How to help conservatives be more humane

[Jarhyn]

90% of the time, yes. I reserve the right to decide that some regulations are so bad they should be rolled back even if we don't replace them. Most of them aren't that way... but when you get into the more industry-specific stuff, sometimes they get weird for no good reason at all.

in some industries, I find it more likely that you lack context on the regulations.

I mean, there are some industries that still operate exclusively by fax -- like the medical and legal industries. These are absolutely fantastic examples of terrible regulations. I would personally love to see the regulation change to a requirement for the use of Public Key Infrastructure. But I still wouldn't want the regulations to go away, and these are arguably some of the absolute worst regulations possible.

Or HOAs. Honestly, I think there should be a civil mechanism to buy a covenant out of a title, at a capped percentage of the property tax valuation dependent on the form of the covenant.

That while most politicians are corrupt, that some are much more corrupt and criminal?

Sure. But there's a point where "more evil than that other evil guy" just doesn't have a lot of meaning to me. The lesser evil is still an evil.

but it is an evil that will be easier to deal with. And if we repeat the cycle and choose an even lesser evil next time, we get less evil still. Rinse. Repeat. There is a whole thread about "democrats unseating democrats". Because a lot of democrats are tired of being "the lesser evil" and want to push ever more towards "not evil at all".

That while other people's feelings do not obligated you, that acting in disregard of their feelings fully justifies them treating you as a person who lacks empathy, and likewise justifies them in ignoring your feelings about things (and them outright not playing whatever game you wish to play)?

Meh sure. I don't think that's necessarily reasonable, but whatever. Mostly, I can actually be empathetic toward other people's situations and feelings without believing that their feelings take precedence in policy or even in interactions. I can empathize with someone who feels offended by not being allowed to marry a 12 year old while still holding firm that they shouldn't be allowed to marry a 12 year old. I can feel empathy and sympathy for someone struggling to make ends meet while simultaneously not supporting UBI. If they want to decide that I'm a douchenozzle because I don't let their feelings govern my views, that's fine. I get to think they're selfish jerks right back

We will probably disagree about guns. I think that we are all, every last one of us, perfectly capable of acting with the full measure of human madness, and that having a deadly weapon at arm's reach in those pivotal moments makes anyone a killer; that the best place for a gun, which anyone should be free to seek licensure and training to own, is in a container that prevents immediate access.

Okay then. I'm pretty confident in my ability to stay rational, and I'm pretty inclined to call the cops as a first step. But some people are idiots who i don't necessarily trust to make good decisions or maintain control. {lemme tell you about the friend who"took control" and checked whether I had a pulse and was breathing when I was in the middle of a seizure and was conscious and responsive... }

everyone thinks they're a great driver, too, that the problem is all the other assholes on the road, the ones who drive too fast or too slow, the ones who forget to signal or who don't notice you or whatever else it is you hate on the road. But that's the thing. You're one of those assholes, too. You just don't see it because you don't want to; it's a painful mirror to look into.

Some people are less prone to snapping than others. But we all have emotions and those emotions will in some situations short circuit reason, to the point where we even have legal acknowledgement of reduced punishments in cases that commonly fall into that category. In some cases I am led to believe it is actually legal to shoot someone immediately on discovering that they are cheating on you with your spouse. Of course, that isn't an offense that anyone should DIE over. Perhaps they get fucked over in the divorce, but nobody deserves to die from that. It's a lot less likely to happen when the weapon is not immediately accessible in day to day life.

This doesn't mean that we shouldn't have a right to own a weapon; for the sake of acquoring meat for the table; for the sake of taking it out to the range after work; for the sake of violent revolution against tyrranical dictators as prescribed by our founding fathers, for the sake of defense against military threats. But so that you can be more able to escalate conflicts to lethal levels? That's pretty ridiculous.[/quote]You seem to be arguing from a position of poor faith here.

It's a pretty clear and simple principle in ethics that says one need not account for feelings when someone has chosen not to care about the feelings of others; action outside of symmetrical informed consent is consent to reaction, outside of their consent. Their feelings don't matter; it is the actions which have created the consent.

As to UBI, I would expect you to validate your reasons to not support it against principle and an ethical framework that relies on shared premises. Maybe we can discuss that at some point, assuming you are not "made up" on the subject to the point where you apriori reject the idea.

