Why can't we just be Egalitarian?

[Ahovv]

"Women should pay child support too!"

"Why are you concentrating on one sex?! Why can't you be more egalitarian!"

Hey that sounds like a good idea, I see why they do it now, it's a good way to turn the conversation away from a disadvantaged group when you don't want it to be talked about.

Wait, women are disadvantaged?

[May90]

Lets run through it then.

At one point I held the belief that people were well-meaning, but ignorant, and if you could just open their eyes they'd not want to be complicit in it. Any resistance was surely the result of some sort of cognitive dissonance resulting from an inability to distinguish between doing some less than stellar things and being a bad person. As time goes on though and I see the astounding level of mental gymnastics (truly future gold medalists as soon as we create the Mindlympics), the outright refusal to acknowledge points made or allow the conversation to progress past where it started, and in some cases the out right hostility not only toward the idea, but toward anyone who dare agree with it, I'm forced to consider the idea that no, they are willing participants who even if they knew full well what they were doing would keep right on doing it.

So yeah, People, bad person, Who even if they knew, they would still do it.
So no, its all people, Bad - which I'm parsing as evil -
And no the final line does not mean irrational and obtuse, it means willing participant.
So no, I'm sticking with my interpretation, all people who disagree with, paragon of virtue, Nixx are evil bad people, who will stick with their evil opinions even if they know they are wrong, because they are evil bad people.

The amount of mental gymnastics in your comment is astounding. You've outdone yourself, congratulations! *pats you on the head*

[Endus]

No it does that.

Lets run through it then.

At one point I held the belief that people were well-meaning, but ignorant, and if you could just open their eyes they'd not want to be complicit in it. Any resistance was surely the result of some sort of cognitive dissonance resulting from an inability to distinguish between doing some less than stellar things and being a bad person. As time goes on though and I see the astounding level of mental gymnastics (truly future gold medalists as soon as we create the Mindlympics), the outright refusal to acknowledge points made or allow the conversation to progress past where it started, and in some cases the out right hostility not only toward the idea, but toward anyone who dare agree with it, I'm forced to consider the idea that no, they are willing participants who even if they knew full well what they were doing would keep right on doing it.

So yeah, People, bad person, Who even if they knew, they would still do it.
So no, its all people, Bad - which I'm parsing as evil -
And no the final line does not mean irrational and obtuse, it means willing participant.
So no, I'm sticking with my interpretation, all people who disagree with, paragon of virtue, Nixx are evil bad people, who will stick with their evil opinions even if they know they are wrong, because they are evil bad people.

Yeah, that "interpretation" only works if you make up a whole bunch of extra bullshit and pretend Nixx said it, which is why it's dishonest.

Nixx was clearly not referring to "all people". Context is a funny thing, if you bother to actually include it, rather than trying to ignore it because it contradicts your desired outcome. Unless you seriously think Nixx's argument there was that literally all people on the planet were ignorant. Sometimes, nouns are used in a general plural, which doesn't mean "literally every example ever". If I say "I like to eat cake", that doesn't mean I like to eat ALL cake, even yellowcake uranium. You're expected to be able to parse basic context.

It's not defensible to parse "bad person" as "evil". "Evil" implies malicious intent, and "bad person" was just ONE option listed in that sentence, to boot.

And yes; you need to be a "willing participant" to be deliberately obtuse. Here's where you, yet again, ignore pretty important context.

Mirror mirror, Who is projecting?

I'm not sure what you think you're communicating by linking to Nixx's profile page, but it's definitely not making any useful sense.

[Cthulhu 2020]

These days whenever someone says they're egalitarian, it roughly translates to "I pick fights with feminists and occupy my free time convincing everyone on internet forums that feminists are evil conspirators."

[Endus]

These days whenever someone says they're egalitarian, it roughly translates to "I pick fights with feminists and occupy my free time convincing everyone on internet forums that feminists are evil conspirators."

The problem is that "feminism" is an ideological position that states that men and women should have equal social and civil rights and privileges. So taking "egalitarian" as if it's opposed to that outcome, that's necessarily taking a position that's hostile to those equal rights.

