So, I dunk on SJWs enough, but at the same time, I saw a forum thread asking why racism and discrimination is a big deal, and I decided to write my response here instead. While I dislike SJWs and their version of critical race theory and the religious devotion to the idea, I actually don't support racism in any way, and think it's bad. But I want to explain why I think its bad from my own perspective. A lot of this should be self evident, but apparently the alt right, neoconfederates, neonazis, and Trumpers exist, threatening a core egalitarian ideal, so I wanted to explain, within my alternate framework, why such ideas are bad.
Racism and discrimination are a violation of fundamental rights
Now, I want to keep in mind I don't mean rights as in "natural rights" a la Locke's theory, as I don't believe rights inherently exist. Rights are social constructs that establish important meta rules for governance in society. They're kind of the rules we put on the rules and the rulemakers to ensure they never cross such lines, and if anything, rules should exist to strengthen these personal protections. I would argue that important fundamental rights within my perspective are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and access to basic resources needed to survive. Note how I do not necessarily include property. While property is a right too, it's also a right that if treated in excess from a fundamental level, enslaves others. If we have 100 people living on an island, and one dude owns everything, the other 99 must work for that one person, as slaves pretty much, to access the resources they need to survive. So I focus on access of resources, which precludes some level of property in my opinion. But I don't believe property is absolute.
But, generally speaking, I believe everyone should be given access to these rights. All human beings. And people who are nonwhite are still human. I know hardcore race realists like to pretend this isn't a thing, but they're biologically identical to us. They just have a different skin color. Species are defined by those we can actually breed with and produce offspring, and obviously, we can do that with people of different "races". So they're the same species. They deserve the same rights. Sorry race realists, you're not just wrong, you're bigoted idiots.
So, that said, race does not factor at all into who is a member of a society, and who is entitled to fundamental human rights. Regardless of race, you are deserving of the same rights. Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, access to enough resources (aka property) to survive, and perhaps property beyond that as long as it doesn't encroach on the other rights.
That said, it makes perfect sense that racism and discrimination are bad and violate these human rights. Violating the physical well being of ethnic minorities violates their right to life. Enslaving them violates their right to liberty. Discriminating against them violates their access to goods and services. There's no valid reason, at all, why any form of racism or discrimination that impacts the physical, mental, or financial well being of any ethnic minority is justified, meaning no rules against them are justified, and even worse, such rules and actions violate their rights.
We should vigorously fight against racism from a legal standpoint
As it seems clear that racism and discrimination are a violation of obvious rights in society, many stated, some not stated but implicit, the state has a role in protecting those rights. Many legal protections implemented over time have done a good job at doing this. The 13th-15th Amendments eliminated slavery, established voting rights, and guaranteed equal protection under the law. But, still, discrimination remained, as Jim Crow shifted to a form of institutional racism and discrimination that was legal "on paper" but had the impact of violating minority rights. These discriminatory measures were often justified from a legal standpoint, and were often upheld by terrorists known as groups like the Ku Klux Klan who basically would kill and intimidate anyone who stepped out of line.
That isn't good. So a century later, under the Johnson administration, the federal government stepped in, desegregated the schools, strengthened voting protections by outlawing BS like literacy tests, and ensuring that Jim Crow like discrimination was illegal. We should preserve and continue to expand on this legacy to ensure that people of all races are granted equal protection under the law, and equal access to activities such as work and consumption within the free market. A market isn't free if you're denied access to it based on your skin color or any other discriminating factor while we're at it.
Where I differ from critical race theorists
So, it seems like I'm reinventing the wheel as far as critical race theory goes, am I not? Well, as I said, it is a valid lens, isn't it? Most of my disagreement with them are over the tactics they engage in to enforce their behavior, as well as the vigor they pursue solutions with. Let me explain.
A lot of solutions critical theorists propose to solve problems regarding racism, are themselves discriminatory or otherwise violate peoples' rights and liberties.
For example, I support a largely unrestricted freedom of speech. This includes access to platforms and reasonable protections from retaliation for having bad views. Some CRT advocates want literal hate speech laws, making hate speech a crime. But if the first amendment doesn't exist to protect unpopular views, does it really exist? A lot of CRT advocates may acknowledge this, and pursue more private forms of sanctions, such as deplatforming people off of social media, or getting people fired from their jobs. These are informal forms of censorship and discrimination that are market driven. But is this really any better than the informal racism and discrimination under Jim Crow? Looks awfully the same to me. Using the private sphere to do your dirty work when the public sphere is off limits. The way I see it, social media should be treated as a public utility, as an expansion of the "net neutrality" idea (something the left was in favor of not long ago...), and people should be free to post whatever they want as long as it is not deemed a form of threat or harassment against specific individuals. And people should not be allowed to be let go over their political speech. There should be employment protections that exist specifically to stop that.
And before people go "BuT wHaT aBoUt CoLiN KaPeRnIcK? ThE rIgHt CaNcElS pEoPlE tOo!", well I'm not a right winger, now am I? Obviously I thought that was just as BS as the cancel culture the left is engaging in, and just because the right does crappy things, doesn't give the left a free pass, you guys are supposed to be better than that. Obviously what happened to Kapernick was wrong, and the NFL should not have been allowed to discriminate against him based on his speech either. Hell, I'll go further. the NFL shouldn't play jingoistic songs during their games in the first place. Totally avoid the issue altogether. Note, that is not to say they should be forced not to, but I believe that they created the whole controversy in the first place by doing so.
