Do liberals share the same view of human nature as conservatives as far as war and violence are concerned?

[Tamerlane]

@Ulfreida

When you all say “humans” what you actually mean is “male humans”, right?

No, not really.

@Ulfreida

Not saying women are angels. But they are far less physically violent

Agreed.

@Ulfreida

and overall are far more inclined to seek communal, harmonious solutions to problems

Inherently? No, I don’t think so. Or at least not entirely. I think to the extent that is true it is substantially a result of acculturation and socialization. That is to say I think it is to some extent the flip-side of our patriarchal society. Women are more cooperative in society because society expects them to be and little girls are raised with that expectation. I think you could do more of the same with young boys.

With lesser effect to be sure. I don’t think it is all nurture - men will always be inherently more aggressive and physically violent just due to differences in physiology. But that doesn’t mean women aren’t physically violent at all. I saw a couple of truly vicious fights (worse than any hallway brawl between boys I ever saw) between girls in HS who I knew a little and who weren’t particularly mentally impaired. They were just very, very angry. And the list of women willing to commit acts of tremendous violence through history is huge.

So when I say I believe humans are inherently pack animals, with all that implies about in-groups and out-groups, I mean all genders. And when I say humans are inherently violent, I do mean all genders with the caveat that I do agree men are certainly much easier to push into physical violence. But magically eliminate all men and I don’t think wars will be a thing of the past. Though there may well be fewer of them, just as there would be fewer if we managed to eliminate hunger and similar privations.

Or to put it another way IMHO men may be an aggravating cause of war, but they are not the sole one .

[Ulfreida]

I’m talking statistically here. Norms. Averages. There are zero studies that show women are almost as apt to violence as men. It’s not a small difference. Across cultures.

And the nature vs nurture thing never ends. It seems to me that the more these things are measured, the more it is shown that genetics is a much bigger player than we ever thought, in every direction. That’s ‘inherently’.

I am quite positive, though, that if our dominant cultures promoted consensus, healing, peaceful behavior, and community instead of the dead fucking opposite, everyone would be able to be less violent.

[PhillyGuy]

@Ulfreida

I am quite positive, though, that if our dominant cultures promoted consensus, healing, peaceful behavior, and community instead of the dead fucking opposite, everyone would be able to be less violent.

Doesn’t consensus require some compromise with the dead fucking opposite?

I’m not saying you should become a halfway Trumper, just pointing out why changing the dominant culture in a positive way won’t lead to consensus.

This view of human nature makes me, by temperament, a conservative.

But I’m liberal in other ways, including advocating broad tolerance, even tolerance of, up to a point, the speech of the intolerant and warlike.

In American politics, conservative is now a tribal loyalty rather than a view of human nature, and probably the same goes on the other side.

As far as women being less warlike, I think this is true on an average individual basis, but doesn’t mean much politically. I doubt that President Harris would be less prone to go to war than President Biden.

[Ulfreida]

@PhillyGuy

Doesn’t consensus require some compromise with the dead fucking opposite?

No. Consensus is not compromise. Two different things. Consensus is when everyone comes to agreement. It’s a messy business. And as far as I know it only works in groups small enough that everyone can see each other’s faces.

[HoneyBadgerDC]

I wish we could do an experimental thread here on reaching consensus on every issue that pops up. It would require a moderator that demands rational thinking. It would require no prejudice. I have a feeling if all the facts were heard we would agree on most things. The biggest problem I see today is that when facts are presented they rarely represent the entirety of an issue and tend to support premises on one side or the other.

[thorny_locust]

@HoneyBadgerDC

I wish we could do an experimental thread here on reaching consensus on every issue that pops up. It would require a moderator that demands rational thinking. It would require no prejudice. I have a feeling if all the facts were heard we would agree on most things.

It’s fairly common for people to think ‘If everybody else just knew the things that I know, they’d all agree with me!’

It isn’t true. While we’d certainly have better discussions in this society, and would come to some form of agreement more often, if everybody agreed on the same set of facts: people would still disagree on what to do about them. That’s because just about every issue has a whole batch of facts associated with it; and different people weight them differently in order of importance.

