The Cement of Society Is... • Hacker News Board

Re: The Cement of Society Is...

#141

Post by jariel » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 2:59 PM UTC

gherkinnn wrote: post #83

jariel wrote: post #11

'Conscientiousness'[1] (there's some science to this one) Basically shared values, behaviours, rough sense of justice, morality and humanity, and a sense that individuals ought to aspire to those on some level. It's funny because in the West we talk a lot about 'freedom' and 'classical liberalism' - I really think that's partly: a) A response to historically authoritarian systems either political or cultural which we…

We must live in different “Wests”, you and I.

In the Western world we call our systems of government very generally 'Liberal Democracy' ie something established by classical liberal movement.

Our constitutions are 'rights first' and generally don't speak to any kind of social obligations that individuals may have to others.

Our intellectual framework for society is not communitarian, it's liberal.

It's our parents, communities etc. that teach is about 'responsibility to others, duty, moral obligation' - our legal system is just a scheme to protect us from government and one anohter.

Re: The Cement of Society Is...

#142

Post by AlexTWithBeard » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 3:04 PM UTC

flamble wrote: post #34

smegcicle wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

opposite extreme: "'progress'- whatever the cost"... for some reason referred to as 'woke'? (still need to work on understanding that angle) "replacing what works with what sounds good" --T.Sowell offtopic rant, but on the subject of politics; to me it seems underhanded to pursue experimental federal programs eg for healthcare- why not demonstrate it works in a few test states.. wouldn't california love to pass somet…

There is nothing "underhanded" about it, and it's nowhere near being "experimental": almost every country in the developed world has universal healthcare and the overwhelming preponderance of evidence demonstrates its superiority in every criterion. If you think that the debate over healthcare has anything to do with the substantive merits of one system over another, you're viewing it through the wrong lens. It is pu…

Public healthcare for the whole country would be great.

In absence of that, I would prefer to have public healthcare in one state, than not to have it at all.

Re: The Cement of Society Is...

#143

Post by zentiggr » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 3:06 PM UTC

bleepblorp wrote: post #79

flamble wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing "underhanded" about it, and it's nowhere near being "experimental": almost every country in the developed world has universal healthcare and the overwhelming preponderance of evidence demonstrates its superiority in every criterion. If you think that the debate over healthcare has anything to do with the substantive merits of one system over another, you're viewing it through the wrong lens. It is pu…

I'd say the real divide over American healthcare funding reform is not between the industry and everyone else but rather between those Americans who believe government should work to improve the lives of the people and the 40% of Americans who see the role of government as preserving existing social hierarchy. The healthcare industry does pour a lot of bribe money into preventing reform; see e.g. killing anti surpris…

I'll agree with the other comment - "bulk of research ... points the blame" - if there is any credible information that does show this, I'm very curious.

My cynical short take is that the insurance/medical industry, sitting on a cash cow, will do anything to keep it being taken away. That seems to be a lot of the motivation for some people to support policies that only benefit corporations / status quo.

Re: The Cement of Society Is...

#144

Post by AlexTWithBeard » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 3:07 PM UTC

rtkwe wrote: post #32

smegcicle wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

opposite extreme: "'progress'- whatever the cost"... for some reason referred to as 'woke'? (still need to work on understanding that angle) "replacing what works with what sounds good" --T.Sowell offtopic rant, but on the subject of politics; to me it seems underhanded to pursue experimental federal programs eg for healthcare- why not demonstrate it works in a few test states.. wouldn't california love to pass somet…

> why not demonstrate it works in a few test states It's tough to do some things at the state level because there's less money at the state level vs the federal level. It's a lot easier for a business to move from a state to avoid taxes meant to pay for healthcare by rerouting fund from the private market to the public market than it is to leave the US entirely. The federal government gets it's taxes first from incom…

> there's less money at the state level vs the federal level

So if anything, it means to me that we need to work on increasing roles of individual states and decreasing federal powers.

Re: The Cement of Society Is...

#145

Post by jariel » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 3:08 PM UTC

groby_b wrote: post #43

jariel wrote: post #11

'Conscientiousness'[1] (there's some science to this one) Basically shared values, behaviours, rough sense of justice, morality and humanity, and a sense that individuals ought to aspire to those on some level. It's funny because in the West we talk a lot about 'freedom' and 'classical liberalism' - I really think that's partly: a) A response to historically authoritarian systems either political or cultural which we…

I think you're overgeneralizing. There are several cultures "in the west" that do very much want to follow rules. Both Germany and Japan come immediately to mind. Neither is a strict rule following culture, but both place a fairly high value on rules that regulate the commons.

The 'Basic Law' does not refer to the responsibility of Germans towards their community at all. The first several articles, much like other modern constitutions, refer only to German's right to self expression.

German Constitution makes the point more obvious: written just after WW2, obviously, vern concerned with making sure people have 'their rights' = this is fundamentally a liberal concept, and my point about 'historical issues with authoritarianism'.

