Our society limits people’s scope of action to their lives. We ban post-death trusts, or at least do not give them the protection of the legal system. We do not allow the creation of corporations/organizations without a terminal human owner. We limit the ability of the past to control the present and future. No hands from beyond the grave.
Are we right to do so? I don’t know. Social questions are difficult. Every decisions spirals into a fractal of consequences and interactions, the tiniest change in initial circumstances creating a different fracture, different patterns and colours. (Not all effects are chaotic. Some things have predictable effects.)
Morally, I do not see why those who exist should have more rights than those who do not. Why the will of the living should matter more than that of the dead or unborn. Existence is morally arbitrary. The reasons we privilege it are practical, not pure.
Some people are uncritically in favour of the fat acceptance movement/narrative. Some are against. I think both are wrong. The fat acceptance movement has two independent messages. The first is that people who are fat should not feel ashamed, be discriminated against or be seen as less than thin people. This is correct. The second is that being fat is not bad for your health. This is incorrect.
I was sitting in my companies quarterly wrap up meeting yesterday. The procedure is standard. People give presentations. They highlight something the firm has achieved. Then everyone claps. Me included. The atmosphere is good and the company culture is strong. Still, something’s wrong.
One of the presentations was a bar graph of our revenue over time. The presenter talked about how we had our highest monthly and quarterly revenue ever. Everyone clapped. The bar graph had no axis or labels. It was literally just one bar higher than another. I felt that I was doing something wrong.
Clapping puts you in a mood. So does cheering or chanting. Your behaviour affects your thoughts just as your thoughts affect your behaviour. By engaging in collective behaviour that makes you feel like part of a group, you become part of the group. By engaging in positive behaviour, your mental state becomes more positive. Both of these states make you less able to think, to see reality and spot bullshit.
I’ve always tried to avoid loosing myself in groups, to stay away from collective madness and control my own thoughts. I suggest you try doing the same. Most people feel an incredible pressure to confirm and be liked. If you reject that instinct, you become far more free and far more effective.
I see a lot of articles on social mobility. Most look something like this. They compare the proportion of low background children to high background children who do well in life and conclude that society is unfair and biased. This is wrong.
The logic seems to be that if there is an inequality of outcome between two groups, that means unfairness/discrimination. There’s no evidence given that that this is the case. It is possible that there are differences between groups which lead to differential outcomes, even in perfectly fair systems. A few such possible differences:
- IQ. IQ is highly heritable. People in professional/high-class jobs tend to have higher IQ’s. Hence their children are likely to be smarter and hence do better even if society is completely fair.
- Culture, specifically norms around education. Culture is highly heritable. Good norms around education, knowledge and work are heritable. If high class families have better norms then high class children are likely to have similar better norms leading to better life outcomes.
- Family. Broken families lead to worse outcomes for children. Higher class families are less likely to be broken.
The more I read popular media, the more disappointed I am.
I’m happy that, according to this Vanity Fair article, Facebook will still ban you for writing that “men are scum” or that “women are scum”—having ultimately rejected the demands of social-justice activists that it ban only the latter sentence, not the former. According to the article, everyone on Facebook’s Community Standards committee agreed with the activists that this was the right result: dehumanizing comments about women have no place on the platform, while (superficially) dehumanizing comments about men are an important part of feminist consciousness-raising that require protection. The problem was simply that the committee couldn’t come up with any general principle that would yield that desired result, without also yielding bad results in other cases.
It’s interesting how quickly hate can spread. Ethnic and gendered hatred used to be a feature of the right. Today it’s spread to the left. I should write more about this. About:
- Anti-white racism and misandry existing
- Why it exists, focusing on social incentives, collective action problems and lack of group identity/class conciousness due to systematic norms which punish individuals who attempts to create/express it.
- Probably why it’s wrong.
Anti-white racism exists. So does misandry. Unlike sexism or racism against blacks or Muslims, it’s normalized*. That’s why it scares me. I never meet normal, socially accepted people who publicly speak about blacks as a group and about having no-black events or spaces. When I hear Nazi’s or racists, they’re at the margins of society and they don’t seem to be anywhere near power. When I hear SJW’s and identitarians, the regressive left, they seem to grow louder by the year and have broad social support/control. The far right is a phenomenon of the lowest classes, of social outcasts. The regressive left is wined and dined by corporations and governments. It’s everywhere in our educational institutions, shaping the next generations norms. The future is not a golden path.
*Worth noting that anti-muslim stuff is more normal/accepted than pure racial stuff. Also worth noting that