I'm pretty sure it's better not to let language rot through poor grammar. So, please keep the protocol from being corrupted or unnecessarily fragmented. The more inaccurate languages get the more heat loss humanity suffers.
Maybe you don't think it matters much. Well, okay. But for those who think correctness and standards compliance are good, the correct plural of virus is offered.
"Viruses" is correct. It's what you should use if you're not trying to be wrong or silly (or both).
"Viri" is bad Latin -- there is no record of virus being pluralized. It's like saying "many poison".
"Virii" is right out. (Plural of "virius"?) But feel free to use it because it's so obviously wrong folks will (mostly) assume it's ironic, like lolspeak.
Folks, they're terrorists. The point is terror. The more you worry about them, the more they've won.
And people who make a big deal about them and about fighting them are doing exactly what the terrorists want, what the terrorists need. To be effective, terrorists need your support, in the form of your active fear. Quit giving it to them. Try this instead: focus on how many deaths we suffer from car accidents each year, or even just eating badly. Put things into perspective.
I see what you did there. Very clever. Actually reading the article and summarizing it rather than telling the GP to RTFA, thus avoiding a backlash from GP, and the attendant waste of time flame war, while promoting useful discussion. Nice work. This merits a stamp of approval.
Okay, substitute "intend" for "plan". That's the point anyway. Back on point, pardon me...
Kids can intend harm. People need to relax and free themselves from the urges that their feelings push them around with.
I find it interesting that people here are highly modding comments that support their urge to hold children utterly blameless, rather than ones that represent the truth.
Let's look at it this way: Imagine an adult hits a child because the child ate the adult's cookie. It's dumb to argue whether the kid ate the cookie. It's dumb to argue whether they wanted to eat the cookie. It's dumb to argue whether they intended to eat the cookie, or whether they knew it belonged to someone else. The issue is not that the kid is performing kid-like behavior. The issue is whether the kid ought to be hit. If you overly focus on your emotional reaction to how kids should not be hit because they don't know better, then you'll fight anything that resembles showing that kids might know better. Resembles. Like showing that kids have agency or intentionality. Appalling illogicality, resisting truths because they're in the neighborhood of an idea that one abhors. It's surprisingly childish, having one's rationality blurred so badly by the forces of one's emotions.
As for morality, all that's needed is a conception of the suffering of others. You could find a way to imprison and torture people for the rest of their natural lives and it would be evil. A proper grasp of the concept of death is not required to do evil.
They don't have the part of the brain that you would use to make such a decision.
Whoa, no way.
Maybe you're referring to how the prefrontal cortex, region of executive control, is underdeveloped? And anyway, that just means that they have a hard time controlling themselves, not that they can't plan or perform evil.
That page is just a collection of links. The target references say it is either "proscribed", "nonstandard", or slang, or that the term can't be found. This link is not proof of dictionary acceptance of the term.
The correct Latin plural would probably be virera.
I believe you mean virora. Yes, this is one proposed likely candidate. Like corpus corpora or genus genera. Another candidate is virs ("veer ooz", as opposed to "veer oose" for virus), like manus mans (meaning hand hands). [Some of these characters might not be displayed in your browser.] I have not seen "virera" before, however.
The implication of the "would probably be" part of your sentence is important. We don't have any record of actual plural use of the Latin word virus, so we just don't know what the proper Latin pluralization is. Indeed, also, as you point out, it is a mass noun like "water" or "furniture", which means you would say "much virus" rather than "many virora" or "many virs".
we use it for "microphage"
Viruses are not microphages. That's something else.
Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive.
Not all dictionaries are descriptive only. Dictionaries can also be prescriptive. Sophisticated dictionaries often include usage notes which relate the opinions of usage panels, and as such are prescriptive, or are, at the very least, advisory.
I would recommend folks not use 'viri' or 'virii' in any non-joke context.
I feel it is important to keep in mind that English is pretty fucked up and that humanity suffers "heat loss" because of English's inefficiency. (Not to belittle the problem here -- inefficiency can be more than mere annoyance or inconvenience. Inefficiency can manifest as harmful misunderstandings or needless conflict.) Part of what makes English bad in this way is irregularity. Imagine trying to learn a new language and having to memorize "good / better / best" instead of just learning "good" and knowing the comparative ("gooder") and the superlative ("goodest"). Sounds like not a big deal, but that's only one example, and you're spending time and effort learning this needless irregularity. Irregularity wastes time and makes communication slower and more problematic.
