The age of minorities

[Gilrandir]

I have encountered a curious article which somehow chimes with what what Fragony said about feeling unsettled with feminists clamoring for their rights. The article is in Russian so I will give the gist.

The author claims that we live in an age when minorities rule the world.
1. Ethnic/national minorities. They demand to be heard and when the majorities agree to grant them the rights and priviliges they ask for they start to ask for more (like Catalonia or Scotland) never knowing where to stop.
2. Sexual minorities. Instead of following their tribal rules and customs they want the majority to pay attention to them and press for privileges that even the majority can't boast of.
3. Religious minorities demand attention on par with major religions.
4. Language minorities. Struggling for the right to speak their own language they want to couple it with the right to ignore the language the majority speaks.
5. Business minorities. A lot of businessmen have lost their profits just because minority shareholders voted against some decisions. Whole corporations have to submit to the will of a single shareholder having only one share.
6. Political minorities. They rule the country because many people abstain from voting so 20% of voters may determine who will head the country.
7. Fashion minorities. Few people dictate to the majority what they will wear.
8. And to crown it all, financial minorities. They are the few oligarchs that rule the world.

The author states that the only solution of this problem that the majorities have come up with is tolerance and patience. But evidently, this kind of solution doesn't work. So he hopes that majorities will somehow find a way to let the minorities hear and respect them as well.

[Montmorency]

The problem is, from the top of the pyramid "equality" looks a lot like a fall.

So is it that "minorities" are asking for too much, or that majorities resist the loss of status?

[spmetla]

Part of it I think is a reaction to globalization. People want to cling to an identity and not just be a mainstream person. Partially it's also sort of the current cult of the oppressed. Nothing to give you cool points like belonging to a group (however minuscule) and claim oppression (sometimes rightfully sometimes not).
While it's important to have a strong sense of personal identity and some pride in ones heritage it often seems to turn into an excuse for us to need to tolerate someone's intolerance.

The "safe space" thing in colleges so people aren't challenged by ideas different from their own is an fine example of its results.

[Fragony]

Clamering to women's right isn't really what upsets me but that isn't really relevant for this thread, just felt like pointing that out

OT, 5 to 8 don't belong in the same list as 1 to 4

[Gilrandir]

So is it that "minorities" are asking for too much, or that majorities resist the loss of status?

Can it be both?

[Husar]

The problem is, from the top of the pyramid "equality" looks a lot like a fall.

So is it that "minorities" are asking for too much, or that majorities resist the loss of status?

So you would say it's a bad thing if the majority of democratic voters fear losing political influence to the minority of wealthy people who can buy political influence? :mellow:

Also, in general, are women really a minority???

[rory_20_uk]

1. In most cases they want the repression and cultural assimilation to stop. Scotland joined England in a marriage of convenience - they wanted money.
2. Generally most would like to be left alone and live their life in peace.
3. Many are asking not to be oppressed or wiped out.
4. I have slightly more sympathy for this one.
5. Minority shareholders can be unilaterally bought out. Activist shareholders are generally multi millionaires who own vast numbers of shares and are in for a smash and grab.
6. Called democracy. The votes get the power.
7. Nope.
8. Probably the case. But and...?

~:smoking:

[Montmorency]

Part of it I think is a reaction to globalization. People want to cling to an identity and not just be a mainstream person. Partially it's also sort of the current cult of the oppressed. Nothing to give you cool points like belonging to a group (however minuscule) and claim oppression (sometimes rightfully sometimes not).
While it's important to have a strong sense of personal identity and some pride in ones heritage it often seems to turn into an excuse for us to need to tolerate someone's intolerance.

The "safe space" thing in colleges so people aren't challenged by ideas different from their own is an fine example of its results.

Is it a reaction to globalism per se, or is it that globalism is part of the political environment that allows non-mainstream identities to flourish without violent repression? After all, non-mainstream identities have always existed.

How is a "safe space" different from a club or a lounge?


Can it be both?

Then we're opening up some philosophical questions beyond the question of individuals' comfort. Do you have a framework in mind? It can't just be "weird people know your place."


So you would say it's a bad thing if the majority of democratic voters fear losing political influence to the minority of wealthy people who can buy political influence? :mellow:

Also, in general, are women really a minority???

Like Fragony said, the second half of the cited list is a matter of increasing undemocratic accumulation of power, while the first half seeks to correct undemocratic accumulation of power. The second half of the list has always had disproportional power. Almost all of post-tribal human history involves the domination of majorities by minorities. We call it "oligarchy".

Gilrandir didn't list women. That's indeed a weakness of the source article, which sounds like it tried to populate everything into its "minorities" thesis - to the point of listing the fashion industry.

[Greyblades]

Problem occurs when minorities are allowed privileges: extra consideration in education and workplace, social pressure to silence any criticism, exceptions in the law for foriegn practices.

There are the selfish and psychopathic in every denomination of humanity and all efforts of appeasement will inevitably accrue abuse. Our ability to counter such abuses so far have been curtailed by the very same that demanded the priveledges to begin with.

[Gilrandir]

2. Generally most would like to be left alone and live their life in peace.


This one is about sexual minorities, right? So holding pride parades has the aim of being left alone? To my mind, such public demonstrations carry the message "we are fun, join us".



Then we're opening up some philosophical questions beyond the question of individuals' comfort. Do you have a framework in mind? It can't just be "weird people know your place."


The whole thread has a rather philosophical bias without which one can't answer the question "Do we live in the age of minorities?"



Gilrandir didn't list women. That's indeed a weakness of the source article, which sounds like it tried to populate everything into its "minorities" thesis - to the point of listing the fashion industry.

First of all, I didn't list women because the source article didn't.
Second of all, if the author of the said article didn't hence he doesn't consider them a minority. And he is right. Statistically speaking, they are a majority.


Problem occurs when minorities are allowed privileges: extra consideration in education and workplace, social pressure to silence any criticism, exceptions in the law for foriegn practices.


Probably, this was the aim of the article I quoted. And this arises a question: should minorities receive any legal privileges - a stipulated percentage of employees, students, MPs and so on?

[Greyblades]

No. To give privleges to minorities would be to betray the very ideal of equality for which thier persecutions were ended.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

No. To give privleges to minorities would be to betray the very ideal of equality for which thier persecutions were ended.

As an ideal, you are completely correct.

However, the argument for special protection or preferred treatment for various "out-groups" is not solely about "catching up" for past mistreatment. The better arguments put forward by (at least the smarter ones among) those favoring such special efforts center on the continued institutional prejudice embodied by rules, regulations, and others aspects of the bureaucracy and the laws that are an integral part of the polity in question. The idea here is that these 'legacy' elements of the current system as it is will perpetuate the mistreatment even with no active efforts to discriminate on the part of those currently in the "in group." Thus the special treatment is needed to rebalance the playing field itself before reverting to an "each evaluated on their merits" system.

What say you to this line of argument?

[Pannonian]

As an ideal, you are completely correct.

However, the argument for special protection or preferred treatment for various "out-groups" is not solely about "catching up" for past mistreatment. The better arguments put forward by (at least the smarter ones among) those favoring such special efforts center on the continued institutional prejudice embodied by rules, regulations, and others aspects of the bureaucracy and the laws that are an integral part of the polity in question. The idea here is that these 'legacy' elements of the current system as it is will perpetuate the mistreatment even with no active efforts to discriminate on the part of those currently in the "in group." Thus the special treatment is needed to rebalance the playing field itself before reverting to an "each evaluated on their merits" system.

What say you to this line of argument?

Eg. toilets.

[HopAlongBunny]

In some way this is the theme of https://www.amazon.ca/White-Trash-400-Year-History-America/dp/0670785970

Since before the founding of America as a nation, one of the most lively debates has been over: "Who will occupy the bottom wrung"
As such the question is not always about "rights" exactly, but who possesses effective rights. Even if you occupy the same wrung economically, there is a grim satisfaction to be had from knowing you can actually claim the rights you are granted, where this might not be true of everyone.
Loss of status can thus amount to no more than everyone actually being able to exercise their rights.

[Montmorency]

As an ideal, you are completely correct.

However, the argument for special protection or preferred treatment for various "out-groups" is not solely about "catching up" for past mistreatment. The better arguments put forward by (at least the smarter ones among) those favoring such special efforts center on the continued institutional prejudice embodied by rules, regulations, and others aspects of the bureaucracy and the laws that are an integral part of the polity in question. The idea here is that these 'legacy' elements of the current system as it is will perpetuate the mistreatment even with no active efforts to discriminate on the part of those currently in the "in group." Thus the special treatment is needed to rebalance the playing field itself before reverting to an "each evaluated on their merits" system.

What say you to this line of argument?

In the West the whole point is, of course, to end white heterosexual male affirmative action; people who claim to be against "special treatment" for others tend to stand to benefit from special treatment of their in-group.

It would be much more interesting to see arguments for maintaining "stale pale male" affirmative action, rather than operating under the pretense that minority groups want "special privileges" that aren't available to others.

[HopAlongBunny]

An article that goes a little deeper (and is actually about the current situation) to what I referenced above.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-do-white-people-feel-discriminated-against-i-asked-them

Mainly, its culture/victim identity as grievance. The themes from White Trash... are revived, only now to identify as "victim" is to lay claim to power that some perceive they have been denied.

[Husar]

Look, I know it’s hard to feel like you really know white people after doing a few interviews. But I understand now that we’re dealing with a deeply-ingrained instinct to feel threatened by any small bit of upward movement by black people in general. Because whiteness and blackness are social constructs with no real scientific meaning—they are political groups created to help rich white people maintain power by creating an underclass—then called Negroes—that was, by definition, lesser than poor whites. If the definition of blackness changes, if the sociological stock price of blackness goes up, then that changes not only the value of whiteness but its very meaning.

So basically a clash with reality then? Instead of fixing the actual problem of being poor due to rich people, some would rather fix the perception by being able to continue to view blacks as inferior.

That sounds like an example of 'wealth is relative'. It does not matter whether someone has two or three TVs, what matters is that someone else has fewer TVs. :sweatdrop:

[Gilrandir]

As an ideal, you are completely correct.

However, the argument for special protection or preferred treatment for various "out-groups" is not solely about "catching up" for past mistreatment. The better arguments put forward by (at least the smarter ones among) those favoring such special efforts center on the continued institutional prejudice embodied by rules, regulations, and others aspects of the bureaucracy and the laws that are an integral part of the polity in question. The idea here is that these 'legacy' elements of the current system as it is will perpetuate the mistreatment even with no active efforts to discriminate on the part of those currently in the "in group." Thus the special treatment is needed to rebalance the playing field itself before reverting to an "each evaluated on their merits" system.

What say you to this line of argument?

The question is WHEN this reverting will happen. Who is to determine this time? What are the conditions for reverting? Won't those who are affected by the reverting clamor that they are again discriminated against?

[HopAlongBunny]

So basically a clash with reality then? Instead of fixing the actual problem of being poor due to rich people, some would rather fix the perception by being able to continue to view blacks as inferior.:sweatdrop:

Yes actually. It may be a simplification of a very complex dynamic, but it doesn't change the manifestation.
The explication of the power dynamic, and the manipulation needed to get there is at least as old as Huckleberry Finn.

