|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The social-progressive mindset
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
OK, so black people thinking all white people share a trait is simply prejudice? But most prejudices are based on something. That one would be based on race. If only there were a shorthand for prejudice based on race...
ETA:We are likely giving the social-regressives much pleasure with the internecine argument.
Which black people think that white people share a trait?
A black person whose only option is to go to a shitty school, has few options for employment and runs the risk of incarceration for crimes that white people are not even prosecuted for might well think that the white-dominated system conspires against them and that white people typically don't care.
That's not racism, that's the truth.
An British Asian person might think that the white privileged Establishment seems content to see their relatives as doctors and pharmacists - but that there is a veneer of acceptance and it doesn't take an awful lot (*cough* Brexit) before they're being bundled into planes and "sent home". They might well believe that white people generally don't care very much for them and would rather they left the country.
That's not racism either - and if it isn't true, then it sometimes sounds like it.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Which black people think that white people share a trait?
Do you want names or are you implying all black people think the same way?
There is not a universal black narrative. Save oppression, and even then, not all black people view it the same way.
Thinking white people, as a group, oppress black people is not racism; no. It is just observation. Thinking whiteness causes this, is. We are all capable of the same good and the same bad. The difference is we don't all have the same opportunity.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Do you want names or are you implying all black people think the same way?
There is not a universal black narrative. Save oppression, and even then, not all black people view it the same way.
Absolutely agreed that people in a large group have a variety of ideas. And that there isn't a single black narrative.
So show me the (any) black narrative that maintains there is some trait to believe about white people that isn't based on anything. Show me the black people who are the equivalent of the alt-right, believing bollocks about white people for no other reason than that they're the "master race". Show me the groups of black people who are menacing white people with their bloid-curdling cries of white-hatred from their marches under flags of white-oppression.
Because I don't think it happens. Maybe someone somewhere thinks that black people are a master race and that white people are inferior and should therefore be spoken about with distain and treated like shit. But such a person is so rare as to be totally insignificant compared to the mountain of truly racist shit coming the other way.
quote:
Thinking white people, as a group, oppress black people is not racism; no. It is just observation. Thinking whiteness causes this, is. We are all capable of the same good and the same bad. The difference is we don't all have the same opportunity.
If whiteness totally overlaps the oppression, then it is hardly a leap to think that whiteness is the oppressor.
Moreover it is down to white people to show that whiteness does not equal oppression.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
Racism is a word tainted by its history. Maybe the more general "prejudice" doesn't carry the same baggage? A prejudice is "a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience". People of all ethnicities, social status, nationalities, cultures, may demonstrate prejudice.
I agree lilBuddha observation that "we are likely giving the social-regressives much pleasure with the internecine argument."
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
I was thinking of two statements.
"My experience is that all the white folks I've met look down on me".
"All white folks look down on us" (whichever group "us" is.)
The first statement isn't prejudiced. The second is.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
mr cheesy;
I am not presenting you with the links to prove you wrong, I have reached my tolerance for reading hate today.
A quick perusal of the Nation of Islam's history will show you the error in your thinking.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I agree lilBuddha observation that "we are likely giving the social-regressives much pleasure with the internecine argument."
All too true but isn’t it a virtue to argue rather than to accept some tired dogma which is a characteristic of the social-regressives.
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
I really missed the boat on this thread. Can someone do me an executive summary? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If it's wrong to treat antagonism directed at worse off or minority ethnic groups more seriously than antagonism directed at random members of the public, then it's wrong to treat maximising one's profit where one has a monopoly as more serious than maximising one's profit where there is no monopoly.
The intention to increase one's income is not of itself evil. Where abuse of monopoly power does take place, it is the act rather than the intent that is wrong.
I assume it's because you're bothered about linguistic precision that you treat 'maximising profit' and 'increasing one's income' as equivalent? On the attempt to distinguish intention and action see later.
There isn't a special act of abusing monopoly power. It's just the predictable consequence of income increasing actions if other people aren't in a position to do the same as you.
quote:
quote:
If you refuse to use shops with staff from an ethnic minority you're working towards granting people not from that ethnic minority a monopoly on those jobs
If by "working towards" you denote intent - someone who is aiming at securing unemployment for a minority they dislike - then I'd say that's wrongful intent, acting from hatred.
What makes the intent wrong if it's not an intention to perform immoral actions? The only way an intention could be wrong if it's not an intention to perform a morally wrong action is if it's an intention to bring about morally wrong consequences. So do you think consequences can be morally wrong?
quote:
But if you just mean that such unemployment is a predictable consequence if everyone shares your dislike, then that doesn't make acting on your preference wrong.
The preference here is that people from a minority group are not employed in any business that you might otherwise want to frequent. That preference is morally wrong already. If people are unemployed as a result that's not an unintended consequence. That is what the preference is for.
quote:
If you don't like strawberry yogurt, there's no moral imperative to buy some anyway on the basis that if everyone shared your preference then the strawberry growers would be out of business.
