Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

My Proposal For a New Social Order

bubbatheclown
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 8:39:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Privatism: (Yes, I know this term is used for something else)

This proposal may sound extreme and ludicrous, but please put all bias aside and listen to what I have to say.

In Privatism (perhaps an alternate name could be "Anti-Diversitism") everybody in public conceals their identity. This means everybody wears a kind of suit over themselves, so that people cannot see who they are underneath the suit. People won't be able to tell whether you're Black, White, Asian, Hispanic, Male, Female, bald, bearded, twenty or seventy.
Conflict and discrimination comes from diversity, from differences. Therefore, if everybody appears the same in public, there will be no discrimination and less conflict.

One objection raised would be the bulky suits. The manufacturing techniques for the suits could make them light and comfortable.

Another objection would be freedom. You don't have to wear such a suit if you don't want to, but these suits would end discrimination.

Another objection raised would be individualism. Inside your own house you can be naked as far as anybody cares. In your house you can do whatever you want. This applies only to public areas. In fact, this would give you more privacy inside your home, because people would be forbidden from monitoring you through cameras. You could do whatever you wanted on the internet, by the way.

An idea behind it is that there is a very clear distinction between Public and Private life. In Public, you keep your privacy by not allowing your identity to be known. In Private, your house is your castle. The government would have to give greater respect to our private freedoms.

Privatism...what do you think?
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 9:43:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The solution to the problem is not equalizing everyone; the solution is ending bigoted discrimination towards others.

Literally, all you are doing is covering the problem up with a veil, not solving it.
Nolite Timere
rockwater
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 5:19:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Burqas for everyone!

You could still discriminate based on height or on weight if someone is obese enough for the shape of his/her body to be visible. You could discriminate against someone based on their accent or if they cannot speak English or another language. If you work with a person and know that they leave before sundown on Fridays or that they take breaks to do their 5 times a day of Islamic prayer you could discriminate against them based on religion. People in wheelchairs and with other disabilities would also be identifiable and could be discriminated against.

Basically the only way for your plan to work is if everyone never left his or her home and only communicated online anonymously.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 5:46:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I've always assumed the existing Special Order was designed by Bubba the Clown.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
bubbatheclown
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 6:06:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/25/2014 5:19:02 PM, rockwater wrote:
Burqas for everyone!

You could still discriminate based on height or on weight if someone is obese enough for the shape of his/her body to be visible. You could discriminate against someone based on their accent or if they cannot speak English or another language. If you work with a person and know that they leave before sundown on Fridays or that they take breaks to do their 5 times a day of Islamic prayer you could discriminate against them based on religion. People in wheelchairs and with other disabilities would also be identifiable and could be discriminated against.

Basically the only way for your plan to work is if everyone never left his or her home and only communicated online anonymously.

I suppose that's true. However, the suit could be quite bulky for thin people and slim for fat people, so that everyone appears to be fat. You don't know whether they actually are or not.
Technology could cause everyone to have their spoken words censored and translated by a certain device, regardless of what language they speak. This way, you couldn't tell anything about this person's voice or language.
As for the Islamic Prayer 5 Times a Day, they could simply request a quick break five times a day for personal reasons.
I have not been able to come up with a way around the wheelchair part.

I think that most of these things could be worked around with technology. Of course, I admit that the "everybody goes around in huge suits" part is impractical. But without it, you don't have too much left.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 6:37:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 8:39:50 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
Privatism: (Yes, I know this term is used for something else)

This proposal may sound extreme and ludicrous, but please put all bias aside and listen to what I have to say.

In Privatism (perhaps an alternate name could be "Anti-Diversitism") everybody in public conceals their identity. This means everybody wears a kind of suit over themselves, so that people cannot see who they are underneath the suit. People won't be able to tell whether you're Black, White, Asian, Hispanic, Male, Female, bald, bearded, twenty or seventy.
Conflict and discrimination comes from diversity, from differences. Therefore, if everybody appears the same in public, there will be no discrimination and less conflict.

One objection raised would be the bulky suits. The manufacturing techniques for the suits could make them light and comfortable.

Another objection would be freedom. You don't have to wear such a suit if you don't want to, but these suits would end discrimination.

Another objection raised would be individualism. Inside your own house you can be naked as far as anybody cares. In your house you can do whatever you want. This applies only to public areas. In fact, this would give you more privacy inside your home, because people would be forbidden from monitoring you through cameras. You could do whatever you wanted on the internet, by the way.

