Thread: Understanding Diversity

This is a topic that has taken up much of my time for a number of years. Is it a good thing or a bad thing? Well now, that’s the question isn’t it?

My take:

Diversity is a good thing up to the point that any culture or belief system tries to impose itself on others. When this happens, to my mind that is the very antithesis of diversity.

So, when is it a good thing?

It is good when people are free to live the life that they choose with as little interference as is reasonably possible (we must have laws after all). But how can that happen when there is interaction between societies and ideologies that have differing viewpoints?

Well, not easily. And that is where the problems arise.

Forget wars for the sake of this discussion, be they for resources or tactical lands, and concentrate on ideologies especially those within our own borders.

There are a number of topics here on which I would like to hear (read about) other rational views.

In no particular order, just as they come to mind:

1. The gender wars (and I don’t mean between men and women):

And make no mistake, there is a battle being fought here. What constitutes being male and/or female. In my youth I hated the notion of homosexuality, it was repulsive to me as a heterosexual. Why? Because that was what I was what I was brought up to believe? Yes. And no. Whilst intellectually I have gotten past this and truly and honestly believe that it is absolutely none of my business what consenting adults get up to or believe, still (and I mean no disrespect here) there seems to be something within me, possibly genetic, that is repulsed at the sight of two men kissing, never mind the rest. This dichotomy bothers me, as it should. Nonetheless in this case at least it’s something I just have to live with. There will never be a true resolution. For those out there in the ether that are repulsed at this try to understand that I am not alone in this, it is something I have no control over.

Lately though, there is something I can’t get past intellectually, and that is gender transition. To me, a man that purports to believe he is a woman or vice-versa is a sign of mental illness and should be treated as such. I don’t care what the courts or the LGBTQ community says, to me this is no different to someone believing they are Napoleon or Nero or Mary Queen of Scots. They believe that they are something which they are not. It is delusion pure and simple.

Or maybe it isn’t. In some cases at least it seems to be done for personal gain – i.e. for males to be able to compete against females in sporting events, or perverts to be able to access toilets and changing rooms of the opposite sex. Go on, tell me I’m wrong!

2. Religion:

Another of my pet hates. Not for what it is but for what it does.

Religion, in my view, should be about SELF enlightenment. About finding a connection between oneself and the universe and what may or may not come after this life. Unfortunately it gets abused and used as a hammer to beat down those that “don’t see the world as I do”. You MUST comply! Kinda feels like what’s going on with activists that for some reason seem to be allying themselves with the left today: the weak and the disenfranchised are easily manipulated and these days the world, especially main stream media, wants us all to feel weak and disenfranchised in order to create new recruits.

Which brings me on to politics:

3. Politics:

When I was a youth (some 40 years ago) left and right wing policies were mainly about economic ideals. Which services should be controlled by the state and which should be allowed to operate in the free market.

For example, many on the left believed that natural monopolies (such as rail services) were better off run by the state. After all, there are only one set of rail tracks between A and B thereby meaning those that operated them had a monopoly. The right believed that these should be operated by the best bidder.

Both of these had valid arguments, but the whole idea of left and right seems to have gone “off the rails” (sorry for the bad pun).

Whilst the right wing seems to be for the most part adhering to this philosophy, the left seems to be taking the stance of: “If you don’t agree with me you are evil” in every walk of life.

This is NOT about diversity, in fact it is the very opposite. The left, for all their claims, seem to be about controlling not only actions but minds. You HAVE to think like we do or you are evil. Where is the proclaimed diversity in this mind-set?

4. Separatism:

Again, a dilemma for me. On the one hand it re-enforces diversity which I believe to be a good thing. Many differing views coming together on a non-political topic, say a scientific endeavour, may throw up novel ideas.

However, like religion, many take sides and believe that their view is the only view. “They aren’t like us so they can’t understand, they are inferior. We should not interact with those that have opposing views – live and let live but don’t come near me. Don’t infect me with your views.” What complete and utter bullshit. We all have different views even within our own groups. If you don’t realise this you are a moron (or very young).

Which brings me to immigration.

5. Immigration:

Open borders / closed borders. Which is best?

In an ideal world I believe all should be able to travel and live wherever the hell they like. But we don’t live in an ideal world. For many of the reasons mentioned in this post we all (in the world) have differing philosophies and for that reason (amongst others like physical location) we have evolved / devolved in to separate and distinct nations.

In this respect, for those that espouse open borders I have one simple question:

Is a country without borders still a country?

6. Sterotypes:

Why is it wrong to stereotype peoples of the world in a humorous way? Because it’s demeaning? Well what of it? Humour is at its best when it’s demeaning. No? Then why are there so many “epic fail” videos on youtube and the like. Personally I can’t stand those vids but many seem to like them. We all make mistakes in life and I believe it’s good to know we aren’t alone in this.

I’m Irish and for decades we were stereotyped as idiots, The Pakistanis were stereotyped with head nods, the Chinese as inscrutable etc. etc.

What of it? It’s a bit of fun. Lighten up for fuck’s sake.

7. Personal bugbear:

This one may be somewhat controversial. O.K. it’s VERY controversial. But I hate the use of the phrase “The ‘N’ word”. Why? Obviously the word that it represents is VERY offensive to many for obvious reasons. I have no problem with that.

But…

What when you’re trying to have a rational discussion? Does this phrase not conjure up the same images as the original word? What then is the difference? I don’t understand. It reminds me of a phrase I seen in a sci-fi series once:

“If you can’t say what you mean, then you can rarely mean what you say?”

