581–590 of 824 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm in my 30s but I'm feeling this so hard. Growing up we used to have these kid/youth centres that were run by local Catholic organizations. We used to hang out there after school. Ostensibly the point was that there'd be 30 minutes of catechism doctrine, but we didn't really care about that. To us it was just a the place where everyone would be. I miss that so much. A place where you can just go and meet people you…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's arguably only effective if you genuinely believe the truth claims of the faith. At least for Judaism that not true at all. There are enormous numbers of Jews who do not believe, and yet consider themselves Jewish and go to occasional services, and find meaning in them even while not believing. There are even pulpit Rabbis who do not believe and yet faithfully follow all the practices and teach.
>There are enormous numbers of Jews There aren't, which is exactly why they're exceptional. After the experiences of the 20th century Jews have retained an acute awareness of threats to their very survival as a group which is why they tend to adhere to practice despite secularization. It's also likely why secular Jewish women are the only secular group with a high birth rate. There's no historical analog to this in p…
... And the 19th, and the 18th, and the 17th, and the 16th, and...
The Jewish condition was obviously affected by the Shoah, but the fundamental elements of otherness from the communities it lived in (since the exodus), with all the very real threats that they inevitably attract, have always been there.
(Sadly any further elaboration on this point cannot be made in a public forum today.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And as someone else noted, a significant drop in the number of divorces since its peak in the 1980s.
Does that include breakups? Can't get divorced if you were never married.
The unspoken truth here is that geographic community requires that you can stay in one spot long enough to make the massive investment in building or becoming involved in a local community.
Recently I was thinking that I should become involved in local initiatives, or perhaps even local government, until I realised that as a renter not only would I not be here im a few years time, but any actual success I had in improving the local area would just mean a likely rent increase as it became more desirable and gentrified.
The fact that I'm shocked and feel blessed that I'm living at the same address for 4 years in a row now makes it obvious how bad an investment trying to becime part of the local community seems to someone like me.
In the age of homeownership haves and have-nots, it's natural for local community to break down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue started long before that, it’s not like mental health was great in the 90s. Loss of third places, TV, necessity to move around for studies then jobs (and moving your kids along if / when you got them), increased cost of living, … are all massive contributing factors.
> Loss of third places People keep bringing up the loss of third places. Every time I look into it I come to the conclusion that there are more third places now than there has ever been in the history of humanity. In the 80s and 90s there were no skate parks, there are now skate parks. There are more bike and walking trails. There are more libraries. There are more community centers. My local neighborhood is breaking…
Then the city got more and more expensive, and businesses couldn't afford the rent / leases in the city anymore.
Affordable recreation isn't available in SF and that leads me to just stay at home as an adult instead of going out and doing something that doesn't involve drinking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think more broadly you’re talking about the concept of “third places” and this has been suggested as another reason for decline of community. However, my argument is that the Internet replaced the “third place” for most people given it’s where people are spending time in terms of attention and resources rather than necessarily physical presence.
And how is that compliant with the human biology?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Capitalism isn't a person, it doesn't want things. The problem with people that talk about capitalism the way you do is that they mistake human nature for the system that was built around it so when they try to change the system, the people are maladapted and transgress against it by default then it fails miserably.
No, the issue is pedantic people like you who can't understand that "want" is a simple way of saying that a system is biased towards certain outcomes. Capitalism is not an expression of human nature, it's a single possible pareto equilibrium. To say otherwise ignores huge swaths of humans history, and many modern nations which have achieved equilibrium in different ways.
> it's a single possible pareto equilibrium
I propose that those other equilibriums’ stability depended on at least one of these: a) small population size&density b) violent totalitarian enforcement c) indoctrination in caste system and/or religion d) no contact with capitalism
> Capitalism is not an expression of human nature
Ownership is very natural for humans (2 year old already declares “it’s mine”).
Finally, capitalism is just one part what makes a society. I bet there are quite significant societal differences between Sweden vs US now vs US 70 years ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that axiomatically quoting the US declaration of independence is a deeply unhealthy way of approaching the world the world at large.
So you disagree that life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are unalienable rights? Are you saying that they can (or should?!) be violated? Why?
Say it's the 18 century with slavery is common. The slave owners are depriving the slaves of liberty and happiness. But the deprivation of the slaves liberty brings the owners happiness.
If you cannot persuade the owners to stop depriving slaves of liberty, then there two options remain.
One, you respect the owners right to happiness. But at the expense of the slave's liberty.
Two, you use force to stop the owners from violating the slaves rights. But in doing so you violate the owners right to happiness.
What's the answer then here if there no options that do not harm someone's unalienable rights?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you saying that a group where everyone has to be a catholic is somehow diverse? Also, nothing will ever be like the stuff we had when we were kids. Because in all our minds, that is the norm.
> Are you saying that a group where everyone has to be a catholic is somehow diverse? You've clearly never lived in an area with high density of a specific religious group. At a certain threshold, yes, there can be more diversity in a single religious congregation than is present in most local environments short of the local public school. If most of your neighbors are Catholic, then you'll often just show up for the…
And the range of accepted ideas or opinions, political or cultural, was remarkably small. Kids who went to these centers were very alike. That is why it felt so good to them .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The mad rush to as quickly abolish religious practices in mainstream U.S. culture without any form of societal replacement is puzzling to me. > I am no fan of religion having grown up in an exceedingly religious environment. But it was always completely obvious to me even as a child that the primary purpose of religion was to form local communities and have others with shared values to rely on. It is a problem, but…
The church that I was raised in and grew up in for the first 18 years of my life... I became a militant atheist when I left that church at 18, close to 30 years ago. In my 30s, I started to drift between Zen Buddhism, Druidry, wicca, paganism, looked into Daoism, and on and on it went. And I finally realized, quite recently, that I had a God-shaped hole running right through the center of me. I still haven't quite fi…
Protestants in Europe are also very different from the US btw - they are more moderate than Catholics, not less. I grew up Protestant and have always had doubts, which turned into being pretty sure that it's all bogus from age 20 or so. Having something to believe in is probably nice, but it doesn't work for me.