How to help conservatives be more humane

[Emily Lake]

There is no good reason for excluding anyone.

This is also bullshit. It's a great sentiment, it's a sentiment that I think is very nice and very noble. But it's not reality. There are extremely good reasons for excluding some people in all sorts of situations. There's a very good reason for excluding pedophiles from working in elementary schools. There are very good reasons for excluding schizophrenics from the police force. There are very good reasons for excluding serial killers from society as a whole. There are very good reasons for excluding neo-nazis from the ACLU.

 

[Angry Floof]

There is no good reason for excluding anyone.

This is also bullshit. It's a great sentiment, it's a sentiment that I think is very nice and very noble. But it's not reality. There are extremely good reasons for excluding some people in all sorts of situations. There's a very good reason for excluding pedophiles from working in elementary schools. There are very good reasons for excluding schizophrenics from the police force. There are very good reasons for excluding serial killers from society as a whole. There are very good reasons for excluding neo-nazis from the ACLU.

We're not talking about excluding specific individuals from specific situations or groups. We're talking about the fact that our human tribe is seven billion whether any one of us likes it or not.

Which of your identities is more fundamental to who and what you are, nationality, religion, political ideology, football team, other? What about human?

No matter how many eons our animal brains spent evolving in small, low tech groups, we no longer have the luxury of an environment that caters to that brain. We are globally connected and becoming more so every day. But thank goodness for neuroplasticity and just the all around amazing adaptability of human beings.

We are more than capable of identifying with a larger group even if we can't possibly know each member of that group personally. Tribalism is not only unnecessary, but detrimental to survival in this global tribe of seven billion. It may take a while to adapt, and it's possible our collective stupidity could cause self extinction, especially considering how deeply some habits and ideologies hijack our tribalistic animal brain, but we certainly can adapt, and that includes the most deeply indoctrinated, zealous conservatives.

I mean, that's a belief I hold, based in everything I know so far about human beings and what I have experienced. But without the ability to know that 100%, I have to accept the possibility that some individuals could be utterly incapable of adapting, but that doesn't mean the rest of us can't.

 

[Angry Floof]

I feel like we're talking about climate while some people think we are talking about weather, today, where they live.

 

[Emily Lake]

I feel like some people are talking about social groups and others are talking about species...

 

[Angry Floof]

I feel like some people are talking about social groups and others are talking about species...

Can you answer the previous post at all?

 

[Emily Lake]

Which of your identities is more fundamental to who and what you are, nationality, religion, political ideology, football team, other? What about human?

None of the above. Being human is no more a part of my identity than is being right-handed, short, or having green eyes. It's what I am and I had no say in it. My identity is composed of my relationships, my choices, and my experiences. Most fundamental... hard to say, probably centered around my career. But identity isn't a one-dimensional thing. It's composed of many elements. So actuary, spouse, daughter, sister, friend, atheist, internet-arguer, cat-owner... the list goes on and on. But "human" isn't an important part of what makes me myself. It's simply what is.

Tribalism is not only unnecessary, but detrimental to survival in this global tribe of seven billion.

Maybe. Maybe not. I'm not convinced that it's unnecessary as an entire concept. I do agree that some "tribes" are pointless. Racial tribes, for example, are really pretty dumb. But group formation - including protection of the group - is a pretty fundamental element of social animals overall. We're stronger together... to a point. Empathy is an important element of social groups, it's what allows us to bond, to feel for another, and to sacrifice our own immediate desires for the well-being of others. But without some limitations, it can very quickly overwhelm.

If you felt as much care for every person on the planet as you felt for your mother or your child or your spouse, it would quickly become impossible to make choices. Would you be willing to forego a dinner of your own in order to make sure that your child got fed? Probably. Would you be willing to forego a dinner of your own in order to make sure that a stranger in Kazakhstan got fed? How many hungry strangers are there in Kazakhstan? How many dinners are you willing to forego? Would you be willing to have your ailing parent move in with you so that you could care for them? Perhaps. Would you be willing to let an ailing stranger move in with you so that you could care for them? How many strangers are you willing to let move in? How many ailing strangers are there in your city or state?