But you have said you have a right. You found this right ostensibly upon you existing and wanting to exercise that right. All I did was point out that if you have that right, people have an equal right to it; from my perspective, they are doing the same thing, for the same reasons (more reasons in fact: they are reflecting your actions, your disregard as a reaction rather than a unilateral action).

As for language, I support whatever mode of utterance manages to get an idea from one head into another.

As to marriage, I take a different view: I want all legal mention of the term "marriage" replaced with "civil union" or "domestic partnership contract". "Marriage" means different things to different people, it itself being a "marriage" of religious and social principles that needs to see it's day in divorce court; a "domestic partnership contract" is clearly a vehicle of civil law, and nothing but. As such, I find being forced to call what your religion (regardless of how anachronistic your beliefs happen to be) defines as not-a-marriage as one for the sake of a law to be ill advised..

From that perspective, it opens up domestic partnership as a concept that can be explored more freely, without considering what may or may not be "marriage". You could get married at that point to a cactus, by a priest in a church (assuming any priest would do that), or even by the stinky hippy your brother knows who decided he knows how to say "cactus and wife". But it wouldn't be a contract because that would require consenting adults persons as parties, because children, animals, and plants can't enter into contracts. Edit: and be in domestic partnership with as many people as you like, since I don't see any compelling legal argument against allowing people to partner with multiple people for domestic purposes.

Usually, I'm much more inclined to focus on whether communication is successful than on specific word choice. I don't care whether you call it marriage or civil union or domestic partnership. I agree with your overall view regarding the contractual aspect of it, I just don't have any hangups around the words used for it.

But sometimes I go the opposite direction - I frequently get very irked by loaded language and narrative framing that is intended to instigate an emotional (and thoughtless) response. Outrage bait pisses me off. Language is a tool, and it can be a very powerful tool. Language can sway a person's perception of reality, it can anchor their interpretation of events, and it can influence their responses.

I would be inclined to agree that it shouldn't have to matter what we call a contract, but that's not really how it works. It's more that there are a lot of people that have hangups for whatever reason, and it's not worth fighting them. Not really. It comes down to wanting a separation of church and state, for me.

It's kind of like the fact that legally, you can call a trans man "her/she" on the street, and nothing will legally be done to you. You can call them something they are not... Though they may call you yourself something that you would have proven you are, on return.

 

[BH]

There is even a dividend to being more co-operative and inclusive.

The human race evolved not, as Desmond Morris etc. suggested, by the survival of the fittest, but through the survival of the most co-operative.

Conservatism and distrust makes them an evolutionary backwater in the long term..

I'd say there really isnt a contradiction. The fittest were those smart enough to understand helping others helped themselves.

 

[BH]

This thread and discussion about vile people, ignorant people, and so forth reminded me of a story.

The town I live in integrated in 1970. One of the white shop teachers had a bad habit of starting sound like an ape and swing his body like an ape whenever he saw a black student get upset about anything. How he never got sued is beyond me. As for getting fired his family was local elite with connections so that explained that

Anyway, one day he was traveling on the highway through the mostly black side of town and has a wreck and minor injuries. He sets in his truck bleeding and several black people come over and look. One of them said " oh fuck, it's that ape who thought he was a teacher! He may need help so we need to talk to him in his language" . And them they all started grunting like apes.

 

[Emily Lake]

in some industries, I find it more likely that you lack context on the regulations.

I mean, there are some industries that still operate exclusively by fax -- like the medical and legal industries.

I'm familiar enough with my industry, and the regulations that govern it, to have a fair idea of some of the "bad" regulations. Like the regulations around Cost Share Reduced plans in ACA. It was a fine idea while it was intact. As soon as they pulled the reimbursement out of it, it's a totally shit idea that increases costs for everyone in the market. Or some of the preventive screenings that are required to be covered at no charge to the customer... which aren't actually preventive, are fairly expensive tests, and are pretty rare conditions. They don't effectively prevent anything, they don't add value... they pad the pockets of doctors and make health insurance more expensive for everyone.

but it is an evil that will be easier to deal with. And if we repeat the cycle and choose an even lesser evil next time, we get less evil still. Rinse. Repeat. There is a whole thread about "democrats unseating democrats". Because a lot of democrats are tired of being "the lesser evil" and want to push ever more towards "not evil at all".

Of course. Some of the challenge is going to be that not everyone has the same idea of what constitutes evil. It would be awesome if everyone did, but... humans.

