With Chick-fil-A and the general rise
of gay/human rights, it often seems like people are talking past each
other rather than being clear. When we do that, we get bizarre
spectacles like people cheering the fact that Sarah Palin posed in a
picture with a bag from Chick-fil-A. We get words like tolerance,
rights, equality, all thrown around without taking a step back and
asking what those words really mean. Because if we misuse them then,
again, rather than a constructive dialogue we see people talking past
each other and that's sort of distasteful.
In life, we have a marketplace of
ideas. Everyone has the right to enter the marketplace with any idea
they like. Everyone does not, however, have the right to have their
idea "bought" by others. So, for example, I have the right
to say that I don't care for Justin Bieber or his music. Other people
disagree with me, hence Justin Bieber becomes a celebrity. Or, I have
the right to argue that the Democratic party is better than the
Republican party. That isn't the same as saying that I have the right
for everyone to agree with me. We have the right to enter the
marketplace but not the right to have everyone else agree with us.
We choose our ideas from the
marketplace. We pick which ideas we want and which ideas we don't
want. That can be framed positively (i.e., the Democratic party is
better than the Republican party) or negatively (i.e., the Republican
party is worse than the Democratic party). By picking one idea over
the other, we are effectively discriminating against the ideas we
dismiss. (Note that discrimination in this sense is very different
from discrimination against people.
)
Side note: we can either have our minds
and reason do the picking or we can allow some authority to limit the
ideas we're exposed to. I very firmly believe that we should trust
our own reasoning. We should allow, for example, arguments to be made
that deny the Holocaust. We air those arguments, see that they don't
up to reason, and dismiss the idea. That's how we maintain freedom
and autonomy. We don't ask for the government to protect us from
being forced to think about new things - reason is the gatekeeper
rather than government censorship
. We should welcome unpopular ideas
that make us think. Holding a consistent set of beliefs throughout
one's life is, at least according to the Christian Bible in 1
Corinthians 13:11, sub-par.
At any rate, we the people pick winners
and losers in the marketplace of ideas. We can't have all winners by
definition, that would leave us with nonsense ideas like "marriage
equality is good and marriage equality is not good" or "Justin
Bieber is a good singer and Justin Bieber is not a good singer".
We all pick from the marketplace which ideas we choose to hold, the
idea is to use reason to pick the correct beliefs.
The process is
just like any other marketplace. We examine the goods presented and
choose which to possess.
Throughout most of the 20th century in
the United States, the marketplace has said that we should not have
marriage equality Therefore the people who believe we should not
have marriage equality have had their opinion “winning”. They've
been content that the set of beliefs they've chosen from the
marketplace are a popular set of beliefs.
When this happens you
aren't forced to examine your beliefs. For example, I believe slavery
is wrong. I've also never seriously sat down and tried to read
arguments for and against slavery. That's an example of a belief
which is widespread thus I've never had to confront the dissenting
idea.
Lately, the idea that marriage equality
is wrong has been losing ground in the marketplace. More and more
people (including myself, given that my first post was against
marriage equality) are choosing pro-marriage equality. This means
they're "discriminating" against the idea of being against
marriage equality. We could use the same language to say that
throughout most of the 20th century people were choosing the idea of
anti-marriage equality were "discriminating" against the
idea of being for marriage equality. Because the nature of a
marketplace of ideas means that some will win while others are
"discriminated" against and lose.
This process of
competition – embracing some ideas while dismissing others – is
how we reach any and every belief.
When someone is used to holding a
popular set of beliefs then they can forget all of this and believe
that their ideas are inherently worthy of being chosen as correct.
Again, back to my example of slavery. Another reason I haven't
seriously looked into it is because it genuinely seems self-evidently
the proper belief. I can't (completely and honestly) set aside my
belief that slavery is wrong and examine the issue.
That's a flaw. Because thinking that
some ideas are above examination is erroneous. It simply isn't the
case. All ideas are competing against each other - we argue for ideas
based on their merit which produces winners and losers.
Just because
someone happens to be living in a place and time when some beliefs
are widespread doesn't change the principle of examining our beliefs.
Lately, and thankfully, marriage
equality is an idea that's been winning a lot. It's been fascinating
to watch the response! The people who disagree with the idea have
gone from:
- Not needing to argue for the idea
- Arguing for their idea based on its (alleged) merits (i.e., "marriage equality will tear apart the United States)
- Arguing for their idea based on taboo evidence (i.e., the idea is supported by a religious text therefore you can't argue with it)
- Arguing against the idea by saying that if their idea doesn't win then they're suffering discrimination.
It's fairly easy to see why the third
one comes last, as well as why it's so appealing. The idea of
marriage equality hinges on what discrimination means. When one has
no arguments left then one can claim that they deserve to be right,
or else their being discriminated against. Cue "tolerance"
"discrimination" "bigotry" all misused. If
someone can make the case that disagreement is off the table, then by
default they've won. I don't think that strategy has a very long
shelf life, but it's definitely re-emerged since Chick-fil-A made
their case (using step 2: wrapping their idea in the out of bounds
arena of religious belief).
