4 ms·

"...So when you live in these places and you see hatred for people like you, how are you supposed to be optimistic and excited about the prospects for your chil

"...So when you live in these places and you see hatred for people like you, how are you supposed to be optimistic and excited about the prospects for your children and grandchildren?..." Yeah... but that's been going on forever. You see that with Muslims recently. We've seen that with hispanics. Further back, of course, we've been seeing it with blacks and native americans for a long time. That will ALWAYS happen. The trick is to work out a way to keep moving forward even in the face of tribalism. Because I'm not entirely certain that we can eliminate tribalism. I'd love to be proven wrong, but I'm not sure that I will be.

humanrebar 9y ago
> Because I'm not entirely certain that we can eliminate tribalism. It's fair to say tribalism has always been around. And from that perspective, the current tribalism, including left-wing identity politics, is extremely reactionary. A few things are, if not new, at least notable in this case: * These people aren't historically outsiders, they're "heartland" Americans. * The cultural narrative hasn't caught up to the cultural reality yet. For example, if child of meth heads grows up to be president, he's yet another privileged white president, not an outsider who overcame adversity. "Multicultural" attitudes group him in with Warren Buffett. * There's no language, even to describe white people short on privilege. There are certainly slurs, but nothing you'd put on a questionnaire. * The general direction of American culture has been to include more and more, however slowly. This is certainly a regression in that respect. And it seems to be accompanied by an abandonment of the ideal of inclusion qua inclusion. Instead, we seem to have a list of historically disadvantaged groups, telling newly disadvantaged groups that they already had their chance. Again, this is nonsense to an unemployed daughter of opiate addicts.
- montyf 9y ago
  You're absolutely right, but HN users don't realize that most of America exists outside of their ideological bubble. > For example, if child of meth heads grows up to be president, he's yet another privileged white president, not an outsider who overcame adversity. It's racism and nothing else. Thing is, it's OK to be racist nowadays, as long as you're a liberal. Edit: to the guy quoting the dictionary below me, this is racism in a really obvious way. It is "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race" and it's not okay just because you don't explicitly declare your race superior.
  - Clubber 9y ago
    Again, not racism. It's being stereotypical. Dictionary definition: >prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
    - needToSay 9y ago
      > Again, not racism. It's being stereotypical. > Dictionary definition: > >prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. Fuck off nigger
  - kadenshep 9y ago
    >Thing is, it's OK to be racist nowadays, as long as you're a liberal. Citation needed, but I know you're just lying. The "left" in the U.S. has been the only political wing to consistently call out and punish its own members for unacceptable behavior. Meanwhile on the right, they gladly promote and endorse members who engage in racism, sexual assault, pedophilia, and ignoring people's rights. All while actively taking nearly every wrong perspective/action on basically any subject ranging from the economy to diplomacy. Happy reading! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#2000%E2%80%932009 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_...
    - briandear 9y ago
      Louis Farrakhan. Joy Reid. Hillary Clinton (who once famously called young black males ‘predators.’) Joe Biden, who called Barrack Obama a “clean, articulate” black candidate in contrast to the implied “uncleanliness” of one of the first black presidential candidates, Jesse Jackson. Then there is the soft bigotry of low expectations that’s famous among the left: “oh, these people are of a certain. race, so we don’t expect them to be able to pass this test or accomplish this goal.” Bigotry and racism on the left is not as obvious, but I would argue, even more insidious.
      - 9y ago
throwaway21333 9y ago
How would eliminating the tribalism subroutine benefit the species? Is a homogeneous global population the most resilient?
- AckSyn 9y ago
  monocultures tend to be best for societies, so if the global population were a monoculture, the homogenous nature of one would be beneficial. But since that's an impossibility currently, leaving each nation to be its own monoculture is best.
- ModernMech 9y ago
  Society and civilization is basically what comes out of setting aside tribalism. Tribalism doesn't mean heterogeneity, it means accepting people outside of your tribe as a potential valuable to you, instead of treating them as default dangerous.
  - naravara 9y ago
    >Society and civilization is basically what comes out of setting aside tribalism. Tribalism doesn't mean heterogeneity, it means accepting people outside of your tribe as a potential valuable to you, instead of treating them as default dangerous. Plenty of societies have extremely durable, endogamous tribal identifiers and they got along fine. This is true of India, China, The Ottoman Empire, and so on. India, in particular, has some of the most durable and persistent forms of tribalism around, with castes having remained largely endogamus for centuries or more despite living, working, and trading with each other routinely. Yet this didn't prevent them from alternating with China (itself extremely tribally divided despite the modern attempts to sweep it under the rug and cohere a "Han" nationality) at being the 1st or 2nd most prosperous civilization in the world for most of human history.
- sgift 9y ago
  I look around me and have neighbors from dozens of cultures and backgrounds, hundreds of opinions and all walks of life. Young, old, sick, healthy, everything in between. How is this homogeneous?

