Disagreeing with Your Tribe

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

What are issues on which you disagree with your ‘tribe’, i.e. your religion, your political faction, your ideological allies – whatever belief-delineated group or groups you identify as a part of, what beliefs set you apart?

For me:

  • I’m an atheist, but I think religion is probably good for society.
  • I’m pro-choice, but I think the vehemence of pro-life people is understandable and rational – and compassionate – given their beliefs.
  • I’m an economic progressive, but I oppose the minimum wage, Keynesian economics, much regulation, corporate taxes, etc. etc.
  • I’m a libertarian but I think we should have a large redistributive basic income.
  • I’m a pacifist but I think kids should be taught how to fight.

My impression is that coalitions are much less uniform than we believe, and there is a surprising diversity of beliefs within them. We talk about them as though they are one thing, e.g. pointing to different parts of a coalition acting in incompatible ways and treating it as a failure of understanding of all members of the coalition, when more likely it’s just different members of the coalition doing them.

If we thought more about that diversity, and didn’t act like every member was responsible for the actions of every other member, or even if we phrased criticism as “fine, you support Y, but you’re in a coalition with people who support X and that’s a problem”, it would make change within coalitions and cooperation between coalitions easier. And ultimately, it would make coalitions more fluid, so that people could align on small issues with people that agree with them on those issues, instead of throwing in their lot with the coalition whose haphazard bucket of ideas has the fewest problems. Two large coalitions are too easy, and creates too much factionalism and sports mentality. A messier collection of many small and weakly bound coalitions encourages cooperation, because defection and realignment becomes easier, creating an incentive for compromise.

2

We don’t even bust monopolies anymore.

The problem with that is that ideas from their originators are sold off.

We think of patent rights as a reward for the extremely hard work of innovation.

The rights for monopoly was sold for 500 dollars way back when. She didn’t have the money or investors. It’s the most popular best selling board game on earth, bringing billions.

Innovators are bought out.

It’s like Russia. With the illusion that patents work anymore. In Russia there are no patents. No illusion there. All property of the state.

In western country it’s property of the oligarchical plutocrats.

3

Maybe we just do away with the whole tribal thing and focus on one issue at a time. That way, you don’t even have to have elections, you just periodically poll everybody electronically (at their convenience) regarding their stance on issues after you educate them (a prerequisite) in their style of learning, so you & they know they made their choices wisely. Even let them vote on how the education works. The more educated people give input on the way things are phrased in the education (including tests for education level), the more likely it is it will accurately reflect the issues. It still won’t be perfect, but it will increase the likelihood that a minority/special interest (like that of the 1%) isn’t skewing the data/interpretation—provided they don’t manipulate the data because they have the wealth/influence to control everything that is going on electronically. HAS to be an improvement on the current situation. Everyone should be educated on how to do self=other in their thoughts, feelings, and behavior, and demonstrate a certain level of proficiency, before their input is sought on the issues. And that should be the only requirement—not age level, not geographic location… nuthin else but self=other aptitude.

4

welcome to alabama

5

Ecmandu, how does that relate to tribalism or diversity of beliefs? Is it because intellectual property stifles expression?

I think this is not possible. Humans are tribal by nature, maybe not to a person, but there certainly seems to be a widespread, innate tendency to attach to identities and form coalitions (even outside of politics, e.g. sports, cliques, fandoms).

It also seems like it’s unstable. If I don’t care about issue X and you do, and you don’t care about issue Y and I do, we can make a deal that benefits us both. So rational people who care about some but not all issues will form coalitions to advance their cause, and stop focusing on one issue at a time.

I’d support something like the system you go on to describe, though. I’ve dabbled with legislative juries (randomly selected people who come together to decide a single issue), or even a randomly selected legislature. Having everyone vote on everything probably wouldn’t work, because people suck at voting and parties would just push a platform of votes instead of a platform of candidates. A randomly selected deliberative jury would make that process somewhat harder, since most people wouldn’t be answering a particular question, so broadly distributed messages would be mostly wasted.