I'm not entirely sure, but I think some of the next section might have gotten jumbled. I'll try to respond as best I can, but if I missed something let me know.

everyone thinks they're a great driver, too, that the problem is all the other assholes on the road, the ones who drive too fast or too slow, the ones who forget to signal or who don't notice you or whatever else it is you hate on the road. But that's the thing. You're one of those assholes, too. You just don't see it because you don't want to; it's a painful mirror to look into.

Yes, but some people actually *are* great drivers. Not me, I'm a competent and safe driver, but I know my limits and they're a low bar. On the other hand, I am very good at my job, and I don't play at false humility when it comes to my areas of expertise or skill.

Of course, all humans have emotions. And everyone loses their temper. But I'm extremely certain that I would not lose control and kill someone in a fit of rage. Of course, I usually have the emotional range of a teaspoon, and my version of "super angry" is probably about a 4 on most people's scales.

It's a pretty clear and simple principle in ethics that says one need not account for feelings when someone has chosen not to care about the feelings of others; action outside of symmetrical informed consent is consent to reaction, outside of their consent. Their feelings don't matter; it is the actions which have created the consent.

As to UBI, I would expect you to validate your reasons to not support it against principle and an ethical framework that relies on shared premises. Maybe we can discuss that at some point, assuming you are not "made up" on the subject to the point where you apriori reject the idea.

I don't know what your first paragraph here means, can you elaborate?
For the second, yes, I've given it some thought. Principle and ethics are great for UBI... but I don't think it will be sustainable given human nature and the dynamics required for that system to function over a long period of time. Happy to talk about it elsewhere.

 

[Emily Lake]

There is even a dividend to being more co-operative and inclusive.

The human race evolved not, as Desmond Morris etc. suggested, by the survival of the fittest, but through the survival of the most co-operative.

Conservatism and distrust makes them an evolutionary backwater in the long term..

I'd say there really isnt a contradiction. The fittest were those smart enough to understand helping others helped themselves.

I suspect it's not quite that well-defined. Survival for social animals requires cooperation, yes. But not unbounded cooperation with every other animal of the same species. It's more a case of cooperation within one's tribe, and competition with other tribes. The tricky part is defining "tribe" as it's a remarkably fluid concept.

 

[Angry Floof]

We are a tribe of seven billion. The tricky part is adapting to that. Some individuals are more adaptable than others, and some ideologies (which go a long way to shape a person's perceptions) are maladaptive in this environment.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I find myself at a bit of a loss on how to reconcile the claims in this thread with the behavior. The premise is that [liberals presumably] need to learn how to help conservatives be more humane. The assumptions underlying that position are that 1) liberals are more humane than conservatives and 2) liberals know what is best for conservatives and humanity as a whole.

I can see how you are at a loss there because you clearly didn't understand the OP or the thread as the initial premise isn't that liberals are more humane than conservatives. It was that conservatives have a tendency to make with the empathy within their circle, but don't apply it outside the circle. Kind of like the whole 'against gay marriage until your daughter turns out to be a lesbian' thing. Or those fucking lazy unemployed idiots are sucking at my tax tit, but my daughter's kid is just down on his luck.

The question is, how can one get a conservative to get to that point that so many of them have regarding gays and morality... without them having to have someone in their circle coming out as gay?

 

[BH]

I find myself at a bit of a loss on how to reconcile the claims in this thread with the behavior. The premise is that [liberals presumably] need to learn how to help conservatives be more humane. The assumptions underlying that position are that 1) liberals are more humane than conservatives and 2) liberals know what is best for conservatives and humanity as a whole.

I can see how you are at a loss there because you clearly didn't understand the OP or the thread as the initial premise isn't that liberals are more humane than conservatives. It was that conservatives have a tendency to make with the empathy within their circle, but don't apply it outside the circle. Kind of like the whole 'against gay marriage until your daughter turns out to be a lesbian' thing. Or those fucking lazy unemployed idiots are sucking at my tax tit, but my daughter's kid is just down on his luck.

The question is, how can one get a conservative to get to that point that so many of them have regarding gays and morality... without them having to have someone in their circle coming out as gay?

Yeah. I know several old white folks who didnt want anything to do with black people. They wouldnt harm or harass them just wanted to be a part. Then all of a sudden they found out their granddaughter or great granddaughter was having a baby and marrying a black man and then they do a 180 when they see the little baby coming and smiling at them.

