( Note: this post involves some… quite silly thought paths. This is not ’cause I actually take them seriously, but ’cause when you’re showing how illogical certain arguments are, you have to temporarily take them seriously to reveal the contradictory dead ends to which they must lead. )
That’s right, Time: I can make up my own cheesy buzzwords like “identity politics”, “dialectic”, & “Single Responsibility Principle”.
But unlike those phrases, mine has a simple, clear definition & distinction: an “integral class” is 1 one is stuck in beyond their control, class being any abstract social idea used to compare people in terms o’ how we treat them. Obviously people debate o’er what makes the list & what doesn’t, but I think any reasonable person would include race & gender. I could make a case for economic status, sexual-orientation, &, to a weaker extent, transgenderism, but that’s beyond the scope o’ this post, & there are surely people who’ve made much better arguments online, anyway.
This concept o’ “class” is important ’cause it gets to the heart o’ this post’s main ethical issue: the logic & illogic o’ discrimination. How “objective” they are is unimportant; all that matters is how people are affected in real society. It’s inherently subjective.
This also should stem questions o’ how race & gender are guaranteed “integral classes” when one can technically change their gender & race through transgenderism & transracialism. I hope that you have the realistic awareness to already know that assuming a woman or black person could improve the social stigma attached to those classes through the much mo’ socially acceptable method o’ transism is utterly absurd.
Also, e’en for people who support the choice o’ either transism, the idea that every woman or nonwhite should go through this complicated, hard task to solve the immensely weak arguments gainst those classes is absurd.
Meanwhile, nothing could be mo’ socially-embraced than a racist changing their treatment by no longer espousing racist beliefs, which doesn’t involve any complicated biological engineering @ all.
This is a common li’l troll argument trotted round by people who prefer sticking it to pretend moral authorities to being reasonable: “Yeah, ¡well people who are gainst racism are bigoted gainst racists!” But thanks to the concept o’ “integral class”, we can see precisely why it’s absurd: race isn’t chosen, racism is1.
This leads to, what I said earlier, is the heart o’ this post. A common misconception is that discrimination in general is bad. This is ironic, as there’s a similar word, the adjective “discriminant”, which has positive connotations — it describes someone with good taste. That is something I’d proudly use to describe myself.
Thanks to the concept o’ “integral classes”, we can narrow our moral down to the true issue: it’s merely discrimination gainst people for being in classes that they didn’t choose to be a part o’ that’s the issue. Discriminating gainst people for making conscious choices that harm society is not only acceptable, it’s necessary for a functional society.
Choice is o’ choice importance: by definition, choice is the only way a person can truly say that they did something, & thus should be the only target for morality, since the goal o’ morality is to regulate what that person does, not what random chances o’ nature do.
This leads to the central hypocrisy o’ integral-class discrimination. I’ve ne’er seen a racist or sexist argue that nonwhites or women chose to be their classes, & yet they argue that they should be punished for what they didn’t choose. A racist throws out a contextless statistic ’bout black crime to imply a weak conclusion. That racist would probably argue that they need to ’cause in their fantasies the black copters will come round & gag them if they explicitly say anything racist, despite everyone already knowing that what they’re implying is racist anyway, maybe it an incompetent form o’ deceit. But the true goal is probably to skip o’er the major logic leaps needed to make it to that conclusion. Ignoring the fact that “crimes” are actually defined by “crimes punished by the legal system” ( which demonstrates mo’ their lower social status than their proclivity for crime ), racists lead themselves into a mutually-inconsistent proposition: they’re clearly trying to imply that crime is integral to race; but if they do so, then they can’t truly say that those black people committed the crime, but that their race forced them to, & therefore it’d be illogical to punish them for what is, purportedly, hard-coded into DNA.
