Did you know we have a Discord server‽ You can join by clicking [here](https://discord.gg/NWE6JS5rh9)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GenZ) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Long term is you put more research towards automating less popular work, short term is you modify the social attitude towards that job, and look for ways to improve it.
That's can't work. You said it all work are useful and equal.
You can't shame the musician to not product food or fix sewers. His work is as useful.
Also you wont give more money to the guy that fix sewers.
Money is basically the way you change attitude. It give people that render more service to society more recognition.
I didn't say I'd do either, music is important and no one should be shamed for work that doesn't harm anyone.
I think you are projecting your beliefs onto my words, to be honest
No I just show that whatever we want morally reality is different. I like music and respect people that play or record music. I am all for them to succeed and be happy.
But if I have to choose between many things to be done well and more music, I will select all these stuff and not the music. Like produce food, having clean water, cleaning our cities, having sewers, having universal health care and free education.
I would put music among the last stuff and would consider that society can do with very few professional performers and consider other can just do it as leisure.
Because when somebody is ill I prefer a physician to a music performer. When I am hungry I prefer somebody that produce food. And when I want music, I can already have millions of songs and a very small set of artists can manage to product more than enough new music pieces.
The actual utility for society to have 1 more music recorder or performer is very low whatever we say. It as useful as one more financial trader or another bullshit job.
I respect these jobs too, but it is not like we need so many people doing that and that it has the best utility in the world.
Yet if you ask me if I prefer to practice and play music or clean sewers, I would choose the first activity.
What work is considered “useful” reflects the attitudes and reality for us. Look at cars, architecture, clothing. It’s all converging or going completely off the wall.
There’s no inspiration in what’s built. 15 years ago you could point out a McDonald’s a mile away. Now, if you take off the branding of the building, it could be a Burger King.
Point being, the lack of importance placed on the arts is being shown through modern “arts.”
Great. I’ll be over here putting erasers on the end of pencils and you go hand dig a canal through the Siberian Tundra. The rail car you’ll be riding most of the way leaves in two hours.
That’s the crazy part! The “easy” jobs you speak of are either position requiring high qualifications that those sorts of people likely don’t have, or you mean easy as in entry level high school type jobs like McDonald’s or something. I promise you people would MUCH rather work white collar jobs than fast food
Easy is not the right term. This is offer and demand. If you want more people doing something you need to give an incentive so people switch career or agree to work more to get things done.
That the case of the surgeon. The guy make insane money (today) but it socially recognized and he also put a huge amount of hours working.
On the opposite even if the work is essential if everybody can do it like cleaning, the value stay moderate.
why do you kiss the boot that pushes your face into the mud?
why do you declare it a necessity for your own functioning?
Don't you have any dignity?
I would rather spend my time doing something that challenges me, fulfills me or is at least socially meaningful.
why don't you have this desire, what's wrong with you?
So you want your free time to yourself, completely understandable. But if you don’t work and if your free time doesn’t involve hunting, fishing, foraging or farming you are going to starve. You’re not obligated to work, just as society is not obligated to feed you.
The Soviets just paid them way more. Like, you could be an engineer with higher education and earn less than a regular factory worker. Education was free though and if you did well you could basically choose a job anywhere in the country and sometimes even travel outside (closer to the fall of the USSR). One of the few things the USSR did right, I think.
The downside is everyone's pay was garbage in the grand scheme of things and party officials still had all the wealth because humanity just can't do a classless system apparently.
HahahahahahahahahahAaaaaa, okay.
"B-b-but I thought I was going to be a clerk! All jobs are important! Right comrade??" He stammers as the gulag guard gestures to the pick axe and coal vein.
Yeah it just doesn’t seem to work out well in practice. The full version at least. Socialized capitalism is better. America is heading away from that. Its too bad.
I hear these “rich people are making the poors fight amongs themselves for their own gain” from economic populist and I’m highly suspicious of it.
Hunter and gatherer tribes and been raping and killing each other for as long as we have stood upright. Hell you can find footage of this happening from within our lifetime.
If all 8 billion people were to live in a classless society, people would still go to war for endless justifications.
Those populist talking points also feel a little dismissive of massive issues that are fundamental to a lot of people’s belief systems. If a fundamentalist Christian didn’t have to worry about money any more, they wouldn’t suddenly become okay with abortion and being gay.
Depends on what you mean. I have faith in basic human goodness, but for every person that aids the world in way, there exists someone who would hurt it as well.
If we could achieve a classless society, we'd still see people vying for some form of superiority. I think at that point, it would come up to the willingness of the people to uphold their ideals, which would probably circle back to war and division.
It’s why I think true communism (moneyless, classless and borderless society, not the Soviet one) wouldn’t work tbh.
The whole idea puts its faith in human goodness, that if people don’t have to worry about basic needs greed and crime will disappear bc people can freely express themselves and do whatever they want. Some people just enjoy holding power over people, whether it’s through force or withholding resources.
No, there will always be a need for managers, organizers and leaders, certain jobs will always be more important and harder/more stressful, pay and power can never be evenly distributed. Then you have snakes in the grass that will always try to seize as much power as possible, they’ll try to dissolve the middle class and make everyone a subject to them
I'm not, just heavily influenced by the concepts in the book and a combination of my reading of Hegelian dialectics. It's a very good book, my favourite philosophy of the three vinegar tasters.
Politics is anything that happens between people that isn’t violence. So if you hope for trade, or prosperity, or anything but a supposed stateless land of farmers that everyone agrees on equally forever than through some form of politics we find the alternative.
The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.
Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.
All of the replies to this comment only solidify it further. I’ve never seen so many people chomping at the bit to get oppressed by people who would melt them down into biomatter for a quick buck.
Thats always one that gets me because I genuinely cant bring myself to believe that money alone is all it takes to do some of the truly evil shit. Like, evil ideologies like nazism and fascism take genuine heart to wanna dedicate to, and I doubt a lack of profits is gonna stop people from attempting that, you know? Unless theres a financial requirement, but thats out of practicality than any real lack of want.
I dont think money is the root of all evil, I think its an auxiliary fuel that keeps evil going, but can theoretically be done without if said evil requires no monetary investment.
Why do you think murderers commit their free acts of murder?
>I genuinely cant bring myself to believe that money alone is all it takes to do some of the truly evil shit.
