Amon Goeth

[ArguesWithStrangers]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0xD5Ik-aVs

I ran across this little documentary about the daughter of Amon Goeth. For those who don't know he was the commander of the Plazlow concentration camp, and was featured as the primary antagonist in Schindler's List. It's very interesting to see how she came to learn of her father's legacy and to confront the horror he inflicted on the Jews under his supervision.

The idealistic part of me wants to believe most people are full of crap when they express hostile views towards one group or another. I've often said people express such views with the confidence they'll never have to act on them, because if they actually witnessed what they're describing, they wouldn't have the stomach for it. Maybe that's true for the average person, but men like Amon Goeth make me wonder if that's actually the case.

With anti-semitism becoming very much in vogue again, especially in Europe, I worry for Jewish people. They have the nasty habit of valuing education and achieving higher success per capita than the people who surround them. This inevitably stokes the envy those around them, who prefer to scapegoat the jews for their own relative lack of success than to look to how they can improve themselves. It's happening from all sides of the political spectrum. The ethno-nationalists hate the Jews because they're not white enough and too wealthy. The Leftists hate them because they're too white, and too wealthy. The immigrants from the middle east hate them because they're still nursing a grudge about Israel and they thing the Jews are too wealthy.

We must manage to break away from our desire to see ourselves and others as members of a collective group, whether that be race or religion etc. which we can easily classify based on membership. Your value is based on the person you choose to be, not the group you happened to be born to. If you've a gut dislike of a person based on their classification, I challenge you to invite one of them, you probably know one or two, just to have a beer with you. You'll likely find out they're just people, with normal concerns, trying to live an average life.

Don't be a part of the reason why men like Amon Goeth gain power. Whatever you imagine the ills a group is inflicting upon you, don't believe the lunacy and horror the Nazis inflicted is in any way preferable to whatever that is.

[Independent voter]

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/54486...up-their-robes

This black guy spends time with KKK members and gets them to change their views.

I think a lot of racist behavior comes from falling into a mental trap. You can come to your racist beliefs by making false assumptions, believing in the wrong logic and following it. Basically racists are following good scientific practices of coming up with theories and then testing those theories before coming to a conclusion.

If someone approaches you and uses the correct logic, they can talk you out of your racist beliefs.

I can be as simple as that.

[Theodarzna]

We must manage to break away from our desire to see ourselves and others as members of a collective group, whether that be race or religion etc. which we can easily classify based on membership. Your value is based on the person you choose to be, not the group you happened to be born to. If you've a gut dislike of a person based on their classification, I challenge you to invite one of them, you probably know one or two, just to have a beer with you. You'll likely find out they're just people, with normal concerns, trying to live an average life.

Don't be a part of the reason why men like Amon Goeth gain power. Whatever you imagine the ills a group is inflicting upon you, don't believe the lunacy and horror the Nazis inflicted is in any way preferable to whatever that is.

That isn't how humans work mate. We exist as a web of relationships, humans are only human in the context of other humans. You don't really choose to be anyone like you don't choose your first language, your parents, your siblings, your home town, you don't chose a whole heck of a lot and it will profoundly define you. More over there is a problem with that sort of identity, the inevitability that people will want to belong to something more solid, more unquestionable, than a fandom or a customer base or a “public” — something that can’t be so easily wiped away by the ravages of fashion or the coming and going of political regimes.

That is the trouble with the "muh individualism" types, the Libertarians. You have this very idealized and inaccurate anthropology of mankind.

[Gadion]

That isn't how humans work mate. We exist as a web of relationships, humans are only human in the context of other humans. You don't really choose to be anyone like you don't choose your first language, your parents, your siblings, your home town, you don't chose a whole heck of a lot and it will profoundly define you. More over there is a problem with that sort of identity, the inevitability that people will want to belong to something more solid, more unquestionable, than a fandom or a customer base or a “public” — something that can’t be so easily wiped away by the ravages of fashion or the coming and going of political regimes.

That is the trouble with the "muh individualism" types, the Libertarians. You have this very idealized and inaccurate anthropology of mankind.

I realise that I pretty much have an idealised view of the world and how it ought to be. I understand the search for identity and the importance of feeling part of something bigger. But we have much more in common with others than we would like to believe. I am in no way a supporter of this group mentality of us vs them. That is how people create artificial barriers to understanding and encourage squabbles. That is also how you get collective guilt and disregard of individual rights. If you have no respect for individuals, you brush them all together into the same group and find any reason to consider them the enemy, it's only a short way from conflict and violence.

