Discrimination

[Mirgofino]

I am wondering why discrimination is so widespread in so many places in the world, and I have come to the conclusion that one of the main reasons is that some people believe in some almighty authority ("God") who they pretend to just follow. This leads to the stagnant and rigid position of status quo in all kinds of places where the dysfunctional, discriminating and patriarchal ways are not only allowed, but encouraged by people who are too afraid to question authority. An authority which by the way can't stand any questioning, as it is empty. It is nothing. So please question this discriminating nothing more.

Fight homophobia, racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination everywhere because it is WRONG and, incredibly, stupid. A low point for human beings wherever it happens.

[rodinuk]

Oh look you found an easy one-stop scapegoat.

[Stavros]

I am wondering why discrimination is so widespread in so many places in the world, and I have come to the conclusion that one of the main reasons is that some people believe in some almighty authority ("God") who they pretend to just follow. This leads to the stagnant and rigid position of status quo in all kinds of places where the dysfunctional, discriminating and patriarchal ways are not only allowed, but encouraged by people who are too afraid to question authority. An authority which by the way can't stand any questioning, as it is empty. It is nothing. So please question this discriminating nothing more.

Fight homophobia, racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination everywhere because it is WRONG and, incredibly, stupid. A low point for human beings wherever it happens.

You probably need to investigate studies in Anthropology which address the stratification of human societies, the forms they take, the reasons why. You could investigate the spatial and temporal separation of male and female in what we might call primitive society, where a fundamental fear of blood means that blood shed through menstruation has led to women being separated from men, and where it is associated with blood shed in anger that creates anxiety, loss of blood being linked to pain and death. Smell is another factor, whether it is the odour of menstrual blood, the brown stuff that comes out of your bum, to sweat, halitosis, or by contrast the pleasing allure of a perfumed skin.

Hobbes argued that if we leave humans to act on their emotions, the result will be a 'state of nature' where life is nasty, brutish and short -as I write, human emotions are causing the death by violence of people from Ukraine in the North, to Israel and Palestine in the South. He argued that the alternative, a State of Government, would solve the problems of emotional chaos by using Reason father than Faith as the basis of an ordered society. But it does appear he believed society would always be stratified, but did not use the concept of Class that Marx later used, as a descriptive, and then prescriptive mechanism for the liberation of inequality and discrimination that allows societies to be unjust, unfair, and ultimately inefficient.

Or you could look at the conflicts, sometimes the co-operation between nomadic herders and sedentary farmers and ask, why do nomads consider themselves superior to farmers? Did Cain kill Abel because he did not have an animal to sacrifice in order to express rage? Do people who eat cooked food lead better lives than those who eat raw food, indeed, is it not because we eat cooked food that we discriminate between the human and the animal worlds?

Hope that helps as a primer.

[Mirgofino]

You probably need to investigate studies in Anthropology which address the stratification of human societies, the forms they take, the reasons why. You could investigate the spatial and temporal separation of male and female in what we might call primitive society, where a fundamental fear of blood means that blood shed through menstruation has led to women being separated from men, and where it is associated with blood shed in anger that creates anxiety, loss of blood being linked to pain and death. Smell is another factor, whether it is the odour of menstrual blood, the brown stuff that comes out of your bum, to sweat, halitosis, or by contrast the pleasing allure of a perfumed skin.

Hobbes argued that if we leave humans to act on their emotions, the result will be a 'state of nature' where life is nasty, brutish and short -as I write, human emotions are causing the death by violence of people from Ukraine in the North, to Israel and Palestine in the South. He argued that the alternative, a State of Government, would solve the problems of emotional chaos by using Reason father than Faith as the basis of an ordered society. But it does appear he believed society would always be stratified, but did not use the concept of Class that Marx later used, as a descriptive, and then prescriptive mechanism for the liberation of inequality and discrimination that allows societies to be unjust, unfair, and ultimately inefficient.

Or you could look at the conflicts, sometimes the co-operation between nomadic herders and sedentary farmers and ask, why do nomads consider themselves superior to farmers? Did Cain kill Abel because he did not have an animal to sacrifice in order to express rage? Do people who eat cooked food lead better lives than those who eat raw food, indeed, is it not because we eat cooked food that we discriminate between the human and the animal worlds?

Hope that helps as a primer.

You don't know me so it seems weird to come up with "a primer" that should supposedly "help me". But I guess it felt good to talk to yourself like that for a while. Goodbye.

