4 ms·
I can see that we have different interpretations of what acts were central to the progress of civil rights, and which were ancillary or even effects. I don't t
by whatshisface 2y ago
I can see that we have different interpretations of what acts were central to the progress of civil rights, and which were ancillary or even effects.
I don't think, for example, the "mafia" was a major contributor to equal rights for Italian immigrants. One obvious piece of evidence is that today, the mafia has been weakened thanks to the efforts of the police, but Italians haven't become persecuted as a result.
Membership in the Italian Mafia has turned out to be bad on net for the good of the people the families claim to represent. I think some people can get rich doing it but it is not a beneficial or admirable lifestyle.
If you want another example, where were all the Jewish gangs? I'm not aware of a single one. Some famous gangsters were Jewish (at least if you count the movies, I don't know about real life), and I don't think the cause of equal rights has suffered as a result. You have to read this with a smile even though the topic is very serious because the ideas involved would be at home on Saturday Night Live.
One final example is what could be the most hated organizations in America: the white nationalist gangs that only exist in prison. They are all in jail, and equal rights for people of European descent hasn't suffered at all. I'm surprised I ever participated in a conversation where I had a reason to write this, but white nationalists have no positive goals, not even for anybody.
The advancement of the universal recognition of equal rights for all is a much better explanation because unlike the rise of gangs, it hasn't been reversed.
- lazide 2y agoThat is a rather weird shifting of the goal posts, and completely ignores that there is such a thing as collective interests if a collective is being specifically targeted, or has special interests correct? Which is what you seemed to be rejecting?
- whatshisface 2y agoYes, collectives don't have special interests. Individuals have specific instances of universal interests, like security or freedom. "Black people" doesn't have a separate existence from a black person. By guarding the principle of equality before the law, you are not getting involved in anybody's business but yours. It isn't right to view something like equality before the law as a matter of somebody else's self-interest, or to justify a ruthless pursuit of self-interest by recasting it as service of an imagined collective interest.
- lazide 2y agoI honestly don’t understand the point you are trying to make. Does it have a practical point? If a bunch of, say Catholics, get together to make a community group and lobby for something they want - how is that not that groups ‘special interests’ in every practical way?
- whatshisface 2y agoIn 100% of cases, that group will either be lobbying for a universal value in a less effective way than if they were defined by the cause, or advocating for the interests of a few of the members of the larger group against the interests or views of other members. Anyone who doesn't find that self-evident, I challenge to think of a single political opinion that is universal to members of any religious sect or ethnicity that is not universal to all human beings.
- lazide 2y agoThe right for Sikh’s to wear religious weapons in places where weapons are normally forbidden. Dispensation for Orthodox Jews to observe Shabbat even when they would otherwise be compelled to break it due to civil duties. The right for Muslims to take specific breaks for prayer when required, and have a place for such prayer. And I can go on. Or are you going to move the goal posts again?
- whatshisface 2y agoThose are all the same right, the right to practice your religion without being expelled from normal society. Nobody has different rights from anybody else, we just exercise them in different ways.
- lazide 2y agoLiterally these are different rights for different groups of people. Based on the dictionary and legal definitions of ‘right’. I’m again not sure what you think you’re saying, but it doesn’t seem to agree with reality.
- portaouflop 2y agoThere were a ton of Jewish gangs in New York: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish-American_organized_crime https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish-American_organized_cr... Also your example of white nazi gangs in prison: they exist for the same reason- people need to band together to survive
- whatshisface 2y agoWell, at least I admitted I didn't know. :-) As to your second point, not all Nash equilibria are beneficial. Gang formation is a lot like a Keynesian beauty contest in that appealing to the basest parts of our nature is the safest bet, and I think we can agree that this has nothing to do with anything good. People do not need to "band together to survive" in that sense. Those gangs were mainly shaking down businesses in their own neighborhoods anyway, and everybody is a lot better off now that they're history.
- lazide 2y agoSo now you’re trying to say we should just go back to 1930’s New York (and prisons!) and tell them they should just stop forming those ethnic gangs because clearly they don’t actually need to do that, and they’d be better off without them? Hey, you’re welcome to if you want. Time travel may be hard, but I’m sure someone would let you into your local Folsom equivalent if you asked.
- whatshisface 2y agoWe do tell people not to form ethnic gangs, it is called "the fight against organized crime."