8. Law and order:

This is a tricky one.

Laws divest us of our individuality, of our diversity. That being said they are necessary for a conducive society. In essence they are the common thing that bind us together and allow us to operate with at least some sense of freedom (covid lockdowns aside).

Most criminal laws I agree with (civil law is another topic entirely). Though their implementation in some cases is up for debate (for example male violence against women is obviously dealt with far more severely than female violence against men & white collar crime is dealt with less severely than others) – that’s political. Then again, aren’t all laws political?! I get confused (as I’ve mentioned before).

But there are some that refuse to adhere to the law or societal norms in any shape or form. All they think about is their feelz and what they want. They think nothing of robbing a working man of his tools thus depriving him of his livelihood. They are nothing but scum.

Whilst I respect their individuality this is something I cannot condone. In my youth I fell foul of the law on a number of occasions. This was my fault totally and completely. I make no excuses except for the fact I was young and naïve and at the time tried to justify myself because of the situation I happened to be born in to.

A rebel without a clue!

Now I’m older and wiser (I hope). Those that uphold law and order should be praised for their efforts. Criticise those that step beyond the pale, but don’t tarnish all of them with the same brush stroke. These are the people that make life liveable and I thank you all (truly – police, military, and other emergency services).

These are just some of my thoughts. Let me know what you think. Should all individual thought be eradicated? Is there a right way and a wrong way? Should we all think as one or should we be allowed our individualism?

I have always sought to think for myself, to be an individual. It has caused me numerous problems in life but has also given me solace. Should I conform to what others say I should think and do? This may make for an easier life, but where’s the fun in easy?

I think I know what the members here will say, but I’m always open to criticism on any or all points mentioned. Do you have any points to add?

Makes me glad there's more to think about, than if we had an all out thermal nuclear war back in October, 1962, between the US and Soviet Union. In fact, I don't think we'd be here to ponder anything other than our barren lifeless crater pocked radioactive moonscape.

I have a lot to say on this, but then again, most of what I could've said on this forum, I have said already. Although, in the light of current events and the direction the world is going on, I'd like to add one thing, which I think is becoming more and more important, especially regarding those who are some variants of libertarians (most if not all of us).

Originally Posted by Jackoff

Should all individual thought be eradicated? Is there a right way and a wrong way? Should we all think as one or should we be allowed our individualism?

I have always sought to think for myself, to be an individual. It has caused me numerous problems in life but has also given me solace. Should I conform to what others say I should think and do? This may make for an easier life, but where's the fun in easy?

Do you think there comes a point where it doesnt matter what "should" be done and the only relevant thing is what "could" be done ? What if the world at large, or atleast the immediate society falls/declines into prey-predator relationship ?

If you are a prey ? Does it matter if you are okay or not okay with the idea of diversity when the prey and predators live together ?

It is said that when you have capacity for great violence but CHOOSE not to do so, you are peaceful. If you dont have any capacity for violence, you are HARMLESS. And if you are harmless, then you are essentially a potential prey for those who can inflict harm.

Covid lockdowns : Do you have any option ? Does it really matter if you believe covid is real or not ? Does it really matter if you want to live peacefully or not ? Does it really matter if you consider yourself left wing or right wing or no wing ?

In one state of India, we are hearing that some law is about to be passed. Under this law, a person searching for porn online will have this report and all contact details automatically SMS'ed to women's helpline number. Now I dont think this is fair, and I can talk all day about this or that. But DOES IT MATTER ?

No, it doesnt. Indian government has a very large army, control over the media, and sufficient control over the minds of sufficiently large portion of population, that it makes it economically, psychologically and especially physically, impossible for me to confront or challenge any aspect of it. So all that is left is to run and hide. Now I can say all day long that I am peaceful, but AM I ?

If you dont have any capacity for violence, you are HARMLESS.

If one is without arms they are harmless and easy to corral to the killing fields. A disarmed people are a docile people at the point of a gun.

Originally Posted by mgtower

Makes me glad there's more to think about, than if we had an all out thermal nuclear war back in October, 1962, between the US and Soviet Union. In fact, I don't think we'd be here to ponder anything other than our barren lifeless crater pocked radioactive moonscape.

Yes there’s good and bad in history, and but for the politicians maybe none of us would be here.

But…

We have to deal with the here and now. Back in the day they MAY? have saved us from annihilation. Good for them (and us).

But today we are suffering under political rule. Telling us what we can and cannot do beyond normal criminal law. Normal freedoms, as it were, are being eradicated.

We are all being imprisoned under the guise of what? A flu epidemic bad as it may be?

Live free or die!

Originally Posted by rkspsm

Do you think there comes a point where it doesnt matter what "should" be done and the only relevant thing is what "could" be done ? What if the world at large, or atleast the immediate society falls/declines into prey-predator relationship ?

If you are a prey ? Does it matter if you are okay or not okay with the idea of diversity when the prey and predators live together ?

Predators and prey?

It can be no other way!

No matter what society evolves into, there will ALWAYS be the predator and the prey. Greed is part of humanity. That doesn’t mean that all are subject to this mind-set, but there will ALWAYS be those that are.

For this reason there will always be injustices. There will always be the haves and the have nots. Those bent on material gains will always succeed over those with other motives. It can be no other way.

