Sorry, I changed my post while you were making your response. Yes, the response you quoted from me is what I had written originally. Unfortunately the two posts were being written (in my case re-written) simltaneously.

Speech is free, but opinions have repercussions. Not by the state necessarily. "Clean up your room!" Says mother. "No!" says junior. "You're stranded for the day!" says mother.

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.

"Against free speech" apparently = "people disagreeing with me and exercising their rights to do so".

"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.

I mean no disrespect, but could you please refrain from making this discussion about specifically american politics?... Covid in america and Trump seem to usually distract the topic completely from its trails. I'm sure there are threads that are specifically about those things. — Qmeri

Will do.

So, for me, this issue has seemed like culture and human needs stepping on the area of science and wanting to brute-force a specific result out of it, regardless of whether we have nearly enough data to make any such conclusions. — Qmeri

You've packed too much in this, and not a good job of packing. Never mind the seeming, what do you say the issue is?

Or this way. Consider the proposition, "All men are created equal." What do you make of it? Is it true? Does science support it? Do you understand it? Does science even understand it?

Or this way. Consider the proposition, "All men are created equal." What do you make of it? Is it true? Does science support it? Do you understand it? Does science even understand it? — tim wood

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.

It's not a scientific statement. — Cheshire

Exactly the point. Clearly ftrom a scientific POV, no two things are the same or equal, ever. So were left with whatever the OP's point is, and I suspect he has no point because he has no real science.

Exactly the point. — tim wood

Glad to be of service then.

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. — Cheshire

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.

Exactly the point. Clearly ftrom a scientific POV, no two things are the same or equal, ever. So were left with whatever the OP's point is, and I suspect he has no point because he has no real science. — 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.

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. — john27

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.

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. — Qmeri

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?

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. — Qmeri

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.

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. — Qmeri

Name two different human genetic populations.

You are not talking about the methodologies of discourse on equality — Qmeri

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.

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, — Qmeri

Its been my experience that if there is to be a discussion about something, it's useful to have some clarity about what that something is. And if in this case we are not to know what equality is, then your topic becomes, "This thread is about how people talk about X." Well, people talk about X in all kinds of ways; one might even say Y ways.

Perhaps you have a certain kind of equality in mind. Do you? If you do, what kind do you have in mind?

Hmmhhh... I was talking about the controversy, that has been going since at least Darwins times of whether there are differences in capability between human populations (Back then, they called them "races", which term doesn't make that much sense in modern science.)

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.

Name two different human genetic populations. — Cheshire

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.

Perhaps you have a certain kind of equality in mind. Do you? If you do, what kind do you have in mind? — tim wood

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.

In your subject of genetics, taking you to be able to speak with at least minimum authority on that topic, what even does equality mean? Or is it the whole ball game to say that equality in this (your) case means exactly equivalence with respect to some well-defined parameter or standard, and nothing else?

The idea being that value judgments of any kind no part of genetics.

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. — Cheshire

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. — Qmeri

↪180 Proof 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

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.

Name two different human genetic populations.
— Cheshire

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. — Qmeri

And you want to determine their sameness? Or just place arbitrary value judgements on differences that you find appealing? Somewhere in-between perhaps?

In your subject of genetics, taking you to be able to speak with at least minimum authority on that topic, what even does equality mean? Or is it the whole ball game to say that equality in this (your) case means exactly equivalence with respect to some well-defined parameter or standard, and nothing else?

The idea being that value judgments of any kind no part of genetics. — tim wood

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.

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. — Qmeri

From time immemorial. But then it's not genetics any more but value systems and arguments and their uses and misuses. It's tempting to say we live in a nasty piece of history at the moment when values and arguments are perverted. But a closer reading of history shows that's nothing new. Is it your position that value judgements based on genetics are invalid as to the genetics itself - perhaps that no value judgments should be based on genetics?

And you want to determine their sameness? Or just place arbitrary value judgements on differences that you find appealing? Somewhere in-between perhaps? — Cheshire

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.

From time immemorial. But then it's not genetics any more but value systems and arguments and their uses and misuses. It's tempting to say we live in a nasty piece of history at the moment when values and arguments are perverted. But a closer reading of history shows that's nothing new. — tim wood

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.

Is it your position that value judgements based on genetics are invalid as to the genetics itself - perhaps that no value judgments should be based on genetics? — 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.

This thread is about how people talk about equality... You are continuously forcing this discussion to be about what equality actually is — Qmeri

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.

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. — Qmeri

Wouldn't the concern be a function of the genes you carry and your counterparts family history regarding genetic disorders?

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. — Qmeri

This is rather specific. Is this what you have in mind primarily, but are avoiding discussing outright?

I’ve read every comment in this thread and I have no idea what the OP actually wants us to discuss.

This thread is about how people talk about equality... You are continuously forcing this discussion to be about what equality actually is — Qmeri

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?

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 — Qmeri

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?