3 ms·

I guess the word progressive here isn’t helpful because there’s a huge diversity of thought that gets swept up under that label. But if you take it to mean the

by jl6 5y ago

I guess the word progressive here isn’t helpful because there’s a huge diversity of thought that gets swept up under that label. But if you take it to mean the intersectional flavor of progressive that focuses on issues of disadvantage and discrimination, then the idea of a generic lottery seems right up their alley. If the genetic lottery has winners and losers, surely that’s pure gold to progressive politics! It’s official, scientific confirmation of the existence of oppressors and victims, along a multitude of axes. And the policy implications are so obvious: equity is achieved by giving extra help to the genetic losers. A whole class of hitherto-wishy-washy political activity suddenly gains scientific cover: the activity of quantifying exactly how much disadvantage each group suffers, and correspondingly how much assistance to render. Why are progressive think tanks not totally on board with this already?!

cheesetable 5y ago
I think it's for fear of appeal to genetics, which has historically been used to justify violations of human rights.
luckylion 5y ago
> Why are progressive think tanks not totally on board with this already?! Possibly because they'd have to completely rewrite their ideological framework. Right now, it's based on active influences (racism, sexism, discrimination against the poor), and with genetics playing a (larger) role, it would shift to more passive influences (fewer women are in tech because they don't care as much for tech as men, not because they're oppressed) that you can't change via revolution + labor camps.
ggggtez 5y ago
This is a clear misunderstanding of practically everything about progressivism. Progressivism is an evolution of liberalism which acknowledges that liberalism had failed to bring the equality it promised. Having scientific proof of differences does nothing. It's not the starting stats that progressives see as the thing that needs to be equalized, but the opportunities. Maybe the outcomes. It depends.
- ComodoHacker 5y ago
  Did liberalism ever promise the equality of outcomes, besides the equality of opportunities?
  - jmull 5y ago
    I’m not sure what anyone was promised, but just from a basic logical perspective, if opportunities are really equal then, over time, outcomes will equalize as well. I’m not a progressive, but if over decades of pursuing liberal policies outcomes are not equalizing, it seems to make sense to try to figure out why and find something better to try.
    - concordDance 5y ago
      I think liberalism cares about liberty not equality. Pure equality is not possible while people have parents.
      - ggggtez 5y ago
        The constitution of the US (a liberal system) contains this phrase you might be familiar with. "All men are created equal". Equality is a central tenet of liberalism. The argument that your parents make you not equal is exactly what liberalism is trying to reject. Someone should not be treated differently based on their heritage (monarchies anyone?). In fact, since you believe you can't be equal due to parentage, you probably agree with some of what progressives have to say. The current system isn't equal.

by jl6 5y ago

cheesetable 5y ago

I think it's for fear of appeal to genetics, which has historically been used to justify violations of human rights.

luckylion 5y ago

> Why are progressive think tanks not totally on board with this already?! Possibly because they'd have to completely rewrite their ideological framework. Right now, it's based on active influences (racism, sexism, discrimination against the poor), and with genetics playing a (larger) role, it would shift to more passive influences (fewer women are in tech because they don't care as much for tech as men, not because they're oppressed) that you can't change via revolution + labor camps.

ggggtez 5y ago

This is a clear misunderstanding of practically everything about progressivism. Progressivism is an evolution of liberalism which acknowledges that liberalism had failed to bring the equality it promised. Having scientific proof of differences does nothing. It's not the starting stats that progressives see as the thing that needs to be equalized, but the opportunities. Maybe the outcomes. It depends.

ComodoHacker 5y ago
Did liberalism ever promise the equality of outcomes, besides the equality of opportunities?
- jmull 5y ago
  I’m not sure what anyone was promised, but just from a basic logical perspective, if opportunities are really equal then, over time, outcomes will equalize as well. I’m not a progressive, but if over decades of pursuing liberal policies outcomes are not equalizing, it seems to make sense to try to figure out why and find something better to try.
  - concordDance 5y ago
    I think liberalism cares about liberty not equality. Pure equality is not possible while people have parents.
    - ggggtez 5y ago
      The constitution of the US (a liberal system) contains this phrase you might be familiar with. "All men are created equal". Equality is a central tenet of liberalism. The argument that your parents make you not equal is exactly what liberalism is trying to reject. Someone should not be treated differently based on their heritage (monarchies anyone?). In fact, since you believe you can't be equal due to parentage, you probably agree with some of what progressives have to say. The current system isn't equal.