Social Main purpose of humans is to work

[Contempt]

If you want to a part of the todays society,
you have to be employed and leave majority of your lifetime to some employer.
Why ? Is there another way to live ? Can we just have some small modest house and have everything in our own yard, like fruits , vegetables, etc ?
Are banks, taxes, credits, law, politics, profit, etc, necesary for us to survive and progress as society , whats the alternative `?

Nothing is stopping you from moving out into the wilderness and living off grid. If you expect to get power/internet access/flowing water/plumbing/computers/medical care etc, you better have something to exchange for it though or are you expecting all this to be provided to you for free?

 

[mozfonky]

Nothing is stopping you from moving out into the wilderness and living off grid. If you expect to get power/internet access/flowing water/plumbing/computers/medical care etc, you better have something to exchange for it though or are you expecting all this to be provided to you for free?

In the US, you aren't free to do that. We're all tied to the system. The only way to be off grid without spending and paying is to do it totally under the radar, which probably isn't that easy.

 

[MDoza]

The line must go up.

 

[Bobby00]

In many parts of Europe it would be illegal to life in the woods outside of society.

 

[mozfonky]

In many parts of Europe it would be illegal to life in the woods outside of society.

same in the usa, they got us all by the nuts. So much for freedom.

 

[Bobby00]

same in the usa, they got us all by the nuts. So much for freedom.

Im surprised its not legal in the US with the slogans. Here its either someone owns the woods like a private person or the goverment either way you wont be able to live there. Here its especially extreme you can be fined thousands for trying to live in the woods but you can be homeless. Kinda ironic.

 

[mozfonky]

Im surprised its not legal in the US with the slogans. Here its either someone owns the woods like a private person or the goverment either way you wont be able to live there. Here its especially extreme you can be fined thousands for trying to live in the woods but you can be homeless. Kinda ironic.

homeless would still be connected to the system. Off grid, for whatever reason, is seen as an affront or threat to the system. Randy Weaver tried to do it and he was lucky to live through it. The Branch Dravidians tried to create an alternate reality and they were burned up for it. For whatever reason, the system does not want those kinds of entities existing, as if they might give the rest of us ideas. Only idea I'd get is to be left the fuck alone but they won't do that.

 

[mozfonky]

Most people couldnt survive out in nature anyway even if it was legal most couldnt be self suficient. They dont want it because you cant pay taxes when your living in nature pretty simple imo.

no, most couldn't, we've lost the skills to do it. I have tribal members who still live off grid for the most part. Up in Alaska, we have villages, I've thought of just going up there. I'd have to learn some stuff though, it can be done. I doubt if fishing and hunting are brain science.

 

[Deleted member 110072]

the overall feminization of men, (not the trannies) is an issue and a problem. Men being raised to be hysterical and go with emotions, be loud, irrational and "bitchy" is the cause of a lot of problems.

I would argue if you look at values that would have been assigned to one gender in the past we actually live in a hyper masculine society, one which pushes egotistical individualism above all.

 

[mozfonky]

I would argue if you look at values that would have been assigned to one gender in the past we actually live in a hyper masculine society, one which pushes egotistical individualism above all.

I guess in certain quarters, but it's not what I see in my city. I realize that we have many different subcultures in our country but I've seen guys wearing dresses even outside of the city. Some places either now or in the past would just harass someone doing that to no end, i'm sure. Actually though, I feel even less comfy in rural settings than I do in the city, you know, the whole, "devil you know" kinda thinking.., people are wierd out in the the rural country.

 

[Deleted member 110072]

I guess in certain quarters, but it's not what I see in my city. I realize that we have many different subcultures in our country but I've seen guys wearing dresses even outside of the city. Some places either now or in the past would just harass someone doing that to no end, i'm sure. Actually though, I feel even less comfy in rural settings than I do in the city, you know, the whole, "devil you know" kinda thinking.., people are wierd out in the the rural country.

You said you weren't interested in that now you've shifted to it being your main argument.

