georgioz
4hr ago
I believe it was the famous The Control Group Is Out of Control where he compares quality of psychology and parapsychology papers - where parapsychology studies phenomena like telepathy etc. He deliberately used parapsychology as a control group, as the modern papers use the same methodology as psychology papers. And unsurprisingly, parapsychology fares quite well. If it was not for the fact that parapsychology is so suspicious of a field, these papers would be part of our scientific arsenal and would inform host of policies and self-improvement programs as the psychology does.
georgioz
4hr ago
All 3 of those stances are, in some sense, political. They're political positions. However, I feel like there's a big difference between the first two things and the third; in the first two, my private life gets constrained. Maybe I don't mind if I'm going (/not going) to church already. But, in the first two cases, I'm clearly losing some freedom that I'd already have today.
You are just assuming your position. You are throwing moral and metaphysical words such as "private life" or "freedom". What are they, how are they justified, why are they valuble, why should they be protected and elevated? I will give a steelman of somebody from either camp:
- Pro-Church: "Everyone must become Catholic; tithes will get taken out of paychecks with other taxes; people get fined for missing church."
- Anti-Church: "Religion is banned; there's an excise tax on Church donations and we'll pass regulations to prevent services from happening."
- Small Government: "Everybody must become libertarian, we must enshrine moral value of "liberty" and "private life" in our law as the the highest policy. Government has to care whenever any of these things are in danger and ban tithes or various taxes.
When I read the NPR Article I'm seeing the title: "The Nerd Reich: Silicon Valley Fascism And The War On Democracy" and I find myself looking for a satisfying answer to what, precisely, does the the Nerd Reich wants to mandate / prohibit me from doing in my actual day-to-day life?.
You just need to read the article, which basically boils down to the "our democracy" rhetoric of The New Left. The way their democracy is endangered is as follows:
- More power to CEOs and corporation to establishes special economic zones etc.
- Dismantling federal regulation and bureocracy via activities like DOGE. Dismantling various policies and structures such as US AID.
- Promote cryptocurrency and other ways of evading government ability to follow money trace, excise taxes etc.
- Create political coalition among Gray and Red tribe to purge Blues from position of power in order to enable their prefered policy.
The thing is that when the new left talks about democracy, they are not talking about some technicalities. They mean that true democracy is only achieved if their preferred policies are implemented. Therefore any pushback against their policy big and small are dangerous - be it political defeat of Democrats in San Francisco, dismantling of US AID up to dismantling the Federal bureaucracy. That is all.
Sure, I got all that. But in the end the father was inconsequential unlike Harry's mother who was key to the whole story. And even the stepfathers had their own agenda. Dumbledore literally had plan to martyr him, Snape had his own issues, Black was more like an uncle etc.
Harry is an orphan. It's hard to parent from beyond the grave.
Lily managed to do that: via memories and her protective spell fueled by motherly love. Harry's father was ultimately a disappointment and his best qualities were to correct his boyish toxic masculine ways, marry Lily and then leave the story.
Voldemort is turned villain by his mother, with it implied that her using magical rape on her lover combined with her weak abandonment of her child caused Voldemort to be born without the ability to love. Voldemort murdered his father out of disappointment with his legacy, not because his father was a bad man (he wasn't very nice but that's because Rowling has trouble with aristocrats, not men).
As for Voldemort's mother Merope, this is absolute twisting of her story in the books. She is a victim, abused by her cruel father Marvolo, impoverished and left alone by everybody dying in childbirth giving life to Voldemort. She is no evil slave owner who loves to torture people, including let's say poisoning her naive husband who loved and nurtured Riddle to take his money, and who created Voldemort by wizard superiority Nazi indoctrination or whatnot. That would be the twist I am looking for.
Instead, she is of course a victim, she was shunned by Riddle's aristocratic muggle father, who saw her and his son as an embarrassing mistake - literally mocking her and telling her she is a tramp - and who let her and Riddle die, not even knowing that he has a son. It is Voldemort's father who is behind Voldemort's hatred of muggles, why he literally uses the ritual to purge his half-blood away and why he has such a boner to create pure blood society. Voldemort's mother conveniently died after his father abandoned her in order for Voldemort to become a villain, he did not get the dose of Lily-like motherly love because of his deadbeat father. In fact the act of patricide of hated father and grandparents, reneging on his patrimony at 16 was the first instance when Voldemort created his first Horcrux out of the family ring. Absence of his mother also led him to not exactly hate her, but disrespect her for "muggle weakness" where he was flabbergasted how a witch could succumb to such a ploy. But it was not exactly hatred like he held toward his father, it was just disrespect created by absence of corrective motherly love exacerbated by systemic abuse in orphanage - not in terms of actual physical abuse by wicked female staff who would give him to child molesters or whatnot - they were just overworked and underfunded, so any emotional damage on Riddle was there by virtue of being isolated from nurturing motherly love.
