“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
Conservatism would actually be encoding the differing treatment for the in-groups vs out-groups directly and explicitly into the law.
For example, under Jewish law a Gentile who commits theft against another Gentile is liable for the death penalty, whereas it is not a capital crime when a Jew commits theft against another Jew.
Liberals cannot even conceive of such a thing since it contravenes the basic premise of liberalism so they can only conceptualize it in the way you outlined.
And by the way, this means that this in-group vs out-group thing (“two-tier justice system”) happens under liberal regimes, it just doesn’t get acknowledged officially.
We’re talking about a basic human sociological reality that is modeled incorrectly by liberalism.
> Conservatism would actually be encoding the differing treatment for the in-groups vs out-groups directly and explicitly into the law.
No. You can get the benefits in many ways: without a justice system, by encoding it into law or by in group agreement.
The disadvantage of not having a justice system are obvious, the disadvantage of putting it into law is that it very clearly and easily can be pointed out as discriminatory. And most people want to feel like they are good people.
So by doing through in group agreement, the members can simultaneously hold moral cleanliness subjectively while objectively benefitting from a two tier system.
We are all equal, but some are more equal than others. If you want to quote someone clever about it
What we’re talking about is the notion of what constitutes good or “being a good person”.
Within the Liberal frame “not discriminating” or at least “not being seen as discriminating” is good and the opposite is bad.
You’re still approaching this from the Liberal frame. It is very hard to transcend this because it is the totalizing predominate ideological substrate of the modern world.
In reality there is nothing inherently wrong with discrimination itself, only with particular forms of it. Types of discrimination which are considered non-controversially acceptable would be people’s choices of mate, who they hire into their company according to their skillset and “culture fit”, who is invited to a birthday party, or allowed into a home, things like this. These are forms of discrimination. The term itself in common usage has a negative valence which means “bad forms of discrimination”, “bad” according to Liberal/modern sensibilities.
We are talking about modifications to what constitutes bad vs good forms of discrimination.
If someone is still struggling with this, consider the semantics/valence of the phrase “I have a very discriminating taste in art”. This doesn’t have negative valence but the basic idea of discrimination is being invoked here.
I'm not sure it is true that "discrimination = bad" is a "liberal frame".
On the opposite, I feel that this idea is quite common amongst non-liberals who misinterpret liberals. A liberal would say "this is discrimination, this is bad", and the non-liberal would hear "this is discrimination, all discrimination is bad, this is bad". But similarly, one could say "this is sharing private information, this is bad". Does it mean that the conclusion is that sharing private information is always bad? Even when you share info with your family? Or when you open up to your partner? The mistake done by the liberals is that they assume the context is obvious. They assume that it is obvious for everyone that "that particular discrimination" is one of the bad ones.
(and, sure, I'm sure some liberal people also don't get the distinction and fall into the mistake of thinking that all discrimination is bad. My point is that it is not particularly a "liberal frame")
There is a good way to estimate if a discrimination is "the normal one" and "the bad one". A discrimination is bad if the real principal objective is to favour the in-group and disfavour the out-group.
People use that criteria themselves unconsciously. If I say "I'm not giving this to Steve because I know they don't like it", people will just think it's fine. If I say "I'm not giving this to Steve despite the fact he deserves it but I don't like him", people will notice it's unfair. I think liberal people just assume this is obvious, or even not realise it themselves.
This criteria works well. For example, in the examples you gave, none of these actions have been done because "we don't think the people we excluded from the advantage don't deserve it for not being our in-group".
But it is also true that when it comes to conservatism, there are elements where the discrimination is made to exclude the out-group not on fair principal reason, but for the principal reason that it is advantageous for the in-group and the out-group is arbitrarily considered "not worthy of it".
>A discrimination is bad if the real principal objective is to favour the in-group and disfavour the out-group
Come on, the outgroup is indefinitely big and the resources are limited. You buy icecream for your kid and not for the random kid. You favour the wellbeing of human race to that of aliens. Presumably you understand the will of Sentilese people to not share the island with strangers. Does it matter whether they think "we have to do this to protect our existence" or "we fucking hate white people"?
I think if you try to define what forms of favouring the ingroup are justified and what it means for Steve to deserve X you'll end up with something like "discrimination is bad when it violates the liberal moral intuition". Don't get me wrong, I love meritocracy and the world it built, but I don't think we can navigate millenia worth of social constructs with a simple rule of thumb.
I (and probably the large majority of people who are labelled "liberal" within this discussion, not sure if it includes me or not) perfectly understand the origin of the need of building in-groups.
