The self-defeating nature of using "Privilege (Theory)" (in societal discourse)

[innonimatu]

Every real-life society is based on violence. The violence is ordered and monopolized by the government. And there’s also the history of violence (which is called just history) which has been building this thing called rights.

It’s just that some societies excel at exporting violence overseas to reduce it at home. It’s somewhat similar to post-industrialism.

History does show that a lot.. but no need to be so hobbesian, history covers way more than violence. History as big battles and great leaders is about a century out of date.

For one societies that manage to control violence internally, that develop some kind of cooperative government and peaceful process to deal with power changes, avoid devastating civil wars. That is one hell of a competitive advantage to have. As as with whole countries, so with smaller social groups.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It's not immediately obvious that violence against prey-animals is psychologically equivalent to violence against other human beings. When we talk about people "violent" in modern society, we tend to mean a tendency to interpersonal violence, not to persistence-hunting a gazelle for five hours and then breaking its neck.

Equivalent? Perhaps not. Similar, certainly. Just like five hours of persistence-hunting isn't equivalent to five hours of digging tubers out of the dirt, but it is similar. The person has a drive that can be satisfied by one, or the other. A lack of tubers leads to more persistence-hunting, because of hunger. A lack of breaking gazelle necks leads to more NFL football, because we are born of violence.

 

[Traitorfish]

Equivalent? Perhaps not. Similar, certainly. Just like five hours of persistence-hunting isn't equivalent to five hours of digging tubers out of the dirt, but it is similar. The person has a drive that can be satisfied by one, or the other. A lack of tubers leads to more persistence-hunting, because of hunger. A lack of breaking gazelle necks leads to more NFL football, because we are born of violence.

There's a six thousand year gap, at least, between dialing it back on the gazelle necks and Americans deciding that rugby would be better if it was a deathmatch between heavily-armoured space marines, so you'd be hard pressed to argue that the decline of one prompted the rise of the other. More to the point, space marine death-matches don't tell us that people are violent, insofar as the great majority of people are not professional NFL players, but that violence is thrilling, and that people enjoy experiencing it vicariously, whether through violent or semi-violent sports, or through fictional portrayals. It doesn't tell us that people regard violence as an acceptable or natural way to resolve interpersonal conflicts, which is what seems to underlay this whole half-hearted defence of the conservative obsession with hitting women.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

There's a six thousand year gap, at least, between dialing it back on the gazelle necks and Americans deciding that rugby would be better if it was a deathmatch between heavily-armoured space marines, so you'd be hard pressed to argue that the decline of one prompted the rise of the other. More to the point, space marine death-matches don't tell us that people are violent, insofar as the great majority of people are not professional NFL players, but that violence is thrilling, and that people enjoy experiencing it vicariously, whether through violent or semi-violent sports, or through fictional portrayals. It doesn't tell us that people regard violence as an acceptable or natural way to resolve interpersonal conflicts, which is what seems to underlay this whole half-hearted defence of the conservative obsession with hitting women.

Half-hearted what? If you think I'm defending anyone you aren't reading with your usual level of clarity.

I bring up the inherent nature of violence when people try hard to deny it exists in them, because denial allows it to sneak up on people. 6000 years is around 300 generations. Expecting much in the way of evolutionary progress in 300 generations is asking a whole lot from biology. The most civilized man is three missed meals away from savagery, and no one should ever forget it...most importantly him.

 

[Traitorfish]

I bring up the inherent nature of violence when people try hard to deny it exists in them, because denial allows it to sneak up on people. 6000 years is around 300 generations. Expecting much in the way of evolutionary progress in 300 generations is asking a whole lot from biology. The most civilized man is three missed meals away from savagery, and no one should ever forget it...most importantly him.

"Violence" is not, in itself, a specific category of behaviour, is my point. The violence of a hunter, an abattoir worker, a boxer and a soldier all at least appear to be associated with different psychological states. Appealing to the violence of hunter-gatherers against small prey animals doesn't clearly tell us very much about humans deal with each other.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

"Violence" is not, in itself, a specific category of behaviour, is my point. The violence of a hunter, an abattoir worker, a boxer and a soldier all at least appear to be associated with different psychological states. Appealing to the violence of hunter-gatherers against small prey animals doesn't clearly tell us very much about humans deal with each other.

