From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sat Sep 14 2002 - 17:58:43 MDT
As usual, Leonard studioulsy misses the point. As, apparently,
do many here. Acceptance of all people in fundamental agreement
with your core values is not obvious, not just a given, not
assumed. In today's world it often takes saying so. Confusing
that with simple discernment of possible trouble from different
shifting approximations of what potential trouble groups look
like is very much missing the point. Assuming that it is
alright to use a broad brush to limit and possibly override the
freedom of many because you are afraid of the few is to do far
more harm to freedom and well-being than the few could ever do.
Phil Osborn wrote:
> As an aside to this whole discussion, the Ayn Rand
> Institute hosted an event 9/9/02 in Irvine, drawing a
> standing room only crowd which they very
> conservatively estimate as "over 500." I put it
> considerably higher.
>
> The relationship to this discussion comes with Leonard
> Peikoff's reply - as best I recall - to a question
> about profiling. As he put it (quoting only
> approximately - from memory), ~"I'm originally from
> Canada. If Canada were to start a war with the U.S.
<snipage...>
> Ignoring real statistical differences between
> identifiable groups when those differences bear
> directly upon outcomes and success in reaching goals
> may be "pc," but it is also stupid, evil and
> irrational. If people are stigmatized by association
> because they have the wrong name, skin color, accent,
> gender, age, etc., then the solution is to seek
> effective methods by which we can separate the good
> people who are accidentally included in a profile from
> the real bad guys - not to pretend that profiling is
> wrong in itself.
>
There is no means of rightful inclusion in the category of
"likely bad guy" based on skin color, accent, gender, sexuality
and so forth. It is an overly broad and quite useless laziness
to do so.
> (I do not, BTW, just to clarify, recall having any
> objections to the original proposed Exi Inclusion
> statement. But let's not confuse - as the PC crowd
> would have us do - real racism or sexism, for example,
> with simple, practical decision factors which we use
> and should use.)
It seems to me that it is you who are confusing the two as you
talk about the one when the other is brought up and too easily
seem to label those who bring it up with things like "the PC
crowd".
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:02 MST