White moderates always asking “but what about me and my immediate priorities?” when people want to continue their long ongoing fight for minority rights, the instant they feel threatened by the same fascist state that had been targeting minorities for decades.
I was referring to MLK’s thoughts on white moderates’ tendency to hijack/coopt civil rights activism and neuter it, not to anything he might have said about open borders (which he opposed afaik).
First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direct action;” who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a “more convenient season.”
You’re talking shit about people who have been fighting fascism on the streets for years if not decades and asking how they benefit the fight that you just joined once it started targeting people like you.
I completely agree with you, but the 3/5 compromise is a completely different thing. It was about states getting electoral college votes, not black people getting rights.
Fascism never left America, it’s just went underground for a little while. And the system problems with this country are the reasons why that’s even possible to begin with. You can’t treat the symptoms and not treat the cause, otherwise we all end up right back here.
Being a naive Utopist, I understand that many things aren’t possible right now
That doesn’t mean, that those things wouldn’t be the correct thing to work towards to
You can’t make traveling across the street in Laredo easier than flying between Miami, FL and Anchorage, AK. What happens if everyone in town crosses the street at once? The whole town flips over and everyone dies.
If moving from the Quebec to Maine is as easy as moving from Massachusetts to New Hampshire, do you have any idea how many bad things will happen?
I am not saying its not real. I am saying its a human construct. Just like laws, religion, culture, nations.
They are created by us and dynamically evolve with our needs. We have full control over how they work and can overhaul them entirely.
For example, you may have heard how money used to be backed by physical gold, but then we abandoned that in 1971 and now its backed by nothing. Its simply changing the rules as needed.
Another overhaul is long overdue. The issue is that we rarely agree on how or what to change and that the choices are almost always made by centralized powers.
Borders are intrinsic to humanity? Citation extremely needed.
In the US, we had open borders for a long time, and there are many places in the world currently that don’t have border controls. Capital flows freely around the world, why shouldn’t people be allowed to?
And respectfully, you don’t know the extent of my activism based on one meme I shared. I advocate for many things. And for what it’s worth, I think it’s more likely that strict borders would be a contributing factor leading to a WWIII. All the more reason to get rid of them.
Ellis Island opens in 1892, over a century after the USA were created. There were no federal immigration controls before that. States handled arrivals loosely, if it all. Most migrants simply got off their boat and stayed.
During its first decades, Ellis Island was not a modern border control but rather a filter for contagious disease and extreme incapacity (eg. they didn’t want sick or handicapped people, only able bodied workers). Admission rate was 98%, it was triage motivated by stopping the recurring pandemics in the dense urban environment of NYC.
US border control starts in 1921-1924 with the quota acts, although you could arguably say the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act is the real birth of it (that act did not come with the means to enforce it though).
Aristide Zolberg’s “A Nation by Design” goes through all of this. Read it and educate yourself instead of making a fool of yourself on the Internet. I must once again insist that you stop discussing history online. You will get clowned for it.
Oh friend. I suggest you educate yourself, you don’t know how wrong you are.
During the 18th and most of the 19th centuries, the United States had limited regulation of immigration and naturalization at a national level. Under a mostly prevailing “open border” policy, immigration was generally welcomed, although citizenship was limited to “white persons” as of 1790, and naturalization was subject to five-year residency requirement as of 1802. Passports and visas were not required for entry into America; rules and procedures for arriving immigrants were determined by local ports of entry or state laws. Processes for naturalization were determined by local county courts.[1][2][3]
There’s a BIG gap between open borders and “no borders and world in harmony”. The U.S. had relatively open borders with Canada and Mexico, like, 50 years ago.
Also, why did you believe that borders are intrinsic to humanity? To my knowledge we’ve managed to live without them for the VAST majority of human history
Being tribal is intrinsic to humanity, but that doesn’t imply borders. Borders are a social construct and product of the state, they aren’t just some natural thing. A coyote doesn’t give a shit about the border, and neither should you. How are you so willing to let others tell you what to do and how to do it?
