> I'm talking about basic human beings, regardless of gained skill. Also, what skills one can gain is highly dependent on birth fortunes.

Again, I’m not entirely sure what you mean by this (I.e. what does “basic human beings” mean), but even removing learned skills, humans are still not created equal e.g. raw/natural athleticism, physical attractiveness (or at least what society perceives as attractive - this can change between different societies/time periods), intelligence, etc. I guess this is sort of what you’re getting at with “what skills one can gain is highly dependent on birth fortunes”? Just to be clear, I’m not arguing with you on this. We all have different starting points in life based on our natural talent (genetics) and upbringing.

> What you're disregarding is that other people also have agency to disrupt the live of any person they come in contact with - and they will purely out of unchecked malice. People won't maliciously interfere with another's life only if there is a credible threat of punishment for doing so. No punishment? A crowd will hack away at a person until he or she is chunks.

Yes, human beings can be extremely mean (this is not limited to just hierarchies though). I don’t disagree with you - I’m not making any statements about the morality of human beings or hierarchies.

More relevantly though, how does one enforce rules via punishment without hierarchy?

> People won't maliciously interfere with another's life only if there is a credible threat of punishment for doing so. No punishment? A crowd will hack away at a person until he or she is chunks.

I disagree with this - yes, some people are just mean spirited, but plenty of people aren’t, even without any risk of punishment. As for the “crowd” bit, what you’re referring to is mob mentality which is sort of a separate human phenomenon and causes humans to act in a number of abnormal ways - this is sort of related to hierarchies, but not directly, as mob mentality can exist outside of the context of hierarchies.

> Hierarchies destroy the people trapped in them. Hierarchies are one reason why communities die. Humans aren't "accepting" this so much as they are trapped and suffering under them, with little means of escape.

Again, I’m not trying to make any moral claims about hierarchies - they certainly are used as a mechanism to oppress. That said, I think hierarchies are essential for large scale societies/communities to function properly - a company, for instance, where everyone has equal influence/decision making power would be absolute chaos and highly inefficient.

This ability to organize ourselves in large societies/communities is one of the main reasons anthropologists believe homo sapiens beat out all other “homo” variants - it’s literally in our nature.

> Then how do you explain the fact that so many people recognize that no human being is inherently better than another.

You’ll have to be more specific here, as this could mean a whole lot of things, but if we’re talking about skill/talent, humans are most definitely not created equal.

> and that most advantages in life are at least partially due to the random lottery of birth circumstances?

Yup, 100%. Humans are shaped by nature (genetics) and nurture (upbringing), neither of which we control - that’s life though and something every human has to accept. That said, I still believe humans have the agency to shape their lives, although only to an extent. As the saying goes, “life’s not fair”.

I don’t really understand what either of your above points have to do with hierarchies though. They don’t have to be fair to exist.

> Any belief in some form of "natural, unavoidable" hierarchy is purely a manifestation of narcissism or other cluster-B disorder.

This is essentially my point - there is no such thing as a “natural” hierarchy, just as there’s no such thing as a “mythical” hierarchy. I do, however, believe certain hierarchies are extremely likely to develop due to the current societal landscape and the tendency of human beings to organize themselves in this structure.

Hierarchies among humans exist everywhere, in every community. Some are immediately obvious, while others are more subtle. Unfortunately, I think you’ll have to accept this, just as almost all humans have for thousands of years.

Honestly don’t know which hierarchy we’re talking about, but I don’t really understand the concept of a “mythical hierarchy” - they’re social constructs.

If I was to put a bunch of babies in a bubble and raise them to adulthood, isolated completely from the rest of society, rewarding those who are the best at art (random example) with more food and material goods, they would almost certainly create a hierarchy around artistry.

The point I’m trying to make here is hierarchies can’t be be real, fake, mythical, etc. They either exist or they don’t and are determined by society, mostly based on environmental factors.

This “hierarchy” doesn’t seem particularly “mythical” given it’s impact on your life

> it’s a foul only if there is excessive force or done with the sole intent of blocking the keeper.

This is not how I’ve seen it interpreted personally. For instance, a player colliding with a keeper when attempting to win a header is frequently called as a foul when they’re not attempting to block the keeper or using excessive force.

Side note: I would also argue the UCLA player probably is attempting to obstruct the keeper.

Either way, probably not worth arguing over it. Just how I’ve generally seen it interpreted. Respect that you’ve seen it differently.

I can’t speak to NCAA soccer, as I very rarely watch it, but at the professional level, that is called a foul 95%+ of the time - you can’t lean/push into the keeper in that manner (source: I’ve watched hundreds of pro soccer games per year for the past 15 years or so).

Feel bad for UNC to be honest. UCLA’s last second equalizer involved a clear foul on the keeper.

https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/ze9zcc/video_foul_on_keeper_for_tying_goal_at_the_end_of/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

Interesting, I’ve always felt the opposite.

I lived in San Francisco my first year and a half out of college, and while I like a lot of things about the city, I really hated the weather. It was essentially the same year round. Without a seasonal reference point, the days/weeks/months/seasons bled into one another and honestly made me a bit depressed - I felt like I was living the same day over and over for a year and a half (at least mon->fri that is). I grew up in Boston though which has very distinct seasons, so might have just been unfamiliar.

I’m not a huge Christmas person, but always liked how it spices up December every year with something different than the norm.