It makes sense to hate someone if they did something heinous to you but it doesn’t make any sense to hate someone simply because they have a different skin color or gender or wear certain clothes.
Your premise is wrong right out the window.
No human hates another human for “NO REASON”.
They can hate other humans for bad reasons, false reasons, wrong reasons, they might hate them for all the right reasons too, but for no reason, that does not work. You do not do things for no reason. Thats not how your brain works.
I’d argue that you are literally incapable of doing anything without a reason.
“No reason” can not be extrapolated, it has no consequence, your brain cant conclude or want anything from it. How do you act on “no reason”?
Whenever you say “no reason” there is always an underlying reason there. No exceptions.
It might be deeper, it might be not conscious or rational, it might be something as simple as instinct or a whim. But no reason? That is factually not how your brain works. You cant make something out of nothing.
Why do humans hate other humans for not good reasons?
Because the other person did something that the hater doesn’t allow themselves to do.
Because they’ve been told to hate people in that category.
Because life has been shit, and sometimes it can feel like a break if you hate somebody else.
Because there is something about their facial expression.
Because hating somebody can be a way of defining yourself.
Because hating others is more pleasant than hating yourself.
Because they remind you of you, but you didn’t notice that.
Because they seem to have a better life, but you don’t believe in God.
Because they look like a person who makes the lives of people around them suck.
Because you’re extremely entitled, and in your warped perspective, they somehow kept you from getting exactly what you wanted.
For ‘no good reason’. JFC. Did you even GO to school?? Maybe it’s because humans are fucking cunts? Just saying.
1 Like
Was that a demonstration?
Ultimately it’s due to a lack of emotional and mental maturity. The past decade or so has shown that they are very much in the majority. It makes them prone to demagoguery, believing in conspiracy theories, xenophobia, racism, homophobia, transphobia, misogyny, etc. The list goes on and on. It also makes it nigh impossible to reason with them.
“Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired.”
—Jonathan Swift
Your examples make this out to be politicized and right leaning.
Xenophobia, racism, homophobia?
Whats fascinating is that the left never gets to be named as an example in these, even though its the most brutal of tribalism where every action is justified and excusable when its done in tow with the tribe or done against the common enemy.
The true level of fascination is the near complete moral blindness.
Not a blind spot. Blindness.
We preach acceptance, welcome all the migrants, welcome all the races, welcome all the homosexuals, believe all women, stand up for women’s rights… UNLESS they disagree with us because then fck’em, hang’em, kill’em.
Maybe its just the horseshoe theory, but its truly fascinating how the left is near identical in many aspects to the far right, yet it goes without mention and gets excused on a level that suggests some kind of cognitive dissonance or mental block. Is it because its harder to point at?
There are no flashy made up bs words like homophobia which can be used to point at them so they get a free pass even though they are responsible for more killing and destruction than the right is?
I somehow doubt this is related to emotional and mental maturity.
The left has plenty of mature great thinkers. Its just that most of them breathe double standards and hypocrisy as if it was air.
Here comes all of the politically correct liberals piling up into the thread.
What makes liberals hate heterosexual ethnocentric nationalist societies?
A hard default to using emotions instead of rationality, but thats the lesser mystery.
What i wonder about is why they are blind to it. Is it simply the perpetual self-justification that makes them ignore their own racism, their own murder, their own hatred?
Slapping all these labels onto things like racism, xenophobia, homophobia, and they literally dont mean fuck all because they cant even model the reasoning behind them. Its literally this thread of hatred = the right, and: “why do people feel” directly implying that there is no reason behind it.
Their very reasoning and understanding of the world is based on emotion, not logic, not evidence, not facts, not rationality.
Its not “whats the reason” its “why they hate”.
Its not “what motivates it” its “they lack emotional maturity”
Its not “is it valid and should their problems be addressed” its “they have ill opinions”
Its a hundred different shades of “im retarded and sincerely believe that feeling is thinking”
And that would be just one thing, but they are also completely blind to it, which makes it a perfect storm.
1 Like
Nationalist is better than globalist. Though nations themselves were like local globalisms when they formed and they tended to form around a number of ethnic groups, whether those groups wanted to be in the nation or not. The city states were pretty diverse, but outside of those, fairly large groups of one ethnic group might have a not clear region that wasn’t a nation. The state has been swallowing and or killing off pure ethnic groups going all the way back to just after everyone was in a tribe.
What heterosexual ethnocentric nationalist societies are you thinking of? Do you see, for example, the US moving towards ethnocentricty and what ethnic group will be in the center? And how will this be accomplished? How does this fit with communism which has tended to be and was intended to be internationalist? Marx did think capitalist set different ethnic groups against each other, but he did envision a world united diverse proletariat. He was pretty much against nation states.
I do understand that while you’re communist, this doesnt’ mean you agree with Marx or have to, just trying to get your position clear. Marx considered nations to be part of capitalism and used by capitalism. Was he wrong?
