We should never forget that humans are in fact animals.
There's this trope that has been run on people from childhood forward that is near-universal: Animals generally have rational behavior and its our poor impulse control in many cases that is the issue. Priests run that nonsense, its taught in schools and is all over the television in various nature shows.
Anyone with 30 seconds worth of thought ought to know its BS. If you've ever owned a cat you know its nonsense. A cat will kill birds or rodents it does not intend to eat and it will "play" with humans with its pins out in full-malice mode. People say "oh the kitty doesn't know." Oh yes it does. Cats, like all other animals, have different and highly-individual dispositions. I grew up with a tom in the house that required you don elbow-length heavy leather gardening gloves if you wished to "play" with him and not wind up with serious claw and bite damage; Gotto was quite the monster during such times. He was an outdoor cat and often came home with significant damage (particularly to his ears) from fights and such, presumably with other male cats, and often delivered "presents" on the rear porch step. One of those presents was a full-grown Raccoon that out-massed him by a fair bit, which he killed but did not eat. You'd think the 'coon would have won that battle but there he was on the step one morning, very dead with Gotto meowing to be let back inside.
Likewise Animal Planet and similar like to make "nice-nice" about mating rituals. The truth is something else entirely. If you've ever been around chickens with a rooster or two you know exactly what I'm talking about. I lived in Florida for 20 years on the water and several times while on my dock relaxing in the late afternoon saw a pod of dolphins -- all males save one female they had corralled up into water about a foot deep so she could not escape and they were taking turns. It was quite explicit, that the dolphins doing it were male was really obvious (yes, Matilda, it does stick out when they're into what they're about to do) and very not consensual.
Humans have tried, over the ages, to put in place structures that tamp down such things. How serious we are about it is open to some dispute. Unfortunately "social structures" -- including governments -- are in many ways indistinguishable from gangs if the population refuses to demand that the rules be followed equally by all and, if they're not, that they remove those who are refusing in an organized fashion using whatever force is required to do so.
If you don't force said "government" and its attached "favored people" to live by those same rules it is indistinguishable from that gang of male dolphins running a train on the single hapless female.
We have seen plenty of such examples over time in human history. Many seem to believe that this is a recent phenomena -- it is not.
Nor is the human tendency to claim that such is "isolated" or even to not care because someone is not personally impacted. The foolish notion that if you're not getting it good and hard now you won't in the future if you sit on your hands is also as old as humanity -- and equally wrong.
America allegedly burnt "the divine right of Kings" -- that is, the capacity of the government and its favored minions to exempt itself from the law when The Founders penned the Constitution. It took very little time for that notion to be disabused, and over the last 240-odd years it has only accelerated. The premise of the Constitution is that one does not have "rights" bestowed by Government as an entity cannot give what it does not first possess; that which you have as a consequence of being human is yours, but it cannot obligate anyone else to do any more than leave you alone. To claim and enforce otherwise is the definition of slavery and, once again, I refer you to the male dolphins off my dock who I'm sure were all convinced that it was utterly essential to the survival of the species that they corral and impregnate said hapless female, whether she liked it or not.
Correct or not that was their position and they were willing to execute on it -- and did.
Where were the other dolphins who said "nope!" and broke that up? Nowhere to be found.
Are we better than that?
Well, there's 330 million of us here in America, roughly.
Plenty of people were willing to incarcerate or even execute those who refused a shot that, we now know, doesn't work "as advertised." May I note that Congress and its minions were exempt from the mandates forced on others? There are plenty of humans who when challenged with this try to rules-lawyer the test; "oh it makes it much less likely you'll get really sick or die" they now say. But that's not what you were promised, is it? We all know what the politicians and so-called "experts" claimed so if you're using that now as justification then you are the thug because you are fully aware you're lying, just as Biden, Trump, Fauci, Birx and everyone in your state and local public heath and doctor's offices were all the way back to December of 2020.
We underwent two years of riots and general lawlessness because a drug addict ODd. That's conclusive, by the way; all you had to do was read the ME report, which was published. Whether the cops contributed to the death is a clean question and that's why we have trials and, allegedly, a public process for accusations like this. You can agree or disagree that the outcome was just but what's very clear and without question is that exactly zero of the burnt businesses and other riot damage was inflicted on anyone who had any culpability whatsoever in the original incident.
Who went to prison for those riots -- which were national in scope, I might add. Essentially nobody yet Arson upon a building is supposed to be one of the most-serious crimes one can commit because it always implicates the risk of killing humans; someone may be in the building or die trying to put the fire out. We seem to have lost our collective consciousness when it comes to this, have we not?
These are just two small examples.
A much-larger one is the collusive action of not only tech firms but the government as well to censor speech they do not like. Did we not just witness another example of that on the Senate floor with Chuck Schumer? Collusive behavior of this sort, with or without the government, has been illegal where market power exists for over one hundred years and it is both a civil offense and criminal felony. The number of prosecutions for same, never mind immediate ejection from said chamber for that clear violation of the Constitution has been..... zero.
Are we in fact better than those dolphins, or the rooster -- or not?