I love humanity

And hopefully don't nuke ourselves and leave the planet to chimpanzees because, holy shit, they're one of the most murder-happy species on the planet. Roving fucking murderhobo bands with the singular purpose of brutally killing anyone not of their own tribe, to expand territory.

tribalism is what enables you to empathized with your close groups and want to protect them from harm. You wanting your friends, family and community to be taken care of is a for m of tribalism. In inherent to our biology. Can you even call someone who has no inclination to tribalism a human being?

Hitchhikers guide is like this

The problem is how wide your definition of ‘us’ is.

Humans are inherently greedy. So long as there is greed there will be war. Mankind will never make it past the stars and the galaxy is probably better for it.

Someone who has no inclination to tribalism is someone who has gone beyond a human being. Violence and chaos are unbiased, and give to all. Tribalism is the root of all evils in the human world, as well as all false good. I cannot see it as a benefit to oneself, from an objective point of view.

The problem with tribalism is when people end up putting the needs of their 'tribe' over that of their state. See the Middle East for examples.

Tribalism tells you to fuck everybody that isn't your tribe. Its literally why we have been killing each other since the beginning of time, even up to today.

why should one group care about another? People should focus on themselves and what they can rather than another. Unbridled altruism is unrealistic and childish. Sure its good to play nice buy you do have no responsibility to do so,.

No its propaganda that a clear divide between us and them. Or if them actively tries to harm us.

So your solution is to steer into unreletant selfishness? Screw the notion of helping others?

I love how morons always spout this shit, thinking it is some kind of profound wisdom that others don't understand. You are a massive moron and did nothing but reveal yourself as a brainlet.

Perhaps. You can still move to minimize that greed and war however, and should.

Ok but that's just a race to the bottom and can be applied on a fractal level.
>Why should I care about my fellow human beings
>why should I care about my nation
>why should I care about my culture
>why should I care about my family
>why should I care about myself

should we all hold are hands and sing kumbaya?

why should you care about some starving kid in africa when you have your own problems? Charity is nice and all but you can't help others if you can't help yourself first.

are you saying the individual is not the most important thing that one should prioritize?

>why should one group care about another?
Because the boundaries between groups are blurry at best, and cooperation is more rewarding for everyone in the long term.

>People should focus on themselves and what they can rather than another.
Why?

>Unbridled altruism is unrealistic and childish.
Why?

>Sure its good to play nice buy you do have no responsibility to do so,.
What do you think that a responsibility is? Where do you think it comes from?

because you have to prioritize your needs over others. How pathetic are you deciding to martyr yourself for the whole human race when there are problems closer to home.

Those poor disenfranchised people you keep on talking about? They are responsible for themselves not you.

Every individual's first and priority and responsibility is to themselves. This is applied to ALL human beings

Why shouldn’t you?

This is a real philosophical question that doesn’t have an answer. Distance is not a good reason to not care about a problem.

Now if you are struggling to make ends meet, I’m not gonna say you need to donate your money to charity. But it is in your best interest to care for everyone, because it encourages everyone else to care about you.

All ships rise on the same time.

>because you have to prioritize your needs over others.
Sort of. Obviously it's necessary to cover your own needs first, or else you won't be to accomplish anything else. But it's important to distinguish "self preservation" from "selfishness" - one is about needs, and the other desires.

>How pathetic are you deciding to martyr yourself for the whole human race when there are problems closer to home.
First, that's not what I wrote. I wrote that "groups" are rarely completely distinct, and that cooperation is mutually beneficial. Cooperation is not the same as martyrdom.
Second, who gets to decide if that's "pathetic"? I'd be dead, and the people I'd helped likely won't say that.

>They are responsible for themselves not you.
Responsibility is considerably more complex than that.

youtube.com/watch?v=O4hlz5rxCjA

Not the user you're replying to, but I would never say we shouldn't attempt to live in harmony. But to do so would require us to ignore and act against millions of years of evolution, against our very nature. And nature is infamously cruel and callous. To regurgitate a post from one of many HFY threads: "Nobody realizes they are on a deathworld until they leave that world and see that not all environments are as hostile and deadly as the one they find comfort in."

