75
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2023
75 points (77.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43992 readers
612 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
It appears to be pretty stable through history and prehistory around the world, so it's probably biological. Occasionally cultures allow limited exceptions but they're usually one-sided. This lines up with my personal experience, which is that some people are capable of being poly, but most people just aren't.
With the amount of people who cheat, I would say most people are but not ethically.
Ah yes, that's true. It's pretty common among monogamous birds too.
As I understand it, they're still mono because they couldn't stand it if their partner was doing the same thing.
Man I have so many hopes for that nation. Big challenges, big potential.
I should do some reading about EFF. It really does seem like both SA and Zimbabwe chose the wrong strategy to righting colonial inequalities. Something in between, like just a tax on white-owned businesses while they're disproportionately powerful, could be good.
That's exactly what I've heard too. Eventually they have to fall; ending apartheid was huge but even the most traditional public won't remember forever.
We've had that for thirty years
Look up on BBBEE
The EFF are the kinds of politicans that go to the rich and promise them more money, then go to the power and promise to redistrubute the money. In the end they are the only ones getting money
Am I reading this wrong, or is it more about preferential access to procurement deals than a straight-up transfer of wealth? I mean, that's good too, but obviously it hasn't made much of a dent in the inequality.
Yeah, corruption is definitely still a thing. In other democracies it gradually gets worked out over the decades. Once there's more than one party in play in SA I have no reason to think it won't work the same way.
Retransfer of wealth is how we end up with 1 trillion dollars being written on a bill
The correct country-code is ZA (Zuid-Afrika), Saudi Arabia has SA
I'm pretty sure I explicitly addressed Zimbabwe in OP. Leaving white people alone to hoard our looted colonial treasures is not a valid option.
I know someone who knows a farmer who, during the stupud zimbwabwe times, had his land redistributed. The land was used for nothing except selling it back later
Yeah, I know, that was also bad. To reiterate:
In Zimbabwe they forced the transfer all at once and there was no black people to take the stuff who could actually operate it, so it got sold off for parts. And then, of course, they tried to solve their economic woes by printing ever more money.
I'm guessing the middle road would be a 5% tax or something on the incomes of non-BEE businesses. That way, there would be no catastrophic transition, but with any luck BEE-compliant businesses would grow at a steady pace, and eventually I could actually walk around outside gated neighborhoods without worrying about vigilante redistribution.
I have family over there, but I've never been, so I guess I should end by saying this is just armchair general-ing. Obviously I don't get a vote.
That’s… not true? Monogamy was not the primary form of bonding through humanity’s history. It actually is only recently a global phenomenon, mostly due to European colonialism and the spread of Christianity.
You really need to show some data or sources to backup such a claim tbh. It contradicts most of anthropology of bonding and relationships.
Well, here's the Wikipedia. To be clear, I'm counting a society where elite men might have multiple wives as still monogamous, since that's not representative of an average member of the population and the wives themselves are still bound to a single partner. Maybe that's a terminology error but for the sake of this question I think it's clearest.
And yeah, as someone pointed out there's an amount of infidelity in every human society, but it's generally neither endorsed by the legitimate partner or society at large, at least not as an actual relationship.
The wiki says out of ~1200 societies studied only ~180 were monogamous. And that 16% of the monogamous were not strictly monogamous. I don’t know why the wiki would help your case.
If you didn't read the rest of the paragraph, you should. It was comparing against variants of polygamy, plus 2 cultures that had polyandry, which I discussed elsewhere. Western-style polyamory didn't even make the rankings. I can only think of one other culture (the Mosuo) that might count.
Like I said, it might be an abuse of terminology to call this all monogamy, but natural language is inherently imprecise and this isn't an academic audience that can digest heavy jargon.
You're right, but is it noteworthy that societies with monogamy ultimately outcome teddit.hm others?
Not saying it's "better" just now successful in an expansionist kind of way.