ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, November 17, 2016

Equality

Twitter demonstrates the SJW commitment to one of the five fundamental pillars of their social justice ideology.

I fucking hate white people and their inconsiderate asses for voting for Trump. Fuck you!
1:57 AM 9 Nov 2016

Twitter, in response to a complaint about the above tweet:

Thank you for reporting this issue to us. Our goal is to create a safe environment for everyone on Twitter to express themselves freely. We reviewed your report carefully and found that there was no violation of Twitter's Rules regarding abusive behavior.

I fucking hate black people and their inconsiderate asses for voting for Clinton. Fuck you!
4:08 AM 16 Nov 2016

Twitter, in response to a complaint about the above tweet:

We've investigated and suspended the account you reported as it was found to be participating in abusive behavior.

Point 7: The Alt Right is anti-equalitarian. It rejects the idea of equality for the same reason it rejects the ideas of unicorns and leprechauns, noting that human equality does not exist in any observable scientific, legal, material, intellectual, sexual, or spiritual form.

Equality does not exist and it is very easy to prove that no one who claims equality to be a moral principle actually believes in it. Equality is nothing more than a rhetorical weapon utilized by the Left in order to win the moral level of war. Unless you reject it and refuse to kowtow before it, you are handing the Left power over you.

That is why Martin van Creveld described it as "the impossible quest" in his history of the concept.

Labels: ,

96 Comments:

Blogger JP November 17, 2016 4:01 AM  

BURN IT ALL DOWN

Anonymous Icicle November 17, 2016 4:06 AM  

Equality does not exist and it is very easy to prove that no one who claims equality to be a moral principle actually believes in it.

Hey Vox, did you see that Chinese scientists just tested CRISPR for the first time in a live human... today?

Here comes the fun.

Blogger Abyssus Invocat November 17, 2016 4:09 AM  

They're burning it down all by themselves. We just need get our stuff out of the house before it all goes up in smoke. And then have a beer. A cold beer

Blogger SteelPalm November 17, 2016 4:13 AM  

Good old CEO Jack Dorsey exposing himself yet again. Is he angling for a SJW position somewhere after Twitter inevitably fails?

Blogger Badger Brigadon November 17, 2016 4:17 AM  

Icicle-
Crispr 9 editing is like using a jackhammer to perform brain surgery.
There's a LONG way to go before it becomes anything more than an overpriced way to kill people.

Anonymous Icicle November 17, 2016 4:18 AM  

Good old CEO Jack Dorsey exposing himself yet again. Is he angling for a SJW position somewhere after Twitter inevitably fails?

From Infogalactic:
"Williams, Stone and Noah Glass co-founded Obvious Corporation, which then spun off Twitter Inc. with Dorsey as the CEO. As chief executive officer, Dorsey saw the startup through two rounds of funding by the venture capitalists who backed the company. He reportedly lost his position for leaving work early to enjoy other pursuits such as yoga and fashion design."

So probably just the public exposure part.

Anonymous Icicle November 17, 2016 4:29 AM  

Crispr 9 editing is like using a jackhammer to perform brain surgery.

Not for long.

There's a LONG way to go before it becomes anything more than an overpriced way to kill people.

Long, yes. But it will be fast. The modern technique was just invented around 2010. This is happening, very, very fast.

Anonymous 11/17 November 17, 2016 4:31 AM  

I tell people look at South Africa/Zimbabwe for future of whites under progressives. Blank eyes.

Progressives are making their intentions clear and widely known - people just assume progressives don't mean what they say and it's hyperbole, and if you confront a progressive about it, they'll tell you they're joking.

Actions speak louder than words. Hate blacks - not OK, hate whites, Ok.

Blogger SteelPalm November 17, 2016 4:48 AM  

@7

He reportedly lost his position for leaving work early to enjoy other pursuits such as yoga and fashion design.

Dorsey's work history reads like a comedy sketch.

@8

The comparison to South Africa and Zimbabwe doesn't quite work. Whites were always the minorities in both countries, greatly outnumbered by the black savages.

Not the case in the US, nor will it ever be, thankfully.

That is not to say, however, that an increase in vibrants, even ones far less savage and society-crushing those in South Africa or Zimbabwe, isn't a peril to curtail.

Anonymous 11/17 November 17, 2016 5:00 AM  

@9
Never is a long time. Give it 100 years.

The comparison is about how minorities are treated by savages. A white man walking inner city black neighborhood is a minority on that territory. How will he be treated?

Our vibrants are no less savage than those in SA, they're just more restrained at the moment by lots of armed whites.

Go on thinking it can't happen here until you're in the same situation as whites in SA.

Blogger JACIII November 17, 2016 5:12 AM  

The First Law of SJW in action.

Blogger SteelPalm November 17, 2016 5:14 AM  

@10

There will be a reckoning long, long before we see another "100 years".

And while blacks might be the most destructive variant of vibrant, they're far from the most powerful or even numerous. Hispanics already outnumber blacks, have taken many of their jobs, and have more political/economic clout. Even the Hispanic gangs are massacring blacks.

One merely hopes that the reckoning will be as non-violent as possible for the sake of all parties involved.

Blogger Lazarus November 17, 2016 5:22 AM  

SteelPalm wrote:One merely hopes that the reckoning will be as non-violent as possible for the sake of all parties involved.

