Why can't we just be Egalitarian?

[Army Dreamer]

Why can't we just be Egalitarian?

e·gal·i·tar·i·an
iˌɡaləˈterēən/
adjective
adjective: egalitarian

1.
of, relating to, or believing in the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.
"a fairer, more egalitarian society"

noun
noun: egalitarian; plural noun: egalitarians

1.
a person who advocates or supports egalitarian principles.

Because people are not equal?

[Deleted]

If anyone ever doubted that we live in some sort of anti-feminist Twilight Zone, let them doubt no longer.

And ur point is? its kinda clear that im against feminism that dont make your point right by default.

[Allerius]

Modern feminism isn't about morality or justice. It's a powerful political interest group. View feminism through the same lens you view the NRA in and it makes a lot more sense.

[Deleted]

You're being silly. I was merely making a comment about the type of perspectives that are common here.

and your perspective is all pink unicorns and rainbows right.

[JamesMartigo]

Because people are inherently discriminatory.

This
/10 chars

[Deleted]

You're being silly. I was merely making a comment about the type of perspectives that are common here.

If u want equality stop stabing ur little/big brother and father middle/workingclass in the back we all suck focking face it u are not beter that us.

[Ealyssa]

That really depend how you define "egalitarian".

Is inheritance egalitarian ? Is compensating for a disability egalitarian ? Is taxing the rich more to help the poor egalitarian ? Is helping family that have children egalitarian ? Etc.

All this clealry show that "egalitarian" just means nothing. There is no ideal model of society, and that's why people argue about which one is the best and why. GG you just discovered politics.

[Deleted]

You are part of the Endus maffia that has been spreading faminazi propaganda for years.

[Deleted]

Your unwillingness to give anyone a chance to answer your questions doesn't demonstrate that the word means nothing. What kind of absurdly bad reasoning is that?



Citation needed.

Im done here for now but u can try to find any that are not feminazi by your self.

[Deleted]

I mean, I don't think any of my posts have ever fallen into feminazi territory other than perhaps a small handful of deliberately incendiary remarks, but you clearly understand the word in a very different way than I do, so I am woefully ill-equipped to scan my posts for evidence of feminazism according to your standards.

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.

Remember that? becasue asserting everyone holding contrary opinions is evil, is definitively in the 'Nazi' territory.

[May90]

Remember that? becasue asserting everyone holding contrary opinions is evil, is definitively in the 'Nazi' territory.

It is pretty funny how you just demonstrated Nixx' point.

[Jotaux]

It is pretty funny how you just demonstrated Nixx' point.

This is always such a dumb argument. "You've proved me wrong/a hypocrit/crazy etc. which proves I'm right"

[May90]

This is always such a dumb argument. "You've proved me wrong/a hypocrit/crazy etc. which proves I'm right"

I wholeheartedly agree!

[Endus]

Remember that? becasue asserting everyone holding contrary opinions is evil, is definitively in the 'Nazi' territory.

Given that the post doesn't assert what you claim, you're either making it up, or projecting.

Nixx was (to my eye, at least, though I'll freely let them correct me if I'm off-base (linked because Nixx said he's ignoring GoblinP)) speaking to specific individuals and specific opinions, not "everyone holding contrary opinions". Not only that, Nixx never used the word "evil", and simply asserted that they were irrationally hostile and deliberately obtuse. Not the same thing, at all.

[Independent voter]

If we were egalitarian it might surprise people.

[Endus]

Good paper on why egalitarianism doesn't logically make sense as a value in and of itself.

http://www.owl232.net/equality.htm

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".

The problem with utilitarian theory is that it allows for horrendously evil acts. For instance, picture this;

World 4, where Antoinette starts out for the first half of her life with a happiness of 100, and Bubba starts out with a happiness of 50. Then, Antoinnette gets bored, and enslaves Bubba, leaving his happiness at 0, but Antoinette's at 200. This world has been "improved" through the introduction of slavery.

Or World 5; where Bubba and Antoinette are both equal at happiness 75. Then Bubba kills and eats Antoinnette, and not having to deal with her any more, his happiness spikes to 150. This world is just as "ethical" as his proposals; I've now justified murder, and cannibalism, in his eyes.

Yes, making up numbers like this is silly; blame the original author, I'm just following his system.

This is why utilitarianism is an interesting philosophical point, but not one that's actually argued as a workable ethical principle in the real world.

[Jotaux]

Well looks like we wrapped up that:

You are part of the Endus maffia that has been spreading faminazi propaganda for years.

was a correct assertion.

[Alvito]

And because just naming a society Egalitarian does not make those in it follow the rules/structures of the principle. Racist bosses won't start hiring "unfavorable" ethnicities at a higher rate because some bureaucrat wrote Egalitarian on a bill.

In some cases they will be less likely to. People hate being forced into doing things or feeling like they have absolutely no say or choice. Now if you just give an illusion of a choice they happily tow the line. Masking things to make it seem like they have a say is the hard part.

[Deleted]

Given that the post doesn't assert what you claim, you're either making it up, or projecting.

No it does that.

speaking to specific individuals and specific opinions, not "everyone holding contrary opinions". Not only that, Nixx never used the word "evil", and simply asserted that they were irrationally hostile and deliberately obtuse. Not the same thing, at all.

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.

- - - Updated - - -

It is pretty funny how you just demonstrated Nixx' point.

I really didn't.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, now that I know which quote we are referring to, I can say you got it right. It's aimed at a specific type of person presumably represented very well by responses in the source thread. Said type of person responds to even the slightest hint of views more sympathetic to social justice than theirs with extreme hostility and irrationality. Their behavior strongly indicates they are little more than ideologues and are utterly uninterested in any sort of nuance or truth that conflicts with their very rigid and self-serving view of how the world works.

Mirror mirror, Who is projecting?

Also one can disagree wholeheartedly with the concept of social justice by rejecting its premises, which is really rather trivial.

[Jotaux]

I know we frequently disagree, but I usually give you a bit more credit. Right now though you are being exceedingly silly. A single post lamenting the existence of a certain type of person does not prove that I am 1) in cahoots with Endus or 2) spreading "faminazi [sic] propaganda" for years or at all.

But if you guys really think it's such a terrible crime to be casually dismissive of people, then you should probably recognize that right now you are just casually dismissing me and all of my thoughts and opinions merely for having the audacity to have thoughts and opinions at all.

I wasn't talking about his post, I was talking about all of the last page.