[rodinuk]

I am wondering why discrimination is so widespread in so many places in the world, and I have come to the conclusion that one of the main reasons is that some people believe in some almighty authority ("God") who they pretend to just follow….

that’s over 80% of the world’s population and they’re not pretending that’s just your discriminating opinion

[Stavros]

You don't know me so it seems weird to come up with "a primer" that should supposedly "help me". But I guess it felt good to talk to yourself like that for a while. Goodbye.

Hardly my fault if your original post suggested you are not well read. And for what it's worth, a lot of people read these posts but don't comment, so you don't know if I am talking to myself, or the whole wide world. Have a Nice Day.

[rodinuk]

Let’s keep it on-topic

[Mirgofino]

My outburst, and short analysis, comes from being told by others, who reveal or do not reveal that they are Christians, or similar monotheists, that I shall not think about various topics in life, because there is, according to them, an almighty authority, who takes care of that. And that anti-intellectual, and manipulating, approach toward me is one I am fed up with. I do not believe in that god at all. In fact I find it impossible that such a god exists. I do think that much discrimination comes from such a belief, because when you transfer your responsibility to "someone who is always right but inscrutable" you can always claim that this is the case. The real problem with manipulating with others in this way is that it is a power position, you can both claim and claim to not be responsible for, because you just "follow god", which I why I used the word pretend. I think the world would be a much better place without monotheism, with the removal of the idea of an almighty authority. Plain and simple. And I do not, of course, think anyone speaks for an authority, that I do not believe in, in any way. So if arguments against my position on this comes from that illusion I will not respond to them from now on. Because I find such a "conversation" to be a non-conversation, a waste of time.

[Mirgofino]

If the world was without monotheism then it would be impossible for anyone to claim that some almighty god is on their side. This means that the world without monotheism would be a much more peaceful place because no one would ever be able to point at such an invisible, but paradoxically, so called, omnipotent, deity, in which name they act, go to war for etc.

The world without monotheism would no doubt be a better place for all humans and other beings as well.

[Stavros]

India is a large country whose Governing party is attempting to make the Hindu religion the defining identity of the country, and thereby discriminating against Christians, Muslims, Sikhs and other religious, as well as secular, non-religious people and communities. So monotheism does not have a monopoly of discrimination and violence -just as one could document the violence of Buddhists in history from Japan to Sri Lanka.

Discriminatory Policies Trigger Religious Violence in India | Human Rights Watch (hrw.org) (https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/08/03/discriminatory-policies-trigger-religious-violence-india)

Religious violence reaches India’s capital as a Hindu mob swarms a church (nbcnews.com) (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/india-g20-christian-church-attack-rcna103571)

[rodinuk]

Simply put there is no way that you’re going to see monotheism or polytheism eliminated unless you annihilate the majority of the world’s population. Neither can you prove that the world would have been a more peaceful place without it - this life is ultimately about survival, it’s a dog eat dog world etc. and the children who bullied and harmed me at school weren’t religious they just enjoyed it.

[Mirgofino]

Monotheism is a new invention in the history of human beings, so of course it is a possibility that it will go away again. Without monotheism you would not have several religious wars. You would not have horrors like monotheistic missionaries destroying other countries and cultures like they have done in Canada, many African countries and many other countries. If it was just a dog eat dog world humans would not be here at all by now. Cooperation is what works in nature and many people know that. Cooperation, however, is not possible if you have one side who wants to force another side into being like them. Which is what many monotheist do, because they have somehow brainwashed themselves into thinking that that has something to do with some "almighty" god's love. They literally try to make spiritual clones of themselves, which is the opposite of empathy. The children who bullied you, and me, at school probably needed to have a scapegoat to try to escape from themselves. What they surely needed was a lesson in empathy and love. Bullies bully because they are bullied, at home and elsewhere.

[Mirgofino]

In the country where I live there are still priests in the Christian church who are allowed to not marry homosexual couples. Some also disagree that women should be allowed to be priests. Other priests directly work against having windmills if they are "too close" to the churches, and in this way they clearly show a preference for "protecting their faith" while polluting nature. I am happy to say though that the members get fewer and fewer as the years go by. I still wonder how many members there would be to begin with if it was not a state church, who many become members of, when they are baptized and, literally, have no say in that. But that desperate way of trying to indoctrinate has always been the Christian way. The book 'The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World' by Catherine Nixey is highly recommended in that connection.

