TRIBALISM = GOOD

Author: 3RU7AL
Ethics
intp
Information War
Anarchy
GNOSTIC

Posts

Total: 49
#31
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
You don't want people like that in your neighborhoods or around your kids that's up to you. I like growing up with a variety of people around me it was cool to go to someone's house and their grandmother only speak Italian or to someone else's house and their grandfather only spoke polish. We're going to another house and eating Greek food. If you don't want to expose your kids to that that's up to you. And if they don't want to expose their kids to American kids that's fine but why move to a country and then tell your kids that the people that live there are such assholes you don't want to live with them. Doesn't make much sense to me but what the f*** do I know.
#32
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,740
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
--> @3RU7AL
Polytheist-Witch: You don't want people like that in your neighborhoods or around your kids that's up to you. I like growing up with a variety of people around me it was cool to go to someone's house and their grandmother only speak Italian or to someone else's house and their grandfather only spoke polish. We're going to another house and eating Greek food. If you don't want to expose your kids to that that's up to you. And if they don't want to expose their kids to American kids that's fine but why move to a country and then tell your kids that the people that live there are such assholes you don't want to live with them. Doesn't make much sense to me but what the f*** do I know.
Immigrants to America now have a choice.They can live in Asian, Latino, Chinese neighbourhoods.
Trailer white trash parks are not the only neighbourhoods to be considered.
#33
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Athias
  • Here this is from a recent debate with Mall

  • BUSINESS
    • Business establishments are a little more nuanced but there is still a material right to equal access to goods and services.  You can't have a whites only Wal-Mart because that would substantially limit non-white's right to freely access goods and services, to freely associate.  
    • If you want to run a Whites only Klan meeting out of your mother's basement, then the freedom of nonwhites to associate is not much infringed and such kind of private segregation ought to be generally permissible.
    • Let's take for example, a rural gas station run by white supremacists.  No nonwhites allowed.
      • How far away  does one have to be from the nearest gas station that allows non-white business to qualify as a constructive  choice?  20 miles?  10miles? 1mile?
        • It almost doesn't make a difference because there always be some nonwhite who's running on fumes who will denied a fairly important access to product.  What if the non-white loses his job because he ran out of gas?  What if a woman dies in labor because she ran out of gas that a whites only station refused to provide?
        • There's no way to account for the needs and situations of all people wherein  any public segregation is not very likely to deny the segregated their equal freedom to associate.
      • If there's a modern, reasonable gas station right next door, freedom of association is not greatly harmed by such prohibition.
        • But, of course, then the supremacist station is fucked either way.  
          • If they advertise their "whites only" policy, almost everybody including whites are going to prefer the modern, reasonable gas station for their business.
          • If they don't advertise their "whites only" policy then the will run into the problem of constant enforcement, driving disgruntled and inconvenienced nonwhites away from their pumps.  Intervention by law enforcement and public objection will again shut the supremacist station down.
    • Generally speaking, segregation is anti-capitalist- bad for competition, bad for business.  Segregated markets are less competitive than integrated markets.  Certainly there were some businesses that were required to  comply with integration by the the1964 Civil Rights Act but there was very little force involved from the compliance (in spite of significant violence by segregationists), and you'd be hard pressed to find a large scale business that did not profit and improve from integration.

#34
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,740
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
--> @Deb-8-a-bull
You go from . 
Itilans to Jamaicans and Russians and the rest then bammmmmmmmmmmmmmm
You say  Black people  and black teachers.
hey, it's in "the news"

we're told that canada needs more black teachers

because black students stay in school longer and get better grades

if they have black teachers

do you believe this or do you not believe this
It is clear from the Canadian study more black teachers are needed because black students stay in school longer and get better grades. 
#35
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,205
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@oromagi
That 'is the thought I was getting at, though you put it better, 

Still,
Even for lifesaving and vital needs,
If a community doesn't want X group, and thus refuses them access to vitals and such. . .
Isn't it the same logic we use to refuse illegal immigrants?

