Beliefs that you've grown out of

[RubberGuard5]

Well obviously there has to be diversity in order for there to be ethnic cleansing. If everyone's the same, there's nothing to cleanse.

But it's a pretty poor argument against diversity.

So, when you have diverse communities that celebrate different religious holidays together with their neighbors of another faith, but within 2 years start killing and raping said neighbors, that tells you nothing about effectiveness of diversity in preventing racism and bigotry? It tells you nothing about human nature?

 

[Thurisaz]

Another of those beliefs I've grown out of is that civic nationalism is a viable option. I long held that one, for longer than was reasonable, but still managed to force myself to look at reality and deal with it.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

So, when you have diverse communities that celebrate different religious holidays together with their neighbors of another faith, but within 2 years start killing and raping said neighbors, that tells you nothing about effectiveness of diversity in preventing racism and bigotry? It tells you nothing about human nature?

No, because the list of societies with different religions and cultures living side by side is a mile long.

Pre-state of Israel Palestine had Muslims and Jews living peacefully, for example. Aside from Ireland and the Balkans, the rest of Europe has seen very little religious strife starting in about the 20th century. And this is after a millennia of slaughter pretty much everywhere.

Russia has dozens of different ethnicities and only started having serious conflict in the last few decades. And that had more to do with political rather than ethnic or religious things.

Saudi Arabia is 99% homogeneous yet they're the number-one producer of violent religious fundamentalists.

 

[RubberGuard5]

No, because the list of societies with different religions and cultures living side by side is a mile long.

Pre-state of Israel Palestine had Muslims and Jews living peacefully, for example. Aside from Ireland and the Balkans, the rest of Europe has seen very little religious strife starting in about the 20th century. And this is after a millennia of slaughter pretty much everywhere.

Russia has dozens of different ethnicities and only started having serious conflict in the last few decades. And that had more to do with political rather than ethnic or religious things.

Saudi Arabia is 99% homogeneous yet they're the number-one producer of violent religious fundamentalists.

You are not being scientific in your thinking. You keep ignoring the black swans. You can't prove that diversity prevents bigotry by showing the list of peaceful diverse places, just like you can't prove all swans are white by pointing on white swans.

If it's not human nature, why do we find infants and children are biased? What about all of the psychology experiments where you can create 2 groups on a coin flip, and then make them hate each other? It is in our nature to be tribal, to stereotype and be prejudiced. That's why it needs to be educated out of us. Sometimes it works. It can work for a long time. But it collapses in a second.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

You are not being scientific in your thinking. You keep ignoring the black swans. You can't prove that diversity prevents bigotry by showing the list of peaceful diverse places, just like you can't prove all swans are white by pointing on white swans.

If it's not human nature, why do we find infants and children are biased? What about all of the psychology experiments where you can create 2 groups on a coin flip, and then make them hate each other? It is in our nature to be tribal, to stereotype and be prejudiced. That's why it needs to be educated out of us. Sometimes it works. It can work for a long time. But it collapses in a second.

Your coin flip group example is perfect. An otherwise cohesive group gets separated arbitrarily and only then are they hostile to each other.

Look, it's obvious that both cooperation and competition are part of human nature. There's tons of examples of both throughout history. What rational people propose is to suppress the destructive, prejudiced part as much as possible and enhance the cooperative, peaceful part.

Others are happy to let this destructive, tribal side flourish. They invite it, in fact.

Unfortunately, history has taught us that this brings nothing but endless warring. That was fine for a few millennia but starting in the 20th century, the slaughter each other game was too dangerous because of technological sophistication in warfare. Our tribalism could actually, truly, end humanity.

So you got two options- Bring out the best in humanity through education and suppress the worst as much as possible. Or let the worst parts of us fly free and see what happens. Yeah, we might end the world but hey, at least we weren't forced to see Muslims prayer calls sounding, amirite?

 

[unimackpass]

Grew up around mostly atheistic thinking with little exposure to alternate views. Led a shelters life in that respect. When studying evolution, geology, oceanography and anthropology in college, the complexity of the universe started me on a quest to ask questions beyond the party line, paint by the numbers, dogma I was surrounded by.
Ended up hanging out with some brilliant people that are Antiocian Orthodox Christians.


