"Well, without slavery "we wouldn't be here today". Without death camps, massive pollution, and really terrible pop music, "we wouldn't be here today". That's not a justification for anything."
The onus is on you to justify your moral argument. You presented an ought. I presented an is. And, now you're straw manning that is. So let me clarify: We have adaptations that affect our behavior. Without those adaptations we wouldn't be where we are today. They're operating automatically within us. So, will power can only take you so far. So, my point was that we have these drivers within us and overriding them is easier said than actually done. Or better said, you're assuming it can even be done. More so, these drivers (not just tribalism) aren't distributed equally to everyone or group. In other words, my genetic pool is going to have different sensitivity in genetic expression than another genetic pool. For example, Ashkenazi Jews have higher verbal IQs than every other genetic pool. That is an advantage they have.
But back to tribalism. My point was that tribalism is an innate quality that isn't taught. It's part of our genetic programming. And, your point is that we ought to suppress this drive. And, you present this because you have a preference for a moral argument called multiculturalism -- which does not coincide with our innate drive. Tribalism in and of itself is not a moral argument.
So the question is why ought I adopt your preference? And here is the kicker in today's discourse: Those that do not share/adopt this preference are in turn ostracized by calling them racists. But, none of that condemnation actually establishes the merits of this moral theory. It simply asserted axiomatically.
But again, I have no reason to accept your morality. Instead, I have every reason to denounce it. As I pointed out in another post, it's not pragmatic for my people.
Also, your classic example isn't historically accurate. The Jews weren't scapegoats. They had sects that were waging war in the region. But, every story needs its devil. And in today's dogma, that devil is Hitler. It's an over simplified good vs evil story. We love our archetypal stories, right? But things are a lot more complicated than they've been depicted.
So, what is it that you think you're actually opposing?
If you're pushing multiculturalism, you're not opposing war. Instead, you're fueling war against white people given that this is only magically happening in white countries. And, anti-white sentiment is on the rise. This is not a coincidence. This is tribalism expressing itself. In the US the demographics shifted from 90% white to 60% white. So, it's no surprise that as the minority groups got larger, they're becoming bolder. (Again, completely understandable that non-whites would push for this outcome.)
But, if you want to believe races don't exist; that it's just a social construct... well... you and the few that believe this stuff are the only ones. Everyone else has no qualms about behaving ethnocentrically.
no subject
The onus is on you to justify your moral argument. You presented an ought. I presented an is. And, now you're straw manning that is. So let me clarify: We have adaptations that affect our behavior. Without those adaptations we wouldn't be where we are today. They're operating automatically within us. So, will power can only take you so far. So, my point was that we have these drivers within us and overriding them is easier said than actually done. Or better said, you're assuming it can even be done. More so, these drivers (not just tribalism) aren't distributed equally to everyone or group. In other words, my genetic pool is going to have different sensitivity in genetic expression than another genetic pool. For example, Ashkenazi Jews have higher verbal IQs than every other genetic pool. That is an advantage they have.
But back to tribalism. My point was that tribalism is an innate quality that isn't taught. It's part of our genetic programming. And, your point is that we ought to suppress this drive. And, you present this because you have a preference for a moral argument called multiculturalism -- which does not coincide with our innate drive. Tribalism in and of itself is not a moral argument.
So the question is why ought I adopt your preference? And here is the kicker in today's discourse: Those that do not share/adopt this preference are in turn ostracized by calling them racists. But, none of that condemnation actually establishes the merits of this moral theory. It simply asserted axiomatically.
But again, I have no reason to accept your morality. Instead, I have every reason to denounce it. As I pointed out in another post, it's not pragmatic for my people.
Also, your classic example isn't historically accurate. The Jews weren't scapegoats. They had sects that were waging war in the region. But, every story needs its devil. And in today's dogma, that devil is Hitler. It's an over simplified good vs evil story. We love our archetypal stories, right? But things are a lot more complicated than they've been depicted.
So, what is it that you think you're actually opposing?
If you're pushing multiculturalism, you're not opposing war. Instead, you're fueling war against white people given that this is only magically happening in white countries. And, anti-white sentiment is on the rise. This is not a coincidence. This is tribalism expressing itself. In the US the demographics shifted from 90% white to 60% white. So, it's no surprise that as the minority groups got larger, they're becoming bolder. (Again, completely understandable that non-whites would push for this outcome.)
But, if you want to believe races don't exist; that it's just a social construct... well... you and the few that believe this stuff are the only ones. Everyone else has no qualms about behaving ethnocentrically.