- Location
- BaWü
Could there be a connection to our bigger social sphere?
I think that it would be harder to form a identity if you only really know the people from your village and the neighbouring ones.
Ordering people to stop being prejudiced makes them more prejudiced
- Thread starter Memphet'ran
- Start date
- Status
I think that it would be harder to form a identity if you only really know the people from your village and the neighbouring ones.
Professor Vesca
Good News Everyone!
Wouldnt minority movements have to be given power by the majority first? If we decide as a society, that it is morally okay to enslave all people from asia, what are they going to do to stop us? The only choices they have are to A) Flee, B) Fight, C) Accept their new lot, D) Attempt to change our minds. How does a minority protect itself from a tyranny of the majority? If they had the ability to enforce their will, or numbers, or political control, they would be the majority.
Well then how do they get the majority to hand over power or enact rules that restrict the majorities activities? They have to convince the majority, or allow the majority to convince themselves, that such rules or the surrender of such power is in the majorities interests, even if such arguments stand entirely on issues of ethics and morality.
On the eve of the civil war, northerners, and abolitionists, still held attitudes of racial superiority. The only sticking point was that they found, in their efforts to strive to be a civilized and upstanding society, they found slavery to be a cruel, unnecessary, and barbaric practice. As a whole, society was convinced, or had convinced itself, that in order for them to move closer to a proper, moral, civilized society, that slavery had to go.
The only people who objected were the southern slaveholders who had economic interests in the institution of slavery.
It was this conflict of interest that led to the civil war, a war that saw the deaths of more americans then any other conflict before or since.
Yes, the North enforced its will on the south, but it took a hundred more years before laws such as jim crow were actually repealed, because the South even in its defeat rebelled both through the laws it enacted, and the society and attitudes that formed after the civil war. No one agrees that the Ku Klux Klan was a good thing, but it arose as a direct outcome of the civil war. Laws such as poll taxes, literacy tests, and outright beating up and murdering anyone who voted were put in to place with the sole purpose of suppressing the black vote, and the political and economic and social activity of the now black majority in the south.
Fifty years after the repeal and suppression of the last overt acts of segregation and oppression, we are only NOW beginning to remove the more subtle acts, such as the laws that take away the right to vote from felons, and the laws that ban the use of marijuana and other drugs. Why? Because again, the majority finds such laws to be opposite our interests, or at least a significant subset of the majority.
The civil war was the greatest act of authoritarian imposition in this nations history, for a good cause to be sure, but it resulted in the direct, violent, uprising and opposition to the federal government. It also lead to over 150 years of resistance and rebellion, and great suffering.
Even today there are examples.
The Virginia Governor repealed laws that remove felons rights to vote, because he found it to be in his interests to do so, laws that were explicitly put into place as a means to deprive black people of their rights and suppress their voice. We have only recently begun to legalize marijuana. Why? Because a growing portion of the majority, whoever or whatever they may be, finds such laws to be unethical, or immoral, and against our interests.
SB itself, The Observer drew attention to the fact that he could replace all the moderators and administrative staff with houseplants if it was his wish. Technically, he was correct, SB is a private forum, it is owned by a private individual. He can do with his property as he wishes. No one agrees that this was a smart move, and it lead directly to the foundation of SV as people became incredibly vocal in their displeasure with this statement.
@LordSquishy himself makes no bones about the same fact. SV is a private institution. For all the rules and laws we make governing the activity that occurs on this board, Lord Squishy could one day wake up in a tyrannical mood and replace the entire moderator staff with his pet pug Sam Barkington McBone the Third, Esquire. None of us could stop him, sort of setting up yet another forum. SV is his private property, it is owned by him, he is the majority, he can do as he likes.
That he sets up and obeys (Mostly, he has...adequate reasons when he doesnt but thats another tale) the rules he has made, and everyone is happy. When he acts in a unilateral manner, and violates these rules, even in a minor way, even when he has a decent reason, people lose their minds. They object, vocally.
Pardon me if I ramble a bit, im not used to writing these long winding essays, and I have no formal education on the skill.
