Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Natalia Bower's avatar

People, when they are locked into tribalistic political reactions, are prone to choosing one overarching tribal enemy. Unfortunately, there seems to be very little tendency to sensibly choose the most rubbish group as the ones to hate. The left chose white men as the big bad enemy. Very poor taste if you ask me. The right has chosen all sorts of groups as the very worst which must be stopped above all. Some rightists hate the Jews, though lately some leftists think they are the epitome of bad guys too. Again very bad taste if you ask me. Now many rightists are into choosing Indians as the ones who must be stopped above all. But if you have to choose an ethnic group to oppose, on what sane grounds would you spend more energy on Indians as opposed to Somalians or Muslim migrants into Europe? Lately rather few seem to be choosing blacks as the ones to defeat for the sake of civilization. Alas blacks are rabble, not sufficiently threatening.

It’s the problem with hating on an outgroup. The chances that the worst outgroup is actually chosen as the enemy by the powerful seems to be pretty low. It’s generally better to assume that society is not intelligent enough to collectively agree on the worst outgroup to organize against.

Unset's avatar

>Muslims are not an existential threat to the West, and are not “taking over” America or Europe, or even staging substantial terrorist attacks.

You must have a very robust definition of "substantial"

27 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?