Fortress & Sumo United (FSU)

[Fippmam]

Alright, you're selling smoke that no one's buying.

First of, re-read my post. I never claimed that genetics does not play a part in behavioral development. What I did claim, was that the "fundamental badness" nonsense you were spewing, is just that - nonsense.

You're a scientist (apparently, although one would never guess that, from the rather metaphysical - and incorrect - method you chose to explain human behavior), so naturally, you should perhaps, try to explain behavioral psychology not the way you did, but by epigenetics - you'd make more sense that way, rather than dichomotomizing civilization into the inherently evil, and the easily brainwashed.

Again dude, this isn't the dark ages. People change, so do ideologies, modes of thought, and thoughts themselves. You comparing the complexities of a human brain with that of a dog, is very silly. Imagine if that took off: "Oh it's no big deal - I murdered that woman because I'm more genetically predisposed to aggression and homicidal tendencies."

[Monkey]

...the "fundamental badness" nonsense you were spewing, is just that - nonsense.

Perhaps I have oversimplified to get my point across but the fact remains that the various elements of our behaviour are partially governed by genetics. We generally class peoples actions to have differing levels of goodness and badness. These genes are playing a part in the good and bad things that we do. Therefore we really do have varying degrees of fundamental goodness and badness within us; that is our genetic makeup, like it or not.

You're a scientist (apparently, although one would never guess that, from the rather metaphysical - and incorrect - method you chose to explain human behavior)

My method is perfectly valid and correct and yes I am a scientist. Psychology is a top down/mental approach while genetics is a bottom up/physical approach, both are perfectly valid. In fact, the two are completely related and intertwined yet, unfortunately, you fail to see this.

You comparing the complexities of a human brain with that of a dog, is very silly. Imagine if that took off: "Oh it's no big deal - I murdered that woman because I'm more genetically predisposed to aggression and homicidal tendencies."

Of course a dog's brain is simpler than that of a human being. However, the point still stands true, and yes some people are more genetically predisposed to aggression and homicidal tendencies than others. If you research, like I have, what most people working with murderers say, it's that environmental factors alone aren't reason enough for their actions. In Layman's terms, there are people who have had similar upbringings to murderers but don't commit murder.

[Word]

Take Hitler as a prime example. He was the badness and the masses were the stupidity. They followed what he said. He "educated" them and look what happened. You can't educate stupid people, you can only brainwash them, whether it be for the better or the worse, because they can't think for themselves.

Most Germans would disagree with that, even a large part of the intellectual elite still followed Hitler when the concentration camps weren't as well known as later - although it was right in front of their eyes and they should have concluded it. But it's not that simple. The people were poor, the economy in a crisis, and the political system was still a weak, polarized democracy that relied on big coalitions. Most people despised the political class that seemed to get nothing done and Hitler appeared to be the savior, since he named a lot of the deficiencies that truly existed and promised in a credible way to change them. Hitler didn't simply 'seduce the dumb Germans', but he gave everyone a reason to vote for him. He borrowed lots of money from the countries he would later attack and militarized the country while creating jobs. Well, you can't really put all this in a single post, but historians have made a case that something like this wasn't very unlikely to happen in the country of people such as Leibniz, Kant, Goethe and Schiller and Weimar culture, whose works were often reduced to their patriotic implications. But we weren't brainwashed, nor just plain dumb, nor completely clueless - there were real improvements in the first years and we are still responsible to a high degree for what happened to the minorities we killed and euthanized. Our people would probably have had a better conscience if we had been actually dumb, and in fact some of Hitler's best friends later claimed they were just that. The realization that we lacked or liked to ignore to feel comfortable was the most important one, that all this wealth still had some kind of price, and that we were given a scapegoat.

[sinewav]

Holy Christ Word, that was an incredible post. It deserves are Tronny for excellence in writing. I am being sincere.

All I have for you is a gold star though.

Wait, here are some recognizer icons I made:

[Word]

Thanks. Something I want to add is that the Nazis didn't only burn books and art as a means of surpressing the opposition, they also claimed that "non-German" (i.e. Jewish) art was intellectually inferior, whereas every ounce of Nazi art (Speer, Breker...) and literature and 'race-science' still demonstrates the megalomania and arrogance of this country. Jewish art was "unarted" ( = 'entartet' in German), Jewish people and different races were seen as 'degenerated', same for mentally challenged people. And I completely left out the complex diplomatic relationships after the peace of Versailles that supported the notion the French were responsible for our misery and made the war look like a struggle for freedom at first - see stab-in-the-back legend, the communist threat (though the s in NSDAP stands for 'socialist', the party was the complete opposite), and the lie that Poland started the war so we could justify it as pure self-defense.

