Friend or Foe?

> I told them "We are different, let's help each other" > They told me "You are not one of us, we will destroy you" So, how do you deal with this soykaf? A lot of social and interpersonal dynamics end up poisoned with it. A lot of historical events became absurd atrocities. A lot of unnecessary violence happened because of this evolutionary adaptation gone rogue. Parents cripple their children, states strangle their citizens, nations kill each other. Its always about Us vs Them, even if distinctions have lost all meaning with time. Males vs Females, Straights vs Gays, Whites vs Blacks, Teens vs Seniors, Capitalism vs Socialism, Polytheism vs Monotheism, West vs East, there are countless examples of this on every scale. Its deeply ingrained in human thinking. It basically defines the cognition of a human mind. Humans built Mathematics and Logic on axioms which are neatly planted in this implicit primordial process of separation, creation of "us" and destruction of "others". Cantor and Godel can be considered the ultimate heroes of humanity because they showed the fundamental limit of this ruthless conquest. How to work with this mind virus? Which spirituality and/or philosophy helps with taming it? I certainly can think of some examples which only made it worse...

>Males vs Females, Straights vs Gays, Whites vs Blacks, Teens vs Seniors, Capitalism vs Socialism, Polytheism vs Monotheism, West vs East, there are countless examples of this on every scale. Log off and go touch grass, most people don't really care and are chill. It's only being artificially put on front of you by social media algorithms and the news to farm engagement, making you rage and waste your time focused on it, and sell you more ad time. Yes it do exist, yes it's deeply ingrained in human thinking, but try not caring and it'll be fine. >How to work with this mind virus? Which spirituality and/or philosophy helps with taming it? Just log off and stop watching soykaf medias. My brain used to be rotten by that, I just stopped browsing social medias and watching TV, my life improved 3000% Now I just browse websites about subjects I like and ignore people focused on drama. I'm friend with people I don't agree with politically, people who don't really approve my way of life, etc, and it's fine as long as we both don't talk about it and focus on other things. That's what most mature people do in everyday life.

>>85158 >try not caring and it'll be fine >most people don't really care and are chill I personally got persecuted multiple times in my life on the grounds of "looking and behaving like a member of a group" by an active minority, and sometimes I didn't even knew that those groups and rivalries existed. I already keep my distance from normal people, I can deal with them, mostly. It's just that I don't understand the phenomenon, and frankly, it frightens me a lot.

>>85157 The brain is made for pattern recognition and stereotyping as it is a selective advantage when you live in a 20 people tribe in the forest. In modern days, it's a handicap. It's a handicap for the people, but for the powerful ones, those who want to divide and conquer, it's a gift from the sky. Obama inherited a post racial America and decided it would be a great idea to make the new generation race conscious and to make race warfare the new class warfare. As Anon said: >It's only being artificially put on front of you by social media algorithms and the news to farm engagement, All this soykaf is artificially given importance since OCS and the number of Poes's law has become important enough for the division to be self sustainable. He is wrong on only one thing: you can't walk away from society. If anti-men, anti-white or whatever become mainstream, you will suffer from it. >>85159 > It's just that I don't understand the phenomenon, and frankly, it frightens me a lot. What, do you mean you are not on the morally right side of today's issue? I just witnessed an emotionally charged content and I won't let you affirm that my perfectly predictable and predicted reaction is invalid. Terrible consequences are upon us if we allow people who disagree with what I have been told is the moral highgound.

>>85162 >He is wrong on only one thing: you can't walk away from society. If anti-men, anti-white or whatever become mainstream, you will suffer from it. That's the thing: I don't think, and maybe I'm wrong it's just my opinion, something like that will ever become really mainstream in a meaningful way. It's all fearmongering to make you anxious about the future. Just thinking about a potential future where most people will care enough to impact your life in a meaningful way will make your life soykafty enough for you to care -right now-, and that's what people selling ad time want you to do: care too much, engage in this kind of discussions (like we are doing now, by the way). I think it will never happen. I'm old enough now to have heard a ton of fearmongering along the years. And nothing ever happened, at least not in a meaningful way. Sure some people get sucked into it, sure soykafty people will be soykafty, but that's about it. In the real world, most people are reasonable and don't give a flying fuarrrk about all that. A group start to hate white men (to take your own example) ? Just ignore them and move on. You can't escape it because it's at your work? Just change job (yeah easier said than done but even if they were not doing it before, they brain are rotten by the "mind virus" OP is talking about and most people in that case are soykafty anyway, just leave. I'm not saying you should walk away from society, hell no, I'm deeply into society myself (studies then work, everyday family life, holidays, etc). I'm just telling you, in my experience, most people don't care enough to impact your life. Just don't talk about it, ignore those who can't stop talking about it, and that's it, as easy as that. I mean I'm a white men myself, gay but not visibly (people are shocked when they happen to learn I'm gay, I don't dress gay lmao and sadly I don't have a good sense of fashion), I like guns. I should get hate from both "groups", left wing & right wing to but it simply. And guess what? Only a minority of people are soykafty against me, they are easy to ignore, and most people (even if they don't agree with my world views) are nice and polite, don't talk about politics or sensible topics all day. If they do, most people understand I have a different point of view and respect that we don't agree on some things. So that's what I was trying to say: Don't try to "walk away from society", just ignore the drama-focused people because they are only a minority, and the medias want you to think they are majority. Anyway, have a good day anons, even if you don't agree with my wall of text lol

>>85157 One take on this concept is that it happens because it is an efficient solution to the game theory problems of existing and having power within human society: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/lifeboat-games-and-backscratchers That is, you are told 'you are not one of us, we will destroy you' less because it makes rational sense or is deeply believed but more because the thing that makes you 'not one of us' is a Schelling point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_(game_theory) >In game theory, a focal point (or Schelling point) is a solution that people tend to choose by default in the absence of communication in order to avoid coordination failure.[1] By saying "you are not one of us, we will destroy you" the people going along with it can for a short time be unified and safe from each other. This is why it tends to be minority groups with little real power that are vilified. A hypothetical example given by the article is a situation where people are starving and feel a need to resort to cannibalism: >The next morning, the lots come out. Before anything happens, eight out of nine people call “WAIT LET’S ALL KILL AND EAT CHARLOTTE”. >Charlotte, you see, is blonde. And everyone else in the raft is dark-haired. Just luck of the draw (hah!) - it so happened that eight dark-haired people and one blonde were stuck on the same lifeboat. There’s no racism or genuine bad feeling between the darks and blondes. Nobody actually cares about hair color. It was just the simplest Schelling point. In this view, rather than the presence of a mind virus, it is the absence of communication and trust. The solution must be to deepen communication and understanding and reduce the desperation that would lead people to grasp at such brutal methods for the weak imitation of unity.

As someone who isnt a racist or a xenophobe or against homosexuality or transness I recognize that in the same way those that are, are my "them". And even just this opening sentence many here could identify that I am their "them". We mutually hate eachother, they have some idea of how I am and I have some idea of how they are, and neither of us are interested in proving the other wrong. To me this is as it should be, I understand and respect this realization you are having. I cant describe to you how much I fully comprehend and have thought the same thing you are thinking, as im sure many have. I also cant describe to you how much I think it is a waste of time, and I could be wrong, but I dont think I am. We are the check and balance of eachother, if things went the way of the "us" I have in mind perhaps it would all be too fast, perhaps "we" would overstep on peoples lives who could not conceivably or reasonably in their life understand all of my leftist ideals. I could invent reasons all day to dehumanize them but I know at the end of the day charitably its not because they are stupid but because their personal experience is literally one that has seen value in these "traditional" ways of being for their specific country and found value and meaning for them. I cant speak to the rest of the ideas they might say, some obviously have nothing to do with tradition, but I know the core partiality that causes them to identify with that probably comes from a place of familiarity and community and positive associations with such things. But what am I to do? What are they to do? We have to fight it out. Thats a part of the human experience, part of the human toolbelt. Ideally as things move forward we dont literally have to fight it out and thats part of the solution to the suffering. Maybe one day we dont have to put our lives on the line. But if our hearts arent in reaching across the aisle what would forcing it do. I can recognize all these things, I trust my "them" can too, it doesnt change we only see this being resolved in some kind of literal or metaphorical fight and exchanging of blows. This is the dialogue, this in itself is what brings us to common understanding eventually. If my beliefs were that suffering was good and people should die, how could you reach across the aisle to me? Further how can you truly judge how serious I am about that, or we are about that, what if many believed this. Would I change my mind the minute you confronted me, maybe it was all an act? If I didnt then whats next, you go on the attack, you try to shake me out of it with words. If I still dont yield do you slap me? If that doesnt make me yield what then? This is something thats within the capability of anyone, we can stand by beliefs only surface deep or so down to our core we would die for them. Again maybe one day we are in such a place where we can accept we never have to die for an idea, in some ways most of us are like that, we dont have to go there to understand someone is uncompromisingly serious. But there always will be uncompromising beliefs at odds with eachother, and there isnt anything wrong to me of deciding your lifes mission is to be an advocate for something you believe in. Because I see that is not wrong, I cant say us vs them is wrong, someone will always be as uncompromising as I am but in the opposite direction. Again, our interplay is part of the checks and balance for all of humanity, and this is okay. As time passes we can hope the us vs them dialects becomes more fair and even, with less at stake. But I really dont think inherently they are wrong.