I'm tempted just to quote this analogy without comment. It almost condemns itself.
Shall we list some of the disanalogies?
Disliking strawberry yogurt is not morally comparable to disliking people.
Disliking strawberry yogurt does not normally lead people to withdraw their business from shops that sell it.
If the demand for strawberries drops strawberry farmers can cut the supply of strawberries to match by diversifying into other areas.
People who are members of an ethnic group cannot diversify into being members of another group.
Also you have not addressed the application of the point, namely that boycotting businesses that employ members of ethnic groups sets up monopolies. And is therefore wrong on those grounds above and beyond its wrongness on other grounds.
quote:
quote:
a belief or act that is racist in one of those senses is frequently racist in more than one of those senses.
That may be true. It could be the case, for example, that many people who discriminate do so out of hatred. So what ? Many Xs are Y doesn't justify treating all Xs as Y. That would be prejudice...
So? Using the same word to cover two linked phenomena is not treating them as identical in all respects. Saying that wanting to commit murder and actually committing murder are both morally wrong doesn't mean that you're treating all people who want to commit murder as actual murderers.
It just says that there is at least one useful purpose to covering them with the same label.
quote:
quote:
Another comes if you start arguing that if sense A doesn't acquire any moral wrongness from sense B, then sense A must be innocuous.
Either sense A is inherently wrong or it isn't. It can't become morally dubious just because people who can't be bothered to use language precisely have a catch-all word for "race-related stuff we disapprove of"
I'm not sure you're in a position to complain about people not bothering to use language precisely.
Do you mean 'disapprove of' in your sense where it's essentially amoral and arbitrary like disliking yoghurt, or in the ordinary English sense where 'disapprove of' implies a judgement based on a normative principle?
In any case, you appear to be putting forward the case that if hatred is morally wrong, and discriminating against a certain race based on hatred is morally wrong, then discriminating against a certain race for other reasons is not morally wrong.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I agree lilBuddha observation that "we are likely giving the social-regressives much pleasure with the internecine argument."
All too true but isn’t it a virtue to argue rather than to accept some tired dogma which is a characteristic of the social-regressives.
Neither are we the monolithic bloc that Russ portrayed progressives as.
Of course we're going to disagree on a detail of nuanced issues, even while we agree on the main thrust of the argument.
In this case, racism is bad. Something that Russ appears to have enormous difficulty in accepting.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I really missed the boat on this thread. Can someone do me an executive summary?
I walked out halfway through. Save yourself the effort. 1 star.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I really missed the boat on this thread. Can someone do me an executive summary?
I walked out halfway through. Save yourself the effort. 1 star.
Executive summary (in skit form):
Russ: {Smoking Irish pipe.} Liberals baaaaddd. Trying to make everyone the same. Each person has right to decide who they like/dislike, and act accordingly, as long as they're not excessively mean about it.
Most everyone else: {Squeezing hankies, and getting antacids by IV.} We're trying to take people seriously, and not hurt them. Treating people badly on basis of their race not good.
Russ: You're lying hypocrites, and are making the world a worse place.
Most everyone else: Open your eyes, dude!
{Repeat ad infinitum, with periodic breaks for sleep, food, and refilling light vitriol tanks.
The animated cleaning lady from the end of Carol Burnett's comedy series enters the lounge for this thread; shakes head; opens window for fresh air; gathers all trash into a bag; vacuums; sprays everything with eco-friendly disinfectant; restocks everything; puts boxes of antacid tablets under the couch cushions to nudge the people to eventually get up.
She clocks out, and goes to get ice cream.}
[ 23. February 2018, 04:12: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If a group of black men attack a random white man while yelling "kill the honky" then I would submit that that is just as much a racist offence as a group of white men attacking a random black man while yelling "kill the nigger".
I'll agree that it is just as racist, but not that it is the equivalent of the reverse.
And it is problematic in that is an extreme argument used to justify ignoring the more pervasive effects of majority racism.
I have been at pains to state that majority racism is more pervasive and damaging to society. That's not even a moot point, it's a straight-up fact.
But I draw the line at saying there is no such thing as minority racism, and/or that it is impossible for non-whites to be racist.
If I'm in an accident and end up with compound fractures to both legs and a broken little finger then I will have no problem with the doctors focusing virtually all of their effort on fixing the legs - they are clearly the most pressing concern by an order of magnitude or two. But I'd still want them to fix my finger as well, rather than claiming there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But I draw the line at saying there is no such thing as minority racism, and/or that it is impossible for non-whites to be racist.
I do not disagree. I’ve said multiple times on this thread that anyone can be racist.
What I was saying in the last post is that they are not equivilant in effect.
