Since Women Were "Liberated"

[Sculptor]

Happiness aside [as this is a matter of maintaining personal balance], let's take a look at where we stand as a society some 100 years after women have been on the liberation warpath. After all, isn't the true measure of society's success defined as how we are doing as a group? Is it not the case that empowered individuals foster empowered communities which make up society as a whole? Or should we allow the success of the very few to blind us into believing skewed data that fails to distinguish between mean and median?

While individual women have certainly been afforded greater opportunity in nearly every aspect of Western life, the result of this social transformation has been utter disaster for the group. The bedrock of any society [the nuclear family] has been devastated by divorce, absentee mothers, disappeared fathers, technology, a host of metal health disorders, and other factors that have rendered this institution a mere phantasm of its former self. Contributing to this precipitous decline has been an egregious lack of support from other institutions, particularly Education.

So what have we gained [as a society] from the liberation of women?

This "utter disaster" is just a reflection of your incel prejudice and misogyny.
It has no basis in fact, nor have you presented any facts.
Where are your statistics on the list of disasters?
And what makes you think divorce is a bad idea, set against the horrors of women chained to the home with a wife beating husband who hides behind the social mores and law to keep his wife as chatel.
If you don't like the social transformations in the west why not fuck off and go and live in Saudi Arabia?

[Sculptor]

simplicity poops another bigotted turd and the forum blowflies settle in to gorge and oviposit ...

Perfect observation!!!

[Sculptor]

So what have we gained [as a society] from the liberation of women?

It's not just "society." Let's look at the metric "women" themselves.

Even if we assume that, in some way, "liberation" has proved less than optimal for, say, children and men, or for the dynamics of the economy, or whatever else we pick -- leaving all that aside -- we should ask, "Are women markedly happier, better and more fulfilled nowadays than previously"?

And we should ask them, and see what they answer.

I have worked very closely with many women physicians over the years, most who were attempting to do it all...profession, mother, wife, etc. All were caring, really nice people...but incredibly miserable. I don't know how they did it.

Yeah ANY women would be miserable in your presence.
What you miss is the cheers and smiles that happen when you leave the room.
"Thank fuck that moron has gone"

I remember reading a study done by a group in Australia that found that [as a group] women professionals [with families] were the most unhappy folks out there by far.

That's because Bruces are bear swilling fuckwitted misogynists like you.

You simply can not have your cake and eat it too so this society is going to have to decide what is more important, the individual or the family.

As an aside, when the family structure deteriorates, your society is circling the drain right above it.

Are you still single?

[Sculptor]

this society is going to have to decide what is more important, the individual or the family.

Kinda sounding like the Taliban there.

Yep. And since January 6th, looking like them.

Maybe Simplicity should fuck off to Afghanistan?

Simplicity's WANK fantasy

image_2021-12-09_111317.png (117.43 KiB) Viewed 1283 times

[Belinda]

So what have we gained [as a society] from the liberation of women?

It's not just "society." Let's look at the metric "women" themselves.

Even if we assume that, in some way, "liberation" has proved less than optimal for, say, children and men, or for the dynamics of the economy, or whatever else we pick -- leaving all that aside -- we should ask, "Are women markedly happier, better and more fulfilled nowadays than previously"?

And we should ask them, and see what they answer.

I have worked very closely with many women physicians over the years, most who were attempting to do it all...profession, mother, wife, etc. All were caring, really nice people...but incredibly miserable. I don't know how they did it.

I remember reading a study done by a group in Australia that found that [as a group] women professionals [with families] were the most unhappy folks out there by far.

You simply can not have your cake and eat it too so this society is going to have to decide what is more important, the individual or the family.

As an aside, when the family structure deteriorates, your society is circling the drain right above it.

It's true that women in the workplace too often also have to do the child care and the cooking. Also true is that empowered women correlate with modern liberal democracies, and negatively correlate with fascist nations , underdeveloped nations, and theocracies.

[Immanuel Can]

Both extremes would interpret that they speak for whole classes (like 'races')

This is absolutely the case on the Left. For them, everybody is a "category," not an individual. For them, identity is 100% created by class or race or gender or any other such category, and is in no way a product of individual specialness. There are no unique individuals, according to Leftist CRT. There are just members-of-collectives, who in their own way, are entirely "beneficiaries" of their "positionality" and "privilege," or else "victims" of the same. Nobody on the Left has his own brain, they think.

But is the same true on the conservative side? Well, this is one of the strategic weaknesses of conservatism. It tends to see us all as unique individuals, each with his/her own voice and right to speak. It does not see us as members of collectives. It expects us to make our own judgments, have our own unique histories, and to have different places in society, being only responsible for ourselves but not for our progenitors or the other members of some "class". For conservatives, neither "race" nor gender nor any other category is determinative of the individual; people have their own positions and their own minds.

But this makes conservatives inherently less easy to marshal and to mobilize in any political way. The Left can capitalize off conformity and groupthink, but the conservatives would undermine their own beliefs about individuality if they adopt such a strategy.