I'm deeply non-feminist but even then you seem to me to have this very shallow idea of what men are allowed to be and do, and what constitutes character and virtue. That might be a feminist trope but even broken clocks are right twice a day.
I am non-feminist and moreover I am a Catholic. I ascribe to virtue ethics that are the same for men and women in full, be it seven heavenly virtues or their counterpart of seven deadly sins. I hold men and women to be of the same ontological value and dignity and all the virtues and sins apply to them both. However men and women are not interchangeable due to physical nature, I'd say that ranking of the virtues is different for men and women.
What feminist and even broadly modern literature does is either explicitly or implicitly is ascribing to feminist power structure story, standpoint epistemology stemming from hierarchy of oppression where virtue and sin is not decided on personal agency, but on systemic effects. So women being nasty and nagging is okay, because it is just giving valuable piece of information to men from superior standpoint of female lived experience. This is especially jarring as in most fantasy and sci-fi setting they are supposed to be equal in power of violence either through magic, stat points etc. But they still retain their oppressed nature and men still have the privilege to be put down. To tie it to my previous examples - Hermione preparing her plans and then grabbing Ron and Harry to teleport them without their consent or knowledge is okay. If it was the other way around, it would be seen as problematic stripping of agency.
As I said, it is a very disruptive element for boy or male stories. As soon as there is even some powerful and competent female character, it changes the interpersonal dynamics. Even if she is 100 times more powerful, she still glares at men, and has no problem to punch down. Even if the female character is equal or even weaker, she engages at tone policing, as it is implicitly assumed that men have to walk on eggshells when expressing their points. Suddenly orders have to go through committee making sure nobody was emotionally hurt, either before the decision or there will be talking about it afterwards. You will never see a true banter such as if a female character rolls her eyes with some snarky comment and hero would shut her down. Or even mildly "offensive" comment such as Harry saying "Shut up Hermione and do as you are told". There is inherent tension there, even in Harry Potter if he tells both Ron and Hermione to shut up, there is immediately some internal monologue about his guilt of how he almost made her cry or some such nonsense.
Which is completely lacking in boy/male literature where the hierarchy is much more defined, it changes via action, and banter is really there for play and tension relief not for psychotherapy session afterwards. As I said previously, in modern literature it easier to follow a format where you write character such as Conan with all his lines and just turn him female. Suddenly (s)he can berate a rescued princess for being childish dork, tie and gag her if she is annoying etc. The Ellen Ripley treatment who was originally written for male named Martin Roby, and they changed him to Ripley specifically for subversion points without rewriting any line. That is the "non-feminist" things that I notice.
The fact that this is so ingrained in all modern writing, television and movies is the main point. It is definitely not so even in literature as late as 1960s. That is why some commenter above accused me of not wanting women in the books. It is not that I do not want women there, but it is exactly because in modern writing the authors cannot help themselves and bring about all these themes that are hard to unsee.
By the way to me it seems interesting how many people have such a different understanding of the books like here with Voldemort. It is really fascinating.
Sure, there is a lot of that. Just compare how Harry's mother Lily and her love is key to everything and protects him and the whole Hogwarts up until the end, while his father is idolized, then portrayed as arrogant bully in some memories never to have any other impact on the story, being replaced by stepfathers such as Dumbledore, Black etc. Also Voldemort is turned villain of course because of his father, the same for Malfoy, Barty Crouch. The same for Snape, he also is turned to Death Eaters due to his abusive father.
So if mother is bad, father is even worse and probably the reason everything turns to shit. If father is good, it has to be reflection of his wife who tamed him or somehow corrected him, be it Harry's father or Arthur Weasley or even Malfoy senior who changed his ways after he relinquished his control and followed his wife Narcissa took the rein of the family focusing on saving Draco. I agree, it is fundamentally feminist telling of a story, it has nothing to do with ancient sagas of male heroes, not to even talk about modern 20th century counterparts I mentioned before, be it Tolkiens heroes, Conan or even comic book heroes such as Batman or Superman who all had phenomenal fathers.