Almost all of our liberal documents are like this.

But they are not communitarian documents, and our legal system and governments do not generally codify the 'social fabric' that makes our civilizations work well.

Many NGO's exist to promote those legal concepts, particularly freedoms, but very few (except maybe the Church, and possibly indirectly some kind of social justice ones) to promote specifically the kinds of values and behaviours we need to work well a society.

Germany and Japan it seems, have those things very strongly enmeshed into cultural foundations, thankfully, but in 2020 with globalization and the erosion of all culture etc. it might be worth having a look at.

Re: The Cement of Society Is...

#146

Post by em-bee » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 3:15 PM UTC

jerkstate wrote: post #130

kome wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

hey fellow sociologist! the one that imho is really missing is "work", from smith to marx till the present day it has been a cornerstone of social science

weird how one of the messages we keep hearing is that automation is just around the corner and everyone needs to be paid to not work. with the breakdown of this and many of the others in the list, it seems to me like someone understands this and doesn't want a cohesive society.

agreed, though there needn't be a conflict. with automation freeing us from mundane labor, we could actually focus on doing meaningful work. work that advances our society globally, that helps to eliminate poverty and lack of education, etc. there is plenty of work to go around that, can't be automated which would allow us to create bonds in our society in a way that no factory work could achieve

Re: The Cement of Society Is...

#147

Post by luckylion » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 3:47 PM UTC

notahacker wrote: post #123

luckylion wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An issue I see with that line of thinking is that Turks in Germany are also a lot poorer than native Germans, get lower education and rely on welfare a lot more, commit more crimes etc. Yet they immigrated barely 60 years ago and were immigrating as workers, not refugees. Turks have never been enslaved (quite the contrary, they've been slave-owners for much of their history), there were no racist laws against Turks,…

I don't think many Germans would argue that Turkish immigrants and their descendants have not been subject to significant degrees of racism and discrimination. It's particularly hard to claim with a straight face that the cultural similarities between between Turkish Germans and African Americans are much more obvious...

> I don't think many Germans would argue that Turkish immigrants and their descendants have not been subject to significant degrees of racism and discrimination.

I'd like to see that argument, if you put it next to racism in the US. Racism towards Turks in Germany might be a slur on the school yard (which, I can assure you, was much more commonly used by Turkish kids), not slavery, Jim Crow and segregation.

> It's particularly hard to claim with a straight face that the cultural similarities between between Turkish Germans and African Americans are much more obvious...

That's not what I wrote. If racism isn't the great explanation, other explanations need to be looked at. You chose to neglect the fact that African Americans are not at all similar in the outcomes, even though they're all experiencing racism in the US, and were, by and large, always treated as a singular group.

Re: The Cement of Society Is...

#148

Post by luckylion » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 3:56 PM UTC

InitialLastName wrote: post #124

luckylion wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An issue I see with that line of thinking is that Turks in Germany are also a lot poorer than native Germans, get lower education and rely on welfare a lot more, commit more crimes etc. Yet they immigrated barely 60 years ago and were immigrating as workers, not refugees. Turks have never been enslaved (quite the contrary, they've been slave-owners for much of their history), there were no racist laws against Turks,…

Is it possible that different parts of the world, with different ethnic and migratory histories, might have different dynamics that lead groups to wind up in impoverished situations? Once groups of people are in poverty, yes, I would expect the issues you mention: lower educational outcomes, increased welfare reliance, and increased crime rates. In the US, the combined demographic trend of Black, urban, and "in pover…

It's totally possible that it has vastly different reasons, but I find the jump to and insistence on "this is it, this must be it, and it's just different elsewhere" to be a bit hastened. It doesn't explain the strong variety in outcome and doesn't seem to apply to other regions. American Exceptionalism is well and good, but it does sound a bit wanted rather than found.

Re: The Cement of Society Is...

#149

Post by klyrs » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 4:13 PM UTC

nlitened wrote: post #70

klyrs wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

50, plus or minus a bit depending on environmental conditions, tire wear, and speedometer calibration, relative to the surface you're driving on.

Not really if the car is running on a treadmill installed by a foreign government.

I covered that. "The surface you're driving on" in this case would be the belt of the treadmill.

Re: The Cement of Society Is...

#150

Post by watwut » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 4:28 PM UTC

adrianN wrote: post #132

watwut wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is however such thing as bad faith. Yes, the claim that opponent argues in bad faith itself can be don in bad faith. But, when the discussion is actually in bad faith, you wont solve the issue by pretending to yourself that it was in good faith.

Discussing, especially online or in politics, is often not for convincing your conversation partner, but for convincing the silent readers. I feel like this objective is more easily reached if you always assume good faith arguments.

I agree with first part but not with second. If you recognize bad faith argument and treat it as such, you can show why it is bad faith. If you don't recognize it that way, you will argue circles or leave implied lies unaddressed.