Social Justice Warriors Thread

[Speaker to Animals]

I hopped in fakebook for the first time in months and someone had reposted something with a picture of a McDs plastic soda cup (with top & straw on it) on a beach... Saying "if you see things like this, take a picture of it and tag the company that is branded on it to shake them".

Yeah, because it's McDs fault...not the asshole that couldn't be bothered to find a garbage can to toss it into...

I hate FB. I visit once in a while because some of the kids' athletics and my softball league uses it to post updates, pics, schedules, etc. I rarely post anything. Sadly that is the sole method of communication some of my friends and family use to keep others updated. I do end up missing some things only to find out about them moths later when we finally do meet in person.

99.9% of it falls into one of these categories:
- Happy, happy every single day, look how great my life is. High degree of bragging. Oh, and look where I ate lunch today.
- Pet videos
- Memes and inspirational sayings
- Political snark which leads to "friends" arguing in a public forum.
- Happy birthday, anniversary, etc..
- Vague slights at someone not named or other general vague posts designed to illicit responses of "OMG! what is going on?".

All from people who never call or text you directly.

Yeah, but all the single mothers are on there. That's really your go-to spot.

Also, most of my old USAF mates are on there. It's the only way to keep in touch easily.

[GloryofGreece]

I guess in a nutshell, Hobbes underestimates the role of identity and had no way of knowing how much cooperation (not surrendering the right to make war to a sovereign) played into the formation of all human bands.

And saying that then one would conclude that the State is an inherently unnatural organization. Which I kind of think it is, but I agree with the Hobbesian view that most humans follow the law or don't act out b/c they are weak, scared, or worried about the consequence. So you need a societal order simply for that a lone. The rub is in how much order is too much? I think the current managerial state/ soft depositism is too much. But that's just me.

[Speaker to Animals]

I guess in a nutshell, Hobbes underestimates the role of identity and had no way of knowing how much cooperation (not surrendering the right to make war to a sovereign) played into the formation of all human bands.

And saying that then one would conclude that the State is an inherently unnatural organization. Which I kind of think it is, but I agree with the Hobbesian view that most humans follow the law or don't act out b/c they are weak, scared, or worried about the consequence. So you need a societal order simply for that a lone. The rub is in how much order is too much? I think the current managerial state/ soft depositism is too much. But that's just me.

I disagree with that too. I think most westerners follow the law because they have a sense of duty and community evolved over the course of the medieval period.

Easterners (especially Chinese) follow the law because they have a genetic disposition towards ultra-conformity.

African people don't typically follow the law if they think they can get away with violating it. They are tribal people.

And that's separate from the concept of right and wrong. I am just talking about the law as it's own thing. Africans might have their own sense of right and wrong that hopefully would conform with the law. But if they don't think the law matches it, they will not hesitate to violate the law. Which in the case of our civil rights era was pretty funny, since the law really was wrong. However, in general, there is a huge mistake made in generalizing for all of humanity the eccentricities of European peoples.

I get the sense from Chinese in particular that right and wrong are seen as legal and illegal. It's legal to harvest organs from enemies of the state. No problem. Do it. A thousand years of Confucianism and bureaucracy as environmental factors affecting sexual selection and reproduction had a definite effect.

[GloryofGreece]

I guess in a nutshell, Hobbes underestimates the role of identity and had no way of knowing how much cooperation (not surrendering the right to make war to a sovereign) played into the formation of all human bands.

And saying that then one would conclude that the State is an inherently unnatural organization. Which I kind of think it is, but I agree with the Hobbesian view that most humans follow the law or don't act out b/c they are weak, scared, or worried about the consequence. So you need a societal order simply for that a lone. The rub is in how much order is too much? I think the current managerial state/ soft depositism is too much. But that's just me.

I disagree with that too. I think most westerners follow the law because they have a sense of duty and community evolved over the course of the medieval period.

Easterners (especially Chinese) follow the law because they have a genetic disposition towards ultra-conformity.

African people don't typically follow the law if they think they can get away with violating it. They are tribal people.

I think most people I've been around (black, mixed, white, hispanic) follow the law because they don't want to be hassled socially, reciprocity, and legal consequences. For students its mostly about the fear of getting caught more than the actual punishment , whatever that might be.

[Speaker to Animals]

And saying that then one would conclude that the State is an inherently unnatural organization. Which I kind of think it is, but I agree with the Hobbesian view that most humans follow the law or don't act out b/c they are weak, scared, or worried about the consequence. So you need a societal order simply for that a lone. The rub is in how much order is too much? I think the current managerial state/ soft depositism is too much. But that's just me.

I disagree with that too. I think most westerners follow the law because they have a sense of duty and community evolved over the course of the medieval period.

Easterners (especially Chinese) follow the law because they have a genetic disposition towards ultra-conformity.

African people don't typically follow the law if they think they can get away with violating it. They are tribal people.