When I buy icecream for my kid, I don't pretend that it is because my kid is more worthy of icecream than the random kid. My objective is not to "favour my kid": I don't think of the icecream as something that my kid should deserve more than a random kid.
My point is that when you see a liberal person saying "it's a discrimination. it's bad", it is, in the large majority of the case, a discrimination where the principal motivation is "conflictual", where the principal motivation is based on "there is us, and there is them, and we want to end up with us having X and them not having it".
As proof, it is obviously not true to pretend that when you buy an icecream to your kid, the majority of liberal people will come at you and say you are discriminating.
I agree that liberals don't think all discrimination is bad. I understand they're mostly opposed to what they consider unfair bigotry, I just think you fail to define it.
>there is us, and there is them, and we want to end up with us having X and them not having it
There is your family, and different families, and you want to end up with your kid having the last icecream rather then some other guy having it.
>My objective is not to "favour my kid"
But you are favouring your kid, and it would become conflictual if someone demanded your money for his kid.
> There is your family, and different families, and you want to end up with your kid having the last icecream rather then some other guy having it.
I guess there are 3 possibilities:
1. You believe all discrimination are bad. But in this case, it also means that buying a icecream for you kid is bad, because you gave it to your kid and not someone else. By extension, it basically means a large fraction of our human interactions (each time the interaction profit to someone else than us) are discrimination, and therefore bad.
2. You believe no discrimination are bad. But society obviously disagree with that. If, as a group, we decide that neuroticnews25 should be treated badly and differently of someone else not based on objective reasons but just because we feel like it, it is pretty clear that it is universally recognized as an unfair situation.
3. You agree that some discrimination are ok, and some discrimination are not ok. But in this case, you need to have a relatively objective criteria.
I gave you what I believe to be a relatively good criteria. Not perfect, but way sufficiently good that I cannot "cheat" and cherry pick the discriminations that I like as "ok discrimination" and the discriminations that I don't like as "bad discrimination".
This is the important point: even if the criteria is not perfect, the important point is that the criteria is not hypocritical or opportunist: the criteria is not built to justify what I like. This is the case because the criteria is based on a logic independent of what I personally like or dislike.
This criteria is: if the discrimination is mainly, principally, based on a wish to create advantages to the in-group and/or create disadvantages to the out-group, it is bad.
Obviously, it is not the case when I buy an icecream to my kid. At no point in my mind, when I buy an icecream to my kid, I even think "what about the other kids". They are not in the picture. "other kids" would not even exist and the situation and decision would be the same to me. And my wish is to provide an icecream to my kid, not to make sure the other kids don't have one (if they end up having one, it does not matter to me).
But when you look at situation where people point out discrimination as bad things, this is the case. When people want to "not allow black people in the front of the bus, or at universities", the whole argument _needs_ the existence of black people to even exist in the first place. The argument is not "discriminating by side-effect", the argument is "discriminating on purpose", the goal is to have different situations for the two groups.
And what I'm saying is that when people are saying "it's discrimination, it's bad", it is based on this criteria (it does not mean people who said that cannot be wrong, or that we cannot discuss if indeed this criteria is fully satisfied or not). I was answering to a comment that was implying that people who say "it's discrimination, it's bad" don't have any criteria and just considered all discrimination as bad.
> But you are favouring your kid, and it would become conflictual if someone demanded your money for his kid.
But it is not the main motivation.
If Bob said to Alice they will pick them up at the airport, if Bob's car has an engine problem and Bob is unable to pick up Alice, then the consequence is that Alice is not driven back home.
If Bob said to Alice they will pick them up at the airport, if Bob drive to the airport, see Alice, slow down and make a rude gesture at Alice and drive away, then the consequence is that Alice is not driven back home.
But people will not judge Bob equally on these two situations.
It's the same here: people say "it's discrimination, it's bad" only when people created a "bad" situation, a situation where the main argument for their decision was "there is us and there is them". This is what makes it bad.
But don't you think the motivation for favouring your race/country/tribe/religion is often very similar to that of favouring your family or your friends? Maybe there are counterexamples when it's really about resentment and symbolic superiority and whatnot, but I don't think actionable definition should be based that much on intention, or purity of the heart, or how much negative thoughts you had about the discriminatee, when the outcome is the same.
First, you can of course do "bad discrimination" when it comes to favouring your family and friends. That's for example the case with nepotism.
But, I don't know about you, but when I do something nice for my family or my friends, I don't have them compete with non-family or non-friend in my head. I'm never in a situation where I think "oh, X will get this, but I prefer to have my friend having this". This is a horrible situation: friendship is not a zero-sum competition where you reward your friends and punish your non-friends.
If I have the choice of giving a job to my friend or to a foreigner, I will give the job to the most qualified.
