[ SECRET POST #2959 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2959 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.














Notes:

Better early than late!

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 044 secrets from Secret Submission Post #423.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

"If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 60 years ago, a liberal 30 years ago and a racist today."
- Thomas Sowell

Just change the last bit to 'misogynist' and there you go.

[(Anonymous)]

i disagree with that viewpoint, whether or not it's a quote from someone

[silverr]

which part? The actual statement, or the labels assigned?

[(Anonymous)]

yes?

I mean, the general statement as a whole, the categorizing of those things in those ways, assigning those labels to them, and also the implicit underlying arguments about policy and history and all that sort of thing.

[(Anonymous)]

Seems pretty goddamn accurate these days.

[(Anonymous)]

I disagree.

And if you're going to make that argument I think you should make it and not drop it off in the form of a one-line quote.

[(Anonymous)]

As opposed to the vaguest terms possible, such as 'the argument as a whole' and 'the categorizing of those things in those ways', 'implicit underlying arguments about policy and history' and 'that sort of thing'? I spent two minutes trying to parse that comment and then gave up.

[sarillia]

But the argument that OP is trying to refute is that men and women aren't being judged by the same standards. Even if the people who believe that are wrong, they're still upholding the same ideal that all people should be judged by the same standards. The disagreement here is over whether the standards are different or not, not whether they should be.

[(Anonymous)]

Expecting people to play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards only works when those rules and standards are not intrinsically biased. Against people of darker skin, women, Jews, Roma, the disabled, the non-neuronormative, those with mental illnesses, transgender and non-binary gender people, non-heterosexual people, poor people, and diaspora peoples who do not assimilate into the dominant culture where they reside.

I would like everyone to be able to play by a (very small) set of same rules, and be judged by the same standards. But too much of the system already in place is oppressive and inherently discriminatory to be those rules and standards. Nor do I know of any set of rules and standards that wouldn't be. So, fuck that noise.

[glo_unit]

I just wanted to say this is an awesome refute of that quote.

[(Anonymous)]

Thank you! The quote was bothering me since I saw it earlier, and I walked away so I would not say something reactionary at first glance. And it stuck with me, so. *waves hand at above response* That happened.

[(Anonymous)]

This. Not everyone gets to play by the same rules, so the premise of the quote fails.

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." --Anatole France

[philippos42]

I'm going to have disagree with that viewpoint, because it relies on stereotyping time periods, rather than recognizing that we deal with different people with different opinions different levels of understanding in different time periods.

It's a giant logical fallacy throughout.

And if it hadn't been a Thomas Sowell quote, I might not have felt compelled to unpack it and find what's wrong with it. But the fact it was from him was a clue there was some kind of giant factual error there.

So thanks, anon! I'll try not to fall into that era-stereotyping trap from now on!

[(Anonymous)]

I agree with what you are trying to say with this. Only, the wording in this quote is ...imprecise at best. Of course, everyone *should* be judged by the same rules. It's just that when applied to reality, the idea of radically treating and evaluating every action equally withut considering the circumstances leads to more inequality. So I'd say it makes you an optimist.

Now you do hear that "same rights for everyone" and "if 'they' deal with drugs 'they' deserve what they get" stuff a lot from racists, that's true.
But these phrases do *not* stem from their "always believing everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards", but from the paranoia that comes with having to let go of privileges in favor of real equality, and a warped conception that has them see themselves as a victim of inequality.

So yeah, basically valid idea, but the quote is poop.

[(Anonymous)]

SA

dito for quotas for female employees etc. - to get back to the misogyny-topic.

[(Anonymous)]

The racist (or, being generous, politically right-wing) interpretation is what the quote is, in fact, arguing for. It is a quote that is precisely in defense of those people who are paranoid about their privileges and against the idea of considering circumstances. AYRT is either advancing those views or being kinda willfully ignorant about it.