Looking at Rabbit Holes and How Deep They Go
I've been over how I disagree with feminism and egalitarianism (not everyone's struggle is the same so equal rights don't work, and equality can't exist in sameness). I've said how I ardently disagree with the current feminist/equality movement. What I haven't really gone over, however, is the dangers of egalitarian methods of thinking.
What is the current feminist movement? It's about eliminating "rape culture". The equality movement is also about removing "gun culture", and other "cultures that lead to violence". This is the overt danger in its thinking. Historically, the "get rid of bad cultures" method of thinking as lead to nowhere good. I can guarantee this thinking will end up in the exclusion of entire groups and the policing of what people say. Policing people's speech under the guise of tolerance and equality happens a lot with egalitarianism. On top of that, it splashes the label of equality all over everything it's doing. We have extreme examples of how twisted the "get rid of bad cultures" thinking has been with Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Movement. Remember: Hitler actually thought he was doing what was right. There are many traps of thinking people can fall into. Hitler just happened to take it to the extreme.
I see many mistakes being made with the current equality movement, the 2 biggest being: 1) They think they exist a parallel society that is free of biases and 2) They aren't getting rid of what is bad, they are getting rid of what they define to be bad. These are the fatal flaws in the current equality movement. These narcissistic methods of thinking are very insidious, too. The policing of what people say is a perfect example of this insidious thinking. They define rape jokes to be bad, so they police what people say to get rid of it. (I grew up in an abuse household, and I don't find child abuse jokes offensive in the slightest. I also don't see how making child abuse jokes would fuel child abuse or a supposed culture of child abuse in any way. The key part of a joke is that it's not serious. To quote Ricky Gervais: "Stupid people treat jokes about bad things with the same fear and loathing intelligent people treat the actual bad things.") There are tons of traps and rabbit holes of thinking people can fall down. Just like being in a rabbit hole, most don't get out. Instead, they go deeper and deeper down the rabbit hole until they go somewhere unrecognizable. Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Karl Marx... All thought they were doing good while going down that rabbit hole more and more. Now, most don't go the extreme Adolf Hitler went to, but that's not the point. The point is that this method of thinking leads nowhere good.
I already stated earlier why the "get rid of bad cultures" thinking is a dangerous rabbit hole. However, people need to be careful around these methods of thinking for another reason: we run the risk of falling into those rabbit holes ourselves. Remember, Hitler convinced those around him that he was doing something good. Again, most people don't go the extremes Hitler went to but that's not the point. The point is that others fell down that rabbit hole of thinking.
We can see the major examples of rabbit holes in history (Marxism, Nazism, Communism, etc.) but what is less known are the finer examples. While I could link a bunch of dry-ish history facts, I know most people don't study history as much as I do. (I attribute my feverish studying of history to my high-functioning autism and resulting mannerisms.) I will say that there are countless examples in the political history of countries about rabbit holes people can fall down.
I fully expect reactions like "you don't know our struggle" or "I need feminism because of [this]". I can knock out both of those arguments easily. Number 1: the "you don't know our struggle" argument. I have high-functioning autism, so you don't know my struggle either. I'm okay with you criticizing it, though. The right to dissent is a part of a free society. Number 2: the "I need feminism because of [this]" argument. I'm not saying that the problems don't exist, just the opposite in fact. What I'm saying is that feminism isn't the solution. While these 2 arguments are fallacies, there's something deeper than that. When someone says "you don't know my struggle" or "I need feminism because of [this]" they are trying to shut down valid conversation. They think they're the only ones with problems because again: they think they exist in a parallel society free of biases.
Another way I've seen the egalitarian movement try to shut down valid conversation is to accuse someone of "victim blaming". No well adjusted human being thinks things like "the clothing you were wearing is why you deserved to get raped". (In fact, if someone seriously thinks a person deserves to get raped, they should be removed from the gene pool ASAP.) Like "equality," "victim blaming" is another buzzword. People are meant to focus on that and have it reverberate with them- and public speakers know this. The reaction is: Bing! Bing! Bing! Buzzword! We have a victim! We should side with then because they're a victim! VIIIII-IIIICTIM!
This is another reason why I oppose the egalitarian movement. People are stuck in the victim mentality, which I believe to be the core of the problem. People can't move on when stuck thinking "I'm a victim!" It's the antithesis of progress. This also leads into a minor but irritating enough issue on the internet: People are competing to be the most oppressed group (like that somehow invalidates other peoples' struggles). Sure, I, as a pansexual, face oppression, and in some areas I would face religious persecution for being a Heathen, but if someone like a trans person or a woman, or anyone else for that matter, is being oppressed, I'd fight for their rights, too. But I wouldn't just say I am oppressed. "Oppression" is another buzzword. (See the trend here? You have be wary of how public speakers and others can be manipulative like this.) How is this person in question being oppressed? For example: me being a pansexual, in some parts of the world, wouldn't be able to marry another man (if that's who I wanted to spend the rest of my life with). On top of that: some places consider it a crime punishable by imprisonment or even death. While this is an example my oppression, it kind of obscures the point I'm trying to hammer home, which is: You have to probe further into peoples' stories and scrutinize them. Don't be afraid to ask "Why?" Here's a perfect example (and is also a true story, my friend being the aggressor in this example): There's a man in the hospital. Why? He was attacked. Okay, we know why he's in the hospital. But you can't stop there. Probe further. Why was he attacked? He tried selling drugs to an 11 year old girl so her 20 year old brother beat his head in with a 2x4 for it. Someone might try to obscure that last detail, though. They might just keep it as "He was in hospital because he was attacked." Maybe the person wants people to support the man and feel bad for him, so they purposefully use partial facts. This is why a keen, investigative mind is one of the most valuable things anyone can have in our modern society. (We also need an armor of being a tad cynical in today's society where media permeates EVERYTHING, but that's better than needing a coat of chain mail as armor to protect from the swords of invaders, don't you think?)