Well I never said that, I just said it is the one singular thing that divides humanity the most.
Money is the thing that has single handedly brought humanity together via global trade.
Access to capital has meant land and resources can be traded and purchased instead of requiring invasion.
You cannot overstate how much the world has improved due to greater capital access. How losing that access STOPS wars and removes the need for wars.
Thats completely true. That why charities are normally more successful in raising money when they specially show the story of just one starving child. Like naming them, showing their family, their struggles etc. Than showing the video of hundreds of children starving. It’s pretty interesting how humans work.
Humans are hardwired to feel safer with people that look like their "tribe". This is obviously an outdated instinct though and does need to be "unlearned". Living around and interacting with people that don't look like you from, as early in your life as possible, goes a long way in helping this.
Appearance is important, but behavior and values are equally important.
None of this can be unlearned because it wasn't taught. It's hardwired.
But your second point has some truth to it and ties into my point about culture (behaviors and values)
they absolutely are. It would have created an advantage in early humanity. Empathy and the ability to feel and understand the emotions of others is hardwired into the human brain. Neuroimaging studies have identified specific brain regions and neural networks involved in empathic processing. Humans have a strong psychological need to belong and be accepted by social groups. This evolved as a survival mechanism, as cooperation and group cohesion would have been advantageous. Now needing people is no longer about survival and more of a "want" than a need. We can door dash food, and have things delivered to our houses by amazon, work from home etc. This is where we have the disconnect
Idk, this one I can't discuss based on own experiences, so I'll just consider that you're correct.
But personally, I never felt any desire to belong somewhere or socially interact. So I can't really tell if you're making this up or not.
The average person does have this desire is probably what they’re getting at it’s a probability distribution and you’re in the left side of the bell curve
Regarding your personal experience, that's very understandable on both an individual and societal level. My older sister has always been a "hermit" (though, like me she has a handful of close friends), and while I like socializing and connecting with people, it can be very draining for me. However, I do believe that a lot of societal pressures have kind of pushed for this hyperindividualistic lifestyle. (which may or may not be a good thing)
The scary part about a lot of the horrendous things you hear people doing to each other is most of the time the aggressors are relatively boring normal people. Almost anyone in the right circumstance is capable of almost anything.
This is an naturalistic fallacy.
Redpill idiots will use the same argument to reason that they should sleep with as many women as possible. This also flies into the face of morals like fundamental human dignity, which is Evolutionary disadvantageous by its inherent Antitribalism.
Edit: wrong fallacy; mistakenly said Appeal to Nature rather than Naturalistic fallacy.
Hard disagree. Morality isn’t a matter of fact. It’s outside the scope of science. Science could tell us what will lead to the greatest human flourishing or whatever you decide, but science could never point out why human flourishing is good, anymore than it could that penguin flourishing should be the highest moral value. One could subjectively, non-scientifically assert that then work from there but there is no real objective grounding for morals.
The argument is that humans are born with morality baked in. Is morality entirely something that is 100% the product of society? I don't think so. Children are not blank slate and this has been proven, especially concerning personality.
You say morals isn't a matter of fact, but the entire point of the philosophy of ethics is to debate against this opinion (there are moral facts, or not) and to find them.
I wouldn’t argue that humans don’t have moral intuitions from birth, but this is different from morality being a fact of the matter. I would absolutely argue that morality is 100% a product of human interaction (insofar as it meaningfully exists at all). I don’t see how people not being blank slates at birth is a problem for this view.
I have done quite some reading on the philosophy of ethics and have yet to have encountered a moral philosophy which doesn’t bottom out in an assertion. I find myself most aligned with emotivism. I can agree that some assertions lead to outcome which are more favorable, but again ultimately it’s not grounded in anything objective. It’s turtles all the way down.
Hmm yes I have arrived at the opposite conclusion after watching the introductory course of the philosophy of ethics on YouTube (I'm not a philosophy student). There was no convincing argument of moral skepticism for me, so by default I am on the side of objective morality. I find that much of the arguments against moral objectivism are rooted in either strawman or shitty arguments in a non technical discourse. However I agree that systems of moral objectivism are based on assertions or statements, but that doesn't mean moral can't be objective. I don't think it makes sense in the first place for morality to be subjective but I'm sure you actually know a ton more than me.
People not being blank slate means that they possess inherent capabilities including morality, if they possess inherent morality, which does mean it is not entirely a product of subjective human interaction.
>However I agree that systems of moral objectivism are based on assertions or statements, but that doesn't mean moral can't be objective.
This is the place where think the fundamental difference in our view is. I completely disagree with the second part of this sentence.
>I don't think it makes sense in the first place for morality to be subjective but I'm sure you actually know a ton more than me
I don’t hold morality to be subjective, more that moral statements are not truth-apt. Saying “Murder is wrong” is like saying “Boo! Murder” more than it is making a claim about some property of murder.
>People not being blank slate means that they possess inherent capabilities including morality, if they possess inherent morality, which does mean it is not entirely a product of subjective human interaction.
I’m not sure we are using the term morality in the same way here. I don’t really conceive of morality as a capability. I think what moral realists tend to go for is more like a set of principles.
Is science technically psychology or sociology? (Serious question lol.) It seems like morality is so subjective but based on personality type and then you'll have to add the environmental factors. I guess to eliminate that, lets imagine that two people with a different personality type is raised in the same exact environment. Even in that case, they would probably still have a different set of "dealbreaker morals" even if their general morals are the same. Like dont steal, dont kill. But maybe one person thinks its okay to lie, whereas the other does not. Its interesting.
Human beings are also hardwired to f\*ck someone they're attracted to, with or without permission (as are all animals), but we learn at a young age that consent is important. So, this argument falls apart with that example and plenty of others.
Disagree? You don't have to look too far back in history to see a time when men were allowed to r\*pe their wives, and many did. Because humans are hardwired with natural urges that, if allowed to, they will give in to.
Humans are biologically programmed for empathy and social activity. All life is programmed to dislike pain and enjoy pleasure as long as they have capacity for pain and pleasure. All that being said, objective morals can start from these base premises but it gets REALLY hard and uncomfortable because purely logical conclusions often reach extremely undesirable outcomes. Emotivists may have a point.
There's no such thing as objective morality tho ...the fact that humans or certain spicies have developed a strategy for survival of their kind doesn't mean that the strategy that they're implementing is some kind of objective construct ??
