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

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.

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. — god must be atheist

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. — 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.

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

Examples tend to be rather specific by their nature... I improvised those examples when I wrote that.

Now, that is a topic I would enjoy discussing. What is it that possessed him to post this topic? — god must be atheist

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. — 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.

You seem to be generalizing freedom of speech to only mean legal freedom of speech. I disagree.

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.

If you want to find some ulterior motives for me making this thread — Qmeri

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.

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. — Qmeri

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?

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.

Then you are wondering why nobody understands you, and why people are trying to nail you. It's because you utter utter self-contradicions (first utter is a verb, the second is an adjective). How can you expect anyone to take you seriously then? — 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.

Hmmhhh... or are you trying to argue that we should not express pro inequality arguments precisely because of respectfulness and politeness? I only use those things as examples of social rules that can help freedom of speech and they only apply to how people should express their views, but they should not trump over social rules like: within the limits of practicality, every view and argument should be able to be expressed in a polite manner... if they did, they would start limiting freedom of speech... Fundamentally, I would just like human discourse to be a well oiled machine for objective data-analysis, that produces objectively correct beliefs for people... But humans are so complex that optimal culture with optimal social rules for that would be way more complex than just politeness and respectfulness.

I am not trying to argue anything. I am simply trying to make you stop this silly nonsense of your spewing self-contradictory statements and blaming everyone else for it but yourself.

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.

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. — god must be atheist

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 ;)

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. — Qmeri

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.

But don't worry, all the arguments and answers to others were made with respect and make logical sense, once you understand them — Qmeri

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:

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

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. — T Clark

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. — StreetlightX

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. — Qmeri

The point is that it is exactly the same argument as you are making. It is meant to bring out your hypocrisy and the fact that the so-called 'free speech' you want is nothing other than a small subset a speech which just so happens to be exactly what you would like to say. — StreetlightX

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. — Qmeri

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.

I think you should read your own posts too, Qmeri, not just reply to the texts written to you by others. You will learn a whole bunch of things new to yourself if you get into the habit of reading your own posts.

I shalt refrain from analyzing your mind and your intentions. — god must be atheist

And then you go on to do exactly that.

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. — Qmeri

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.

And then you go on to do exactly that. — T Clark

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.

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. — Qmeri

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.

So you are saying that free speech should be free but not free. Furthermore you are saying that free speech is actually not free. — god must be atheist

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.

Probably the most controversial and well known part of that debate has been whether different populations have the same intelligence potentials. — Qmeri

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.

Maybe we could make the conversation better by changing the language a little. Obviously complete "equality" would mean everyone is a clone, had the same lifespan, spoke the same language and in the same way, etc. a ridiculous proposition that one is actually in favor of.
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?

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 — Qmeri

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:

I used to very strongly associate myself with the equality movement of the time… — 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.

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. — Kenosha Kid

Which now I've described it I realise is Qanon.

Let's be careful we don't consider the following and similar scientific studies racist. There are differences related to origins that should not be fodder for racist rants:

Ethnic Anatomical Differences . . .

Sickle Cell Disease . . .

It seems to me that 'equal rights' somehow got confused with 'equality'. People are not equal. Is an idiot equal to Einstein? No. A man equal to a woman? No, there are hormonal and emotional differences. Is a bird equal to a fish? Be careful how you answer or you might end up in jail...

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.

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.

It seems to me that 'equal rights' somehow got confused with 'equality'. People are not equal. Is an idiot equal to Einstein? No. A man equal to a woman? No, there are hormonal and emotional differences. Is a bird equal to a fish? Be careful how you answer or you might end up in jail... — EnPassant

Nailed it! :up: