Individualism

What the fuck even is "individualism"?

I see people worshiping it like the greatest thing since sliced bread, but they never even properly define it. To this day I have no fucking die what they mean when they say that word, since only taking the face value (e.g. the dictionary definition) turns all of its proponents into hypocrites. It doesn't follow any consistency whatsoever.

Does it even have any meaning at all? Is it just a meme?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=m01cUkTSOc4
youtube.com/watch?v=ogvMnx-2nFg
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Why don't you read a fucking book instead of asking Sup Forums to redpill you on a basic philosophical question?

>educate yourself, shitlord!
are you a feminist now?

Individualism vs. Collectivism is poorly defined and not helpful towards discussion.

There are generally two concepts that people think of when talking about individualism, "freedom vs. authoritarianism" and "selfishness vs. selflessness".

It's practically Marxism. Its fucking degenerate and isn't a quality of Sup Forums.
Sup Forums is more collectivist(NatSoc, fascist, and any other far right nationalist) excluding the new flag libertarians, Marxist socialist, and anyone not authoritarian left or right.

It's a Jew-pill blue pill. Ayn Rand was a Jew pushing hedonism and immorality by any other name.

Reminder that "authoritarianism" isn't a bad thing. 99% of all nations in history were "authoritarian" and non of them were as degenerate as modern nations with the "individualist" meme

Nigger are you kidding me you just made a thread asking everyone why they aren't onboard with individualism. Jesus christ this board is in a sad state

Marxists ARE collectivists you dumb shit.

Contrasting individualism against "collectivist" systems is stupid and naïve thinking. Yet individualists do this constantly. It's where their thinking stops. They consistently fail to recognize that a collective MADE UP OF strong individuals is the ideal form. In their minds, a collective drowns the individual, makes him nameless and irrelevant, and always puts its own interests before him. It's just not correct.

The individual should keep the collective in mind and know how he is important to it. Be proud of his work and be the best he can be. The individual should leverage the resources of the collective to become stronger, because the collective can accomplish things that no individual can. Yet the collective is nothing without its individuals. It's mutually beneficial, and neither should be a parasite to the other ... and neither will be, if the individuals aren't fucking nigger scum.

So yeah, it's basically a meme. People like Jordan Peterson are trapped in it though, because they don't want to admit that different groups act very differently ... that some groups will always be parasite groups. They get caught up in this fallacy that everyone is just like them or capable of being like them.

youtube.com/watch?v=m01cUkTSOc4

>"Individualism is a kike constructed psyop to counteract puritan nationalism and subvert the goyim into a false sense of security.

The government exists to protect your natural rights. Basically life, liberty, and property. It's kept small so it doesn't become too abusive. Rights are mostly negative. You have the right for certain things not to be "taken away."

Once you take the collectivist route, rights are redefined as whatever everyone votes they are. Everything turns into a tax and the government gives out handouts. It also pockets or pisses most of the money down the drain, and redistributes wealth "fairly," benefiting specific groups that basically don't work. No incentive to work anymore. Economy sucks. Everyone has rights as a collective.

Every system is authoritarian. What most people seem to mean is "totalitarian", in that the state regulates every aspect of the individual's life, leaving no private space.

What would authoritarian really mean? That the state enforces its rules (i.e. uses authority)? Watch Europe for what happens when it strives to be not authoritarian in enforcing its immigration and criminal laws.

Well now you're just defining "collectivism" as "big democratic government"

Europe or China 500 years ago were INCREDIBLY collectivist in the sense that everyone in every settlement knew each other, went to the same church, shared the same worldview, all worked together. The older people helped their children marry each other, craftsmen belonged to guilds, etc

Right now we live in an extremely "collectivist" society buy your definition, but a pathologicalky individualist one by mine

to soyboys it means
>i r individual cuz i liek comics and superhero movies and that makes me unique and speshul
to niggers it means
>SHEEEEEIT i got me dem new nikes nigga

>Watch Europe for what happens when it strives to be not authoritarian in enforcing its immigration and criminal laws.
But that's not true. It's very authoritarian in implementing those rules, but they are just bad counterproductive rules. The government is adamant about refugee quotas each country is forced to take.

ITT: OP constructs a strawman, then argues with it like a retard

>It's practically Marxism.
And that's what Happens when you get your political education from infographics

Underrated post and also possibly a /thread

you're welcome to present a non-strawman alternative, user. I'm waiting.

shouldn't that graphic be 4 different "kings"? looks more like a logo for narcissism

I kind of agree. You have to adhere to a set of rules as a collective that strongly believes in individualism as the primary value.