[Greyblades]

As an ideal, you are completely correct.

However, the argument for special protection or preferred treatment for various "out-groups" is not solely about "catching up" for past mistreatment. The better arguments put forward by (at least the smarter ones among) those favoring such special efforts center on the continued institutional prejudice embodied by rules, regulations, and others aspects of the bureaucracy and the laws that are an integral part of the polity in question. The idea here is that these 'legacy' elements of the current system as it is will perpetuate the mistreatment even with no active efforts to discriminate on the part of those currently in the "in group." Thus the special treatment is needed to rebalance the playing field itself before reverting to an "each evaluated on their merits" system.

What say you to this line of argument?

A) Any plan of action that ignores the principle of innocent until proven guilty is unconscionable for a society that holds the values that make this line of thought relevant. If you cannot prove wrongdoing there is nothing to rectify, if you can prove it any retribution is for the courts to decide, not the government. Without proof you would be acting on what we call conspiracy theories, I believe that such things are something of a contentious issue at the moment.

B) Define level playing field; Equality of opportunity demands that individual benefit from the same level of support from the government as the majority. If an individual recieves this support and performs below average; unless they can prove outside hinderance the responsibility for thier underperfoming is soley down to them.

Minority status should have no bearing upon that evaluation and the only case I can identify that it would require reperations is in the case of those that were denied the support due to being born in a time where that support was available to the majority but not the minority.

For example I would agree that those adult blacks who were denied basic education due to being born before it was provided by the state should be given free access to an equivalent adult course that would provide the same qualification, though in my country that would be somewhat difficult to rectify as such denied people are long dead.

[Husar]

Yes actually. It may be a simplification of a very complex dynamic, but it doesn't change the manifestation.
The explication of the power dynamic, and the manipulation needed to get there is at least as old as Huckleberry Finn.

There might be the problem that this is to some extent a biological trait and not just a manipulation.
Of course there is plenty of manipulation to reduce people to these lizard reflexes rather than make them question them using the rest of the grey matter they call a brain. :sweatdrop:

[HopAlongBunny]

There might be the problem that this is to some extent a biological trait and not just a manipulation.
Of course there is plenty of manipulation to reduce people to these lizard reflexes rather than make them question them using the rest of the grey matter they call a brain. :sweatdrop:

Nature/Nurture what? :juggle:

[Husar]

I've finally found a relevant article after I previously didn't know what terms to look for, but here we go:

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jan/13/opinion/op-schermer13


Would you rather earn $50,000 a year while other people make $25,000, or would you rather earn $100,000 a year while other people get $250,000? Assume for the moment that prices of goods and services will stay the same.

Surprisingly -- stunningly, in fact -- research shows that the majority of people select the first option; they would rather make twice as much as others even if that meant earning half as much as they could otherwise have. How irrational is that?

[...]

Human as it sounds, loss aversion appears to be a trait we've inherited genetically because it is found in other primates, such as capuchin monkeys.

[...]

If there are behavioral analogies between humans and other primates, the underlying brain mechanism driving the choice preferences most certainly dates back to a common ancestor more than 10 million years ago. Think about that: Millions of years ago, the psychology of relative social ranking, supply and demand and economic loss aversion evolved in the earliest primate traders.

I recommend reading the entire thing, it's not too long.

[CrossLOPER]

This one is about sexual minorities, right? So holding pride parades has the aim of being left alone? To my mind, such public demonstrations carry the message "we are fun, join us".
It's more of a "I wish to cast off darkness and shame, this is who I truly am" sort of thing. It's about being honest about who you are. You finally are able to come out and tell the world what you are and see that there are so many like you and know that you are not alone.

[Gilrandir]

You finally are able to come out and tell the world what you are and see that there are so many like you and know that you are not alone.

Why do you need to tell the world of your sexual mores? Should we expect parades from BDSM or oral sex fans? Or swingers?

[Fragony]

It's more of a "I wish to cast off darkness and shame, this is who I truly am" sort of thing. It's about being honest about who you are. You finally are able to come out and tell the world what you are and see that there are so many like you and know that you are not alone.

Maybe if you live in a country where it is difficult/dangerous to be homosexual. In the Netherlands the gay-pride is more about wearing leather SM-gear and putting flamingo-feathers in your ass. Thankfully it's only a minority that attends it, but that is what you see

As Rory said earlier, most probably want to be left alone

[Greyblades]

Why do you need to tell the world of your sexual mores? Should we expect parades from BDSM or oral sex fans? Or swingers?
You evidently have never been in the mall during july, every summer the pride parades come a knocking like overlubricated clockwork.

Of course it has to be summer else the gimps risk losing thier nipples to frostbite

[Gilrandir]

Maybe if you live in a country where it is difficult/dangerous to be homosexual. In the Netherlands the gay-pride is more about wearing leather SM-gear and putting flamingo-feathers in your ass. Thankfully it's only a minority that attends it, but that is what you see

As Rory said earlier, most probably want to be left alone

I see. The surefire recipe for being left alone is putting flamingo-feathers in your ass.

[Husar]

You evidently have never been in the mall during july, every summer the pride parades come a knocking like overlubricated clockwork.

Of course it has to be summer else the gimps risk losing thier nipples to frostbite

Aren't malls heated in the UK?

[Greyblades]

The london mall is the road between buckingham palace and trafalgar square.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f4/The_Mall_London.jpg/1280px-The_Mall_London.jpg

[Fragony]

I see. The surefire recipe for being left alone is putting flamingo-feathers in your ass.