My dad lived in Alaska and was a hunting guide and commercial fisherman. He drank hard, fought hard and had a 19yr old girl friend when I was 13. They lived together for 7 years. It was the good bad and ugly but Got to live the dream of hunting and fishing in incredible parts of the world. Started crabing out of Dutch Harbor at 19 then ended up fishing salmon and herring and wintering in remote villages for a while.

My mom lived in Reno Nv so ended up skiing and partying the Lake Tahoe area during high school in the winters. Beautiful rich girls and some good times. My mom liked to travel so went all over Europe and parts of Asia.
By the time I was in my early 20s I felt like I had lead several lifetimes. Dialoged with many people with many viewpoints. Ended up still "leaning" conservative through it all, although when the neocons were in power and pushing hard I couldn't go wth the party line.

 

[RubberGuard5]

Your coin flip group example is perfect. An otherwise cohesive group gets separated arbitrarily and only then are they hostile to each other.

Look, it's obvious that both cooperation and competition are part of human nature. There's tons of examples of both throughout history. What rational people propose is to suppress the destructive, prejudiced part as much as possible and enhance the cooperative, peaceful part.

Others are happy to let this destructive, tribal side flourish. They invite it, in fact.

Unfortunately, history has taught us that this brings nothing but endless warring. That was fine for a few millennia but starting in the 20th century, the slaughter each other game was too dangerous because of technological sophistication in warfare. Our tribalism could actually, truly, end humanity.

So you got two options- Bring out the best in humanity through education and suppress the worst as much as possible. Or let the worst parts of us fly free and see what happens. Yeah, we might end the world but hey, at least we weren't forced to see Muslims prayer calls sounding, amirite?

Coin flip example doesn't show what you think it does. Research it a bit.

I'm not really sure who these others that invite the destructive side are. Practically everyone wants to suppress the destructive side and enhance the peaceful part. Disagreement is whether is it possible to suppress this destructive part, and if it is, to what extent. Fortunately, history has provided us a lot of case studies. We know that creating diversity as a method of suppressing the destructive part of human nature is a risky choice at best.

You need to examine those cases. Research Yugoslavia, 45 years of building brotherhood and unity. Affirmative action so everyone gets equitable treatment. Celebrating religious holidays with your neighbors of another faith. If you to survey these people at any point, you'd find out they weren't bigoted at all. And it just collapses over night. Some parts of our nature cannot be changed.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Coin flip example doesn't show what you think it does. Research it a bit.

I'm not really sure who these others that invite the destructive side are. Practically everyone wants to suppress the destructive side and enhance the peaceful part. Disagreement is whether is it possible to suppress this destructive part, and if it is, to what extent. Fortunately, history has provided us a lot of case studies. We know that creating diversity as a method of suppressing the destructive part of human nature is a risky choice at best.

You need to examine those cases. Research Yugoslavia, 45 years of building brotherhood and unity. Affirmative action so everyone gets equitable treatment. Celebrating religious holidays with your neighbors of another faith. If you to survey these people at any point, you'd find out they weren't bigoted at all. And it just collapses over night. Some parts of our nature cannot be changed.

Yes, diversity to suppress the destructive part of human nature is "risky at best" but giving in to our prejudiced, tribal side isn't risky at all, right? The couple of millennia where different groups expelled, enslaved or outright murdered their neighbors was just fine.

But you're right that there's lots of case studies in history. The US provides a very good one. Prior to about the late 1960s, it completely gave in to the prejudiced, tribal side and separated groups according to race, ethnicity, religion, etc. Only blatant white supremacists can deny that post Civil Rights US is a more civilized nation than the prior 300 years.

You have cases like Yugoslavia where it didn't work after 45 years but then you have cases like Germany where dozens of kingdoms were united in the late 1800s and (apart from the Cold War separation which wasn't ethnically based) have had little problems since. Similar case with Italy.

And yes, when critics bash diversity but then offer no alternative, they're tacitly supporting segregation, tribalism, nationalism and all the other things that have lead to incredible human suffering for most of our history.

 

[RubberGuard5]

Yes, diversity to suppress the destructive part of human nature is "risky at best" but giving in to our prejudiced, tribal side isn't risky at all, right? The couple of millennia where different groups expelled, enslaved or outright murdered their neighbors was just fine.

But you're right that there's lots of case studies in history. The US provides a very good one. Prior to about the late 1960s, it completely gave in to the prejudiced, tribal side and separated groups according to race, ethnicity, religion, etc. Only blatant white supremacists can deny that post Civil Rights US is a more civilized nation than the prior 300 years.

You have cases like Yugoslavia where it didn't work after 45 years but then you have cases like Germany where dozens of kingdoms were united in the late 1800s and (apart from the Cold War separation which wasn't ethnically based) have had little problems since. Similar case with Italy.

And yes, when critics bash diversity but then offer no alternative, they're tacitly supporting segregation, tribalism, nationalism and all the other things that have lead to incredible human suffering for most of our history.

I don't understand why are you trying to push me into this false dichotomy of either diversity or giving in to our tribal side. I mean, I do understand, that's how you view the world. You really think that if someone is against diversity, they are supporting all the things "that have lead to incredible human suffering for most of our history". All the while you are trying to explain that we should suppress our tribal side. Ironic, isn't it?

 

[Thunderflash500]

I wasn't sure if their was a Jewish conspiracy but now I'm pretty sure there isn't one.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

I don't understand why are you trying to push me into this false dichotomy of either diversity or giving in to our tribal side. I mean, I do understand, that's how you view the world. You really think that if someone is against diversity, they are supporting all the things "that have lead to incredible human suffering for most of our history". All the while you are trying to explain that we should suppress our tribal side. Ironic, isn't it?

I was pretty clear in what I thought: " when critics bash diversity but then offer no alternative, they're tacitly supporting segregation, tribalism,..."

If there's a way to oppose diversity but still somehow, magically, also not be tribal and segregated, I'd love to hear it. So far, I haven't heard anything convincing. It's always stuff like "Germany for the Germans!" and nostalgia about the pre-industrial period when there were no foreigners. And by "foreigners" they mean "brown and black people."

Never mind the incessant slaughtering WITHIN Europeans, that went on though. It doesn't matter. Yeah, the killings were rough but at least you didn't have to look at mosques in your town. Totally worth it.

 

[Thurisaz]

I've also grown out of belief in the validity of the theory of evolution. In my atheist days I bought it hook, line and sinker.

1. Biologists predicted genome size would increase over time, and that was wrong.
2. Biologists then predicted that gene number would increase over time, and that was wrong.
3. Biologists predicted that complex body parts would develop after simpler body parts, and that was wrong.
4. Biologists have now found that the oldest living ancestor of animals, comb jellies, already had brain, nervous system, and muscles, and that sponges later lost those genes. Complexity was there at the start.
5. Biologists have also found, through experiment, that most mutations cause a loss of complexity.

Number five renders the probability of mutation giving rise to any species ridiculous. When proponents of a theory are reliably wrong it's time to consider the option that the theory itself might be fundamentally invalid.

 

[HomeCheese]

Being a Republican.
Believing we need to spend so much on the military.
Believing that the 800 or so US military bases in around 160 countries are there to protect freedom and not corporate interests.
Believing that we pay less on gas than Europeans not realizing that when you factor how much we spend on the military in the Middle East we actually pay WAY more.

 

[RubberGuard5]

I was pretty clear in what I thought: " when critics bash diversity but then offer no alternative, they're tacitly supporting segregation, tribalism,..."

If there's a way to oppose diversity but still somehow, magically, also not be tribal and segregated, I'd love to hear it. So far, I haven't heard anything convincing. It's always stuff like "Germany for the Germans!" and nostalgia about the pre-industrial period when there were no foreigners. And by "foreigners" they mean "brown and black people."

Never mind the incessant slaughtering WITHIN Europeans, that went on though. It doesn't matter. Yeah, the killings were rough but at least you didn't have to look at mosques in your town. Totally worth it.