Last edited:
I'm sorry, I...don't know how this solves the question. Varying levels of minority have to receive varying amounts of support or at least sympathy, we agree. Though majority as used here comes off a bit monolithic.
But why that sympathy flourished is the question. The rest is kind of tangential to what I was trying to get at. It's not to what degree minorities should fight but how it came about that their struggles, in whatever form, were successful where before they failed.
I never said "minorities shouldn't seek to make minority rights attractive" it was "why did they fail until they succeeded?".
Depends on how you frame it no? "Great suffering" was never off the table.
There is the issue of weighing any problems with both the extension and enshrining of slavery in every Confederate state, as well as a place where the post-war was handled differently.
- Location
- Drachyench on Discord
This article is a little light on the nitty-gritty, but includes:
While this is referring to eugenics as a whole, there are examples for both specifically targeting homosexuals / those who've engaged in homosexual behavior and deemed them acceptable collateral in eugenic efforts as a whole. This is also keeping a fairly US-centric outlook on things and escalating to some of the more severe treatments, versus spreading one's net further to include other nations and their more "modest" laws including the more infamous Labouchere Amendment which had been used to imprison Oscar Wilde for several years and pretty much directly contributed to his (relatively) young passing.From the Article said:
As for demographics, the best source I can come up with at the moment is the Kinsey Institute's website (which, I'll note, refers to multiple sources itself both in favor of and against its results), and while the numbers fluctuate even as far back as the 1940's there seems to have been a consistency in testing of roughly ~20% to ~30% of the population having engaged in some sort of non-Heterosexual (sexual) behavior and ~2-4% engaging in it frequently or more.
This needling is rather besides my point, however. Namely that people have known, befriended, or even been related to homosexuals in moderately large numbers long before the 1990's / 2000's, and… it did not lead to a homosexual paradise of tolerance and civil rights. Hell, the term "homosexual" is in and of itself only ~100 years old, before then simple "sexual deviancy", "sodomy", or in the more forward cases "sinful" being considered more than enough to describe such behavior / identities. Likewise, to break away from homosexuality, black people have been in the US for centuries with almost everyone knowing at least one personally, and they sure as hell didn't reach equality or a spontaneous good-will "Be on equal footing with us" boost way back in the early 1700's, 1800's, or even 1900's.
Professor Vesca
Good News Everyone!
It is interesting but my time period of focus was the more recent era. The past 40 years or so. I am not terribly interested in sterilization in the 1900's for the same reason I am not interested in race relations in the 1900's, I am more interested in how things have changed recently.
While Black people were present in the USA, their plight does not translate well to the plight of homosexual individuals. It is very easy to segregate black people for obvious reasons. It hits much closer to home when Grandpa Joe whom you loved, and lived with, and grew up with, and who practically raised you and taught you everything you know and who was an objectively good man and a saint and who wouldnt hurt so much as a fly, turns out to be gay.
Well.
What do you do then? I mean, you could condemn Grandpa Joe and cast him out, but that doesnt sound easy to just round on someone. That is more what I was getting at. Those were the statistics I was after.
I bring up the civil war primarily as a way to point out that authoritarian action can lead to severe backlash, and also that minority populations (Such as black slaves in antebellum south) didnt just have freedom handed down to them from on high. I mean, they did, Abraham Lincoln just went and freed them all with his emancipation proclamation, but the white majority government, specifically the republican party, was already convinced that the way forward for the nation did not have Slavery included in the picture. Once they were convinced, THEN they moved for unilateral action, and their unilateral action, or the appearance of such, sparked off the civil war.
I see the enshrining of Slavery as a cornerstone of the confederate state more as a reaction to the idea that the North was now going to move to outlaw slavery and cut out the say of the southern slave states, more than anything else. Unfortunately, Lincoln never lived long enough to see through his idea of reconstruction, as he was assassinated. Congress got their vengefulness, to the detriment of everyone.
As for the question of minority power, I already answered it. Minority groups are given power, or otherwise have portions of the majority act on their behalf as political interests align and diverge.
Why did it flourish? To turn back to the civil war, northern abolitionists looked on the practice of slavery and found it barbaric, and found the justifications for such practices offered up by the slave holders to be hollow and unfulfilling. They sought to abolish it in alignment with their desire for a better society.