Look at the socialist agenda, for example, that seeks to raise those in the deepest of poverty up to a decent level of living. A noble cause.

But what happens in reality is that when the lowest in society is raised up, they can afford more shit (even if that is only in the form of food).

So those that are selling the food know that they can raise the prices to make more profit. So, instead of raising up the poor in effect they add the lower earners to the poor bracket.

This goes on and on and eventually what were once considered middle class are now struggling to feed their families.

This is no news to you RKSPSM. You know what I’m talking about. There will ALWAYS be a lower class, or a range of classes, no matter the legislation.

Originally Posted by Jackoff

No matter what society evolves into, there will ALWAYS be the predator and the prey. Greed is part of humanity. That doesn’t mean that all are subject to this mind-set, but there will ALWAYS be those that are.

My point is actually a criticism on the discussions of morality and good which does not have any basis in reality, economic theory or laws of nature/biology. There are things we wish to happen and there are things that actually happen, and the difference is getting larger and larger each passing day.

The underlying principle of any morality and ethics is to know what is good or bad in the LONG run, so we dont fall for urges and traps in the short run. But before we prepare and optimize our ways for the LONG run we must SURVIVE the immediate threat, otherwise all of that is pointless. What is the point of a mind-set, however moral or good it is if it gets you killed today, and that too for no apparent long term gain ?

Indian society is slowly getting into large scale Hindu vs Muslim conflict ? So when we talk to our friends and family over dinner, when do you think we should stop discussing diversity and start discussing "what-if" ? Should we do it years before conflict ? months before ? during the conflict ? or after we are dead from the violence ?

Yes there will always be existence of lower and upper classes, the haves and have-nots, and there will always be conflict. That is one thing. Its entirely different when members of roughly same class (middle class in case of most of us I guess), are talking and there is a huge threat of one form or another, either just lurking around the corner or straight in our face (lockdowns).

Morals, ethics stop mattering when extinction is imminent. Strategy and absolute grounding to reality is the only thing which matters. And we have reached that point in ~2020 (actually several decades ago according to some).

Let me ask you your question of if diversity or religion or whatever is right and wrong, but add this condition : You have no food in your refrigerator and government has prohibited you from going out and its been days. What is right and wrong then ?

Or lets change the question a bit, same condition, but YOU happen to have food, and somehow a very violent group of 10 neighbors got to know about it. Maybe they saw smoke from chimney in your house or maybe they peeked in from the windows. And now they are assaulting your house ? Again, is the moral of "love they neighbor" relevant ?

Yes, you can always say that you are not talking about those times. And that is the point. What to do in those times need to be talked BEFORE they happen, especially when they are likely to happen based on the symptoms the current political and social climate is showing.

Lastly, if I say my point more clearly, talk of morals and ethics, based on wishful thinking of good and evil is :
1. Okay if done for entertainment.
2. Okay if done for education/debate/discussion if done in peaceful/stable times.
3. A bit irrelevant when there is an imminent survival threat (I consider few years to be called imminent).
4. Extremely inefficient if done as a coping mechanism. Better would be to talk strategy.
5. A flat out lie and dangerous if it can mislead the reader into thinking that it can save them during the threat (again, especially when threat is imminent).

TLDR: I think this is not the time to think about right or wrong, but to strategize and prepare. Ofc I am not telling you what to do, I am saying it for any reader who happens to read this thread.

I wasn’t really commenting on the morality of any given viewpoint although I understand that it may have come across that way as I gave my own viewpoint on a number of the points I made. I was instead trying to get people to think about things clearly. By all means make up your own mind; but know your mind first.

I agree that when your back’s against the wall (figuratively speaking) then the instinct is go in to survival mode, on an individual level anyhow, and certainly in the scenario you speak of: the mob coming for your possessions.

However, when it comes to building strategies I’m not so sure. When the shit hits the fan I agree it’s win or lose, live or die; but up until that point – especially when it seems imminent – it’s more important than ever to know just what it is you’re about to fight for. Is it purely about possessions or is it for a way of life?

For example, when it comes to immigration there’s something I just don’t get. If you emigrate to a different culture because you believe it to be better than the one you’re leaving why do so many seem to want to bring their culture with them? I would have thought it was incumbent on the immigrant to do everything they can to acclimate to their new home, especially with regards learning of the language and perhaps learning a new social etiquette. Easier said than done I know, but what’s the point of making such a big move otherwise?

Originally Posted by Jackoff

I wasn’t really commenting on the morality of any given viewpoint although I understand that it may have come across that way as I gave my own viewpoint on a number of the points I made. I was instead trying to get people to think about things clearly. By all means make up your own mind; but know your mind first.

I agree that when your back’s against the wall (figuratively speaking) then the instinct is go in to survival mode, on an individual level anyhow, and certainly in the scenario you speak of: the mob coming for your possessions.

However, when it comes to building strategies I’m not so sure. When the shit hits the fan I agree it’s win or lose, live or die; but up until that point – especially when it seems imminent – it’s more important than ever to know just what it is you’re about to fight for. Is it purely about possessions or is it for a way of life?

I agree with knowing your mind, and if I talk about my mind, I'd say I actually want the same things most of the people on this forum want. To be left alone. I'd like to stay away from the mess, draw lots of naked women (I think I do that a bit too much ), practice my piano (a new hobby I picked up) or code some cool games (I have so many ideas in my head)...