But I think we can we weaken tribalism culturally without a total governmental overhaul. Encourage modes of thought and discourse that tend to highlight divisions within tribes, so tribes either become weaker or tolerate diversity, either of which weakens their effect. For example, make intratribal diversity salient by asking people where they personally break with their tribe…

6

I don’t think all tribalism is bad, depending on your definition of tribalism. For example, I affirm the diversity between cultures which is not in violation of self=other (us=them)—that leaves so much room for good diversity… between individuals and between cultures.

The 1% do not “recognize” self=other — that is why the laws do not reflect it, and the people are not empowered to self-represent in alignment with self=other. Settling for anything less is an other-imposed violation against the dignity of personhood…because if you “occupy” rather than settle… the other has nukes and controls the means of production.

Merry Christmas!

7

it’s interesting that the only people that should not identify with a tribe are those of the European branch of the Indo-Euroepan family tree.

The Jews literally define themselves as ancestors of 12 Semitic tribes, with a 13nth missing one.
Their Tribalism is elitist.
Blacks, unable to trace their lineage back to a specific sub-Saharan tribe, identify with the general ‘African’, incorporating them into a singular family tree.
Ironically, they can distinguish who is of their tribal family from a dark skinned southeast Asian…unlike zombified Americans, who have reduced race/ethnicity to skin pigmentation and sex/gender to sexual organs, to then dismiss them as superficial and insignificant.

Asians identify tribally. Chinese are Han, the Japanese, the Koreans…Indians have converted their tribal identities into castes.
The only group that should not identify with their ancestral tribe, are Europeans.

Not only can they not identify with their collective biological identifiers, but they must dilute their ancestry by adopting Americanism.
American mixed individuals, having been diluted in America’s ‘meting pot’ cauldron, cannot even identify as Europeans, but must reduce themselves to ‘white’ - which would include anyone with the same general skin pigmentation.
Only Europeans must adopt the American model and accept other races, cultures into their native homelands…not Asians…not Africans…only Europeans must lose all biological identifiers, including sex/gender and race/ethnicity.

Only Europeans must become like Careless and the other degenerates on ILP, zombies:
proverbial representations of individuals acting as herds.
For a more comprehensive analysis of the zombie proverbial archetype visit https://knowthyself.forumotion.net/t2327-zombie-apocalypseZombie Apocalypse, because I am not going to waste my time on the braindead by rewriting everything for retards to predictably piss and shit on it, without even trying to understand it.

Suffice to say:
What are the defining traits of these movie zombies - having real life examples in nature?
Their loss of biological identities.
Zombies are all infected by the same virus - nihilism - carried into their midst by the same parasite - which I will not get into here.
They are symbolically stripped of their physical identifiers, acquiring a uniformity in physical appearance.
The flesh is literally rotting on their bones.
And though they have no central organization, acting as independent individuals - American - they nevertheless act as a collective, driven by shared hungers; the compulsion of the virus to infect the uninfected, i.e., messianism.
They have no leader, no shared ideals…only a shared hunger - hedonism - and a drive to infect anyone who remains uninfected.
A quintessential representation of Americanism: individuals thinking, behaving uniformly; their individuality a facade for an underlying ideological uniformity.
Zombies have no obvious sex, race, but they behave with a predictable uniformity, as they are all infected by the same virus - nihilistic ideology.

