On "uncivilized savages"

[travsformation]

3 hours ago, LanghamP said:

@travsformation , I do not like to mingle with people that I cannot make a fiscal and social contract with. And I'd prefer to stay around people with whom I can make a fiscal and social contract with.

Fiscal = do I trust this person enough that if I give them money then they will give me goods or services, and vice versa?

Social = do we have enough common ground that we can understand each other when we speak to each other? Do I trust this person enough that they won't kill nor injure me?

Anyone who falls outside this I classify as uncivilized savages, because neither trust nor common expectations is forthcoming. If I feel I have to have one hand on my wallet while some savage distracts me in some incomprehensible language while his buddy blindsides me, then that's a good indication of me being neither empathic nor compassionate towards that person. 

I could almost say I'm extremely patriotic because I'm wildly hostile towards people who don't share my confidence in making social and fiscal contracts. However, like you, I'm not inclined to include the US as a whole as a beacon of democracy, simply because the US is a highly destructive automobile culture. Everything else I can take it or leave it, but regardless of your political affiliation, if you're a US citizen then you're part of the problem! Like immigrants as a Democrat? You're asking to raise people's living standard in a limited-capacity lifeboat. Climate-denier Republican? You hate electrics. There's no winning on this one.

There's way too many people on this Earth, and now we are seeing the effects of pollution as we raise living standards for too many people.

@LanghamP Just because you can't establish a social contract with someone, or choose to paint them with a specific fiscal brush, doesn't make them an uncivilized savage. I though that expressions pretty much became obsolete with the fall of British Colonialism...(and I have to admit I'm surprised to see it used to lightly and unabashedly...in 2019).

But having said that, I know plenty of Americans who would hesitate to establish a fiscal contract with someone from Missouri    (and possibly also struggle to find common social ground).

How about social contracts with Brits, Irish or Australians, for whom English is their  mother tongue, or Swedes, Norwegians and Swiss (people from non-shit-hole countries, to use Trump terminology) who speak fluent English? Likewise, the aforementioned might find the the Missouri Dialect to be an incomprehensible language. So...does that make you an uncivilized savage?

May I ask whether you've ever left the country? It can't hurt to travel a bit, come into contact with different cultures and languages and expand your horizons (before we've entirely destroyed the planet and it's no longer an option...)

Edited March 19, 2019 by travsformation

[LanghamP]

I'm not from Missouri.

I've lived in the East Coast, West Coast, NY, Midwest, and twice in the South. I also spent seven years in Belgium, nine years in Thailand, and have been to all the Western European countries, and a handful of the Asian countries, and a few of the North African countries, and a few of the Middle eastern countries. I do know some German, French, and Thai.

If you want to know what an uncivilized savage is, pick up this anthropology book called "Noble Savages".

I'm using social and fiscal contract is a broad sense;  read what I said again until it makes sense to you, unless you're willfully misunderstanding me, in which case that isn't communication in good faith.

1 hour ago, travsformation said:

Fiscal = do I trust this person enough that if I give them money then they will give me goods or services, and vice versa?

Social = do we have enough common ground that we can understand each other when we speak to each other? Do I trust this person enough that they won't kill nor injure me?

 

[Mono]

There remains a significant problem with the definition: whether you trust someone depends on you as much as on them and is not the same as whether someone actually is trustworthy.

I think there as another point to be made: people adapt to the situation and environment. Someone may be fully trustworthy in some environment and not in another.

Would you call white-collar criminals as well uncivilized savages? I mean, your definition should certainly apply to them as well, no?

 

[LanghamP]

2 hours ago, Mono said:

There remains a significant problem with the definition: whether you trust someone depends on you as much as on them and is not the same as whether someone actually is trustworthy.

I think there as another point to be made: people adapt to the situation and environment. Someone may be fully trustworthy in some environment and not in another.

Would you call white-collar criminals as well uncivilized savages? I mean, your definition should certainly apply to them as well, no?

Which is why we have enforced laws for people who are less trustworthy, depending on fear and punishment to keep them from causing you harm. In my opinion, white collar criminals are confidence artists, which means they convince you they are trustworthy without beaning you over the head like a common mugger.

And again, if you had read the fiscal contract part...

4 hours ago, travsformation said:

Fiscal = do I trust this person enough that if I give them money then they will give me goods or services, and vice versa?

Which is why you can usually trust neighbors who look and think like you, but also a very good reason that your default mode toward most people should be that of mild distrust.

Society is based upon trust of money, of judicious use of force, of enforcement of property, of common applied laws such as traffic laws.

