Well said.

史密斯博士和其他人似乎已经解决了大多数非人性化的秘密和公开原因。每个人都会有所得，其他人也会有所失。令人着迷的是，我们可以如此容易地在为什么我们做我们所做的事情的真正动机上欺骗自己。人类的意识是复杂的。而且，在人类历史上，我们已经习惯了冲突，以至于我们能够为任何形式的恶劣行为辩解，以证明保护文化和生活方式是合理的。因此，冲突部分似乎很重要。冲突导致意识形态和对比个人更大的事物的归属感。过去的六个月(或多或少)是微观的。也许我们还没有看到任何东西……

像“人”这样的词是男性在用消极的方式讨论男性行为时使用的。“人民”不会犯下种族灭绝、强奸之类的罪行——男性会。与父权制的首要受害者——女性——共同承担责任——在“父权制没有被提及的情况下，用诸如“人类”和“人民”这样的词语——在你所有的讨论中明显地缺席——你已经偏离了手头的问题。
尽管精子数量下降，为什么父权制会使性别平衡向男性倾斜，尽管它们带来并将继续带来暴力?你什么时候开始承认“有毒的男子气概”是所有社会弊病的根源?

I'm surprised no one has brought up Social Darwinism started by Richard Spencer in the 19th century. His ideas began about the time Charles Darwin's Origin of Species and he felt the white man was the top of the evolutionary scale.

We don't so much dehumanize those of another tribe as they aren't humanized for us in the first place. Attunement and limbic resonance occurs with actual working together on a significant piece of infrastructure. A hunt, or food preparation, or shared child care. These trigger all the mirroring circuits that create an experience of the other as shared in the mirror circuits. Education and walking in someone else's shoes won't have any where near the same impact.

Killing or abusing other people begins with killing or abusing any living creature. To kill or abuse an animal with impunity sets the stage for killing or abusing one's fellow humans--after the fellow human has been reduced to an animal in the mind of the perpetrator. Or, perhaps conversely, the perpetrator identifies with a predatory animal which preys on humans.

Aristotle divided the world between noble and ignoble, Christian era thinkers divided it between the saved and the damned, very much within the same community. Sociologists have found that isolated communities with strict social norms do not apply them to strangers, even where the stranger inhabits the next valley. After the fall of the Soviet Union highly socialized young Brits were often complained of engaging in barbarian outrages in formerly Soviet Bloc Eastern European nations. In WWII merchant marines were astonished at the lack of racism they encountered aboard supply ships. In racism and human affliction context is all.

根据保罗·维诺格拉多夫的《庄园的成长》，从罗马时代遗留下来的奴隶或由维京人带来的奴隶名义上保留了这个头衔，但逐渐被同化，与他们社区的其他人一样，接受同样的社会安排。在整个中世纪的西北欧，大多数人都生活在一种社会安排中，至少与他们的近邻相比，这与民主平等有着天壤之别，尽管教会君主和领主都在争取一种更自上而下的制度。很明显，至少在英国，奴隶制的条件是不被自然接受的，需要更强大的机构的支持，并逐渐淡出使用。那么，在盎格鲁-撒克逊殖民地出现如此激烈的种族主义就很奇怪了。但是，再加上一些排外情绪和西班牙在加勒比海的殖民模式，南方的种植园非常依赖奴隶制制度，以至于白人非常害怕奴隶反抗，毫不犹豫地要求所有白人合作，准备镇压任何反叛的迹象。由此产生了一种奇怪的影响，即“南方待客之道”的发展，一种“欢声笑语”的心态，小心翼翼地避免任何冒犯性的暗示，比如种族真正平等的可能性。它绝不是良性的。当然，《吉姆·克劳法》只会加深强制性的社会压力，让他们分担“责任”，让“他们”留在“他们”的位置上。当吉姆·克劳在法律上失去支持时，它被一种具有类似效果的经济制度所取代，但是，尽管有一个明显的、永远不会被夸大的事实，即黑人尤其是非白人的情况普遍更糟，甚至贫穷的白人现在也被新的吉姆·克劳经济学所接受，成为底层阶级的一部分。但是，这种人对人的苦难从来都是有其背景的。 How do we change the context so that local affections expand to all, and internal divisions that trend toward a caste system fade into a broader context? The point is, if America is to sustain the caste system it has set its course upon since the Eighties it must perpetuate a sort of internal exile, almost to the point of extermination, of black men. I think this is the context that has us thinking here. An important social point, though, if America would sustain the fantasy of greatness and special status among nations, it cannot afford to get anything but the most out of every talent and initiative and industry every citizen of any color or social station is capable of. If we want to have Social Security healthcare and a decent educational system into the future we all need to be able to attain a maximum of prosperity. The 'minimax', as Rawls put it, for every American without discrimination.

