Why the modern equality movement is so bad
Over a decade ago I used to very strongly associate myself with the equality movement of the time… And why wouldn't I? People were and are being oppressed for their race, sex and sexual orientation and such irregardless of how little data such things actually give you about the individuals. And I would say that at the time the equality movement was a particularly honest movement that also played by the rules of free speech and good public debate and such, unlike many other movements, who seemed to just want to win irregardless of how dishonestly.
And this was working… Statistics and studies and practice show that during that time people of the world became bigger supporters of equality. But maybe because of this success and how equality became such a big value in the world, the equality movement changed.
Nowadays, the modern equality movement does not respect the freedom of speech too much… At least where I live, arguing against people being genetically equal is pretty much a taboo and you get almost immediate social repercussions for it… There aren't that many ways to truly get cancelled on the internet and the community becoming a hostile and silencing force against you… But on this issue, irregardless of the fact that there is nothing close to a scientific consensus on the issue, and that there are obvious arguments for either side, if you argue for inequality, you get labeled a racist and/or sexist and cancelled quicker than for any other issue. The cancel cultures main propagator is the modern equality movement.
While I still think inequality is a big problem in the world and I argue against it, I find it hard to follow a movement that prevents the other side from arguing back this much… Freedom of speech will always be more important than equality.
But I do understand why the equality movement has become like this… Almost all movements turn into bullies when they get enough power… And since our childhoods, almost all popular entertainment has promoted inclusivity and equality as the good side and shown non inclusive people of inequality as the bad guys… And when, like a crusader, you think that your cause is truly just and good and cant be false, you allow yourself to compromise on your methods, since your good side has to triumph by any means. And like everyone, who uses questionable methods, you convince yourself that the other side does things even worse.
The internet has given a voice to many oppressed that didn't have any in the past… But we must remember that it's the same human bias to promote ones own genome that drives those on the top to say that it's because of their superior genes that also drives those on the bottom to say that it's not because of their inferior genes. Neither side is naturally more biased than the other and both sides should only use methods where the truth wins.
Ps. This is a subject about the modern equality movement and its methodologies and how the discourse on the subject of equality has changed. It is not trying to argue or make claims about whether or not people are equal nor does it describe my views on that subject.
And this was working… Statistics and studies and practice show that during that time people of the world became bigger supporters of equality. But maybe because of this success and how equality became such a big value in the world, the equality movement changed.
Nowadays, the modern equality movement does not respect the freedom of speech too much… At least where I live, arguing against people being genetically equal is pretty much a taboo and you get almost immediate social repercussions for it… There aren't that many ways to truly get cancelled on the internet and the community becoming a hostile and silencing force against you… But on this issue, irregardless of the fact that there is nothing close to a scientific consensus on the issue, and that there are obvious arguments for either side, if you argue for inequality, you get labeled a racist and/or sexist and cancelled quicker than for any other issue. The cancel cultures main propagator is the modern equality movement.
While I still think inequality is a big problem in the world and I argue against it, I find it hard to follow a movement that prevents the other side from arguing back this much… Freedom of speech will always be more important than equality.
But I do understand why the equality movement has become like this… Almost all movements turn into bullies when they get enough power… And since our childhoods, almost all popular entertainment has promoted inclusivity and equality as the good side and shown non inclusive people of inequality as the bad guys… And when, like a crusader, you think that your cause is truly just and good and cant be false, you allow yourself to compromise on your methods, since your good side has to triumph by any means. And like everyone, who uses questionable methods, you convince yourself that the other side does things even worse.
The internet has given a voice to many oppressed that didn't have any in the past… But we must remember that it's the same human bias to promote ones own genome that drives those on the top to say that it's because of their superior genes that also drives those on the bottom to say that it's not because of their inferior genes. Neither side is naturally more biased than the other and both sides should only use methods where the truth wins.
Ps. This is a subject about the modern equality movement and its methodologies and how the discourse on the subject of equality has changed. It is not trying to argue or make claims about whether or not people are equal nor does it describe my views on that subject.
Comments (117)
Saying people are unequal is a weak statement, because it says nothing. There is a bottomless pit if I ever saw any.
So-called science has been used to justify discrimination against black people for hundreds of years. It is inextricably intertwined with social attitudes and political actions that have kept them in poverty and subjugation all that time. It is not surprising that endorsing scientific arguments for racial inferiority will raise hackles and voices.
Given that history and present day conditions, why is it important to you to make the case that racial differences in intelligence or other characteristics are genetic? What social value does it promote?
Nah, you couldn't help yourself, you just had to keep talking about genes and people having inferior or superior genes. You're trying to elevate your biases into a philosophical issue. The OP is an attempt to turn a you problem into a problem for others: "I was all for equality until it began to effect my own ability to discriminate".
You're right. I missed that. But the equality movement would be useless and meaningless if we were equal. Without inequity, the equality movement could and would not exist. I mean, you could not make things equal if they had been already equal.
Frankly, I don't know how the equality movement works these days versus how it used to work. I remember several inequality movements, and their ways: the Nazi persecution of Jews, the White Man's ( and Woman's) enslaving Black people, and the genocide of North American natives; as well as the exclusion of women from civic rights.
Those days are over. Due to the methods (whatever they were... mainly wars, I suppose) to eliminate those inequalities. Sure there are remnants of it in the culture, which I consider a shame, but the mainline effort is to have those eradicated.
Are we trying to eliminate the same inequalities, or some newer ones, that cropped up since those days? Because, like my previous post suggests, inequalities are abundantly occurring freely in nature and in society.
You wrote that "arguing against people being genetically equal" is taboo. You used that as an example of lack of respect for freedom of speech, which you indicate is a bad thing. How have I misrepresented that? What am I missing?
Quoting Qmeri
As I noted, this subject gets people going. I don't think my response showed any "bad methodologies."
Quoting Qmeri
I think you were being knowingly provocative. Not necessarily anything wrong with that, but what were you expecting?