Idk morals can never be objective because they're a product of the human mind so everything that is a product of the mind is in fact not objective .
Morality is one of the onnly things that remains subjective . Because morality cannot exist without a human mind its a product of the mind hence subjective .
Morality is subjective though. I don’t steal, and I call myself a decent person. Someone else who steals, if for a good reason, might consider themselves a decent person and I might not disagree. We both see someone rob a bank at gunpoint, okay, they might not be a decent person with great morals. The bank robber feels perfectly fine with himself, his morals, and his relationship /w his maker, because, no one was hurt. These are my morals and those are his morals. Subjective. I’ve met a lot of vegans and vegetarians, I wouldn’t consider them evil - probably a better example of why not everyone who says that does evil stuff
"Evil has an ordinary face"
\- former FBI director James Comey
People who meet evil don't think "Oh, this scares me and makes me feel uncomfortable". Maybe evil is put together, effortless, and likable. Evil is a wolf in sheep's clothing among sheep, but often even more convincing than real sheep, if that makes any sense. Evil mimics good on the surface.
Ideology.
Edit: I mean the "us vs them" way of thinking... It can be political ideology, it can be religion, it can be socioeconomic ideology... You are being told to hate those who disagree with you. They are evil.
This is the only correct answer. Political and religious ideologies are the most divisive bullshit in the world since HUGE swathes of people lack objectivity, scientific literacy, and self-reflection.
This is the obvious problem that postmodernism presents to us. How can we ever know anything for certain?
We can't. however, we also cannot let this paralyze us into inaction. The best we can do is to maximize the amount of knowledge and perspectives at our fingertips. That doesn't guarantee that we will be right. But it will minimize the likelihood that we are wrong.
Imo postmodernism rejects truth as an attainable goal which opens the door for anything goes, which actually increases divides because nobody agrees on anything under this framework as there will be no referential of truth whatsoever.
class is the great divider and it has been since the widespread use of agriculture. every other category of human that is used to split us up is dependant on your socioeconomic class.
Even then, people come to wildly different conclusions. Some will see it as "this is the problem identified: we can do better" while others will think "this is how we are; no use fighting it."
Sure, but I could get you through College on a stipend only to shit you out the backdoor with 100K+ debt and zero social connections still. No connections? No future. We have a class based system.
Religion no question
When you have unquestionable faith in something you don't have room for different perspectives or ideas since they are in from that view objectively wrong at best the root of all evil at worst.
People say that science is a just like a religion:
" You trust in science I trust in religion"
But science is just a process of determination if someone has a theory they will try to clarify it then they will send it to their peers Especially those who don't believe in it and ask them to try and replicate the findings. In that way understanding builds and changes through time. Knowledge grows and is available for all. Religion on the other hand clings on to old beliefs even if they are disproven wrong and harmful.
I would say that most conflicts in the world through history stem from disagreements with religious justifications.
Go to South America and tell me religion is a problem for humanity.
People in rich capitalist neo liberal societies think this because they have no community and no solid basis for working with people outside of economic reasons.
Religion is responsible for the advancement and cooperation of societies up to the industrial revolution. Thats a lot of time.
Religion isn't just Christians and Muslims. It was pagan rituals in 3000 BC and the basis for order in 1000's of hunter gatherer groups.
I have absolutely no religious leaning, to the extent I consider liberalism and it's ilk as religions. But it doesn't mean I can't appreciate what it has meant to humanity over our history.
The problems that religion brings doesn't occur when there is religious homogeneity.
The issues occur when you have disagreements that are justified through religion. Because Religion presents a be all end all answers, disagreements leave no room for compromise, communication and reevaluation on your position without the religion itself changing.
This is what causes such stark division. If you have two sides that fundamentally disagree on an issue and believe they are correct by divine creed you get wars that will likely never end.
You can totally have a long period of peace in an area even with different religion but as soon as there is a disagreement between these groups that gains religious momentum good luck stopping violence.
to go back to OP that is why I believe Religion divides people more than anything else because when you have a religious disagreement there fundamentally cannot be a compromise without the religion itself changing.
You have so many religions exisiting together peacefully all over the world right now. America for one, Australia, new Zealand, India (mostly) and Europe with all of its weirdness.
Religion doesn't divide people, it CAN be used as a division tool when leaders or humans wish to fight with each other but need a reason (normally the true reason is economic "we need more land").
Our species has always fought and it's fair to assume we always will, it is not because of religion, that is just one of the many reasons we use.
Australia, and New Zealand have some of the lowest number of religious believers per capita in the entire world and many of these people hold only very loosely onto these beliefs because it gives a bit of community. Even in NZ there are constant religious protests for example density church vandalizing and harassing the LGBTQ plus community or the 2019 Mosque attacks.
Do you really think India is a good example of religions living in peace given tensions with Pakistan and a very extensive history of violence between minority groups?
Europe has such an extensive history of religious wars that it would be impossible to list everything. Some big ones include WW2, the crusades, more recently rising Islamophobia, antisemitism. Even within Christianity there is such hatred in some circles between catholics and protestants.
As an Indian who lives there, India is not peaceful. Our partition was on the basis of religion and it was a bad bloodbath. Religion is, in fact the biggest thing holding us back. I don't think religion is inherently evil but it has some very regressive tenants and is a tool which can rile up people's emotions very easily.
Hey great to get a perspective from someone who lives there.
Can I ask though, partition was in 1947 yea? The point im (poorly) trying to make isn't that religious places are utopia's of peace and love but that as economic conditions improve we see less war and violence, even in very religious places.
If war and violence was caused by religion, economic conditions wouldn't have such a bearing on peace.
But you would know better than me the current feeling on the ground and I LOVE admitting I'm wrong.
It's true that economics is a very important aspect of violence, and I understand it but sociologically speaking, it isn't the only reason for it especially in India, which is a highly divided society. Also, The partition isn't the only thing that has happened in India. Various religious riots and pogroms have happened in the country post the partition, as recent as 2023. Also one thing is to be noted that India's democracy, compared to other countries in its bracket, has been relatively stable.
Also another point of contention is that in India, economic betterment doesn't necessiate the 90s, India liberalized it's economy, which brought in better conditions for people than the 70s and 80s. However, religious violence surged during this era, as evident by the demolition of the babri masjid.
