Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,982 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 838,903
Pageviews Today: 1,076,485Threads Today: 240Posts Today: 3,856
07:10 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Collectivism VS Individualism, which would you choose?

 
Reiz
Offer Upgrade

User ID: 2912160
Canada
12/07/2011 04:27 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Collectivism VS Individualism, which would you choose?
This discussion was inspired by Ron Paul's explanation of the Globalist "Conspiracy"

Thread: Ron Paul Blasts the NWO conspiracy! what side are you on?

Oh my god I never thought I'd EVER find ANYONE else in the entire friggin world that actually understood that the move for a one world government does not actually have sinister intentions behind it from those trying to enact it.

Thank you Ron Paul for pointing out something that to me is fucking common sense. Its an ideological battle, nothing more.

That being said, I still look at this as being like the battle between the Assassin's and Templars in the Assassin's Creed games. One side believing humanity needs to be saved from itself and thus wants a society where free will doesn't exist and another side that believes that free will is necessary for any kind of real growth and future for humanity.

You can see this same theme playing out in other media like Gundam SEED Destiny and Gundam 00, the battle between the Borg and everyone else in Star Trek. Or even the Flood from Halo (and arguably the Forerunners too) and probably innumerable other stories that I can't think of right now. There is much truth in fiction, one of the first spirits I ever talked to has the best quote ever on that in my opinion.

"All stories have lessons for those willing to learn them."

In my opinion even thought the push towards globalism has the promise of stopping conflict and ensuring world peace, it does not unify humanity in any way shape or form. What it really does is standardize it. It weeds out the ideas and portions that are a threat to stability and cultivates one specific mindset only.

The problem is that it ignores the basic fundamental truth about life in that it is always changing. People, regardless of how much you try to condition it out of them, will always have unique viewpoints on everything. Even if the differences are small they are still there.

Because of this the NWO ideal for unity will always break down and become mere standardization. It also devolves into a totalitarian dictatorship as the controllers must always be vigilant in stamping out anything that threatens stability. You cannot stop questions about policies from existing a long as there are things about it to question. You can however stop the people themselves from bringing those questions to light by killing them or otherwise removing them from the population. Like quarantining a virus to keep it from spreading.

At the end of the day what other choice would the regime have? If it cannot logically justify its rule and its laws to the people it can only remove those smart enough to recognize this.

Its because of that inevitability that Globalism becomes evil. Change, the basis of life, must be forced to become static, the basis of death. The world as a result becomes living death and mere existence and nothing more.

I on the other hand believe that you can still have world peace and free will at the same time. All you need to do is understand other people and where they're coming from. Almost no one on this site ever seems to define terms they are using, they just seem to expect that others think like they do. Nor do they tend to explain why they feel a certain way about such-and-such topic, just barrel on stating that they are right without ever giving a reason for it.

And then when disputes break out the life experience ard is often played. "Oh you'd see things my way if you'd experienced what I have in my life!" Well guess what people, they haven't and can't live your life and have your experiences. That is a fact, even if someone was to be shown your entire life, feelings, emotions and all, after the fact they would still be interpreting it from their own non-you vantage point. Although it would probably give them a much better idea of your feelings on a subject.

So instead of just acting like you're right and everyone else is wrong because you're experienced something they haven't why don't you explain how it is that you came to the conclusions you've come to. And also, recognize that the peson arguing against you has their own reasons for feeling the way they do, just the same as you do.

As long as people are willing to understand each other the system works. Doesn't mean they need to like what the other person says, just that they get where they're coming from and aren't going to try killing each other over differences of opinion. If someone does not want to understand you and still only wishes to force their will on you believing it is right regardless of what you say, that is when violence becomes necessary as words will not work on people like that.