And, yes, I can "favour" my country: for example, I may support a national sport team. No discrimination there. But if I have to make a choice between two countries that deserve it equally and that this decision has bad consequence for one country, I will certainly not pick the country I like the most just because I like it the most.
So, again: there are "ok discrimination" and "bad discrimination", both can be about country/family/...
k310 · · focus · HN ↗
“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
<a href="https://pylimitics.net/wilhoits-law/" rel="nofollow">https://pylimitics.net/wilhoits-law/
monideas · · focus · HN ↗
For example, under Jewish law a Gentile who commits theft against another Gentile is liable for the death penalty, whereas it is not a capital crime when a Jew commits theft against another Jew.
Liberals cannot even conceive of such a thing since it contravenes the basic premise of liberalism so they can only conceptualize it in the way you outlined.
And by the way, this means that this in-group vs out-group thing (“two-tier justice system”) happens under liberal regimes, it just doesn’t get acknowledged officially.
We’re talking about a basic human sociological reality that is modeled incorrectly by liberalism.
Arkhaine_kupo · · focus · HN ↗
No. You can get the benefits in many ways: without a justice system, by encoding it into law or by in group agreement.
The disadvantage of not having a justice system are obvious, the disadvantage of putting it into law is that it very clearly and easily can be pointed out as discriminatory. And most people want to feel like they are good people.
So by doing through in group agreement, the members can simultaneously hold moral cleanliness subjectively while objectively benefitting from a two tier system.
We are all equal, but some are more equal than others. If you want to quote someone clever about it
monideas · · focus · HN ↗
Within the Liberal frame “not discriminating” or at least “not being seen as discriminating” is good and the opposite is bad.
You’re still approaching this from the Liberal frame. It is very hard to transcend this because it is the totalizing predominate ideological substrate of the modern world.
In reality there is nothing inherently wrong with discrimination itself, only with particular forms of it. Types of discrimination which are considered non-controversially acceptable would be people’s choices of mate, who they hire into their company according to their skillset and “culture fit”, who is invited to a birthday party, or allowed into a home, things like this. These are forms of discrimination. The term itself in common usage has a negative valence which means “bad forms of discrimination”, “bad” according to Liberal/modern sensibilities.
We are talking about modifications to what constitutes bad vs good forms of discrimination.
If someone is still struggling with this, consider the semantics/valence of the phrase “I have a very discriminating taste in art”. This doesn’t have negative valence but the basic idea of discrimination is being invoked here.
cauch · · focus · HN ↗
On the opposite, I feel that this idea is quite common amongst non-liberals who misinterpret liberals. A liberal would say "this is discrimination, this is bad", and the non-liberal would hear "this is discrimination, all discrimination is bad, this is bad". But similarly, one could say "this is sharing private information, this is bad". Does it mean that the conclusion is that sharing private information is always bad? Even when you share info with your family? Or when you open up to your partner? The mistake done by the liberals is that they assume the context is obvious. They assume that it is obvious for everyone that "that particular discrimination" is one of the bad ones.
(and, sure, I'm sure some liberal people also don't get the distinction and fall into the mistake of thinking that all discrimination is bad. My point is that it is not particularly a "liberal frame")
There is a good way to estimate if a discrimination is "the normal one" and "the bad one". A discrimination is bad if the real principal objective is to favour the in-group and disfavour the out-group.
People use that criteria themselves unconsciously. If I say "I'm not giving this to Steve because I know they don't like it", people will just think it's fine. If I say "I'm not giving this to Steve despite the fact he deserves it but I don't like him", people will notice it's unfair. I think liberal people just assume this is obvious, or even not realise it themselves.
This criteria works well. For example, in the examples you gave, none of these actions have been done because "we don't think the people we excluded from the advantage don't deserve it for not being our in-group".
But it is also true that when it comes to conservatism, there are elements where the discrimination is made to exclude the out-group not on fair principal reason, but for the principal reason that it is advantageous for the in-group and the out-group is arbitrarily considered "not worthy of it".
neuroticnews25 · · focus · HN ↗
Come on, the outgroup is indefinitely big and the resources are limited. You buy icecream for your kid and not for the random kid. You favour the wellbeing of human race to that of aliens. Presumably you understand the will of Sentilese people to not share the island with strangers. Does it matter whether they think "we have to do this to protect our existence" or "we fucking hate white people"?