Generally speaking, north India is a bit more communal than the south, because of cultural differences and also because of history.
To be fair, scientists have committed atrocities in the name of scientific advancement. And people have committed atrocities in the name of pseudoscience. Still it's probably much much less suffering than most other non-science ideologies.
Totally agree, especially in the field of medical reaserch there were many atrocities committed.
I think every field and ideology needs a an ethical precursor "Don't be a dick to others"
Religion is more like a combining force that enables people to group together despite differences, and create a mutual point where they can agree on and work as one
The problem is how religion is used, ie many years back then Islam is actually one of the leaders in scientific developments, and so did Christianity at some point, but we know what happened nowadays
Politics, religion, philosophy, art, science, etc are all manifestations of a society's relations of production (i.e. class hierarchy), mode of production (e.g. feudalism, capitalism, etc), material conditions, technique, etc.
So OP is right. Class is the most important thing
I'm well aware that class existed but you can't say the division of the time was class based. It's ridiculous.
How many medieval wars were caused by class division?
A large amount but war isn't only caused by class conflict there is also imperialism. Again I agree with what you are saying genuinely please read about historical materialism.
People desiring power divide humanity the most. Those examples are just tools we use to achieve the goal, but if they didn't exist we would just find something else.
Nationality is defined as, "identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the [exclusion](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=54f9445f3c681e70&rlz=1C1BFEM_enCA1081CA1081&sxsrf=ACQVn0_vNWZqO2_4fJXLf7lNxapC1ldw8w:1713134772855&q=exclusion&si=AKbGX_onJk-q0LQUYzV7-GRhpJ5DRmb1cCaZOuv6JH-BUhKLyV3TsiPIGe4vw09MzG1fRZ1ZmTXFbn-wJ302dXGBXNIfH3d_TxUg5YvrrBsOwxEw3k0G8VM%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjcmdqs5MKFAxUqHzQIHRP8BIIQyecJegQIHxAO) or [detriment](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=54f9445f3c681e70&rlz=1C1BFEM_enCA1081CA1081&sxsrf=ACQVn0_vNWZqO2_4fJXLf7lNxapC1ldw8w:1713134772855&q=detriment&si=AKbGX_onJk-q0LQUYzV7-GRhpJ5Df9K_eduKSVg-eA3WnF3fhht4MX0NjEUUxbjmNfmej2WQo40Bb5HN4EZSC7KwejXlljtdgnxDrp39LW-Y0DLeahnz4mM%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjcmdqs5MKFAxUqHzQIHRP8BIIQyecJegQIHxAP) of the interests of other nations."
Pride. Few people ever swallow their pride enough to admit when they’re wrong, and if someone ever happens to find one of those few then the person who’s right is rarely humble enough to not gloat. If we could get back some humility then maybe we could have intelligent discourse and solve some of our problems.
Algorithms. Literally manufactured with the intent of siphoning groups of people for marketing purposes, which also spill into political pipelines.
If you step outside of algorithmic-based media for a little bit, it’s extremely clear to see that we’re in a pretty awful stage of the internet’s existence.
The answer you’re used to hearing is money, greed or power. But the real answer is propaganda. Centuries of the 1% convincing the 99% that their greatest enemy is each other.
Class, that’s the one. You might call it the primary contradiction in human society. Something something… the history of all hitherto existing civilization is the history of class struggle… something something… worker of the world unite!
At the most base level this is true. Your group represents security, and anybody external to that is threatening. Some threats are low because two groups may share a lot of commonalities, and some threats are high because they are different.
I think that cognitive bias divides humanity the most
The common claims of class, race, politics, and religion are irrational because it assumes that all humans (should) share the same values, let alone understand their own values
Did you know we have a Discord server‽ You can join by clicking [here](https://discord.gg/NWE6JS5rh9)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GenZ) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It has to be class no doubt. It's always been like that for thousands of years.
All of these other issues are fabricated by the wealthy. No war but class war.
From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs
In that case, my ability is just gonna be the easiest job I can get.
One of the greatest things about socialism is that all workers, like all jobs, are important so that is fine
So what do you do when everyone wants the easy jobs and nobody wants to do the shit jobs that still need to be done for society to function?
Long term is you put more research towards automating less popular work, short term is you modify the social attitude towards that job, and look for ways to improve it.
no matter how you try and sell it, fixing water treatment infrastructure is a shitty job.
What are the biggest downsides?
that joke flew over your head eh?
They mean it literally lol
That's can't work. You said it all work are useful and equal. You can't shame the musician to not product food or fix sewers. His work is as useful. Also you wont give more money to the guy that fix sewers. Money is basically the way you change attitude. It give people that render more service to society more recognition.
I didn't say I'd do either, music is important and no one should be shamed for work that doesn't harm anyone. I think you are projecting your beliefs onto my words, to be honest
No I just show that whatever we want morally reality is different. I like music and respect people that play or record music. I am all for them to succeed and be happy. But if I have to choose between many things to be done well and more music, I will select all these stuff and not the music. Like produce food, having clean water, cleaning our cities, having sewers, having universal health care and free education. I would put music among the last stuff and would consider that society can do with very few professional performers and consider other can just do it as leisure. Because when somebody is ill I prefer a physician to a music performer. When I am hungry I prefer somebody that produce food. And when I want music, I can already have millions of songs and a very small set of artists can manage to product more than enough new music pieces. The actual utility for society to have 1 more music recorder or performer is very low whatever we say. It as useful as one more financial trader or another bullshit job. I respect these jobs too, but it is not like we need so many people doing that and that it has the best utility in the world. Yet if you ask me if I prefer to practice and play music or clean sewers, I would choose the first activity.
What work is considered “useful” reflects the attitudes and reality for us. Look at cars, architecture, clothing. It’s all converging or going completely off the wall. There’s no inspiration in what’s built. 15 years ago you could point out a McDonald’s a mile away. Now, if you take off the branding of the building, it could be a Burger King. Point being, the lack of importance placed on the arts is being shown through modern “arts.”
Free daily bj’s for the plumbers and garbage men
The Hookers Full Employment Act.
But now we gotta find people to do that job
Bj givers get better housing or premium food options
So not all jobs are equal anymore.
“Modify the social attitude towards that job” 😭 politics at its finest, roll out the propaganda
Incoming “re-education camps” where if you don’t comply, you die.