[Stavros]

Monotheism is a new invention in the history of human beings, so of course it is a possibility that it will go away again. Without monotheism you would not have several religious wars. You would not have horrors like monotheistic missionaries destroying other countries and cultures like they have done in Canada, many African countries and many other countries. If it was just a dog eat dog world humans would not be here at all by now. Cooperation is what works in nature and many people know that. Cooperation, however, is not possible if you have one side who wants to force another side into being like them. Which is what many monotheist do, because they have somehow brainwashed themselves into thinking that that has something to do with some "almighty" god's love. They literally try to make spiritual clones of themselves, which is the opposite of empathy. The children who bullied you, and me, at school probably needed to have a scapegoat to try to escape from themselves. What they surely needed was a lesson in empathy and love. Bullies bully because they are bullied, at home and elsewhere.

Or you could ask, what does the attack on Palmyra in 385 CE, as described by Nixey, have to do with the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, as recorded in the Gospels? On the one hand the appeal to live a modest, simple life in which people share what they have and need, in which they do not tell lies, have no need to own property or possessions, and in which they do not commit acts of violence and try to deter all who seek to do so. On the other hand, you have the creation of an institution with rules and regulations, prey to the corruptions of power. It might seem like a radical proposal that the core of the message Jesus offered is 'Love Each Other', because it appears to be the hardest thing for people to do.

It means that it is possible to be a monotheist, in this case, a Christian, and be opposed to precisely the history laid bare in Nixey's book, and the contemporary Christians who have a moral agenda that reads more like a political agenda in which their made-up laws masquerading as Christianity are imposed on others -it is as if Jesus never said a word. It seems rather harsh to then dismiss all Christians, in that example, for crimes that many would condemn.

As it stands, monotheism, indeed religion in general is in decline in Europe and North America, even in the USA. And even those so-called 'Evangelical Christians' who formed part of Trump's base, are not so sure about him now. They may have engineered retarded policies in the US as a whole or in some States, but there is not a lot evidence, for example, on Abortion, that it is what most of the citizens want. Hannah Arendt used to argue that Western Civilization had been shaped by Greco-Roman concepts of law and virtue, the late Roger Scruton and extremists in the US like Bill O'Reilly seek to replace that with 'Judeo-Christian' Civilization, for reasons that should be obvious. It is an important difference, but not one on which the US or anyone else has yet to make a definitive judgment.

As for the non-Monotheist Hindu extremists in India, I note Mirgofino has as yet to respond.

And, as I suggested in my first response to this thread, Discrimination precedes organized religion, but so far no discussion of that.

[filghy2]

I don't think religion is the source of all intolerance. There seems to be a deep-rooted tendency in human nature to form into groups and mistrust those outside the group. Some have argued that this is genetically embedded because it was an essential survival strategy in the early days of mankind. That doesn't mean nothing can be done - civilisation has involved moving beyond the limitations of primitive man.

That said, religion has probably been the major source of intolerance through human history. Until recently, human culture was dominated by religion, and still is in some parts of the world. All religions essentially claim to be the sole source of divinely-given knowledge. By implication, those who don't accept this are inferior, if not downright evil.

It is possible for people to be religious and tolerant, but this seems to be a general tendency only where there are strong social pressures against intolerance. I'm not sure it's a coincidence that this occurs mainly in places where religion is no longer central.

[broncofan]

I'll offer a guess. I think some of the same human tendencies that make people grasp at religious doctrines may also be at the root of discrimination. But that wouldn't mean religion causes discrimination. I don't practice a formal religion right now myself. Maybe religion assuages people's fear of death. Or provides a narrative for their life purpose that they'd otherwise have to fill in. But it fills a void because we'd rather have a story that is false than a void of uncertainty.

In my experience racists and other bigots are either fearful or angry and want a scapegoat. They distrust outsiders and associate them with any misfortune they have. They want to believe the worst myths about groups of people and they reason with confirmation bias. And people's nervous systems accommodate this kind of reasoning because the human stress response system is extremely powerful. People are not necessarily designed to be objective so much as fearful, because being fearful can be useful. It causes people to avoid imaginary threats and real threats as well. It's just not useful for reasoning or creating social harmony. Is it any wonder that racists rarely just say they dislike a group of people without providing a reason and will usually provide some fantastic threat they face from the group?

[filghy2]

Maybe religion assuages people's fear of death. Or provides a narrative for their life purpose that they'd otherwise have to fill in. But it fills a void because we'd rather have a story that is false than a void of uncertainty.