Sovereignty and self rule is taken away from a community,

"The 1790 Naturalization Act reserves naturalized citizenship for whites only. African Americans are not guaranteed citizenship until 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is ratified in the wake of Reconstruction. Groups of Native Americans become citizens through individual treaties or intermarriage and finally, through the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act. Asian immigrants are ineligible to citizenship until the 1954 McCarran-Walter Act removes all racial barriers to naturalization. Without citizenship, nonwhites are denied the right to vote, own property, bring suit, testify in court - all the basic protections and entitlements that white citizens take for granted."

Though really, someone being born and raised in a location, even as a slave, seems to me gives them an obvious right to consider said land their home, especially after freedom, when situation starts to look better.

Odd in a way, the idea of more than one nation, yet the same borders,
The whites who didn't consider blacks citizens I mean, after emancipation.
I'm rambling a bit,

. . .

'Does seem bit forceful and coercion,
Ah, what's that thing called where rich people move into a neighborhood, ah, gentrification,

Gentrification isn't illegal I think,
But in it's raising of prices, acts in a similar manner as people refusing gas,
Whether an individual is X group, or lacks $20 bucks, they aren't able to purchase.

Money knows no race or creed one might say,
But why not a possessor of money be a group in themself?
#36
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Lemming
Odd in a way, the idea of more than one nation, yet the same borders,
The whites who didn't consider blacks citizens I mean, after emancipation.
That's really the nub of the problem of black assimilation in the US- that slaveowners were off the hook for slaves' well-being as soon as the war was over.  Rome handled slavery much more sensibly- you were a slave for about 20 years or so and then your owner emancipated you and sponsored your participation in society- got you an apprenticeship or gave you a small business loan or made you an employee in one of the owner's companies.  Typically, the owner was expected to care for the well-being of that slave at least through retirement and the education of that slave's children.  

We should have required slaveowner to make slave a part of the household or else an employee or else set them up in business elsewhere- those were the people with the money and relevance to have made a big difference in black assimilation. 
#37
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,205
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@oromagi
Reparations 'right near after emancipation bother me less than the idea of reparations 'now,
For something my Great Great Great Grandfathers might not have done (I don't know all my ancestors)

Or helping 'all members of society on the down and out, though that sounds a bit like Communism to me, or maybe religion, increased government taxation.

. . .

I wonder if people hadn't gone for race based and born to slavery, slavery, if slavery would still be around,
Maybe not, disappeared in plenty of other places.

Topic's author
#38
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,283
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Shila
It is clear from the Canadian study more black teachers are needed because black students stay in school longer and get better grades. 
does this hold true for OTHER skin-tones ?
#39
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,205
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
If one supposes one of the goals of a group is survival/continued tradition, tribalism works pretty well I'd think,
Though being maniacal about it, tends to get one hated, and attacked,
Like the Sawney Bean Clan of myth, or the Nazis of history,

. . .

I wonder if one would say Alexander the Great practiced tribalism or the opposite of it,

"Alexander respected the local cultures he conquered, and allowed their customs to continue. Alexander himself embraced local customs, wearing Persian clothes and marrying Persian women."

Relinquishing one's own customs in favor of others isn't very tribalistic,
But recognizing other's appreciation of their own, and encouraging it, makes 'use of people's tribalism.

. . .

I really don't see how one could 'cut out tribalism myself, as Avery suggests in another thread. . .
Then again, they mentioned they meant genetics,
So maybe one could alter humans to 'like all/most forms Freefall 02540 August 22, 2014 (purrsia.com).

And even human individuality, self interest, ability to 'act in ways that harm other humans, could be removed/altered maybe,
Reminds me of Serenity movie, "A world without sin"

Though maybe one can argue such was a failed attempt, or not what they meant.

. . .

Remove one's loyalty to groups, self interest 'still has one suppose groups if they serve one's own interest, just not out of loyalty to the group anymore.

Remove the ability to act to harm others, well different morality still exists, individual see's another's help as harm, while the other see's first guy's help as harm,
They're not acting against the other,
Not trying to harm them, they 'have to act thus, since it is 'helpful,
Even though the other see's it as harm.
#40
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,740
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
--> @Shila
It is clear from the Canadian study more black teachers are needed because black students stay in school longer and get better grades. 
does this hold true for OTHER skin-tones ?
Asians are the top grade earners. With blacks getting better grades and more black teachers needed, homeschooling remains the only options for whites.