And that people use “Everyone is racist” to avoid fixing the problems of majority racism.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I do not disagree.
We agree. It just bothers me (rather more than it should) that cheesy doesn't.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
quote:
Barnabus62:Racism is a word tainted by its history.
Doh!!
How could it have been otherwise?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by lilBuddha:
[qb]majority racism is more pervasive and damaging to society.
Pervasive as a result of the larger numbers of the majority population, yes.
Do you think "damage to society" has a reality outside of anyone's political ideas of the sort of society they want to see ? Can you define it in a way that doesn't assume that your political notions (whatever they may be) are correct ? Is there anything there that you think we should all - from extreme left to extreme right, from authoritatian to libertarian - be able to agree is factually true ?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Your logic is even less solid than your coding.
Outside of any ideology, even the convoluted, contradictory and nonsensical one you appear to espouse, one direction obviously does more harm than the other.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
These radical changes of policy had ideological consequences requiring comrades to perform mental gymnastics in order to defend the “party line,” i.e. to know what was “politically correct”. To the democratic mind this was the negation of principled approaches to social and political questions because they had been subordinated to the short-term convenience of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union...
...The validity of any proposition was the function not of reason and empiricism but of partisan fiat and a denial of the democratic intellect.
To describe anti-racism as an example of political correctness is to suggest that such an attitude is essentially unprincipled, being no more than a top-of-the-head assertion by powerful arbiters of taste whose position could be changed on a whim were it convenient to them. In other words, anti-racism and racism are of equal expendable value.
You're right about the origin.
But I'd suggest that current usage focuses on the element of toeing the party line, of reaching the conclusion that is agreeable to one's party - the politically like-minded -based on a desire for peer approval rather than principle and logic.
Not about the element of arbitrariness that was as you say present in the original context.
Maintaining the position that "racism is wrong whatever racism is" would seem to qualify.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Maintaining the position that "racism is wrong whatever racism is" would seem to qualify.
Does it really. Well I never. What an amazing insight.
Some say racism is like bone-headed stupidity; sometimes hard to define, but you know it when you see it.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
quote:
Russ: But I'd suggest that current usage focuses on the element of toeing the party line, of reaching the conclusion that is agreeable to one's party - the politically like-minded -based on a desire for peer approval rather than principle and logic.
Maintaining the position that "racism is wrong whatever racism is" would seem to qualify.
ISTM that so wide is the acceptance that racism is a bad thing amongst political elites, that the only parties which need to have a ‘party line’ on the question are those which are avowedly racist. Mainstream conservative parties on the centre-right, for example, eschew racism and are often multi-ethnic in membership. Consequently, attitudes to racism do not relate easily to a discussion on political correctness and its relationship to social progressivism.
Might I suggest that a more fruitful area to discuss is the struggle between different strands of feminism for control of right-thinking on the issue, and especially its orientation towards trans-gendered individuals. The vilification of Germaine Greer and attempts to deny her a platform is a particular example of political correctness because it seeks to impose a ‘party’ line against the expression of her position by those seeking power to dictate the agenda. What is a social progressive wishing to be a supporter of feminism supposed to think to remain in the vanguard?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I really missed the boat on this thread. Can someone do me an executive summary?
Executive summary (in skit form):
Russ: Liberals baaaaddd...
Most everyone else: Open your eyes, dude!
Yes and No.
No - insofar as it's possible to distinguish liberal from progressive, and economic from social, it's specifically about "social progressive". And wrong rather than bad.
Yes - I do seem to be largely alone. And having started out to understand this mindset, the general response has been "it's just obviously right and good - open your eyes". Rather than any clear statement of doctrine.
And this reinforces my suspicion that there isn't any core belief. That it's about "reverse prejudice" mistakenly conceived as a moral duty.
But one of the by-ways of the conversation may yet cast some light...
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by lilBuddha:
[qb]majority racism is more pervasive and damaging to society.
Pervasive as a result of the larger numbers of the majority population, yes.
Do you think "damage to society" has a reality outside of anyone's political ideas of the sort of society they want to see ? Can you define it in a way that doesn't assume that your political notions (whatever they may be) are correct ?
Er - how about black people not being able to find work or accommodation because of the attitudes of a white majority? Or is the idea that people shouldn't have to live in poverty because of the irrational prejudice of others merely a "political notion"? It's the fucking bleedin' obvious to me.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Yes - I do seem to be largely alone. And having started out to understand this mindset, the general response has been "it's just obviously right and good - open your eyes". Rather than any clear statement of doctrine.
People who are different should not be disadvantaged - and those who are historically disadvantaged should be given help. I think it is pretty clear.
Any lack of clarity is entirely due to you telling people that they believe things that they don't, dodging direct questions and generally waffling.
quote:
And this reinforces my suspicion that there isn't any core belief. That it's about "reverse prejudice" mistakenly conceived as a moral duty.
