Hyper-Individualism = Social Isolation + Lack of Empathy

[Dans La Lune]

"Selfish asshole" isn't a personal attack in your book?

No, since I'm not applying it to you, but Ayn Rand supporters.

 

[NatMorton]

No, since I'm not applying it to you, but Ayn Rand supporters.

But since I implied I liked Rand's work, you knew what you were saying.

Have the courage to stand by your remarks. Trying to wriggle off the hook once you've said it is a bad look.

 

[Dans La Lune]

But since I implied I liked Rand's work, you knew what you were saying.

Have the courage to stand by your remarks. Trying to wriggle off the hook once you've said it is a bad look.

Those who like Ayn Rand's work are selfish assholes. I can say that without implicating you. You admitting that you like her work is on you, not me. The difference is forum rules.

 

[NatMorton]

Those who like Ayn Rand's work are selfish assholes. I can say that without implicating you. You admitting that you like her work is on you, not me. The difference is forum rules.

Ya, sure.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Ya, sure.

If someone likes Hitler they were probably Nazis. I don't force people to like Hitler. I believe in personal responsibility.

 

[Dans La Lune]

 

[Slartibartfast]

The world would probably be a better place if she had never been listened to. She is indirectly responsible for a huge number of problems in the US today.

 

[Dans La Lune]

"Why is it good to want others to be happy? You can make others happy when and if those others mean something to you, selfishly." - Ayn Rand

 

[Dans La Lune]

'Ayn Rand held a negative view of Native Americans, referring to them as "savages" and arguing that they had no right to the land they inhabited because they did not bring elements of civilization to the continent. She believed that any white person who brought civilization to the Americas had the right to take over the land, regardless of who was born there. Rand's philosophy, Objectivism, rejected what she saw as the "savage" and "primitive" traits of Native American culture, which she viewed as symptomatic of an "anti-industrial" mentality.

Rand's stance on Native Americans is part of a broader context where she and her followers have been critical of traditional Native American culture and property rights. They argue that because Native Americans did not believe in private property in the same way that Europeans did, they forfeited their claim to the land.'

 

[NatMorton]

I believe in personal responsibility.

Now that's funny.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Now that's funny.

Yes, the truth can be humorous.

 

[Cope]

Do you think the Hyper-Individualism promoted by the right-wing creates a lack of empathy and sense of social isolation? Thus creating a feedback loop which further empowers the right-wing?

'Individualism can contribute to social isolation and a lack of empathy. According to a study published in City-Journal, extreme individualism and self-preoccupation can lead to people feeling isolated and indifferent to the fate of others, as predicted by Tocqueville. This trend is exacerbated by the decline in social networks, smaller household sizes, and increased time spent alone, which are all factors that can diminish social connections and empathy.

Research also indicates that loneliness can hinder negative empathy while potentially stimulating positive empathy, as individuals seek social support to alleviate their loneliness. However, the overall effect of loneliness on empathy can be complex, as it may also lead to a decrease in social interactions and opportunities to practice empathy.

Furthermore, a lack of empathy can have significant consequences, including impaired relationships and an increased risk of antisocial behavior. Addressing this issue requires fostering social connections through household formation and the establishment of voluntary associations, rather than relying solely on technological solutions.

In summary, individualism can foster a sense of isolation and reduce empathy, which can negatively impact social cohesion and interpersonal relationships.'

Absence and Presence of Human Interaction: The Relationship Between Loneliness and Empathy - PMC

Loneliness is the negative experience of a discrepancy between the desired and actual personal network of relationships. Whereas past work have focused on the effect of loneliness on prosocial behaviors, the present research addressed the gap by ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The U.S. Has an Empathy Deficit

Here’s what we can do about it

www.scientificamerican.com

The Problem of Hyper-Individualism

Amid a national reckoning with loneliness, Americans should reject the forces driving them away from one another.

www.city-journal.org

I think your premise is wrong.

