Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine #votebluenomatterwhat are you having fun al? are you having van al? gaolang > your fav imagine thinking trump is the good guy is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? it's over for trump life goal sister harem loli mfw kamala harris can actually win 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 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.
There is no such things as natural distrust for people with different skin colors in humans.
No, this is literally a fact. A majority of european were black up until 8000 years ago
https://www.science.org/content/article/how-europeans-evolved-white-skin
As shown here hunter gatherer in the far noth were already pale, but others were dark skin. Chances are that the environment put more pressure on those people.
The point being that the color of skin is not genetically registered as a danger for evolution, which is logical since our ancestor were all dark skin to begin with. Which is another reason why racism is not inscribed in our biology but is a complete social construct.
There is no such thing as common sense when we ask questions in science.
I had a doubt about the discriminations in animals, due to me not remembering the fact that some animals do indeed discriminate others based on their disabilities (or potential danger for reproduction or cohesion of the group), so I asked you the sources and I checked myself later. Simple as that.
And this lead me to understand that Humans do not discriminate other humans in the same way, which is interesting. We are really a social specie.
Understand that when I'm asking sources, I'm never in the mindset of proving the other wrong, I'm in a state of doubt and in the mindset of learning something potentially new.
Justified, yes. But that rarely the real reason, wars are usually a question of power and ressources. Even Hitler didn't wage war based on his ideology.
Indeed. But the real reason was a question of domination. But those behavior are socially constructed. Wars, despite what pessimistic people will have you think, are not a consequence of our human nature, they are the consequences of the systems we live in.
In a good system were people have enough ressources to live and were there are no reasons for discrimination, there shall be no wars.
"tribal instinct" can mean a lot of things, you will have to precise that. Because as it is, I don't think that there is any proof of anything remotely comparable in our genetic.
You might wanna be talking about cognitive biases for example, that are most likely due to evolution and our need for survival. But as a social specie, we learned to override those, and therefore the tribe instinct doesn't really hold a candle. Some early humans were probably as pacifist toward others as some people on this planet right now.
You just made me learn a new word, thanks.
Indeed. i'm not talking about biologist, but rather anthropologist here. Biologist don't really have a lot to say about human behaviors and usually, when some are trying to bridge the gap, it's not really pretty. See what I mean by that HERE.
Some people think that human have a fundamental nature and that this fundamental nature is egotistical. Hence the sayin "man is a wolf to man".. this is deeply flawed, we do have a form of natural egoism, but it's balanced by a evoltionnary altruism as well.. In result, we are not an homogenous specie, and our behavior will vary in function of a lot of parameters such as the social system, the climate, the cultural habbits, the beliefs etc.
Sadly, the beliefs that man is a wolf to man is hegemonic and has been one of the fundations for the system that we know today as Capitalism.
Meaning that as long as we will believe in that sayin, we will not manage to create a new path and a new system.
Of course, who doesn't ?
No, this is literally a fact. A majority of european were black up until 8000 years ago
https://www.science.org/content/article/how-europeans-evolved-white-skin
As shown here hunter gatherer in the far noth were already pale, but others were dark skin. Chances are that the environment put more pressure on those people.
The point being that the color of skin is not genetically registered as a danger for evolution, which is logical since our ancestor were all dark skin to begin with. Which is another reason why racism is not inscribed in our biology but is a complete social construct.
There is no such thing as common sense when we ask questions in science.
I had a doubt about the discriminations in animals, due to me not remembering the fact that some animals do indeed discriminate others based on their disabilities (or potential danger for reproduction or cohesion of the group), so I asked you the sources and I checked myself later. Simple as that.
And this lead me to understand that Humans do not discriminate other humans in the same way, which is interesting. We are really a social specie.
Understand that when I'm asking sources, I'm never in the mindset of proving the other wrong, I'm in a state of doubt and in the mindset of learning something potentially new.
Justified, yes. But that rarely the real reason, wars are usually a question of power and ressources. Even Hitler didn't wage war based on his ideology.
Indeed. But the real reason was a question of domination. But those behavior are socially constructed. Wars, despite what pessimistic people will have you think, are not a consequence of our human nature, they are the consequences of the systems we live in.
In a good system were people have enough ressources to live and were there are no reasons for discrimination, there shall be no wars.
"tribal instinct" can mean a lot of things, you will have to precise that. Because as it is, I don't think that there is any proof of anything remotely comparable in our genetic.
You might wanna be talking about cognitive biases for example, that are most likely due to evolution and our need for survival. But as a social specie, we learned to override those, and therefore the tribe instinct doesn't really hold a candle. Some early humans were probably as pacifist toward others as some people on this planet right now.
You just made me learn a new word, thanks.
Indeed. i'm not talking about biologist, but rather anthropologist here. Biologist don't really have a lot to say about human behaviors and usually, when some are trying to bridge the gap, it's not really pretty. See what I mean by that HERE.
Some people think that human have a fundamental nature and that this fundamental nature is egotistical. Hence the sayin "man is a wolf to man".. this is deeply flawed, we do have a form of natural egoism, but it's balanced by a evoltionnary altruism as well.. In result, we are not an homogenous specie, and our behavior will vary in function of a lot of parameters such as the social system, the climate, the cultural habbits, the beliefs etc.
Sadly, the beliefs that man is a wolf to man is hegemonic and has been one of the fundations for the system that we know today as Capitalism.
Meaning that as long as we will believe in that sayin, we will not manage to create a new path and a new system.
Of course, who doesn't ?
Last edited:
Who I really am ? What is this supposed to mean ? Why the free shot ?
No. If you really read the study, you would have understood that it has nothing to do with prejudice, but the lack of benevolance. This study shoes than the lack of benevolance toward an exterior group of a different stripe can be coutner by social construction (in the case of the mice, keeping them together in order to acclimate them to the difference) which will result in positive behavior later.
No. If you really read the study, you would have understood that it has nothing to do with prejudice, but the lack of benevolance. This study shoes than the lack of benevolance toward an exterior group of a different stripe can be coutner by social construction (in the case of the mice, keeping them together in order to acclimate them to the difference) which will result in positive behavior later.