Eh?! You're telling me that I don't feel a moral duty to ensure that people who are different are not disadvantaged and that I don't believe it is a moral duty to help those who have experienced historic disadvantage.
This is news to me.
Please tell me more about this mistaken reverse prejudice that I'm supposed to be actually doing it for - because you appear to be very close to suggesting that what I say I believe is all lies and I'm just doing it for some kind of advantage and/or to fit into a group of like-minded people.
quote:
But one of the by-ways of the conversation may yet cast some light...
Those who find light tend to be those who are looking for it in the first place.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Might I suggest that a more fruitful area to discuss is the struggle between different strands of feminism for control of right-thinking on the issue, and especially its orientation towards trans-gendered individuals. The vilification of Germaine Greer and attempts to deny her a platform is a particular example of political correctness because it seeks to impose a ‘party’ line against the expression of her position by those seeking power to dictate the agenda. What is a social progressive wishing to be a supporter of feminism supposed to think to remain in the vanguard?
You are saying accepting an historically misunderstood and poorly treated group who cannot help being who they are is political correctness, not merely common decency?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
There isn't a special act of abusing monopoly power. It's just the predictable consequence of income increasing actions if other people aren't in a position to do the same as you...
...you have not addressed the application of the point, namely that boycotting businesses that employ members of ethnic groups sets up monopolies. And is therefore wrong on those grounds
OK, you want me to respond regarding monopolies.
First, you know that the act of setting up a monopoly is not wrong. (You might approve of a government nationalising an industry, thereby creating a monopoly...) But creating a monopoly for the purpose of abusing monopoly power is an example of wrong intention.
Second, consider as an example an industry where two companies between them have a near-100% market share. If they collude to both raise prices by the same amount, for the purpose of increasing their profits, that's abuse of monopoly power. But if they both independently raise prices by the same amount (e.g. in response to a rise in the price of raw materials) then it isn't. The intent is the same - to increase profit. The consequences are the same. But one is this particular wrong and the other isn't.
It's the difference between acting together and acting individually. Considered together, they have a monopoly. They act as a monopoly only if they act together.
So, by analogy, if all the majority-ethnicity people in a town get together and collectively decide to boycott a minority-ethnicity business, then yes that's an abuse of monopoly power.
If one majority-ethnic person individually indulges his or her irrational dislike by declining to patronise the same minority-ethnicity business, then that is not an abuse of monopoly power. Even if everyone else is doing the same. Because there's no collusion. They're not acting together and it is only together that they have monopoly power.
(It may of course still be wrong by wrong intention if it is done from hatred, with the intent of causing the other to suffer).
We keep coming back to people as individuals versus people as members of groups...
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Might I suggest that a more fruitful area to discuss is the struggle between different strands of feminism for control of right-thinking on the issue, and especially its orientation towards trans-gendered individuals. The vilification of Germaine Greer and attempts to deny her a platform is a particular example of political correctness because it seeks to impose a ‘party’ line against the expression of her position by those seeking power to dictate the agenda. What is a social progressive wishing to be a supporter of feminism supposed to think to remain in the vanguard?
lilBuddha: You are saying accepting an historically misunderstood and poorly treated group who cannot help being who they are is political correctness, not merely common decency?
With all due respect, lilBuddha, I find it difficult to see how you could possibly come to that conclusion on the basis of my remarks. Where in what I have said have I shown the slightest disrespect to trans-gendered individuals?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
You're telling me that I don't feel a moral duty to ensure that people who are different are not disadvantaged and that I don't believe it is a moral duty to help those who have experienced historic disadvantage.
This is news to me.
Please tell me more about this mistaken reverse prejudice that I'm supposed to be actually doing it for - because you appear to be very close to suggesting that what I say I believe is all lies and I'm just doing it for some kind of advantage and/or to fit into a group of like-minded people.
I wouldn't dream of saying you're lying.
I'm suggesting that you feel sympathy for those who differ from the majority (or are members of groups which have suffered historic disadvantage) in ways to which you attach political significance.
And that there's nothing wrong with feeling that.
But that, rather than you personally acting on your sympathies and allowing others to act on theirs, you (mistakenly in my view) think that there is a moral duty on everybody to favourably pre-judge people who have those particular differences or are affected by those particular historic disadvantages.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
First, you know that the act of setting up a monopoly is not wrong. (You might approve of a government nationalising an industry, thereby creating a monopoly...) But creating a monopoly for the purpose of abusing monopoly power is an example of wrong intention.....
Actually, no, I don't know that setting up a monopoly is not wrong, and I think it is a category error to call government a monopoly.
A monopoly is one, a cartel is a group, and they are by definition private enterprises controlling a market for private profit. There's no such thing as an acceptable maximum profit from a monopoly, beyond which it becomes "abuse". Your attempt to draw a distinction between a morally neutral monopoly and a monopoly that abuses its power is nonsensical. The point of a monopoly is always to "abuse" the power as much as possible to earn as much money as possible until they get caught.
Conversely, a government service or enterprise is established for the public good and any profits realized belong to the state and its citizens. "Monopoly" is often misapplied to government enterprises by those who want to privatise parts of government - but only the parts they like - and operate them at a profit.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Might I suggest that a more fruitful area to discuss is the struggle between different strands of feminism for control of right-thinking on the issue, and especially its orientation towards trans-gendered individuals. The vilification of Germaine Greer and attempts to deny her a platform is a particular example of political correctness because it seeks to impose a ‘party’ line against the expression of her position by those seeking power to dictate the agenda. What is a social progressive wishing to be a supporter of feminism supposed to think to remain in the vanguard?
lilBuddha: You are saying accepting an historically misunderstood and poorly treated group who cannot help being who they are is political correctness, not merely common decency?
With all due respect, lilBuddha, I find it difficult to see how you could possibly come to that conclusion on the basis of my remarks. Where in what I have said have I shown the slightest disrespect to trans-gendered individuals?
It is your choice of words that has me question your meaning.
"vilification" "party-line" "deny" are fairly loaded words.
And what feminist party-line anyway? Feminism has always included a load of non-accepting people. It is better now, but hardly homogeneous.
Greer is rightly challenged for her position. It is antiqued and flies against the science.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I wouldn't dream of saying you're lying.
I'm suggesting that you feel sympathy for those who differ from the majority (or are members of groups which have suffered historic disadvantage) in ways to which you attach political significance.
And that there's nothing wrong with feeling that.
But that, rather than you personally acting on your sympathies and allowing others to act on theirs, you (mistakenly in my view) think that there is a moral duty on everybody to favourably pre-judge people who have those particular differences or are affected by those particular historic disadvantages.
I see. So basically you are telling me that racism is just a feeling and that thinking it is bad is just another idea and that I really shouldn't worry my (intellectually deficient) mind about it.
Fuck you.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
And having started out to understand this mindset, the general response has been "it's just obviously right and good - open your eyes". Rather than any clear statement of doctrine.
We've done why it's a category error to expect a clear statement of 'social-progressive doctrine' (*). Do you take in anything that doesn't confirm your opinion?
(*) Because 'social-progressives' are a coalition. Just as libertarians are a coalition. One libertarian may be a utilitarian who thinks that libertarian politics because it boosts market efficiency is utilitarian optimal. Another libertarian would say that people have absolute universal and universal political rights, but the choice of what kind of society to build is morality, which they think is subjective, and they think nobody has the right to impose their subjective morality upon another. The two libertarians each have a doctrine, but neither would accept the other's doctrine. They just have a shared political view.
[ 25. February 2018, 17:49: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Second, consider as an example an industry where two companies between them have a near-100% market share. If they collude to both raise prices by the same amount, for the purpose of increasing their profits, that's abuse of monopoly power. But if they both independently raise prices by the same amount (e.g. in response to a rise in the price of raw materials) then it isn't. The intent is the same - to increase profit. The consequences are the same. But one is this particular wrong and the other isn't.
So what you're saying is that an innocent intention can become wrong purely because the agent co-operates with somebody else to bring it about. That something can be innocent to do each individually but yet wrong to do together.
Come off it.
It's not only clearly erroneous in itself; it's inconsistent with your stated principles that something is wrong if and only if it breaches rights or a promise(*). As you acknowledge by calling it a 'particular wrong', that is a wrong that you can't justify as an instance of what you recognise as general wrongs.
quote:
It's the difference between acting together and acting individually. Considered together, they have a monopoly. They act as a monopoly only if they act together.
It's still bollocks if you think it makes a moral difference.
quote:
So, by analogy, if all the majority-ethnicity people in a town get together and collectively decide to boycott a minority-ethnicity business, then yes that's an abuse of monopoly power.
If one majority-ethnic person individually indulges his or her irrational dislike by declining to patronise the same minority-ethnicity business, then that is not an abuse of monopoly power. Even if everyone else is doing the same. Because there's no collusion. They're not acting together and it is only together that they have monopoly power.
So: as long as they pretend to each other that's not what they're doing it's fine, but as soon as one of them spills the beans they're all morally guilty.
No, this just gets even more implausible the more you talk it up.
(*) You also claim to recognise that something can be wrong by reason of the wrongness of the intention alone even if it doesn't violate rights. E.g. the intention to make someone else suffer is morally wrong. This as I have said is inconsistent with your other positions. You don't think 'damage to society' has any reality beyond people's moral ideas of what society should be. But if the wrongness of suffering is merely in your ideas, then it the intention to bring it about can have no more wrongness than the intention to bring about anything else someone might consider damage to society.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
So basically you are telling me that racism is just a feeling and that thinking it is bad is just another idea
No. I'm telling you that the word "racism" means different things to different people, and if you could just summon up the intellectual honesty to pick one meaning and stick to it, you might even find that I agree with you that it's bad. Depending on which meaning you choose...
quote:
and that I really shouldn't worry my (intellectually deficient) mind about it.