Originally it would have been a way to explain elements of the natural world that people had no explanation for. Science should have made that redundant.

It was also useful for the powers that be to justify their own authority and impose social order. Democracy and legal institutions should have made that redundant as well.

Apart from that it seems to be mostly to do with providing a story about what happens after death.

[Stavros]

In my experience racists and other bigots are either fearful or angry and want a scapegoat. They distrust outsiders and associate them with any misfortune they have.


For this I suggest Rene Girard, Violence and the Sacred, in which he tries to unpack this parcel of violence which displaces rage and anger onto a person, or people, if no alternative exists -he thus interprets Cain and Abel as a farmer without a flock expressing his rage on his own brother, who, as a herder, can sacrifice an animal. He also argues Freud was wrong about the Oedipus Myth concerning a son's love for his mother and seeking to replace his father, as the son desiring the father's allure- he envies the ability to attract and wants it for himself.

With these ideas of possession as power, or 'mimetic desire' as he calls it, two people who desire the same thing can either learn how to share it, or fight for it: be it the woman, the man, the land. Any threat from outside appears not just to be real, but also the cause of whatever misfortune exists, the irony being that Oedipus solves the riddle that cures the plague, but is eventually cast out and blinded, because originally he was one of them, having been cast out as a child because of his club foot, taken as a bad omen.

Thus in Christian history there is the paradox that Jesus was raised as a Jew, but whose followers created a different religion which in time cursed the Jews for the Crucifixion, and other misfortunes, even though the Crucifixion is one level a positive event, or was intended to be: Jesus saying let this be the last example of one man killing another, but hey, even then I promise you eternal life and bliss in heaven.

This emotional appeal and its packages of sacrifice and redemption may have more appeal to the masses, than the more intellectual arguments of the Greeks and Romans, with their frankly secular ideas about politics, citizenship and democracy. It also allows them their own scapegoats -those who attacked Greece, lacking their political culture, were demonized as 'Barbarians', which is one word used to describe the violence of HAMAS last week, even though in terms of values, Judaism is closer to Islam than Islam is to Christianity.

If people are ruled by their emotions, and emotions are at full blast right now in that land, violence is the consequence, and we are back with Hobbes, and the alternatives to violence -but in the same State of Government that, having given up on the most obvious: negotiations intended to reach a solution for all, condemns all to the very violence it claims it seeks to avoid.

Faith trumps reason, chaos rather than order. Violence rather than peace. Replacing the Greco-Roman concepts of law and order for the Judeo-Christian myth is embedded in this, with a range of policies that ban abortion, same-sex marriage, state regulation, and so on, as if these contemporary issues could be shaped by Bronze Age priorities.

So even if Discrimination has its roots in the way people shape their social orders, there are ways of dealing with jealousy, sacrifice, the distribution of goods and services, and that most elusive of concepts: happiness.

René Girard - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Girard)

[Stavros]

I could add that Frank Snowden in his various writings about Cholera in Italy, notes that in the 19th century in southern Italy, the slang term for Cholera was 'Lo Zingaro' (the Gypsy). Take it from there.

[Mirgofino]

Thank you for your different contributions and perspectives here. Religion is a very nuanced and complex theme, and I actually have a lot of good things to say about polytheistic religions because they never tend to come up with this idea of some almighty authority (god) that anyone should just follow. Instead they mirror the absolute necessity of diversity in nature, which is not weird, since they are, often, nature-based. Nature, involving everyone and everything on this planet at least, dies without diversity.

Religion in some cases has also, literally, been part of a necessary uprising, as for instance among slaves who ended up using a specific form of vodou to rebel against their "masters", and, thankfully, succeeding with this.

I do not think I wiil add more here but it is a topic I will continue to explore, as I have done a lot in my life. Because I have wondered what was behind some peoples' clear manipulative ways when they met me. What I am even more skeptic about when it comes to monotheists are monotheists in the closet, who act the same way, being on a mission, but with a hidden agenda. If you are, for instance, Christian, at least have the decency to tell other people that, instead of lying.

Have a good day.

[Stavros]

I actually have a lot of good things to say about polytheistic religions because they never tend to come up with this idea of some almighty authority (god) that anyone should just follow. Instead they mirror the absolute necessity of diversity in nature, which is not weird, since they are, often, nature-based. Nature, involving everyone and everything on this planet at least, dies without diversity.