 

[Jarhyn]

I find myself at a bit of a loss on how to reconcile the claims in this thread with the behavior. The premise is that [liberals presumably] need to learn how to help conservatives be more humane. The assumptions underlying that position are that 1) liberals are more humane than conservatives and 2) liberals know what is best for conservatives and humanity as a whole.

I can see how you are at a loss there because you clearly didn't understand the OP or the thread as the initial premise isn't that liberals are more humane than conservatives. It was that conservatives have a tendency to make with the empathy within their circle, but don't apply it outside the circle. Kind of like the whole 'against gay marriage until your daughter turns out to be a lesbian' thing. Or those fucking lazy unemployed idiots are sucking at my tax tit, but my daughter's kid is just down on his luck.

The question is, how can one get a conservative to get to that point that so many of them have regarding gays and morality... without them having to have someone in their circle coming out as gay?

Yeah. I know several old white folks who didnt want anything to do with black people. They wouldnt harm or harass them just wanted to be a part. Then all of a sudden they found out their granddaughter or great granddaughter was having a baby and marrying a black man and then they do a 180 when they see the little baby coming and smiling at them.

Or my own parents. I'm a man married to a trans man. My parents were proud of teenage in-the-closet me when I did a speech about why South Park was bad because Big Gay Al.

But they did a 180 on gay/trans issues when it was clear that they would lose their only child who actually graduated college of they didn't reconsider their positions.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

everyone thinks they're a great driver, too, that the problem is all the other assholes on the road, the ones who drive too fast or too slow, the ones who forget to signal or who don't notice you or whatever else it is you hate on the road. But that's the thing. You're one of those assholes, too. You just don't see it because you don't want to; it's a painful mirror to look into.

The reality is that most of us are above "average" drivers--it's not a bell curve, it's a curve with a long tail. Most people will see far more wrongs happen to them on the road than they are guilty of, a small subset is guilty of far more wrongs than happen to them.

 

[Jarhyn]

everyone thinks they're a great driver, too, that the problem is all the other assholes on the road, the ones who drive too fast or too slow, the ones who forget to signal or who don't notice you or whatever else it is you hate on the road. But that's the thing. You're one of those assholes, too. You just don't see it because you don't want to; it's a painful mirror to look into.

The reality is that most of us are above "average" drivers--it's not a bell curve, it's a curve with a long tail. Most people will see far more wrongs happen to them on the road than they are guilty of, a small subset is guilty of far more wrongs than happen to them.

[Citation needed]

 

[Emily Lake]

We are a tribe of seven billion.

Are we though, really? I'm tickled if you consider me part of your tribe... but do you consider Trump part of your tribe? White Supremacists? Kim Jong Whoever? Do you consider the serial killers and the rapists and the school shooters to be part of your tribe?

it's a very noble ideal, and I applaud it as a north star. But I don't think it's reality. At the end of the day, humans don't value each other equally. We value those we're closest to more than those we have no connection to. We value our own children more than we value the child of a stranger on the opposite side of the planet, and who we've never met. We value our spouses more than we value a random person in Connecticut with whom we've never interacted. We value those with whom we have connections, and the deeper the connection the higher the value.

 

[Emily Lake]

The reality is that most of us are above "average" drivers--it's not a bell curve, it's a curve with a long tail. Most people will see far more wrongs happen to them on the road than they are guilty of, a small subset is guilty of far more wrongs than happen to them.

I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree on this one. I think about 70% of US drivers would fail to qualify for a license if w were held to European standards.

 

[Angry Floof]

We are a tribe of seven billion.

Are we though, really? I'm tickled if you consider me part of your tribe... but do you consider Trump part of your tribe? White Supremacists? Kim Jong Whoever? Do you consider the serial killers and the rapists and the school shooters to be part of your tribe?

Yes, absolutely. They're human beings on planet Earth. I don't need to like someone or even know someone to recognize that much. Your implication is that you have to like people to consider them human? Because anything else is just tribalism, and you have a choice in that.

It's weird that you think you have to like someone or approve of them in some way to recognize that they are human. Your opinions of people don't determine their humanness. They're your tribe, like it or not. How we deal with the bad ones is not relevant here. It's not a matter of opinion, yours or mine. It's fact that we are a tribe of seven billion, and technology is connecting us more and more every day. Tribal lines are hazy at best. Adapt or become more aggressive due to fear of Other. Your choice.

