Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Luke_Prowler]

Culture can have it's own problems, but social anarchism is a thousands times worse. It's like giving everyone the free pass to go nuts.

[scriver]

"Social Anarchism" can't be a problem unless it's a prominent culture.

[Virex]

"Social Anarchism" can't be a problem unless it's a prominent culture.

But that'd clash with the very definition of social anarchism?

[Soadreqm]

I don't live in America, but I've heard stories of people getting kicked out of schools for any religious symbols. Including rings with hardly noticeable symbols.

For the sake of the rules, not for the sake of good.

Yeah, I've heard rumours of that. I'm not sure if I actually believe them. It sounds fairly silly. Here in Finland, trying to stop students from sporting religious symbols would probably clash with the whole freedom-of-religion thing. Honestly, I thought America had something like that going on as well. Isn't there something in the constitution about not banning religions?

Religious freedom is bound to clash with the laws. It's not like you can go and murder your neighbor and get away with it because some musty old tome or the voices in your head says so. Religion CANNOT give you exceptions or special treatment. Everyone has to be treated equal.

And someone asked why there are school uniforms; I think it's because of bullying. Which is okay reason for me, because kids are likely to judge each other by their clothes. Which is stupid. Whether school uniforms are good or bad is another topic.

That's a really good point, seeing as we were talking about wearing a necklace with a cross on it. >:]

Seriously though, I'm going to want some kind of source for school uniforms effectively reducing bullying. It seems kind of suspect to my Finnish sensibilities.

...races are reality we have to live with and accept. Religious beliefs are not.

Not really. Races are a social construct, no more "real" than nations, economies or religions. A persons appearance is decided by often inheritable genetic factors, but it's largely arbitrary which groups constitute a "race", and which ones you are supposed to hate.

[scriver]

Seriously though, I'm going to want some kind of source for school uniforms effectively reducing bullying. It seems kind of suspect to my Finnish sensibilities.

Kinda doubt there would be any. If uniforms is supposed to stop kids from bullying each other based on clothes/appearance=status, it seems rather ineffective. Kids know who is rich and who is poor regardless of their clothing, so it wouldn't matter much.

If it is to make kids more "alike" and stand out less, well, that's problematic in itself, as it promotes homogeneity as an answer to conflicts-of-contrast. People should be taught to accept others for what they are, not to get in line with "all the others".

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Scriver is correct. Some school systems have gotten the oh-so-brilliant idea that if children are being bullied because of being different, then the obvious course of action is to take a sandblaster to the different kids until they're like the others. You could see that as victim-blaming, in a way.

Regardless, the correct course of action is to try and make people more accepting, not more uniform.

[Nadaka]

The vast, vast majority of stories of people getting kicked out of school for wearing crosses or praying are fabrications or runaway exaggerations.

I do however know a girl that got kicked out of school for wearing a pentagram, having blue hair and non-standard piercings. But that was Mississippi.

[Bauglir]

The Nazis were a culture, and there's virtually nothing good about them.

Oh Zeus, I cannot believe I'm about to defend Hitler. LOOK WHAT YOU'VE DONE.

As much of a shitpile as Nazi ideology was, and as little as I think the overall cultural structure they idealized is worth, I think "virtually nothing" is a bit of a stretch. Between the economic boom and infrastructure improvements, I think there were some notable good consequences of Nazi rule, and the psychological comfort provided by the ideology to those who endorsed it probably has some value.

I mean, the fact that that value was subsidized by the blood of millions and the unimaginable suffering of millions more does kind of undermine it. And the whole racial slavery thing, for those who weren't slated to just die horribly. Oh! Can't forget the obnoxious sexism, either. I wouldn't be surprised if "baby incubator" (appropriately translated) actually appeared in some of the official literature. Not to mention the outrageous distortion of history and science. So no, before you start, whoever you are, I'm not actually endorsing Nazism. Gods, no. I'm just saying that "X is awful!" is not grounds for "X is awful in every way!" Hasty generalizations help nobody.

EDIT: This post had better get into the out of context thread. "...there were some notable good consequences of Nazi rule", I mean come on you can't get much better than that.

[SalmonGod]

Scriver is correct. Some school systems have gotten the oh-so-brilliant idea that if children are being bullied because of being different, then the obvious course of action is to take a sandblaster to the different kids until they're like the others. You could see that as victim-blaming, in a way.

My school didn't have uniforms, but they still had this idea.  My principal was interviewed by the local newspaper after the Columbine incident, where he expressed the belief that it's the kids that get bullied that are the troublemakers for not fitting in, and thus they're the ones that need to be closely monitored and disciplined whenever something happens.   

I lost that newspaper clipping in the process of moving away from that hell hole.  One of these days, I'm going to go back there and dig through their archives for another copy.