This is why the Left can speak of "White Supremacy" as a movement -- it's not a reality, but a projection of what the Left expects the right to be like: collectivist, groupthinky, and racially incensed. The Left is actually imposing it's own realization of itself on others. But then, when the Left goes looking for this monolythic collectivist thing called the "White Supremacist" surge, it cannot locate it at all. And rather than realizing the difference between its way of thinking and the right's, it simply decides to claim that "White Supremacy" has gone underground, in some "systemically racist" form; but it cannot admit to itself that no such thing exists. If it did, then the need for a Leftists revolution would be severely curtailed or eliminated; and that, the Left cannot entertain...it's own uselessness.

What I'm suggesting, Scott, is that this idea that there's two sides and they both behave the same is not quite right. There are two sides, but they really do think differently. And I think it's important to us to understand those differences; because doing what the Left does...simply projecting our own paradigm onto the other side...misleads us as to the dynamic really in play. It would make it impossible for us to see how the Left is actually thinking and doing its "work." And it would suggest a moral equivalency between the two sides that is just not realistic, I think.

I am now treating both extremes as 'fascist' this way where I am defining this as "the predominant view of a belief in some exclusive interests to favor by power in lawmaking (politics) some CULTURAL class as being coequivalent to some GENETIC class."

The whole idea of "class" comes from Marxist analysis, though. For the right, "class" is not the axis on which things divide: it's competence. The conservative or libertarian positions reward effort and achievement, rather than "class" or "victim status," and they do so regardless of race. For the "right," difference is a function not of racism or sexism, but rather of achievement.

The 'democratic' factor on the Left is not of individuals but of those exclusive genetic-cultural classes as distinctly acceptable minimal voter (pluralities). BOTH extremes do not want anyone to notice that wealth/power differences are what is at fault.

I don't think so. The Left certainly wants us to think that wealth/power differences are "at fault," and says, moreover, that the ONLY way somebody gains in power or wealth is by illegitimate means. For the left, the mere fact that you have or hold power and wealth is proof that you are an exploiter and an oppressor...for them, no further explanation is needed. On the right, by contrast, the assumption is you might have earned your wealth through cleverness, hard work, or achievement (or through oppression, for that is possible too, but would need proving), and you might hold your power through legitimate competence, expertise or real-world attainments (or thorough some form of tyranny, but that's by no means obvious and would have to be shown). The conservative view does not prejudge which it is: the Left jumps straight to its conclusions: all difference is the result of oppression, none is ever legitimate or earned, and all of it is to be deplored automatically and without questions.

Again, I think the differences in mindset are hugely important to note. This is not one of those situations where we can just blthely suppose that truth likes neatly down the middle of the extremes. The Left is extremely far out today, and operates by quite different rules than conservatism advocates.

The flaw when they use statistics is by seeking out some relatively impoverished class (based upon wealth) that has the largest biological (genetic) plural or majority association of apparent imbalance, and stop short of the stats that actually show the imbalaces are not 'sexist' or 'racist' but strictly due to differences based upon the very wealth and/or power by chance or inevitability.

Right, yes.

Or by competence, or by achievement, or by expertise...

The irony is this: that if the Left is correct, then as soon as, say, a black lesbian rises to some position of power or wealth, the assumption would have to be that she hasn't earned it. If the mere fact of her having power attests to her being an oppressor, on the one hand, or to her being the beneficiary of "social justice "measures rather than her own skill and achievement, then anything she has done is not really hers at all. She deserves no credit or praise, either way.

But nobody ever said the Left makes sense on these things. What they would probably say is that she does deserve what she gets...but if that is true, then their thesis about power/wealth automatically proving guilt and oppressiveness is shot.

if you are racist AND sexist but DO NOT HAVE power, you will favor the extreme Left strategy of pointing out the imbalance of the selective pluralities who tend to be more predominant in the economically more disadvantaged classes (the poor) while dismissing the fact that the asserted genetic classes they are referencing are not biased due to merely cultural biases but to the general class of impoverished people anywhere regardless of race or sex. They then falsely compare how the 'victim' class is non-represented in the wealthier clubs ignoring that no matter what, FAVORITISM of your own is what tends to always concentrate those with wealth and power towards a more dominant genetic class. They intentionally ignore the more minor majorities of the impoverished classes as still of the same stereotype of the conservatives in power.

Yes, fair enough. I think that's generally right.

That's a function of their belief that you are not an individual, but a member-of-a-class, a kind of expression of the collective, and that nothing you can say can contradict or disprove that to them.

Both extremes are intolerant and relatively 'fascist'

Maybe you can help me, Scott.

I keep asking the Leftists where this "White Supremacy" group of this "extreme right wing" is, and they can't point it out to me. The best they're ever able to do is to shout something like "KKK" (a Democrat organization) or "Neo-Nazis" (Socialists) or "Charlottesville" (which has as many Lefties around, and if any right-wing extremists were there, they were obviously in no numbers anywhere near sufficient to threaten anything serious). But I see no "right wing" parades (though I see massive, city-burning Leftist demonstrations). I see no "right wing" media (though I can find no end of Leftist-sympathizing media). I find no "right wing" censorship (though the Left calls everything "hate speech" and "cancels" all kinds of people). I see no "right wing" politicians (and they just scream "Trump," instead...though he was once a Democrat, and by any fair assessment was quite centrist, and maybe mildly on the right at most). So where is this terrible "right wing" everybody on the Left keeps claiming is hovering on the margins, waiting to submerge us all in sexism, racism, transism, and every other kind of wicked "ism" they can imagine? I can't find anything of any size or shape to suggest there's even a threat from that source: can you?

I'm seriously open to finding it, if there is such a thing: I would want to disassociate myself from it, and fight against it, of course; but if it's the major threat to politics and justice in America, why is it so darn hard to find?

[Scott Mayers]

Both extremes would interpret that they speak for whole classes (like 'races')

This is absolutely the case on the Left. For them, everybody is a "category," not an individual. For them, identity is 100% created by class or race or gender or any other such category, and is in no way a product of individual specialness. There are no unique individuals, according to Leftist CRT. There are just members-of-collectives, who in their own way, are entirely "beneficiaries" of their "positionality" and "privilege," or else "victims" of the same. Nobody on the Left has his own brain, they think.

But is the same true on the conservative side? Well, this is one of the strategic weaknesses of conservatism. It tends to see us all as unique individuals, each with his/her own voice and right to speak. It does not see us as members of collectives. It expects us to make our own judgments, have our own unique histories, and to have different places in society, being only responsible for ourselves but not for our progenitors or the other members of some "class". For conservatives, neither "race" nor gender nor any other category is determinative of the individual; people have their own positions and their own minds.

But this makes conservatives inherently less easy to marshal and to mobilize in any political way. The Left can capitalize off conformity and groupthink, but the conservatives would undermine their own beliefs about individuality if they adopt such a strategy.

This is why the Left can speak of "White Supremacy" as a movement -- it's not a reality, but a projection of what the Left expects the right to be like: collectivist, groupthinky, and racially incensed. The Left is actually imposing it's own realization of itself on others. But then, when the Left goes looking for this monolythic collectivist thing called the "White Supremacist" surge, it cannot locate it at all. And rather than realizing the difference between its way of thinking and the right's, it simply decides to claim that "White Supremacy" has gone underground, in some "systemically racist" form; but it cannot admit to itself that no such thing exists. If it did, then the need for a Leftists revolution would be severely curtailed or eliminated; and that, the Left cannot entertain...it's own uselessness.

What I'm suggesting, Scott, is that this idea that there's two sides and they both behave the same is not quite right. There are two sides, but they really do think differently. And I think it's important to us to understand those differences; because doing what the Left does...simply projecting our own paradigm onto the other side...misleads us as to the dynamic really in play. It would make it impossible for us to see how the Left is actually thinking and doing its "work." And it would suggest a moral equivalency between the two sides that is just not realistic, I think.

I choose to look at the extremes as problematic because I'm not biased enough to interpret any system of government as 'ideal'. You are defending a strict bias against the Left without respecting your own extremism when doing so. And you just prove it by falsely assuming ALL Right-wingers as NOT racist and falsely associate ANY deviant behavior as ALL Left-wingers. This makes you an 'extremist' thinker because the the reality of management systems that governments represent cannot actually exist in ANY ideal as a fixed rule.

Government is a management system that cannot NOT exist no matter what.

The tendency of the "Right" is to favor PRIVATE power over the public, meaning that it favors the tendency towards the possibility of PARTICULAR Single individuals to be empowered to rule over others in a dictatorial and exclusive way, such as "owners" who might claim as some 'private' right to rule over the domain of what they personally assert is their 'own'. When you think you argue for the right of 'individuals' you are favoring some myth of 'righteousness' to rule as though EACH individual in real society HAS some intrinsically internal compassion for SHARED power when this goes against NATURE's normal reality. A bear, for example, is an animal that is 'individualistic' in that they require existing ALONE or they risk starvation and are forced to succeed by their own 'merit' ...the power they impose to kill without compassion in order to exist. The animal is also 'equal' among all other bears for being 'cruel'. You don't seem to recognize that the Right supports the 'individual' ONLY with respect to the PARTICULAR favor of individuals who have the present default power in some way by their 'nature' OR luck, such as being physically strong genetically. The 'merit' you argue for on the Right then will just mean one's success based upon their accidental inherent conditions, whether it be strength by literal natural genetics in some way or what their parent class has given them initially. How is that 'equal'? How is this also not the same 'equity' we just spoke of that we agree the extremes on the Left are seeking? I'm not being hypocritical to recognize that this is a flaw. You ARE being hypocritical because you aren't against the 'in-equity' of those who are born with coincidental 'inherent' advantages, something that permits SPECIFIC humans a preadvantaged 'right' that is indifferent to assuming some 'superiority' complex.

You DO NOT EARN inherited factors. So if we are to support the 'Right' winged ideals, you have to be supporting the coincidental nature of inherent factors of those with such predetermined genetic or environmental LUCK. The reason the Right is 'conservative' then, means they ARE in power and want to save their accidental predisposed fortunes. As such, the rhetoric of favoring the individual is itself deceptive unless you have the same kind of preconditioned 'nature' to be empowered by being born as a bear. But humans cannot live like bears. That is, there it is a delusion to think that one is 'right' to use their independent nature to succeed without recognizing that humans are NOT 'independent' by nature. We OWE credit for our coincidental preconditioned powers as an individual 'right' to OTHERS, not some self-earned merit. If merit were your sincere argument, you'd have to first be sure that each individual BEGINS with the same 'right' of default power.

