Is tribalism the most enduring heritage from the past?

[aiddon]

No, not yet, but next time I will follow one of our ministers, as he goes to deposit his cash kick-back from private business, and see if he is laughing all the way.

I will let you know!

You're not Irish by any chance, Ned?

[Ned]

That's funny.

In the one week I have been here I was asked if I was black or white, I was told that I am a Randite, I was told that I am to(o) young to know better and I am asked if I am Irish?

What's this obsession with labeling?

I am a human being on this planet among 7 billion others.

I observe, I deduce, I form opinions backed by facts and logical arguments.

What else do you need?

PS. That's exactly what this thread is about: tribalism.

[Impenitent]

That's funny...

What else do you need?

whirled peas

keep in mind that only the dead have seen the end of war...

-Imp

[Ned]

Forums

Life is like a huge internet forum
with life-long membership, where
you can be a valued member
with high likes and rep points,
bum along with nothing,
or you can be banned for a time (jail),
sometime permanently (execution),
and you can leave it with a flounce (suicide)
if you think you have had enough.

The moderators are not always moderate,
the software is full of glitches
and the quote you worked so hard over
is simply snipped if deemed to be too long.
If assisted suicide were legal,
I would soon ask some merciful doctor
to end my membership for good
and free me from this terrible obsession
of talking to my keyboard.

I have done the science and the art,
I have had my fling with humanity,
I have been smart and dumb and then smart again,
I have looked into, and beyond, eternity.
In all these wanderings, in all these years,
I never understood the final, missing piece:
If I am out of hope and beyond despair,
why do I still, stubbornly, obtusely think
that I communicate
when I pontificate
on my internet link?

[phyllo]

why do I still, stubbornly, obtusely think
that I communicate
when I pontificate
on my internet link?

Maybe you should pontificate less and communicate more.

There is a difference. Pontification is talking down to people from a high pulpit. Communication is listening and speaking on the same level.

[Ned]

These are my rules for communication:

1. Read every line in every post of the thread before replying -- don't just scan.
2. If something is unclear, ask questions/definitions before jumping to conclusions.
3. Don’t put words never said into the mouth of the person you are replying to and NEVER alter a quote
4. Don’t let trigger words with bad association (for you) divert you from what was actually said
5. Make sure you use logic in a clear, unbroken line, leading from premises to conclusions
6. Give yourself time to THINK it over, before flying off the handle
7. Look at all the pros and cons of the issue, from as many different angles as you can
8. Make sure you research the facts your reply is based on
9. Provide evidence (if available)
10. State what you DO agree with (and why), not just what you disagree with.
11. Admit it when you realize that you were wrong, made a mistake or were unfair to someone.

Communication

Communication is an art,
a science, a hopeless human quest:
an attempt to reach our brother,
trying to breech the abyss that keeps us apart,
finding ourselves in the mind of another.

[aiddon]

why do I still, stubbornly, obtusely think
that I communicate
when I pontificate
on my internet link?

Maybe you should pontificate less and communicate more.

There is a difference. Pontification is talking down to people from a high pulpit. Communication is listening and speaking on the same level.

Writing doggerel on a discussion forum usually means one wishes to communicate only what they have to say.

[Ned]

Looks like the tribe is circling the wagons!

[phyllo]

You claim not to be part of any sub-group, yet you separate yourself from 'us'.

[Ned]

You claim not to be part of any sub-group, yet you separate yourself from 'us'.

...and you see these two as a contradiction?

[marjoramblues]

I would soon ask some merciful doctor
to end my membership for good
and free me from this terrible obsession
of talking to my keyboard.

I understand the 'obsession' bit; I've been like that lately. We are not alone.
Do you think any 'rule' could help those affected?
I might have a rule to aim for balance in my life.
But when obsession over-rules, what then?

Would we then have to admit we were members of some Anonymous Sob group...
Hordes of us sharing a similar interest in improving wellbeing.
Would we be pitied, scolded or helped for our 'weakness'...
Would it depend on which tribe you asked? Or sections within a tribe...