[Mono]

@LanghamP, I understand that we use all kind of rational and irrational parameters to trust or distrust people we do not know. However, the simple yes-or-no question was: do you call white-collar criminals "uncivilized savages"?

Your answer was: they are "confidence artists". It seems that was a resounding "no".

Which means, unless I missed something, your characterization why you call someone an "uncivilized savage" seems not quite accurate.

[travsformation]

11 hours ago, LanghamP said:

I'm not from Missouri.

I've lived in the East Coast, West Coast, NY, Midwest, and twice in the South. I also spent seven years in Belgium, nine years in Thailand, and have been to all the Western European countries, and a handful of the Asian countries, and a few of the North African countries, and a few of the Middle eastern countries. I do know some German, French, and Thai.

 

I stand corrected. The Missouri jokes were just too hard to resist

Yet knowing you've travelled...I'm all the more baffled. So you've never come to establish common social ground with people in any of the non-Western countries? Or basic, human empathic connections that transcend language and cultural background, and might lead you to trust said person?

I understand the definitions you gave of social and fiscal contracts (the latter should be financial or monetary contracts; fiscal = relating to government revenue, especially taxes.), and believe those tenets are something most cultures (and people) ascribe to, in one way or another. Expectations are the same pretty much anywhere you go: we all expect to be paid back if we lend someone money, and understand that when money is lent to us, we're to give it back.

So, according to your own criteria, pretty much all of humankind are uncivilized savages. You might be able to establish a social contract with 99% of the people in your city, but would you lend money to a complete stranger? Any random person with whom you share a common social ground and language?

But now on a serious note, you said  "I do not like to mingle with people that I cannot make a fiscal and social contract with. And I'd prefer to stay around people with whom I can make a fiscal and social contract with",  so I presume you're referring to people with whom you feel you could potentially establish a monetary contract, should you get to know and trust them better. In which case, I'd argue that the judgement is in the eyes of the beholder (and his pre-conceptions, prejudice, etc.).

So...is the pre-conceived sense of whether trust can or cannot be developed purely nationality-dependant? Racial? Ethnic? How much weight do socio-economic criteria have? In terms of monetary contracts, would a wealthy white individual, a working-class male and a low-income single mother fall in the same category? Would your perspective change depending on whether the wealthy person were American, Swedish or from Dubai? And whether the hard-working, middle-class guy were white, Hispanic, Asian or Middle-Eastern? And the low-income single mother? Would you label her differently if she she white, black, Hispanic or Syrian?

How many different factors come into play in terms of establishing whether someone can be trusted or not? And how much of it is based on preconceived ideas? As someone who's travelled, you've surely found that socio-economic factors come into play to a great extent. You'd trust a well-off, middle-aged, Middle-Eastern doctor with a fancy office in the upscale part of town more than you would a young male selling cheap souvenirs in a Souq, right?

So, circling back to the fact that this whole conversation started in connection with refugees, what if that well-off doctor had to flee his country out of fear for his life, found himself in Europe, and you were to encounter him in an entirely different context, stripped of his expensive medical equipment and inherent socio-economic status? If you didn't know his background, what would set him aside, in your mind, from any other uneducated savage? And do you think your judgement would be fair?

When I visited Iran, I had my pre-conceptions blown to pieces at every turn. My taxi driver turned out to be an aeronautical engineer; my waiter, a Physics PhD, the hotel receptionist a graduate in political science. But after decades of embargo, the economy is in tethers and people will take any job that will allow them to survive. It's pleasant to have your pre-conceptions shattered in a positive way.

I know I don't stand a chance of changing your perspective (nor is that my aim), but I do think it's worth noting that issues like this are complex. Of course, you have the right to view things as you please, but I don't think reductionist and over-simplified views like the ones you're defending are particularly constructive. They alienate, marginalize, confront and ultimately...radicalize...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301220983_Belonging_nowhere_Marginalization_radicalization_risk_among_Muslim_immigrants

At the very least, can I talk you into using less offensive terminology to refer to people you can't establish social and monetary contracts with? It's somewhat hypocritical (no offence meant) to take a stance of socio-cultural superiority (we the civilized ones) while openly disrespecting those deemed inferior (thus failing to apply our own tenets, which we base our superiority on)...

[Dzlchef]

I grew up in Iowa where everyone waved at you when you drove through the small towns, even if they didn’t know you.  Need something, ask a stranger and they’ll help. Still that way for the most part in rural areas. I’m personally cautious of folks because I live in Los Angeles but I’ll be happy to help anyone in need and would like to think there are other uncivilized savages out there like me.  

