|
|
Post by Equivocal on Nov 15, 2022 13:34:01 GMT
"You appear to be arguing that supporters of a 'liberal' approach generally and in matters of race and nationality are members of groups that have most to gain from that support - unless they happen to be terminally stupid." I don't discount that many such supporters have motives other than simple self-interest, as noted to dappy earlier. Competitive altruism is a very powerful force amongst higher-echelon proggies most of whom could not be termed terminally stupid. The warm and lovely feelings of gushiness associated with claiming the high moral ground is another, especially when a position taken or a stance adopted runs totally counter to one's own ethnic genetic interest. It's an interesting twist on normal the normal Critical Theory approach - a bit of the selfish gene and genetic altruism wrapped neatly together. I think it far more likely that the 'liberal' approach holds sway against the interest of the existing (or previously existing) dominant group simply because it is the right thing to do. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 15, 2022 13:40:14 GMT
That's right. You may recall I posted my objection several times on the old forum. I do dimly recall Would you also agree that you can't get to ethnic quotas etc, using your description of liberal values as a guide? Dan, I feel this issue is the base of your progressive taxonomic hierarchy 'Progs' fall into two groups depending on their answer to this question. Some measure of additional, perhaps Marxist?, theory is required to rationalise the application of ethnic quotas. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 15, 2022 13:40:56 GMT
Or perhaps instead "because the normative narrative, as constructed by the managerial and opinion-forming classes, holds it is the right thing to do".
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 15, 2022 13:45:45 GMT
I'm a little leery of bringing 'marxism' into the equation here Mags since it raises images of classical economic Marxism, which is not what is play here. I'd go for Gramscianism instead since Gramsci was the first to understand the potential political power of a 'rainbow coalition' involving all groups suffering oppression under the hegemonic patriarchy - Marx never got beyond the dictatorship of the proletariat.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 15, 2022 13:50:52 GMT
I think it far more likely that the 'liberal' approach holds sway against the interest of the existing (or previously existing) dominant group simply because it is the right thing to do. Why do you imagine it still holds sway when it is, according to your earlier outline of principle, not the right thing to do? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 15, 2022 13:58:59 GMT
I'm a little leery of bringing 'marxism' into the equation here Mags since it raises images of classical economic Marxism, which is not what is play here. I'd go for Gramscianism instead since Gramsci was the first to understand the potential political power of a 'rainbow coalition' involving all groups suffering oppression under the hegemonic patriarchy - Marx never got beyond the dictatorship of the proletariat. Marxism was just a vague suggestion. I think the reality is this group is composed of multiple overlapping motivations, theories and rationales, which includes the whole 'going along with the opinion formers' stance, some anti-white racism and anti-male sexism. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 15, 2022 14:24:14 GMT
Well, I'd say the floor is open for resident proggies to enlighten us as to exactly why their preferred approach to accommodating minorities within our living space is the 'right thing to do', even though it is not obviously in our interests to be doing so.
Something to do with the Golden Rule, perhaps? Or the Kantian Imperative?
Looking forward to some well thought-out and coherent argumentation sans the usual ad hominem.
|
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Nov 15, 2022 14:59:56 GMT
That's right. You may recall I posted my objection several times on the old forum. I do dimly recall Would you also agree that you can't get to ethnic quotas etc, using your description of liberal values as a guide? I'm afraid I don't understand your question, perhaps you wouldn't mind helping me out. My 'description' of liberal values was limited to not judging people on the basis of their sex, sexuality or race. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 15, 2022 15:15:11 GMT
I'm afraid I don't understand your question, perhaps you wouldn't mind helping me out. My 'description' of liberal values was limited to not judging people on the basis of their sex, sexuality or race. Right. Do you agree that you can't conclude that (say) ethnic quotas are good, simply by using 'it is wrong to judge people by their race" as a principle? |
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Nov 15, 2022 15:17:14 GMT
Well, I'd say the floor is open for resident proggies to enlighten us as to exactly why their preferred approach to accommodating minorities within our living space is the 'right thing to do', even though it is not obviously in our interests to be doing so. Something to do with the Golden Rule, perhaps? Or the Kantian Imperative? Looking forward to some well thought-out and coherent argumentation sans the usual ad hominem. I think you need to take a step back. The influx of immigrants was very much to the advantage of those who profited from their labour and consumption. Once, however, those people were resident here, I can't think of a morally defensible argument to support the idea that they should be treated any less favourably than the rest of the population. |
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Nov 15, 2022 15:23:25 GMT
I'm afraid I don't understand your question, perhaps you wouldn't mind helping me out. My 'description' of liberal values was limited to not judging people on the basis of their sex, sexuality or race. Right. Do you agree that you can't conclude that (say) ethnic quotas are good, simply by using 'it is wrong to judge people by their race" as a principle? The only benefit I can see from an 'ethnic quota' is as a rough guide to whether or not a particular 'calling' is offering equal access. It must, necessarily, be 'rough' because there may be a multitude of reasons for under or over representation of a particular ethnicity. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 15, 2022 16:03:41 GMT
I think you need to take a step back. The influx of immigrants was very much to the advantage of those who profited from their labour and consumption. Once, however, those people were resident here, I can't think of a morally defensible argument to support the idea that they should be treated any less favourably than the rest of the population.
