i think my longtime pal bachman is really onto something here.
just because something is universal does not mean it is not a rights abuse or a tyrannical abuse of power. yet somehow, humans seem to overlook it when it is.
“all nightclubs are closed” seems OK while “all gay nightclubs are closed” would have people in the streets protesting? why? what functionally is the difference?
objectively, the former is worse than the latter as it closes more clubs and abrogates more rights. in both cases, all the gay clubs are closed.
so what’s the claim, that universality of oppression somehow makes it OK so long as we do not single groups out? because that’s an easy claim to render absurd by just using different groupings.
“slavery is fine so long as anyone can enslave anyone regardless of race, gender, or tribe.” it’s perfectly egalitarian. does this suit anyone’s notions of ethics and rights? does this “equal treatment” excuse the underlying action? how about “to avoid the wrath of god and a blight upon our harvests, sex out of wedlock is punishable by death for ALL people”?
“slavery is fine so long as anyone can enslave anyone regardless of race, gender, or tribe.” it’s perfectly egalitarian. does this suit anyone’s notions of ethics and rights? does this “equal treatment” excuse the underlying action?
how about “to avoid the wrath of god and a blight upon our harvests, sex out of wedlock is punishable by death for ALL people”?
i’m doubting very much that most are getting on board with this, so why then if you find the closure of gay clubs or jewish houses of worship to be an unacceptable practice because it’s oppressive to a group do you then find the exact same oppression OK if we just apply it to more people?
what sort of absurdist utilitarian inversion is this?
it’s the literal equivalent of arguing that while punching one person is the face is evil, punching everyone in the face is fine if you think you have a good reason.
this gets all the more dangerous if people are convinced that their reasons are valid and noble and it’s awfully easy to fall into the trap of supporting an abuse just because you happened to want to do it anyway.
“all jews must wear masks in public” would set most people off. but, if this is oppressive, then why is it not so if “all people must wear masks in public”? how is masking different to “all people must wear a crucifix in public”? (the objective data shows that the 2 will accomplish about the same in stopping covid)
give this some thought because this egalitarian fallacy is ingrained into a lot of human thinking and it has done massive harm.
if it’s evil to let kids in private school attend class while keeping public school closed, are you seriously going to claim that the evil lies in the unequal treatment and not the prohibition of education and that it could be somehow improved by reducing education yet further?
will you seriously argue that that which is evil when worked upon a group is suddenly good when worked upon a larger one?
so perhaps, to render the base ethics more visible, ask yourself, when faced with each new imposition and limitation “what if this were done to just blacks/jews/women/gays/ny yankees fans/intersectional grouping of your choice?” would that seem oppressive?
if so, why is it not then oppressive when invoked universally? oppression is not oppression if you spread it around? slavery is fine so long as any can enslave any?
wake up and smell that which is being shoveled here before we are all completely buried in it.
universality is not justice. that which would oppress one, oppresses all.
For your security, we need to re-authenticate you.
Click the link we sent to , or click here to log in.