A generous post on your part, so thanks for that. However, Modi in India is attempting to eliminate precisely the diversity which you say Hindu's promote, or should promote. I think he will fail, but he has already caused a great deal of damage inside India and encouraged a sickening amount of violence against non-Hindus.

[Mirgofino]

P. S. I can see that Stavros has added a comment, but I have blocked that profile, so there will never be a response from me to those.

[broncofan]

P. S. I can see that Stavros has added a comment, but I have blocked that profile, so there will never be a response from me to those.
I'm not saying this because I've interacted with him over the years but because it's my read generally. It seems a little thin-skinned to block someone you think was merely rude in a politics forum. So he recommended a primer, which you found condescending perhaps. It's not the end of the world. Just my take but of course the feature is there for anyone who wants to make use of it.

[Stavros]

P. S. I can see that Stavros has added a comment, but I have blocked that profile, so there will never be a response from me to those.

So it appears that having started a thread in which he asks where Discrimination comes from, he does it himself. I hope that it helps him to understand what it is that he wants to understand.

[rodinuk]

So it appears that having started a thread in which he asks where Discrimination comes from, he does it himself. I hope that it helps him to understand what it is that he wants to understand.

Agreed - it’s just hypocrisy

[Mirgofino]

"Interesting" conclusion.

I assume you never say no to any stranger who contacts you on the street although you have no interest in talking to him or her, and the person starts of by being condescending, assuming that you are not "well read", basically insulting you. I say no to strangers based on that, whether it is on the street, online or somewhere else. It is something everyone is allowed to do, but call it hypocrisy or discrimination all you like.

Good luck then with never setting boundaries.

[rodinuk]

It’s hypocrisy because you start a thread and then don’t engage because your ego is offended, rather than debate the content.

Just as well you are a relative newcomer to this board compared with how it used to be in the old days, your blocklist would have been very long….

[Mirgofino]

I blocked a troll. That is my experience.

But demonize a stranger, me, all you want, while I go on living my life. Goodbye.

[Stavros]

I don't consider myself to be a troll. I don't uptick, or downtick posts, and I have never blocked anyone. In other words, I don't discriminate.

[broncofan]

"Interesting" conclusion.

I assume you never say no to any stranger who contacts you on the street although you have no interest in talking to him or her, and the person starts of by being condescending, assuming that you are not "well read", basically insulting you.

Good luck then with never setting boundaries.
If I didn't talk to anyone who ever condescended me I'd have far fewer people to talk to. Sometimes people insult me or say something I don't like but I hear them say other useful things later on.

FYI we can all see who's downvoting posts. If you do it occasionally because you strongly disagree I understand. It's the habitual downvoting of anything critical of you that makes you look a bit thin-skinned. But yeah I can set boundaries, but it's rare that I need to. Maybe for harassment, threats, bigotry. Really anti-social stuff.

[Mirgofino]

This thread is about discrimination, and the idea that it can come from faith in an almighty authority, that you can somehow always place all responsibility on, by calling anything a part of an inscrutable, divine plan. I do not just not believe in that but I am of the opinion that this is deeply destructive to human beings all over the world. Monotheism has tried, and sadly succeded, with destroying many other cultures and faiths. This is not a hypothesis but a fact. Governments in diffeerent parts of the world are looking back now, with shame, at how their past colonizing behaviour has almost destroyed other countries, like Greenland and Canada, and they finally apologize for these horrors. The attempts to christianize in so many parts of the world are so well-known, only someone without any knowledge of history will deny that. I do not "debate" lies trying to invent stories about that this has never happened, in the same way I do not "debate" whether clouds are made of candy floss. And if someone claims that monotheism will never be gone from the world, I can only respond by saying that it is a fairly new invention in the history of humans. An invention, however, that has made extreme changes in all parts of many lives. For some it is so deeply embedded in their language itself, they only consider monotheism or atheism as possible religious outlooks on life. Thankfully monotheism is losing ground as more and more people become skeptic of the whole omnipotent, but not interfering in the most horrible of crimes, "god". If such a being existed it would be evil, plain and simple.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

― Epicurus

There is no "God". Which is a relief, a blessing to the world.

P. S. This thread is not about "me", and I have no interest in responding to any claims about "me". I will ignore them because they are irrelevant, and they do not, as someone try to invent, "hit my ego". I simply do not care.

