/lit/ - Literature

It's ultimately incoherent, true equality can't exist. It's no more unfair to discriminate based on intelligence than race, neither chose those traits

On the other hand it's better to try to be more fair than just say fuck it

>>5050091
Shit son I meant 'no more fair'

>>5050082
Are you deaf?

It's tyranny.

>>5050108
What?

>>5050082
Egalitarianism itself cannot be naive but a lot of naive people are egalitarianisters(?).

Calling egalitarianism naive is just sour grapes.

There is literally nothing that makes it necessary for equality to not exist, it's just very very hard to bring into practice.

If people dislike equality because it simply means averaging the individual condition in a society then the society simply needs to increase the average individual conditions.
All people living equally would not have worked(been acceptable to the minute top of society) during Feudal times but as technology progresses and resource distribution becomes more efficient equality is more viable for everyone. In fact it's pretty much inevitable that things move in that direction, not because it's better but because it creates a state of equilibrium.

Egalitarianism is a spook, it doesn't exist.

>>5050121
>beethoven

What do you understand as "egalitarianism"?

>>5050204
>he didn't get it

>>5050213
The belief that all human beings are equal and should have equal opportunity and rights.

>>5050226
I don't understand why people think a group of people have to be equal to have equal opportunity and rights.

Like people aren't even equal on the individual level, some people will definitely out perform others due to their genetics even within a certain sex and race group.

Whether people are actually equal or not has and will always be completely irrelevant.

>>5050204
thats le joke.mpeg

>>5050274
But equality they mean judged their strengths and weaknesses equally to everybody

>>5050226

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTYnWuDQXYI

rip equality

>>5050082
All -isms are naive.

>>5050226

first proposition is nonsensical

second proposition is debatable

here's how I break it down

there's normal justice and there's social justice or, if you like, cosmic justice

Say you have a staircase that leads to the door of a building. Certain people, because of various disabilities, cannot use the staircase. Justice, that is to say fairness and treating people alike, would advocate for installing a ramp besides or somewhere near the stairs so that disabled persons can reach the door.

Social or cosmic justice on the other hand would argue that stairs are oppressive and should be destroyed. They would either destroy the stairs and force everyone to use the ramp, or make the architect redesign the building and the surrounding landscape so that there was no need for stairs or a ramp

>>5050082
Antiegalitarianism is naive.

>>5050226
Then, absolutely.

Equality in opportunities are essential in capitalism, otherwise social mobility stagnates and you don't deal with one of its most fundamental shortcomings.

Harrison Bergeron, there's your equality.

Of course

>>5050294
That doesn't address his point at all.

Plus, it is kind of comical to see someone an african-american, whose forefathers were probably dragged out of huts to be taken to america, saying that inequality is acceptable because of multiculturalism. Isn't he the living proof that one's lack of cultural and social capital or the tendencies of his background may become neglectable with the proper upbringing and education, even if it takes generations? His analogy is also flawed on quite a few levels.

Egalitarianism is just the suppression of natural hierarchies. Equal opportunity is unrealistic because you can't simply steal money from successful parents and forcing equal results is tyranny.

>>5050355
The slaves taken to America were already slaves in Africa, they were purchased from warlords.

>>5050363
I can see that failing to address the point made is already routine to you.

>>5050082
>Is Egalitarianism naive?
Yes

>>5050091
>On the other hand it's better to try to be more fair than just say fuck it

No its better to make decissions based on race and intelligence than to try and be fair

>>5050355
Internalized racism. He saw early on that you can't fight and win against a homogenized capitalist power if you're not a numerical majority and have no control over the economy, so he just accepts it and takes pale skins' money telling them what they want to hear.

>>5050355
Just because he's black doesn't mean he's a retard.

>>5050371
>dribble

>>5050370
I'm a different poster. Just wanted to point out that you are wrong for feeling bad about slavery. In the long run it was much better for the blacks.

>>5050378
reported for shitposting

>>5050358
>natural

>Look Mom! I posted it AGAIN!

it's not a descriptive model so i don't see how it can be naive. egalitarianism is not about saying everyone is the same, but that everyone should be treated equally in some respect. it's a very basic notion and departure from it is monstrous.

>>5050383
>announcing reports

>>5050387
so the current hierarchy is unnatural?

>>5050294
am I the only person convinced that sowell is a performance artist? his first name is literally tom

>>5050387
Sorry, m8, but some people are just more inclined to success than others. We all /did/ start equal, after all.

>>5050395
>using le maymay arrows

>>5050377
Being black is not even on the top 10 things wrong with old Thom.

>>5050403
I'm saying the fact that he's black and says such things doesn't make him stupid.

