Violence and civilisation

[Tyrannical]

Behavior is of course in large part genetic, but there is such thing as training. But as opposed to domestication where the behavioral changes are genetic and inheritable, training is not. That is why tribal peoples imported civilities breaks down once they self govern and are removed from the training stimulus.

[Audley Strange]

Certainly explains the behaviour of a lot of the Militia groups and White power groups aye. Inbred outcast grunts who have nowhere to go but to increasing irrelevance and degeneracy because they eschew civilised society in favour of whatever bullshit nonsense their tribal leaders infect them with. Must be why so many of them end up executed by cops or in prison. Savages.

[Hermit]

What exactly is your opinion in regard to the opening post?

My opinion is that The Western Democracies, when not blowing each other up for the better part of the last century, used and still use their technological advantage to outsource massive amounts of violence against anyone weak enough not to fight back.

Sure life might be safer for the citizens in their own country. However the globe is not safer from those countries. My opinion is that historically speaking the Theocratic Imperial and now Democratic states of the West are oblivious to the suffering they have consistently caused globally and have some form of cognitive dissonance which allows them to spend decades weeping about a couple of thousand casualties of terrorism while being oblivious to the suffering they have caused.

The hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people they have killed maimed and tortured all over the globe in this century, let alone the last makes it seem self evident to me that the most civilised countries, whether it be Rome Germany Britain or America are, because of technological advantage, the most violent states globally and as such claiming they are less violent because they are civilised is blinkered idiocy. They have just channelled their propensity to be violent away from themselves after learning the lessons that using violence against their own people tended to end up with their family lines being violently executed.

Also the fact that any who transgress the rules of such civilisations or are even suspected to can lose their liberty or be executed either judicially or extra-judicially in order to preserve whatever societal or ideological norms, through the rule of law suggests strongly to me that civilisation can only exist when those who are considered "uncivilised" are dealt with, which has lead to increasing numbers in the prison population through punitive sentencing. The inherent violence in that is ignored and the violence that goes on within that system is often left uncommented on.

So in short, civilised countries may be less violent towards their own citizens than in the recent past (and in certain states that is still debatable) but they have channelled that outwards almost perpetually.

Good point, unfortunately, but I don't think it provides evidence contradicting Pinker's thesis that violence on a per capita basis is actually declining over time.

[Hermit]

Perhaps Charlou was wondering whether it categorically has to be one or the other..

Perhaps she was. Only she can tell.

So, we don't have to "prefer" either the violence of the past, or the psychological constraints rEv was alluding to...

Yes, well, just imagine other possibilities. Living in the real world, however, we have less choice, and I for one know which of the two options I prefer, and I doubt that any sane person would choose the other.

[Audley Strange]

What exactly is your opinion in regard to the opening post?

My opinion is that The Western Democracies, when not blowing each other up for the better part of the last century, used and still use their technological advantage to outsource massive amounts of violence against anyone weak enough not to fight back.

Sure life might be safer for the citizens in their own country. However the globe is not safer from those countries. My opinion is that historically speaking the Theocratic Imperial and now Democratic states of the West are oblivious to the suffering they have consistently caused globally and have some form of cognitive dissonance which allows them to spend decades weeping about a couple of thousand casualties of terrorism while being oblivious to the suffering they have caused.

The hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people they have killed maimed and tortured all over the globe in this century, let alone the last makes it seem self evident to me that the most civilised countries, whether it be Rome Germany Britain or America are, because of technological advantage, the most violent states globally and as such claiming they are less violent because they are civilised is blinkered idiocy. They have just channelled their propensity to be violent away from themselves after learning the lessons that using violence against their own people tended to end up with their family lines being violently executed.

Also the fact that any who transgress the rules of such civilisations or are even suspected to can lose their liberty or be executed either judicially or extra-judicially in order to preserve whatever societal or ideological norms, through the rule of law suggests strongly to me that civilisation can only exist when those who are considered "uncivilised" are dealt with, which has lead to increasing numbers in the prison population through punitive sentencing. The inherent violence in that is ignored and the violence that goes on within that system is often left uncommented on.

So in short, civilised countries may be less violent towards their own citizens than in the recent past (and in certain states that is still debatable) but they have channelled that outwards almost perpetually.

Good point, unfortunately, but I don't think it provides evidence contradicting Pinker's thesis that violence on a per capita basis is actually declining over time.

Nor was it intended to, it was intended to provide my opinion on the opening post which contends that civilised countries are less violent than primitive ones, which is, I believe, what you asked for, though I could be wrong.

[Hermit]

I opined that "violence - at least in democratic, capitalist nations - has definitely declined over the centuries". A clear, explicit agreement with what Pinker said, don't you think?

[JimC]

The recent violence via airborne technology such as drones has resulted in a vastly smaller body-count than aerial attacks in the past; Dresden, anyone?

[Blind groper]

The major 'blips' over the past two centuries in the trend to lower violence were the two world wars, and the Napoleonic wars. Two out of those three blips were caused by one man each time.

Question : if Napoleon and Hitler had never been born, would there have been substantial wars then?

[Audley Strange]

I opined that "violence - at least in democratic, capitalist nations - has definitely declined over the centuries". A clear, explicit agreement with what Pinker said, don't you think?

No idea I only read your question directed at me, I wasn't looking for or interested in yours.

[rainbow]

Behavior is of course in large part genetic, but there is such thing as training. But as opposed to domestication where the behavioral changes are genetic and inheritable, training is not.

We are still debating whether you were born a tosser, and were trained into tosserdom.

[pErvinalia]

[Blind groper]

Criminologists discovered something interesting about murderers.

Nearly all murderers feel they did nothing wrong when they committed murder. The killing was done according to their, admittedly screwed, code of ethics. So the drug pusher who murdered a rival felt justified because the rival had done wrong by poaching his turf. The man who shot his wife felt justified because she had done something he considered wrong. The ruffian who shot a shopkeeper who was too slow in delivering the cash at gunpoint felt justified because the shopkeeper should have known better.

This leads me to those who consider themselves civilised and non criminal, who nevertheless set themselves up to deliver vigilante justice. They feel exactly the same justification as murderers.

"If a man enters my home without permission, I can shoot him dead, because that is self defense." Not much different to the drug pusher defending his turf.