[Monkey]

@Word

So Hitler helped the people of his country financially and then got them to commit atrocities or at least to allow atrocities to go unquestioned. I don't care what the financial crisis was like before Hitler came along, by my standards this is totally unacceptable behaviour. As for the lies about who started the war, etc, I can appreciate some of that, because they did have less technology in those days so getting access to truthful information could have been difficult.

Anyway, maybe this thread should get back on topic before no one can be bothered to read it any more, other than those of us involved in this debate.

[Word]

So Hitler helped the people of his country financially and then got them to commit atrocities or at least to allow atrocities to go unquestioned

I meant what I said. It's one thing to say "You want jobs? We have jobs! By the way, everything is France's/the Jews'/the communist's/the politician's fault!" and another to actually vote for a government with these people. Some people even refuse to call it a "regime" because it was a democratically elected government. It obviously wasn't Hitler's interest that these atrocities were questioned, but the point is that the people didn't care to do it themselves because there were other factors that seemed more urgent to them. The Third Reich didn't just happen, the majority of Germans let it happen and accepted it passively or took part actively. The intellectuals who emigrated to the US (the most famous examples being Einstein and Thomas Mann) and other countries blamed the ones who stayed of being cowards that serve the corrupt system, while many of those who stayed thought it was the exact other way round and accused the ones who fled of being cowards themselves. There were some plots to kill Hitler and groups like that of General Stauffenberg, but even they weren't as heroic as they are portrayed in some Hollywood films and mostly acted out of self-interest - they still wanted to win the war by all means necessary. Or people who exploited the situation for their own profit while saving the Jews' lives like Krupp and Schindler. It's not as black-and-white as you like to believe it is. And what about all the other countries that had a fascist government at some point (Spain, Italy...)?

From that understanding, the people allowed Hitler to allow them to commit those cruelties.

[Venijn]

Anyway, maybe this thread should get back on topic before no one can be bothered to read it any more, other than those of us involved in this debate.

[Word]

Well, I'd still like to know what people think about the three suggestions in my last post on the FSU topic...before it gets buried:

I guess what I'm asking for is a truth and reconciliation comission? (it was brought up yesterday)
Or a plea bargain (if full amnesty isn't apt)? I'm aware all this is based on the premise that the wrongdoer is known so you can make an informed decision.

Clans have often been compared to sports teams so it would only make sense to ask players to play a certain amount of time before they can switch teams again, just like real sports teams do. I don't take the credit for this idea either (and I suppose it's not new). You don't need an entire organization just to put this one rule into practice, do you?

[sinewav]

Well, I'd still like to know what people think about the three suggestions in my last post on the FSU topic...before it gets buried:

I think they are good ideas. There are lots of good ideas and lots of successful models to choose from. My position this whole time has been to try something new and see if it works. Obviously some people support a structure like this, it has been suggested several times in the past. So just do it. If it fails, at least we tried.

[Phytotron]

The trouble, Monkey, is you seem to be a) understanding genetic predispositions to behavior as singular and absolutist in their expression, and b) conflating individual genetic predispositions with development and evolution of a larger culture(s).

Stuff about how Hitler and Nazism took root in Germany

Don't forget the centuries of Catholic and Lutheran doctrine convincing Germans that the Jews were responsible, both proximately and eternally as a "race," for the crucifixion of Jesus.


I'm a dork. Every time I see FSU I think of the Seminoles.

[Fippmam]

I'm a dork. Every time I see FSU I think of the Seminoles.

Ohi

[Monkey]

@ Phytotron

I don't think in terms of individual genetic predispositions, rather of genetic makeup as a whole. Our genetic makeup alone affects how we respond to our environment. Our environment is dynamic but our genetic makeup is generally static (let's not get into the subjects of mutations, epigenetics, etc). I appreciate that the combination of genes and how that affects our behaviour is complex, however, the fact remains that our genetic makeup is generally static and our behaviour is a direct combination of how our genes make us respond to our environment.

The development and evolution of a larger culture is the (admittedly very complex) combination of all of our genetic makeups and the environments to which each of these genetic makeups is exposed. On top of this, yes we do have physical evolution (although it seems that this is a far slower process than social/cultural evolution).

Of course there are people that won't agree with me on this. Many people believe that we have a soul or some kind of spiritual energy and that there is a god or gods. Also, the science behind all this is still ongoing.

Anyway, we really do need to get back to the subject of the FSU.

[Jonathan]

It isn't about genes. You could go even further and claim genes don't do much because they don't change the basic mechanism of cells (much). It's a futile line of reasoning to deny anything but that one kind of expression, when other factors are clearly relevant to the full expression.

Fact is that our incredible neuroplasticity and dynamic culture (ever-changing environment) do rapidly alter our behavior, both within and across individuals and generations. Even our more hardwired tendencies are expressed differently. That's good enough for me.

[Venijn]

This thread needs splitting.