Its human nature. You work with it or it works against you.

Humans are animals. And that is not being edgy or denigrating to humans. We are just another species on this dirtball and we survived this long doing what the rest of nature did. Amassing resources to make it easy to eat and fuck so we can reproduce. Greed is a natural impulse of nature and we are a part of nature.

Greed has no moral value though.

>We are just another species on this dirtball and we survived this long doing what the rest of nature did.
Why "just" another species?

Nothing has value or morality save for what you personally attribute it. What I mean to say is that war and violence and tribalism is human nature. And we can try to fight it, but most of us are doomed to adhering to our natural instincts: That of desire, and acting in ways that fulfill that desire, even if that means we war and feed on anything or anybody that is not a part of our pack.

>Humans are animals.
What people always seem to forget is, we're the nicest fucking animals in this entire fucking galaxy.We got to where we are now by saying 'fuck that noise' to the idea of eating our young and all that other nasty shit other animals do, in favor of cooperating with one another. Hell, not just each other, but other species too, as evidenced by man's best friend.

>abortions
>twisting other species by artificial selection till they became unable to survive in the wild

I’m not someone who believes in any kind of new world order that could be accomplished.

I’m just saying we can and have managed to improve society by appealing to mans better angels, and can continue to do so. There were always be conflict, but it’s feasible we can create less of it moving forward.

That and it’s important to distinguish what is realistic thinking, and what are people just looking for excuses to be assholes.

Still nicer.

Say you are completely right.

Isn’t it better to fight that baser nature anyway if following it results in suffering on the off-chance you are wrong?

Again, I don't mean to put down humankind. Its put in work to make it to this point. It worked better than any other species still in existence on this planet (maybe except for bugs but that depends on how you judge success). But I feel like humanity refined the act of hunting for food, making shelter, and breeding to the point that we barely recognize it as the same acts of the rest of nature. At least when boiled down to its most simplistic forms.

I'm not sure if I'd call humanity the nicest. Our pack/tribe is just so ridiculously huge, at least in the scope of mankind. Ninety-nine percent of people will see another person and recognize them as a human being like themselves, something inherently superior to say... cats or birds or bugs. We see another human and acknowledge that they have enough similarities to ourselves that they must, in the vaguest of terms, be a part of our tribe. Even if they aren't in the same family as us, or the same ethnicity as us, or come from the same country as us, we recognize them as a pack member of mankind. Be place them on a level of importance higher than most other organisms on the planet. Because humans are a part of our global "pack" we are likely to be nicer to them than any other animal.

Also human beings don't eat their young for many reasons: human flesh is toxic to us. We expend more energy creating them than we would gain from consuming them. We have more efficient food resources, even in the middle of a wasteland. And the baby likely wouldn't have been viable anyway if we didn't have a means to keep the mother alive through other means besides eating our own young.

> Tribalism is the root of all evils in the human world

No, hostile environments and communication difficulties are.

No, tribalism is making sure that your tribe is okay.

Dude, have you seen nature? We are nice as fuck.

As I said earlier, the problem is how you define ‘us’.

If ‘us’ is very inclusive and tolerant, society generally gets along well.

If ‘us’ is a very small and very exclusive, well you’re probably going to create conflict. For instance, see the amount of hate crimes perpretrated against the LGBT community because they aren’t considered part of someone’s like-group.

And tribes have warred and killed each other since the beginning of time to ensure that their respective tribes will remain okay.

Some would argue that not living according to one's nature results in suffering. And before somebody suggests it: no, I'm not saying we should just all go on murder-rape sprees. But at the same time I think its inherently harmful and dangerous to oneself, at least on a personal level, to ignore their base instincts. Or worse, to pretend they don't exist.

I say, without sarcasm, that I hope you're right. Humanity's track records leaves me wary though. It is in our nature to amass and consume resources as efficiently as possible. That is just how nature do. With that in mind, the logical extreme of such behavior always seems to be self-destruction. Like a species hunting its primary food source into extinction, dooming itself to extinction along with it.