But, I am quite convinced at this point, based on what I see happening in the world, and in the immediate society, that the fantasy I am living in right now, is not going to last, maybe one decade more at best. I might be wrong, I hope I am wrong.

Regarding building strategies, I was actually not referring to fighting, there is nothing here to fight for, no point fighting for this messed up society. I'd like to fight for people who will also fight for me, in other words, if I am part of an armed militia. That is not the case here. So I was mainly concerned about running away, dodging the trouble. Not very different from how I dodged the women.

And dodging anything, be it a large SHTF situation or simply a punch, is best done when you anticipate it BEFORE it happens. I'd rather not wait for "until that point", because when that point comes, and here I am actually learning from YOUR situation, I will be locked up in my own country with no way to escape. At that point my options will be severly limited. No, I seriously DONT want that. If I have to run away, I'd like to do it when nothing is happening, cuz that is the BEST time to do it.

I'd rather be a paranoid freak than a dead man.

Originally Posted by Jackoff

For example, when it comes to immigration there’s something I just don’t get. If you emigrate to a different culture because you believe it to be better than the one you’re leaving why do so many seem to want to bring their culture with them? I would have thought it was incumbent on the immigrant to do everything they can to acclimate to their new home, especially with regards learning of the language and perhaps learning a new social etiquette. Easier said than done I know, but what’s the point of making such a big move otherwise?

On individual level, which I know by talking to ppl around me who either dream of migrating to some country or already migrated, I'd say its the very same mentality which women have when they ask for equality in jobs. They dont want bad jobs or responsibilities, just the benefits, because in their head they believe its wrong that they are not getting all the goodies. There is one to one mapping, most of the time as per what I have seen (which means sample space is low, take it with a grain of salt).

Originally Posted by Jackoff

This is a topic that has taken up much of my time for a number of years. Is it a good thing or a bad thing? Well now, that’s the question isn’t it?

My take:

Diversity is a good thing up to the point that any culture or belief system tries to impose itself on others. When this happens, to my mind that is the very antithesis of diversity.

So, when is it a good thing?

It is good when people are free to live the life that they choose with as little interference as is reasonably possible (we must have laws after all). But how can that happen when there is interaction between societies and ideologies that have differing viewpoints?

Well, not easily. And that is where the problems arise.

Forget wars for the sake of this discussion, be they for resources or tactical lands, and concentrate on ideologies especially those within our own borders.

There are a number of topics here on which I would like to hear (read about) other rational views.

In no particular order, just as they come to mind:

1. The gender wars (and I don’t mean between men and women):

And make no mistake, there is a battle being fought here. What constitutes being male and/or female. In my youth I hated the notion of homosexuality, it was repulsive to me as a heterosexual. Why? Because that was what I was what I was brought up to believe? Yes. And no. Whilst intellectually I have gotten past this and truly and honestly believe that it is absolutely none of my business what consenting adults get up to or believe, still (and I mean no disrespect here) there seems to be something within me, possibly genetic, that is repulsed at the sight of two men kissing, never mind the rest. This dichotomy bothers me, as it should. Nonetheless in this case at least it’s something I just have to live with. There will never be a true resolution. For those out there in the ether that are repulsed at this try to understand that I am not alone in this, it is something I have no control over.

Lately though, there is something I can’t get past intellectually, and that is gender transition. To me, a man that purports to believe he is a woman or vice-versa is a sign of mental illness and should be treated as such. I don’t care what the courts or the LGBTQ community says, to me this is no different to someone believing they are Napoleon or Nero or Mary Queen of Scots. They believe that they are something which they are not. It is delusion pure and simple.

Or maybe it isn’t. In some cases at least it seems to be done for personal gain – i.e. for males to be able to compete against females in sporting events, or perverts to be able to access toilets and changing rooms of the opposite sex. Go on, tell me I’m wrong!

2. Religion:

Another of my pet hates. Not for what it is but for what it does.

Religion, in my view, should be about SELF enlightenment. About finding a connection between oneself and the universe and what may or may not come after this life. Unfortunately it gets abused and used as a hammer to beat down those that “don’t see the world as I do”. You MUST comply! Kinda feels like what’s going on with activists that for some reason seem to be allying themselves with the left today: the weak and the disenfranchised are easily manipulated and these days the world, especially main stream media, wants us all to feel weak and disenfranchised in order to create new recruits.

Which brings me on to politics:

3. Politics:

When I was a youth (some 40 years ago) left and right wing policies were mainly about economic ideals. Which services should be controlled by the state and which should be allowed to operate in the free market.

For example, many on the left believed that natural monopolies (such as rail services) were better off run by the state. After all, there are only one set of rail tracks between A and B thereby meaning those that operated them had a monopoly. The right believed that these should be operated by the best bidder.

Both of these had valid arguments, but the whole idea of left and right seems to have gone “off the rails” (sorry for the bad pun).

Whilst the right wing seems to be for the most part adhering to this philosophy, the left seems to be taking the stance of: “If you don’t agree with me you are evil” in every walk of life.

This is NOT about diversity, in fact it is the very opposite. The left, for all their claims, seem to be about controlling not only actions but minds. You HAVE to think like we do or you are evil. Where is the proclaimed diversity in this mind-set?

4. Separatism:

Again, a dilemma for me. On the one hand it re-enforces diversity which I believe to be a good thing. Many differing views coming together on a non-political topic, say a scientific endeavour, may throw up novel ideas.

