How fine is the line between savagery and civilization ?

corporal punishment

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2010
Messages
2,826
Our leaders are basically sociopathic or even psychopathic savages. Most of us take our cue's from them. We haven't come that far from our medieval past and take our electricity away from us and it wouldn't take long to slide back.
 


RasherHash

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
25,044

RasherHash

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
25,044
It may well be a minority which is directing or prompting savagery, but it's usually plain old Joe Public who's actually carrying it out. Yugoslavia was a salutory lesson in that.
The major wars as well where the ordinary Joe was taught it's ok to kill and torture for king and country, it's ok to firebomb cities full to the brim of poor civilians and their children, it's ok to burn thousands alive in the "right cause", and you don't have to feel guilty about it.
 

Irish-Rationalist

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 2, 2016
Messages
3,205
Our leaders are basically sociopathic or even psychopathic savages. Most of us take our cue's from them. We haven't come that far from our medieval past and take our electricity away from us and it wouldn't take long to slide back.
What's the difference between a sociopath and a psychopath?
 

GOF58

Active member
Joined
Jan 4, 2015
Messages
202
I think savagery is something anyone is capable of. John 3.15, while not so well known as the following verse, is one of the most insightful passages written by anyone in history

. Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him
Who can honestly say they haven't hated someone/something at one point or another in their lives? It's social values, the cultural hegemony of the ruling classes and the strength of the state which dictate the level of savagery in different societies; Ireland by the standards of 20th century Europe demonstrated a very low capacity for savagery and a large part of that was down to the failure of utopian ideology to gain a significant following. Detracting nothing from the suffering of children in industrial homes or women in Magdalene laundries but their sufferings were the fruit of rotten institutions on a global scale. Catholic nationalism and the state/society it permeated had their nasty sides to be sure, but there was never a genocidal bent to it vis-a-vis Northern Protestants (Bulmer Hobson and Ernest Blythe examples of Protestant republicans) and the treatment of minorities in the Free State/Republic was better than any other state in Western Europe. Ironically the existence of the border and the preoccupation of both main parties in the South with it may well have insulated the Republic from ideological violence. The Troubles may seem like a massive exception to this thesis, but they were more a result of mistreatment of northern Catholics than nationalist irredentism and should thus be viewed within the context of the British state neglect of NI rather than 'bloodthirsty' republicanism
 

RasherHash

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
25,044
What's the difference between a sociopath and a psychopath?
sociopath
ˈsəʊsɪə(ʊ)paθ,ˈsəʊʃɪə(ʊ)-/Submit
noun
a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behaviour.
Translations, word origin, and more definitions

psychopath
ˈsʌɪkəpaθ/Submit
noun
a person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behaviour.
synonyms: madman/madwoman, mad person, deranged person, maniac, lunatic, psychotic, sociopath; More
informal
an unstable and aggressive person.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
What's the difference between a sociopath and a psychopath?
As far as I understand it, the sociopath has a disconnect with human empathy, but is not usually violent. There are a great number of sociopaths among corporate executives and politicians. They have little or no sense of self and no communal feeling, and try to fill this black hole inside themselves with money, power and the superficial adulation of others. The psychopath has a very violent temper which he cannot control. Any form of slight against him (usually imagined) will be reacted to with vastly disproportional violence.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
Our leaders are basically sociopathic or even psychopathic savages. Most of us take our cue's from them. We haven't come that far from our medieval past and take our electricity away from us and it wouldn't take long to slide back.
There were strict rules governing war fare in the Middle Ages that have been increasingly thrown out as the Modern Age progressed. Also Society was organized around higher and more noble goals than those it is today. When I think of barbarism I think of the Vikings and not the Christian Middle Ages as such but even they had a purity and depth to them completely in say that narco-gangs that increasing dominate American cities with their violence. The idea that a lot of Libtards have technological progress should automatically go hand in hand with ethical progress is very strange.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
The millions of Cambodians Pol Pot made vanish are still vanished.