If other countries flood into yours and don't adhere to the same values, the whole system breaks. Reinterpreting the constitution and whatnot.

Collectivism is prioritizing groups over an individual. Big governments are the means of creating and enforcing legislation for this. It doesn't necessarily have to be a democratic government. We do live in an extremely collectivist society as most of the laws that are created now benefit specific groups of people (ie. affirmative action).

Depends who you ask.

If you ask an anarchist, he'll puke Stirnerist garbage at you, and tell you that you should pursue your own desires at all costs, even at the detriment of others because ethics and morality are a spook.

If you ask a libertarian, he'll tell you that it means living within your own means, providing all of your own needs for yourself, living on your own farm, within your own family. Thomas Jefferson style.

The list goes on, but they generally swap flavours between those two.

Individualism lies in the same bed as all types of anarchy. Individualism has nothing clearly defined, where it begins and ends and thus leads to every man believing he's a king, that reality and everything within it belongs to him because he and he alone is an individual, thinking nothing of his own community, or anything outside of the scope of his own immediate needs. It's caveman, nigger-tier thinking.

Individualism thinks that all men are islands, which simply isn't true.

Are groups not made of individuals? Any kind of policies which help individuals could also be argued to help the collective, as collectives are made of individuals. This any individualistic policy is collectivist. It's a paradox.

I was hoping OP's .gif was going to show the gray dudes beating up the golden one

>but they never even properly define it
concepts like that hardly ever have a precise definition

individualism in a society means, that individual rights, space, actions and desires are respected or at least recieve some attention from society at large. It is a matter of degrees because the term also derives its meaning from being contrasted with a collectivist society

Groups are made of individuals, but we don't make laws to suit just one man's needs; John's needs. We make laws to suit the needs of people like John, which represent a community, which span over an entire nation.

Who are people like John? People of a similar ethnicity and culture. People who share the same set of ethics and norms. The ones that reside within a particular nation's borders, and have shaped said nation over their existence.

So using that logic, all laws and program are collectivist? There is no such thing as an individualist government?

Individualism is when their Jewish bosses give them chuck of their money after they crawl on knees for long and beg for it, but it's only truly individualism after they had coca cola, hamburger and weed.

>What the fuck even is "individualism"?
Its just trying to be what you are not
Its literally a peacockery
LOOK IM MADE MY HAIR PINK IM NOT LIKE THE OTHERS OMG
The real individualists are trying to blend in society as much as they can
Their "individualism" in their ability to outsmart the crowd

I agree with both of these:
- groups are made of individuals.
- policies that help individuals could also help collectives.

But not with this:
-Any individualistic policy is collectivist.

An individualistic policy is meant to help individuals, and in turn, helps groups. A collectivist policy differentiates itself in that it specifically targets a group/collective without concern of loss of individual rights. It may benefit some individuals as a whole, but it is also harmful to others.

Individualism is American make-belief they done it themselves, when actually they got told by Jews where to invest, where to store money and how to do business that benefits they Jews and their endless hordes of migrants. After wageslave earned enough money and can buy a lot of stuff, specifically prostitutes and hamburgers, then individualism is enlightened in young American. And then they remember: "shiiet, that weed was so good, i remember those times at Suzy's."

An individualist government, would be a man and perhaps his family enforcing his/their interpretation of laws and ethics within his/their own "private borders", which might span a couple of kilometers at best.

Individualist legal systems and/or "nations" are closer to what we see in post-apocalypse fantasy scenarios. Where there is no over-arching authority to enforce the actions of people, thus they have taken such actions into their own hands, enforcing laws as they see fit within their own, very loosely defined borders.

Sure, you might be an individual, but so is your neighbour. And maybe his scope of individualism doesn't exactly jive with yours, and suddenly you have a border conflict over who owns which farmland.

Pretty sure property rights can exist in an individualist government.
You can trust yourself to enforce them, since guns will be legal.
Some small form of government will probably exist to protect property rights to some extent unless it's ancap or something.

Which makes it not at all a government, if there's absolutely no connection of any kind between the two neighbors, no overarching group/authority or whatever

you don't brag about being an individualist, you just are one
people who brag about being one, are often people who expected handouts and think just because they work for their own money that they're individualists

>itt: a psy op to try to turn the so called "alt right" against individualism
the opposite is collectivism, move ot china if you want to see what that looks like. the west was built under the idea that individual people had value. that we are not all just cogs in some machine, that we are also human. and that our personal thoughts and feelings and the lives we want to live, thats important. and we need to live in a system that recognizes that the individual has rights

don't hate individualism because you think it means pink hair or something retarded, that has nothing to do with it

Imagine a line up of overweight guys in super hero t-shirts each of them balding and each of them wearing glasses and all of them agreeing that they're individualists. They assure you that they are absolutely not racists, and that even if white people all died off they wouldn't care because what even is white?