在现代生物学和分类学进步之前(在我们从科学上知道我们都是相同的物种之前)，那些参与这些行为的人是否有可能改变他们的信仰和/或实践，如果他们从生物学上知道我们真的是一样的?我意识到很多这样的事情仍然在发生，即使在我们的现代进步下，但也许像杰斐逊这样的人会更快地摆脱这些行为。我知道有些人本身就很不人道，所以他们的行为方式也很不人道。我也很好奇，是否有科学证据证明压迫者可能在生理或化学上与我们不同?是什么导致一个人这样做?如果希特勒用药物治疗精神分裂症或类似的疾病，大屠杀能避免吗?我相当肯定，仇恨是一种习得的行为，不是与生俱来的。我很好奇某些群体的人是否或多或少倾向于这种行为。如果你从一个虔诚的三k党成员那里带走一个婴儿，让他们在另一个种族的家庭中长大，他们长大后不会爱上他们父母所鄙视的人吗?如果一个希特勒的年轻人被从那个环境中带走，在一个非雅利安家庭中长大，他们还会有倾向于这种行为或接受他们的新环境和新家庭吗? I thought that this was a human characteristic strictly but the more I think about it, I realize that animals do sometimes show tendencies in this direction. The basic instincts to seek out similar specimens for mating to carry on the most "desirable" traits in genes is a similar behavior. So is this an ancient survival instinct that has been mostly weeded out by evolution? Or is it a learned behavior fueled by greed and hatred.

The Greeks enslaved their immediate neighbors and despised the illiterate peoples on the fringes of their own cultural domains as "barbarian". The Romans despised other cultures because they did not shave. The Norman French invaders of Anglo-Saxon England despised the English because they drank beer instead of wine. The difference between the Tutsi and Hutu peoples of Rwanda and Burundi is that one is a nomadic herding tribe and the other farmers. This is a typical strain in sociology where a settled people are not paranoid about their possessions (land doesn't up and run away), whereas nomads are on constant alert that their prize possessions, their animals, not be poached, and these develop ethics quick to aggression and moral 'austerity' (possessiveness of women). The Yugoslavs divided by religion, as did the Northern Irish. But in every case there is some motivation implicit but secreted in the 'reasons' for bigotry. I may have given the impression that American bigotry began in the Southern states, but only meant that the context of insistent solidarity derived from a dread, very real, of a slave revolt. But it in many ways, though seldom as acutely, the culture of vigilantism victimized whites too. Some whites may have been more abusive than naturally inclined, for fear of reprisals from other whites, and some whites were lynched or tarred and feathered for speaking out against racism. The cases of Elizabeth Freeman and Frederick Douglas are telling (in both cases whites became instrumental in their appeal for recognition). But many abolitionists were racists too. But their style of racism points to a contrary motivation in racism which highlights, maybe, why American racism overall is so intractable. This is a crude way of putting it, and there are many alternatives to and variations upon this that may be at work, but there seems to me a general division to racism between xenophobia and domestic servitude. The North-South divide may roughly underscore this. But the effect is that with contrary strains of motivations, strategies that militate against one may be turned to reinforce the other, and so nothing we do seems to have the effect of obliterating it.

我认为人类压迫其他种族的动力来自于我们的贪婪和无法将整个物种纳入我们的共情圈。心理学表明，我们实际上只能对大约150个其他动物产生同理心——这是我们作为灵长类动物小群体生活时期的避难所。现在，一个人可以知道其他人是他们种族的一部分，但他们很难对他们真正感到同情和同情，除非他们把他们算在和他们一样的人当中。否则，他们就是陌生人，竞争对手。所以他们以他们看起来不同为借口——他们的基因与自己的家庭更遥远——来压迫其他种族的人。

DEHUMANIZING POLICY
决策与讲真话截然不同，哲学也是如此?对真相的关注就不重要了?在试图理解政策方面，我们不能走得太远。在制定政策时，对那些被强加政策的人来说，真相并不重要;重要的是调查，我们应该讨论的是政策的效果。其中一个核心的哲学问题是，为什么人们相信，并采取行动，错误?信仰? ?我总是期待着顺从群体的感知力量，以及群体成员的吸引力。这个节目没有?不要真的提及这种令人信服的顺从的力量。
外交政策有两个特点。妖魔化一个?敌人?和2。非理性战争行为的可怕演习。正如剧中所讨论的那样，妖魔化一直是这一切的基础。
In the ?working class bar? described by a caller African-Americans are spoken of as a different ?kind? of human (not ?subhuman? at all), because the w.c.b. culture there supports and fosters this characterization. Why does it?
I have an anthropologist friend who was employed by an agency of the USArmy to teach other-cultural awareness to the troops going to the middle-east. I think the project failed because it conflicted with the demonization policy of the government, and with the very real need for a soldier to dehumanize those he might have to kill.