Wow I sound just like a preacher with all of this don't I? Oh well, its my opinion, take it or leave it.
Warning, spirits, aliens, and humans are prophetically impaired:

Thread: List of false prophets and failed predictions.
s. d. butler

User ID: 974819
United States
12/07/2011 04:42 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Collectivism VS Individualism, which would you choose?
I come down on the side of the individual every time. The collectivists create hell on earth. Look at the collectivist regimes historically, they specialize in mass murder, gulags, concentration camps and war.
Stocking Eats Cake

User ID: 6689525
Ireland
12/07/2011 04:47 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Collectivism VS Individualism, which would you choose?
Not even going to read the thread, just going to give my answer:
Collectivism.
Known to my many adoring fans as a Karmatard, Porno Addict, gypsy cunt, a corporate protector, an idiot, a shill, ignorant, foolish, racist, a cunt, an asshat and naive.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 6706764
United States
12/07/2011 04:53 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Collectivism VS Individualism, which would you choose?
collectivist, means you are submissive to their group...maybe sicko, twisted..and you are for their cultic sacroficies.they see the people of the world as their MONKEYS..see this...they crush the individuals
Stocking Eats Cake

User ID: 6689525
Ireland
12/07/2011 05:03 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Collectivism VS Individualism, which would you choose?
Alright, I've given this thread a read now.

OP, get your head out of all the fiction!
We live in the real world, basing your outlook on the world on what you've experienced in fiction is a very immature way of looking at things.

Moving on from that though, I dislike your question as your painting collectivism as if it is a globalist idea, one world government, one nation sort of thing, it's not.

For example, I'm a collectivist and I oppose globalism severely, I believe collectivism should be used to enforce national and cultural identity, as in, collectivism within one nation, not the entire globe.

Last Edited by Luxuria Gula Socordia on 12/07/2011 05:04 PM
Known to my many adoring fans as a Karmatard, Porno Addict, gypsy cunt, a corporate protector, an idiot, a shill, ignorant, foolish, racist, a cunt, an asshat and naive.
humanitech
User ID: 6422179
United Kingdom
12/07/2011 07:19 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Collectivism VS Individualism, which would you choose?
This discussion was inspired by Ron Paul's explanation of the Globalist "Conspiracy"

Thread: Ron Paul Blasts the NWO conspiracy! what side are you on?

Oh my god I never thought I'd EVER find ANYONE else in the entire friggin world that actually understood that the move for a one world government does not actually have sinister intentions behind it from those trying to enact it.

Thank you Ron Paul for pointing out something that to me is fucking common sense. Its an ideological battle, nothing more.

That being said, I still look at this as being like the battle between the Assassin's and Templars in the Assassin's Creed games. One side believing humanity needs to be saved from itself and thus wants a society where free will doesn't exist and another side that believes that free will is necessary for any kind of real growth and future for humanity.

You can see this same theme playing out in other media like Gundam SEED Destiny and Gundam 00, the battle between the Borg and everyone else in Star Trek. Or even the Flood from Halo (and arguably the Forerunners too) and probably innumerable other stories that I can't think of right now. There is much truth in fiction, one of the first spirits I ever talked to has the best quote ever on that in my opinion.

"All stories have lessons for those willing to learn them."

In my opinion even thought the push towards globalism has the promise of stopping conflict and ensuring world peace, it does not unify humanity in any way shape or form. What it really does is standardize it. It weeds out the ideas and portions that are a threat to stability and cultivates one specific mindset only.

The problem is that it ignores the basic fundamental truth about life in that it is always changing. People, regardless of how much you try to condition it out of them, will always have unique viewpoints on everything. Even if the differences are small they are still there.

Because of this the NWO ideal for unity will always break down and become mere standardization. It also devolves into a totalitarian dictatorship as the controllers must always be vigilant in stamping out anything that threatens stability. You cannot stop questions about policies from existing a long as there are things about it to question. You can however stop the people themselves from bringing those questions to light by killing them or otherwise removing them from the population. Like quarantining a virus to keep it from spreading.

At the end of the day what other choice would the regime have? If it cannot logically justify its rule and its laws to the people it can only remove those smart enough to recognize this.

Its because of that inevitability that Globalism becomes evil. Change, the basis of life, must be forced to become static, the basis of death. The world as a result becomes living death and mere existence and nothing more.

I on the other hand believe that you can still have world peace and free will at the same time. All you need to do is understand other people and where they're coming from. Almost no one on this site ever seems to define terms they are using, they just seem to expect that others think like they do. Nor do they tend to explain why they feel a certain way about such-and-such topic, just barrel on stating that they are right without ever giving a reason for it.