There is a reason that we have a judicial system that guarantees a fair trial and based in "innocent until proven guilty" and is laden with protections for even the worst criminals. Do you know what that reason is? This is not rhetorical. I'm genuinely curious to know if you can answer it.

And I know our judicial system is riddled with problems. But the underlying philosophy that we continue to strive for isn't just pretty words. I'd like to know if you understand this at all.

it's a very noble ideal, and I applaud it as a north star. But I don't think it's reality. At the end of the day, humans don't value each other equally. We value those we're closest to more than those we have no connection to. We value our own children more than we value the child of a stranger on the opposite side of the planet, and who we've never met. We value our spouses more than we value a random person in Connecticut with whom we've never interacted. We value those with whom we have connections, and the deeper the connection the higher the value.

We can do both. You can do both. You are capable of more than blind tribalism. You are fully capable of recognizing that humans care about the people closest to them, their families and communities, that your brain creates a full and complex 3D personhood for each of them, whereas people you don't know don't get that level of personal treatment from your brain. It's weird that you think you can't also care about people in the abstract. It's weird and worrying, quite frankly, that you are so willing to admit openly that anyone you don't know and love personally doesn't matter to you.

This is the basis of bigotry. "I don't know them and/or they are not like me, so I refuse to care about them or rub two brain cells together to challenge myself to develop a more mature and compassionate regard for my fellow human beings."

What's stopping you from developing principles that include people you don't know or like? If you don't like them, do their rights not matter? Are you ok with your tribal authority figure punishing those out groups?

If you're not blatantly admitting to your own bigotry here, then please explain why "noble" ideas such as all humans are human whether you know them or not is somehow beneath you and your tribalism? Maybe you don't have the capacity to think any better than that about humanity, but that doesn't mean the rest of us don't. At least have the decency to not try to drag down the people who do. And I truly hope you someday recognize your own humanness. Then maybe you'd be able to recognize others' without regard to whether they exist in your in-group.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

We are a tribe of seven billion.

Are we though, really? I'm tickled if you consider me part of your tribe... but do you consider Trump part of your tribe? White Supremacists? Kim Jong Whoever? Do you consider the serial killers and the rapists and the school shooters to be part of your tribe?

it's a very noble ideal, and I applaud it as a north star. But I don't think it's reality. At the end of the day, humans don't value each other equally. We value those we're closest to more than those we have no connection to. We value our own children more than we value the child of a stranger on the opposite side of the planet, and who we've never met. We value our spouses more than we value a random person in Connecticut with whom we've never interacted. We value those with whom we have connections, and the deeper the connection the higher the value.

People change. Circumstances change. The point is that we should be acting as one tribe. We should see ourselves in those people living across the globe and across the street.

Or maybe I just grew up listening to Barry McGuire's Eve of Destruction too many times.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfZVu0alU0I[/youtube]

 

[Deepak]

The goal of modern conservatism is to protect liberalism from progressives.

I'd be more inclined to believe you if modern conservatism wasn't lousy with white supremacists and folks wearing Nazi regalia.

Was Reagan era modern conservatism? https://www.thenation.com/article/a...rs-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/
Was Nixon? https://thenewyorker.typepad.com/online__georgepacker/files/dividing_the_democrats1.pdf
Is Trump? https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/20...n-and-domestic-open-letter-gen-milley/167625/

Who's this lady quoting?

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

Is that Rousseau, or de Tocqueville? I can't seem to remember what with all the anti-liberal agenda items we outside of modern conservatism have to juggle.

And maybe I'm not remembering correctly, but aren't you a supporter of ethnostates?

 

[Jarhyn]

The goal of modern conservatism is to protect liberalism from progressives.

I'd be more inclined to believe you if modern conservatism wasn't lousy with white supremacists and folks wearing Nazi regalia.

Was Reagan era modern conservatism? https://www.thenation.com/article/a...rs-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/
Was Nixon? https://thenewyorker.typepad.com/online__georgepacker/files/dividing_the_democrats1.pdf
Is Trump? https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/20...n-and-domestic-open-letter-gen-milley/167625/

Who's this lady quoting?

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

Is that Rousseau, or de Tocqueville? I can't seem to remember what with all the anti-liberal agenda items we outside of modern conservatism have to juggle.

And maybe I'm not remembering correctly, but aren't you a supporter of ethnostates?

Like, what the fuck is that even supposed to mean? "Protect an obsolete form of pseudointellectualism from progress"?

Like, how hard is it to accept that your shit does, in fact, stink? Everyone is wrong. I've even seen it used as a talking point from conservatives: "hurdurr all government sucks but America government sucks least". Except now they think dictatorships suck less? But the fact is, progressives say "how can we try to make this better", try to figure out the mechanics of why what we have fails, and then correct those mechanics.

I mean, it would be like playing the first beta prototype of a board game where one player just always has an unreasonable advantage, but that player always insists on being that position and insisting there isn't any problem with the rules at all "I've won every time, the rules seem to be just fine".

All we want is to understand reality better and make our systems work on the basis of that reality. It pretty well demonstrates that those who want to protect themselves from progress are not living in reality.

 

[Emily Lake]

Yes, absolutely. They're human beings on planet Earth. I don't need to like someone or even know someone to recognize that much. Your implication is that you have to like people to consider them human?

This doesn't make sense. Of course they're human, I don't know where you're getting that from.

We can do both. You can do both. You are capable of more than blind tribalism. You are fully capable of recognizing that humans care about the people closest to them, their families and communities, that your brain creates a full and complex 3D personhood for each of them, whereas people you don't know don't get that level of personal treatment from your brain. It's weird that you think you can't also care about people in the abstract. It's weird and worrying, quite frankly, that you are so willing to admit openly that anyone you don't know and love personally doesn't matter to you.

This is the basis of bigotry. "I don't know them and/or they are not like me, so I refuse to care about them or rub two brain cells together to challenge myself to develop a more mature and compassionate regard for my fellow human beings."

What's stopping you from developing principles that include people you don't know or like? If you don't like them, do their rights not matter? Are you ok with your tribal authority figure punishing those out groups?

If you're not blatantly admitting to your own bigotry here, then please explain why "noble" ideas such as all humans are human whether you know them or not is somehow beneath you and your tribalism? Maybe you don't have the capacity to think any better than that about humanity, but that doesn't mean the rest of us don't. At least have the decency to not try to drag down the people who do. And I truly hope you someday recognize your own humanness. Then maybe you'd be able to recognize others' without regard to whether they exist in your in-group.

Wow. You've just attributed a whole lot of bullshit that wasn't in my post. You've somehow gone from my basis (that humans form tribes, and that they care more about those closest to them than about those not part of their immediate group, and therefore "we're all one tribe all 7 billion of us" is just words with no meaning) all the way to assuming I don't even care in the abstract and am a bigot?

I do find it interesting that you claim the noble ideal of every single human on the planet being part of your tribe (implying that you value them all at roughly the same level) and that they're all deserving of compassion and respect and decency... while simultaneously insulting me and attributing extremely negative motivations to me on no basis other than that I'm not part of your in-group.

 

[Angry Floof]

I value their humanity. You, apparently, value something else about them - your feelings for them personally? How familiar you are with them? How much like you they are? What is the basis for who you consider to be your tribe? And why is it not based in the one thing every human being shares?

And yes, every human being IS your tribe, like it or not. There is no good reason for excluding anyone. There's a lot of reactive animal brain reasons. There's a lot of fear based reasons. There's a lot of us vs them ideological reasons. But no logical, humane reasons.

 

[Emily Lake]

I value their humanity. You, apparently, value something else about them - your feelings for them personally? How familiar you are with them? How much like you they are? What is the basis for who you consider to be your tribe? And why is it not based in the one thing every human being shares?

And yes, every human being IS your tribe, like it or not. There is no good reason for excluding anyone. There's a lot of reactive animal brain reasons. There's a lot of fear based reasons. There's a lot of us vs them ideological reasons. But no logical, humane reasons.

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

Not every elephant is part of the same troop. Not every wolf is part of the same pack. Not every lion is part of the same pride. Every human is my species, and I respect and have compassion for them all as humans.

If you insist that every human on the planet is in your tribe, every one of them is part of your inner circle of care... then that should mean that you treat Derec with exactly as much respect and consideration as you treat your close friends. But you don't treat every person the same. You've already attributed a whole pile of evil and malicious intent to me for no good reason, simply because I had the temerity to acknowledge that humans are not a single tribe, but that humans create circles of care and will always prioritize the well-being and success of their closest members more than the well-being and success of complete strangers with whom the only thing they have in common is species.

In this very interaction you put the lie to your claim that we're all one tribe.