I consider myself a life-long leftist libertarian (i.e. economic democrat) and I've never heard of this. Is this "movement" national (which country?) or international (first / second / third world?) and institutional or grassroots (popular)?
Let's take two fictional groups, Group A a majority who oppresses, often violently when they can, Group B.
A hangs B from a tree, for no reason. That's bad. People from both groups can see and decide this for themself with simple introspection and self-reflection.
A uses the advantages they gained from oppressing B to get ahead and gain more advantages. This is an up in the air debate that still seems kind of "iffy" to put it lightly.
Note: Keep in mind what I'm talking about has nothing to do with what A does first, rather how A responds to what B does to "neutralize" or make their actions irrelevant or otherwise less powerful. Kind of like how 10,000 people from Group A show up to a rally organized by 1,000 of Group B and essentially mimic them so as to invalidate or otherwise greatly dull if not nullify their point entirely.
Continuing however, A slowly begins to turn use the argument of B in a way that (again slowly and gradually if not insidiously) becomes humorous and comical but most importantly, unconvincing and even crazy. Let's take race for example. You can work your way to saying, let's take a fictional purple race, "purple people who drive purple cars are racist" or let's assume we live in an alternative universe where our teeth are purple when healthy "people who have purple teeth are racist". It gets to that point, sure if you come out with something like that right away it's just stupid but if you gradually work your way to that everyone from both groups begin to think to themselves "ok that's stupid" not just about that example that was stupid, but every instance or sentiment from actual grievances without realizing it.
When I considered myself a part of the equality movement, I saw us treating people, who argued against genetic equality, very badly and in a way, that prevented them from making their arguments and practically robbed their free speech... So I left. At that point I hadn't myself I think ever argued for inequality even as a devils advocate.
Quoting T Clark
You immediately started expressing assumptions about me and claiming that I made arguments that had not happened. This the most usual of the bad methodologies of the modern equality movement, I think. Immediately starting to paint anyone, who expresses anything against the movement with a ready made story with strawman views.
Quoting T Clark
Arguing on this issue is a pretty new thing to me and while I know it's provocative, it always surprises me, how strong the reaction actually is.
I went back and checked. I didn't claim that you made any arguments that you didn't.
I was referring to this... To me it seems like you are claiming that I'm making a case for racial differences and such to be genetic and its somehow important for me. Technically case is not a claim, so a slight error from me... But the text never says I have ever made a case for such a thing... It just says that I have witnessed some people making cases and how they were treated for such a thing... If I had said, that I left the movement because of how I was treated, I would be lying.
I have mixed feelings about the issue, having dealt with college students who were exposed to calculus in high school, so perhaps alternatives aren't all that bad. On the other hand any effort to eliminate fast tracks for talented students to keep "everybody together" doesn't bode well for a system that is not at the top of international scales to begin with. Just my opinion.
Quoting Qmeri
Not to us when "freedom of speech" is used by members of those communities which benefit from systemic inequality to silence or shame or create a hostile (work, school, public) environment for those members of communities which do not benefit from systemic inequality.
Also OP: Gets mad when people exercise it to tell bigots to STFU.
:100:
But sometimes some truth might be shameful or harmful to a person or a group, so we cant make a world where harmful to some things cant be argued for... but we can require that unnecessary harmful stuff shouldnt be said. But the subject of genetics and how they influence us is an important thing to know and as its continuously being researched, we should be able to argue for different sides as to what that research and such tells us. Also inequality and hierarchy are functional things in many political and cultural systems, and we should be allowed to argue and compare their benefits and harms. If only the equality side is allowed to be argued for, everyone will inevitably become genes affect nothing and anarchism is the only way kind of people irregardless of what science or political history and such say.
I think Qmeri's point is that not all speeches are free. There is a price to pay for some speech. A certain amount of cost. Even though talk is cheap, cheap things still require exchange of negotiable instruments. If talk was expensive, it would cost more, but cheap still costs something.
Speech should be free. It is the evil pharmaceutical industrial-military complex that curtails individual freedom in the UNITED STATES, if you are left-winger, and it is the pasty-assed liberal fuckboys (I've been called that on social media) if you ask the right wingers, that curtails free speech in America, by putting a price tag on it.
More seriously: StreetlightX put the dot on the i with the above quote. You can exercise free speech if you are ready and willing to experience free criticism in the form of free speech.
I think Qumeri's approach is that there are other forces in society that oppose the freedom he wishes to experience in speech: such as jail sentences or social blackballing. Qmeri misses the point that some opinions are so not acceptable to the Zeitgeist, that they are punishable. For instance, advocating to kill people for their liver if you need a liver transplant. In a free society, you'd have the right to do that, and so would everyone else to exercise it on you in turn. Calling people stupid on the basis of the colour of their skin is stupid, and it's so strong in our accepted views, that those who advocate it get punished.
Face the music, suck it up buttercup, close file, close rank, whatever. This may annoy you, Qmeri, but this idea of yours is so repulsive to most people that even if it were true -- who knows if it is or not -- it is so ugly a proposition that we, society as a whole, reject it.
It's like murder of babies for food... you can argue that it would help society and the globe at large if 99.9 percent of newborn humans were eliminated, in order to preserve the globe's functioning power. Logically it works, but there is a strong ethical resentment against biting newborns' heads off.
Qumeri, your proposal's problem is that it does not even work outright and equivocally on the logical level, either. It is a debatable fact, and facts per their nature ought not to be debatable.
It is interesting to consider that according to Q's proposition, ethical claims trump factual claims.
The problem is that there are no factual claims.
Then the problem becomes: do ethical claims preempt the finding of factual claims.
This is where society is not willing to go in the case of racial discrimination. And rightfully so, if you ask me.
However, it would be nicer to discuss "do societal ethical claims have the ethical right to exclude and stop that area of research the findings of which would undermine the very same ethical considerations, or do not have that particular ethical right" than to discuss it in the framework of which race is stupider than the other one.
I think freedom of speech is the thermometer of equality. If I am in a position to silence your voice, regardless of what you are saying, we are not equal; I have much more power than you.
