Are you high? It's like your memory bottomed out and you forgot what our discussion was about. — Merkwurdichliebe

If you're talking about the post I responded to already (I wouldn't at all say that was describing an experiment), I already responded to it. It's not like my view changed in 15 minutes.

Makes sense to me.

Hm. Being clearer than Nietzsche is no great achievement.

IN the first box they are treated equally. — Banno

What the hell? I already addressed this. In terms of being able to see the game, they're not treated equally there.

OK. Have an excellent day.

Oh, I didn't know I was supposed to be convincing you of anything. I just saw you begging someone to explain Banno's point, and I was approaching it like an experiment of reason.

Btw, don't be so narcissistic, I couldn't give two shits about your opinion

I was a compliment...

It wasn't a compliment

, I couldn't give two shits about your opinion — Merkwurdichliebe

Why would you be asking me questions or responding to me period in that case?

Because I care about you. :kiss:

The Australian Liberal Party has 74% men in the Australian Parliament.

Their opposition, the Labour Party, has 53% men.

The Liberal narrative is along the lines you are adopting. They claim that the disparity is due to merit.

Should the Liberals do something to redress this imbalance? — Banno

Who gets the privilege to sit in parliament and represent constituents is something that by definition can only be shared by a very small portion of individuals (it's a privilege specific to individuals, not genders; "men" don't have some kind of necessary privilege-at-large because parliaments are sausage fests). To be frank I'm more concerned with with the state of our laws (whether or not they are fair, equitable, and functional) than the genders of their mere custodians. People should not be voting on the basis of gender (is the imbalance caused by unequal consideration given by voters? If so, wouldn't it be solved if people no longer used gender as a point of discrimination when casting votes?).

It might seem like it, but reaching gender equality in parliament isn't necessarily a victory for equality and equity between the sexes. Unless people like AOC actually follow through on the substance of their rhetoric, the women and minorities of her constituency will continue to face the obstacles they currently do. It matters more that she has good ideas than an inspiring skin tone.

Should the Australian liberal party address the gender imbalance by dismissing 24 percent of their elected representatives (they ARE elected, right?) and replace them with arbitrarily selected women? What changes as a result?

We can encourage more women to run for seats in parliament, but we would be remiss to institute gender quotas. If a man cannot represent the political aspirations of women (and therefore we should institute quotas), then women cannot represent the political aspirations of men. Once we start down this road it just gets worse and worse until we do a 180.

I can understand treating individuals differently according to their individual needs, but I cannot comprehend treating entire races/genders differently according to some kind of generalized difference in needs. — VagabondSpectre

But the individual is lost when it becomes generalized into a collectivity, especially one as broad as race or gender. In fact, I might argue that racism and sexism (as concepts) are directed toward groups rather than individuals. Could that, in some way, indicate that the notion of collectivities is an essential component of racism or sexism? (Add. I'm black...I'm white...I'm male...I'm female...I'm Merkwurdichliebe; what incendiary statements, especially the last.)

Whatever the case, it is the individual that is of primary importance, and we shouldn't sacrifice that by enslaving the individual to a mandate of equality that pertains to groups.

In fact, I might argue that racism and sexism (as concepts) are directed toward groups rather than individuals. Could that, in some way, indicate that collectivities are an essential component of racism or sexism? — Merkwurdichliebe

I can see myself taking up an opposing position: The overall impact of racism necessarily comes from the cumulative effects of individual acts of discrimination. A racist act towards one individual might symbolically be a racist act toward an entire race, but it does not actually impact all members of that race. I don't see how the notion of compensating an entire demographic to correct inequality can be effectively and equitably applied in practice. And if all we're doing is correcting the effects of discrimination after the fact (as opposed to arresting the unjust discrimination to begin with), aren't we chasing our own tails?

On a side note, Plato viewed democracy as the best government for the most inferior type of humanity. And, Nietzsche (who completely rejected Platonism) explained it as just another slave morality.

