Tribal mentality

[NotaNuffian]

If your *insert someone you care and love* is now at war, literally about to take a glock out and double tap type, with another person/ faction, would you help out or nah?

Not going political here and also, this applies to RL so most of the times people will take a nonchalent (neutral or neutralish) stance and only start to move when they themselves are affected.

Haven't went and read the books CGP Grey intro-ed and probably will not.

Also, give me the reason for your vote. Thanks.

 

[Discount_Blade]

Depends on who the person I love/care about is about to pop. But most likely yes, if I agree with their stance. I was present for some of the nonsense those pieces of trash that call themselves ANTIFA attempted in NYC and those were some interesting and fun nights. Nothing like showing bullies they aren't as big and bad as they thought they were.

 

[Deeprotsorcerer]

Unfortunately, this kind of thought experiment is inherently political, it also needs like, a boatload of context. Senseless racial/ideological violence is senseless, whether my family/friends participate or not doesn't matter. The question doesn't say who the aggressor is either, which is often the case for such incidents.

"come, we must attack these degenerate people to defend the integrity/name/purity of the fatherland because of something a handful of their ancestors did 500 years ago, never mind the legitimate casus belli that would give the other side!"

I wouldn't drag you out of your car and beat you up just because you don't have as much melanin as I do just because my big brother said I should(and he wouldn't), and I'd appreciate if others didn't do the same to me because I have more.

 

[Generic.Archdemon]

would you help out or nah?

But that's not how war works tho.
If Friend-land is at war with Dave-land.
me being from Arch-land would not be involved at all.

EVEN if I am the ruler of Arch-land and not just a rando citizen, going to war is not a decision I can make because I like "Friend".

Wars must balance with the well being, cost and benefit of a nation. The narratives of "friendship" "threat" "justice" "xenophobia" and "discrimination" are often used to justify war to the nation, but in reality, I think it is often not the reason rulers of countries use to decide whether to war or not to war.

 

[Cipiteca396]

Unfortunately, this kind of thought experiment is inherently political, it also needs like, a boatload of context. Senseless racial/ideological violence is senseless, whether my family/friends participate or not doesn't matter. The question doesn't say who the aggressor is either, which is often the case for such incidents.

"come, we must attack these degenerate people to defend the integrity/name/purity of the fatherland because of something a handful of their ancestors did 500 years ago, never mind the legitimate casus belli that would give the other side!"

I wouldn't drag you out of your car and beat you up just because you don't have as much melanin as I do, and I'd appreciate if others didn't do the same to me because I have more.

But that's not how war works tho.
If Friend-land is at war with Dave-land.
me being from Arch-land would not be involved at all.

EVEN if I am the ruler of Arch-land and not just a rando citizen, going to war is not just I decision I can make because I like "Friend". Wars must balance with the well being, cost and benefit of a nation. The narratives of "friendship" "threat" "justice" "xenophobia" and "discrimination" are often used to justify war to the nation but in reality, I think it is often not the reason rulers of countries use to decide to war or not to war.

You're overthinking it, I think. The question isn't about race or ideology or politics. Your friends and family are fighting, do you fight as well?

I seriously doubt anyone would stop to think about who or why. The answer is yes, because if they lose, then you will be alone. And even if you don't mind that, the 'enemy' very well might blame you for whatever your loved ones did to them.

 

[Deeprotsorcerer]

You're overthinking it, I think. The question isn't about race or ideology or politics. Your friends and family are fighting, do you fight as well?

I seriously doubt anyone would stop to think about who or why. The answer is yes, because if they lose, then you will be alone. And even if you don't mind that, the 'enemy' very well might blame you for whatever your loved ones did to them.

Or, seeing that you jumped on them without paying heed to context, they may then turn on the rest of your uninvolved friend group or family. Or, if you win, their group may come back for revenge.

This is how you get a blood feud. And I'm not for it at all. Much smarter to just use your words and deescalate or go through more legal channels first. If such options are not available, that needs to be stated outright with an explanation as to why. You can negotiate up to the moment where the first shot is fired. Hell, you can negotiate in the middle of a fight. It's been done. We aren't monkeys.

As for overthinking it, the question naturally lends itself to political consideration, note Blade's response:

But most likely yes, if I agree with their stance.

The only information about the other side was that they are another person/ faction and the thread is labeled "Tribal Mentality." It's either poorly worded or a case of political-not-political like The Division's portrayal of community hardening, terrorism, and self-defense. Even if the devs intended for the work to not be political, the content, once experienced by an audience, prompts political thought. This goes for about any piece of media.

It's honestly kind of ridiculous when people say they shouldn't engage with a piece in a certain way, it's all too often done to cover a creator's rump or avoid upsetting "gamers TM".

 

[LordJoyde]

I don't really care about tribes. You attacking someone I'm personally invested in gives me all the casus belli I need to start a conflict and that is all I'll ever need.

 

[Deeprotsorcerer]

I don't really care about tribes. You attacking someone I'm personally invested in gives me all the casus belli I need to start a conflict and that is all I'll ever need.

Sure, you'd come to the defense of a friend, no one would fault you for that, but would you help your friend attack someone before hearing a single reason as to why? How far would you take it beyond the initial conflict?

 

[Generic.Archdemon]

I seriously doubt anyone would stop to think about who or why.

it also needs like, a boatload of context.

Genuinely, context is important.

If it's "war", it concerns more than just family and friends.
.


if you say, my uncle who is family and I am fond of says: "Grab that shotgun and that jerry can full of petrol, we got some people to kill and then we will burn down their house."

Instead of saying "Sure thing Uncle Steve, I've got your back!"

I would say, "Why and Who?"

And if he says, "We are going to go down the road, and burn down that teenager's house for being foreign/gay/different/voted wrong"

I'd say "No... " I'd suspect my uncle is suffering from a mental breakdown, maybe talk to them about it. Or call the police.

Personally... my rule of thumb, majority of actions motivated by putting people in broad generalisation and groups are questionable.

Regardless of validity, it should be examined first.

A loved one say, "I hate __________, so hate ___________ with me". The answer is no.
In my mind, I hate Phil because, Phil is Phil, and Phil may be a ____________ , but him being a _____________ is not the reason I hate him, I hate him becasue he is an arshole, not his ideology.

Hating anyone based on faction or group rather than an individual is the action of a simpleton, that can only intellectually digest labels and generalisation because their simple mind can't comprehend the depth and complexity of human existence, and is so myopic they are not aware of the vastness of the world's differences and possibilities.

And I don't play that, and would reflexively disagree with the sweeping generalisation because of factions.

If my loved one is hostile with a person, I would only be hostile as well because of my own motivation, not because of the loved one's need for me to be.

And I would never find by myself in a situation that I can be hostile to a faction personally. Coz that is just fucking dumb.

 

[Ilikewaterkusa]

If your *insert someone you care and love* is now at war, literally about to take a glock out and double tap type, with another person/ faction, would you help out or nah?

Not going political here and also, this applies to RL so most of the times people will take a nonchalent (neutral or neutralish) stance and only start to move when they themselves are affected.

Haven't went and read the books CGP Grey intro-ed and probably will not.

Also, give me the reason for your vote. Thanks.

Depends on the idiots involved

 

[Cipiteca396]

Sure, you'd come to the defense of a friend, no one would fault you for that, but would you help your friend attack someone before hearing a single reason as to why? How far would you take it beyond the initial conflict?

To be clear, the lack of context goes both ways. You're making a lot of assumptions here. Nobody said the fight was started by your friend, or that it was unjustified. The point is that the reasons don't change your response.

Would you help or not? Your answer seems to be no. (Technically it's yes, because you'd be helping them by stopping the fight, but whatever. The Tribe's problems are your problems, and you got involved in someone else's business because of it.)

For the rest of what you said, you aren't technically wrong. Humans aren't monkeys. Negotiations can happen in the middle of a fight. But unless you're the Protagonist, with the ability to force hot blooded people to stop and think rationally in the middle of a fight, I can only see it as naive. Most likely, if you tried you'd end up dead, or the people you cared about would end up dead. Too. Slow. (Assuming it even comes to that point. It might just be a small brawl or something.)

Maybe that's fine. Your family sucked anyways, right? You have more in common with the people they were fighting. No big deal. A plague on both their houses.

 

[Amok]

With modern laws being what they are, I'll probably try and prevent it, preventing jail time or death-by-cop for the glocker.
That said, if the danger is actual and pertinent, I'll aid those I love in exterminating the threat from this fair Earth, to hell with the consequences. If the area is remote, there are ways to obfuscate the incident.

 

[K5Rakitan]

I claim the maternity exemption from the draft.

 

[Cipiteca396]

I claim the maternity exemption from the draft.

What about your husband and boyfriends?

 

[T.K._Paradox]

The question I'd ask is why? If the answer is *person/faction* did a horrible crime against my love one. I'd help and believe them, because I love them dearly and truly believe that none of the people I know would lie about something that horrible they would take up violence against someone. If it is not heinous then I shall attempt to disarm the situation in anyway I can, because I am not a mindless brute, just a loyal man.
And either way I am help the situation.

 

[Deeprotsorcerer]

To be clear, the lack of context goes both ways. You're making a lot of assumptions here. Nobody said the fight was started by your friend, or that it was unjustified. The point is that the reasons don't change your response.

Would you help or not? Your answer seems to be no. (Technically it's yes, because you'd be helping them by stopping the fight, but whatever. The Tribe's problems are your problems, and you got involved in someone else's business because of it.)