Do some self-identified feminists say silly things? Sure. Holds true of any ideology. You won't find me defending most of what Sarkeesian says, despite people here thinking I'm a "feminazi". But that doesn't change what feminism is. Which is this;

"Feminism is a range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, personal, and social rights for women."

Emphasis mine.

Does being a feminist mean I think men don't ever face issues? No. But "MRA"s have so poisoned that well that I won't use the label. And if you're TRULY concerned with equal rights, those positions will not be antagonistic towards feminism, but complementary and mutually supportive.

[hrugner]

These days whenever someone says they're egalitarian, it roughly translates to "I pick fights with feminists and occupy my free time convincing everyone on internet forums that feminists are evil conspirators."

SJW or GRU, you decide.

[May90]

snip

Pretty much; when someone says "I'm egalitarian, I oppose feminism", they contradict themselves.

[May90]

What is a GRU?

Russian intelligence agency!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_I...ce_Directorate

[Kapadons]

Do people actually take feminazis seriously ? You can see clips daily of them saying some crazy nonsense or some silly protest on a college campus and I just roll my eyes and think "fucking tards" and move on to the next clip. I mean to say, I don't think mine or anyone I knows daily life has been effected by anything a feminazi had to say.

But that may just be because I am a straight white male. Being at the top of the hierarchy allows me to ignore a ton of bullshit.

[Mormolyce]

Most of the ideologies you're alluding to are in fact egalitarian. Whether or not you believe they actually are is just a function of which ideology you're a part of.

[Justpassing]

Why can't we have nice things?

[Deletedaccount1]

FWIW, that paper's rooted in utilitarian theory. He presents three "worlds", where the sum of "happiness" is 150 at any given moment. Because all three of his proposed structures equals out to 150 at all points, he claims they're equally "good".

You can measure success in any given way. The point of the paper is to show that logically, there is no advantage to a society that is egalitarian in nature for the sake of being egalitarian. Unless of course you can give a logical proof that egalitarianism has intrinsic value.

[nextormento]

It never ceases to amaze me how mild signals of support for some idea are defaulted to be suspect of some other idea.
Then again, I'm all too inclined to contemporary cynicism, so I'm no one to criticize.

[starlord]

when people say that they are "egalitarian" what they actually mean is "i am in favor of the status quo."

[Mormolyce]

The problem is that "feminism" is an ideological position that states that men and women should have equal social and civil rights and privileges. So taking "egalitarian" as if it's opposed to that outcome, that's necessarily taking a position that's hostile to those equal rights.

I think it boils down to "we should all be equal, but don't you dare identify any group that isn't equal yet and needs something specific to be done".

That way we can make egalitarian noises without having to put anything into practice.

- - - Updated - - -

when people say that they are "egalitarian" what they actually mean is "i am in favor of the status quo."

Generally because they're a member of the group that is on top of the status quo.

[hrugner]

I think it boils down to "we should all be equal, but don't you dare identify any group that isn't equal yet and needs something specific to be done".

Which is obviously sound advice. Hell, you're on a games forum, you should recognize it well enough from class balance issues. Isolating one group, and making adjustments based on the performance of that one group, is bound to create a localized imbalance in that group's favor rather than a rebalancing of all forces that caused the original difference. On top of that, the localized imbalance will create the illusion of balance from certain metrics while not solving the underlying problem. By instead looking at the problem itself rather than the groups it impacts, you can come up with a much more resilient solution.

[May90]

Which is obviously sound advice. Hell, you're on a games forum, you should recognize it well enough from class balance issues. Isolating one group, and making adjustments based on the performance of that one group, is bound to create a localized imbalance in that group's favor rather than a rebalancing of all forces that caused the original difference. On top of that, the localized imbalance will create the illusion of balance from certain metrics while not solving the underlying problem. By instead looking at the problem itself rather than the groups it impacts, you can come up with a much more resilient solution.

Identifying groups the problem affects is the first step towards identifying the problem itself.

[starlord]

Identifying groups the problem affects is the first step towards identifying the problem itself.

and some problems dont have any particular solution.

[May90]

and some problems dont have any particular solution.

A problem that doesn't have a particular solution is not a problem, it is just a property of the Universe.

[Zelk]

So your idea of fixing inequality is to just shout "Everyone is equal" and hope people are thick enough to believe you?