5 ms·

They would not have acquired much notoriety by believing these things in private. It's their actions which got them into the history books. If I'm not mistaken

by iguy 9y ago

They would not have acquired much notoriety by believing these things in private. It's their actions which got them into the history books. If I'm not mistaken, the Brahmins tick most of your boxes. Are they alright? Some would argue that they go in for a bit of dehumanization... but nobody is proposing a world war to stop them. Actually I'm alright with people believing lots of crazy shit, in private. Because I think intellectual monoculture is pretty dangerous.

emodendroket 9y ago
Well, I don't know, the Indian government seems to think caste discrimination is a real problem (c.f. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservation_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservation_in_India). I certainly would object quite strenuously to a government that operated on caste principles and enforced caste segregation and diminished rights for some castes. World War II did not begin because of Nazis' views on Jews, so I don't know that that part of the question really makes sense. I do find it a little strange how many people want to turn the concept of "diversity" on its head and tell me the real diversity problem is that we don't let enough people with racist views into power.
- iguy 9y ago
  Sure, me too. But we're back to talking about policies and actions, like invading Poland or enforcing caste apartheid. These are bad things. My objection is to conflating them with scientific matters, i.e. empirical claims, especially about human biology. I worry that doing so actually weakens our arguments against such evil. We shouldn't build into our case against them scientific claims on which we may ourselves be proven wrong. It's not necessary. (And, much as I enjoy using words like diversity in their older meanings, in the hope of tripping people into thinking, here I resisted the temptation. Intellectual monoculture was however a feature of most of the evil regimes of recent times, too, and one of their weaknesses.)
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    I don't see much point in making the distinction. All of these policies you're saying are bad are completely logical ones to enact for someone who holds race-supremacist views. By way of analogy, when someone tells you he believes global warming is impossible because it would go against the Bible, you don't have to wonder that much what he would do about carbon emissions.

by iguy 9y ago

emodendroket 9y ago

Well, I don't know, the Indian government seems to think caste discrimination is a real problem (c.f. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservation_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservation_in_India). I certainly would object quite strenuously to a government that operated on caste principles and enforced caste segregation and diminished rights for some castes. World War II did not begin because of Nazis' views on Jews, so I don't know that that part of the question really makes sense. I do find it a little strange how many people want to turn the concept of "diversity" on its head and tell me the real diversity problem is that we don't let enough people with racist views into power.

iguy 9y ago
Sure, me too. But we're back to talking about policies and actions, like invading Poland or enforcing caste apartheid. These are bad things. My objection is to conflating them with scientific matters, i.e. empirical claims, especially about human biology. I worry that doing so actually weakens our arguments against such evil. We shouldn't build into our case against them scientific claims on which we may ourselves be proven wrong. It's not necessary. (And, much as I enjoy using words like diversity in their older meanings, in the hope of tripping people into thinking, here I resisted the temptation. Intellectual monoculture was however a feature of most of the evil regimes of recent times, too, and one of their weaknesses.)
- emodendroket 9y ago
  I don't see much point in making the distinction. All of these policies you're saying are bad are completely logical ones to enact for someone who holds race-supremacist views. By way of analogy, when someone tells you he believes global warming is impossible because it would go against the Bible, you don't have to wonder that much what he would do about carbon emissions.