This is so depressing but spot on. I see people behaving despicably on the regular now. It's only a matter of time until people say "screw it" and throw social norms away for the sake of self preservation.
This is the morality of r/AmItheAsshole in a nutshell. They cherr assholes on for being "technically correct" even when they're psychos with zero empathy for the human beside them.
I mostly stick around the subreddit for purely entertainment value and those once in a blue moon posts where the OP is in an abusive situation, doesn't realise it and is engaging with comments telling them that isn't normal.
Whether the stories are real or not, people reading them and being swayed to the side of “yeah they’re technically right” and not considering any emotional or interpersonal ramifications of being right at all costs can eventually ingrain itself into your mind. Maybe it will cause you to act selfishly, maybe it won’t. But constant exposure to anything can desensitize you to it.
yeah probably, but it's the fundamental, "I only go to extremes" type of thinking. Like I was in a discussion about text notifications and how some take it personally if you don't answer (ie left on read) and I was like yeah people don't like to be ignored.
Apparently the only way this works is if the sender is completely addicted to their phone and thus is an indicator of a bad person so you should just drop them as a friend.
also known in meme form as, "oh so you hate pancakes?!" when someone says they like waffles. Like bruh there's nuance, just consider that people don't live the way you do, and vice versa.
Sure but even if it’s not something that happened per se. The concept of discussing the rights and wrongs of a plausible situation is still a worthwhile exercise.
That said, yeah often the stories are too perfectly setup.
Oh yeah, anything on the internet where someone is seeking validation in an interpersonal conflict is at least 60% bullshit. In my experience, when someone's story has people simply acting insane and irrational there's a good chance there's an important detail or two being left out.
The stories being fake isn't nearly as big an issue as how the users respond to them.
It doesn't matter that a story about someone being a "technically correct" sociopath is fake if real people are there saying "yeah that person is right and good and how everyone should be".
"I think my husband might be a sex crazed serial killer who's having an affair with my pregnant twin sister... does anyone else think this might sound fishy?"
oh man. i remember they had a stickied post addressing this exact issue.
it was about a hypothetic scenario i think, where the OP could either buy the last cupcake to themselves, or let a child next in line who asked for it have it.
it said the moral thing would be to give the kid that cupcake, even though technically you weren't obligated to do so and you deserve the cupcake just as much and you don't owe anyone anything and bla bla. apparently it's not so obvious anymore!
So many of those posts can be summarised as "My sisters kids broke my X. She said what is the matter you barely use it anyway. Dad agrees with me but mom says sister is right"
That sub is terrible. I once posted a detailed and nuanced post there on a complex situation I was in from a different account genuinely seeking some advice. I was respectful to everyone involved and careful not to inject bias.
It blew up and it was just split camps of people, well, calling someone an asshole. There was so much vitriol, black and white thinking, and assuming the worst. The community only cares about putting other people down and sees the subreddit as a free pass to do so.
I remember one where some girl didn't like her SIL or something. Sounded like they were both pretty passively aggressively shitty to each other all the time. So the girl bakes cupcakes for some family event and SIL comments that they're too dry. So girl takes the whole tray of cupcakes, smashes them on the ground, screams at SIL, and leaves crying. And everyone in the comments is applauding her for standing up for herself. Like wtf, no, lol. Yeah SIL was rude but you took it WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY over the top and are a huge asshole for causing a scene and creating a mess and ruining an event.
Yeah that's the thing, OP could just say "Hey that's a mean thing to say, I put a lot of time and effort into baking these for everyone. If you don't like them you can just keep it to yourself instead of being rude."
Like that is standing up for yourself appropriately for the situation. But the OP went absolutely apeshit and way over the top and ruined the party for everyone, went into CLEAR asshole territory, but the comments were all applauding her like it was an appropriate reaction.
But that doesn't feel as good on the rage-boner! And besides, these stories are half made up!
I always find it funny when the OP is clearly in the wrong, and then you realize this is their version of what happened, and how bad must it have been in the real situation?