This isn't to say I hate feminists, however. Feminism, like all egalitarian ideologies, is inherently flawed, but not all feminists are bad. In fact, most want to create a positive impact on society and remove the social gap that currently exists. But like I said earlier, equality can't exist in sameness. This is why things like Socialism fail. If everyone was given the same amount of money every year, some would wind up rich and others would wind up living in the gutter. The cream always rises to the top, but egalitarianism puts counterweights on the exceptional to pull them back down. According to egalitarianism, everyone must be made the same and that will create fairness. How long do you think the ones who excel are going to put up with the lazy ones getting treated the same as them? Equality can't exist in sameness.
See, with egalitarianism the lazy ones are benefited instead of facing repercussions. With meritocracy, a system that values hard work and skill, people get as many benefits as the work they put in. There is still equal opportunity and class mobility (as any system ought to have) but this values people's usefulness and contributions. It pulls some of the poor up from being poor and makes them a middle class. A middle class must exist for social gaps to be bridged, and egalitarianism will never create a middle class. While there are still many flaws in it, there isn't a system that works better than the current one based off of meritocracy, equal opportunity, and class mobility a.k.a. Capitalism. (People seem to think removing capitalism will magically solve social inequality. It won't.) I find a quote from Sir Winston Churchill rings true: "Capitalism is the worst, most terrible system. Except for all the others." (Oh, and Sir Churchill is one of my heroes whom I have undying respect for, so I'll be quoting him a lot.)
How was egalitarianism countered? Western Society is the birth of ideas such as equal opportunity and class mobility. I am EXTREMELY grateful to have been born in Western Society, a mindset that instead of rigidly adhering to tradition, translates the aspects of society worth conserving into modern times. Sure, there have been instances like Laissez-Faire and the Invisible Hand, as well as other rabbit holes one can fall down. There is still the ever ongoing struggle to guard one's own thoughts, no matter where they live. The ideal, Utopian society does not and never will exist. That being said, the systems implemented in Western Society are working systems. Sure there are flaws, but it's made by humans so it never will be free of flaws. Compared to the other systems out there, which end up with a small elite rich class and a massive poor class, Western Society boasts some incredible systems.
Western Society is an apparition. When America is gone, there's a good chance things will go back to how they were: a small, elite rich class and a large poor class. The times are changing after all. The West is weakening and The East is growing in strength. China and Russia are itchin' to compete with America, and I have no doubt in my mind that the world will experience mass change within 100-150 years as Eastern Society comes into power once again. (My only hope is that I kick the bucket before that happens, because it ain't gonna be pretty.) For the time being, though, I am not ashamed to call myself a capitalist and an American. I always have and always will oppose egalitarianism.
This isn't to say I hate feminists, however. Feminism, like all egalitarian ideologies, is inherently flawed, but not all feminists are bad. In fact, most want to create a positive impact on society and remove the social gap that currently exists. But like I said earlier, equality can't exist in sameness. This is why things like Socialism fail. If everyone was given the same amount of money every year, some would wind up rich and others would wind up living in the gutter. The cream always rises to the top, but egalitarianism puts counterweights on the exceptional to pull them back down. According to egalitarianism, everyone must be made the same and that will create fairness. How long do you think the ones who excel are going to put up with the lazy ones getting treated the same as them? Equality can't exist in sameness.
See, with egalitarianism the lazy ones are benefited instead of facing repercussions. With meritocracy, a system that values hard work and skill, people get as many benefits as the work they put in. There is still equal opportunity and class mobility (as any system ought to have) but this values people's usefulness and contributions. It pulls some of the poor up from being poor and makes them a middle class. A middle class must exist for social gaps to be bridged, and egalitarianism will never create a middle class. While there are still many flaws in it, there isn't a system that works better than the current one based off of meritocracy, equal opportunity, and class mobility a.k.a. Capitalism. (People seem to think removing capitalism will magically solve social inequality. It won't.) I find a quote from Sir Winston Churchill rings true: "Capitalism is the worst, most terrible system. Except for all the others." (Oh, and Sir Churchill is one of my heroes whom I have undying respect for, so I'll be quoting him a lot.)
How was egalitarianism countered? Western Society is the birth of ideas such as equal opportunity and class mobility. I am EXTREMELY grateful to have been born in Western Society, a mindset that instead of rigidly adhering to tradition, translates the aspects of society worth conserving into modern times. Sure, there have been instances like Laissez-Faire and the Invisible Hand, as well as other rabbit holes one can fall down. There is still the ever ongoing struggle to guard one's own thoughts, no matter where they live. The ideal, Utopian society does not and never will exist. That being said, the systems implemented in Western Society are working systems. Sure there are flaws, but it's made by humans so it never will be free of flaws. Compared to the other systems out there, which end up with a small elite rich class and a massive poor class, Western Society boasts some incredible systems.
Western Society is an apparition. When America is gone, there's a good chance things will go back to how they were: a small, elite rich class and a large poor class. The times are changing after all. The West is weakening and The East is growing in strength. China and Russia are itchin' to compete with America, and I have no doubt in my mind that the world will experience mass change within 100-150 years as Eastern Society comes into power once again. (My only hope is that I kick the bucket before that happens, because it ain't gonna be pretty.) For the time being, though, I am not ashamed to call myself a capitalist and an American. I always have and always will oppose egalitarianism.