The current narrative has too much power, too much ability to throw a label on unapproved speech and wipe it from the conversation. Perhaps my voice is foolish, or poorly thought out, or filled with hate speech, however, if the listeners are free thinking and capable, my speech will be assessed and dismissed on it's own merits, or lack thereof. There is no need for a censor.
People do have inferior or superior genes, from a latent or dominant perspective.
If I have happen to have a dominant genetic trait that reduces my lifespan through rapid aging (a real thing, but I cannot recall the name) I would posit that is an inferior gene situation. If my genetics are such that I do not suffer any consequences from smoking (also a real thing, again the name escapes me. I have been awake for 20 hours now) that would be an example of a superior gene situation. None of which is racist or discriminatory, just a simple statement of fact. Genetic predisposition also has a massive influence over cardiovascular health, respiratory issues, etc. The genetic predisposition for increased resilience could easily be considered superior genetics compared to the predisposition for lesser resilience, or inferior genetics.
It doesn't make anyone good or bad, but really, who would chose to have the genes that shorten your life and make you more susceptible to heart disease and obesity?
That's right. You have to wait to steal it until they are almost dead, then it's ok because it's called harvesting and someone else, not the current owner, and not the thief, needs it more. Also, it's morally wrong to provide the family of the individual being harvested with any sort of compensation for the liver, even if they could really use the money. However it is perfectly acceptable to pay a ridiculous amount of money to the hospital for installing said stolen liver, as long as none of that money is provided because the hospital provided said liver. That would be bad.
Our system is more than a little screwed up eh.
I say that societal ethical claims do not have that right. Simply exercising that right instantly suggests that one knows the position they are in is weak and that any research will further weaken said position, thereby acknowledging that that societal claim is likely wrong and should not be supported.
I don't think that you are properly representing the concept of "equality" Qmeri, and this is what is giving you the problem. This concept allows us to overlook differences to assign "the same value" to two distinct things. Notice that it is "value" we are dealing with, therefore the overlooking of differences is supported within a conceptual structure. So it must be done within a logical framework, defining what sort of value supports the type of "equality". In the case of "all human beings are equal" this is a legal framework which supports human rights.
This sense of "right", is very closely related to "right" in the sense of correct. We consider it to be the correct thing to do, to assign equality to human beings, and this "correctness" supports the value judgement which is presented as human rights.
Since this form of equality is based in a judgement of correctness, it is fundamentally incorrect to argue against it. This is why your thread has gone astray. You are presenting yourself as saying that it is somehow acceptable to argue against what is by definition correct. This would be like arguing that it is acceptable to break the law.
The argument you want to make actually can be made, in a somewhat rational way, but you need to take yourself outside this conceptual structure which assigns correctness to equality. By using the term "inequality" as you do, ("...if you argue for inequality..."), you do not free yourself from that conceptual structure. "Inequality" is simply what is opposed to equality. So all you do is present yourself as opposed to equality, therefore opposed to what is correct, and necessarily incorrect.
That's my thing, and it is rarely well received.
This is the classic naive idea of free speech that those who have been against free speech have used since the beginning of that debate: "Oh, you want free speech? Then let us make personal attacks and harrasment on you and destroy your personal reputation with made up shit with that free speech!" Classic.
At no point has naive free for all free speech been true free speech, as it can easily be used to silence people just as much as it allows expression. I'm sorry for you, if you have such a black and white naive idea of free speech... Hopefully, you wont get any power in any society to ruin its actual ability for free speech.
I think you have misidentified the culprit.
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2021/dec/13/david-baddiel-social-media-anger-and-us-review-the-twisted-truth-about-twitter-and-tiktok
The programme is worth watching if you get the chance, and it indicates that hostility and silencing are a much more widespread problem. There has always been a strong social pressure to conform, but the internet has, partly by design and mainly by accident become an amplifier of negative emotion. The mob that is hanging you out to dry here is related to the mob that hung black people from the poplar trees only in the sense that it is a mob - hasty to judgement and overbearing, overheated, and intolerant.
There is a general problem, that cyberbullying can lead to suicide, that cyber hate campaigns can lead to physical violence, and these examples of 'free speech' hurt and kill. I think it behooves us all to moderate our language more towards what we would say if our faces were vulnerable to an immediate physical response.
There could also be a culture barrier here. I'm from Finland and Finland has relatively little bad history with things like colonialism, slavery, non equal rights and such... So to us, this suddenly being such a volatile and taboo issue is a relatively new thing... Which could be the explanation for me perceiving a change in the methodologies of the equality movement. Although, I do think social media has changed the way discourse of controversial issues is done in the whole world. I have been using english part of the internet since my childhood.
For me, as I used to be a biology student, especially the genetic side of things seems like a science issue... And since there isin't a scientific consensus for the obvious reasons that genetics is quite a new and developing field of study and for many reasons, some amount of variation in capability caused by genetics is not only plausible, but according to surveys of scientists and professors and such, seems to be the most popular idea with the experts on the issue. It does happen in other species for the simple reason that evolution pretty much needs variation in capability of individuals to work. Why magically not in humans?
So, for me, this issue has seemed like culture and human needs stepping on the area of science and wanting to bruteforce a specific result out of it, irregardless of whether we have nearly enough data to make any such conclusions. And in a situation, where this quite extreme view of no variation in capability in biological beings, should somehow be considered the most plausible option, when it very simply would be one of the rarer things ever observed in biology.
But because of the volatility of the issue, I'm not allowed to just do data analysis of the science and believe the probabilities it gives... In the current culture, I'm supposed to accept a ready made answer before it has been proven to even be the most plausible... That does sound like medieval dogma to me... The idea of no god was too disgusting for many cultures to even argue about for many centuries... The idea of different "races" or men and women being equal was too disgusting for many cultures to even argue about... Too disgusting to consider has very bad connotations with freedom of speech and history. And every side of every issue has the capability to violate the freedom of speech.
