6 ms·

Focus on class inequality is another form of identity politics, in my opinion. But the conditions of various people in society is of some concern. We have to ba

Focus on class inequality is another form of identity politics, in my opinion. But the conditions of various people in society is of some concern. We have to balance fairness in terms of equal rights under the law and the right to keep what you earn, and the fact that people naturally have different starting circumstances and different parents (who are well within their rights to take care of their children better than other parents). Just because someone else has more than you does not entitle you to more.

mancerayder 2y ago
I agree, it's another form of identity politics. Trying to break this down, I think: Either you believe in increasing equality in American society, or you don't. If you don't, well I think that is sort of the statement you are suggesting, which is, people have every right to be privileged, born or otherwise. If you do believe in increasing equality, then if you focus on class - let's just all it family wealth to avoid controversial loaded words - if you focus on family wealth and privilege people with less, then at least you're getting to the root of the issue. However, if you believe in increasing equality and you don't focus on wealth, and you care only about skin color or genital type or gender identity, then I think you're making the problem worse for the reasons I wrote in the parent thread here, the points around privileging the already privileged (i.e. upper class 'of color' people), while creating suspicion around anyone who's a minority ('my cubicle neighbor got here not out of merit'). All of this is toxic.
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  There are two main causes of this problem. One is general economic stress. When people feel like they don't have enough, they look for ways to get more. For example, blaming people who have more for being "unfair" or something suggests you have a right to their property. The other is more insidious, which is pure greed. Some people, even people getting by just fine in life with minimal work, fantasize about taking down people who have more. They envy people who have more constantly and can't accept that some people actually deserve much more in life by virtue of luck or their hard work. >Either you believe in increasing equality in American society, or you don't. If you don't, well I think that is sort of the statement you are suggesting, which is, people have every right to be privileged, born or otherwise. I think privileged is a loaded word here. What I'm saying is that nobody has a right to equal monetary outcomes in general. If some people are colluding to prevent others from getting a fair shake, that should probably be stopped. You should have a right to compete fairly in the world and to accumulate the fruits of your labor. Of course this all gets very complicated when taxes and various other wealth redistribution schemes enter the picture. >However, if you believe in increasing equality and you don't focus on wealth, and you care only about skin color or genital type or gender identity, then I think you're making the problem worse for the reasons I wrote in the parent thread here, the points around privileging the already privileged (i.e. upper class 'of color' people), while creating suspicion around anyone who's a minority ('my cubicle neighbor got here not out of merit'). All of this is toxic. I agree with you, and the discrimination based on immutable characteristics is the worst because there's not much that the victim can do about it. Somehow, various minorities have been convinced that discrimination is OK so long as it benefits them, and that's wrong in general. It does make a lot more sense to think in terms of class lines and economic opportunity. But if that goes too far, it can become toxic as well. We don't need communism, we need people of all walks of life to have more compassion for their fellow man.
unclebucknasty 2y ago
>that people naturally have different starting circumstances The point is that it's not "natural". Many people's starting circumstances are the result of generations of systemic and codified discrimination, as well as ongoing biases and networks that persist today. This country had codified racism ~6x longer than not. There are 60 year-olds walking around today who were born under Jim Crow. Please stop and think about that for a moment. Analysis like yours is all too common and the problem with it is that it moves insidiously between the micro and macro. That is, you acknowledge that entire groups have been systematically disenfranchised, but you effectively discount the effect it had on any individual within those groups. On the other hand, your focus on efforts to address these historical problems is prioritized on individuals you feel may be negatively impacted. So, it's suddenly a personal versus group matter. Now, in this context, the broader group—including those who benefitted from the oppression—are essentially ignored. So, in your formulation, one group (and the individuals within it) are protected, even in spite of being on the wrong side of history. And the other group? Well, they just have to figure out how to reckon with their "starting circumstances". And, somehow, that's fair.
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  >The point is that it's not "natural". Many people's starting circumstances are the result of generations of systemic and codified discrimination, as well as ongoing biases and networks that persist today. This country had codified racism ~6x longer than not. There are 60 year-olds walking around today who were born under Jim Crow. Please stop and think about that for a moment. It is completely natural for benefits to accrue unequally to different people according to their behaviors and individual characteristics. This follows some kind of Pareto distribution. Roughly speaking, there are more poor white people than there are black people in total, and always have been up to now. I'm not suggesting that there is no racial discrimination against black people or that it doesn't matter in terms of outcomes, but I propose that as long as there is any measurable difference between groups one can rationalize and blame one group or another for taking from the other. The fact is that the US has less racial discrimination than just about any other place in the world. The collective West has done more for actual equality than any other part of the world. If not for the West, slavery might still be common. The only fair way to run society is for people to be free to pursue their own interests so long as they aren't actively infringing on the rights of others to do the same. That includes the right to take better care of your own family than some of your neighbors. >On the other hand, your focus on efforts to address these historical problems is prioritized on individuals you feel may be negatively impacted. So, it's suddenly a personal versus group matter. Now, in this context, the broader group—including those who benefitted from the oppression—are essentially ignored. What you're describing is a philosophy of envy. I'm not personally responsible for any "group" and I do what I can to uphold fairness in society. It is unfortunate that there is a ready excuse for minorities people who don't succeed in the form of narratives about historical injustices. A white poor person is just as deserving of assistance as a poor person of any other color. If you really want to judge people based on the sins of their "ancestors" or people who happened to look like them, then you must accept that children are responsible for the sins of their parents (and vice versa) because that relation is much more direct. I don't think our society would suffer such a scheme of guilt-shifting, envy, and revenge. >So, in your formulation, one group (and the individuals within it) are protected, even in spite of being on the wrong side of history. And the other group? Well, they just have to figure out how to reckon with their "starting circumstances". Here too you blame individuals for offenses they didn't commit to favor people who didn't suffer them. Forgiveness and charity are big in religion because even thousands of years ago some wise people recognized that nobody gets anywhere by holding a grudge. Treat people fairly and don't blame innocent people for shit they didn't do, or for benefitting from their families' hard work. If you do push such an agenda, it doesn't matter how good your intentions are. People who are being vilified and robbed will fight back.

mancerayder 2y ago

I agree, it's another form of identity politics. Trying to break this down, I think: Either you believe in increasing equality in American society, or you don't. If you don't, well I think that is sort of the statement you are suggesting, which is, people have every right to be privileged, born or otherwise. If you do believe in increasing equality, then if you focus on class - let's just all it family wealth to avoid controversial loaded words - if you focus on family wealth and privilege people with less, then at least you're getting to the root of the issue. However, if you believe in increasing equality and you don't focus on wealth, and you care only about skin color or genital type or gender identity, then I think you're making the problem worse for the reasons I wrote in the parent thread here, the points around privileging the already privileged (i.e. upper class 'of color' people), while creating suspicion around anyone who's a minority ('my cubicle neighbor got here not out of merit'). All of this is toxic.

wakawaka28 2y ago
There are two main causes of this problem. One is general economic stress. When people feel like they don't have enough, they look for ways to get more. For example, blaming people who have more for being "unfair" or something suggests you have a right to their property. The other is more insidious, which is pure greed. Some people, even people getting by just fine in life with minimal work, fantasize about taking down people who have more. They envy people who have more constantly and can't accept that some people actually deserve much more in life by virtue of luck or their hard work. >Either you believe in increasing equality in American society, or you don't. If you don't, well I think that is sort of the statement you are suggesting, which is, people have every right to be privileged, born or otherwise. I think privileged is a loaded word here. What I'm saying is that nobody has a right to equal monetary outcomes in general. If some people are colluding to prevent others from getting a fair shake, that should probably be stopped. You should have a right to compete fairly in the world and to accumulate the fruits of your labor. Of course this all gets very complicated when taxes and various other wealth redistribution schemes enter the picture. >However, if you believe in increasing equality and you don't focus on wealth, and you care only about skin color or genital type or gender identity, then I think you're making the problem worse for the reasons I wrote in the parent thread here, the points around privileging the already privileged (i.e. upper class 'of color' people), while creating suspicion around anyone who's a minority ('my cubicle neighbor got here not out of merit'). All of this is toxic. I agree with you, and the discrimination based on immutable characteristics is the worst because there's not much that the victim can do about it. Somehow, various minorities have been convinced that discrimination is OK so long as it benefits them, and that's wrong in general. It does make a lot more sense to think in terms of class lines and economic opportunity. But if that goes too far, it can become toxic as well. We don't need communism, we need people of all walks of life to have more compassion for their fellow man.

unclebucknasty 2y ago

>that people naturally have different starting circumstances The point is that it's not "natural". Many people's starting circumstances are the result of generations of systemic and codified discrimination, as well as ongoing biases and networks that persist today. This country had codified racism ~6x longer than not. There are 60 year-olds walking around today who were born under Jim Crow. Please stop and think about that for a moment. Analysis like yours is all too common and the problem with it is that it moves insidiously between the micro and macro. That is, you acknowledge that entire groups have been systematically disenfranchised, but you effectively discount the effect it had on any individual within those groups. On the other hand, your focus on efforts to address these historical problems is prioritized on individuals you feel may be negatively impacted. So, it's suddenly a personal versus group matter. Now, in this context, the broader group—including those who benefitted from the oppression—are essentially ignored. So, in your formulation, one group (and the individuals within it) are protected, even in spite of being on the wrong side of history. And the other group? Well, they just have to figure out how to reckon with their "starting circumstances". And, somehow, that's fair.

wakawaka28 2y ago
>The point is that it's not "natural". Many people's starting circumstances are the result of generations of systemic and codified discrimination, as well as ongoing biases and networks that persist today. This country had codified racism ~6x longer than not. There are 60 year-olds walking around today who were born under Jim Crow. Please stop and think about that for a moment. It is completely natural for benefits to accrue unequally to different people according to their behaviors and individual characteristics. This follows some kind of Pareto distribution. Roughly speaking, there are more poor white people than there are black people in total, and always have been up to now. I'm not suggesting that there is no racial discrimination against black people or that it doesn't matter in terms of outcomes, but I propose that as long as there is any measurable difference between groups one can rationalize and blame one group or another for taking from the other. The fact is that the US has less racial discrimination than just about any other place in the world. The collective West has done more for actual equality than any other part of the world. If not for the West, slavery might still be common. The only fair way to run society is for people to be free to pursue their own interests so long as they aren't actively infringing on the rights of others to do the same. That includes the right to take better care of your own family than some of your neighbors. >On the other hand, your focus on efforts to address these historical problems is prioritized on individuals you feel may be negatively impacted. So, it's suddenly a personal versus group matter. Now, in this context, the broader group—including those who benefitted from the oppression—are essentially ignored. What you're describing is a philosophy of envy. I'm not personally responsible for any "group" and I do what I can to uphold fairness in society. It is unfortunate that there is a ready excuse for minorities people who don't succeed in the form of narratives about historical injustices. A white poor person is just as deserving of assistance as a poor person of any other color. If you really want to judge people based on the sins of their "ancestors" or people who happened to look like them, then you must accept that children are responsible for the sins of their parents (and vice versa) because that relation is much more direct. I don't think our society would suffer such a scheme of guilt-shifting, envy, and revenge. >So, in your formulation, one group (and the individuals within it) are protected, even in spite of being on the wrong side of history. And the other group? Well, they just have to figure out how to reckon with their "starting circumstances". Here too you blame individuals for offenses they didn't commit to favor people who didn't suffer them. Forgiveness and charity are big in religion because even thousands of years ago some wise people recognized that nobody gets anywhere by holding a grudge. Treat people fairly and don't blame innocent people for shit they didn't do, or for benefitting from their families' hard work. If you do push such an agenda, it doesn't matter how good your intentions are. People who are being vilified and robbed will fight back.