No hyper anything should be going on as we should be governing from the MIDDLE, not from some end of the left/right spectrum. You would see any middle governance as this HYPER.

It isn't.

 

[NatMorton]

I think your premise is wrong.

No hyper anything should be going on as we should be governing from the MIDDLE, not from some end of the left/right spectrum. You would see any middle governance as this HYPER.

It isn't.

He can't do it. Like so many on the left, they must cast any opposition to collectivism as an extreme. Opposing his ideas cannot be balancing individualism with public good; it must be "hyper individualism." It's the same straw-man exercise you get when one questions the level of government involvement in anything. Such questions are mangled into calls for "unregulated capitalism!" or "letting the poor starve!"

IMO, it's not a very honest approach to debate.

 

[Dans La Lune]

I think your premise is wrong.

No hyper anything should be going on as we should be governing from the MIDDLE, not from some end of the left/right spectrum. You would see any middle governance as this HYPER.

It isn't.

Who determines the middle? What are the two allowable extremes from which to determine a middle ground?

 

[Dans La Lune]

He can't do it. Like so many on the left, they must cast any opposition to collectivism as an extreme.

All ideologies break down at their extremes. It's just that yours breaks down far more quickly than mine.

Opposing his ideas cannot be balancing individualism with public good; it must be "hyper individualism." It's the same straw-man exercise you get when one questions the level of government involvement in anything. Such questions are mangled into calls for "unregulated capitalism!" or "letting the poor starve!"

IMO, it's not a very honest approach to debate.

The selfish assholeness of Ayn Rand would definitely be a fringe extreme that should be pushed out of acceptable political discourse.

 

[Cope]

Who determines the middle? What are the two allowable extremes from which to determine a middle ground?

Clearly, the gen pop determines the middle.

Hint: It's isn't socialism. And it isn't King. But we've never really had to deal with either of those extremes, so it's more akin to what we have had, PRIOR to the big pull from the ends of either party (which traditionally has been fairly centric)

As liberals tend to get more and more extreme (more and more socialistic, more take from some and give to others, more free stuff), the push back and pull the other direction was inevitable.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Clearly, the gen pop determines the middle.

Hint: It's isn't socialism. And it isn't King. But we've never really had to deal with either of those extremes, so it's more akin to what we have had, PRIOR to the big pull from the ends of either party (which traditionally has been fairly centric)

As liberals tend to get more and more extreme (more and more socialistic, more take from some and give to others, more free stuff), the push back and pull the other direction was inevitable.

If liberals are more extreme and more 'socialistic', why is wealth inequality now surpassing the Gilded Age? Why did Elon Musk go from BROKE in 2008 to ~$20 billion in 2015 to $400 billion by 2024?

 

[Gozaburo]

Do you think the Hyper-Individualism promoted by the right-wing creates a lack of empathy and sense of social isolation? Thus creating a feedback loop which further empowers the right-wing?

'Hyper-individualism' or just 'Individualism' is a liberal concept. What is progressive liberalism if not the worship of individual choice and decision making? Emancipation, pluralism, democracy, etc. are all forms of 'Individualism'.

Maybe what you're referring to is unfettered capitalism and a Darwinian social dynamic, but that's not really a consequence of individualism, that's just economic social Darwinism.

Atomization, social isolation, and commodification of society all without-a-doubt benefit leftist social policy insofar as they tear down perennial concepts of organization and hierarchy in favor for decentralized individual ones. Coincidentally this is also beneficial for capitalism because it's far easier to enslave an amorphous identity-less mass than it is the opposite. Food for thought perhaps.

 

[Dans La Lune]

'Hyper-individualism is a tendency for people to act in a highly individual way without regard to others around them or society. This extreme focus on the needs, desires, and rights of the individual over the collective community can lead to a breakdown in social fabric and communal ties. It often manifests in behaviors such as prioritizing personal gains over the common good, disregarding community responsibility, and valuing self-interest over collective welfare.'

 

[ModernDiogenes]

Transgender people don't think they are better off without society, or that by dismantling government and forcing people to sink or swim they'll achieve some kind of Atlas Shrugged utopia.

I wasn’t claiming that Transgendered folk are anything as an entirety. I’m sure they, and everyone else, is a case by case basis in such things.

I merely stated that identity politics and “hyper-individualism “ share touch points or tangents.

No, it's not.

I think it is and I believe the case I made is strong but I respect your opinion.

What metrics?

Where the lines cross to show two things having impact on each other. Your notion of “hyper-individualism” changing societal perception and its effect on outcomes that might be different if it didn’t exist.

 

[Deuce]

But since I implied I liked Rand's work, you knew what you were saying.

Have the courage to stand by your remarks. Trying to wriggle off the hook once you've said it is a bad look.

I'm a liberal, should I go through your posting history and hit "report" on any negative comment you've ever made about liberals?

 

[Cope]

If liberals are more extreme and more 'socialistic', why is wealth inequality now surpassing the Gilded Age? Why did Elon Musk go from BROKE in 2008 to ~$20 billion in 2015 to $400 billion by 2024?

Because traditionally, the wealthy have always been able to grow at a much greater rate than the poor.

What that DOESN'T mean, is that there is any inherent unfairness, or inability for (the poor) to grow it. It just won't be at the same pace, ever.

That old idiom "it takes money to make money' holds very true.

If all things were equal and you and I were guaranteed the same ROE (whatever % you want to insert here), but I started with $1M, and you started with $1, who has it unfair?

One thing you do highlight is the ability of some to get money from the government (typically entrepreneurs).

Want poor people to grow like Musk did? Take risk.

 

[Dans La Lune]

I wasn’t claiming that Transgendered folk are anything as an entirety. I’m sure they, and everyone else, is a case by case basis in such things.

I merely stated that identity politics and “hyper-individualism “ share touch points or tangents.


I think it is and I believe the case I made is strong but I respect your opinion.

Except that your case doesn't fit the definition.

Where the lines cross to show two things having impact on each other. Your notion of “hyper-individualism” changing societal perception and its effect on outcomes that might be different if it didn’t exist.

I posted the definition several times. The burden is on you to understand it.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Because traditionally, the wealthy have always been able to grow at a much greater rate than the poor.

What that DOESN'T mean, is that there is any inherent unfairness, or inability for (the poor) to grow it. It just won't be at the same pace, ever.

That old idiom "it takes money to make money' holds very true.

Would you rather modern Dems go back to their approach in the 1960s?

If all things were equal and you and I were guaranteed the same ROE (whatever % you want to insert here), but I started with $1M, and you started with $1, who has it unfair?

If you started with 1 million, where did you start? Did you get handed that money from your parents? Did you work for it?

One thing you do highlight is the ability of some to get money from the government (typically entrepreneurs).

Want poor people to grow like Musk did? Take risk.

Musk got rich off government. He was broke in 2008. And he only became a centi-billionaire due to Trump's tax cuts.

 

[Cope]

Would you rather modern Dems go back to their approach in the 1960s?

Which has nothing to do with what I said, nor is it relevant.

If you started with 1 million, where did you start? Did you get handed that money from your parents? Did you work for it?

Who cares? Parents. Property. Transactions? You seem to think that everyone starts equal, that everyone is ENTITLED to start equal.
They aren't. They don't.

You are thinking exactly like a true socialist and that will never fly here in the US. If you want to be taken seriously, the redistribution schemes have to be much more hidden.

Musk got rich off government. He was broke in 2008. And he only became a centi-billionaire due to Trump's tax cuts.

Ok, and? Risk vs Reward. It is not the governments job to ensure that all people take equal risk, or are rewarded equally. The OPPORTUNITIES ARE THERE. Make use of them.

As soon as you figure out how to un**** the government and the corruption inherent in the system, please let me know and I will join with you to ensure a fair and balanced government system that benefits the people just as much as it does the people serving in that government.