I hear these comments for not wanting to help people, and it feels like we’re worshipping individuality to the detriment of community, which is necessary for survival.
- “I don’t want my money going to ___ .”
- “This is not a democracy, it’s a constitutional republic!”
- “You don’t have any freedoms under socialism/communism.”
- “They’re just looking for a handout because they’re lazy.”
- “I’m a self-made man. I didn’t need anyone’s help.”
- “Empathy is not a virtue.”
- “I don’t see how that’s my problem.”
They’re sure trying their best.
Conservatives are fucked in the head. It’s not their fault, it’s genetic.
They’re also massively sadistic cunts.
Evangelical leaders are certainly trying.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/is-empathy-a-sin-some-conservative-christians-argue-it-can-be
Annoyed to report: successful and long standing communes/communities seem to all be highly selective, at least initially.
If you’ve got good examples that contradict this, please share.
Of course they are, they’re full and doing great lol
I might be starting one soon with mostly family… It’s a long shot, but I’d interview you then the time comes if you want. No promises
I feel like examples that prove it using some standard definitions are a prerequisite to that conversation.
Without standard definitions such as selection method/criterium and controlling for variables such as external factors your basically asking me to refute apples with oranges.
It’s not innate…
Innately humans are just animals. It takes effort to get people on the same page that cooperating is usually best
But we stopped teaching kids that in school 20 years ago.
That’s the sad truth about it. It’s not that the right corrupted a generation, just that between them an the neoliberals, no one wanted to help them. They both wanted brain dead tribalism because that’s what their mutual donors want
It honestly shouldn’t be that hard for everyone to follow the string back to "no child left behind’ but I remember pointing out this would happen 30 years ago, and I thought it was obvious back then too.
Very, because it is politically advantageous.
Independence can be weaponized to make people fight each other.
So can collectivism be used to manipulate people to sacrifice “for the common good”, like for example, forcing you to be in the military to “fight for our country” in foreign wars.
Me vs Us
Us vs Them
Both can be problematic.
But who’s the us and who’s the them? And why would a distinction necessarily force us to commit murder?!
If you decide on anything superficial (race and tribe, for instance), the bonds will be easily broken and the people will be easily manipulated. If you pick something like character and ideology, you can have a wider circle (these things are more flexible) and if you dislike the out group it is for actual reasons like a major moral disagreement and not the amount of melanin.
“I hate insert group of people”
It’s been like that for a while (how did they get stomach chattle slavery, or the native genocide, or murdering brown people around the globe like Nam?), it’s the reason the rest of the world is very wary of Americans even if they don’t come in tanks and jets. Even Western Europeans are wary of Americans at this point, and they’re basically the same community!
I think that Roman Catholicism and offshoots (not the message of Jesus, but the unholy creation of the empire) are partly to blame, primarily the disinfo of Paul, the fed, with his “faith without works” and “you’ll be saved if you become a man worshipping polytheist!”. Ideology is very malleable, so we can do something about it, but Nietzsche already pointed to the struggle like 200 years ago and a solution proposed by the locals with local ideological tools hasn’t been found yet. Islam is the path forward for the West (and the rest of the world), but ofc you hate to hear it, even if it would offer an ideological framework based on the belief in God and objective morality (you gotta act right to save yourself, more or less Jesus’ message for everyone who’s actually read the Sermon of the Mount, for instance)… don’t forget that that gut reaction has been fostered by the powers that be in the same way that it was for the Japanese, the Vietnamese, the natives, the Africans, and now the Mexicans and Chinese. Maybe there’s something there, huh?
Replacing godheads and debating minute dogmatic differences between colonizer/authoritarian religions is not going to change things for the better. We’ve been doing that for millennia.
Emphasizing historical learning and perspectives from the breadth of the world as well as modern civic humanist principles in our communities sounds a lot more effective to me than replacing one fictitious narcissistic sky daddy with another. Go peddle your ancient brainrot elsewhere.
I really don’t think “we” have, certainly the West hasn’t (with even the term “sky daddy” showing the clear anthropomorphic nature of God in the Western man’s mind, because amoral paganism/polytheism never left, it was just superficially transformed…). The vast majority of people won’t hold themselves accountable when the pleasures of this world are too enticing if they don’t feel like they’ll be unavoidably held accountable by a higher power. With discernment, integrity, selflessness and a clear heart it’s possible to do so to a certain/great extent, but these traits are secondary in the West, where overpowering violence, trickery and the capacity to acquire goods and satisfy yourself are paramount. But whatever, I guess we’ll see.
At least since the 60s/70s, it’s not new.
First they made you fear someone, then they told you they lived down the street.
Debatable how deliberate that was, but it’s certainly not not what they wanted…
Just as Conservatives have wanted. This isn’t new. This was the default. Empathy was an exception started in the 60’s.