Again I think the real fundamentals of our society in the west have been very strongly focused on hyper individualism for decades now, I would argue that significant parts of feminism have become focused on that(that is there main focus is on women having an equal role a hyper individualist capitalist society) as well and if anything women have bene "masculinised" rather than men being "feminised".

Things like the whole "alpha" or "incel" like culture on places like Sherdog I would argue really have their roots in that, these people tend to be driven by narcissism above all else, you could argue they are "bitchy" and "undignified" but I think the root of that is a focus on egotism above all, something which ends up looking childish just as many of their celebrity idols like Trump are.

if your talking about protests of more genuine progressives I would argue a lot of the time their values are actually much closer to the values of the post war era, the era which is held up as an ideal by conservatives yet which they actually do not support at all beyond trying to cling to the bigotry of that time which was actually being fought against. The idea of trying to promote the rights of the oppressed, of valuing strong social mobility via socialist means and most obviously recently that genocide and support for it is an absolute red line, the latter being one of the fundamental building blocks of US/UK claims to morality in international politics with our role in WW2.

 

[Daverisimo]

Purpose is a lie. Do drugs and bang hookers every day.

 

[mozfonky]

You said you weren't interested in that now you've shifted to it being your main argument.

Again I think the real fundamentals of our society in the west have been very strongly focused on hyper individualism for decades now, I would argue that significant parts of feminism have become focused on that(that is there main focus is on women having an equal role a hyper individualist capitalist society) as well and if anything women have bene "masculinised" rather than men being "feminised".

Things like the whole "alpha" or "incel" like culture on places like Sherdog I would argue really have their roots in that, these people tend to be driven by narcissism above all else, you could argue they are "bitchy" and "undignified" but I think the root of that is a focus on egotism above all, something which ends up looking childish just as many of their celebrity idols like Trump are.

if your talking about protests of more genuine progressives I would argue a lot of the time their values are actually much closer to the values of the post war era, the era which is held up as an ideal by conservatives yet which they actually do not support at all beyond trying to cling to the bigotry of that time which was actually being fought against. The idea of trying to promote the rights of the oppressed, of valuing strong social mobility via socialist means and most obviously recently that genocide and support for it is an absolute red line, the latter being one of the fundamental building blocks of US/UK claims to morality in international politics with our role in WW2.

No, I'm just agreeing that we have more than one demographic in this country and I do not see all of it. Your assertion that we have a sort of "toxic masculinity" isn't what I see. I know those are out there though, however, most of that is just self-delusion, I think our idea of masculinity is largely a myth.

Our society has done a lot of things to coddle and feminize and emasculate our men. And if you ask what the agendas for this might be? I believe it's to make males less aggressive and assertive. Instead of punching the bully in the mouth, even if you get your ass kicked, you're encouraged to tell someone. As far as homosexuality, the agenda there might be just encouraging it so we have less procreation, which is happening anyways. Either way, I don't believe any of it's an accident, not much in our society is.

 

[Deleted member 110072]

No, I'm just agreeing that we have more than one demographic in this country and I do not see all of it. Your assertion that we have a sort of "toxic masculinity" isn't what I see. I know those are out there though, however, most of that is just self-delusion, I think our idea of masculinity is largely a myth.

Our society has done a lot of things to coddle and feminize and emasculate our men. And if you ask what the agendas for this might be? I believe it's to make males less aggressive and assertive. Instead of punching the bully in the mouth, even if you get your ass kicked, you're encouraged to tell someone. As far as homosexuality, the agenda there might be just encouraging it so we have less procreation, which is happening anyways. Either way, I don't believe any of it's an accident, not much in our society is.

I would argue such people are really the most extreme end of a culture across society which has shifted strongly towards individualism and away from a view an environment which contained more socialist elements post WW2, one where its "every man/woman for themselves" rather than a focus on a greater good.

I think part of what you've seen is tied to that we've seen a decline in a lot of traditional blue collar jobs, as individualist capitalism came to dominant a lot of such jobs ahve been out sourced or just down graded in pay as unionisation and employment controls have diminished in order to maximise profit for the rich elite, who have become vastly wealthier relative to the rest of society than they were in the post war era as social mobility has declined.