We need SOME rules that favor 'individual' freedoms though. So government needs this. But notice that the Left also defines their 'liberation' as based upon setting up rules that first establish equal grounding. The 'equity' then needs SOME recognition if only to prevent cruel independent people from dictating the terms of power through their domain of fortune. The problem is to the DEGREE of equality one INITIALLY has over others. The reason for any hypocrisy of the issue as I'm arguing about the extreme on the Left is to their tendency to remain 'conservative' by falsely interpreting the exact opposite of 'supremacy': some belief that individuals are exclusively 'inferior' by whole classes. This is just a reflexive interpretion of the opposite extreme on the right:

Individual Power pre-existing of those on the Right OPPOSE Collective Power non-existent of those on the Left

The extreme interpretations interpret humans as either bears or mice. Thus the 'Right' who believe in the right to 'bear' power as individuals is only due to the fact that they are already 'bears' by coincidental inheritance. And the 'Left' whose power is as weak as 'mice' are not independently empowered as individual mice against bears without utilizing collective means to work together.

The Left has a tendency to favor 'democratic' and 'liberal' rights because the Right believes they 'own' the right to rule over others regardless of limitations in numbers of people they rule over AS 'individuals'.

You mistaken my own recognition that flaws exist on the Left as arguing by your perspective. I do not support EXCLUSIVE systems that beg ONLY the individual or ONLY the collective like you do. You are no different than those you argue against on the exstremes because you falsely malign the nature of the "Left" as though they are indifferent to being against ANY individualism.

We need a system that have supports for both individuals and collectives that doesn't act in exclusive ways. The nature of the exclusive individual rights logically opposes the exclusive collective rights; but because of this contradiction, it implies we still require favoring at least the collective of individuals which rules out any system demanding a DENIAL of Left-wing concepts as being minimally NECESSARY. And given you hold an exclusive hatred of something you assume exists absolutely to anything "Left" you are denying even the means of protecting the collective rights of individuals! Do you not notice that even when you support 'individual' rights, this has to include the free choice of those same individuals to choose to associate as collectives?

If you recognize the logic here, you have to recognize that we need a dynamic system that is in general liberal ["libertarian" was initially adopted as a term to define this but gets co-opted by those of a certain contradictory Left-and-Right EXCLUSIVISM by those thinking that we can still find some FIXED ideal.] This undermines the nature of governments to be perpetually dynamic. We need to lean towards both extremes at controlled degrees. Governing is like that movie, "Speed", where govenments (including private-property only systems) are the bus that cannot stop and so we need to be constantly aware of the tendency of the road ahead of us to be unpredictably changing in such a way that we need to continue changing directions Left or Right.

I read all of your post and this response at least covers it without repeating myself. I thus disagree to a lot of what you said but this post suffices as the minimal logic needed to understand. Both extremes exist and if you cannot see this, it has to imply that you are one of those extremes. If you support the libertarian, it is unfortunately of the contradictory exclusive form.

[Immanuel Can]

You are defending a strict bias against the Left without respecting your own extremism when doing so.

Well, I'm not an "extremist," Scott...so I that's why I don't "respect" that position. But it's not "bias": I'm just telling you what the Left is proud to tell you about themselves. Namely, that they are collectivist, that they think all the problems are "systemic," "racial," "sexist," "homophobic," etc., and that they expect all their opponents to behave according to the assumptions and practices they cherish in themselves.

But they're wrong, of course. Conservatism is not collectivist, not "systemic," and not madly preoccupied with race or sex or sexuality at all.

Government is a management system that cannot NOT exist no matter what.

Actually, it certainly can "not exist." It's a contingent, man-made thing. It didn't fall from the skies.

But that's not really the point. The point is more the question of what kind of government it is reasonable to have.

You ARE being hypocritical because you aren't against the 'in-equity' of those who are born with coincidental 'inherent' advantages, something that permits SPECIFIC humans a preadvantaged 'right' that is indifferent to assuming some 'superiority' complex.

No, Scott...none of that makes sense.

"Equity," if you check out the CRT definitions, means essentially, "inequality introduced to rectify historic injustices." In other words, it means "being mean to straight, white males, so that others (women, gays, visible minorities -- except Asian ones, apparently) get advantages some of their ancestors didn't get." In other words, "equity" is backlash racism.

As for "privilege" and "inherent advantages," we've all got those. We've also all got disadvantages and inherent disadvantages. There's no such thing as two people who come from exactly the same set of circumstances, and life is about taking our advantages and minimizing our disadvantages. But for that to happen, we all have to take responsibility for ourselves, and not blame others.

The reason the Right is 'conservative' then, means they ARE in power and want to save their accidental predisposed fortunes.