White supremacists might turn round & argue that it’s just as unfair to punish them for the s’posed criminality o’ other races, but this leads to the other side o’ the hypocrisy — & an e’en juicier irony. As the word “white supremacy” alludes, the idea that nonwhites are “inferior” presumes a superiority o’ the other side. The same applies to choice. If criminality is s’posedly hard-coded into nonwhite DNA, then we must assume that a lack o’ criminality is hard-coded into white DNA — which is to say that they had no choice in the matter. Thus, 1 could turn that question on its head: ¿why should whites be rewarded for s’posedly not committing crimes ( ’specially when they still do quite a lot, anyway ) when they didn’t have to do anything but be born with certain skin? They didn’t do shit. Indeed, if anything it should mean that whites who do commit crimes should be punished mo’, since they had to have a deeper level o’ evil to o’ercome their s’posed racial proclivity for being lawful ( if we take seriously the childish idea that crime is caused by “evil”, & not psychology & environment ).
Thus we see the great irony o’ “white pride”: it’s pride for something one didn’t do. It’s pride for lazily inheriting what one could ne’er hope to get with their own individual efforts. This probably ’splains why intelligent, self-respecting whites find white supremacy so repugnant. I don’t know ’bout you, but I’d much rather take credit for what I did as an individual than what my DNA did for me.
Some might argue that black pride should fall into the same issue; but the fact is, black pride is a completely different idea. Nobody would take seriously the idea that black people are superior to whites — the only people allowed to hold utterly idiotic beliefs & still be taken seriously by society are those who historically had the most power. Black pride is, ironically, somewhat deprecating toward race — or rather, cynically conscious o’ the importance race still holds in society. Black pride isn’t someone gloating ’cause they were born with black skin, as if they’re dumb ’nough to think society would treat them better for it, but pride in one’s individual accomplishments despite their skin color.
’Gain, I can only hope you’re realistically aware ’nough to know that, duh, obviously white people still hold a hefty monopoly on historical achievements & don’t need to prove anything for the white race. That’s why there’s no big celebration for the 1st white president — ’cause ’twas the 1st president, period. But 1st black president was important ’cause he was, s’posedly, an individual so capable ( capable in terms o’ “election-winning”, which means that Obama was as good @ serving the rich while pretending to care ’bout the mass public as white people ) that he was able to succeed despite the barriers to his race.
That said, it is very much true that, in a racially-equal Utopia, black pride wouldn’t exist ’cause it wouldn’t need to exist. Ironic then that the greatest critics are only delaying the possibility o’ what is already a hard-to-achieve outcome for the much-mo’ practical solutions o’ wasting money, space, & energy jailing nonwhites; violently attacking & killing them ( ’cause nothing mollifies people like violence, ’specially people like, say, Middle Easterners, for whom being a target o’ violence is so rare & something the most fanatical o’ which flinch ’way from so much that the fanatics have no way to continue their dangerous actions ); or the best solution for our “racial realists”, trying to build walls round oneself & pretend that the race complexity goes ’way, “la-la-la, I can’t hear you”. But we must remember how serious these realists are.
It seems absurd that in the 21st century there are still people who believe they deserve perks & pride for blood-lines affiliations they took no initiation to develop themselves, much as it’s absurd that there are still people who think they deserve perks & pride for being born in a plot o’ land that happens to reside in the abstract border o’ an imaginary concept as a “nation”, much as, quite frankly, it’s absurd that people still think people deserve perks & pride for being born with money or other capital — including the perk o’ being able to get mo’ money from the money they already have.
But then, we can call this “Cultural Marxism”, or some other arbitrary buzzword, & being called that is much worse than being called a brain-dead idiot. Personally, if I had to choose ’tween the 2, — which I absolutely don’t, despite the idiots who think asserting it without evidence magically makes it fact — I’d still pick the former. Quite frankly, e’en being linked to mass-murderers ( also known as an ad-hominem attack ) like Lenin, Stalin, or Mao in an intellectual debate is better than being connected with someone like Hairpiece, — who is merely a pathetic tyrant wannabe who loves to throw round the scary rhetoric o’ a totalitarian to fulfill his fetishes, but is too incompetent to make it reality — since they a’least had intelligence — & as it turns out, intelligence is what’s actually important in intellectual issues.