All of us form groups. All of us are selective in the company we keep and the investment we put into other people's well being. All of us will be faced with choices about how to divide our time and our care and our energy. Most of us form multiple groups - groups are fluid and multifaceted, just as humans are. We shift between those groups, and as we do our level of commitment and our level of devotion to those groups also shift. Not all of our groups are as important to us as others. And all of us - and I do mean ALL - have people that we exclude from our groups. Sometimes for very good reason, sometimes for reasons I think are petty and irrational.

I'll happily discuss what kinds of group definitions have utility, and which kinds are idiotic. I'll happily dig in on what attachments and resonances are good and which are detrimental. But the idea that there is only one single group is tantamount to saying that there are no groups at all. It simply is not reality. It's not how humans, or any other social animal, operates.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Well, I for one don't think we should try to improve anything until we've decided how we can make it perfect. It's so interesting how people paralyze and harm themselves with their binary social models. I guess it's just easier to think that way, always in the box.

 

[Angry Floof]

*sigh* Nobody is talking about a personal relationship with every human on the planet or personally experiencing feelings for them. WTF is your basic regard for humanity in general? Indifference?

Some of us have the capacity to recognize our shared humanity and the fact - not the opinion or belief, but the fact - that we are all connected and not just virtually through technology.

So the question for conservatives, and for you apparently, is why can't you recognize that shared humanity outside your in-group?

We know conservatives experience the same social dynamics and feelings for their families and friends as everyone else on the planet. So my question is, if you recognize everyone on the planet has those same experiences and need for family connection and for group acceptance, why can't you extend that to the rest of humanity? Why would you defend tribalism when talking about all of humanity? Why does your kinship for humans stop with your personal in-group?

And stop with the "we're all tribalistic because animal brain instinct" bullshit. Humans are more than that, but that fact seems to contradict everything you're defending here. There are literally millions of people in the world who do not stop with tribalism in their regard for all of humanity. Why can't you? Why can't conservatives?

Why can't you see the value, even if only in the abstract (it's a step), in consciously choosing to recognize all humans as your tribe? Again, literally millions of people think this way. Why can't you and your conservative friends? Is it scary to think about or something? Is the tribalistic fear of other too great?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

*sigh* Nobody is talking about a personal relationship with every human on the planet or personally experiencing feelings for them. WTF is your basic regard for humanity in general? Indifference?

Some of us have the capacity to recognize our shared humanity and the fact - not the opinion or belief, but the fact - that we are all connected and not just virtually through technology.

So the question for conservatives, and for you apparently, is why can't you recognize that shared humanity outside your in-group?

We know conservatives experience the same social dynamics and feelings for their families and friends as everyone else on the planet. So my question is, if you recognize everyone on the planet has those same experiences and need for family connection and for group acceptance, why can't you extend that to the rest of humanity? Why would you defend tribalism when talking about all of humanity? Why does your kinship for humans stop with your personal in-group?

And stop with the "we're all tribalistic because animal brain instinct" bullshit. Humans are more than that, but that fact seems to contradict everything you're defending here. There are literally millions of people in the world who do not stop with tribalism in their regard for all of humanity. Why can't you? Why can't conservatives?

Why can't you see the value, even if only in the abstract (it's a step), in consciously choosing to recognize all humans as your tribe? Again, literally millions of people think this way. Why can't you and your conservative friends? Is it scary to think about or something? Is the tribalistic fear of other too great?

I think it's just that some people are unable to escape their emotions, even for an instant. Understandable, I guess, certainly not desirable.

 

[Angry Floof]

I think it's just that some people are unable to escape their emotions, even for an instant. Understandable, I guess, certainly not desirable.

I remember in one of my psych classes, the text referred to "taking a cosmic view" as a step toward maturity and wisdom, the ability to expand your area of awareness and participation in the world.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I think it's just that some people are unable to escape their emotions, even for an instant. Understandable, I guess, certainly not desirable.

I remember in one of my psych classes, the text referred to "taking a cosmic view" as a step toward maturity and wisdom, the ability to expand your area of awareness and participation in the world.

