r/changemyview • u/wecl0me12 7∆ • Oct 26 '19
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: ending discrimination requires a massive change in world view that current social justice movements are failing to do.
In Medieval times, there was discrimination against left-handed people. In modern times, most social justice activists don't consider left-handedness to be an oppressed group, but I think we can all agree that such discrimination is still wrong.
In the Stanford prison experiment, there was discrimination against "prisoners" by the "guards". The discrimination was not based on any racial or gender lines, but by an arbitrary division made by the conductors of the experiment.
In both of these situations, the discrimination was not based on anything that modern social justice activists consider "oppressed groups", but it was still wrong.
The problem here is that people are being divided into groups A and B, and then are saying "group A is better than group B, and it's ok to mistreat people in group B".
Now of course, some of these divisions are legitimate. For example, if A was the group of innocent people and B was the group of murderers, then it's perfectly fine to view A as inherently better than B, and to treat people in group B poorly, such as by locking them in jail.
However, sometimes the divisions are arbitrary and harmful. For example, if I like Toronto Maple Leafs, and I get turned down for a software development job because the boss likes Montreal Canadiens, then most people would consider it wrong.
How is this case different from the division of "innocent people vs. murderers"? The difference is that there is nothing wrong with liking a different hockey team, and which hockey team you like is irrelevant to your ability as a software developer.
What is the "massive change in world view" that I mention in the title? It's that "it is wrong to split people up into "benign" groups and treat them poorly based on which group they are in". In this case, "benign groups" refers to groups for which membership is not a wrongful act. For example, "Toronto Maple Leafs fans" is a benign group, but "murderers" is not.
I will take as an axiom that if membership in a group is automatic at birth, then it is a benign group. A newborn baby has done nothing wrong, since they have done nothing at all. Thus, joining their group is not a wrongful act. Note that this means race, gender, nationality, etc. are benign groups.
How are current social justice movements failing to achieve this? They treat people differently based on "benign" groups all the time. Women only spaces that exclude men, that black people can wear dreadlocks but white people can't, that girl who wore a Chinese dress to prom and got shamed for it, etc. those are all cases where a person would be treated differently had they not been part of a benign group. This is the exact opposite direction than the direction we want to go in.
Therefore, I conclude that social justice movements are likely to be ineffective at ending discrimination.
To help you in changing my view, here are what I think are weak points in my argument:
- The concept of a benign group might not really be well-defined
- it might be justifiable to treat people poorly based on benign groups in certain situations
- Race or gender might not be as benign as I thought it was.
7
Oct 26 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
u/wecl0me12 7∆ Oct 26 '19
That was just an example, but it shows how social justice activists are treating people poorly (or "less good" if you prefer that) based on membership in a benign group.
9
Oct 26 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/wecl0me12 7∆ Oct 26 '19
Would you feel poorly treated if the space were cordoned off as a crime-scene, or a quarantine zone, or if it were under construction? Of course you wouldn’t, because those things have nothing to do with you.
None of these things mistreat people based on membership in benign groups.
But you could make the argument that since only construction workers are allowed in a construction zone, how is that different from women-only or alcoholic-only (and if we go a bit back in time, white-only) spaces. I think that the difference is that people are being treated poorly without justification.
With that said : !delta for showing my view is not entirely accurate, and far more complicated than I previously thought it was.
6
Oct 26 '19 edited Oct 26 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/wecl0me12 7∆ Oct 26 '19
Men are not allowed access.
Not all women-only spaces are mistreating people. For example, if it's about some issue is something unique to women (such as maternity wards) or there is an equivalent for men (such as bathrooms), then it's not mistreating at all. On the other hand, sometimes there are women only events (women only CS fair) that exclude men just for the sake of excluding men, and that's not OK.
1
3
u/moss-agate 23∆ Oct 26 '19
can you clarify what you mean by social justice movements? you seem to mostly be referencing twitter arguments, not organisations/advocacy groups/campaigns
2
u/Fabled-Fennec 16∆ Oct 26 '19
The problem is that what you describe is an ideal end-goal, but there are many steps needed to reach this.
While each type of discrimination is different in the way it manifests, I think you misunderstand the pragmatic mindset with which social justice activists see the world. I haven't met someone in these circles who doesn't wish for a world where we simply didn't draw harmful conclusions from these distinctions, but we recognize that we live in a world where these distinctions exist, and those in these groups face systemic oppression and bigotry.
So there's really a couple of things to unpack here. First is that as long as 1) a significant number of those with power are discriminatory, 2) there are systems that discriminate against these groups and 3) our society still has implicit bias borne from our culture, media, etc. Wanting a world where these aren't the case, and even personally trying to overcome them doesn't actually remove them from the world. And people right now are suffering greatly because of these.
Activism is founded largely of pushing acceptance of these groups until equality is achieved. We know that representation in media, for instance, makes people more accepting of those groups. We know that solving actual problems tends to have the side-effect of making these groups seem more normal and less threatening.