The 'Life Out' option is not quite in the same league. But why is a wish for removing self from life membership not so easily dealt with...even seen as a sin...by some 'tribes'...but not all.

[Ned]

Options in a mental Institution

Historical fact: In the old Soviet Union dissidents were often locked into a mental institution to silence and punish them. Many of them actually developed mental problems due to being locked into a delusional environment.

All my life I have had to listen to arguments against idealism from pragmatists. Their argument usually goes like this: You live in a dream world, where people are perfectly rational and nice to each other. That world does not exist and if you live there, you give up any chance of making the real world better.

The problem with this argument is in the assumptions I would have to accept in order to be pragmatic.

Most clinical psychiatrists can tell you that schizophrenics often use perfectly sound logic and be consistent, though their actions are based on a central delusion.

Would I like to live in a mental institution, where everyone behaved sensibly, as long as one accepts the assumption that the water faucet is God?

And that is my problem with the human species.

Look at an example: violent crimes committed by fire arms. Gun registration is enormous expense, red tape, administration, resistance, resentment. Violent criminals are not lining up to register their firearms. Very limited, if any, result.

The real solution to this unsolvable problem is foolproof and obvious: Stop manufacturing firearms and ammunition, destroy any we can lay our hands on. Sooner or later there won't be any left. An even saner solution: remove the causes that make most people use them in violent crime.

Whenever I suggest it, hearty laughter. I am obviously a funny man.

Why?

Because everyone knows that it is impossible.

Just like 'everyone knows' that the water faucet is God.

Now, as a good pragmatist, I could accept that and try to find another solution, based on the premise that assumes: it is impossible to stop manufacturing firearms. But do I want to participate in a society where the only sane solution is rejected out of hand as impossible?

Before I go on, let me admit: I know it is impossible. Not because of a natural law of physics, not because the Martians forced it on us, but because we humans (a sufficient majority of those in power) choose to make it impossible.

Crimes committed by firearms is just one example. Almost all of our unsolvable social problems have perfectly obvious, sane, simple solutions. All of them impossible.

So, do I want to participate in a society which is run by people who reject the only sane solution as impossible? Where the majority of citizens go along with this by refusing to consider and implement the required life style changes?

I can only see four basic choices:

1/ Escape from the mental institution to a place of sanity.
2/ Go along with the assumption that the water faucet is God.
3/ Try to convince the inmates they are wrong
4/ Ignore the inmates and isolate myself as much as humanly possible.

Looking at these options, I have to realize that: 1/ would require a space ship or a time machine; 2/ is repulsive and painful for a healthy mind; 3/ I have tried that - no chance in hell; 4/ is the only practical solution I have ever found.

Time to end this experiment.

[marjoramblues]

Ned: Time to end this experiment

M: What experiment is it time to end, and why?

[aiddon]

That's funny.

In the one week I have been here I was asked if I was black or white, I was told that I am a Randite, I was told that I am to(o) young to know better and I am asked if I am Irish?

What's this obsession with labeling?

I am a human being on this planet among 7 billion others.

I observe, I deduce, I form opinions backed by facts and logical arguments.

What else do you need?

PS. That's exactly what this thread is about: tribalism.

Asking if you are Irish is not accusing you of anything. It's simply a question. Chill out.

A word you used was Irish in its nuance, hence I figured you may be Irish.

Don't answer if it's too much for you....

[Ned]

Parting words:

Tribe within a tribe

Tribe within a tribe within a tribe,
a maddening nesting of Matryoshka,
who can keep track of the obligation
one has to each generation.

I must be a good husband, a good citizen,
a good employee, a perfect gentleman,
and when my tribe tells me to fight
I have to go and bleed in the night.

Why can’t we just have only one tribe
that all of us belong to -- dammit
the tiger has only one kind of stripe
there is no reason to complicate it.

We are all human, on this forsaken planet
stuck in the same boat on the ocean,
if we keep fighting tribe against tribe
we will never have a moment
of peace, when we can love each other…

…forget the stupid tribes and learn to live together.


Bye guys, think about it...