#they just excluded a good portion of their non-white reader base just like that

[topzsun]

was following up with a fic on ao3 and was so unbelievably ticked off when the writer suddenly switched up and decided to give the reader a description and name WHEN IT WAS ABSOLUTELY NOT NECESSARY. writers, don't pull this stupid shit with your readers, tag your writing properly

[philosophycorner]

A Hallmark Sophistic Tendency and More on Epistocracy

Sophism is when one reasons fallaciously in hopes of deceiving someone. In other words, it is when someone employs fallacious, yet convincing, reasoning to sway someone. In some cases, people with these tendencies will project by accusing their opponent of sophistry or they will employ a No True Scotsman in saying that their opponent cannot possible be a “real” philosopher. I do not take kindly to such ad hominem and that is why I discontinued the discussion. Some of you may have seen this in my opponent’s response yesterday. These issues are minor. The major issue is in how he defines words.

Sophists tend to define words by omitting the use their opponent is using. When I say voting rights infringe upon other more integral, unalienable rights like the right to life or healthcare, I am not at all talking about a negative right, as he defined, in where one can hypothetically defend their right using force. While this is a definition of a right, it is not the only definition on offer. A right is also a principle of entitlement, a positive right, and so, when I say someone has the right to life, what I am saying is that they are entitled to live, irrespective of what the Constitution says; the phrase right to life in The Declaration of Independence is described as unalienable, god-given if you prefer. While there are clauses attached to this entitlement, such as they are entitled to live given that they do not murder someone, my definition is just as valid as the one my opponent employed. The difference is that my opponent dismissed my definition in order to deceive his readers. That is to say nothing of the validity of the distinction of negative and positive rights; plenty of philosophers (e.g. Eric Nelson, Ian Carter, Henry Shue) do not think the distinction is valid or even necessary.

He, for instance, continued to accuse me of not knowing what rights are, as though definitions themselves do not describe words in a self-evident fashion. A right is sometimes synonymous with a certain entitlement, but not all entitlements, real or imagined, are rights. A man may feel that after dating his girlfriend for five years, he is entitled to have sex with her. Consent is still at play no matter how long a couple has dated and so, he is not entitled to have sex with his girlfriend; she is not entitled to sex with her boyfriend either. These are matters of consent and as such, it is a privilege that they grant one another. The right to life is self-evident as even the Declaration of Independence attests. I do not need to go any further on that.

In that same vein, he mentions consent of the governed and people providing healthcare and bizarrely asserts that taxation is a violation of bodily autonomy; he does nothing at all to ground this claim, but, ironically enough, begs the question. Under the current government, 100 million or so people forgo their voting rights every election and many more forgo their rights as it pertains to electing state and local officials on a year-to-year basis. This implies that the right to vote is not as integral as some argue and definitely not as integral as my right to life. I may willingly surrender my right to vote given that I’m not particularly drawn to any of the candidates; I will not willingly surrender my right to live, assuming I am not terminally ill or mentally incapacitated. I am entitled to live and that is an integral entitlement; I am also entitled to vote, but that is not an integral entitlement as I can willingly choose not to.

What I have proposed, as Plato and others before me have, is an Epistocracy. Also of note is that he flat-out asserts Plato was wrong without justifying it; that is more more evidence that he has presupposed his conclusions. It is not a soft tyranny as he claimed. It is rule of the knowledgeable. What I am basically arguing is that if a third of the population is not going to vote anyway, we should decide on which one-third that is. The one-third that I temporally want to exclude are the least informed and that is assuming that such people even comprise one-third of the population; they might comprise a smaller portion than one-third and as such, I can say that at least I am not excluding as many people as are currently excluded and who have been excluded, at times, with malicious intent. The least informed are individuals who have not learned to or do not care to think critically. Since they do not think critically, they are prone to ignoring crucial issues and engaging in cult-like, conspiracy-based reasoning. A White Supremacist, on paper, is entitled to vote, but since he votes to harm minorities, he should not retain that entitlement.

Felons are largely excluded from the political process because they surrendered that entitlement in breaking the law. So it is up to my hypothetical government to decide at which point someone has committed to all that is required prior to breaking the law. What separates the average White Supremacist from Kyle Rittenhouse? The question boils down to who is armed and who is not and who is willing to harm or murder minorities versus who is not. Who then is the ideologue and who is willing to act on erred convictions? Since there is no sound reasoning to justify racism, discrimination, and prejudice, then White Supremacists should not be entitled to vote. Since there is no way of predicting which White Supremacist will act on their erred convictions, they should not be entitled to vote. Full stop!

The consent of the governed does not reduce to mere voting rights. In being a citizen or legal immigrant in the United States, you have de facto consented to be governed whether you vote or not, whether you are entitled to vote or not. Our current government already excludes a large portion of the population due to criminal records, gerrymandering, and other forms of voter suppression. So there is no material difference in my saying that we should exclude certain people for reasons separate from the ones the government uses to justify their exclusion and disenfranchisement of certain voters. As I have shown, however, I think my reasons for excluding the woefully ignorant are far better than the reasons given to exclude an entire demographic in a certain district or most felons without distinction. The primary reason is that voting rights cannot be prioritized over unalienable rights, so if a person votes with the intent to harm minorities, the minority’s right to live supersedes the White Supremacist’s right to vote. If I have to ground an entire moral framework to prove that conclusion, then my opponent is basically arguing that the right to life is not unalienable and is therefore, a privilege reserved for some and not others.