Your words, not mine. If the words you put into my mouth upset you, not much I can do about it.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
So what you're saying is that an innocent intention can become wrong purely because the agent co-operates with somebody else to bring it about. That something can be innocent to do each individually but yet wrong to do together.
Come off it.
Which half do you deny ? That there's a moral issue with a profit-seeking monopoly ? Or that people are acting monopolistically when they all collude but not when they act independently ?
What's your alternative ? The notion that there's a "just price" for every good or service ?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/ quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Fuck you.
Your blatant C4 breach is noted and flagged to admins.
/hosting
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I'm telling you that the word "racism" means different things to different people, and if you could just summon up the intellectual honesty to pick one meaning and stick to it
If you could just summon up the intellectual honesty to admit that dictionaries have three different definitions...
To move things on slightly, anti-Semitism is often based on the fear that Jews are superior to other races - better at making money, better at running businesses, better at a global conspiracy which puts them in charge. I understand that a significant amount of racism directed at Japanese/Chinese/Koreans in the USA is also based on their supposed superiority at business and academic pursuits.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
hosting/ quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Fuck you.
Your blatant C4 breach is noted and flagged to admins.
/hosting
mr cheesy,
Normally, given your history of living just inside the border of acceptable behaviour regarding personal attacks, such a blatant personal attack would have earnt you a suspension.
However, that would make you (almost certainly) the last person we'd suspend before the relaunch of the boards. You don't deserve that honour. Count yourself lucky this time.
Alan
Ship of Fools Admin
[ 25. February 2018, 21:40: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If one majority-ethnic person individually indulges his or her irrational dislike by declining to patronise the same minority-ethnicity business, then that is not an abuse of monopoly power. Even if everyone else is doing the same. Because there's no collusion. They're not acting together and it is only together that they have monopoly power.
Once again, we see that under all the bluster you clearly have no problem whatsoever with individuals having - and indulging - an "irrational dislike" of other races.
quote:
(It may of course still be wrong by wrong intention if it is done from hatred, with the intent of causing the other to suffer).
"May"??? Even with the qualifications of it being done from hatred, with the intent to make the other person suffer - even then, racism only "may" be wrong?
Wow. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If one majority-ethnic person individually indulges his or her irrational dislike by declining to patronise the same minority-ethnicity business, then that is not an abuse of monopoly power. Even if everyone else is doing the same. Because there's no collusion. They're not acting together and it is only together that they have monopoly power.
Once again, we see that under all the bluster you clearly have no problem whatsoever with individuals having - and indulging - an "irrational dislike" of other races.
quote:
(It may of course still be wrong by wrong intention if it is done from hatred, with the intent of causing the other to suffer).
"May"??? Even with the qualifications of it being done from hatred, with the intent to make the other person suffer - even then, racism only "may" be wrong?
Wow.
We should't be surprised at anything Russ comes out with. He is acting as an apologist for racism pure and simple and should stop trying to deceive himself that he is doing anything else.
That's the great thing with self-deception. Once you can do that successfully there are no limits to evil.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
Sioni Sais
I think your post moves too far away from comment on posts and too close to personal criticism of character (i.e C3/C4 category.)
Have a care, Shipmate. Even in these Last Days.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
[ 26. February 2018, 11:31: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
My apologies to hosts, admins and Russ. Can I plead posting without due care and attention?
It was one of those I should not have posted, and the absence of foul and abusive language makes no difference at all.
Sorry
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
So what you're saying is that an innocent intention can become wrong purely because the agent co-operates with somebody else to bring it about. That something can be innocent to do each individually but yet wrong to do together.
Come off it.
Which half do you deny ? That there's a moral issue with a profit-seeking monopoly ? Or that people are acting monopolistically when they all collude but not when they act independently ?
What's your alternative ? The notion that there's a "just price" for every good or service ?
This comes over as, 'monopolies are wrong; we don't know why.'
I am denying that an innocent intention can become wrong solely because the agent co-operates with somebody else to bring it about.
What's wrong with the abuse of monopoly power is that it's an abuse of power: one party to a transaction has a greater ability to set the terms of the transaction.
I don't think that's consistent with the rest of your position. But then I don't think any explanation of the wrongness of monopolies is consistent with your position.
For example, you can't say that competition benefits the economy or society and therefore monopolies harm society because you don't think 'it harms society' is an objective reason.
But whatever explanation you try to come up with, claiming that it's because co-operation can be intrinsically morally wrong is grasping at straws.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I am denying that an innocent intention can become wrong solely because the agent co-operates with somebody else to bring it about.
What's wrong with the abuse of monopoly power is that it's an abuse of power: one party to a transaction has a greater ability to set the terms of the transaction.
I've said it's not a wrong of bad intention. The wrong is in the means not the end. The wrongful means being colluding - deploying the monopoly power of people acting together.
Which follows logically from your premise. A cartel has monopoly power - the power to dictate the terms of the transaction - in a way that independently-acting individuals don't.
quote:
I don't think that's consistent with the rest of your position. But then I don't think any explanation of the wrongness of monopolies is consistent with your position.
I think the wrongness of monopolies is related to coercion. And it's because I see a wrong in coercion that I tend to favour people's right to choose freely, so long as what they choose falls short of wronging others.
quote:
For example, you can't say that competition benefits the economy...
I can, and occasionally do, but that's an economic proposition.
quote:
...or society and therefore monopolies harm society because you don't think 'it harms society' is an objective reason.
As I thought I'd said to Marvin, my objection to people claiming that something "damages society" is a perception that they fail to distinguish a damaged society from one that functions successfully in a manner that they're politically opposed to. Given a little more rigour of definition, I might conceivably conclude that the concept has merit.
quote:
But whatever explanation you try to come up with, claiming that it's because co-operation can be intrinsically morally wrong is grasping at straws.
So we move from idolising victimhood to idolising co-operation. Who'd have thought it ? Seems obvious to me that co-operation for the purpose of coercing others can be wrong...
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I tend to favour people's right to choose freely, so long as what they choose falls short of wronging others.
I note once again that you do not appear to consider discriminating against someone on the basis of their skin colour as wronging them.
Can you confirm or deny that observation, or will you just ignore it again?
quote:
As I thought I'd said to Marvin, my objection to people claiming that something "damages society" is a perception that they fail to distinguish a damaged society from one that functions successfully in a manner that they're politically opposed to. Given a little more rigour of definition, I might conceivably conclude that the concept has merit.
A "damaged society" is one where people hate each other for looking different. Where an individual's pursuit of life, liberty and happiness is made considerably harder if the melanin content of their skin is too high. Where someone's chances of being killed or jailed by the authorities is dependent not just on what they've done, but on what they look like.
Racism - individual OR collective - damages society because it encourages inequality and division. These in turn foster resentment, then anger, then violence. A society that turns a blind eye to racism as you advocate is a less safe society, a less prosperous society, and thus a damaged society.
Ultimately, we're suggesting that for a society to not be broken, it must serve the needs of ALL its members. I get the distinct feeling that from your perspective, as long as it serves YOUR needs you don't care who else gets screwed over in the process. That's the only way I can conceive of being able to suggest that a society that turns a blind eye to racism can nevertheless be successful.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
But then I don't think any explanation of the wrongness of monopolies is consistent with your position.
I think the wrongness of monopolies is related to coercion. And it's because I see a wrong in coercion that I tend to favour people's right to choose freely, so long as what they choose falls short of wronging others.
I would probably agree with that - although I'm not sure that calling it 'coercion' is using language precisely. It's not coercion in the sense of threatening someone with consequences that violate their rights if they don't do what you tell them. The monopolist is merely taking advantage of the other person's lack of other options. But I'd certainly agree that the other party isn't free and that's bad.
The thing is, your objections to a lot of social-progressive positions up until now have relied on the claim that taking advantage of the other person's lack of options is not coercion. As an example, you've said that offering someone a bare minimum wage is not coercion even if the alternative is starvation. Now you've abandoned the principle. Your objection to a lot of social-progressive positions is going to have to go with it
quote:
quote:
But whatever explanation you try to come up with, claiming that it's because co-operation can be intrinsically morally wrong is grasping at straws.
So we move from idolising victimhood to idolising co-operation. Who'd have thought it ? Seems obvious to me that co-operation for the purpose of coercing others can be wrong...
What do you think is gained by harping on the straw man of 'idolising victimhood'? How do you imagine it's constructive?
So you are asserting that co-operation can be instrinsically wrong. You appear to be saying that co-operation for the purpose of coercing others is wrong because it's co-operation. That acting alone to coerce someone else is morally ok. Is that really your position?
I don't think it is your position. I think that through inadvertence or on purpose you didn't read what I'd written and so, by attacking a straw man, you've ended up saying something silly.
[ 27. February 2018, 18:20: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I would probably agree with that - although I'm not sure that calling it 'coercion' is using language precisely. It's not coercion in the sense of threatening someone with consequences that violate their rights if they don't do what you tell them. The monopolist is merely taking advantage of the other person's lack of other options. But I'd certainly agree that the other party isn't free and that's bad.
The wrong I see is not "merely taking advantage". Collusion to create a monopoly generates the other person's lack of options and thus bears moral responsibility for that lack of options.