That's a healthy thought. JFK, hypocrite that he was, talked along those lines too. Many people, unfortunately, will never get what he meant. Maybe humanity is basically sadistic. So many of us can't get past needing enemies. It's a tragedy that many of us actually see as triumph. Really sad, considering it needn't be that way. So much wasted potential. People can live in such small worlds. Sometimes I think they just don't like themselves.

 

[Angry Floof]

I think it's just that some people are unable to escape their emotions, even for an instant. Understandable, I guess, certainly not desirable.

I remember in one of my psych classes, the text referred to "taking a cosmic view" as a step toward maturity and wisdom, the ability to expand your area of awareness and participation in the world.

That's a healthy thought. JFK, hypocrite that he was, talked along those lines too. Many people, unfortunately, will never get what he meant. Maybe humanity is basically sadistic. So many of us can't get past needing enemies. It's a tragedy that many of us actually see as triumph. Really sad, considering it needn't be that way. So much wasted potential. People can live in such small worlds. Sometimes I think they just don't like themselves.

Well, there's hope. The Magna Carta, the Enlightenment, various modern democratic constitutions, etc. That's why I asked Emily about the foundational principles and philosophy of our judicial system. However badly we apply it in any given place and time, those foundational principles weren't just pretty words to impress people. And however rickety such institutions may be, they are continuously improved and spread around the world. Humanity is two steps forward and one step back, but more forward than backward overall in my opinion.

 

[Angry Floof]

Also, I want to post this again. Maybe it'll help people see things less personally and see that tribalism is totally unnecessary to creating a better world for all humans. Even the filthy rich benefit more from everyone prospering than they do from inequality and the majority being their worker bees.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvskMHn0sqQ[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Emily Lake]

*sigh* Nobody is talking about a personal relationship with every human on the planet or personally experiencing feelings for them. WTF is your basic regard for humanity in general? Indifference?

Some of us have the capacity to recognize our shared humanity and the fact - not the opinion or belief, but the fact - that we are all connected and not just virtually through technology.

So the question for conservatives, and for you apparently, is why can't you recognize that shared humanity outside your in-group?

I really feel like we're talking past each other. For example... I already said:

*Sigh*.. I respect the humanity of everyone. I don't VALUE all humans equally. Nor do you.

Why do you think that my honesty and rationality here indicates that I don't recognize the humanity of everyone on the planet? I do. I don't know what you think I'm lacking.

I will also note that you keep avoiding answering my questions, seemingly in preference of lecturing me to imply what a bad person I am. So perhaps you might consider, in your compassion and respect for all humans, answering the following?

Would you be willing to forego a dinner of your own in order to make sure that your child got fed? Probably. Would you be willing to forego a dinner of your own in order to make sure that a stranger in Kazakhstan got fed? How many hungry strangers are there in Kazakhstan? How many dinners are you willing to forego? Would you be willing to have your ailing parent move in with you so that you could care for them? Perhaps. Would you be willing to let an ailing stranger move in with you so that you could care for them? How many strangers are you willing to let move in? How many ailing strangers are there in your city or state?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Would you be willing to forego a dinner of your own in order to make sure that your child got fed? Probably. Would you be willing to forego a dinner of your own in order to make sure that a stranger in Kazakhstan got fed? How many hungry strangers are there in Kazakhstan? How many dinners are you willing to forego? Would you be willing to have your ailing parent move in with you so that you could care for them? Perhaps. Would you be willing to let an ailing stranger move in with you so that you could care for them? How many strangers are you willing to let move in? How many ailing strangers are there in your city or state?

I'm not going to speak for Floof, just offering a common sense response.

Would you be willing to live in a world where children all got fed? Would you be willing to live in a world where people in Kazakhstan got fed? Would you be willing to live in a world where you didn't have to forego dinners? Would you be willing to live in a world where your ailing parents didn't have to worry about being homeless? Would you be willing to live in a world where ailing strangers were such a rarity because there were proactive laws for dealing humanely with the condition? Would you be willing to live in a world where you didn't have to worry about having ailing strangers moving in with you? Would you be willing to live in a world where there were so few ailing strangers in your city or state that when a case was discovered it was so rare and embarrassing that it made the national news?