Humanity is equality and inhumanity inequality, and we are what we are taught. Rather than teaching out children the inequities of the gods and mortals and devils or the divisiveness of religion, imagine teaching our children simply that God is just another name for One, and One is all there is. And rather than teaching the measure and division of everything via science, (super colliders and big bangs, electrons and Higgs, energy and matter, mind and body, ying and yang, duality I could scream!!!), imagine teaching the unification of everything, the bigger picture called the infinite Uni-verse. As for the traditional inequities passed down of race, color and creed, why not pass down to our children the simple truth, lessons of the absolute, Equality 101. John Lennon wrote the song "Imagine", and Martin Luther King had a "dream"; the light they saw is the light I see, the light is crystal clear to me. The light is freedom, "free at last".
Does Stanford teach Equality 101 Professor Perry? If not, why not? You want to change the world of inhumanity or inequity Professor, teach our children to be true. Truth is indivisible, with liberty and justice for All.
Truth is One
=

Mirugai,
你知道在两次世界大战中，很少有前线士兵使用致命的武器吗?一小部分人(3%到6%)会抓住机会杀人，另外15%左右的人会“服从命令”，但大约80%的人会避免杀人，因为他们天生就不会这样做。因此，军方自那以后采取了一些策略，使新兵习惯于使用暴力。以至于我们现在派出的是刚刚训练过的士兵，他们已经受到了精神创伤。创伤后应激障碍的急剧上升可能是训练的结果，而不是战争的结果。与其说是遭受暴力，不如说是将他人置于暴力之下。

MJA, Micheal,
The question is, which "One"? Or doesn't discernment 'count'?

MJA,
或者，我们谁才是真正的自己?要么最敏锐的术语是损失，要么“一”是“全部”，即极权主义。

?

归化的秘密已经被探索了几千年。思想家们曾凭直觉认为它是所有差异和冲突的解决办法，以隐喻和类比的形式，是语言和理性等的基础。但是，就像把所有的东西集合成一个大统一命题的力量一样令人眼花缭乱，许多人普遍错误地认为故事就此结束。一个更偏颇的视角将帮助我们认识到，它是不现实的，看起来如此值得我们信任的东西也会化为乌有。“一切固体都化为空气。”柏拉图在《戈世界杯赛程2022赛程表欧洲区尔吉亚》中向我们展示，类比实际上是如何还原的，而不是完全还原的。归纳法不是还原理性的创始术语，而是还原理性的最终术语。理性对“一”的严格要求是不完整的。逻辑上的“一”与算术上的“一”(如“一”是多少)并不相同，是不可通约化的。我们对他们的信念的最后一个期限是失去这种信念。 Not so much Aristotelian wonder as Platonic bewilderment. That lost conviction enables a response through which the lexical richness of all terms grows more completed, and even in the face of the, unwarranted, intuition of a structural unity. That intuition convicts us in a rational process that authorizes assertion as fact, but a more properly philosophical interest is in understanding how the growing lexical richness supersedes any intuition of a structural unity. This applies to the current issue because the intuition of a structural unity is always at the root of human cruelty.

?

The story of truth does not have an ending Gary, you are right, for once the truth is found it must be practiced and shared, and that becomes the ultimate purpose of life, just living. =

Like Platon Karatayev, perhaps? Or Pierre Bezukhov? A pragmatist would not make such unwarranted assertions, nor deflect questions. The is one question I think you need to ask yourself, and I don't see how you can say anything pertinent until you do:
Is '=' transitive?

Equal and is are synonymous as truth and is are One or the same. Truth is.
If you are looking for truth, try answering this question: What is the measure of yourself, your true self?
Michelangelo told me when searching for truth to study Nature. So I went down to the river and found the truth of a river is the same as me. Try measuring a river, find its depth and direction, tell me what you see.

Happy New Year! =

Do you have contact with the dead? Or do you mean the Ninja Turtle?
Let me clue you in: hydrology is a well developed science.
'=' is transitive? Then I suppose:
A = B and B = C therefore A = C also could be written B = A and C = B therefore C = A, without altering the meaning.
But this implies you don't know what you mean, which makes it hard to suppose that I should. In any case it is a critical difference between philosophy and sophistry to respond to queries and respect the struggles of others to get a grip on what is being said.
?

