![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
No, Not Really
Jul. 10th, 2014 11:07 amThe author John C. Wright has announced that the Left has a Mistrust of Intelligence and Reason. Perhaps unsurprisingly, I disagree. Taken from my comment on his blog:
There are a number of category errors in this post. Basically, Mr. Wright, you misunderstand what the “Left” is thinking (including assuming there is a monolithic “left” to point at) which leads to your confusion. To wit:
1) You say: Hence, whenever someone says we need more black heroes in movies so that young blacks can have apt role models, the unspoken theory on which that pronouncement turns is the assumption that a man’s admiration for heroics turn on the chromosomes controlling skin melanin, and reason cannot compensate. – No, that is not the theory. The fact is that people like to see themselves in their fiction. This goes for everybody from small children who say only white blonds can be princesses (because that’s what they see) to adults who would like to see people like themselves in fiction. I think, sir, you would be singing a different tune if the majority of fiction treated white males as disposable sidekicks.
2) You say: Hence, whenever someone says a man cannot have an opinion about abortion because he is not a woman – No. It’s rather like the old saw about the ham and egg breakfast – the chicken is involved but the pig is committed. Saying “abortion should be illegal” means forcing a woman to carry a baby to term.
3) You say: Socialism says that the barriers between economic categories of investor and worker are so steep that reason cannot overcome them – no, but the financial interests of investor and worker are diametrically opposed. The investor wants cheap labor (= lower costs = more profit) and the worker wants more wages. Although people can be in both classes (as your example of a lawyer) most people draw the majority of their income from one or the other source.
4) You say: or a byproduct of an informal system of “white male privilege” of which the oppressors are foolishly unaware. I refer you to John Scalzi’s lowest difficulty setting post. Speaking as a beneficiary of white male privilege, Scalzi’s post is very accurate.
There are a number of category errors in this post. Basically, Mr. Wright, you misunderstand what the “Left” is thinking (including assuming there is a monolithic “left” to point at) which leads to your confusion. To wit:
1) You say: Hence, whenever someone says we need more black heroes in movies so that young blacks can have apt role models, the unspoken theory on which that pronouncement turns is the assumption that a man’s admiration for heroics turn on the chromosomes controlling skin melanin, and reason cannot compensate. – No, that is not the theory. The fact is that people like to see themselves in their fiction. This goes for everybody from small children who say only white blonds can be princesses (because that’s what they see) to adults who would like to see people like themselves in fiction. I think, sir, you would be singing a different tune if the majority of fiction treated white males as disposable sidekicks.
2) You say: Hence, whenever someone says a man cannot have an opinion about abortion because he is not a woman – No. It’s rather like the old saw about the ham and egg breakfast – the chicken is involved but the pig is committed. Saying “abortion should be illegal” means forcing a woman to carry a baby to term.
3) You say: Socialism says that the barriers between economic categories of investor and worker are so steep that reason cannot overcome them – no, but the financial interests of investor and worker are diametrically opposed. The investor wants cheap labor (= lower costs = more profit) and the worker wants more wages. Although people can be in both classes (as your example of a lawyer) most people draw the majority of their income from one or the other source.
4) You say: or a byproduct of an informal system of “white male privilege” of which the oppressors are foolishly unaware. I refer you to John Scalzi’s lowest difficulty setting post. Speaking as a beneficiary of white male privilege, Scalzi’s post is very accurate.