Egalitarism as in, lets give everyone the same basic treatment is ok.

Egalitarism as in, muh welfare muffuga, is not.

>>5050397
Saying a hierarchy is "natural" and "unnatural" is meaningless.

>>5050407
>Egalitarism as in, lets give everyone the same basic treatment is ok.
lol
this is what leftists actually believe

>>5050375
Maybe he's attracted to the idea of Capital seeing everyone as a mere pair of hands regardless of personal background and individuality, but doesn't realise how capitalism only sustains itself through the repercussion and maintance of social hiearquies and old prejudices.

>>5050409
how?

>>5050274
By equality it's not meant that everyone is the same but that everyone has equal worth as a human.

>>5050417
>but that everyone has equal worth as a human.
Worthy in what way?

>>5050417
>>5050423
This also are you bracketing animals in this discussion?

>>5050355

>generalized statements and blatant ad hom

you're a class A intellectual, for sure

equality is a false norm. it has never existed anywhere except in the imaginary narrative of liberals and social justice warriors

>>5050414

how did people like you even find 4chan?

>>5050430
Why do you think equality is a norm instead of an aesthetic ideal?

Why do you privilege the natural?

>>5050414

how did people like you even find 4chan?

Also

>making a thread asking about equality
>OP post is an example of precisely the kind of person who shows that tabula rasa and other egalitarian notions are complete bullshit

here's another

>>5050430
If you don't have anything to say, just don't say anything.

Is egalitarianism moë?

>>5050440

you're the one who has contributed nothing. you can't even refute a few straightforward points in a fucking video apart from saying 'hurr it's wrong'

>>5050433
>>5050439
>repeating posts
>can't delete
>being this fucking new and pretending to be an oldfag

Pathetic. How did you find 4chan?

How can equality exist if IQ itself is about 70% inheritable? And that's just IQ, we haven't even started on all of the other things that are inheritable.

>>5050445
>apart from saying 'hurr it's wrong'
I'm pretty sure I've said more than that, read it again and again until you come up with a proper rebuttal

>>5050446

I doubt you've been here for much longer than this shit board has existed, but seniority as a 4chan poster isn't something you really should be proud of

>>5050446
>muh faggitry

lgbt is that way

>>5050430
>>5050445
>>5050439
>>5050439
>how did people like you even find 4chan?

I think we found one of those class A intellectuals with proper arguments you're referring to

>>5050423
Worth as in, everyone is and will be different, but no one is inherently "better" than anyone else, due to race, stature, heritage, nobility, etc.
Some people may be stronger or smarter than others, but that doesn't mean others have less of a right to live than anyone else.

>>5050445
Even if people were inherently equal and had equality of opportunity literally no reasonable person would expect equality of outcome to be necessary, it may happen but it's not necessitated.

Sowell is arguing against equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity. If you think anything he said was relevant then you have fallen for propaganda trick 1, conflate meaning and abuse rhetoric.

Besides Sowells argument seems to presuppose equality of opportunity.

>>5050461
The only person who would disagree with that is Evola and he's a left wing troll trying to discredit the right.

>>5050461
>Some people may be stronger or smarter than others
...so they're better.

Liberals: We love evolution....except when it hurts feelings.

well i gotta admit at first it was pretty cool in a macabre kind of way to see all the fascist kiddies because wow people like this exist. but after a while it becomes pretty nauseating. please ban yourselves from life kthxbai

>>5050447
Because IQ isn't the be-all-end-all

>>5050461
>Some people may be stronger or smarter than others
> but no one is inherently "better" than anyone else, due to race, stature, heritage, nobility, etc.

what?

>but that doesn't mean others have less of a right to live than anyone else.
Even people who commit crimes, evil people, or people who do evil things, or however you want to call that population?

>>5050355

>That doesn't address his point at all.

how so

>Plus, it is kind of comical to see someone an african-american, whose forefathers were probably dragged out of huts to be taken to america, saying that inequality is acceptable because of multiculturalism.

what does this even mean?

>Isn't he the living proof that one's lack of cultural and social capital or the tendencies of his background may become neglectable with the proper upbringing and education, even if it takes generations?

he was the first person in his family to advance beyond an 8th grade education. he is pointing out that people who believe in equality despite differences of race, heritage, education and economic class are simply preposterous. Groups do not start out equal and become less equal with time through the machinations of oppression and the like. They enter common ground radically unequal, and as opportunities for advancement arise, the gap tends to close. But when you have government intervention wherein a group of people is labeled inferior or in need of assistance, then that group tends to remain below the standards simply because you've lowered the demands on them and made it less harmful to fall short (via welfare and the like)

part of the problem with liberals and with politicians in general is that they do not understand economics and bear no responsibility when their economic policies produce negative results

>>5050472
>these people who disagree with my opinion must die!
Who's *really* the fascist here?