Substitution happens though. Denied the "veins in the teeth" thrill of the kill people cast around for substitutes. Most land on vicarious thrills from not quite blood sports, and wonder what is wrong with people who are caught up with actual blood sports. People whose veneer of civilization has never been cracked find it hard to believe the consequences when that veneer cracks on someone else. People look at military veterans who know themselves to be remorseless killers as if they are flawed, but know deep down they are really just ordinary humans. People who spend a lifetime telling themselves that their veneer runs all the way to the bone are the ones that 'snap under stress' and find themselves standing over a bunch of bloody corpses. And the Brett Kavanaughs of the world pontificate in judgement over their lessers, until alcohol unleashes their own human heritage.

I don't drink because I know I'm human, and I understand what humans are under that thin veneer.

 

[miaasma]

this thread is still going huh

 

[Timsup2nothin]

this thread is still going huh

Pretty far from the original topic though. I wasn't interested until the recent turns, myself.

 

[Traitorfish]

Substitution happens though. Denied the "veins in the teeth" thrill of the kill people cast around for substitutes. Most land on vicarious thrills from not quite blood sports, and wonder what is wrong with people who are caught up with actual blood sports. People whose veneer of civilization has never been cracked find it hard to believe the consequences when that veneer cracks on someone else. People look at military veterans who know themselves to be remorseless killers as if they are flawed, but know deep down they are really just ordinary humans. People who spend a lifetime telling themselves that their veneer runs all the way to the bone are the ones that 'snap under stress' and find themselves standing over a bunch of bloody corpses. And the Brett Kavanaughs of the world pontificate in judgement over their lessers, until alcohol unleashes their own human heritage.

I don't drink because I know I'm human, and I understand what humans are under that thin veneer.

In my experience, people- well, men, because it's pretty clear that this discussion has not at any point been about the other 51% of the species- spend a lot of time exaggerating their preparedness for violence. Men convince themselves that they are one bad day away from becoming John McClane. That's why John McClane exists, because the idea that within every regular shlub beats the heart of a vengeful killing machine is an appealing fantasy. Very few are prepared to admit, to themselves or others, that their "flight" response dwarfs their "fight" response in the great majority of situations. There's a reason that these soldiers, normal men, are subjected to rigorous training to convince them not to flee or hide as soon as they are fired upon, like any normal person would do.

If you want to appeal to our misty and bestial past, then consider that we are descended from the cavemen who managed not to die, not from the cavemen who went down in a frenzy of Spartan bloodshed. The evolutionary impetus to avoid violent confrontation is far stronger than the impetus to engage in it. There's a reason why most dueling animals spent more time posturing than fighting, and most of the fight sparring rather than actually trying to gore each other. And it's why these primitive humans, killing their prey with their bare hands, were mostly strangling exhausted gazelles rather than battling lions.

Humans are naturally conflict-averse. It's one of our great virtues, as a species. The reason you get creatures like Kavanaugh is not because we are naturally prone to be destructive towards people, but because hierarchical societies allow them to regard other people as something less than people. Kavanaughs and his ilk behave as they do because for them, violence isn't really conflict, because there is no risk of anybody matching that violence. It is merely the exertion of will. If the powerful suddenly discover the human-shaped objects surrounding them are allowed to hit them back, that their attempts to exert their will has consequences which they cannot control, we'll quickly found that most of them are profound cowards. Ask the good citizens of Paris or Petograd, they'll tell you a thing or two about it.

"there you go, bringing class into it again." "but that's what it's all about!"

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I certainly wouldn't question the flight reflex. That doesn't change the fact that for all their efforts at fitting in with "oh I'm a social creature" limitations the average human (including women) is excited by bloodshed, not put off. They like that hierarchical society best when "their" collective is allowing them to bathe in the blood of their enemies, even if they use their Brett Kavanaughs and Donald Trumps to actually shed the blood.

By the way, the only difference between a caveman who "managed not to die" and a caveman who "went down in a frenzy of Spartan bloodshed" is who raised the offspring, not who sired them. By the time that survival question comes up the DNA contribution to the next generation is already made. And since humans, by and large, are not fleet enough of foot to make flight a really viable option I suspect more offspring of fighters would grow up without getting eaten.

 

[Senethro]

People do like to believe that they have a team and to be told that that team is "winning".

 

[Traitorfish]

I certainly wouldn't question the flight reflex. That doesn't change the fact that for all their efforts at fitting in with "oh I'm a social creature" limitations the average human (including women) is excited by bloodshed, not put off. They like that hierarchical society best when "their" collective is allowing them to bathe in the blood of their enemies, even if they use their Brett Kavanaughs and Donald Trumps to actually shed the blood.