[DorkVader]

@lissener

But sure, tell yourself that waving a red cape in front of a bull who would rather smell flowers than rise to your absurdity means you “won” lol.

Look, nobody is trying to “win” anything but you with your condescension and asshole attitude. I don’t care about your life story or that of your family. If you can’t provide a study, a poll, something like that, just say so.

[lissener]

Do you not understand that the political understanding of individuals is opinion? Is always opinion? Mine is formed from about 45+ years of experience, observation, and study. Your disingenuous assignment of insurmountable tasks to “prove” my opinion is childish, and reveals your lack of qualification for participating in an adult political discussion. Your real challenge is not to provide proof that my opinion is absolute fact (a revealingly absurd gantlet) but to convince you to admit publicly that I have changed your own opinion. Since there is literally nothing I could possibly say to elicit that response, your challenge is as dishonest as Lucy’s promise not to yank the football out if the path of Charlie Brown’s kick.

[Aspenglow]

Moderating:

@DorkVader

So, to paraphrase, “I’m too lazy to support my assertion.”

@lissener

But sure, tell yourself that waving a red cape in front of a bull who would rather smell flowers than rise to your absurdity means you “won” lol.

@DorkVader

Look, nobody is trying to “win” anything but you with your condescension and asshole attitude.

@lissener

Your disingenuous assignment of insurmountable tasks to “prove” my opinion is childish, and reveals your lack of qualification for participating in an adult political discussion.

Dial it back, both of you. You’re making this entirely too personal.

If someone fails to provide a cite when requested, you are best served by giving their assertions the weight to which you find they are entitled; meaning, pretty much none. Taking up a fish-slapping contest accomplishes nothing.

No warnings issued, but do pay heed. Thanks.

[lissener]

So, personal opinions should be dismissed if a random responder demands they be proven as facts? Doesn’t the title of this thread, not to mention the forum it was posted in, suggest a request for opinions?

[Aspenglow]

No one said “personal opinions should be dismissed,” including me. It’s a choice to decide how much weight someone gives a personal opinion. In many cases on this message board, people choose to discount – or disregard entirely – a personal opinion unsupported by citations. That is their choice. Arguing about it is not productive to any discussion, nor is trying to force others to accept an unsupported opinion. You’re free to express opinions. Others are free to accept or reject them.

If you have further complaints about moderation, do not argue them further in this thread. You are welcome to discuss it in ATMB if you feel it is merited. Just to be clear, responding again in this thread will result in a warning for disregarding moderator instructions.

[Buck_Godot]

I think that the main difference I see between American liberals and conservatives as far as war is concerned is that conservatives are in terms of what motivates military action. Coservatives are relatively more motivated by what they see as direct threats to the US interests while liberals are relatively more motivated by humanitarian issues abroad.

I think a good example of this would be attacks against ISIS which conservative viewed primarily as a terrorist threat to the US, while liberals viewed more in terms of the brutality being inflicted in the population in the Middle East. For similar reason Conservatives seems to have a higher tolerance of civilian casualties in the furtherance of military goals.

[Little_Nemo]

@Ulfreida

Not saying women are angels. But they are far less physically violent, and overall are far more inclined to seek communal, harmonious solutions to problems. I am growing less and less tolerant of assumptions that “humans” are like x, when it is really men who can be characterized that way, than I used to be. And I never was very tolerant of it to begin with.

Can we determine if this is due to some innate characteristic of women or to social conventions?

I agree men generally hold more power in political systems and this was even more true historically. So the question is whether the violence we see in our culture is due to male characteristics or to the characteristics that come from holding power. Perhaps women seek harmonious solutions because that works better for a a group that lacks power.

If the roles were reversed and women held the same power in society that men now hold, they might start using more violent methods to achieve their goals. And men, lacking the power they have traditionally held, might move away from violence and seek peaceful methods to achieve their goals.