For the rest of what you said, you aren't technically wrong. Humans aren't monkeys. Negotiations can happen in the middle of a fight. But unless you're the Protagonist, with the ability to force hot blooded people to stop and think rationally in the middle of a fight, I can only see it as naive. Most likely, if you tried you'd end up dead, or the people you cared about would end up dead. Too. Slow. (Assuming it even comes to that point. It might just be a small brawl or something.)

Maybe that's fine. Your family sucked anyways, right? You have more in common with the people they were fighting. No big deal. A plague on both their houses.

Agreed, but your own response makes more than a few assumptions. The reasons would, in fact, change my response, as they would most peoples' I would hope.

Stopping to negotiate in the middle of a fight is far less naïve than you think, think back to highschool, most fights in my own experience ended with the sides being separated before someone got knocked out or died, sometimes one side even apologized to the other for whatever slight caused the fight in the first place.

As for bigger picture stuff, The Tribe or The Country's reason for fighting is often not the soldier's reason. Were you born with a grudge against everyone that doesn't look like you or wear the same flag? This kind of thinking makes it all too easy to manipulate red-blooded nationalists into conflicts they'll see no benefit from.

Even in such cases, humanity's capacity for compassion and understanding has, time and again, shown itself in the midst of our worst conflicts. When opposing patrols of four German soldiers and three Americans met each other in the forest of the Ardennes, a woman stood between the two sides and declared: “It is the Holy Night and there will be no shooting here!” Marking the beginning of what's known as the "Little Christmas Truce" of WWII.

We as a species have the means to blunt our tendency to fight each other if we willed it. Education, the internet, and growing resource security makes it more likely by the day (of course, two of those also makes more nasty conflicts more likely in some ways, but that's not the point).

The matter of whether such an act of will or appeal to reason would be too slow or not, again, matters far too much on context to go one way or another

 

[K5Rakitan]

What about your husband and boyfriends?

I gotta just hope and pray that they don't get themselves killed.

 

[Cipiteca396]

Stopping to negotiate in the middle of a fight is far less naïve than you think, think back to highschool, most fights in my own experience ended with the sides being separated before someone got knocked out or died, sometimes one side even apologized to the other for whatever slight caused the fight in the first place.

Your experience with high school is very different from mine, apparently. Not that it's relevant, though. You might be able to stop a couple of kids throwing a tantrum by talking, but not a gunfight or a full scale war. Or hell, maybe you could. I'm not you though. I'm not going to run into the middle of a gunfight and start scolding people. Not unless someone I care about is involved. And I'd probably still get Mercutio'd.

As for bigger picture stuff, The Tribe or The Country's reason for fighting is often not the soldier's reason. Were you born with a grudge against everyone that doesn't look like you or wear the same flag? This kind of thinking makes it all too easy to manipulate red-blooded nationalists into conflicts they'll see no benefit from.

Even in such cases, humanity's capacity for compassion and understanding has, time and again, shown itself in the midst of our worst conflicts.

Once the fighting starts, an individual's reasons don't matter. If you hate the other side or not, you fight to survive. Or to help your family survive. Compassion is the source of conflict in this case. In order for compassion to stop a fight, you have to show it to other side. Those nameless, faceless people who are literally shooting at you. But it's very unlikely they will return your feelings.

Germans and Americans are so similar it's quicker to list the differences. Of course they can pause to take a holiday that they both celebrate(though they then proceeded to start killing each other again immediately). There are very obvious and recent counter-examples that I won't mention because there's no reason to get political here.

We as a species have the means to blunt our tendency to fight each other if we willed it.

IF. And 'we as a species' is very different from one person and another.

---

I'd really prefer to stay on topic though. This isn't about optimism, morality or the rationality behind war.

Would you help or abandon your loved ones in the midst of conflict? That's the question. And the thing is, no amount of talking will change a person's answer. It's a personal value.

 

[Discount_Blade]

Such a simple question, and its turned into some pseudo-philosophical debate. Some budding politicians here. Can't answer a simple question, and I bet that even if they were given specific details, it'd still be "but then what if X or how about when Y did Z"....

Maybe OP should say the friend or loved one is the victim in this war-scenario so people can hop off these fences they are so fond of XDD

 

[NotaNuffian]

Such a simple question, and its turned into some pseudo-philosophical debate. Some budding politicians here. Can't answer a simple question, and I bet that even if they were given specific details, it'd still be "but then what if X or how about when Y did Z"....

Maybe OP should say the friend or loved one is the victim in this war-scenario so people can hop off these fences they are so fond of XDD

Nah, I specifically vague the whole thing just to see whether or not would you blindly help your loved ones.

As to why I never add a "maybe", cuz I hate middle answer.