However, like religion, many take sides and believe that their view is the only view. “They aren’t like us so they can’t understand, they are inferior. We should not interact with those that have opposing views – live and let live but don’t come near me. Don’t infect me with your views.” What complete and utter bullshit. We all have different views even within our own groups. If you don’t realise this you are a moron (or very young).

Which brings me to immigration.

5. Immigration:

Open borders / closed borders. Which is best?

In an ideal world I believe all should be able to travel and live wherever the hell they like. But we don’t live in an ideal world. For many of the reasons mentioned in this post we all (in the world) have differing philosophies and for that reason (amongst others like physical location) we have evolved / devolved in to separate and distinct nations.

In this respect, for those that espouse open borders I have one simple question:

Is a country without borders still a country?

6. Sterotypes:

Why is it wrong to stereotype peoples of the world in a humorous way? Because it’s demeaning? Well what of it? Humour is at its best when it’s demeaning. No? Then why are there so many “epic fail” videos on youtube and the like. Personally I can’t stand those vids but many seem to like them. We all make mistakes in life and I believe it’s good to know we aren’t alone in this.

I’m Irish and for decades we were stereotyped as idiots, The Pakistanis were stereotyped with head nods, the Chinese as inscrutable etc. etc.

What of it? It’s a bit of fun. Lighten up for fuck’s sake.

7. Personal bugbear:

This one may be somewhat controversial. O.K. it’s VERY controversial. But I hate the use of the phrase “The ‘N’ word”. Why? Obviously the word that it represents is VERY offensive to many for obvious reasons. I have no problem with that.

But…

What when you’re trying to have a rational discussion? Does this phrase not conjure up the same images as the original word? What then is the difference? I don’t understand. It reminds me of a phrase I seen in a sci-fi series once:

“If you can’t say what you mean, then you can rarely mean what you say?”

8. Law and order:

This is a tricky one.

Laws divest us of our individuality, of our diversity. That being said they are necessary for a conducive society. In essence they are the common thing that bind us together and allow us to operate with at least some sense of freedom (covid lockdowns aside).

Most criminal laws I agree with (civil law is another topic entirely). Though their implementation in some cases is up for debate (for example male violence against women is obviously dealt with far more severely than female violence against men & white collar crime is dealt with less severely than others) – that’s political. Then again, aren’t all laws political?! I get confused (as I’ve mentioned before).

But there are some that refuse to adhere to the law or societal norms in any shape or form. All they think about is their feelz and what they want. They think nothing of robbing a working man of his tools thus depriving him of his livelihood. They are nothing but scum.

Whilst I respect their individuality this is something I cannot condone. In my youth I fell foul of the law on a number of occasions. This was my fault totally and completely. I make no excuses except for the fact I was young and naïve and at the time tried to justify myself because of the situation I happened to be born in to.

A rebel without a clue!

Now I’m older and wiser (I hope). Those that uphold law and order should be praised for their efforts. Criticise those that step beyond the pale, but don’t tarnish all of them with the same brush stroke. These are the people that make life liveable and I thank you all (truly – police, military, and other emergency services).

These are just some of my thoughts. Let me know what you think. Should all individual thought be eradicated? Is there a right way and a wrong way? Should we all think as one or should we be allowed our individualism?

I have always sought to think for myself, to be an individual. It has caused me numerous problems in life but has also given me solace. Should I conform to what others say I should think and do? This may make for an easier life, but where’s the fun in easy?

I think I know what the members here will say, but I’m always open to criticism on any or all points mentioned. Do you have any points to add?

Hi, hope you don't mind if I jump in ?!

I do believe diversity to be a good thing only where there is context in some form. What happens when there are too many disparate biews,cultures or even ethnicities ? From the little I have been able to personally observe and study from history, there tends to result in balkanization as the structure becomes so all encompasing it means nothing to be part of it.

Lest we forget, humans form communities they identify with first of all for safety and potential benefits before other rudimentary nconcepts like fairness and morals are considered. If being part of a colective confers no identity because it refuses to be defined, then eventually it will collapse in upon itself as no one would have the will to maintain a system which means nothing to their identity.

I read somewhere that countries whom are isolated for too long eventually end up being technologically backward and even losing the military meetle that sustains a community . A good example is Japan's isolationism, which was eventually forcefully terminated due to their technology not keeping up with the times; despite having a thriving warrior culture. So while I think diversity is good, I don't think it's inherently good merely because of its inclusivity.

In regard to your comment about the male-female thing, I think first off, we have to look at the society as a whole . Most people get their values from society and when there is a tilt in one direction or another the members of the herd inevitably are the most likely indicators of the situation .

Transition between sexes is quite common in nature such as the clown fish,frogs I think and a few other organisms. Now while it might seem different because one is biological and the other technological, I beg to differ, because inherently man has long been regarded as the tool user . So while our evolutionary path seems quite unnatural, it still follows the same dictates as every other organism. I think in the case of the clown fish when the head female dies, a male changes into a female and takes up that position.

Not to casigate anyone but I do believe there is ample evidence that suggests human societies also function along somewhat similar dynamics . If you look through history, it seems when women become aggressive and unappealing, some men usually go celibate, some become "players", some then take up the role of emotional support in forms akin to gay and other similar relations .

I'm neither condemning nor condoning, just stating what I have observed . We humans tend to forget, that while we might make claims of being higher creatures, we are still animals and "herd animals" at that.
There are usually social indicators for the acceptability and manifestation of such behaviour is what I'm saying.