[Ulfreida]

@Little_Nemo

If the roles were reversed and women held the same power in society that men now hold, they might start using more violent methods to achieve their goals. And men, lacking the power they have traditionally held, might move away from violence and seek peaceful methods to achieve their goals.

Personally, based only on my own life experience, I doubt it very much. To be clear, I do not think women are nicer than men. They are simply less violent. They seek, if not harmony itself, the appearance of it, both in everyday interactions and in the resolution of conflict. I don’t think “peaceful” is the right word.

I’ve been bullied, betrayed, and emotionally knifed by women so much more than by men, but this never took the form of physical aggression, not even naked verbal aggression.

I have watched far too many stallions, billy goats, rams, and roosters, with no nurturing to cloud the issue, gravitate toward violence as soon as puberty hits, to think there is no nature involved in this. Once I watched a ram demolish a perfectly innocent post in his yard, in one session, down to splintered pieces, for no apparent reason except he wanted to destroy something. You’ll never see a ewe do this. And I’ve seen a good sample of very small boys take immense innocent pleasure in shoving, stomping, pounding, hitting, noisemaking. Girls just don’t. Most boys are delighted by naked displays of power – giant machines, fights between monsters. Girls are usually indifferent to these.

I also know idealistic parents who raised their children in a strictly egalitarian way who were horrified when their boys turned their dolls into cannon fodder and, denied play guns, used sticks instead, while their girls did the equivalent opposite, despite all their efforts and disapprovals.

In all the studies I’ve seen, of the innate differences between male and female humans, a propensity for violence is the only one that always shows up. No difference is as graven into our genes than that.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Ulfreida

Once I watched a ram demolish a perfectly innocent post in his yard, in one session, down to splintered pieces, for no apparent reason except he wanted to destroy something.

When I was a child I watched a mama hamster nursing her brood, meditatively chewing her food while they drank. When she opened her mouth, a tiny head rolled out.

We’re all shaped by our experiences.

[msmith537]

@Ulfreida

Not saying women are angels. But they are far less physically violent, and overall are far more inclined to seek communal, harmonious solutions to problems. I am growing less and less tolerant of assumptions that “humans” are like x, when it is really men who can be characterized that way, than I used to be. And I never was very tolerant of it to begin with.

LOL…I guess you don’t get out much.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Ulfreida

I am growing less and less tolerant of assumptions that “humans” are like x, when it is really men who can be characterized that way, than I used to be. And I never was very tolerant of it to begin with.

I try to be very, very careful about how I talk about such things, using every qualifier I can find to avoid making general statements. The same research that suggests testosterone makes men more aggressive also suggests that testosterone makes men more ambitious, and can be (and is) used to explain male dominance of fields like politics and business and science without allowing for factors like patriarchal social structures.

An essentialist generalization is a knife with two blades.

[Acsenray]

@Ulfreida

all the studies I’ve seen, of the innate differences between male and female humans, a propensity for violence is the only one that always shows up. No difference is as graven into our genes than that.

I question whether these reveal innate differences or socialization. As with many things these might be difficult to untangle. But I suspect it’s more on the side of socialization.

[ASL_v2.0]

I just want to emphasize—in case it needs to be said—that liberals and the left are not the same thing, and to the extent “liberal” positions in the US may have been seen (particularly by the right) to have shifted over time, that might have as much or more to do with the common conflation of “liberals” with “the left” as any change in actual liberal positions.

I myself would identify increasingly as a leftist precisely because I think liberals in America share far too many similarities with conservatives. Too much is taken for granted as settled (conceded, really, by liberals to conservatives) when it comes to the way in which society can or should be ordered and… not so much human nature, but the nature of human rights (which I suppose in turn suggests implicit assumptions about human nature).

I offer this only to help frame the question being posed as I see it and perhaps to clarify terms, not to introduce a third line of comparison adding in the left.

[Ulfreida]

@Acsenray

I question whether these reveal innate differences or socialization. As with many things these might be difficult to untangle. But I suspect it’s more on the side of socialization.

Well, that’s what they were studying. Innate differences. You’re saying all the studies are flawed?