• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Will the Internet Socialize the West?

Will the internet socialize the West?

  • The internet will socialize the West.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The internet will help socialize the West.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The internet will likely socialize the West.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The internet will likely help socialize the West.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The internet might socialize the West.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The internet might help socialize the West.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The internet will unlikely socialize the West.

    Votes: 2 33.3%
  • The internet will unlikely help socialize the West.

    Votes: 1 16.7%
  • The internet won't socialize the West.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The internet won't help socialize the West.

    Votes: 3 50.0%

  • Total voters
    6

Daktoria

Banned
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
3,245
Reaction score
397
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Private
Let's consider some aspects of the internet:

  • Encouragement of short term attention spans
  • Encouragement of fashion before function
  • Encouragement of quantity before quality
  • Encouragement of knowledge before intelligence

Now, let's consider some aspects of socialism:

  • Discouragement of long term investment
  • Discouragement of understanding why before what
  • Discouragement of individuals before collectives
  • Discouragement of analytic before historical judgment

Therefore, will the internet socialize the West?
 
"Encouragement of knowledge before intelligence"

I would say "encouragement of information without discernment".

Collectives tend to suppress information exchange. The internet by its very nature is a wide open information exchange, and with satellite communication, it makes it impossible to completely restrict access to it. Though the internet does not encourage discernment, it doesn't actively restrain it. People can choose to consider carefully what they read or not.

The watchword of the internet is "unique user". Companies make products for internet interface that are highly customizable. Rather than a generic template for everyone, anyone can choose from a bewildering array of looks and feels, and can turn on and off any source of information they choose. Individuality, not collectivism, is most highly prized.

I would disagree with your statement of the internet as "Encouragement of fashion before function". Fashion, clearly, is vital to the experience of the unique user, but if a product or service does not function as expected, a consumer will change brand loyalties quickly.
 
"Encouragement of knowledge before intelligence"

I would say "encouragement of information without discernment".

Collectives tend to suppress information exchange. The internet by its very nature is a wide open information exchange, and with satellite communication, it makes it impossible to completely restrict access to it. Though the internet does not encourage discernment, it doesn't actively restrain it. People can choose to consider carefully what they read or not.

Yes, I agree. Intelligence requires organizing information, but the internet encourages information overload.

Hence, quantity before quality.

Exchange and discernment apply to information givers as well. Collectives exercise peer pressure in order to intimidate intelligent people to give up information in exchange for nothing.

Socialism operates on the same basis. It aims to enslave supply to demand.

The watchword of the internet is "unique user". Companies make products for internet interface that are highly customizable. Rather than a generic template for everyone, anyone can choose from a bewildering array of looks and feels, and can turn on and off any source of information they choose. Individuality, not collectivism, is most highly prized.

Well it's the "conformity by not conforming" phenomenon. You know, people are always trying to be postmodern in order to show off the latest styles, but it really just operates according to chaos, and expects people to conform with average chaos in order to fit in.

A good example of this is watching break dancing, parkour, drift racing, or skateboarding videos. They're exciting, but there are also certain norms expected to be upheld. They're not entirely customized. There are certain templates to the activities which are simply combined with random variations here and there.

Websites operate the same way. They can be deconstructed down to templates, and then just have splattered fashion on top. Heck, some people try to deliberately exercise this postmodernism in order to be hypocritical and show a willingness to bite the intellectual hand which feeds. For example, websites depend on code, but graphic designers don't engage code directly. However, graphic designers can make careers for themselves by building websites which discourage people from discovering how code works. Instead, customers can become spoiled brats.

I would disagree with your statement of the internet as "Encouragement of fashion before function". Fashion, clearly, is vital to the experience of the unique user, but if a product or service does not function as expected, a consumer will change brand loyalties quickly.

I agree, but customers usually have very low functional expectations. Everything's about "keep it simple, stupid".
 
You start the weirdest threads.
 
First I need to OP to explain how their argument makes any f***king sense.
 
Let's consider some aspects of the internet:

  • Encouragement of short term attention spans
  • Encouragement of fashion before function
  • Encouragement of quantity before quality
  • Encouragement of knowledge before intelligence

Now, let's consider some aspects of socialism:

  • Discouragement of long term investment
  • Discouragement of understanding why before what
  • Discouragement of individuals before collectives
  • Discouragement of analytic before historical judgment

Therefore, will the internet socialize the West?