The only time I was happy in school was towards the very end of my senior year, when I stopped worrying about fitting in or clashing with anyone who cared that I didn't fit in.  I spent a little over a year looking like an anime character and being the most comfortable with myself in the process that I had ever been.  I'm completely opposed to the whole school uniform idea.

[G-Flex]

any coherent society (e.g. a nation) needs some level of unifying culture to function, along with the standards of behavior reflecting them.

I want some proof of this, actually. I see absolutely no reason why you need a "unifying culture" for a society.

You don't think laws, government, or standards of behavior at all are part of a unifying culture?

It's the standards of behavior part that gets me. There are very few behaviors that I'd seek to have our society try and standardize (don't kill, don't steal, the usual stuff, etc.). Whenever you say "unifying culture", the image that immediately enters my mind is a million mindless uniformed citizens marching in lockstep and making sure no one ever rocks the boat. Perhaps I'm just biased.

The image that you're talking about is a really bad straw-man, though. Cultural, intellectual, and ideological diversity are, in fact, good things. In fact, that's one of the assumptions that Western culture tends to rely on.

Western society encourages, discourages, legally legitimizes, criminalizes, regulates against, and officially supports/funds all kinds of things that either constitute, allow for, or disallow certain "standards of behavior", and it doesn't really cause problems except in the cases where it's unnecessary or flagrantly violates people's civil rights with little or no benefit.

[Reelyanoob]

"Social Anarchism" can't be a problem unless it's a prominent culture.

But that'd clash with the very definition of social anarchism?

Can't just throw the term around. "Social Anarchism" has a very specific political meaning. I mean if "definitions" are the topic of discussion.

Social anarchism rejects private property, seeing it as a source of social inequality.[9] Social anarchism is used to specifically describe tendencies within anarchism that have an emphasis on the communitarian and cooperative aspects of anarchist theory and practice. Social anarchism includes (but is not limited to) anarcho-collectivism, anarcho-communism, some forms of libertarian socialism, anarcho-syndicalism and social ecology.

Synonymous with "collectivism" and "commutarianism", not synoymous with "every man for himself".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_anarchism

[SalmonGod]

I could basically be considered a social anarchist, though I hesitate to place myself in any further subset.  I don't like the way the wikipedia article just says "rejects private property" without implying the distinction that most don't mean that as a rejection of all forms of private ownership.

Culture can have it's own problems, but social anarchism is a thousands times worse. It's like giving everyone the free pass to go nuts.

And that is actually the social anarchist's problem with modern culture, as it permits a lucky handful of people a free pass to go nuts, and everyone else is at their mercy.  Our stance is that no one should have a free pass to go nuts, and even so, everyone having that free pass would be better than the current situation, as it would at least suggest a more level playing field.

[Truean]

Absolute power corrupts absolutely:

http://consumerist.com/2011/07/chase-gets-man-thrown-in-jail-for-fraudulent-check-except-the-check-is-legit.html

Inevitably, there will always be those with advantages and those without. There will always be rich and poor, even if there were no money, there would always be rich in love and poor in love, rich in gifts and poor in gifts.... The question is, what is the proper use of those advantages? You can't make people equal, because they simply aren't. They are all different, not better or worse than one another but different from one another....

This is why the wealthy should be regulated; your IQ does not equal the balance in your checking account. Neither does your beneficial effect on society. If you believe otherwise, then read Atlas Shrugged and please take John Galt's advice: leave. The rest of us neither need nor want you; you do not hold up our society and it shall be fine in your absence.... I'd love to dump these people off in the middle of the Rockies with a sign that says "Galt's Glutch" and see how long they'd last.

We're serious by the way and well over 50,000 people donated a dollar to pay for Mr. Limbaugh to move the hell out of the country: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=102672403103333&ref=mf,like he promised he would http://www.indecisionforever.com/2010/03/22/will-rush-limbaugh-move-to-costa-rica/.

Unfortunately, the bastard is still here....

[Luke_Prowler]

I guess I should apologize for mangling the term, I was trying to describe "without social boundaries or taboos" and social anarchism sounded the closest.

[Reelyanoob]

Not your fault, but I think virtually every phrase has been commandeered by someone at some point. It's getting to the point where you have to google everything before you say it, just to make sure. The curse of language.

"Chaos" is maybe less ambiguous than anarchy. The 19th century anarchists of continental Europe lived under totalitarian Monarchies and Empires, i.e. their main objection was to absolute rulers, not something most of us today can relate to entirely. They definitely did not oppose the idea of structure or society or rules completely. A few did but they were almost all fringe lunatics, not members of any groups or political associations, sort of like 19th century versions of the Columbine High shooters, but were conveniently touted by the ruling classes of Europe, as examples of the "average" anarchist membership.

I think true "anarchic" chaos would last a few minutes at most, before people started "oppressing" each other, and a new power structure was imposed (e.g. Warlordism like Somalia), which is why political anarchists are more like bottom-up federalists (in contrast to top-down paternalist ideas of society) than true "anything goes" types.