What I do think you have seen is that part of the suppression of socialism has been that centrist liberials(who are the chief suppressors) have shifted to more of a paternalistic view, one which plays up the threat of conservatives rather than one which looks to offer much in the way of improvement to peoples lives.

 

[mozfonky]

I would argue such people are really the most extreme end of a culture across society which has shifted strongly towards individualism and away from a view an environment which contained more socialist elements post WW2, one where its "every man/woman for themselves" rather than a focus on a greater good.

I think part of what you've seen is tied to that we've seen a decline in a lot of traditional blue collar jobs, as individualist capitalism came to dominant a lot of such jobs ahve been out sourced or just down graded in pay as unionisation and employment controls have diminished in order to maximise profit for the rich elite, who have become vastly wealthier relative to the rest of society than they were in the post war era as social mobility has declined.

What I do think you have seen is that part of the suppression of socialism has been that centrist liberials(who are the chief suppressors) have shifted to more of a paternalistic view, one which plays up the threat of conservatives rather than one which looks to offer much in the way of improvement to peoples lives.

anyways, I don't mind transexuals, I think a lot of it is pageantry and for show but personally, I don't really mind it. It's their lives, I just think it's self-centered to do things to get that much attention on oneself, but again, that's their business.

the other issues, the ones that really affect us is another thing altogether. I'm aware we have the myth of rugged individualism, but we aren't really independent if we're totally reliant on our employers, our towns and cities and out country. If we'd just die without all that, the individualism is a myth. The selfishness aspect is very real though, we are selfish with our own resources. People from other countries will point that out. It works both ways too, we often die alone too. Plenty of people die alone in hospitals or languish in resthomes. The selfish aspect of this stuff? certainly real.

I'm trying to figure out how to do what you're really saying, be a true individual. I wonder if it's even possible. I mentioned Sebastian Junger's belief that, "alone we die" and I've been wondering how true that is. He points to tribal societies who didn't punish members who did heinous things but instead banished them, which he says was a death sentence anyway. Is that true? I don't know. I know for myself, I don't belong in this society, never did and I doubt I'd belong any more in my ancestral home where I wouldn't want to be like all the other drunks and would probably be ostracized there too. Being your own man isn't an easy way for anyone to go.

 

[Deleted member 110072]

anyways, I don't mind transexuals, I think a lot of it is pageantry and for show but personally, I don't really mind it. It's their lives, I just think it's self-centered to do things to get that much attention on oneself, but again, that's their business.

the other issues, the ones that really affect us is another thing altogether. I'm aware we have the myth of rugged individualism, but we aren't really independent if we're totally reliant on our employers, our towns and cities and out country. If we'd just die without all that, the individualism is a myth. The selfishness aspect is very real though, we are selfish with our own resources. People from other countries will point that out. It works both ways too, we often die alone too. Plenty of people die alone in hospitals or languish in resthomes. The selfish aspect of this stuff? certainly real.

I'm trying to figure out how to do what you're really saying, be a true individual. I wonder if it's even possible. I mentioned Sebastian Junger's belief that, "alone we die" and I've been wondering how true that is. He points to tribal societies who didn't punish members who did heinous things but instead banished them, which he says was a death sentence anyway. Is that true? I don't know. I know for myself, I don't belong in this society, never did and I doubt I'd belong any more in my ancestral home where I wouldn't want to be like all the other drunks and would probably be ostracized there too. Being your own man isn't an easy way for anyone to go.

To be honest I don't think traditional views of what deep values would be "masculine" and "feminine" are ultimately all that important, I feel maybe the most important aspect of that would be that a good amount of modern feminism is actually pro extreme individualist capitalism and is used to prop up that individualism by using the credibility of past associations with "feminine" such as empathy, community, peace, etc which it doesnt share anymore.

Again I think when you get down to it we live in a very dog eat dog world, more akin to the environment of the late 19th century than that of the more socialist environment of the mid 20th century which honestly is looking more like a blip in history than the future path of history it was promoted as. Something which the wealth elite were basically forced into accepting by circumstance at the time and have been eroading away ever since returning us to their more preferred robber baron society.

