26
"What about human nature?" - how to respond (lemmygrad.ml)
submitted 1 week ago* by to c/asklemmygrad@lemmygrad.ml
41 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

It seems that most of the time, my discussions with people about socialism and communism end up on the topic of "but people are inherently bad, or at least a few people are, and will always take advatange of others. Even during natural disorders, some go steal everything in the stores while other help strangers"

I always have a hard time arguing that human nature depend on the environment, that it takes a few generations, and that there is probably always going to be violence but it's marginal and can be taken care of.

What main ideas am I missing? And how to argue about this and respond to this central idea that refrain a lot of liberals?

Thank you!

If you have any theory that you want to point at, that would also be great

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 1 week ago (7 children)

This really isn’t about “liberals”, it’s about the individual liberals and their characteristics. For example Black liberals don’t really use the human nature argument because Black people used to be property very recently with the excuse of human nature. You will most likely exclusively argue this with White men who will not listen to you because they will easily denote you to an emotional natural slave or an emotional foid…

If you try to point to examples of high trust societies they will say it’s because those countries lack immigrants/are homogeneous. If you think you caught them by pointing out that the USSR was high trust and so is China, they will tell you that they admire those countries for being racially homogeneous, anti-feminist (Erroneous belief).

I am exhausted just from thinking about this argument but best of luck to you comrade and I hope the comments have some insights

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 week ago (6 children)

    Black liberals where I love absolutely argue human nature.

    I don't think it serves us to paint with so broad a brush. I think there are certain beliefs that are in common with most people, in most regions (even if subconscious), and beliefs that are similar here, different there, and beliefs that seem wholly different, until understood at intimate levels, maybe they're not so much.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Really? 🤔 I couldn’t imagine people doing that, I know that when I was a liberal I believed that capitalism actually liberated us from slavery. Now that I think about it I didn’t think much at all during my lib days

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    Isn't the counterargument here pretty simple? Ask: "Is it human nature for a black person to be a slave? Then is it human nature for you to be a slave to capital?"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    Hah! I'll try that, although most religious people argue some version of this nonsense:

    Romans: 13 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

    2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

    3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

    4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 child)

    Don't these lines just tell you to shut up and be a good tool for your master (who conveniently has that position because he is ordained by God)? This is the exact shit that they taught the serfs and slaves, and it's only after they were abolished that this was reinterpreted to support modern government.

    The good thing about the Bible is that it is so convoluted that you can always find a verse that you can interpret to mean the exact opposite:

    Acts 5:

    29 Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than human beings!

    Luke 4:

    18 “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free,

    19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

    Psalm 2:

    10 Therefore, you kings, be wise; be warned, you rulers of the earth.

    11 Serve the Lord with fear and celebrate his rule with trembling.

    12 Kiss his son, or he will be angry and your way will lead to your destruction, for his wrath can flare up in a moment. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

    For instance, if you connect these three sets of verses, it can be interpreted that Jesus was sent to help the poor and disabled. Thus it is our mission to obey God in doing this, to follow Jesus in his mission, rather than to obey other human beings. If these other humans try to stop our mission and end up experiencing destruction, it is because they are getting in the way of God's mission.

    If you spend all day around religious people, it is a good idea to get familiar with every single verse so you can counter-argue all their reactionary positions using the "authority" of the Bible. DarkMatter2525 is a decent resource for this purpose.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 6 days ago

    Im pretty familiar, the problem is getting frustrated, because Christians, specifically of the more conservative ilk, can not comprehend the Bible is a compendium of selected arguments and debates of various Rabbi and other learned Jews about the nature of divine essence, rather than definitive and established infallible word of that Essence, directly.

    I am a little bit encouraged after a conversation with someone today but not much since people tend to revert to ingrained doctrine after hours of biblically explaining a different POV.

    A personal example is simply refraining from saying "G-d" by way of respecting the Essence as ineffable, or at the very least, people who hold that ideal; yet I constantly find myself saying it, because nearly six decades of it being used regularly, in daily conversation around me is a deeply ingrained bad habit.

    Thank you for the reference, it will help me deepen my personal understanding.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent