You Would Think

[chris_gerrib]

You would think that in a country who's founding document says "all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights" that nobody would have to demand that one defend the moral importance of diversity. You would be wrong.

Comments

[preston phillips (from livejournal.com)]

I'm assuming this is directed at my comments on Torgersen's blog. Two points of clarification:

1) I asked for a justification of the moral *imperative* of diversity.

2) The Declaration of Independence is not the "founding document" of the United States of America.

[chris-gerrib.livejournal.com]

1) Which I gave. Which if "all men are created equal" would be obvious.

2) Really? The document that starts "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America," and declares them independent is not the founding document of the USA?

[preston phillips (from livejournal.com)]

1) Funny, still haven't seen it. A statement that something is a moral imperative is not a justification... that would be circular logic at its finest.

But that doesn't explain why you chose to misstate what I asked, unless you truly believe that moral importance is the same as a moral imperative.

2) Look, there's a lot of history stuff going on here, and we could go round and round on it, but simply: no. The Declaration is a formal statement of severance (and rebellion, at the time). The government of the States thereafter existed under the Articles of Confederation. The United States of America, as a nation, did not begin to exist until 1788 - when the Constitution was ratified.

Furthermore, the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document of this country. It is more akin to a mission statement. I would also note that the term "Free and Independent States" refers to the political status of the states at the time, while "united States" referred to a commonality of cause and loyalty - not a political status.

[chris-gerrib.livejournal.com]

Well, we've been advancing the goals of that "mission statement" for 239 years now, so I'm quite comfortable citing it - especially the "self-evident" part of it. And yes, calling something a moral imperative is the same (in the common usage of English, at least) as saying it's morally important.

In any event, those that argue against the rights of others should not be surprised when those others react violently.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Well, I will point out that the framers of the Constitution in effect denied equal status to women and blacks. While not the Declaration of Independence, it was written only 11 years later.

So ignoring women, and minorities goes back a long way in this country.

Valuing liberty and equality also goes back a long way, just among a different group of people.

We've been having this fight for a very long time. The line of battle is just moving over different terrain now. Which is precisely what is upsetting the Sad Puppies.

[(Anonymous)]

A moral imperative is... Very different from declaring something to be morally important. In common English.

And why do you insist on moving the target every single time?

I state that the declaration isn't the founding document of the country. You say that you still feel comfortable citing it.

I ask for a justification of a moral imperative. You claim that I asked you to defend moral importance.

Sad puppies states that the people who mom/vote on Hugos are excessively and illegitimately swayed by political leanings of works and authors. You claim that they want to take rights away from "minorities."



At this point I'm seriously perplexed as to whether this is done out of malice or incompetence.

[preston phillips (from livejournal.com)]

No, no they did not. Voting rights and slavery were both determined at the state level. There was no consistency across the board. This is all readily accessible history.

I do love how you tacked "in this country" onto the end of that, implying that it was different elsewhere.

And you really think that SP is about opposing "equal status?" If that were the case, I'm fairly certain the puppies slate wouldn't include women, minorities, and people in interracial marriages.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I implied nothing of the sort; Chris was talking about America to begin with, and so was I. But your reaction is a nice demonstration of the Sad Puppies burning desire to find insult and denigration in every little thing.

I think the Puppies are about opposing equal status because every time someone says "let's keep an eye out for minority and women authors, and not let them get lost in the shuffle" or "let's remember that some people exist outside the gender binary" or "isn't it nice that the majority of authors nominated for such-and-such section of the Hugos were women; what a nice change" the Puppies lose their marbles all over everything and start screaming.

So yes, I really think so, from the puppies themselves.

[chris-gerrib.livejournal.com]

Preston - I actually have a degree in American history, so please assume I can cite chapter and verse in where the US didn't live up to its ideals. I tack on "in this country" because the Declaration of Independence does not apply in, say, Canada. But they also seem to have gotten the memo.

I assume you are against equal status, because you persist in demanding that I provide a moral justification for what should be common courtesy. I make no assumption about the Puppies other than they are deluded.

I state that the declaration isn't the founding document of the country - you're wrong.

I ask for a justification of a moral imperative. which I provided. You don't like that, which is fine, but I did provide a justification.

You claim that they want to take rights away from "minorities." - no, I claim anybody who demands I justify diversity can reasonably be suspected of wanting to take away the rights of minorities.

[preston phillips (from livejournal.com)]

The "tack on" comment was directed at cat...

Historically, I'm right. Your opinion of the importance of the declaration does not relegate it to the status of a founding document. "Founding" has a meaning, in English, which I am using properly. You are a published writer and a history Major graduate; you should recognize the importance of this difference.

If you genuinely believe that the declaration is the founding document, that explains a lot.


Now, you managed to move the target again. I did *not* ask you to justify diversity. I asked you to justify the moral imperative of it. Since that is apparently unclear, I will expand:

Why is it morality necessary to *have* diversity in the arena of published SFF? How does one determine an adequate level of diversity? What kinds of diversity are necessary?

You don't seem to understand the point of my question, instead choosing to interpret it in the worst way possible. Here is the point: claiming that diversity is a moral imperative leads to things like quotas, or rejection of demographic externalities as morally wrong, rather than just happenstance. It results in quality being considered less important than checking off boxes.

Oh, and when white people start moving into an arena that was previously the arena of a minority, certain segments start screaming about "cultural appropriation." It can't be both ways, which reveals the real agenda behind the "diversity" imperative.

[preston phillips (from livejournal.com)]

If it was already clear that we were all discussing the same thing, the only purpose for reiteration is emphasis... So what, exactly, were you emphasizing? I presumed the most obvious reason, but I'd understand if it were another.

And it's laughable that you phrase those imaginary quotes in such nice, polite ways. The real quotes are chock full of vitriol, sexism, anger, etc.

Remember, your side nominated Requires Hate. Repeatedly.

[chris-gerrib.livejournal.com]

claiming that diversity is a moral imperative leads to things like quotas, or rejection of demographic externalities as morally wrong, rather than just happenstance. It results in quality being considered less important than checking off boxes. No, it does not. You're interpreting diversity in the worst way possible.

[preston phillips (from livejournal.com)]

I'm not discussing the base concept of diversity. I never have been discussing it. I am discussing the moral imperative of diversity. They must be treated separately because they are fundamentally different issues.

And I'm referring to things that have actually happened in real life... These aren't my imaginings. They are observable phenomena.

Look at the disastrous results of title ix, or the forced desegregation of school districts based on quotas rather than geography. These things happened, and the results were not good.

Diversity isis usually beneficial when natural. When artificial, it trends stronglystrongly towards the disastrous.

[chris-gerrib.livejournal.com]

Diversity is usually beneficial when natural. When artificial, it trends strongly towards the disastrous. Except when it came to race, diversity did not happen "naturally." The only way it happened was by somebody passing a law and then enforcing it.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

If I had repeated it (said it twice in my post) it would perhaps have been emphasis. As it is, no.

Now that you bring up vitriol, sexism and anger, those are characteristic of Sad Puppy posts. Another reason why I think they have more going on than the love of exciting adventure tales with transparent writing and plenty of explosions.

As for Requires Hate--she got away with a lot when most of us (as you know perfectly well) didn't know who "Benjanun Sundringkaew" actually was. She'll have a harder time of it this year. Just like the rest of the people who have been demonstrating how unpleasant they are.

Also--reality check--she was nominated once.