"Think Of The Children" - boop boop a doop

[The Pink Panther]

The problem with our modern political discourse is that people care too much about other people, some of which don't even live here or don't even belong here. Since the West has become over-politicized, I realized that most people associate their politics with a sense of uprightness and morality. The sense that if your ideology is right it is only right because it's morally correct. It's morally correct to fund Israel as they are our greatest ally and we always need to help a friend in need no matter the cost. It's morally correct to accept illegal immigrants who may be a threat to the well-being of the country because it's morally correct to help out a friend in need. It's morally correct to support Black Lives Matter because if you don't, ur a racist, and that's not morally correct. I find this mentality to be fucking stupid. Throughout history, politics has always been about self-interest and what would benefit the nation, nobody cared about the individual. It was always the collective. It was the nation that upheld certain values and tried to crush others with opposing goals (or try to unify as empires to crush other empires) or whatnot. Nations didn't do it because they were MORALLY CORRECT, it was a matter of general superiority, ascending the morals that they upheld as a nation. But no this is quite cruel. The globalization of the world has crushed every single morsel and fiber of this mentality which stabilizing countries for thousands of years. Why is it only now that human beings feel the need to act this way, especially nowadays? People take politics so seriously because they feel as if their opinion on an issue is the makeup of their entire identity as a human being and as well as that they constantly connect it with silly morals they uphold.

And furthermore, why do human beings feel the need to act out of this sort of fallacious altruism for the benefit of their own self-interest as well as because it fits within their image of being seen as a high moral figure?

 

[A Cardboard Box]

Holy autism batman. The problem is actually the opposite. People don't give a shit about the other team anymore because they can totally shut themselves off from them in every facet of life, so they don't even have to view them as people. Just like Japs during WWII.

Back in the 60s you still gave a shit about people because you went to the work cookouts and were on the work bowling league since television was a meme and the internet didn't exist. When you were bowling with the boys, you got along well with Jim, even though he was a union commie stooge. He was a good guy, and you still wanted him to succeed even though he voted wrong, so when you won you didn't want to destroy his life, you just wanted to improve it in a different manner. Jim liked you, too, because even though you were a fucking scab, eh, you bowled well and didn't afraid of anything, and your wives are friends.

Altruism is ingrained in the human DNA, and studies indicate that prosocial altruism is the equivalent of the human mating call, where altruism, even to a foe, is seen as a commanding behavior because it shows you are kind even when it might not suit you, a good trait for a parent to have, and that you have stuff to share, and excess of wealth, either tangible wealth or intangible. Toddlers, from a very young age, express a ready desire to help people that are struggling to complete a task.

Basically, you're retarded and have it backwards.

 

[The Pink Panther]

Basically, you're retarded and have it backwards.

No, I don't. There's too much moralfaggotry, not less of it. And yeah moralfaggotry does lead to shitting on other people so that you can be with people who validate you, but you can't really deny that morality plays a big role into people's political perception.

And I don't think altruism is ingrained; it's learned.

 

[A Cardboard Box]

No, I don't. There's too much moralfaggotry, not less of it. And yeah moralfaggotry does lead to shitting on other people so that you can be with people who validate you, but you can't really deny that morality plays a big role into people's political perception.

And I don't think altruism is ingrained; it's learned.

You're wrong. Altruism isn't learned. It's never been learned. Humans are innately social. This isn't even controversial.

 

[The Pink Panther]

You're wrong. Altruism isn't learned. It's never been learned. Humans are innately social. This isn't even controversial.

Humans are innately social, but that doesn't mean all human beings are innately altruistic. The act of being altruistic or selfless has to be learned by the child at a young age.

 

[Getting tard comed]

Altruism is ingrained towards the ingroup, according to most anthropological and psychological studies done on this topic. The outgroup can get fucked though.

Politics have devolved to moral flagging for several reasons. One is the decline of "religion"(tm). People like to believe they are the good guys, religion used to be how you could judge yourself to be good. Politics have replaced religion as the measuring stick for who is a "good" person or not. People have wrapped their self identity and how "good" they are with shallow political beliefs. It's really kind of genius for the people pulling the strings(if they exist) politics are way more malleable than holy books are.

I think that's the main one tbh but there are definitely more. Reasons.

 

[A Cardboard Box]

Humans are innately social, but that doesn't mean all human beings are innately altruistic. The act of being altruistic or selfless has to be learned by the child at a young age.

