To Want a Good Thing

I have noticed something, & various things, & a particular thing specifically.

I have noticed that a lot of people, with especial context of Americans, when they consider that they want something, they reference other people & they resign in the suggestion that, "Well, to cheat really is what others seem to actually do, so that's how this will be obtained". What a lot of people seem to fail to realize really is that there's a source to the problem.

(This really is variably difficult to explain, so bear with me on this.)

Within a good society (just a hypothetical), people would practice what was appropriate & sociological contexts would reflect what was appropriate. Within a society that really is less than good, sociological contexts do not reflect what really is appropriate, not actually, & variably might reflect what's tolerable, or a variant context of extent of what's suggested "tolerable", & those "tolerable" contexts might even be merely a facade.

If it's a good thing that you want, you're more likely to actually be able to obtain that good thing within a good society, because society would reflect what was appropriate.

Your thoughts on this topic are welcome.

A society is nothing more than a collection of individuals so you cant define a society as either good nor bad unilaterally because there is no way to universally define what is "actually" appropriate or not.

There was a post on Reddit a few month (year?) back that covered something similar to this. It was called the Evolution of Trust and it covered the costs/expenses of why people tended to cheat the system and the best overall solution for people to maximize their interactions without defaulting the other person too much or by not allowing themselves to be a doormat.

But I'll agree with Kyrin, the subjectivity of good and bad are far too large to assign them to specific "oughts" and much more difficult to get others to cooperate.

On a personal level, I know that I can only control my own behaviors and actions so I tend to be more cooperative with others, but it is important to step back and realize that the people who try to default/cheat you too frequently are people I extend myself less to. Still exercise the compassion and do what I can, but realize the limits of the services that I can provide them. Don't cut them out, but recognize the damage that they can deal sort of mentality.

We share a lot of biology though, and can understand the natures and extents of pain and suffering, such that it serves a useful characterization of what might constitute 'bad' for a society in many ways. And the most simple form of it is wasted energy... so betrayal of trust falls probably into that category.

Perhaps its civilization which enables diversity and increases in sizes of societies. If so, then being civilized means being part of the systems in place which enables that - being 'civil' to another person enables it, being civil minded in actions supports it, and working in civil affairs helps build it. That would be what is good for it IMO. If we are to assume growth as a good thing, then changing those parameters to reverse growth is just a process to radically change what it is. Things change anyway, but building on top of existing works does take time, but also yields greater leverage of other available and emerging systems!!

So to turn to biology again, I think its fair that we use our own shared experience of living as a model for what our civilization might look like, and so then we look to when we are our best as that model so that younger generations do not have to rebuild - because as much fun as it is to rebel as an individual, it is a massive suffering on people when civilizations fall down and rebuild. So when I say growth I do not mean growing for the sake of growing, but rather trying to improve upon our own experience so future generations can experience less suffering.... and its just the result of limited geography that subsequent population growth tends to create increasing population density - and as anyone with any biology knowledge knows, you put space constraints on a successful colony and eventually the growth kills the colony!!!!

So I think what it boils down to is the selfs drive to 'live', and create 'life', and live a life with less suffering then yesterday. It just so happens that once shifting outside of the selfish view of it, that it becomes obvious that this is achieved through cooperation much better then by conflict. There is subjectivity there, but its not in isolation of some very relevant objective realities, IMO.

Youre using very general language to describe what i suspect are very specific points of contention.

ScottHughes wrote: I have noticed something, & various things, & a particular thing specifically.

I have noticed that a lot of people, with especial context of Americans, when they consider that they want something, they reference other people & they resign in the suggestion that, "Well, to cheat really is what others seem to actually do, so that's how this will be obtained". What a lot of people seem to fail to realize really is that there's a source to the problem.

(This really is variably difficult to explain, so bear with me on this.)

Within a good society (just a hypothetical), people would practice what was appropriate & sociological contexts would reflect what was appropriate. Within a society that really is less than good, sociological contexts do not reflect what really is appropriate, not actually, & variably might reflect what's tolerable, or a variant context of extent of what's suggested "tolerable", & those "tolerable" contexts might even be merely a facade.

If it's a good thing that you want, you're more likely to actually be able to obtain that good thing within a good society, because society would reflect what was appropriate.

Your thoughts on this topic are welcome.

How about some real life examples?

If I am reading the original post correctly, which I grant I may not be doing completely, it seems that this is an example of the tension between individual good and the "common good." Speaking specifically of Americans, we have seldom been able to agree on what parameters the "common good" should include, much less how to put them into practice. I've seen that conversation get even harder in my lifetime, to the point that now some would question whether the "common good" is a worthwhile goal in the first place.

But at least we got a new genre of dystopian fiction out of the inquiry.

Up to this particular point in the context of consideration of replies, you all wrote what might constitute the good in this particular suggestion.

To reduce the tensions between peoples within a "diverse" population & colony amidst colonies of peoples, it's appropriate to establish Segregation Policies for the States of the United States of America.

Real life examples of this necessity are various & numerous, with distinction in this particular context of usage of "various" amidst "numerous" (variably synonymous).
The Tribal Mayans (typically suggested "Native Americans") should not suffer further imposition of the descendants of individuals that invaded & stole land to then borrow money against the value of the stolen land,, & murdered friends of the ancestors of the Tribal Mayans that still live in the various particular States of the United States of America & whom still oppress those same Tribal Mayans sociologically, economically (of actual "fraud" of various sorts), & demographically, not at all.
The Blacks should not suffer the various oppressions of white Americans that gained of actual "frauds" of the past, not at all.
etc.

With establishment of Segregation Policies for the States of the United States of America, society is more likely to reflect what's appropriate.

If it's suggestion of necessity to appeal to white Americans appertaining what they might gain in the context of an establishment of Segregation Policies for the States of the United States of America, I would rather wait to read further replies of others within the Temple of the Jedi Order.

Youre barking up the wrong trees. Racial segregation is not going to happen in America and even if it werent a ridiculous idea, no one here is interested. Well i know one person who isnt white who might be interested but you said youre looking to white america.
There is a white nationalist movement, and a black separatist movement, both of which you can easily find online, but neither of which youll find relresented here. And know that if you do involve yourself with them, youll be throwing your lot in with people who are very resentful and not very bright.

Actually i think youll fit in perfectly lol

OB1Shinobi wrote: Youre barking up the wrong trees. Racial segregation is not going to happen in America and even if it werent a ridiculous idea, no one here is interested. Well i know one person who isnt white who might be interested but you said youre looking to white america.
There is a white nationalist movement, and a black separatist movement, both of which you can easily find online, but youll be throwing your lot in with people who are very resentful and not very bright

Actually i think youll fit in perfect lol

or the TLDR version... Dont feed the Troll.

Does it count as trolling if he is serious?

And could there be something useful to the community in a discussion about segregation?