Yes indeed, although, a protracted and bloody conflict would leave a more lasting impression.

Blogger Roger Hill November 17, 2016 5:37 AM  

I can remember the first time I heard anyone mention the 'sacrilegious' thought that equality was not reality. Believe it or not, it was my high school civics teacher. He let this out in a very clever way to young minds. We were studying Jefferson and the Declaration. He read the famous lines and then simply asked if we all believed words 'All men are created equal'?

Well of course we did... I mean, come on! He then just basically walked us through the absurdity of the concept. He'd say things like "So you are all straight A students since you were all created equal, no one any smarter than the other." Or "I should have seven Olympic gold medals like Mark Spitz, since I can swim just as fast." He went on for sometime, not letting up in comparing physical ability, financial means, the misfortunes of deformities and disease and he even dived into culture for a moment or two.

What he did emphasize with us was that equality in certain conceptual areas (such as the idea of inalienable rights) was all fine and good, but that equality is not innate to human beings. This was the late 70's. I wonder what would happen to that teacher now?

Anonymous 11/17 November 17, 2016 5:38 AM  

@12
Hispanics are just more organized savages. Every week Breitbart runs a story on a new mass grave found along the border. I'd take my chances in inner city black neighborhood rather than trespass on cartel territory. Our savages are no less savage.

You seem very certain of this 'reckoning.' I'll believe it when Euros stop letting migrants rape their women and children. Citizens of Cuckland, USA are toothless, and have been sold out by leaders.

Trump elected, yes. However, name the CEO of a large multi-national that isn't attempting to turn whites into minority through political contributions, censorship, employment practices, etc. Those are leaders too.

Blogger James Dixon November 17, 2016 5:46 AM  

Did anyone actually expect any other action on their part? They've made it quite clear where their loyalties lie.

Now, this action is probably a clear violation of their terms of service (those are binding both ways), so a class action lawsuit is a possibility, but...

Blogger John Wright November 17, 2016 5:46 AM  

@14
"So you are all straight A students since you were all created equal, no one any smarter than the other."

Allow me to offer an alternate explanation. Your teacher either was a Leftist, and deliberately trying to muddy what the word means in your mind, so that you think it means homogeneity. Or he was a total idiot he did not know himself what words in English mean.

Did any of you ask him why in the world Jefferson, a genius even among geniuses, would be making such an absurd statement that all men had the same intelligence in the middle of a political document explaining why monarchy was unjust?

Did not one of you wee little students ask him why Jefferson was not talking about equality of civic rights, which was what the document was about?

Blogger Balázs Varga November 17, 2016 5:51 AM  

Icicle wrote:Equality does not exist and it is very easy to prove that no one who claims equality to be a moral principle actually believes in it.

Hey Vox, did you see that Chinese scientists just tested CRISPR for the first time in a live human... today?

Here comes the fun.


And lo, this is how the Orientar Cat Eaters Chapter was born.

Blogger Lovekraft November 17, 2016 6:06 AM  

Remember, the marxists have introduced Institutional Racism, the get-out-of-accountability free card.

Unprovable, unverifiable. Standard marxist thinking. No wonder the colleges are collapsing.

Anonymous Neocolonial November 17, 2016 6:14 AM  

John Wright wrote:Did not one of you wee little students ask him why Jefferson was not talking about equality of civic rights, which was what the document was about?

Even taking it to simply civic rights, there is nothing in the nature of creation that makes people equal. It is a choice of system to define all people as equal; one that may make thing simple, but is hardly optimal in handling a diverse society.

Nevertheless, the broader meaning has been read into that text by the left in the intervening period such that a claim for equality has the sense of a claim on the societal basis. Actually thinking on the statement - in context or out - is a step up from most.

Blogger VD November 17, 2016 6:26 AM  

A tremendous amount of harm has been done over the last two hundred years by taking Jefferson's political rhetoric as moral dialectic.

It's not. It's the equivalent of attempting to derive a moral standard from WWII enlistment posters.

Blogger Duke Norfolk November 17, 2016 6:34 AM  

Twitter, red pilling America, one twit at a time.

Blogger FrankNorman November 17, 2016 6:55 AM  

To quote one of CS Lewis' characters: No one who says I'm as good as you believes it.

Blogger Phillip George November 17, 2016 7:02 AM  

As we known a witch with a pulse is still a witch. These are all still r selected expecting their free stuff. Hunger will change their politics like the freight train changes the car stalled on the tracks.

Stop feeding them. Their moral posturing sinks faster then the veritable Pb Veppelin.

Anonymous Dan November 17, 2016 7:04 AM  

If Jefferson, who is venerated by the right, were alive today we would recognize him as a liberal status whore. He praised the French revolution although he would surely have lost his head of he were caught up in it. The oft remarked contradiction between his words (equality) and his actions (slavery) was not a relic of his era. It was just SJW hypocrisy like we would all recognize. George Washington is a much better Founding Father.

Blogger Deadmau5 Patton November 17, 2016 7:09 AM  

O/T but amazing headline. (God Emperor) Donald Trump believed to be direct descendant of Rurik the Viking who established Russian state

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3934470/Donald-Trump-believed-direct-descendant-Rurik-Viking-established-Russian-state.html

Blogger Sillon Bono November 17, 2016 7:26 AM  

The only equality that can be is "Equality of rights and duties under the law"

Any other form of equality is a chimera.

