We ask constantly of ourselves, when can things define people? Predefining is supposed to be a forbidden fruit in many instances, but we logically must define people at some point. Maybe our ideologies do not permit us to see people otherwise. Maybe we have the conventional view of a man as a fixed being, unchanging, and of roles which fit rigidly but comfortably. Or maybe even we have some truth on our side. Truths which make themselves 'clear as day and irrevocable'.
Does logic permit us to define people by race, or by sex or age? Most would caution that it does not, that predefining is wrong, although we will take it upon ourselves to do so when it strikes us as most reasonable. Indeed, as we are to live in the world we must accept that a reality exists to live in. There must be a natural division, something to throw the screw into the cogs of natural equality, and thus skew a natural rights-driven perspective. Look at the so-called 'race realists': with some groups performing so much better than others in a given society, we are heavily driven to the notion that success is defined somewhere deeper. In the old days, simply a 'natural predisposition'. Before, we felt as if there were unmistakable trends across people. Now we believe we see genes.
Even without evidence or with only flawed evidence to go on, the lineage has to define success. When you're a lazy lotus eater, you can hardly believe anyone can live without the lotus. In the same way, when you're racist, not being racist makes no sense. Intellectual laziness is an ocean denser than your madder. Those who believe in a natural unshakable predisposition tend to benefit in some way. The old racists of the South sure did. Even when they were poor whites, they focused on the even lower classes. T H I S, while most conventional socioeconomic models see a struggle between the middle and upper classes, with the working class being left destitute, as far as the acquisition of power goes. Instead of baking a bigger Schmorgishbourg together, these assholes decided to cut it up into ever-shrinking pieces.
It would be 100% inappropriate of me to make this suggestion otherwise. I still believe for me that it is, but I simply want to ponder the logic behind the fallacy. Imagine that whites collectively carry some gene sequences related to intelligence (which I am not convinced of, and no one in their right mind can accurately pinpoint any connection as the evidence stands today), and other races are totally missing this extra spark. Still, should we have such a view of brain chemistry? Can brain chemistry degrade humanity, is that where our concerns should rest? Maybe humanity should precede brain chemistry, because chemistry is simply the state of substituents with respect to time. We can change up all that shit in your head, make you a different person, if we have the right skills and equipment to do so, if we can alter neural pathways and define them unambiguously. Just think of amnesia. If we so desire, there's not a nature we cannot change.
So as it is important to say, I don't concede their point. But still, fuck this brain chemistry shit. Chromosomes are fucking sugars, not the will of the big guy upstairs. You're no better than anybody else, no matter what is in your head or your genome. If you have a higher IQ, you're smarter, if you work longer and are objectively more productive at it, you are a harder worker. But if you assume the mantle of being altogether better, it shows the most profound ignorance. Everyone has these different lineage factors. You can be white as a dove such as myself, but have a rare mitochondrial illness which has you dead at 25. Minor mental disorders should not be viewed as any more degrading than a broken leg, except by virtue that advancements have not yet addressed them in great length. As soon as therapies roll around, none of these trivial things will matter. Before anyone asks, I've read the Bell Curve and it is about as credible as the guys who shot down DDT.
Now for a slightly different note. Gods either err on the side of being incredibly nuanced, or without it. A deity must be decisive, we agree, but our individual perspectives and theologies continue to draw distinction between several conventional views of decisiveness. Poisoned minds may be deserving of a cleansing divine fire or considered lost souls. Both sides can argue it out, and both are within the power of the omnipotent actor. Perhaps either could be true, until we implant ourselves into it. I like to think that God would be reasonable to the utmost degree. If I were a God, I would seek to preserve. But still, there are some things so poisonous that they may not simply be recycled. The reality is nuanced, but the choices decisive. The basis of strong social disagreements of this sort rest ultimately within the understandings of people.
We can ponder a very racist and hurtful question which is controversial today, and likely the answer is that we don't know. But I'd say that the fixation on race in and of itself is rather racist. In our society, we find it mostly to be a joke when someone says white people are stupid. This idea is so far from the implicit mode of society and from our minds, we're unable to take it seriously as an idea. So while this distinction exists, it is evil for us to assume that the question should jump immediately to somebody's fixed nature. Especially with so many other questions to be asked. In a relationship, for instance, something which we're always told is to never personalize a disagreement. We disagree with people we love because of difference of opinion or misunderstanding, not because they are knowingly deceiving us or scheming behind our backs.
Don't get me wrong, if you're a sack of shit, I'm definitely arguing with you. I'm not playing by the rules of a system that perpetuates racism, for instance. But if we're ironing out a disagreement, we must continue to respect one another. This can be really hard in a world with all these political personalities we must give our take on, but I know we can switch that off when it comes to the real world at hand. We can beat political terminology which dehumanizes primarily and addresses the truth under wraps.
So in conclusion, natural equality doesn't exist. In all the history of man, there's never been anyone like you before. But to create social inequality is to expound what inequality nature has laid out, to supplant what are largely human biases and present them as naturalistic ethics. Your unequal thoughts are never gonna match up to the nuance of nature. By any standard, you're probably gonna kick the shit out of natural differences and confuse yourself in the process. Just by nature of being a sentient being, there are rights, and we are free. As soon as you take the power away from this fundamental idea of natural rights, you are gonna have to physically remove all hosts of people. You should start with your own nazi ass.
John Lockers
No comments:
Post a Comment