humanrebar 9y ago

> Because I'm not entirely certain that we can eliminate tribalism. It's fair to say tribalism has always been around. And from that perspective, the current tribalism, including left-wing identity politics, is extremely reactionary. A few things are, if not new, at least notable in this case: * These people aren't historically outsiders, they're "heartland" Americans. * The cultural narrative hasn't caught up to the cultural reality yet. For example, if child of meth heads grows up to be president, he's yet another privileged white president, not an outsider who overcame adversity. "Multicultural" attitudes group him in with Warren Buffett. * There's no language, even to describe white people short on privilege. There are certainly slurs, but nothing you'd put on a questionnaire. * The general direction of American culture has been to include more and more, however slowly. This is certainly a regression in that respect. And it seems to be accompanied by an abandonment of the ideal of inclusion qua inclusion. Instead, we seem to have a list of historically disadvantaged groups, telling newly disadvantaged groups that they already had their chance. Again, this is nonsense to an unemployed daughter of opiate addicts.

montyf 9y ago
You're absolutely right, but HN users don't realize that most of America exists outside of their ideological bubble. > For example, if child of meth heads grows up to be president, he's yet another privileged white president, not an outsider who overcame adversity. It's racism and nothing else. Thing is, it's OK to be racist nowadays, as long as you're a liberal. Edit: to the guy quoting the dictionary below me, this is racism in a really obvious way. It is "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race" and it's not okay just because you don't explicitly declare your race superior.
- Clubber 9y ago
  Again, not racism. It's being stereotypical. Dictionary definition: >prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
  - needToSay 9y ago
    > Again, not racism. It's being stereotypical. > Dictionary definition: > >prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. Fuck off nigger
- kadenshep 9y ago
  >Thing is, it's OK to be racist nowadays, as long as you're a liberal. Citation needed, but I know you're just lying. The "left" in the U.S. has been the only political wing to consistently call out and punish its own members for unacceptable behavior. Meanwhile on the right, they gladly promote and endorse members who engage in racism, sexual assault, pedophilia, and ignoring people's rights. All while actively taking nearly every wrong perspective/action on basically any subject ranging from the economy to diplomacy. Happy reading! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#2000%E2%80%932009 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_...
  - briandear 9y ago
    Louis Farrakhan. Joy Reid. Hillary Clinton (who once famously called young black males ‘predators.’) Joe Biden, who called Barrack Obama a “clean, articulate” black candidate in contrast to the implied “uncleanliness” of one of the first black presidential candidates, Jesse Jackson. Then there is the soft bigotry of low expectations that’s famous among the left: “oh, these people are of a certain. race, so we don’t expect them to be able to pass this test or accomplish this goal.” Bigotry and racism on the left is not as obvious, but I would argue, even more insidious.
    - 9y ago

throwaway21333 9y ago

How would eliminating the tribalism subroutine benefit the species? Is a homogeneous global population the most resilient?

AckSyn 9y ago
monocultures tend to be best for societies, so if the global population were a monoculture, the homogenous nature of one would be beneficial. But since that's an impossibility currently, leaving each nation to be its own monoculture is best.
ModernMech 9y ago
Society and civilization is basically what comes out of setting aside tribalism. Tribalism doesn't mean heterogeneity, it means accepting people outside of your tribe as a potential valuable to you, instead of treating them as default dangerous.
- naravara 9y ago
  >Society and civilization is basically what comes out of setting aside tribalism. Tribalism doesn't mean heterogeneity, it means accepting people outside of your tribe as a potential valuable to you, instead of treating them as default dangerous. Plenty of societies have extremely durable, endogamous tribal identifiers and they got along fine. This is true of India, China, The Ottoman Empire, and so on. India, in particular, has some of the most durable and persistent forms of tribalism around, with castes having remained largely endogamus for centuries or more despite living, working, and trading with each other routinely. Yet this didn't prevent them from alternating with China (itself extremely tribally divided despite the modern attempts to sweep it under the rug and cohere a "Han" nationality) at being the 1st or 2nd most prosperous civilization in the world for most of human history.
sgift 9y ago
I look around me and have neighbors from dozens of cultures and backgrounds, hundreds of opinions and all walks of life. Young, old, sick, healthy, everything in between. How is this homogeneous?