5 ms·

> Are all those people morally bankrupt and unworthy of a place in the hallowed gardens of equality? I would say that places in the "hallowed gardens of equali

> Are all those people morally bankrupt and unworthy of a place in the hallowed gardens of equality? I would say that places in the "hallowed gardens of equality" are for those who believe in equality, not those who consider any set of other people as lesser. > and in doing so force the other group to take a side. No-one forces anyone to be racist, homophobic, etc. > have had their own life circumstances shape their views. That sounds like the "economic anxiety" excuse for racism.

luckylion 6y ago
> No-one forces anyone to be racist, homophobic, etc. Do you believe that you hold your beliefs because of some great achievement, and not "just because"? Do you believe that you are as smart as you are because of $somethingYouDid and not because of genetic and environmental lotteries?
- zimpenfish 6y ago
  > Do you believe that you hold your beliefs because of some great achievement, and not "just because"? I believe that I hold my current beliefs because I have considered my old beliefs and tried to work on improving them. As someone who grew up in 70s UK, I grew up seeing casual racism, homophobia, sexism, etc. on TV every day and, yeah, that definitely helped shape, if not specific opinions about the worth of people, then certainly a casual carelessness - it would be a rare week at school without a new racist joke, for example. Thankfully I've seen since that I was wrong and have tried to be better (but I fully admit I have a long way to go.)
seiferteric 6y ago
There is a problem with this view because all groups of people are essentially (statistically) the same and are in fact shaped by their environment. What I mean is, if you were born in their world, you would statistically share similar views to them right? Or are you saying that you are somehow naturally morally superior to them and would resist these bigoted view if you were born in their shoes? I don't think so... so given that we must accept that our views do largely come from our environment right? If so is it not our job to try and change/convince them that this views are wrong, i.e. enlighten them? What I mean is you don't have to accept their opinions as valid or equal, but people absolutely should engage with people that hold very different, even reprehensible viewpoints. Otherwise they and their environment will not change and the cycle continues...
- makomk 6y ago
  From what I've seen over the last few years, this pretty much gets right to the heart of how this kind of push to shape discourse and control what's possible to say is justified: the people pushing for it really, truly believe that whatever moral beliefs are currently the norm amongst the (narrow, geographically, socially, religiously and racially unrepresentative) community of people campaigning for this are the one objectively correct moral framework and that anyone who deviates from it is a morally bankrupt monster who is treating others as subhuman. What makes this particularly interesting is that those beliefs actually vary a lot more than the people pushing for this realize. There's actually this argument that they shouldn't have to spell out what the correct beliefs actually are to justify this since they're obvious to everyone, and any demand to be specific is just an attempt by wrongthinkers to pretend they don't know why they're supporting evil. This means any differences only get discovered when that specific situation comes up, and can just get pinned on the other side being evil monsters masquerading as decent people when an unreconciled divide does appear. Also, they change over time rapidly enough that the mandatory non-bigoted views from even a few years ago are beyond the pale in critical ways now.

luckylion 6y ago

> No-one forces anyone to be racist, homophobic, etc. Do you believe that you hold your beliefs because of some great achievement, and not "just because"? Do you believe that you are as smart as you are because of $somethingYouDid and not because of genetic and environmental lotteries?

zimpenfish 6y ago
> Do you believe that you hold your beliefs because of some great achievement, and not "just because"? I believe that I hold my current beliefs because I have considered my old beliefs and tried to work on improving them. As someone who grew up in 70s UK, I grew up seeing casual racism, homophobia, sexism, etc. on TV every day and, yeah, that definitely helped shape, if not specific opinions about the worth of people, then certainly a casual carelessness - it would be a rare week at school without a new racist joke, for example. Thankfully I've seen since that I was wrong and have tried to be better (but I fully admit I have a long way to go.)

seiferteric 6y ago

There is a problem with this view because all groups of people are essentially (statistically) the same and are in fact shaped by their environment. What I mean is, if you were born in their world, you would statistically share similar views to them right? Or are you saying that you are somehow naturally morally superior to them and would resist these bigoted view if you were born in their shoes? I don't think so... so given that we must accept that our views do largely come from our environment right? If so is it not our job to try and change/convince them that this views are wrong, i.e. enlighten them? What I mean is you don't have to accept their opinions as valid or equal, but people absolutely should engage with people that hold very different, even reprehensible viewpoints. Otherwise they and their environment will not change and the cycle continues...

makomk 6y ago
From what I've seen over the last few years, this pretty much gets right to the heart of how this kind of push to shape discourse and control what's possible to say is justified: the people pushing for it really, truly believe that whatever moral beliefs are currently the norm amongst the (narrow, geographically, socially, religiously and racially unrepresentative) community of people campaigning for this are the one objectively correct moral framework and that anyone who deviates from it is a morally bankrupt monster who is treating others as subhuman. What makes this particularly interesting is that those beliefs actually vary a lot more than the people pushing for this realize. There's actually this argument that they shouldn't have to spell out what the correct beliefs actually are to justify this since they're obvious to everyone, and any demand to be specific is just an attempt by wrongthinkers to pretend they don't know why they're supporting evil. This means any differences only get discovered when that specific situation comes up, and can just get pinned on the other side being evil monsters masquerading as decent people when an unreconciled divide does appear. Also, they change over time rapidly enough that the mandatory non-bigoted views from even a few years ago are beyond the pale in critical ways now.