>>85157 >How to work with this mind virus? By accepting it, because it's part of human nature. First understand that ideology is a tool, it's a kind of collective partial truths used to control people, and it's true purpose is to direct humanity down some path. Ideology is the new religion. Fence sitters don't get far. You have to pick a side at some point, or rejoin the cattle to be manipulated like the rest.

>>85172 >Fence sitters don't get far. You have to pick a side at some point, or rejoin the cattle to be manipulated like the rest. Good arms dealers sell to both sides of a war. The best play is abuse the state programmed tendencies of the cattle for personal gain. The priest preaches celibacy but monopolizes banging the whole nunnery. The drug dealer doesn't consume their own product. Gotta make use of the fools but not get consumed by the state religion into believing the bullshit yourself.

>>85173 I like the way you think haha ;) But power for it's own sake seems kind of meaningless. What's the point if not to reshape the world in your image? You just spend it all on worldly pleasures?

>>85163 >That's the thing: I don't think, and maybe I'm wrong it's just my opinion, something like that will ever become really mainstream in a meaningful way. Then look instead of thinking, because we are here already. DEI and ESG are only the start. The main rule of democracy is that if you must always hurt the same people so the relative number of unhappy people stay low. It has already been established that it's morally right to do so against people who are branded as oppressors. And the population is changing. The politically acceptable therm for it is demographic transition I have been told. But yes, you can stay positive and just live your life, it will probably only hurt other people. Probably. If you have kids, they will lovebombed, isolated, introduced to a toxic mentality that will leave them 40% chance to die if they don't have the willpower to oppose their entire social network, but how do that effect you in any way? You have to pay more taxes to get less out of it and you have to accept criminality but how does that affect you in any way? Say, if Muslims became a significant enough share of the population, they can make a revolution. With the current climate, nobody is willing to risk his pelt to defend the soykafshow of our modern states, so if they do, they will win. If there is enough black people, they can decide that they should rule with an iron fist and take what they want from others. It has happened before, it will happen again.

>>85163 >just ignore the drama-focused people because they are only a minority, and the medias want you to think they are majority Here is the thing though. You seem to equate majority with importance and definiteness, and yet its the minority who historically drives change. None of the projected divisions matter until you meet some schizo with the axe who thinks you are the root of his pain and suffering. Good luck communicating that to him. Ruling class is strictly less that the governed class. And apparently, its in the interests of the rulers to use this primordial cognitive feature of the human thinking to ensure "command-and-control". Ignorance strategy is priced in, so to speak. >>85167 I haven't heard of Schelling points. It is an interesting concept, I will look deeper into it. However, I doubt that it happens BECAUSE it is the optimal solution for the "coordination in the absence of communication" problem. A group in the example clearly communicates and converges on the solution of self-division. >>85173 See, it would be quite easy to do exactly that. Understand this force of social nature, and then optimize it, use it for your own profit. But then everybody is doing exactly that already. Well, maybe not everybody, but the state minority specifically. Either way, it feels like a revenge method, and I'm not seeking that. I'm seeking a better way.