I have a friend who says she "paints with words like an impressionist". This is lovely for many things, but I would rather a person not do this for relating a recipe for baking, or the schedule for an event, or directions to a venue, or how somebody was badly injured in an accident or a fight. Getting ideas shared clearly between people is hard enough as it is. I would recommend erring on the side of precision in communication. One problem with painting with words like an impressionist, or "[resorting] to poetry", can be that a person may opt for or default to the more comfortable and less precise mode of communication because it's easy, and they may never train to be able to be more precise. Paint with words if you feel it's for the best for the situation at hand, but don't neglect to learn to use pencils and rulers, and to apply them when it's better to.
Be grammatically correct when you can. It helps.
Now, computer viruses are not Roman inventions. Or Greek. (That's something else.)
If we think of "virus" as coming from Latin rather than being a proper Latin term, then we can think of it as an English term, a new English word, in the shape of some old language's word. Virus means something different to us than what it did to Romans. We don't think virus means "poison" but instead "a computer program". And in English we use virus as a count noun, not a mass noun: Your network has many viruses, it does not have much virus. You might want to avoid pluralizing that old Latin word and
Letting go of your valuations based on who is near to you (by space or relation) helps you to improve the lives of others around you, and, if everyone around you felt the same way, your well-being and the well-being of those near to you would be far better looked after than if you were competing for resources. Caring for others improves your own lot.
It's counter-intuitive at first.
Imagine some liver cells being selfish. That doesn't help the whole body, which in turn jeopardizes the well-being of the liver cells. Like it or not, we're all in this together. Right now we have pieces of body subverting the health of other pieces.
We're on the cusp of great technological changes. Indeed, we are already experiencing great technological change. Even if it weren't the case, acting in cooperation instead of selfishly would be enough to help each of us achieve a comfortable life. With the advance of technology being what it is, cooperation would have everyone achieving fantastic levels of life satisfaction. It would be immoral and ironically self-defeating not to cooperate.
The people who won't be affected are the ones who are already vulnerable to regular cookies, he means to say. Or, the new technique of making cookies persistenter has no additional effect on folks who don't delete cookies because they're already easily tracked.
Though I did find your comment interesting. "... gathering and selling various gray-black-market data is illegal, immoral, etc...." What would happen if people built an open database and gave it all away?
Grassroots gratis database of personal data.
It would have some technical challenges, but what ideas does this concept prompt?
From the responses and ideas I've seen, this is the only reason that begins to make sense. Thanks for sharing.
So, based on principles. In particular, the principles of self-determination and fairness. Not having to give others the resources that you scored fair and square. Especially not having to give those resources to people who are gaming the system by trying to leech.
I understand from your comments below that you felt you were mistaken, but I find your comment here and the high rating very interesting.
I'm wondering what the driving force is for people who don't make $200K, indeed anywhere near it, that causes them to try to protect the people who make over $500K.
In short, there are lots of regular joes who want to pamper multi-millionaires.
I see this very often. I find it confusing when these regular joes aren't actually in the bracket they're trying to protect, and most likely (looking at the quantity of persons who are in the bracket v. quantity of supportive joes) won't even reach the bracket. And... the people who are in the privileged bracket are already taking very good care of themselves because of the power afforded them by their bracket. And... they're doing it at the expense of or at least in disregard of the people in the regular joes bracket.
Can one of you regular joes who wants to support multi-millionaires explain to me what motivates you? I doubt it's because you have a lord-loving serf attitude. Maybe you believe you will be uber-wealthy before long? Maybe you identify with the multi-millionaires, feeling like others are always getting you down and being a drag on you?
Forums are not an ideal place to correct grammar. But if you must...
However, if your aim is improving communication, I suggest you start with reading to understand rather than requesting others be perfect before communicating. Does that make sense? Get what you can out of another's writing first, help them hone their legibility after.
I could misspell every word in a post and still easily convey important information. So, perfection in spelling as a prerequisite to communicating is counterproductive.
Now, maybe you're just throwing barbs. To do so more effectively, I suggest addressing something more relevant. But please note that I believe throwing barbs is probably more a hindrance to communication than meer mispelling.
I think dendrites, but pretty slowly? This all depends on what you consider to be neuron proper and what to be fiddly additional bits, like ions and neurotransmitters, and what you mean by move (rather than "grow" or "slowly shift" perhaps).
But reuptake transporters, vesicles, ion channels... There are moving bits proper, I think. Cells in general do lots of moving.
But then he goes right on to emphasize that "the genome constrains the amount of information in the brain prior to the brain's interaction with its environment."
To be sure, the genome must be a major factor. I recognize that human bodies are not the products of genomes alone -- indeed, over 90% of the cells in our bodies (counting by sheer number) don't even have our DNA because they belong to our symbiont species -- but surely the complexity of the blueprint for brain-developing-systems goes a long way towards approximating total complexity of the developed-brain-system. Part of my intuition here is an anticipated relative complexity between environment and the machinery of the brain itself. The brain seems to be a damned complex thing, just in its construction.
Still, your point is important. Our genetic code only really works in its environment. Some stimulation can be piped in from real world sensors, other stimulation can be simulated. But that's only negligible for the simpler stuff, which might arguably be the things during the post-birth development that occur to us offhand, our prominent sensory experiences. The complexity of the interplay between our developing bodies and our nutrients and myriad symbionts (indeed, even the creatures we might mistakenly think of as parasites which could in fact be helping keep our immune systems tuned properly for example) is no trivial matter.
"The brains we'd been simulating growing didn't quite work until we added, to our chagrin, the entire body. And even then we had to add in most of the symbiotic species to avoid Autism, Alzheimer's, Crohn's disease, and lupus. But that was only 30% additional complexity... um, once we figured out what all the symbiotic relationships were. Ahem. The good news is that we cured half those diseases and lifted medical science to the verge of curing the rest! The bad news is that we lagged behind the symbolic AI developers by 20 years in creating something that wasn't retarded. But we like our results better. And we're the ones paving the way to Upload.:P"
Investigate Columbine and you'll find Eric and Dylan were badly bullied, including specifically by some kid who went by, I think the name was, "Rocky".
Humiliation can be a big part of it. More fundamentally the issue is feeling devalued. Ruin someone's sense of self-worth and they become a serious danger.
I watched my cat carry on a 10 minute conversation with one. Obviously some sort of speech between the two...never seen anything like it before, or since.
Yeah, but you don't know what was being said.
Cat: I am so gonna eat you. Crow: Yeah, whatever. Cat: No, for sure. Crow: Yeah, whatever. Cat: I am totally gonna eat you. Om nom, dude. Crow: You and all your genius, verb-conjugation-challenged LOLCAT friends, I'm sure. I'm quaking in my down.
I often see my friend's cat chatter while staring, intrigued, at birds. I'm guessing it might be some kind of way to keep nearby cats informed of possible prey.
I wonder. I was going to suggest that one interview persons at a live music show to ask them why they chose to be an audience there rather than being home listening to Jimi, but that misses the other side -- who are the people at home listening to Jimi instead of going to the live show their friends invited them to?
My guess is that live music and recorded music are just different enough beasts that they don't compete all that much.
As for the idea that there would generally be a whole lot less music if capitalizing by selling recordings weren't an option... Yeah, I don't know. For one thing, I'm going to guess there wouldn't be so much less that it would significantly impact 99.9999% of the population's listening tendencies.
That something is useful for propaganda purposes doesn't mean that it is true.
Nor false. Either way. Though it may be suggestive.
I'm inclined to think that copyleft is a serious threat to their way of business. Maybe not entirely to capitalizing on creative productions, but at least to parasitic middlemen.
MIT's Technology Review is annal-ma-lyzin' a team's success in combatin' problems with a-bringin' liquid mirrors and such t'the pract'cal applicationin's of the astronomy.
Did you know that attacking other social groups is usually a product of low self-esteem?
If at some point you develop a sense of valuing yourself, you retain your critical knowledge of other races and cultures but stop needing to attack them.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty sure it's better not to let language rot through poor grammar. So, please keep the protocol from being corrupted or unnecessarily fragmented. The more inaccurate languages get the more heat loss humanity suffers.
Maybe you don't think it matters much. Well, okay. But for those who think correctness and standards compliance are good, the correct plural of virus is offered.
(more detail)
"mai kumpootur haz mutch virii!"
Wasn't sure whether you knew. Just posting this as a PSA.
