8 ms·

You wrote: -- Although I ultimately disagree with some of the conclusions drawn at the end, (particularly: "Because contemporary moral codes delineate women as

You wrote: -- Although I ultimately disagree with some of the conclusions drawn at the end, (particularly: "Because contemporary moral codes delineate women as vulnerable or marginalised, we stop seeing them as individuals with unique talents and idiosyncrasies, but as representatives of a victimised class." Acknowledging that women are 'vulnerable or marginalised' shouldn't remove their individuality, you can easily have both -- How can you disagree with it? The author isn't saying this should happen, just that it does, even if this doesn't apply to you.

ioult 9y ago
> How can you disagree with it? Assuming this isn't a rethorical question, it seems straight forward to disagree with the "because" part. Just because the author suggests something doesn't make it so. Presumably, since most people use themselves as reference, if something doesn't apply to yourself you might disagree with the explanation given and conclude that there are other factor involved i.e. that the problem is something else.
noobermin 9y ago
What evidence do we have that such a perspective is removing their individuality? The argument those of us on the left make is that people's individuality, their talent etc are disregarded because of their class/attributes etc., and society as it is set-up punishes some classes while rewarding others, rather than rewarding individuals as individuals.
- dcow 9y ago
  Plenty of level-headed people on the right see things exactly that way too. What kills us, or at least me (I'll identify for the purpose of this argument), is trying to figure out why people "on the left" are so focused on fixing the symptoms by way of "reverse discrimination" (i.e. affirmative action) instead of focusing on ensuring that we continue to see people as unique individuals instead of–what we feel is the socially destructive and in fact anti-diverse approach of–reducing people to their least common denominator group membership and treating them accordingly (identity politics).
  - lazyasciiart 9y ago
    Why affirmative action? Because if one person takes everything from another person, is it fair to say "you know, that was bad, and it shouldn't have happened, but since that's in the past we should just make sure that we treat both of them the same now"? (I will also note that all the work I see being done to end 'regular' discrimination, a.k.a get to the state where we do see people as individuals and don't act based on racial biases, is being done by the left. The arguments that affirmative action is a bad distraction from our current utopian racial blindness that we should 'continue' are based on a baffling disregard for all the evidence for the current existence of racism).
    - OCASM 9y ago
      A person is not the same as a group. You want some individuals punished for what other people did. There's no justice there.
    - asabjorn 9y ago
      Don't you think its a bit odd to try to compensate for implicit bias with explicit bias? To me it seems unlikely that bigotry, sexism and racism will be fixed by more of the same.
      - joshuamorton 9y ago
        Not particularly. We do it all the time when the free market misses some context. I see no major difference between a carbon tax and an affirmative action policy. In both cases, the naively optimal action misses some important context, so the system is then tweaked to modify the outcome to take the external factors into account. Do you have any alternative that isn't isomorphic to affirmative action?
        asabjorn 9y ago
        > Do you have any alternative that isn't isomorphic to affirmative action? Possible alternative: We need to embrace that all decisions we make are emotional, even the rational ones [1], and create a process that facilitates the desired change. I believe this can be done by hiring competent minorities into teams [2], where although they are a minority in general they will not be on their team. These teams should not only be that minority as you in a truly inclusive system can't define people by a trait. Since its a minority you probably have to do some extra legway in facilitating matching these teams well to problems the the team members find interesting and that there are growth opportunities. However, that is an ongoing conversation you should be having at any rate. By these teams being competent they will through normal work-conversations and collaborations open minds on how successful people look like. Very suddenly it will be clear that both nerdy and pretty girls as well as anyone in between can code well, and that people that talk and walk in ways that make you uncomfortable might actually be competent and give you a unique perspective if you truly include them in your conversation. Yes, it is not flashy and won't make great campaign posters. However, it empowers individuals while helping those individuals deal with being a minority without it being a zero sum game. And then we can watch history unfold, like how asians went from being railroad grunt work to model immigrants. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Behave-Biology-Humans-Best-Worst-ebook/dp/B01IAUGC5S https://www.amazon.com/Behave-Biology-Humans-Best-Worst-eboo... [2] suggested action by feminists and researchers like Francis Frei, although I am not sure they support this full proposal
- Banthum 9y ago
  The main thing that turned me against the modern left is the insistence on categorizing everyone into identity groups, and then treating their individuality as less important than the groups they represent. For example, every argument that any person has more or less of a right to speak on a given topic because of their identity markers also implicitly states that their identity markers are more important than their individuality. This goes as much when it's saying whites shouldn't talk about racism, as it goes when saying women should talk about sexism, or should always be believed when making sex crime accusations against men, and so on. It's strange to me that you and I started in the same pro-individuality place and ended up, apparently, on opposite sides of the political aisle.
  - pjc50 9y ago
    This is of course what the right has been doing for a very long time; do you think the intent behind the "Muslim ban" was based on treating people as individuals, or as members of a group?
    - pathseeker 9y ago
      "Muslim ban" was a term of the left. It was a country-based ban that didn't target most of the majority-Muslim countries. It was treating people as members of a group, but it was grouping by citizen.
  - noobermin 9y ago
    At the risk of doing "no-true Scotsman", that isn't my reading of the left. The left I know dumped both Al Franken, a liberal, and Lena Dunham, a "pop feminist"[0]. The left I listen to also speaks regularly against people like Ben Carson, it's not like just because someone is in an identity group they are automatically believed/revered, their point of view/character/deeds are taken before their group. For "whites shouldn't talk about racism", I think that is sort of a mischaracterization of what people say. People should realize that they cannot fully appreciate things outside of their experience. That's a logical thing, not a leftist thing. [0] Not sure how else to describe her.