[Theodarzna]

I realise that I pretty much have an idealized view of the world and how it ought to be. I understand the search for identity and the importance of feeling part of something bigger. But we have much more in common with others than we would like to believe. I am in no way a supporter of this group mentality of us vs them. That is how people create artificial barriers to understanding and encourage squabbles. That is also how you get collective guilt and disregard of individual rights. If you have no respect for individuals, you brush them all together into the same group and find any reason to consider them the enemy, it's only a short way from conflict and violence.

Having things in common is all well and good, however, that is what a group is, a category of something that is as much something as it isn't something. All groups and catagories as a necessity of the logic of a catagory will have that which is in the group and that which isn't in the group. A catagory that contains everyone isn't a catagory with any sort of descriptive meaning. Also, as a biological fact, we are in competition, that is how life is. Human are a social animal, not unlike our closest relatives whom are also social animals.

[XDurionX]

If someone approaches you and uses the correct logic, they can talk you out of your racist beliefs.

I can be as simple as that.

There's nothing simple about changing people's convictions.

[Unholyground]

Racism comes from natural fears that all humans have that are just culturally perpetuated and taught even if they are not true.

[AeneasBK]

Yeah but... you have to admit there IS something shifty about them.

[Gadion]

Having things in common is all well and good, however, that is what a group is, a category of something that is as much something as it isn't something. All groups and catagories as a necessity of the logic of a catagory will have that which is in the group and that which isn't in the group. A catagory that contains everyone isn't a catagory with any sort of descriptive meaning.

The way I understand this, you're saying that there are distinctions between people that make them members of certain groups and that this distinction is more important than having a common, meaningless, trait? I understand that. When people talk about looking what we have in common, they usually mean to look for ground to work to the benefit of everyone. We're not looking at the things that are on both sides of the equation, but how to work with that which is on the other side.

Also, as a biological fact, we are in competition, that is how life is. Human are a social animal, not unlike our closest relatives whom are also social animals.

Being social animals is, in my opinion, a testament to the fact that we can cooperate. While we are in competition, we are also more commonly in cooperation. Endless strife wouldn't have allowed the development of society to the point it has today. Living in harmony doesn't mean always having an input into the affairs of others, it means being able to live in peace despite your differences.

[Theodarzna]

The way I understand this, you're saying that there are distinctions between people that make them members of certain groups and that this distinction is more important than having a common, meaningless, trait? I understand that. When people talk about looking what we have in common, they usually mean to look for ground to work to the benefit of everyone. We're not looking at the things that are on both sides of the equation, but how to work with that which is on the other side.

That is it in a nutshell. I mean, I have a vagina, womb and the like, but the vast majority of women, nearly all of them have nothing much in common with me. Not the same background, not the same experiences, not the same first language, not the same cultural context and origin. I could identify with the catagory of "Woman" as opposed to "Briton" or "Welsh person" as is the place of my birth and growing up. Even if I did identify as just "Woman Human" I'd still cut men out of the catagory and even then it is hard to say one has much of universally "female" experience anyway.

I would ask, why the focus on unity? To what end and why? As for the benefit of everyone, I see little reason that will be the case, nor if that is a good faith belief by others whom most of the time behave in a hostile manner.

Being social animals is, in my opinion, a testament to the fact that we can cooperate. While we are in competition, we are also more common in cooperation. Endless strife wouldn't have allowed the development of society to the point it has today. Living in harmony doesn't mean always having an input into the affairs of others, it means being able to live in peace despite your differences.

We CAN cooperate, but within groups. We cooperate with our groups, not the sum total of the species. And talk of peace is nice, until inevitably there is a dispute, a dispute that can't be resolved by some hooky speech about peace, love and playing a John Lenin song.

[Gadion]

...a John Lenin song.

John Lenin? Is that some sort of communist mix with the Beatles?
Vladimir John Lenin
(sorry, couldn't resist the joke)

I would ask, why the focus on unity? To what end and why? As for the benefit of everyone, I see little reason that will be the case, nor if that is a good faith belief by others whom most of the time behave in a hostile manner.