On the issue of religion, I think most people do not practice religion because they believe it has some truths to teach but because they want to be in with the right group that puts them in a position of benefit.
Freud was right on religion being wishful thinking in this regard, in my opinion, but where he missed the mark is that he was using the lowest common denominator of the people who professed a belief merely out of convenience and not as a genuine conviction it would be a path to personal growth.
I think that identification is still found even in people whom become football hooligans, there really is no justification for their violent behaviour as regards the outcome of the match but it gives their lives some meaning and helps let off some pent up rage. All the better when you know god wants you to kill the other fucker. People want simple answers basically .


As regards politics, I think you are right on the money. I can only add that, there does tend to be an oscillation between the extremes of leftism in the present form, but lets not forget that there have been similar situations created by right wing ideologues . I think in the end its not really about the politics but rather the kind of people who are engaged in it. Once someone is willing to forgo all moral principles to pursue their goals, then it doesn't matter what views they espouse, destruction will follow in their wake as surely as night follows day. Personally, I believe both ends of the political spectrum are necessary for a sane society.

Actually, I think separatism does have it's virtues. I think in the bible there is a verse where a writer advises one of his followers that despite him getting to a point where moral preachments about food and such superstitious seeming talk, might not apply to him anymore, he still ought to ty to set an example for those who have not attained that state .

I think we tend to forget how easy people are to influence, especially when their emotions are stirred up as regards a perceived injustice. A good demographic are children up till their teenage years but sometimes it even extends beyond that. So while I would say seperatism is not a good idea, because you do not grow immunity to suffering by hiding from it; be that disease or even ideas. But I think society was formed for the express purpose of being a bulwark against the unpredictable but youhave to still go out into the chaos like Jordan Peterson would say;thsts where growth occurs.


I agree that the concept of open borders is meaningless, because the only reason why it is even being considered, is as a result of the safety presently conferred by having closed borders. That illusion of safety will be quickly lost if things are allowed to proceed as such.


Stereotypes while one dimensional, serve as a cultural mnemonic to help guide one's interaction . We tend to concentrate on only the negative stereotypes though, there are plenty examples of positives stereotypes all around but humans seem to be more attuned to negative emotion, which brings me to the next point you made.

The infamous "N" word. From what I have come to understand, it originated from an attribution of color to a particular group of people but due to slave trade it took on a negative connotation . Whats funny to me now though, is that the black men of American extraction, have sort of redeemed the word from that taint of negativity. When a black man uses that word in reference to a friend it's usually as a term of endearment and loyalty; this trend has even seeped into mainstream culture, where even white musicians and fans are keen to use the word to describe themselves and their posse . The thing though is that emotional scarring of racism blinds blacks from seeing that they have actually redeemed the word and flipped it into a positive thing. That's what feminists want to play on, but they fail to understand that the word was not owned because they used it more frequently on themselves but because it came to be associated with virtue, but that's a dead horse we'll flog another day.

Essentially, I believe that as long as men are willing to have honest intellectual interactions, then the intent behind the use of a word should always be assumed to be positive, and if in doubt clarification can be sought .


On your final point, I think both conformity and rebellion are necessary to any conscious society, a herd heading off a cliff can only be saved by the one who has the common sense to question the direction things are headed. While I'm not one to rebel simply for the sake of rebelling, I do believe its a duty to stand by the truth your consciousness has bestowed upon you. If an individual's worth is questioned, then by default the whole community of humanity cannot be worth anything, for it is individuals that constitute the herd.

I think for too long people have lived in relative safety, so they think the checks and balances of society are unnecessary. One difference I continually try to point out is that, at this point in history, humanity might be the most technologically advanced, (even that is questionable but for the sake of arguement, lets say it's so ) but it does not mean we are anymore civilised than at any other point as a collective. Individually ?! Maybe. But that's the whole crux of the point I was trying to make, lest future generations mock us, as we do the greeks for the murder of their most virtuous soul...

I enjoyed reading your thoughts, it gave me pause to consider my position on these issues, for that I say thank you. Do have a great day .

Cheers

Originally Posted by African-Daoist

The infamous "N" word. From what I have come to understand, it originated from an attribution of color to a particular group of people

Hmmm, I thought Jackoff was talking about the other N word... the one which represents a particular group of whites, mostly from 1930s...

Originally Posted by rkspsm

Hmmm, I thought Jackoff was talking about the other N word... the one which represents a particular group of whites, mostly from 1930s...

?

No, African-Daoist was right about the word to which I was referring. I think, maybe, it stems from 'Nigerian'.

Which word are you referring to? Maybe you could P.M. me if you think it too inflammatory to post openly.

Originally Posted by African-Daoist

Hi, hope you don't mind if I jump in ?!

The more the merrier. You've raised some great points that I'll have to reflect on a little before commenting.

Originally Posted by Jackoff

?

No, African-Daoist was right about the word to which I was referring. I think, maybe, it stems from 'Nigerian'.

Which word are you referring to? Maybe you could P.M. me if you think it too inflammatory to post openly.

I think you are quite right in regard to the root of the word Nigeria, but what I was getting at, was that the meaning of the word initially had no emotional charge of negativity attached to it, as a cursory research into the origin of the word will show, it simply means one of a dark skin coloration; black if you want to be pedanic about it. Humans have always labelled what they come in contact with by using their own perceptions and ideals as a standard. So I don't think it strange that such a word was chosen .

