Humiliation question

justonemoreperson wrote:People who like dogs fight for animal charities, people with heart disease run marathons for heart charities. No one sits back, works out what issues deserve the most support, and fight for them. People need it to have affected them or a family member or friend before they feel motivated to do something.

It's true that people often get behind causes that have personal meaning to them, but they need not affect them personally. For instance, the volunteer with a medical background who helps treat patients in developing countries, or the activist who organize protests to help restore human rights somewhere on the other side of the planet, or the European low-middle class retiree who is involved in educating migrants.

Same as you I see hypocrisy, opportunism, herd-like behaviors but I also see generosity, benevolence, modesty. What can I say, Jomp, I see the WHOLE RAINBOW!

The only times, it occurred to me the world is rotten - people are sheep - we're all doomed, is because I was profoundly depressed.

I don't know how you manage...

ViniStonemoss wrote:
I don't know how you manage...

I manage fine. I don't need to think that the world is a Disney movie to get what I want out of it. Just because people do stuff selfishly, all of the time, it doesn't stop them doing it, and it makes it a lot easier to get what you want out of people if you only have to appeal to their selfishness.

I know that when you write it down it seems pessimistic, even nihilistic. but it's just the truth. It's the same as when people talk about nature, they talk about fluffy kittens, but they don't talk about the fact that nature is a constant battle to kill, eat and have sex.

We only want to see the "whole rainbow" because stories and movies have taught us that everything needs to have some form of universal conscience; that if you do something good then something good will come back.

Also another angle to consider, people often don’t have an accurate perception of how certain things affect people until it hits close to home. Cancer is a good example, you know it’s a terrible disease and may see people wearing headscarf’s because they’re bald from chemotherapy but until you see everything a person goes through and you watch someone deteriorate before your eyes you really can’t have an accurate picture of how bad of an illness it actually is. When people see this they don’t want to see it happen to others so they get involved in charities helping cancer research. It may make them feel better about themselves, actually I’m pretty sure it does but I don’t think that’s the main motivation behind it

It's still self-serving. Either fear or having it waved in your face, it doesn't mean that we don't know this before. It affects us, so we do what we can to get rid of the threat or find some other angle where we can rationalise it. It's not really being done for anyone else.

justonemoreperson wrote:We only want to see the "whole rainbow" because stories and movies have taught us that everything needs to have some form of universal conscience

You're twisting my words. The "whole rainbow" as in the whole spectrum.

I see the same self-serving behaviors you're describing but I also see the rest, such as the mother shielding her children from death, or people who get killed at war so that later generations can enjoy freedom.

ViniStonemoss wrote:

justonemoreperson wrote:We only want to see the "whole rainbow" because stories and movies have taught us that everything needs to have some form of universal conscience

You're twisting my words. The "whole rainbow" as in the whole spectrum.

I see the same self-serving behaviors you're describing but I also see the rest, such as the mother shielding her children from death, or people who get killed at war so that later generations can enjoy freedom.

A mother protecting her children is instinctive; just like penguins. People join the army for many reasons, mostly for opportunity and a stable career. Most don't look forward to going to war, and spend their time there waiting to come home. Many of the people I know who joined the forces did so because it was their last option, or for other psychological reasons of their own.

If you look at the reasoning behind everything people do, you'll see that every single act is self-serving.

I think the issue here is that people see a problem with that, but why? Why is doing stuff for yourself bad? Fundamentally, we're all shaved apes. There seems to be a general obsession with justifying behaviour and talking about the good of people like some measuring stick.

Why? For the same reason: we want to know that other people are looking out for us; that we're as important to them as they are to themselves. If we make the world socially just, we'll protect ourselves. It's all self-serving.

He gets her a rock - because bitches love rocks

justonemoreperson wrote:A mother protecting her children is instinctive; just like penguins.

A bit of an outdated argument, if you ask me (not to mention sexist). That women have a natural maternal instinct. Tons of examples everywhere of women who would throw their kids in the fire rather than loose a nail, no better or worse than men.

When they do though, care enough about their progeny, it's because they don't put themselves first at all times, id est not self-serving.

People join the army for many reasons, mostly for opportunity and a stable career. Most don't look forward to going to war, and spend their time there waiting to come home. Many of the people I know who joined the forces did so because it was their last option, or for other psychological reasons of their own.

Again, you select arguments espousing your views. Resistance during WWII, or Americans who had themselves killed in Europe do not fit the profile you describe.

justonemoreperson wrote:Why is doing stuff for yourself bad?

There is nothing wrong with doing stuff for yourself. There is just something wrong with all is permitted.

-- Wed May 20, 2020 11:21 am --

DaturaInnoxia wrote:He gets her a rock - because bitches love rocks

ViniStonemoss wrote:
Again, you select arguments espousing your views. Resistance during WWII, or Americans who had themselves killed in Europe do not fit the profile you describe.

Not really. In fact, you're using extreme examples to find exceptions to the rule. Americans went to Europe to fight because they were already in the army and were forced to go.

I'm not saying that there are cases where people put other's first, but the psychology behind it is always self-serving.

justonemoreperson wrote:Americans went to Europe to fight because they were already in the army and were forced to go.

That's factually wrong, a lot of Americans enlisted voluntarily during WWII: https://timeline.com/its-amazing-just-how-many-americans-served-in-world-war-ii-18d197a685ca. Not just Americans, I might add. Same as WWI. Same as plenty other wars.

justonemoreperson wrote:In fact, you're using extreme examples to find exceptions to the rule.

Projection.

justonemoreperson wrote:I'm not saying that there are cases where people put other's first

You probably meant: "I'm not saying that there aren't cases where people put other's first. And I'm glad we agree on this.

but the psychology behind it is always self-serving

But this makes no sense whatsoever. If you think of the group, if you think of your children first, if you think of your fellow countrymen and risk losing your life to a cause, then your motivations aren't self-serving. Period.

self-serving: "serving one's own interests often in disregard of the truth or the interests of others"