My issue with that is that it causes fatigue with the term, which in turn makes people less likely to listen. Utilising the correct terminology will yield better results.
I know, but if we can name things, we will have problems. People don't like to be called "fascist", they think we call everyone "fascist" and in some cases it's true, but the reality is that fascism has been taking over the world for the last decade. It's everywhere and people are dying. It's a necessity to call-out to shock people. I get that it is repetitive, but when you slide toward a wall at high speed with a bandage over your eyes, I can't just tell you "please go slower", I need to tell you that there is a wall.
Naming a problem is the first step in understanding it.
Challenge what belief? It has proven results, unless there is a disproportionate amount of black people in American sports because of some external factor, I don't think this can be contested...
No it has not. Really. The amount of racialized people in sport has nothing to do with genetics. It has everything to do with the sociology of younglings.
Tell me, do you see a big amount of racialized people playing golf or Rowing?
The explanation is simple : Basketball, football and what you would call "simple sports"
(like running, jumping, gym etc. even if i'm not so sure for these ones) are the only sports accessible to young racialized generations that are marginalized in western societies. The reason why there are a lot of racialized people in France's football for ex, has never been genetics, but the fact that sport (
through football) is the only access of the youngpopular class's children to big things. It's the only thing society give them a legitimity for.
Sport is a social selection, just like culture or education. Young people will not do the same sports and they will do different one depending on their social class. The less accessible the sport will be, the more you will see white people. Not because they are easy sports, but because young people are denied systematically the right to access these sports by social and financial constrains.
This is documented, researched and this is what we can understand through a materialist mindset. Or rather in this case, sociology
ex:
Bourdieu - "Sport and Social Class"
When self-confirmation bias and self-selection impede the objective selection for traits, then eugenics does not work. I am not talking about purposefully selecting for traits, I am saying that such traits or skills attract other people, and lots of these traits tend to be genetic.
To further expound briefly - I think eugenics culls genetic diversity in ways which could be harmful. Most people know the Gros Michel banana was almost wiped out by Panama disease. In a sense, this is proof of the danger of eugenics.
In addition, on a moral and spiritual level, I do not think humans should have the ability to consciously select for genes. It's horrifying.
Ok but no. These are not the reason why having this type of mindset is bad.
But to understand why we need to talk about 4 concept first briefly:
- The path dependance
- The ratchet effect
- The systemic logic
- The pervert effect of the institutionnal drift
> The path dependance is the idea that instead of moving to rationnal and efficient directions, future political and social path will eventually moved toward self-renforcing directions determined by past and present descisions.
> The ratchet effect is the idea that once a n institution gets a form of political or economic power, they tend not to go backward.
> The systemic logic is the idea that a system (politic, economic, social) has internal constrains that will guide future political or social descisions independently of individual intentions.
> The pervert effect of institutionnal drift are actually two concept within which the idea is that institution change over time and the more times goes on, the stronger the change will look like and what was created to do good, might end up be the creation of a complete annihilation weapon at the end.
These four concepts taken together and analyzed through a materialist lens within the two dominations systems that are ableism and capitalism tell us that if you start to make society based on genetics or with a bit of genetics in mind, even if you do it for good, both system will create internal logics and mechanisms that will push people to go harder and harder toward eugenism pushing more and more people toward marginalization.... And at the end of the year.. when you will not pay attention, someone will propose a bill to kill everyone who does not fit the material genetics of your society.
Do not think that Nazi push handicaped people to burn or made eugenic policies out of a whim one day. All of this was the last result, the last gear of a well oiled mechanic. In that case, pushed also by other domination systems like Racism and sexism.
But don't be fooled, it's already happening. As we shared in this thread, people are already trying to kill off those who are too weak and do not participated as much in society. This is real. This is what happen when we use genetics or mental health or even physical attribute to create a scale of the population.
It's fascism in the making.
I know that you mean well. But you need to look beyond your own belief and look toward what can create such vision of the world based on its material reality. We do not live in a world where people can be chosen based on their genetics. It's a straight path toward genocides.
Very true, but people even if it's not intelligence that gives them the ability to build societies, they still have that ability and they often become elites. Ultimately, there is a pattern.
(and this will also help me reply to this):
No, I don't. We have proof that early stages of the British and Roman Empire were both meritocratic in nature. These eventually devolved as the competent individuals died and their incompetent successors took over.
No. Everyone has the ability as long as they are given the proper tool. Of course, somepeople will have cognitive problem, but we are not talking about that, we are talking about people with average conscious.
My neighbore, my mom, my teachers, the kid in the street playing with a ball... they ALL have the potential to become great leaders as long as they are educated to be.
This is the main concept of Bourdieu :
The Habitus.
The Habitus is the set of long term dispositions that an individual will acquires during their socialization, and which will shape their way of perceiving the world, thinking, feeling, and acting.
For current leaders, you can take a few things into account :
- The
Social capital (people who are currently leading usually had or have a good access to qualitative and wealthy social circles)
- The
cultural capital (people who are currently leading usually had access to a good education and culture, even if they are not using it)
- The
economic capital (people who are currently leading usually had or have access to a good financial base to live and strive)
This is why I'm telling you that meritocracy CAN'T exist. The simple concept of accessing through "work" and "merit" is flawed and fallacious to begin with since everything we are is forged by our habitus and material conditions of existence.
It was a nice idea after the french revolution. But now, it's stopping our progress !
Choose your pick. It's vital for everyone on the planet to stop this belief.
Within the realm of social sciences, the idea that we could built a meritocratic society is an abnormality. It's like a astronomer saying "yup, the earth is flat".
