It isn't always true but it often is. Where would the USA be if it didn't take land from Native Americans (The Atlantic seaboard)? What would have happened to the Spanish empire if it didn't have millions of Black slaves (nowhere. It wouldn't be able to finance itself)?
Perhaps things would have been better FOR EVERYONE, and particularly the marginalized and oppressed, if there never was a USA or Spanish Empire. Ever stop to think about that? Perhaps if there had been an
equitable and
mutually beneficial TRADE of IDEAS and RESOURCES/non-human commodities with the Native Americans and with Africans (who occupied a continent with resources that would’ve arguably made them the richest on the planet), the USA as we know it, with racial/ethnic brutality, inequality and injustice being the beginning of our foundation and most persistent illness, would not exist! Maybe something better and far more egalitarian would have come to fruition!
Or hell, even if Africa would’ve provided human labor, it could have been human labor that they were amply and justly compensated for in the form of contracts, equal pay for equal work, etc…. Perhaps less war and conquering in the name of unabashed greed and more even-handed trade would’ve allowed for a peaceful, more stable world order, with different nationalities, ethnicities and cultures living tolerantly side by side, similarly to what exists today in Western Europe. Well look at that, it’s not so impossible after all! (sarcasm) With all due respect, the problem with thinking like yours is that it lacks even the most basic imagination.
It doesn't matter if you're liberal who thinks religion was invented by an evil white man with a beard in order to imprison minds, you're weird if you don't have emotional feeling towards doing good things or no sense of morality. Morality isn’t culturally relative to Abrahamic religion. I think liberals have called a lot of things culturally relative to Abrahmanic religions which are actually universals. Some very deep thinking liberals like yourself have ditched those things because you think they’re culturally relative (and reinforce inequality or something like that).
Yes and No. My innate/natural/instinctive state is, indeed, “weird,” an outlier, an extreme version of a “right wing” brain taken to its most logical conclusion > icy cold, harsh logic and pragmatism. But you have missed my point: one doesn’t need to be motivated by some religious based morality or universalist humanitarianism centered on “goodness” in order to do the right (read: logically correct and intellectually sound) thing! And the right thing in this case would be to make decisions that ensure that all of humanity is treated fairly, justly and equitably and enjoys relative harmony, peace and stability.
Again, my point is that I innately have the type of brain that could understand and justify colonialism and slavery, that could justify mass annihilation, etc…. It is flawless albeit icy logic to deduce and conclude, for example, that “I need a lot of gold. These people are sitting on a sh*t ton of gold. The best way to get the most gold without sharing any of it is to annihilate the people sitting on the gold.” Having said that, somewhat tangentially, it would also be logical to run a cost analysis on to what degree the expenses expended funding an adequate enough war machine/effort are preferable to expending resources by way of trade in ascertaining said gold. Now THAT is TRUE logic and rationality in action.
And because I’m hellbent on understanding patterns and predicting future outcomes, I have logically concluded that sociopathic war machines, oppressive systems and institutions like colonialism and slavery, do NOT work sufficiently enough to establish long lasting balance, peace, stability and security
IF that is indeed, what most of us claim to want and actually want. I’m saying that even me, even people who are hardwired like I am—rather hunter like and predatory—should be able to see that any worldview centered on predation and oppression run contrary to the notion of a long-lasting peace and harmony.
Tell me, what's the point of helping people, if you don't have emotional feelings towards other humans? Why do people matter if you don’t have feelings for them? You care for them because of "strategy and practicality"? Doubt it.
1.) Umm, I did tell you, explicitly, and several times, the point of helping people even if I “don’t have emotional feelings towards other humans,” which, technically speaking, are your words and not mine. And that point is universal and far reaching PEACE, BALANCE, STABILITY, SECURITY and HARMONY. Furthermore, though limited, I do have feelings for other people, especially those falling within my various in-groups. Again, I’m quite tribal by nature. For those falling outside of my in-groups, it’s more of a struggle to deeply care on an intimate and personal level, if at all, honestly, but I do care more pragmatically on both a local and larger scale in the sense that if the out-groups live well and in peace, they’re less inclined to be a burden and hindrance to me and my interests.
2.) A small example: In Brooklyn, there was this rude and sensorially appalling homeless guy always standing out in front of my favorite deli—he was the type to instantly make you lose your appetite on sight. Most people would either turn away if they saw him or just walk on by and ignore him completely. The thing is, he was never asking for money, but only food. Whenever I encountered him, I’d always give him a few bucks and buy him something to eat JUST TO MAKE HIM GO AWAY and spare myself and everyone else the unnecessary sick stomach. He revolted me on every level--1,000 years ago, he might have met my blade in the form of a mercy killing but in a modern society, there are consequences and repercussions for that sort of thing.
