leicsmac

Beer first, wine next, whisky just in time for the clock striking twelve. I might regret this decision in the morning.

Right, and what's currently giving me (and perhaps some other people) some conniptions is addressing those particular areas of culture (which themselves are mostly based on the idea of tribal/cultural supremacy; you don't eat, enslave or burn alive someone you consider your equal, after all) without ending up with what the pilgrim Americans did to the native Americans, the Nazis did to... well, a lot of people, and what the current Afghan and Russian governments, to name but two, are doing to various groups right now. It's that very belief in superiority that drives them, as it does for some of those people who seek to stop them, apparently. That very sentiment itself is the problem, and there's so much death and suffering that has been done - is still being done - in its name.

Absolutely. For my part, I'm really looking for additional understanding. I believe, with good reason I hope, that these sentiments of cultural and tribal supremacy (rather than coexistence as much as is possible) don't lead anywhere good at all and I really want to hear from someone, anyone, about why they might think otherwise, given current and historical evidence.

It's all the answer I'm inclined to give because the issue is much more than a simple dichotomy anyway. And given the question in that original post that I asked first has not been answered (a question I have asked multiple times to multiple people who appear to think the same way), it seems I may not be the only one appearing to be evasive here.

That's about it, really. We either at least strive for that kind of equity, or we accept (and therefore are at least partly responsible for) a great deal of horrible things happening.

Please don't use the use of that one word (and some invented reference to a man not mentioned in this discussion so far at all) as an excuse to say nothing. I'll rephrase; What happens when when that belief in cultural and tribal superiority (no matter the culture or tribe) combines with power and the means of access to those deemed "inferior"? It's a valid question that deserves an answer.

And what happens when that cultural and tribal chauvinism combines with power (either through raw strength, technology, institutional control or a combination of the three)?

Should the full effects become apparent, then I'm not sure any sum of money is going to help tbh. You being spot on about the insurance companies in the short term notwithstanding.

Edited, as the OP is no longer available.

I think I talked about this with another poster on here a few years ago - @Freeman's Wharfer - and they very eruditely indicated that tribal outlet is a good thing in football as it is (mostly) harmless these days. However, the same sentiment causes so many problems in other areas and I really cannot get my head round how people pursue it and don't know exactly where it leads (or do and actively want that).

Well, firstly, the people that can and will fall through the cracks of the system described here, and secondly, as the Earth changes and resource pressures become ever more acute and with it increased migration from affected areas, would such a system really stop there in terms of its restrictions? There will be a lot more abandoning in that future, this would just be the start. I find it incredibly dishonest that people advocating for such restrictions don't accept the human cost of them that is both as obvious and inevitable as a law of physics. At least have the honesty to say that the death and suffering that will result is justifiable in some way, and own that responsibility. All of the above being said, there is no easy solution either, and the problem is only going to get more problematic as the world changes.

Anyhow, some more "masks off" news from across the pond: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c75xnndvlyko Apparently the very idea of fraud by brown people means that no child should get care payments in the whole state. Nice bit of cultural supremacy applied to policy in action.

It's absurd, isn't it? Surely as a species we can do better and be better than just being another member of the primate family subject to the same biological imperatives and the same horrible things as a result. Apparently so. Still waiting to hear from those here who apparently are OK with tribal divisions, as to exactly why it's OK with them and all the associated consequences. Unfortunately so far I've not heard much.

I have to be honest, the whole idea of cultural chauvinism (as opposed to cultural coexistence) is really absurd to me, simply because it very often ends in people counting bodies by the truckload when one demographic has the power to do it, no matter which "culture" doing the chauvinism and no matter how much people feel warm fuzziness about "their" culture. It ends with division, which gives you conflict, which gives you suffering. Really not sure how folks square the idea of that away with themselves that makes them feel in any way good about it. Guys, we're all human.

I honestly don't know how you ever get close to feeling whole again - ever - after having something like that happen to you. The depth of grief must be...well, inconceivable. Poor man.

At a fundamental level, I think it comes down to simple tribal self interest and how a person actually values the life of another being that they don't rely upon and so have no reason to treat well. It would be nice if as a species we might one day at like more than bacteria with suits and spaceships, knowing no better and being no better.

As I have mentioned a few times before, the consequences of abandoning a great many people to their fate, which appears to be, in ignorance or not, whether people want to speak of it or not, an option that is being led to. As per before:

Then if you or any other luminary have the time and inclination to actually talk consequences and the responsibility for them...

Appreciate the effort taken there. The idea here is that the problem is one of communication rather than ill intent, and therefore the errors are ones of ignorance/lack of thought rather than malice? That's a possibility and I'm pretty sure selling a solution that is perceived to be good is very important, but I've got to also say that the consequences will remain the same in severity and dire nature no matter which of the above is directly responsible. Additionally, I was looking more for an acknowledgement from those who appear to want to wash their hands of such consequences despite advocating for a pathway that will lead directly to them and thus have some responsibility for them.

And still looking for rationality of my own here. Or at least honesty.

Excellent lore drop but no, not that, and not Zero Dawn either. Quoting Asimov: "A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.” He knew the Three Laws were flawed, and creating a Zeroth Law that supercedes them was the entire premise.

A Trump/Putin standard *****, no less. Doesn't get nearly as much bad press as he deserves in the UK.

To say nothing of the Zeroth Law, too. Very important.

Whenever this particular topic crops up... (Still looking for honest answers or at least honesty of purpose in response to the above, BTW.)

I wonder what Asimov would have to say?