3 ms·

All discrimination is contextual and local. The number of groups has nothing to do with it.

• lazide 2y ago
  So you say, but history has shown that if groups don’t exist to allow easy discrimination, they will be created to allow such discrimination. So it’s a good sign of long, well established, and ingrained discrimination, eh? With associated infrastructure to make it easier to continue, and ‘fairer’ in that it allows almost everyone to have someone under them to take their own angst out on. (Except those ‘outside the system’ anyway, which historically were the Dalits, but now even they are in the system eh?)
  • dartharva 2y ago
    > So you say, but history has shown that if groups don’t exist to allow easy discrimination, they will be created to allow such discrimination. Yes, that's what I am saying. In- and out-groups are made contextually in each unique situation. > So it’s a good sign of long, well established, and ingrained discrimination, eh? With associated infrastructure to make it easier to continue, and ‘fairer’ in that it allows almost everyone to have someone under them to take their own angst out on. (Except those ‘outside the system’ anyway, which historically were the Dalits, but now even they are in the system eh?) Can't understand what you're trying to say here.
    • lazide 2y ago
      Can’t understand, or refuse to understand? Why create new groups when you have proven and well trod ones handy to choose from?
  • TrapLord_Rhodo 2y ago
    your thoughts seem to align closely with René Girard's theories on mimetic desire and scapegoating.