Individualisms, - divide and control - reduces them down to an ideology - stripped of biological identifiers, of ethnic/cultural identifiers - deconstructed down to a meme.
Anything that inhibits total indoctrination into this shared idea, is to be eliminated, including traditional families, religions, tribal identities etc.
Individuals that act in unison, despite feeling individualistic, selfish, egotistical etc.; individuals that can be easily manipulated and directed, having no alternate source of guidance, or sense of self - identity; individuals compelled by the same ambitions, the same standards, the same fabricated ideals.
just watch the uniform thinking of the Americans on ILP; their uniform approach to what I am saying: their tactics.
Slaves that feel free…and yet many of them dismiss free-will as nonsensical, intuitively understating that their thinking and acting is entirely taken over by a virus that drives them to do and say what is contrary to their biological self-interests - ‘self’ reduced to an idea that can then be rejected as non-existing; individuals linguistically disconnected from reality, detached form their own ancestry, their own tribal past.
Zombies.

8

“To say something can be diluted is to say that before it evolved/arrived to the dilutable point, it was diluted (still gestating/approaching). What is the standard of measure for arriving to that dilutable/viable homeostatic point? Does nature know or care? And is personhood only recognizable by physical characteristics… are figures in a wax museum persons if that which they mimic is not diluted? What non-‘face’ characteristics rule one in/out as a person?”

— Phantom of the Opera to The Elephant Man & Cyrano de Bergerac

9
10

This is a complicates issue for you, Itchy?
It’s nature: fluctuating environment.
Fitness.

What is diluted are all the genetically inherited traits that produced success, within more adverse environmental circumstances.
Minds evolved in adverse circumstances create stable, predictable manmade environments, which then atrophy it…

And the safety and predictably of the environments it maintains eventually lead it to a state of ennui, or insanity…beleiving that it can now do as it pleases and is liberated from natural order.
Leading the cycles of human civilizations:

Diagram - Cycles of Culture.jpg
Diagram - Cycles of Culture.jpg678×960 112 KB

No god Itchy.…it scratches but no relief for you.
Nature is a dynamic process of interactivity - chaotic and ordered.

Yet, it doesn’t change at a rate that would inhibit the emergence of life that is based no patterns.
Adaptation is how life adjust to this fluctuating state of unpredictability and predictability - chaos & order.

Man intervenes creating many of the issues he then wants to correct.

Manmade systems prevent the processes of culling from balancing populations with environments.

11

So it is your position that genes “adapt” to the environment—NOT that genes error-correct against changes/mistranslations, and any mistranslation is NOT an adaptation to the environment?

Based on what?

12

Adaptation is self-correction, dear…if the organism cannot self-correct it dies.
The organism with the mutations necessary to adapt, or fortunate enough to have mutations advantageous to the new environment, will become dominant.

Adaptation is free-will adjustments to unforeseeable environmental conditions.

The traits that allowed a species, such as homo sapiens, dominate species that are stronger, faster, more durable, more prolific, are the same traits that allowed one race to dominate…and are the same that help individuals dominate other individuals.

No god.

God, was originally a term associated with one’s dead ancestors; then it became a term referring to incomprehensible natural forces.
Your god, the Jew god, is the antithesis to nature, and life and of experienced existence.
You are a nihilist - in the truest sense of the word…not your modern conventional definitions.

13

You seem like you have no idea what you’re talking about on any point and I do not have time to educate you on stuff readily available to you. You have to be pretending.

14

In 2023 imagine caring about what ‘tribes’ you (are supposed to) align with. And no that is not directed at Carleas.

Truths win out. Ideas, realities. Facts. No one cares what tribe you call yourself, although I know it feels good to do that. We are tribal monkes. “No its MY muh piece of dirt!!” “NOO its Mwiyenee!!! Gimme!!!”

And so and and on. But what is funniest about it is that tribalism is already dead. Sure people still adhere to it. But it doesn’t matter in the real world. I mean ok, some people use tribal nepotisms to get ahead in life, of course. That will always occur. But at the baseline, in the real world for most people? Ain’t no tribe gonna step in and save you. Only hard work and effort on your part is gonna make the difference.

15

And to directly address Carleas’ point in the OP here:

No tribe ever cares about changing or adapting to what its members think. The tribe has its set positions and beliefs. Those define it. En mass. If you deviate then you are the aggressor and outsider.