First of all, suggesting that a culturally normalized dislike of long term investments arises from individual short attention spans it a huge leap. The psychological processes that produce a moral/habit like "caring for long term investments" are more varied and elaborate than simply have a short attention span. Plenty of people with attention deficit are nonetheless effective and even visionary planners, because they possess perspective, intuition, or intelligence that nonetheless gives them insight into the future.

I agree with your evaluations of the Internet broadly (although the middle two are somewhat sketchy), but your evaluations of socialism are extremely lopsided and one-dimensional.
 
Last edited:
I've little respect for the opinions of anyone who thinks that socialism discourages long term investment. Investing in **** like health care, education, national infrastructure and a relatively clean environment is ENTIRELY about reaping long term benefits by maximizing our society's human capital.
 
I've little respect for the opinions of anyone who thinks that socialism discourages long term investment. Investing in **** like health care, education, national infrastructure and a relatively clean environment is ENTIRELY about reaping long term benefits by maximizing our society's human capital.

That's maintenance, not investment, and it dissociates society because people take their foundations for granted.

The narrative of your foundations inspires the development of everything else. If you build them publicly, people become spoiled and depressed.

If you want to invest, then exercise some creative thinking instead of mowing someone else's lawn.
 
First of all, suggesting that a culturally normalized dislike of long term investments arises from individual short attention spans it a huge leap. The psychological processes that produce a moral/habit like "caring for long term investments" are more varied and elaborate than simply have a short attention span. Plenty of people with attention deficit are nonetheless effective and even visionary planners, because they possess perspective, intuition, or intelligence that nonetheless gives them insight into the future.

I agree with your evaluations of the Internet broadly (although the middle two are somewhat sketchy), but your evaluations of socialism are extremely lopsided and one-dimensional.

The type of investment you're talking about is similarly socializing. People with ADD who carry out long term investment liquidate the culture required for investment to happen. Good examples of this are information technology, public roads, biotech, and advertising. All of these things give people access to resources where they don't have to appreciate the thought processes required to invent said goods. Instead, people become spoiled, and in turn, they abuse future inventive personalities because their inventiveness is unnecessary for society to get along. Future inventors become expected to work hard rather than work smart, but because they're not built, they're mocked instead and expected to conform with the system.
 
Let's consider some aspects of the internet:

  • Encouragement of short term attention spans

You seem to spend a lot of time on political forums so this is automatically refuted by your own person.
 
Let's consider some aspects of the internet:

  • Encouragement of short term attention spans
  • Encouragement of fashion before function
  • Encouragement of quantity before quality
  • Encouragement of knowledge before intelligence

Now, let's consider some aspects of socialism:

  • Discouragement of long term investment
  • Discouragement of understanding why before what
  • Discouragement of individuals before collectives
  • Discouragement of analytic before historical judgment

Therefore, will the internet socialize the West?

I don't think "socialize" necessarily relates to Socialism. I do have a current observation from personal experience and old age. I am a member of several fraternal organizations and we are always seeking new members. We are talking about "social groups" and in years past, it was stylish, popular, meaningful, status symbol, whatever, and participating in the fraternal social activities was considered important. In this time, it is extremely difficult to attract new membership and we have tried to analyze the reasons for that, and have discussed this collectively and our conclusion is that electronic entertainment is the culprit. People no longer need "person to person" social skills, but do everything with the keyboard. It is high quality entertainment, amusement, whatever, but it absolutely discourages the X generation from social participation. I had pondered if it might be intentional mind manipulation and concluded that would be a little too conspiratorial. Anyways, my conclusion is that the Internet discourages socialization. I'd appreciate any comments relating to what I have stated because it's not an idle thought but a continuing dilemna as regards attracting fraternal memberships.
 
I don't think "socialize" necessarily relates to Socialism. I do have a current observation from personal experience and old age. I am a member of several fraternal organizations and we are always seeking new members. We are talking about "social groups" and in years past, it was stylish, popular, meaningful, status symbol, whatever, and participating in the fraternal social activities was considered important. In this time, it is extremely difficult to attract new membership and we have tried to analyze the reasons for that, and have discussed this collectively and our conclusion is that electronic entertainment is the culprit. People no longer need "person to person" social skills, but do everything with the keyboard. It is high quality entertainment, amusement, whatever, but it absolutely discourages the X generation from social participation. I had pondered if it might be intentional mind manipulation and concluded that would be a little too conspiratorial. Anyways, my conclusion is that the Internet discourages socialization. I'd appreciate any comments relating to what I have stated because it's not an idle thought but a continuing dilemna as regards attracting fraternal memberships.

I was actually thinking of that when I wrote the OP - how "socialize" has multiple definitions.

It's a shame that conservatives have forgotten about social conservatism, and instantly associate socialize with socialism.

As for fraternities, you can't force people to join. Heck, forcing people would defeat the purpose of fraternities.

What you can do, however, is publish philosophical values into the public domain. Quality recruits will approach you because they see what you stand for even if most people make fun of it.

That said, if you're not willing to publish values, then your fraternity is probably too cowardly to be worthwhile joining.
 
Last edited:
This thread seems relevant to this topic:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/philosophical-discussions/135278-did-addiction-become-good-thing.html

I think the crux of the problem is re-writing society to have meaning without God. I don't think it can be done, and as a result society will break down into small sub-groups more easily exploited by ruthless leaders. I see this in the genrefication of music, where the smallest stylistic differences demand an entirely new categorization. Fierce battles ensue on music websites when anyone dares cross the orthodoxy of the music cognoscenti. This effect is most profound in heavy metal music.

Internet fragmentation of attention is just the most obvious symptom of this disease.
 
Let's consider some aspects of the internet:

  • Encouragement of short term attention spans
  • Encouragement of fashion before function
  • Encouragement of quantity before quality
  • Encouragement of knowledge before intelligence

Now, let's consider some aspects of socialism:

  • Discouragement of long term investment
  • Discouragement of understanding why before what
  • Discouragement of individuals before collectives
  • Discouragement of analytic before historical judgment

Therefore, will the internet socialize the West?
Capitalism's refusal to offer paid job training is discouragement of long-term investment. As far as the individual is concerned, neither of these systems has anything to offer him. But you're right in the fact that a copycat medium like the Internet does socialize-capitalize. A typical error required to participate on the Internet is that there is any difference to the individual between socialism and capitalism.
 
The type of investment you're talking about is similarly socializing. People with ADD who carry out long term investment liquidate the culture required for investment to happen. Good examples of this are information technology, public roads, biotech, and advertising. All of these things give people access to resources where they don't have to appreciate the thought processes required to invent said goods. Instead, people become spoiled, and in turn, they abuse future inventive personalities because their inventiveness is unnecessary for society to get along. Future inventors become expected to work hard rather than work smart, but because they're not built, they're mocked instead and expected to conform with the system.

You mean conform to the capitalist system of indentured-servitude professional education and the grand larceny of corporate patents, which make the inventor the slave of the investor. You champion creative minds, thinking that your cheerleading will get them on your side, but you offer the same raw deal that socialists preach. "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his greed" is the capitalist limp comeback. Neither side offers "To each according to his abilities." Dozens of times I've tried to get that across on the Internet, but because it doesn't fit any of the required choices, people are not ready for new ideas here. The only reason the rulers allowed this puppet show was that they were confident that they had dumbed-down people enough to risk it. All we have here is a clash of cults, a face-off of fads, and a specious spectrum.
 
The issue of quantity over quality has always been the problem with information, even prior to the World Wide Web. Just as the 1st Amendment in the US creates an environment where everyone can speak naturally reduces the overall quality of the speech. But the 1st Amendment isn't about quality, and neither is the World Wide Web.
 
Capitalism's refusal to offer paid job training is discouragement of long-term investment.

You don't understand capitalism then. Creative destruction comes from ideas, not skills.

Skills need to be discovered through ideas. Otherwise, workers just become robots.

As far as the individual is concerned, neither of these systems has anything to offer him. But you're right in the fact that a copycat medium like the Internet does socialize-capitalize. A typical error required to participate on the Internet is that there is any difference to the individual between socialism and capitalism.

Well I'll agree with you there. Socialism takes the worst aspects of industry and reinforces them.
 
You mean conform to the capitalist system of indentured-servitude professional education and the grand larceny of corporate patents, which make the inventor the slave of the investor. You champion creative minds, thinking that your cheerleading will get them on your side, but you offer the same raw deal that socialists preach. "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his greed" is the capitalist limp comeback. Neither side offers "To each according to his abilities." Dozens of times I've tried to get that across on the Internet, but because it doesn't fit any of the required choices, people are not ready for new ideas here. The only reason the rulers allowed this puppet show was that they were confident that they had dumbed-down people enough to risk it. All we have here is a clash of cults, a face-off of fads, and a specious spectrum.

Institutionalization is a progressive manifestation where organic communities are sacrificed for hypercompetitive workaholism.

It's not about economics. It's about society where people can't talk clearly, and therefore, manipulate manners, institutionalizing those who are born outcast.
 
Back
Top Bottom