>lgbt
Even seen a pride parade? Nothing of value was lost.

>It is in our nature to amass and consume resources as efficiently as possible.
>efficiently

No.

It is. The only time we stray from that is when we are tricked into doing so.

Care to elaborate?

No shit tribes have fought. We live in a hostile environment and have shitty communication tools.

Why not both?

Anima.
Humans are peaceful and nice until they get tired of magic bullies.

>why should you care about some starving kid in africa when you have your own problems?
Because it's helpful in the long term if you have a population that isn't starving and struggling to make ends meet.
Also, charity doesn't necessarily involve gibs.

>. Ninety-nine percent of people will see another person and recognize them as a human being like themselves, something inherently superior to say... cats or birds or bugs.
Actually, neurologically, cats see us as huge felines.

And dogs have this weird thing where they see us as pack members and leaders, while neurologically, they know we are human.
Humans also have the reverse, and their brains see their pooches as being part of the family, and something akin to kids.

So tribalism doesn't even have to involve the same species.

But this is wrong. Hindu culture and religion survived because there was no central authority the british could just subvert/kill and get rid of. The average middle easterner still has sovereignty because they put their tribe over everyone else and hate almost everyone who isn't a part of their tribe. And guess what? Three decades of constant warfare by modern first-world nations laters, Afghanistan's tribes are still going strong, sure, they fight, they die in massive numbers, they're relatively poor compared to what the average first-worlder was years ago, but they've increased in numbers. They're on the uprise in strength, simply because they successfully embody and practice the millenium-old time tested way of tribalism. This is reflected because, while the british and their nation-states failed to completely colonize the british, the muslims, for a long time, were very successful in wiping out many hindus, and, because they were dead, parts of hindu culture.
>Unbridled altruism is unrealistic and childish.
>Why?
youtube.com/watch?v=7OQeSYgOars
Because in the process of giving immediate relief, you create bigger problems. I would argue that it's not childish, but it is much, much worse things. Children who are given everything when asked by their parents, who are never punished, people who are never hurt, they end up becoming the most selfish people there is. Altruism. What is good for one person might not be good for another. And eternal altruism ends up being worse for somebody than making it on their own. Would you go grocery shopping if every day you received free, gourmet meals at your doorstep?
1/3

Probably not. Imagine somebody grew up, being provided everything they needed and wanted, and never left their house. They have food, water, entertainment, company, lots of things, and they had no desire to leave their house. Altruism says this child is living paradise, even if they're growing up without any skills needed to survive on their own. Altruism is unsustainable, you must eventually tell people "No", lest you harm them in the long run. In the real world, people work hard and long to make that food, build that house, and deliver the food, heck, even to keep it all safe from the predators beyond and in the nation's borders that look to steal things or kill those residing within this paradise house.
But this is not a paradise house. This paradise house is a prison. The very day that the man who delivers the food can no longer make it there, those people will starve. This shallow view that material aid will solve problems that came into being by choices that person made is incorrect. Just like how a parent occassionally spanks a child or gives them a punishment when they have done wrong, most problems that require altruism to solve could have been prevented by that particular person planning a bit more carefully, being more wise, or making a choice they knew was not the "right" thing to do in that situation. And furthermore, Some people value objects higher than other objects. Some value intentions, dreams, honor, or other immaterial things higher than those objects. It's impossible to be truly altruistic without giving someone a universe of their own. Somebody who loves everyone is either a saint or a whore. The "knowledge problem" displayed in my linked video makes altruism impossible. You could have the best of intentions, and still make somebody furious. The only way to be truly altruistic is to be wholly selfish in a universe where you're alone.
2/3