Anonymous Hrw-500 November 17, 2016 7:28 AM  

These folks should read that rant from Captain Capitalism titled "A World without white people". http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.ca/2016/11/a-world-without-white-people.html

Blogger Deadmau5 Patton November 17, 2016 7:33 AM  

"equality does not exist in any observable scientific, legal, material, intellectual, sexual, or spiritual form."
It never even occurs to most people that "equal" is a value of measurement. When they call everyone equal,they never stop to think about what we might be equal or unequal at.

I used to ask on twatter "what are we measuring?" which confused the leftists. "dude, we're not measuring anything. I said we're equal."

Blogger MATT November 17, 2016 7:56 AM  

When they go low, we must go lower.

Blogger ZhukovG November 17, 2016 8:04 AM  

In defense of Jefferson, I will say that even great men are often mistaken. In fact, great men often make more mistakes then lesser men. Lesser men become discouraged by their errors and failures; quickly giving up. Great men continue to strive, using their errors and failures as fuel for their advance.

Also, propaganda was just as prevalent in the 18th century but there was no Internet. Hell their wasn't even a transatlantic telegraph, so news came by sailing ship and the messenger could have an agenda.

Blogger Nick S November 17, 2016 8:16 AM  

Please, Lord, allow the unhinged left to continue ramping up their virtue signaling to even more ridiculous heights. Please let them install Keith Ellison as chairman of the DNC while its proponents continue to burn down their inner cities. Allow them to put their true colors on full display for the whole world to see. Thank You, amen.

"Everything is falling into place."

Blogger bkm ( wut is the great flaw in the Alt-R? too many chiefs, insufficient Injuns. good thing Vox Day is the Little Injun That Could pull that fine train. { Vox Gayness intensifies } ) November 17, 2016 8:18 AM  

17. John Wright November 17, 2016 5:46 AM
Did not one of you wee little students ask him why Jefferson was not talking about equality of civic rights, which was what the document was about?



a - they were wee little students. of course they didn't.

b - even the Declaration does NOT extend those rights to those not of the nation ... which is why more than one law was passed excluding Asians from eligibility for citizenship.

Blogger Boko Harambe November 17, 2016 8:19 AM  

@14, he, like me, would be fired, tarred, feathered, and put on a no-hire list (illegal, but they exist) for school districts far and wide.

When I was teaching Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron, I asked students to think of the best athlete or whatever that they knew. Put them through a similar exercise to examine what we mean by equality and whether or not we should seek to eliminate excellence along with disadvantage.

Did not go well, to say the least.

Anonymous paradox November 17, 2016 8:35 AM  

But y'all... Jeffrey Cucker says it's Twitter's right to ban. I'm sure the bowtie-fairy says Christians must make gay wedding cakes too.

Blogger Lobo Util November 17, 2016 8:54 AM  

We should see if someone gets suspended for tweeting:

"I f***ing hate cats and their inconsiderate asses for treating people like slaves. They should all be killed."

Anonymous BGKB November 17, 2016 9:04 AM  

allow the unhinged left to continue ramping up their virtue signaling to even more ridiculous heights

As long as one man in a wig is barred from little girls bathrooms the leftist fight against the 0.001% can wait.

Blogger Nick S November 17, 2016 9:12 AM  

@37

Ha! That sums it up nicely.

Anonymous Kevin R.C. O'Brien November 17, 2016 9:23 AM  

The Van Creveld book is outstanding. Everyone involved in, for example, university administration or the current crusade to fill the armed forces with fictional Warrior Princess characters needs to read it (and we'd wager, has not).

Blogger praetorian November 17, 2016 10:19 AM  

This seems legally actionable to me.

Anonymous Just another commenter November 17, 2016 10:24 AM  

@34 - Yes. Been there. Going through that. Unplanned career changes suck. Modern schools train students for college, not life.

Anonymous make the alt right great November 17, 2016 10:26 AM  

too much cussing these days.. I would like to see a national campaign against foul language

Anonymous Joe Blowe November 17, 2016 10:37 AM  

Sillon Bono wrote:The only equality that can be is "Equality of rights and duties under the law"

Exactly and its those duties that are so often deliberately left out of the equation. Why? Because its fairly obvious who can and who can not fulfill the duties of civilized Western Men. Jefferson and the Founders knew it. That is why they completely excluded Africans and Amerindians from the polity. Half these people may have been born male but they were not created Men.

Blogger John Wright November 17, 2016 10:45 AM  

@29
" When they call everyone equal,they never stop to think about what we might be equal or unequal at. "

Unless they are homeschooled, in which case they can answer immediately:

Equality in mathematics refers to identity; in physics it refers to an equal number of the unit measure involved; in politics, it means equal rank.

In a class or caste society, the law says some men are born with the right to command, to rule, to bear arms, and to own property whereas other men are born with the duty to obey.

The number of ranks depends on the society. Generally in Europe, the legal distinctions were between the royalty, the nobility, the burghers, serfs, slaves.

Equality in the legal sense means your rank does not depend on birth. Simple as that.

That is what the word means. That is what it has always meant. That is what it always will mean.

Even after the Civil War, slavery was legally possible as a punishment. A man born free could be enslaved as a penalty imposed by the court of law.

