Stress, Portrait of a Killer - Full Documentary (2008)
commie pusheen is so lovely :3
alpha's btfo eternally.
Very interesting this far.
But if you don't have aggressive baboons, how can you overthrow the alpha in charge?
beta uprising
...
...
I've always said something similar in response to the classic human nature argument.
In primitive wild human tribes the Donald Trumps of the probably wouldn't naturally become the leaders by virtue of their inherent greatness. They're probably get their skulls caved in by the rest of the cavemen for being antisocial dicks.
...
SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS
Undoubtedly. It doesn't matter how strong and fast and handsome and clever you are, because even King badass of badass mountain is as vulnerable as a kitten when he's asleep. If you ain't got a homie to watch your back for you, your toast.
Almost like evolutionary pressure was put on humans to be social animals or some shit
This makes me think, why doesn't anyone kill Trump in his sleep?
because they don't want to go to jail
Really makes me think.
So I guess Trump got people to watch his back?
You know that personality traits exist on a spectrum and aren't just on or off, right? Even an especially placid person will push back if you hassle them enough. 'Strike his face three times and even the Buddha gets angry.'
Because he has a bunch of aggressive baboons on his payroll to prevent that kind of thing, and they really wouldn't think twice about killing you and your whole family.
All things being equal, however
This makes me think again, why doesn't the kind baboons just rise up and kill these aggressive baboons then?
There are a lot of kind baboons right?
You're making EVERYBODY think here son.
Just food for thoughts, user.
I would guess because being aggressive per se isn't a bad thing. Sports require a certain level of aggression for example. And if we're talking literal baboons, having an aggressive individual on your side can be helpful. So really, I think the problem is less that they're aggressive, and more that they're acting like tyrannical dicks.
Unacceptable, this means necessary evil like tyrants, states, and bourgeois deserve to exist.
Does that mean the anarcho-pacifists were right?
How on earth did you come to such a conclusion
...
But how did you make the jump from 'aggression isn't inherently evil' to 'tyrrany deserves to exist'
Because aggressiveness breeds hierarchy (the aggressive will control the non-aggressive), and thus tyranny is born.
That doesn't make any sense at all. Aggression just like every other character trait exists on a spectrum and mixes with all the other facets of an individual's personality. The existence of aggression doesn't entitle dictatorship to the right to exist.
The existence of aggressive characters at all will form hierarchy, as the aggressive characters will decide to take shit/dominate people who aren't aggressive.
That's dumb and wrong
Prove it?
I actually can prove my assertion because the aggressive baboon usually ends as top dawg all the times.
How about you kill yourself instead you fucking retard
The only reason to overthrow the alpha is if someone else is the alpha. He isn't oppressing everyone, he's only the leader (and if he's a complete bastard the betas will kill him and the best of them will become the alpha). You get rid of every aggressive baboon and the competing groups will easily displace and kill the remaining faggots. Baboons are complete dicks though, so maybe they could do away with the more aggressive ones without getting their butts kicked.