Suffering is necessary to become a better person. Muscles take work, discipline, and pain to make. Muscles let you do the things that are a requirement for living, better. Childbirth normally requires pain. There are whole eastern and asian religions based around the avoidance of pain. Islam sees pain as the holiest emotion, because it is necessary for jihad, or struggles. Many pagans see pain as a necessary part of the natural order, neither worth searching for nor avoiding. Many, many religions do not see pain as an unnatural thing or a punishment. Some even consider them blessings. It is only the nihilists and hedonists, and the philosophies they've spawned over the years since the 1960's and before, that take such great pains to avoid pain in all forms. They try and outrun the natural until it catches up to them with the force of a train wreck. When you see something you love suffer or die, you go through pain. Now there begins a real philosophical question, that destroys a lot of ground the humanists stand on. When you suffer because you see someone else suffer, is the moral thing to do make it so that you don't have that sense of empathy that makes you feel that suffering? It's not a question with a definite answer, ultimately it all comes down to preference, because as with many industrial revolution era philosophy, there is not a set point where the philosophy itself acknowledges that it can no longer apply.

Much of morality is just blase personal preferences, instincts man interprets, the values he holds in his deepest heart, the values he was told to have, the things he was told were important, all bubbling and boiling around in his head while he tries to figure them out and make a coherent code. For many people, they don't have such a code, and only pretend they do. Some people have a code, and then pick and choose times when to follow it, which is much the same. I'm not degrading those who don't follow through with their code, part of adaption is changing to better fit, survive, or thrive within the enviroment, but modern morality is skimpy, lackluster, hypocritical, and bare-bones compared to the morality of yesteryear. Because the things that made those moral men, the strong foundation, the honorable mailmen who sworn to deliver the mail on time, the samurai who would rather face suicide before dishonorable death, the victorian-era gentlemen who had to maintain discipline to keep the empire strong and running, even the average passerby or wanderer, who, if they did not give out accurate, honest information, a farmer-man and his family might starve because he based his output on what he was told, and hoped that the wanderer who he gave a few free meals and a bed for the night was telling the truth about what the market was looking for. If that bedrock wasn't there, those honest people with solid morals were not there, as I'm sure they weren't, many times throughout history, they would've died. What made those men so moral? Traces of divine blood? Hope for profit? Their faith? I do not know. Show me somebody who does know for certain, and I will show you a man deluded. But even these moral men were not altruistic. Nature despises cucks who do everything for everyone else and take nothing for themselves. Save some of what you have grown for yourself, give gifts and food freely only to those you hope to see propser. Rain death and lead upon your enemies.

I wonder what will happen if Humans end up living amongst other Ayliums. Would the governments adapt? Will they see themselves as being from another species like we see nationality?

Even if you were right— and I think your account doesn’t do a very good job of explaining human history— we’ll be able to alter human nature within a few generations, so your fatalism is unjustified.

Acknowledging that our DNA plays a big role or wholly determines our behavior is not fatalism unless you take a fatalistic view on nature itself.
>we’ll be able to alter human nature within a few generations, so your fatalism is unjustified
Your insinuations of altering human nature is unjustified, unless you mean altering human nature like how computers and cell phones altered human nature.

I like this idea a lot. Humans as the lovable goofballs of the galaxy. Other species have tried to exploit them before, but these attempts are generally quickly thwarted by alliances of aliens with a vested interests in keeping the goofballs around.

So do they come to us with their problems? Do humans cheer them up when they’re suffering under the weight of incomprehensible xenos travails? How do they interact with us?

I figure it’s because Humans are good at considering others part of their group. Yeah, some of those aliens might look like 12 foot tall Mantises and Squids, but they’re easy to interact with if you also just consider them neighbors. Besides, the people who go out into space to meet them are folks who want to do so. NASA and the ESA and what have you are going to make sure that we’ll-adjusted folks who don’t want no trouble will be the ones who go out there.

I could see Humans being the weird but relatively harmless folks of the galaxy. They still tend to stand out even if they don’t stand too tall, but the ones on alien planets are just so easy to talk to.

>Life from other worlds keeps coming into contact with humanity
>Early contact kept showing up to abduct humans for various reasons, only to let them go after the victims rendered aid in one form or another
>One species depended on carbon dioxide, had an atmospheric emergency, and was saved when a mouthbreathing human they'd been planning to eviscerate woke up early and started freaking out
>Another gave first aid to a survivor of a crash landing, was remembered as having a remarkable bedside manner because he kept laughing and giving reassuring sounds that were later translated as "Nobody's ever gonna believe this."
>A third, stoned out of his gourd, participated in a routine medical exam without need of sedatives to keep him pliable, and handled first contact via telepathy without much fuss
>Stories begin spreading about the people from the third rock from Sol

>A century after the tales spread, humanity starts getting into space and finding life out there
>Initial fuss and wonderment fades pretty quickly, as alien life is found to be exceptionally needy
>Almost like clockwork, wherever there's trouble, a human appears
>They might not have exactly what you need, but goddamn if they don't make do with the supplies and abilities they have
>Some of humanity loves it, some of humanity is concerned by it, but a great deal of them end up acting like an exasperated older brother or sister

>"I *just* left a solar system that had space measles. You don't want me on your planet, guys. Really. What do you mean you've got a drought? Goddammit! Where's the nearest asteroid belt?"
>"You know, if you hadn't started doing gene splicing experiments on your own people, you guys wouldn't have ended up in this mess... pass me the microscope. No, you're not supposed to do this on people, first. You start with something like a spacerat or... or whatever you've got."
>"Jesus Christ. I was just looking for warp fuel. I really, really didn't want to curbstop an alien dictator today."

Lord. Where to start.

>Three decades of constant warfare by modern first-world nations laters, Afghanistan's tribes are still going strong, sure, they fight, they die in massive numbers, they're relatively poor compared to what the average first-worlder was years ago, but they've increased in numbers. They're on the uprise in strength, simply because they successfully embody and practice the millenium-old time tested way of tribalism.
Yeah, the Afghan economy is roaring along and life expectancies are soaring. Watch out, G8! We got a new world power coming through!

>The "knowledge problem" displayed in my linked video makes altruism impossible.
That’s right. The inability to solve an economy as a linear optimization problem has prevented me from donating to charity for years now. Just can’t do it.

(In practice, markets aren’t optimal either, and centrally planned economies tended to collapse for more prosaic reasons like “farmers did not enjoy working for free.”)

>Altruism says this child is living paradise, even if they're growing up without any skills needed to survive on their own.
This sentence does not make sense. Altruism describes a kind of behavior. It doesn’t make any particular prescription of this sort.

>In the real world, people work hard and long to make that food, build that house, and deliver the food, heck, even to keep it all safe from the predators beyond and in the nation's borders that look to steal things or kill those residing within this paradise house.
>But this is not a paradise house. This paradise house is a prison. The very day that the man who delivers the food can no longer make it there, those people will starve.
This part of your rambling mess is at least recognizably confused. What you mean to argue is that 1) the scenario in which someone is provided with everything they want is untenable because people have to work to provide goods, and 2) even if it were possible, the person thus provisioned would be in some measure deprived.

1) is a bit silly, philosophically, inasmuch as the presumed impossiblilty of the posited scenario isn’t related to labor by logical necessity— replace the laborers with hypothetical robots, or just imaginary people who really love working, and whatever problem you’re talking about vanishes. But it’s a rather odd assertion in light of the exponential economic growth the wealthy nations of the world have enjoyed for the last 250 years or so. Goods are not made by labor alone; capital also plays a role, and it’s technological progress, in particular, that accounts for much of our increasing productivity. The people who deliver food don’t have to work in the same way that they used to, or to the same degree: they have cars now. In fact, we now live in a service economy, wherein manufacturing employs an ever-dwindling number of people and machines do all the work, much like agriculture. We are clearly approaching your paradise house, so how is it impossible?

(Predators? Really? You’d be on firmer ground if you said disease, but markets don’t fare too well with public health...)

2) looks pretty dumb in this light. The problems incurred by the absence of our hypothetical deliveryman pale in comparison to the problems experienced by actual people who lose access to clean water, electricity, or (in wealthier nations) sanitation systems. I can’t actually tell, from what you’ve written, whether you valorize the idea of living a rugged life freed from our imprisonment by well-meaning electricians, but I don’t. I can’t follow the rest of it. I really don’t know what you’re trying to say.

>Just like how a parent occassionally spanks a child or gives them a punishment when they have done wrong, most problems that require altruism to solve could have been prevented by that particular person planning a bit more carefully, being more wise, or making a choice they knew was not the "right" thing to do in that situation.
I take it you’re unfamiliar with the actual literature on spanking.

Are you making the case that altruism is detrimental, or unnecessary? Because this part seems to bounce from the former to the latter. (Not very convincingly. Whatever sort of decision-making process you’re talking about wouldn’t cope particularly well with environmental problems, human rights abuses, poverty, or, again, public health issues.)

Actually, didn’t you take a stab at calling altruism impossible earlier, invoking the knowledge problem? Make up your mind. Wait, wait— there it is again. Impossible, unnecessary, AND detrimental. Jeez, this altruism stuff is awful.

Now that I think about it, the whole thing would have been vastly improved if you’d started out by defining altruism.

>Suffering is necessary to become a better person.
Says who? How do we know? By whose definition of “better?” And why should I buy that definition?

You need to answer these kinds of questions.

Nothing in this post is worth addressing.

In my homebrew, humans are the only species that can be enslaved. Not tri-kreen keep fighting for their freedom untill death and the lizardmen get depressed to the point of becoming paralysed and die from thirst.

Humans were so nice they allowed the other race to build powerfull empires for cheap.

Humans are pretty good about respecting titles. Doesn’t matter if the Emperor is a 6’ Human or a 6” Reptilian, the Emperor is the Emperor, you know?

Except we don’t hunt, we farm.

Really, I just think if we set up a self-sustaining space colony then the human race will be set.

You are proving my point.

How could ‘us’ be both inclusive and exclusive?

There are things you do for everybody and things you do for certain people.

I mean yeah, you can’t take everyone out on romantic dates.

Perhaps another way to look at is- who is the other? For a lot of people it’s the lgbt. Which is screwing over religion since most young people know someone lgbt, and consider them ‘us’ while the older generation of religious folks see them as ‘other’ which alienated the younger geberation.

Why does there need to be an other?

Because loyalty is real, and therefore in any non-homogeneous environment, concentric loyalty is real.

As a hippy dippy liberal, I don’t know. But people seem to get off on hating Jews, gays, and brown people. You hear someone go on a xenophibic tirade you hear so much hate, and yet they seem to be enjoying it.

The existence of loyalty and lacking loyalty to others does not explain why there needs to be an "other" that receives vitriol to the degree that we see with hate groups.

Maybe a part of it is that we define ourselves by what we are not.

*I’m* not a rapist and murderer. And people who are like me also are not rapist and murderers. Thusly people who are not like me must be more likely to be racists and murderers.

Of course that doesn’t explain people who will decry Islam for its treatment of gays, and then decry gays for being pedophiles in the next.

Dude. Now we think! We have reached the human condition. We are superior to these dog and catshits.

>implying "natural"=good
Loving every laugh

>Maybe a part of it is that we define ourselves by what we are not.

No we don't. Modern society has not allowed for the relaxation and reflection required to help people form a sense of self, so we have to quickly form an identity through the things that we do not like.

why does there need to be black, cold, sad, female, etc?
gee, I wonder why

But why do you inherently not like black people?

Those are good questions, really. A philosophically influential fellow formulated his view of the matter as “Concepts without percepts are empty; percepts without concepts are blind.” In other words, we need ideas and categories to make sense of the information we get about the world around us, but those categories and ideas themselves are useless without the sensory information that fills them. This is, I assume, not the final word on the matter; the point is that the cognitive roots of ideas like “cold” or “female” are not as obvious as you think they are.

I really like the idea of a setting where other species, even species that hate one another’s extraterrestrial gut-equivalents, are nearly unanimous in declaring H. sapiens to be pretty okay. Not in an HFY sense where our okayness is awesome, but one where we clearly value others enough for them to say “okay, the targarbids are total assholes and need to be obliterated, but... eh, who’d want to annihilate the humans? I mean, I’m not saying they’re flawless, but you have to admit they’re alright.” And the straight-up Daleks with a nigh-robotic imperative to exterminate everyone, humans included, tend to get BTFO by other species who view this as something akin to kicking a puppy. Granted, a friend of mine did create a setting like this in which humanity did in fact play the role of the lovable goofballs. (They were also the only sapients to invent pants, I think, for various reasons.) I’m just not sure where to take this idea.

If homosexuals didn't molest children and spread disease, they would not be reviled by people. Every single social stigma and taboo has a reason as to why it exists, even if those who go by them do not understand the root cause.

Because, you know, religious priests are so good on the child molestation front.

Point being that even if lesbians commit as much rape as you claim, there is still a double standard in how they are treated- priests are stereotyped as being holy and wise, while the lgbt are stereotyped as mentally and morally deficient.

And that’s because one is in the majorities definition of ‘us’ and the other is in the majorities definition of ‘other’.

Humans would probably have two things going for them in such a setting:

1. Good PR
I think this matters more if the rest of the species have their own organizations and empires for us to interact with. Imagine future!Fox making a Married with Children where the neighbors are the weird but good natured Humans, and movies and sitcoms keep pushing that role. It just melts into society at large.

2. Long Distances
Only the people who want to sit through training seminars and the like will be the ones going to planets light-years away. Imagine if it's mostly Missionaries and YouTubers going of world instead of 40kids

Humanity are treated the same way we treat our pet cats and dogs.

I volunteered to drive a bus for one my children's school functions the other day, and from the talk of kids ten and younger you'd think /pol/ had set up shop in elementary school.

what area of the country? some areas are prettymuch infested with nothing but shitty rhetoric, deliberate misinformation, unsubstantiated rumors, stereotypes developed by hollywood and completely unsupported by reality, and so on.

To be fair, the stereotypical image of priests going after children id guy-on-altar-boy, and therefore homosexual. I'm sure it's not always the case, but think about that for a moment.

What priests need are better internal security to sort of these hypocrites and predators. An.... inquisition, if you will.

The southeastern region of the U.S.A, I'm fairly conservative myself and given their parents, it makes sense most kids would lean a little that way, and don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with that, but judging from their talk it's pretty clear they're radicalized, and their views aren't moderate or nuanced in any way, shape, or form. But it almost baffles me how quickly they switched subjects from typical normal middle schooler stuff to racial slurs, bert and ernie memes, and /pol/ rhetoric. Come to think of it, I wouldn't be so surprised if some actually posted there, but the point stands. It honestly worries me a bit, some-fucking-how, they've managed to brainwash a solid third of the white youth and in twenty years, these same kids are going to go from harmless memeing on the school bus to goose-stepping and sieg-heiling. It makes me worried that pic related isn't just a retarded /pol/ joke, you know?

And once they've had as many kids as some of them are planning to, what then? It's a genuine problem in some regions, and short of a mass de-education program I don't see how we're going to solve it, and I'm not so sure some of them wouldn't double-down on it if we tried. I don't mean to sound like a panicky boomer, but I'm not so sure Gen Z's going to turn out anything like the Millenial youth, and that frightens me. I'm probably just worrying too much over an isolated incident, but it's been stewing with me ever since. I mean, my son's fine, he's a nice, caring person and I periodically search his internet history without him knowing, but I can't help but wonder if there's a side to him I don't know anything about. And if one of my sons is like that, what other stuff are the rest hiding from their dad? I'm sorry to ramble, but I don't have anyone else to talk to. Thanks for humoring an old man's rambling.

The best we can hope for is us no longer killing each other because we made first contact and take xenophobia to its logical conclusion.

Found the fucking alien.

>For instance, see the amount of hate crimes perpretrated against the LGBT community because they aren’t considered part of someone’s like-group.
I AM a homo and I see why that's a thing. Most homos are awful people who actively try to spread disease and misery.

Homophobia is as genetic as homosexuality.

>they've managed to brainwash a solid third of the white youth and in twenty years,
God it's almost as if for the last almost decade it's become acceptable to hate someone for being white and male.
And a lot of white male kids aren't very attached to the idology that spawned it.

>boomer asshurt about the alt-reich railing against the dystopian situation his generation created in the first place
deservedly rekt