Linux server admin, MySQL/TSQL database admin, Python programmer, Linux gaming enthusiast and a forever GM.

  • 6 Posts
  • 509 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 8th, 2023

help-circle
  • Technically yes, but I don’t mean technology as phones/laptops/tablets/etc. Imho, the biggest factor in social isolation is atomization due to bad urban planning. When everything and anything is only accessible by car, you lose any connection with your local neighbourhood and local stores/cafes/etc.

    In environments where people walk around the neighbourhood, doing small daily shops, going to local businesses and taking mass transit to work/school/restaurants/bars, then you’re much more likely to interact with people rather than driving around in your social isolation-mobile.

    Urban planning can be considered a form of technology, which is why I said technically yes.

    EDIT: Oh, another big factor here is the loss of the third place. It still exists in some places (local pubs in British towns, local coffee shop in Portugal, etc), but in places without a socially normal “hangout spot” that is separated from both home and work/school, it’s much harder to meet acquaintances which may in time become friends.








  • An advantage of funding things via a collective like Nebula as opposed to each individual creator managing their own patrons is that new creators can start making bigger, more expensive projects quicker. Even established creators have this advantage, they can take bigger risks on bigger projects with the safety net of a share of the nebula pie.

    I don’t think a project like The Prince would exist without Nebula, for example.


  • Barbarian@sh.itjust.workstoLefty Memes@lemmy.dbzer0.comValues
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days ago

    Yeah, absolutely, that’s a much more readable summation than what I wrote.

    As an aside, I really like the social contract theory. It’s a pretty clean philosophical summation of how the majority of people in tolerant democracies see the world and provides the foundation for it, even if they don’t think about it in formal philosophical terms. That essentially we are implicitly bound by the rules established by previous generations, those that set the rules (both cultural and legal), until such time as we form a political or cultural movement to change those rules. Then, anyone who comes after us is bound by those rules we set until and unless they in turn change them.

    EDIT: I guess I should add that in the context of this thread, “be tolerant” is a cultural rule that has developed over the recent past, and thus if you aren’t tolerant there are social repercussions (and in countries with hate speech laws, even legal repercussions) as that is the current rule.


  • There’s also the social contract resolution to the tolerance paradox. Essentially, the tolerance paradox is that tolerating intolerance erodes tolerance. This means eventually if you allow intolerance to fester, they will seize control and you lose that tolerance.

    The social contract resolution is that by being intolerant, you lose your right to be tolerated. This avoids that paradox, but superficially can look like intolerance.

    I hope this didn’t end up too much like word salad.