You don't have to move to China to understand collectivism, you leafy sperg. Every group of people besides white people in the west are collectivists who vote and think together. Blacks don't mostly vote together as a consistent unit by mistake, they act as a collective.

If your country becomes less white you will lose any ideals of treating people as individuals along with it, and all the while your individualists will be screeching that being less white is actually a good thing because diversity is our strength and at least we have our constitution.

Sure, but who defines such property rights? And what defines such enforcement? What stops you from blasting your neighbour because you need more farmland because you have 8 wives and 70 children and he doesn't? It's your right as an individual to do whatever the fuck you want, so if you need more then tough fuckin shit for your neighbour.

When you elect representatives of a community, do they truly represent said community? Does your local representative truly represent their riding?

Look at modern democracies, do you truly feel represented by your representative? Or are they merely charlatans that will say anything to appeal to their local voter bloc to keep themselves in a position of power? When you call them, do you get them? Or their answering machine/secretary?

It's this kind of shit that promotes warlordism, you see it in Africa and you see it in EVE online.

Right, that's why I said that individualism devolves into anarchy, and anarchy evolves into collectivism either through familial ties (monarchism, or something so fuckin close to it that it may as well be) or through the development of increasingly more collective governments.

>>So yeah, it's basically a meme.

Yes, and you are doing the exact same thing right now.

It's something that has only been effectively reconciled with the social contract under National Socialism.

>who defines such property rights
Well you can't own people as it would be denying liberty. Beyond that, liberty mostly equates to property and denying this should be minimized as much as possible. I can't think of many things that should even be touched without there being a risk of market failure. Monopolies should be split up. Individuals probably shouldn't own nukes. A military has to exist to some extent to protect our values. It comes down to what is a necessary evil for a nation to still function.

>What stops you from blasting your neighbour because you need more farmland
Your double barrel or the cops.

>Look at modern democracies, do you truly feel represented by your representative? Or are they merely charlatans that will say anything to appeal to their local voter bloc to keep themselves in a position of power?
They're all pretty trash.

Right, but the US started in it's early days, as this kind of government, and as populations grew, it felt the pull of collectivism, thus creating the problems we see in the modern day.

Not that such problems are exclusive to the US, but it's the best example.

>Your double barrel or the cops.
Cops deny liberty because they infringe on your rights as an individual, it implies that there's an over-arching authority that can tread on your civil liberties, whether they're supposed to do something or not. Police presence denies your rights as an individual.

What you're describing isn't individualism, there's individualist aspects, definitely but these aspects apply to a federalized group, defined by borders which implies that there is some kind of widely accepted set of morals, ethics, beliefs, and/or culture, which when widely accepted are collective ideas.

...

you spelled "gay" wrong.

Individualism is "muh against the main stream". Meanwhile there are so many turbohomos "against muh mainstream" that it has become the new mainstream.
Imagine the shock if you tell someone you're a devout Christian. Freak they'll call you, or bigot - or worse. No, "Individualism" is just a buzz word for faggots to throw in order to act out their worst degeneracy and call it a "statement" and dodge any responsibility.

He was sieg heiling earlier though.

youtube.com/watch?v=ogvMnx-2nFg

An attempt to fight against the forces of modernism with it's mass production, consumption and media. It itself became recouped with the mass consumption of "individualising" conspicuous consumption.

You are not represented, only you can represent you. If you do not create (or procreate in the longer term) in what sense do you exist, to whom? Hair dye.

>Right, but the US started in it's early days, as this kind of government, and as populations grew, it felt the pull of collectivism, thus creating the problems we see in the modern day.
Yes, Marxism is killing it.
In the early days, the US also had an immigration policy that basically only allowed "those who were white and of good character" or something. I'd say that the change of immigration policies greatly influenced the increase of collectivism in the US, not because of "oh no, non white people are flooding my country," but because of the collectivist ideologies a lot of the other non European countries bring with them.

>Cops deny liberty because they infringe on your rights as an individual, it implies that there's an over-arching authority that can tread on your civil liberties
They're a necessary evil. The size they are right now is likely beyond what is necessary though.