Borders are a recent enough invention that two of my grandparents migrated before passports were a requirement when they were young newlyweds (showing my age lol). They traveled from Austria-Hungary to France though Germany, it was a normal migrant journey, you were casually welcomed and given citizenship by your new country as long as you had money to spend and/or could provide labor. Another one of my grandparents was a vagabond (vagrant) who just walked from place to place, changed countries often, he stopped when most countries adopted anti-vagrancy laws. This happened a century ago. It’s recent history.
WWI, colonialism, and the rise of nationalism and fascism in early XXth century europe are what caused borders to become strictly enforced. You have a very poor understanding of geopolitical history, and likely have been brainwashed by modern heinous discourses on immigration, like too many people sadly.
You don’t have to reply twice to the same comment.
You already made it clear that you do not understand the difference between military and civilian structures, and have a negative understanding of political history. Don’t need to clarify, we all saw it and understood.
That fetish of yours for public humiliation is not my kink, sorry. You’ll have to find someone else to continue the roleplay with.
You’re talking about power and territory, not borders.
Roman, persian, egyptian frontiers were zones of influence, not fixed borders. Some of their frontiers contained fortifications ( like the Roman limes), but they were aimed at stopping armies of invaders, not individual migrants. A peasant or merchant could move across countries without having to go through border control or anything resembling a border. They were not able to join the local ruling class in most cases, due to being an outsider, but were still welcomed for their labor or money in the territory they had entered.
Ages ago, for some political history courses, I had to read CR Whittaker’s book called “Frontiers of the Roman Empire”. As the title implies it touches on this very topic. I wouldn’t recommend reading it, it’s quite dull. Anyway, one of the first things it touches on is that trying to understand history requires shedding modern concepts. Borders are the first one he asks the reader to shed.
Once again, you have a very poor understanding of geopolitical history. I don’t think you should be talking so confidently about a topic you are completely out of your depth in. It makes you look like a dunce.
The Great Wall and Hadrian’s Wall both served the same purposes:
Deterring raids and armed incursions, a purely military role
Marking the end of military control (eg. on the other side of this line you’re on your own)
Signaling than anything within those walls would be subject to taxation (the price of military protection)
Enabling signaling (chains of beacons/towers to warn in case of military invasions)
They were not designed to stop individual peasants or merchants. Those walls all had gates to let them in and out. In Frontiers of the Roman Empire, CR Whittaker goes through archaeological records to better understand Hadrian’s Wall and its role, and did not find any form of deterrence against migrants or any historical record showing any individual border control.
I am being condescending because you are being stubborn. I see no reason to be nice when you are speaking confidently about a topic you very clearly know nothing about, which happens to be one of my fields of expertise. You’d probably do the same if you were in my shoes, it is very frustrating to see misinformation spread on something you have academic knowledge of. If you are unwilling to learn and want to cling to your modern preconceptions of what a border is, then I must ask you to get the fuck out off radical leftist spaces and stop spreading your racist propaganda. You will never be welcome there as long as you hold those views.
[Thanks to everybody putting in the effort dealing with this. It’s too steep a Brandolini’s Law charge for my spoons stock to diligently take on thoroughly… So I continue here more as a general commentary stepped back from getting tangled up in all the…]
Strawman, moving goal posts, redherring, non-sequitur, ad-hominems, false dilemma, appeal to antiquity, appeal to novelty, circular reasoning, appeal to ridicule (ironically), appeal to authority, loaded language, ignoring counter-examples, conflation, equivocation, … on and on it goes.
You seem to have decided you’re right, and keep doubling down, despite the cogent arguments and corrections offered your way, contorting your position to prevent entertaining1 an idea from outside the world view that you seem to identify with, and fight to protect like your life depends on it.
It does not.
The ignorance that dies is not you.
I hope you find a healthier peace of mind in this.