Tribes exist literally to resist change. Not the other way around. Despite that, of course, “everything evolves/adapts…” (often against its own will)

16

Of course he is pretending. Parikeet is pretender #1.

Don’t be fooled when he interjects a few of his own random sentences into the otherwise chat-gpt run-on trollings of his usual posts. The better frauds understand how to make use of the appearance of authenticity at least.

17

You’re mad I stole your look and rocked it better.

18

#-o

19

You people consider reality racist and disgusting…

Ethnicity = race = tribe.

Race = sub-category of species human.
Ethnicity = cultural + race.
Tribe = sub-category of race. Primal designation of ethnicity.

Americans do not like biological identifiers…including sex/gender, race/ethnicity, or tribe.
Jews identify tribally - 12/13 Semitic tribes that god chose…
Africans are tribal, but lacking knowledge as to which tribe they originate from and because of mixing, they encompass all the sub-Saharan tribes under a racial identifier - black.
Europeans of mixed heritage do the same - white.
Black/White are not racial, since there are Indians darker or as dark skinned as Negroes of the sub-Sahara, and there are Semites that are just as fair skinned as Southern Europeans.
This simplification is intentional.

Skin pigmentation is, like all pigmentations associated with species and sub-species, only a one trait among many.

Adaptation = willful adjustment of an individual to fluctuating circumstances.
The alternative is more costly: natural selection.
Adaptation seeks to adjust what has been naturally selected so as to preserve an individual.

Adaptation uses stored memories of past judgments/choices and knowing the consequences, changes them to produce a better outcome.
Natural selection exterminates or denies reproduction to individuals that have inherited unfit genetics and selects those with fit genetics.
Fitness is determined by environment.
Severe environmental shifts necessitate extreme adaptation, such as the Ice Age which produced the Indo-Euorepean race. A near extinction event that naturally selected individuals with creativity and will to survive in very adverse environments.
African tribes faced no such extreme circumstances and so they did not evolve.

Men try to adjust environments, rather than themselves relative to it.
This intervention, if successful, propagates unfit mutations, allowing them to compound over time.
This compounding over time makes them increasingly dependent on further human interventions…and increasingly unable to endure anything that reminds them of nature, or the world outside human interventions, or human artificially created and maintained environments.
For such individuals anything that reminds them of nature - her indifference, brutality, injustices etc. - is considered a threat: fascist, nazi, evil.
He is associated with what they refuse to acknowledge. He is the face of a world they cannot endure.

Artificial = interventions on natural environments that begin to affect individuals more than the original environment.

Human interventions, guided by ideals, convert natural selection into social selection.
The products of social selection are not immune to nature…and so civilizations rise and fall.
Degeneracy is a symptom of civilizational decline, as compounding mutations have propagated to the point of psychosomatic unfitness that require interventions that exceed those available to a system.
When these unfit mutations have reached their apex the group can no longer maintain itself, nor its interventions on nature.

Of course, man can automate the process, using technologies…but this doesn’t deal with the consequences of compounding unfit mutations that propagate what cannot sustain itself independently.
Dependence on manmade environments is outsourced into a growing dependence on technologies to compensate for increasing human degeneration, i.e., unfitness.
At some point men can no longer survive nor reproduce without technologies…not maintain them.
If these technologies reach a level where they can also self-reprlicate, then humanity has made itself superfluous. It is no longer master but slave.

20

unbiasing bias with a bias toward maintaining contact with reality

Some previous thoughts: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p … 7#p2921217 (scan for bye bye science)

make all the incongruities pivot self=other, us=them (extension of A=A that acknowledges no inquires if they don’t care about getting the answer)

in essentials (self=other being the essence) …unity

in non-essentials (diversity —within and between individuals and groups— that does not violate self=other) …liberty

in all things …charity (steel man their position and acknowledge mitigating circumstances for the straw)

Props to Rupertus Meldenius.