Not exactly no, that's why I said most probably want to be left alone. They think that one out of ten males is gay or bisexual, there are about 7,5 males in the Netherlands so about. A few thousands go to these prides to stick flamingo-feathers in their ass. Majority of gays must really apreciate these exhibitionists who make a liestyle out of it and really look like the worst stereotype one could make up. I know I forget the lesbians here.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I've finally found a relevant article after I previously didn't know what terms to look for, but here we go:

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jan/13/opinion/op-schermer13



I recommend reading the entire thing, it's not too long.

Seen a number of research pieces with this theme. I teach it in principles of conflict management. It is one of the things that exacerbates conflict to no end. because this emotional response tends to make conflict/no conflict decisions even more irrational.

In some ways this is the "best" argument against 'trickle-down' economics. Too many folks simply get angrier that others' lots in life is improving faster than theirs does even if they are experiencing substantial improvement themselves.

[Shaka_Khan]

In the United States, every ethnicity has been a minority for a long time.

[Husar]

Seen a number of research pieces with this theme. I teach it in principles of conflict management. It is one of the things that exacerbates conflict to no end. because this emotional response tends to make conflict/no conflict decisions even more irrational.

In some ways this is the "best" argument against 'trickle-down' economics. Too many folks simply get angrier that others' lots in life is improving faster than theirs does even if they are experiencing substantial improvement themselves.

Yes and no. I agree that it is important and can be irrational. What I'm not sure about it whether it is entirely irrational behavior.
First of all, I would think the root could be in Darwinism. Every organism could be inherently inclined to try and get an edge over others in order to ensure survival of its own line. The kind of affluence we have today hasn't existed nearly long enough to have any affect on this potentially ages-old genetic predisposition, even if it's not in every organism.

And secondly, one could argue that in today's economy, the wealth accumulated at the top is illogical itself according to the principles as taught by the elites themselves. It is practically impossible for one man to actually earn this wealth through his own work. I'm not aware of any one-man company where the owner is a billionaire. The argument that all the workers agreed to work for their wages and so on usually ignores the price elasticity or whatever elasticity else there is. A worker with a family is far less flexible in choosing a place to work than a billionaire investor who chooses where to invest. There is an inherent power imbalance that can explain seemingly bad choices by poor people via game theory (prisoner dilemma).

Basically two people apply for a job, there are four potential outcomes:
1) Both agree, one gets the job - 50% chance to win, lowest wage since the employer can negotiate
2) You agree, other guy declines - you win, get mediocre wage since you can negotiate a little
3) You decline, other guy agrees - you lose, get nothing, live under bridge, other guy gets low wage
4) both decline - the employer needs to offer more money (good wage) to one of them

Now option 4 would be the logical one to take for job applicants, but chances are that both are afraid of scenario 3 and would rather have a scenario 2 for themselves. This makes them most likely to end up in scenario 1.

A billionaire on the other hand does not risk anything by withholding an investment. If a billionaire refuses to give money to a project that does not seem lucrative enough, he does not have to live under a bridge after two months because he has so much padding that he could live just fine until the end of his life.
This obviously makesa trickle up effect of relative wealth far more likely than any trickle down. At best, "trickle down" delays the poverization of the lower levels of society. And due to rising prices aka inflation, it is not even given that the lower levels of society do see an absolute rise in wealth. Maybe in "things" that are bought with debt...
In the 50s it may have been different, but since then a lot has changed. In the 50s the relative income of a CEO was something like 20 times that of the average employee, nowadays it's 100 times that and more (don't have the exact statistic at hand).

Plus, the system of high wealth differences undermines democracy, since money provides more power and influence in the state and in elections, in the US more so than here. In that sense it is also logical to want to reduce wealth inequality, since democracy becomes oligarchy when 1% of the population gets to decide about 90% of the laws.

I could go on but that shall do for now.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Yes and no. I agree that it is important and can be irrational. What I'm not sure about it whether it is entirely irrational behavior.
First of all, I would think the root could be in Darwinism. Every organism could be inherently inclined to try and get an edge over others in order to ensure survival of its own line. The kind of affluence we have today hasn't existed nearly long enough to have any affect on this potentially ages-old genetic predisposition, even if it's not in every organism.

And secondly, one could argue that in today's economy, the wealth accumulated at the top is illogical itself according to the principles as taught by the elites themselves. It is practically impossible for one man to actually earn this wealth through his own work. I'm not aware of any one-man company where the owner is a billionaire. The argument that all the workers agreed to work for their wages and so on usually ignores the price elasticity or whatever elasticity else there is. A worker with a family is far less flexible in choosing a place to work than a billionaire investor who chooses where to invest. There is an inherent power imbalance that can explain seemingly bad choices by poor people via game theory (prisoner dilemma).

Basically two people apply for a job, there are four potential outcomes:
1) Both agree, one gets the job - 50% chance to win, lowest wage since the employer can negotiate
2) You agree, other guy declines - you win, get mediocre wage since you can negotiate a little
3) You decline, other guy agrees - you lose, get nothing, live under bridge, other guy gets low wage
4) both decline - the employer needs to offer more money (good wage) to one of them

Now option 4 would be the logical one to take for job applicants, but chances are that both are afraid of scenario 3 and would rather have a scenario 2 for themselves. This makes them most likely to end up in scenario 1.

A billionaire on the other hand does not risk anything by withholding an investment. If a billionaire refuses to give money to a project that does not seem lucrative enough, he does not have to live under a bridge after two months because he has so much padding that he could live just fine until the end of his life.
This obviously makesa trickle up effect of relative wealth far more likely than any trickle down. At best, "trickle down" delays the poverization of the lower levels of society. And due to rising prices aka inflation, it is not even given that the lower levels of society do see an absolute rise in wealth. Maybe in "things" that are bought with debt...
In the 50s it may have been different, but since then a lot has changed. In the 50s the relative income of a CEO was something like 20 times that of the average employee, nowadays it's 100 times that and more (don't have the exact statistic at hand).

Plus, the system of high wealth differences undermines democracy, since money provides more power and influence in the state and in elections, in the US more so than here. In that sense it is also logical to want to reduce wealth inequality, since democracy becomes oligarchy when 1% of the population gets to decide about 90% of the laws.

I could go on but that shall do for now.

You are over-simplifying the hiring process with this form of prisoner dilemma. I do acknowledge that fear of being unemployed DOES generate poor offer acceptance decisions in a number of instances. Yet the choice is seldom irrevocable. Things can change and the employer who puts one over on the employee now will probably be incurring turnover costs in the near future. The 'market' does have its corrective functions and the dilemma evaluation is too much of a "snapshot" of one moment in an ongoing process.

Nevertheless, you do remind us that inequalities in wealth can generate threats to democratic stability. Venezuela comes to mind. You are right that the "more equal than others" thing always grinds on those who are 'have nots' by that relative measure.


While I acknowledge these limitations to the capitalist and regulated capitalist socioeconomic systems, efforts to generate equality of outcome have fared even worse then efforts to generate equality of opportunity.


I am not sure what is to be done about it until tech and power advances yield a situation where economics is largely moot because production of goods and services is nearly cost free. And that is a goodly ways off despite the dreams of the 3d fabbers and AI whizzes.

[Husar]

You are over-simplifying the hiring process with this form of prisoner dilemma. I do acknowledge that fear of being unemployed DOES generate poor offer acceptance decisions in a number of instances. Yet the choice is seldom irrevocable. Things can change and the employer who puts one over on the employee now will probably be incurring turnover costs in the near future. The 'market' does have its corrective functions and the dilemma evaluation is too much of a "snapshot" of one moment in an ongoing process.

It was a bit simplified, yes, but it's still basically in effect in quite a lot of branches. Obviously less qualified labor is more affected than specialists. There are companies that fire employees here and then re-hire them through time-sharing comapnies that pay the same employees significantly less. And it works. The turnover costs hardly seem to be an inhibitor. They don't seem very high and they're one-time costs vs long-term savings in wages.
Of course single companies can get problems if they go way further than the rest of their branch, as happened here to Schlecker. There are still plenty of branches where this works, harvest is one of them. They re-hire people every season anyway and the re-hired people have to teach the newbies (plus it's a simple task), so turnover costs are not a concern for them.

The way the market might solve this is automation. Once even the cheapest labor cannot compete with machines anymore, they will just pile up on the unemployment pool. And unless our unhealthy food is a Machiavellian first step to thin the herd more quickly, once the unemployment pool gets really large, these people will need to get money for doing nothing or might revolt. :shrug:


Nevertheless, you do remind us that inequalities in wealth can generate threats to democratic stability. Venezuela comes to mind. You are right that the "more equal than others" thing always grinds on those who are 'have nots' by that relative measure.


While I acknowledge these limitations to the capitalist and regulated capitalist socioeconomic systems, efforts to generate equality of outcome have fared even worse then efforts to generate equality of opportunity.


I am not sure what is to be done about it until tech and power advances yield a situation where economics is largely moot because production of goods and services is nearly cost free. And that is a goodly ways off despite the dreams of the 3d fabbers and AI whizzes.

I don't think equality of outcome is the solution. I'm thinking more in terms of maximum and minimum caps of sorts.
The lower cap would basically mean all the basic needs are provided for, including a bit for entertainment.
The upper cap would basically mean you won life, but don't get greedy now. One may argue that this would stifle growth, but on that one I'm not so sure, since:
a) many people are driven by more than money, there is also purpose, morality, etc.
b) as long as we can't leave the planet, endless growth is the road to hell anyway. ~;)

Now where exactly those caps should be would be a topic for fierce public debate. Too far and it would be indistinguishable from the current situation, too close and all incentive is lost. Of course this would also have to be done taking into account that automatization may soon make a whole lot of jobs superfluous. Perhaps not just the lower ones, e.g. an AI might make more rational business decisions than a human CEO etc....
One potential problem then is that rich people won't really need the poor anymore to produce anything...including weapon systems, food, etc. And that they're perfectly willing to ignore any suffering can be exemplified best by walls for example...
https://theconversation.com/limas-wall-of-shame-and-the-gated-communities-that-build-poverty-into-peru-53356

As for AI being way off, see e.g. this video: https://youtu.be/92tn67YDXg0?t=242
Might be closer than we'd like to think. It's not the most complicated game I guess, but entirely self-taught and not very simple either! Consider the free movement, various other actors and lots and lots of potential actions to perform.

So before the world is entirely controlled by rich folks with flexible moral codes who don't need the rest anymore, perhaps we should make sure that the AI won't kill us all. Wait, that's not what I wanted to wri....the comp.....no!....stop!....... :clown: :sweatdrop:

[Montmorency]

Seen a number of research pieces with this theme. I teach it in principles of conflict management. It is one of the things that exacerbates conflict to no end. because this emotional response tends to make conflict/no conflict decisions even more irrational.

In some ways this is the "best" argument against 'trickle-down' economics. Too many folks simply get angrier that others' lots in life is improving faster than theirs does even if they are experiencing substantial improvement themselves.

Importantly, it's not just that people get angry at "someone" (i.e. anyone) improving their lot faster than themselves; depending on who you are, specific groups receive the brunt of the resentment.


Yes and no. I agree that it is important and can be irrational. What I'm not sure about it whether it is entirely irrational behavior.
First of all, I would think the root could be in Darwinism. Every organism could be inherently inclined to try and get an edge over others in order to ensure survival of its own line. The kind of affluence we have today hasn't existed nearly long enough to have any affect on this potentially ages-old genetic predisposition, even if it's not in every organism.