>>5050472
>using fascist as an insult
>kthxbai
>wow :) !!
Don't post in this thread again please.

>>5050474
i didn't say it is and it doesn't matter if it does or doesn't

>>5050415
Hierarchy is an arrangement of persons within a society. Even if the idea that all things accidentally (that is, through physics (nature)) fall into a kind of arrangement, this says nothing about whether that arrangement is good, or even useful. If the current hierarchy breaks down is it no longer natural? If the society breaks with the old hierarchy and creates a new, better system, is this natural or unnatural? Neither word describes anything qualitatively. "Natural" is effectively a thought-terminating cliche.

That said, the current hierarchy (by which I assume you mean the West's late capitalism) is completely artificial, in that it began with a revolutionary process of the bourgeoisie seizing political and economic control from the aristocracies and has been a game of competing economies since. You can call this "natural" or "unnatural" but whatever you call it it's not a law of physics (despite what capitalism's economist-priests say).

>>5050471
>>5050477
Yes, they're better in that way, but I put better in quotes because I meant it in the sense that they should still be given the same rights and treatment.
>>5050477
That's a different matter for a thread like >>5050003

>>5050471
is/ought dude
you can't be this stupid

>>5050466
There's absolutely no reason to believe dribblekid doesn't believe every word he says. We've been getting /pol/ shitposters since before there was a /pol/ and the Evola bandwagon formed, I don't know, a year or so before he started posting? He's nothing new, he's just a trip now.

>>5050486
I agree

>>5050482
well one can wish but it's not like i'll get up and kill you.

>>5050407
I agree with this anon, basic equal rights and opportunity, the rest is up to the individual

>>5050486
spitting hot truth

>>5050520
What if one segment continues to fail and those in power take all available opportunities?

>>5050471
>...so they're better.
Nice slight of hand, but no one was talking about a "they". If "they" are better, which of them is better, the stronger or the smarter? Are the faster more "evolved" than the more flexible? If you weren't a degenerate mongrel you'd see that egalitarianism steps aside from this moronic super-individualism and lets the strong, the smart, the fast, the flexible, and everyone else find a place in society based on what they are capable of and doesn't squander their talents so more than just that individual will benefit from it.

>>5050520
Isn't that fake equality though? How do you account for innate differences of ability that would allow one and not the other to rise? Do they deserve it simply for being better? It seems meritocracy I'd a weak ethic, not very different from Might makes right.

>>5050517
You SHOULD kill someone, that someone being YOU.

>>5050535
>If "they" are better, which of them is better, the stronger or the smarter?
In their categories. The smart are better than the dull and the strong are better than the weak.

>If you weren't a degenerate mongrel you'd see that egalitarianism steps aside from this moronic super-individualism
Moronic super-individualism is less dangerous than moronic super-collectivism.

>>5050371
this board got so much more boring when i realized you weren't serious

>>5050539
one thing i also don't understand is with the people who think welfare is evil and ppl should rise on their own merit, why don't you live in the woods? i'm completely serious. your position is incoherent
the entire point of society is to make up for each others weaknesses so we can live comfortably

>>5050552

this whole board should be deleted, but it's needed as a quarantine just like /lgbt/

>>5050552
>this board got so much more boring when i realized you weren't serious

I am serious though

>>5050534
Not that guy but that's decidedly no longer egalitarianism. Of course the /pol/types get in an uproar about the idea of trying to develop "human capital" amongst disadvantaged minorities, but, being dumb, they don't realize they're sinking their own life raft.

>>5050555
i'm not that anon but aren't you basically agreeing with him?

a person living in the woods alone would find it tough to live without others
in a multiethnic/racial society like america's for example there are certain groups that would need others to have a higher quality of life

>>5050546
>Moronic super-individualism is less dangerous than moronic super-collectivism.
Do you live on Earth right now? Because that's not how it's playing out.

>>5050570
yeah i agree with him. just adding to what was said

>>5050563
Wouldn't it still be egalitarianism under
>Egalitarism as in, lets give everyone the same basic treatment is ok.
?

My post assumed that the segment that is failing is not because they are denied any opportunities but because they for some reason aren't taking them.

Thomas Sowell is fantastic, it will be a shame when he passes.

This article right here is easily worth more than all the discourse in the history of /lit/ put together.

http://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2014/05/va_scandal_class_warfare_and_m.html

>>5050546
You're the one that's making every individual compete for worth and is stating that some individuals are more evolved than others, so just say it, are the smarter more evolved than the stronger and more worthy? Which one person gets to be king of the garbage pile?