#41
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@oromagi
  • BUSINESS
    • Business establishments are a little more nuanced but there is still a material right to equal access to goods and services.  You can't have a whites only Wal-Mart because that would substantially limit non-white's right to freely access goods and services, to freely associate.  
    • If you want to run a Whites only Klan meeting out of your mother's basement, then the freedom of nonwhites to associate is not much infringed and such kind of private segregation ought to be generally permissible.
    • Let's take for example, a rural gas station run by white supremacists.  No nonwhites allowed.
      • How far away  does one have to be from the nearest gas station that allows non-white business to qualify as a constructive  choice?  20 miles?  10miles? 1mile?
        • It almost doesn't make a difference because there always be some nonwhite who's running on fumes who will denied a fairly important access to product.  What if the non-white loses his job because he ran out of gas?  What if a woman dies in labor because she ran out of gas that a whites only station refused to provide?
        • There's no way to account for the needs and situations of all people wherein  any public segregation is not very likely to deny the segregated their equal freedom to associate.
Several things:
  • What is the basis for one's material right to equal access to goods and services which elides the right to private property?
  • Why can't one have a "Whites-Only" Wal-Mart if the owner/manager dictates as much? In addition, why would the owner/manager be responsible so-called, "non-whites'" capacity to access their goods and services?
  • Why do any of the concerns you listed--i.e. "what if the non-white loses his job?" "What if a woman dies in labor?" etc.--conscript the proprietor of said gas station into their--presumably "non-whites'--service?
  • Why is an owner beholden to any person's or all people's needs and situation? Why do their needs and situations supersede the owner's prerogative?
  • Why can't one treat one's business like one's home? If not, what's the difference?
  • If there's a modern, reasonable gas station right next door, freedom of association is not greatly harmed by such prohibition.
    • Is it really "freedom" or "entitlement"?

    • But, of course, then the supremacist station is fucked either way.  
      • If they advertise their "whites only" policy, almost everybody including whites are going to prefer the modern, reasonable gas station for their business.
      • If they don't advertise their "whites only" policy then the will run into the problem of constant enforcement, driving disgruntled and inconvenienced nonwhites away from their pumps.  Intervention by law enforcement and public objection will again shut the supremacist station down.
    Would it not then behoove us to allow the consequences of our decisions to be the regulator of our actions, rather than some arbitrary third party perpetually pointing a metaphorical gun at our heads?

    Generally speaking, segregation is anti-capitalist- bad for competition, bad for business.
    Not really. The concern is when this segregation is forced. Infractions on one's right to freely associate is anti-capitalist, whether it's forced segregation or forced integration.
    Topic's author
    #42
    3RU7AL
    3RU7AL's avatar
    Debates: 3
    Posts: 13,283
    3
    4
    9
    3RU7AL's avatar
    3RU7AL
    3
    4
    9
    -->
    @Athias
    Not really. The concern is when this segregation is forced. Infractions on one's right to freely associate is anti-capitalist, whether it's forced segregation or forced integration.
    nice
    Topic's author
    #43
    3RU7AL
    3RU7AL's avatar
    Debates: 3
    Posts: 13,283
    3
    4
    9
    3RU7AL's avatar
    3RU7AL
    3
    4
    9
    -->
    @Athias
    Would it not then behoove us to allow the consequences of our decisions to be the regulator of our actions, rather than some arbitrary third party perpetually pointing a metaphorical gun at our heads?
    what a novel concept
    #44
    Shila
    Shila's avatar
    Debates: 0
    Posts: 2,740
    3
    3
    5
    Shila's avatar
    Shila
    3
    3
    5
    Reparation will make black free college grants unnecessary. That will certainly benefit whites.
    #45
    Athias
    Athias's avatar
    Debates: 20
    Posts: 3,192
    3
    3
    9
    Athias's avatar
    Athias
    3
    3
    9
    -->
    @3RU7AL
    what a novel concept
    Hey, don't steal my ideas, now. Since I'm the first person to ever think this, I call dibs.

