4 ms·

Cruelty is a human trait that is not bound by nationality, race, nor religion. I get the desire to slice up the pie of humanity and point to the piece called Am

Cruelty is a human trait that is not bound by nationality, race, nor religion. I get the desire to slice up the pie of humanity and point to the piece called America; it gives us hope that maybe the problem can be solved. No human cruelty will never go away. It may wax and wane, but it will always be in our nature.

GordonS 6y ago
> Cruelty is a human trait that is not bound by nationality, race, nor religion This is certainly true, but it's also the case that history, culture and ideology influence the behaviours of geographically-close groups of people over the medium-long term.
pmarreck 6y ago
> No human cruelty will never go away. It may wax and wane, but it will always be in our nature. I'm optimistic that it will decrease over time, because frankly it has been, if you look at history. I mean, I remember reading up on the "bog bodies" and they figured out that pretty much the whole lot of them died quite brutal deaths.
- staticautomatic 6y ago
  Cruelty decreasing over time could ironically prove to be a bad thing if it results in us forgetting how violent we really are.
a4isms 6y ago
Cruelty may not be bound by time and space, but historically, cruelty has been “unevenly distributed.” If we were sitting side-by-side in the Warsaw Ghetto, I might agree with you intellectually, but nevertheless my immediate concern would be for the localized cruelty. I very much disagree that pointing out a particularly virulent strain of cruelty is motivated by the desire to hope that the problem can be solved permanently. When you’re one of the people with a target on your back, your immediate concern is with the cruelty you are threatened with and/or experiencing. Under those circumstances, your motivation is to “think globally, but act locally.” It would be the same dynamic if, for example, I was a woman experiencing misogyny on some social media site. True, misogyny is in a lot of places and has been present for a very long time. But nevertheless, my immediate concern would be reducing it in the place where I’m experiencing it. If I called someone out for their behaviour, would I accept “Well, lots of people are misogynists, always have been, always will be, so why are you pointing at me” as an answer? I think not. The more abstract you make a thing, the harder it is to alleviate your suffering from a thing. Which is exactly why people who don’t want to fix a problem always try to make it as abstract and general as possible.
- mmcgaha 6y ago
  I can see how you read my post that way. I agree with you that it is not about the abstract group.
- anon_tor_12345 5y ago
  building abstractions is a way to diffuse responsibility. attributing it to fate or some vague natural law is a way to absolve of personal responsibility. no one that isn't turning q blind eye to the problem would claim anything of the sort. and if you're turning a blind eye then you're at least morally (if not materially as well) culpable. so you're right and I hope you don't let the wilfully ignorant discourage you.

GordonS 6y ago

> Cruelty is a human trait that is not bound by nationality, race, nor religion This is certainly true, but it's also the case that history, culture and ideology influence the behaviours of geographically-close groups of people over the medium-long term.

pmarreck 6y ago

> No human cruelty will never go away. It may wax and wane, but it will always be in our nature. I'm optimistic that it will decrease over time, because frankly it has been, if you look at history. I mean, I remember reading up on the "bog bodies" and they figured out that pretty much the whole lot of them died quite brutal deaths.

staticautomatic 6y ago
Cruelty decreasing over time could ironically prove to be a bad thing if it results in us forgetting how violent we really are.

a4isms 6y ago

Cruelty may not be bound by time and space, but historically, cruelty has been “unevenly distributed.” If we were sitting side-by-side in the Warsaw Ghetto, I might agree with you intellectually, but nevertheless my immediate concern would be for the localized cruelty. I very much disagree that pointing out a particularly virulent strain of cruelty is motivated by the desire to hope that the problem can be solved permanently. When you’re one of the people with a target on your back, your immediate concern is with the cruelty you are threatened with and/or experiencing. Under those circumstances, your motivation is to “think globally, but act locally.” It would be the same dynamic if, for example, I was a woman experiencing misogyny on some social media site. True, misogyny is in a lot of places and has been present for a very long time. But nevertheless, my immediate concern would be reducing it in the place where I’m experiencing it. If I called someone out for their behaviour, would I accept “Well, lots of people are misogynists, always have been, always will be, so why are you pointing at me” as an answer? I think not. The more abstract you make a thing, the harder it is to alleviate your suffering from a thing. Which is exactly why people who don’t want to fix a problem always try to make it as abstract and general as possible.

mmcgaha 6y ago
I can see how you read my post that way. I agree with you that it is not about the abstract group.
anon_tor_12345 5y ago
building abstractions is a way to diffuse responsibility. attributing it to fate or some vague natural law is a way to absolve of personal responsibility. no one that isn't turning q blind eye to the problem would claim anything of the sort. and if you're turning a blind eye then you're at least morally (if not materially as well) culpable. so you're right and I hope you don't let the wilfully ignorant discourage you.