If by unity, you mean working together to achieve goals, why wouldn't you want that? If scientists work together to find better ways to treat cancer or to cure HIV/Aids or whatever, do you think it would be better for them to refuse to do so because the other scientist has a different language, religion or skin colour? That would be to the benefit of everyone. If people behaved more hostile to one another than amicably, it would be rather hard to build a society to the extent it has already happened.

We CAN cooperate, but within groups. We cooperate with our groups, not the sum total of the species.

You said it yourself, there's a large amount of variance within groups as well. You have some things in common with other woman, but you're also uniquely you. But you can still relate to a woman on the other side of the planet regarding feminine issues. Often there's a huge discrepancy between the lived experience of individuals within a group, but they can still somehow manage to set aside those differences and form a group. The out-group is rarely *that* different that you can't find a single piece of common ground. My initial post was about finding reasons to cooperate. I believe that would encourage inter-group harmony.

And talk of peace is nice, until inevitably there is a dispute, a dispute that can't be resolved by some hooky speech about peace, love and playing a John Lenin song.

The idea is to prevent or minimise disputes. If two parties can't see eye to eye, often they can simply avoid one another. If coexisting is impossible, that's one thing. But looking for reasons to not be able to coexist is another completely. I see no reason to go around looking for reasons to propagate violence.

[Dhrizzle]

I realise that I pretty much have an idealised view of the world and how it ought to be. I understand the search for identity and the importance of feeling part of something bigger. But we have much more in common with others than we would like to believe. I am in no way a supporter of this group mentality of us vs them. That is how people create artificial barriers to understanding and encourage squabbles. That is also how you get collective guilt and disregard of individual rights. If you have no respect for individuals, you brush them all together into the same group and find any reason to consider them the enemy, it's only a short way from conflict and violence.

The trick is to maximise what you consider "us" and do away with the concept of "them."

[Theodarzna]

If by unity, you mean working together to achieve goals, why wouldn't you want that? If scientists work together to find better ways to treat cancer or to cure HIV/Aids or whatever, do you think it would be better for them to refuse to do so because the other scientist has a different language, religion or skin colour? That would be to the benefit of everyone. If people behaved more hostile to one another than amicably, it would be rather hard to build a society to the extent it has already happened.

What goals? I mean, there seems to be this attitude that there is some end point to human life beyond saying survival and replication. I am also unsure why two people talking to one another say necessitates a defacto open borders policy, Multiculty social engineering and or the abolition of human social groups. I can work with someone assuming they are non-hostile and non-threatening. But that is the rub of it, it has to be a mutual thing and non-hostile.

You said it yourself, there's a large amount of variance within groups as well. You have some things in common with another woman, but you're also uniquely you. But you can still relate to a woman on the other side of the planet regarding feminine issues. Often there's a huge discrepancy between the lived experience of individuals within a group, but they can still somehow manage to set aside those differences and form a group. The out-group is rarely *that* different that you can't find a single piece of common ground. My initial post was about finding reasons to cooperate. I believe that would encourage inter-group harmony.

I have say more in common with my family and people whom speak the same first language as me than I do with a larger group, shocking. That deosn't really change the nature of smaller and or more defined and circumscribed catagories. Reasons to cooperate can exist, reasons to not cooperate also exist.

The idea is to prevent or minimise disputes. If two parties can't see eye to eye, often they can simply avoid one another. If coexisting is impossible, that's one thing. But looking for reasons to not be able to coexist is another completely. I see no reason to go around looking for reasons to propagate violence.

You inevitably can't if you act polyannish about disputes or don't take them serously. The problem I'd say with your ideology is it is ME who has to find reason to co-exist and tolerate someone whom obviously has no intention of reciprocating that or allowing me and mine to be as we are.

- - - Updated - - -

The trick is to maximize what you consider "us" and do away with the concept of "them."

There already is the broad category of "Humankind" but you notice very few if any pay that much mind. It is well and good to say that, but mechanically and logically you aren't going to have the benefits of group solidarity without the logic of what a group is.

- - - Updated - - -

From a Historians perspective, this thread reeks of Hagel and Fukuyama. The fixation of unity and unification is a uniquely American/Western fetish. IMHO Born of a unique messianic self perception as the saviors of mankind whom will remake the world into one single perfect place.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

That isn't how humans work mate. We exist as a web of relationships, humans are only human in the context of other humans. You don't really choose to be anyone like you don't choose your first language, your parents, your siblings, your home town, you don't chose a whole heck of a lot and it will profoundly define you. More over there is a problem with that sort of identity, the inevitability that people will want to belong to something more solid, more unquestionable, than a fandom or a customer base or a “public” — something that can’t be so easily wiped away by the ravages of fashion or the coming and going of political regimes.