Also I do not want to put it just on Rowling being a woman. Men as authors are as prone to this type of characterization, need to introduce these themes as women are. In fact, reading some pure women stories is sometimes even liberating, as it at least makes sense in terms of virtues and the whole story.
The scene in the forest where Harry turned into shaheed relied on power of blood that Voldemort used to reconstruct his body way back. Blood from Harry's mother Lily that protected him from death in the first place, which yet again anchored Harry to survive the killing curse the second time while Voldemort killed horcrux instead of Potter. Just to reiterate, Potter did not know about any of that mind you. Him martyring himself made the killing curse work on him, as it was taken by Elder Wand as suicidal sacrifice, so it made the Avada Kedavra take effect on horcrux and even protected the student body from further spells.
Then after that scene, Harry got the info dump from Dumbledore ghost in a limbo, which is crucial for him to figure out Elder Wand EULA and its properties, figuring out and using the loophole of how he took it from Malfoy and thus giving him another angle on Voldemort. Also before the forest scene Harry told Neville to kill the snake, who promptly repeated the trick of pulling sword out of the hat doing just that unceremoniously. Then Harry stood still, perfectly explained to Voldemort the meaning of EULA and how Voldemort is about to kill himself. Mind you there was no strategy behind, some double bluff or anything. Potter just relied on his luck of a moron that served him so well so far, and it worked. Voldemort obliged and killed himself. Harry lived through power of motherly love, main villain killed himself by power of his own arrogance, while the hero is there just like a vessel explaining these realities to characters in this world, not taking any action, quite in line with the rest of the books. The End.
What a hero journey, all men and boys are rejoicing in genius of Harry Potter, the boy who lived.
When Harry learned of Dumbledore's plan and decided to turn himself into a shaheed, there was a horcrux out there. So if there was not yet another glitch/blood vulnerability, Potter would be dead and Voldemort would still be a threat for Hermione to deal with. In fact the last horcrux in form of Voldemort's snake was killed by Neville minutes before, when he pulled the sword from the hat and independently got rid of it. The EULA wand glitch however was the true defeat, as the last soul fragment lived inside Voldemort, so it was the final destruction of his soul.
Uhhhh... what? Outplanning each other is a contest of wits, not wills. Yes, absolutely, will is determination.
I specifically used contest of heroes like Achilles and Hector. Their will is not about some specific scene where Achilles and Hector bash their shields in contest of who pushes harder - until Hector gets distracted and slips on a banana peel proving his inferior will. It is everything that surrounds it, how their motivations and actions brought them in front of the walls of Troy, how their preparations pan out and what impact it will have on the war.
Harry Potter is nowhere near that, he was dragged there literally against his agency, with no preparation and no plan - in fact he was the one manipulated throughout everything like a puppet by shadowy play of Voldermort's spies against Dumbledore and his allies from behind. From Voldemort gathering intelligence from ministry employee, through mysterious evasion of age restriction to activation of portkey; it was all orchestrated play. Potter could have been a wooden puppet that exploded in Voldemort face when he used a flawed wand. I am not sure if you get what I want to say.
his... seems like a non sequitur? Running logistics is the quartermaster's job, not the leader's. The leader's job is to get everyone pointed in the same direction and giving 110%. Harry is hilariously better at that than Hermione.
It was not just logistics. Hermione identified the threat. She strategized and came up with a plan of DA. She selected and vetted its members. On top of that she handled logistics, OpSec and everything. She even hired local celebrity as Brand ambassador and mascot in form of Potter. When there is any decision to be made about what to do next, Potter immediately defers to Hermione ranging from where to meet, what are supposed to be terms in contract - he literally just signs on the dotted line without even knowing that it is hexed. He lacks any knowledge about anything, because he ultimately does not matter as he is not the one making decisions - Hermione is.
This lack of decision making goes even beyond that. As an example, when the ministry falls, Potter does not strategize, select best course of action or anything like that. Hermione just grabs him and Ron without asking, and teleports them into pre-prepared backup base she arranged and of which Potter did not even have a clue about. What a masterful Leader of Men. And by the way, Hermione could do that, because of course she is apparition genius and knows the spell to such a level that she is certified teleporter.
