Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6709409" data-attributes="member: 4937">He's the founder of Progressivism.&nbsp; Pretty much any &quot;progressive&quot; philosophy, including some regressive retro-feudal philosophies that think of themselves as &quot;progressive&quot;, has its roots in the think of Condorcet.&nbsp; There is that racism again.&nbsp; Also, you don't even appear to be using the term correctly.I don't even know where you got that from what you quoted, but do you realize how racist the idea of &quot;making my life less white&quot; is?&nbsp; I mean, why is that even a thing and what do you mean by that?&nbsp; What are these &quot;white things&quot; you are referring to anyway?&nbsp;&nbsp; I get that you are saying that you aren't concerned with it, whatever that would mean, but what things were you thinking of as &quot;white&quot;, and would you ever occur to you to write a sentence about making a the life of a minority group &quot;less brown&quot;?&nbsp; What I actually wrote was that particularly if you view &quot;white&quot; and &quot;brown&quot; or &quot;black&quot; or whatever as distinctive and exclusive categories, then it is very tempting to think that for whatever reason you belong to the superior one.&nbsp; This is particularly tempting to do whenever someone asserts otherwise and that they are in the superior category.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's instinctive.&nbsp; As such, you see a lot of oppressed groups, but particularly racially oppressed groups, asserting the moral and intellectual superiority of whatever their group is compared to the white group.&nbsp; Often ironically this will be asserted on the basis of white racism which brings us back to that whole racial essentialist idea, that ones race is ones inescapable destiny.&nbsp; And you see parallel ideas arising with some feminists.&nbsp; And so forth.&nbsp;&nbsp; Whereas on the other hand, if you are inclined to think that race &quot;isn't a thing&quot;, and rather that despite differences in peoples melanin and other outward markers, we all have basically the same capacities, the same feelings, the same instincts, and so forth then this is a an incredibly powerful defense against thinking you are inherently better than someone else on account of race.&nbsp; Thus the inherent danger in buying into racial essentialism, even if with the best of motivations.&nbsp; Well they sure as heck aren't usually libertarians.&nbsp; The followers of Adorno and Marcuse aren't exactly known for thinking society needs to be left to its own devices.&nbsp; The core of Condorcet's progressive ideology is that everyone needs to be improved on.&nbsp; It's not a long jump to &quot;whether they like it or not&quot;.&nbsp; I suggest you read &quot;A Critique of Pure Tolerance.&quot;&nbsp; UPDATE: I got snippy with a parting shot in a previous version of this post.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 6709409, member: 4937"] He's the founder of Progressivism. Pretty much any "progressive" philosophy, including some regressive retro-feudal philosophies that think of themselves as "progressive", has its roots in the think of Condorcet. There is that racism again. Also, you don't even appear to be using the term correctly. I don't even know where you got that from what you quoted, but do you realize how racist the idea of "making my life less white" is? I mean, why is that even a thing and what do you mean by that? What are these "white things" you are referring to anyway? I get that you are saying that you aren't concerned with it, whatever that would mean, but what things were you thinking of as "white", and would you ever occur to you to write a sentence about making a the life of a minority group "less brown"? What I actually wrote was that particularly if you view "white" and "brown" or "black" or whatever as distinctive and exclusive categories, then it is very tempting to think that for whatever reason you belong to the superior one. This is particularly tempting to do whenever someone asserts otherwise and that they are in the superior category. It's instinctive. As such, you see a lot of oppressed groups, but particularly racially oppressed groups, asserting the moral and intellectual superiority of whatever their group is compared to the white group. Often ironically this will be asserted on the basis of white racism which brings us back to that whole racial essentialist idea, that ones race is ones inescapable destiny. And you see parallel ideas arising with some feminists. And so forth. Whereas on the other hand, if you are inclined to think that race "isn't a thing", and rather that despite differences in peoples melanin and other outward markers, we all have basically the same capacities, the same feelings, the same instincts, and so forth then this is a an incredibly powerful defense against thinking you are inherently better than someone else on account of race. Thus the inherent danger in buying into racial essentialism, even if with the best of motivations. Well they sure as heck aren't usually libertarians. The followers of Adorno and Marcuse aren't exactly known for thinking society needs to be left to its own devices. The core of Condorcet's progressive ideology is that everyone needs to be improved on. It's not a long jump to "whether they like it or not". I suggest you read "A Critique of Pure Tolerance." UPDATE: I got snippy with a parting shot in a previous version of this post. [/QUOTE]

Verification