That is the trouble with the "muh individualism" types, the Libertarians. You have this very idealized and inaccurate anthropology of mankind.

Saying something is "natural" is not a valid argument for discussing what should be. The extent to which we have civilization at all is the extent to which we rise above our "natural" inclinations. I'm a pretty big guy and can handle myself. My "natural" inclination is to dominate other men and take their women for my own use to produce as many offspring as I can with as many women as I can. I don't do that shit however because at some point a long time ago someone realized no matter how big a badass you are, two men working together can fuck you up and take all the shit you took right back. We kept on refining that base concept until we arrived at the point we're at today. Not all the innovations are good, and there is plenty of reason to debate them. Shutting down the argument with appeals to nature however is a non-starter.

[Theodarzna]

Saying something is "natural" is not a valid argument for discussing what should be. The extent to which we have civilization at all is the extent to which we rise above our "natural" inclinations. I'm a pretty big guy and can handle myself. My "natural" inclination is to dominate other men and take their women for my own use to produce as many offspring as I can with as many women as I can. I don't do that shit however because at some point a long time ago someone realized no matter how big a badass you are, two men working together can fuck you up and take all the shit you took right back. We kept on refining that base concept until we arrived at the point we're at today. Not all the innovations are good, and there is plenty of reason to debate them. Shutting down the argument with appeals to nature however is a non-starter.

We don't rise above natural inclinations, we channel them. For example we take the tribe and expand it, but you will notice no matter what there is always the tribe and the other tribe. You compete for status with other men in a way that allows you to be tax cattle for the State, but still you persue money ultimately for the purposes of hopefully getting laid.

Also, you lot now contradict yourself. First its "MUH INDIVIDUALISM" now its "MUH UNITY!", which is it?

[Dhrizzle]

There already is the broad category of "Humankind" but you notice very few if any pay that much mind. It is well and good to say that, but mechanically and logically you aren't going to have the benefits of group solidarity without the logic of what a group is.

Let's just say it's a work in progress.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/54486...up-their-robes

This black guy spends time with KKK members and gets them to change their views.

I think a lot of racist behavior comes from falling into a mental trap. You can come to your racist beliefs by making false assumptions, believing in the wrong logic and following it. Basically racists are following good scientific practices of coming up with theories and then testing those theories before coming to a conclusion.

If someone approaches you and uses the correct logic, they can talk you out of your racist beliefs.

I can be as simple as that.

I always enjoyed that story. It was a testament to the patience and persistence of that man to go into that nest of vipers and come out ahead. I spend a fair amount of time following the a lot of the "intellectuals" behind the increasing popularity of the ethno-nationalist world view, and they'll make these argument which at first glance seem to have some shred of reason to them, but all it takes to destroy their position is for me to say, "that's just not true, I know John. John is the guy they're talking about, and John has never bothered me a day in my life."

I think we like to build our boogie men as abstracts and not come to terms what acting on our worst fears would look like. Whenever I hear a conservative complain about what I view as a legitimate problem, say illegal immigration to the US, and hear them say shit like "we should round up all the illegals and deport them," I'm all, "really, that's what you want to do? What happens when they won't leave? what happens when they resist you? Are you willing to kill them? How many are you willing to kill? You'd have to stack bodies like firewood to get all the illegals out of this country. If you don't think that would have to happen, you're delusional. If you don't care, you're a fucking monster." It makes it impossible to talk about reasonable things like better controlling the border and streamlining and incentivizing legal immigration when you have people fantasizing about utterly impossible and immoral shit in lieu of that.

[Dhrizzle]

We don't rise above natural inclinations, we channel them. For example we take the tribe and expand it, but you will notice no matter what there is always the tribe and the other tribe. You compete for status with other men in a way that allows you to be tax cattle for the State, but still you persue money ultimately for the purposes of hopefully getting laid.

Wow, if this is how you see yourself and your place in the world it's kinda sad but also explains a lot.

Also, you lot now contradict yourself. First its "MUH INDIVIDUALISM" now its "MUH UNITY!", which is it?

