Proud to be a member of the anti-Trump tribe.

Proud to be a member of the anti-Boris tribe.

Anti-Statist and indifferent about it.

Just a personal tick, but I am beginning to wish people would just shut-the-fuck-up about all their alleged differences.

Yes, it is true we all have differences, and are kind of wedded to our many delightful uniquenesses. To the quip that "It takes all kinds of people to make a world." Winston Churchill drily remarked, "It doesn't take all kinds of people, there just are."

It is also true that human beings are fundamentally more alike than we are different. We are, after all, a specific species, and like all the other species on earth, we are identifiable by a mass of features which are common across the population. One of our common features is the capacity to come up with absurd ideas which verge on or slop over into the territory of the downright stupid.

One such absurd idea is that a man can become a woman, or a woman can become a man, and that once this has been declared, everybody should fall into line in acknowledging this miracle which occurs with singular rarity in the animal and plant kingdoms. Mammals. as it happens, can not change their sex. Period. You can slice things off and reconstruct, but sex can not be changed.

We can be grouped into pairs, families, clans, tribes, interest groups, nations, and so forth. But more than the details of clan, tribe, interest group, and so on we remain human beings, Homo sapiens, with so much more in common than that which differentiates us. We are, of course, individuals. Most animals, rats on up to the Pope, are individually unique. The identity that matters most is one's identity as a human-being-becoming-a-person. Because becoming a person is something everyone in our species tends toward.

Two Statists and one Anti-Statist? One can be proud but at the same time indifferent. I think this is the best way. This way, differences are recognized but one doesn’t have to give up one’s identity. One can also learn if one is indifferent and can strengthen one’s justifications. That’s something one can be proud of.

The identity that matters most is one's identity as a human-being-becoming-a-person. We can be grouped into pairs, families, clans, tribes, interest groups, nations, and so forth. — Bitter Crank

Agreed.

Whether I am anti-state, pro-state, indifferent or deferential depends very much on the state.

Understandable. Coercion always looks attractive when the 'good guys' are doing the coercing. The problem is that coercion is always a predatory activity, which improves the situation of one party only at the expensive of another. It follows that a State, which is by its very nature an agency of coercion, can never 'represent' the people simpliciter but will always be wielded as a weapon by some against others.

The identity that matters most is one's identity as a human-being-becoming-a-person. We can be grouped into pairs, families, clans, tribes, interest groups, nations, and so forth. — Bitter Crank

Let me kindly spice this. Let´s say that I completely disagree with you, in a rational way. People get married to trees, so it kind of confuses me and my notion of person (who can be grouped?). Will my disagreement bother you in great manner? Do you think I have a point here? Or the natural rush you feel against my disagreement will impel you to illogical and nonsensical fallacies?

I know that this questions seem barely relevant, but the way mankind constructs it´s range of acceptances (and it travels real fast in our days!!) appear to me very decisively in the selectivity of futures generations of mankind.

And it also goes the other way: did you know that companies (and even states!) have quotes for hiring people according their race or creed, even if they (like you said) "group" themselves with people that are not the best fitted to perform the tasks they should? All of this in the name of "resolving and annihilating differences" - it is political correct to think so.

Imagine that we have a Savannah, and four lions. But only two gazelles. Imagine now that the lion community decides that lions with only 3 legs should also be entitled to eat a gazelle (in the name of equal opportunities and for the greater good). So, from the 4 lions, 2 lions with four legs will starve and will not have cubs, and the next generation of lions will, probably, have a higher number of lions with 3 legs. You see where it´s going. Can it happen that one day no lion can catch a gazelle? Is it extinction a possibility?

Now, think about today and how we humans are organizing our social environment, and how are we compelled to be flawless in doing the morally correct things.

Going back to the start (what a twist), you can political influence others to completely disagree with me (or because I´m wrong or because you, personally, can´t face the fact that you are less right than me), and in fernesin of constructed set of rules for good and evil (morality) set me apart and ensure that, in the long run, that my genes are not to be passed on.

I´m 40 years old (probably older than all of you), and what I perceive is that we humans, both individually and socially, are getting much more sensitivity to differences. And also overreacting to their existence.

I think this is not a such unimportant subject as you might think. And, off course, I state this with most respect and zero intention to offend.

(just the cherry: personal provocation by opposite ideas between great minds has, historically, given birth to important conclusions and added up knowledge).

(just the cherry: personal provocation by opposite ideas between great minds has, historically, given birth to important conclusions and added up knowledge). — James Pullman

Often times the synthesis or completely original idea formed after considering a battle of minds is done by a third party. Some can learn. Others are more stubborn. The current state of affairs in Western democracies and the coercion of the several autocracies is decidedly stubborn.

I agree. We are going the ants way ;)

It is often the case that the respective tribes cannot even agree on many facts. — Noah Te Stroete

This is because they aren't using facts. Facts are only important in science, not in politics. While political parties may use scientific knowledge to support their views, it is often cherry-picked.

The rise of identity politics is the result of the State focusing on our differences to use them to divide us. Instead of focusing on the corruption of the elites in government positions, they have us pointing the finger at each other.

The rise of identity politics is the result of the State focusing on our differences to use them to divide us. Instead of focusing on the corruption of the elites in government positions, they have us pointing the finger at each other. — Harry Hindu

Not only that. The “State” itself is equally divided.

