Doesn't Diversity Presume Inequality? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For the discussion of Philosophy. Discuss thought from Socrates to the Enlightenment and beyond!

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be debated in this forum, but those of religious belief who specifically wish to avoid threads being derailed by atheist arguments might prefer to use the Spirituality forum.
#14996643
SSDR wrote:@blackjack21, That has nothing to do with the conversation. You're just trying to win "against" me lol.

Social hierarchies are part of social animals. You may deny the fact that you are in a social hierarchy, and defy those who point it out to you. However, you are in a social hierarchy. It's informally called a "pecking order," because it was observed and described first in chickens. Bees have social hierarchy, chimpanzees, silver back gorillas, etc. So do humans.

I understand this, because when you take a business degree, you have to study psychology, sociology, and organizational behavior as precursors to scientific management.

I point out Trump and politics in a grander picture of a "pecking order." In the media and academia, the best president you could have was someone like Obama. So they never attacked any of his transgressions. They hate Republicans generally, so they always face attack. If you ignore the sum and substance of the attacks and observe them from a purely behavioral perspective, you are witnessing an attempt to enforce a pecking order.

This is why the Bob Michels and Bob Doles of the world proved to be somewhat useless, along with their phony conservative counterparts in the media. In a much more abstract sense, it is just a pecking order and it is getting disrupted.
#14996658
Pants-of-dog wrote:I find it amusing that none of the conservatives and right wingers in this thread seem to know what we leftist progressives mean when we say equality.


If that is the case then maybe you should explain yourself better.
#14996661
Pants-of-dog wrote:No, this is more amusing.

Besides, some of you will almost certainly ignore it so that you may continue whining about how the ebil commies and SJWs are oppressing you.


More likely you actually have no idea what you mean by it, it is just a word to repeat in lieu of intelligent conversation.
#14996663
@blackjack21, Social hierarchies exist in humanity for two reasons: One, it is nurtured and conditioned by humans via social norms and family to keep the rich wealthy. Two, the economy enforces it via capitalism or feudalism. Besides whatever the economy enforces on to me because I have no other choice, I am not a follower of ANYONE. And I don't expect nor need anyone to follow me.

A "business degree" helps manipulate capitalist values onto the populace, and this is what makes a capitalist population think that they actually need to look up to someone, such as an employer, a wealthier CEO, or a powerful customer.
#14996665
SolarCross wrote:More likely you actually have no idea what you mean by it, it is just a word to repeat in lieu of intelligent conversation.


This thread is an example of right wingers having no idea what is meant by equality, and it seems like they are using this word in lieu of anything intelligent.
#14996669
Pants-of-dog wrote:This thread is an example of right wingers having no idea what is meant by equality, and it seems like they are using this word in lieu of anything intelligent.


Since it is a leftist one word slogan it really is up to the leftists to expand on it, who knows maybe one day they will?
#14996689
SolarCross wrote:Since it is a leftist one word slogan it really is up to the leftists to expand on it, who knows maybe one day they will?


Or, the people who are claiming to critique the progressive position of legal egalitarianism could educate themselves about the idea before critiquing it.

The Wikipedia article is called “equality before the law”.
#14996719
SSDR wrote:@blackjack21, Social hierarchies exist in humanity for two reasons: One, it is nurtured and conditioned by humans via social norms and family to keep the rich wealthy. Two, the economy enforces it via capitalism or feudalism. Besides whatever the economy enforces on to me because I have no other choice, I am not a follower of ANYONE. And I don't expect nor need anyone to follow me.

You are simply wrong about the reason social hierarchies exist. Arguing the nature of the hierarchy is a separate question, and has nothing to do with capitalism. Bonobos and chimpanzees, for example, are not capitalists. Yet, they have hierarchies. Dogs have pack leaders. The leader of a dog pack is not necessarily a capitalist who is trying to keep the rich wealthy.

You clearly are clearly a follower of at least one Marxist writer, professor or politician in my opinion.

SSDR wrote:A "business degree" helps manipulate capitalist values onto the populace, and this is what makes a capitalist population think that they actually need to look up to someone, such as an employer, a wealthier CEO, or a powerful customer.

Business degrees generally don't focus on general political propaganda. Business degrees are more focused on market forces, resource and production management and finance.
#14996747
Pants-of-dog wrote:Or, the people who are claiming to critique the progressive position of legal egalitarianism could educate themselves about the idea before critiquing it.

The Wikipedia article is called “equality before the law”.

If you had read the article, or knew any poli"sci", you would know that "equality before the law" is a classical liberal concept and absolutely nothing to do with the "left" as in socialists and communists, @Hong Wu referenced "leftists" in the OP not liberals. An ideal where the law should not play favourites, like grant monopolies or tax one to subsidise another is fairly opposite to the idea of using law as a weapon to level everyone.
#14996748
SSDR wrote:@blackjack21, Social hierarchies exist in humanity for two reasons: One, it is nurtured and conditioned by humans via social norms and family to keep the rich wealthy. Two, the economy enforces it via capitalism or feudalism. Besides whatever the economy enforces on to me because I have no other choice, I am not a follower of ANYONE. And I don't expect nor need anyone to follow me.

