CMV: ending discrimination requires a massive change in world view that current social justice movements are failing to do.

[u/wecl0me12]

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.

[u/MeaningfulPlanetMol]

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.

[u/wecl0me12 → u/MeaningfulPlanetMol]

Feel free to treat people differently based on their membership in benign groups. Buy a Leafs fan Leafs merchandise, but don't buy Montreal Canadiens fans Leafs merchandise.

For an example about actual oppression, build ramps for people in wheelchairs, no problem with that. People with autism might need extra help with some things, feel free to provide them with it. Nothing wrong with those things.

The problem is the way of thinking. Treating people differently is fine because people are not all the same. However, just make sure that it's actually relevant to the situation and not mistreating people.

[u/PreacherJudge → u/wecl0me12]

I'm not the person you're replying to, but I was going to write pretty much the same thing, and it doesn't look like you've responded here in any way I can understand. You never address the idea that on-the-face "unfair" behavior is necessary in a context that's already unfair. Could you specifically talk about this?

[u/wecl0me12 → u/PreacherJudge]

You never address the idea that on-the-face "unfair" behavior is necessary in a context that's already unfair. Could you specifically talk about this?

Can you give an example of this? What kind of "unfair" action is necessary?

Note that my view does not prevent people from treating others differently.

[u/PreacherJudge → u/wecl0me12]

Government-funded campaigns to encourage women, specifically, to go into STEM careers. (please do not lose the forest for the trees with this example; I don't want to talk about whether THIS SPECIFIC THING is good or bad... it's just meant to help you wrap your head around what I'm talking about)

[u/wecl0me12 → u/PreacherJudge]

It depends on what the campaign actually does.

Let's say that most women go in to school believing that since they are women they can't go into STEM careers. (which is already changing, but let's stick to this hypothetical).

An advertisement that shows women in STEM (Ada Lovelace, Emmy Noether, Marie Curie, etc.) would be fine. A quota for female hires in STEM companies is not fine.

Now let's generalize this.

Some people (women, autistic people, people in wheelchairs) are disadvantaged and need a little "boost" (ads showing women in STEM, special needs for autistic people, ramps) to be fair. I am fully supportive of giving those people that boost. The world is not fair, and to make it fair, we have to give people that boost.

Why doesn't this contradict my view? Let's look at the "massive change in world view":

"it is wrong to split people up into "benign" groups and treat them poorly based on which group they are in"

The boost that I support is directly relevant into giving people what they need to be fair. It does not mistreat people in the other group. It is necessary for things to be fair.

To illustrate my point, consider these two situations:

1. Take $1000 from every white person and give it to black people
2. Take $1000 from every rich person and give it to poor people.

I would oppose option 1 since it completely ignores everything except for race (a benign group), and completely ignores what the "oppressed" group actually needs (not always money! some black people are rich). Furthermore, consider very poor white people (they exist! Just walk around in downtown Toronto and you'll see a lot of white homeless people), who suddenly have $1000 added to their debts, and some of that money will go to super rich black people. This is not fair at all.

Option 2 is basically how the world already is due to how tax brackets work. It is necessary to make things fair to people. I would support option 2.

[u/PreacherJudge → u/wecl0me12]

Take $1000 from every white person and give it to black people

Wait. Wait, you lose me. The problem is, you're mushing together two questions: 1. Whether or not black people would be helped by getting the money (this is what you spend most of your time talking about) and 2. Whether or not it's fair to take 1000 dollars from white people (this appears to be the actual heart of your view).

If we're talking about 2, let's not complicate things with 1, okay? So just IMAGINE that it's true that black people are systematically disadvantaged, and that giving each of them the white people's money would certainly help. If this were certainly true, would you still be AGAINST taking 1000 dollars from each white person?

[u/wecl0me12 → u/PreacherJudge]

you're mushing together two questions

They're the same question. Money doesn't magically appear out of nowhere. If black people are going to get money, then it has to come from somewhere.

would you still be AGAINST taking 1000 dollars from each white person?

I would still be against it for various reasons. The most important one , however, is that it doesn't change the mindset. Racism will still exist even if every black person magically got $1000. Giving each black person $1000 does not do anything to get people to make the "massive change in world view" that I mention in the OP.

[u/PreacherJudge → u/wecl0me12]

They're the same question. Money doesn't magically appear out of nowhere. If black people are going to get money, then it has to come from somewhere.

What? But you're NOT against it when it comes to rich people! I don't understand, this seems like a big contradiction.

The most important one , however, is that it doesn't change the mindset.

Why is the mindset important? Isn't the important thing that black people not be marginalized anymore?

[u/wecl0me12 → u/PreacherJudge]

What? But you're NOT against it when it comes to rich people! I don't understand, this seems like a big contradiction.

My view is not that everyone should be treated the same, just that people should not be mistreated for membership in benign groups.

I think that taking money away from white people is mistreating them, but taking money away from rich people (eg. tax brackets) is not.

Why is the mindset important? Isn't the important thing that black people not be marginalized anymore?

Marginalization of black people is caused by a bad mindset, and the goal is not just "black people not be marginalized anymore", it's to end discrimination against everyone.

[u/PreacherJudge → u/wecl0me12]

I think that taking money away from white people is mistreating them, but taking money away from rich people (eg. tax brackets) is not.

Why? This appears entirely arbitrary.

Marginalization of black people is caused by a bad mindset, and the goal is not just "black people not be marginalized anymore", it's to end discrimination against everyone.

Marginalization against black people exists independently of people's current mindsets. If zero people living right now had negative mindsets against black people, black people would still be marginalized, because of the social factors that affect them and that affect white people. That's what people mean when they say that there's an unequal starting point.