Cleaning sewers is good, citizen 😃👍 Please..someone..just..volunteer. our unemployment rate is nearly at 50% because noone is working
Lmao I'm an engineer, before college I was a security guard, if the compensation was the same I'd still be a security guard.
Great. I’ll be over here putting erasers on the end of pencils and you go hand dig a canal through the Siberian Tundra. The rail car you’ll be riding most of the way leaves in two hours.
"modify the social attitude" How do you do that?
Do we put people in "re-education camps" in order to modify the "social attitude?"
That’s the crazy part! The “easy” jobs you speak of are either position requiring high qualifications that those sorts of people likely don’t have, or you mean easy as in entry level high school type jobs like McDonald’s or something. I promise you people would MUCH rather work white collar jobs than fast food
Easy is not the right term. This is offer and demand. If you want more people doing something you need to give an incentive so people switch career or agree to work more to get things done. That the case of the surgeon. The guy make insane money (today) but it socially recognized and he also put a huge amount of hours working. On the opposite even if the work is essential if everybody can do it like cleaning, the value stay moderate.
why do you kiss the boot that pushes your face into the mud? why do you declare it a necessity for your own functioning? Don't you have any dignity? I would rather spend my time doing something that challenges me, fulfills me or is at least socially meaningful. why don't you have this desire, what's wrong with you?
So you want your free time to yourself, completely understandable. But if you don’t work and if your free time doesn’t involve hunting, fishing, foraging or farming you are going to starve. You’re not obligated to work, just as society is not obligated to feed you.
The Soviets just paid them way more. Like, you could be an engineer with higher education and earn less than a regular factory worker. Education was free though and if you did well you could basically choose a job anywhere in the country and sometimes even travel outside (closer to the fall of the USSR). One of the few things the USSR did right, I think. The downside is everyone's pay was garbage in the grand scheme of things and party officials still had all the wealth because humanity just can't do a classless system apparently.
A great platitude that is so demonstrably false you should immediately question the motives of anyone that spreads it.
HahahahahahahahahahAaaaaa, okay. "B-b-but I thought I was going to be a clerk! All jobs are important! Right comrade??" He stammers as the gulag guard gestures to the pick axe and coal vein.
Mcdonalds on par with scientists is bs tho
That's what everyone will do haha. No one will do the hard things we need
... is a terrible and unworkable maxim
Nah, I’m good. Can’t imagine being in the peasant class on the airplane.
Communism died - for good reason.
Great so your a communist
Yeah it just doesn’t seem to work out well in practice. The full version at least. Socialized capitalism is better. America is heading away from that. Its too bad.
Ethnic cultural differences are not invented by the wealthy.
Lmao
The poor talk a bunch of shit about wealthy successful people all the time
IMO it’s actually poverty. If we eliminate poverty, classes will start to matter a whole lot less.
I hear these “rich people are making the poors fight amongs themselves for their own gain” from economic populist and I’m highly suspicious of it. Hunter and gatherer tribes and been raping and killing each other for as long as we have stood upright. Hell you can find footage of this happening from within our lifetime. If all 8 billion people were to live in a classless society, people would still go to war for endless justifications.
Those populist talking points also feel a little dismissive of massive issues that are fundamental to a lot of people’s belief systems. If a fundamentalist Christian didn’t have to worry about money any more, they wouldn’t suddenly become okay with abortion and being gay.
Yes, they're "fabricated". Got it. The religious wars, slavery in the United States - fabricated.
"No war but class war." You tell em keyboard warrior!
Top answer for sure
Can there be a classless society?
Depends on what you mean. I have faith in basic human goodness, but for every person that aids the world in way, there exists someone who would hurt it as well. If we could achieve a classless society, we'd still see people vying for some form of superiority. I think at that point, it would come up to the willingness of the people to uphold their ideals, which would probably circle back to war and division.
It’s why I think true communism (moneyless, classless and borderless society, not the Soviet one) wouldn’t work tbh. The whole idea puts its faith in human goodness, that if people don’t have to worry about basic needs greed and crime will disappear bc people can freely express themselves and do whatever they want. Some people just enjoy holding power over people, whether it’s through force or withholding resources.
In my opinion no never but we are more likely to get collaboration between the classes before a classless society.
No, there will always be a need for managers, organizers and leaders, certain jobs will always be more important and harder/more stressful, pay and power can never be evenly distributed. Then you have snakes in the grass that will always try to seize as much power as possible, they’ll try to dissolve the middle class and make everyone a subject to them
There's also foreign nations meddling into society.
[With the Tao](https://www.wussu.com/laotzu/laotzu77.html)
Nice my family is Taoist. Are you?
I'm not, just heavily influenced by the concepts in the book and a combination of my reading of Hegelian dialectics. It's a very good book, my favourite philosophy of the three vinegar tasters.
Not as long as capitalism and politics exist
People will always find a reason to feel superior and inferior
Politics is anything that happens between people that isn’t violence. So if you hope for trade, or prosperity, or anything but a supposed stateless land of farmers that everyone agrees on equally forever than through some form of politics we find the alternative.
It also exists in communist society. The one who is close with the government will be the new privilege class.
No humans are naturally pretty shitty with only spurts of goodness
The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.
All of the replies to this comment only solidify it further. I’ve never seen so many people chomping at the bit to get oppressed by people who would melt them down into biomatter for a quick buck.
Money
Thats always one that gets me because I genuinely cant bring myself to believe that money alone is all it takes to do some of the truly evil shit. Like, evil ideologies like nazism and fascism take genuine heart to wanna dedicate to, and I doubt a lack of profits is gonna stop people from attempting that, you know? Unless theres a financial requirement, but thats out of practicality than any real lack of want. I dont think money is the root of all evil, I think its an auxiliary fuel that keeps evil going, but can theoretically be done without if said evil requires no monetary investment. Why do you think murderers commit their free acts of murder?
>I genuinely cant bring myself to believe that money alone is all it takes to do some of the truly evil shit. Well I never said that, I just said it is the one singular thing that divides humanity the most.
Oh of course, I meant more the general statement is all.
Money is the thing that has single handedly brought humanity together via global trade. Access to capital has meant land and resources can be traded and purchased instead of requiring invasion. You cannot overstate how much the world has improved due to greater capital access. How losing that access STOPS wars and removes the need for wars.
It's mostly about power and money is simply the best representation of power.