Oh, don't worry... With a person like you, who can't make arguments and just spits out random accusations, ad hominems, strawmans and assumptions, the only feeling I get is to feel sorry for you. For some reason, it doesn't feel that bad.
But anyways... I'm only going to react to your comments from now on, if you actually make a logical, non naive argument.
It was pretty clear to me from your OP that you were not making a claim that inequality is based on genetics. I didn't, and I didn't intend to, say that you had.
Some thoughts:
Some editorial opinions
Well, I couldn't start to make any definitions or claims or even questions about what things like equality or genetic differences mean, because I was talking about the methodologies of discourse on this subject in general. And since in that discourse people have their own different definitions and views on these issues, if I had given my definitions or views or understanding, then I would have limited this discussion to be about how the methodologies of discourse work when talking about my particular views on the subject. So, I had to just give examples without definitions to avoid this discussion being about my or someone elses particular views on equality. That's a different topic. Unintentionally, the bad responses kind of did demonstrate what my text was trying to say - that the methodologies of discourse on this topic are not good nowadays.
I hear you, and I bow to your logic. There is nothing wrong there.
However, consider the fact that if research shows that, for instance, German Sheppard dogs are dumber than Chihuahuas, then maybe German Sheppard dogs will be discriminated against. And discrimination by dog society is really aweful. Nobody will want to copulate with you, nobody will chase cars along with you, nobody will bark at the mailman.
And that's just half of the story. The other half is that German Sheppards will feel AWEFUL. They will go through life feeling stigmnatized. They will be identified immediately by anyone as a German Sheppard, and they will feel the hate. And return the hate.
And that's just the two halves of the story, yet there is a third half. Let's say German Sheppards may be just slightly slower intellectually than Chihuahuas. So there will be a huge overlap in intelligence between the two populations, and only the extreme extremes will be uncovered by the other population. Is it worth spending a huge amount of money and create scientific proof for something that 1. will not make a difference in anyone's life when you think about it, except 2. it will put bitterness, feelings of inferiority, feelings of persecution, and thus, hatred, in a large percentage of the population that could have avoided that should the research not have been done and the results published? People will misinterpret statistics anyway, and statistics are mostly published incomprehensibly or else misleadingly. So for the two handfuls of outstanding dogs -- a few super-smart chihuahuas, and a very few super not-smart German Sheppards, the entire population of German Sheppards are cast into grief, shame, and discrimination-- quite unfairly, since the largest bulk is the same as the Chihuahuas.
The emphasis is on UNFAIRLY. It is unfair to withhold scientific study to find something that some hold dear as a foregone conclusion. But it is also unfair to throw an entire population out the window by discriminating against them due to a minor and insubsequential difference.
They are both unfair. The first one (withholding study) hurts no one. The second hurts a lot of people. Both are unfair.
I think we should go with the first one.
I don't know what an 'equality movement' is.
I do know what principles of equality regarding access to opportunity, equal application of the law, and restraining the concentration of power to a self-selected group of the favored looks like. None of those principles are based upon an assumption that everyone is equal in their abilities or potential to improve their condition given the chance.
What they do assume is that a system based upon providing outcomes purely based upon different standards of measure are inherently prejudicial and suppress the ability of people and groups of people to make their own way amongst others. Upon that basis, communitarians and libertarians both have problems with authority of a kind that ranks outcomes by edict.
From that perspective, the problem of preserving free speech is how to keep the topic upon what should be counted as an authority more than worrying about whether differences between people are permitted to be expressed.
It never came alive in the right way. Governmental policies directed toward equality are debatable. Little to do with genetics.
Well... I used quite simple and short terms to express that people have a tendency to attribute things that are considered "success" to their genes and a tendency to avoid attributing "failure" to their genes... Its a whole different discussion whether there are objective standards for success or failure... I was talking about the socially perceived "top" to be those with wealth and power and such... and the perceived "bottom" to be those without. I myself don't perceive those things to be that important, but it does seem to be somewhat the way the world sees things and we need to use the expressions that are at least mostly understandable.
But yes, we can assign values to genes... many do and many have done in the past... You can do it right now, if you want... But I did not do such a thing in my text... Nor am I claiming it to be the right thing to do. But just to demonstrate... I will now assign a value of mine to your genes... I like them, whatever they are... I just do... Don't worry about it ;)
Having an answer that supports already established discrimination. You're right, having an answer does not equate to instant discrimination. If I suggested that, I was wrong. However, it seems to me that it's more like your attributing to my having said that, than my actually having said that. Does not matter either way, since that is not my stance. My stance is that having an answer further supports discrimination.
Yes, we do have to suppress further discrimination. You must be on the discriminated end to actually appreciate that, or else you must have some empathy to appreciate that. If you lack both, then yes, it's a terrible reason to avoid knowledge. In my opinion it's a terrible price to pay for knowledge if it supports discrimination.
Each to his own, I guess. You go on your marry way of discriminating, I go on my marry way of supporting ignorance. Governments and public sentiments are also ambivalent. May the best opinion come up triumphant.
The same thing happened with COVID. People actually lost their jobs for simply stating their opinions on the policies and mandates. People from both sides of the aisle, so to speak, where attacked viciously and suffered real world consequences simply for stating opinions on highly controversial issues, that few people found to be anything but confusing anyway. But the rule of thumb nowadays seems to be, if someone disagrees with you, they are guilty of “hate speech”. They’re also racist or sexist or some type of phobic or a snowflake or a nazi or a feminazi or a bigot or a man hater or woman hater….and on and on.
It’s just plain nutty out there!
This is not true. People who think that the election was stolen from Trump have fully expressed their opinions many times from many podiums, including mainline and right wing TV, radio, websites, and newspapers. This in spite of the fact that no evidence has been provided in any forum that the election was not fair and well-run. The stolen election is like the flat earth.
There are not two equal sides to every question.
Quoting laura ann
Can you name anyone who lost their job just for stating their opinion against the federal government's Covid policy? I'm guessing you can't. If there were people who did, it was a very few. On the other hand, at least one person was prosecuted for telling the truth, e.g. the person who managed the Covid database for the State of Florida. School funding has been withheld to school districts in Florida that implemented Covid policies recommended by the CDC.
