On protecting minority interests
Polarization of opinions is the new norm — its presence is felt in the news cycles we consume and the living rooms we occupy.
It has become rampant in almost every topic, but especially in those that have always been controversial — politics, governance and religion.
There are two hypothesis that go a long way in explaining this trend:
1. With social media & emergence of echo chambers, it has become all too easy to fall prey to confirmation bias. Furthermore, with recommendation engines that are incentivized to keep us around (FB, Netflix etc.), increasingly extreme recommendations are not a rarity
2. Creating and consuming information has never been easier. And with this ease of consuming information, there is an associated ease of viewing oneself as an expert. A treasure trove of information related to any topic is at our fingertips, ready to fuel our fantasies of believing that we’re more knowledgeable than we are.
A potent cocktail of believing you’re an expert, finding validation in niche online communities & ease of communication has given way to proliferation of extreme political opinions — both on the left & the right.
What is an extreme opinion or an extremist? Here’s one definition that works well for a particular topic:
An extremist is one who can’t answer (or has never even thought of) the following question: What data would I have to be shown to change my opinion on this topic?
While extremists on the political right tend to get highlighted, the political left is often ignored. But the left has extremists as well — ones who will fail to come up with an answer to the above question on political topics.
While each of us may be an extremist on certain topics, extremism in politics is especially dangerous as it impacts day-to-day lives of millions.
Why am I only talking to the left?
At a time when extreme right seems to be gaining momentum around the world, there are still some reasons that this article is dedicated to the left.
Firstly because I consider myself as left-of-centre. So by extension, the extreme left still seems to be part of my tribe (versus the extreme right).
A secondary reason is the comfort with which extremists on the left wear these labels. Holding an impractical left-wing ideology is increasingly seen as a desirable quality to have (you could even be labelled as being “woke”). In my experience, this gives rise to a holier-than-thou attitude that tends to rub many people the wrong way — even people who would want to support the message of the left.
Perhaps most importantly, it’s because I tend to share the vision that SJWs are trying to bring about. The extreme left tends to have opinions that are in service to ideals that seem more humane and “nice”. But by becoming extremists, they get so attached to these opinions that they lose the ability to treat present reality as a problem-solving exercise.
And this is the greatest disservice they could do to the ideals that I admire (and share with them).
By becoming so extremist and wedded to a single opinion, SJWs are susceptible to prioritizing their own opinions & outrage over bettering the condition of people. Often making it harder to achieve the vision of a better future.
What is the REAL problem we’re fighting against?
To contextualize this, let’s take two seemingly separate problems in two different countries — Black rights activists in USA, and Muslim rights activists in India.
Events in 2020 (current) have pushed these topics to the top of the mind of SJWs in both countries. They (correctly) believe that these minority groups suffer greatly from neglect & discrimination. The perpetrators? Dominant groups in the country (whites & Hindus), as well as the institutions they control.
I believe this to be a valid viewpoint. Moreover, I believe that societal benefits accrued by having non-discriminatory practices could overshadow any associated societal costs.
Therefore, I truly believe that reducing systemic discrimination against blacks & Muslims will be good for society (as a whole).
Having said that, it is fairness of opportunity & ensuring a level playing field that is a worthwhile goal.
And there are multiple ways to arrive at this larger goal.
This is an important point because any mention of another pathway to the goal has the potential to be mis-classified as “bigotry” or “privilege”.
Take the example of Black Lives Matter. Many opposers of BLM could be racists, BUT there are ALSO people who are genuinely confused by seemingly double-standards of expectations.
What expectations? For example, the white community is expected to self-introspect & become self-aware that their attitudes lead to deaths & suffering in the black community. But where are the calls for similar expectations of the black community itself? I.e., where are the protests against black-on-black violence that accounts for a significant majority of black deaths in America (pay attention to leading cause of death for 1–44 yrs black males here).
Questions such as these are labelled as stemming from bigotry, privilege or engaging in “whataboutery” (the newest favourite word for all wannabe intellectuals).
As someone who believes in what the Black Lives Matter movement stands for, I think these responses to legitimate questions are pompous & presumptuous.
I believe that the real reason many of us on the left don’t like bringing up uncomfortable statistics and facts is simple: we have bought into the maxim that you should “punch up, not down”.
In other words, our actions are driven by our perceptions of group-dynamics at play. While it is certainly possible to highlight the flaws of black community (or any group of people that share a culture), it just seems like bad form. Punching up seems preferable.
This seems to be a reasonable rule most of the time, but there are two caveats that bear repeating:
1. The concept of “Punch up, not down” is not a morally absolute standard. And it is important to remember that just because another person hasn’t bought into this idea doesn’t mean they’re automatically a racist or bigot or even an idiot.
2. “Punch up, not down”may be a great compass for one’s individual morality, but that does not automatically imply it’s the fastest way to get to the stated goal of a level playing field.
I.e., There is no reason to believe that morality & a level playing field are one and the same. They are not.
I can’t overstate the importance of this last point.
A great problem solver must be clear on the problem being solved — that of level playing field, not morality. Furthermore, a great problem solver must hold hypotheses that can be tested, not beliefs that can be confirmed.
If you still don’t ‘see’ how morals and end-results can be at odds, let’s further analyse why conversations around expectations of the black community are left out of the discussion.
I suspect there are two rationalizations:
Reasonable rationalization #1: Sure there may be problems with the black community (or any non-dominant groups), BUT let’s tackle those problems once everyone is at a level playing field. Otherwise we risk never getting non-dominant groups on the same playing field.
More extreme rationalization #2: There are NO underlying problems within the black community (or any non-dominant group). ALL problems faced by the black community are symptoms that arise due to existing institutional discrimination by the dominant group (whites).
However, each of these rationalizations have their own assumptions. Assumptions that could be wrong.
For example, in rationalization #1: Do we have any data or past experiences that point to the fact that constant punching up has led to quickest sustainable changes for levelling the playing field?
If not, then we are just guessing at random.
As a good problem solver, you should at least be able to acknowledge that it may be possible that both “punching up & scolding down” could lead to a better solution than only “punching up”.
For the more extreme rationalization #2: Is there any data backed evidence why existing culture or value system of non-dominant group is not a significant determining factor in equal opportunity?
Even if you were to hold the opinion that all negative aspects of non-dominant culture arise from decades or centuries of institutional discrimination, time is important consideration to remember.
Cultural reactions to discrimination likely took centuries to evolve, it is only natural to assume that getting rid of any negative cultural traits through the ending of discrimination too will be s l o w.
Do we have this much time?
Conclusion
This article was not meant to give fodder to people who believe that discrimination doesn’t exist or doesn’t have a big impact. It’s not meant for people that fail to observe that discrimination means an outsider has to work THAT much harder to achieve the same result as an insider. Or even for those who believe things are OK as they are.
It was meant for people who share my passion of bringing about a world where equal opportunity is given regardless of background. For people who truly do care about reducing group power imbalances. Especially for those brave souls that are willing to change their opinions if it would benefit their goal.
To such inspirational folks, it would be my request to not wed themselves SO strongly to a moral stance (no discrimination) that you lose sight of the problem to be solved (equal opportunity).
By focussing on the problem to be solved, we can accelerate the path to social justice we’d like.
At the very worst, we can at least stop sounding insufferably pompous to everyone who may not share our views.