That's actually kind of funny, given that many of the most conservative folks are from poor communities, and nobody's farther Left than New York and Hollywood. Most of the Democrats in California, for example, don't pay taxes, don't allow low income housing to be built in their neighbourhoods, and use migrants as cheap nannies and gardeners. And I'm not making that stuff up: I've been there. Go and see for yourself, if you dont' believe me. The "predisposed fortunes" you speak of are owned by Leftists.

What would you say about the fortunes held by Democrat House Leader Nancy Pelosi? Or Joe Biden's millions? Or what about the Trudeau fortune? Are these not the same kind sof "accidentally predisposed fortunes" you wish to see redistributed? And since all are held by Leftists, should they not provide themselves as examples to us all, by distributing their fortunes immediately?

If not, why not? Why would this "compassionate" Left fall behind in its compassion in this way?

If merit were your sincere argument, you'd have to first be sure that each individual BEGINS with the same 'right' of default power.

You and I know that's impossible, Scott.

We all have to start from where we are. A woman might complain that you and I are men, and that gives us advantages in power; there's nothing we can do about that -- we can't make her a man. You and I might be tall; but we can't help a short man out with that. You might be athletic in some way, and I might not be; can you give me your athleticism? You and I might have access to good education; but we can't do much about somebody who lives nowhere near any good education or who chooses not to educate himself, can we? And some of us might have genetic predispositions toward Huntington's, or Parkinson's, or heart disease; but we cannot ask anybody to fix that for us.

In what sense are any two people on earth actually "equal"?

Life is unequal. It just is. What matters is what you do with what you've got.

The 'equity' then needs SOME recognition

No. Equality does, but "equity" is nonsense. We can give people opportunties, but we can't make them take them. And meanwhile, we must be cautious lest, in our desire to be nice to one group, we become mean, petty and racist in our disposition toward another.

That's one of the problems with "equity": it tries to use racism to cure racism.

...we still require favoring at least the collective of individuals...

Who's "we," and why do "we require" this? What's a "collective of individuals"?

Do you mean collectively? Or individually? They're opposites.

Do you not notice that even when you support 'individual' rights, this has to include the free choice of those same individuals to choose to associate as collectives?

Of course. It's called "freedom of association," and it's a basic human right upheld especially by classical conservatives.

But that's not what Leftist CRT believes in. It believes that the individual is defined solely by whatever collective(s) he came from, and can never authentically speak from beyond those collectives.

Both extremes exist...

So you say. But if so, where is the evidence I asked for? It should not be at all hard for you to find...

[simplicity]

this society is going to have to decide what is more important, the individual or the family.

Kinda sounding like the Taliban there.

If you have nothing to add to the conversation, please abstain from such juvenile comments.

[simplicity]

Life is unequal. It just is. What matters is what you do with what you've got.

The equality/equity discussion in our culture points out [perhaps better than any other] the degree to which a representative-style political system can be corrupted.

It must be obvious [to anybody with an IQ over 75] that the entire 'equity' push is simply a ruse to impose a system of reverse discrimination as those who are without [for a variety of reasons] feel quite secure wearing their victim-hood badges with great honor. This social disease has even infected those at the top Ivy League universities as the junior elite completely immerse themselves in this childish narcissistic behavior.

Despite all the flaws in Western countries, there still exists the greatest opportunities for the greatest number of people. But this does mean that individuals and families do not have to do the work necessary so their children are prepared to take advantage of what opportunities exist when they come up to bat.

Individuals, families, and communities all need to re-examine priorities and decide what is more important, self-indulgence or embracing those practices which have led to success over the span of human history...hard work, hard work, and more hard work. Add in savings, good health habits, and helping those around you.

Success in life is not about taking from others, it's about doing what you have to do [dependent on where life has determined your point of departure].

[simplicity]

Kinda sounding like the Taliban there.

Yep. And since January 6th, looking like them.

Maybe Simplicity should fuck off to Afghanistan?

image_2021-12-09_111317.png

Look at the comments from the people on the left v. others. Your pathetic arguments aside, do you all have mental health issues? How can you people get so angry on a philosophy forum?

[FlashDangerpants]

this society is going to have to decide what is more important, the individual or the family.

Kinda sounding like the Taliban there.

If you have nothing to add to the conversation, please abstain from such juvenile comments.

It was a fair comment, there's no point getting angry and abusive again. Your worldview that women should find their fulfilment by performing duties for the family is shared with the Taliban.

[FlashDangerpants]

Look at the comments from the people on the left v. others. Your pathetic arguments aside, do you all have mental health issues? How can you people get so angry on a philosophy forum?

You don't have a very developed sense of irony do you?

[Scott Mayers]

You are defending a strict bias against the Left without respecting your own extremism when doing so.

Well, I'm not an "extremist," Scott...so I that's why I don't "respect" that position. But it's not "bias": I'm just telling you what the Left is proud to tell you about themselves. Namely, that they are collectivist, that they think all the problems are "systemic," "racial," "sexist," "homophobic," etc., and that they expect all their opponents to behave according to the assumptions and practices they cherish in themselves.

But they're wrong, of course. Conservatism is not collectivist, not "systemic," and not madly preoccupied with race or sex or sexuality at all.

But I'm "Left" of center. And I am also highly at odds with the extremes. So you still impose upon me to be either with the extreme you believes defines the Left or support some pretty picture of the Right that you believe in. You are one of those attempting to place me as requiring exclusive interpretations.