Equality means no one is born a ruler, no one is born a slave. Rulers earn their leadership role by the free election of the voters in an equal society.

No one in is right mind thinks Jefferson took up his pen to argue in favor of the proposition that all men are born with the same intelligence, good looks, health, or luck.

Someone who says no two men are equal, if he means "not identical and homogeneous" is making a true but trivial statement.

If he means no two men are the same rank, that is absurd, because even in a caste society, there are members of the same caste who are equal in rank: corporals are the same rank as corporals, captains with captains, and so on.

If he means that because no two men are homogeneous, therefore legal equality, equality in the eyes of the law does not, cannot, or should not exist, he is a making an impermissible and illogical claim.

Even in a class society, this is not the case: Nothing in logic, law or morality prevents one prince from being wise and good and another being vicious and stupid. But the two princes are the same rank: equal.

I am honestly puzzled why no one seems to know what this word means.

I blame the Left and stand astonished at the thoroughness of their victory in the realm of propaganda. Is it true that no one these days can read the words of the preamble of the Declaration of Independence and understand what Jefferson meant? Do you actually think he was talking about equality in the mathematical or scientific sense of the word?

Do you think he was saying all men are born the same weight at birth, or the same height, or gifted with the same talents and potentials? Really?

Do you honestly think that was the proposition for which the minutemen fought the British tyrants and died? They were fighting for all men being born the same physical and mental properties of mass, length, and duration?

It hardly seems a rousing cause.

Blogger Stilicho November 17, 2016 10:53 AM  

The most amusing part is Twitter's obliviousness to the fact that they were trolled. And not a subtle trolling, rather more of a punch you in the face and laugh while you bleed type of trolling.

Blogger Aeoli Pera November 17, 2016 10:53 AM  

Gab could not have been more timely. It's like Dorsey decided to seppuku and @a had just that moment finished his Cutco prototype.

Blogger Aeoli Pera November 17, 2016 10:56 AM  

We can blame the recent manifestation of the human equality idea on John Locke and his blank slatism.

Blogger Aeoli Pera November 17, 2016 10:59 AM  

If I may give a more general definition of equality, it means "interchangeable, regarding our purpose here" (whatever those purposes happen to be.) So one dollar bill equals four quarters, unless the bill is crumpled and you're trying to use a vending machine.

Blogger Aeoli Pera November 17, 2016 11:01 AM  

Please note that the very idea of the natural numbers presupposes the idea of interchangeable elements belonging to a class.

Blogger Aeoli Pera November 17, 2016 11:11 AM  

Icicle wrote:Equality does not exist and it is very easy to prove that no one who claims equality to be a moral principle actually believes in it.

Hey Vox, did you see that Chinese scientists just tested CRISPR for the first time in a live human... today?


Maybe the first time on the books. The Chinese make the Nazis look like a bunch of hippies.

Here comes the fun.

You misspelled deluge.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 17, 2016 11:20 AM  

If I may give a more general definition of equality, it means "interchangeable."

I don't think that's what Jefferson meant by it. I think it was more a case of, "equally have souls given by God" which meant "and are therefore of equal worth on a macro or divine level, hence entitled to equal treatment under the very limited set of laws we intend to have."

That _is_ one of the problems that's brought us to where we are today; the state began, via its laws, to do _everything_ imaginable, hence had to then do everything equally, if "equal protection under the law" was to continue to mean anything. In a more limited system, equality under the laws isn't a lot more than entitlement to approximately equal due process, and approximately equal legal representation (because, no, legal representation is never equal and variables beyond control can affect due process).

Anonymous 360 November 17, 2016 11:26 AM  

The only argument for equality that I can think of is that equality seems to exists in the assigned dignity and value of all men by God.

If mankind is made in the image of God, there is an inherent value in that which applies equally to all of mankind. A supporting argument would be that Christ died for all men which seems to indicate that all men have equal value or worth as far as God is concerned (enough to at least die for them).

Outside of that one area though, I do not think there are any logical examples of equality.

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Deplorable Cents November 17, 2016 11:35 AM  

Equality in snow clearance in Stockholm didn't work out quite the way it was intended.

Blogger Deadmau5 Patton November 17, 2016 11:54 AM  

@44 John Wright I thoroughly enjoyed your response to my post. Sadly, had you given the same response to the shitlibs I was referring to, their answer would still be the same, "if you can't see why we're all equal, you're ignorant and part of the problem."

There is no information contained in their definition of "equal" and the definition of the word in some circles' colloquialisms may have changed into a nebulous almost metaphysical sort of equality that can't be defined, but just is.

Anonymous Max M Mouse November 17, 2016 11:55 AM  

I have been an admin for a large social media site (not in the top 3, but a very big site). I know exactly the guidelines they have for moderating abusive posts, and they are not discriminatory. Both of the above tweets would have been shitcanned under the guidelines, however there is still room for an individual moderator's discretion.

Anonymous Pony1 November 17, 2016 12:09 PM  

"A tremendous amount of harm has been done over the last two hundred years by taking Jefferson's political rhetoric as moral dialectic."

I got sucked into this as well, Jefferson is so venerated on the right and in libertarian circles - his words often get treated as gospel. But I struggled trying to reconcile his words with the observable truth: all men are created unequal.

Anonymous deplorable six pan November 17, 2016 12:12 PM  

Certainly explains a lot. Occam's Razor and that, what?

