You don’t get much more r than the soft sciences side of a university, and the soft sciences student body in particular.
For that reason, it is not surprising to find that in this heavily rabbitized population, conflict avoidance is the sole motivator:
Students at the University of Minnesota killed a proposed moment of silence for 9/11 victims due to concerns that Muslim students would be offended.
Theo Menon, a Minnesota Student Association representative realized that the university wasn’t doing anything to memorialize 9/11.
So, on October 6, he introduced an MSA proposal to asking the university to institute a “moment of recognition” during the mornings of all future September 11ths.
The resolution in no way referred to Islam or to whether Islam itself is to blame for global terrorism… “It merely stated that 9/11 has had a lasting effect on many students, and ought to be reflected upon for a single moment, once a year.”
But according to the Minnesota Republic, the resolution proved oddly controversial. MSA Director of Diversity and Inclusion, David Algadi, voiced “severe criticism” of the resolution.
Algadi was not the only one with this opinion. A majority of student government representatives sided with him, voting down the resolution in a 36-23 vote this month. If students had their way, there would be no moment of silence at UMN on Sept. 11, 2016.
But after the university became “inundated” with demands for a rebuke of the vote, UMN President Eric Kaler announced that he would formalize the moment of silence anyway. Kaler told the local press that he “wanted to make sure folks were aware that the U is committed to honoring the victims.”
Notice here, there is no sense of morals, loyalty, patriotism, or honor. Those are urges which might provoke conflict, and for the rabbit, there is one goal – avoid any conflict. They decided inflaming the Muslims was a risk, and inflaming the patriots was not, so they killed the moment of silence. Then conflict arose from the other side when the patriots complained, so the university reinstated the moment of silence. If the Muslims bitched, they’d kill it again.
It isn’t surprising. If you are a rabbit in a field of free resources, then when another rabbit threatens you, your best choice is to flee and avoid the conflict, at all costs. An r-selected environment will select for individuals that exhibit that conflict-avoidant instinct, above all else. Here, we see the end result. Every decision is measured by how much conflict each side will produce, and whoever is the most conflict prone gets what they want.
It is why the rabbits always seem to favor Muslims, criminals, whatever race is an out-group to them, foreign interests, immigrants over citizens, and in this case, decent citizens – if the decent citizens threaten enough conflict through out-grouping the rabbit. You can see how as resources snap short and the population grows short tempered, suddenly rabbits can become super-patriots who want to find whatever minority out-group poses the least threat and stuff them in the ovens. The aren’t human. They are human shaped killer puppets who will do whatever will spare them the angst of being seen as an enemy by someone dangerous.
I think this is also why they tend to protest more than K-strategists. Rabbits are all about noise and flash, like some sort of artistic threat dance, to scare the other side away from the food pile with a showy threat of a conflict. K-strategists don’t really see the noise and the flash as being useful if it is just for show – K-strategists only see outcomes of actual violent conflict. If driven to action, they want to brain whoever threatens their food pile, dispose of the body quietly in a sanitary fashion, and then get on to eating. When K-strategists reach critical mass they tend to want to enact real change, by force, rather than by threat of maybe, kind of, possibly, some sort of acrimony-like sounds somewhere down the line. The problem is critical mass for a K-strategist is when somebody has to die. Until then, they just don’t often act, even to complain.
This rabbit conflict-avoidance is instinctual, and it is responding to a specific emotional stimulus. Imagine being a local mayor, in your office. Outside, a group is protesting some decision of your’s. Suddenly, the group grows inflamed, and starts yelling. They begin banging on the door to the building you are in. They open it, and come inside, quickly. They see you in the hall, you see them, and they begin to yell and run at you. You duck in your office, and slam the door, locking it, trying to hold it shut behind you. They begin cursing at you outside, and banging on the door, harder and harder, to the point you begin to think the door might give way. You grab a .45 out of your drawer and load it, pointing it at the door.
That would be intense. But it would take that much to get us to that point of emotional intensity. Rabbits begin to feel that with much less stimulus. And it appears as r-selection continues, they feel it with ever less reason. To a rabbit, saying they should vote for the moment of silence, and maybe anger the Muslims, would be like me saying we should open the door to the horde of pissed off protestors outside. You’d freak out, the exact same way the rabbits freak out today. They feel the same thing, only it is over some Muslim they never met maybe disapproving of them.
It is interesting to understand, from the perspective of your own emotions being triggered, by the weird minutia that triggers rabbits. But as with a narcissist, in the long run there is no dealing with it.
There is only waiting for the Apocalypse, and the rabbit-free environment it will produce.