• Qmeri
    208
    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.
  • Streetlight
    9.1k
    "I used to be for equality before I realized I can't discriminate against people based on the pseudo-science of inferior and superior genes so now I'm not for that equality nonsense anymore because people are mean to me when I tell them they are inferior :(".
  • god must be atheist
    5.1k
    There are lots of ways to be unequal. Social standing, wealth, smarts, height, weight, number of spouses, academic achievement, opportunity, luck, average running speed, propensity to say stupid things, ability to suck up to boss, and so on and so forth.

    Saying people are unequal is a weak statement, because it says nothing. There is a bottomless pit if I ever saw any.
  • Qmeri
    208
    I didn't make any claims about people being inequal nor did i specify my stances on the issue anymore than that i do think inequality is a problem. Your immediate assumptions without evidence on my stances and you immediately starting to paint story about me without any evidence pretty much proves my point about how modern equality movement is bad. Thank you :)
  • Qmeri
    208
    It seems like you didnt understand the subject... the text clearly didnt talk about whether or not people are inequal... it talks about the methods modern equality movement uses and how discourse on the topic of equality has changed. If thats a bottomless pit... all political philosophy is as this is not a particularly large subject for political philosophy.
  • T Clark
    13k
    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.Qmeri

    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?
  • Qmeri
    208
    When did I make a case that racial differences in intelligence or other characteristics are genetic? I havent specified my stance on the issue nor is the subject about whether people are equal or not... its about the methodologies of the discourse. These comment are proving the bad methodologies of modern equality movement way faster than I though. I wasnt trying to bait people to prove the point of my text, but wow does this seem to prove it quite fast.
  • Streetlight
    9.1k
    nor did i specify my stances on the issue anymore than that i do think inequality is a problemQmeri

    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".
  • Qmeri
    208
    It seems like, you truly think that a person who is on the equality side of the argument, but who disapproves your obviously bad methodology is impossible. Why? It is that bad methodology that turns millions of people away from the equality movement, makes peaceful discourse impossible and makes this a two extreme sides stalemate. Equality would have progressed way further if this kind of bad, disgusting methodology didnt bog it down.
  • god must be atheist
    5.1k
    It seems like you didnt understand the subject... the text clearly didnt talk about whether or not people are inequal... it talks about the methods modern equality movement uses and how discourse on the topic of equality has changed.Qmeri

    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.
  • Qmeri
    208
    But then again... modern equality movement often requires to take the absolute extreme position of absolute faith in genes having nothing to do with for example intelligence related things... otherwise you are a racist... making over half the scientist in all the related surveys one can easily find on the internet racists... There is no gray area... If you think genes probably influence intelligence in complex badly understood ways and that there is variation... and statistically there is probably small differences between populations... youre a racist, no matter how small or insignificant you think those differences probably are. On any other issue without a scientific consensus... we call that kind of black and white thinking and labeling fundamentalism or extremism.
  • T Clark
    13k
    When did I make a case that racial differences in intelligence or other characteristics are genetic?Qmeri

    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?

    These comment are proving the bad methodologies of modern equality movement way faster than I though.Qmeri

    As I noted, this subject gets people going. I don't think my response showed any "bad methodologies."

    I wasnt trying to bait people to prove the point of my text,Qmeri

    I think you were being knowingly provocative. Not necessarily anything wrong with that, but what were you expecting?
  • 180 Proof
    14.1k
    the modern equality movementQmeri
    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)?
  • Outlander
    1.8k
    I can respect that and see where you're coming from. It's a very popular and very old government mind control tactic. A combination of diffusion and obfuscation. Kinda hard to wrap your head around if you're not a deceptive piece of work, or at least familiar with people who are but it's I suppose at base comparable to The Boy Who Cried Wolf.

    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.
  • Qmeri
    208
    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?T Clark

    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.

    As I noted, this subject gets people going. I don't think my response showed any "bad methodologies."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.

    I think you were being knowingly provocative. Not necessarily anything wrong with that, but what were you expecting?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.
  • T Clark
    13k
    You immediately started expressing assumptions about me and claiming that I made arguments that had not happened.Qmeri

    I went back and checked. I didn't claim that you made any arguments that you didn't.
  • Qmeri
    208
    its just a term I have come up with to describe how in modern western countries equality is fought for and defended... Everytime anyone does anything that promotes equality, he is technically a part of that equality movement... This subject is about the most usual methods equality is fought for and defended... And how some methods werent used that much in the past.
  • Qmeri
    208
    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?T Clark

    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.
  • jgill
    3.6k
    Perhaps it's this sort of thing to which you refer: Proposed Math Curriculum in California

    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.
  • 180 Proof
    14.1k
    And you were once allied with this "movement" but now you're not because the "movement" opposes "freedom of speech" when it is used at the expense of members of communities targetted by systemic inequality (or inequitable treatment)?

    Freedom of speech will always be more important than equality.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.
  • Streetlight
    9.1k
    OP: Wants freedom of speech.
    Also OP: Gets mad when people exercise it to tell bigots to STFU.
  • 180 Proof
    14.1k
    OP: Wants freedom on speech
    Also OP: Gets mad when people exercise it to tell bigots to STFU.
    StreetlightX
    :100:
  • Qmeri
    208
    Well, I meant that my unspecified idea of freedom of speech is always more important than equality... Of course for many reasons, you cant have total free for all freedom of speech, where those who yell the loudest and most abusively win... But in my version of freedom of speech, even in controversial subjects there should not be taboos that prevent one side from making their arguments because of the fear of being cancelled or some other repercussions... that is an example of a hostile environment. I do agree that there should be rules for politeness and such... rules that help every side to be able to express their views and arguments in a persuasive manner... but also rules that prevent as much shaming and creating hostile environments and such as possible.

    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.
  • Streetlight
    9.1k
    Free speech is free speech. If you want to whine about people using their free speech to oppose your peddling of pseudo-scientific gene garbage, then you don't care about free speech. You just want free speech for the speech you like, while you ramble endlessly about speech you don't. That's the thing about free speech - it cuts both ways. You don't get to whine about free speech while whining about being called out for peddling discrimination. You can do one or the other, but not both. Frankly you should be celebrating me. If you don't you clearly don't like free speech.
  • god must be atheist
    5.1k
    Free speech is free speech. If you want to whine about people using their free speech to oppose your peddling of pseudo-scientific gene garbage, then you don't care about free speech. You just want free speech for the speech you like, while you ramble endlessly about speech you don't.StreetlightX

    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.
  • god must be atheist
    5.1k
    I like the dilemma facing Qmeri. It is not a logical or fact-based error that Q proposes society makes. It is an error driven by commonly accepted ethics.

    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.
  • Book273
    768
    Freedom of speech will always be more important than equalityQmeri

    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.
  • Book273
    768
    inferior or superior genes.StreetlightX

    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?
  • Book273
    768
    For instance, advocating to kill people for their liver if you need a liver transplant.god must be atheist

    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.
  • Book273
    768
    "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,god must be atheist

    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.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.