It just goes to show how emotional people can get over a word that inherently does not even imply inferiority, simply because their historical memory as a group has reflexively come to regard any reference to such, as a slight on their person. I think essentially it's like Baudrilard said in simulacra and simulation; the representation has taken over the role of the real . The map has replaced the real world and in essence is even more real .

I think it would be best if I stop at this point as I don't want to infringe upon the rules of the forum, but I hope my explanation lent some clarity as regards my initial comments . Cheers

Originally Posted by Jackoff

The more the merrier. You've raised some great points that I'll have to reflect on a little before commenting.

Looking forward to it .

Originally Posted by African-Daoist

what I was getting at, was that the meaning of the word initially had no emotional charge of negativity attached to it

I believe this too. I believe it was merely a descriptive term no different from tall or short or fat or skinny. But, of course, these days people have to attach morality to almost everything. Now it is considered offensive to refer to someone as fat even if they are. No different.

Originally Posted by Jackoff

I believe this too. I believe it was merely a descriptive term no different from tall or short or fat or skinny. But, of course, these days people have to attach morality to almost everything. Now it is considered offensive to refer to someone as fat even if they are. No different.

First they get rid of the words, after that, they get rid tongues that speak them.

Originally Posted by Jackoff

?

No, African-Daoist was right about the word to which I was referring. I think, maybe, it stems from 'Nigerian'.

Which word are you referring to? Maybe you could P.M. me if you think it too inflammatory to post openly.

The word probably was intended to be inflammatory, probably, maybe, dunno.. but the left has been using it so much lately, it has lost all its punch. And I am quite sure, to them, everyone on this forum, their grandma and their dog, can be labelled with this !!!

And the word is : N A Z I

Originally Posted by African-Daoist

It just goes to show how emotional people can get over a word that inherently does not even imply inferiority...

I think it does imply inferiority in a way, but before I explain ...

Originally Posted by Jackoff

... tall or short or fat or skinny..

Yes, the short and fat does imply inferiority, again if we stop denying the reality that individuals are different. And the MEANING of difference is that you are not equal to the other in every aspect. Now nature has no notion of "fairness", it may make you inferior in too many aspects and superior in very little or none.

The pareto distribution is easily evidenced in every aspect of life. A small fraction at top is always better in almost every aspect than a small fraction from the bottom.

The fat person is LIKELY inferior in several regards, he/she can be slow in sports, slow in combat, low in stamina and energy, low in sexual appeal, messed up with hormones resulting in depression, having more health problems, etc etc and list goes on. So telling someone is fat, is REMINDING them that they are LIKELY inferior in several of the aspects WITHOUT anything to have superiority in.

I have to stress on the word "LIKELY", because that is the key in understanding the supposed "inferiority" of the n-word. For whatever reason, moral or immoral, there are several ways where blacks were and even are EVIDENCED to be inferior to whites. Again, I am only talking about confirmed facts, history, and nothing else. Be it prosperity of society, advancement in tech, advancement in arts and culture, and last but not least, they were conquered over by the whites/europeans.

Now on the n-word, the usage of n-word is often attributed to your intention of insulting the person, not very different from calling that person a dog or an ass. But this insult is a very widespread shot, from a shotgun. You are essentially telling them, as a reminder, that they and their family, belong to a group, which are evidenced to be inferior, so he is likely inferior.

Nature is BRUTALLY unfair, and lots of people have a lot of difficulty in digesting this. Its the reddest of the red pill. The bottom is soo soo inferior in so many ways that its HOPELESS for them to compete with even the average in many walks of life, forget any competition with crème de la crème of the society. And that too permanently in their life, unfixable by any means whatsoever, atleast none we have found so far.

Why talking about evidence is important ? Because people are so fixated that they were "defeated" that they dont even want to understand why. I see that in my fellow indians all the damn time. They are soo butthurt that they were colonized by Britain, that they dont want to analyze WHY. And because of that, they are certain to repeat the mistakes, they made it over and over and over again (yeah, indians were so weak, that every wandering group was able to come and plunder/conquer us). You gotta learn from defeats, both as individual and as society/civilization. Or else you will be defeated again, justifying any stereotypes others have about you.

Originally Posted by rkspsm

I think it does imply inferiority in a way, but before I explain ...



Yes, the short and fat does imply inferiority, again if we stop denying the reality that individuals are different. And the MEANING of difference is that you are not equal to the other in every aspect. Now nature has no notion of "fairness", it may make you inferior in too many aspects and superior in very little or none.

The pareto distribution is easily evidenced in every aspect of life. A small fraction at top is always better in almost every aspect than a small fraction from the bottom.

The fat person is LIKELY inferior in several regards, he/she can be slow in sports, slow in combat, low in stamina and energy, low in sexual appeal, messed up with hormones resulting in depression, having more health problems, etc etc and list goes on. So telling someone is fat, is REMINDING them that they are LIKELY inferior in several of the aspects WITHOUT anything to have superiority in.

I have to stress on the word "LIKELY", because that is the key in understanding the supposed "inferiority" of the n-word. For whatever reason, moral or immoral, there are several ways where blacks were and even are EVIDENCED to be inferior to whites. Again, I am only talking about confirmed facts, history, and nothing else. Be it prosperity of society, advancement in tech, advancement in arts and culture, and last but not least, they were conquered over by the whites/europeans.

