This is a right-wing talking point. People like Thiel and Musk share this opinion. Probably Charlie Kirk too. Universities would reward conformity, wokeism determined which answers were correct and no true competition for the best ideas took place.
A book was published by the German sociologist recently. Hartmut Rosa's hypothesis is that our daily lives are regulated too striclty. Too many decisions were pre-determined not by humans but by a bureaucratic complex, juridification and through technologies. This strips humans of feeling of self-determination. The EU is one example. And right-wingers use this for their advantage. They posture as the rebels in favor of sovereignity by the people for the people. For example by voting for the AfD, Trump etc. There is some truth that for example the German constitution or international treaties restrict the executive powers. This is not implied in the book but I want to emphasize it. If there are some basic rules, this is in my opinion a pre-condition for freedom. And this does not align with the American notion of freedom. Freedom in the US is often negatively defined. The freedom of not having to follow rules (implemented by the state). Though, what if the capitalistic logic rules the rest of the society. Here comes the second defintion of freedom into play. I am free to do things. I am empowered to do things. I have a right for a life in dignity. And this requires a certain minimum of economic equality. The same goes for the media. There is a need for media regulations because otherwise a handful of billionaires will buy the most valuable media companies to steer discussions how they like it. And in Germany we have the opinion this is also true for democracy. Anti-democratic world views are not compatible with Germany's notion of freedom of speech. One argument is if there was hate speech, extremist views allowed more vulnerable people would not dare to raise their voice to stand up for their own rights. Nothing of that is writen in the book but I think this is important to know in order to understand the German perspective.
Even though, the society is more rigidly regulated in the EU compared to the US Trump was the first accelerator and disruptor with the alleged goal to break the status quo from within. Maybe the US mentality and the way the system works is partly responsible for this outcome. If the daily life is heavily regulated, people who promise the destruction of basic rules seems attractive. Especially, if the rest of the elites seem to be against this disruptor. The feeling of impotence is replaced with the hope of individualization in a system that seems to be rigged in favor of the 1%. Especially, if the chosen one talks like us, despises the elites too and is attacked by literally everyone in the media. He is the counterfigure, hated by the mainstream. I guess that was one allure of Trump. As long as he wasn't in office. But the people forgot pretty early that he actually did not drain the swamp in his first term.
One argument against the regulation theory is. Nowadays, in a globalized world we can choose where we live. We can chose who we love. We can chose our gender and find an identity that expresses our inner feelings and desires the best. The society is hyperindividualistic. This contradicts the notion over overregulation. But I think there are some caveats when making this argument. For choosing where you live it requires a lot of money. The system is so polarized that you will pay a huge price to changing your gender or having a non hetero relationship.
Another argument is some people feel threatened by this lifestyle. There is quote of Thiel who is into transhumanism.
Speaking on a New York Times podcast, Thiel framed transgender identity as a small first step in what he believes should be a much larger process of human transformation. "The critique is not that it's weird and unnatural — it's that it's so pathetically little," he said.
"We want more than cross-dressing or changing your sex organs. We want you to be able to change your heart, change your mind, and change your whole body."
Obviously, I don't agree with this. But it shows how contradictory these people are.
Another form of confirmity is the implementation of algorithms and AI in decision making processes. We outsource our capabilities to the cloud and technology determines what we wear, who we date etc.
The real emancipation of individuality is independent of addictive technology that slowly but surely replaces our ability to think critically. There is a need for constant feedback in the internet age. We live in second order observation societies. We observe how other people observe and evaluate things. This is like an addiction and undermines our own critical thinking.
There are not many jobs where conformity isn't rewarded. Maybe business leaders and CEOS are the exception for this rule. Disruption in economy is seen as something good. But for the jobs of the average Joe and Jane independent thinking is considered a waste of time and often punished. Follow the rules, abide by the unspoken rules the society tells you and you will be free and content. While unknowingly being exploited by the system as work slave, robbed of one's individuality until hit the age of 65 and die of a heart attack. The roots for this developments are not debated and instead distractions should deceive us from realizing this.
Though, maybe CEOs are the one's who have to obey the rule that money rules even more than the average citizen.
What do you think?
A book was published by the German sociologist recently. Hartmut Rosa's hypothesis is that our daily lives are regulated too striclty. Too many decisions were pre-determined not by humans but by a bureaucratic complex, juridification and through technologies. This strips humans of feeling of self-determination. The EU is one example. And right-wingers use this for their advantage. They posture as the rebels in favor of sovereignity by the people for the people. For example by voting for the AfD, Trump etc. There is some truth that for example the German constitution or international treaties restrict the executive powers. This is not implied in the book but I want to emphasize it. If there are some basic rules, this is in my opinion a pre-condition for freedom. And this does not align with the American notion of freedom. Freedom in the US is often negatively defined. The freedom of not having to follow rules (implemented by the state). Though, what if the capitalistic logic rules the rest of the society. Here comes the second defintion of freedom into play. I am free to do things. I am empowered to do things. I have a right for a life in dignity. And this requires a certain minimum of economic equality. The same goes for the media. There is a need for media regulations because otherwise a handful of billionaires will buy the most valuable media companies to steer discussions how they like it. And in Germany we have the opinion this is also true for democracy. Anti-democratic world views are not compatible with Germany's notion of freedom of speech. One argument is if there was hate speech, extremist views allowed more vulnerable people would not dare to raise their voice to stand up for their own rights. Nothing of that is writen in the book but I think this is important to know in order to understand the German perspective.
Even though, the society is more rigidly regulated in the EU compared to the US Trump was the first accelerator and disruptor with the alleged goal to break the status quo from within. Maybe the US mentality and the way the system works is partly responsible for this outcome. If the daily life is heavily regulated, people who promise the destruction of basic rules seems attractive. Especially, if the rest of the elites seem to be against this disruptor. The feeling of impotence is replaced with the hope of individualization in a system that seems to be rigged in favor of the 1%. Especially, if the chosen one talks like us, despises the elites too and is attacked by literally everyone in the media. He is the counterfigure, hated by the mainstream. I guess that was one allure of Trump. As long as he wasn't in office. But the people forgot pretty early that he actually did not drain the swamp in his first term.
One argument against the regulation theory is. Nowadays, in a globalized world we can choose where we live. We can chose who we love. We can chose our gender and find an identity that expresses our inner feelings and desires the best. The society is hyperindividualistic. This contradicts the notion over overregulation. But I think there are some caveats when making this argument. For choosing where you live it requires a lot of money. The system is so polarized that you will pay a huge price to changing your gender or having a non hetero relationship.
Another argument is some people feel threatened by this lifestyle. There is quote of Thiel who is into transhumanism.
Speaking on a New York Times podcast, Thiel framed transgender identity as a small first step in what he believes should be a much larger process of human transformation. "The critique is not that it's weird and unnatural — it's that it's so pathetically little," he said.
"We want more than cross-dressing or changing your sex organs. We want you to be able to change your heart, change your mind, and change your whole body."
Obviously, I don't agree with this. But it shows how contradictory these people are.
Another form of confirmity is the implementation of algorithms and AI in decision making processes. We outsource our capabilities to the cloud and technology determines what we wear, who we date etc.
The real emancipation of individuality is independent of addictive technology that slowly but surely replaces our ability to think critically. There is a need for constant feedback in the internet age. We live in second order observation societies. We observe how other people observe and evaluate things. This is like an addiction and undermines our own critical thinking.
There are not many jobs where conformity isn't rewarded. Maybe business leaders and CEOS are the exception for this rule. Disruption in economy is seen as something good. But for the jobs of the average Joe and Jane independent thinking is considered a waste of time and often punished. Follow the rules, abide by the unspoken rules the society tells you and you will be free and content. While unknowingly being exploited by the system as work slave, robbed of one's individuality until hit the age of 65 and die of a heart attack. The roots for this developments are not debated and instead distractions should deceive us from realizing this.
Though, maybe CEOs are the one's who have to obey the rule that money rules even more than the average citizen.
What do you think?
