|
|
Post by equivocal on Jul 3, 2024 14:23:44 GMT
I am not suggesting a liberal community 'pretends that everyone is the same' but that their abilities should be fairly assessed without reference to their sex, sexuality, race or national origin. To suggest that these attributes (physical requirements excepted) should form part of their assessment is distinctly illiberal and should have no standing in a liberal society.
What you appear to be suggesting, although this may be a semantic misunderstanding, is that everyone should form their own views on the weight to be given to immutable personal characteristics, above, provided they do no direct harm. That would be more in line with a quasi libertarian community where, beyond the do no harm principle, there are no particular shared uncontested values.
No. The government is required to treat people equally under the law (or treat people as if they are equals) but everyone else is free to come to whatever conclusions they wish and to act on those conclusions (within the law). This has to be the case unless you are suggesting that government mandated opinions and judgments is some necessary part of liberalism - which it isn't. Liberalism is the precise opposite of this - ie people are free to come to conclusions, communicate those conclusions to others and act within the law.. As i have suggested at the beginning of the conversation, you have been convinced to emply a an understanding of liberalism which more or less erases / inverts its meaning. Don't you find it odd that your version of liberalism allows for people to act differently, ie to maintain separate cultures - but also forbids others from holding a mere opinion on the matter and acting legally on that opinion? Not at all. I believe a core value (uncontested) of a liberal society is as stated. Of course it does not prevent others acting illiberally, but it is my belief those who do, including those of 'foreign' cultures, should be called out on that behaviour. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 3, 2024 14:57:52 GMT
No. The government is required to treat people equally under the law (or treat people as if they are equals) but everyone else is free to come to whatever conclusions they wish and to act on those conclusions (within the law). This has to be the case unless you are suggesting that government mandated opinions and judgments is some necessary part of liberalism - which it isn't. Liberalism is the precise opposite of this - ie people are free to come to conclusions, communicate those conclusions to others and act within the law.. As i have suggested at the beginning of the conversation, you have been convinced to emply a an understanding of liberalism which more or less erases / inverts its meaning. Don't you find it odd that your version of liberalism allows for people to act differently, ie to maintain separate cultures - but also forbids others from holding a mere opinion on the matter and acting legally on that opinion? Not at all. I believe a core value (uncontested) of a liberal society is as stated. Of course it does not prevent others acting illiberally, but it is my belief those who do, including those of 'foreign' cultures, should be called out on that behaviour. I disagree. As someone employing liberal values you have a duty to allow, but no duty at all to respect, appreciate or trust. In fact ,insisting this is the case disables one of the strengths of liberalism - the organic conclusion generator of the aggregate when it is free to choose. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jul 3, 2024 15:13:28 GMT
No. You are mixing up two different things. A liberal society doesn't / shouldn't insist that we all ignore the evidence of my eyes and pretend that everyone is the same and deserves a similar 'recognition'. A liberal society will treat people equally under the law and also allow people come to whatever conclusions about others they wish. Insisting the people must 'recognise' things is entirely illiberal. I am not suggesting a liberal community 'pretends that everyone is the same' but that their abilities should be fairly assessed without reference to their sex, sexuality, race or national origin. To suggest that these attributes (physical requirements excepted) should form part of their assessment is distinctly illiberal and should have no standing in a liberal society.
What you appear to be suggesting, although this may be a semantic misunderstanding, is that everyone should form their own views on the weight to be given to immutable personal characteristics, above, provided they do no direct harm. That would be more in line with a quasi libertarian community where, beyond the do no harm principle, there are no particular shared uncontested values.
I have to say. I doubt any Racist thinks their views are based purely on skin colour . Rather they justify the stereotyping on "People with that colour skin behave this way" The problem with societal characteristics is that to an extent that is true. Your skin colour does tend to tally on where you originated and where you originated tends to define your acceptable and unacceptable. A Canadian is more likely to be accepting of mercy killing than an Italian. (Worth knowing when taking your mother-in-law on holiday  ) So to educate the racists you need to persuade them to not stereotype on all factors even if some are atypical. Orac's claim that Pakistanis are bad for the UK because the country they come from is a shit hole is clearly Racist as it assumes: 1, That if you take someone out of the shit hole they wont change. 2, That everywhere in Pakistan is shitty But saying Pakistanis put family first even to the point of protecting wrong doing might not be true in every case but it is a characteristic of Pakistan family life. We use these assumptions everyday to get through life, for instance, we hold our phones tighter in a rough area. To be told we can never make any assumptions based on characteristics simply wouldn't work. |
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on Jul 3, 2024 15:44:31 GMT
Not at all. I believe a core value (uncontested) of a liberal society is as stated. Of course it does not prevent others acting illiberally, but it is my belief those who do, including those of 'foreign' cultures, should be called out on that behaviour. I disagree. As someone employing liberal values you have a duty to allow, but no duty at all to respect, appreciate or trust. In fact ,insisting this is the case disables one of the strengths of liberalism - the organic conclusion generator of the aggregate when it is free to choose. Then we'll have to agree to disagree. I have to say that I think it is paradoxical to suggest a liberal society has a duty to allow the illiberal act(s) of part of its membership, particularly when those acts interfere with the expected rights of others in a liberal society. |
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on Jul 3, 2024 15:57:56 GMT
I am not suggesting a liberal community 'pretends that everyone is the same' but that their abilities should be fairly assessed without reference to their sex, sexuality, race or national origin. To suggest that these attributes (physical requirements excepted) should form part of their assessment is distinctly illiberal and should have no standing in a liberal society.