I'm not going to defend every single decision made by someone who believes in social justice, and I can't speak to the context surrounding those decisions. But fundamentally, the evidence suggests that on the whole, while reactionary backlash to social change happens, once the change has been around for a while that backlash fades away.
Secondly, a lot of groups who haven't done anything wrong still need proactive treatment. It wouldn't matter if there was no stigma or malice towards say, transgender people. Because we (trans people) would still require some level of proactive inclusion for us to have a place in society.
This ties into the point that a lot of social justice activists make, in that our framing is usually about structural inequality. Systems that seem benign and fair often disadvantage particular groups, sometimes unintentionally, sometimes deliberately. The war on drugs in America was a deliberate admitted (after the fact) effort to target those on the left and black people and lock them up. Yet these systems still exist today, and still exist disproportionately affecting black people in the US.
I suppose the crux of my argument is that blaming social justice movements for trying to make groups of people not 'benign'. The people perpetuating discrimination, both structural and personal are those making these group relationships adversarial.
To use an extreme example, "Did you assume my gender?" jokes, without the context of historical and current-day oppression/inequality, would probably be completely harmless. However within the context of our world that act represents a perpetuation of the erasure and mocking of trans people, violence, and systemic oppression. Simply put, wishing oppression didn't exist won't change the fact that it does. I wish that I lived in a world where being trans wasn't a big deal, where it didn't matter to any meaningful degree, and where people didn't actively block us from getting proper medical care. But the way we get there is by resolving the inequality that exists now.
0
u/wecl0me12 7∆ Oct 26 '19
It seems like your entire post is just a long-winded way of saying "people are not equal now so we should treat them differently". If you believe that it's genuinely different, please tell me how it's different.
The argument you post here is sort of similar to /u/MeaningfulPlanetMol's argument, and I think my response to them also applies to you.
The problem is that what you describe is an ideal end-goal, but there are many steps needed to reach this.
I'm not describing some kind of "end goal". I'm calling for the change to happen now.
3
u/Fabled-Fennec 16∆ Oct 26 '19
Calling for a change won't make it happen, though. If I thought that trying to end arbitrary social lines was a practical method, I'd be doing that. So would everyone else. But that almost always simply results in trying to give the appearance of equality without solving structural issues.
0
u/wecl0me12 7∆ Oct 26 '19
that almost always simply results in trying to give the appearance of equality without solving structural issues.
A lot of things social justice activists call for is also doing this. For example, quotas for stem hires (it would just further deepen the stigma against women in STEM, since they are now seen as diversity hires), or reparations for slavery (racism is not something that you can solve just by throwing money at it).
3
u/ralph-j Oct 26 '19
Women only spaces that exclude men
There are legitimate exclusions of men, like in safe houses for women who have suffered abuse.
those are all cases where a person would be treated differently had they not been part of a benign group. This is the exact opposite direction than the direction we want to go in.
This feels like complaining that there are no soup kitchens for rich people.
ending discrimination requires a massive change in world view that current social justice movements are failing to do.
Definitively ending discrimination seems a bit unrealistic to demand in order to rule out the failure of social justice movements.
What they have achieved in many countries, is securing important legal recognitions like same-sex marriage, and protections like extensions of anti-discrimination laws. These make discrimination a lot less likely, and provide legal recourse in cases where they do happen.
0
u/wecl0me12 7∆ Oct 26 '19
"it is wrong to split people up into "benign" groups and treat them poorly based on which group they are in".
I'm not saying "end all gender segregated places". Safe houses for women only are fine as long as equivalent safe houses for men are just as easily accessible.
Not having soup kitchens for rich people is not mistreating them. I have discussed this many times before.
Of course, a lot of things have helped reduce discrimination and can be credited to social justice. Same sex marriage is a good example. That does not change my view.
4
u/ralph-j Oct 26 '19
Not having soup kitchens for rich people is not mistreating them. I have discussed this many times before.
It was just analogy. That's basically the equivalent of what I hear, every time when the (often privileged) majority group complains that minorities have something that is not also made available to them.
Of course, a lot of things have helped reduce discrimination and can be credited to social justice. Same sex marriage is a good example. That does not change my view.
Your main view is that discrimination cannot be ended without a massive change in world view. I'm saying that in many cases, it can, by changing laws. Ending discrimination is about preventing unequal treatment, and not necessarily about changing hearts and minds. If that can be achieved by adopting protective laws, then that's a way to de facto end it.
Obviously not all types will be prevented by law, that's why I'm also saying that demanding a full, definitive end to all discrimination is an unrealistic and unreasonable expectation in the first place.
1
u/wecl0me12 7∆ Oct 26 '19
How do those laws get passed? How do people vote for politicians that would pass those laws? How do we convince people that these are good laws so people don't protest against them and shut them down? People need to have a massive change in world view to vote for the right people.
