you can choose your people and your environment but people never stop being cruel.

i actually think that most people are forced to age out of juvenile bullying but not out of unkindness so they move on to more serious antisocial expressions that are viewed as ”acceptable” such as right-wing politics.

sure, nobody will exclude me for my appearance anymore, but they surely will because of my race or religious beliefs (or lack thereof).

funnily enough my class became super divided in the last election and it was mostly mean people who voted right wing and nice kids or the minorities who voted left wing.

i wish people were more sincere and honest.

also, i wish people would take responsibility for their issues after a certain age.

bullying kids because you get abused at home is unfortunate but understandable. being a grown woman in your 30s and being ”afraid” of trans women because of your experiences and supporting their oppression is NOT understandable.

i got bullied by muslim kids and i dont use that as an excuse to be anti-Palestine.

so no, being racist towards black people or any race for that matter because you got bullied by a member of their group is NOT acceptable.

i think that people operate on such a childish level but in adult bodies.

  • Maeve @lemmygrad.ml
    5·
    1 day ago

    I myself was pretty shitty when I was in my 20s simply because I didn’t know better and humans do have pretty shitty behaviors by default.

    I think it’s mostly by nurture, since humans have the capacity to rise above animal instinct.

    • Azzu@leminal.space
      6·
      1 day ago

      since humans have the capacity to rise above animal instinct

      Exactly, that’s what I’m saying. The animal instinct comes first, we have to rise above it. The base instinct is to, for example, get extremely angry and smash some faces. You don’t need to learn that; babies get angry and try to smash things.

      It requires a lot of control to when you are angry, not to try to destroy the object of your anger if it is right in front of you. That control has to be learned.

      • amemorablename@lemmygrad.ml
        6·
        1 day ago

        I’m pretty sure the actual predisposition is toward communal behavior, if there is any. Not smashing things.

        Here’s a quick example I could find: https://www.washington.edu/news/2020/02/04/altruistic-babies-study-shows-infants-are-willing-to-give-up-food-help-others/

        Granted it’s only one limited study, but it leans in the direction of kids showing early interest in helping out.

        But it may look like the opposite in a capitalist society if you only glance at how young-ish kids tend to behave in day to day situations because kids will grow up exposed to varying degrees of a selfish culture and some of them will internalize that and mimic it. Keep in mind that capitalism benefits from promoting a narrative that people are inherently selfish, since it validates the idea that the worst exploiters are simply acting “normal” and that it takes a kind of conscious valorous overcoming via willpower to not fall prey to that. In reality, there are examples of capitalism actively punishing people for trying to be helpful, such as with policing related to giving food to homeless people.

        • Azzu@leminal.space
          5·
          1 day ago

          Both behaviors are innate. They are not at all exclusive to each other, just different expressions for different situations.

          That’s kinda what you said, but with the words “the actual deposition” you imply that we would never be angry and smash things unless we are taught it, which is not true. Anger and smashing things does not need to be taught and is a natural reaction, same as kindness and sharing things is a natural reaction.

          • amemorablename@lemmygrad.ml
            5·
            10 hours ago

            I was basing my response off of you saying things like:

            humans do have pretty shitty behaviors by default

            The animal instinct comes first, we have to rise above it. The base instinct is to, for example, get extremely angry and smash some faces. You don’t need to learn that; babies get angry and try to smash things.

            It requires a lot of control to when you are angry, not to try to destroy the object of your anger if it is right in front of you. That control has to be learned.

            I did not originally see this said in the presence of also saying humans have pro-social instincts. On its own, it implies that the default state is being a wild animal who can’t control themself and that this has to be unlearned (though honestly, even trying to compare to wild animals in that way is kinda screwy - some wild animals are themselves pretty communal in how they work together among themselves and are more defensive than offensive).

            What I’m saying to counter that implication is that studies would appear to show the opposite of the hulk smash tendency, that even at a very young age, kids can already show signs of instincts toward communal, pro-social behaviors. This does not mean we are pure angels who can do no wrong. It’s just countering the narrative that we are putrid creatures of the mud who can’t see straight unless sapience is shoved down our throat. It really doesn’t require that much control to not attack someone when you are angry and it says more about socializing and culture than it does about humanity inherently, to believe otherwise. The reason young kids can be more volatile is because their emotions are new and explosive, and they haven’t learned to regulate them yet, partly because they’re in a very dependent state and have a hard time communicating their needs and desires. That doesn’t mean humans are inherently explosive and have to unlearn it. It’s a stage of development that has material factors linked to the manifestation.

            It’s really important that we investigate and take into account the influence of those material factors in how people behave and not fall prey to a universalized biological lens that is too far in any direction. Cultures and behavior are far more varied than one society. The reason a place like israel can be so horribly violent, but Palestinians aren’t, isn’t because israeli people are “corrupted” or something. It’s because israel as a project is founded on invasion and occupation, and its very idea is drenched in the blood of mass murder in order to take what it believes is rightfully its by killing and displacing who was already there. In order for israel to legitimize and stabilize itself, it also has to create instability in the form of ongoing genocide, which undermines its goals of legitimacy and stability.

            These kind of large scale contradictions are far more important as factors for understanding human behavior.

        • Azzu@leminal.space
          3·
          1 day ago

          I’m almost useless in understanding poetry and it’s insinuations/metaphors. I guess this song is about racism and that racism=bad but other than that, no idea. If you want to tell me something, tell me in a literal/direct way please, otherwise I might not understand :)

        • Maeve @lemmygrad.ml
          1·
          22 hours ago

          It is about racism, moreover when black USian children were granted the right to attend the same schools as white children. The Pete Seeger version makes it more clear.

          That control has to be learned.

          I just extrapolated the line I quoted to apply to nurture in general. One naked ape discovers a useful skill and teaches others, either by directly teaching or by other naked apes observing and repeating. Of course negative behaviors are also learned the same way. It’s up to us to choose the behaviors.