Exactly this.
Folks, they're terrorists. The point is terror. The more you worry about them, the more they've won.
And people who make a big deal about them and about fighting them are doing exactly what the terrorists want, what the terrorists need. To be effective, terrorists need your support, in the form of your active fear. Quit giving it to them. Try this instead: focus on how many deaths we suffer from car accidents each year, or even just eating badly. Put things into perspective.
I see what you did there. Very clever. Actually reading the article and summarizing it rather than telling the GP to RTFA, thus avoiding a backlash from GP, and the attendant waste of time flame war, while promoting useful discussion. Nice work. This merits a stamp of approval.
OK
Here's a way of handling certs which doesn't rely on those organizations: Perspectives
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~perspectives/
Okay, substitute "intend" for "plan". That's the point anyway. Back on point, pardon me...
Kids can intend harm. People need to relax and free themselves from the urges that their feelings push them around with.
I find it interesting that people here are highly modding comments that support their urge to hold children utterly blameless, rather than ones that represent the truth.
Let's look at it this way: Imagine an adult hits a child because the child ate the adult's cookie. It's dumb to argue whether the kid ate the cookie. It's dumb to argue whether they wanted to eat the cookie. It's dumb to argue whether they intended to eat the cookie, or whether they knew it belonged to someone else. The issue is not that the kid is performing kid-like behavior. The issue is whether the kid ought to be hit. If you overly focus on your emotional reaction to how kids should not be hit because they don't know better, then you'll fight anything that resembles showing that kids might know better. Resembles. Like showing that kids have agency or intentionality. Appalling illogicality, resisting truths because they're in the neighborhood of an idea that one abhors. It's surprisingly childish, having one's rationality blurred so badly by the forces of one's emotions.
As for morality, all that's needed is a conception of the suffering of others. You could find a way to imprison and torture people for the rest of their natural lives and it would be evil. A proper grasp of the concept of death is not required to do evil.
They don't have the part of the brain that you would use to make such a decision.
Whoa, no way.
Maybe you're referring to how the prefrontal cortex, region of executive control, is underdeveloped? And anyway, that just means that they have a hard time controlling themselves, not that they can't plan or perform evil.
virii: "Mai cumpyootor can haz much vairus."
viruses: "My computer has viruses."
http://www.onelook.com/?w=virii
That page is just a collection of links. The target references say it is either "proscribed", "nonstandard", or slang, or that the term can't be found. This link is not proof of dictionary acceptance of the term.
The correct Latin plural would probably be virera.
I believe you mean virora. Yes, this is one proposed likely candidate. Like corpus corpora or genus genera. Another candidate is virs ("veer ooz", as opposed to "veer oose" for virus), like manus mans (meaning hand hands). [Some of these characters might not be displayed in your browser.] I have not seen "virera" before, however.
The implication of the "would probably be" part of your sentence is important. We don't have any record of actual plural use of the Latin word virus, so we just don't know what the proper Latin pluralization is. Indeed, also, as you point out, it is a mass noun like "water" or "furniture", which means you would say "much virus" rather than "many virora" or "many virs".
we use it for "microphage"
Viruses are not microphages. That's something else.
Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive.
Not all dictionaries are descriptive only. Dictionaries can also be prescriptive. Sophisticated dictionaries often include usage notes which relate the opinions of usage panels, and as such are prescriptive, or are, at the very least, advisory.
I would recommend folks not use 'viri' or 'virii' in any non-joke context.
I feel it is important to keep in mind that English is pretty fucked up and that humanity suffers "heat loss" because of English's inefficiency. (Not to belittle the problem here -- inefficiency can be more than mere annoyance or inconvenience. Inefficiency can manifest as harmful misunderstandings or needless conflict.) Part of what makes English bad in this way is irregularity. Imagine trying to learn a new language and having to memorize "good / better / best" instead of just learning "good" and knowing the comparative ("gooder") and the superlative ("goodest"). Sounds like not a big deal, but that's only one example, and you're spending time and effort learning this needless irregularity. Irregularity wastes time and makes communication slower and more problematic.