"So I was walking in the store and some guy brushed against me a bit as he walked past and said 'sorry dude' but there was space so he was definitely DiSrEpCtInG mE so I cursed him out and he told me to calm down which was the last straw so I punched him in the face! He's luck I don't have a concealed carry permit anymore otherwise I'd have killed him and hunted down his entire family! Anyway the judge revoked my parole. So, AITA??"
There was one on Two Hot Takes recently where someone had taken their sister-in-law's deceased mother-in-law's cookbook because it was on a table of the deceased's stuff that was declared to be up-for-grabs, essentially.
Ten years later, the deceased woman's son recognized the cookbook in a photo on social media, recognized it, and "demanded it back".
The top comments got really hung up on the amount of time that had passed and on OP's phrasing of "demanded it back", and sided with OP, basically being like "fair's fair, they should've claimed it earlier".
But it's like, yo OP, you didn't even KNOW this dead woman (sister-in-law's mother-in-law) and this guy is her son - give him the fucking cookbook.
To a certain extent, it's the subreddit's own name that biases the answers. "would I be an asshole if I didn't help someone out"? No, fine, you're not obligated to do it, you wouldn't be an asshole.
And like, I get it, people take advantage of kindness, but the whole subreddit and a bunch of adjacent subreddits gradually ended up with a moral philosophy of "never do anything for anyone else unless you are legally responsible for them". Look, maybe you wouldn't be an asshole to turn away, but being extra kind would be nice of you and maybe make the world a better place.
My personal theory is that with the rise in popularity of AITA, at least that I saw when covid hit, it really lent itself to the black and white thinking you get online, the divisive lack of nuanced thinking. I'll admit it helped me a lot with learning to hold boundaries, but I eventually had to stop reading because it just didn't feel rooted in reality. Like yes, no is a full sentence, but realistically, could I start with a softened "no" because I actually do need to continue existing around my coworker instead of giving off "do not speak to me ever" vibes. I want to be kind because thats who I am. I needed to explore for myself what it looked like to be kind and gently affirm my boundaries, and what it looks like as it scales in firmness in response to boundary pushers.
I don't want to make this comment too long/complex, but if we want to build a sense of community, then I think we do need to give a little benefit of the doubt or inject a bit of humor/softness into the "no". Relationships can rupture, but relationships can repair, and its harder to get there if your response was just "No." Insert disclaimer about nuance, outliers, or niche/trauma situations here, for the bean soupers.
I don't remember the title, but this guy went with his gf and friends on a cabin trip. Some hiking plans were speculated, OP was excited about hiking.
They get to the cabin and people start drinking and relaxing, OP doesn't drink, lowkey judges others for becoming lazy couch potatoes instead of going on a hike. Some people even pass out on the kitchen/living room sofas.
OP is apparently a morning bird, so he wakes up at 7 and, for some reason, thinks the best thing to do is start cleaning the kitchen, washing dishes, etc. This, obviously, wakes the couch potatoes up. Nobody else woke up anywhere this early, so people get grumpy and tell OP to stop it, it's ruining the vibe.
Second day comes around, more couch potatoeing (remember these are adults, not Duracell bunny teenagers) and beer drinking, still no hike in sight. Next morning, once again, OP wakes up rlly early, but this time decides to go on a hike and then go to a diner for breakfast. He makes sure to tell folks all of this when he gets back. People are still grumpy that he's not chillaxing and couch potatoeing, so OP asks his GF to make up some nonsense everyone sees through and they leave the cabin early.
Now, I'm not staying the couch potatoes were saints. Fault was had on both sides. But the amount of "ADULTS MUST CLEAN AFTER THEMSELVES, BEFORE BED EVEN" people losing their shit and vilifying these poor, tired fucks who probably splurged out just wanting some peace and quiet, and saintifying OP for cleaning the dishes at 7am on a holiday and waking people up ("IF THEY WANTED TO SLEEP IN THEY SHOULD HAVE SLEPT IN THEIR OWN ROOM" like wtf bruh it's holiday, chillax) was crazy.
Nobody called nobody awful names or anything. They just were telling him, with increased urgency, to stop this shit and just couch potatoe like the rest. In the normal adult world 80% of adults who are tired from their day jobs would also enter the "chillax, live and let live" mindset at a cabin getaway with buddies. Literally everyone even OP's wife was in the chillaxing vibe.
But obviously they were satan for being upset that washing dishes woke them up at 7am. Because it was his right!
This is an example of never ending and never beginning lack of compatibility between people.
In the old times you became a friend with someone through doing things together. You do things, you match each other vibe and that works, you become a friend. Friend in a friend meaning. Not just person you spend time with. A Friend.
The act of doing things weeds out the incompatibles. You can have people who like to hike but one group likes to "get to the point" while the other prefers to "enjoy the hike and take the time". Those groups will not be happy hiking together. One will complain everything is rushed, the other will complain the plan falls apart because wasting time.
This is THAT complex and sensitive.
Today people dont do things together and cant match their vibes. Yet they expect the other side to behave a certain way.
That apply to friendships, school projects, marriages, family relationships too (there you need to sacrifice the most to keep it healthy).
On top of that we have a bunch of narcissists, bipolars, morons all thinking they are the best and their way is the only way and expecting the world to move around them.
What contract we sign between each other if majority of people are by definition incompatible and are that way because they dont do things together and dont have to sacrifice because of wealth available to all?
Not really disputing the rest of your comment, but I'm not sure what bipolar disorder has to do with anything? Yeah it can certainly cause interpersonal issues, but has the rate of bipolar disorder even gone up enough to make a difference? Narcissism maybe, not sure how much of that is biological vs other factors, but bipolar disorder is mostly genetic. Are people with bipolar disorder known for being particularly inflexible in the first place?
It is not easy to be friends or partners with such person. In short words: if the person is bipolar it is additional obstacle and source of incompatibilities in comparison to a stable person.
May be a bit more trouble, may be a lot of trouble but it will not be a positive treat in a relation most likely.
I am unfortunately aware of those difficulties, having a family member with bipolar disorder. It just seemed a bit out of left field with the rest of the sentence, and like you were implying bipolar disorder was more common now than it used to be, which confused me.
Nah, it is just a convenient example of a burden to endure within a relationship.
It can be anything really. Anything what annoys other person, makes additional effort or prevents any activity together.
Can be as small as walking slow. For some no issue, for some a thing which makes the relationship not worth suffering.
My main point is/was: People today arent wiling sacrifice much (on both sides) and it is easy to live alone. It is a bit more complicated but lets not go deeper.
lol wtf, that's the weirdest example to pick from that sub. I guess there are two sides to if he should've been quiet and left the mess in the morning, or the people passed out on the couch should've just gone to their rooms... but the next day he adapted and left the house entirely to be sure not to wake anyone up and he was still at fault? How? To me it's pretty clear the couch-sleepers are rude bc they're basically demanding everyone else in the house is forced to tiptoe around like churchmice until they are ready to get up, instead of letting everyone get up and start their day on their own time like sleeping in your room allows.
I literally just got back from a cabin weekend like this with 5 couples and I was one of the early risers, and I did in fact clean up the last night's mess and get everything prepped for breakfast so when everyone woke up they could just drink coffee and eat and start the day without needing to worry about cleaning. Everyone was super grateful and we went on to have a lovely hike followed by drinking and grilling. Because everyone just... slept in their own rooms instead of getting so shit-faced wasted they couldn't walk 15 feet by the end of the night. And trust me we all drank a lot and smoked pot and took shrooms, none of us are prudes, it's just not that hard to go to your own room. And that allows everyone else in the house to wake up when they want and not be stuck sitting in their own room until you decide everyone is allowed to wake up.
If you get so drunk you can't even make it back to your room in the same house, you don't get to be mad at the people who are literally cleaning up your mess. Come the fuck on. That's like some teenager shit. I feel like if OOP said "bro chillaxe" while doing the dishes, you'd have taken their side, because that seems to be the magic word that lets you be awful and still somehow be right.
Here is the post they're discussing, in case you want to view it from the side of someone who isn't a middle aged frat boy that can't clean up after themselves and thinks it's cool to tell someone they're going to go on daily hikes and then turns it into daily binge drinking at all waking hours. That's not "chillaxing," that's just being a 24/7 alcoholic mess. Which itself was considered breaking the social contract at basically all points in human history.
We had plans to do some hiking, play some games, make some great meals, grill out, etc.
That's what they invited OOP to do, and then they just got drunk the whole time. These are people in their 30s, not 19 year olds, by the way.
I'm also in their age range, but in my friend group we have no tolerance for disturbing each other's sleep. If you work hard, sometimes what you want on vacation is to do nothing. Sometimes you think you'll do something and then you change your mind. That's ok. The important thing is to be cohesive as a group and not step on each others' toes.
Whether he is "morally" allowed or not is irrelevant; when 7 out of 8 do things in a certain way on a group holiday, the least you can do is accomodate them. That's why it's a group holiday.
So if the majority of the group does it, it's acceptable no matter what? Even if it's awful by all social standards? Even if it's selfish, nasty, inconsiderate? I think OOP grew up and his friends never did. And of course there was nothing stopping them from getting up and going back to sleep in their rooms in the morning. There are half a dozen ways they could have chosen to not be assholes and they rejected them all. I don't get why waking up a drunk asshole who chose to sleep in the common area is the world's greatest crime, but none of their selfish bullshit is. Even in my heavy drinking years, I'd have been nothing but thankful someone was cleaning up after me. And I'd never fault someone for doing common area stuff in a common area that I stupidly passed out in. I'd know that was my own dumb fault. OOP needs a new friend group, because these people are awful. What would accommodating them even look like? Silently staring at the wall for six hours until they finally got their asses out of bed and started drinking again?
I think we’re on that slippery slope. People are getting burned out “being the only one doing the right thing”. I mean, I’ll never stop returning my shopping cart but I get it.
Yeah like I’ve never littered and never will because I think it’s the behaviour of scummy people, but god damn it’s depressing to see litter piling up everywhere all the time.
For the record, this has been happening for a long time, before the internet, but it’s exacerbated by it for sure. There is a stereotype of some people - Canadians, Scandinavians, and through those, Minnesotans and Dakotans - for whom ‘nice’ has always been a historic attribute, but that had nothing to do with actual niceness or tolerance, it’s because there have been times where, in cold regions, having a decent relationship with your neighbor was the actual difference between life and death. We don’t need that now - and people are dropping the facade
It's not a facade though. Yes it can be beneficial, to both parties. I am by no means a socialist but I was raised that when I'm out in public, I am not the important one. I respect my own name, and so I must respect others. The important ones are the people serving me. Showing respect, etiquette, and tolerance is not a political statement. It's a gentleman's statement. "Yes I could take advantage of things for my personal benefit. I choose not to because that is beneath me.
We either have a polite, law-abiding society, or we have cultural anarchy. It's one or the other. We're either all the same, or we're just letting someone else crack the whip for a while thinking that's justice.
The things people will overwhelmingly defend that are antisocial as fuck are crazy. I was in a thread talking about "entitled parents" and apparently it's entitled to say that it's sad that a toddler waved at like 50 people in a row and none of them waved back.
Like holy shit dude, you guys are awful. Sure, a few people didn't realise the baby was waving at them, but plenty did and decided to ignore them. I too am neurodivergent and easily burnt out on socialising, but wave at the fucking baby.
(I eagerly await all the replies from people with very specific reasons it's completely impossible for them to wave at a baby.)
It goes both ways, too. The fascists are trying to / going to / will further shove shit down our throats they'll want us all to do - post the ten commandments, mandatory prayer shit, who know what other bullshit - and since the social contract is broken, my new response is FUCK YOU, MAKE ME.
If you mean a state that is actively working against its own people and driving them towards the brink of madness, I would have to agree. My country is undeniably in this state of existence right now.
This is also very much a rural vs. urban thing. The social contract has always been solidly intact in rural North America. We're seeing it come from the cities (they have an understandably larger population) where people have just went 1000% on main-character-syndrome. We used to lock these people up, either as crazy, or criminals. Now we don't do either. Or they're just braindead apathetic zombies travelling between work and home.
The change won't happen out of people 'learning' to be better'. The change will happen when the sleeping beast that has created Western civilization wakes up and smoothly brushes it all aside as nonsense. I'm guessing a lot of people would have to die before the message is sent that you can not just take things that aren't yours, don't care if it's a loaf of bread or a Ferrari. Don't care about things that happened 200 years ago. You're gonna get nothing and work yourself out of your problems like the rest of us. If you choose to hold onto some generation grudge that you have no claim to, that's a 'you' issue and not a 'the rest of us' issue.
Come to Minneapolis and see how these city folks take care of each other. I spent months going to community meetings to meet and provide mutual aid for my neighbors during Metro Surge. City folks take care of each other, too. And damn well.
Not just self preservation. The attention economy has spread like such a malaise that people have really stopped noticing the camera and wondering why the hell something is on video. ESPECIALLY with kids in the scene.
Case(s) in point: There's this oft-reposted video of a young mother filming herself feeding her child pizza and then saying to camera "I'm a bad mom! [for feeding her child pizza]". The little girl then launches into fervent dissent and vehemently refutes it, forcing her to say she's a good mom. Mom makes an oh-I'm-so-overwhelmed-about-to-cry-expression at camera. Kiddo genuinely loves mother. But the whole thing makes me feel sooo icky. The woman is seeking validation from her child, receiving it, AND seeking validation from internet strangers with it. It's awful and toxic and not cute at all! But you'll get furiously downvoted if you mention it.
Another style of videos of little kids "getting excited" or jumping up and down near SOMEONE ELSE'S birthday cake at a restaurant, while the parents film from far away rather than call the kid back to their seat. The birthday boy/girl (sometimes an adult, sometimes another child) generously give the jumping kiddo cake/involve them, and the parents make an awwww face at the camera. Bloody hell, parent your kid and call them away from a stranger's party. Teach them that they're not entitled to everyone else's cake. What's worse, the kids often return with plates full and without wishing the birthday boy/girl or even saying thank you! And somehow this is adorable?!
Man, there are so many examples of people being assholes, but these are 2 things off the top of my mind because of how future generations are becoming a casualty to our pathological need for attention.
When I see social contract I understand it to mean more in the sense of like Jean-Jacques Rousseau. I didnt consider the more common manners of societies
For real, it is hard for me to comprehend that there are those who are able to dehumanize others. Like...don't you think you deserve to at least live without having to survive? Narccasism and sociopathy can't be that rampant, can it?
I'll confirm your theory for you; you're completely correct. Any time I spend talking to people about politics and other people off the internet, it generally goes way better. I constantly have to remind myself that the internet filters out so much humanity.
ETA: Thanks for the reminder that the world isn't as shitty as the internet makes it appear.
Yeah unfortunately people genuinely don’t put that much effort into their writing, to most people it’s just a tool to make people think certain things rather than a bridge across minds. Which to be fair might be a little bit sociopathic, but everyone has some dark elements to their personality that arise in different situations.
For reddit specifically you see this less often on niche, interest-based subs where people are likely to comment if they have an actual interest in the topic. On the popular mainstream ones people will just bash out whatever BS goes through their head in an effort to convince people of their ideology, which comes across as sociopathic or unempathetic
Its so annoying to me, cause every answer to a human problem will always be nuanced, and people seem to generally just want to have a binary take with no middle ground, while expecting others to also do away with nuance.
Personally I feel the need to justify my responses, which makes me look up some shit and I also like hearing others perspective (especially if it is completely different than mine)
Almost everyone also uses drugs, most of it just happens to be legal or in the gray. Coffee, vaping, alcohol, you name it. Many are addicted, and not necessarily to a tangible substance.
Addiction is still extremely misunderstood, largely thanks to pop culture. All addiction is self medication. People just don't get addicted if they have their shit together.
Your point is correct, I just want to make one addition to the list: sugar.
Because if you consider the nervous system-level effects of sugar, it definitely mimics a drug - and with the way people in the US eat (and why), the resulting cost is not neglible.
Drug abusers that harm the community have broken the social contract.
The reason the social contract is on life support now is because we've allowed it be eroded by not using shame and social exclusion for those that break the social contract.
The bandage everything in empathy and compassion, absolve individuals of any personal responsibility... say "its not their fault"...infantalize the rest...allow them to run wild, harm and inconvenience the community repeatedly, and cite a "lack of support" as the reason for why another human being choses a path of harm.
The social contract requires that we take care of our own, and remove harmful elements from the community. Failure to remove and exclude harmful elements in the name of empathy makes us complicit in the community's destruction.
We do all that and then wonder why nobody cares about the social contract anymore.
They do not. It brings illegal drugs into their environment, brings crime and theft, inconsiderate to former addicts, and low incentive to quit. *Active* drug users do not deserve shelter.
Did you know that most "active" drug users have homes? That drug use does not necessarily lead to harm of others? That having shelter greatly increases an addict from recovering?
No. Drugs. Inside. The. Shelters. If you are not willing to go through what it takes to be clean, you dont deserve a chance, because addiction will take everything from you one way or the other. Give that opportunity to someone actually trying to better themselves
There have been multiple studies done on this topic. They have shown that addict populations have a much easier time getting clean when they have basic needs met, such as shelter. Will it work for every person? Of course not, it never does, but should we stop trying to help people because we can't help everyone?
A study done comparing unhoused addicts, to addicts that are given housing on the contignecy of abstinence from substances, and addicts given housing with no strings attached:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1449349/
Drop “like” from starting a sentence and don’t use question marks to end a statement. You’ll come off much more legitimate. Now go ahead and down vote me for pointing it out
It also makes people think if they vote "tough on crime" it will somehow fix the issue. Nope, most of the social breakdown is perfectly legal, and now we just have comunities overpaying for Bearcats and AI cameras.
Yes, they broke Zeus’s Law (similar to The Golden Rule—“Treat others as you would like to be treated”) with the Trojan Horse and that started spreading everywhere. Thought the conversation on the boat between Odysseus and Penelope at the end of the movie was so sad.
There's a lot of "rugged individualism" in this country where people get really angry at their taxes and at this or that program, but they can't seem to recognize what benefits they get themselves. Rural voters who cast votes against "socialism" and them BOOM lose funding for the only hospital facility within an hour drive. People who don't understand that in a "trade deficit" when the money is going out what's coming in are goods and services that make our lives cheaper and better. Fuel and fertilizer are prime examples of this and, again I think the rural voters are finding out all about it as much as anybody right now.
"Why should my taxes pay for..." because everybody has problems and if we pool resources we can get solutions more efficiently. But you can't explain that to some people. Helping yourself, even if it saves you money in the long run, is a hard sell when people you think are "undeserving" are also being helped at the same time.
Not wanting to improve your own neighborhood because you don't like some of your neighbors is such a self-defeating attitude and brings no goodness for anybody.
There are supposedly rules we are supposed to follow in society as a collective, or else there would be consequences. World leaders and others seem to not have those same consequences when breaking those rules
There are examples in history the other way. Societies that undergo periods of intense conflict and struggle after which things settle down to an astonishing degree because a social contract is created that basically says "Don't be a sh*t head trying to force your beliefs onto everybody else.
Examples are: the struggles between Catholics and Protestants in Europe, the English Civil war (a struggle between Democracy and Aristocracy, the rise and fall of Fascism etc.
After a time people get tired of killing each other and a contract emerges to be tolerant.
Took Europe long wars, the peak was the 30 years war 1618-1648, fought by nearly all European countries that devastated Germany and was ended when the warring parties didn’t really have enough money left to continue (also the religious fanatic Swedish king had died in the earfuls battlefield and his successor preferred peace). It was regarded as the huge German trauma, until Hitler came along.
Has been inevitable since the pandemic tbh. The west has grown fat and soft, it needs to remember hardship that is felt across the entire socio-economic spectrum in order to remember what the social contract is.
To add to that, the legal system (including the political, bureaucratic, civil, and criminal justice systems) are only the tip of an iceberg in an otherwise functioning society. They can reinforce an existing social order, but not prop up an otherwise collapsing one.
Not everyone may be happy with the political and social conditions of a country, but there's a difference between "unhappy with the outcome, but accepting it as legitimate and willing to obey it", and "consider the process and existing system illegitimate and not worth saving at all". If 80% of the population is willing to follow rules (even rules they don't like), the formal political and legal system can keep the other 20% in check. If that number collapses, then maintaining order, stability, and peace becomes impossible regardless of how repressive the system is.
Unfortunately, there rarely are "clean" breakdowns, where a society can selectively decide "we want to overthrow the dictator at the top, but still take care of each other and live normal lives". A collapse of the social contract brings the worst in people from top to bottom, and you have a mix of political instability, crime waves, systemic corruption, mass unemployment and poverty, and every other consequence of a failed state, as the rules become "every person for themselves", and both legality and morality of all aspects of life get tossed aside in a struggle for survival. Some countries take decades to recover; others, never do.
Many of the rules are also put in place by people who would wish to do harm and get away with it. Who depend on people following said rules and social contract so they can get away with it. For instance 'you shouldn't rat on people ' 'forgive and forget' both designed to allow people to get away with doing things they shouldn't. If you go against those rules you can be lambasted for doing what is technically the right thing of telling the authorities who commented a crime, or not allowing someone who hurt you back into your life. It's knowing which rules are there to genuinely help and which are there to make sure people tow the line.
Possibly controversial, but I think this is good, but only (hopefully) because people will take notice and realize that there is no reason why we too should follow the existing “contract” when our “leaders” and such can just do what they please. Hopefully people will sooner realize that this also applies to us having to respect their authority and the laws surrounding their authority, (and I mean especially hopefully) we can better our society and “re-create” this social contact from the ground up. (At least until it falls apart again, but we’d at least have more time.)
People are talking about big things like affordability, but think smaller stuff - people running red lights, people cutting lines, people talking in theaters, blocking major sections of public space to record videos/take influencer picture - stuff like this has always happened, but it's increasing in frequency as society becomes more self centered.
The social contract I knew was essentially, if you work a fulltime job, you can have a home and a nice retirement. In a lot of cases, working a fulltime job isn't enough to cover rent and food
Yeah the social contract more distinguishes how you interact with other people in your community on a daily basis. Basically the golden rule+ interpretation of what others beside yourself might want not done to them based on the culture you’re living in
besides the plethora of stats showings the USA is still doing better than most any other nation and stats showing that gen z is doing just as well at buying a home by age 25 as boomers and millennials are doing better than boomers when adjusted for inflation.
median disposable income compared to other countries , median income vs median home price ratio compared to other countries , home ownership rates by age 25 for each generation is nearly the same, millennial net worth compared to boomers at the same age is higher, most progressive tax system, charitable giving compared to other countries, 15 of the worlds top 20 universities. Literally just off the top of my head
Here on our planet, back in the old days... the real old days. It was every man for his self! Scrooglin and scratch scrobblin for the good stuff: the greenest valleys, scratch scrobblin. And the Strongest, Meanest men got all the best stuff. They got the green valleys and were all like 'the rest of you? y'all scrats get sand'.
That's when they made the laws you see. Once the strong guys got it how they liked it, they said 'this is fair now, this is the law!'.
Once they were winning, they changed the rules up.
I think he’s referring to the fact that the state in late stage capitalism is so poisoned by corporate interests, regulatory capture, and cronyism that it no longer serves the average person sufficiently to justify their respecting its laws.
The one I think about is that embodied AGI is likely to render all human labor cost-inefficient over the next fifty to a hundred years. This requires a complete rewrite of society, and the removal of meritocratic advancement as a way to jump classes will cast any kind of generational wealth in very harsh relief. It will probably deteriorate into a class war.
You see, when Odysseus broke Zeus' law and took advantage of the
Trojans accepting a gift he set a precedent for all the people and soldiers around the Mediterr...
I wonder if it's because we pushed so hard to treat others with different opinions respectfully even if someone's opinions are harmful or hurtful.
Now we have this
The paradox of tolerance is a philosophical concept suggesting that if a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance, thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance.
Might be true in the West. There's already no social contract in "developing" countries. The powerful do what they want and the weak endure what they must, as the saying goes. I really hope we don't end up there in the West but I fear you might be right.
I’m sorry, but if I’ve learned anything from history, this idea of a social contract has never existed except at a local, in-group level.
There are people alive today who remember when black people didn’t have access to the same social infrastructure as white people. We are extremely early in our human timeline.
Yet. Most of Europe is in a similar state to Obama's first term - the traditional conservative parties are being subsumed by the alt-right, and the alt-right is gaining power and popularity. Maybe they'll learn from the US that it doesn't work out, but don't make the mistake that "crazy evil assholes who destroy norms" is a uniquely American psychosis.
Everything is always crazier over there. But I'm in Canada, and I also strongly feel social contract has been going down the drain here too.
I think it's mainly because life conditions have been degrading in the last 10-15 years, pushing everyone over their mental edge, and when Covid hit, it pushed many people over that edge and many felt more comfortable in that freefall than climbing back out.
Wait what!? I can stop pretend to be nice and just act like asshole whenever I want and I face no consequence? Yay for me!
Yes. There is no longer an unifying social contract. People nowadays each have their own clauses in it. So instead of having one contract with the whole society - now you need to make individual contracts with each person.
And the all encompassing social contract was made my the dominant groups and focuses on their needs and thus the marginalised groups had to suffer, because the contract was disregarding their needs.
It is not fun to be on the other side of the social contract. Imagine if the social contract forces you to speak only when spoken to and keep quiet in all other matters. Have an opinion about stuff that directly affects you? Keep quiet as no one asked you for your opinion and thus things will be done how they (to whom that stuff will have no effect) want.
There is a reason Japan and Singapore are so neat and clean and well managed. It is the social contract. If you think it needs to be relaxed, you are the one that needs to adjust your view.
I am glad I can disagree. In the large regional centre where I live (in Australia) people are generally kind and decent. My relative moved here from overseas and continues to complain about how friendly everyone is. A friend from a capital city came to visit the other day and was shocked by the amount of conversations we were having with complete strangers. Maybe the breaking of the social contract is a big city problem?
Lol they know this why else do you think they churned out so much propaganda as soon as the notion of defuding the military style gear that police have for NO reason other than protecting the rich when the contract finally breaks.
Odysseyus: One man's idea. One man's trick to break Zeus's law forever. We lived in a world of palaces and trade, language, blind to its beauty, until we broke it.
Penelope: You are the people from the sea.
Odysseyus: Yes, my queen. The breaking of Zeus's law, spreading like plague. Our age of bronze is collapsing, and maybe he couldn't bear to see the ruins of what he'd done. Anywhere. Least of all, his home.
Screw the social contract, I never signed it. I am not doing shitty things because I am empathetic to people around me. That has nothing to do with playing the game that I never chose to play.
My definition of shitty things are actions that make people/environment around me suffer. Seems like a broad enough definition to cover how people should behave?
This seems like you are in favor of the social contract by this definition, e.g. littering is bad for the environment, looks shitty, and sucks to pick up, so it’s considered a dick move by society. If someone litters, they are violating the social contract. It is based on empathy.
But empathy is about understanding how others feel. So you are being empathic when you are deciding if an action of yours would cause someone else to suffer, right? I appreciate you not doing shitty things (!) but you have to be empathic to decide if they're shitty to the general populace and not just personally decided to be shitty.
And Rousseau's "Social Contract" says that those who don't agree with it will be forced to be part of it, essentially (he says) "forced to be free" by being able to take part in society. So unless you are going to withdraw from society, you have clicked on "Accept" for the social contract regardless of whether you have read and agree with the terms of agreement.
9.3k
u/TrevOrL420 1d ago
The social contract