Relativistic/counterintuitive insight : equality is the same as discrimination.

[CreamCat]

Example 1. Person A and person B look at a situation. A thinks it is equal. B thinks it is unequal.

A makes it equal. Now, B think it is unequal.

Example 2. amateur chess player wants to play with a grand chess master. To put them on an equal playing ground, you need to discriminate against the grand chess master. The same applies to sports games.

Conclusion 1. There is no such thing as absolute equality that everybody can agree on. It's all relative, and it depends on different perspectives.

Conclusion 2. It's difficult to cleanly discern discrimination from equality. Equality and discrimination are deeply entangled. Perhaps, it's one of tricky ramifications of non-duality.

Edited August 13, 2019 by CreamCat

[Aeris]

What you mean is :

You cannot equalize if you don't make discernement.

Yes It's Always entangled

 

[bmcnicho]

It's important to distinguish between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome (otherwise known as so called "equity").  Equality of opportunity is a noble aim based in compassion, which should be at the core of a well functioning social democracy.

However, equality of outcome is motivated by resentment, jealousy, and laziness.  The only way to make outcomes equal would be to tear down the excellent, which would ultimately be to the detriment of everyone.  This is why communism failed.

Remember that devilry exists on all sides, even though at this time the largest devils are the elite capitalists.  Marxism will gradually reemerge over the next few decades, and it will present itself under the guise of progressivism, tolerance, and diversity.  We're already beginning to see this in the form of radical identity politics.

[CreamCat]

7 hours ago, bmcnicho said:

Remember that devilry exists on all sides, even though at this time the largest devils are the elite capitalists.  Marxism will gradually reemerge over the next few decades, and it will present itself under the guise of progressivism, tolerance, and diversity.

Corporations that proudly advertise that its employees enjoy autonomy give little autonomy to employees.

Movements that advocate progressivism, tolerance, and diversity push the opposite.

Devils flip the truths. That's why I don't believe empty words. Actions speak louder than words.

Oftentimes, a devil advertises something because the devil doesn't have it. If you really had it, you wouldn't need to market it fiercely. A good product sells itself effortlessly and doesn't need aggressive marketing campaigns. That means if you are progressive and tolerant, you wouldn't need to aggressively advertise that you are progressive and tolerant. Some marketing is necessary, but aggressive marketing campaigns are fishy.

How do I recognize the devil? One hint is that a devil prioritizes survival of some identity over love and consciousness. Devils can also lie about being virtuous or loving. If you look for fake love and fake virtue, you can find it after some training.

Edited August 14, 2019 by CreamCat

[Leo Gura]

@bmcnicho You are speaking misinformed JP talking points.

[CreamCat]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

@bmcnicho You are speaking misinformed JP talking points.

I once read about https://www.eff.org/ and some environmental advocacy groups captured by psychopaths.

A former president of EFF wrote about internal psychopath infection.

Some books about psychopaths present examples of psychopaths who disguise as activists or muslims in order to utilize other people as shield or weapon.

No political movement is immune to psychopathy, yet.

A person doesn't have to be a psychopath to lie. Since lies are widespread, I think there are people who pretend to advocate progressivism and whatnot. I tend to see a lot of fakery.

Lies are so widespread that I lie to myself without knowing. It's hard to believe others when it's difficult to trust myself.

Edited August 14, 2019 by CreamCat

[Leo Gura]

@CreamCat What does this have to do with anything??

[RobertZ]

I note mixed use of the word "discrimination." The word discrimination has broadly accepted technical meaning that I found to be analytically useful. "Discrimination" means a legally protected characteristic is a factor in harm that an individual suffers. "Human rights" are almost entirely synonymous with limits on discrimination.

Three points about this definition:
(1) First, discrimination is based on a legally protected ground. So-called "human rights" are defined on these consensus human characteristics like family, heritage, race, religion, disability, gender, and so on. 
(2) Next, discrimination involves adverse treatment. Effects measure harm. 
(3) Thirdly, a protected ground is a factor in the adverse treatment. Significant literature discusses this factor. It does not mean cause or intention.

An example from Canada: a librarian in a lawyers only lounge approached the only black person in the room, sitting with some white people. The librarian demanded identification from the black lawyer only.
The race did not cause this adverse treatment, but the context indicated that race was a factor. The librarian might have had had good intentions of doing her job and checking ID's, and perhaps the black person sat closest to the librarian.

Discrimination is distinct from justification. For example, a community centre might not have a handicap ramp because they cannot afford to install it. So, there might be good reasons for discrimination. However, distinct justifications support recognition.

Finally, discrimination scales to systems levels. For example, in the United States, prohibitions on cocaine and crack indirectly but disproportionately impacted groups of black people. Meanwhile, the vast majority of cocaine and crack users were white.[2] Popular ideologies linked drugs and poverty. Not widely recognized is that people's race is a factor in US incarceration for drug possession. 

An older analysis might look like this:

(a) Drug prohibition genuinely and verifiable disadvantages detained individuals;
(b) Incarceration disproportionately targets racial minorities [statistically proven]
(c) Therefore, drug prohibition violates equality.

A newer, comparative analysis might look like this:

(a) Drug prohibition imposes a disadvantage on incarcerated people;
(b) Racial minorities get detained at disparate rates [statistically proven]; 
(c) Race played a factor in disparate detention [statistical causation inferred];
(d) Therefore, drug prohibition violates equality.

[1] Anita Kalunta-Crumpton, Race and Drug Trials: The Social Construction of Guilt and Innocence(Brookfield, Wisconsin: Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 1999) at 51-52.

[CreamCat]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

@CreamCat What does this have to do with anything??

The lesson I learned from Jordan Peterson is that there are so many lies that it's hard to trust any one group regardless of their political positions. There are lies upon lies upon lies.

All online political activist groups I visited talked about manipulating public opinions for identity survival regardless of their political positions. Their manipulation tactics eroded trust.

Trust is not easy.

Edited August 14, 2019 by CreamCat

[CreamCat]

11 hours ago, RobertZ said:

The librarian demanded identification from the black lawyer only.

There are many possibilities.

• The librarian was a single woman, and the black lawyer was a hot man. She was just looking for an excuse to talk to him.
• If he was the only white lawyer in a room full of black lawyers, the librarian could have asked his identification, too.

[Leo Gura]

@CreamCat Self-deception is the currency of the human mind and of the collective species mind.

[CreamCat]

11 hours ago, RobertZ said:

Finally, discrimination scales to systems levels. For example, in the United States, prohibitions on cocaine and crack indirectly but disproportionately impacted groups of black people. Meanwhile, the vast majority of cocaine and crack users were white.[2] Popular ideologies linked drugs and poverty. Not widely recognized is that people's race is a factor in US incarceration for drug possession. 

TJ Reeves is a black man and concluded that what seems like systemic discrimination against the black people is actually favoritism among people who already have various advantages.

If you are a white man in a rich white neighborhood, you want to help your nephew or your white friends who helped you get a job in the past. Favoritism is a human instinct.

He concluded that black people need to get their shit together and help each other rather than drag each other down. He is preparing to infiltrate the US government and help black people and other kinds of people, too.

I think this is a plausible explanation. When one group tends to drag each other down and another group tends to raise each other up, it seems that there is systemic discrimination against the former group.

Edited August 15, 2019 by CreamCat

[CreamCat]

17 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@CreamCat Self-deception is the currency of the human mind.

As you said in your videos, love and consciousness are more important than the left wing and the right wing.