I'm hardly convinced of Wizard22's position but has a classical precident, so figured I post it minus the Harbal trolling (his effort to derail yet another thread).Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 10, 2023 10:30 am Premise: Because humanity and all mammalian species pick on and bully a 'whipping-boy', runt-of-the-litter, this phenomenon must be analyzed with regard to Postmodern Politicking, in every society or nation, across the world.
Western Civilization in general:
Jesus Christ is the metaphorical 'whipping-boy' of Western Civilization, Europeans, and "The West" in general. Jesus Christ is depicted as the quintessential 'innocent man', who was blamed for pretty much every "Sin" of mankind. All Sins were placed upon His shoulders. He was punished, on behalf of All Mankind. The analogy of Jesus Christ, represents the most heinous and extreme Injustice which could be metaphysically possible. The myth and reality of Jesus Christ is a direct extension of Greek and Hellenic philosophies, specifically Platonism and Plato's Republic, by which Socrates was condemned to death, for 'influencing' the young Aristocratic minds of Greece. So too is the charge against Jesus Christ, 'influencing' the minds of his followers within the Roman Republic.
The Christian religion has been built upon and around Jesus Christ. The religious and moral implications are countless. But the Principle stands even today: the lesson of Christ must not be repeated. In other words, an innocent man cannot be sacrificed for the vanity of the rest of Mankind. Jesus Christ represents a hypothetical End to human sacrifice, and blood sacrifice. His example is supposed to End, the 'whipping-boy' phenomenon, such that societies cannot place all their blame, guilt, and hate, upon scapegoats, in attempts to absolve themselves of Sin. Your Sin is your own, not another's.
Christians invert this lesson to this day. They say "Jesus died for our Sins", as-if the Christian is blameless or "cleansed" of responsibility. This makes Christ's death and His lessons, in vain. Christians do not know the lesson of Christ, nor truly care, and would likely repeat the emotional accusations and persecutions of Christ, when he reappears Today. My argument is such—Christians are not followers of Christ. Because they didn't "learn their lesson" the first time. Because when you pass your Sin upon Christ, you are committing a worse crime, a more Evil type of action. The actual lesson of Christ is to take the load off Him. You're supposed to not blame Him. You, as a Christian, are supposed to help Him bear the Cross. You are supposed to take the place of Him. You are supposed to understand, sympathize, empathize, with Him.
Christians do not do this, to this day, over 2000 years later. So it is (mostly) a false religion.
America and the Anglosphere in general:
Just as Christians do not learn the lesson of Christ, so too do Westerners repeat the same method of projecting and placing their Sins, upon others. Politically speaking, this means, blaming your political rivals of all your own failings. Everybody sees this today between the constant infighting between Republican and Democrat Representatives in the United States. Most of the squabbling is facetious, not serious, and both sides come together to serve the Status Quo, and serve the Deep State, which is the true underlying power in the West. However, the political game has taken serious turns since 2008, such that the stakes have grown so high, that each half now attempts to make the other half, second-class citizens, and an 'inferior' class. The problem with Classism is distinct and obvious, but has different histories in USA versus Europe. Europeans know full well what it means to have second-class citizens, Feudal outlooks, serve Aristocracy, and the peon/peasant mindset.
America was supposed to be different...
But that difference is coming to an end, as the inevitable looms over the horizon. The counter-argument is simple. Western Liberals will claim that "but Negroes have already been second-class citizens, and women too!" They have substantial and persuasive arguments in this. Because there will always been Over-classes and Under-classes. In Nature, mammalian groups have large, strong, tall, dominant males...while weak, small, cowardly males get bullied, excluded, beaten upon, and otherwise rejected. It is also a sexual matter. Dominant males compete to reproduce, while weaker, inferior males, mostly do not. So when it returns to Politics, the matter of the weaker and inferiors of society, must be addressed. Western Liberalism does this by 'including everyone equally'—"into the vote". By giving political voting power to the weakest members of society, to women, to blacks, to weak men, this 'Democratic' style of government hypothetically changes society "for the better".
But where is the better? Where are the actual improvements? Are women happier now, post-feminism? Are blacks happier now, post-civil rights? Are cities safer? Are jobs and incomes more prosperous? Many will claim they are Not, and so, "for the better" is reduced again to political power and competition, which instead lines the pockets of all those who deceive the masses, to convince the inferiors that they "have their best interests in mind", when they don't, and so the Status Quo never changes, or if it changes, very slightly.
All of these concerns return to the matter of Blame and Attribution—who dictates who, shall be the new Whipping-Boy? Which group, or race, or gender, or sexuality, shall receive Punishment? And is it righteous? For example, should homosexuality and transexuality, and those who promote it to children, or teach children to "tolerate" it, be punished? Here is where the political battle is waged today. But it is waged every year, every decade, every century, every millennium.
What is really being fought over, is the Divine Godly Authority, to attribute Blame, to choose the Whipping-Boy, to choose the new Jesus Christ, to once again place all Sin upon Him... and Sacrifice Him.
This is the only classical account that tried to distribute hate on the basis of logical causality. Has some resemblance to Wizard (just some). How deep are the parallels, and how logically consistent can hate be distributed this way. Obviously Aristotle is in use here. If you want to examine the text, Ohio State University made it free a few years back. You can find it in PDF or here in HTML:Fulgentius "MYTHOLOGIES"
1.6. THE FABLE OF CERBERUS WITH THE THREE HEADS
At Pluto’s feet they place the three-headed dog Cerberus because the envies of human quarrels are brought about in a threefold fashion, that is, by nature, cause, and accident. Hate is natural, as between dogs and hares, wolves and sheep, men and snakes; the passion and jealousy of love, for instance, are causal; what arises casually is accidental, for instance, words between men or a nearby supply of fodder for mules. Cerberus is named for creoboros, that is, flesh eater, and he is imagined as having three heads for the three ages – infancy, youth, old age, at which death enters the world.
https://www.theoi.com/Text/FulgentiusMythologies1.html
I suspect since two men in very different eras came to such similar conclusions (and I count Wizard the dumber, sorry Wizard) then there must be a real mental-neurological component to this, in how we process hate. Not that it is wise or his choices to hate is correct, or should he adopted, just that he seems to of tapped into a naturally existing mental process and mapped a bit out accurately. I prefer to live life with as little hate as possible. Except eels. I fucking hate eels. Don't eat them. Don't look at them. Eels go to eel places and humans to human places and nowhere in between should we ever meet.