Not sure about usage of "coercion" - feel free to suggest a better word.
If 100 independent widget-makers independently decide to put up their prices, then the man who wants a widget may indeed have no option but to pay more.
But none of the 100 individuals had the power to bring that about. It's not a deliberate act on the part of any of them.
Either it's a coincidence or there's a reason, and if there's a reason then the increase may be justified thereby.
They haven't chosen to deprive anyone of options.
Which may be what you were getting at when referring to intention ?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I would probably agree with that - although I'm not sure that calling it 'coercion' is using language precisely. It's not coercion in the sense of threatening someone with consequences that violate their rights if they don't do what you tell them. The monopolist is merely taking advantage of the other person's lack of other options. But I'd certainly agree that the other party isn't free and that's bad.
The wrong I see is not "merely taking advantage". Collusion to create a monopoly generates the other person's lack of options and thus bears moral responsibility for that lack of options.
If monopoly power is abused it doesn't matter how it arose. For example, if corporation one had access to a lot of credit and was able to price its competitors out of business before raising prices again that's a monopoly. If the corporation owns the only land on which one can find unobtanium deposits that's a monopoly.
quote:
If 100 independent widget-makers independently decide to put up their prices, then the man who wants a widget may indeed have no option but to pay more.
But none of the 100 individuals had the power to bring that about. It's not a deliberate act on the part of any of them.
In a competitive market the widget makers' short term interests are in the short term in competition with each other. So if they can all put up their prices independently that suggests that they're being forced by some outside factor.
They're unable to abuse their collective power as long as the market's competitive - explicit agreement among themselves is probably the only way it can happen that the market isn't competitive. (The situation is more likely to arise in a monopsony as when farmers can only sell produce to a few big supermarkets: the supermarkets can push down prices to a level where they're profitable for the farmers only so long as nothing goes wrong, and they don't need to collude to do that.)
Where the agents' interests are not in competition, abuse of power is much more likely to happen even without explicit co-operation.
In the case of the population who are boycotting employers of certain ethnic groups, their interests are not in conflict, and in any case they are actively removing the ethnic minority groups' options and the employers' options.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
They're unable to abuse their collective power as long as the market's competitive - explicit agreement among themselves is probably the only way it can happen that the market isn't competitive...
Where the agents' interests are not in competition, abuse of power is much more likely to happen even without explicit co-operation.
In the case of the population who are boycotting employers of certain ethnic groups, their interests are not in conflict, and in any case they are actively removing the ethnic minority groups' options and the employers' options.
You seem to believe that all sets of people have "collective power" that they can wield without collaborating.
And that all individuals within that set can be held morally accountable for the consequences of use of that power.
So that if everyone independently decided on a whim not to shop at Tesco this month, and as a result Tesco goes bankrupt, employees lose their jobs, pensioners whose pension funds hold Tesco shares
lose money, then everyone would be individually to blame for the suffering caused thereby ?
So we have a moral duty to shop at Tesco to prevent this ?
Or a moral duty to monitor what everyone else is doing so as to be sure that our whims aren't coinciding with everyone else's ?
Not convinced that there's a real general universal moral duty here.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
So that if everyone independently decided on a whim not to shop at Tesco this month, and as a result Tesco goes bankrupt, employees lose their jobs, pensioners whose pension funds hold Tesco shares lose money, then everyone would be individually to blame for the suffering caused thereby ?
This discussion reminds me of the kind of conversation that I would have with a group of schoolchildren after their first introduction to quantum physics. They get totally distracted by asking questions like "couldn't all the atoms in this ball spontaneously tunnel through the wall", and ignore the fact that you'd need to wait around for a very large number of universe lifetimes indeed before that might happen anywhere.
People do not spontaneously on a whim all decide to shop at Tesco rather than Sainsbury's. That does not happen.
But shopping patterns do change, at a slower rate, and without any kind of coordination. Tastes change, for example, and if a different store better caters for those tastes, the first store will lose custom, and may well fail. I'm sure you can make a list of formerly popular high street retailers that no longer exist because of exactly this mechanism.
To return to the central point, it is immoral to boycott a particular shop because of the shopkeeper's race. It is immoral to boycott the shop because the shopkeeper has ginger hair.
The effect of the former boycott is likely to be greater, because racism is more prevalent in our society than anti-ginger prejudice. White shoppers boycotting a black-owned shop will usually have a bigger effect than black shoppers boycotting a white-owned shop - again, that's a reflection of the prevalence of different kinds of racial prejudice and economic power.
Does that make it more immoral to boycott the black shopkeeper? Yes, I would say so: I would say that if you can see that a particular form of prejudice is widespread/likely, you have a stronger duty to actively avoid it.
Reducing this discussion to a chance alignment of whims is silly.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