And Buddhism is also an odd mix with heterosexual ethnocentric nationalist societies. Not that it would fight them, but given that sentences like ‘I am Spanish’ ‘I am straight’ any identifications are when it comes down to it illusory. It’s anti-essentialist
1 Like
I describe myself as a nationalist, it’s just that my nationalism revolves around Marxism, socialism, and communism politically or economically.
The way the world is going they’re intentionally trying to destroy entire geographic areas that ethnic cultures have had for thousands of years. I view this as a negative thing. You cannot force multiculturalism or multiracialism, it has to happen naturally if it happens at all.
Heterosexual ethnic cultures are the norm. They can be found all over the world.
The United States was once majority European, but now our future destiny looks more and more like Central America or even South America.
For me Marx’s internationalism was about the cooperation of economic socialism and workers rights. It didn’t mean the destruction of overall nationalism or open borders to mass foreign immigration.
I don’t think Karl Marx was against nation states and if nation states shifted towards economic socialism ultimately that would be good gesture in the right direction.
What I view to be bad and if Karl Marx was alive I imagine he would feel the same is the push towards global government by these techno industrial capitalists we have today.
I am all for the proletariats of the world uniting together, but that doesn’t mean we have to destroy our national cultural ethnic societies to achieve that.
I agree with about 75% of what Marx has to say on things, on others I disagree where I come to my own conclusions.
In Buddhism beyond the monasteries identity is basically a given within the
common civilian population because you cannot expect entire populations of people to live and behave like monks or nuns.
1 Like
Well, the Spanish came mainly as lone males. So they interbred. It’s certainly a partly European incursion. But European? When their ethnocentric nations were ethnocetric nations they didn’t think of themselves as Europeans. And there was hatred there rivaling any ethnic hatreds. It wasn’t here come the Europeans with these nasty intruders from the South. Groups came that looked at each other as enemies and foreign cultures. So, the US had to figure out a way to be a non-ethnocentric country.
In other words, I’m what I’m saying here is that there’s something misleading about saying the United States was an ethnocentric nation of Europeans, but that’s not really what it was, because that wouldn’t have made sense to the people coming in. And the United States had to take steps to be something a little bit more like Rome in it’s empire days, you know? We are identified as citizens that have a similar sort of civic culture that we’ve forced upon everybody. Ethnic nation ----> Civic nation.
I think the problem is that now, now people, because we’re facing globalism, because it’s conceivable given technology, the speed of travel, the speed of communication, speed of control, a one-world government is possible. So now people sort of side with the nation-states if they do that, if they’re not globalists. The problem is, I think we’re forgetting that when the speed of control and travel and communication was much slower, nation-states are basically globalisms. They’re local globalisms. And I feel like nation-states get romanticized. One, very few are actually, you know, pure ethnically. All of them devoured groups that would not have naturally wanted to be absorbed. They were the globalizations of their day. The only thing that stopped them from being larger was technology. But I feel like it’s become this kind of, like it’s this romantic ideal of nation-states, but nation-states were the globalisms of their day. It was the same thing. It was absorbing large regions, at the time, enormous regions, in which many people didn’t even know there was something beyond the region, into a nation. And that had the same problems, and it was the same pushing power further and further away from the people the power had control of.
I sure don’t, but they’re not Buddhists. Or maybe a better way to put it there is Buddhist as the person who maybe goes to church a couple of times a year, and when they fill out a form, if there is a form for religion, I don’t know if they do that anymore. I think they still do it in prisons. They check off Christian, but they’re not really Christian. And those people aren’t really Buddhist.
1 Like
Utterly disappointed with the answers. Some of the responses from the people here were rude as well. The answers did not give a supernatural profound reason it was all naturalist answers if naturalism is true nothing is deep nothing has meaning human emotions are pointless and finally evil can always be justified.
Rude? Glad you were offended.
What’s the next question?
If I eat meat for my dinner tonight, does that mean I am a carnivore? Are carnivores evil? Why are humans so evil, is it because they are carnivores?
If you stop wanking and get out in the world, you’ll find answers to all your questions.
I stand by my answers, though this list is not complete. But further…what makes you think the deities don’t have the same problems we have? Is it all that Abrahamic crap we’ve been forced to listen to for a couple of thousand years. All those dry, omni-everything Gods floating around in a fluorescent-lit Heaven somewhere else.
How do you think things got this way? We had to have role models.
What kind of disposition is it when you are outright rejecting valid answers because you want to hear something “supernatural”?
This response was like a teacher failing someone at the math test because 1+1 might be 2 but the teacher wanted to read a scifi for an answer. The f was this response even supposed to be?
I recommend joining a religious sect if you want to listen to supernatural things instead of things that make sense and are true.
Lastly everything is exactly as deep as you make it. If your interpretation of naturalism is “my life is pointless” then the problem is inside your machine.
Life does not stop because its pointless. Life goes on despite it being pointless and invents it’s own reasons to be. If you cant contend with that, grab a religious pamphlet and join the quests of one of the imaginary skydaddies for xp and great loot in the afterlife.
Life is a binary system.
Remove “evil” from it and it will die.
Not everything needs a supernatural explanation, human decency doesn’t need supernatural claims to exist.
1 Like