited to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If it sounds vague that is simply the realization that living together is not an exact "science".

@wolfhnd It certainly is not. Previous to the 90s the United States got along reasonably well with disagreement being handled by very imperfect political negotiation. In those 30 years since where have all these left-wing disrupters of society come from? Did they come in an invasion from leftist Europe? Were they in hiding and decided now is the time to come out. Did they drug "normal" people?

I think it has been political manipulation that was looking for the method to garner as many votes as possible with out reference to morality by demonizing the opposition and dividing the country into two sharply divided camps. Russia in revenge for their humiliating defeat has noticed this and have very consciously and efficiently been encouraging it in American social media. There goal is to see America fall, with our own unrealized cooperation, in retaliation for their fall.

Our arrogance and blindness to what is happening by submitting to mere satisfaction rather than reality is helping them along.

@Pand0ro

Again the organism analogy is useful. Thomas Jefferson said that "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it's natural manure.". Organisms age and decay. I would like to think that something other than blood can rejuvenate society. My fear is that after seeing the gross incompetence of both political parties in dealing with the pandemic that nothing short of a calamity and a hollowing out of the establishment followed by a dictatorship is in the making.

@wolfhnd The United States has survived over 40 years beyond Benjamin Franklin's prediction. All in all his prediction was quite accurate. No matter who is chosen as president this coming election the chances are that the United States as we have known it will be no more. If Biden gets the nod there will probably be insurrection or outright war. If Trump retains power it will be ghettos and kristallnacht for those on the left. No matter the result it will be extremely unpleasant.

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:139461
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.