[Mirgofino]

If someone claims, as monotheists do, that there is an almighty god, then it is their responsibility to prove it. It should not be that difficult if that was the case. I have waited all my life for a reasonable response to that responsibility but instead what happens is, people who believe in such a deity try to attack me, because they cannot, and have not, in any way proven anything, because such a deity cannot, does not and will never, exist. The same response is in this thread which is why I downvoted, blocked and ignored them.

So for me this case is closed. Take care and do not forget that you are allowed to question everything and everyone in your life. This is something many people in power positions really, really do not like, which makes it so much more important.

Be free.

[Stavros]

So for me this case is closed. Take care and do not forget that you are allowed to question everything and everyone in your life. This is something many people in power positions really, really do not like, which makes it so much more important.

Be free.

So in fact, this thread was never intended by the OP to be about Discrimination, but Monotheism. Perhaps that accounts for the confusion, the disagreement, the blockages.

[rodinuk]

He must have had a bad experience with someone who was religious and be unable to comprehend at some level.

The thread was merged from two, one called Discrimination and one called Monotheism, because the second was already the main content of the first.

I don’t have the luxury of blocking as I’m a moderator but I do occasionally use the up/down thumbs.

[Stavros]

He must have had a bad experience with someone who was religious and be unable to comprehend at some level.

The thread was merged from two, one called Discrimination and one called Monotheism, because the second was already the main content of the first.

I don’t have the luxury of blocking as I’m a moderator but I do occasionally use the up/down thumbs.

Ah yes I remember them now. But the two threads were also substantially the same i believe. As for the colonization of Canada and Greenland, I will let someone braver than me to take that on!

[rodinuk]

I think the OP is misguided in seeming to indicate that because believers believe that that somehow abdicates them from personal responsibility. I would say it’s quite the opposite. His statements are bordering on hate against religious believers yet he has not one iota of consideration for the good that can and has been done by following a religious belief. He prefers a world of isolating individuals, promoting suffering and proscribing religion.

[Stavros]

I think the OP is misguided in seeming to indicate that because believers believe that that somehow abdicates them from personal responsibility. I would say it’s quite the opposite. His statements are bordering on hate against religious believers yet he has not one iota of consideration for the good that can and has been done by following a religious belief. He prefers a world of isolating individuals, promoting suffering and proscribing religion.

You make a fair point. There is a God Fearing thread somewhere in the past where a lot of these issues were debated. I think to keep it short, that we don't know what Moses, Jesus or Muhammad would think of the acts of violence that have been done in their name. I like to think they would be appalled. But yes, Jews, Christians and Muslims have also demonstrated their belief in the values they believe in, helping others in distress, promoting peace rather than war, perhaps most important, the value of sharing the resources we have for the common good. Perhaps if those following these faiths adhered more closely to the original intentions, we would not see so much suffering today, as there are always alternatives to hatred and violence.

[MrFanti]

Black male here....
What was the original question before all the derailment?

[Stavros]

Black male here....
What was the original question before all the derailment?

Try the OP, and take it from there, if you can, if you want to.

[MrFanti]

If I didn't talk to anyone who ever condescended me I'd have far fewer people to talk to. Sometimes people insult me or say something I don't like but I hear them say other useful things later on.

FYI we can all see who's downvoting posts. If you do it occasionally because you strongly disagree I understand. It's the habitual downvoting of anything critical of you that makes you look a bit thin-skinned. But yeah I can set boundaries, but it's rare that I need to. Maybe for harassment, threats, bigotry. Really anti-social stuff.
Problem is, when a spirited debate devolves into personal insults that are off-topic.

[MrFanti]

I am wondering why discrimination is so widespread in so many places in the world, and I have come to the conclusion that one of the main reasons is that some people believe in some almighty authority ("God") who they pretend to just follow. This leads to the stagnant and rigid position of status quo in all kinds of places where the dysfunctional, discriminating and patriarchal ways are not only allowed, but encouraged by people who are too afraid to question authority. An authority which by the way can't stand any questioning, as it is empty. It is nothing. So please question this discriminating nothing more.

Fight homophobia, racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination everywhere because it is WRONG and, incredibly, stupid. A low point for human beings wherever it happens.
Hmmm....
I would debate that we all have something of some sort that "we" feel superior about. (Look at international sports for example).
But discrimination has been around since man became bi-pedal (perhaps earlier) and I don't think it will ever 100% go away.

[MrFanti]

The treatment Africans are facing in Ukraine is despicable, but why are we surprised?
https://www.euronews.com/2022/04/01/the-treatment-africans-are-facing-in-ukraine-is-despicable-but-why-are-we-surprised