Ethnic cleansing is it we're discussing? Fasco-communists are a disease.
More Cambodians were slaughtered in saturation bombing by the Yankees before the Khmer Rouge took power which incredibly brutalized an already dysfunctional society. Also the actual State of Democratic Kampuchea was very diffuse, and most people including those with a lot of local power didnt even know who Pol Pot was into the second or even third year of the regime. The horrific excesses that did come about came out of the poor peasants desiring to have revenge on the city dwellers who they had traditionally seen as oppressive parasites bleeding the country rather than anything centralized. If anything the lesson from Democratic Kampuchea is not often a strong centralized State is required to stop horrors from occurring. This is probably the most balanced account of the whole mess that I have found;

What Went Wrong with the Pol Pot Regime
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
More Cambodians were slaughtered in saturation bombing by the Yankees before the Khmer Rouge took power which incredibly brutalized an already dysfunctional society. Also the actual State of Democratic Kampuchea was very diffuse, and most people including those with a lot of local power didnt even know who Pol Pot was into the second or even third year of the regime. The horrific excesses that did come about came out of the poor peasants desiring to have revenge on the city dwellers who they had traditionally seen as oppressive parasites bleeding the country rather than anything centralized. If anything the lesson from Democratic Kampuchea is not often a strong centralized State is required to stop horrors from occurring. This is probably the most balanced account of the whole mess that I have found;

What Went Wrong with the Pol Pot Regime
drummed is again showing his lack of education in thinking that Pol Pot was a Marxist. Pol Pot wanted to destroy industrialized society and return to a purely rural life. Marx believe that Socialism comes through industrialization. Pol Pot was actually the opposite of a Marxist - which is why Reagan and Thatcher loved him.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
drummed is again showing his lack of education in thinking that Pol Pot was a Marxist. Pol Pot wanted to destroy industrialized society and return to a purely rural life. Marx believe that Socialism comes through industrialization. Pol Pot was actually the opposite of a Marxist - which is why Reagan and Thatcher loved him.
Well the way that the Khmer Rouge organized their revolution had far in common with Mikhail Bukunin and his ideas about "Invisible Dictatorship" than anything coming from the Marxist tradition however he and the people around did have a plans for industrialization, they were not Primitivists; the reason for clearing the cities was down to the fact that they made easy targets from bombers and it is hard to imagine the scale of bombing carried out by the yanks and the whole drive around rice production was for "primitive accumulation", getting something to sell in order to buy machinery, etc. As I said though there wasnt a strong central authority and peasant guerrilla leaders in many parts of the country were deeply racist towards anybody not perceived as a "real Khmer" (i.e. was too Vietnamese or Chinese in either looks or culture) and resentful towards city folk in general; was those three factors that led to the real mess.
 

Dadaist

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 30, 2012
Messages
13,625
i think it is. I think more people are touched by civility, or at worst, not touched by savagery, that civility outweighs savagery in the world as a whole. And Kevin is absolutely right when he says we need to do our part. There will always be savagery. There will always be people who will want to cause harm but I believe there are more people who want to do good, who want to elevate others.
I complete agree. But I am born into, and live in a society, that for the most part, has had a recognised rule of law and a democratically elected parliament. And which has (in my part of this island) seen relative peace for almost a century. This experience has sheltered me from this savage nature of man that we speak of. Even here in Ireland, I know of people who have never been across the border in their lives.

To take a more extreme example, I couldn't comprehend what it would be like to live on a low income and try to bring up a family in somewhere like Honduras. A country which has a murder rate of 90.4 per 100,000, as opposed to Ireland’s, which is around 1.2 (relatively high for Europe).

