https://www.wikiworld.com/index.php?action=history&feed=atom&title=UsAndThemUsAndThem - Revision history2026-05-06T14:11:40ZRevision history for this page on the wikiMediaWiki 1.45.1https://www.wikiworld.com/index.php?title=UsAndThem&diff=2097&oldid=previmported>Import: Imported current content2026-01-28T11:54:25Z<p>Imported current content</p>
<p><b>New page</b></p><div>==Us and Them are all [[WE]]==<br />
<br />
Atrocities are justified be demonization of ''the other''. It can be stopped if we don't subscribe to ''us and them'' mentality. We are all part of the [[WE]], including the Arab, the social butterfly, and even the [[PoliceForce]].<br />
<br />
==Some differention required?==<br />
Master how to prevent people from differentiating themselves from other people, and you have solved 90% of all human conflicts. However, certain tasks, such as [[PoliceForce]], require the people to do exactly that--- differentiate everyone into [[UsAndThem]]. The fact that the [[HumanAnimal]] is, like all living beings we know about, at its base a competitive animal tends to cause us to differentiate. It is a survival trick that has been more handy and useful then not, hence, the reason we have it. Unfortunately, even today, it is still more useful then it hurts us, as smaller groups.<br />
<br />
==Capitalism = civilized competition==<br />
So how do we go about removing the stimulus that sets off our [[Animal Nature]]? We do that by removing competition for resources. How can we do that? Improve yields, and share the wealth, equally. Will this happen? Not so long as we practice [[Capitalism]]. [[Capitalism]] is merely the civilized competition for resources. As a consequence of this, when [[Capitalism]] breaks down/fails, we find people prepared to commit violence or committing violence to gain what they cannot buy.<br />
<br />
So? what's more ''elegant'' then [[Capitalism]]? What removes competition? Nothing tried with a large group of [[HumanAnimal]]s that I know of have managed to succeed for very long. The reason is: [[UsAndThem]]. Members of the larger group differentiate themselves from the whole, and see others gaining resources as "Them". And those people then act accordingly.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Minimum Group Sizes==<br />
What's the minimal size of a group have to be for it to be an ''Us''? One with the One having a mental illusion or construct of belonging to a larger whole.<br />
<br />
A group of One is: ''''I''''<br />
<br />
What's the minimal size of a group have to be for it to be a ''Them''? One.<br />
<br />
A group of One is, again: ''''I''''<br />
<br />
So, what's the minimal group-size to have an [[UsAndThem]]? One.<br />
<br />
However, when One person is both the ''Us'' and the ''Them'', then they are part of ''''WE''''. That perseon can then act as bridge between the two.<br />
<br />
So, do we have to figure out how to turn everyOne into just one One? Or get everyone to see themselves as both ''Us'' and ''Them''?<br />
<br />
---[[StarPilot]]<br />
<br />
==In and Out Groups==<br />
When I was a kid I garbaged picked a 1946 sociology textbook which discussed "in groups" (us) and "out groups" (them). I haven't read anything on sociology since then, so I have no idea whether this is still part of sociological jargon, but it made sense to me at the time, and still does. The textbook in question pointed out that any given individual in a complex society was probably part of many in-groups. This makes for a lot of overlap between in-groups, as well as overlap between in-groups and out-groups. So, thanks to the penchant of humyns for multiple partitions into Us and Them, people can quite easily be both.<br />
<br />
--[[LorraineLee]]</div>imported>Import