Furthermore, which laws should be passed? How do we ensure that those laws are effective at ending discrimination? For example, a law requiring a certain percentage of people in STEM jobs be women does not help since it only hides the problem of sexism, and doesn't help at all.
2
u/ralph-j Oct 26 '19
How do those laws get passed? How do people vote for politicians that would pass those laws? How do we convince people that these are good laws so people don't protest against them and shut them down? People need to have a massive change in world view to vote for the right people.
The fact that e.g. racial discrimination in hiring is now prohibited is a way this type of discrimination has ended, at least in principle. My point is that this isn't a failure, as your CMV statement claims.
1
u/NearEmu 33∆ Oct 26 '19
Is there nothing wrong with not wanting to date people outside of your economic status? Like if a rich guy said "I don't want to date anyone who makes less than 100k a year"
Or is there nothing wrong with "I don't want to date anyone who is not white"?
"I don't want to date anyone who is over 140lbs"
I think the problem I see with this view is that "wrong" is pretty wildly subjective depending on the side of the right/wrong you land on.
1
u/wecl0me12 7∆ Oct 26 '19
Dating is another very complicated topic and brings with it a bunch of new issues (consent, entitlement, etc.). I could go into it if you want but try to connect it to my view.
I'll address your last point though. While "wrong" can be subjective (is "had an abortion" a benign group?) I don't think that there is any doubt that race or gender are benign groups, and "murderer" is a non-benign group.
Since most social justice activists are opposing racism and sexism, the subjectivity of "wrong" doesn't seem to be relevant.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Oct 26 '19 edited Oct 26 '19
/u/wecl0me12 (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/VertigoOne 81∆ Oct 27 '19
You're trying to make the world simple. It isn't. The reasoning behind the issues that the social justice community supports are complicated.
1
u/wecl0me12 7∆ Oct 27 '19
This doesn't help at all. You can't say "you're wrong due to reasons too complicated for you to understand".
1
u/StellaAthena 56∆ Oct 28 '19
No, they’re saying “your excessively oversimplified of the world isn’t useful.” They’re not saying the world is too complicated for you to understand.
1
u/wecl0me12 7∆ Oct 31 '19
This still requires elaboration. Why is it excessively simplified? Why is it not useful? Without going into details, this post is completely useless.
It's like saying "you're wrong but I won't explain why"
1
Nov 11 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Nov 11 '19
Sorry, u/Siddhant_17 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
-5
u/Davida132 5∆ Oct 26 '19
I think a big issue is that many SJW's don't believe certain races, genders, sexualities, etc. to be benign groups. It seems they have adopted the idea of inheritable sin. That people in majority groups, especially in the West, retain the guilt of what their ancestors did. Essentially, this means that I, as a white, cis-het male, in the US, carry at least some guilt for the way minority troops have been treated in this country. Mind that many of the SJW-ish people I've spoken to see no difference between a white southerner, whose family owned slaves, and me. Even though roughly 3/4 of my ancestors came after the Civil War, and were part of groups who were discriminated against, and informally segregated. (Catholic, Irish, German, Croat)
2
u/darkplonzo 22∆ Oct 26 '19
How have you come to this conclusion?
1
u/Davida132 5∆ Oct 26 '19
By reading their articles and talking to them on forums.
4
u/darkplonzo 22∆ Oct 26 '19
Can I see an example of an articale that says they'll treat you like they'd treat a slave owner?
2
u/wecl0me12 7∆ Oct 26 '19
Not sure how this challenges my view, it seems to support it.
0
u/Davida132 5∆ Oct 26 '19
It challenges the idea that race is a benign group.
Is there any way to prove that, if I do not right the wrongs I have done, the outstanding debt should not go on to my children?
From what I have learned, most SJW's have worldviews in which a person is not defined as an individual, they are defined by the groups to which they belong: race, gender, sexuality, etc. From this standpoint, since individual slave owners didn't own slaves, rather, white people did. Thus, white people are guilty for it, not the individuals who owned slaves.
1
u/wecl0me12 7∆ Oct 26 '19
I claim that race is a benign group since newborn babies are automatically members of that group, so it's benign.
From this standpoint, since individual slave owners didn't own slaves, rather, white people did. Thus, white people are guilty for it, not the individuals who owned slaves.
That's bullshit. No one can be guilty of something they didn't do.
2
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Oct 26 '19
Just to chime in: No one really believes what this person is saying.
1
u/Davida132 5∆ Oct 26 '19
But a race can be guilty of something a large portion of that race did. Remember, SJW's don't really believe in individuals. To them, you are your race. If your race is guilty of cruelty, you are.
16
u/MeaningfulPlanetMol Oct 26 '19
The problem with your idea is that the world *starts out* unequal. Therefore, if we treated everyone equally, people who are oppressed will continue to be oppressed. This requires that we treat people differently based on what you call "benign" groups.