Can you expand on what you mean here? I'm sure in the places where you tend to get your ideas "muh" is considered a brilliant and concise statement but for most people it's barely more than a grunt. Also could you explain who you consider to be "you lot?"

[Gadion]

What goals? I mean, there seems to be this attitude that there is some end point to human life beyond saying survival and replication. I am also unsure why two people talking to one another say necessitates a defacto open borders policy, Multiculty social engineering and or the abolition of human social groups. I can work with someone assuming they are non-hostile and non-threatening. But that is the rub of it, it has to be a mutual thing and non-hostile.

I can relate to you saying there's no super-ordinate goal for humanity as a group, or that every individual does not have to buy into the stated goals of others. But while we're here, we might as well make it the best place we can.

I'm actually not trying to say everyone should have an open border agreement with everyone else or that group identities are not important and everyone should become identical grey copies of others' beliefs or values. I am saying people can be different to one another, still work together and both prosper despite their differences.

Also, if someone is downright hostile towards you, no-one reasonable would expect you to subject yourself to abuse and loss.

I have say more in common with my family and people whom speak the same first language as me than I do with a larger group, shocking. That deosn't really change the nature of smaller and or more defined and circumscribed catagories. Reasons to cooperate can exist, reasons to not cooperate also exist.

Yes, these reasons not to cooperate already exist. No need to think of new ones.

You inevitably can't if you act polyannish about disputes or don't take them serously. The problem I'd say with your ideology is it is ME who has to find reason to co-exist and tolerate someone whom obviously has no intention of reciprocating that or allowing me and mine to be as we are.

There's a difference between not looking to make disputes and not taking disputes seriously. I didn't say you have to accommodate anyone that clearly doesn't want to cooperate. I'm saying you shouldn't look for reasons to not be cooperative yourself. If someone behaves threatening or refuses to reciprocate your own investments of time or effort, there's no way you can force them to. So, you don't need to force yourself either.

I'm just concerned that people are trying to justify refusal to try and coexist by pointing out differences as an excuse.

[Koriani]

- - - Updated - - -

From a Historians perspective, this thread reeks of Hagel and Fukuyama. The fixation of unity and unification is a uniquely American/Western fetish. IMHO Born of a unique messianic self perception as the saviors of mankind whom will remake the world into one single perfect place.[/QUOTE]



What? Talk about Nonsensical.

Take a look at Asia and tell me this idea of "unification" and "unity" is a Western thing. You've got it backwards. China, Japan, etc. are huge societies where UNITY and LACK of individualism is much more inherent and central to their societal norms than us wild, individualism focused, Westerners.

But the idea of humans working together towards greater understanding, coming together over commonalities, and focusing on having less violence as a way of resolving conflict - is /not/ the same as as homogenizing world culture.

One allows for everyone to remain their own selves, with their own cultural identities and societal norms and whatevers - but hold to a "greater good" type of attitude where peoples choose to try and work differences out before they turn to violence - the other is turning everyone into the same person and not allowing anyone to step outside that society approved "normal" historically the countries of the East though this has been changing, rapidly, with the Western influence over the last 50 years).

Notice in no way do I say "stop all violence and war." No, that's impractical. But you can sure try other things and be less violent over all than we are now.

It is the evolution of a social society (which btw, doesn't mean we compete, it means we thrive by working together) for us to try and be more than the sum total of our parts. To be more than animal instinct. Star Trek wasn't pulling that philosophy out of Gene Roddenberry's ass, it really is part of our "humanity."

To do otherwise is to stall and stagnate, the opposite of progress and evolution. To say "We are all unique and never bother to work out our differences with each other because we won't ever be perfect (?) is just negatively pessimistic. I'm sure it fits with some big name philosophy but since I suck at names and college was 20 years ago, I can't intellectually name drop. =D

We're not talking about healing the world to a perfect place. Only talking about working more to come together over what makes us all HUMAN, and not focusing on what makes us a subset of a subset of a subset of a species.

Because while you (this poster I quoted) may be "Welsh" and "Female" - I promise you, what you have in common with every other human in the world actually is much more than what you don't have in common with them. Including the men. Human beings in themselves are not all that unique or special and the vast majority of us are, minus a few cosmetic details (like language you speak and where you live and what your childhood is like), 95% the same.