Now on the n-word, the usage of n-word is often attributed to your intention of insulting the person, not very different from calling that person a dog or an ass. But this insult is a very widespread shot, from a shotgun. You are essentially telling them, as a reminder, that they and their family, belong to a group, which are evidenced to be inferior, so he is likely inferior.

Nature is BRUTALLY unfair, and lots of people have a lot of difficulty in digesting this. Its the reddest of the red pill. The bottom is soo soo inferior in so many ways that its HOPELESS for them to compete with even the average in many walks of life, forget any competition with crème de la crème of the society. And that too permanently in their life, unfixable by any means whatsoever, atleast none we have found so far.

Why talking about evidence is important ? Because people are so fixated that they were "defeated" that they dont even want to understand why. I see that in my fellow indians all the damn time. They are soo butthurt that they were colonized by Britain, that they dont want to analyze WHY. And because of that, they are certain to repeat the mistakes, they made it over and over and over again (yeah, indians were so weak, that every wandering group was able to come and plunder/conquer us). You gotta learn from defeats, both as individual and as society/civilization. Or else you will be defeated again, justifying any stereotypes others have about you.

I was slow to respond because I did not want to be reactive, merely as a result of trying to defend the common heritage I share with black Americans . After going over your comments a second time, I do believe it is necessary for me to respond to certain assertions you made,whether out of inadequate information on the history of the region or merely lack of interest, which I would consider a more likely reason for your comments.

I do seek the indulgence of the mods as regards this and I think if this conversation is to continue beyond this point, we would do it via pm's going forward .

First off, your comment about defeat in warfare being an indication of inferiority seems odd to me, given that in another prior post, you had asserted that even if a superior alien power offered you terms you found violated your individual sovereignty, you'd fight them even though certainty of death was evident . From that I am led to believe that you don't really believe that being better at violence is an indicator of superiority, otherwise I question why you'd resist at all ?

Consequently, it comes to mind that over the life span of humanity on this rock, very few people have not in one form or the other been conquered in warfare, resulting in vassalage,slavery and other indignities . Even the British who at one point held sway over India and a large portion of the world, where at one time under the dominion of the Romans .
I am sure you did not know this but before a lot of communities in my country where conquered it took years of warfare and thats because of the fact that there are over 200 linguistic groups ( just do a web search ) which have totally different authority structures . So it was not some monolithic culture which had a central government that was toppled but rather the people from different tribes did not share much in common to begin with, you can check that out if in doubt.


As regards your comment about prosperity, I think it means different things to different people and hence there can be no singular yardstick to quantify that. What however can be used is the quality of life and contentment found amongst the people and I doubt we can accurately estimate that in any objective way, so I will pass over that.


You mention advancement in arts and culture again using a single brush stroke to describe a region about which you evidently know so little, just so you know the egyptians where historically a black culture and at its height people from all over the world came to learn mathematics, geometry and many emerging technological innovations. Pythagoras and a lot of other prominent western scholars travelled to egypt to learn the wisdom that built the foundations of their city states . You can probably do a web search for the great wall of zimbabwe,the ancient churches in ethiopia and so many other marvels on the continent. So we were not swinging on tree branches prior to losing the battle, just like no other culture around the world is accused of such backwardness, it baffles me why that fable still persists. For example my tribe (edo) has historical records going back farther than that of the house of Windsor,make of that what you will. I used egyptians because that would be easiest for you to verify.

Finally, you come to the issue of technology and my assumption is you are using the present metric of what you see on television, shown by people looking to make a quick buck off the ravages of war torn areas of the countries of Africa . Isn't it funny they never show the major cities ? Just the back water areas to curry your sympathy. Technologically though, I have to say well, it depends on what the technology is being applied to and even then why single Africa out of the other cultures around the world who are also not as advanced in the modern context ? That I will concede but so what I ask ? Various nations have stood at the top heap of humanity over the years and now we don't consider them so godlike as they were viewed then. The egyptians, Babylonians,Romans,Persians e.t.c, come to mind . Yet I am sure if you go to compare them technologically with America for example, they'd be at a serious deficit but does that then detract from their worth as humans ? I think an emphatic no is obvious.

You used the analogy of fat as being a slur but there is some utility to being fat, a healthy fat man is probably going to be stronger than a healthy skinny man all things being equal, thats why there are weight classes in combat sports but not height classes. Using a singular arbitrary criteria to determine the worth of a person is actually not a good metric to determine value at all . Dwayne "the rock " Johnson could probably best Bill Gates in a fight, but that does not mean he is superior.

Subjectively selecting criteria which agree with one's preestablished bias, is the whole origin of the intolerance so common in modern society .

Lest we get bogged down trading anecdotes, I did mention the issue of slavery previously but what I was getting at you seemed to miss . I was merely stating that words can take on a meaning completely unrelated to their origin . Of course fat and thin are used pejoratively, but it was merely at some point used descriptively. In fact in Africa a muscular slim man is consisered to be probably poor and a fat man is seen as the standard . Either way the knowledge of BMI should be the guide, not some arbritary standards seens in a movie. It's like how women see the intelligent,tall,suave, muscular,romantic, rogue in the movie and want a man like that; never mind that some of those qualities are mutually exclusive. The notion that one person is perfect because they look a certain way, does a great diservice to humanity . There are so many dimensions where we could find common ground and if we find it difficult to forgo competition, we can do like the prophet muhammad said " strive to exceed each other in virtue ". One thing we do agree on though, is one ought to learn from past errors. Do have a good day .

Cheers