...

In some sense it may be immoral to maintain disproportionate wealth, separate or not from how wealth is obtained or accumulated. But from there things get tricky: is any billionaire acting immorally if they are not investing their whole wealth into undermining the wealth and power of all other billionaires and their economic system? From an absolutist perspective a wealthy individual giving half their net worth to charity may not be much better than a rapacious individual pillaging small countries and installing dictatorships.

If you end our current framework of money and exchange, then the nature of distribution and wealth also changes, so perhaps there is no longer money to regulate but there's still pure interpersonal power and influence to account for.

Anyway, referencing the "Robot Ibn Saud" thread:


Also consider the following regarding AI:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcdVC4e6EV4

I see this thought experiment is a bad one for "AI", but if you look at it differently it it's just another way of describing our reality of perpetual-growth capitalism. You just have to make the connection to the capitalist maxim of "maximizing revenue":

https://i.imgur.com/sLbPz3T.jpg

[CrossLOPER]

Why do you need to tell the world of your sexual mores? Should we expect parades from BDSM or oral sex fans? Or swingers?
I like how you equate non-traditional orientation with fetishes.


Maybe if you live in a country where it is difficult/dangerous to be homosexual. In the Netherlands the gay-pride is more about wearing leather SM-gear and putting flamingo-feathers in your ass. Thankfully it's only a minority that attends it, but that is what you see

As Rory said earlier, most probably want to be left alone
The local parade last month in Atlanta had a bunch of gay normies walking home from it. I saw one woman cosplaying Wonder Woman and some dude wearing hotpants.

Really, are you going to pick out one "extreme" example of how someone wants to express themselves and use it as a template for everyone else in a particular group? Do you think its limited to these groups? Are you going to tell me that I should think of the children?

Please. Is that gimp mask what is going to cause the downfall of the West?

I also think its somewhat disingenuous to assume that just because a country doesn't publicly behead homosexuals with a .50 cal riveted to a pickup truck, that it makes it somehow "easy" to be gay or trans.

[Fragony]

Meh, minority rule naturally in what used to be Amsterdam, no more black-pete because of a few SJW. You try explaining that black-pete is not a black slave and exists in different forms all over Europe to people of whom half of them don't even know who their father is. (or have a fatherrrrrr)

[Gilrandir]

b) as long as we can't leave the planet...


... and some creatures keep coming from other planets. ~;)


I like how you equate non-traditional orientation with fetishes.


All of those are not traditional, including polygamy, polyandry, paedophilia, zoophilia and so on. But you are missing the point: I was arguing that whatever you do in bed is your own personal business (unless it hurts others). I don't see any reason to be proud of any of the sexual preferences and sport them for others to see.

[Fragony]

^- what he says

[Montmorency]

Meh, minority rule naturally in what used to be Amsterdam, no more black-pete because of a few SJW. You try explaining that black-pete is not a black slave and exists in different forms all over Europe to people of whom half of them don't even know who their father is. (or have a fatherrrrrr)

What's wrong with "Chimney Pete"?


All of those are not traditional, including polygamy, polyandry, paedophilia, zoophilia and so on. But you are missing the point: I was arguing that whatever you do in bed is your own personal business (unless it hurts others). I don't see any reason to be proud of any of the sexual preferences and sport them for others to see.

What if it's not so much the sexual preferences as the community of people and their maintenance of recognition?

[Fragony]

What's wrong with "Chimney Pete"?

Black Pete already is Chimney Pete, that's why he's black

[Husar]

Black Pete already is Chimney Pete, that's why he's black

A simple image search would prove that wrong:

https://thetravelingmogridges.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/zwarte-piet.gif
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LgImCDRE_4Y/U5fypSIYajI/AAAAAAAAEYU/tGzwmw3jKIM/s1600/zwarte-piet.jpg
http://www.doorbraak.eu/blog/wp-content/uploads/Piet.gif
http://www.winkelstickers.nl/media/catalog/product/cache/2/image/800x800/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/v/a/va-00179-bl_2.png
http://www.luchas-promotions.nl/image/cache/data/Zwarte-Piet-Dame-Murcia-Paars-500x500.jpg
http://www.willembikker.nl/wp-content/uploads/evolutievanpiet.jpg

Only Piet Piraat could be a caucasian chimney sweep.

[Fragony]

This isn't exactly new, it's the same each year, it's the first time black-pete was banned altogether though, naturally in the dried up :daisy: that is the city of patronising, Amsterdam

History of Black Pete is very interesting by the way, goes back to pagan times

[Gilrandir]

What if it's not so much the sexual preferences as the community of people and their maintenance of recognition?

The community united by sexual preferences.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...All of those are not traditional, including polygamy, polyandry, paedophilia, zoophilia and so on. But you are missing the point: I was arguing that whatever you do in bed is your own personal business (unless it hurts others). I don't see any reason to be proud of any of the sexual preferences and sport them for others to see.

Actually, everything you named on your "non traditional" list has been part of some "traditional" cultures in divers places and times. Some of them have even been religious requirements for a traditional culture. I think necrophilia may be among the few fetishes that I have never read about being an accepted part of some culture/some when. But as you mean 'traditional' according to the definition accepted in Western Culture from the Victorian era through WW2, within that limitation you are quite correct.

Regarding your comment about "sport them for others to see," the issue is less one of sexual preference than identity. Many of those taking part in pride-parades do so to assert that they 'are who they are' and have a right to be acknowledged as being who they are publicly without recrimination. In the past, too many of those in these minority groups would have been shunned or worse simply for making public a basic aspect of their identity. Call it overcompensation if you wish, but the ability to be yourself and be so acknowledged by others is an important aspect of identity and few basic needs are more important to any of us then is our sense of our own identity.