ioult 9y ago

> How can you disagree with it? Assuming this isn't a rethorical question, it seems straight forward to disagree with the "because" part. Just because the author suggests something doesn't make it so. Presumably, since most people use themselves as reference, if something doesn't apply to yourself you might disagree with the explanation given and conclude that there are other factor involved i.e. that the problem is something else.

noobermin 9y ago

What evidence do we have that such a perspective is removing their individuality? The argument those of us on the left make is that people's individuality, their talent etc are disregarded because of their class/attributes etc., and society as it is set-up punishes some classes while rewarding others, rather than rewarding individuals as individuals.

dcow 9y ago
Plenty of level-headed people on the right see things exactly that way too. What kills us, or at least me (I'll identify for the purpose of this argument), is trying to figure out why people "on the left" are so focused on fixing the symptoms by way of "reverse discrimination" (i.e. affirmative action) instead of focusing on ensuring that we continue to see people as unique individuals instead of–what we feel is the socially destructive and in fact anti-diverse approach of–reducing people to their least common denominator group membership and treating them accordingly (identity politics).
- lazyasciiart 9y ago
  Why affirmative action? Because if one person takes everything from another person, is it fair to say "you know, that was bad, and it shouldn't have happened, but since that's in the past we should just make sure that we treat both of them the same now"? (I will also note that all the work I see being done to end 'regular' discrimination, a.k.a get to the state where we do see people as individuals and don't act based on racial biases, is being done by the left. The arguments that affirmative action is a bad distraction from our current utopian racial blindness that we should 'continue' are based on a baffling disregard for all the evidence for the current existence of racism).
  - OCASM 9y ago
    A person is not the same as a group. You want some individuals punished for what other people did. There's no justice there.
  - asabjorn 9y ago
    Don't you think its a bit odd to try to compensate for implicit bias with explicit bias? To me it seems unlikely that bigotry, sexism and racism will be fixed by more of the same.
    - joshuamorton 9y ago
      Not particularly. We do it all the time when the free market misses some context. I see no major difference between a carbon tax and an affirmative action policy. In both cases, the naively optimal action misses some important context, so the system is then tweaked to modify the outcome to take the external factors into account. Do you have any alternative that isn't isomorphic to affirmative action?
      - asabjorn 9y ago
        > Do you have any alternative that isn't isomorphic to affirmative action? Possible alternative: We need to embrace that all decisions we make are emotional, even the rational ones [1], and create a process that facilitates the desired change. I believe this can be done by hiring competent minorities into teams [2], where although they are a minority in general they will not be on their team. These teams should not only be that minority as you in a truly inclusive system can't define people by a trait. Since its a minority you probably have to do some extra legway in facilitating matching these teams well to problems the the team members find interesting and that there are growth opportunities. However, that is an ongoing conversation you should be having at any rate. By these teams being competent they will through normal work-conversations and collaborations open minds on how successful people look like. Very suddenly it will be clear that both nerdy and pretty girls as well as anyone in between can code well, and that people that talk and walk in ways that make you uncomfortable might actually be competent and give you a unique perspective if you truly include them in your conversation. Yes, it is not flashy and won't make great campaign posters. However, it empowers individuals while helping those individuals deal with being a minority without it being a zero sum game. And then we can watch history unfold, like how asians went from being railroad grunt work to model immigrants. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Behave-Biology-Humans-Best-Worst-ebook/dp/B01IAUGC5S https://www.amazon.com/Behave-Biology-Humans-Best-Worst-eboo... [2] suggested action by feminists and researchers like Francis Frei, although I am not sure they support this full proposal
Banthum 9y ago
The main thing that turned me against the modern left is the insistence on categorizing everyone into identity groups, and then treating their individuality as less important than the groups they represent. For example, every argument that any person has more or less of a right to speak on a given topic because of their identity markers also implicitly states that their identity markers are more important than their individuality. This goes as much when it's saying whites shouldn't talk about racism, as it goes when saying women should talk about sexism, or should always be believed when making sex crime accusations against men, and so on. It's strange to me that you and I started in the same pro-individuality place and ended up, apparently, on opposite sides of the political aisle.
- pjc50 9y ago
  This is of course what the right has been doing for a very long time; do you think the intent behind the "Muslim ban" was based on treating people as individuals, or as members of a group?
  - pathseeker 9y ago
    "Muslim ban" was a term of the left. It was a country-based ban that didn't target most of the majority-Muslim countries. It was treating people as members of a group, but it was grouping by citizen.
- noobermin 9y ago
  At the risk of doing "no-true Scotsman", that isn't my reading of the left. The left I know dumped both Al Franken, a liberal, and Lena Dunham, a "pop feminist"[0]. The left I listen to also speaks regularly against people like Ben Carson, it's not like just because someone is in an identity group they are automatically believed/revered, their point of view/character/deeds are taken before their group. For "whites shouldn't talk about racism", I think that is sort of a mischaracterization of what people say. People should realize that they cannot fully appreciate things outside of their experience. That's a logical thing, not a leftist thing. [0] Not sure how else to describe her.