And then when disputes break out the life experience ard is often played. "Oh you'd see things my way if you'd experienced what I have in my life!" Well guess what people, they haven't and can't live your life and have your experiences. That is a fact, even if someone was to be shown your entire life, feelings, emotions and all, after the fact they would still be interpreting it from their own non-you vantage point. Although it would probably give them a much better idea of your feelings on a subject.

So instead of just acting like you're right and everyone else is wrong because you're experienced something they haven't why don't you explain how it is that you came to the conclusions you've come to. And also, recognize that the peson arguing against you has their own reasons for feeling the way they do, just the same as you do.

As long as people are willing to understand each other the system works. Doesn't mean they need to like what the other person says, just that they get where they're coming from and aren't going to try killing each other over differences of opinion. If someone does not want to understand you and still only wishes to force their will on you believing it is right regardless of what you say, that is when violence becomes necessary as words will not work on people like that.

Wow I sound just like a preacher with all of this don't I? Oh well, its my opinion, take it or leave it.
 Quoting: Reiz


Both are equally cool and important really (it should never be either or, as everyone is bipolar and needs and fluctuates between both in reality)....as long as the systems are not elitist, hierarchal or suppressive they can co-exist together..but hierachal divisions and disharmony is our fundemental ongoing problem.
Reiz (OP)

User ID: 2912160
Canada
12/07/2011 07:19 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Collectivism VS Individualism, which would you choose?
Alright, I've given this thread a read now.

OP, get your head out of all the fiction!
We live in the real world, basing your outlook on the world on what you've experienced in fiction is a very immature way of looking at things.

Moving on from that though, I dislike your question as your painting collectivism as if it is a globalist idea, one world government, one nation sort of thing, it's not.

For example, I'm a collectivist and I oppose globalism severely, I believe collectivism should be used to enforce national and cultural identity, as in, collectivism within one nation, not the entire globe.
 Quoting: Stocking Eats Cake


First off it isn't actually the fiction that I developed my ideas from, I'm only using them as analogies because there's similar themes.

Second, from the sounds of it you're one who is "unwilling to learn the lesson" Possibly because of the medium the message comes through :P

Third, I should've defined what I personally meant by collectivism and individualism. Although you're argument against me highlights what I'd just said in there. You believed that when I said collectivist that I meant the exact same thing you would've meant by collectivist and based your argument on that assumption, am I wrong?

In this case I'm not talking about people working together I'm talking about diversity. Collectivism meaning very low to no diversity in a population in terms of thought, culture, etc, AKA like the Borg.

Individualism is very high diversity in a population. Obviously there's a bit of a paradox inherent in this ideology because if everyone held the idea that you should be understanding of others viewpoints.... doesn't that equal collectivism?

Well no, because the other part of the definition of collectivism is that it is intolerant of ideas, cultures, ways of life, etc other than its own. Whereas individualism would be more "whatever floats your boat".

From what it sounds like my definition of individualismis similar your definition of collectivism. The "collective" in my definition came from things like "Borg Collective" because I felt it was a good analogy for what I was talking about.

Does that clear things up a bit?

Last Edited by Reiz on 12/07/2011 07:21 PM
Warning, spirits, aliens, and humans are prophetically impaired:

Thread: List of false prophets and failed predictions.
humanitech
User ID: 6422179
United Kingdom
12/07/2011 07:22 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Collectivism VS Individualism, which would you choose?
This discussion was inspired by Ron Paul's explanation of the Globalist "Conspiracy"

Thread: Ron Paul Blasts the NWO conspiracy! what side are you on?

Oh my god I never thought I'd EVER find ANYONE else in the entire friggin world that actually understood that the move for a one world government does not actually have sinister intentions behind it from those trying to enact it.

Thank you Ron Paul for pointing out something that to me is fucking common sense. Its an ideological battle, nothing more.

That being said, I still look at this as being like the battle between the Assassin's and Templars in the Assassin's Creed games. One side believing humanity needs to be saved from itself and thus wants a society where free will doesn't exist and another side that believes that free will is necessary for any kind of real growth and future for humanity.

