Reversed and Remanded

[dachte]

One of the ways you can tell you're arguing poorly about an issue is when people who have little opinion on the issue read your argument and hope things go against you just for spite. I confess to the latter with a recent post on Google+ by "Siderea B", a post which has been floating through my social circles. There are quite a lot of these posts

Comments

[gwillen]

Well, it's not necessarily a matter of comfort. What distinguishes me from libertarians is that I recognize that how 'free' someone is can be determined, in large part, by the actions of the entities (people, corporations) they have to deal with on a daily basis -- that freedom can be taken away, in a real sense rather than a theoretical one, by entities other than the government.

So if adherents of a particular philosophy cause substantial harm to their fellow people, I don't think we are right to sit by and watch. The threshold for 'substantial harm' is, of course, a difficult one. But I think it is not unreasonable -- and here is where the concept of 'privilege' begins to earn its keep -- for me to say that, if an institution systematically harms people who are already disadvantaged relative to the average or the majority, I should recognize that I am not going to be good at judging the magnitude of that harm, because I'm not the one suffering it; and in fact evidence suggests that I'm likely to systematically underestimate it. So to compensate I ought to recognize when a particular institution, or practice, or attitude, or philosophy tends to systematically harm the already-disadvantaged, and oppose it.

As it turns out, circling back to the original topic at hand, there are good arguments that compulsory display of legal names indeed systematically harms the already-disadvantaged, which means I think I am ethically bound to oppose it.

[dachte]

I understand/recognise your argument. I am generally reluctant to make the kind of judgement you make here without a very compelling argument, for the reasons I outlined, but I think your greater willingness to do so (or your different estimation of the harm involved) is reasonable too.

In the name of protecting worldview-diversity, I still want to protect and fence the idea of letting people define terms as they will (provided no malice), over that of demanding people use some framework of terms that will theoretically make everyone most comfortable (or meet unnamed other values, like some notion of freedom).

I think I see where you're coming from, and suspect this is (a big part of) the root of our differences on this matter.

[gwillen]

I will try to push just a little father here: part of the value of the notion of 'privilege' is in identifying areas where the existing spectrum of frameworks and philosophies is so biased against a particular group, that the requirement of 'malice' to push back on people's chosen frameworks is too strong, and a weaker requirement should hold. If one acknowledges that it is possible for such a condition to hold, one ought at least consider the best way to deal with it. (And given that such frameworks do not arise in a vacuum, but are communicated culturally, I think it is not unreasonable to presume that there exist areas where the common spectrum of frameworks is biased by groupthink away from the truth; and that there may be areas where it is so to the detriment of particular groups of people.)

[dachte]

I'd consider any framework-of-terms made without ill-will to be a valid one, and any pushing against it to be done on a "persuade" rather than "demand" basis (barring strong social interest otherwise). This protection only directly applies to the human who needed a framework and (decided on/created) one, but I place a "fence" around that that generally applies it to other entities too so people will never attempt to generalise what would be their ability to demand it of other entities towards an ability to generalise it to people.

[gwillen]

Well, I think "strong social interest otherwise" is exactly what I'm getting at. And let me be clear: I'm in no way suggesting that anything be done on a "demand" basis. I'm just trying to separate out a category of pieces-of-frameworks that I think are ethically bad, and I personally feel ethically obligated to oppose; and where I think it is appropriate to apply e.g. community shunning and similar tools, which are weaker than "demand" but stronger than "persuade or give up".

And as to what I am asking of Google, let's also be clear -- I'm not asking for a change of framework or perspective, I'm asking for a change of concrete action. We would not say -- at least I would not, and I suspect you would not -- that it is inappropriate for the government to require that commercial businesses be willing to do business with black people. I don't know whether you would call that a demand of change of framework, but if you would I'm pretty sure you'd call it one with a strong social interest. I'm not, in this case, even suggesting that anybody require or demand anything; I am just suggesting that a particular policy, enacted by a particular private enterprise, is socially harmful, in the same way -- though not to the same magnitude -- that the choice of a private enterprise not to do business with black people is socially harmful; and I'm suggesting that we should oppose that policy on those grounds, and use the tools within our power to attempt to change or prevent that policy.

[dachte]

I wouldn't call such a refusal a matter of framework/perspective so much as concrete action, and I'm more comfortable regulating concrete action.

I generally see the harm of coexisting with frameworks of thought laid out by others as a necessary consequence of living in a world where not everyone thinks the same way. That, and the recognition that it's often hard/impossible to form frameworks that will please everyone, make my bar very high for the strength of argument required to do more than request a different policy.

I'll add that I think it's a necessary life lesson that we don't get to entirely shape how others see us, and that even if we really want to be seen a certain way, we must coexist with others who don't choose to validate our identity. At least moderate flexibility on this front is required in life, and people who go to great lengths to push others to recognise them as they see themselves are often being all-elbows in their demands on the worldviews of others.