Be Excellent To Each Other

So why do babies/young infants not prefer people of the same race, if you discount close family members who they'd show preference for through personal familiarity?

Why does basically every society world-wide, throughout history, exhibit at least some degree of distrust of outsiders, if not outright hatred and racism?

Here's some science man talking about it.

http://www.berkeleywellness.com/article ... orn-racist

The dude's book looks interesting as hell. too.

The first thing to understand is that the “in-group” and “out-group” distinctions that we talked about before, that define “us” and “them,” are highly malleable. Whether it’s race, class, religion, gender, or sexual orientation, research shows that the specific identities that we are prejudiced toward or against can change.
That’s an important finding. A few years ago, research that made headlines seemed to suggest that we are hardwired to be racist. Scientists found that when research subjects were asked to make distinctions between photos of black and white faces, a part of the brain called the amygdala lit up. The amygdala is part of the limbic system, an evolutionary early part of the brain, so the findings seemed to show that biases are a very basic, primitive response. But we’ve since discovered that the amygdala lights up when people are asked to make almost any kind of socially relevant distinction, positive or negative. When research subjects are asked to distinguish between team members and nonmembers, for example, the amygdala lights up. So the current scientific understanding is that we’re hardwired to make distinctions that are helpful in navigating our social world, but not to be racist per se.

Because foreigns be backward

Especially the Kernish.

That isn't science. It's psychology.

Says the guy with the red shirt...

fly pimp

He used to make fruit flies fuck for a living.

He used to make fruit flies fuck for a living.

...
One of the new Ops girls who started the other week used to do that, too.

Huh.

...
One of the new Ops girls who started the other week used to do that, too.

Huh.

This description covers something like a third of genetics research, though. It's not exactly uncommon.

This description covers something like a third of genetics research, though. It's not exactly uncommon.

At one conference meeting when a speaker said Labour must win some Tory votes, someone shouted out: “Why? We don’t want Tories!” So I find myself arguing dry psephology against passionate conviction. It’s depressing, but here’s the Fabian Society’s analysis: Labour needs 104 seats in England and Wales and 40% of the vote to win. In the marginals, four out every five of the extra votes must come from those who were Tory last time. Even if the young are energised and turnout soars to Scottish referendum heights, it gets nowhere close. Even if every single Liberal Democrat and Green vote went Labour, that only gives 29 seats. Even if Ukip were crushed, its vote divides equally Labour and Tory. As Labour wins radical votes, it risks losing moderate votes to the Tories: 2% went that way last time. Read the research yourself and groan. It hurts.

In one fraught conversation after another, I try all this on Corbyn believers but to no avail. No compromise, blocked ears, total denial of electoral facts, a post-truth conviction. You can hear this non-meeting of minds everywhere at this conference, a shutter of incomprehension dividing the two sides. “But we can convince them! People will listen!” They do think Corbyn will be the next prime minister, because conviction moves mountains. These are likable people, and I envy their certainty – the way you can envy the religious their delusions.

When they say "must win 104 seats", that is 104 more seats? There is a group delusion going on and it is hard to think we are here after the good stuff from 1997 onwards.

It would have to be, right?

It would have to be, right?

I did have a head scratch at that when reading her comment piece - it wasn't dreadfully clear and I did think surely she can't be so nuts as to think you can win with 104 seats.

The problem is now that most Labour MPs are saying "right, well, we know that immigration is good, but the general public hate it, so we should say that we are going to control it in order to win votes back. Even though they're wrong and stupid."

I just don't think this is going to work.

I think it is very hard for The Left to have a discussion about immigration as I suspect it might cause cognitivevdisdonance. Corbyn's recent shift in stance was highlighted on Today and that seems to be a direct result of Brexit. It is a tricky one.

It cuts right to the quick of an uncomfortable division between the middle-class liberals [1] and the working class [2] that has existed in Labour since the party's very beginning. Turbulent waters to navigate. Not that the Conservatives are really any better off, with the split between pro-immigration business conservatives and often anti-immigration social conservatives.


[1] Who's jobs are definitely not threatened by immigration and are in an economic position to benefit from their own freedom of movement
[2] Who believe their jobs are threatened and do not see themselves as gaining from freedom of movement

the middle-class liberals [1] and the working class [2]

[1] Who's jobs are definitely not threatened by immigration and are in an economic position to benefit from their own freedom of movement
[2] Who believe their jobs are threatened and do not see themselves as gaining from freedom of movement

An interesting question I would like to put on the floor is: if you are in [1] (which I suspect we all are), how much truth do you think there is in [2]? Would anyone score it more than 0/10?

An interesting question I would like to put on the floor is: if you are in [1] (which I suspect we all are), how much truth do you think there is in [2]? Would anyone score it more than 0/10?

The dude who cut down a tree at our place was from Poland, and had been in the country for six years (he told me). His quote was lower than the local long-established companies by some horrific amount - something like £130 instead of £210 - £250.

He did a perfectly good job, so I can't see how he's not taking business from the people that were born here.

Still, that's because he's cheap, not because he's Polish. I guess the question in this case is - is he cheap because he's an immigrant?

But he's cheap because he's Polish, is the augment of the idiots.

bits and bats

But he's cheap because he's Polish, is the augment of the idiots.

Moving thousands of miles and across a significant language barrier is very difficult. Hence, only the most motivated of workers are going to do it. And being a more motivated worker means you are going to be the most willing to go the extra mile: work harder, work longer, charge less. I can easily believe that in unskilled or semi-skilled labour, charging less (and doing a better job) is correlated with being an immigrant.

I agree it probably does correlate, but to then be all like "fecking immigrants, coming over here and being motivated to work hard for less money, BASTARDS" is to sort of misunderstand capitalism. And it' d be these people who are the first to moan about unions, too.

I don't think the Doc is saying it's a rational fear. And as has been shown in all the anglosphere recently, pointing out facts and statistics does not work.

Yeah, I get that it's not rational - hence my "augment of idiots". comment.

Is this a West Yorkshire thing? The only person I ever hear say it is my father in law, who's from Halifax.