Moreover Potter himself agrees with me here, he explicitly says that he is just an instructor and even gets aggressive if praised, admitting that he only lives thanks to dumb luck and immense help. Of course his bursts of rage, self-pitying etc. have to be managed by Hermione before impacting morale. Hermione shows excellent interpersonal and conflict resolution skills of true leader, managing such an unstable asset in her team by reframing his behavior as modesty. We have access to his internal monologue and we know exactly what happened, why it happened, who made decision and everything. There is no leadership mystery to uncover here.
Like, seriously, go reread the scene. They cast, the effect goes off, and they're stuck in a contest of wills with beads of light moving between them.
It is not true contest of wills in terms of planning, execution etc. The whole thing is manufactured by cosmic accident with some sparks flying around, some ghosts chiming in and so forth. By the same account Potter possesses "strong will" when he braves through quidditch injury etc. And I am not saying that he is not brave and stubborn, but at best he is weak version Dr. Watson from Sherlock Holmes - a brave veteran, fine gentlemen and in some ways more suited for tasks than Holmes. But he is not the hero.
You keep noting that Harry is lousy at planning. Sure, he's lousy at it. So is the coach Leaders of Men is about. Harry's strength is not his brains; it's his character. Yes, Harry without Hermione fails. But Hermione without Harry also fails. Character matters, both mundanely and, in HP, magically. This is the whole point of Leaders of Men, which you seem to have missed. Planning helps.
Potter lacks even the basic motivation and prerequisite of being a leader. He literally had to be tricked to "lead" DA that was organized, equipped and constructed by Hermione. It goes beyond just planning. You are constantly eluding to Leaders of Men. I have to use the same argument - we are not talking about Putin or Trump where we can speculate about invisible variables and mystical juice of leadership. We literally have access to internal monologue and all circumstances of the characters in the books. And we see that Potter is a moron.
As for your examples, Harry pulled the sword not based on his grit, his will or anything like that. He matched the criteria of "Gryffindor in need" and it was pulled. It could have been Ron or Hermione or even Neville if he was there, the result is the same. In fact Neville pulled that sword later in the books. As for Priori Incantatem it also not works. It is established in the book lore that Harry didn't know what Priori Incantatem was, he didn't plan for it, and he didn't trigger it intentionally. He cast a his expiliarmus gimmick out of desperation, and the universe stepped in with a technical glitch of shared cores that saved his life. Harry was not a leader contesting enemy general, he was a drowning person randomly getting ahold of floating beam that fate put there. Relying on your opponent's gun jamming is not a display of heroic military leadership. There was not contest of will like Achilles vs Hector.
And aside from magic being character-based, his character is also more mundanely what let him run the DA in Order of the Phoenix; Hermione couldn't have done that, because the sort of person who trusts no-one and springs surprise Dark Arts on allies is not the sort of person people follow. As noted in Leaders of Men, you want someone who makes Hermione's decisions and has Harry's character, but someone with Harry's character doesn't make Hermione's decisions.
The whole DA is laughable. People followed him because he was a celebrity and Harry was very self aware of how unprepared he was for the role. Heck, they had to persuade him to do it. At the beginning of the book Harry as usual was his whiney self, lacking any internal agency, motivation, need for glory or revenge. He was as usual reluctant moron manipulated into a situation well above his head by Hermione who strategized about threat Ministry of Magic posed, who ultimately came up with the idea of DA as a valid strategy, called the first meeting, lied to people and used that lie and emotional manipulation to make Harry take the role as a figurehead. And Harry was right, he was just a brand ambassador and way of his league, Hermione was CEO and leader. She ran the operation smoothly from communications through magic artifacts she created, OpSec including Sneak Jinx that caught defectors, member vetting, base establishment etc. She did it all. Furthermore, Harry's lack of strategic caution is exactly what doomed the DA—he failed to master Occlumency, fell for Voldemort’s blatant psychic trap, and led his friends into a catastrophic ambush at the Ministry of Magic.
EDIT: Another Zvi post; will quote the relevant parts this time.
I already said that these Zvi posts do not work here. We have access to Harry's internal monologue, we have perfect information of lore, actions of villains and allies. There are no unknown unknowns, no leadership mystery. We can evaluate everything coldly based on basic criteria. Be it hero journey, leadership and managerial skills as with Kotler Management Matrix or whatever.
You might disagree with the character traits Harry is rewarded for actually being good. You might not like, on a stylistic level, character mattering like this. (I'm a Hermione fan too!) But they're not "pure gimmicks"; there is a theme going on here, much the same theme that's hammered in time and again that it's choices, not abilities, that make Voldemort a bad guy.
It is not what I like or dislike, I actually liked the books but I do consider Harry Potter as a subversion of hero. He is dumb, moronic Chosen one, who has to rely on systems, his professors, more capable people and dumb luck to navigate situation that is well over his head from start to finish - even his win against Voldemort is quirk of the Elder wand, a convoluted license agreements/EULA failure, that was tracked internally by the wand, and who nobody was really aware of including Voldemort and Potter. It is one of the most anticlimactic defeats out there, a repeat of wand glitch from cemetery scene and perfect encapsulation of Potter's status as "the hero who lucked out" and lived. He is less of a protagonist and more of a vessel through which we can watch prearranged events unfold - events orchestrated by real heroes. I used this comparison elsewhere - at best he is Dr. Watson to Sherlock Holmes of Hermione, Dumbledore, Snape and rest of the cast. An admirable, brave and likeable character, but no hero of the story.
I specifically consider Potter as subversion of hero, because he is antithesis of what boys and men usually wanted to see for millennia. They want to see Achilles and Beowulf. They want to be Wyatt Erp or Conan The Barbarian - not a moron like Potter, who is constantly talked down, whines and more importantly lacks almost any agency over his actions. Actually correction, there is one area where he really deserves his accolades - his quidditch success. There was no Dumbledore manipulating the snitch, no mommy blood navigating him toward a goal or defensive play. It was all result of his talent, training and dedication. Moreover Potter actually has internal motivation to become a good player and be famous not for his scar but for something that he has control over. If this was a story of how Potter became the best Quidditch player of his generation, it would be a fine boy story along the lines of Karate Kid or Inazuma Eleven. But it was not meant to be, Potter will be remembered as the boy who lived.
I agree that the structure of the book is Harry centered. We only have access to his internal monologue and his perspective and we do not have access to Hermione. But there is a long tradition of such a story, even in English literature: the Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson dynamics.
In fact it fits quite well. Potter similarly to Watson is the brave one, somebody who acts, who goes wand in hand to brave dangers and who is center of the perspective and action. Holmes similarly to Hermione is the hidden genius who comes and goes with solutions, he is the central figure who solves thing behind the scenes and which are to be often utilized by Watson. Crucially, not having access to Holmes internal monologue makes him more of a mysterious figure, which makes him less of a Mary Sue. And he is undisputed main character of the story.
In Harry Potter it is of course not as explicit as Watson's subservience and worship of Holmes. Plus Hermione is only one of many such characters, where Holmes is the ensemble of the system: Hermione, Dumbledore, McGonagall, Snape, Moody, Order of Phoenix etc. who do the heavy lifting behind the scenes: plotting, planning, protecting, building structures which Potter then visits as a curated explorer exactly how Watson has his own adventures that were sanitized by Holmes genius.
In the end I do not "identify" with Potter. He is not a leader, or a hero. He is brave and he possesses good qualities, but his victories are result of luck and/or insane work of much more important people behind the scenes. If anything, Hermione is the one who really is the hero as she shares enough of the "view time" from the story perspective with constant input into various plans. That would be my argument.
Yes, the case of patronizing praise meant to manage and handle him, ideally before he loses his shit completely and does something even more reckless and irreparable. The same way Hermione or Dumbledore or anybody else really handles him. And the thing is that they are not wrong, it is exactly how they should treat him.
EDIT: By the way this is in strict contrast with Three Investigators, where boys are main heroes who often interact with adults, there is literally a trope where adults invite them to eat sandwiches and drink tea in similar context to what McGonagall did. But the boys treat these situation as adversarial social tests. Jupiter Jones uses his intellect to put adults off balance and get information that he needs, Bob uses his charm and boyish charisma to get special perks and information using his childish innocence and Pete who is muscle of the operation often uses that opportunity to scout the area or nick important item, and he also has his own moments of direct and no nonsense talk. If they are patronized, they understand it and treat it accordingly - mostly dismissing it as manipulation and maneuvering around. I think this is much more in line with experience of modern boys who are invited in teacher's office to be talked to.
I did right now, and as far as I understand this is what counts?
