To be frustrated that people don't understand that individualism is not compatible with a collectivist mindset?

[User09678]

Which we need to solve most of our most critical and existential issues?

Peer pressure is externally imposed and often used in the context where people have different preferences.

A collective mindset is when people believe in their shared goals and the means with which to achieve them. If someone disagreed, they would experience pressure. But don't you think sometimes stigma serves a valuable social function? For the individual as well as the great body

I'm not suggesting the don't value the individual. I'm just saying there has to be limits on the demand that individual can place on their society. Because flourishing individualism creates HUGE demands on society.

@User09678 “You don't feel the best societal institutions are built by people's sacrifices to the greater good? Without anyone willing to do that, you can't do anything. At all.”

You do realise that this is precisely the mindset and attitudes of the Nazis to justify the horrific, inhumane murder, torture and genocide of the Jewish people? People were convinced that it was for the greater good of Germany. This is a very significant problem and a major flaw with a collectivist mindset. People can be lead to dehumanising people and violating basic human rights, such as the right to being safe etc. if they believe it is for the greater good.

The state took over a lot of things that people, families and communities used to do themselves.

Maybe because some families and communities showed they couldn't be trusted ?

Just a thought.

I am enjoying this thread too. If you are not a bot, OP - well done!

TBH I think if King Charles took over he would make a good job of it. He has a moral compass, cares for the environment, is accepting that his position is given by God etc

If you compare the rates for violent crime and homicide in countries like the US and Switzerland, where there is a high level of firearm ownership, versus the rates in countries where owning a gun is rare, it is very clear that insuring against a hypothetical organised-threat in the future by allowing the general population access to killing apparatus, in the home, now is a dumb thing to do.
Even looking at accidents, In the USA, the CDC's own report says that between 2003 and 2017, there were 1,262 unintentional firearm injury deaths among children aged 0–17 years! Do you think this is what people were anticipating in 1791 when the 2nd amendment was adopted?

And if he had died as a small child resulting in Andrew being the King would you still be so happy with the idea of monarchy?

I am sure he would be ousted pretty fast.

@User09678 could you expand on why you think biotech is bad for women? You've mentioned it several times as a bad thing and I was wondering why. Because I can only think of positives.

I’m really interested in this too

We need a balance

Collective and individual

That's hard because people like simple thinking

Collective where it helps the average individual and individual where it doesn't harm another individual

Full on individual leads to a Wild West , survival of those with the most money, heaviest fists and fastest feet

Full on collective stifles creativity

If you can only think of positives for anything ( biotech included ) you are not thinking hard enough

The best we can hope is that positives outweigh negatives

Any tech can be bad in the hands of the wrong people

And there we go. The climate hysteria kicks in.

How does the accident rate in Switzerland compare? What data is collected around the circumstances of these incidents, what proportion are they within families/households?

I didn't really have present day UK in mind as a starting point! I don't think revolution nor reform is going to save us now 😅

I'm disappointed you weren't able to dig in to your points more substantively. It would have enriched the discussion

Are you this patronising in real life too?

In any case I am disappointed when people are so desperate to sound intellectual they refuse to acknowledge objective reality.

You know like beating the ‘climate emergency’ drum considering themselves to be the holder of all wisdom. If climate emergency is such a thing, are you saying that the Chinese and Americans are so stupid they are prepared to be wiped out by this threat. Between them they account for a third of all emissions.

The leaders preaching to us about ‘climate emergency’ always live and invest in real estate by the coast where sea levels are forecast to rise. They fly all over the place while asking the plebs not do so. They do all the things that are bad for the climate - apparently.

We can use soundbites from a first year Uni essay ‘to enrich the discussion’ or just look at the real world as it is.

You called me hysterical for referring to rising sea levels, it wasn't the first, second or third response that came to mind but I was trying to be polite and I moderated my response.

I think climate change is real, you don't, but I'm far from hysterical about it.

I'm not quite convinced by this. If women have it their way how come it is their jobs that get paid so much less than men's - care work, hospital work, nursing, teaching, for example? Yet a guy selling a sports car that could cause an accident because someone high on drugs decides to show off his wealth from drug dealing in it (for example) would be being paid double as their starting salary as a teenager with zero qualifications.

People are no longer reliant on family and neighbours because they don't need to be.

But plenty of people do still need to be. Elderly, mentally ill, those with learning difficulties or severe neurodiversity may not be able to look after themselves, but MN posts constantly say that that's not their problem, put them in a home, the council will look after them, why should I inconvenience myself to make your life any better.

Society would be a much better place for a lot of people if it were less individualistic.

"The state took over a lot of things that people, families and communities used to do themselves."

Yes, the State took over a lot of things because families and communities didn't have the time, resources or money to do it themselves and the most vulnerable in society were suffering. I keep reading about this wonderfully mythical, yet strangely undetermined time, when everyone helped everybody else and nobody locked their front doors. It is, of course, mostly complete bollocks. I'm 67 and grew up in a working class village. There was no more community support then than there is now. In fact, in terms of family help there's probably considerably more these days. Grandparents frequently offer regular free childcare and many people can expect a half decent inheritance from their boomer parents.

Yes, the State took over a lot of things because families and communities didn't have the time, resources or money to do it themselves and the most vulnerable in society were suffering.

And families and communities showed they couldn't be trusted.

That would require a revolution

Why are women choosing to work in lower paid roles? Whats stopping them choosing higher paid careers