Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei has never hurt anyone you jackass dei must go gaolang > your fav hi rej hi rejj hi rejjj is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you watch for haters weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
Unfortunately, I can't find the racist chudjak mouse meme right now, so we'll have to make do with a scientific study.
Interesting, this further the point of the importance of social construct in benevolance. Not a case of intolerance tho.
I made a quick search and yes, you seem to be right. There are indeed cases of "discriminations" (in the animal sence) against animals that are presenting what can be seen as a problem for the group cohesion and survival.
I checked quickly with chatgpt and it seems that there are no evidence (although this could be wrong) that those discriminations (especially based on visible disabilities) are present in the human species too (those would mostly come from a place of fear of vulnerability and a lack of social education). This clear things up.
Now, this doesn't negate what I was saying about racism being a social construction. The color of the skin does not represent a deviation from the norm in the evolutionnary sence. Which is again logical as all human's ancestor are dark skin, so this was never registered as a problem for survival.
I made a quick search and yes, you seem to be right. There are indeed cases of "discriminations" (in the animal sence) against animals that are presenting what can be seen as a problem for the group cohesion and survival.
I checked quickly with chatgpt and it seems that there are no evidence (although this could be wrong) that those discriminations (especially based on visible disabilities) are present in the human species too (those would mostly come from a place of fear of vulnerability and a lack of social education). This clear things up.
Now, this doesn't negate what I was saying about racism being a social construction. The color of the skin does not represent a deviation from the norm in the evolutionnary sence. Which is again logical as all human's ancestor are dark skin, so this was never registered as a problem for survival.
Yes, that what I said. For non human animals, this is how it works. It's simply works a bit differently with human it seems (but if you find studies suggesting the opposite, don't hesitate to share them, I just made a very quick search on the subject)
There is no "default setting" concerning prejudice. This is a social construct for humans.
Don't forget that Europeans were black up until roughly 8000 years ago.
Early human were most likely travelling in group out of necessity rather than by product of rejection of others. Plus if I'm recalling that correctly, the inter-tribe mixing was prevalent at that time (although I do not remember where I read that)
So I would nuance this affirmation. I think tribalism is more of a byproduct of our survival necessities rather than our genetic.
There is no such thing as human nature at least in term of behavior.
We are shaped by various things all over our life and very little is due to actual genetic.
We need to stop seeing humans as an immuable stone in the string of time or our situation will never developp toward more progress.
There is no "default setting" concerning prejudice. This is a social construct for humans.
Don't forget that Europeans were black up until roughly 8000 years ago.
Early human were most likely travelling in group out of necessity rather than by product of rejection of others. Plus if I'm recalling that correctly, the inter-tribe mixing was prevalent at that time (although I do not remember where I read that)
So I would nuance this affirmation. I think tribalism is more of a byproduct of our survival necessities rather than our genetic.
There is no such thing as human nature at least in term of behavior.
We are shaped by various things all over our life and very little is due to actual genetic.
We need to stop seeing humans as an immuable stone in the string of time or our situation will never developp toward more progress.
Just like some human are still eating others now. Those are rare behaviors that are not generalizable to the rest of the specie.
Plus, those are not due to genetic but simple social constructs. Various things could explain that behavior, from ideology, to religion, to cultural habits.
We did not magically stopped being savages, were were never complete savages in the first place. Like in any social groups, early humans were not hegemonous, there are sign that some groups killed each others (probably for the ressources) and there are also signs of inter-tribe mating and coeexistence.
Social structures are complexe. We are not "one" thing. That's why the term "human nature" is not really pertinent. In reality, when we look at it, most violence comes from a place of survival rather than pure discrimination.
This is why for those who value science and know the reality of or social evolution, it's not very hard to imagine a world were we can all live happily, but it's a lot harder for people who think that man is a wolf to man by nature.
Plus, those are not due to genetic but simple social constructs. Various things could explain that behavior, from ideology, to religion, to cultural habits.
We did not magically stopped being savages, were were never complete savages in the first place. Like in any social groups, early humans were not hegemonous, there are sign that some groups killed each others (probably for the ressources) and there are also signs of inter-tribe mating and coeexistence.
Social structures are complexe. We are not "one" thing. That's why the term "human nature" is not really pertinent. In reality, when we look at it, most violence comes from a place of survival rather than pure discrimination.
This is why for those who value science and know the reality of or social evolution, it's not very hard to imagine a world were we can all live happily, but it's a lot harder for people who think that man is a wolf to man by nature.
Prejudice is the default setting because they distrust another race they are not acquainted with.
Of course this isn't true, there were also light skinned populations, as found in Sweden, and the Neanderthals had lighter skins much earlier. However, I'd like to know how this relates to our discussion which wasn't about Europe, seems like you are just trying to prove that blacks should have a primacy over Europe.
Of course this isn't true, there were also light skinned populations, as found in Sweden, and the Neanderthals had lighter skins much earlier. However, I'd like to know how this relates to our discussion which wasn't about Europe, seems like you are just trying to prove that blacks should have a primacy over Europe.
That's the point, wars are often justified through discriminations/differences between the people fighting. Romans propagated the idea that the Gauls were "barbarians" aka different type of humans for ex
I think the fact that it is even shown in our most common ancestors and lots of social animals lends some merit to the idea that our tribal instincts are genetic
what? biologist seldom talk about stuff like this lmao.
I think the fact that it is even shown in our most common ancestors and lots of social animals lends some merit to the idea that our tribal instincts are genetic
what? biologist seldom talk about stuff like this lmao.