    #46
    Shila
    Shila's avatar
    Debates: 0
    Posts: 2,740
    3
    3
    5
    Shila's avatar
    Shila
    3
    3
    5
    -->
    @3RU7AL
    --> @Athias
    Would it not then behoove us to allow the consequences of our decisions to be the regulator of our actions, rather than some arbitrary third party perpetually pointing a metaphorical gun at our heads?
    what a novel concept
    Considering the poor police response to blacks being killed and not wanting to suffer  the consequences of their decisions. Suggesting police carry metaphorical guns is a novel concept.

    234 days later

    #47
    Critical-Tim
    Critical-Tim's avatar
    Debates: 3
    Posts: 902
    3
    2
    7
    Critical-Tim's avatar
    Critical-Tim
    3
    2
    7
    Tribalism is a dangerous force that has plagued human societies for centuries. At its core, tribalism is the belief that one's identity is defined by their membership in a particular group or tribe, and that this group is superior to other groups. This kind of thinking is the antithesis of individualism, which emphasizes the importance of the individual as a unique and valuable entity. Political parties, which can often operate as tribalism groups, can lead to a wide range of negative consequences, both for individuals and for society as a whole.

    One of the main dangers of political tribalism is that it can lead to prejudice and discrimination against people who hold opposing political views. When people are deeply entrenched in their political identities, they may view anyone outside of their party as a threat or an enemy. This can lead to a wide range of negative behaviors, including hate speech, violence, and even civil unrest.

    Political tribalism can also lead to a lack of cooperation and trust between different parties. When people are deeply divided along party lines, they may be less likely to work together to solve common problems or pursue shared goals. This can lead to a lack of progress and development, as well as increased conflict and tension.

    In addition, political tribalism can lead to a narrow-minded and insular view of the world. When people are deeply entrenched in their party identities, they may be less likely to consider alternative perspectives or ideas. This can lead to a lack of innovation and progress, as well as a resistance to change.

    Ultimately, the dangers of political tribalism are many and far-reaching. By promoting a narrow-minded and divisive view of the world, political tribalism can lead to prejudice, discrimination, conflict, and a lack of progress. To counter these dangers, it is important to promote the values of individualism, which emphasizes the importance of the individual as a unique and valuable entity. By valuing individuality and promoting cooperation and understanding between different political parties, we can build a more just and peaceful society.

    #48
    zedvictor4
    zedvictor4's avatar
    Debates: 22
    Posts: 11,263
    3
    3
    6
    zedvictor4's avatar
    zedvictor4
    3
    3
    6
    -->
    @Critical-Tim
    I think that you are actually describing human nature.

    I suppose that the natural opposite would be individualism and therefore anarchy.

    And I'm not sure if that would not be as dangerous, if not more so.

    I suppose that the answer would be total social re-education.

    But how on Earth do you implement absolute subservience without absolute tyrannical leadership.
    #49
    Critical-Tim
    Critical-Tim's avatar
    Debates: 3
    Posts: 902
    3
    2
    7
    Critical-Tim's avatar
    Critical-Tim
    3
    2
    7
    It's true that humans have a natural tendency towards forming groups and identifying with particular tribes or communities. However, I would argue that tribalism in its extreme form, where one's identity is defined solely by their membership in a particular group and where this group is viewed as superior to all others, is a learned behavior that can be perpetuated and reinforced by social, cultural, and political factors.

    In terms of individualism and anarchy, it's important to recognize that these are not necessarily the opposite of tribalism. Individualism values the importance of the individual and their unique identity, but it does not necessarily preclude the formation of communities or the pursuit of common goals. Anarchy, on the other hand, refers to a lack of government or authority, and does not necessarily imply a rejection of group identity or a lack of cooperation between individuals.

    In terms of implementing social re-education, it's important to recognize that this is a long-term and complex process that requires a range of different approaches. One approach might be to promote critical thinking and encourage individuals to question their own biases and assumptions. Another might be to promote intergroup dialogue and cooperation, to help break down the barriers between different tribes or communities. Education, community building, and political engagement can all play a role in promoting a more inclusive and cooperative society.

    It's important to recognize that any attempt to enforce "total subservience" or to impose an absolute form of leadership is likely to be both ineffective and oppressive. Instead, we should strive to promote a society that values individuality, and cooperation; and that recognizes the importance of working together towards shared goals.