Violence is exciting when it isn't really happening. It's adrenaline without the threat of consequence; the monkey brain is ready to go but the human brain knows it's all sport. It's no great insight that people think that violent movies are exciting. That's the point of violent movies. The question is whether enjoying depictions of violence is indicative of any innate tendency towards interpersonal violence, and there's really no self-evident reason why we should believe that's the case.

Especially since, again, we seem to be talking narrowly about men, as if they were the entire species. If a woman likes violent films, we would not take this as proof of some underlying psychological state, only that she thinks explosions and gunfights are fun to watch. It seems to me that your belief that men are pathologically violent brutes held in place by a brittle cage of civilisation is what you think anyway, and that the popularity of violent entertainment is just a convenient reference point.

By the way, the only difference between a caveman who "managed not to die" and a caveman who "went down in a frenzy of Spartan bloodshed" is who raised the offspring, not who sired them. By the time that survival question comes up the DNA contribution to the next generation is already made. And since humans, by and large, are not fleet enough of foot to make flight a really viable option I suspect more offspring of fighters would grow up without getting eaten.

Well, a man who has set himself to go down in a spray of gore, and is giving every paleolithic opportunity to do so, is not likely to live to reproduce. But more generally, raising offspring is something that communities do, not individuals, and that's something which most humans are quite aware of. Pathological violent personalities make bad husbands and worse fathers, and are therefore unlikely to be invited to fulfill those roles. There's a reason that for so many simple societies, the highest status roles are filled by diplomats, orators and mediators. Men strive for the respect of their peers, not for their fear, because in the absent of large, centralised institutions, violent men are only scary until they fall asleep. Cavemen weren't stupid; they wouldn't have lasted very long if they were.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

When I put "including women" in parenthesis I didn't expect it to turn invisible.

When I said "excited by bloodshed" I wasn't talking about violent movies. Take a date to a boxing match.

People who say "not likely to live to reproduce" vastly overestimate the age where "wild" humans would reproduce.

 

[bernie14]

In my experience, people- well, men, because it's pretty clear that this discussion has not at any point been about the other 51% of the species- spend a lot of time exaggerating their preparedness for violence. Men convince themselves that they are one bad day away from becoming John McClane. That's why John McClane exists, because the idea that within every regular shlub beats the heart of a vengeful killing machine is an appealing fantasy. Very few are prepared to admit, to themselves or others, that their "flight" response dwarfs their "fight" response in the great majority of situations. There's a reason that these soldiers, normal men, are subjected to rigorous training to convince them not to flee or hide as soon as they are fired upon, like any normal person would do.

If you want to appeal to our misty and bestial past, then consider that we are descended from the cavemen who managed not to die, not from the cavemen who went down in a frenzy of Spartan bloodshed. The evolutionary impetus to avoid violent confrontation is far stronger than the impetus to engage in it. There's a reason why most dueling animals spent more time posturing than fighting, and most of the fight sparring rather than actually trying to gore each other. And it's why these primitive humans, killing their prey with their bare hands, were mostly strangling exhausted gazelles rather than battling lions.

Humans are naturally conflict-averse. It's one of our great virtues, as a species. The reason you get creatures like Kavanaugh is not because we are naturally prone to be destructive towards people, but because hierarchical societies allow them to regard other people as something less than people. Kavanaughs and his ilk behave as they do because for them, violence isn't really conflict, because there is no risk of anybody matching that violence. It is merely the exertion of will. If the powerful suddenly discover the human-shaped objects surrounding them are allowed to hit them back, that their attempts to exert their will has consequences which they cannot control, we'll quickly found that most of them are profound cowards. Ask the good citizens of Paris or Petograd, they'll tell you a thing or two about it.

"there you go, bringing class into it again." "but that's what it's all about!"

I don't believe it is matter of flight OR fight, it is not that humans are naturally violent or conflict-averse....we are opportunistic. as for your kavanaugh example...im not sure I understand? if the skull crushers get their skulls crushed, then we would all be able to rid ourselves of the skull crushing institution??

There's a reason that for so many simple societies, the highest status roles are filled by diplomats, orators and mediators

that goes for all societies....they are called salesman

EDIT:

Well, a man who has set himself to go down in a spray of gore, and is giving every paleolithic opportunity to do so, is not likely to live to reproduce. But more generally, raising offspring is something that communities do, not individuals, and that's something which most humans are quite aware of. Pathological violent personalities make bad husbands and worse fathers, and are therefore unlikely to be invited to fulfill those roles.

but a community that cannot protect those offspring, oft times has had to rely on those skull crushers and pointy stick carriers...which brings us back to identity politics

 

[Narz]

When I put "including women" in parenthesis I didn't expect it to turn invisible.

When I said "excited by bloodshed" I wasn't talking about violent movies. Take a date to a boxing match.

People who say "not likely to live to reproduce" vastly overestimate the age where "wild" humans would reproduce.

Agreed. Our forebearers weren't getting knocked up for the first time at age 35 after carefully assessing their mate's finances, they would choose the most healthy and socially dominant mate that could find and got the next generation out pronto.

And despite the veneer of civilization women would always still breed with the bad boy (tho birth control seems to be screwing with female sexual preferences to some degree)

Violence is modern society is like death, we push into down in our psyches and try to convince ourselves it's something that can never happen to us.

 

[Ryika]

This thread has taken an interesting turn. People are using their ideological biases and common sense to reverse-engineer what ancient human societies must have been like. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Berzerker]

The question is whether enjoying depictions of violence is indicative of any innate tendency towards interpersonal violence, and there's really no self-evident reason why we should believe that's the case.

Other than enjoying depictions of violence? If a bully walks around punching people who cant fight back, and someone who can punches them back, would you agree watching the bully get a lesson is 'enjoyable'? I've seen people who are not outwardly violent shoot a handgun and enjoy it. They felt empowered by the violence that gun embodies.

it's pretty clear that this discussion has not at any point been about the other 51% of the species- spend a lot of time exaggerating their preparedness for violence. Men convince themselves that they are one bad day away from becoming John McClane. That's why John McClane exists, because the idea that within every regular shlub beats the heart of a vengeful killing machine is an appealing fantasy.

Sounds innate. In a Family Guy episode the human-like dog (Brian) is sprayed by a skunk and forced to stay outside for several days. He went from domesticated house dog to hunter-killer as he had to take care of himself, the killing machine inside was waiting there to be called upon.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com...games-herodotus-ice-princess-tattoo-cannabis/

Maybe Otzi was killed by Amazon warriors

If you want to appeal to our misty and bestial past, then consider that we are descended from the cavemen who managed not to die, not from the cavemen who went down in a frenzy of Spartan bloodshed. The evolutionary impetus to avoid violent confrontation is far stronger than the impetus to engage in it.

We may find avoiding violence preferable but thats because evolution designed us to get what we want with minimal cost. But when 'push comes to shove' violence is waiting there ready to be used.

How about a little Rush?

I don't want to face
The killer instinct
Face it in you or me

We carry a sensitive cargo
Below the waterline
Ticking like a time bomb
With a primitive design

Behind the finer feelings
This civilized veneer
The heart of a lonely hunter
Guards a dangerous frontier
The balance can sometimes fail
Strong emotions can tip the scale

Don't want to silence
A desperate voice
For the sake of security
No one wants to make
A terrible choice
On the price of being free

I don't want to face
The killer instinct
Face it in you or me
So we keep it under lock and key

It's not a matter of mercy
It's not a matter of laws
Plenty of people will kill you
For some fanatical cause

It's not a matter of conscience
A search for probable cause
It's just a matter of instinct
A matter of fatal flaws

No reward for resistance
No assistance
No applause

We don't want to be victims
On that we all agree
So we lock up the killer instinct
And throw away the key

 

[Timsup2nothin]

This thread has taken an interesting turn. People are using their ideological biases and common sense to reverse-engineer what ancient human societies must have been like. What could possibly go wrong?

First guess: nothing. The chances that this discussion will have any actual impact on anything is minimal, at best. The chances of it having a retroactive negative impact on ancient human societies is even smaller, by several orders of magnitude.

 

[Ryika]

I was mostly referring to the accuracy of the statements that are produced during the discussion. "If that's the methodology, how could we expect anything other than stellar results?"

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I was mostly referring to the accuracy of the statements that are produced during the discussion. "If that's the methodology, how could we expect anything other than stellar results?"

Well, it is an internet forum. What sort of results are we looking for? I always hope for "mildly entertaining," and if someone rises to "outright humorous" or "moderately thought provoking" I consider them to be at least approaching a stellar result.