The great Eastern masters believed the truth could not be spoken, whereas I believe it simply cannot be heard. As for teaching the blind to see, One must surely learn to see Oneself.
Be One,
=

我认为在黑塞的某个地方有一个角色，他的老师一直在引导他走向一条河，寻求启迪。嗯,很好。或者是金，它的主人花了一辈子的时间寻找“我的河流”?这是一个古老的主题。就我而言，河流只是一个沟渠，排出多余的水，如果它无处可去，将淹没我们所有人。我曾亲眼目睹它们涓涓细流，膨胀成可怕的洪流。但我们从他们身上学到的是我们自己带来的。问题是，其中的哲理在哪里?
Cruelty derives from an assumed understanding that is unmitigated by the protests of those assumed to be understood. As I have often said in other contexts, free speech, even enforceable free speech as specified under the Constitution, entails listening. Too many of us think it means a right to be heard, but not an obligation to listen. Ronald Reagan, the father of Jim Crow Economics, got his 1980 campaign off the floor in New Hampshire at a press conference he called in which he railed at the press for asking embarrassing questions, shouting petulantly, "I paid for this microphone!" Well, maybe he did, and surely it was this event that sparked his ultimate victory, but he didn't pay for our ears. If someone else has another idea of what we mean, this is not a matter for retrenchment, but for showing some responsiveness. And if the most pertinent issue for philosophy is how this responsiveness grows into a language in which the meaning we share is as real as the thought we think, then passing over in silence is not the answer, even if situations often strike us dumb. Even that calls for an explanation and an ensuing dialog. Silence is a kind of cruelty.
A question should interrogate, not command. I know exactly how I know who I am. I am the respondent, or I am nothing at all.
?

Truth = Troth, trow, most often taken as promise-keeping or covenant. But a better rendering is responsiveness.
In Latin we have veritas, fedelitas, and veracitas, none of which, together or separately, quite rise to the English truth, as respondence.

关于纳粹或奴隶主的例子，有趣的是，在对另一群人进行非人化的过程中，似乎存在着一种权力利益，而这种权力利益正是恐怖所导致的。从这个意义上说，非人性化与替罪羊机制非常相似，用来团结一群人，以一些可疑的理由，在证据薄弱但言辞激烈的情况下对抗另一个人或群体。我的直觉是，无论我们在哪里发现非人性化，我们都会发现对权力和社会形象的极度需求。此外，非人性化使暴力更容易实施。考虑到这两种现象，我认为暴力、非人化/替罪羊和权力可以作为在政治局势和修辞中导航的概念指南。如果一个人能找到这三个中的一个，那么打赌另外两个也能在这种情况下找到将是明智的。

Which One?
Be One, One is All there is.
Einstein's search for an all inclusive unifying equation was much more simple than thought: =
When all is equal all is One.
=

The scapegoat gets away. It's the sacrificial goat that gets knackered. The confusion is that the scapegoat gets the blame, but not the knife. But is sauce for the goose poison for the gander? What convinces the geese of the justice of this? For a century and a half Anglo-American philosophers have been operating on the assumption that human language in some way reflects transcendent logical structures, in the sense physicists suppose the results of experimentation represent universal natural law. But the difference is that philosophers are also patently convinced that the only possible source of ?linguistic competence?, as they so quaintly put it, human consciousness and emotion, does not exist at all or at least is not commensurable with reason. But if reasoned expression evidences the determinism of logical form it is hard to see how we could be so irrational as to construe in opposite senses the very same expression. Unless, of course, logicians suffer from a cultural bias of their own.
Gentlemen throw razor-sharp barbs into streams to torment fish in a celebration of cruelty. We are suppose to suppose the fish feels nothing, but it sure doesn't act like it!. But the human victim of cruelty usually makes its preferences known too, and it must therefore be explained how this expression gets so wildly misapprehended. Is there something to rationalism that denies us the ability to reason? It's quite a kicker if there is! Is human language a human artifact? Or the gift of the gods? Or of some impersonal ordering of all? If human, how do we say we are rational if we misconstrue so wilfully? If transcendent, how do we say we are human if our logic is so prone to contradictory construals of the same expression? Can we say we understand each other if our perspective prohibits our finding the same meaning in others we express ourselves? If not, is language a failure that rationalists celebrate only in conceit? Lies? Does logic lie? Or does cruelty require a context that blinds us to understanding each other? And is logic more in service to that context than to understanding?
?Spoc, (to sexual pleasure android 372) 'I love you!...,'
Spoc, (to sexual pleasure android 537) '..., but I hate you!'
Android 537, 'But I am identical!'
Spoc, 'That is precisely why I hate you!'
Both androids malfunction.?
Spoc, 'Fascinating!'?