It saddens me to find people with this state of mind. We are the dreamers, doers, and change agents. I choose to be a nice, friendly, and a helpful person to all that I encounter because everyone matters. 

[LanghamP]

3 hours ago, travsformation said:

Yet knowing you've travelled...I'm all the more baffled. So you've never come to establish common social ground with people in any of the non-Western countries? Or basic, human empathic connections that transcend language and cultural background, and might lead you to trust said person?

Referring to a small portion of a population as an example of the entire population is bad faith, because you're trying to put facts behind reality.

A skeptical person would go, "well, what's the whole population like? Can we split it?"

An idealogically driven person would state, "well, here is this PhD'er, let's hold that up as an example of the general population so that we can do <X>."

I don't like this, because such thinking runs contrary to how most of us think outside of people.

As an example, I assume that you, like almost all of us, have some sort of engineering background, or some science degree, or even some assembly line / quality control experience and education?

Continuing our example, you're building, oh let's say EUCs. Another factory owner comes to you and says he overproduced some parts and that he'll give them to you for free. Some of the parts randomly blow up (hehe), most cannot be used for anything because their quality is so poor that they require constant and expensive refigeration in perpetua, and finally a very few are stellar performers.

Do you take the deal?

[travsformation]

@LanghamP I never said a small portion of a population was representative of the entire population, where'd you get that idea from??? The comment you're referring to was simply meant to exemplify that we tend to have preconceived ideas.

In my post, I laid out a few arguments, questioned some of yours, and made a few hypothetical questions. In your reply, you completely ignored everything I said and moved on to a hypothetical of your own. What's more, your hypothetical scenario has nothing to do with the subject we were debating, but is based on a single idea that you took out of context to infer what you presumably believe to be my point of view--which it isn't.

Entirely disregarding your counterpart's arguments, ignoring all of their questions and completely redirecting the conversation based on misrepresentations of the other party's perspective is generally considered bad manners...

Or as you said yourself:

On 3/20/2019 at 12:17 AM, LanghamP said:

read what I said again until it makes sense to you, unless you're willfully misunderstanding me, in which case that isn't communication in good faith. 

I actually did re-read what you said to make sure I'd understood you, and then replied based on the definitions you put forth (the fact I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm wilfully misunderstanding you). I considered, rebated and questioned your reasoning point by point. Can you say the same?

As far as communication in good faith goes, reciprocity is an essential ingredient for a cordial debate.

Or in other words, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Which was my point regarding immigrants, refugees and uncivilized savages all along 

Edited March 21, 2019 by travsformation

[Dzlchef]

5 hours ago, travsformation said:

 

Or in other words, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Which was my point regarding immigrants, refugees and uncivilized savages all along 

The Golden Rule!

[stephenbadger]

There are "savages" everywhere, the planet is teeming with them today & always has, probably always will be infested with amoral, immoral & violent "savages" ..."uncivilised" is a synonym for uneducated, ignorant, deluded & common ...politicians/bureaucrats often tend to be "uncivilised savages" or unethical/corrupt & the prisons are full of all varieties ...and they all feed on "sheep" & each other.

 

2 cents worth

[stephenbadger]

On 3/21/2019 at 2:21 AM, Dzlchef said:

I grew up in Iowa where everyone waved at you when you drove through the small towns, even if they didn’t know you.  Need something, ask a stranger and they’ll help. Still that way for the most part in rural areas. I’m personally cautious of folks because I live in Los Angeles but I’ll be happy to help anyone in need and would like to think there are other uncivilized savages out there like me.  

It saddens me to find people with this state of mind. We are the dreamers, doers, and change agents. I choose to be a nice, friendly, and a helpful person to all that I encounter because everyone matters. 

I can think of a few poople that don't matter, ggrrr

[Dingfelder]

On 4/18/2019 at 7:29 PM, stephenbadger said:

I can think of a few poople that don't matter, ggrrr

Sounds like they matter to you.

I'm of mixed minds regarding this thread.  First it was introduced as a quote out of nowhere by travsfo, which was odd and, especially with no framing and context-setting explanation, seems odder still and makes me wonder first why the near non-sequitur and then why the breach of expectation wasn't somehow "healed" by softening it with a little context before launching into argumentation.

Then Langham came in and seemed pretty combative throughout, which didn't help much, but I have to wonder if he had fairly been set off by what reads almost like a kind of ambush by the OP.