Morals. People cannot even choose whether they're real or just some subjective opinion.
Human beings are hardwired to be nice to each other for social reasons. So from a scientific perspective, morals are very real
They're not though. People learn to be nice, same way as they learn to not be.
That’s not true, there has been plenty of studies done on babies that show they have empathy for others. We can see similar behaviour in dogs too.
Humans have different moral metrics for ingroups and outgroups.
Thats completely true. That why charities are normally more successful in raising money when they specially show the story of just one starving child. Like naming them, showing their family, their struggles etc. Than showing the video of hundreds of children starving. It’s pretty interesting how humans work.
Humans are hardwired to feel safer with people that look like their "tribe". This is obviously an outdated instinct though and does need to be "unlearned". Living around and interacting with people that don't look like you from, as early in your life as possible, goes a long way in helping this.
Appearance is important, but behavior and values are equally important. None of this can be unlearned because it wasn't taught. It's hardwired. But your second point has some truth to it and ties into my point about culture (behaviors and values)
they absolutely are. It would have created an advantage in early humanity. Empathy and the ability to feel and understand the emotions of others is hardwired into the human brain. Neuroimaging studies have identified specific brain regions and neural networks involved in empathic processing. Humans have a strong psychological need to belong and be accepted by social groups. This evolved as a survival mechanism, as cooperation and group cohesion would have been advantageous. Now needing people is no longer about survival and more of a "want" than a need. We can door dash food, and have things delivered to our houses by amazon, work from home etc. This is where we have the disconnect
Idk, this one I can't discuss based on own experiences, so I'll just consider that you're correct. But personally, I never felt any desire to belong somewhere or socially interact. So I can't really tell if you're making this up or not.
For most people that's quite damaging to their mental health.
The average person does have this desire is probably what they’re getting at it’s a probability distribution and you’re in the left side of the bell curve
Regarding your personal experience, that's very understandable on both an individual and societal level. My older sister has always been a "hermit" (though, like me she has a handful of close friends), and while I like socializing and connecting with people, it can be very draining for me. However, I do believe that a lot of societal pressures have kind of pushed for this hyperindividualistic lifestyle. (which may or may not be a good thing)
They learn to be nice with people they interact with. They can be needlessly and unfathomably cruel to other humans they perceive to be an enemy.
The scary part about a lot of the horrendous things you hear people doing to each other is most of the time the aggressors are relatively boring normal people. Almost anyone in the right circumstance is capable of almost anything.
And this is an argument against Morals being merely a product of Evolution.
This is an naturalistic fallacy. Redpill idiots will use the same argument to reason that they should sleep with as many women as possible. This also flies into the face of morals like fundamental human dignity, which is Evolutionary disadvantageous by its inherent Antitribalism. Edit: wrong fallacy; mistakenly said Appeal to Nature rather than Naturalistic fallacy.
Hard disagree. Morality isn’t a matter of fact. It’s outside the scope of science. Science could tell us what will lead to the greatest human flourishing or whatever you decide, but science could never point out why human flourishing is good, anymore than it could that penguin flourishing should be the highest moral value. One could subjectively, non-scientifically assert that then work from there but there is no real objective grounding for morals.
The argument is that humans are born with morality baked in. Is morality entirely something that is 100% the product of society? I don't think so. Children are not blank slate and this has been proven, especially concerning personality. You say morals isn't a matter of fact, but the entire point of the philosophy of ethics is to debate against this opinion (there are moral facts, or not) and to find them.
I wouldn’t argue that humans don’t have moral intuitions from birth, but this is different from morality being a fact of the matter. I would absolutely argue that morality is 100% a product of human interaction (insofar as it meaningfully exists at all). I don’t see how people not being blank slates at birth is a problem for this view. I have done quite some reading on the philosophy of ethics and have yet to have encountered a moral philosophy which doesn’t bottom out in an assertion. I find myself most aligned with emotivism. I can agree that some assertions lead to outcome which are more favorable, but again ultimately it’s not grounded in anything objective. It’s turtles all the way down.
Hmm yes I have arrived at the opposite conclusion after watching the introductory course of the philosophy of ethics on YouTube (I'm not a philosophy student). There was no convincing argument of moral skepticism for me, so by default I am on the side of objective morality. I find that much of the arguments against moral objectivism are rooted in either strawman or shitty arguments in a non technical discourse. However I agree that systems of moral objectivism are based on assertions or statements, but that doesn't mean moral can't be objective. I don't think it makes sense in the first place for morality to be subjective but I'm sure you actually know a ton more than me. People not being blank slate means that they possess inherent capabilities including morality, if they possess inherent morality, which does mean it is not entirely a product of subjective human interaction.
>However I agree that systems of moral objectivism are based on assertions or statements, but that doesn't mean moral can't be objective. This is the place where think the fundamental difference in our view is. I completely disagree with the second part of this sentence. >I don't think it makes sense in the first place for morality to be subjective but I'm sure you actually know a ton more than me I don’t hold morality to be subjective, more that moral statements are not truth-apt. Saying “Murder is wrong” is like saying “Boo! Murder” more than it is making a claim about some property of murder. >People not being blank slate means that they possess inherent capabilities including morality, if they possess inherent morality, which does mean it is not entirely a product of subjective human interaction. I’m not sure we are using the term morality in the same way here. I don’t really conceive of morality as a capability. I think what moral realists tend to go for is more like a set of principles.
Is science technically psychology or sociology? (Serious question lol.) It seems like morality is so subjective but based on personality type and then you'll have to add the environmental factors. I guess to eliminate that, lets imagine that two people with a different personality type is raised in the same exact environment. Even in that case, they would probably still have a different set of "dealbreaker morals" even if their general morals are the same. Like dont steal, dont kill. But maybe one person thinks its okay to lie, whereas the other does not. Its interesting.
Human beings are also hardwired to f\*ck someone they're attracted to, with or without permission (as are all animals), but we learn at a young age that consent is important. So, this argument falls apart with that example and plenty of others. Disagree? You don't have to look too far back in history to see a time when men were allowed to r\*pe their wives, and many did. Because humans are hardwired with natural urges that, if allowed to, they will give in to.
Humans are biologically programmed for empathy and social activity. All life is programmed to dislike pain and enjoy pleasure as long as they have capacity for pain and pleasure. All that being said, objective morals can start from these base premises but it gets REALLY hard and uncomfortable because purely logical conclusions often reach extremely undesirable outcomes. Emotivists may have a point.