I think if you try to define what forms of favouring the ingroup are justified and what it means for Steve to deserve X you'll end up with something like "discrimination is bad when it violates the liberal moral intuition". Don't get me wrong, I love meritocracy and the world it built, but I don't think we can navigate millenia worth of social constructs with a simple rule of thumb.
cauch · · focus · HN ↗
When I buy icecream for my kid, I don't pretend that it is because my kid is more worthy of icecream than the random kid. My objective is not to "favour my kid": I don't think of the icecream as something that my kid should deserve more than a random kid.
My point is that when you see a liberal person saying "it's a discrimination. it's bad", it is, in the large majority of the case, a discrimination where the principal motivation is "conflictual", where the principal motivation is based on "there is us, and there is them, and we want to end up with us having X and them not having it".
As proof, it is obviously not true to pretend that when you buy an icecream to your kid, the majority of liberal people will come at you and say you are discriminating.
neuroticnews25 · · focus · HN ↗
>there is us, and there is them, and we want to end up with us having X and them not having it
There is your family, and different families, and you want to end up with your kid having the last icecream rather then some other guy having it.
>My objective is not to "favour my kid"
But you are favouring your kid, and it would become conflictual if someone demanded your money for his kid.
cauch · · focus · HN ↗
I guess there are 3 possibilities:
1. You believe all discrimination are bad. But in this case, it also means that buying a icecream for you kid is bad, because you gave it to your kid and not someone else. By extension, it basically means a large fraction of our human interactions (each time the interaction profit to someone else than us) are discrimination, and therefore bad.
2. You believe no discrimination are bad. But society obviously disagree with that. If, as a group, we decide that neuroticnews25 should be treated badly and differently of someone else not based on objective reasons but just because we feel like it, it is pretty clear that it is universally recognized as an unfair situation.
3. You agree that some discrimination are ok, and some discrimination are not ok. But in this case, you need to have a relatively objective criteria.
I gave you what I believe to be a relatively good criteria. Not perfect, but way sufficiently good that I cannot "cheat" and cherry pick the discriminations that I like as "ok discrimination" and the discriminations that I don't like as "bad discrimination".
This is the important point: even if the criteria is not perfect, the important point is that the criteria is not hypocritical or opportunist: the criteria is not built to justify what I like. This is the case because the criteria is based on a logic independent of what I personally like or dislike.
This criteria is: if the discrimination is mainly, principally, based on a wish to create advantages to the in-group and/or create disadvantages to the out-group, it is bad.
Obviously, it is not the case when I buy an icecream to my kid. At no point in my mind, when I buy an icecream to my kid, I even think "what about the other kids". They are not in the picture. "other kids" would not even exist and the situation and decision would be the same to me. And my wish is to provide an icecream to my kid, not to make sure the other kids don't have one (if they end up having one, it does not matter to me).
But when you look at situation where people point out discrimination as bad things, this is the case. When people want to "not allow black people in the front of the bus, or at universities", the whole argument _needs_ the existence of black people to even exist in the first place. The argument is not "discriminating by side-effect", the argument is "discriminating on purpose", the goal is to have different situations for the two groups.
And what I'm saying is that when people are saying "it's discrimination, it's bad", it is based on this criteria (it does not mean people who said that cannot be wrong, or that we cannot discuss if indeed this criteria is fully satisfied or not). I was answering to a comment that was implying that people who say "it's discrimination, it's bad" don't have any criteria and just considered all discrimination as bad.
> But you are favouring your kid, and it would become conflictual if someone demanded your money for his kid.
But it is not the main motivation.
If Bob said to Alice they will pick them up at the airport, if Bob's car has an engine problem and Bob is unable to pick up Alice, then the consequence is that Alice is not driven back home.
If Bob said to Alice they will pick them up at the airport, if Bob drive to the airport, see Alice, slow down and make a rude gesture at Alice and drive away, then the consequence is that Alice is not driven back home.
But people will not judge Bob equally on these two situations.
It's the same here: people say "it's discrimination, it's bad" only when people created a "bad" situation, a situation where the main argument for their decision was "there is us and there is them". This is what makes it bad.
neuroticnews25 · · focus · HN ↗
cauch · · focus · HN ↗
But, I don't know about you, but when I do something nice for my family or my friends, I don't have them compete with non-family or non-friend in my head. I'm never in a situation where I think "oh, X will get this, but I prefer to have my friend having this". This is a horrible situation: friendship is not a zero-sum competition where you reward your friends and punish your non-friends.
If I have the choice of giving a job to my friend or to a foreigner, I will give the job to the most qualified.
And, yes, I can "favour" my country: for example, I may support a national sport team. No discrimination there. But if I have to make a choice between two countries that deserve it equally and that this decision has bad consequence for one country, I will certainly not pick the country I like the most just because I like it the most.
So, again: there are "ok discrimination" and "bad discrimination", both can be about country/family/...