One thing about the regressive leftist social justice ideology is that when they get something completely wrong, and are explained why they are wrong over and over... they eventually learn. Not always, but in some cases they do eventually learn, especially when the evidence is too overwhelming.
The problem is, they learn the wrong lesson.
As an example, for years and years, and to a large extent to this day, they kept pounding on and on about how white people in the west are the most "privileged" class, and that all the other ethnic groups are significantly less privileged. Their critics started pointing out to them that actually no, white people are not the ethnic group that's the most "privileged". Using pretty much any measure of "privilege" and "success" you want, east Asians are actually better off than white people. On average, east Asians living in the west (especially in the United States) have the highest income, the best jobs, the highest salaries, the best school grades and scores, commit and experience the least amount of crime, have the least amount of single-parent families, and pretty much any other thing you may want to use to measure success and "privilege".
After years of presenting this counter-argument, some entities have actually taken heed and, ironically, in many institutions and companies east Asians are nowadays the most discriminated-against ethnic group, eg. in enrollment or hiring, and in career advancement.
For example some universities, like Harvard, apply different standards of qualifications for enrollment for people based on their ethnicity (and somehow this supposedly is not racism), and the group of people with the highest requirement, and thus the group of people most discriminated against in enrollment, is east Asian men (with east Asian women being slightly below them, but still higher than white people.) It has got so bad that Asians need to lie about their origin in order to not get discriminated against. Some companies are likewise discriminating against east Asians in hiring, salary raises and career advancement (Google being infamously one, as pointed out by the lawsuit they are currently facing.)
So they have learned the facts... but come to the horrendously wrong conclusion. The point of presenting this counter-argument is not to have them discriminate even more against east Asians!
Given this propensity for eventually learning the facts, but coming to the completely wrong conclusions based on it, I'm predicting that something else related to this will happen in the near future:
For years and years the regressive left has pushed forward the tabula rasa hypothesis, or "blank slate" hypothesis: That is, the hypothesis that people are born completely "blank", with no innate instincts, personality traits, feelings or attitudes of any kind, and that everything, every single aspect of their personality and thoughts is learned, a product of upbringing and what they learn from the surrounding environment. Therefore any differences there are eg. between men and women is 100% learned and cultural, taught to them by society. Therefore, they conclude, we need to change society to "teach men not to rape", and to get rid of "toxic masculinity" and to allow them to show their feelings, and for women to stop being submissive and subservient.
In fact, some social justice ideologues go as far as claiming that even physical differences between men and women (such as differences in strength) are learned, not innate.
We know for a fact that this hypothesis is false. It's false on two aspects: For one, we know for a fact that people do have innate instincts and personality traits that are inherited and innate, not learned. (This doesn't mean that all personality traits are innate. However, it does mean that some are.)
Secondly, there are differences on average in terms of personality between boys and girls, and one of the major factors that affect these differences is not culture, but biology. More precisely, testosterone.
We know for a fact that not only does testosterone cause a very big difference in physical traits (such as strength, stamina, muscle structure, lung capacity and height, among others), but it also has a great effect on personality. There is, in fact, a rather direct correlation between testosterone levels in childhood, and the strength of the personality traits caused by it.
For example, males tend to be less empathetic than females. The higher the testosterone levels during childhood, the less empathetic the boy tends to be. Curiously, this also directly correlates to how interested the person is in mechanical things (finding out how things work, tinkering with them, building them...) This demonstrably happens even before these children have had any sort of opportunity to be taught about these things. Males also tend to be more stoic, being less easily driven by and overwhelmed by emotion. They of course also tend to be more aggressive, and have a propensity to taking risks.
Girls, on the other hand tend to be more empathetic, and be more interested in people than in machines. Girls and women can more easily read and understand people's feelings and emotional states (while men tend to be completely oblivious to them), can sympathize more easily, and are often much more driven by emotion. The fact that young girls tend to be more interested in dolls and boys more interested in toy cars is not a learned stereotype that they are taught. It's innate, and this has been tested again and again.
And here's my prediction: Since it has been tested again and again that there's a direct correlation between testosterone level and how stereotypically "manly" a person becomes (stoic, aggressive, unempathetic, taking risks...), it's perfectly possible that the regressive left will finally end up accepting this... and come to the completely wrong, and horrendous, conclusion.
What is this horrendous conclusion? Well, consider that hormone blockers exist. And consider that they are already being given to children that are younger and younger.
And consider that all medical doctors graduate from universities, which have been for decades taken over by regressive leftist social justice activists, who are engaging in an absolutely massive indoctrination campaign of their students.