All felons are not created equal. Sure, a murderer on death row has long surrendered his entitlement to vote. Someone wrongfully accused of a crime or someone serving a marijuana-related sentence should not be excluded. Yet, in most cases, no distinction is made between the former felon and the latter. Then there is the real crux: my exclusion is not permanent. You can be a White Supremacist today and not be one tomorrow. That means that you can learn why you are wrong about non-Whites and come to see common humanity in minorities. Any and all kinds of ignorance can be rectified given time, so it is entirely possible to justify a vote for any candidate in an informed manner. What my hypothetical government would guarantee is an informed voter who does not vote along party lines, who does not double-down on a quasi-fascist like Trump, who does not ignore science and the urgency of Climate Change, and so on. A more informed electorate is absolutely a good thing and the exclusion stemming from my hypothetical government is preferable to the extant exclusion in the current U.S. government. 

In any case, this is why I refused to exchange further. Sophists define words by omitting definitions they dislike. They accuse, commit fallacies, and project their errors onto you. Ultimately, sophists tend to be disingenuous because they have predilections and surmises they think are self-evident and so they do not commit to the philosophical work of reasoning to their conclusion; this was observed in my opponent’s bizarre claim that taxation violates bodily autonomy and that the provision of healthcare, in where one is paid by the government, is also a violation of bodily autonomy. These conclusions are not argued for or justified in any way and entirely ignore state-provided healthcare in other countries in where people have consented to pay their taxes for sake of receiving free healthcare and tuition-free college educations. 

I have reasoned to my conclusion. I have seen the real harm in letting ignorant people vote year after year; these people have been given no (dis)incentive to rectify that ignorance. So basically what I am saying is that if we disincentivize ignorance, people will want to become more informed. They would not call every disagreeable story about their favored candidate “fake news.” They would not go down the rabbit-hole of conspiracy theories. They would have good reason to change. I see nothing at all wrong with telling people this: if you want to vote, demonstrate that you are informed enough and empathetic enough to participate in this process because your vote has palpable effects on other lives. After nearly four years of suffering through the lack of empathy, apathy, hatred, and incompetence of the Trump Administration, I am more resolute now than I was two years ago: everyone should not be entitled to vote; only the demonstrably informed in the U.S. population should do so and as such, I propose Epistocracy, the rule of the knowledgeable as that incentivizes everyone to become more knowledgeable before casting a vote. 

I will conclude by saying that the false equivalence he made between Epistocracy and tyranny can be dismissed very easily: Epistocracy does not permanently exclude anyone, so if anyone has an issue with being governed by the knowledgeable, then it is incumbent on them to demonstrate the aptitude to join the ranks of the knowledgeable; tyranny, on the other hand, excludes the governed and subjects them to any number of abuses. Epistocracy is not about abuse, but rather about preventing the abuse suffered by the more empathetic and knowledgeable at the hands of the cruel, apathetic, and ignorant. Perhaps we should want to exclude malignant Psychopaths, Narcissists, Sadists, and Machiavellians, most especially when they have dehumanizing and degrading views of people they do not agree with. This is beyond, “I do not like your voice” or “I do not like these people.” This is about people who speak harm and carry out actions consistent with dangerous and potentially fatal beliefs. 

The United States cannot continue to tolerate such ignorance and it is clear that the entitlement to vote has fallen into the wrong hands. In the least, I can say what a lot of other people cannot say: I have proposed a viable solution. I also happen to think it is among the better solutions, especially in light of my opponent’s tacit anarchism and admiration for Capitalism. I will not challenge a sophist on such erred points of view, as they have already presupposed the conclusion; this is also painfully obvious in his ego-stroking as it pertains to Marxism. He has claimed to debase all of Marxism and this should not surprise anyone given that my opponent’s love for Capitalism entails feeling threatened by an anti-Capitalist like Marx. There is no argument to be had with such people. In any event, be mindful of the tendency to define words by omitting key definitions. Such an individual does not want a genuine dialogue; they just want to win. Nothing productive comes from that.

[samsimkin412-blog]

On May 3, 2017, the New York Times posted this Op-ed titled A Beauty Product’s Ads Exclude the Black Women who use it. This article talks about the well known company named Shea Moisture. The author Tressie Mcmillan Cottom takes a portion where she argues a company that is designed for colored people’s hair, is not using colored people effectively or at all in their advertisements. 

Tressie’s opinion on this topic is very relevant because she exposes a company who is advertised to cater to colored people doing the exact opposite. Tressie’s opinion matters because she is an outsider looking in on the company just like any other consumer. A company is nothing without its consumers, so when their consumers are upset it effects the company negatively. Tressie writes “ Social media users with huge followings, many of whom have provided years of free advertising for the brand, criticized it as marginalizing their loyal black buyers in an effort to attract white women.” Social media influencers bring in a lot of money for companies they chose to partner up with. With this issue at hand Tressie exposes that Shea Moistures influencers were angered and offended by the companies advertisement. 

Now as for what I think on Tressie and her argument, 

I think Tressie makes very good points throughout her article. Tressie makes points that truly make it apparent to the reader that Shea Moisture did in deed “mess up” with this advertisement. However i also do agree with her statement where she said “ to believe it is possible to diversify SheaMoisture beyond its black natural-hair customer base, one must believe that black beauty is desirable for non-black consumers.” Believe it or not Tressie makes a very good point here. By saying that the company may be wanting to appeal to other consumers besides those pf color would prove this advertisement to be effective. Although i do however believe there was a better way of going about appealing to other consumers, I get why Shea Mositure and Tressie make this point.

This article is one of the few out there where a companies racism is almost justified. Although I truly never believe racism is justified because it is wrong, I wanted to include this article because it gives readers another perspective on a very relatable and relevant topic.