3 ms·
This is a spectacularly polemic framing that can only serve to score points, not advance civil discussion. In other domains it seems that our society has come t
by 4bpp 3y ago
This is a spectacularly polemic framing that can only serve to score points, not advance civil discussion. In other domains it seems that our society has come to terms with the idea that systemic discrepancies in attainment can't just be dismissed by looking at low-attainment individuals in isolation - would you accept "$minority people could accept that they don't have a right to a job at Google/spot at Harvard/position in government" as a retort against allegations of racial discrimination?
- PoignardAzur 3y agoI mean, it doesn't seem more spectacularly polemic to me than "Social pressure to commit to monogamous relationships is the only possible solution to this".
- 4bpp 3y agoIt does to me; your quoted sentiment amounts to a concrete claim that can be argued for or against, and does not insinuate that the position of the speaker's opponents is due to something that everyone in the discussion would be bound to agree to be an indefensible moral failing. A contextually appropriate mirrored version of the statement I responded to would be something along the lines of "or women could accept that they don't have a right to a romantic relationship with a rich, hot, committed and deferential movie star". Would you consider that no worse than the "enforced monogamy" claim?
- helpfulmandrill 3y agoWomen aren't saying they have a right to go out with a movie star. At worst, some of them are choosing, upon finding out they can't get the movie star, to remain single. Which would seem to be their right, no? Even if us non-movie-star males might prefer if they chose differently.
- geysersam 3y agoI don't agree. The difference is that people do have a right to not be discriminated against because of their race etc. But no right to force another person to be in a romantic relationship with them.
- johnnyanmac 3y agotrue. But the issue here is that if men start stating physical preferences for women they are seen as sleazy at best. This isn't an equal playing field socially, even if the sentiment of "no one is owed a relationship" is a technically correct one. And it applies even to your metaphor. Man or woman, if you explicitly say "no blacks" you are going to be eviscerated. Even if older OkCupid profiles did in fact show that african americans, both male and female, had fewer matches there.
- helpfulmandrill 3y agoI think your google example is a bad one. Almost everyone is more "libertarian" about the right to choose your partner / choose to be single then they are about the right to freely choose who to employ without any constraints.