I have no understanding of what it would be like to live in almost constant fear, with serial killer drug gang enforcers policing your neighbourhood and determining much of the life of you and your family. Including the dispensing of all levels of justice. Think of what a false rape allegation would result in, for example. All of which is festered by a civil environment crippled by corruption. Yet this is a country that still retains the basic elements of what would be classified as a modern society. Honduras has recently become a cheap alternative tourist destination, even when it is still at the very top of World murder rates.
 

drummed

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
36,191
Well the way that the Khmer Rouge organized their revolution had far in common with Mikhail Bukunin and his ideas about "Invisible Dictatorship" than anything coming from the Marxist tradition however he and the people around did have a plans for industrialization, they were not Primitivists; the reason for clearing the cities was down to the fact that they made easy targets from bombers and it is hard to imagine the scale of bombing carried out by the yanks and the whole drive around rice production was for "primitive accumulation", getting something to sell in order to buy machinery, etc. As I said though there wasnt a strong central authority and peasant guerrilla leaders in many parts of the country were deeply racist towards anybody not perceived as a "real Khmer" (i.e. was too Vietnamese or Chinese in either looks or culture) and resentful towards city folk in general; was those three factors that led to the real mess.

Goodness :roll:

The self delusion is intense in this one folks.
 

Dadaist

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 30, 2012
Messages
13,625
Well the way that the Khmer Rouge organized their revolution had far in common with Mikhail Bukunin and his ideas about "Invisible Dictatorship" than anything coming from the Marxist tradition however he and the people around did have a plans for industrialization, they were not Primitivists; the reason for clearing the cities was down to the fact that they made easy targets from bombers and it is hard to imagine the scale of bombing carried out by the yanks and the whole drive around rice production was for "primitive accumulation", getting something to sell in order to buy machinery, etc. As I said though there wasnt a strong central authority and peasant guerrilla leaders in many parts of the country were deeply racist towards anybody not perceived as a "real Khmer" (i.e. was too Vietnamese or Chinese in either looks or culture) and resentful towards city folk in general; was those three factors that led to the real mess.
Anyone who wore glasses were automatically considered an intellectual and put to death.

Plans for industrialization? 1-2 million were massacred, with anything up to 1 million starving in the aftermath of the blood bath. They slaughtered one third of the population. Industrialization requires a workforce.
 

statsman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
55,055
I think some of the examples in the op are inaccurate. Also Steven Pinker's research has an awful lot of problems in it. He consistently engages in selection bias.....there is no proof that humans are getting more less or more violent.
You might be interested in this:

https://www.berghahnjournals.com/view/journals/historical-reflections/44/1/hrrh440102.xml
Not all of the scholars included in this journal agree on everything, but
the overall verdict is that Pinker’s thesis, for all the stimulus it may have
given to discussions around violence, is seriously, if not fatally, fl awed. The
problems that come up time and again are: the failure to genuinely engage
with historical methodologies; the unquestioning use of dubious sources;
the tendency to exaggerate the violence of the past in order to contrast it
with the supposed peacefulness of the modern era; the creation of a number
of straw men, which Pinker then goes on to debunk; and its extraordinarily
Western-centric, not to say Whiggish, view of the world. Complex historical
questions, as the essays in this volume clearly demonstrate, cannot be answered
with any degree of certainty, and certainly not in a simplistic way.
Our goal here is not to offer a fi nal, defi nitive verdict on Pinker’s work; it
is, rather, to initiate an ongoing process of assessment that in the future will
incorporate as much of the history profession as possible.
 

Spirit Of Newgrange

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
4,602
look at how much food is in stock down your Supermarket. That is the buffer between civilisation and savagery.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
Dadaist;10279796[B said:
]Anyone who wore glasses were automatically considered an intellectual and put to death. [/B]

Plans for industrialization? 1-2 million were massacred, with anything up to 1 million starving in the aftermath of the blood bath. They slaughtered one third of the population. Industrialization requires a workforce.
That is a lie. In fact one of the leaders of the Khmer Rouge wore glasses. There was a lot of understandable but deeply wrong peasant wrath against the city dwellers given how the city had acted always as cruel parasite on them in the living memory of Cambodian peasants. The whole thing was crazy and led to a lot of deaths- however it wasn't what nearly all Westerners think it was.

There is an interesting discussion of the topic here;
https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/146179-Why-did-pol-pot-kill-people-in-Cambodia
 

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
6,760
Twitter
No
OP

//


Sure there has been improvement ... but past performance is no guarantee of future performance

1) How fine is the line ?
2) Are things worsening or at dangerous risk of worsening ?
3) If (2), how might that be counteracted ?

cYp

Obviously you've never met my wife.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top