The ONLY reason that the Left extremes (not the majority of individuals on the Left) have the tendency to exclusively favor the setting up of laws that bias favor to SELECT 'minorities' is because they feel defeated in light of being maligned exactly in the way you are doing by the belief in using overt lies as some appropriate right as rhetorical devices of appeal without concern of the truth. The Right believes in WINNING regardless of how they win. The very problems that I have with your own insistence of directly denying something that both of us share and what I called, "gaslighting", is why the Left is REACTIVELY going extreme. Their reasoning is that IF those on the Right believe in ANY-MEANS-TO-AN-END places them at a disadvantage contrary to the normal liberal concept against this because they are constantly being gaslit.

The reason for the women now taking a strong stance against the normal "innocent-until-proven-guilty" stance, for instance, is due to how the stereotypical males ON THE RIGHT are predominating the POWER in exclusive ways regardless of any lipservice to compassion. I can't trust your own words when I personally have experienced the very gaslighting behavior at issue.

You are acting like the 'apparent' friendly person in a crowd of 'friends' who actually intentionally dislikes one of them and cruelly trips her, smirking as you do it when no one else is present; and then you act all innocent and confused when this girl attempts to tell the others of what you did. It makes the person you are intentionally harming seem like the one who is being extreme at accusing you of something vile in the most dispicable ways when others are unable to notice anything but your apparent kindness when everyone else is looking. This then justifies why such victims end up BECOMING extreme in an opposing way because they aren't believed for you being the better actor.

As to actual politics, many men DO have this same mentality and act in kind like this where they abuse women but appear as relatively 'innocent' to others. So this justifies the counter-behavior psychologically by those women who SHARE the same experience and opt to collectively be EXCLUSIVE advocates against the whole class of men, even if they do not necessarily believe this is universal. How do you compete against the 'individualist' who has zero compassion of others and EXPLOITS others for ONLY their selfish interests. HOW do you even possibly think that the Right-wing ideals are actually 'virtuous' when the LOGICAL interpretation of all animals is to be 'selfish' by default?

You are falsely placing the Right on a pedestal when this is no different than favoring the most deviant individual. Certainly I question how you think that a collective OF individuals as not actually BEING 'individualists' when they volunteer to act as an 'equally' cruel way that a single individual in power can wield against others arbitrarily as an abuser intending to isolate those freedoms of those to collect their shared thoughts.

You appear not to be against 'collecting' powers of those who think like you do. How is the American system almost divided evenly among the population where those on the Right are ABLE to act freely as independent 'rulers' over others yet those on the Left are REQUIRED to collect without a choice? They don't have the money or the guns to enforce their rights as individuals and so YOU, not THEM, are forcing the extremes on the Left to exist at all. In fact, I believe that the Right is intensionally trying to malign those universally on the Left by forcing some of them into becoming more extreme. But while it has a degree of success now, it will backfire because you are also promoting a potential NEED for Communistic reaction and why I also cannot determine if you are simply just a rouge agent of their own cause. Had you not persisted in lying when I pointed this out before, I would not have been confused at how to interpret your actual loyalty of even the supposed 'Right' you claim to be for.

You have only one choice: accept the divergent repect of individuals anywhere on the political spectra as being both potentially as 'evil' as they could be 'good' or you have to default to assuming the collective as ONLY 'good'; Otherwise, you prove to be the most devious kind of person favoring the most anti-collective extreme of rule: the totalitarian dictator.

Government is a management system that cannot NOT exist no matter what.

Actually, it certainly can "not exist." It's a contingent, man-made thing. It didn't fall from the skies.

But that's not really the point. The point is more the question of what kind of government it is reasonable to have.

Your extreme anti-Left interpretation places you at the potential of favoring Totalitarianism of the most Imperialistic kind: a system run by only the fortunate owners (including the 'owner' of the people as universal slaves).

You ARE being hypocritical because you aren't against the 'in-equity' of those who are born with coincidental 'inherent' advantages, something that permits SPECIFIC humans a preadvantaged 'right' that is indifferent to assuming some 'superiority' complex.

No, Scott...none of that makes sense.

"Equity," if you check out the CRT definitions, means essentially, "inequality introduced to rectify historic injustices." In other words, it means "being mean to straight, white males, so that others (women, gays, visible minorities -- except Asian ones, apparently) get advantages some of their ancestors didn't get." In other words, "equity" is backlash racism.

As for "privilege" and "inherent advantages," we've all got those. We've also all got disadvantages and inherent disadvantages. There's no such thing as two people who come from exactly the same set of circumstances, and life is about taking our advantages and minimizing our disadvantages. But for that to happen, we all have to take responsibility for ourselves, and not blame others.

But you ARE blaming MORE others by denying the 'collective' voluntary association of those who are NOT in power regardless. Your maligning of the extreme is why the set of ALL the DIVERGENT COLLECTIVES on the Left are countermaligning your Right-wingers as KKK or White Supremacists. If you don't want the shit thrown at you, you cannot toss it either. I'm doing my part by trying to figure out how to encourage others on the Left to find alternatives that are less extreme. But I cannot do it if I cannot even affect change in ONE person on the Right to NOT use the very manipulative tactics of deception that is predominant there AND invented by them in the first place!

