Lisa Jackson7 said:The author really went out of his way to highlight certain religious groups—giving this quick little history lesson that basically puts the spotlight on the long-standing ones. And honestly? It’s no surprise that most of them are tied back to specific denominations. Makes total sense.
Quincy:| Always. So there’s always some "supreme leader" type imposing their rigid-as-hell rules on everyone in the group. It’s way easier to control people in small communities—you’re basically under a microscope 24/7, so there’s zero room to just *be yourself*. The only way these groups actually function is by being an outlier to the rest of society. Plus, let’s be real: these tiny setups offer such a limited lifestyle. What happens when a kid in one of these groups actually has talent? Say they want to be a world-class pianist, a microbiologist, or a surgeon—they aren't going to make that happen within the community because the math just doesn't work. There’s no way to fund or support that kind of ambition. That’s just another way they strip away your freedom. |
Nah, that’s just not how it works—based on what Metcalf said, which is pretty freaking obvious... we aren't living in the 1800s anymore.
When it comes to nurturing a kid's talent... I'm guessing people just lean on whatever community resources work for them at the time—or whenever their kids actually need it. Once the local schools can't cut it anymore? They're gone. Just like that. Either they head out solo or pack up the whole family and move to a better city. Simple as that.
Don't forget—denying a kid a decent childhood is basically just another way of stripping away their freedom. Real social connection and just letting kids run wild playing with their friends isn't even considered easy anymore—not in most big American cities, anyway.
Quincy: These male communities are just straight-up deviations from how society should work—honestly. Sure, America is tolerant enough to let them exist, but they're basically just hurting their own members at this point. They're way too weak to cause any real damage to the rest of us.
Alright, here’s my take on why small communities are a mess—wait for the next post where I actually say something positive. |
Look, some small cult-like groups might be total deviations—they actually end up wrecking their own members—but let's be real, those types are a tiny minority.
I can't—well, I don't want to—live totally isolated... I've got a family to think about. So, what my wife and I have actually decided is moving to a smaller nearby town... just better conditions for the kids, plain and simple.
As for work—you know, actually making a living—we can't just pack up and move anywhere overnight.
But... we might eventually have to... even if the idea of moving overseas sounds exhausting.
So, basically, modern humanity is just a collection of small communities. The only thing separating a tight-knit group from the rest of the world isn't always a hard line. A family is its own little unit, and even within a massive city of 20 million people, everything is broken down—neighborhoods, counties, states, tiny towns, or even niche groups like hiking clubs (or mushroom foragers, animal rescuers, or local bluegrass bands...). A small community is just one layer inside a larger one.
When you look at communities that are more clearly set apart from society, you've got religious groups—different monastic orders, for instance. Personally, I’d point to a Benedictine monastery as a solid example of that kind of separation.
Then you have those isolated villages cut off by poverty or rough terrain—places tucked away in the Himalayas or deep in the mountains of places like Romania or Bulgaria; you find rugged, mountainous pockets like that in almost every country.
That said, you also have mountain villages in wealthy nations, like those nestled in the Alps in Switzerland or Italy.
Or, you know, island towns and villages.
We even have things like kibbutzim in Israel acting as small communities...
For a small community to actually work, it needs strong ties to the larger structures around it. Laws, the economy... they can't just exist in a vacuum. A community can't just make up its own rules; it has to be integrated into the legal framework of the larger society. Same goes for the money side of things.
And obviously, the wealthier the country, the easier life is within those small communities, which means there's less chance of them falling apart or people ditching for a better life elsewhere.
People don't leave prosperous mountain towns in Austria, whereas certain coastal towns in other places end up completely deserted.
It’s all about finding that sweet spot between autonomy and connection—balancing small communities against the big ones, where every level, from the individual to the family and beyond, plays its part.
Sometimes, what looks like a connection is really just a one-way street of dependency—small towns leaning entirely on the state.
To stop people from fleeing in search of something better, you need to provide a vision of a better future *right here*, rather than just focusing on current wealth. If people believe their kids will have a better life staying put, they won't feel the need to migrate at any cost.
You've hit the nail on the head. A family simply cannot thrive in small, isolated communities. And if something isn't conducive to the family unit, then it isn't good for humanity at large.
I view the family as the fundamental building block of society, though I also believe an adult should have the freedom to choose their own partner, which means I have no issue with gay marriage. Whoever loves whom, go for it. Just imagine some dystopian scenario where the law dictates a woman must live with a woman, or a man with a man, under the guise of being a "family unit"... that sounds like a nightmare to me.
But I digress... the point is, small communities often fail to provide the necessary environment for families, and that should serve as a sign that they cannot be the bedrock of civilization. They can exist as a phenomenon, a way for people to organize themselves voluntarily, but they shouldn't be the primary model.
I once lived in a small town myself and it was wonderful; I felt much more fulfilled personally in a smaller setting. However, Washington, D.C. was within reach—only about an hour by bus—so I could still enjoy everything a major metropolitan area offers. For me, that balance is the ideal way to live.
That said, my relatives tell me that the local mindset has shifted and that the small town I left behind, the one I remember, no longer exists. People have become just like those in the big cities. If that's true (and I truly hope it isn't), it’s a profound loss.
I'm not sure what caused this shift. Some think it's due to the fallout from past conflicts and a loss of social trust, while others argue that Western influence has finally arrived—that we're seeing those Western customs we used to read about and recoil from, where neighbors in an apartment complex don't even know each other, or won't even turn to a neighbor for help.
I am glad you managed to achieve at least part of your dream by living in a small town, and I sincerely hope you won't find yourself forced to move overseas.