What you appear to be suggesting, although this may be a semantic misunderstanding, is that everyone should form their own views on the weight to be given to immutable personal characteristics, above, provided they do no direct harm. That would be more in line with a quasi libertarian community where, beyond the do no harm principle, there are no particular shared uncontested values.
I have to say. I doubt any Racist thinks their views are based purely on skin colour . Rather they justify the stereotyping on "People with that colour skin behave this way" The problem with societal characteristics is that to an extent that is true. Your skin colour does tend to tally on where you originated and where you originated tends to define your acceptable and unacceptable. A Canadian is more likely to be accepting of mercy killing than an Italian. (Worth knowing when taking your mother-in-law on holiday ) So to educate the racists you need to persuade them to not stereotype on all factors even if some are atypical. Orac's claim that Pakistanis are bad for the UK because the country they come from is a shit hole is clearly Racist as it assumes: 1, That if you take someone out of the shit hole they wont change. 2, That everywhere in Pakistan is shitty But saying Pakistanis put family first even to the point of protecting wrong doing might not be true in every case but it is a characteristic of Pakistan family life. We use these assumptions everyday to get through life, for instance, we hold our phones tighter in a rough area. To be told we can never make any assumptions based on characteristics simply wouldn't work. I am not suggesting that we should not conclude that certain communities contain members who share particular cultural norms. Quite the reverse.
While criticising Asian sexism, gender inequality, high incidence of domestic violence, and coerced marriages, we also need to cherish the Asian family structure, enterprise, resourcefulness, social solidarity, and sensitivity to the ambiguities of human life.
What I am saying is that it is perfectly proper to criticise and try to change cultural norms that are incompatible with British democratic and liberal values without being called racist or illiberal.
I think that's where you started.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jul 3, 2024 16:06:28 GMT
I have to say. I doubt any Racist thinks their views are based purely on skin colour . Rather they justify the stereotyping on "People with that colour skin behave this way" The problem with societal characteristics is that to an extent that is true. Your skin colour does tend to tally on where you originated and where you originated tends to define your acceptable and unacceptable. A Canadian is more likely to be accepting of mercy killing than an Italian. (Worth knowing when taking your mother-in-law on holiday ) So to educate the racists you need to persuade them to not stereotype on all factors even if some are atypical. Orac's claim that Pakistanis are bad for the UK because the country they come from is a shit hole is clearly Racist as it assumes: 1, That if you take someone out of the shit hole they wont change. 2, That everywhere in Pakistan is shitty But saying Pakistanis put family first even to the point of protecting wrong doing might not be true in every case but it is a characteristic of Pakistan family life. We use these assumptions everyday to get through life, for instance, we hold our phones tighter in a rough area. To be told we can never make any assumptions based on characteristics simply wouldn't work. I am not suggesting that we should not conclude that certain communities contain members who share particular cultural norms. Quite the reverse.
While criticising Asian sexism, gender inequality, high incidence of domestic violence, and coerced marriages, we also need to cherish the Asian family structure, enterprise, resourcefulness, social solidarity, and sensitivity to the ambiguities of human life.
What I am saying is that it is perfectly proper to criticise and try to change cultural norms that are incompatible with British democratic and liberal values without being called racist or illiberal.
I think that's where you started.
Yes we agree completely. I was trying to clarify the situation, as much for myself as others. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 3, 2024 16:32:20 GMT
I disagree. As someone employing liberal values you have a duty to allow, but no duty at all to respect, appreciate or trust. In fact ,insisting this is the case disables one of the strengths of liberalism - the organic conclusion generator of the aggregate when it is free to choose. I have to say that I think it is paradoxical to suggest a liberal society has a duty to allow the illiberal act(s) of part of its membership, particularly when those acts interfere with the expected rights of others in a liberal society.I didn't say that. I was using a shorthand to say that a liberal has a duty to allow that which doesn't (ie homosexuality). Of course, the tangle here will be that will also have a completely ballsed up version of human rights that will give everyone the completely idiotic 'human right;' to be treated 'equally' by everyone else. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jul 3, 2024 16:39:51 GMT
I have to say that I think it is paradoxical to suggest a liberal society has a duty to allow the illiberal act(s) of part of its membership, particularly when those acts interfere with the expected rights of others in a liberal society.I didn't say that. I was using a shorthand to say that a liberal has a duty to allow that which doesn't (ie homosexuality). Of course, the tangle here will be that will also have a completely ballsed up version of human rights that will give everyone the completely idiotic 'human right;' to be treated 'equally' by everyone else.That's simply not true. We protect a small list that we define as 'Inalienable human rights' That is to say rights you get automatically just by being a human. But we still remove those rights if required, we lock up criminals. Please give me an inalienable human right you consider idiotic? |
|
|
|
Post by vinny on Jul 4, 2024 12:49:24 GMT
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,367
|
Post by Steve on Jul 4, 2024 12:58:22 GMT
TLDR what's your actual point all that C&P is supposed to back?
|
|
|
|
Post by vinny on Jul 9, 2024 8:52:59 GMT
You said you'd wait for Full Fact I posted the Full Fact link and a bit of the article plus "contract" for anyone interested.
|
|
|
|
Post by montegriffo on Jul 9, 2024 10:34:18 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by montegriffo on Jul 9, 2024 10:39:36 GMT
Also...
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jul 9, 2024 10:57:06 GMT
Mate of mine was asked to be a “paper” candidate in a safe Tory ward in local elections. Trouble is no Tory or other candidate stood. He was elected unopposed. Four years of endless meetings about bin collections. Not a happy bunny…..
|
|
|
|
Post by aristaeus on Aug 3, 2024 15:51:44 GMT
Still waiting for practical examples of the “culture loss” Orac is referring to. Boiled turnips and cabbage being replaced by Indian and Thai food perhaps? |
|
)
