Is it? I think internally is a reasonable way to read that requirement. Even failing that, somewhere else would have to be more equal and just, somehow.

Happy cake day, by the way.

I know it’s the theory that the Western lifestyle in general is built on that, but Denmark’s state budget is pretty easy to verify as coming from Denmark.

You’re getting a lot of “none” answers, but that’s overly pessimistic, given that you used relative terms for almost everything, and free healthcare and education are standard first-world features.

The usual statistics wondercountries would be my answer. Canada, the Nordics and select other places in Western Europe like the Netherlands and Switzerland. New Zealand is having problems these days, but maybe them too, I’m not sure. They all lean towards these stances relative to other countries.

Cheap food is probably hardest thing. It just comes with a certain cost to produce or ship in.

Where from? Greenland is a big resource sink.

Okay, but we were talking about the people themselves, so that point stands.

Sure, the system lacks.

Money Identity Coercion Ego. Those are the primary motivators.

Being rich means you’ve solved money and probably coercion. You can either rest on your laurels or chase the other two, for good or for evil. There’s rich philanthropists - some who give almost everything away - and then whatever Elon Musk is, but most go for the rest on their laurels thing, and so you probably haven’t heard of them.

Dehumanising someone also serves our identity and ego, FYI, which is where this thread came from.

Even the capitalists are behaving differently and more humane compared the fuedalists of the middle ages.

Yes, because their source of wealth is fundamentally different. Lords had to project violence and play court politics to keep their position. Still do, in some places. The rich in developed countries, on the other hand, can rely on strong rule of law to protect their property with very little personal input.

Also why if the apocalypse ever happened, they’d get owned and somebody else would take their bunker.

deleted by creator

They fill the role nonverbal cues do in real life. Whenever I go back to old-style forums I miss them, because everyone ends up arguing with a few trolls/nuts that would look like they’re being taken seriously otherwise.

Lotteries exist. Boom, disproven.

It’s not even an exception, really. Being part of just the right startup at just the right time, or coming out of the right mother basically is a lottery. Meanwhile, poor mean assholes exist too.

Dehumanising and giving no quarter are different things.

Yes, but it makes us feel better about ourselves.

/s but also not.

They are human.

Humans are just like that.

Neat explanation. I’m going to add “energy is conserved” to this; we expect people to know that and make the connection to calories, but better safe than sorry.

Good for you! How long ago was that, and did you gain it back? That’s usually the really hard part.

I mean, that is what you’d expect if were hormone-based.

Tribalism is ancient for sure. As is cultural bigotry. Hating people primarily do to skin colour and related features is a thing that specifically developed 1500-1700, as the trans-Atlantic slave trade got going (and needed to be rationalised).

When the Romans or Mesopotamians hated on their neighbors, it was over food preferences, language and customs. If they ascribed anything biological to it, the prevailing theory was more about response to the local climate than heredity. Then, once monotheism got going deviation from religious orthodoxy became the most popular way to hate. It’s not a coincidence that “Slav” and “slave” sound similar, because pagan Slavic people were a major source of slave labour in medieval Europe. It drove the crusades, and it had a role in the early stages of expansion into the new world.

The first slave ship came to English North America in 1619, but the passengers were treated as normal indentures, and at least some became free later on. They kept coming, though, and by 1700 or so black people had to be slaves and that was pretty much it. (Colonial Spain had their own, somewhat divergent system a bit earlier)

The Romans had emperors drawn from Africa and the Middle East, and had conflict with Germanic and Celtic people that could easily have been Latin by appearance. The first sub-Saharan African in Japan was made a Samurai, and now there’s a videogame about it. That’s not to say the difference in appearance wasn’t noticed or remarked upon (they tried to wash the dark off of Yasuke, and Heterodotus makes special note of the woolly hair and stature of the distant Africans) but in every pre-modern story I can think of it was gotten over quickly compared to other, behavioral things.

Anyway, I guess the point is just that there’s been steps backwards as well. There would have to be, otherwise ignorance would have gone extinct over the millennia, right? Maybe it still will; we live in a totally transformed world now, but it’s going to require continuous effort. Hate is always shifting and changing and evolving from things that might even have started off as harmless or positive (Jesus is less controversial than later Christians).

Community, status and not being economically punished are way bigger motivators than being abstractly correct, right? Nobody really goes looking for inconvenient truths. Unless those naturally nice, understanding conservatives start meeting a lot of very different people, like if they move, the worldview will probably stay put.

To be a little more doomer than you, I’d actually say there’s lots of people that go the other way as well, and go looking for a cult to join as an outlet for whatever nastiness is inside of them. Consider that in the grand scheme of things, monotheism and racism are both new.

Interesting! Thank you.

They do exist in places where it’s just the default politics. One has to suspect that if they seriously learned and thought about things, they’d move left.