Comment by 13thLetter | Hacker News Reader

Comment by 13thLetter | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I think you're missing the distinction between what is legal and what is right. I will cheerfully agree that the "expert" attempt to marginalize those who disagree with them politically is legal, and any attempt to legally prohibit it would have worse consequences (not least of which, the experts would use new laws as a weapon against their enemies rather than the other way around.) I will not, however, grant that it is right.

> Well, as any form of full or partial freedom-restriction works both ways, the thinking is that social groups with less power deserve more protection. Obviously, no one like to be marginalized in any way -- even the more powerful members of society -- but if someone must be hurt, we prefer it to be a group that will suffer less real damage.

Bit of a tangent, but if you deliberately wanted to create furious opposition to your policies there's no better way than to put unequal protection front and center. "Everybody should be protected from X" is a winning policy. "These strangers over here should be protected from X, but not you" is, to put it charitably, not.

> I will not, however, grant that it is right.

What proper mechanisms, then, does society grant the victims of weak-group-marginalization to fight their own marginalization? You're suggesting that even drawing people's attention to it is wrong.

> Bit of a tangent, but if you deliberately wanted to create furious opposition to your policies there's no better way than to put unequal protection front and center. "Everybody should be protected from X" is a winning policy. "These strangers over here should be protected from X, but not you" is, to put it charitably, not.

Unequal protection is already present everywhere. It is not binary (neither is it in this case), but it is very much at the core of modern democracy. The idea is that different people benefit from society to different extents or are harmed by society to a different extent, and therefore the taxes they need to pay or the investment they get from society should reflect that. Victims of a crime -- say theft -- are eligible for restitution, while people who are not victims, aren't. The idea of unequal protection in this case is that some groups are victims to unfair exclusion, and correcting that exclusion is fair.

> Victims of a crime -- say theft -- are eligible for restitution, while people who are not victims, aren't.

But I'm pretty sure you wouldn't endorse a policy where, say, white victims of theft are entitled to restitution, whereas black victims are not. That's what is all too frequently proposed by the "experts."

I think that the experts say that blacks are victims of theft by whites. A quick read of the economic history of the US would show that they are clearly right. You don't need to be an expert to see that this is the case. Those opposed to restitution are not opposed because it's wrong, unfair or unjust (as it is clearly right, fair and just), but because at this point it may cause more trouble than good.

I'm sorry, at this point I don't even understand what you're saying or how it relates to the topic. I meant "theft" as in, you know, somebody breaks into your house and steals your TV set, not some weird fringe theory about reparations.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com