My charity to him was tempered and humane (out of necessity) but PRACTICAL regarding my most immediate needs. I did not give to him out of some moral inclination to do good, but out of a pragmatic one so that I would not have to suffer his stench. And on a macro scale, I endorse and vote for policies that would allow people like him to have the appropriate housing and mental health care they so desperately need IN ORDER TO NOT BE A SOCIAL BLIGHT AND UNENDING ASSAULT ON MY SENSES. The average “bleeding heart” liberal might be appalled at my coldness and emotional detachment but guess what, sometimes the “why” of why we do something is less important than the fact that we did it.
3.) It has been said that the level of one’s intelligence is dependent on how many different perspectives and points of view they can hold, engage and understand at the same time. It seems like you still have some growing to do in this regard. Just because you can not personally relate to my thinking and worldview, does not make it disingenuous or a lie—you don’t have to empathetically feel something in order for it to be so. The fact of the matter is that the logic of what I’m saying can’t be disputed. Not everyone experiences the world through feeling, some of us experience it rather cognitively and rationally. And by no means am I privileging thinking over feeling. Both should be used with balance, but they both come with varying strengths and weaknesses.
You have clearly manufactured this nihilistic, deep thinking persona. It’s not who you are, it’s who you wish you were. Like how you decided to ditch morality, you decided to be nihilistic.
One of the most dangerous things to western civilization is people who think like you. People who put far left wing, communist, nihilistic philosophies over “primitive” moral principles.
Tell me, how did the Soviet Union work out? It did away with evil religion, tribalism (put many nations under one roof), and class inequality? Sounds like your type of country.
??? None of this makes sense. You’re misusing terms and conflating things that shouldn’t be.
1.) I haven’t manufactured anything. You don’t remotely know me well enough to make that determination. I’m actually being brutally honest, outing myself, if anything. I’ve yet to be a hypocrite in my commentary on this forum. If one were more discerning at noticing patterns, it would’ve been fairly easy to deduce a certain reliance on logic and lack of sentimentality in some of my view points—for example, my admission (in a previous dialogue with you, actually) that I’m an avid hunter with a potent violent streak who gets a thrill from the hunt and predator/prey dynamics. CLEARLY, and I’ve said this on more than one occasion, I’m not the average liberal.
2.) I’m prone to nihilism but OBVIOUSLY, I am not actively embracing nihilism or else I’d sit back and allow our darkest impulses to consume me, along with everyone else and ensure our inevitable destruction because nothing matters anyway—this whole time I’ve been arguing in favor of conscious, rational CHOICES and DECISIONS, devoid of any moral imperative, that would lead to peace, harmony, security, stability and balance. YOU, on the other hand, are the one that actively displayed nihilism, upon declaring that though you are a nice guy, “it’s a doggy dog world…Unless you want your country to be dirt, you have to miss treat people of other nations.” That’s a blatant embrace of nihilistic sociopathy that would only lead to further bloodshed, oppression and destruction of the human race.
3.) You must pay greater attention to what I actually say and not invent things I have not said. For the umpteenth time, I have more of a fascistic, right leaning personality type and brain wiring. I do NOT have a “liberal” brain. First of all, cold, rational, detached, unfeeling logic knows no single ideology or party affiliation, which is why there can be some overlap between the extreme “fascistic right” and the extreme “communistic left” but I am explicitly telling you that my natural
inclinations veer more towards the right, even though I actively embrace a more liberal worldview because liberal, progressive policies will help to level the scales (the entirety of the world is weighted towards the right) and provide more balance in the way of enfranchising the disenfranchised, redistributing wealth, growing the middle class, bridging the gender gap, less hawkishness, etc…, which in turn grants greater equality, peace and stability, which means that all of our lives improve.
4.) My rationale for this is completely based on looking at historical patterns and coming to logical conclusions about the best way forward. Once equality is achieved, I’d become staunchly centrist to maintain the balance. Again, I am not defined by ideology, but by an unrelenting reliance on logic, despite baser instincts, and am primarily motivated by what will work best to bring about a greater harmony so that I don’t have to endure all the crap that comes from inequality. And whereas I appreciate pre-communistic Russia and Russian culture, nothing about modern Russia entices me whatsoever. Please read what I have said VERY carefully.
It isn’t that simple Wanderlust. For the most part Americans do respect the police. And even if Police were never corrupt or abusive, there’d still be people who hate them.
So what? There will always be irredeemable outliers, those who should be buried underneath the prison or just buried altogether. But in a just society, the actions of a few don’t dictate how the majority are treated. Period.