>>5050555
I would disagree about the 'purpose' of society.

First, society was not engineered, society is a stable configuration of power relations. Power dictates the form of society, equality is a result of the lower masses being able to consolidate enough that their power coheres enough to grab the incidental wealth created by the elites.

Secondly the idea that society promotes equality is laughable. Society magnifies innate differences to the point where the rich and poor appear to be different species

If you think society is some altruistic phenomenon meant to better the masses you are deeply mistaken and a cursory glance at history should give you pause in saying that.

>>5050588

>Freedom means nothing if it does not mean the freedom to do what other people don't like. Everyone was free to be a Communist under the Stalin dictatorship, and everyone is free to be a Muslim in Saudi Arabia. Yet whole generations are coming out of our colleges where only those who are politically correct are free to speak their minds. What kind of America will they create?

>>5050587
>My post assumed that the segment that is failing is not because they are denied any opportunities
Your earlier post said the exact opposite.
>>5050534
What if one segment continues to fail and those in power take all available opportunities?

>>5050082
Yes, the idea that anything but ideas can be equal is nonsense. Even the idea that we could treat people equally is nonsense.

>>5050443


most vocal egalitarians i know are pretty fugly.

i think this is an interesting question though, what is the cutest philosophy /lit/?

>>5050611
I guess I worded it poorly. White people as a group naturally have power but blacks aren't denied any opportunities. I think blacks as a group for some reason are failing to take advantage of those opportunities and what ends up happening is whites taking them.

>>5050595
>Yet whole generations are coming out of our colleges where only those who are politically correct are free to speak their minds.
How do conservatives opt of our reality like this? It's an interesting technique.

>>5050621
Fascism is the best looking ideology.

>>5050621
The cutest philosophy is disinterest

>>5050480
>how so

OP has specified that by egalitarianism he was referring to equality of opportunities - which in our current system would probably boil down to universal acceess to a decent infrastructure when it comes to education and all that bollocks.

Sowell's argument is against equality in outcome so it's completely beyond the question. He's still wrong, but on a different level.

>what does this even mean?

It means that his point of people coming from different backgrounds and inheriting its idiosyncrasies might be somewhat true but it's not a limitation of any kind as he should be aware of.

The fact that backgrounds weighs so much on the individual's opportunities and outcomes is just a point in favor of the argument that there should be a genuine process of homogenization through education and integration, because the basic premise of his argument suggest that what lead to shortcomings in a given field is mutable, correctable. Wouldn't be the case if we followed the premise of so many racialists ITT.

What he's saying is Sociology 101, with all the wrong conclusions.

>>5050621
>most vocal egalitarians i know are pretty fugly.

B.S. and I bet you think right-wing women are hot because of Fox News' anchors.

>>5050082
No, but many egalitarians are naive.

People aren't equal, and aren't even of equal worth. However, simply because people are unequal and some have far greater worth than others does not imply that some people are completely worthless. Even if someone seems to be that way, there is still potential worth that everyone has. It can be incredibly difficult to judge what another person is capable of, and it can be especially difficult to measure the importance or impact of a person's contribution in certain areas such as the arts.

Even then, people don't have to "earn" their value. People are naturally inclined to be productive. We don't need to give them "tough love" or a "you don't work, you don't eat" type mentality to better them. People are worth something without having to earn it, merely by virtue of existing and suffering and laboring, which is inherent to any life. Meritocratic views on worth don't upend egalitarianism at the very least because they don't assert the worthlessness of anyone, but even further because even if we assume them to be correct, the worth of a person does not compel us to treat them differently. I can see an extraordinarily valuable arsonist, possibly the best of his kind the world has ever known. Does he deserve more than the mediocre farmer? I hardly see why.

>>5050624
There are obviously genetic differences between peoples who had divergent pressures acting on them in history and prehistory but they pale in comparison to cultural/environmental/nurture etc. factors.

>>5050592
alright foucault i don't disagree
still, we can say that one of the things that society does is make up for individual weaknesses
and that's what i personally want to privilege, it suits my aesthetic sensibilities and should suit yours

>>5050641


the selection mechanism is vocality, which is to say, among radicals, most are solidly on the fugly side, sorry bout your damn luck.

>>5050624
>White people as a group naturally have power but blacks aren't denied any opportunities.
Exactly everything with this is factually wrong. I suggest you read up on the subject.

>>5050539
I am sorry but I don't see the connection between meritocracy and might makes right. If someone is more useful to society than someone else, shouldn't he get more (through not all) of the money and bitches?

Society should see everyone as equal human beings but should also reward those that contributes more(but let me be clear it can't forsake the rest and must keep the playing field level so that everyone has a fair chance