It's Right And Normal To Judge Based On Culture
July 1st, 2019 | AR
Judging people based on where they come from is not only logical and reasonable, it should be considered morally acceptable. We can all agree that people in Japan are different than people in the Congo, yet we are perpetually made to feel guilty for acknowledging these differences and using them to make judgments. Discrimination based on culture is discrimination based on valuable, knowable information. This doesn't mean we should treat people poorly, but it definitely means we should use cultural information to make decisions. This also doesn't mean we should change laws to adapt to cultural differences, because law should be the one thing that protects all individuals from harm based on their personal identity. However, individuals should always maintain the right to make personal decisions, express opinions and make judgments based on cultural differences.
We would never expect any reasonable person to discard or avoid certain information when making a serious, life altering personal decision. The more information we know, the better equipped we are to make the appropriate choices. Knowing what we know about grizzly bears would keep us alive if we ever found ourselves lost in the Rocky Mountains. Knowing what we know about our organs and how they function helps doctors keep us alive. Knowing what we know about our best friends helps us determine when we can trust them. The list goes on.
The same people who tell us that information matters are often the same people who encourage us—and sometimes shame us—into discarding valuable information about biology, culture and science.
What we know about estrogen and how it influences both psychological and physiological development has helped science determine the inherent differences between men and women. Yet we are told by media and politicians that we are sexist, transphobic and misogynistic when we point out these inherent differences. This is just one example of a culture that has become obsessed with emotional gratification, no matter how many facts and pieces of relevant information need to be sacrificed to achieve such gratification.
The core of the problem is our differing opinions on freedom. Before we get into the value of cultural information when making judgments, we should explore these differing ideas of freedom.
Some believe in existential freedom, while others believe in physical and practical freedom. Existential freedom would be defined by freedom from suffering, from pain and from all other forms of negative stimuli. Practical freedom would be defined by the freedom to make choices in a physical world, with the understanding that freedom from suffering is impossible—or that it can only be achieved through ways that would contradict or impede on the freedoms of others.
These two sides are always competing to achieve what they believe to be true freedom. One side is based on emotional gratification and the other on logic. It should be simple enough to guess which is which. They can be classified as Subjective vs. Objective.
Existential (Subjective) Freedom And Speech
The dark side could be best described as those who believe humans have—or should have—the right to be free from negative feelings and psychologically painful stimuli. It is this belief in subjective freedom that drives censorship and creates bizarre and absurd terms like “micro-aggression” and “safe space”.
Attacking or violating what some existentialists call the “essence” of an individual can cause pain, hardship and harm. Whatever that essence is, it helps determine how offended an individual might be by another person's opinion, words, attitude or likeness. A common theme unfolding in media and politics is our culture's habit of protecting the feelings (or essence) of certain individuals and minority groups from the harmful opinions and words of others. This pain, which can be inflicted with mere words and thoughts, violates an individual's personal freedom because it robs them of their ability to live and exist without pain.
According to this subjective worldview, your words are an impediment to another person's freedom if that person is made to feel pain or discomfort because of your words.
This doesn't necessarily mean that prominent existentialists like Jean-Paul Sartre would have believed this nonsense if they were alive today, nor does it mean that existentialism as a philosophy would go along with this nonsense today—it just means that many existential worldviews are being interpreted a certain way. That certain way happens to view freedom as subjective, rather than just simply objective, whether people who would call themselves modern existentialists agree or not.
"According to this subjective worldview, your words are an impediment to another person's freedom..."
Sartre himself believed freedom had no limits, except what was present in the physical world. He thought that prisoners could still be “free” by believing they would one day liberate themselves. Sartre also felt that the imposition of outside values and morals was a detriment to a person's “freedom”. His subjective view on freedom has, thus, morphed into what we witness today when minority groups and their advocates attempt to describe another person's views and opinions as detrimental to the well-being and—therefore—to the freedom of such minorities and individuals.
By negatively influencing a person's emotional state, we are thereby robbing them of their self-imposed right to live freely and without the oppression of negative stimuli.
Practical (Objective) Freedom And Speech
Objective freedom is defined by the freedom to make choices in a physical world. This worldview is logical, consistent and it can be applied to the real world in practical ways. Deciding social behaviours and writing laws based on the subjective worldview described above would—and has—created chaos and instability. This chaos and instability arises from the mental gymnastics and hypocrisy that are required to accommodate such a worldview.
According to those who practice and preach objective freedom, emotional pain and suffering are natural consequences of being free and making choices. In fact, there is no remedy for the hardships that may be experienced by an individual's right to say offensive things. Nor should a remedy ever be attempted.
The same applies across all laws and government. Under no circumstances should a government attempt to enforce subjective laws and subjective ideas of freedom. Freedom can only be measured by choices, opportunities and the tangible outcomes that result from them. Attempting to measure freedom by feelings and emotions will only lead to tyranny.
Choosing to be free of negative stimuli involves suppressing another individual's right to make choices in the physical world. By all means, an individual should always be free to try and rid themselves of such feelings, but never by involving government and lynch mobs.
Making Judgments Based On Culture
All cultures are different. There is no debate to be had, since the difference in cultures is the entire basis of multi-culturalism. The value that progressives place on multi-culturalism is derived from the differences that exist among all of the global cultures. We're told that we should accept these differences and respect them, which is an undeniable and direct acknowledgement of those differences. This means that no one, particularly progressives, can deny that some cultures are vastly different.
The idea of equality, in some ways, is a denial of differences, whether those differences exist among races, sexes or cultures. In the same breath, we are told that all cultures are equal—or should, at least, be treated equally. That's fair and should never change inside of our borders. All people should, always, be treated equally under the law. However, vast differences in cultural beliefs and practices should always be factored into certain kinds of decision-making—namely, when it comes to immigration.
Laws of a country apply to the citizens of the country, not to outsiders. Therefore, immigration laws can fairly and justly discriminate based on cultural differences and practices. As for free speech, laws within a country can treat all people equally while continuing to afford citizens a right to free speech and expression. There is no dichotomy unless you have a globalist worldview and believe that multi-cultural laws should be adopted and enforced globally.
The United Nations will try and inevitably fail to enforce and implement such laws globally, because nationalist movements are rising up everywhere to stop the UN's agenda. Ultimately, the will of the people will triumph and the globalist, anti-national sentiment will collapse.
When cultural practices endorse and encourage violence, authoritarianism and insanity, we as citizens, taxpayers and voters have a right to reject them. There is no debate to be had. Those democratic rights are on full display around the world right now. Culture is a representation of collective mentality and collective beliefs, so when a person comes from a particular culture or has shown to practice a culture that is in direct opposition to freedom, free speech and personal liberty, that person should not be allowed to enter.
Speech within our borders should always be protected and enforced by objective laws, not by subjective whims. This means that laws cannot be written around feelings, emotions and the effects that speech might have on an individual's subjective views about “freedom”. All humans, when within our borders, should be protected from physical harm. Words are not a form of physical harm and free speech is an important tenet of democracy. Open debate and wide open dialogue are fundamental in the democratic process, even when they devolve into prejudiced, hateful or incendiary discourse. As long as such discourse carries on without violence, it should be free.
The purpose of law enforcement is to uphold peace and civility under all circumstances. When law enforcement stretches into speech suppression, we no longer have freedom and laws no longer have value. When anyone breaches the code of civility by inflicting physical harm on another person, our existing laws become just as relevant as they would be in any other circumstance. Suppressing speech is always unnecessary, because our current and existing laws are designed to protect all of us from physical assault—regardless of race, sex or ethnicity.
Cultural information is as important as any information when enforcing immigration and making personal judgments. To uphold free speech, individual liberty and freedom of thought, this can never change. Some cultures want to physically destroy us, so the onus falls on us to protect ourselves and our freedoms.
Our only weapon is democracy. Our only vehicle is free speech.