Again, you're just fucking wrong. There is absolutely no evidence to show altruism is a learned trait, but plenty to suggest it is innate.

https://psychcentral.com/news/2016/03/21/scientists-believe-altruistic-traits-are-innate/100740.html

https://sites.dartmouth.edu/dujs/2013/10/04/is-altruism-innate/

https://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2014/nov/22/behind-the-scenes-of-a-shocking-new-study-on-human-altruism

 

[Exorbital Columnations]

So your hypothesis is that until recently, people didn't believe in the moral superiority of their culture? And somehow social cohesion was still possible?

 

[The Pink Panther]

Again, you're just fucking wrong. There is absolutely no evidence to show altruism is a learned trait, but plenty to suggest it is innate.

https://psychcentral.com/news/2016/03/21/scientists-believe-altruistic-traits-are-innate/100740.html

https://sites.dartmouth.edu/dujs/2013/10/04/is-altruism-innate/

https://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2014/nov/22/behind-the-scenes-of-a-shocking-new-study-on-human-altruism

https://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/december/altruism-triggers-innate-121814.html

So your hypothesis is that until recently, people didn't believe in the moral superiority of their culture? And somehow social cohesion was still possible?

No. My hypothesis was that morality wasn't the main factor that made people believe in the superiority of their culture rather it was their pride in their nation as a whole being better in terms of all things and not just morality.

 

[A Cardboard Box]

https://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/december/altruism-triggers-innate-121814.html

No. My hypothesis was that morality wasn't the main factor that made people believe in the superiority of their culture rather it was their pride in their nation as a whole being better in terms of all things and not just morality.

Nation states are an extremely recent concept in human history. Patriotism as a concept is only a few hundred years old.

Also the study you quoted is talking about play in toddlers, whereas the ones I posted deal with infants and brain function scans, not just behavioral observations.

 

[The Pink Panther]

Also the study you quoted is talking about play in toddlers, whereas the ones I posted deal with infants and brain function scans, not just behavioral observations.

Well, yeah, but that's in terms of conceptions of emotion and empathy or whatnot.

The way that one carries out a sense of selflessness is learned.

 

[A Cardboard Box]

Well, yeah, but that's in terms of conceptions of emotion and empathy or whatnot.

The way that one carries out a sense of selflessness is learned.

Again, incorrect. Altruism is a prosocial behavior that has led to the development of civilization. It's not even worth arguing. Even infant brains process and prefer altruism.

Your fascistic theory of nation states effectively creating altruism is also insane. Nation states, even in the West, have spring up only in the last 500 years.

 

[The Pink Panther]

Your fascistic theory of nation states effectively creating altruism is also insane. Nation states, even in the West, have spring up only in the last 500 years.

I never said nation-states created altruism and my point is certainly not that of a fascist. Far from it. Altruism has existed althrough the ages.

My point of discussion is that the modern political scene has transformed from one that focused on what's best for the system to what's best for the morals. It's the enforcement of this being the main value of people's politics, that's my problem.

 

[SSF2T Old User]

The problem with our modern political discourse is that people care too much about other people, some of which don't even live here or don't even belong here.

This isn't anything new. When WW2 was beginning, the majority of Americans did NOT want to go to war and wanted to mind their own business. Unfortunately at the time the US had a president who was in bed with the UK and Russia, so the "evil germans attacking the poor people/jews in Europe" narrative was created.

If you hear anyone say they care about people in other countries, you must always question their motives behind it. Anyone that says migrants are a positive thing are talking out of their ass. There has been more than enough proof that they cause more harm than good for any country.

Since the West has become over-politicized, I realized that most people associate their politics with a sense of uprightness and morality. The sense that if your ideology is right it is only right because it's morally correct.

Another term for this is "Virtue Signaling". These people like to re-assure themselves that they are a good person by following what's "in", and right now "Black Lives Matter" is what's currently "in". Everyone has met at least one person that spews out "I can't be racist, I know plenty of black people that I am also friends with", well now times that by 100, and that's the majority of the country right now.

Throughout history, politics has always been about self-interest and what would benefit the nation, nobody cared about the individual. It was always the collective. It was the nation that upheld certain values and tried to crush others with opposing goals (or try to unify as empires to crush other empires) or whatnot. Nations didn't do it because they were MORALLY CORRECT, it was a matter of general superiority, ascending the morals that they upheld as a nation.

And now, you have a world where the word "Nationalism" is a dirty word because when people think that, they automatically link it to Nazis. There's absolutely nothing wrong with putting your country first before anything else, but the people in power have been fucking things up for quite some time and pushing a narrative that's the total opposite, partially for personal gain.

And furthermore, why do human beings feel the need to act out of this sort of fallacious altruism for the benefit of their own self-interest as well as because it fits within their image of being seen as a high moral figure?

That, and between mainstream media and almost every university/college teaching nothing but communist/marxist ways, people have been brainwashed to think one way, and what you are witnessing is the result of those teachings and brainwashing in effect.

 

[K. V. Bones]

Altruism is easy to get iridescent in guys... just like unhook your teammates from the hook like 3 times.... hang on this isn't the dead by daylight thread.

 

[A Cardboard Box]

I never said nation-states created altruism and my point is certainly not that of a fascist. Far from it. Altruism has existed althrough the ages.

My point of discussion is that the modern political scene has transformed from one that focused on what's best for the system to what's best for the morals. It's the enforcement of this being the main value of people's politics, that's my problem.

It's literally always been this way, though. Going back to the Catholic Church vs royal sovereignty, the Catholics claimed they were ordained by God Himself, therefore were morally superior to the worldly sovereigns. Hobbes claimed the sovereign had absolute authority over the people because he was given Divine Right, and therefore was morally infallible. The 30
Years War between the Catholics and the Protestants was a war over moral superiority. The 1910s were Democracy vs Autocracy. The 30s and 40s were Democracy vs Fascism, the 50s-90s were Democracy vs Communism.

It has ALWAYS been a question of morality. The only thing that changes is the barometers.

 

[The Pink Panther]

It's literally always been this way, though. Going back to the Catholic Church vs royal sovereignty, the Catholics claimed they were ordained by God Himself, therefore were morally superior to the worldly sovereigns. Hobbes claimed the sovereign had absolute authority over the people because he was given Divine Right, and therefore was morally infallible. The 30
Years War between the Catholics and the Protestants was a war over moral superiority. The 1910s were Democracy vs Autocracy. The 30s and 40s were Democracy vs Fascism, the 50s-90s were Democracy vs Communism.

It has ALWAYS been a question of morality. The only thing that changes is the barometers.

Yeah, but it was more about superiority for the cause of their own identity rather than being moral because it's just simply the right thing to do or else. It's a matter of influence.

 

[Getting tard comed]

It's literally always been this way, though. Going back to the Catholic Church vs royal sovereignty, the Catholics claimed they were ordained by God Himself, therefore were morally superior to the worldly sovereigns. Hobbes claimed the sovereign had absolute authority over the people because he was given Divine Right, and therefore was morally infallible. The 30
Years War between the Catholics and the Protestants was a war over moral superiority. The 1910s were Democracy vs Autocracy. The 30s and 40s were Democracy vs Fascism, the 50s-90s were Democracy vs Communism.

It has ALWAYS been a question of morality. The only thing that changes is the barometers.

Catholics claimed the Pope not Catholosism was God's representative on earth and therefore was morally infallible. That isnt the same as morally superior and it did not does not apply to anyone else in the Catholic church besides the Pope.

Divine right != morally superior. Ordained by God to lead doesn't equate to being morally superior it's being chosen to lead the nation. It has to do with God's authority nothing to do with morality directly.

The 30 year war wasn't ever about moral superiority. Neither were any of the other conflicts you mentioned. Morality being weaponized and sides attempting to claim the moral high ground doesn't mean the conflict was a moral one.

 

[albert chan]

When a popular cultural reference is done right

 

[A Cardboard Box]

Yeah, but it was more about superiority for the cause of their own identity rather than being moral because it's just simply the right thing to do or else. It's a matter of influence.

Again, wrong. "We are the Sons of Crusaders and we will not recoil from the Sons of Voltaire!"

That quote was about not selling out old school autocratic, catholic influence to democrats.

Moreover look at the Inquisition. Thousands were burnt, broken, butchered, and murdered by the Inquisition because "be moral or else."

It is the same shit, it has always been the same shit. There is nothing new under the sun.

Not even trying to be a dick, I highly recommend becoming well versed in at least Western history before you try taking up this argument.

Catholics claimed the Pope not Catholosism was God's representative on earth and therefore was morally infallible. That isnt the same as morally superior and it did not does not apply to anyone else in the Catholic church besides the Pope.

Divine right != morally superior. Ordained by God to lead doesn't equate to being morally superior it's being chosen to lead the nation. It has to do with God's authority nothing to do with morality directly.

The 30 year war wasn't ever about moral superiority. Neither were any of the other conflicts you mentioned. Morality being weaponized and sides attempting to claim the moral high ground doesn't mean the conflict was a moral one.

So let me get this straight.

You believe that in these conflicts and ideas, that certain sides believed themselves to be morally superior, and people fought and died in the name of their respective causes, that they believed to be morally superior, but that the conflict wasn't about morality?

Makes no sense. You're grasping at straws. And yes, go read the Leviathan, Hobbes literally claims that the Sovereign is infallible because he is ordained by God to rule.