Do you think slaughtering stopped because we somehow suppressed our destructive side with the power of diversity? Or could it be that happened of our self-interest? This is the first time in history when we have more to gain by being peaceful than by waging wars, due to all the trade that's happening between countries. Think about it.

 

[Seano]

similar to the "political stance" thread but on specific things that you believed when you were young until you were exposed to things that changed your mind

I'll start
-academia is filled with intelligent people
-more diversity results in less racism
-the news is supposed to inform people

these were what came to mind for me too.


Teachers are more concerned with being martyrs than actually teaching kids.

As much as I hate to say it, diversity breeds confusion. We don't need diversity in culture. Race is different. Races can co exist but I do not believe cultures can.

News has taken a massive hit with the Trump/hillary election cycle, I hope people never forget,

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Do you think slaughtering stopped because we somehow suppressed our destructive side with the power of diversity? Or could it be that happened of our self-interest? This is the first time in history when we have more to gain by being peaceful than by waging wars, due to all the trade that's happening between countries. Think about it.

No, we stopped the slaughter by civilizing ourselves, convincing others that all humans really are equal and deserve equal rights and dignity. Accepting diversity stemmed naturally from this decades after.

And no, trade isn't a factor. The modern, industrial economy arose in the mid 1800s. There was all sorts of trade going on for 100+ years prior to the accepting of human rights as a political and moral imperative in the mid-1900s. Peaceful trade was a result of this, not the cause. Imperial powers stopped aiming the guns at themselves and aimed it solely at the poorer nations (unlike the prior era where they pointed them both at competing powers AND the poorer nations).

And this isn't even getting into the fact that diversity as it's known today pretty much equals brown and black people living in white countries. And they live in white countries as a result of mass migration. And mass migration is a result of capitalist economies which constantly look to maximize profit and thus are in a never ending search for cheaper materials and labor. Cheap labor was found within other white countries in the past but demographic changes have forced them to look elsewhere.

Unlike the extremely common belief, migration isn't some gift or charity that noble white nations give to the miserable, black/brown ones.

 

[RubberGuard5]

No, we stopped the slaughter by civilizing ourselves, convincing others that all humans really are equal and deserve equal rights and dignity. Accepting diversity stemmed naturally from this decades after.

And no, trade isn't a factor. The modern, industrial economy arose in the mid 1800s. There was all sorts of trade going on for 100+ years prior to the accepting of human rights as a political and moral imperative in the mid-1900s. Peaceful trade was a result of this, not the cause. Imperial powers stopped aiming the guns at themselves and aimed it solely at the poorer nations (unlike the prior era where they pointed them both at competing powers AND the poorer nations).

And this isn't even getting into the fact that diversity as it's known today pretty much equals brown and black people living in white countries. And they live in white countries as a result of mass migration. And mass migration is a result of capitalist economies which constantly look to maximize profit and thus are in a never ending search for cheaper materials and labor. Cheap labor was found within other white countries in the past but demographic changes have forced them to look elsewhere.

Unlike the extremely common belief, migration isn't some gift or charity that noble white nations give to the miserable, black/brown ones.

Wait, if there are fewer wars today because we civilized ourselves, how do you explain Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and the rest? Did we civilized ourselves selectively, or is it more likely that those wars are the result of a cost-benefit analysis?

You read Chomsky, you know why NATO wages wars. You know it's still all about self-interest. The difference today is that the wars are costly, and the potential benefit is small compared to the realistic risks. That wasn't the case in the early decades of the 20th century, hence more wars.

Today even the strongest economy of the world like the USA is struggling to finance excursions to weak nations like Iraq. Other than that, today we have corporate imperialism rather than military one, which actualy means you have more to gain by being peaceful. That's why we aren't slaughtering each other as much as we used to. Civilizing ourselves has little to do with it.

 

[cleetus]

I used to believe all this stuff:
1. That hard work pays off.
2. That everyone in jail belongs there.
3. The gov't looked out for my best interests.
4. Weed was something bad.
5. There is a god.
6. People are inherently good.
7. That "playing ball" and working hard gets you somewhere....
8. Integrity is honorable and should be upheld at all times.
9. Did I mention anything about hard work?