The idea of anti-marriage equality is
still competing in the marketplace. I don't begrudge the people who
agree with it. I think they're wrong *but this is what it means to
participate in that marketplace*. Taken strictly, the idea of
being against marriage equality is discrimination in the sense that
all ideas entail discrimination, that is: *discrimination against
other ideas*.
But we can't stop there, we have to look at what
the idea in practice will entail.
What makes things like anti-marriage
equality different is that when the idea is practiced it means
*discrimination against people*. Just like, for example, the
idea of prohibiting racial marriage equality. Taken in one sense the
idea entails as much discrimination as the idea of allowing racial
marriage equality. Both ideas mean discriminating against the other
idea. But, again, what makes the idea different is that in practice,
prohibiting racial marriage equality means *discriminating against
people*.
This is why we can't refer to
discrimination in one sense (i.e., in the marketplace of ideas) and
say it's the same as discrimination in another sense (i.e.,
possessing fewer rights as a person). To spell it out a bit, we can't
say:
Person 1: I think the idea of
prohibiting marriage equality is correct
Person 2: I disagree, I think the idea
when put into practice means discrimination against people
Person 1: Aha, you just discriminated
against my idea! So I guess the score board is even and my idea isn't
discriminatory.
It makes no sense. But I think it stems
from using the word discrimination inaccurately and being used to
your ideas being accepted as right at large. So when you have to
defend those ideas you feel like you're under unfair attack in the
marketplace of ideas, when in reality everyone is always under attack
because that's how reasoning works. When you're used to winning then
losing makes you feel like you're a victim. When there's a gap
between "I believe XYZ" and "most people believe not
XYZ" then you search for an explanation. An easy one is that
you're a victim - most people would believe XYZ like you if only
[liberal media, stupidity, brainwashing, Obama's speech giving skill,
etc] wasn't unduly influencing them.
All of which, I think, lead us to
absurd conclusions like cheering Sarah Palin for buying a sandwich at
Chick-fil-A. We see Chick-fil-A support an idea (marriage equality is
wrong) and we conclude that anyone who doesn't support that idea is
discriminating against Chick-fil-A. As if everyone has an obligation
to buy a product and believe an idea or else they're discriminating.
Well, the idea (marriage equality is
wrong) in this case is incorrect. (Read: this statement is
discrimination against an idea which is inherent and necessary in
every idea.) And the idea that marriage equality is wrong is
discriminatory. (Read: the idea, when practiced, prohibits people
from practicing their rights which is a bad thing.) As such, I can
argue for my idea and include the fact that the other idea is
discriminatory. Because it plainly is.
So let's continue to have a national
discussion on marriage equality. Let's continue to discuss the issue
on its merits, as we should all issues. But let's not say that having
that discussion constitutes discrimination against people. Because,
and this is the wonderful news, you can't forever stop people from
having that discussion.
(Begin rambling.)
Well, I suppose the Texas Republican
Party is doing their best to stop people participating in the
marketplace of ideas. It turns out that if you educate kids
incorrectly then you can keep them from thinking for themselves. To
quote from their (since changed) platform:
"Knowledge-Based Education – We
oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values
clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that
are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery
learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose
of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental
authority."
If we teach abstinence only then we can
ensure that many young people get pregnant. If we can take away their
legal right to abortion then we can ensure that many low-income young
women become single mothers - bonus points for shaming them. If we
can keep from giving them aid or health care then we can ensure that
they stay poor their entire lives. If we can teach kids that they
should have "fixed beliefs" and that challenging those
"fixed beliefs" is dangerous then we can ensure they'll be
unable to think. If we teach kids that science should be denied based
on a collection of ancient scrolls then we can ensure they won't ever
find the joy of scientific discovery. If we teach kids that evolution
is "just a theory" then we can ensure they'll distrust
science. If we can import low wage jobs then we can ensure the poor
stay poor. The overall key is to start early and remove the tools
that allow people to function in a marketplace of ideas. That way
they'll accept what they're told; they'll effectively censor
themselves.
To think a former politician purchasing
a chicken sandwich with the intent of keeping people from getting
married is... is even a thing. It takes a lot, but we can produce
people who simply say "I believe what I'm told because I know
I'm right" and be OK with that. To intellectually neuter a
generation of people. To teach them that examining their beliefs is a
scary thing the government needs to protect them from. To be
comfortable that not only is an unexamined life worth living, but
rather only an unexamined life is worth living. That's scarier than a
Dalek because it takes away the only tool we have in life: our
reason. Anyway, clearly I've rambled.
If no one gets anything else out of
this, don't confuse discrimination in the marketplace of ideas (a
necessary tool to be a thinking person) with discrimination against
people. The words may be the same but they refer to very different
things and using the ideas interchangeably is not reasoning clearly,
for the people purposely misusing the words it's not reasoning
honestly.
that was structured so strangely, it have me a headache... valid points though.
ReplyDeleteexhausted trying to figure out where you were going with that.
gave*
Delete