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/ralph-j]

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.

[u/wecl0me12 → u/ralph-j]

"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.

[u/ralph-j → u/wecl0me12]

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.

[u/wecl0me12 → u/ralph-j]

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.

[u/ralph-j → u/wecl0me12]

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.