5 ms·

So you’re saying there doesn’t exist (and never did) racism nor misogyny, never antisemitism, but it was always a plot of the few powerful? Everyone always agre

So you’re saying there doesn’t exist (and never did) racism nor misogyny, never antisemitism, but it was always a plot of the few powerful? Everyone always agreed and of course still does that all humans are created equal and deserve the same rights, regardless of religion, gender, skin color, sexual orientation, but the powerful elite overruled the peace loving and embracing populace? How convenient! That’s a steep argument that I will not even engage with. You throw around numbers, but it looks like there’s quite a bit of history and current events for you to read up on. The ethics of women voting, slavery, and the Holocaust were argued on the same biological basis, that some groups are simply fundamentally, biologically, inferior. It leaves me completely speechless and disgusted that you come forward and deny that.

wizzwizz4 5y ago
> So you’re saying there doesn’t exist (and never did) racism nor misogyny, never antisemitism, but it was always a plot of the few powerful? Nope. In Ancient Greece, basically all non-slaves benefited from slavery, and ultimately they didn't do anything about it. Within their culture, they had the right to do bad things (slavery) to those they defeated in war; their society was structured such that it required slaves, and most not-enslaved people were okay with that… or, at least, few objected enough to try to put a stop to it. The “oh, but they're actually inferior, and naturally deserve this” arguments came later. I'm making specific claims, not the general ones you think I am. In Ancient Greece, it was merely the powerful, not the powerful elite, who upheld slavery – even though the word had negative connotations in Plato's time. In England, it was the upper classes that imposed restrictions on voting, and the lower classes who made themselves a massive nuisance until those got progressively relaxed… but it was also a rebellious noble who introduced the House of Commons (for largely self-serving reasons) in the first place. In America, it was mostly slaveholders who argued that slavery was good actually. (I don't know much about US history, though, and you can easily cast doubt on this assertion by showing me a slavery apologist who wasn't a slaver.) > The ethics of women voting, slavery, and the Holocaust were argued on the same biological basis, Eventually, yes. But this particular excuse was just one in a long, long line of excuses. It's rare for one group to oppress another on ideological grounds when they aren't getting something else out of it; the “ideological grounds” are a mere farce. Somewhere around the 1350s (± 20 years; I haven't looked into it recently, and I'm no good with dates), the House of Commons became responsible for deciding taxation, a right the barons claimed for themselves in 1215 with the Magna Carta. The justification for this was three-fold; in order for a tax to be just, it must: • be demonstrated, by the king (the one who imposed taxes), to be necessary; • be to the benefit of the community; and • be approved by the community. This is, fundamentally, the justification for democracy. This is the logic that says all taxpayers should have the right to vote. Why, then, was the right to vote restricted to forty-shilling freeholders (landowners with at least 40 shillings' annual rent) in 1430‽ Well, “elections had been crowded by persons of low estate“, of course. (Charles Seymour, Electoral Reform in England and Wales: The Development and Operation of the Parliamentary Franchise, 1832-1885, page 11: https://archive.org/details/electoralreformi00seymuoft/page/10/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/electoralreformi00seymuoft/page/...)
- nautilius 5y ago
  I appreciate the historical context (that I don't have), and it is interesting. But I disagree that you can make the clear line to the present day, or even 200 years ago. There were no regular mass protests against slavery "because it's obviously bad" in the U.S. that had to be violently suppressed, there were no regular mass protest in Nazi Germany against how Jews were treated even before the Holocaust "because it's obviously bad", there were no regular mass protests for women suffrage all around the world. I doubt any Proud Boy will trace his heritage to Plato or their disagreement with them. The connotation you describe may all be historically accurate (I have no knowledge of that), but I argue that it was lost over the last few hundred years, and plays no role in the current discussion of human rights, women's right, etc. whatsoever. Ask a (neo) nazi / slaveholder if they think that people of color, jews, etc. are inherently, biologically, inferior, and they will tell you yes. I will even make the claim that none of them has ever discussed "the right to vote restricted to forty-shilling freeholders (landowners with at least 40 shillings' annual rent) in 1430‽ Well, “elections had been crowded by persons of low estate“, of course. (Charles Seymour, Electoral Reform in England and Wales: The Development and Operation of the Parliamentary Franchise, 1832-1885" before punching someone in the face, cracking the whip, or leading someone into the gas chambers. PS: If you want to make specific claims and not have them understood as general - don't make general claims.
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    I was making specific claims and a general claim. Here's the general one: The “moral complexity” of slavery, suffrage etc. is almost entirely artificial.¹ There is genuine, non-artificial moral uncertainty surrounding abortion (even though we can determine the right thing to do in a subset of cases). Do you dispute this? If not, there's no argument. ¹: I also made the general claim that, as society shifted so that previous justifications could no longer hold water, the artificial justification in vogue also shifted. Fundamentally, “we deserve to be in charge” doesn't seem to change, and it's incredibly rare for anyone in power to question that – this refers to the “why” reasons used to justify that assertion (which aren't proper reasons, because they're effectively post-hoc rationalisations to support, not evidence, the claim).

