Meanwhile in Canada

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
WhyCzar said:
The individualist tolerates differences. The collectivist demands conformity.
Click to expand...
False dichotomy. There's a range of possibilities in between. Most Western societies (Eastern definitely lean to the collective end but that's very much a cultural difference and doesn't mean we have to "change" them) balance them, recognizing that individual rights matter but that the individual is often better served by existing in a cohesive community supported by collective action. "No man is an island" and "it takes a village". "Individualist" and "collectivist" are the ends of a continuum and being too far to one end or the other leads to problems. The trick is finding the right point on the line for a given society.

You also over-generalize, IMHO. I find a lot of so-called individualists who are very intolerant, my way or the highway types. The type who rants on and on or even takes legal (or other) action over the slightest affront to their "individuality". And there's collectivists who still recognize that the collective is made up of individuals and the individuals matter. They aren't all trying to assimilate your individuality Borg-style, but want to hear from the voices that make up the collective (i.e. society).

I've long argued that individual and collective human rights only gets us so far. We need to talk about individual and collective human responsibilities, too, mostly to each other. That alone gets us moving to the middle ground between these two extremes.
 
Difference and conformity forms a false dichotomy ... would that be a divine openness? Like a great hollow in the Appalachia? Appalling ... sufficient enough to cause some revelation ... apocalyptic eve*nds ... butt*ease in the dark !

Pay great attention to occurrences we don't know much about or those in the surroundings that appeared as friendly neighbors may altern ... sometimes known as environmental bullyism! Peculiarly co dead ... duo laid out!
 
Does conformity in an irrational setting mean something?

Way too deep for this stupid person ... my mother told me! As consequence I hide any known's that I collect ...

Adds up to great unknowns in the integral virtue ...
 
Mendalla said:
That alone gets us moving to the middle ground between these two extremes.
Click to expand...
Cooperative Individualism is the practical combination of high personal freedom and high social cooperation that emerges in the most successful modern societies.

It is not a compromise or middle point between individualism and collectivism — it is individualism fully realized under conditions of advanced division of labor and organic solidarity.

Organic solidarity is Durkheim’s explanation for how modern societies can be extremely individualistic yet extremely cooperative and stable at the same time: deep division of labor turns personal autonomy into the engine of social cohesion instead of its enemy.

Durkheim was right all along.

In modern societies, more individualism → more interdependence → more trust and cooperation, not less.

The places where people feel most free to be themselves are also the places where people most reliably cooperate with strangers.

That’s organic solidarity in action, and it took a century, but the evidence finally caught up with Durkheim.

Reference:
Title: “Individualism-Collectivism and Social Capital”
Published: Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 2004
Authors: Jüri Allik & Anu Realo (University of Tartu, Estonia)
The data (Allik & Realo 2004, World Values Survey, etc.) now clearly show it: the most individualistic countries consistently rank highest in generalized trust, civic engagement, volunteering, and social cohesion.
 
Last edited:
Maybe that’s true whyczar and is also why everything is so corrupt - because that model dictates it be so, and as fewer and fewer individuals have empathy for broader humanity, the corruption perpetuates itself until everything good is destroyed. Unless there are some fair and objective guidelines for the greater good expected.
 
Last edited:
The world’s too corrupted. We need guidelines. We need the obligation to care for others be a rule that guides policy because not much is forthcoming from people’s hearts in the big picture.
 
I’m just a common sense individualist who thinks society thrives when free people cooperate voluntarily.

Collectivists that exile decent people for daring to use their own judgment are the real extremists IMO
 
WhyCzar said:
I’m just a common sense individualist who thinks society thrives when free people cooperate voluntarily.

Collectivists that exile decent people for daring to use their own judgment are the real extremists IMO
Click to expand...
Free people don’t cooperate voluntarily very well these days. Especially when those who are all about themselves don’t give a s**t about anybody worse off or more vulnerable. They are destroying social cohesion. They need rules. Fair and reasonable rules, not onerous or useless ones. But you seem to think any rules are onerous and you then transfer the burden onto those who are more vulnerable to having the lack of rules harm them. That sucks. You might be responsible while several more to your one, doesn’t give a s**t. Therein, your philosophy can ruin the world.
 
Last edited:
Clock’s right twice a day. Congratulations. And funnily enough he’s a government official supporting the ‘freedom’ people. That’s hypocritical of you isn’t it WhyCzar?

If he’s anti-collectivist perhaps he’s in disguise. Sort of what I posted up thread about right wing movements - especially populism - borrowing the appearance of hippie ideals.
 
Last edited:
I don’t know. I feel like I’m just observing a train wreck at this point. The world is doomed because the loudest most stubbornly disinformed are winning - or they’re helping the worst leaders.
 
WhyCzar there’s not enough love in the world for your ideology to work. People just use their ‘freedom’ as power to screw others who can’t compete or who aren’t competitive, out of existence. Survival of the fittest - it’s a pile of dinosaur s**t. We need fair rules which includes respect for human rights and equality or the world could end up back in the Stone Age, having ‘freely’ competed ourselves out of existence.
 
Last edited:
There is a policy of harshness progressing here so as to maintains the theory of the elite is beta ... thus that glow!

Then it all burns down like passion in the dark ... candle in the wind?

Is corruption well distributed? What should we do with IT? Thought is the enigma ... right ... poly mist understood ... downers ... in a few word! One has to travel with misunderstanding a bit to believe it exists! Divide and conquer ... divine eh?

Dah Vid' ... clearly visualized ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top