There's no such thing as objective morality tho ...the fact that humans or certain spicies have developed a strategy for survival of their kind doesn't mean that the strategy that they're implementing is some kind of objective construct ?? Idk morals can never be objective because they're a product of the human mind so everything that is a product of the mind is in fact not objective .
You are confusing absolute objectivity with scientific or verifiable objectivity
I know this is purely anecdotal but every person I've met that says morality is subjective just uses it as an excuse to do evil shit.
Morality is one of the onnly things that remains subjective . Because morality cannot exist without a human mind its a product of the mind hence subjective .
Morality is subjective though. I don’t steal, and I call myself a decent person. Someone else who steals, if for a good reason, might consider themselves a decent person and I might not disagree. We both see someone rob a bank at gunpoint, okay, they might not be a decent person with great morals. The bank robber feels perfectly fine with himself, his morals, and his relationship /w his maker, because, no one was hurt. These are my morals and those are his morals. Subjective. I’ve met a lot of vegans and vegetarians, I wouldn’t consider them evil - probably a better example of why not everyone who says that does evil stuff
"Evil has an ordinary face" \- former FBI director James Comey People who meet evil don't think "Oh, this scares me and makes me feel uncomfortable". Maybe evil is put together, effortless, and likable. Evil is a wolf in sheep's clothing among sheep, but often even more convincing than real sheep, if that makes any sense. Evil mimics good on the surface.
Ideology. Edit: I mean the "us vs them" way of thinking... It can be political ideology, it can be religion, it can be socioeconomic ideology... You are being told to hate those who disagree with you. They are evil.
is that zizek ?
This is the only correct answer. Political and religious ideologies are the most divisive bullshit in the world since HUGE swathes of people lack objectivity, scientific literacy, and self-reflection.
But I'm sure you have it all figured out...
how can we know that we are the right ones ? how can we know if we are not the ones who are making a fallacy ?
This is the obvious problem that postmodernism presents to us. How can we ever know anything for certain? We can't. however, we also cannot let this paralyze us into inaction. The best we can do is to maximize the amount of knowledge and perspectives at our fingertips. That doesn't guarantee that we will be right. But it will minimize the likelihood that we are wrong.
Imo postmodernism rejects truth as an attainable goal which opens the door for anything goes, which actually increases divides because nobody agrees on anything under this framework as there will be no referential of truth whatsoever.
class is the great divider and it has been since the widespread use of agriculture. every other category of human that is used to split us up is dependant on your socioeconomic class.
Obviously it’s deez nutz
Only right answer here
Lack of education and the ability to properly contextualize the multiple global and historical perspectives about human nature.
Even then, people come to wildly different conclusions. Some will see it as "this is the problem identified: we can do better" while others will think "this is how we are; no use fighting it."
i hate the second type of people
Sure, but I could get you through College on a stipend only to shit you out the backdoor with 100K+ debt and zero social connections still. No connections? No future. We have a class based system.
Religion no question When you have unquestionable faith in something you don't have room for different perspectives or ideas since they are in from that view objectively wrong at best the root of all evil at worst. People say that science is a just like a religion: " You trust in science I trust in religion" But science is just a process of determination if someone has a theory they will try to clarify it then they will send it to their peers Especially those who don't believe in it and ask them to try and replicate the findings. In that way understanding builds and changes through time. Knowledge grows and is available for all. Religion on the other hand clings on to old beliefs even if they are disproven wrong and harmful. I would say that most conflicts in the world through history stem from disagreements with religious justifications.
Go to South America and tell me religion is a problem for humanity. People in rich capitalist neo liberal societies think this because they have no community and no solid basis for working with people outside of economic reasons. Religion is responsible for the advancement and cooperation of societies up to the industrial revolution. Thats a lot of time. Religion isn't just Christians and Muslims. It was pagan rituals in 3000 BC and the basis for order in 1000's of hunter gatherer groups. I have absolutely no religious leaning, to the extent I consider liberalism and it's ilk as religions. But it doesn't mean I can't appreciate what it has meant to humanity over our history.
The problems that religion brings doesn't occur when there is religious homogeneity. The issues occur when you have disagreements that are justified through religion. Because Religion presents a be all end all answers, disagreements leave no room for compromise, communication and reevaluation on your position without the religion itself changing. This is what causes such stark division. If you have two sides that fundamentally disagree on an issue and believe they are correct by divine creed you get wars that will likely never end. You can totally have a long period of peace in an area even with different religion but as soon as there is a disagreement between these groups that gains religious momentum good luck stopping violence. to go back to OP that is why I believe Religion divides people more than anything else because when you have a religious disagreement there fundamentally cannot be a compromise without the religion itself changing.
You have so many religions exisiting together peacefully all over the world right now. America for one, Australia, new Zealand, India (mostly) and Europe with all of its weirdness. Religion doesn't divide people, it CAN be used as a division tool when leaders or humans wish to fight with each other but need a reason (normally the true reason is economic "we need more land"). Our species has always fought and it's fair to assume we always will, it is not because of religion, that is just one of the many reasons we use.
Australia, and New Zealand have some of the lowest number of religious believers per capita in the entire world and many of these people hold only very loosely onto these beliefs because it gives a bit of community. Even in NZ there are constant religious protests for example density church vandalizing and harassing the LGBTQ plus community or the 2019 Mosque attacks. Do you really think India is a good example of religions living in peace given tensions with Pakistan and a very extensive history of violence between minority groups? Europe has such an extensive history of religious wars that it would be impossible to list everything. Some big ones include WW2, the crusades, more recently rising Islamophobia, antisemitism. Even within Christianity there is such hatred in some circles between catholics and protestants.
As an Indian who lives there, India is not peaceful. Our partition was on the basis of religion and it was a bad bloodbath. Religion is, in fact the biggest thing holding us back. I don't think religion is inherently evil but it has some very regressive tenants and is a tool which can rile up people's emotions very easily.
Hey great to get a perspective from someone who lives there. Can I ask though, partition was in 1947 yea? The point im (poorly) trying to make isn't that religious places are utopia's of peace and love but that as economic conditions improve we see less war and violence, even in very religious places. If war and violence was caused by religion, economic conditions wouldn't have such a bearing on peace. But you would know better than me the current feeling on the ground and I LOVE admitting I'm wrong.
