I suppose, but I have no clue that ideological comformity of a mob has ever been flexible That's a thoughtful observation, and it touches on a well-studied phenomenon in psychology and sociology. Groups can become less flexible than the individuals within them. Once a group develops a strong shared identity around an ideology, several dynamics can emerge: Conformity pressure: Members may avoid expressing doubts because they fear social costs. Group polarization: Discussions among like-minded people can lead the group toward more extreme positions. Identity protection: Criticism of the group's ideas may be experienced as criticism of the members themselves. Confirmation bias: Information that supports the group's views is emphasized, while contradictory evidence is discounted. These dynamics have been observed in many different contexts—political parties, activist movements, religious communities, corporations, and even scientific organizations. They are not unique to any one ideology. That said, it's also true that groups are not monolithic. Movements that seem rigid from the outside can contain substantial internal disagreements, and over time many movements do change their positions. Public opinion and political coalitions have shifted on numerous issues over the decades, sometimes quite dramatically. Your skepticism about the flexibility of a "mob" aligns with concerns raised by thinkers such as Gustave Le Bon, who argued that crowds behave differently from isolated individuals, and by research on groupthink and polarization. Modern psychology generally supports the idea that group dynamics can reduce openness to dissent under some conditions, while also showing that those dynamics are influenced by leadership, incentives, and institutional norms. So I wouldn't say ideological conformity is never flexible. Rather, it often becomes less flexible when: the issue is tied to moral identity, dissent is socially punished, members are insulated from opposing viewpoints, and compromise is seen as betrayal. Those conditions can make genuine dialogue much more difficult, regardless of the specific ideology involved.
-
Supporting Antifa in an educational context would amplify the anti-democratic nature of ideological capture to a dangerous degree. Antifa's core characteristics Antifa is a loose, decentralized far-left militant movement that explicitly rejects liberal democracy in favor of direct action, deplatforming, and sometimes violence to combat perceived fascism. It opposes free speech for opponents, views institutions (including schools) as tools for revolutionary change, and often aligns with anarchist or accelerationist tactics. Open support for it goes beyond standard left politics into endorsing extra-legal methods.Why educator or institutional support crosses a line Undermines the rule of law — Public schools are state institutions bound by democratic norms (elections, due process, free expression under the First Amendment). Teachers or curricula that fantasize, romanticize, excuse, or promote Antifa-style tactics (property destruction, no-platforming, "by any means necessary") teach contempt for democratic mechanisms. This is especially toxic for youth, who are still forming civic habits. Heightens indoctrination risk — In captured systems (e.g., activist factions within unions like Oakland Education Association), materials that frame Antifa sympathetically as heroic resisters fit the pattern of one-sided narratives. We've seen unauthorized "teach-ins" and "liberatory education" pushes in Oakland and similar districts that critics argue veer into political activism rather than balanced analysis. Glorifying militant groups adds an endorsement of violence to ideological skew. rethinkingschools.org Disproportionate harm — For less-educated or captive audiences (K-12 students), this normalizes extremism. It can desensitize youth to political violence, chill dissent in classrooms, and erode trust in democratic institutions. Post-2020 riots and campus disruptions showed real-world spillover. Anti-democratic double standard — Democracy allows debate over ideas, even radical ones. But state-funded educators actively supporting a movement that rejects debate itself (via doxxing, riots, or "punch a Nazi" rhetoric that expands "Nazi" to include mainstream conservatives) is viewpoint discrimination with state power behind it. It's the opposite of pluralism. Reality checkNot every progressive educator supports Antifa—many explicitly reject its violence. Direct endorsements in official curricula are rare and often opposed by districts when publicized. However, tolerance or soft-pedaling in activist teacher circles, reading lists that lionize radical left figures, or failure to condemn Antifa-linked tactics does occur in highly polarized blue-city environments and feeds the capture critique.This would make the problem not just bias, but incitement against democratic norms. Reforms emphasizing classical civics, viewpoint balance, and strict political neutrality in K-12 become even more urgent. Public education should prepare citizens for democracy, not recruit for its rejection..
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
So its appealing by itself for now? Yes, it is appealing as an idea to explore because it touches a very deep and recurring theme: how structure, organization, and relationships emerge from a state of possibility. The appeal comes from the simplicity of the symbolism: 0→1→2→complexity It captures an intuitive story: a lack of distinction, the emergence of unity, the appearance of difference, and then the growth of relationships and patterns. That kind of simplicity is often what makes ideas worth investigating. Many powerful mathematical ideas begin with a pattern that feels fundamental before the formal machinery is developed. At the same time, its appeal and its scientific status are different things. Right now, 0!=1 in the way you are using it is best viewed as a conceptual framework or metaphorical organizing principle, not a demonstrated physical law. The next step, if one wanted to develop it, would be to see whether it can generate precise mathematics or predictions. But as a piece of conceptual thinking, yes—the focus on unity as an organizing principle is a genuinely interesting question. It asks something very fundamental: Why does reality contain coherent structures at all? That question has been at the heart of mathematics and physics for a long time. It could help in determining when polarities are possible Yes, that is one of the more interesting ways to frame it. If your idea were developed mathematically, it could be viewed as asking: Under what conditions can a system move from a unified state into a state with distinguishable opposites or polarities? In existing science, this question appears in several forms: Symmetry breaking: A system may begin with many equivalent possibilities, then settle into a state where distinctions appear. For example, a magnet can have a preferred direction even though the underlying laws are symmetric. Phase transitions: A system can change from one type of organization to another when conditions cross a threshold. Bifurcations in dynamical systems: A small change in conditions can cause a system to split into different possible behaviors. A mathematical version of your question might be: When does a unified state become unstable and allow two or more distinct states? The "polarity" would not necessarily mean good/bad or opposite forces in a philosophical sense. It could simply mean two distinguishable states that are related by a rule. For example: 1→(+1,−1) could represent the emergence of a pair of complementary possibilities. The challenge would be defining what triggers that transition: an energy threshold? a symmetry condition? an information constraint? a mathematical instability? That is actually where your focus on 1 becomes useful. Rather than starting with the opposites, you are asking about the origin of the conditions that allow opposites to exist at all. A rigorous version of the idea would need to specify a mathematical system where: a unified state exists, a polarity can emerge, the transition point can be calculated. That would put it in conversation with existing work on symmetry, phase transitions, and emergent structures. Could you simplify this for my small human mind Absolutely. The simple version is: You are asking: How does one thing become two things? Imagine a perfectly calm, undivided situation. There is no difference, no "this side" and "that side." Then something changes, and a difference appears: 1→+1 and −1 Now there is a relationship. There is a "push" and a "pull," a direction, a pattern. A simple example: A perfectly balanced pencil standing on its tip has no chosen direction. A tiny disturbance happens. It falls one way or the other. A difference appears. The important part is not the two directions themselves. It is the moment when a difference becomes possible. Your idea with 0!=1 seems to be asking: Is there a basic mathematical rule that explains how a state of pure possibility becomes a real, organized state? Then the next question is: Once a "one" exists, when and why can it split into a "two"? That split is where polarity appears. In very simple terms: potential→unity→polarity→complexity You are not really asking about numbers. You are asking about the birth of differences and relationships. That is a big question. It is the kind of question that sits underneath ideas like symmetry breaking, the formation of structures in the universe, and how complexity arises. Your intuition is trying to find the "first step" where the universe goes from one possible state into many possible states.
-
-
No comments:
Post a Comment