If this CRT nonsense were true, it would follow that white people and men and ALL “oppressor groups” have DONE A HUGE FAVOR TO THE MARGINALIZED BY MARGINALIZING THEM—because THIS HAS MADE THEM VIRTUOUS.
It also follows, since oppressing someone BENEFITS THEM, WE SHOULD DO THAT.
Let me repeat that:
IF OPPRESSING PEOPLE MAKES THEM GOOD, THEN WE SHOULD KEEP DOING THAT, BECAUSE BY OPPRESSING PEOPLE WE ARE BENEFITTING THEM.
This makes the oppressors the good guys for sure—the oppressor groups take upon themselves the burden of oppressing others, which makes the oppressed GOOD and VIRTUOUS, while they themselves, the oppressors, do not become good—so their action is very generous and altruistic.
Or at the very least, it becomes a FAIR TRADE:
The oppressors benefit by EXPLOITING the oppressed.
The oppressed benefit by being made good and virtuous via oppression.
It’s win/win.
So why would anyone want to END such a system?
The privileged benefit by having privilege privilege.
The marginalized benefit by having marginalized privilege.
Everybody wins.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
“Traditional atheism” is the position that there is no God.
So far from “very valid” a position is it to hold, it is so manifestly irrational and indefensible that it has been completely abandoned. Why do you *think* (almost) no one today attempts to PROVE there is no God?
“Atheism” has very nearly been abandoned as PHILOSOPHICAL POSITION—even as it has grown as an EXISTENTIAL STANCE. 99.9% of “atheists” these days no longer are confident they can DEMONSTRATE that there is no God.
Which is wise, since they CANNOT.
There are really only three or four arguments for atheism, and none of them go through.
I have something on my mind. Two things which are connected, one from years ago and one recently.
Many of us are old enough to first have heard the term “diversity” applied to things like movies and TV. No matter what it was, you *had* to have one black character in it, in some minor role at least. This was the TOKEN black character. This happened sometime in the 80s or 90s.
All of us are familiar with the token black character. One of my friends at the time called this the “Unnecessary Negro” trope. Like a song I don’t like that nevertheless gets stuck in my head, that name has stuck with me.
When a judge has “skin in the game,” e.g. when he or she is called upon to decide a matter in which he or she is PERSONALLY IMPLICATED — it is his or her duty to RECUSE him- or herself from the case.
“Skin in the game” DISTORTS OBJECTIVE JUDGMENT.
So it isn’t TRUE in all cases to say “This affects me personally, so my judgment is more clear!”
In MANY cases, the opposite is true. A personal involvement DISTORTS clear and objective judgment.
A half-truth. Human genetic differences are certainly real. The fact that black people have more melanin in their skin than white people is certainly biological — what’s conventional is any *exact* category which cuts off a part of human genetic space as “black” or “white.”
In other words, “black people” and “white people” are not NATURAL KINDS. They are just rough areas within human genetic space, enough so you can say “over here” and “over there.” They have irreducibly fuzzy margins.
Race is thus biological and “real” in a LOW RESOLUTION way. Enough, though, that we can associate race with some important biological facts — like greater risk of sickle cell anemia in black people.
What’s TRUE is that race (other than for a few things like that) ISN’T IMPORTANT
#2 and #3 are identical for some reason. Asking the same question twice ≠ asking two different questions. 🤷🏻♀️
As to #2/#3, for moral realism to be held RATIONALLY, there must be a sufficient ground-reason for moral truths & this would be something equivalent to the Platonic Good. But if there is something equivalent to the Good (the Ṛta, the Tao, the Λόγος, etc.), this will be θεῖος.
1 “hair-splitting” and “nit-picking”, when a conceptual distinction is required, and
2 “head in the clouds”, “abstract”, when it is required to move from cases to principles
Either of these accusations is a sign you are doing it right.
Between “nit-picking” & “head in the cloud” it is as if we had one eye that can only see very tiny things close up, and one eye that can only see very large things far away. This is how Jonathan Swift describes the SCIENTISTS of the flying island of Laputa in Gulliver’s Travels.
“Laputa” of course, means “the whore” in Spanish, and what the scientists of Laputa, with their one-microscope and one-telescope eyes can’t see is the middle, human distance—where other men are fucking their wives right in front of them, a fact to which they are blind.