800,000 people have died from Covid in the US. How are there two sides to that fact?
Yes. More like the legal standard of equitable. A fair assessment, not necessarily equal, as in a divorce proceeding where assets should be shared in an equitable but not equal manner. A softer and more congenial approach.
Fair enough. We didn't make hate speech laws is that what you referenced in the Op? Our right is convinced being kicked off twitter is a violation of freedom of speech.
Laura Krolczyk (you can
feel free to google her and what happened to her, it’s sickening) lost her job for saying, on Facebook, "Trump supporters need to pledge to give up their ventilators for someone else ... and not go to the hospital." And in your own comment you point out that someone was “prosecuted for telling the truth”. Both of these examples illustrate very clearly that freedom of speech is under attack.
I understand in todays climate it’s very easy to just assume that everything someone says is based on their own political beliefs and then go from there.
But my comment wasn’t about political views, I just used two examples to support my stated opinion that everyone’s free speech is under attack.
I’m not at all interested in specifically talking about or debating any election or COVID. I haven’t stated my personal political views or my personal views on COVID anywhere. Why would I? I’m talking about free speech.
However, based on your response to my comment, I can see that the OP’s concerns that my comment will derail their thread about free speech into one about politics in America is legitimate. And I can assure you I absolutely don’t want to do that.
There are several examples of people losing their jobs or being otherwise unfairly maligned for simply stating their opinions on LGBTQ issues, racial issues, religious issues, etc and not just in America but other countries as well. I just picked two examples to illustrate that, that doesn’t mean I want to talk about those topics specifically. On the contrary, I don’t debate those specific issues online or anywhere else because they always spin out of control.
My point is simple. I don’t care what your beliefs are, everyone on the planet should be granted freedom of speech to express themselves, without fear of prosecution, losing their job or being labeled some negative term. Sadly, that’s not the case.
While you did supply a name, which I checked; it does not prove or has any logically necessarily link that speech is not free. The people you quoted were fired, shamed; but not by the law. They were fired and shamed by the public, or by their employers, or by their community. This only proves that the community, employers, friends, etc. also have a free will, and a freedom to express themselves. The employers etc. would not be free if they were stopped from firing employees.
Why are you sorry for stating your opinion?
Who exercises suppression of free speech here? Neither one, I suppose. It is not the speech that is not free or gets punished. It is the opinion expressed by the speech.
"Free speech" apparently = "nobody disagreeing with me or facing any consequences for anything I say ever".
The Spoiled Brat Theory of Free Speech™.
Alternatively, Baby's First Free Speech™.
Forgive me if i'm wrong but I think you're talking more about the application of expression in freedom of speech, and how certain notions of thought are generally frowned upon, therefore not equalizing all forms of expression, and hence not a "freedom" of speech. Yeah, I think you would be correct on that, but is that especially bad? In my opinion there's just some things that should be considered "wrong" and deserve a lack of respect, because it has no merit to society to fuel those kind of thoughts.
Will do.
It's not a scientific statement. It's an a priori for a legal framework. It has an implication that all people are owed a reasonable degree of fairness as a result or implication of personhood. Which is in line with the concept of equitable.
There is no legitimate "equality" movement. It is a sideways attempt to justify ignoring the endemic racism in the society and its effects.
Glad to be of service then.
You seem to be simplifying the modern discourse about equality to be only about legal or moral equality, which is of course not a scientific question, although scientific evidence and facts are quite usually used as arguments and evidence even in legal and moral questions. Quite a large portion of the "equality debate" at least in the internet seems to be about the scientific questions of how genes affect us, our performance and how different are we because of genetics.
I wasn't talking about legal or moral equality, when I specifically said that this "genetic equality" is a scientific question. Most certainly its not a legal one. While things like equality of opportunity and such in legal sense and in society in general can be simply chosen by us, we can't just choose everyone to have the same potentials in everything... In terms of genetics, that is determined by nature, not us. (Unless you are planning to do some genetic engineering or something.)
But that is another topic... This thread is about how people talk about equality... You are continuously forcing this discussion to be about what equality actually is, how it relates to science, law and morality and such. And while those things are related closely enough to the topic, that they could be used as arguments for ideas about how and why people talk about the topic of equality, you are not using them like that... You are not talking about the methodologies of discourse on equality.
Quoting tim wood
If you want to talk about equality, how it relates to law, morality or science and genetics and such... Start a new thread about that subject. This thread is about the modern discourse on that subject, not the subject itself. I will gladly give you scientific data and arguments at least in things that are about biology and genetics and such, since I have some degree of expertise on that stuff. But not in this thread.
Yeah... I get that... And I agree that "free for all freedom of speech" is not possible or even particularly desirable in society. Humans are humans and our psychology seems to have huge tendencies to react badly to some ideas and abuse them. That's why it's good that we limit people from doing hate speech or promoting violent crimes and such... I don't have a problem with that.
The thing I have a big problem with is, when science and genetics become part of the debate. Scientific knowledge of genetics is useful for society and I guess scientific knowledge just in general seems like a good thing to pursue. But while science only has probabilities and evidence to offer currently on the topic of genetics... It seems that in our current culture, you are only allowed to be on one side of that scientific debate: "Genetics do not affect peoples performance or potential. And there absolutely are not even slight differences in the average capabilities of any human populations." Which would simply be an extraordinary and rare observation about a biological species, since evolution pretty much needs variation in capability to work and for many other reasons.
Also inequality and hierarchy are functional things in many political and cultural systems, and we should be allowed to argue and compare their benefits and harms. If only the equality side is allowed to be argued for, everyone will inevitably become "genes affect nothing and anarchism is the only way" kind of people irregardless of what science or political history and such say.
I'll be honest that i've never heard of this scientific debate before. Could you point out a popular example, or something that you're familiar with?