Those of us who more or less conform to the classic Western tradition simply assume that our identity is acceptable and that we need not even 'declare' who we are because it is the norm. Should someone who does not conform to that tradition really feel the need for public (and sometimes over-the-top) efforts to declare their identity as normal and equal? No, they should not. However, I have never (following high school when I was unformed) had to repress my expression of self identity from fear of harassment and abuse. Any number of those 'pride parade' folks have. So I just roll my eyes a bit at the excesses of a few of them and move on.

[Montmorency]

Black Pete already is Chimney Pete, that's why he's black


This isn't exactly new, it's the same each year, it's the first time black-pete was banned altogether though, naturally in the dried up :daisy: that is the city of patronising, Amsterdam

History of Black Pete is very interesting by the way, goes back to pagan times

So does Black Pete have to be "zwarte" because he visits chimneys, or does he have to be "zwarte" because he is a neger?


The community united by sexual preferences.

Yes.

[Hooahguy]

Just a quick reminder about the language rule, due to the sensitive nature of this discussion.

:bow:

[CrossLOPER]

All of those are not traditional, including polygamy, polyandry, paedophilia, zoophilia and so on.
I wouldn't class child rape and animal abuse in the same group as a group of consenting adults, but when you compound upon this with:


But you are missing the point: I was arguing that whatever you do in bed is your own personal business (unless it hurts others). I don't see any reason to be proud of any of the sexual preferences and sport them for others to see.
As I have posted, repeatedly, those pride parades generally include marginalized groups that were, until fairly recently, deprived of basic rights because "they ain't right". The pride parade allows people to come out into the open and rejoice that things are improving.

I wish you would finally understand this. Just let them have it.

[Fragony]

So does Black Pete have to be "zwarte" because he visits chimneys, or does he have to be "zwarte" because he is a neger?

He's no negroe, that's what SJW's make out of it. It's a completely harmless children party. SJW's need racism like a junkie needs heroin, and there just isn't anything to get out of this. Except in Amsterdam where the leftist church reigns surpreme and the mere suggesion that they might not be 100% OK makes gutmensch fear excommunication so they compete over who has the biggest correct.

CrossLOPER, how would you see yourself, as a gay or as a person? Would it be being gay that defines you or is that just who you are attracted to? Of course they can have it don't get me wrong on that it's perfectly fine with me but they do look like idiots, looking like an idiot makes me see you as an idiot.

[Greyblades]

I do wish they would rejoice without including public nudity, fetish gear, sex toys and an often proximity to children by the aformentioned.

I havent seem much of that in britain but the pictures of canadian rallys are somewhat disturbing.

[Fragony]

I do wish they would rejoice without including public nudity, fetish gear, sex toys and an often proximity to children by the aformentioned.

'normal'gays probably as well

[Gilrandir]

Regarding your comment about "sport them for others to see," the issue is less one of sexual preference than identity.

I pity people whose identity is based solely on sexual preferences.



Many of those taking part in pride-parades do so to assert that they 'are who they are' and have a right to be acknowledged as being who they are publicly without recrimination.


Being a linguist I pay much attention to words. The word "pride" used to name the manifestation of identity is quite telling. For me.


I wouldn't class child rape and animal abuse in the same group as a group of consenting adults


Paedophilia =/= child rape. A child may be willing to engage in sexual intercourse with an adult. The same with animals. Which of course doesn't make either a norm. Although, looking at the attitude to homosexualism which has undergone a pivotal change recently one may never be sure.



The pride parade allows people to come out into the open and rejoice that things are improving.
I wish you would finally understand this. Just let them have it.

Where did you see me expressing a wish to abolish them? Let them have it as long as it doesn't impinge on others. What I argued, repeatedly, is that there is no sense to be proud of your sexual orientation. It is like being proud that you have two ears, square chin, curly hair or that you are a woman or an adult.

[Montmorency]

He's no negroe, that's what SJW's make out of it. It's a completely harmless children party.


The character first appeared in an 1850 book by Amsterdam schoolteacher Jan Schenkman, and is commonly depicted as a blackamoor. Traditionally, Zwarte Piet is said to be black because he is a Moor from Spain

Then there should be no problem replacing the aesthetic with one of simple black markings smeared over the face.


I pity people whose identity is based solely on sexual preferences.

[...]

Where did you see me expressing a wish to abolish them? Let them have it as long as it doesn't impinge on others. What I argued, repeatedly, is that there is no sense to be proud of your sexual orientation. It is like being proud that you have two ears, square chin, curly hair or that you are a woman or an adult.

Have you ever heard of "Black is beautiful"? Pride is beside the point.

[Strike For The South]

Paedophilia =/= child rape. A child may be willing to engage in sexual intercourse with an adult. The same with animals. Which of course doesn't make either a norm. Although, looking at the attitude to homosexualism which has undergone a pivotal change recently one may never be sure.

A child can not consent therefore its rape. S T A T U T O R Y.

I like how this thread is titled "Age of Minorities" like they haven't been here the whole time.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...Paedophilia =/= child rape. A child may be willing to engage in sexual intercourse with an adult. The same with animals. Which of course doesn't make either a norm. Although, looking at the attitude to homosexualism which has undergone a pivotal change recently one may never be sure....

I noted them as fetishes that had been accepted in some traditional cultures or even required as part of religious practice. That was not an endorsement. As Strike noted, it is by our definition rape. In neither of those fetishes can the other participant provide informed consent.

[Fragony]

Then there should be no problem replacing the aesthetic with one of simple black markings smeared over the facet.

It's much older wiki is wrong, the christian version is based on Sint Nikolaas from Turkey. But it goes back much further really, sone think they are the ravens of Wodan, it exists all over Europe, in England it's a fertality rite forbexample. Black markets have a practical problem, Black Pete cannot be recognisable, kids won't believe into Sinterklaas anymore, it's a really nice memory for children. But most of all it's simply not needed to change how black pete looks, it's a beloved tradition that's fine as it is. Certain people cannot be pleased anyway so why bother

[Montmorency]

It's much older wiki is wrong, the christian version is based on Sint Nikolaas from Turkey. But it goes back much further really, sone think they are the ravens of Wodan, it exists all over Europe, in England it's a fertality rite forbexample. Black markets have a practical problem, Black Pete cannot be recognisable, kids won't believe into Sinterklaas anymore, it's a really nice memory for children. But most of all it's simply not needed to change how black pete looks, it's a beloved tradition

Why don't you accept that this tradition has been modified over time - for example in the 1800s - and that it can be modified again while retaining the essence of the character?

[Fragony]

Why don't you accept that this tradition has been modified over time - for example in the 1800s - and that it can be modified again while retaining the essence of the character?

Frankly because it's never enough, I would be more compromising if not so much was demanded from me, never asked, I can't do any good anyway to these people, I am a racist to them anyway. If they go as far as trying to ruin a perfectly innocent children's party well what to say. And it doesn't stay just to complaining, shopkeepers get deaththreats, stuff is vandalised, they scream to children that sinterklaas doesn't exist, etc. Each year there is a new low, all small things but small things add up. I got nice memories of Sinterklaas, can I please have these without all that negativity. As if kids think about all these things.

[CrossLOPER]

how would you see yourself, as a gay or as a person?
If I were homosexual, I would see myself as, among other things, a gay person.


I like how this thread is titled "Age of Minorities" like they haven't been here the whole time.
They're getting uppity. /src

[Montmorency]

Frankly because it's never enough, I would be more compromising if not so much was demanded from me, never asked, I can't do any good anyway to these people, I am a racist to them anyway. If they go as far as trying to ruin a perfectly innocent children's party well what to say. And it doesn't stay just to complaining, shopkeepers get deaththreats, stuff is vandalised, they scream to children that sinterklaas doesn't exist, etc. Each year there is a new low, all small things but small things add up. I got nice memories of Sinterklaas, can I please have these without all that negativity. As if kids think about all these things.

stigginit

[Fragony]

que

[Husar]

And it doesn't stay just to complaining, shopkeepers get deaththreats, stuff is vandalised, they scream to children that sinterklaas doesn't exist, etc.

Even though I think there might be some racism in that tradition, that sort of behavior isn't justified by that in the slightest.

[Fragony]

Even though I think there might be some racism in that tradition, that sort of behavior isn't justified by that in the slightest.

Well it works so they do it, they should have just ignored them from the start. There really isn't by the way, it's like calling fairies or oompa-loompa's racist, it's rediculous.

[Gilrandir]

Have you ever heard of "Black is beautiful"?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_is_beautiful
It aims to dispel the notion in many cultures that black people's natural features such as skin color, facial features and hair are inherently ugly.

Isn't it about about beauty?



Pride is beside the point.

Then tell them to change the name of their parade. So far anyone can read it as "I am gay and proud of it".


A child can not consent therefore its rape. S T A T U T O R Y.

Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children.
from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

Do tell me where any rape is mentioned.



I like how this thread is titled "Age of Minorities" like they haven't been here the whole time.

Propably a more proper title should have been "the Age of Minority Domination". You can ask the admins to change it if it bothers you that much.

[CrossLOPER]

Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children.
from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

Do tell me where any rape is mentioned.
In the police report.



Propably a more proper title should have been "the Age of Minority Domination". You can ask the admins to change it if it bothers you that much.
Yeah. Those gays run everything. Literally everything. Your browser is run on rainbows.

[Fragony]

Poor Amsterdam gutmensch, you meant so well by banning black-pete, as predicted it isn't enough.

Let's make a quiz out of it, https://images.gscdn.nl/image/b30126fc7f_ANP-54084405.jpg?w=593& <- the new pete

finish the sentence

This is racist because [fill in here]

you can't? I know the answer but why spoil it

Since a gutmensch shivvers at the thought of not being 100% OK they are now talking about banning Sinterklaas completily, there already is international-children's day so why not

[Gilrandir]

In the police report.

Once again: I was talking about paedophilia, not about child rape. As the definition shows, the latter doesn't equal the former.



Yeah. Those gays run everything. Literally everything. Your browser is run on rainbows.

If you were attentive, you could have seen in the OP of the thread called "the Age of Minorities" that sexual minorities were mentioned under # 2 in the list consisting of 8 points. I suggested an alternative title for it having in mind all of them. If you want to single sexual minorities out have it your way. My aim is to hear people's opinions about the article mentioning all of them.

[Fragony]

Over here we call someone has has sex with a child a pedosexual, until 17 (age of consent) it's always considered rape by law (although that's not always in practise, a young adult with an underage partner won't get any trouble). Pedophilae is absolutily not rape as you say it's just being attracted to children. A lot of pedophiles become pedosexuals but that's for a different discussion

[Montmorency]

Oh yeah, now I remember. For some reason, this is difficult to find on the Web.

Wendell Willkie, The Case for the Minorities (1942):

https://i.imgur.com/HgcjQKn.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/DDwQIbn.jpg

[Fragony]

On Black Pete, pleased to see that Black Pete was still black everywhere, except naturally Amsterdam but Amsterdam should go Catalonia on us anyway and just go away, nobody will miss it. Whiners went a bit too far it seems, everybody is kinda couldyoupleaseshutupalready. Things have become much more grim than they should have been though