You can see this same theme playing out in other media like Gundam SEED Destiny and Gundam 00, the battle between the Borg and everyone else in Star Trek. Or even the Flood from Halo (and arguably the Forerunners too) and probably innumerable other stories that I can't think of right now. There is much truth in fiction, one of the first spirits I ever talked to has the best quote ever on that in my opinion.

"All stories have lessons for those willing to learn them."

In my opinion even thought the push towards globalism has the promise of stopping conflict and ensuring world peace, it does not unify humanity in any way shape or form. What it really does is standardize it. It weeds out the ideas and portions that are a threat to stability and cultivates one specific mindset only.

The problem is that it ignores the basic fundamental truth about life in that it is always changing. People, regardless of how much you try to condition it out of them, will always have unique viewpoints on everything. Even if the differences are small they are still there.

Because of this the NWO ideal for unity will always break down and become mere standardization. It also devolves into a totalitarian dictatorship as the controllers must always be vigilant in stamping out anything that threatens stability. You cannot stop questions about policies from existing a long as there are things about it to question. You can however stop the people themselves from bringing those questions to light by killing them or otherwise removing them from the population. Like quarantining a virus to keep it from spreading.

At the end of the day what other choice would the regime have? If it cannot logically justify its rule and its laws to the people it can only remove those smart enough to recognize this.

Its because of that inevitability that Globalism becomes evil. Change, the basis of life, must be forced to become static, the basis of death. The world as a result becomes living death and mere existence and nothing more.

I on the other hand believe that you can still have world peace and free will at the same time. All you need to do is understand other people and where they're coming from. Almost no one on this site ever seems to define terms they are using, they just seem to expect that others think like they do. Nor do they tend to explain why they feel a certain way about such-and-such topic, just barrel on stating that they are right without ever giving a reason for it.

And then when disputes break out the life experience ard is often played. "Oh you'd see things my way if you'd experienced what I have in my life!" Well guess what people, they haven't and can't live your life and have your experiences. That is a fact, even if someone was to be shown your entire life, feelings, emotions and all, after the fact they would still be interpreting it from their own non-you vantage point. Although it would probably give them a much better idea of your feelings on a subject.

So instead of just acting like you're right and everyone else is wrong because you're experienced something they haven't why don't you explain how it is that you came to the conclusions you've come to. And also, recognize that the peson arguing against you has their own reasons for feeling the way they do, just the same as you do.

As long as people are willing to understand each other the system works. Doesn't mean they need to like what the other person says, just that they get where they're coming from and aren't going to try killing each other over differences of opinion. If someone does not want to understand you and still only wishes to force their will on you believing it is right regardless of what you say, that is when violence becomes necessary as words will not work on people like that.

Wow I sound just like a preacher with all of this don't I? Oh well, its my opinion, take it or leave it.
 Quoting: Reiz


Both are equally cool and important really (it should never be either or, as everyone is bipolar and needs and fluctuates between both in reality)....as long as the systems are not elitist, hierarchal or suppressive they can co-exist together..but hierachal divisions and disharmony is our fundemental ongoing problem.
 Quoting: humanitech 6422179


what about looking at things different and say what would be the most positive. To work collectively to make a better fairer world for eachother...or to just compete and fight for our own personal benefit.

As that might present and lead to different responses.
Jonny Blaze

User ID: 1671225
United States
12/07/2011 07:23 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Collectivism VS Individualism, which would you choose?
Making the choice is an exercise of individualism.
The engravings translate to "This space intentionally left blank."

The prayer is inscribed in an ancient script, rarely used today. It seems to be a philippic against small insects, absent-mindedness, and the picking up and dropping of small objects.