In the rare case one compares population genetics such as the outcomes of a cultural tendency toward inter-family marriages the term "equality" still doesn't come up. There's no legitimate reason to compare the perceived value of people for equality.
Quoting Qmeri
Name two different human genetic populations.
The title says the modern equality movement. A movement is not a methodology of discourse. I'm not sure what a methodology for discourse would be outside of legislative order and process. If you can figure out what your talking about; perhaps we can discuss it.
Probably the most controversial and well known part of that debate has been whether different populations have the same intelligence potentials. A well known scientific phenomenon that is for example used as evidence that intelligence or at least IQ is not determined by genetics, is the Flynn effect. Different twin studies are often cited as well on both sides of the debate.
Finns and the swedes, texans and new yorkers, ancient people in britain and ancient people in china, your family and the family next door... Any two different populations are two different genetic populations... And depending on what you study... For example trying to find possible genetic causes for a disease, or using ancient dna to figure out peoples movements and such about history... It is often very useful to compare the genetics of different populations.
I don't really have a specific kind of equality in mind, when I talk about the methodologies of discourse on equality. Most of my expertise related to that discourse is on genetics, but I'm fine with talking about the discourse on equality from the point of view of morality or the law or culture for example.
Quoting Qmeri
Quoting Qmeri
I did specify what I meant with the modern equality movement in the original text and subsequent posts. But I do agree that that term I have come up with is probably not the best one and was not defined well enough in the original text. I will note these things in the future.
And you want to determine their sameness? Or just place arbitrary value judgements on differences that you find appealing? Somewhere in-between perhaps?
I don't think value judgments are or should be a part of genetics... But genetics can be used and is being used as justifications and arguments for value judgments in the topic of equality.
Well, let's say I want to reproduce with someone, but it turns out that 80% of that persons family has a very serious genetic disorder. That would most certainly be a factor in my value judgment of whether I want to reproduce with that person.
And in terms of political value judgments... For example knowing whether or not and how much the differences in school test scores is affected by genetics makes a huge difference on what is the best way to deal with such differences.
While it's true that racism and stuff like that has existed since time immemorial and that this has been a very controversial issue even in scientific community since the beginning... Historically it was often taboo to be on the equality side of this debate even in the scientific community... Then we had a few decades of both sides being allowed to express their views... Nowadays the pendulum has swung to the other side and the inequality side is a taboo to be expressed.
Quoting tim wood
I want to keep science not being subject to value judgments because that would distort it, but for me, people are free to use the results of science as a basis for their value judgments... I for example, use psychology and history very much in my value judgments.
Well, that's how people talk about equality (your topic): what typifies equality or the lack of it.
If you insist that we talk about how people talk about equality without introducing the topic of how equality is treated or not, then you are asking to run a race but first we must cut off our legs at the hip.
Wouldn't the concern be a function of the genes you carry and your counterparts family history regarding genetic disorders?
Quoting Qmeri This is rather specific. Is this what you have in mind primarily, but are avoiding discussing outright?
I think Qmeri wants us to discuss how people talk about reality. (As per above quote.) He, however, would prefer that we only talk about HOW people talk about reality, not WHAT they say about reality.
Thus he wants us to reduce our talk to talk about a process and its qualities, without mentioning the product of the process.
Why anyone would want to engage in talking about the HOW of the talking about equality, without discussing equality itself, is a mystery.
Now, that is a topic I would enjoy discussing. What is it that possessed him to post this topic?
I think you might misunderstand what freedom of speech means. Freedom of speech, at least in America, is the idea that the government cannot make a law restricting what you say. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with what other groups of people do. If you walk into a crowd of people and start telling them they're a bunch of losers, they are allowed to pressure you to stop speaking, and may voice their opinion in kind.
The right to free speech does not mean you are free from social repercussions. You may be hated, scorned, lose your job, your respect, and your social dignity. The only thing you are free from, is being thrown in jail because you said something the government didn't like.
Perhaps what you are referring to is that you believe the modern equality movement is not open to debate. Perhaps it is, and perhaps it isn't. Have you asked someone in the modern equality movement to debate you? To discuss the pros and cons of positions? While many people are not open to debate in any movement, I find if you ask and search, there are usually some who will.
If you are perhaps referring to "the internet", it depends on where you go, and of course how you approach the subject. When you approach any people who hold an ideology to debate it, it must be done with respect, humbleness, careful wording, insight, and possibly one of the most important, being open to also having your mind changed as well. If not, you can come across as offensive, rude, or someone who isn't open to debate yourself. Why should anyone give their time to someone like that?
It's an attempt to justify inequality with genetic basis. Instead of saying a minority group is disadvantaged from centuries of oppression OP would prefer to suggest that the present is truly representative of an individual's merit and nothing else. They test drive these racist "dog whistle" arguments periodically. Its quaint.
Quoting god must be atheist
Quoting Qmeri
As I have said above, I don't have a problem in this thread with people talking about equality in the context of how people talk about equality as it's of course a related thing... To me, from the beginning, people seemed to misunderstand this thread to be directly about equality and started to just talk about equality without making any points about the methodologies of discourse and that is why I have tried to steer this thread to talking about how equality is talked about. I don't have any ulterior motives.
If you go through the thread, you can see that most posts are not about how people talk about equality.
Quoting Cheshire
Examples tend to be rather specific by their nature... I improvised those examples when I wrote that.
Quoting god must be atheist
Quoting Cheshire
If you want to find some ulterior motives for me making this thread, you will be disappointed, since pretty much my only motive for this thread was described in my original text: I don't like how taboo the subject of inequality is in the modern world and how it's being discussed. I don't even care what results the scientific or public discourse on equality end up with... I just care that the discourse is done with good methodology.
One of the main ways this taboo is enforced in our current culture is by instantly suspecting ulterior, racist motives and painting such a story without evidence. This is something many people in this thread have demonstrated continuously. Most of my posts are just answers to peoples unjustified suspicions. And when I answered to these suspicions by explaining some of my thoughts and arguments about equality, then I was accused of secretly starting this thread just to spread those arguments, even when they were just answers that people forced out of me as I thought that stuff was off topic.