I expect you’ll more likely continue to reject1 any idea not conforming to the naive-realist world-view you subconsciously perceive as you.
1 “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting nor rejecting it.”
I’m fairly sure that for the vast majority of time and populations of humanity, borders have been a total non-thing, and of the miniscule remainder, the vast majority remaining have been soft borders. It’s not intrinsic at all.
If we cease suppressing all the emancipatory technologies that avail abundance to each and all, what concern remaining is there then for borders, when there’s no resource disparity evoking scarcity mindsets and resource wars and plunder? What use even a border then, when we each can have our own spaceships?
Far far from intrinsic. Such a tiny conceptual box, conflating contemporary circumstantial constraints imposed, as if intrinsic. We are so much more than what’s imprinted upon us from your prison walls.
I’m struggling to fathom the purpose of this non-question.
Too many possibilities, too many directions one could take a response to that [including [perhaps wiser] none].
What safer than ability to remove oneself from danger instantly? Seems self-evident what I “feel” about safe spaces. So, I’m still (and all the more) stumped by the purpose of this line that starts like a question, but then lacks a question mark, hinting some kind of rhetoric implied, yet what it appears digging for is already on the surface… so…
Safe spaces are a micro border, a way for people to separate themselves from other people for their mental health. Should they be allowed to do so and does that have any relevance to the larger discussion about borders? I think it does. I think people instinctively want borders to protect themselves from others who might mean them harm. It’s natural and inherent to humans. Just curious what you thought, given your stated stance on borders.
Well, first of all, seems like someone else’s goal posts have been moved, trying to slip in a conflation of intrinsic and inherent. These are not the same thing. Leaving the “It’s natural” appeal to nature fallacy aside, if it’s inherent, then that in no way contradicts what I’ve offered.
“Micro border”… likewise, seems to be shifting language to contrive reality to fit an already held belief.
Like psychological boundaries of principle where one intently shall not bring themselves to cross regardless of provocation?
And shared among like-minded with similar experiences?
That kind of safe space?
Is that for which you’ve coined the term “micro border”?
Sounds like conjuring micronations from like-minds and shared-experiences, and even, I dare say, groupthink [(precursor to mass formation, and totalitarianising psyche, in which no one is safe, from each other, in the hyper-rational (irrational) desperate social dominance demand for social conformity more equal than others, where any and all atrocities are seen as necessary virtues, ever worsening as each try to prove themselves more devout to the group, to save themselves from the group)]. Yeah, that could become problematic, and a self fulfilling prophecy succumbing to the classic first failure of game theory, the tragedy of the commons, where having it aggravates the reason for having it, causing a feedback loop. It’s kinda like outsourcing your circular reasoning, cajoling others to be complicit in it, and then likely even blaming them, othering them. Those dirty outsiders, look at them, disrespecting our micro-bordered safe space. Hehe.
In some sense, this can be seen as an energy control drama1, perhaps starting with some “aloof” mixed in with the (at least) “poor-me”, perhaps even escalating through “interrogator” to “intimidator”, to preserve what, initially, may have had good intentions, but becomes a separation that leads to destruction.
… I forget who that’s attributed to ~ “separation is the path to destruction”… Siddhartha Gautama? J Krishnamurti? Gandhi? A handy concept to have around to consider and measure against. Always more, in "the longer now"2.
Should they be allowed to do so and does that have any relevance to the larger discussion about borders?
First, tackling:
Should they be allowed to do so
Like needing permission? Like a binary, allow or disallow? Not sure that’s a healthy way to tackle it. Sounds like the one tool in the toolbox is the ban-hammer, and every situation, to strike the situational nail, or to not strike the situational nail. Much more nuance, much more richness of growing cognisance and comprehension available in learning about things, rather than first reaching for allow/disallow.
and does that have any relevance to the larger discussion about borders?
For socio-societal-psychological explorations, sure, why not. Some relevance, in exploration, sure. But to wield that like it’s the core root and same-same, nuh-uh.
I think it does.
I can see that it can. But not all. Leans more to mere academic exploration, than the direct substance itself. More side garnish tributaries than the core crux. May be helpful for broader [foundational and supporting] understanding, or may be used to contrive felling the main trunk.
I think people instinctively want borders to protect themselves from others who might mean them harm.
And what compels and propels activation of this instinct?
It’s natural and inherent to humans.
Yes… which sorts of circumstances inherit such?
Inherent, from Latin inhaerere[/Inherens] (“to stick in”), e.g. like something imbued within from something prior.
Intrinsic, from Latin intrinsecus (“on the inside”), emphasizing internal essence. Does not imply receipt. At least not intrinsically. ;)
(And yeah, I did poke a LLM [& Deepl] to help provide the etymology clarification there… I don’t know Latin off the top of my head. Felt that needed done, since this is a very commonly shared conflation to false synonym, depriving us of an important distinction between intrinsic and inherent. Defy the Orwellian newspeak truncation of language! Harr!).
So beyond the appeal to nature fallacy, what’s cooking us? n_n What’s trying to bake-in these divide-and-conquer abusable traits? Because we can see situationally, it’s not always so, and thus not ubiquitously appearing intrinsic. So what situations evoke it? Who’s causing such? Who benefits?
12 Heh, that’s two references to The Celestine Philosophy there, I did not expect to make when I started writing this reply.
First, how do you figure borders intrinsic to humanity? Second, we should hope that you’re wrong, because if we keep trying to exterminate each other with more and more advanced weapons, we’re going to find a solution to the Fermi Paradox real quick.
Removed by mod
Your inability to visualize a better world, a world without borders, doesn’t mean it’s impossible.
Even if it seems.
– Interstellar, docking scene.
Removed by mod
White moderates always asking “but what about me and my immediate priorities?” when people want to continue their long ongoing fight for minority rights, the instant they feel threatened by the same fascist state that had been targeting minorities for decades.
Every time without fail.
MLK was right.
MLK never advocated for open borders. It’s a bastardization of his statement to dismiss all but the most radical positions on any issue.
I was referring to MLK’s thoughts on white moderates’ tendency to hijack/coopt civil rights activism and neuter it, not to anything he might have said about open borders (which he opposed afaik).
That’s what I figured but I assumed, given the thread, that you were applying it to open borders. I apparently assumed wrong.
How do you think you’re helping your endgame friend? Did MLK ask for anything more than what was possible at the time?
You’re talking shit about people who have been fighting fascism on the streets for years if not decades and asking how they benefit the fight that you just joined once it started targeting people like you.
Removed by mod
“Freeing slaves just isn’t realistic. How about letting them out for fresh air first? How about a 3/5 compromise? Ridiculous”
I completely agree with you, but the 3/5 compromise is a completely different thing. It was about states getting electoral college votes, not black people getting rights.
I honestly don’t know if you’re using this as an example of something you think is realistic, or more difficult than open borders.
It’s a pretty clear hurdle to open borders
Yes. Namely, the dissolution of the capitalist system.
He specifically talked about the tranquilizing drug of gradualism in his most famous speech.
Fascism never left America, it’s just went underground for a little while. And the system problems with this country are the reasons why that’s even possible to begin with. You can’t treat the symptoms and not treat the cause, otherwise we all end up right back here.
Being a naive Utopist, I understand that many things aren’t possible right now
That doesn’t mean, that those things wouldn’t be the correct thing to work towards to
Removed by mod
You can’t make traveling across the street in Laredo easier than flying between Miami, FL and Anchorage, AK. What happens if everyone in town crosses the street at once? The whole town flips over and everyone dies.
If moving from the Quebec to Maine is as easy as moving from Massachusetts to New Hampshire, do you have any idea how many bad things will happen?
All of them! All the bad things!
Do you really not understand that things cost money
Are you being sarcastic or are you unaware that money is a human construct and its rules/existence a choice?