As for 'why did they fail until they succeeded'? Why did they succeed until they fail? I dont know the answer to that question. If we knew the answer, the world would be a much different place.
@Cetashwayo do you care to chime in?
Last edited:
Aaron Peori
Rest in Peace
It appears our glorious overlord is attempting to verify the study's conclusions:
What specific acts are we talking about here?
Cause the election of Lincoln alone caused problems. It goes without saying that the South perceived something in his election, but I'd just like to be clear what act from the newly democratically elected leader counts as "unilateral".
Right. And that's why it's the interesting question, since so many moral issues do not suddenly possess arguments of stunning clarity and force all of a sudden, but seem to do so.
It's relatively easy to explain in short, broad terms how things that already have the preconditions to be successful work.
Last edited:
For why now on homosexuality the virtual collapse of traditional sexual mores accelerated by easy access to internet pornography would be my guess.
Cetashwayo
Lord of Ten Thousand Years
- Location
- Across the Horizon
What's the question?
I already gave my views on this subject and I find this debate terribly tedious. It has little relevance to what's actually happening. When I'm in a political campaign I do what needs to be done, no one spends long hours arguing on the internet about the meta of what we're doing.
Flectarn
Uphold Kali Akuno Thought
- Location
- Queen City of the Ohio
They had internet porn in the sixties?
Professor Vesca
Good News Everyone!
Magical time traveling Porn.
The internet really does have everything. Sigh...
The post I quoted mentioned the changes as of the 90's and 00's specifically. The 60's weren't mentioned anywhere?
I think we started with why gay rights progressed relatively recently but I think we are now dealing with the issue of (possibly) unilateral attempts to force moral change in the context of the Civil War.
Also: if you'd also like to touch upon the wider question of how all moral revolutions happen that'll be greeeat
(I have no idea why he wanted you in particular. Are you a Civil War historian?)
Porn is actually seeping backwards into the past, that's how much of it we're watching
Cetashwayo
Lord of Ten Thousand Years
- Location
- Across the Horizon
Flectarn
Uphold Kali Akuno Thought
- Location
- Queen City of the Ohio
That's when the sexual revolution happend
But the sexual revolution of the 60's was only among a small subculture of the population and never gained mainstream acceptance. Internet porn OTOH has been basically ubiquitious throughout all levels of society for nearly two decades.
- Location
- That light in the sky with a decaying orbit.
You know what? Lets get back on topic on how social justice movements can be counter productive.
Here is an interesting article on Wall Street Journal that talks about research on how current methods are counterproductive and alternative methodologies.
It looks like separating people into different groups for different treatment gets noticed, and people start treating those groups differently. Its a feedback loop. The only way to cure racism is to allow different races to mix, without being seen encouraging it with any sort of favoritism.
Here is an interesting article on Wall Street Journal that talks about research on how current methods are counterproductive and alternative methodologies.
It looks like separating people into different groups for different treatment gets noticed, and people start treating those groups differently. Its a feedback loop. The only way to cure racism is to allow different races to mix, without being seen encouraging it with any sort of favoritism.
Chloe Sullivan
Subdefective
- Location
- 1630 Revello Drive, Sunnydale CA
Racism is not a disease, and I don't think the medical analogy really holds.
Also, the goal of social justice is not just to get rid of isms - that's merely a subset of the ultimate goal of, well, Justice. Eradicating racism would be great, but true justice also requires doing something about all the damage already done by racism. Getting rid of racism now may give minorities a better chance going on from now, but what about the disadvantages and indignities they have already suffered?
If the scale has been tipped one way already, applying equally to both sides of the scale will not in fact balance it. You do in fact need to have separate treatment of groups that are already in an unequal state if you want to restore equality.
Zap Rowsdower
Ex-cultist vagrant
- Location
- Bright lights, big city
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Or remove the rights of parents entirely and have all children raised in identical environments by the State, but for some reason that seems an inferior option to tipping the scales until systemic disadvantage evens out.
Oh, most definitely. Rest assured, we all know of Squishy's position.