This is a very toxic way to talk about any issue... And justifies my stance of criticizing it. A non toxic discussion critical of how equality is being talked about was never a realistic possibility, it turned out. Our current culture gives way too cheap ways to invalidate others without arguments on this subject. It is mainly obsessed with the person saying critical stuff and his motives rather than what he says.
The modern way to win in an argument about the methodologies of discourse on equality:
1. Ask the opponent to give some pro inequality arguments to justify, why inequality side of the debate should even deserve to be listened to.
2. Listen, as he is forced to give arguments that support inequality.
3. Use this very specialized set of arguments he gave to extrapolate that he is a racist, who wanted to talk about the methodologies of discourse only to spread pro inequality arguments.
4. Profit.
Works every time in our current culture. You can use that formula to win anytime someone wants any taboo subject to be more open to discourse.
For an extreme example, let's say there is a country with legal freedom of speech, but that this country is very religious and anyone, who criticizes the religion, gets immediately labeled a witch and gets killed or at least loses his job, friends, social status and just about everything others can take away from the person. There might be legally freedom of speech, but in practice, there isn't. And many countries and legal systems have used this technicality to claim that they have legal freedom of speech, by getting the mob or secret police or something to do the enforcement of non free speech.
I'm a firm believer that freedom of speech is a functional tool, when it happens in practice. Whether it's law or culture or space aliens that prevent it from happening in practice, it's usually a bad thing, because that usually distorts the public discourse on the subject and the public becomes less connected to reality.
As I have said many times in this thread: I do agree that people should be polite and respectful and such, when they discuss controversial issues. I don't think "free for all freedom of speech" where everything should be allowed to be said in any way, works or even is true freedom of speech, since then only those who are the loudest and most abusive of such freedom would be heard.
I quite simply think that the subject of equality has become such a taboo topic nowadays, that it distorts the public and scientific discourse on the subject. And that such is harmful, whether it's called freedom of speech or not. I don't even care what results the scientific or public discourse on equality end up with... I just care that the discourse is done with good methodology.
There is no need for that. Either you are disruptive, or else insane. I am satisfied that either of these two is the reason behind your verbiage. I don't need to read about it or discuss it further.
To wit, you never made a point, and you set up an impossible task for others.
So you are saying that free speech should be free but not free. Furthermore you are saying that free speech is actually not free speech.
I am sorry, but that's precisely what you are saying.
Then you are wondering why nobody understands you, and why people are trying to nail you. It's because you utter utter self-contradictions (first utter is a verb, the second utter is an adjective). How can you expect anyone to take you seriously then?
Quoting god must be atheist
Freedom of speech[2] is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. - Wikipedia
Even wikipedia knows, that freedom of speech is not just about legal sanctions... Other kinds of retaliations, like social ones, are also factors... I don't know what's going on with the people on this thread, but the idea that the amount of freedom of speech is simply what people can in the end express and with what retaliations, is not new nor my invention.
Nor is it my invention, that you can't have absolute freedom in a society in pretty much anything without that freedom starting to interfere with the freedom of others. It's not that complex to understand that if we just gave everyone total freedom of speech with no restrictions, then some could and would use that freedom to remove other peoples freedom of speech. The simplest way would be just to yell over them. Or starting to spread harmful lies about those they want to silence. Or maybe they would simply join and make a total shitstorm of every conversation the people they want to silence are having. The options are endless.
To get the maximal amount of freedom for all people, you need to compromise on pretty much every freedom a little. You can do pretty much whatever you want with your property, but you can't do anything you want with another persons property. If you could, then your freedom would take that freedom away from others. You can do whatever you like with your life, unless it starts hurting or limiting other peoples lives too much, alhought that's a more controversial idea. And you can express whatever you like, unless that expression starts limiting too much what other people can express... That's also quite controversial, but none of these ideas are my inventions. And they have been taken seriously for hundreds of years now.
Many social rules like politeness and respectfulness protect everyones ability to have at least some freedom of expression in this very competitive and volatile field. I think it's quite a naive idea of freedom of speech to think that the maximum amount of freedom of speech for all is just to have no rules.
You accuse me of disrespect? I can't even tell that from your posts, your writing style camouflages any meaning or attitude save for your self-contradictions. If I am disrespectful, then what about your troll behaviour? I think that alone and by itself is the ultimate disrespect on a philosophy forum. To view others, and let them know that you don't respect them enough to make even one single solitary sensible statement.
Okay... I'm starting to realize, why you are so confused and can't understand my arguments. Your brain is constantly trying to figure out my attitudes and motivations instead of just analyzing the arguments... My writing style doesn't camouflage any attitudes, because I don't really have any more attitudes or feelings towards the topic beyond the stuff I have already directly expressed. You are trying to find human factors from my writings that simply aren't there. But I am aware of how important it is for many to have clear attitudes and motives to give a perspective by which a writing is read. Maybe I should just make up a personality with easy to follow motives and attitudes to make my writing more easy to follow :P But don't worry, all the arguments and answers to others were made with respect and make logical sense, once you understand them ;)
I agree that we should be polite and discuss even controversial topics. Perhaps the reason others are suspicious of your motives, is it seems one sided. Not that I think you're trying to be, but I do feel your are unconsciously biased. This is not meant to be offensive, we all have them. Let me point out what I mean.
For those against the equality movement, do you feel most people are willing to sit down with a nice debate and explain in rational terms, without retaliation, why a colored person is inferior to a white person? No. The same "intolerance" applies to both sides. Rational debate requires both sides be willing to calmly discuss the issue, and that requires both sides have a belief the other side will be fair and trustworthy.
People are not saints, even when they are on the side of "good". They will be messy arguers, impassioned, make illogical points, and generally type things they don't intend to convey. That doesn't mean their side is wrong, it just means people are messy everywhere. With that in mind, the fact that you've only picked out the messy people on one side, while not seeing the messy people on the other side, makes people suspicious that you're not being honest. Further, you seem to not be seeking out the people who are willing to debate, and have painted the whole movement with a negative brush. Of course, that doesn't mean you're not being honest, maybe you just don't realize you've been unfair.
If you still believe that perhaps the equality movement is special, or particularly rude or dangerous to society in its behavior, it would help to point out specific examples, and compare them to the anti-equality movement. And if you want to debate not the tactics, but the conclusions of some in the equality debate, feel free to make another thread on those topics. Many will not treat you fairly, but I'm sure that some will. Just be sure you're up for the task, as well as up for many people who will be very impassioned and not respect your viewpoint.
Okay, I shalt refrain from analyzing your mind and your intentions. But I can't suppress my curiosity. So instead of trying to figure out, I ask you to tell me or tell us, your debating partners:
1. why you make self-contradictory statements
2. why you think that we can intelligently reply to your self-contradictory statements, other than ridicule them?
3. why you think people put remarks, long and short both, similar to these:
Quoting laura ann
Quoting Qmeri
Quoting T Clark
Quoting StreetlightX
Quoting Qmeri
Quoting StreetlightX
So you are saying that free speech should be free but not free. Furthermore you are saying that free speech is actually not free.
I am sorry, but that's precisely what you are saying.
Did you read what YOU wrote? Or you just read what I wrote.
Read your own posts and try to comprehend them.
And then you go on to do exactly that.
I'm trying to find a primary motive. You have some imagined debate between pro and anti "equality". You haven't presented an argument or thesis yet. It's just this oscillation between evasion and vague reference. Would you like to argue that some people are more intrinsically valuable than others based on their genetic composition? Or rather argue that you can't argue the above because people assume it's racist? Once again, if you can decide what you are talking about perhaps someone else will discuss it, because this is a bit tedious.
I actually haven't done any analysis after that, per se. I did point out what had been said, what he should do, and I asked him questions to satisfy my curiosity, but I performed no analysis since I said I'd stop. In fact I asked the questions because he asked me not to second guess him; and that's why I asked the questions in point-blank form, so that Qmeri would have an opportunity to quell the misguided notions about his motivation.
But I think Cheshire has a much better grip on the situation than I. I tend to get hot-headed and heady. Cheshire has preserved his crystal clear vision and logic. I got carried away, no doubt. My emotions got the better of me.
The matter of equality / inequality seems more like an obsession among millions of people, rather than a taboo. What is taboo is the claim that genetics is a cause of inequality--that this or that group is superior or inferior because of their genetic inheritance. There is too much water under the bridge for that to be otherwise.
Individuals are like pebbles on a beach: you can average out the features of a million pebbles and you may find that none of them are precisely average. I think that the pebbles are all more alike than they are different; others think they are all more different than alike. The circumstances of individuals vary greatly. Individuals are immersed in circumstances of culture, physical environment, genetic endowment, physical health, mental health, education, good to bad parenting, and so on and so forth. Individual results will vary greatly depending on circumstance.
Social Justice Warriors (SJW) focus on inequalities of circumstance. My impression is that most SJWs have no idea of just how difficult it will be to achieve equality of circumstance. (We can not wind time back to the last ice age and start over.). Their opposites, Social Injustice Ogres (SIO), are aware of the difficulties, and have no intention of doing anything about it.
Actually most people are not willing to go to far outside their own interests to change the world on behalf of the disadvantaged. It isn't that most people are secretly SIOs. It's just that billions of people are too close to the edge themselves.
As Jesus said, "The poor you will always have with you." There will always be inequality (not because Jesus said so, but because that is just the way the world works). The pebbles on the beach are never all going to weigh 2.333 oz, never have the same mineral content, never have the same shape, color, gloss, or position in the pile.
This is exactly my take away as well.
And Qmeri since you disagree with this take and almost every other post made on your thread, I’m confused as to why you’re not trying to make your point more clear or understandable. You don’t seem bothered by the fact that we’re four pages in and whatever you initially wanted to discuss isn’t at all clear.
Maybe it would help if you gave an example of what someone, who actually understood your initial post, might say.
Well I would say theres a general distaste for those who believe different populations have different intellectual potentials because there is a bias that...er, an inherent conflict of interest is fuelling their reasoning.
The real issue at hand in my opinion is not equality, but something closer to dignity and respect. I think that heart of the equality movement that is respectable is really saying "people who are different to you in important ways are substantial and deserve respect and dignity".
This might actually be a consequential sentiment, and therefore ultimately controversial, which is why its more convenient to use slightly less precise language?
In what sense, when you argue for racial inequality, are you not a racist? That's what racism is. In what sense, when you argue for gender inequality, are you not a sexist? That's what sexism is. I don't get how you're rationalising this to yourself, nor do I believe you can get to this place by way of:
Quoting Qmeri
If we were to take you seriously, and obviously we shouldn't, you've volte faced from egalitarianism to not only championing racial and gender inequality but demanding some kind of immunity from being described as such, a sort of Emperor's New Prejudice. It seems rather that YOU changed a lot, not egalitarianism. If we were to take you seriously...
Racist and sexist theories are long debunked. No one except racists and sexists bother pretending there's anything more to them than hatred and prejudice. The notion that there is anything more is itself debunked. The alternative then would be some Beckettian purgatory in which everyone is obliged to sleepwalk through the same debate again and again, regurgitating the same irrational, meritless arguments and rational, patient dismantlings thereof until the racists and sexists, frustrated at their own inevitable intellectual impotency, hit the reset button.
Which now I've described it I realise is Qanon.
Ethnic Anatomical Differences . . .
Sickle Cell Disease . . .
We should be careful not to ascribe the word “freedom” to activities that seek to prohibit or interfere with freedom. For example, yelling over people, heckling them, defacing their writing, or otherwise attempting to impede someone’s speech with your own is censorship, not free speech. The principle of free speech demands that you do not engage in such activity, even if it manifests as some form of expression. When your intention is to impede or suppress someone’s activity with your own you are engaging in the opposite of freedom.
Nailed it! :up: