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?

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...?

[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?

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-40.../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...t-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.

[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.

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.

[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.

Nature/Nurture what?

[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.../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.