> This is another theme I notice in this same cohort

> Personally I find the erasure of individual thought in this model to be demeaning.

The fact that you are describing a behavior that you believe to be shared among a sizable group of people seems to contradict your claim that their beliefs are due to individual failings rather than some broader social forces that caused them to believe these things, no?

▲

lucumo an hour ago | parent | next [-]

People are still responsible for their own opinions. Hiding behind "social forces" doesn't absolve them from that responsibility.

	▲	pastel8739 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Sure, individuals can have wrong beliefs. Of course. So what? Should we consider people who have beliefs that we believe the be wrong bad people and disassociate from them? Or should we try to understand their point of view and why they believe the things that they do so we can either reevaluate our own beliefs or change theirs?

▲

shermantanktop 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Both can be true.

The historical left/marxist view is essentially: look at someone's social context and where their money comes from, and you'll know how they probably think. The American ideology is: everyone is an individual and a tramp can be a philosopher.

The second is much more appealing to us as individuals, and to our sense of self-determination and independence. And people do have agency---some people succumb to despair, others don't; some work hard, some don't; some rebound from setbacks, some don't.

But if you look at large groups of people, the first one starts to have strong explanatory power. Look at US coverage of foreign elections, and that second view is almost all you see.

	▲	card_zero 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		What do you mean about US coverage of foreign elections? (Was "second view" a mistake for "first view" in that sentence?)
	▲	armchairhacker 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		“Probably” is key and doing some heavy lifting: both views are true.

▲

myersj 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> rather than some broader social forces

I think GP pretty clearly states it's due to broader social forces:

> They’ve been trained, usually by a social media niche

I don't think that was a complicated point, but maybe you think you were asking something else, while trying to still blame whatever "social forces" TikTok has told you to blame.

	▲	pastel8739 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Lol, I don’t use (have never used) TikTok; I generally think I have arrived at my current belief mostly through reading books. I’m responding primarily to this sentiment: > At some point we have to admit that people’s thoughts and actions are their own. I generally find that placing blame on individuals for views that one believes are wrong is not constructive. Clearly there are reasons that they believe the things that they do, and this is especially true when you disagree not with an individual but with an entire group. Of course anyone is free to get angry at anyone else for their individual beliefs, and I believe that individually people’s minds can be changed. But blaming individuals _who you have never met_ for behaviors that you are stereotyping from an entire group seems wholly unproductive. This is not going to change the group’s minds, and is only going to make you bitter. When discussing group behavior, it only makes sense to discuss things that influence the whole group.