I can see myself taking up an opposing position: The overall impact of racism necessarily comes from the cumulative effects of individual acts of discrimination. — VagabondSpectre

I agree that the racist individual is the most essential component. But a hate crime that is perpetrated on an individual is, as they say, not personal, its business. A hate crime is not directed at the individual, but at the group to which he belongs, the individual is incidental. Furthermore, the racist identifies herself with what she considers to be a superior race, so that her decisions are made on behalf of her race, and not on behalf of herself as individual.
(Add. If she identified herself as an individual (not belonging to any group identity), she would relate to the victim as an individual, making it not a hate crime, but a personal one.)

A racist act towards one individual might symbolically be a racist act toward an entire race, but it does not actually impact all members of that race. — VagabondSpectre

Allow me to argue: Anyone that constitutionally identifies themselves with the victim race would be vicariously affected to the same degree as the actual victim. And then the actual victim, the victimized individual, matters only anecdotally.

I don't see how the notion of compensating an entire demographic to correct inequality can be effectively and equitably applied in practice. And if all we're doing is correcting the effects of discrimination after the fact (as opposed to arresting the unjust discrimination to begin with), aren't we chasing our own tails? — VagabondSpectre

Indeed. I don't think that compensating an entire demographic to correct inequality can be effectively and equitably applied either. I predict it would end with something that looks like the Soviet g.u.l.a.g.

I agree that the racist individual is the most essential component. But a hate crime that is perpetrated on an individual is, as they say, not personal, its business. A hate crime is not directed at the individual, but at the group to which he belongs, the individual is incidental. Furthermore, the racist identifies herself with what she considers to be a superior race, so that her decisions are made on behalf of her race, and not on behalf of herself as individual. — Merkwurdichliebe

Hate crimes are a bit distant from the kind of systemic discrimination that feminism alleges perpetuates inequality. How can we compensate people for hate crimes? You're talking about a fundamentally different problem. Yes the hate-criminal is ostensibly addressing an entire demographic, but they do not represent one (we're not in fact representatives of our respective races).

If we put an end to all future hate-crimes, unequal social outcomes would still persist (assuming hate crime isn't the only perpetuating factor of inequality).

Anyone that constitutionally identifies themselves with the victim race would be vicariously affected to the same degree as the actual victim. And then the actual victim, the victimized individual, matters only anecdotally. — Merkwurdichliebe

I find the idea that someone who shares the race of a victim can be vicariously affected to the same degree as the actual victim to be utterly dubious. I recognize that people can be emotionally affected in all kinds of ways, but at some point other people cannot be held accountable for the state of our own emotions (sometimes our emotions are not reasonable). The marginalization of actual victims in exchange for the political monetization of identity is exactly what I'm afraid of.

Indeed. I don't think that compensating an entire demographic to correct inequality can be effectively and equitably applied either. I predict it would end with something that looks like the Soviet g.u.l.a.g. — Merkwurdichliebe

I don't think we would get that deep into the fever dream, but you never know...

Well first, I wasn't talking about laws in these countries. I specifically said culture. Second, there no need to pick a country, as Im not talking about the countries laws. Third, how do you know where Im getting my information?
Straw-man argument followed by a straw-man argument followed by a gross assumption.

Cheers. That's much as I expected. What you've written tell us about you, more than about what ought happen.

Labour, of course, introduced a preference for preselecting women, and as a result has an equal distribution of gender. Without "dismissing 24 percent of their elected representatives".

Labour has women represented in leadership, while the Liberal party made an utter mess of not selecting the obvious candidate in their most recent leadership spill... of course, not because she was a woman, and despite her being the senior member of parliament and having far more experience than her competitors.

@Terrapin Station, this shows how equity maintains the status quo.

Hate crimes — VagabondSpectre

I'm not saying it's the cause. I was just using hate crimes to illustrate a point. Nevertherless, they are a manifestation of that same system in which racism and sexism exist, a system that relegates every individual to a group.

I find the idea that someone who shares the race of a victim can be vicariously affected to the same degree as the actual victim to be utterly dubious. — VagabondSpectre

Ever hear of "black lives matter", or "police lives matter"? (Add. And emotionally speaking, why not? In fact emotional damage can have far worse effects than physical damage.)

I don't think we would get that deep into the fever dream, but you never know... — VagabondSpectre

I wonder how many Russians were saying that during the Bolshevik revolution.

we're not in fact representatives of our respective races — VagabondSpectre

I agree. We are individual's, who, ideally, represent ourselves. Nevertheless, anyone who constitutionally identifies himself with a race, believes himself to be a representative of that racial demographic.