Here's the thing. I'm sorry, but we should not violate other peoples' rights in pursuit of ending racism. That's one thing I differ with CRT theorists on. To them, they have this mentality that if you are not actively antiracist and make these issues your #1, you are supporting racism and are a racist. That's ridiculous. People have a right, as part of their liberty, to be racist. I mean, the first amendment protects unpopular views. It is basically a right to be wrong. You have your freedom to express views too, but you cannot take away someone else's right to think a certain way. Only how they act insofar that it violates YOUR rights.
Another disagreement is over teaching CRT in schools. I'm not opposed to this in principle, but CRT theorists dont want to educate people, but brainwash them. CRT is held with an almost religious regard amongst these people, and they want to spread their dogma by forcing it down kids' throats. This is literally no different than Trump's "patriotic education", and before I once again get "BuT tHe RiGhT dOeS iT!!11!", yeah, and I didn't leave the right, to join the left, only for you guys to do the same thing. You're better than them, act like it.
CRT should be taught as a sociological theory, a lens through which to see the world. A valid perspective, but not the only one. I believe multiple perspectives and schools of thought should be taught in schools, and students should be allowed to drift toward what they accept and not accept. I don't believe we should use authoritarian tactics to force people to not be racist, or indoctrinate them a certain way.
And finally, a third disagreement I have is with CRT theorists is over their solutions to equalize the workplace. I don't believe that active racial discrimination via affirmative action or racial quotas is a good way to solve problems. Unequal treatment of people based on race is wrong, and it doesn't matter if it's done in a reverse way to solve past wrongs. The fact is, while we can push anti discrimination stuff, sure, perhaps people of different races might face institutional barriers, but if we cannot solve those barriers without even more discrimination, I'm not sure that's a good thing. Again, CRT advocates believe solving racism trumps everything, including all rights, or forms of fairness. Quite frankly, these kinds of solutions are divisive, put other people at a disadvantage in the name of "justice", and simply act to spread misery a bit more equally in a larger, unjust society.
The fact is, if we cannot guarantee full equality in the workplace via legal measures, we should instead at least ensure that everyone has their rights taken care of in the form of a basic income, as well as other measures I support. This may not completely solve the problem, but it will alleviate the burden POC face, to the point that I believe these issues are secondary to it. Everyone should have access to a good life. But the way to do that is for the state to provide the means to everyone equally, rather than through unfair means tested schemes or relying on employment. Employment, to me, is notoriously unreliable as a means of subsistence, as employers have as much of a vested interest in minimizing costs by hiring as few people as possible for as low of a wage as possible while working them as hard as possible, as any worker has in securing a job with a good income and good hours. These two diametrically opposed forced are at odds with people, and once again, the core problem is needing to rely on these businesses to secure one's needs at all. That said, my basic income stuff should be seen as a way to secure a better life for POC over relying on ending employment discrimination, something that is difficult, has a questionable overall impact on society, and has many unfairness issues attached to it. So, while we should ban provable overt discrimination, trying to solve every institutional barrier in the workplace isn't a priority for me. Sorry CRT theorists, i know I'll get rakes over hot coals for that one, but eh, I have higher priorities. To be fair, this is consistent with stances I hold otherwise, as I've stated many times previously, regulations are mere band aids on coercive, exploitative relationships, and all CRT oriented solutions are just more band aids on a broken system. You cannot fully solve issues in this way. You can resolve them as much as reasonably possible, but at the end of the day, guaranteeing a governmental solution to the whole poverty and coercion issue is going to be more important.
What about the police?
Well the police is run by the government, and there are many institutional factors that lead to systemic discrimination and bad treatment by police. I don't claim to have all of the solutions, but it's quite clear these issues need to be studied more closely and changed. We should probably end the war on drugs as that was just a way for Nixon to crack down on black people and hippies anyway. We should probably require some form of training involving CRT to ensure fairer treatment of POC by police. Anyone with overt white nationalist sympathies who joins the police should face stiff sanctions if found to unjustly use force against POC (as white nationalists are known to infiltrate police forces specifically to commit violence against blacks and the like). They should wear body cams, etc. And as far as protests go and the excessive force used last year, defunding the police is a must. Police should not be able to buy military surplus weaponry. Those resources should remain under lock and key and should only be unleashed when the property authorities, like a governor or the president decides they need to be used to quell violence.
All in all, cultural changes are going to be hard. the reason the acronym ACAB exists is because these cultural and systemic factors are so bad that police often cover for each other and protect each other from prosecution. This needs to end. I don't always have the solutions for it on hand, as I have not researched it extensively (it is a bit outside of my expertise), but I do believe that these institutions being government run, means the government must be held accountable in ensuring fair treatment of people.
Conclusion
That said, my views are pretty straightforward. Racism and discrimination is bad and a violation of rights. Legal protections should exist and be protected and expanded to ensure fair treatment of POC in society. However, we should not trample on the rights of others or implement discriminatory or unfair solutions in solving these problems. CRT theorists are too zealous and authoritarian and seem to want to impose their extreme ideology on people by force in order to solve problems and that rubs me the wrong way. Where we cannot fully solve private problems associated with racism and discrimination, progressive libertarian solutions like UBI should be used to lessen their impacts and make them secondary issues in society. And of course, the police should be defunded and heavily reformed, being a governmental institution with an obligation to uphold the law and treat people fairly.
No comments:
Post a Comment