This led to this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia
We know full well based on studies of building civilisations that different governance methods are required depending on scale.
Not really no.
We have the testimonies that many kind of societies evolved over time. But we do not have the evidences that one type of society is better than another in a certain material context. Furthermore, many scientist are diverging on what they consider a "good society"
Do we consider the sheer energical power ? The capacity to heal the marginalized ? Do we consider the level of cooperation or the ranking in term of economic power ?
There is no answer because there should only be one :
The most ethical path. not the one that fits our preconception, not the one that feels natural or normal.
THe one that is ethical.
And the only path forward, especially now that we are screwed on a global warming scale, is to radically change our model of society toward a collective one instead of an individualistic one.
I wholeheartedly disagree with this point. The strawhats are tiny community. What works for them does not work for large-scale countries. Granted, I believe we should have more regional than national leadership... but even so.
What work for the strawhats can work for big collective as well. As i showed you, this can be done massively. In fact this is pretty much done already in multiple domains such as science or health or even on the internet with Wikipedia.
The Collective is the future. The SF and capitalist spend all their time and money to scare you out of this thinking. But you can rest now.
There is nothing scary with the idea of a collective "utopia".
I am not a materialist, and this is something that irritates me. I am anti-consumerist. I don't buy luxuries. I focus on the needs of myself and my family, not the newest phone, or computer, or game, or whatever. I don't think about expensive cars, or other such nonsense.
Unfortunately, I also disagree that science says we need weak leaders. The way the world is designed proves otherwise.
Oh.. Ok. I'm sorry, there is a missunderstanding.
"Materialism" doesn't mean consumerism. This "meaning" that you are sharing is the way capitalism "corrupted" the ideas behind materialistic thinking. What i'm talking about is the opposite of consumerism lol.
First we need to get our minds straight. When i'm talking about "materialism" I'm talking about the
prime meaning of the word:
the philosophical meaning:
(
And I'm actually a physicalist more than a materialist but that's another subject)
Please reread what I said about materialism with this knowledge, you should understand better what I mean.
In no shape or form have I suggested this. I have not even used the term 'lower genetics'. This is a massive reach. What I understand is that you have a passion for this but are casting aspersions against me.
Again. I know that is not what YOU mean. I know. Don't worry. I knoooow. I'm not trying to belittle you here I'm trying to make you look beyoooooooooooooon(
i know i know, it's too much)nnnnnnnnnnnnd your current belief system to make you look at the consequences of such mindset.
I'm saying that it is what the IDEAS implies
SYSTEMATICALLY. This is why I explained the
habitus just above. To make you understand that while you might simply talk about genetic in a certain aspect, your ideas have a inertia when taken into a systemic and institutionnal reality. An inertia that can lead to big bad things. Like genocides. THis is why we consider this type of mindset to be reactionnary and dangerous on the left.
(
well not all the left since... well leftist actually voted for eugenic stuff but that's also another story)
I do not think I would call it ableism. It was as much gross negligence and personal cruelty as it was anything else. The resident was just an easy target due to their condition. Needless to say, I was not standing for that and lost my livelihood for a time as a result.
This is how sociologist and antivalidist activist (like we are) are analyzing the phenomenon. it may appear as just cruel, but it's most likely part of a greater system of domination, a set of behavior institutionnally perpetuated. You did good in denouncing that.
I have a genuine question for you. Do you know what caused Nazi's and what they were originally moving against outside of anti-semitism?
I will give you the analysis of Johann Chapoutot (
Historian, Nazi specialist):
1. The defeat of the first WW created a big "trauma" within the country and added to the crisis, the population started to look for culprits and "ennemies from the inside".
2. The weimar republic was considered weak at the time and unable to manage the crisis and hyperinflation.
3. Nazism was structural in the sense that it did not simply created a form of hatred, but it proposed a vision of the world in which some races and people were inherently superior to others and it created a promised that the glorious past (
fantasmed, it never really happened) would be recreated and the power of germany with it.
4. There were a lot of pseudoscientific theories at the time and practices
(colonialism, social darwinism, nationalism, scientific racism) and racism created a base around these ideas and around white supremacy as a whole.
5. The REAL decisive change actually doesn't come from Hitler but from the economical elites and the bourgeoisie, which interests where relying on the maintenance of their economic capitals... considered - with reasons - that their interests would be maintained with Hitler rather than the left at the time that was starting to gain traction.
So basically, the center GAVE AWAY the key of the power to Hitler in order to maintain their economic monopolies.
This is how Hitler got to power to easily. Not because of hatred and anger alone, but because the rich understood that fascism is actually build FOR THEM.
I guess you can now understand why you have a Billionnaire at the head of USA and why the ruling class has been slowly but surely starting to slide with the more reactionnary side. THe reason is simple : The bourgeoisie ALWAYS side with the party that they are sure will maintain their interest. And their interest are opposed to the wellness of the world.
This is why a MATERIALIST (and marxist) vision and analysis of the world is needed. Because this is something that is perfectly mechanical. So mechanical that Marx build his concept around this understanding... in order to fight against the bourgeoisie and their interests.
I'm an idealist who tries to embrace pragmatism, more specifically. Everything I have concluded is through a thorough study of history.
Ok. now that you know what materialism is (see above) and not what you thought (i hope). You should understand that it is actually HIGHLY pragmatical.
Far behind any idealistic idea or vision. Marxism and materialism are pretty much opposed to any visions that are not pragmatical (and ethical)
Materialism and marxism are basically a form of scientific political lens on the world. It's a logic to understand and once you get it.. it's impossible to forget and it will change everything you know and see about the world.