The gate is open; through it you can see a desolation, with a pile of mangled bodies in one corner. Thousands of voices, lamenting some hideous fate, can be heard.
The way through the gate is barred by evil spirits, who jeer at your attempts to pass.
Reiz (OP)

User ID: 2912160
Canada
12/07/2011 07:24 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Collectivism VS Individualism, which would you choose?
Oh and I should point out that this collectivism/individualism thing is a spectrum, not black and white. Thus you can have a mix of both. At least in my definition.
Warning, spirits, aliens, and humans are prophetically impaired:

Thread: List of false prophets and failed predictions.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 6653650
United States
12/07/2011 07:37 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Collectivism VS Individualism, which would you choose?
Can we just agee we have no choice in the matter and move on already?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 6312581
United States
12/07/2011 07:42 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Collectivism VS Individualism, which would you choose?
Individualism.
Reiz (OP)

User ID: 2912160
Canada
12/07/2011 07:44 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Collectivism VS Individualism, which would you choose?
I guess you could say that in collectivism, differences are bad and in individualism, differences are normal.

Take an incredibly orthodox firebrand preacher of some type. The type who claims that "non believers" in whatever it is they're following are all doomed to hell or equivalent. When you have a whole group of people who are like that, that is my version of collectivism. Intolerant of ideas other than their own, who may even become violent against opposing views if given the chance.

No I'm not just picking on religions, there's lots of atheists who are like this as well, or certain "Super patriots" in some countries who believe they are somehow better than another group because they are different from them.

It works as long as everyone sings the exact same tune. However can cause intense conflict if it meets another collective that is different than itself.

However being too tolerant of differences can be just as dangerous. Like, imagine if it was perfectly okay to rape and steal and etc because it would be wrong to judge those peoples views on such acts... that becomes a problem very fast.
Warning, spirits, aliens, and humans are prophetically impaired:

Thread: List of false prophets and failed predictions.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 6720431
United States
12/07/2011 07:48 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Collectivism VS Individualism, which would you choose?
I made my choice many years ago for being an individual.

Over the years I have paid a very steep price for this decision but I'd make the same choice today because I sleep well knowing I did not sell my soul.

When you work for a company they try to get you to conform and because a robot. You are require to keep your mouth shut when you see corruption and criminal activity.

So people can sell their souls but it never turns out well for those that take that route.
Reiz (OP)

User ID: 2912160
Canada
12/07/2011 07:50 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Collectivism VS Individualism, which would you choose?
I made my choice many years ago for being an individual.

Over the years I have paid a very steep price for this decision but I'd make the same choice today because I sleep well knowing I did not sell my soul.

When you work for a company they try to get you to conform and because a robot. You are require to keep your mouth shut when you see corruption and criminal activity.

So people can sell their souls but it never turns out well for those that take that route.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 6720431


yeah pretty much
Warning, spirits, aliens, and humans are prophetically impaired:

Thread: List of false prophets and failed predictions.
Muzzle

User ID: 6459396
United States
12/07/2011 07:56 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Collectivism VS Individualism, which would you choose?
There are many things that we as individuals need to do collectively. That does not constitute Collectivism. Communism is Collectivism. "From each according to his ability, and to each according to his need"---with an evil jackass getting to decide exactly what you're good at, and how big a bowl of rice you need today.

Last Edited by MuzzleBreak on 12/07/2011 07:57 PM
In his book, "Between Two Ages," Brzezinski wrote: "The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values."

MuzzleBreak
Reiz (OP)

User ID: 2912160
Canada
12/07/2011 08:06 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Collectivism VS Individualism, which would you choose?
There are many things that we as individuals need to do collectively. That does not constitute Collectivism. Communism is Collectivism. "From each according to his ability, and to each according to his need"---with an evil jackass getting to decide exactly what you're good at, and how big a bowl of rice you need today.
 Quoting: Muzzle


Yeah that would be extreme collectivism. Also the only real way to build a true utopia. The only way you can guarantee your society is perfect and free of conflict is if you control everything.

Sure it would get the job done, no conflict and what not, but would it really be worth it in the long run?

Yeah individuals need to work together, that's just a fact. Its a lot easier to work together when you understand the people you're working with and aren't going to shun them because they live on "that" side of the street or because they buy "that" brand of clothes, etc.