Anonymous kfg November 17, 2016 1:19 PM  

"I struggled trying to reconcile his words with the observable truth: all men are created unequal."

Consider the possibility that the words Jefferson used did not mean what you, after 100 years of socialist equalism being on the rise, take them to mean. That you have been the subject of Orwellian language forces that have shaped your mind.

And that he was perfectly aware of the difference between political philosophy and scientific analysis, as was his audience at the time, scientism as we know it still being about half a century into the future.

Anonymous Drummergirl November 17, 2016 1:31 PM  

@52 - I agree that the only capacity in which equality applies to human beings has to do with being made in the image of God. Therefore, He sent His only son as a sacrifice, allowing every person to have the choice of eternal life or eternal damnation. That being said, I find it a bit ironic that many of those who fervently espouse the idea of "equality" also completely dismiss the existence of God.

Blogger cho boco November 17, 2016 1:40 PM  

As a liberal Bernie supporter: the left does not claim that all people are equally skilled or equally intelligent or equally productive. "Equality" simply means equal treatment, i.e. lack of discrimination. Equality means that neither of those tweets should get someone suspended. Equality means hiring people based on their merit, not their race or gender. Equality means the same standards for everyone.

We don't have equality like this everywhere, but we should have it, and will try to achieve it. And I hate that many Democrats actually oppose it, insisting on hiring quotas based on skin color and lower standards for women in the military.

Anonymous kfg November 17, 2016 1:44 PM  

" . . . the only capacity in which equality applies to human beings has to do with being made in the image of God."

If you wish to watch a socialist, equalist's head asplode, back them into a corner where they have to admit that it is the soul, and only the soul, in which men can even be theoretically equal.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents November 17, 2016 2:13 PM  

@60
As a liberal Bernie supporter: the left does not claim that all people are equally skilled or equally intelligent or equally productive

Dude, the 70's are over. You need to update your leftwing rhetoric engine with the 1990's service package, the 2000's #OnlyBlackLivesMatter service pack and the 0bama We Won, no whites need apply to Civil Service patch. You're totally out of date.

Blogger Benjamin Kraft November 17, 2016 3:19 PM  

Neither form of equality was necessitated by God in his creation of man.

Whether it is physical/intellectual/charismatic/etc. parity, or legal parity, with neither was man created, so both are false regardless, John Wright.

Clearly the first is idiotic in every aspect, but apparently the second one got you. I'd say that man is equal under God's law (which was not and is not the U.S.A Constitution), but he most certainly is not equal under any version of man's law that has ever been created, for multiple reasons:
#1: Often times human law is biased or favoritistic.
#2: Those appointed to uphold and administer human law are often biased or favoritistic.
#3: Often it is (sufficiently) difficult or impossible for outsiders administering the law to determine what actually happened in a case, so whichever can sway opinion will win, regardless of what actually happened.

There are other reasons I have not considered thoroughly as well, but this should encompass the most common factors.

Both legal and material parity are nonexistent in practice under man's purview.

Anonymous Anonymous November 17, 2016 5:19 PM  

Twitter: Why are you still using it?

Blogger tublecane November 17, 2016 5:34 PM  

@17-If Jefferson was saying that, he's an idiot, because there is no equality of civil rights, either. Not then, nor now. He was most certainly not talking about that, anyway, because he said all men are created equal, and "civil" rights aren't given by God at creation.

Ask Jefferson if all men have the civil right to liberty, why didn't that include his slaves? Or weren't they created by God? Or does a slave have "liberty?" If so, what were you complaining about George III for? He didn't even go an inch of the mile it would've taken to reduce the Virginia gentleman to bondage.

This stuff is so easy to shoot down. Jefferson was engaged in rhetoric, and was quite far away from truth.

Blogger tublecane November 17, 2016 5:39 PM  

@25-It was hypocrisy, but not of the SJW variety. We run into what might be termed a relativistic dilemma of history. If Jefferson were alive today he'd be viewed as the most backward, reactionary man alive. But he was a radical in his time, so we like to think of him as still radical. But no.

Blogger tublecane November 17, 2016 5:41 PM  

@27-That's chimerical, too, and I don't know why people fall for it so easily. There is no equality of rights or duties before the law. The law may be the most discriminatory of human institutions.

What people mean when they say such things is that in law there is equality for equal things, or something like that. But King Louis XIV could've said that with a straight face, too.

Blogger tublecane November 17, 2016 5:48 PM  

@51-He couldn't have meant that, either, because he didn't believe everyone was entitled to equal treatment under the limited set of laws we had then. Certainly more laws, and stupider laws, make it harder to have equality, but it's not possible under the simplest set of laws, either. Unless the law consists of one law stating "Do what thou wilt," or something.

Jefferson was talking out of his ass.

Anonymous EH November 17, 2016 5:54 PM  

Of course people are not born of equal rank, genetics determines character and intelligence which determine station in life. Even Jefferson did not think slaves were born equal to him, so that interpretation is wrong. Vox correctly characterized the phrase as rhetoric.

Nor are souls born equal, still less do they remain so. Even leaving aside the soul of Jesus, if a soul means anything, then it has to affect temperament, which varies both genetically and for reasons we don't know, and which may be attributed to the soul. If one person's soul predisposes them to commit crimes and another to live a holy life, then their souls are not of equal worth from the beginning.