I cannot help but think that one of the most inferior assumptions an individual can make, is that he is defined by one race or another. In other words, racial identity (as a defining characterictic) is an indication of a primitive mind - or should I say: stupidity.

Labour, of course, introduced a preference for preselecting women, and as a result has an equal distribution of gender. Without "dismissing 24 percent of their elected representatives". — Banno

And? What has changed as a result? More support for Labor among progressives? Is more female butts in parliamentary seats the justice you set out to achieve? Does their increased equity in gender ratios mean they legislate more fairly or effectively?

As bad as I feel for the women who are unfairly passed over for political candidacy (not being sarcastic), disparity among a relatively elite and already advantaged portion of the population is lower on my list of concerns than are the actual laws (and their upholding) which are designed to guarantee equality of opportunity, and the welfare of the masses who live under them. I would vote for an orangutan if I thought they had good ideas and the ability to follow through on them, but not because I feel sorry for orangutans.

If the Labor party had exactly 50% women and 50% men, but you believed their policies did not actually address the obstacles that women face (while the Liberals did), who would you vote for?

'Member when the mostly male U.S Senate called in a woman subsitute to question Dr. Ford? Once you've ensured that equal proportions of genitalia will be present when parliament is in session, and your political opponents have adapted to to the new rules, wont we still be left in the same political debate about which policies we should enact? I thought we started with the idea that we should listen to the experiences of people affected by systemically perpetuated injustice, but somehow we've ended with the idea that someone of a particular identity group can only be fairly represented in political office by a member of that same identity group.

Do you really think that's true?

Labour has women represented in leadership, while the Liberal party made an utter mess of not selecting the obvious candidate in their most recent leadership spill... of course, not because she was a woman, and despite her being the senior member of parliament and having far more experience than her competitors. — Banno

You're saying that based on merit, she should have been next in line. I don't know a lot about Australian politics, but I do take your word for it. But democracy ought to include meritocracy among our elected representatives.

The unequal treatment that she received is what I think helps perpetuate inequality on a grander scale. Eliminate the unequal treatment, and we will eliminate the inequality. Like the early feminists, I do believe in meritocracy, and I want women to have the chance to succeed based on their individual merit. Showing specific favoritism to women in general is an insult to their quality; what they need is a fair chance, not special treatment.

funniness sometimes happens. — javra

I believe in funniness

I'm not saying it's the cause. I was just using hate crimes to illustrate a point. Nevertherless, they are a manifestation of that same system in which racism and sexism exist, a system that relegates every individual to a group. — Merkwurdichliebe

A good word to describe it might be "tribalism" (and when the going gets tough, we all tend to get downright tribal). Historically this is what served our ancestors (from an evolutionary perspective), and this makes us vulnerable to it, but it it's a poison in a globalized and multicultural society.

Ever hear of "black lives matter", or "police lives matter"? — Merkwurdichliebe

Of course, but I don't see how this might undermine my claim. For example, a black individual can suffer emotional trauma as the result of hearing about a hate crime (hearing about the shooting of an unarmed black civilian by white policemen), but the actual victims are the deceased and the deceased's loved ones, and their immediate community. Through sympathy we can suffer along side individual victims, but not to the same degree as their actual suffering (else we're over-reacting?)...

I wonder how many Russians were saying that during the Bolshevik revolution. — Merkwurdichliebe

In the early days that kind of thing never entered their mind. Once the new regime had a firm clamp on the levers of power (and demanded more for less) it was something they resorted to. In their minds it was wholly pragmatic and necessary...

I agree. We are individual's, who, ideally, represent ourselves. Nevertheless, anyone who constitutionally identifies himself with a race, believes himself to be a representative of that racial demographic.

I cannot help but think that one of the most inferior assumptions an individual can make, is that he is defined by one or another. Racial identity is an indication of a primitive mind - 9r should I say: stupidity. — Merkwurdichliebe

I fully agree. Sadly, defining and categorizing us all into demographic categories for the sake of appeal is almost necessary to be successful under our current incentive structures. And in so doing, we can't help but see "others" as the editorialized caricatures that our established mainlines feeds to us.

tribalism — VagabondSpectre

Excellent point.