Are you serious here? Money is a human construct what are you an alien? Money is as real as you and me lmao
I am not saying its not real. I am saying its a human construct. Just like laws, religion, culture, nations.
They are created by us and dynamically evolve with our needs. We have full control over how they work and can overhaul them entirely.
For example, you may have heard how money used to be backed by physical gold, but then we abandoned that in 1971 and now its backed by nothing. Its simply changing the rules as needed.
Another overhaul is long overdue. The issue is that we rarely agree on how or what to change and that the choices are almost always made by centralized powers.
Ok work on that! A new monetary system might actually be achievable
So you’d like to overhaul money in a way that’s not controlled by centralized power? I’ve got good news for you!
Good example of how not all solutions to a problem are always good solutions to the problem.
Why do you say that?
Removed by mod
Borders are intrinsic to humanity? Citation extremely needed.
In the US, we had open borders for a long time, and there are many places in the world currently that don’t have border controls. Capital flows freely around the world, why shouldn’t people be allowed to?
And respectfully, you don’t know the extent of my activism based on one meme I shared. I advocate for many things. And for what it’s worth, I think it’s more likely that strict borders would be a contributing factor leading to a WWIII. All the more reason to get rid of them.
Removed by mod
Ellis Island opens in 1892, over a century after the USA were created. There were no federal immigration controls before that. States handled arrivals loosely, if it all. Most migrants simply got off their boat and stayed.
During its first decades, Ellis Island was not a modern border control but rather a filter for contagious disease and extreme incapacity (eg. they didn’t want sick or handicapped people, only able bodied workers). Admission rate was 98%, it was triage motivated by stopping the recurring pandemics in the dense urban environment of NYC.
US border control starts in 1921-1924 with the quota acts, although you could arguably say the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act is the real birth of it (that act did not come with the means to enforce it though).
Aristide Zolberg’s “A Nation by Design” goes through all of this. Read it and educate yourself instead of making a fool of yourself on the Internet. I must once again insist that you stop discussing history online. You will get clowned for it.
Apparently they’re successfully deploying Cunningham’s Law to get their education.
Would be the case if they were able to read/understand.
They seem to just be stubborn and dumb.
Removed by mod
Oh friend. I suggest you educate yourself, you don’t know how wrong you are.
The Wikipedia article on “ History of immigration and nationality law in the United States”
Removed by mod
“Give me your” immigration guards.
That’s how it went, right?
/s
I suggest dropping the fallacies that bind you in such a tizzy. I suggest cease creating self-sabotaging pre-requisites to progress.
There’s a BIG gap between open borders and “no borders and world in harmony”. The U.S. had relatively open borders with Canada and Mexico, like, 50 years ago.
Also, why did you believe that borders are intrinsic to humanity? To my knowledge we’ve managed to live without them for the VAST majority of human history
Removed by mod
Being tribal is intrinsic to humanity, but that doesn’t imply borders. Borders are a social construct and product of the state, they aren’t just some natural thing. A coyote doesn’t give a shit about the border, and neither should you. How are you so willing to let others tell you what to do and how to do it?
I’m not sure being tribal is intrinsic. Merely situationally emergent. … and abused.
Borders are a recent enough invention that two of my grandparents migrated before passports were a requirement when they were young newlyweds (showing my age lol). They traveled from Austria-Hungary to France though Germany, it was a normal migrant journey, you were casually welcomed and given citizenship by your new country as long as you had money to spend and/or could provide labor. Another one of my grandparents was a vagabond (vagrant) who just walked from place to place, changed countries often, he stopped when most countries adopted anti-vagrancy laws. This happened a century ago. It’s recent history.
WWI, colonialism, and the rise of nationalism and fascism in early XXth century europe are what caused borders to become strictly enforced. You have a very poor understanding of geopolitical history, and likely have been brainwashed by modern heinous discourses on immigration, like too many people sadly.
Removed by mod
You don’t have to reply twice to the same comment.
You already made it clear that you do not understand the difference between military and civilian structures, and have a negative understanding of political history. Don’t need to clarify, we all saw it and understood.
That fetish of yours for public humiliation is not my kink, sorry. You’ll have to find someone else to continue the roleplay with.
Removed by mod
You’re talking about power and territory, not borders.
Roman, persian, egyptian frontiers were zones of influence, not fixed borders. Some of their frontiers contained fortifications ( like the Roman limes), but they were aimed at stopping armies of invaders, not individual migrants. A peasant or merchant could move across countries without having to go through border control or anything resembling a border. They were not able to join the local ruling class in most cases, due to being an outsider, but were still welcomed for their labor or money in the territory they had entered.
Ages ago, for some political history courses, I had to read CR Whittaker’s book called “Frontiers of the Roman Empire”. As the title implies it touches on this very topic. I wouldn’t recommend reading it, it’s quite dull. Anyway, one of the first things it touches on is that trying to understand history requires shedding modern concepts. Borders are the first one he asks the reader to shed.
Once again, you have a very poor understanding of geopolitical history. I don’t think you should be talking so confidently about a topic you are completely out of your depth in. It makes you look like a dunce.
Removed by mod
The Great Wall and Hadrian’s Wall both served the same purposes:
They were not designed to stop individual peasants or merchants. Those walls all had gates to let them in and out. In Frontiers of the Roman Empire, CR Whittaker goes through archaeological records to better understand Hadrian’s Wall and its role, and did not find any form of deterrence against migrants or any historical record showing any individual border control.
I am being condescending because you are being stubborn. I see no reason to be nice when you are speaking confidently about a topic you very clearly know nothing about, which happens to be one of my fields of expertise. You’d probably do the same if you were in my shoes, it is very frustrating to see misinformation spread on something you have academic knowledge of. If you are unwilling to learn and want to cling to your modern preconceptions of what a border is, then I must ask you to get the fuck out off radical leftist spaces and stop spreading your racist propaganda. You will never be welcome there as long as you hold those views.
Random thing but thanks for writing all this. The other person is probably beyond saving, but the history trivia is nice.
Removed by mod
[Thanks to everybody putting in the effort dealing with this. It’s too steep a Brandolini’s Law charge for my spoons stock to diligently take on thoroughly… So I continue here more as a general commentary stepped back from getting tangled up in all the…]
Strawman, moving goal posts, redherring, non-sequitur, ad-hominems, false dilemma, appeal to antiquity, appeal to novelty, circular reasoning, appeal to ridicule (ironically), appeal to authority, loaded language, ignoring counter-examples, conflation, equivocation, … on and on it goes.
You seem to have decided you’re right, and keep doubling down, despite the cogent arguments and corrections offered your way, contorting your position to prevent entertaining1 an idea from outside the world view that you seem to identify with, and fight to protect like your life depends on it.
It does not.
The ignorance that dies is not you.
I hope you find a healthier peace of mind in this.
I expect you’ll more likely continue to reject1 any idea not conforming to the naive-realist world-view you subconsciously perceive as you.
1 “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting nor rejecting it.”
I’m fairly sure that for the vast majority of time and populations of humanity, borders have been a total non-thing, and of the miniscule remainder, the vast majority remaining have been soft borders. It’s not intrinsic at all.
If we cease suppressing all the emancipatory technologies that avail abundance to each and all, what concern remaining is there then for borders, when there’s no resource disparity evoking scarcity mindsets and resource wars and plunder? What use even a border then, when we each can have our own spaceships?
Far far from intrinsic. Such a tiny conceptual box, conflating contemporary circumstantial constraints imposed, as if intrinsic. We are so much more than what’s imprinted upon us from your prison walls.
How do you feel about safe spaces
wat.
I’m struggling to fathom the purpose of this non-question.
Too many possibilities, too many directions one could take a response to that [including [perhaps wiser] none].
