[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It brings the question to mind: If you agree that children must be protected under exceptional circumstances because of their inherent vulnerability, why do you take issue with the exceptional treatment of groups that have been made more vulnerable by historical power structures?

The experiences of the individuals in a group vary dramatically. Some Europeans have benefited from the privileges of their parents and grandparents. Others have not. Some women and people of colour have been historically disadvantaged. Some have not.

The whole notion of historical power structures is flimsy. If you're a white Pole, what historical power structures advantaged you when your country was repeatedly overrun and you family massacred? If you're an upper caste Indian who moves to Canada, how can your background have been anything but an advantage in setting you up with money and social capital?

The tapestry of human history isn't a pattern of blocks. It's complex and intricate and subtle. The people who want it to be simple are ideologues. They crave the same kind of certainty and absolute moral battle-lines as the devoutly religious do.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

How do you measure where your moral cutoff for vulnerability falls? Is there a major difference between how you treat vulnerability caused by the stage of development vs vulnerability caused by societal structure? Both are as concrete and objective as the other.

They're not. One is innate and largely biological. The other is a social construct that isn't anywhere near as powerful as the advocates of identity politics claim. And again, how do we measure the relative vulnerability of a man of Bosnia origin raised by a single mother who worked as a cleaning lady versus a woman who is from a long line of affluent surgeons and grew up surrounded by a loving and supportive family?

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I think it's great to say people should be treated as individuals with exceptions granted for the vulnerable, but you have to define what that is, and explain why a 17 year old white male is more vulnerable than an 18 year old female (when, in reality, the opposite is likely true).

But it's not. A 17 year old male is much likely to be the victim of violence, up to and including murder. He's also less likely to finish school or go on to post-secondary education.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I've suggested the biological argument for tribalism many times, I think it's an incredibly strong argument.

Human beings (and all animals really) in general are wired to do specific things with the core purpose of our continued survival. Tribalism is huge, and ingrained in almost every aspect of our lives. I don't know if some fantasizing about a life devoid of it would even recognise what they're actually seeking.

A world devoid of tribalism isn't possible. Neither is a world devoid of violence. And yet we've made remarkable progress is reducing both over the last few hundred years. It's impossible to eradicate human failings. As Kant said, "with this crooked timber, nothing straight was ever made." The goal of humanist society is to mitigate the worst of our human heritage while encouraging the best to flourish. Our best tools for this project are reason and empathy. Both religion and dogmatic ideologies like cultural Marxism are resistant to those tools for the same reasons - they're rooted in irrational impulses, paint an overly simplistic portrait of society, and tend to limit their empathy to the in-group.