 

[GSP_37]

You can't just have a giant mansion with indoor batting cage. You'll need big money just to pay annual county property tax.

 

[chardog]

Making lunch is work, raising chickens is work, harvesting food is work, whatever you do is some form of work.

If you can work from home and reclaim those hours lost driving around, you may find that it’s not bad. I could do my job until i roll over and die. If it’s fun, it isn’t half bad.

 

[pugilistico]

Some argue that people in tribal societies and even medieval agricultural societies had more leisure time than we do. That's how communities got together to celebrate, make music, dance, etc. Nowadays we work most of our waking lives sitting in an office with mostly strangers and then spend what little free time we have playing video games online with more strangers. I wonder if people in general now have less time to innovate, create, socialize, and ponder questions. Except for those in certain fields or socioeconomic status.

If you want to really live off the grid, you may want to look into mongolia. Apparently there's so much land (and whole lot of nothing) that it's legal for you to literally plop down almost anywhere and build a house. I have to admit that kind of lifestyle appeals to me as well.

I would argue if you look at values that would have been assigned to one gender in the past we actually live in a hyper masculine society, one which pushes egotistical individualism above all.

I agree. Modern western societies are actually more masculine than people think. That's why in order for women to succeed in our capitalist societies they have to adopt masculine traits. The men who succeed are generally masculine.

If you look at more "traditional" societies, I find men to actually be "weaker." Behaviors that would not be perceived as being masculine in the west is a more common among men because the men don't have to be as masculine in societies where women are lower in the social hierarchy. I guess it's because men aren't challenged as much and don't have an incentive to rise above. Iron sharpening iron and all that. And there's also less mobility in social status a lot of these places because you're not allowed to I presume.

In some cultures, a man having more effeminate traits is considered a status symbol because it means you had the luxury of not having had to anything hard. Having a weak jaw, pale skin, and soft hands is a flex.

 

[Deleted member 110072]

Some argue that people in tribal societies and even medieval agricultural societies had more leisure time than we do. That's how communities got together to celebrate, make music, dance, etc. Nowadays we work most of our waking lives sitting in an office with mostly strangers and then spend what little free time we have playing video games online with more strangers. I wonder if people in general now have less time to innovate, create, socialize, and ponder questions. Except for those in certain fields or socioeconomic status.

If you want to really live off the grid, you may want to look into mongolia. Apparently there's so much land (and whole lot of nothing) that it's legal for you to literally plop down almost anywhere and build a house. I have to admit that kind of lifestyle appeals to me as well.

A lot of what I'v seen more recently tends to suggest a big factor which drives social evolution isnt how good it is for the lives of those involved(beyond perhaps those at the very top), rather its whether it will be able to sustain a larger population with more power to wage war. People didn't stop being hunter gathers or even nomadic headers because settled agriculture made their lives better, rather agriculture made for larger more powerful cultures which could force the former out or force them to convert themselves.

I agree. Modern western societies are actually more masculine than people think. That's why in order for women to succeed in our capitalist societies they have to adopt masculine traits. The men who succeed are generally masculine.

If you look at more "traditional" societies, I find men to actually be "weaker." Behaviors that would not be perceived as being masculine in the west is a more common among men because the men don't have to be as masculine in societies where women are lower in the social hierarchy. I guess it's because men aren't challenged as much and don't have an incentive to rise above. Iron sharpening iron and all that. And there's also less mobility in social status a lot of these places because you're not allowed to I presume.

In some cultures, a man having more effeminate traits is considered a status symbol because it means you had the luxury of not having had to anything hard. Having a weak jaw, pale skin, and soft hands is a flex.

Yes I do tend to think even if you look at outward traits rather than the underlying dog eat dog nature of our society it is actually very masculine even today. The US culturally I think really remains wedded to the idea of the frontier like hands on man, still really a nation of cowboys and it obviously has a massive influence across the world. I'd say its part of the reason for example why massive SUV's are so popular.

You could look back a bit further and a western gent looked more like...