Lets face it, life is tough, but you bring in such low expectations. Can you imagine a world where WW2 didn't happen? That's a serious question because all of the people I've ever spoken with on the subject cannot imagine such a world. They simply cannot imagine not having squandered countless resources killing each other. Now to me that's sad. If they can't imagine that, if they're not willing to live in such a world, that kid in Kazakhstan hasn't got a prayer.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Would you be willing to forego a dinner of your own in order to make sure that your child got fed? Probably. Would you be willing to forego a dinner of your own in order to make sure that a stranger in Kazakhstan got fed? How many hungry strangers are there in Kazakhstan?

Why are we talking Kazakhstan? We have hungry people here.

How many dinners are you willing to forego?

How many dinners would be necessary when money can be used to procure food. Your questions makes it sound like it is a food shortage.

Would you be willing to have your ailing parent move in with you so that you could care for them? Perhaps. Would you be willing to let an ailing stranger move in with you so that you could care for them? How many strangers are you willing to let move in? How many ailing strangers are there in your city or state?

Now that is a relevant question. And the response is, 'there are viable alternatives to shipping people to Angry Floof's house.' Half the country is against those options.

 

[Emily Lake]

Would you be willing to forego a dinner of your own in order to make sure that your child got fed? Probably. Would you be willing to forego a dinner of your own in order to make sure that a stranger in Kazakhstan got fed? How many hungry strangers are there in Kazakhstan? How many dinners are you willing to forego? Would you be willing to have your ailing parent move in with you so that you could care for them? Perhaps. Would you be willing to let an ailing stranger move in with you so that you could care for them? How many strangers are you willing to let move in? How many ailing strangers are there in your city or state?

I'm not going to speak for Floof, just offering a common sense response.

Would you be willing to live in a world where children all got fed? Would you be willing to live in a world where people in Kazakhstan got fed? Would you be willing to live in a world where you didn't have to forego dinners? Would you be willing to live in a world where your ailing parents didn't have to worry about being homeless? Would you be willing to live in a world where ailing strangers were such a rarity because there were proactive laws for dealing humanely with the condition? Would you be willing to live in a world where you didn't have to worry about having ailing strangers moving in with you? Would you be willing to live in a world where there were so few ailing strangers in your city or state that when a case was discovered it was so rare and embarrassing that it made the national news?

Lets face it, life is tough, but you bring in such low expectations. Can you imagine a world where WW2 didn't happen? That's a serious question because all of the people I've ever spoken with on the subject cannot imagine such a world. They simply cannot imagine not having squandered countless resources killing each other. Now to me that's sad. If they can't imagine that, if they're not willing to live in such a world, that kid in Kazakhstan hasn't got a prayer.

This strikes me as a very odd turn in the discussion. I'm not entirely sure where you're coming from or how it relates, really. Of course I would be willing to live in the world you describe - it would be an incredible and wonderful world to live in. Can you elaborate on how this connects to the discussion between Angry Floof and I?

 

[Elixir]

Would you be willing to forego a dinner of your own in order to make sure that your child got fed? Probably. Would you be willing to forego a dinner of your own in order to make sure that a stranger in Kazakhstan got fed? How many hungry strangers are there in Kazakhstan? How many dinners are you willing to forego? Would you be willing to have your ailing parent move in with you so that you could care for them? Perhaps. Would you be willing to let an ailing stranger move in with you so that you could care for them? How many strangers are you willing to let move in? How many ailing strangers are there in your city or state?

I'm not going to speak for Floof, just offering a common sense response.

Would you be willing to live in a world where children all got fed? Would you be willing to live in a world where people in Kazakhstan got fed? Would you be willing to live in a world where you didn't have to forego dinners? Would you be willing to live in a world where your ailing parents didn't have to worry about being homeless? Would you be willing to live in a world where ailing strangers were such a rarity because there were proactive laws for dealing humanely with the condition? Would you be willing to live in a world where you didn't have to worry about having ailing strangers moving in with you? Would you be willing to live in a world where there were so few ailing strangers in your city or state that when a case was discovered it was so rare and embarrassing that it made the national news?