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Wait, if there are fewer wars today because we civilized ourselves, how do you explain Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and the rest? Did we civilized ourselves selectively, or is it more likely that those wars are the result of a cost-benefit analysis?

It's easy. Right now it's Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and a few others engaging in war. Decades and centuries past it was 3/4 of the world doing it.

Also, the amount of carnage is much smaller now, despite the technological potential to inflict great carnage being much higher.

You read Chomsky, you know why NATO wages wars. You know it's still all about self-interest. The difference today is that the wars are costly, and the potential benefit is small compared to the realistic risks. That wasn't the case in the early decades of the 20th century, hence more wars.

Yes and Chomsky himself points out how much more civilized we are now than in the past. As bad as the Iraq War was, it completely pales in comparison to Vietnam, 30 years prior. It's also the only war in history that received protests BEFORE it started. It was also much more brutal than Iraq.

Obviously aggression still exists, but it's more subdued, has to be politically justified more strongly, and receives more scrutiny than before. Again going back to Chomsky, he mentions how in the very early anti-Vietnam war demonstrations, they were only a handful of people and they needed police escort because people were absolutely outraged that they were criticizing US military action and literally were on the verge of getting violent with them.

And I'm pretty sure wars in the early 1900s were more expensive than now. Transportation was obviously much more rudimentary but nations were still willing to ship thousands of soldiers across the oceans.

Today even the strongest economy of the world like the USA is struggling to finance excursions to weak nations like Iraq. Other than that, today we have corporate imperialism rather than military one, which actualy means you have more to gain by being peaceful. That's why we aren't slaughtering each other as much as we used to. Civilizing ourselves has little to do with it.

No, violence still works best. For example, the US would love to have access to Venezuela's oil and sending the Marines there to help the opposition overthrow Maduro would be a cinch. They've done it dozens and dozens of times before.

But our politics and institutions are more civilized now and if they actually did that, the public outrage both internationally and here in the US would be too much so we do it behind closed curtains.

 

[RubberGuard5]

It's easy. Right now it's Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and a few others engaging in war. Decades and centuries past it was 3/4 of the world doing it.

Also, the amount of carnage is much smaller now, despite the technological potential to inflict great carnage being much higher.




Yes and Chomsky himself points out how much more civilized we are now than in the past. As bad as the Iraq War was, it completely pales in comparison to Vietnam, 30 years prior. It's also the only war in history that received protests BEFORE it started. It was also much more brutal than Iraq.

Obviously aggression still exists, but it's more subdued, has to be politically justified more strongly, and receives more scrutiny than before. Again going back to Chomsky, he mentions how in the very early anti-Vietnam war demonstrations, they were only a handful of people and they needed police escort because people were absolutely outraged that they were criticizing US military action and literally were on the verge of getting violent with them.

And I'm pretty sure wars in the early 1900s were more expensive than now. Transportation was obviously much more rudimentary but nations were still willing to ship thousands of soldiers across the oceans.



No, violence still works best. For example, the US would love to have access to Venezuela's oil and sending the Marines there to help the opposition overthrow Maduro would be a cinch. They've done it dozens and dozens of times before.

But our politics and institutions are more civilized now and if they actually did that, the public outrage both internationally and here in the US would be too much so we do it behind closed curtains.

We are going nowhere. Either we're civilized or not. We can't be selectively civilized. If NATO, just like every other military power in history, fights out of self-interest, and there are fewer wars than before, it's a logical conclusion that it's not in its self-interest to do it often. That's why they it only enters low risk/high reward wars like Libya.

For the rest, well, you need to find the numbers for the war cost. Quick google search tells me Iraq was more expensive than Vietnam. I'm guessing it was even less expensive before World war 2, sophisticated technology of today is expensive due to high research and maintenance cost.

It is harder to get public support for wars today, but consent can be manufactured. How hard do you think it would be to get Americans to support Iran invasion? Stage a terrorist attack against civilians, sink one of your own ships, provoke them to shoot first. Appeal to the nation's noble side by saying you are saving the oppressed people. All the standard methods used by imperial powers in history. Things haven't changed much in that regard. Did you know Napoleon invaded Russia to protect the Polish people?

I think we have exhausted this topic. A solid discussion. High five.