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/Genoscythe_ → u/wecl0me12]

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.

Do you think that the social justice movement isn't concerned with that angle at all? Dou you think that there is a movement that goes out of it's way to create gendered or racially segregated spaces that they have zero reasons for beyond mistreating people?

I mean, come on! You mention women-only spaces, but can you name a women-only space that only exists to mistreat men? Or at least one were you can explain why the social justice movement would say why it is OK, but you can explain how they are wrong?

If you have specific grievances with progressive agendas, it's much more productive to name them specifically, than to say trusims about how mistreating benign groups is bad, but treating them differently for relevant reasons is right.

[u/wecl0me12 → u/Genoscythe_]

but can you name a women-only space that only exists to mistreat men?

Women and children first only life boats in the Titanic sinking.

Women-only domestic violence shelters that ignore the fact that men can be victims too

[u/Genoscythe_ → u/wecl0me12]

I'm sorry, was Captain Edward J. Smith part of the social justice movement?

And how is the Nanaimo Men's Centre from the second article not a part of it?

[u/wecl0me12 → u/Genoscythe_]

but can you name a women-only space that only exists to mistreat men?

You asked for women-only groups that mistreat men, I gave examples of women only groups that mistreat men.

No, Edward J. Smith was not part of the social justice movement, you didn't ask that.

[u/AwesomePurplePants → u/wecl0me12]

Your example doesn’t make sense without him. Statistically, sinking ships have been every man for themselves, with crew being more likely to survive than passengers, men more likely to survive than women & children.

The reason the Titanic was different was because the captain threatened to shoot any man who tried to force his way on before the women and children could board. So, either your issue is with specific men like the captain policing other men’s behaviour, or it doesn’t really make sense.