Was hoping to lightheartedly explain the “they want to abolish the nuclear family” thing, but don’t think you’re my audience and the other guy made it weird. Got a different question than “uh wut” or should we just move on?
Big companies want people isolated and dependent on their services, rather than meeting each others needs directly. I do a lot of engine repair stuff, and in that context fuel is “atomized” into a fine mist that’s less stable and more reactive than when it’s in a cohesive puddle or droplet. If three generations share a kitchen, a population needs 1/3 the appliances it would if every 18 year old moved out and bought their own. In the course of maximizing profits the system isolates and divides us and is naturally opposed to core support systems like the “nuclear family”. It’s pretty silly to instead ascribe that opposition to the other side of a manufactured culture war that supposedly just hates your way of life
Okay I think I gotcha now. Honestly I thought you were trying to draw a literal analogy between nuclear/nucleus and atoms and I could not figure out what the message was.
Now I know you meant that commercial interests prefer separating and isolating people into as many individual households as possible to maximize consumption by making sharing and resource pooling impossible. Corpos atomizing us across the board.
The US two party system is often colloquially referred to as red vs blue. I’m sure you’ve seen coverage about “red states” or “blue cities” during election cycles. That was referencing the same reactionary impetus you refer to elsewhere in this thread to “defend the family” against a perceived other rather than the predatory corporations actually working to dissolve it. There’s definitely some confusing cultural baggage around the term as each side has respectively glorified/demonized it, I do not blame you in the slightest for having to ask and doubt you’ll get two identical responses
Thank you. I thought it might have somehow meant “leftists” or “communists.” “Red state” snaps right into place for me in a way “red team” did not.
So you’re saying that American conservatives have a longtime conspiracy theory about the family being under attack by gays whispering to Satan in a weed haze (this part I do understand).
But what’s actually going on is “corpos atomizing us.”
Are you saying that the corpo atomization is something that “red team” fears or is against?
I would think that the “nuclear family” is the conservative ideal and the corporate consumption powers that be are aligned with them because more, smaller families drive more of that individual consumption you mentioned.
So I was a little confused how “nuclear family” as a conservative conspiracy theory fits with corpo atomization in your view exactly.
First off thank you, I’m really enjoying bridging this generation gap. And satan’s doing the whispering while his blue team minions smoke the devil’s lettuce, but that’s beside the point ;)
I don’t think modern “red team” believes or is aware that social atomization is a byproduct of corporate greed for the most part. Distracting from that and providing a scapegoat is part of the utility of culture war and exactly what that conspiracy theory is meant to accomplish. A wealthy, intelligent, well-positioned conservative might be consciously aligned with the process, but dumb is a lot more common than evil. The conflict between social and economic values kinda has to be obscured for that ideology to function. They fear the result, but can blame the other (gay weed smoking atheists!) and remain all for the process that’s actually responsible
It confuses things further that a few generations ago the “nuclear family” was widely recognized as a step towards atomization, but at this point things have progressed so far it’s become a traditional ideal many feel nostalgia for. Grandma watching the kids and everyone working the farm together is long gone, and if you’re a single parent or just living on your own it sure seems cohesive from here. It’s a destructive template imposed on us, and whether they’re after a return to the land or a soma pod above a nightclub I don’t think it’s what anyone who’s thought things through really wants. Even if it is a step in the right direction at this point x(
Actually in the process of writing that last bit I had a thought: waaaay back when, conservatives almost certainly were against the push towards the nuclear family (and were right imo). It’s only once we’d been isolated beyond that point that it could seem like something worth preserving or returning to
You should really look into the history of how the “nuclear family” was pushed by capitalist media of the 50s and 60s in an effort to normalize the suburban lifestyle in order to have a more exploitable populace and how that affected the breakdown of local community and intergenerational support structures.
The shift was heavily facilitated by the “white flight” phenomenon of the era as well and plays a role in institutionalized racism.
Trust me as an LGBT dude who came of age in the 90s, I’ve watched the whole conservative panic about “defend the family” for a long time. And of course women for centuries have been told they are a failure if they don’t marry and reproduce. The only miscommunication here is that the term “nuclear family” on its own does not communicate all those bad things. The term has a simple and objective definition so when people talk about it as the antichrist, with no qualification, that is confusing to me.
uh wut
Was hoping to lightheartedly explain the “they want to abolish the nuclear family” thing, but don’t think you’re my audience and the other guy made it weird. Got a different question than “uh wut” or should we just move on?
My other question would be breaking your comment into clauses and asking you what you are talking about because it was unreadable to me.
Can you start with what you meant by “corpos atomizing us across the board?”
Big companies want people isolated and dependent on their services, rather than meeting each others needs directly. I do a lot of engine repair stuff, and in that context fuel is “atomized” into a fine mist that’s less stable and more reactive than when it’s in a cohesive puddle or droplet. If three generations share a kitchen, a population needs 1/3 the appliances it would if every 18 year old moved out and bought their own. In the course of maximizing profits the system isolates and divides us and is naturally opposed to core support systems like the “nuclear family”. It’s pretty silly to instead ascribe that opposition to the other side of a manufactured culture war that supposedly just hates your way of life
Okay I think I gotcha now. Honestly I thought you were trying to draw a literal analogy between nuclear/nucleus and atoms and I could not figure out what the message was.
Now I know you meant that commercial interests prefer separating and isolating people into as many individual households as possible to maximize consumption by making sharing and resource pooling impossible. Corpos atomizing us across the board.
Who is the “red team?”
The US two party system is often colloquially referred to as red vs blue. I’m sure you’ve seen coverage about “red states” or “blue cities” during election cycles. That was referencing the same reactionary impetus you refer to elsewhere in this thread to “defend the family” against a perceived other rather than the predatory corporations actually working to dissolve it. There’s definitely some confusing cultural baggage around the term as each side has respectively glorified/demonized it, I do not blame you in the slightest for having to ask and doubt you’ll get two identical responses
Thank you. I thought it might have somehow meant “leftists” or “communists.” “Red state” snaps right into place for me in a way “red team” did not.
So you’re saying that American conservatives have a longtime conspiracy theory about the family being under attack by gays whispering to Satan in a weed haze (this part I do understand).
But what’s actually going on is “corpos atomizing us.”
Are you saying that the corpo atomization is something that “red team” fears or is against?
I would think that the “nuclear family” is the conservative ideal and the corporate consumption powers that be are aligned with them because more, smaller families drive more of that individual consumption you mentioned.
So I was a little confused how “nuclear family” as a conservative conspiracy theory fits with corpo atomization in your view exactly.
First off thank you, I’m really enjoying bridging this generation gap. And satan’s doing the whispering while his blue team minions smoke the devil’s lettuce, but that’s beside the point ;)
I don’t think modern “red team” believes or is aware that social atomization is a byproduct of corporate greed for the most part. Distracting from that and providing a scapegoat is part of the utility of culture war and exactly what that conspiracy theory is meant to accomplish. A wealthy, intelligent, well-positioned conservative might be consciously aligned with the process, but dumb is a lot more common than evil. The conflict between social and economic values kinda has to be obscured for that ideology to function. They fear the result, but can blame the other (gay weed smoking atheists!) and remain all for the process that’s actually responsible
It confuses things further that a few generations ago the “nuclear family” was widely recognized as a step towards atomization, but at this point things have progressed so far it’s become a traditional ideal many feel nostalgia for. Grandma watching the kids and everyone working the farm together is long gone, and if you’re a single parent or just living on your own it sure seems cohesive from here. It’s a destructive template imposed on us, and whether they’re after a return to the land or a soma pod above a nightclub I don’t think it’s what anyone who’s thought things through really wants. Even if it is a step in the right direction at this point x(
Actually in the process of writing that last bit I had a thought: waaaay back when, conservatives almost certainly were against the push towards the nuclear family (and were right imo). It’s only once we’d been isolated beyond that point that it could seem like something worth preserving or returning to
You should really look into the history of how the “nuclear family” was pushed by capitalist media of the 50s and 60s in an effort to normalize the suburban lifestyle in order to have a more exploitable populace and how that affected the breakdown of local community and intergenerational support structures.
The shift was heavily facilitated by the “white flight” phenomenon of the era as well and plays a role in institutionalized racism.
Trust me as an LGBT dude who came of age in the 90s, I’ve watched the whole conservative panic about “defend the family” for a long time. And of course women for centuries have been told they are a failure if they don’t marry and reproduce. The only miscommunication here is that the term “nuclear family” on its own does not communicate all those bad things. The term has a simple and objective definition so when people talk about it as the antichrist, with no qualification, that is confusing to me.