What safer than ability to remove oneself from danger instantly? Seems self-evident what I “feel” about safe spaces. So, I’m still (and all the more) stumped by the purpose of this line that starts like a question, but then lacks a question mark, hinting some kind of rhetoric implied, yet what it appears digging for is already on the surface… so…
wat.
Safe spaces are a micro border, a way for people to separate themselves from other people for their mental health. Should they be allowed to do so and does that have any relevance to the larger discussion about borders? I think it does. I think people instinctively want borders to protect themselves from others who might mean them harm. It’s natural and inherent to humans. Just curious what you thought, given your stated stance on borders.
Well, first of all, seems like someone else’s goal posts have been moved, trying to slip in a conflation of intrinsic and inherent. These are not the same thing. Leaving the “It’s natural” appeal to nature fallacy aside, if it’s inherent, then that in no way contradicts what I’ve offered.
“Micro border”… likewise, seems to be shifting language to contrive reality to fit an already held belief.
Sounds like conjuring micronations from like-minds and shared-experiences, and even, I dare say, groupthink [(precursor to mass formation, and totalitarianising psyche, in which no one is safe, from each other, in the hyper-rational (irrational) desperate social dominance demand for social conformity more equal than others, where any and all atrocities are seen as necessary virtues, ever worsening as each try to prove themselves more devout to the group, to save themselves from the group)]. Yeah, that could become problematic, and a self fulfilling prophecy succumbing to the classic first failure of game theory, the tragedy of the commons, where having it aggravates the reason for having it, causing a feedback loop. It’s kinda like outsourcing your circular reasoning, cajoling others to be complicit in it, and then likely even blaming them, othering them. Those dirty outsiders, look at them, disrespecting our micro-bordered safe space. Hehe.
In some sense, this can be seen as an energy control drama1, perhaps starting with some “aloof” mixed in with the (at least) “poor-me”, perhaps even escalating through “interrogator” to “intimidator”, to preserve what, initially, may have had good intentions, but becomes a separation that leads to destruction.
… I forget who that’s attributed to ~ “separation is the path to destruction”… Siddhartha Gautama? J Krishnamurti? Gandhi? A handy concept to have around to consider and measure against. Always more, in "the longer now"2.
First, tackling:
Like needing permission? Like a binary, allow or disallow? Not sure that’s a healthy way to tackle it. Sounds like the one tool in the toolbox is the ban-hammer, and every situation, to strike the situational nail, or to not strike the situational nail. Much more nuance, much more richness of growing cognisance and comprehension available in learning about things, rather than first reaching for allow/disallow.
For socio-societal-psychological explorations, sure, why not. Some relevance, in exploration, sure. But to wield that like it’s the core root and same-same, nuh-uh.
I can see that it can. But not all. Leans more to mere academic exploration, than the direct substance itself. More side garnish tributaries than the core crux. May be helpful for broader [foundational and supporting] understanding, or may be used to contrive felling the main trunk.
And what compels and propels activation of this instinct?
Yes… which sorts of circumstances inherit such?
(And yeah, I did poke a LLM [& Deepl] to help provide the etymology clarification there… I don’t know Latin off the top of my head. Felt that needed done, since this is a very commonly shared conflation to false synonym, depriving us of an important distinction between intrinsic and inherent. Defy the Orwellian newspeak truncation of language! Harr!).
So beyond the appeal to nature fallacy, what’s cooking us? n_n What’s trying to bake-in these divide-and-conquer abusable traits? Because we can see situationally, it’s not always so, and thus not ubiquitously appearing intrinsic. So what situations evoke it? Who’s causing such? Who benefits?
1 2 Heh, that’s two references to The Celestine Philosophy there, I did not expect to make when I started writing this reply.
First, how do you figure borders intrinsic to humanity? Second, we should hope that you’re wrong, because if we keep trying to exterminate each other with more and more advanced weapons, we’re going to find a solution to the Fermi Paradox real quick.