Like look at all the hatred on both sides of the OWS debate. Dude if they would take five minutes to sit down and actually talk to each other and explain why they think the way they do without trying to ram it down the other sides throat like an objective fact then maybe they'd get somewhere with it instead of basically wanting to kill the other side for thinking differently.
Warning, spirits, aliens, and humans are prophetically impaired:

Thread: List of false prophets and failed predictions.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 6690784
Canada
12/07/2011 09:33 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Collectivism VS Individualism, which would you choose?
When someone is a collectivist, it is easy to know that, if you are a friend, you are a part of their collective, and you shall remain in their circle of concern for the collective.

When someone is an individualist, it is easy to that, if you are a friend, you shall remain outside their circle of concern for their individual.

Who are you going to trust with your life?
The_Viceroy

User ID: 6170577
United States
12/08/2011 06:24 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Collectivism VS Individualism, which would you choose?
Collectivism has been responsible for far and away more death and suffering on this planet than any other dogma. Collectivism always eventually requires prioritizing, which then makes the individual expendable and individual rights meaningless. Just picture an ant colony. How important is any individual ant? You cannot have individual rights and liberties along side collective rights and liberties. The individual is always eventually compromised. Those who think they can entrust their life to the collective are fools because their value is based only on perceived present or future usefulness, whereas to the individualist, all other individuals have inherent value. (IE: Collectivism = abortion, the collectivists value the power of the movement over any individual life. Individualism = pro-life, where the individual life trumps all else).

Last Edited by The_Viceroy on 12/08/2011 06:32 AM
Quanta
User ID: 6661327
Australia
12/08/2011 06:53 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Collectivism VS Individualism, which would you choose?
All the 'ism' tags are just wrong and too hard.

Everyone does not see eye to eye on the vernacular.

It's like the tower of babel where everyone's semantics went through the ringer and came out backwards and upside down.

A confusion of tongues.

I vote we replace 'collectivism' with, CONNECTIVE-ISM.

That'll go half way to clearing it up and squaring it away.
;)
Ostria1

User ID: 5778426
Greece
12/08/2011 07:11 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Collectivism VS Individualism, which would you choose?
An average of both working together
Ostria
Reiz (OP)

User ID: 2912160
Canada
12/08/2011 01:17 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Collectivism VS Individualism, which would you choose?
All the 'ism' tags are just wrong and too hard.

Everyone does not see eye to eye on the vernacular.

It's like the tower of babel where everyone's semantics went through the ringer and came out backwards and upside down.

A confusion of tongues.

I vote we replace 'collectivism' with, CONNECTIVE-ISM.

That'll go half way to clearing it up and squaring it away.
;)
 Quoting: Quanta 6661327


Alright, I've given this thread a read now.

OP, get your head out of all the fiction!
We live in the real world, basing your outlook on the world on what you've experienced in fiction is a very immature way of looking at things.

Moving on from that though, I dislike your question as your painting collectivism as if it is a globalist idea, one world government, one nation sort of thing, it's not.

For example, I'm a collectivist and I oppose globalism severely, I believe collectivism should be used to enforce national and cultural identity, as in, collectivism within one nation, not the entire globe.
 Quoting: Stocking Eats Cake


First off it isn't actually the fiction that I developed my ideas from, I'm only using them as analogies because there's similar themes.

Second, from the sounds of it you're one who is "unwilling to learn the lesson" Possibly because of the medium the message comes through :P

Third, I should've defined what I personally meant by collectivism and individualism. Although you're argument against me highlights what I'd just said in there. You believed that when I said collectivist that I meant the exact same thing you would've meant by collectivist and based your argument on that assumption, am I wrong?

In this case I'm not talking about people working together I'm talking about diversity. Collectivism meaning very low to no diversity in a population in terms of thought, culture, etc, AKA like the Borg.

Individualism is very high diversity in a population. Obviously there's a bit of a paradox inherent in this ideology because if everyone held the idea that you should be understanding of others viewpoints.... doesn't that equal collectivism?

Well no, because the other part of the definition of collectivism is that it is intolerant of ideas, cultures, ways of life, etc other than its own. Whereas individualism would be more "whatever floats your boat".

From what it sounds like my definition of individualismis similar your definition of collectivism. The "collective" in my definition came from things like "Borg Collective" because I felt it was a good analogy for what I was talking about.