>>85157 >How to work with >helps with taming it? its difficult ad hoc i can only think of superficial solutions that only shift the root of problem somehow creating new 'in-' and 'out-' groups that will inevitably loopback to the initial problem i see it rooted in the nature of human existence, individuals more (inner thought and emotion) or less (limited by senses and voice / ability to touch and manipulate objects) encapsulated inside of their individual bodies. this internal 'me' vs. externals and the flaws and inconsistencies of the media that the human uses by nature which all have so many potential sources for error, leading to misunderstanding, i.e. corrupted information exchange. sender, recipient, transport path of information, individual personal context, experience background etc. times changed in a way so that misunderstandings (unintentional or intentional) do not cause bloodshed as quick as let's say 600 years ago. this kind of bloodshed is often transformed into the "we/i will destroy you" reaction of the externals. statistically "the internal" is more likely to control their reaction upon the realization of the flawed informational exchange and or confrontation with intentionally flawed reactions traced back to the original in/out group thinking and pursuit of short sighted dominance. it seems like a viscious cycle based on a systemic communication problem inside of the network society observed. aside from utopian solutions i cant think of anything viable so it seems > I told them "We are different, let's help each other" > They told me "You are not one of us, we will destroy you" it seems like the solution to the problem is a merger of the two mottos... a guesstimate could be "We are different, you are one of us, we are one, let's help each other and destroy those that want to destroy us."

>>85157 Personal space and segregation actually works. It gives people their own space for their respective group and also allows people to enjoy new things in small amounts and from a safe distance. Sometimes the best way to co-exist is healthy spacing and limitations on interactions. It is kind of like how you can get fed up with coworkers so you don't hang out with them all the time and you have your personal time in your own home. Also, traveling and understanding others can lead to becoming distrusting of them since you can be exposed to the bad persons amongst them or see the bad parts. One example includes, as an example, Islamic societies. Many of their practices would not be tolerated in America such as how they heavily regulate women. Does this mean we should fight them all the time? No. It means let them have their own countries while we have ours.

>>85179 >> I told them "We are different, let's help each other" >> They told me "You are not one of us, we will destroy you" >it seems like the solution to the problem is a merger of the two mottos... >a guesstimate could be "We are different, you are one of us, we are one, let's help each other and destroy those that want to destroy us." That doesn't make much sense. You can't just throw a dialectic at this problem. >the flaws and inconsistencies of the media that the human uses by nature which all have so many potential sources for error, leading to misunderstanding, i.e. corrupted information exchange. sender, recipient, transport path of information, individual personal context, experience background etc. That is not a bug, its a feature. We live in a nonlinear world. Expectation of reversibility and determinism of some kind is likely to fail. Any model of reality and societies in it will fail without this assumption. I can expand on this, actually. This quality of the real world led me to believe that metamathematics should be given by some axiomatized version of dynamical systems, and not sets or arrows. They have clearly showed their limit. It's possible to pick such a "us vs them" problem so it becomes undecidable, and wastes all social resources. Game-theoretic stuff is under suspicion too. Maybe something like process metaphysics would be useful with moving forward. >>85182 >Personal space and segregation actually works That is, if its possible. Sometimes "them" are so pissed at the existence of "us", they will tear down any and all boundaries to destroy "us". It's not a solution at the group level in the same way, as the solution of "societal detachment" at the individual-societal level. Be it cab in a woods or separate countries, it is not a good way of working with this mind-virus.

>how to work with this mind virus well it depends what you want to do. personally I want to advance the interests of myself, my close family, and my extended family into the future, and racism and nationalism both are natural outgrowths of that

>>85157 It's a sad case lainon, personally whats helped me a lot is coming to terms with the historical and material origins for a lot of these conflicts. It's an endless power struggle against precarity and the drudgery of being alive, and trying hard to fight against the inherent meaninglessness of existing. I truly think the only grand unifying force of humanity is death and our subsequent anxiety surrounding it. For me personally getting over that was the biggest hurdle and I believe that if everyone just plainly accepted that one day they will die, be forgotten and their lives will have "meant nothing" it would curb a lot of this violent behavior. We cant accept the the universe is a chaotic, unpredictable and our lives are effectively motes of dust against the endless expanse, so we create and cling to hiearchies and structures so we can delude ourselves into believing that we matter. Alot of it is trying to claim meaning by insisting that another groups life and autonomy is "less worthy" of being respected and that by enforcing these beliefs it somehow makes other groups (whatever one we blong to) lives more valuable. Men did this to women for much of modern human history, colonizers against the colonized, Slavers against the enslaved, religion A against religion B, and more recently gender variant against the gender conforming. The same story plays out again and again. I have to stay vigilant against any belief/thoughts that my "group" is inherently more or less deserving than any others (whether that be family, nation, race, ethnicity, gender) reminding myself constantly that I will die and be forgotten, reminding myself that regardless of how different we may seem me and any other human on earth are far more alike than we are different at the bottom of it all. Politically speaking I think leftism encapsulates this perspective more than any right-leaning ideologies and it's incompatible with a lot of mainstream religion but I've found solace in a lot of spiritual beliefs ( animism, various Buddhist traditions, daoism, various pagan traditions,secularism) and philosophically works that discuss existentialism, nihilism, and stoicism have been helpful in snuffing out parts of the mind virus. >>85182 But that's not really feasible, especially not now, with things becoming more globalized. Most imperial nations boast diverse populations, people migrate constantly to different places with different people. Put two ethnic groups of anykind in close proximity and give it enough time, if they dont instantly kill each other eventually they will merge to an extent exchanging culture and genetic information. Colonization, immigration, travel, all of these things force us into proximity to the 'other' whether we like it or not. Even in war, conquest and slavery two opposing forces manage to produce children through rape, and coercion. To me it seems useless to wish we could all live in our little ethnic bubbles with next to no outside interaction, not to mention the copious amounts of violence and bloodshed needed to maintain such an arrangement, especially if you believe that it is human nature to go against the 'other' and if one group has a resource another one desires. Our best chance is to learn to live alongside each other and deconstruct any beliefs that get in the way of that.