Not only that. The “State” itself is equally divided. — Noah Te Stroete

That is only the show that they put on for their constituents. They all work together to expand the powers of government over the governed. Behind closed doors they are all pals.

That is only the show that they put on for their constituents. They all work together to expand the powers of government over the governed. Behind closed doors they are all pals. — Harry Hindu

I have no doubt that they can set aside their differences at times, and that many of them are friends, but I don’t subscribe to that particular flavor of conspiracy theory.

As I see it, it all comes to banks, money, power. This is very zeitgeistish, i reckon. Politics are the show indeed, the bread to the people, the coliseum to us Romans. Everywhere in the world.

Also interesting is that the origin of the word "GOOD". It was said of the families/tribes/groups that held more possessions/lands/animals/warriors (before money existed).

Politics started well. Then GOOD things happen to them. As it does with everything. ;)

Politics are the show indeed, the bread to the people, the coliseum to us Romans. Everywhere in the world. — James Pullman

It seems to be better in the Scandinavian countries. There the governments appear to work for the people. The institutions of my country aren’t inherently bad, but there are many bad people running them. That said, there are “good” people in my government who have “good” policy positions that would greatly benefit the people. Elizabeth Warren is one. I doubt she is all buddy buddy with Devin Nunez.

As I see it, it all comes to banks, money, power. This is very zeitgeistish, i reckon. Politics are the show indeed, the bread to the people, the coliseum to us Romans. Everywhere in the world. — James Pullman

Money is power, which why money should be taken out of politics. Take out the political parties as well so that people are forced to vote for ideas, not for party, or the ones that are on tv the most because they have more money.

I like your ideas. Power came before money, way before. Power is, in essence, having the means to aim for immortality (it´s just a poetical manner to say that if you have power your genes will endure and sustain).

And power can be very strong and it can disguised itself in many ways, it has done that since there are records of human history.

But i like your ideas, you understand the system, and you feel compelled to defy it, and that is, like Trump would say it: Great!. But do you know why you think like that? -equal rights for everyone is not an allowed answer :)

Hint: Life main goal is to keep on going...

There is no cabal that is pulling the strings and pulling the wool over our eyes. There are only and have always been opportunists. Opportunists who passed on their legacies through the generations, maybe, but there is no conspiracy aimed at keeping you in the dark and powerless.

This thread is getting way off topic. Recognizing and accepting that there is the Other, that the Other lives in our communities, that we should engage with the Other (because there will always be an Other) and try to understand and learn from them; lest our beliefs and ideas become stagnant (like lizards of the mind). Through learning and synthesizing ideas from the Other, progress becomes possible.

This thread is getting way off topic — Noah Te Stroete

Subject specific morality? :) :)

The best we can do is recognize others are different and try to learn from them. Not only does this lead to becoming better thinkers, it also leads to discovery, of ourselves and the world around us. — Noah Te Stroete

‘Regardless of its significance to me, it matters because of its significance to you’.

I think we struggle to understand and therefore discover the world at this level, and instead feel compelled to position all interactions in relation to our perspective of value - particularly moral value. And so everything must be positioned somewhere within our own value structure, otherwise it cannot be deemed to exist.

Until very recently, and in other discussions here, I struggled with what I considered to be a dual concept of ‘meaning’: that even though I cannot decipher the meaning of something, it is still meaningful. But I think recognising that elements of the world can matter without being significant to me is the key. I don’t have to evaluate every interaction with the world from my perspective in order to understand it exists in the world, just as I don’t have to touch something or to be there myself to understand that it’s real.

Can we recognise something we deem to be insignificant or worthless as something that matters in the world without then deriving some position of value for it?

Subject specific morality? :) :) — James Pullman

You’re right. Discuss what you like I suppose.

Excellent point, as per Trump: great! From where i stand i maybe not be able to perform that exercise. Nevertheless, what i can do, and also I can accept others to do it, it to not be overwhelmed or devastated by personally perceived insignificance or also personally perceived fundamental significance. And on top, embrace my perceptions of values into the "battle field" and "fight" valiantly without become irrevocably defeated/offended in my existence.

Again, loved your point.

I think we struggle to understand and therefore discover the world at this level, and instead feel compelled to position all interactions in relation to our perspective of value - particularly moral value. And so everything must be positioned somewhere within our own value structure, otherwise it cannot be deemed to exist.

Until very recently, and in other discussions here, I struggled with what I considered to be a dual concept of ‘meaning’: that even though I cannot decipher the meaning of something, it is still meaningful. But I think recognising that elements of the world can matter without being significant to me is the key. I don’t have to evaluate every interaction with the world from my perspective in order to understand it exists in the world, just as I don’t have to touch something or to be there myself to understand that it’s real.

Can we recognise something we deem to be insignificant or worthless as something that matters in the world without then deriving some position of value for it? — Possibility

This is very well said. I suppose I was looking for more responses like this... but then that would be imposing my values on the discussion instead of allowing it to grow organically. :wink:

I was just being an prick ;)

Psychiatrists know how to be the biggest pricks of all. Many choose not to be most of the time, but I had one once who said he hoped I’d kill myself. :lol:

Just to get this done, i´m not a Psychiatrists. I´m a Mathematician and Civil Engineer. I definitely don´t want you to kill yourself. I need you here, disagreeing with me, against me ;)