[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 542 KB, 600x600, Liberal.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13823114 No.13823114 [Reply] [Original]

I was going to post this in the other thread but it disappeared.
I have been thinking for a while now that right and left are sort of reverse images of each other on the two issues of market norms and sexual norms, although the right has yet to notice and critique this.

On the one hand, we have people on the left pointing out that the free market as it stands is an unjust system (the system produces gross inequalities), whereas defenders on the right will say that the market produces greater OVERALL wealth, and that one should not limit peoples FREE CHOICES with respect to their money; on the other hand we have people on the left defending a system which apparently produces great inequalities with respect to sex (Some men have a ton of sex: some men barely any, some none) and yet defending the system with similar arguments that the right uses to defend the market: there is more OVERALL sex in a hook-up culture, and one should not limit the FREE CHOICES of people concerning who they should and shouldn't have sex with.

Yet the interesting thing, for me at least, is that both systems are clearly "unjust" in the Rawlsian sense: if everyone were to go into a veil of ignorance and choose the market norms, subject to the condition (the "Strains of Commitment) "that they would affirm the norms no matter where they end up in the actual system", they would not choose our current market norms, because the people at the very bottom would not affirm such a system and would struggle to overthrow it. It is the same way with our current sexual norms: parties in the veil of ignorance would never choose our current norms, because the people who end up at the bottom could never affirm them, because they are fundamentally unfair.

The strange thing, for me, is that neither party in the US is able to coherently reason from these principles of justice to what sort of society we ought to have: the left rejects justice with respect to the sexual realm: the right rejects justice with respect to the market.

>> No.13823244
File: 24 KB, 399x388, 1565833013760.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13823244

>Rawls
>pic related

You are correct, though, that many people who criticize incels tend to use exactly the same arguments that capitalists use, such as the bootstraps myth, the just world fallacy and so on. Ive notice that many incels themselves have noticed this hypocrisy, as well as many other hypocrisies amongst those on the left, like decrying white privilege and then only dating white men, opposing body shaming yet then doing it themselves, or calling incels entitled for wanting sex/intimacy and then saying that such things are basic rights when a woman wants it.

>> No.13823487

>>13823244
Any properly compartmentalized normalfag will seek to maximize justice for themselves only. It's not unusual.

>> No.13823960
File: 93 KB, 1078x775, cringe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13823960

>>13823114
>they would not choose our current market norms, because the people at the very bottom would not affirm such a system and would struggle to overthrow it

No, I don't think you're going to get anywhere near a consensus on an arrangement that mandates you may have to have sex with someone disgusting you stupid dumb bitter incel. No one wants people to be mandated and directed by the state to perform specific labour activities, a monetary system provides some choice in terminating any obligation to society. You can't even "cure" an incel by providing them with free whores since the problem is more than that. It's psychological and interpersonal. A different constitution can't make you lovable.