Loneliness machine

There is a remarkable side-effect of television. While people enjoy the broadcasts they steer ever further from the people they are viewing with. This silence and lack of interaction goes further when watching television keeps increasing and the time spent is not just gluing people to the screens it is almost locking them down - 'imprisoning'. When the workers, housewives or unemployed get a show - they are quite unaware of the hidden leash.
Some of the tv does provoke thought, but is not most of tv either a repeat or a cliche of sorts? When the precious thought does arise - it too is an intrusion into the normal affairs of human communication and should be regarded as a such.
Avoiding tv is almost seen as a kind of blasphemy - not catching on to these little group-psychoses - a vice, a lack of "communication" in a diabolical paradox. To some extent it reduces the harsh talk and heightened tones of voice - a calming effect seems to land in the family, the stress that is released in the interim periods when the tv is shut is cured for a while. The hidden side remains - the very cause of this stress is usually the artificially heightened adrenaline and after that a mix of glucocorticoids that the shows produce in every viewer.
So in conclusion: there are at least three levels of adverse effects - first, the loss of genuine human communication, secondly, the psychological effect, thirdly, the social effect of seclusion from others for hours every day.

(But the same thing works with social media if one does not watch that much Youtube.)

Multiculturalism and the Evil Other

Of course multiculturalism to some extent has nothing as its opposite but the extreme ideologies. These is actually a remarkable solution to the problem of every ideology upto the point where it comes to being. Namely the problem of the need for the perfect Evil Other to vilify, scapegoat and so on a certain social group for the false edification of the position of the ideology for its proponents.
Ideologies up to that point came along with a suffocating inescapability - the image of the other as evil was there in every ideology.
In multiculturalism every ideology is included and accepted as equal. Diversification comes out to enrich the society and the society does become more flexible.  Adherence to a standard or a rule defined by a person in position of power has suddenly become a poor competitor. At one point it develops to a point to overcome resistance to extreme ideologies. Is the result a catastrophy, falsification of the idea of multiculturalism or even a need for something other? One final proposition: multiculturalism begins to fade when the Evil Other resurfaces (as terrorism of course).

Emancipation with or without a revolution

Emancipation in Marxism is grafted onto the idea of a revolution. One does not appear without an other. Why?! What necessitates a violent revolution for emancipation, making one impossible without another.
The proposition is that first revolution, then a complete social change. Perhaps we may turn this on its head and say that some social change is necessary for a revolution. Nothing strange here. Things however turn very strange when an attempt is made to show that both theses can be summersaulted if we perceive a constant social change. Should this show be successful we may stand at the point of irrelevance for the revolution.

The idea is fairly simple. As the social changes we are experiencing a continuous emancipation. At a certain point we are released from any need to provide mortal sacrifices to the cause. Such "smoothification" of the road to a new society may be possible.
An example of an opposite is the social erosion of freedoms – a very real and historical process of social change implies a negative as well as a positive direction for social change. The world history is not necessarily getting better without an opposite tendency. We may equally call this “left” and “right.” A clear problem arises and it is that if we take the anti-totalitarian aspect – both can be negative as in needing sacrifices. Second problem presents a chaotic shift of state - a to-and-fro between the positive and negative.  A third problem is that we remain living in an appearance that we have a positive social change when in fact the show ends sooner or later with the point – it has been negative all along.

  One can easily be an optimist and see the world progressing on a positive curve for our constant social change is fuelled by technological and scientific progress, including the law of accelerating returns.

"...not liberty but extremity."

So writes Jason Farago on Sade as a conclusion. Yet there is no exploration of the sexual without pushing the boundaries. A sense of reliving the beginning is always present and strongly among most people and that, in the bigger picture, is always an attempt to extend what before was unknown and unfelt. Turning the Adam's fall around: how could he be free if he was not to go and look to new lands which were gated prior to taking a bite of the forbidden fruit. While he lost the carefree freedom in the garden he gained something much bigger. This liberty came only with expansion, exploration, a slight poke into the unknown extremity.       While being unambiguous becomes difficult the point here is that either liberty is not opposed entirely to some extremity or there is a dance and mingle between the two.
  Placidity seems a clearer opposition to extremity. The opposite of placidity is vibrancy - and now we have a break because liberty could not be without a spicy dose of latter.

Personal development as a predicate for social progress

Every person has a part to play in social progress. Whether we see social progress as a whole divided to look at everyones share in the welfare and improvement or we look at the progress everyone in their individual labours does to benefit others as well, there is a development from lower class to higher and perhaps development with the reasonable limit that it does not become a debauchery of power.
It would provide much if a nation was run on this principle, to some degree it already does.

Master and slave morality runs off the path

One way to see history and morality is through the conflict between social groups. When one casts light to see the history as development a new teleology emerges: the teleology of development and progress. If it is assumed that general social and hence human development needs personal education/development/amelioration to happen, then it is incorrect to form a theory of a slave morality for a mass of powerless humans as well as that picture where only the masters edify the society with their effect on history. Where education however turns to stress its individuals poor results favour the old system of slaves and masters. Bismarckian educational paradigms are an example. The result is a state constructed of robots.