Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
No. But there are dozens of characteristics every human possesses. Which ones should be regarded as Identities with a capital I? Which mixes of these characteristics constitute Diversity with capital D?
Those who want to use these characteristics to chart social policy need to present some kind of coherent model to get people like me onboard. Or do we just follow whatever sentimental trends that influential citizens seem captivated by at any moment in time?
|
I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here. We're talking about innate traits that have historically been the basis for discrimination and subjugation; people who have faced clear systemic and interpersonal obstacles based solely on features they've inherited. I'm all for throwing the poor into that group, but you're likely going to find there's a lot of crossover.
Quote:
|
Alternatively, we could recognize the liberalism, in the traditional sense, rejects group identity altogether, and challenges us to look at ideas on their own merits, without reaching for the simplistic approach of lumping people into groups.
|
Theory is great, but I like it better when reality shapes theory rather than trying to get reality to fit theory, and the reality is that people are discriminated on the basis of their constructed groups. And let's not forget that it's the oppressing classes who generally construct and define groups for subjugation in the first place. As I said, social progress isn't about being blind to what makes us different, it's about reducing the harmful conditions that are imposed on people because of their differences. Just saying "everyone is equal" doesn't make it so in practice.