I have a friend who says she "paints with words like an impressionist". This is lovely for many things, but I would rather a person not do this for relating a recipe for baking, or the schedule for an event, or directions to a venue, or how somebody was badly injured in an accident or a fight. Getting ideas shared clearly between people is hard enough as it is. I would recommend erring on the side of precision in communication. One problem with painting with words like an impressionist, or "[resorting] to poetry", can be that a person may opt for or default to the more comfortable and less precise mode of communication because it's easy, and they may never train to be able to be more precise. Paint with words if you feel it's for the best for the situation at hand, but don't neglect to learn to use pencils and rulers, and to apply them when it's better to.
Be grammatically correct when you can. It helps.
Now, computer viruses are not Roman inventions. Or Greek. (That's something else.)
If we think of "virus" as coming from Latin rather than being a proper Latin term, then we can think of it as an English term, a new English word, in the shape of some old language's word. Virus means something different to us than what it did to Romans. We don't think virus means "poison" but instead "a computer program". And in English we use virus as a count noun, not a mass noun: Your network has many viruses, it does not have much virus. You might want to avoid pluralizing that old Latin word and
This'll seem crazy at first, but...
Each life should be valued practically the same.
Letting go of your valuations based on who is near to you (by space or relation) helps you to improve the lives of others around you, and, if everyone around you felt the same way, your well-being and the well-being of those near to you would be far better looked after than if you were competing for resources. Caring for others improves your own lot.
It's counter-intuitive at first.
Imagine some liver cells being selfish. That doesn't help the whole body, which in turn jeopardizes the well-being of the liver cells. Like it or not, we're all in this together. Right now we have pieces of body subverting the health of other pieces.
We're on the cusp of great technological changes. Indeed, we are already experiencing great technological change. Even if it weren't the case, acting in cooperation instead of selfishly would be enough to help each of us achieve a comfortable life. With the advance of technology being what it is, cooperation would have everyone achieving fantastic levels of life satisfaction. It would be immoral and ironically self-defeating not to cooperate.
The people who won't be affected are the ones who are already vulnerable to regular cookies, he means to say. Or, the new technique of making cookies persistenter has no additional effect on folks who don't delete cookies because they're already easily tracked.
Though I did find your comment interesting. "... gathering and selling various gray-black-market data is illegal, immoral, etc. ..." What would happen if people built an open database and gave it all away?
Grassroots gratis database of personal data.
It would have some technical challenges, but what ideas does this concept prompt?
From the responses and ideas I've seen, this is the only reason that begins to make sense. Thanks for sharing.
So, based on principles. In particular, the principles of self-determination and fairness. Not having to give others the resources that you scored fair and square. Especially not having to give those resources to people who are gaming the system by trying to leech.
Does that sound about right?
I understand from your comments below that you felt you were mistaken, but I find your comment
here and the high rating very interesting.
I'm wondering what the driving force is for people who don't make $200K, indeed anywhere near
it, that causes them to try to protect the people who make over $500K.
In short, there are lots of regular joes who want to pamper multi-millionaires.
I see this very often. I find it confusing when these regular joes aren't actually in the
bracket they're trying to protect, and most likely (looking at the quantity of persons who
are in the bracket v. quantity of supportive joes) won't even reach the bracket.
And... the people who are in the privileged bracket are already taking very
good care of themselves because of the power afforded them by their bracket. And...
they're doing it at the expense of or at least in disregard of the people in the regular joes
bracket.
Can one of you regular joes who wants to support multi-millionaires explain to me what
motivates you? I doubt it's because you have a lord-loving serf attitude. Maybe you believe
you will be uber-wealthy before long? Maybe you identify with the multi-millionaires, feeling
like others are always getting you down and being a drag on you?
Forums are not an ideal place to correct grammar. But if you must...
However, if your aim is improving communication, I suggest you start with reading to understand rather than requesting others be perfect before communicating. Does that make sense? Get what you can out of another's writing first, help them hone their legibility after.
I could misspell every word in a post and still easily convey important information. So, perfection in spelling as a prerequisite to communicating is counterproductive.
Now, maybe you're just throwing barbs. To do so more effectively, I suggest addressing something more relevant. But please note that I believe throwing barbs is probably more a hindrance to communication than meer mispelling.
I think it's legitimate use in informal situations. Often sentences contain implied words. Right? Isn't that right?
And if you stick a question mark at the end of a sentence, you add an implication of question-ness that might be explicated by adding words.
Feeling cheerful? Feeling cheerful [aren't you]?