Most of the countries which have provided the great majority of immigrants for the past 70 years find no moral dilemma in treating foreigners less favourably than natives. In India, for example, public sector employment is reserved for Indian citizens and 'persons of Indian origin'. Foreigners are not permitted to vote in national elections, even those coming from countries (like the UK) which extend such rights to Indian nationals. There is much more in similar vein.
So, something which is not morally defensible here might well be so there. Does this then signify that our 'morality' is 'better' than theirs? Or does it highlight that morality is a very fungible commodity in that it varies in both time and space? In other words, what is moral here may not be moral there, and what is moral now may not have been moral in the past and may not be again in the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Nov 15, 2022 16:43:57 GMT
I think you need to take a step back. The influx of immigrants was very much to the advantage of those who profited from their labour and consumption. Once, however, those people were resident here, I can't think of a morally defensible argument to support the idea that they should be treated any less favourably than the rest of the population.
Most of the countries which have provided the great majority of immigrants for the past 70 years find no moral dilemma in treating foreigners less favourably than natives. In India, for example, public sector employment is reserved for Indian citizens and 'persons of Indian origin'. Foreigners are not permitted to vote in national elections, even those coming from countries (like the UK) which extend such rights to Indian nationals. There is much more in similar vein.
So, something which is not morally defensible here might well be so there. Does this then signify that our 'morality' is 'better' than theirs? Or does it highlight that morality is a very fungible commodity in that it varies in both time and space? In other words, what is moral here may not be moral there, and what is moral now may not have been moral in the past and may not be again in the future.
I have no hesitation in condemning systems which treat people differently on the basis of their sex, sexuality or race differently, and I am aware this happens in many jurisdictions. As such, I have no difficulty in answering your first question in the affirmative - assuming, of course, your account is correct. As to your second; there is no doubt that what may have been perceived as moral in different times might not be held so in the light of experience of some of the results of, for example, racial hatred.
I'm sure there is a balance to be struck between the Kantian ideal and relative morality. I think, though, the vast majority of, shall we say, the white British, would agree that people should be treated equally irrespective of race, sex or sexuality.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 15, 2022 17:03:00 GMT
Well at least we seem to be in agreement that there is no such as a universal morality, and probably never has been. So we are then stuck with our contemporary local version which, if nothing else, describes what is currently fashionable here and now. Until things change of course as they do.
It would be interesting to put your assertion about overwhelming support for equal treatment to the test, with proper evidence adduced for the 'unfashionable' side of the ledger. Should racial aliens, for example, be morally entitled to full and equal access to all public resources even if they, or their forebears, have never contributed to their funding. I suspect there might well be some wavering amongst the 'vast majority' as such questions were properly explored.
Which of course can't be done at present since the very idea would be 'racist'.
|
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Nov 15, 2022 18:23:26 GMT
Well at least we seem to be in agreement that there is no such as a universal morality, and probably never has been. So we are then stuck with our contemporary local version which, if nothing else, describes what is currently fashionable here and now. Until things change of course as they do. It would be interesting to put your assertion about overwhelming support for equal treatment to the test, with proper evidence adduced for the 'unfashionable' side of the ledger. Should racial aliens, for example, be morally entitled to full and equal access to all public resources even if they, or their forebears, have never contributed to their funding. I suspect there might well be some wavering amongst the 'vast majority' as such questions were properly explored. Which of course can't be done at present since the very idea would be 'racist'. I think it would only be racist if a brown, say, Indian alien were treated differently from a white, say, Belgian, alien. |
|