A "business degree" helps manipulate capitalist values onto the populace, and this is what makes a capitalist population think that they actually need to look up to someone, such as an employer, a wealthier CEO, or a powerful customer.


Social hierarchies predate Capitalism and the concept of money. I think your two reasons are likely very incorrect.
#14996754
SSDR wrote:@blackjack21, Social hierarchies exist in humanity for two reasons: One, it is nurtured and conditioned by humans via social norms and family to keep the rich wealthy. Two, the economy enforces it via capitalism or feudalism. Besides whatever the economy enforces on to me because I have no other choice, I am not a follower of ANYONE. And I don't expect nor need anyone to follow me.

A "business degree" helps manipulate capitalist values onto the populace, and this is what makes a capitalist population think that they actually need to look up to someone, such as an employer, a wealthier CEO, or a powerful customer.

You are quite confused. Social hierarchies originally formed because some people had a lower mutagenic load than others and/or they were better at the tasks associated with their castes. Similarly, characteristics were also relevant; people who were hunting or fighting can't be lead by cowards. Being the leader necessarily carries certain perks with it. I could go on but the analysis here should be easy enough to do if you're so inclined.

As technological progress led to a lowering of fertility rates for the most successful people, we are seemingly at a cross roads wherein the average "fitness" level of the population is naturally going to decline under the current paradigm. Extreme projections suggest that this will eventually lead to an "idiocracy" wherein modern technologies cannot be employed by or for the average person anymore, although this is hopefully overdramatic.

Things like "capitalism" and "business degrees" are more manifestations than causes. If this were not the case, attempts to get rid of those things should correlate with positive outcomes but the opposite seems to be true.
#14996803
SolarCross wrote:If you had read the article, or knew any poli"sci", you would know that "equality before the law" is a classical liberal concept and absolutely nothing to do with the "left" as in socialists and communists, @Hong Wu referenced "leftists" in the OP not liberals.


The fact that you and @Hong Wu either incorrectly believe this is a leftist notion, or that liberals are leftists, is not my fault.

An ideal where the law should not play favourites, like grant monopolies or tax one to subsidise another is fairly opposite to the idea of using law as a weapon to level everyone.


Not really, no.
#14996965
@blackjack21, But we're not bamboos or chimpanzees, we are humans. You can't compare our species to some animals that do have social hierarchies. I don't follow ANY politician, philosopher, nor Marxist person such as Stalin. I may support or agree with some politicians or philosophers, but that doesn't mean I follow them. I am not a "Marxist." I am a scientific socialist that supports some elements of Marx's views. I USE people from the past in terms of ideas to gain what I want for the future, but that doesn't make me a follower. I USE a car, but that doesn't mean I FOLLOW the fucking car.

@Hong Wu No it's because they are enforced. If one refuses to follow those above them, they can lose their jobs and be at risk for homelessness. EVERYTHING is determined by economics.

@Rancid So you honestly fucking think that social hierarchies in humans always existed? And to you, it has nothing to do with capitalism nor the concept of money? Aren't you an ANARCHIST??? I thought you anarchists would kinda say the opposite lol.
#14996996
SSDR wrote:@Rancid So you honestly fucking think that social hierarchies in humans always existed?

I don't know what you mean by always, but I'd hazard a guess that at a minimum, social hierachies have existed since the dawn of civilization.

SSDR wrote:And to you, it has nothing to do with capitalism nor the concept of money? Aren't you an ANARCHIST??? I thought you anarchists would kinda say the opposite lol.


I'm not an anarchist.

Anyway, I'm starting t wonder if capitalism is an emergent property of human economic interaction.
#14997056
SSDR wrote:@Rancid, Well your profile did say that you're an anarchist. Well if you're arguing against my side then now I understand.


That's your problem. You keep thinking in terms of "my side" versus "your side".

I'm simply tossing about ideas in hope of seeing some interesting discussion.

Can you provide evidence that supports your claim that social hierarchies were created specifically for and only for the Capitalist mode of production?

Anyway, best as I can tell, capitalism is kind of a natural emergent property of human trade interaction. It's why it has taken root across the globe. It's more organic than say communism.

In other words, capitalism just happened through natural human interaction across the centuries, it wasn't deliberately created. Now, of course, now that we are aware of its existence, we try to do stuff to it, but fundamentally, it occurred naturally. That's my current idea on the subject.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 9
Antifa again demonstrates its undemocratic nature

A serious question, @SSDR: would you see an "[…]

EU-BREXIT

Very well, what about the other similar claims in[…]

It is hard to believe that the Yemeni rebel group […]

Election 2020

Of course, a good economy and cutting red tape ar[…]