MeisterEckhart
|
Frank wrote on May 2 nd, 2025 at 8:24pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on May 2 nd, 2025 at 8:16pm: Frank wrote on May 2 nd, 2025 at 8:09pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on May 2 nd, 2025 at 8:03pm: Frank wrote on May 2 nd, 2025 at 7:52pm: There are differences which even pre-linguistic babies recognise.
Later these differences are named - race, class, sex, whatever.
To say that such differences, and their ready recognition, are invented, socially constructed, is a idiotic. Bbwianesque, juvenile wanky nonsense.
Thank you linesmen, thank you ball boys. Infants can recognise and react with fear to outgroup differences as an instinctive survival mechanism for early infancy by bonding itself only to its immediate ingroup. For a child not to also instinctively moderate these primary instinctive responses as it ages would cause severe social inabilities that would greatly lessen the chances of its survival as it ages. Waffle, with great respect. We recognise difference. Babies, adults. Judgement - discernment - is constant. It all add up. We all do it. Yes, but to continue to react as an infant would to perceived outgroup differences is a sign of severe psychiatric maladjustment that will significantly decrease the chances of survival, or at least hinder competent social interaction, into and through adulthood. Nonsense. What is added to the infant reaction in subsequent years is adult experience, learning, discernment, evaluation. Blacks are more criminal than whites or Asians, darkies are more excitable than pales, Asians are more studious than Blacks or whites, etc, etc. Experience. You can't theorize it away. So, reacting in terror at a male voice or, say, sushi, is acceptable for an adult? Blacks are more criminal than whites? Were the Germans black in 1942? How would the Anglo-Saxons have characterised the Danes and Nordic Vikings of 1000 AD?
|