Moronic discrimination against aspies

Post Reply New Topic

Rules that make a society run aren't necessarily ethical. Attila, hitler, stalin, mao, pol pot, slavery, genocide, colonialism, etc, etc, etc. Even the US was founded on taking land away from indigenous people who today suffer the worst poverty of any group in the US. Current laws- powdered cocaine which is used mostly by wealthier people carries much more lenient sentences than rock cocaine which is more often used by poor people. I watched a video of a man accused of spitting on a cop, he was sentenced to 13 years in prison for it, he denied the charges. 13 YEARS of a mans life lost for just an accusation of spitting on a symbol of authority (in reality a class of person considered to be superior to the average citizen). I watched videos of executives that looted their companies and destroyed the lives of millions of Americans. Their punishment- Not only no jail time but hundreds of billions in tax payer bailouts and they wrote themselves bonus checks in the millions of dollars. Executive takes a $50 million bonus while laying off 3,000 employees who are struggling to feed their families because the company missed it's revenue forecast. These are the rules of societies all over the world. Are they ethical? hell no. Most humans don't thrive on challenge, they thrive on survival, greed and control. We have big brains simply because it's a survival advantage. Ethics and morals are not natural, they are man made.

Why are man-made things not natural? We are natural creatures; why should the things we make and the ideas we conceive of not be equally natural?

BTW: The existence of things that harm one group to the benefit of another group may be common in human history, but equally common is the eventual outcry against those things--usually including objections by people who are in the group that benefits from those inequalities.

When we do things like try to exterminate or dominate another group of people, we often find ourselves trying to justify those things by claiming that they really benefit everyone (or that the people they do not benefit are not important enough to count). On the other hand, nobody seems to find the need to justify their actions when they are "caught" doing something beneficial for another person, even when that action is unpopular to the majority. If, for example, you told off people who were bullying another person, you wouldn't feel like you needed to explain why that was okay for you to do even though the bullies were having fun and the victim was unpopular. But the bullies do plenty of justification--it'll toughen him up, he deserves it, he needs to learn to defend himself, etc., etc.

I would submit that the really unnatural things--if anything can be called unnatural at all--are the slavery, genocide, etc. that you are talking about. Humans have been social creatures since before we were human; and at some point along the way toward homo sapiens, we became creatures who passed on not just genes but also information. When that change was made, it became beneficial to protect not just those who shared our genes, but those who carried information we could use--and that means protecting diversity of all sorts, protecting minorities and their precious diverging information. Information theory wasn't even in its infancy when Darwin thought up natural selection--it's not surprising that he didn't realize the paradigm shift that takes place when a species learns to codify and pass on abstract data in the wholesale way that humans do. Just like genetic diversity confers a survival advantage, so does diversity of information. Societies which allow diversity of information have a distinct advantage over societies which do not. Ethics is not unnatural, it doesn't run counter to survival. It's intrinsic to who we are as humans--part of the homo sapiens operating system.

Is murdering 6 million people who are different natural? Yes, it is a response to competition. Is it ethical or moral? Not in the way most people define morals and ethics. A lion that takes over a pride will kill the cubs of the previous alpha male and human behavior is much closer to that than the belief that all humans deserve justice and freedom. Our natural state is survival of the fittest. It's morals and ethics that are unnatural, and it's clear that if given the choice of doing the right thing or survival the vast majority of humans will choose their natural state. Have you ever disagreed with a person in a group and though the other people clearly know you are right they will side with the person who is wrong? That is the natural state of humans. The rules that humans make are always, to a greater or lesser degree, twisted to serve the purpose of those who have power.

You didn't really address my objections there. You just keep on insisting selfishness is natural because it happens in the real world. Well, so does altruism.

Well; but altruism is less common, you say? Just because something is less common does not make it less natural or less desirable. For example, being an unusually fast runner is less common than being an average runner. But we consider this less common state of affairs to be more desirable. Does that mean that being an unsually fast runner, an unusually efficient thinker, or an especially altruistic individual is unnatural? Should we idolize the norm rather than attempting to better ourselves?

Humans are social animals. We do not compete solely as individuals. Cultures, pools of information, societies, and ideas compete as well. Cultures where altruism is encouraged have an advantage.

Originally my post was in response to your statement about rules and ethics. You implied that rules that make society run smoothly are the result of ethics. I was just saying the rules aren't always born out of ethics. But, if you want to talk about altruism I'll bite.

What I'm saying is that altruism is a luxury that people enjoy because of the excess that many societies enjoy today (often at some other peoples' expense). Just like most people in what is now western society couldn't read just a few centuries ago. If 75% of the earth population were wiped out (pick your disaster) altruism would be a very very rare activity, people would revert back to what they were born with which is survival instinct. Not a whole lot of altruism going on in most of Africa and Asia today. Altruism is something that occurs in spite of peoples' nature. Much of altruism also comes from religion btw.

Lol, I'm definitely not misreading signals. They're blatant bullies.

Experience taught me to wear masks. It prevents most of the trouble... but inevitably my true nature reveals itself at some point.

There is something that I fear more than direct discrimination - it's the fake politeness and caution that people exhibit when they know you are different. The way the smile, while on the inside they probably think "Poor thing, I hope I don't do something to upset you - people would hate me if I did that."

At least discrimination is honest. They tell you openly exactly how much they dislike you.

until everyone in the world is exactly the same in every way people will find s**t to not like other people for. f**k em