Also, I enjoy general misanthropy even for a laugh when I don't agree with all its particular ventings, and I usually agree with at least a good portion of its ventings and so find some of Langham's typical posts funny and fun and with a good bit of the biting truth I find a relief in the face of the the usual facade society insists we present to each other and sometimes pretend at the cost of considerable effort to believe.

Re any specific posts, it looks like Langham was getting at the metaphor about the influx of muslims that a politico (forget who?) used a few years ago:  If someone gave you a bowl of (some kind of small tasty little things) and said only a small proportion was poisoned ... would you grab a handful?  Surprised this might have faded out of the public consciousness this quickly, as it provoked a bit of an uproar at the time.

Anyway, this conversation veered so far away from a lovely conversation, IMO, about the inherent beauty and utility of general misanthropy, which I believe is highly underrated.  I'd go so far as to say I go out of my way to be kind to people I meet as well as people I've met, including ones I dislike ... but that doesn't mean I like them.  The balance between manners and ... well ... everything else is endlessly interesting and difficult to manage.  In person, I generally muster exemplary manners.  But they don't necessarily reflect what I think, and I would be horrified if they did.

I had been optimistic this thread would touch more on more interesting nuances such as this than on the usual muslim vs. Trump undercurrents running tirelessly through society, such as it is, at the moment.

[stephenbadger]

well said ...as a libertarian anarchist sagacious misanthropist l often explore characters l meet in life with kind intent ...then they usually bite my hand, it's always, always about the money &or power ..."good" people are pretty thin on the ground these days.

Racism should be a dead issue since scientists discovered the average european/caucasian person's DNA is about 4% neanderthal/denisovan, 4% neolithic european & 92% migrating central asian yak-herder that conquered europe, britain & northern india  ...circa 7,000BC -- 6,200BC  

[LanghamP]

On 4/26/2019 at 5:02 AM, Dingfelder said:

been optimistic this thread would touch more on more interesting nuances such as this than on the usual muslim vs. Trump undercurrents running tirelessly through society, such as it is, at the moment

I am suspicious of Muslims because the Koran is wildly hostile towards non believers. Randomly selected a number below the number of pages your Koran has, flip to that page number, and see if you can find something about killing, destroying, or otherwise hurting the non believer. Do this one hundred times, and then tally the number of times you didn't find a destructive passage.

[Mono]

1 hour ago, LanghamP said:

I am suspicious of Muslims because the Koran is wildly hostile towards non believers.

Are you suggesting the Koran is the only holy book being wildy hostile and cruel to all kind of groups of people?

Edited April 28, 2019 by Mono

[LanghamP]

1 hour ago, Mono said:

Are you suggesting the Koran is the only holy book being wildy hostile and cruel to all kind of groups of people?

The Old Testament is a book that takes it further than the Koran because it advocates collective responsibility, that is, God is so worried about His Chosen that He says kill all the women and children (and domestic farm animals) from a smitten enemy because He doesn't want captured and raped baby mommies polluting Jewish minds.

The Old and New Testament are, indeed, two entirely different books, and are so different from each other as to be two different religions. In fact, aren't they two different religions (Judean and Christian)?

[mrelwood]

On 4/26/2019 at 1:02 PM, Dingfelder said:

I'm of mixed minds regarding this thread.  First it was introduced as a quote out of nowhere by travsfo, which was odd and, especially with no framing and context-setting explanation

Travsfo got irked by the ”uncivilized savages” comment thrown by Langham on another thread, and as the discussion crossed the off-topic border with decent speed, decided to continue at a dedicated thread properly located at the off-topic section.

I have a feeling that the parties differ largely in how much weight they consider the term to carry, in and/or out of context. Which doesn’t look good for agreeing on anything, or perhaps even a fruitful discussion. I know I won’t be taking part...

[LanghamP]

Hmm, I just read that there were bombings in Sri Lanka. Over 200 killed and 500 wounded as churches and hotels were specifically targeted during Easter Sunday, as both types of places would be packed with worshippers and tourists.

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-asia-48085525

That sounds pretty uncivilized and savage to me, but maybe that's just me. It actually takes quite a bit of know how, literacy, and dedication to build a bunch of bombs and set them off in such an organized manner.

[travsformation]

On 4/26/2019 at 12:02 PM, Dingfelder said:

First it was introduced as a quote out of nowhere by travsfo, which was odd and, especially with no framing and context-setting explanation

 

As @mrelwood kindly clarified (thanks!), this thread was meant to direct an increasingly off-topic conversation away from the original thread, out of respect for its OP.  No ambush intended, I was just trying to rebate Langham's arguments in an off-topic thread dedicated to the subject. (BTW, kudos to @mrelwood for the "I have a feeling that the parties differ largely in how much weight they consider the term to carry" observation )

I also would have liked a more productive and mutually benefiting debate (My lengthy counter-arguments attest to my [initial] interest in further delving into the subject from a broader and more complex and nuanced perspective), yet things didn't exactly work out the way I'd hoped they would.

In fact, the thread had been dormant for over a month: I think both parties reached the conclusion there was nothing to be gained by further discussing the subject. Which continues to be my stance. Ironically, my loss of interest in the discussion wasn't motivated so much by content (no fun discussing with people you agree with....) but by form.

All the same, it was pleasant to see the new ideas and perspectives you and @stephenbadger brought to the table, and I enjoyed reading your eloquently laid out view of the thread's content (and unrealized potential?), @Dingfelder

I'll admit that after reading your post, I was initially hopeful about the possibility of discussing the benefits of (healthy doses of) misanthropy vis-à-vis societal facades , but as I scrolled down and saw how the conversation has evolved since your initial post, I think I'll just quote you instead of explaining why I'm not too optimistic this thread will lead anywhere interesting...

On 4/26/2019 at 12:02 PM, Dingfelder said:

I had been optimistic this thread would touch more on more interesting nuances such as this than on the usual muslim vs. Trump undercurrents running tirelessly through society, such as it is, at the moment.

 

Edited May 1, 2019 by travsformation

[LanghamP]

10 hours ago, travsformation said:

benefiting debate (My lengthy counter-arguments attest to my [initial] interest in further delving into the subject from a broader and more complex and nuanced perspective), yet things didn't exactly work out the way I'd hoped they would.

Nah, you've convinced me that importing people from high-crime areas to low-crime areas doesn't actually increase the crime rate in the low-crime area.

[travsformation]

4 hours ago, LanghamP said:

Nah, you've convinced me that importing people from high-crime areas to low-crime areas doesn't actually increase the crime rate in the low-crime area.

I knew you'd eventually come round. No one is immune to my never-ending ramblings

We're still talking about Detroit and Windsor, right?

I hear the Canadians have a plan...

https://outabouter.com/2017/01/18/concerned-canada-quietly-plants-privacy-hedge-along-entire-u-s-border/

Edited May 1, 2019 by travsformation

[LanghamP]

On 5/1/2019 at 1:50 PM, travsformation said:

I knew you'd eventually come round. No one is immune to my never-ending ramblings

We're still talking about Detroit and Windsor, right?

I hear the Canadians have a plan...

https://outabouter.com/2017/01/18/concerned-canada-quietly-plants-privacy-hedge-along-entire-u-s-border/

Well there's facts and there's belief. The two don't have to be congruent, because science can and should be rejected in favor of feelings.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/american-murder-mystery/306872/

Otherwise, the match was near-perfect. On the merged map, dense violent-crime areas are shaded dark blue, and Section8 addresses are represented by little red dots. All of the dark-blue areas are covered in little red dots, like bursts of gunfire. The rest of the city has almost no dots.

I also thought this recent article from the BBC was interesting, because it shows the power of having just one opinion (the right one).

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-48146305

 

[travsformation]

1 hour ago, LanghamP said:

Well there's facts and there's belief. The two don't have to be congruent, because science can and should be rejected in favor of feelings.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/american-murder-mystery/306872/

Otherwise, the match was near-perfect. On the merged map, dense violent-crime areas are shaded dark blue, and Section8 addresses are represented by little red dots. All of the dark-blue areas are covered in little red dots, like bursts of gunfire. The rest of the city has almost no dots.

 

Facts are as subjective as belief. Objective data will always be interpreted (and made to fit into) based on one''s beliefs.

1 hour ago, LanghamP said:

I also thought this recent article from the BBC was interesting, because it shows the power of having just one opinion (the right one).

Nothing to add. Should we drop this debate? If you can practice misanthropy towards others but can't take a joke yourself....I don't think I've much interest in further pursuing this discussion....

Edited May 3, 2019 by travsformation

[LanghamP]

17 hours ago, travsformation said:

Nothing to add. Should we drop this debate? If you can practice misanthropy towards others but can't take a joke yourself....I don't think I've much interest in further pursuing this discussion....

This is an excellent channel to see uncivilized savages in action.

Please note where and what the vast majority of these people are.

And you want to import these kinds people into your home.

Ridiculous.