wizzwizz4 5y ago

> So you’re saying there doesn’t exist (and never did) racism nor misogyny, never antisemitism, but it was always a plot of the few powerful? Nope. In Ancient Greece, basically all non-slaves benefited from slavery, and ultimately they didn't do anything about it. Within their culture, they had the right to do bad things (slavery) to those they defeated in war; their society was structured such that it required slaves, and most not-enslaved people were okay with that… or, at least, few objected enough to try to put a stop to it. The “oh, but they're actually inferior, and naturally deserve this” arguments came later. I'm making specific claims, not the general ones you think I am. In Ancient Greece, it was merely the powerful, not the powerful elite, who upheld slavery – even though the word had negative connotations in Plato's time. In England, it was the upper classes that imposed restrictions on voting, and the lower classes who made themselves a massive nuisance until those got progressively relaxed… but it was also a rebellious noble who introduced the House of Commons (for largely self-serving reasons) in the first place. In America, it was mostly slaveholders who argued that slavery was good actually. (I don't know much about US history, though, and you can easily cast doubt on this assertion by showing me a slavery apologist who wasn't a slaver.) > The ethics of women voting, slavery, and the Holocaust were argued on the same biological basis, Eventually, yes. But this particular excuse was just one in a long, long line of excuses. It's rare for one group to oppress another on ideological grounds when they aren't getting something else out of it; the “ideological grounds” are a mere farce. Somewhere around the 1350s (± 20 years; I haven't looked into it recently, and I'm no good with dates), the House of Commons became responsible for deciding taxation, a right the barons claimed for themselves in 1215 with the Magna Carta. The justification for this was three-fold; in order for a tax to be just, it must: • be demonstrated, by the king (the one who imposed taxes), to be necessary; • be to the benefit of the community; and • be approved by the community. This is, fundamentally, the justification for democracy. This is the logic that says all taxpayers should have the right to vote. Why, then, was the right to vote restricted to forty-shilling freeholders (landowners with at least 40 shillings' annual rent) in 1430‽ Well, “elections had been crowded by persons of low estate“, of course. (Charles Seymour, Electoral Reform in England and Wales: The Development and Operation of the Parliamentary Franchise, 1832-1885, page 11: https://archive.org/details/electoralreformi00seymuoft/page/10/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/electoralreformi00seymuoft/page/...)

nautilius 5y ago
I appreciate the historical context (that I don't have), and it is interesting. But I disagree that you can make the clear line to the present day, or even 200 years ago. There were no regular mass protests against slavery "because it's obviously bad" in the U.S. that had to be violently suppressed, there were no regular mass protest in Nazi Germany against how Jews were treated even before the Holocaust "because it's obviously bad", there were no regular mass protests for women suffrage all around the world. I doubt any Proud Boy will trace his heritage to Plato or their disagreement with them. The connotation you describe may all be historically accurate (I have no knowledge of that), but I argue that it was lost over the last few hundred years, and plays no role in the current discussion of human rights, women's right, etc. whatsoever. Ask a (neo) nazi / slaveholder if they think that people of color, jews, etc. are inherently, biologically, inferior, and they will tell you yes. I will even make the claim that none of them has ever discussed "the right to vote restricted to forty-shilling freeholders (landowners with at least 40 shillings' annual rent) in 1430‽ Well, “elections had been crowded by persons of low estate“, of course. (Charles Seymour, Electoral Reform in England and Wales: The Development and Operation of the Parliamentary Franchise, 1832-1885" before punching someone in the face, cracking the whip, or leading someone into the gas chambers. PS: If you want to make specific claims and not have them understood as general - don't make general claims.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  I was making specific claims and a general claim. Here's the general one: The “moral complexity” of slavery, suffrage etc. is almost entirely artificial.¹ There is genuine, non-artificial moral uncertainty surrounding abortion (even though we can determine the right thing to do in a subset of cases). Do you dispute this? If not, there's no argument. ¹: I also made the general claim that, as society shifted so that previous justifications could no longer hold water, the artificial justification in vogue also shifted. Fundamentally, “we deserve to be in charge” doesn't seem to change, and it's incredibly rare for anyone in power to question that – this refers to the “why” reasons used to justify that assertion (which aren't proper reasons, because they're effectively post-hoc rationalisations to support, not evidence, the claim).