I think most everyone would be a lot more accepting of his behavior if he were simply up front and honest about how this is his place and he can do what he wants, rather than this facade of fairness he's trying to push on SV.
At least SB is honest about their overlord policy.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
For what it's worth, @LordSquishy only has a 1/3 voting share of the ownership corporation, so he can't actually do that.
Chloe Sullivan
Subdefective
- Location
- 1630 Revello Drive, Sunnydale CA
- Location
- That light in the sky with a decaying orbit.
You say this as if the groups are universally afflicted. The only real solution is to bring individual justice to the individuals affected, not give unfair benefits to people based on the color of their skin.
I know how much you hate to admit it, but there are rich black people, who live privileged lives. It is not justice to give them some sort of additional advantage as you speak of. This reminds me of something that happened in Indiana. Indiana used to match federal food stamps with state money- nice right? Well, a wealthy young man who despite having trust funds and more money than most people know what to do with was none the less unemployed. He registered for food stamps and decided to use them on luxury foods like caviar. The state noticed this, and told him to stop abusing the resource. He sued, and won- so the state of Indiana discontinued the program altogether.
If populations of blacks are disadvantaged because they are poor, just help the poor. Clean up heavy metal pollution and drop zero tolerance policies.
Quiiiiiiiiick questions.
There are definitely "rick black people who lead privileged lives". There's also a growing black middle class. Nobody disagrees on that. But how did they become rich/privileged/wealthy? Is it because they were able to get a college education due to affirmative action and college scholarships, increasing their chances of getting a well-paying job? And would they have been able to become rich/wealthy/privileged if they hadn't had the state help them to overcome the disadvantages of poverty, joblessness, and living in crime-ridden areas?
Like, I generally agree with your point that income-based AA is a better way of tackling America's social ills than it it being based on skin colour. But so far, that doesn't mean that race-based AA isn't working at helping poor blacks get out of poverty.
Also, naming one example of food stamps being abused doesn't mean that the entire system has failed. If you say that each person that is unemployed gets food stamp to avoid them starving, no matter what they earn or own, then they should get them. I am quite honestly holding the state more in contempt here, since they decided "fuck the unemployed" instead of biting the bullet and accepting that some people might get food stamps that didn't really deserve them. Abuse will happen in a system. As long as the system helps more people than it harms, though, it should still be continued and then reformed as needed -- unless a more viable alternative pops up.
Last edited:
Chloe Sullivan
Subdefective
- Location
- 1630 Revello Drive, Sunnydale CA
Why is a few people getting "unfair benefits based on the color of the skin" somehow worse that lots of people continuing to be fucked over because of the color of their skin?
Individual justice isn't possible, because we simply do not have the ability to do any sort of large scale program with that much granularity, and even if we did, it would be just as imperfect as non-individual solutions. Generalized programs may result in some errors, but that doesn't make them not a net benefit. You'll always get error anyway. Its unavoidable. Using "well there's an error rate" as a justification for doing nothing is entirely bullshit from any logical perspective.
You can make a logical argument that an error rate is too high, but honestly,welfare programs have an absurdly low error rate according to the data I've seen.
This is basically you being so unwilling to suffer the prospect of a small number of minorities getting an "unfair advantage" that you'd rather see many more people keep getting unfair disadvantages.
That's pretty much just hate, there, man.
What is unjust about it exactly?
You're using that dishonest metric where you compare rich black people to poor white people. Compare rich black people to rich white people. Surprise, they're still fucking relatively disadvantaged!
That's that guy being an asshole and the state writing it's program poorly. Neither of these is an indictment of food stamps as a practice.
Populations of blacks are disadvantaged because they are black. Some (or most, depending on where you live) are also disadvantaged because they are poor. These two things can exist independently of each other, and also stack. Lets not have any false dichotomies here.
Don't think I'm going to give you a pass on this either, @Fernandel. At least with college admissions, we have race AA because that was the only kind we managed to implement. We tried on multiple occasions to get Wealth based AA going and it got shot down every time.
Again, Wealth or Ethnicity is a false dichotomy. As long as both result in (dis)advantage, AA can and shoud include both as factors.
I don't think anyone is saying not to do these? AFAIK, almost everyone here supports these two.
- Status