The reason the Right is 'conservative' then, means they ARE in power and want to save their accidental predisposed fortunes.

That's actually kind of funny, given that many of the most conservative folks are from poor communities, and nobody's farther Left than New York and Hollywood. Most of the Democrats in California, for example, don't pay taxes, don't allow low income housing to be built in their neighbourhoods, and use migrants as cheap nannies and gardeners. And I'm not making that stuff up: I've been there. Go and see for yourself, if you dont' believe me. The "predisposed fortunes" you speak of are owned by Leftists.

What would you say about the fortunes held by Democrat House Leader Nancy Pelosi? Or Joe Biden's millions? Or what about the Trudeau fortune? Are these not the same kind sof "accidentally predisposed fortunes" you wish to see redistributed? And since all are held by Leftists, should they not provide themselves as examples to us all, by distributing their fortunes immediately?

If not, why not? Why would this "compassionate" Left fall behind in its compassion in this way?

There ARE those who are 'conservative' pretending to be 'liberal'! I am not the one deluded in interpreting humanity as without 'sin'. You are.

The ones running ALL political control are the wealthy! The reason even supposed Communist countries revert to certain pretentious dictators in direct violation of the ideal is for the same GREED of those who WILL alwasy exploit the rest. And the extremes being imposed upon the 'enemy' sides are only the means to keep them there CONSERVATIVELY. Note that the 'poor' you are defending are also the RURAL variety, not the URBAN! What is 'poor' rurally are run by the auspices of the wealthy in rural communities that dictate religious extremes UPON the poor. Relative to the poor in cities, the country 'hick' is discouraged by limiting their variety of options that cities have but often they still have MORE than their correlating impoverished in the urban centers. Many of who you speak of, for instance, still have a house or land, and even the big trucks stereotypical of rural communities. By contrast, the poor in urban centers are highly variable and more often lack even the OPTION TO own anything!

The city poor are actually more 'intellectually' privileged by far contrast to the rural communities because of the lack of variety AND the wealth there COMMANDS religiousity that acts as an effective barrier to skepticism. If the poor of those communities had access to the urban ones, they too would support the 'liberal' Left. They are effectively barricaded (isolated) and so tend to favor the 'facts' being dictated to them by the local wealth with strong effectiveness. The rural wealth frames the access of intellectual freedoms of the poor there and is easily able to get them to interpret 'community' value in interpreting the urban populations as distinctly against them. As such, isolated communities of impoverishment CAN have attrocious conditions of poverty too but you won't see the local wealth of different races supporting their interests. In fact, the reason for the 'White Supremacists' extant among the relatively poor there is due to the way the rural wealthy Whites govern the communities through churches or religion in general. Where are the Natives, for instance, among the supports for conservative interests. If anything, where particular Reserves are more fortunate, they too support the traditional religious type of thinking too. But why are the poor in rural communities who get the fortune of travelling to large cities to protest favorably 'white'? The way the Conservative Right defines the difference of relative poverty only gets represented by those with at least those truck owners who somehow have sufficient advantage to make it to the protests!

If merit were your sincere argument, you'd have to first be sure that each individual BEGINS with the same 'right' of default power.

You and I know that's impossible, Scott.

We all have to start from where we are. A woman might complain that you and I are men, and that gives us advantages in power; there's nothing we can do about that -- we can't make her a man. You and I might be tall; but we can't help a short man out with that. You might be athletic in some way, and I might not be; can you give me your athleticism? You and I might have access to good education; but we can't do much about somebody who lives nowhere near any good education or who chooses not to educate himself, can we? And some of us might have genetic predispositions toward Huntington's, or Parkinson's, or heart disease; but we cannot ask anybody to fix that for us.

In what sense are any two people on earth actually "equal"?

Life is unequal. It just is. What matters is what you do with what you've got.

YES, but why are you not recognizing this as due to the contradiction of life itself [Darwinian evolution] and that if or where there exists those who CAN utilize the power by collective means, that regardless of how they act, their conditional behavior of defiance is just as 'natural' and fair? Why is it okay for you being better off to expect those with less default fortune to ACCEPT their doom?

The fact is, if you had one very loved one tied to a track with the rest of the world on a parallel track that you alone have the power to alter the course of an oncoming train to either track, it would still be 'natural' to let the majority die to save your single loved one. This is the contradiction of living beings that to me justify why we need a DYNAMIC political respect that doesn't interpret either side as being more 'righteous'. Those with wealth and power (regardless of race or sex) will tend towards more selfish means to conserve losing it by any means due to biological incentive to our greed. But a SYSTEM set up by the people as well as for them will tend to favor the populations because that is utilitarian. I understand that I'm in the 'minority' on the Left, have and continue to receive unfair bias (like being one forcefully tied to the 'white' and 'male' track where all the diverse others lie on the overly populated alternate track. I argue that if I had the control to switch the track to save myself, I might do so even against the 'democratic' majority there. But I also then have to respect that I would likely receive some more compassion there then if I were in a strictly non-diverse population AND be the minority there. That is, in the best of times, the Left would permit my freedoms where the Right would lack absolute compassion even in the best of times, ...especially if I were a 'minority' in that community!

The 'equity' then needs SOME recognition

No. Equality does, but "equity" is nonsense. We can give people opportunties, but we can't make them take them. And meanwhile, we must be cautious lest, in our desire to be nice to one group, we become mean, petty and racist in our disposition toward another.

That's one of the problems with "equity": it tries to use racism to cure racism.

But the actual 'equity' refers to wealth and power. In our society where we believe in passing on inheritance (without public approval), it discriminates against the minorities by what it LACKS voluntarily of those passing on inheritance. So we tend to favor our own 'family' and by extension, race (or sex) based upon our present compassions and 'culture'. The poor lack 'equity' and so the PLURALITIES who have more power in those communities act by collecting based upon 'identity' because that is how inheritance on the side of the wealthy (regardless of politics) tend to strengthen their representation in the wealth classes.

...we still require favoring at least the collective of individuals...

Who's "we," and why do "we require" this? What's a "collective of individuals"?

Do you mean collectively? Or individually? They're opposites.

I was expressing that even when favoring 'individuals' with priority, it requires the power of the whole as a community of such individuals to create a system of government. That is, you cannot escape the fact that government is a relatively 'socialist' construct in DEMOCRACIES that requires appealing to EACH supposed 'equal' individual's right to a vote. Or do you think some people require MORE representation based upon their 'worth'? Say, if one is twice as heavy as you, should they be considered as having two votes to your one?

This is certainly what happens in limited supply cases: if given three people, of which one is twice the weight of the the third, AND there is only enough food to feed half the 'weighted' population, then either the two relatively small people get their meal while the big one starves or the big one eats while the other two starve. This is my type of thought experiment that compares 'wealth' as represented by a person's weight as favoring the minority undemocratically and which treats such a person as having twice the value of a vote (half the power given to the big guy!)

The collective of individuals, treating each person as 'equals' (and not 'equity') means that the three have to accept that what is voted on by two of them suffices to be respected. Thus, in the above senario, the two smaller guys get fed. But the Conservative idea means that, given it true that ALL of them want to at least not have LESS then their own weight in food to live, it still interprets 'equity' as the value of one's weight and not as 'equals'. Thus, under the conservative rule, the big guy would have identical value as a whole: the big guy would have an 'equity' value of being two persons with a right to two votes. You would interpret this as 'fair' in times where enough food exists for everyone. But when the supply is less than the 'equity' of four meals, then the big guy is favored as being more 'valued'.

Let's say we reduce this to only enough supply for one person. Then the big guy will certainly die in either case for only getting half of what he needs; but if the big guy still overpowers the others by his greater 'equity' (weight), he will likely take the only food supply even knowing that it assures ALL of them will die! If not,...that if he favors the 'democratic' (leftest ideal) under this circumstance, he would at least permit the continuation of this community's existence for his sacrifice. Thus, this is why I still favor the 'democratic' ideal in principle.

Do you not notice that even when you support 'individual' rights, this has to include the free choice of those same individuals to choose to associate as collectives?

Of course. It's called "freedom of association," and it's a basic human right upheld especially by classical conservatives.

Then you have to accept that EVEN IF such associations are UNFAIR, for the same reason you argue us as all unaccountable to our inheritance, they too have the right to act to 'conserve' their interests. They just do it by using the natural strength of populations. The last example should be of interest for you on this point.

But that's not what Leftist CRT believes in. It believes that the individual is defined solely by whatever collective(s) he came from, and can never authentically speak from beyond those collectives.

Both extremes exist...

So you say. But if so, where is the evidence I asked for? It should not be at all hard for you to find...

Your use of CRT (Critical Race Theory) is NOT universally accepted on the Left and is dividing us as it is in the Democratic party of the U.S.. I don't support it and it describes the extremes who want to apply Right-wing counter tactics ...not even a Left-wing original concept except for those who believe that REVOLUTION is a necessary evil to overthrow the present paradigm. But they falsely assume that once set up, this will no longer be required. The reason for the abuses of the Marxist ideals relates to this.

The flaw of CRT relates to the statistics that I mentioned earlier. It is a false interpretation to assume that if a stat shows a predominance of racial/sexual biases that lack balance among wealth classes, that the problem is INITIATED by intentional racial or sexual biases. Thus, such belief in 'balancing' the victim class representation by granting advantages exclusively to them are inevitably likely only to FLIP who are the new victim class ....but with definite INITIAL intention of discrimination that WILL not be stopped once 'balanced'. The distribution of wealth has to be non-culturally based. This is the failure of Marxist revolutionary approaches.

[Sculptor]

Yep. And since January 6th, looking like them.

Maybe Simplicity should fuck off to Afghanistan?

image_2021-12-09_111317.png

Look at the comments from the people on the left v. others. Your pathetic arguments aside, do you all have mental health issues? How can you people get so angry on a philosophy forum?

I think the key words here is "philosophy forum". When you create a thread which has zero philosophy, but is just a big poop on the forum that is why people get angry.