Does that clear things up a bit?
 Quoting: Reiz


Does that clear things up for you?
Warning, spirits, aliens, and humans are prophetically impaired:

Thread: List of false prophets and failed predictions.
Reiz (OP)

User ID: 2912160
Canada
12/08/2011 02:30 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Collectivism VS Individualism, which would you choose?
Collectives do have good sides to them. For example a collective would likely have a low amount of inner conflict, or even none at all. When you have all members of a collective working together progress can likely be made much faster as well, not in terms of social progress but more material progress. Healthcare, transportation, etc.

Collectives are peaceful and they are safe, they also require little or no effort on the part of the individual in terms of thought because things are more standardized than they would be in a more individualistic society. Stress may be lower because of that.

So as long as you do not regard yourself at all as an individual but as belonging to a particular group that you are loyal to, collectivism works. And that lack of individuality is important if your collective as a whole is in danger, whether from threats outsides, such as war, or inside, such as disease or famine. Because the collective is less likely to give a shit about you, if you as an individual become a liability, such as being injured in battle or using too much food, you're more likely to just be discarded in order to preserve the integrity of the collective as a whole.

As long as you're okay with that and understand that that is how it goes in a collective then everythings A-OK.

AS an example, those more than willing to die for "King and Country" would have a more collectivist outlook on things. Subscribing themselves to a group of people and a place who mean more to them than their own existence. as a whole and a generalization (keep that in mind) the mainstream USA is a very collectivist group by my definition. Incredibly patriotic to the extent that they will overlook wrongdoings from their leaders because they love their country so much.

Everything about America needs to be about America, as opposed to recognizing the global contribution of literally the entire world in its socio-cultural-technological makeup it all simply get boiled down into "American." That is a textbook collective right there, by my definition. Valuing stability of the whole over everything else.

By contrast take, Canada, where I live. On the good side of things Canada has historically seemed resistant at the very least to being controlled. An individual seems to have little or no problem voicing dissenting opinions about the government and its policies. Our governm,ental system itself is set up in such a way tht it is more flexible than the AMerican system. Namely the presence of a federal Non-Confidence Vote which is a safeguard in case the prime minister decides to do something completely batshit crazy one day that anyone, regardless of party, dissagrees with. Its a mechanism that allows the prime minister to be removed almost instantly if necessary. This would be why Canada has had something like 5 federal elections in teh last 6 years or something like that. Sadly our system is quickly becoming as fascist and corrupt as the American system.None the less it is still proving more resistant to over arching national control.

Now the bad stuff is that Canada has almost too much respect for individual cultures and opinions. It has allowed immigrants to come in, complain about how Canada does things, and thus force the entire system to change for their benefit. It has also done little to promote a sense of interdependance in communities, as like cultural groups will still tend to group together and not do much integration with other cultures. For example in the city I live in there are definite Jewish, Muslim, Black, White, Chinese, Japanese, etc neighborhoods and even the street names reflect this. Naturally there is still conflict between those groups, but acceptance of multiculturalism has gone to the point where that conflict is overlooked and treated as not everyone's problem which is a very dangerous road to take. This has been proven by things such as openly Jihadist mosques and openly Zionist temples that are almost in plain view of everyone.

Although the barrier is still far weaker in Canada as things like mixed race/culture relationships are incredibly normal here and no one bats an eye about it most of the time.

Wow I have a penchant for writing forum essays don't I? Well there's my view on the good and bad of both ends of the spectrum.
Warning, spirits, aliens, and humans are prophetically impaired:

Thread: List of false prophets and failed predictions.
Free Planet
User ID: 5353202
United Kingdom
12/08/2011 02:31 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Collectivism VS Individualism, which would you choose?
enough of all that guff, I'd prefer a FREE PLANET - as God and Nature intended.

NO MORE SLAVES TO CONCEPTUAL CRAP
NO MORE SLAVES TO CONCEPTUAL CRAP
NO MORE SLAVES TO CONCEPTUAL CRAP
NO MORE SLAVES TO CONCEPTUAL CRAP
NO MORE SLAVES TO CONCEPTUAL CRAP
Free Planet
User ID: 5353202
United Kingdom
12/08/2011 02:32 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Collectivism VS Individualism, which would you choose?
actually, that's really hard to say, hence

NO MORE SLAVES!
NO MORE SLAVES!
NO MORE SLAVES!
NO MORE SLAVES!
NO MORE SLAVES!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 6779814
Spain
12/08/2011 02:34 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Collectivism VS Individualism, which would you choose?
75 virgins

tomato
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 875759
United States
12/08/2011 02:35 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Collectivism VS Individualism, which would you choose?
Mad respect for the Gundam 00 reference..

banana2
Reiz (OP)

User ID: 2912160
Canada
12/08/2011 02:46 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Collectivism VS Individualism, which would you choose?
Mad respect for the Gundam 00 reference..

banana2
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 875759


I know right? It's like the most applicable story on this subject isn't it?
Warning, spirits, aliens, and humans are prophetically impaired:

Thread: List of false prophets and failed predictions.
Reiz (OP)

User ID: 2912160
Canada
12/08/2011 02:50 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Collectivism VS Individualism, which would you choose?
enough of all that guff, I'd prefer a FREE PLANET - as God and Nature intended.

NO MORE SLAVES TO CONCEPTUAL CRAP
NO MORE SLAVES TO CONCEPTUAL CRAP
NO MORE SLAVES TO CONCEPTUAL CRAP
NO MORE SLAVES TO CONCEPTUAL CRAP
NO MORE SLAVES TO CONCEPTUAL CRAP
 Quoting: Free Planet 5353202


Yeah? Define what a "Free Planet" is.

Oh and assuming you are catholic or whatever..... isn't it against your very religion to claim to know what God's intentions are or to know what He knows? Doesn't it actually say that in the Bible too, that no man can know His will or some such? Isn't claiming that you do a burn-at-the-stakeable offense?

Again, all assuming you are indeed Catholic or equivalent which you may or may not actually be :P

Last Edited by Reiz on 12/08/2011 02:51 PM
Warning, spirits, aliens, and humans are prophetically impaired:

Thread: List of false prophets and failed predictions.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 108458
United States
12/08/2011 03:00 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Collectivism VS Individualism, which would you choose?
Alright, I've given this thread a read now.

OP, get your head out of all the fiction!
We live in the real world, basing your outlook on the world on what you've experienced in fiction is a very immature way of looking at things.

Moving on from that though, I dislike your question as your painting collectivism as if it is a globalist idea, one world government, one nation sort of thing, it's not.

For example, I'm a collectivist and I oppose globalism severely, I believe collectivism should be used to enforce national and cultural identity, as in, collectivism within one nation, not the entire globe.
 Quoting: Stocking Eats Cake


The problem with collectivists, of all kinds, is their love and devotion to the word 'enforce' - which means: to use force.

The use of force, unless used to protect your life and or property, is always immoral; always.

I am sure collectivist would respond: we're doing it for your own good.... just like a child abuser or spouse beater rationalizes.
The_Viceroy

User ID: 6170577
United States
12/08/2011 03:18 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Collectivism VS Individualism, which would you choose?
Alright, I've given this thread a read now.

OP, get your head out of all the fiction!
We live in the real world, basing your outlook on the world on what you've experienced in fiction is a very immature way of looking at things.

Moving on from that though, I dislike your question as your painting collectivism as if it is a globalist idea, one world government, one nation sort of thing, it's not.

For example, I'm a collectivist and I oppose globalism severely, I believe collectivism should be used to enforce national and cultural identity, as in, collectivism within one nation, not the entire globe.
 Quoting: Stocking Eats Cake


The problem with collectivists, of all kinds, is their love and devotion to the word 'enforce' - which means: to use force.

The use of force, unless used to protect your life and or property, is always immoral; always.

I am sure collectivist would respond: we're doing it for your own good.... just like a child abuser or spouse beater rationalizes.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 108458


I think Hitler had the idea of "enforcing" national identity collectivism too, as did Stalin, Mussolini, etc.

News








We're dropping truth bombs like it's the end of days!