News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
The difference between our examples is the difference between refraining from action and activelly taking action, and you need to have closed your eyes in the 60s and have kept them closed really hard since then to trully believe that there is any kind of active action against the rich in present day society.
In fact it doesn't take much to find countless cases where the rich get priviledged treatment that others don't get (lower taxes, priviledged outcomes in the Justice System, better outcomes for their children, the entire panoplia of life improving products and services which cost lots of money to mention just some of they ways in which they get better treatment), which curiously is the exact opposite of the spirit of the example you gave.
If people were actually using Monsieur Guillot's invention on people just because they're rich, then you would've been entirelly right, but that's almost exactly the opposite of what's happenning in present day Western society were the rich even have average higher life expectation that all the rest.
I'm not saying the rich have it hard, only that generalizing every individual in a group of people because of how you perceive the group in general is backwards thinking; saying it's okay to be wary of a rich person because you have a poor opinion of rich people, is equivalent to being wary of a black individual because you have a poor opinion of black people. This doesn't mean they are equally disadvantaged groups.
Unless you're arguing that the only reason it's bad to be racist against black people is because they are a traditionally disadvantaged group. Is that the case?
That's why I made a very clear distinction in my original post about people who inherited their wealth and people who made themselves rich or richer, whilst you seem to be throwing those who make active choices to make or expand their wealth into the same pot as those who had such choices imposed on them.
(It's strange that I'm having to fill-in the gaps of that over simplistic example of yours by actually pointing out the actual principles. "Black people examples" are not principles, they're just ultra-simplified illustrations of much broader principles which are sadly overabused in neoliberal political discourse)
As for people who were born in wealth, I agree that it would be unfair to treat them badly upfront just for what they were born with: one should treat them like everybody else and only judge them after seeing their choices and actions.
Personally I try and not have biases against people who were simply born into wealth (and I have met a couple, so I've actually practiced it), but most definitelly will pass judgements on rich people's choices.
So, is it okay to cross the street when you see a black person coming based on what they are wearing?
Although I have to laugh at my post being met with "over simplistic" when you're whole point is "if you've made a lot of money, you have to be a bad person."
Re-read my whole post.
If after that you still don't get the difference between actual discrimination and judging others on the basis of their personal choices and actions, then I can only conclude your "argumenting by black-person example" is just mindless parroting of the kind of oh-so-common American Neolib simpleton shit that only works with the intellectually lacking or mindless tribalist, rather than being the product of you actually thinking things through on this subject.
What you wear is a choice.
--
In that example of yours "black" is an irrelevant detail to anybody but a racist, because the color of a person's skin is irrelevant either way to judging a person and acting on that judgment, for those who are not racist.
When guided by the basic principle of "I shall not judge or treat differently people on things they had no choice in", there is almost always a clear non-discriminatory fairness maximizing path in any "black person example" because the principle is very clear about the category of things one can judge others on, and that's most definitelly not skin color (or gender, or sexual orientation or even inherited wealth) because that's not a choice of an individual to have.
It's only those applying learned, case-by-case supposedly anti-racist recipes that end up sooner or later colliding with the contradictions in them due to the inherent racist architecture of any recipes that explicitly take in account a person's race - if you're thinking about somebody's race when interacting with them then you're still operating in the very same mental framework as all racists, giving weight in your decisions to something a non-racist would treat as irrelevant, and hence discriminating on race.
From that same principle of mine it's also pretty easy to derive that it's fair to judge people on their actions of activelly trying to gain more and more wealth beyond need and on the methods they use, whilst it's not fair to judge people on merelly having being born into wealth (though what the choose to do later with it is fair to judge) because the former judges their choices but the latter would judge something they did not choose and hence would be unfair.