SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Journal by The Mighty Buzzard
In case you haven't heard, FreeBSD has a new code of conduct that's seemingly pulled straight from the shit-spewing face of a blue-haired intersectional feminist.
Me, I refuse to contribute to any coding project with a code of conduct designed to protect people of one political ideology from those who disagree with them. They're of course welcome to do what they like but they'll be doing it without my help in any way.
Reply to: Re:interesting!
Post Comment
Nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits.
-- Mark Twain, "Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Thursday February 22 2018, @02:47AM
Likewise.
"I will take issue with your paraphrasing of various definitions from the site you linked."
I'm sorry but you appear to be mistaken, I did not paraphrase from the various definitions, I skipped down past them and directly excerpted that authors own words. The ones he came up with AFTER reviewing the definitions from around the net.
So while I will reply to some of this where I think it might be interesting there may be a divergence of relevance from the point of that misunderstanding.
"Personally, I support human equality in every aspect of life. I dislike imposed inequality. That's not to say that I think all humans are identical in capacities or motivation. Rather, I support the idea that all humans *should* have an equal opportunity to succeed or fail or anything in between."
Well then we agree on that. Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.
Now apply that to the supposed 'wage gap' please?
"I also strongly support the idea that all persons should have the *opportunity* to participate as equals within society."
And I don't have a problem with that, as you've expressed it. But I'm very concerned with it, in a context of social justice, because that means we're talking about *legally mandating* this. In that context it becomes contradictory to a higher principle - freedom of association. The only way you could mandate social equality without violating freedom of association would be if everyone is already there. At which point a mandate would be utterly superfluous.
"Humans are, and have always been, even before there were humans, social animals that lived in groups and found ways to survive and thrive. "
Absolutely, but again, let's not lose track of the distinction between society and government. Society is formed by consensual association. Government is the power to force. They are opposites. If you use force to compel people to associate unwillingly, that's not society any longer, it's not consensual, it's not an improvement. So at that level you do have to choose one or the other - equality or liberty. Equality or consent. I think, and it sounds like you may even agree, that equality must be judged the lesser value and give way in that case.
"I'm not really sure what it is that you're arguing here. Equality has many facets: Equality under the law, equality of political access, equality of opportunity and the list goes on and on. I don't see that spelling out the facets of such a broad term reduces its importance or value."
It's a similar issue. Equality under the law is a fundamental principle that can be applied and followed, and it's non contradictory. But if we keep expanding this circle of abstractions a bit we can make it very contradictory. By the time we get to equality of outcome we have something entirely different. There is no way you can guarantee equality of outcome while still respecting equality under the law, for instance. Think about that for a moment. Equality under the law implies (and requires) respect for individuals in their right to make their own choices and live with the consequences of those choices. Equality of outcome (unless held strictly subordinate to fundamental rights) is deeply incompatible with that respect for the individual.
The way the game seems to work is that first they put the two on the same plane, and then they use the latter to destroy the former.
I appreciate the attempt to have a serious conversation and I will try to come back and give you a few better examples of what I am talking about a little later.