What most of us can’t do is lead men. Leading men is what counts. That’s the real job, but it comes with these other tasks.
So leadership is some je ne sais quoi, ability to get results via mysterious means? I think it can work from the outside, but it does not work in literature where you have access to internal monologue of main leader and his underlings. I actually think that people really underestimate how moronic Harry Potter was and how he was managed by everybody else. Here is one passage of angry Potter being called to professor McGonagall office after he had altercation with Umbridge:
“Well?” said Professor McGonagall, rounding on him. “Is this true?” “Is what true?” Harry asked, rather more aggressively than he had intended. “Professor?” he added in an attempt to sound more polite. “Is it true that you shouted at Professor Umbridge?” “Yes,” said Harry. “You called her a liar?” “Yes.” “You told her He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named is back?” “Yes.” Professor McGonagall sat down behind her desk, frowning at Harry. Then she said, “Have a biscuit, Potter.” “Have — what?” “Have a biscuit,” she repeated impatiently, indicating a tartan tin of cookies lying on top of one of the piles of papers on her desk.”
Calm down, have a biscuit and let me tell you what to do right now before I lose my patience with you. A classical treatment of ancient hero in sagas of old, right? Achilles was known for his ability to take shit from bureaucrats like that, sit down and sip his tea waiting to be berated about how awful he is.
At best, Harry was treated as a loose cannonball, a moron to be managed by everybody: Dumbledore, McGonagall, Hermione and the whole Order of Phoenix. Even Draco Malfoy. Otherwise he would fall flat on his head and die instantly. Potter is no backroom manager moving chess pieces or anything like that. At best, he is a brute field player who has to be managed by the likes of Granger or McGonagall, who are Willie Randolphs of the story.
Moreover Potter does not even work as a traditional reckless hero like Beowulf or Achilles. He is literal subversion. He lacks any agency in achieving Kleos/Glory, all his victories are result of pure luck, his blood chemistry through his mother or through administrative support of whole organization with private armies. He is not an individual hero like Beowulf who gets angry, sails across a sea to tear arms of Grendel by his bare hands. He is no Conan the Barbarian who stands proud in defiance of gods, wizards and the world with his honor, strength and good steel in his hand. Neither is he Odysseus using his guile and cunning, or Batman devising strategies, plans and gadgets to put him on even playing field with monstrous villains of his world - if there is any such hero in that story it is Hermione. Potter is damsel in distress, a MacGuffin to be protected by multi-billion operation, the best wizard who ever lived and literal Order.
He is not a leader. If that was the case, any moronic lottery winner who is managed by his mom would be voted as a president of the country. That is why Potter is no hero for boys and men. He is subversion of heroic archetype and no sophism and mythical leadership je ne sais quoi will save that fact.
georgioz
2d ago
He addresses it in a reply to one of the comments, but the reply is mostly “there are prejudices in older works that don’t matter because the conflicts no longer exist” (for instance, the Pharisees in the New Testament)
You could not be farther from truth. Pharisees specifically were the most powerful faction of Jews at the time, they formed the central religious authority of Sanhedrin and they formed the core of what later came as Rabbinic Judaism. Saint Paul himself was a learned Pharisee, taught by famous rabbi Gamaliel and many of his ideas actually reflect this reading of Old Testament. So in that sense Pharisees live to this day in a very literal, historical sense.
More generally, Pharisees represent the legalistic tendency of any moral philosophy. They have parallels everywhere, the age old "letter of law" vs "spirit of law" conflict. You see it in discussions such as Originalism vs Living Constitution interpretation of constitutional law. You see it in day-to-day adherence to your local HR decrees in your company etc. It may be one of the most important and impactful conflict today.
I mean how could you not do that? You will always evaluate individuals based on some standard: you are a good student - for an inner city black man. You are an excellent basketball player - for 5'3'' Asian. The baseline of average is always there and tabula rasa nukes the universal baseline from orbit.
In a sense the DEI crowd is more honest here. They at least know that there are these huge disparities and they want to equalize them here and now with hope that power of representation and reeducation will erase them in the future. It is classical liberal position that is unattainable - even 150 years after emancipation the blacks are not doing well. Heck, it may take another 150 years of access to equal opportunity to fix it, nothing else to see here. That is why the liberal consensus was so easily hacked by Social Justice crowd - it plays on their hidden assumptions.
More options
Context Copy link