>What you're describing isn't individualism, there's individualist aspects, definitely but these aspects apply to a federalized group, defined by borders which implies that there is some kind of widely accepted set of morals, ethics, beliefs, and/or culture, which when widely accepted are collective ideas.
I think you're mostly right here. It's about as close as you can get to it while still being able to function as a nation. Basically the US in it's early days. The widely accepted set of morals, ethics, etc. are ingrained in the constitution, and those who founded the nation that people have mostly unsuccessfully fought to protect. You have to adhere to a set of rules as a collective (just as a nation) that strongly believes in individualism as the primary value. Individualism is still the underlying philosophy that ties together and influence laws and policies.

In contrast, you have governments that heavily emphasize policies that are collectivist. Individual rights are taken into account second to what benefits the whole.

Exactly, the US functioned as well as it did in it's early days due primarily to homogenity, everybody knew the rules, and everybody had a sense of scope as to what they could and could not do. It was only when foreigners entered the picture, that problems began to arise. As well, the federal government found itself with an issue of enforcing law on an expanding frontier in it's early days, but those would happen anywhere with an expanding, newly discovered, and generally work-in-progress frontier.

You're preaching to the choir with this post Ameribro, individualism can have some role in government, but you can't have a government without some sense of "necessary evil" collectivism, such as police.

It's basically #NotAll the political ideology. They're as frustrating as Jews when it comes to debate.
Pic unrelated

Yup, when you have people from failing countries coming over for a better life that preach the ideologies that cause their countries to fail, it's going to screw stuff up.

>You're preaching to the choir with this post Ameribro
Glad to have someone that doesn't think I'm crazy.

As an immigrant to Canada from Hungary (as a child) I can confirm this. First generations will think their culture is superior no matter what they gain from immigrating. Had unrealistic expectations of life because my parents were always talking about how their youth was. Now here I am on Sup Forums

Collectivism is one of the reasons I call everyone insane but if the insanity is broken then the dams busting open

Individualism is prioritizing your own interests and the interests of your family and friends before everybody else (caring about everybody equally would be utilitarianism).
Contrary to what most people would think, individualism is not the the opposite of collectivism. You can be a collectivist (want strong system of social rules) just fine, you just have to want it for your own interests to be an individualist.

>What the fuck even is "individualism"?

Jewish divide and conquer on an "individual" scale.

They don't want whites working together, they want them competing with each other for sheckles.

A failure to comprehend nation formation and political philosophy.

Jewish meme to atomize and deracinate White men and make them stop looking out for their racial interests

>Hey goy you don't need a strong national community and to love your extended racial family when you can watch capeshit on netflix all day!!!!

ohey, there's me on the left!

People like you need driven out to the countryside.

This

Collectivism and individualism are mostly buzzwords, people don't know what they mean when they talk about them

>individualism is practically marxism

There are two types of collectives
Type A: Those that shame/threaten you into participating.
Type B: Collectives you want to join because the people inspire you and you want to contribute.

Often, type A thinks it's type B.

This

Its allways the ones who try to be so special and "not with the flow" unique people who are the most boring. And the interesting and wierd peoöle who try to hide and blend in.
>lol i color muh hair im not like the other girls
>lol i bought green car that matches my personality

Collectivism/ "siding with your race" is the most brainlet thing out there
LITERALLY the same level as fucking animals.

Never thought about it, but that's true as hell.

>tfw to smart to survive
Having children is LITERALLY being an animal. I'm above that shit. I also like to smell my own farts.

It's because they're posturing retards. They don't have an identity so they have to broadcast one instead.

>this far into the thread and no one has given definition
Holy fucking shit, I read zero books and from the name alone I can tell wtf it is
It's the idea that YOU should make amends with reality first and not rely on a society to carry you through to a conclusion or cause.
That you gather the details relevant to your world, see yourself in the bigger picture, and figure out how to make yourself into the person who will act on the things you want.

Collectivism is just basically living in fear of being too dumb to figure anything out, and re-orientating yourself to appeal to everyone else around you so that instead of being an individually pathetic scrub you're just part of a larger directionless blob of scrub idiots.

Modern Sup Forums is the quintessential example of a collectivism mindset who thinks they're individualist through the use of edginess

Its what they do in african politics, your tribe vs the other tribe. Winner gets power and looser gets fucked.

You're not living on an island alone are you?
Then you're part of a collective like it or not.
Individualism is a childish fantasy ideology.

Exactly, it's the most "ooga booga" shit possible.
If I made contributions to the world and some dumb fuck white trash took credit for it cause "same race" I would be rolling in my fucking grave

It simply means that you value individual rights higher than the "greater good."