I think dendrites, but pretty slowly? This all depends on what you consider to be neuron proper and what to be fiddly additional bits, like ions and neurotransmitters, and what you mean by move (rather than "grow" or "slowly shift" perhaps).
But reuptake transporters, vesicles, ion channels... There are moving bits proper, I think. Cells in general do lots of moving.
But then he goes right on to emphasize that "the genome constrains the amount of information in the brain prior to the brain's interaction with its environment."
To be sure, the genome must be a major factor. I recognize that human bodies are not the products of genomes alone -- indeed, over 90% of the cells in our bodies (counting by sheer number) don't even have our DNA because they belong to our symbiont species -- but surely the complexity of the blueprint for brain-developing-systems goes a long way towards approximating total complexity of the developed-brain-system. Part of my intuition here is an anticipated relative complexity between environment and the machinery of the brain itself. The brain seems to be a damned complex thing, just in its construction.
Still, your point is important. Our genetic code only really works in its environment. Some stimulation can be piped in from real world sensors, other stimulation can be simulated. But that's only negligible for the simpler stuff, which might arguably be the things during the post-birth development that occur to us offhand, our prominent sensory experiences. The complexity of the interplay between our developing bodies and our nutrients and myriad symbionts (indeed, even the creatures we might mistakenly think of as parasites which could in fact be helping keep our immune systems tuned properly for example) is no trivial matter.
"The brains we'd been simulating growing didn't quite work until we added, to our chagrin, the entire body. And even then we had to add in most of the symbiotic species to avoid Autism, Alzheimer's, Crohn's disease, and lupus. But that was only 30% additional complexity... um, once we figured out what all the symbiotic relationships were. Ahem. The good news is that we cured half those diseases and lifted medical science to the verge of curing the rest! The bad news is that we lagged behind the symbolic AI developers by 20 years in creating something that wasn't retarded. But we like our results better. And we're the ones paving the way to Upload. :P"
Investigate Columbine and you'll find Eric and Dylan were badly bullied, including specifically by some kid who went by, I think the name was, "Rocky".
Humiliation can be a big part of it. More fundamentally the issue is feeling devalued. Ruin someone's sense of self-worth and they become a serious danger.
what does this similarity imply about the evolution of behavior?
Empathy contributes to population fitness?
I watched my cat carry on a 10 minute conversation with one. Obviously some sort of speech between the two...never seen anything like it before, or since.
Yeah, but you don't know what was being said.
Cat: I am so gonna eat you.
Crow: Yeah, whatever.
Cat: No, for sure.
Crow: Yeah, whatever.
Cat: I am totally gonna eat you. Om nom, dude.
Crow: You and all your genius, verb-conjugation-challenged LOLCAT friends, I'm sure. I'm quaking in my down.
I often see my friend's cat chatter while staring, intrigued, at birds. I'm guessing it might be some kind of way to keep nearby cats informed of possible prey.
But, yeah, crows are brilliant.
I wonder. I was going to suggest that one interview persons at a live music show to ask them why they chose to be an audience there rather than being home listening to Jimi, but that misses the other side -- who are the people at home listening to Jimi instead of going to the live show their friends invited them to?
My guess is that live music and recorded music are just different enough beasts that they don't compete all that much.
As for the idea that there would generally be a whole lot less music if capitalizing by selling recordings weren't an option... Yeah, I don't know. For one thing, I'm going to guess there wouldn't be so much less that it would significantly impact 99.9999% of the population's listening tendencies.
That something is useful for propaganda purposes doesn't mean that it is true.
Nor false. Either way. Though it may be suggestive.
I'm inclined to think that copyleft is a serious threat to their way of business. Maybe not entirely to capitalizing on creative productions, but at least to parasitic middlemen.
Rather, that should be spelled a-bringin'.
MIT's Technology Review is annal-ma-lyzin' a team's success in combatin' problems with a-bringin' liquid mirrors and such t'the pract'cal applicationin's of the astronomy.
Intriguing. Thank you for the information, I'll see if I can dig up the actual studies.
I wouldn't call the distinction here "social groups", though. I imagine the particular persons you're referring to are more simply sociopathic.
For more information on "groupism", see Muzafer Sherif's work in the Robbers Cave experiment.
Did you know that attacking other social groups is usually a product of low self-esteem?
If at some point you develop a sense of valuing yourself, you retain your critical knowledge of other races and cultures but stop needing to attack them.