I think most people I've been around (black, mixed, white, hispanic) follow the law because they don't want to be hassled socially, reciprocity, and legal consequences. For students its mostly about the fear of getting caught more than the actual punishment , whatever that might be.

The crime stats indicate otherwise. Whites and East Asians in particular show a distinct bias for following the law. That's not to say we have no criminals. It's just not that prevalent, especially amongst Asians.

On the other hand, blacks show a distinct bias for loyalty to the tribe and much less respect for the law as a viable thing. I know from my experiences in Chicago, the blacks have their own sense of duty to their immediate tribe/neighborhood/etc and whenever the state or city law opposed that, they very often violated that law. They have a completely different mode of operating from us.

[GloryofGreece]

I disagree with that too. I think most westerners follow the law because they have a sense of duty and community evolved over the course of the medieval period.

Easterners (especially Chinese) follow the law because they have a genetic disposition towards ultra-conformity.

African people don't typically follow the law if they think they can get away with violating it. They are tribal people.

I think most people I've been around (black, mixed, white, hispanic) follow the law because they don't want to be hassled socially, reciprocity, and legal consequences. For students its mostly about the fear of getting caught more than the actual punishment , whatever that might be.

The crime stats indicate otherwise. Whites and East Asians in particular show a distinct bias for following the law. That's not to say we have no criminals. It's just not that prevalent, especially amongst Asians.

On the other hand, blacks show a distinct bias for loyalty to the tribe and much less respect for the law as a viable thing. I know from my experiences in Chicago, the blacks have their own sense of duty to their immediate tribe/neighborhood/etc and whenever the state or city law opposed that, they very often violated that law. They have a completely different mode of operating from us.

Yea there are plenty of whites in prison, jail, parole, halfway houses, suspended licenses, etc. plus many more that simply haven't gotten caught yet or got slapped on the wrist and put through the "system" in a conventional official way.

China and other Asian countries will often not officially document their crimes and criminals in the same manner say Canada, U.S. , and Australia does for example. Where does South Asian since they are a billion people factor into all this? Somewhere closer to "whites" than to "blacks" id suppose.

I don't think you can remove the "family/household/parenting" element from the conditioning either. Its not solely biological. Its not that clean cut. Certainly whites have more of a proclivity to get married and have kids together than the 80% of blacks that dont but even whites numbers are steadily getting worse or more closer to blacks. Family / parents provide incentives and guidance for kids to not get into trouble or once they are they give them ways out of legal consequences or help alleviate them lets say more effectively than blacks tend to be able and or willing to do.

I think there are whites that are lacking in risk aversion, compliance, and are pushing the boundaries of acceptable behavior by doing things like joining the military, extreme sports, firefighting, and other dangerous jobs instead of slinging crack or tagging the local rundown bridge etc.

[heydaralon]

All those Blacks in prison would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for those meddling kids

[GloryofGreece]

Of course, variety adds color to life. We yearn for it. We cannot imagine life without it. But if diversity becomes the highest principle, then there can be no universal human values, and making one’s own values the yardstick of another person’s opinions is ignorant and brutal. If there is no right and wrong, what restraints remain? If there is no universal basis for it there can be no morality. ‘Pluralism’ as a principle degenerates into indifference, superficiality, it spills over into relativism, into tolerance of the absurd, into a pluralism of errors and lies.

https://www.counter-currents.com/2019/0 ... more-89909

[BjornP]

Of course, variety adds color to life. We yearn for it. We cannot imagine life without it. But if diversity becomes the highest principle, then there can be no universal human values, and making one’s own values the yardstick of another person’s opinions is ignorant and brutal. If there is no right and wrong, what restraints remain? If there is no universal basis for it there can be no morality. ‘Pluralism’ as a principle degenerates into indifference, superficiality, it spills over into relativism, into tolerance of the absurd, into a pluralism of errors and lies.

https://www.counter-currents.com/2019/0 ... more-89909

Disagree with the bolded part, though only to an extent, and possibly only with the definition of "universal".

Any society needs shared values, rules, ideals, taboos, etc. to remain a society. If they don't have that, they atomize and the only thing they'll have in common is a purely legal identity provided by the State.

Those values binding a society together, need "only" be "universal" among the members of that society/community/nation. Meaning that they don't need to be universal globally. What is right and what is wrong is not universal (as in global), nor does it need to be. Behaviors and values that are right in the US, can be wrong in, say Russia or Denmark or France, and vice versa. That does not imply that there is no right or wrong.

Your premise seems to be that if a concept of right and wrong is not universal, there cannot be a concept of right and wrong. My need for "universality" on that matter, otoh, ends at the border. Foreign people's notions of right and wrong are not equal to, or as valid as my own culture's concept of right and wrong, because they live somewhere else and are part of their own societies. It's just about what is right and wrong in my home vs what's right and wrong in your home.

[Martin Hash]

Christians are a conflicted combination of Globalism and Nationalism; OTOH they believe their morals should be adopted universally, and New Testament doctrine is very Marxist; but they are also very traditionalist, fraternalistic & conservative.