An idea behind it is that there is a very clear distinction between Public and Private life. In Public, you keep your privacy by not allowing your identity to be known. In Private, your house is your castle. The government would have to give greater respect to our private freedoms.

Privatism...what do you think?

An absurd and I assume facetious "solution" that would obviously do nothing at all to eliminate the mentality behind discrimination. But moreover, your "solution" would seriously work against our embracing, experiencing, and enjoying aspects of the diversity of the human species. In fact, your "solution" is to create a visually uniform, monolithic society, precisely the sort of thing that the folks who are intolerant of diversity and pluralism desire; i.e. your "solution" wouldn't merely fail to rebuke, or to promote the evolution of human consciousness beyond, the racist/sexist/heterosexist mentality, rather it would actually cater to and reinforce it. No, your "solution" isn't very appealing at all.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
bubbatheclown
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 8:35:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Diversity almost always is the cause of conflict. No diversity, no conflict, better society.

-If a misogynist rapist waiting at night doesn't know whether his potential victims are boys or girls, strong or weak, then would he attempt a rape?

-If you're a Neo-Nazi and you want to spray-paint a swastika on a Jewish tombstone, but all the tombstones were the same, then how could you accomplish this?

-If you're in the Deep South and you're racist and you want to lynch a black guy, how can you do this if you don't know who's black and who's white?

-If you're with a radical right wing militia and you want to shoot a Mexican who you think is an illegal immigrant, then how could you do this if you don't know who's Mexican and who's not?

-If you have a serious vendetta against someone and you see them in public, how would you recognize them? You'd be able to attack them only in their own home, and they may be armed at home.

-If you're a gang member within your own neighborhood and you see a rich-white-foo trespassing on your gang's territory, how would you recognize him?

-If you're a bartender and you refuse to do service to a gay person, you wouldn't be able to recognize them by their makeup and Brony T-Shirts because they'd be covered almost completely.

Okay, some of these scenarios weren't so serious. But can you imagine how much better our society would've been had we done this in the 1950s and 1960s? Black people would've freely been able enter any restaurant they wanted or use any restroom they wanted.
And there are a hundred other examples of cases through world history where this policy would've prevented discrimination or even genocide.

Diversity...it exists because we have the freedom to be diverse. But to prevent conflict caused by diversity, why not conceal all diversity in public places?
Also, I need to come up with a better name than Privatism. Some other ideology took that name already.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 12:23:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
So basically... Remove all individuality. That doesn't sound bad or anything...
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 12:24:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
People should be proud of their differences... Not told to hide them. That's not the answer..
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 2:11:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 8:39:50 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:

Privatism...what do you think?

Sounds cumbersome and to no avail.
Tell me, who is one not to be discriminated against using other factors, such as vocabulary choice and speed to which one communicates. (I'm assuming there is some machine that is used to mask voices)
My work here is, finally, done.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 4:05:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/25/2014 8:35:03 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
Diversity almost always is the cause of conflict. No diversity, no conflict, better society.

-If a misogynist rapist waiting at night doesn't know whether his potential victims are boys or girls, strong or weak, then would he attempt a rape?

-If you're a Neo-Nazi and you want to spray-paint a swastika on a Jewish tombstone, but all the tombstones were the same, then how could you accomplish this?

-If you're in the Deep South and you're racist and you want to lynch a black guy, how can you do this if you don't know who's black and who's white?

-If you're with a radical right wing militia and you want to shoot a Mexican who you think is an illegal immigrant, then how could you do this if you don't know who's Mexican and who's not?

-If you have a serious vendetta against someone and you see them in public, how would you recognize them? You'd be able to attack them only in their own home, and they may be armed at home.

-If you're a gang member within your own neighborhood and you see a rich-white-foo trespassing on your gang's territory, how would you recognize him?

-If you're a bartender and you refuse to do service to a gay person, you wouldn't be able to recognize them by their makeup and Brony T-Shirts because they'd be covered almost completely.

Okay, some of these scenarios weren't so serious. But can you imagine how much better our society would've been had we done this in the 1950s and 1960s? Black people would've freely been able enter any restaurant they wanted or use any restroom they wanted.
And there are a hundred other examples of cases through world history where this policy would've prevented discrimination or even genocide.

Diversity...it exists because we have the freedom to be diverse. But to prevent conflict caused by diversity, why not conceal all diversity in public places?
Also, I need to come up with a better name than Privatism. Some other ideology took that name already.

Bubba, diversity is a fact of life. You're not going to eliminate ever. It's an unavoidable feature of the universe.