People cannot be presumed to be equal in any respect. Some are better than others by whatever chosen metric (some metrics are better than others, too). Treating them as if they were equal is unjust to the better, and over time, unjust to the worse, as well because the better is prevented from using his talents which would make the world as a whole better.

Preferring the better to the worse is required in any imaginable ethical system, therefore judging who is better and who worse is a universal ethical requirement. Therefore asserting that all men are equal is wrong under any system of ethics.

Blogger tublecane November 17, 2016 5:58 PM  

@60-Assuming you're a real person, there isn't any reason to apply the word "equality" to hiring based on merit instead of race. All men are not equally merited. If there's a "lack of discrimination" based on race in your preferred society, there's also a presence of discrimination based on merit.

What does this have to do with "equality," I ask? "Equality means the same standards for everyone?" No it doesn't. Even if it did, no society on earth, including no doubt the one you've dreamt up in your head, has equal standards for everyone. Moreover, we wouldn't want it that way. It'd be a nightmare.

Blogger Xaneks Alucar November 17, 2016 7:20 PM  

indeed

Blogger Bard November 17, 2016 10:33 PM  

Equality of opportunity not outcome. Now it just means equality of outcome, ability and effort be damned

Blogger Tom Kratman November 18, 2016 12:05 AM  

Yet another increment of evidence in the building case that you're an SJW, Tuble.

Let me try to explain it this way: Hypocrisy and realism. Jefferson was human, therefore stuck between a cherished ideal and reality, making his accommodation, as we all do, between those. As with most of us who are not convinced we're equal to God - those of us who are not SJWs, in other words - he had an idea of what would be right, but had to live in the world as it was. What's fucking hard about this?

Blogger tublecane November 18, 2016 12:20 AM  

@72-He wasn't on the horns of some dilemma between reality and his ideals. He was in the realm of rhetoric, or as I put it above talking out of his ass. Surely there is some connection between his high-flown verbiage and what he actually believed, but you shouldn't take it seriously. You definitely shouldn't ascribe to it the interpretation you did, which is wrong for obvious reasons.

What are the other increments in your case, by the way?

Blogger tublecane November 18, 2016 12:30 AM  

@71-Equality of opportunity never existed, either, which SJW-types were right about for once (stopped clock syndrome).

Blogger Tom Kratman November 18, 2016 1:41 AM  

There are no increments in my case. In your case, you are assuming that what you cannot understand cannot be understood. It is only slightly different from your previous revelation that you believe people will only do what they want to do or like to do. It's pure SJW sociopathy.

Blogger wreckage November 18, 2016 5:35 AM  

@60
"We don't have equality like this everywhere, but we should have it, and will try to achieve it. And I hate that many Democrats actually oppose it, insisting on hiring quotas based on skin color and lower standards for women in the military."

You can't "try to achieve it" because ultimately to move it forward requires that people be judged. The people doing the judging are superior, they have to be. Without those superior people to know, by telepathy perhaps, other people's motives, you can't enforce even that kind of equality.

So you see, while I believe in merit 100%, society cannot set out to achieve 100% equal-treatment because discovering and destroying people's Secret Motives is the work of Inquisitors.

In beginning the program you violate its goals and falsify its claims: it establishes inequality.

Yes, you say, but that is necessary? Ah. Well, so much for equality then, because effective action depends on Superior People forcing aside and dominating Inferior People. Equality then, never existed. The next obvious step is that the entire program was about power.

When you reason your way to the last sentence, and you will, eventually, you will have a lot of anger to deal with. You've been lied to.

Anonymous DontBeAFool November 18, 2016 12:41 PM  

Vox,

While your experiment is important and shows a real issue your conclusions are foolish.

Equality does and should exist.

I don't think that it is correct that one tweet led to a ban and the other didn't. However, I don't think you are addressing the results objectively.

First is that you are making the assumption of starting form a level playing field. We're not. Black americans are starting from a point of slavery while whites are starting from a point of power. Yes slavery is over with now. However, the after effects still exist. There are still people alive who lived in a world where blacks were literally treated negatively in an official capacity. There are still plenty of people who are actually and unabashedly racists against blacks.

Equality is a goal that we have not yet as a country achieved. To test it as if we have is just foolish.

Your test is along the lines of going to a car manufacturer, getting into a car that is being built, and then telling them it's shit because it doesn't run. Of course it doesn't run they haven't finished putting it together.

Secondly, twitter is not one person or infallible machine. They get a fuckton of reports every day and have an entire group of people who review them and those reviewers aren't exactly the best paid members of the team. So why does it surprise you that you might get different responses? These two tweets definitely were reviewed by different people who have their own biases and opinions.

You're purposely being a fool to project your preconceived results. If You REALLY want to talk about a scientific test of Twitter's equality standards, you will need a significantly greater number of tests.

Then, even once you have the results from that significantly greater number of tests, you simply can't project the results of twitter onto society as a whole. One company does not represent society as a whole.

What you should do though is to show this to Twitter. Let them know that this happened and why you believe it shouldn't (I agree ti shouldn't they should have banned both).

Equality is a goal to strive for. You should be doing your part to HELP achieve it. Not pointing out the flaws in a car still being built like a retarded asshole.

