We love looking backwards to try to get in touch with ourselves, our history, traditional ways of doing things. I think this is a noble pursuit but the pace of cycling through eras in the trend cycle for example has grown increasingly rapid to the point that it feels like weāre endlessly regurgitating everything all at once, without context.
Rediscovering the past can look like going back to pre-industrial ways of living which is a beautiful thing to strive toward. In a lot of ways, weāve also abandoned a lot of traditional ways of doing things in favor of methods that are easier, faster, and simpler, not necessarily better.
On the other hand, one of the three essential elements to fascism identified by Jason Stanley is invoking a mythic past to manufacture nostalgia for a more traditional, patriarchal, and racially pure past, which is I think what weāre seeing with a lot of people who romanticize 1950s Americana as some kind of utopian traditional society.
Carl Sagan said:
āIn general, human societies are not innovative. They are hierarchical and ritualistic. Suggestions for change are greeted with suspicion: they imply an unpleasant future variation in ritual and hierarchy: an exchange of one set of rituals for another, or perhaps for a less structured society with fewer rituals. And yet there are times when societies must change.ā
āAs a consequence of the enormous social and technological changes of the last few centuries, the world is not working well. We do not live in traditional and static societies. But our government, in resisting change, act as if we did. Unless we destroy ourselves utterly, the future belongs to those societies that, while not ignoring the reptilian and mammalian parts of our being, enable the characteristically human components of our nature to flourish; to those societies that encourage diversity rather than conformity; to those societies willing to invest resources in a variety of social, political, economic and cultural experiments, and prepared to sacrifice short-term advantage for long-term benefit; to those societies that treat new ideas as delicate, fragile and immensely valuable pathways to the future.ā
So I think we need forward-thinking transformational change, though it may not be as comfortable as nostalgiaā¦
Jan 15, 2025
Related Recs
š
This question has been in the back of my mind for the past few years because when we talk about āgetting freeā we have to acknowledge that the bounds of the society weāve created arenāt free at all. Getting free means breaking from oppressive power structures, having the freedom to collaborate with others without pretense of capital, the freedom to imagine new systems of governance for ourselves with the ability to change with consensus and the ability for us as a peoples to live in the commons (that is this world) as good stewards to ourselves and nature~
I wonāt get into it too much but I highly recommend folks read David Graeber and David Wengrowās āHow to Change the Course of Human Historyā or any of the video essays by @Andrewismšæ to get a better idea of what Iām talking about āš¾
Apr 19, 2024
š
So I have this theory that life tries to put things in order at one end of the pendulum swing, and at the other it fucking just goes wrecking ball. And while these energies are always at play in all systems, theyāre also evident over longer timeframes. Zeitgeist shit. Our culture (popular/socioeconomic/business) has been in a putting together swing for twenty thirty or so years and I think weāre into the backlash. Fuck your spreadsheet, itās time to remember what being an animal swinging an axe feels like And go from there
Oct 21, 2024
ā
We have a very individualistic, survival-of-the-fittest culture that also distrusts authority. In our short history, we have also been given numerous reasons to distrust authority so that even progressives/leftists/whatever can lean towards self-arming even if logically the idea of taking down the U.S. military with a home arsenal is non-sensical.
Just riffing but I feel like countries with longer histories have more developed senses of "community provides safety" than the U.S. and whatever small amount of that we have is continually degraded by our news media, politicians, and advertising. We are more likely to try to augment our individual power than think about collective safety.
Feb 15, 2024
Top Recs from @taterhole
My dad teases me about how when I was a little kid, my favorite thing to do when I was on the landline phone with somebodyābe it a relative or one of my best friendsāwas to breathlessly describe the things that were in my bedroom so that they could have a mental picture of everything I loved and chose to surround myself with, and where I sat at that moment in time. Perfectly Imperfect reminds me of that so thanks for always listening and for sharing with me too š
Feb 23, 2025
Schedule sent my resignation email for the morning, effective immediately ā
š
Feb 27, 2025
š
Iāve been thinking about how much of social media is centered around curating our self-image. When selfies first became popular, they were dismissed as vain and vapidāa critique often rooted in misogynyābut now, the way we craft our online selves feels more like creating monuments.
We try to signal our individuality, hoping to be seen and understood, but ironically, I think this widens the gap between how others perceive us and who we really are. Instead of fostering connection, it can invite projection and misinterpretationāpreconceived notions, prefab labels, and stereotypes. Worse, individuality has become branded and commodified, reducing our identities to products for others to consume.
On most platforms, validation often comes from how well you can curate and present your imageāselfies, aesthetic branding, and lifestyle content tend to dominate. High engagement is tied to visibility, not necessarily depth or substance. But I think spaces like PI.FYI show that thereās another way: where connection is built on shared ideas, tastes, and interests rather than surface-level content. Itās refreshing to be part of a community that values thoughts over optics.
By sharing so few images of myself, Iāve found that it gives others room to focus on my ideas and voice. When I do share an image, it feels intentionalāsomething that contributes to the story I want to tell rather than defining it. Sharing less allows me to express who I am beyond appearance.
For women, especially, sharing less can be a radical act in a world where the default is to objectify ourselves. It resists the pressure to center appearance, focusing instead on what truly matters: our thoughts, voices, and authenticity. Iāve posted a handful of pictures of myself in 2,500 posts because I care more about showing who I am than how I look.
In trying to be seen, are we making it harder for others to truly know us? Itās a question worth considering.
Dec 27, 2024