4 ms·

Fairness is not a tenant of the new cultural revolution, nor are the revolutionaries responsive to human nature, individual rights, or even capable of rational

Fairness is not a tenant of the new cultural revolution, nor are the revolutionaries responsive to human nature, individual rights, or even capable of rational and critical thought. The end always justifies the means, with little care given to the truth or reality of whatever means is co-opted and tortured to advance their end. You must adhere to the core beliefs, which will change depending on the red fool's soup de jour. Your beliefs are not important, as their beliefs are gospel without question. It is an old and very insidious religion, revitalized, that has no place in a free and civilized society. We've been down this road before. We know where it leads. Yet we go head-long into the abyss to the chants - the same Marxist slogans and ideology that heralded the starvation and torture of tens of millions of people, whose only 'crimes' were opposition to compelled speech and the desire for individual liberty. I'd like to think it will get better, that western civilization would reject cultural revolutionaries that produce nothing but misery and death under the banner of "equity" ...which means ownership, not exclusive equality... but I am not hopeful. The red guard is back, but this time, they are even more dangerous given the cornucopia of deceit, false promises, reach, and old but effective tactics that poison the minds of the young, so that they march lock-step with cheers & smiles into oblivion, dragging everyone and everything with them.

shadowgovt 4y ago
TBF, fairness also wasn't a tenant of the old cultural revolution either. That's why these things keep happening. A free and civilized society has allowed the oppression, dispossession, and outright murder-without-consequence of far, far too many of its citizens to traipse along unquestioned.
- HNAbusesUsers 4y ago
  [dead]
- krona 4y ago
  Fairness used to be about treating individuals equally. For example, blind hiring practices. The new 'fairness' is incompatible with blind hiring or individual merit, because its ultimate aim is to make what you are more important than what you have done. You might say 'that's a good thing' but to claim these aren't polar opposite concepts of fairness or justice is disingenuous.
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    The ultimate aim is to give a better world to the next generation than the one the current generation inherited. We tried, for decades, a simple meritocracy solution. It brought us deeply-embedded racism and the robber-baron era of industrial monopoly. And in the current era, we're watching technology create another gilded-age-style haves-and-have-nots divide. Turns out a society that's as close to best for everyone sometimes needs some thumbs on some scales to work, because people are selfish and short-sighted and "meritocracy" depends heavily on where you start and how lucky you get.
- raxxorraxor 4y ago
  On the contrary, the freest societies were most successful in doing away with oppression. No authoritarian rule came close to that. There is ample empirical evidence for that too.
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    I don't understand how that is contrary to my statement.

shadowgovt 4y ago

TBF, fairness also wasn't a tenant of the old cultural revolution either. That's why these things keep happening. A free and civilized society has allowed the oppression, dispossession, and outright murder-without-consequence of far, far too many of its citizens to traipse along unquestioned.

HNAbusesUsers 4y ago
[dead]
krona 4y ago
Fairness used to be about treating individuals equally. For example, blind hiring practices. The new 'fairness' is incompatible with blind hiring or individual merit, because its ultimate aim is to make what you are more important than what you have done. You might say 'that's a good thing' but to claim these aren't polar opposite concepts of fairness or justice is disingenuous.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  The ultimate aim is to give a better world to the next generation than the one the current generation inherited. We tried, for decades, a simple meritocracy solution. It brought us deeply-embedded racism and the robber-baron era of industrial monopoly. And in the current era, we're watching technology create another gilded-age-style haves-and-have-nots divide. Turns out a society that's as close to best for everyone sometimes needs some thumbs on some scales to work, because people are selfish and short-sighted and "meritocracy" depends heavily on where you start and how lucky you get.
raxxorraxor 4y ago
On the contrary, the freest societies were most successful in doing away with oppression. No authoritarian rule came close to that. There is ample empirical evidence for that too.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  I don't understand how that is contrary to my statement.