Blogger cho boco November 18, 2016 12:57 PM  

I have no idea what point you are taking to make. Of course people can judge others, it happens all the time. Business owners judge the people who apply for a job, so they can choose the best employee. The military judges people's physical and mental fitness and their ability to serve in important roles. NFL teams judge which players would help improve their team the most.

Equality means that this judgement process does not discriminate against the applicants. The business owner has to judge applicants based on their merit, and can't say "no Jews" or "no blacks". The NFL has to choose the most capable player for each position, and can't say "no Hispanics". Everyone has to have an equal chance to qualify.

Blogger cho boco November 18, 2016 12:58 PM  

@74 Equality of opportunity hasn't always existed everywhere, but we want it to.

Blogger cho boco November 18, 2016 1:01 PM  

@69 Of course all men are not equally merited! Merit is the thing you are supposed to judge on. It makes perfect logical sense to judge an employee or a political candidate based on merit, because merit is what matters.

Equality of opportunity means not disqualifying people based on irrelevant things - whether it's gender, or hair color, or sexual orientation, or height, or political affiliation, or any other thing that has nothing to do with "can this person do the job well".

Blogger tublecane November 18, 2016 1:20 PM  

@80-"Of course all men are not equally merited"

Then why did judging on merit come up in a conversation about equality?

"Equality of opportunity means not disqualifying people based on irrelevant things"

I don't think it does, but for the sake of argument who decides what's relevant? Race used to be considered very relevant. And of course it still has a lot to do with "can this person do the job well." Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't know how the world works.

Again, I must repeat, what does that have eliminating irrelevant factors from the list of things people are allowed to discriminate based upon have to do with equality? There are still other factors, which means people are still considered unequal. I think the entire association of non-discrimination with equality is lazy thinking.

Blogger tublecane November 18, 2016 1:28 PM  

@76-"you can't enforce even that kind of equality"

Of course you can't, because it's not equality. I don't know why everyone keeps calling it that. It's like waking up to fund everyone referring to bananas as apples. What?

Perhaps people confuse it with "equity," which is synonymous with fairness. And they think it's only fair not to judge people according to certain criteria like race, therefore ignoring race equals "equality." What a load of nonsense.

Blogger tublecane November 18, 2016 1:40 PM  

@77-How much time and power do you need for us to say your social experiment has failed? How about seven centuries of cradle to grave totalitarianism. Could we let go of it after that?

Blogger cho boco November 18, 2016 2:08 PM  

@81 Common sense decides what's relevant. If you are hiring a computer programmer, you hire based on things like skill at programming, salary requirements, and employment history. It makes no sense, and is unfair, to hire based on skin color. Skin pigment has nothing to do with computer programming.

If you're hiring a firefighter, you hire based on who is physically capable of performing the job. They must be able to kick down doors, carry equipment, and haul unconscious people out of a building. It is wrong to choose based on what kind of genitals the person has in their pants, because their genitals don't matter. Their ability, their merit, is what matters.

Of course there are exceptions- if you're hiring a model for women's swimsuits, then the candidate's gender is relevant and can be judged. Nobody sane wants to hire a man to model a bikini, though no doubt there are some SJWs who would try it.

> what does that have eliminating irrelevant factors from the list of things people are allowed to discriminate based upon have to do with equality?

Because equality of opportunity is defined by having a lack of discrimination. When all of society stops treating people differently because of their physical characteristics like race and gender and only judges people on their merit, the goal will have been reached. No one would have cause to complain about unequal treatment anymore.

Blogger Blastman November 18, 2016 3:34 PM  

Cho boco wrote:

As a liberal Bernie supporter: the left does not claim that all people are equally skilled or equally intelligent or equally productive. "Equality" simply means equal treatment, i.e. lack of discrimination.

If you and the Democrats are really against discrimination based on race, then why aren’t you out protesting against Black based magazines (Ebony and Black Enterprise), Black based Television, the Miss Black America pageant, Black scholarships, and countless Black based organizations all based on race?

I don't see you calling out the discrimination against whites in these organizations. Why is that? Must be the blatant hypocritical narrative you've bought into. In fact, people like you and the Democrats support this blatant discrimination against whites. On the other hand, if any organization is deemed to have too high a concentration of white males, it is attacked and decried as some sort of evil or racist organization in need of redress by the government.

Blacks get into college with lower SAT scores … black privilege? With the left we even have government support for race and gender based organizations like the Black Caucus and Woman’s Caucus. Black based businesses are encouraged and supported by the government and public institutions along with discrimination against whites. It's you and the Democrats that support nonsense like this. And yet here you are trying to sell us the idea that you and socialist Democrats like Bernie Sanders are for equal treatment and a color blind society? It's nonsense.

The left have the same hypocritical stance with regard to women. Constant complaints about not enough women in STEM fields, but never a complaint about professions such as nursing and teaching that are 90%+ female and other areas with majority women.

OpenID ymarsakar November 18, 2016 3:57 PM  

Point 7: The Alt Right is anti-equalitarian.-VD

The part that includes spiritual matters is why you are warring against the Gospel of Jesus of Nazareth, otherwise known in Jewish texts before the 2nd AD as the second power in Heaven.

Your red indian blood, your Italian location, and your skills or economic prospects, do not give you authority or truth to determine what is going on in the spiritual realm. And you have made no claims of divine inspiration or speaking of the Holy Spirit or being visited by the Word of God in a vision. Unless one includes Trum as one.

