Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaesthesia
(Post 8863342)
Differences, people. Differences are what cause hate, right from the fat smelly kid who was ostracised in the playground - pretty sure he had family issues and couldn't talk to anyone about it. How about the muslims that covered their legs in school uniforms, how about anyone that is allowed to be different for religious reasons, right down to any difference you can think of basically. Playground mentality.
I hate the kids that physically bullied me in school for being a geek. I hate the kids that bullied my brother for being autistic. I hate a lot of things, but I did get to fight back. And yes, I also understand they were adolescent tw*ts. I still hate what they did to me / us. I never felt the need to do that.
Who wants everyone to be the same? And if you think about it, what happens when you get that wish? Do you think that will make everyone happy? That's just ridiculous. Vive la difference, forever.
|
Ironically enough it's a survival tactic. Our brains are designed to find contrasts. Look at it this way, when your experiences in life have taught you and your brain that meats come in warm color tones, you're going to think twice about that blue color meat.
Another example, if you go into a poorer neighborhood after living in a safe, sheltered wooden suburb, you will interpret most people as "acting" strange and that alone creates a sense of discomfort because it goes against your background and your brain and instincts are telling you to be alert and to look for potential predators or pitfalls.
Moreover, when we associate with groups (aka village mentality), we embolden our own psyche's and increase our resistance against "adversaries" because while our brains zoom into into contrasts, we are innately social so we also desire acceptance. Depending on one's past environmental conditions, keeping the contrasts in the front of our minds keep us alert to any potential red flags and people who may not have our best interests in mind... even if they seem harmless enough and are actually very friendly and gracious in appearances.
If the group you were associated with as a child or have come to associate with as a adult says it's OK to accept larger gaps in similarities (like being raised as a hippy), it's not such an issue. Almost always though, there is going to be some limit to yourself and your group's tolerance and to some degree it's a protection of self... usually defined along the lines of "unsafe" or "suspicious" thinking, modes, or ways of living. Things that would cause too much discomfort and cognitive dissonance eventually would tear at that's person perception of themselves and weaken their self-perceived role in the group or society.
This is very base and a poor description of each group, but let's say Team Blue (aka liberals) are taught to be suspicious of guns. Even though they were taught they were OK to own, and there are acceptable and legal uses for owning one, they were taught you can get along without owning one being necessary. This was the case in MD where I lived for a while in the US, a blue state. Discussion of guns is enough to get you in trouble and have the law called... even if it was a harmless discussion and meant nothing, that person saw a potential threat because of the person's discussion around their political beliefs, they made the call.
The law's hands were tied, but being that MD caters to the majority, Team blue, though the officer's were suspicious, they had nothing to charge so they left it well alone... though nothing came of it, members of Team Blue feel empowered because they "took one for the team", made the "right call" when they saw a potential threat and feel like good citizens, rather members of the perceived group, and it boosted not only their confidence but their self-esteem level.
The Team Red member who felt ostracized, not only posing a threat to his group's interest, but affecting that person's self-esteem and having their ego bruised to not be so easily accepted in the major worldview... as they perceived their openness and trust in discussing such topics as a minority an "olive branch" to the other team. So that member goes back to his group and voices this negative incident to his team as an example of how Team Blue is bad and cannot be trusted, yada yada...
Meanwhile in TX, primarily republican and though we have democrat cities with progressive groups and interests, we're used to having a gun by our frontdoor or somewhere accessible (sans bullets) should anyone "threaten" our turf. Most people talk about guns freely and this is a common hobby and interest, so people talk about what they own out of pride (boys and toys). Well, one of them says they don't care what others think about how they would go about it, but if someone trespassed their property, they would shoot them ASAP. A bystander, a member of Team Blue, a mom with four kids hears this conversation and asks the Team Red member why he would be so emboldened to just shoot someone right out without any kind of remorse... the Team Red members swarm in and overcome the mother's emotional response with logical retorts and though the contrast is clear to both groups, Team Red perceives it as a "win" because they shut down yet another member of "Team Blue"... and that member of Team Blue feels ostracized for what is perceived as an "olive" branch on their part, because they were interested in the and promoting not only her group's interest, but wellfare of the moral character of the community... so she goes back to her group, highlights this incident and illustrates how this is how Team Red can't be trusted... etc...
In short, both teams find themselves opposing on the same issue, so in order to set themselves apart and create competition to protect the village, Team blue speaks loudly they are suspicious of guns and the flamboyant use of such among Team red, whereas, Team Red retorts that they are suspicious of groups that want to limit rights and object to things out of the condition of "fear... etc etc
Both leads to a lot of unnecessary and irrational conclusions being drawn from both ends, but in our psyche is ingrained to accept one group over another because of the conditions of self-preservation. Even though perhaps there is cognitive dissonance evident to the individual, it is overlooked to further the interests of the group itself because ultimately it furthers the individual and can perceivably protect their place in the tribe and gives them a sense of strength in overall society.
I hope that is clear. CBB launch is on so I don't want to miss it :laugh: I find this topic fascinating nonetheless. Overall, I think that it's good to think about what groups oneself may align, there are likely multiple and you'd be surprised sometimes to discover groups you align with without realizing it. The human brain has an amazing way of perceiving and zooming in and matching with these distinctive groups before we even know or can label them. A powerful and eye-openingly intelligent thing to discover about oneself and psyche as the whole I think.
CBB time <3