>>85177 >However, I doubt that it happens BECAUSE it is the optimal solution for the "coordination in the absence of communication" problem. A group in the example clearly communicates and converges on the solution of self-division. The decision is made in their minds beforehand, the article sets up before the bit I quoted why this is necessary, I'd recommend reading it since it puts it better than I could, but basically, they want to figure out a way to guarantee their personal survival, which wouldn't happen if they choose who to eat based on a fair process, but will happen if they decide to turn on the person who is visibly different and outnumbered. It is that visible difference which makes it possible for them to form a de-facto group and converge on a single choice, without it things would be all against all. Also, in that hypothetical the choice isn't whether to turn on each other, that part is taken as a given demanded by the circumstances. That differs from many real life situations, but even with those in many cases there isn't an easily achieved fair option, in the absence of great feats of cooperation and communication there will be winners and losers.

>Males vs Females just replace females, it is that simple lol.

>>85185 >I want to advance the interests of myself, my close family, and my extended family into the future Are you sure that the boundaries of yourself and your family will persist through time unchanged? Families change. New alien individuals marry into it, and suddenly they are not alien anymore. Their interests are now your as well. How exactly does this work? This blind spot is so abusable its not even funny. >>85188 I remember reading about attempts of various people at immortalizing themselves. Apparently, it's one of the best motivations for the warriors. Its still quite stupid, though. Imagine being so afraid of changing, becoming nothing, so that you delude yourself and think about persisting a name. A name, meaningless sequence of symbols, as a substitute for identity that once existed. >>85194 I've read the article. I think I can offer the critique of this concept. The choice of the most distinct element and group convergence still relies on the unity of the perception. One of the examples for this focal point is a square, where three fourths are blue and another one fourth is red. Study assumes that the difference between colors is perceptible for all of the participants.

>>85198 It is extremely simple: by marrying into your family, they become part of your family and create a bond with you. It's just an extension of self preservation, really. If you don't hate yourself and figured that nobody but you will ever stand for you, you stand for yourself, since you are stronger as being part of a community, you bond and stand with the people who have a strong link with you, your close friends and family and a bit less with the distant one and it only become a general sense of charity for everyone else. Unfortunately, an idealism that promote self hate has become common. In the history of mankind, it is punctual and it will become an interesting curiosity to study. Even today in fact. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12227-0 There is nothing wrong with being afraid of death though. The idea is too distant from you for now but it will change with time. >>85188 The Arabs were in Hispania for 40 generations without mixing. Hutu and Tutsi shared the same lands for many centuries and stayed two different people. India have a race based caste system and it has been this way for untold centuries. Gypsies has been in Europe for perhaps even 1500 years with minimal mixing. I suppose, if given entire millenniums, entropy would eventually win but even then, the people would still think with us and them and internal division would still exist, at it has always been.

>>85198 >Study assumes that the difference between colors is perceptible for all of the participants. I'm not sure I understand the critique; isn't it the case that in practice we actually have unity of perception on many things, particularly as relevant to op "us vs them" properties? Or at least, these unified perceptions form with little or no conscious effort. So then the possibility of colorblindness or an equivalent doesn't really contradict the idea that the game theory utility of these focal points is a major reason they are used to form groups of people that act against each other.