This behavior makes you little different from Francis the Catholic Pope.

OpenID ymarsakar November 18, 2016 4:11 PM  

Tom Kratman wrote:I don't think that's what Jefferson meant by it. I think it was more a case of, "equally have souls given by God" which meant "and are therefore of equal worth on a macro or divine level, hence entitled to equal treatment under the very limited set of laws we intend to have."

The argument amongst Christian Hebrew biblical scholars and seminary students goes something like this, once, for why abortion is wrong.

First opener would be "why makes humans, the image of God"?

Intelligence, communication, free will, dominion over the earth are some answers.

Then the pro choice position is correct. Since a conceived child does not have such qualities yet.

But it has the potential to become so in the future.

Then if humans are made in the image of God and that image is equal to intelligence, free will, and conscious self awareness, then a conceived fetus is not yet an image of God. It would only be a problem if the image was itself humanity.

Or to end the dialogue, as I would term it the soul itself. Humans do not have equal merits or demerits, but God treats humans and angels as equals, for they are all sons of God. None of them, either individual or added together, equals God's nature or quality.

In feudalism, the king was the highest authority in the hierarchy, and the vassals usually had equal rank. The companions of Alexander the Great treated each other as equals, even though they weren't.

Trying to create heaven on Earth, restoring the lost Eden, is a failure repeated after the Marxists, the Tower of Babel builders, and the very hosts of heaven which rebelled against God's plan for humanity.

Watching and reading some seminar stuff from the Hebrew writings before 2nd AD, after the Jewish religious councils changed it due to Christianity, has some interesting things. Since learning Hebrew or Aramaic would take long, it's nice to use the internet to make use of other people's expertise on this subject.

To Christians, the reason why humanity is unequal, divided, and evil is because of the Fall during Eden.

To 2nd Temple period Jews, they might have reportedly said that there were three incidents or rebellions against God that caused the current unequal state of humanity.

Blogger tublecane November 18, 2016 5:21 PM  

@75-But I *do* understand it, which is why I know that your interpretation is wrong and that it is mere rhetoric.

I have never said people only do what they want or like to do. You're either not paying attention or are a liar.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 19, 2016 1:35 AM  

Sorry, shitbird, but you've already convicted yourself in the previous thread.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 19, 2016 1:37 AM  

YM:

I tend to look at it this way; I was willing to see billions incinerated, among them hundreds of millions of perfectly innocent kids, to prevent my country falling to the reds. Hence, why should I blanche or recoil over a mere 40-50 million to prevent the same thing?

Blogger Tom Kratman November 19, 2016 1:42 AM  

Right here, fuckface, for your self-conviction:

*****

284. tublecane November 15, 2016 11:08 PM
@247-"What man would not?"

A man who didn't like killing innocent babies? Which is most of them.

*****

Which presumes you have to like something to do it. Pure SJWism. Which is to say, you.

Blogger tublecane November 19, 2016 2:47 PM  

@91-We've already been over this. As I said before (in so many words), that's rhetorical understatement. When I say someone who doesn't like killing babies, go ahead and replace it in your mind with someone who's passionately morally opposed to the killing of babies.

That being said, on face value my statement assumes nothing of the sort. Because the hypothetical situation you brought up, where you go on a homicidal spree following the murder of your wife, up to and including killing infants, didn't involve any sort of imperative. It would be entirely up to the individual man, in response to your "what kind of man" query, whether he would go so far. My position was that almost no man whatsoever would go so far as to pull suckling babies from their mothers' teat to bash their brains out for the crimes of his relative. If I had to pick one sort of man unlikely to do so, it would be one who didn't like killing innocent babies.

That you would deduce whether I think someone has to like something to do it in general from my particular response to your bizarre hypothetical is preposterous.

Blogger tublecane November 19, 2016 2:53 PM  

@91-By the way, I don't buy for a second that you think I actually presumes anything of the sort. You're casting about for confirmation, is all, because you were "triggered" on the previous thread. Or you're just a liar.

If you do think my statement presumes anything of the sort, you're an idiot.

Blogger Roger Hill November 20, 2016 7:05 AM  

@17
Sorry, I did not see your response sooner. In answer to your questions, we were indeed wee little minds - or at least I was. It was 10th grade and we were all 15 or 16 at the time.
Of course we had all been bathed thoroughly in public school bullshit for years by then. It was 1979, or perhaps 1980. That was the school year in which I was a Sophomore (roughly translated "no wisdom"). I don't think the teacher was a leftist. I really think he was trying to crack the indoctrination are brains were encased within. He may have done it in a very simplistic way, but it had its effects on me. His lesson steered us towards thinking of Jefferson's words being better taken as equality in basic rights. His point, or so I thought, was that we are not created equal in any tangible sense, but in certain conceptual ways - rights and basic human dignity, perhaps more in a spiritual sense.

Blogger Roger Hill November 20, 2016 7:28 AM  

I should add that he was talking specifically about the phrase "created equal", and how those two words could be ripped out of context to mean things Jefferson clearly never intended. That was really the point. He tied in the follow up words in the Declaration to put Jefferson's 'created equal' phrase within its context.

I'm trying to defend this man because he really was a good public school teacher - which is a damn rare thing.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts