Your question would be much better applied to height discrimination, which is something that’s almost never mentioned, but is a lot more indicative of the nature of discrimination itself.

It is instinctual, as others have said, but it has nothing to do with tribalism or war, its about resources. Discrimination is almost always about resources (the notable exception being gender/orientation based discrimination, which I guess is religious?).

The discrimination against small people (and obesity and age as well), is more basic, and likely older (in evolutionary terms), and is oriented towards hunting and fighting. We think less of smaller, fatter, and older people because they’re assumed to be less capable of gathering (and fighting for or defending) basic resources.

Discrimination against races is more recent, and more societal, and is more about monetary resources, and isn’t even entirely a matter of race. Poor white people can be discriminated against in the exact same way for the exact same reasons. Racism is more classist than discrimination against height, weight age, etc. but is essentially still a matter of these classes being seen as less capable of getting resources.

You can see it more easily if you look objectively at the discriminatory tendencies of women (and I mean that in a very generalized way). They tend to be far more discriminatory towards resource based biases… Height, weight, physical condition… They’re often inexplicably attracted to overly aggressive partners, occasionally to their own detriment. The more instinctual a woman is, the more likely to pursue the overly aggressive men. Race isn’t anywhere near as much a factor, and there are notable exceptions in all factors for women if a man obviously has a lot of resources already (no indictment intended ladies, just is what it is, and generally)

And of course it’s more obvious among women for the same reason… The disparity (again, in a very general sense) between male and female in ability to gather and defend resources affects women’s choices of partners more so than men.

“Deep south”? Seriously? Why not “the stay puft marshmallow man”? If you’re gonna tempt fate with your naming choice, might as well have a little fun with it…

😂

So if you got a Linux/win dual boot setup, then Linux is part of Windows?

I don’t think so

That’s a hella skimpy example, but yes.

Except that it’s wrong… AI is capable of creativity. It created the artist name. It’s clearly not a very developed or robust sense of creativity because it clearly just hashed up the name Hanna Montana, and the song is probably likewise just a hashed up existing song, but I’m guessing it probably did a better job of creating an original work than vanilla ice…

General officers come with flags, placards, and assorted other bric a brac. The rule of thumb I quoted is decades old, and intended to help clarify how all that goofyness should be addressed, and generally benefits joe.

An officer in civvies carrying his uniform with his rank visible is actually an outstanding example of how said rule of thumb precludes stupid shit, because that guy is almost definitely playing the bullshit game… I’d just salute the fucker, ain’t nobody got time fo dat ;)

Technically, you salute the rank and not the individual.

In reality, as you’ve discovered, common sense still applies :)