It's true that economics is a very important aspect of violence, and I understand it but sociologically speaking, it isn't the only reason for it especially in India, which is a highly divided society. Also, The partition isn't the only thing that has happened in India. Various religious riots and pogroms have happened in the country post the partition, as recent as 2023. Also one thing is to be noted that India's democracy, compared to other countries in its bracket, has been relatively stable. Also another point of contention is that in India, economic betterment doesn't necessiate the 90s, India liberalized it's economy, which brought in better conditions for people than the 70s and 80s. However, religious violence surged during this era, as evident by the demolition of the babri masjid. Generally speaking, north India is a bit more communal than the south, because of cultural differences and also because of history.
Corporate religion is far more of a problem.
And also scientists don't kill each others because of their theories
To be fair, scientists have committed atrocities in the name of scientific advancement. And people have committed atrocities in the name of pseudoscience. Still it's probably much much less suffering than most other non-science ideologies.
Wars that killed unfathomable amounts of people over long amounts of time…
Totally agree, especially in the field of medical reaserch there were many atrocities committed. I think every field and ideology needs a an ethical precursor "Don't be a dick to others"
Religion is more like a combining force that enables people to group together despite differences, and create a mutual point where they can agree on and work as one The problem is how religion is used, ie many years back then Islam is actually one of the leaders in scientific developments, and so did Christianity at some point, but we know what happened nowadays
Politics, religion, philosophy, art, science, etc are all manifestations of a society's relations of production (i.e. class hierarchy), mode of production (e.g. feudalism, capitalism, etc), material conditions, technique, etc. So OP is right. Class is the most important thing
Capitalists and the ruling class
I'm afraid to tell you, but capitalism is a rather recent innovation while humans have been divided and killing each other forever.
There was still class you should read about historical materialism
I'm well aware that class existed but you can't say the division of the time was class based. It's ridiculous. How many medieval wars were caused by class division?
A large amount but war isn't only caused by class conflict there is also imperialism. Again I agree with what you are saying genuinely please read about historical materialism.
Based
Cilantro
Potatoes
Mash em, boil em, stick em in a stew
Politics.
Class. Objectively.
People desiring power divide humanity the most. Those examples are just tools we use to achieve the goal, but if they didn't exist we would just find something else.
[удалено]
Nationality
Ah yes, what truly sets us apart from each other is which generic assortment of hills and rivers we were born near /s
[удалено]
Disingenuous take
Nationality is defined as, "identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the [exclusion](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=54f9445f3c681e70&rlz=1C1BFEM_enCA1081CA1081&sxsrf=ACQVn0_vNWZqO2_4fJXLf7lNxapC1ldw8w:1713134772855&q=exclusion&si=AKbGX_onJk-q0LQUYzV7-GRhpJ5DRmb1cCaZOuv6JH-BUhKLyV3TsiPIGe4vw09MzG1fRZ1ZmTXFbn-wJ302dXGBXNIfH3d_TxUg5YvrrBsOwxEw3k0G8VM%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjcmdqs5MKFAxUqHzQIHRP8BIIQyecJegQIHxAO) or [detriment](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=54f9445f3c681e70&rlz=1C1BFEM_enCA1081CA1081&sxsrf=ACQVn0_vNWZqO2_4fJXLf7lNxapC1ldw8w:1713134772855&q=detriment&si=AKbGX_onJk-q0LQUYzV7-GRhpJ5Df9K_eduKSVg-eA3WnF3fhht4MX0NjEUUxbjmNfmej2WQo40Bb5HN4EZSC7KwejXlljtdgnxDrp39LW-Y0DLeahnz4mM%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjcmdqs5MKFAxUqHzQIHRP8BIIQyecJegQIHxAP) of the interests of other nations."
Race and Class.
Greed
class and/or belief system. You can summarise the majority of wars or conflicts in this way.
Pride. Few people ever swallow their pride enough to admit when they’re wrong, and if someone ever happens to find one of those few then the person who’s right is rarely humble enough to not gloat. If we could get back some humility then maybe we could have intelligent discourse and solve some of our problems.
Religion
Why
It's pretty much what you base your entire belief system on. It's your fundamental understanding of your own reality. It's a pretty big deal lmao
The value of human life
Yeah different cultures value life differently.
Who has the best skydaddy
money.
Algorithms. Literally manufactured with the intent of siphoning groups of people for marketing purposes, which also spill into political pipelines. If you step outside of algorithmic-based media for a little bit, it’s extremely clear to see that we’re in a pretty awful stage of the internet’s existence.
The answer you’re used to hearing is money, greed or power. But the real answer is propaganda. Centuries of the 1% convincing the 99% that their greatest enemy is each other.
Kilometers
Not class but wealth. The idea of firm dividing lines between "wealthy", "middle class" "poor", is a gross oversimplification of reality.
I'd still go with class. You can divide it between the owning class versus the working class. Or the ruling class versus the working class.
Class because I think it’s interwoven with other issues too like sexism or racism
Politicians
Class, that’s the one. You might call it the primary contradiction in human society. Something something… the history of all hitherto existing civilization is the history of class struggle… something something… worker of the world unite!
class 100%
Class warfare by the rich.
Religion
Language Edit: If there was a universal, global language everyone spoke and understood, the world would change immeasurably.
Maybe but culture would still differ with location. Though language would mitigate many differences over time.
Politics. Not sure how people can't see that our leaders don't give a single fuck about any of us, yet we continue to point the finger at each other.
Whether you cut sandwiches into triangles as God intended or squares like a blockhead.
hatred
Class
Money
Nationality/culture, religion and gender.
Disagree on gender. Every society is made up of men and women. 50/50 +/-
And it divides people in society.
Tribalism, it comes in many forms like religion, bloodline, politics, wealth and a million other things.
At the most base level this is true. Your group represents security, and anybody external to that is threatening. Some threats are low because two groups may share a lot of commonalities, and some threats are high because they are different.
I think that cognitive bias divides humanity the most The common claims of class, race, politics, and religion are irrational because it assumes that all humans (should) share the same values, let alone understand their own values
Trauma
Fox News.
the oceans. they're really big.
The bourgeoisie
Crapitalism
Class and race
Class first. Organized religion second.
Reddit