It's not a very far-fetched prediction to make.
The problem is, they learn the wrong lesson.
As an example, for years and years, and to a large extent to this day, they kept pounding on and on about how white people in the west are the most "privileged" class, and that all the other ethnic groups are significantly less privileged. Their critics started pointing out to them that actually no, white people are not the ethnic group that's the most "privileged". Using pretty much any measure of "privilege" and "success" you want, east Asians are actually better off than white people. On average, east Asians living in the west (especially in the United States) have the highest income, the best jobs, the highest salaries, the best school grades and scores, commit and experience the least amount of crime, have the least amount of single-parent families, and pretty much any other thing you may want to use to measure success and "privilege".
After years of presenting this counter-argument, some entities have actually taken heed and, ironically, in many institutions and companies east Asians are nowadays the most discriminated-against ethnic group, eg. in enrollment or hiring, and in career advancement.
For example some universities, like Harvard, apply different standards of qualifications for enrollment for people based on their ethnicity (and somehow this supposedly is not racism), and the group of people with the highest requirement, and thus the group of people most discriminated against in enrollment, is east Asian men (with east Asian women being slightly below them, but still higher than white people.) It has got so bad that Asians need to lie about their origin in order to not get discriminated against. Some companies are likewise discriminating against east Asians in hiring, salary raises and career advancement (Google being infamously one, as pointed out by the lawsuit they are currently facing.)
So they have learned the facts... but come to the horrendously wrong conclusion. The point of presenting this counter-argument is not to have them discriminate even more against east Asians!
Given this propensity for eventually learning the facts, but coming to the completely wrong conclusions based on it, I'm predicting that something else related to this will happen in the near future:
For years and years the regressive left has pushed forward the tabula rasa hypothesis, or "blank slate" hypothesis: That is, the hypothesis that people are born completely "blank", with no innate instincts, personality traits, feelings or attitudes of any kind, and that everything, every single aspect of their personality and thoughts is learned, a product of upbringing and what they learn from the surrounding environment. Therefore any differences there are eg. between men and women is 100% learned and cultural, taught to them by society. Therefore, they conclude, we need to change society to "teach men not to rape", and to get rid of "toxic masculinity" and to allow them to show their feelings, and for women to stop being submissive and subservient.
In fact, some social justice ideologues go as far as claiming that even physical differences between men and women (such as differences in strength) are learned, not innate.
We know for a fact that this hypothesis is false. It's false on two aspects: For one, we know for a fact that people do have innate instincts and personality traits that are inherited and innate, not learned. (This doesn't mean that all personality traits are innate. However, it does mean that some are.)
Secondly, there are differences on average in terms of personality between boys and girls, and one of the major factors that affect these differences is not culture, but biology. More precisely, testosterone.
We know for a fact that not only does testosterone cause a very big difference in physical traits (such as strength, stamina, muscle structure, lung capacity and height, among others), but it also has a great effect on personality. There is, in fact, a rather direct correlation between testosterone levels in childhood, and the strength of the personality traits caused by it.
For example, males tend to be less empathetic than females. The higher the testosterone levels during childhood, the less empathetic the boy tends to be. Curiously, this also directly correlates to how interested the person is in mechanical things (finding out how things work, tinkering with them, building them...) This demonstrably happens even before these children have had any sort of opportunity to be taught about these things. Males also tend to be more stoic, being less easily driven by and overwhelmed by emotion. They of course also tend to be more aggressive, and have a propensity to taking risks.
Girls, on the other hand tend to be more empathetic, and be more interested in people than in machines. Girls and women can more easily read and understand people's feelings and emotional states (while men tend to be completely oblivious to them), can sympathize more easily, and are often much more driven by emotion. The fact that young girls tend to be more interested in dolls and boys more interested in toy cars is not a learned stereotype that they are taught. It's innate, and this has been tested again and again.
And here's my prediction: Since it has been tested again and again that there's a direct correlation between testosterone level and how stereotypically "manly" a person becomes (stoic, aggressive, unempathetic, taking risks...), it's perfectly possible that the regressive left will finally end up accepting this... and come to the completely wrong, and horrendous, conclusion.
What is this horrendous conclusion? Well, consider that hormone blockers exist. And consider that they are already being given to children that are younger and younger.
And consider that all medical doctors graduate from universities, which have been for decades taken over by regressive leftist social justice activists, who are engaging in an absolutely massive indoctrination campaign of their students.
It's not a very far-fetched prediction to make.
Comments
Post a Comment