Lets face it, life is tough, but you bring in such low expectations. Can you imagine a world where WW2 didn't happen? That's a serious question because all of the people I've ever spoken with on the subject cannot imagine such a world. They simply cannot imagine not having squandered countless resources killing each other. Now to me that's sad. If they can't imagine that, if they're not willing to live in such a world, that kid in Kazakhstan hasn't got a prayer.

This strikes me as a very odd turn in the discussion. I'm not entirely sure where you're coming from or how it relates, really. Of course I would be willing to live in the world you describe - it would be an incredible and wonderful world to live in. Can you elaborate on how this connects to the discussion between Angry Floof and I?

Can you say Soylent Green? I knew you could.
This can solve everything! I mean, if we have to kill each other shouldn't we eat what we kill?

 

[Emily Lake]

Why are we talking Kazakhstan? We have hungry people here.

How many dinners would be necessary when money can be used to procure food. Your questions makes it sound like it is a food shortage.

Now that is a relevant question. And the response is, 'there are viable alternatives to shipping people to Angry Floof's house.' Half the country is against those options.

I think you may have missed the point of the discussion. We're talking about Kazakhstan because Angry Floof believes that all humans are one single tribe of 7+Billion... and I don't. I think that we're one species, but we're comprised of many tribes, and that most of us are members of multiple tribes. We prioritize our individual time, effort, and care toward those with whom we have the strongest connections. Some of those connections are ones that I personally think are dumb, but it's how we function, it's how all animals function. We simply are NOT a single tribe across the entire globe. It's evidenced by the decisions we make when given a forced choice. If you have food and another person doesn't, whether you are willing to give up your food is rather dependent on how highly you value that person, which is tied to how much resonance you have with them as part of your group. Declining to give your food to a stranger doesn't mean that you think they're worthless or that you hate them or that you don't have an abstract care for their humanity. It simply means that you value yourself and your continued well being more. On the other hand, if your sibling or your child had no food, there's a much higher likelihood that you would forego your immediate wellbeing in order to see to theirs.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Why are we talking Kazakhstan? We have hungry people here.

How many dinners would be necessary when money can be used to procure food. Your questions makes it sound like it is a food shortage.

Now that is a relevant question. And the response is, 'there are viable alternatives to shipping people to Angry Floof's house.' Half the country is against those options.

I think you may have missed the point of the discussion. We're talking about Kazakhstan because Angry Floof believes that all humans are one single tribe of 7+Billion... and I don't. I think that we're one species, but we're comprised of many tribes, and that most of us are members of multiple tribes. We prioritize our individual time, effort, and care toward those with whom we have the strongest connections. Some of those connections are ones that I personally think are dumb, but it's how we function, it's how all animals function. We simply are NOT a single tribe across the entire globe. It's evidenced by the decisions we make when given a forced choice. If you have food and another person doesn't, whether you are willing to give up your food is rather dependent on how highly you value that person, which is tied to how much resonance you have with them as part of your group. Declining to give your food to a stranger doesn't mean that you think they're worthless or that you hate them or that you don't have an abstract care for their humanity. It simply means that you value yourself and your continued well being more. On the other hand, if your sibling or your child had no food, there's a much higher likelihood that you would forego your immediate wellbeing in order to see to theirs.

Would you be willing to tell me where your tribe begins and some of the other tribes begin? Tell me how their tribe is different from your tribe, how their kids are different than your tribe's kids, how their ailing parents are different than your ailing parents. How are their dispossessed members different from the dispossessed members of your tribe? Exactly how do you know someone is "one of them?" And be specific. Please don't hand wave. You've just stated that other people are not your tribe, lots of other people.

It seems to me that people pick their "tribe." I know people who don't even associate with members of their own family except in courtrooms. Are they in the same tribe? Tribes are the next higher level of social organization above family bands, then comes chiefdoms and then states. Are those the tribes we should all be talking about?

Why do so many conservatives dislike the U.N. for example? Is it because the U.S. is their tribe? Why can't their tribe be bigger? What makes their tribe special? Is it just convenience, apathy, circumstance, fear, greed, lack of vision, what is it?