Through sympathy we can suffer along side individual victims, but not to the same degree as their actual suffering (else we're over-reacting?)... — VagabondSpectre

Indeed, nothing measures up to actual existence.
Perhaps I'm using vicariously a bit loosely, but I think we more or less share common ground on this point. But I would say the identification is deeper , so to speak, than sympathy (I can have sympathy for roadkill), it is empathic.

In the early days that kind of thing never entered their mind. Once the new regime had a firm clamp on the levers of power (and demanded more for less) it was something they resorted to. In their minds it was wholly pragmatic and necessary... — VagabondSpectre

In the present political climate, it's not a far stretch to imagine that certain forms of behavior or speech could be outlawed (I'd be willing to bet that it's already occurred in many countries that are, quote unquote, part of the free world). And that is all that is necessary to incite a landslide of tyranny.

Sadly, defining and categorizing us all into demographic categories for the sake of appeal is almost necessary to be successful under our current incentive structures. And in so doing, we can't help but see "others" as the editorialized caricatures that our established mainlines feeds to us. — VagabondSpectre

Couldn't have said it better

Couldn’t all of this be summed up by stating that if society was a well oiled and ordered machine, where potential and equality were ubiquitous, that this would nevertheless result in the human instinct to solve problems EVEN IF that meant creating problems.

It seems to me that as equality of opportunity spreads across the globe, as access to information and knowledge abounds, that a certain weight of guilt is felt by many whom know full well that they are not reaching for their full potential and in their cowardice essential resort to a kind of mass hysterical resentment of anyone who has actually ventured out into the world, battle hardened and bruised along the way, not naive about the extent of the wrong doings of human activities in general, nor riddled with guilt about them?

If people believe their potential can be filled by pointing their fingers at the action of others then they give rise to those whom focus their live’s potential on cutting said fingers off surely?

Is “contentment” little more than a drive to self-deprecation? I curse the “contented” and “passive” - they breath empty air and gorge on tasteless viands, their gluttony is of the void in order to avoid the human condition; that is to be human trying to be more than a human!

Depends on the (supposed) injustice, but I don't believe there's any injustice here (obviously). — Terrapin Station

Well there is.

Is “contentment” little more than a drive to self-deprecation? I curse the “contented” and “passive” - they breath empty air and gorge on tasteless viands, their gluttony is of the void in order to avoid the human condition; that is to be human trying to be more than a human! — I like sushi

Are you quoting somebody here? Nobody has "gorged on tasteless viands" for a couple of centuries, at least. In fact, you are the first person to use "viands" in The Philosophy Forum. Congrats on that.

On the other hand, what is "empty air"? No pollen? No dust? A vacuum?

Not a quote. I just let loose with metaphors here and there where plain speech doesn’t really seem to emphasis my point - plus it seemed appropriate to parallel Nietzsche’s bombastic writing style given he’s been referred to a couple of times in this thread.

Note : Rereading what I wrote maybe the last line was a little ambiguous? I meant it to say that we should be “human beings trying to be more” not that the “contented” do this - could easily have been misread so just wanted to make that crystal clear :)

One of the outstanding characteristics of the privileged is their inherent inability to see their privilege. — Banno

I think that's probably right. However it applies to everybody. Men have difficulty perceiving their own privilege, where it occurs. But so do women, where it occurs. Same for white, black, brown, disabled, non-disabled, and so on for all identities.

The converse is also true. People have difficulty perceiving the unprivileges of 'others' (i.e. categories one doesn't apply to oneself). Male babies are unable to unionise and form an anti-circumcision movement, so we don't generally perceive circumcision (with no or inadequate anaesthetic) as the horrific abuse that it is.

Regarding privilege generally, it seems to me the most important example of privilege relates to money, class and power (which are increasingly overlapping categories) rather than the various identities normally referred to.

Regarding the MRM, I think Karen Straughan is perhaps the strongest and most radical anti-feminist (while remaining articulate I hasten to add), well worth a look. Warren Farrell is another persuasive person in the debate, but he is less extreme than Straughan. There's plenty of youtube videos of them both.

The Red Pill documentary by Cassie Jaye is essential viewing for this topic.