Wilhoit's law.
“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
One of the most fundamental principles of the left is that everyone is equal.
Everyone deserves equal treatment under the law.
Sure, there are some individuals on the left (or ostensibly so) who are either bad at practicing that or who genuinely don't believe in it, but that doesn't make it not part of the core tenets.
Now granted, modern US Democrats are not pure liberals. But on the purely opposite spectrum, it rejects this notion. At least in theory.
First you don't know what the parents political leaning is. They may be conservative, they may also just as likely be liberal It's foolish to assume their political leanings from just one post just because you disagree with them.
Second they're not saying that in groups or open AI should not be bound by the law. They're saying open AI did not actually break the law. You're free to disagree and explain why you disagree. That would be welcome. But calling them a conservative and saying they think the rich shouldn't be bound by the law is ridiculous
The real legwork is on "what are these institutions, customs, ans values we want to preserve"? And if you dig deep into US history, you realize that such benefits from traditional values were not equally distributed. So it's rather easy for me to reject the philosophy in this context of the US.
That simplicity is also why conservatism can be said to have no true convictions nor aspirations. It's in the name: it exists to look in the past, see what things are there, and say "I want these things!". But there's a lot of "things" in the past, so this philosophy could be extended to include practically anything. I could say "taxing the rich" is a conservatism perspective and simply point to corporate tax code from the 40's-70's.
So that's a long-winded means of saying that this quote is surprisingly accurate, at least for my country, when looked through the lens of history (the very lens conservatism uses).
Humans are prone to hypocrisy because they have blind spots. The luckier a person is, the easier they have it, the faster and higher they rise, the more ignorant/delusional they are by the time they reach the top. At the top, these people have the power to shape the world in accordance to their fanciful beliefs and severely skewed/optimistic worldviews.
There aren't many people in power who understand reality unfortunately because everyone who got any power had to be very lucky to get it.
The people who get to power are often the least qualified to use it effectively because their entire existence is colored by a myth that everything just keeps getting better if you just set your mind to it.
No person who has ever attained power or success has ever had the first hand experience of hard work never paying off. Yet it is the normal experience of life for the vast majority of people. This realistic worldview demands a very different set of laws than what the typical person who attains power will provide.
"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."
Maybe you can reframe your point as a typical trend, but there are other typical paths as well.
Googling "succesful people with history of failure" gives interesting examples.
Wasn't that guy Nikola Tesla? Weren't his achievements only finally properly recognized long after his death?
Still, this quote "I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work." is kind of illustrating my point about the strength of the bias which success creates. Even a man who (allegedly) failed 10000 times still feels like his eventual success was a matter of fate (part of his success journey)... That's extremely delusional. Had someone else stolen his 10001th invention and gotten all the investments, that other person would have had all the credit, nobody would know who Thomas Edison is and he would have felt very differently about his failures and the system as whole.
Nikola Tesla probably had a slightly more realistic worldview (especially by the end of his life), but I bet you there are many no-name inventors who invented great things who weren't recognized at all, even after their deaths. I'm quite sure that there are many times more inventors who didn't get any credit for their valuable contributions than those who did get credit. Getting credit for your work is a fluke, not the norm.
Claude estimates that, during their lives, 40% of inventors were not credited at all, 35% were under-credited and only 25% were fairly credited. Now, among those, how many actually got rewarded for it financially? Probably less than that 25% figure.
Imagine how hard it is, how lucky you have to be, to invent something which happens to be useful and that only gets you into the draw for a 1/4 chance of getting some recognition and some kind of reward.
Even if you look at recent AI/LLMs innovation as an example; who got most of the credit for it? Geoffrey Hinton and Yann LeCun are the big 2. These people do deserve credit, however, people barely know who the authors of the "Attention Is All You Need" paper are even though the paper itself got a lot of credit. I'm sure there are even more important papers and authors who got no credit at all. Also, nobody would have known about Jürgen Schmidhuber if Elon Musk had not mentioned him in that one tweet a while back. There are almost certainly many people who have been completely forgotten and are still unknown when it comes to AI. It's kind of insane how many people were overlooked.
1) we don't want immigrants. They haven't done anything wrong but people will have a better situtation, better jobs, better house, better partner, better life. The rich will have to provide this if they don't have an alternative.
2) we want immigrants. We want them to work hard, for rewards that we consider beneath us, and then we don't even want to pay them what we promised. For example, if they are even suspected of the slightest of misdeeds over decades we take it all away.
In practice most political positions work like this. And worse than that: people just switch between these two. Make people rich, no real concerns, and the vast majority will be "pro-immigrant" (position 2). Take stuff away from people and they will almost all switch to "anti-immigrant" (position 1). And they'll make excuses such as pro-immigrant giving people better lives, and you hopefully see the problem with that. Pro-immigrant does not mean people want immigrants as equals, in fact the opposite. Anti-immigrant also has many excuses, such as that it prevents brain drain and allows the countries immigrants come from to improve faster. These excuses may even be true, but they're excuses, nothing more.
Debate about immigration policy is a distraction designed to keep both you and immigrants themselves aggravated and ideally fighting each other instead of focusing on the real adversaries, people like Mr Altman.
You have infinitely more in common with a random immigrant than you have with the oligarch class. Most problems blamed on immigration could be solved with money extracted from people like Mr Altman.
Don't let them distract you. Don't give them control over the issues, don't allow them to make us talk about immigration instead of the fact that a few people own most of the US as well as most likely whatever country the immigrant came from.
There are plenty of things to not like about immigration implementation, and trying to steer everything towards your pet peeve seems mad.
I will remind you that this thread was initially about an oligarch getting away with things. Somehow, we're already being drawn into immigration. This thread itself is an in-vivo example of the point I'm making.
I wish I could say it was just a conspiracy theory that culture war issues is used as distraction from class war issues. But it's just so undeniable, it would be comical if it weren't tragic.
Pretty good video showing just a few of the examples through history: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdAmhumeoLQ
(I say this as someone very pro-immigration. Though, I guess I would be, wouldn't I, since anti-immigration people will readily adopt both right and left conspiracy theories.)
Is it not correct that a handful people own most of the US and that most likely the same is true in whatever country a prospective immigrant comes from?
Is it not correct that chances are you and I and whichever immigrant are on the don't-own-most-of-the-economy part of the divide?
Is it not correct that conversation about immigration keeps us focused on being angry with people that generally also are just trying to get by and live a good life as opposed to, y'know, the thing this submission started out about? You can see it happening in this very thread!
No this isn't correct. It's not true that Sam Altman specifically owns most of the US and it's not true of any particular famous rich person either. What it would mean to "own most of the US" is pretty ill-defined, but I think there's no reasonable definition of "owns most of the US" such that any individual or "handful of people" would qualify.
I think this is likely also true for most countries around the world that prospective immigrants to the US might originate from, simply because it's difficult for a "handful of people" to retain ownership of something like an entire country; but there's a lot of countries around the world and it's hard to generalize over every single one of them. Maybe Kim Jong Un specifically can be reasonably said to "own" the entirety of North Korea - although this has fairly little to do with whether or not I benefit from North Korean immigrants trying to move to the place I live.
> Is it not correct that chances are you and I and whichever immigrant are on the don't-own-most-of-the-economy part of the divide?
This is trivially true because no single person or unified entity owns most of the economy. It has very little to do with my opinion of either immigration policy or of Sam Altman and OpenAI.
> Is it not correct that conversation about immigration keeps us focused on being angry with people that generally also are just trying to get by and live a good life as opposed to, y'know, the thing this submission started out about? You can see it happening in this very thread!
Lots of people who are just trying to get by and live a good life (by their own standards) do things that justifiably make other people angry. I agree that the political question around immigration to the US or other western countries isn't directly related to how people should think about Sam Altman; but being unrelated just means it's not really on topic in this thread about this article, not that your opinion about Sam Altman needs to be related to your opinion of immigration to Western countries in any specific way.
I think you're falling for the STEM-oriented trap of seeing everything through an overly literal reductive lens. Yes, of course Altman and his ilk don't literally have a deed saying "50.0001% of the US" on it framed up on their wall.
But they control the ruling institutions - see the way they act in unison with the American regime, see them sitting alongside leaders of state at the G7 summit [0], see his colleague Musk being invited to purge the government with DOGE.
Power and ownership isn't always quite so clear, especially in increasingly authoritarian systems. As another example, think of Putin - officially he's just a simple government employee drawing a modest salary. But you might agree with me that there's a bit more than that under the surface.
However, even in a literalist reading, the trends are obvious and alarming: Twelve people own more of the world's wealth than the bottom 50% of the population (!). [1]
> I agree that the political question around immigration to the US or other western countries isn't directly related to how people should think about Sam Altman
And yet, the conversation almost immediately got deflected to immigration, because staying on topic - Altman's impunity - would've been an ideologically difficult fact to examine.
That is my point and the mechanism I think is worthy of further investigation.
[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/17/anthropic-amodei-google-hass...
[1] https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/issues/economic-justice...
>However, even in a literalist reading, the trends are obvious and alarming: Twelve people own more of the world's wealth than the bottom 50% of the population (!).
This alone implies nothing. What matters is the floor. A world where there was almost no wealth disparity but everyone was poor would be awful, and a world where 5 people had 10 billion times more wealth than everyone else combined would be good if all those other people lived in amazing prosperity. And if you check the correlations on standard of living and wealth inequality, you'll see it not only implies it but to some degree implies the opposite. (Obviously, it is more complicated than that alone, and increasing the floor would at this time require raising taxes in a way that evens things out more.)
Sure, but it goes both ways. Musk didn't need to take the chance to wreck government mechanisms that are supposed to be a check on his companies. Altman et al don't need to lecture world leaders at the G7, etc etc. All of those are active choices.
> This alone implies nothing. What matters is the floor. A world where there was almost no wealth disparity but everyone was poor would be awful, and a world where 5 people had 10 billion times more wealth than everyone else combined would be good if all those other people lived in amazing prosperity
This is where we disagree. Wealth isn't some objective number in isolation. Sure, getting everyone out of poverty is amazing and one has to commend societies that achieve that - most notable example here would be China over the past few decades.
But the key thing to understand here is that wealth is a social relation, not some sort of pure material thing. If you were the only person on the planet, technically I guess you would own it all, but I'm sure you understand that statement would be meaningless. What makes wealth interesting is that it is formalized power over.
It's what makes the cleaner clean the well-off persons toilet because they wouldn't be able to afford food otherwise. It's how the middle aged white guy gets to sleep with the young Thai girl because she's worried about her mother's medical bills.
I would posit that that social relation is the injustice that requires solving once a base of material comfort is met. Raising the floor isn't enough. Removing the twisted power games is the only way to have a society that isn't deeply extractive and counter to human dignity.
Similarly, think about the example you've given with the 5 billionaires and everyone else pretty well off. What could those five make the rest do? Can they use their own resources to make somebody else not-well-off? If so, what does that say about the power structures of the society they live in? What does that mean for freedom, for self-actualization?
One can't lump together Altman and Musk. (Plus they despise one another.) Or lump together all tech CEOs or all billionaires.
The rest of your post is incorrect, zero-sum thinking. There is not a fixed pie which people take proportional slices out of. That's not how wealth or the economy work. Nor are relative wealth differences the most important thing people care about. People somewhat care about making more or less money than their neighbor, but they care even more about their absolute standard of living and material conditions.
Some thoughts on this topic that I agree with, by the creator of this website:
https://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html
https://www.paulgraham.com/sim.html
https://www.paulgraham.com/ineq.html
https://x.com/paulg/status/2089044855158956533
https://x.com/paulg/status/2052510098035998846
As for concentration of power in societies: so long as there is still democracy and some laws preventing ultra-wealthy people from influencing politics through completely corrupt means (directly bribing politicians), it's not necessarily a big deal, if everyone already has great lives. The issue with people like Peter Thiel is they publicly say they dislike democracy, whereas someone like Sam Altman publicly (and I suspect privately) supports democracy.
That is indeed alarmist, at least. If you define wealth in a really stupid way you can get to that statement, but it has to be a really stupid way.
With that in mind, it's a bit unfortunate you're not willing or able to share any evidence for your beliefs with us and I fear it might make it hard for the rest of us to take them seriously - right now they mostly read as bad-faith trolling and derailment.
Let me know once you feel ready to have a fact-based conversation - for now, I'll leave you to your ad hominems and bold unfounded assertions.
We went from a conversation about Mr. Altman's impunity to one about speculating my stance on some specific immigration system.
The mechanism I described, live for anyone to see.
that is presuming the outcome no? Japan and Korea have almost no immigrants, and their situation is not better by any metric. Longer work hours, lower salaries, higher concentration of wealth, stagnated currency, potential demographic collapse, not enough young people to pay pensions....
Like we have examples of what that looks like and it aint the utopia you think it is. America is already in a trillion debt hole, how is shrinking the work force going to help pay for it?
> We want them to work hard, for rewards that we consider beneath us
As an immigrant with a Masters degree and a salary well in the top percentile of income, I don't think you know how many of us have higher education degrees and form part of VCs, start ups, hospitals, law firms...
The idea that immigration is a wage supression tool doesn't really jive with the percentage of immigrant students in Ivy League schools kicking the ass of many american born kids
> Pro-immigrant does not mean people want immigrants as equals, in fact the opposite.
Idk man there is a gigantic statue in the harbour of NY that claims exactly that. There are countless of political positions that criticise modern nation states, from both right wing and left wing prespective. Digital nomads are libertarians that complain about needing passports and visas, meanwhile many leftwing people find borders to be unfair lottery style barriers to human freedom and equality. From the economic right wing the two states with the highest GDP are the two with the highest number of immigrants both currently and historically. From the more woke left wing perspective you have people who think the American hegemonic century deserves to accept people that have been denied opportunities at the expense of the USA's economy, like active reparations.
You can argue it from both sides of the spectrum for both moral, economic, philosophical reasons. Meritocracy, Justice, Freedom or pure economic performance all are presented.
But maybe decades of anti unionisation efforts, manufacturing displacement and lack of updates to minimimum wage, healthcare provisions and general safety net have a higher impact on keeping wages low. Idk, the possibility of dying without access to a doctor if you dont work might keep people from asking for a higher salary if you think about it for even a fraction of a second.
Also there are 1 million concurrent international students while on average the USA receives around 1.5 million immigrants per year. which means that there are a 60/40 split. With many students returning to their countries but similarly many legal immigrants having temporal visas like H1B and conditional stays (marital, family visa, contract visa or refugee visas).
The percentage of immigrants is also been stable since the 1870s around 12-15%. There was a depression during WW2 with it going as low as 7% in the early 50s, which has little to do with immigration and more to do with millions of deaths globally. Also it rebounded to 13% quite quickly and has been there since the 60s with no meaningful relationship between wages and immigration numbers
> Your heavily restricted, highly educated, legal immigration
The two countries with the highest immigration to the USA behind Mexico (which is obvious due to proximity and opportunity), are India and China.
The best mathematician in america is an immigrant in Terrence Tao. The biggest tech companies are headed by immigrants or sons of immigrants (satya nadella, elon musk, jobs, Lisa Su).
Like you can argue that the GDP going up is responsibility of immigrants as much as you can argue that there is wage suppression due to immigration
For example, under Jewish law a Gentile who commits theft against another Gentile is liable for the death penalty, whereas it is not a capital crime when a Jew commits theft against another Jew.
Liberals cannot even conceive of such a thing since it contravenes the basic premise of liberalism so they can only conceptualize it in the way you outlined.
And by the way, this means that this in-group vs out-group thing (“two-tier justice system”) happens under liberal regimes, it just doesn’t get acknowledged officially.
We’re talking about a basic human sociological reality that is modeled incorrectly by liberalism.
No. You can get the benefits in many ways: without a justice system, by encoding it into law or by in group agreement.
The disadvantage of not having a justice system are obvious, the disadvantage of putting it into law is that it very clearly and easily can be pointed out as discriminatory. And most people want to feel like they are good people.
So by doing through in group agreement, the members can simultaneously hold moral cleanliness subjectively while objectively benefitting from a two tier system.
We are all equal, but some are more equal than others. If you want to quote someone clever about it
Within the Liberal frame “not discriminating” or at least “not being seen as discriminating” is good and the opposite is bad.
You’re still approaching this from the Liberal frame. It is very hard to transcend this because it is the totalizing predominate ideological substrate of the modern world.
In reality there is nothing inherently wrong with discrimination itself, only with particular forms of it. Types of discrimination which are considered non-controversially acceptable would be people’s choices of mate, who they hire into their company according to their skillset and “culture fit”, who is invited to a birthday party, or allowed into a home, things like this. These are forms of discrimination. The term itself in common usage has a negative valence which means “bad forms of discrimination”, “bad” according to Liberal/modern sensibilities.
We are talking about modifications to what constitutes bad vs good forms of discrimination.
If someone is still struggling with this, consider the semantics/valence of the phrase “I have a very discriminating taste in art”. This doesn’t have negative valence but the basic idea of discrimination is being invoked here.
On the opposite, I feel that this idea is quite common amongst non-liberals who misinterpret liberals. A liberal would say "this is discrimination, this is bad", and the non-liberal would hear "this is discrimination, all discrimination is bad, this is bad". But similarly, one could say "this is sharing private information, this is bad". Does it mean that the conclusion is that sharing private information is always bad? Even when you share info with your family? Or when you open up to your partner? The mistake done by the liberals is that they assume the context is obvious. They assume that it is obvious for everyone that "that particular discrimination" is one of the bad ones.
(and, sure, I'm sure some liberal people also don't get the distinction and fall into the mistake of thinking that all discrimination is bad. My point is that it is not particularly a "liberal frame")
There is a good way to estimate if a discrimination is "the normal one" and "the bad one". A discrimination is bad if the real principal objective is to favour the in-group and disfavour the out-group.
People use that criteria themselves unconsciously. If I say "I'm not giving this to Steve because I know they don't like it", people will just think it's fine. If I say "I'm not giving this to Steve despite the fact he deserves it but I don't like him", people will notice it's unfair. I think liberal people just assume this is obvious, or even not realise it themselves.
This criteria works well. For example, in the examples you gave, none of these actions have been done because "we don't think the people we excluded from the advantage don't deserve it for not being our in-group".
But it is also true that when it comes to conservatism, there are elements where the discrimination is made to exclude the out-group not on fair principal reason, but for the principal reason that it is advantageous for the in-group and the out-group is arbitrarily considered "not worthy of it".
This is why even ideas like the nuclear family are hard to define or defend within Liberalism.
Remember that Black Lives Matter had on their website a declaration that they rejected the notion of the nuclear family.
Along the same exact lines the notion of what makes someone a citizen of a Western country is very hard to define or discuss. In some sense every person on earth is basically an American, they just haven’t been officially granted citizenship yet. No one can actually define what particular qualities qualify someone to become an American citizen or not, everyone just has vague notions and some ad hoc mishmash of various financial or political interests.
This makes discussions around illegal or legal migration in the West very difficult to have, purely on an intellectual level in terms of the categories.
I don't think it means that "ideas like the nuclear family are hard to define within liberalism". I think they define them as clearly as in conservative circles (if not better, in conservative circles, these notions are often "gut feelings").
And I don't think liberalism is trying to ban things like nuclear family. People can still have as much nuclear family as they want, as long as it does not impact people who don't recognise their arbitrary authority or who are not part of one (willingly or not).
For example, Black Lives Matter is a good example, as they never rejected the nuclear family itself, just said they don't recognize its authority when this structure is restricting the solidarity potential between individuals.
Same with citizenship: it is not true that liberalism struggles with this notion. Liberalism is just trying to find a fair balance and avoid cases of unfair restrictions on people whose only crime was to be born on the wrong side of an imaginary line. It does not mean citizenship is rejected in itself, but it means that you cannot arbitrarily invent rules that favourise the group you are part of.
> Remember that Black Lives Matter had on their website a declaration that they rejected the notion of the nuclear family.
The definition of nuclear family is incredibly easy to explain. And BLM rejecting its enshrinement in certain political and legislative situations doesn't make its definition any harder?
Like if you are a kid brought up by your aunt, or grandma. Or if one parent is dead, or divorced etc having limited legal protections is silly. We already cover this with the concept of a legal guardian, but its limited and complicated and offers only partial protection.
The nuclear family is a cold war political tool designed around car centric suburbs and civic design red lining. It didnt even make sense at the time, when many children had their dad leave for Korea and later Vietnam. And with women working, the primary caretaker being secondary family members.
And that is entirely within the framework of white, suburban middle class america.
> This makes discussions around illegal or legal migration in the West very difficult to have, purely on an intellectual level in terms of the categories.
Only if you pretend that you do not understand what people are talking about, the context of certain discussions and the situations or problems being addressed or discussed.
Categories are context dependant and humans are very comfortable making and working with categories, even universalising them. But there is no perfect enclosure so categories NEED to be context dependant, this is equally true in pure Maths as it is in human realities.
Come on, the outgroup is indefinitely big and the resources are limited. You buy icecream for your kid and not for the random kid. You favour the wellbeing of human race to that of aliens. Presumably you understand the will of Sentilese people to not share the island with strangers. Does it matter whether they think "we have to do this to protect our existence" or "we fucking hate white people"?
I think if you try to define what forms of favouring the ingroup are justified and what it means for Steve to deserve X you'll end up with something like "discrimination is bad when it violates the liberal moral intuition". Don't get me wrong, I love meritocracy and the world it built, but I don't think we can navigate millenia worth of social constructs with a simple rule of thumb.
When I buy icecream for my kid, I don't pretend that it is because my kid is more worthy of icecream than the random kid. My objective is not to "favour my kid": I don't think of the icecream as something that my kid should deserve more than a random kid.
My point is that when you see a liberal person saying "it's a discrimination. it's bad", it is, in the large majority of the case, a discrimination where the principal motivation is "conflictual", where the principal motivation is based on "there is us, and there is them, and we want to end up with us having X and them not having it".
As proof, it is obviously not true to pretend that when you buy an icecream to your kid, the majority of liberal people will come at you and say you are discriminating.
>there is us, and there is them, and we want to end up with us having X and them not having it
There is your family, and different families, and you want to end up with your kid having the last icecream rather then some other guy having it.
>My objective is not to "favour my kid"
But you are favouring your kid, and it would become conflictual if someone demanded your money for his kid.
I guess there are 3 possibilities:
1. You believe all discrimination are bad. But in this case, it also means that buying a icecream for you kid is bad, because you gave it to your kid and not someone else. By extension, it basically means a large fraction of our human interactions (each time the interaction profit to someone else than us) are discrimination, and therefore bad.
2. You believe no discrimination are bad. But society obviously disagree with that. If, as a group, we decide that neuroticnews25 should be treated badly and differently of someone else not based on objective reasons but just because we feel like it, it is pretty clear that it is universally recognized as an unfair situation.
3. You agree that some discrimination are ok, and some discrimination are not ok. But in this case, you need to have a relatively objective criteria.
I gave you what I believe to be a relatively good criteria. Not perfect, but way sufficiently good that I cannot "cheat" and cherry pick the discriminations that I like as "ok discrimination" and the discriminations that I don't like as "bad discrimination".
This is the important point: even if the criteria is not perfect, the important point is that the criteria is not hypocritical or opportunist: the criteria is not built to justify what I like. This is the case because the criteria is based on a logic independent of what I personally like or dislike.
This criteria is: if the discrimination is mainly, principally, based on a wish to create advantages to the in-group and/or create disadvantages to the out-group, it is bad.
Obviously, it is not the case when I buy an icecream to my kid. At no point in my mind, when I buy an icecream to my kid, I even think "what about the other kids". They are not in the picture. "other kids" would not even exist and the situation and decision would be the same to me. And my wish is to provide an icecream to my kid, not to make sure the other kids don't have one (if they end up having one, it does not matter to me).
But when you look at situation where people point out discrimination as bad things, this is the case. When people want to "not allow black people in the front of the bus, or at universities", the whole argument _needs_ the existence of black people to even exist in the first place. The argument is not "discriminating by side-effect", the argument is "discriminating on purpose", the goal is to have different situations for the two groups.
And what I'm saying is that when people are saying "it's discrimination, it's bad", it is based on this criteria (it does not mean people who said that cannot be wrong, or that we cannot discuss if indeed this criteria is fully satisfied or not). I was answering to a comment that was implying that people who say "it's discrimination, it's bad" don't have any criteria and just considered all discrimination as bad.
> But you are favouring your kid, and it would become conflictual if someone demanded your money for his kid.
But it is not the main motivation.
If Bob said to Alice they will pick them up at the airport, if Bob's car has an engine problem and Bob is unable to pick up Alice, then the consequence is that Alice is not driven back home.
If Bob said to Alice they will pick them up at the airport, if Bob drive to the airport, see Alice, slow down and make a rude gesture at Alice and drive away, then the consequence is that Alice is not driven back home.
But people will not judge Bob equally on these two situations.
It's the same here: people say "it's discrimination, it's bad" only when people created a "bad" situation, a situation where the main argument for their decision was "there is us and there is them". This is what makes it bad.
But, I don't know about you, but when I do something nice for my family or my friends, I don't have them compete with non-family or non-friend in my head. I'm never in a situation where I think "oh, X will get this, but I prefer to have my friend having this". This is a horrible situation: friendship is not a zero-sum competition where you reward your friends and punish your non-friends.
If I have the choice of giving a job to my friend or to a foreigner, I will give the job to the most qualified.
And, yes, I can "favour" my country: for example, I may support a national sport team. No discrimination there. But if I have to make a choice between two countries that deserve it equally and that this decision has bad consequence for one country, I will certainly not pick the country I like the most just because I like it the most.
So, again: there are "ok discrimination" and "bad discrimination", both can be about country/family/...
Now to me, there's an obvious solution to that problem. For the school, it is apparently quite non-obvious to put the smart kids together. My impression is that this comes down to "discrimination" despite the fact that the advanced kids are probably also better behaved and can have a worse teacher to student ratio, so lower resources if anything. In fact, I think they would thrive just being in a room together with a babysitter and some creative toys they could play with with each other and maybe 30 minutes a day of instruction. But for some reason we can't segregate kids by ability and need every classroom to span the entire range (presumably because "segregation" is also axiomatically bad).
My general impression is that people who self-identify as Liberal are more likely to defend this than people who self-identify as Conservative (this is probably a very US-centric categorization since the words don't at all follow their meanings; "Liberals" tend to be extremely illiberal and "Conservatives" tend to not be very conservative).
You are saying that your daughter is in a class composed of, let's say, 10 "average-performing" kids (AP kids) and 10 "high-performing" kids (HP kids), and that because there is 10 HP that require specific support, they don't have enough resources to get any support to her. You also say there are enough HP to form one classroom, so let's say there are 2 classrooms with both 20 students, 10 of which HP and 10 of which AP. But then you are saying that the obvious solution is to split differently, with 20 AP in one classroom and 20 HP in another classroom. But it is not clear to me how it would free up resources.
If 1 HP needs 3 units of resource and 1 AP needs 1 unit of resource, you will have, before, one classroom that needs 30+10 units of resource, and one classroom hat needs 30+10 units of resource. Total: 80. And after your proposal, one classroom that needs 20 units of resource, one classroom that needs 60 units of resource. Total: 80.
If we have only one teacher per classroom, and a teacher can only provide 20 units of resource, and that the teacher was giving resource proportionally, it means that, in the initial scenario, your daughter will get 50% of what she needs, and in your proposal, 100% of what she needs. But it also means that a HP will get 50% of what they need in the initial scenario, and 33% of what they need in your proposal. In this context, it does look that you are asking for a change that profit your daughter while impacting negatively other kids. And that we went for a "balanced" situation where all kids get 50% of what they need, to a situation where some kids get more than others.
Of course, it is way more complex than this. For example, what is "equality": provide the same percentage of needed resource, or provide the same absolute value of resource independently of the need (cf. the famous picture of people of different height using wooden boxes to see a football game). Both of them are equality of opportunity, but with a different metric: one says they will achieve the same success if they provide the same effort, one says they received exactly the same treatment.
But at the end, I'm not convinced the situation is really "There is an obvious good solution (my solution) and the school is being bad for not recognizing my genial idea and having concerns around fairness. That is therefore the proof that people will reject good idea because they are obsessed with the diktat of 'no discrimination'".
I literally just want them to group with by ability and move at the pace of even the slowest HP. I was told there were literally at least 15 children who scored 99th percentile national on their first standardized test, and mine only scored 97th, so there's no chance that they'll be able to do anything for her. There are 5 classrooms, so quintiles seems reasonable enough, but like I said, I would actually be perfectly happy with e.g. 25-30 kids in my kid's class while the slower classes get 15. It is entirely about segregation. Her teacher told me that she has to devote her time to working with the kids who can't count to 4, and my daughter has told me at least one kid isn't fully potty trained and regularly wets themselves. I'm teaching my kid multiplication at home where I end up having to do all of her education myself anyway. She literally gets precisely 0% of what she needs, in the same way that putting a third grader in a kindergarten classroom gives them no benefit at all. Fortunately, I already anticipated that being the case, but it still annoys me that the only reason we're sending her to school is to meet other kids, and they're not putting her with the right group of kids, so even the social value is somewhat limited (she has, on her own, happened to latch onto the four smart kids in her class for recess/lunch. Go figure).
The average home in my area costs $1.5 million and somehow this is the state of public schools. As you might imagine, this sort of situation turns you into a NIMBY or pro-vouchers real fast. There's no resource problem; it's entirely intentional mismanagement.
I'm still not sure of your argument. You are asking to split into two classes: one with 25-30 kids (the "smart" group), which includes your daughter, and one with 15 kids (the "dumb" group). But you choose the threshold so that your daughter makes it into the "smart" group. Would you also be happy if they decide to do one class with 25 kids and one class with 25 kids, and your daughter is in the "dumb" group? And if you had to choose between only two choices: either the status quo or your kid in the "dumb" group, will you prefer the second one for the benefice of kids in the "smart" group? It feels like you are asking to redistribute for the benefit of some kids only (and in particular, yours), even if it has bad consequences on other kids. I would not use the term "discrimination" in this situation, but I think it is a terrible state of mind. You need to understand that you are not special: if the school was applying your idea, other parents whose kids are hurt by this idea will come to them and complain like you've done, and if they accepted to change things for you, they have no reason to not accept to change things for them.
I also hear your explanation about how your kid progressed well when homeschooled and all that. But you seem to jump to the conclusion that the difference is due to failure of the school or the presence of lower performing kids. That does not seem obvious to me, especially when you explain that you were not giving her more than half hour of instruction in a day and that she is years ahead (not that it is bad, but that's probably a better explanation why she is not flourishing at school).
In short, I really don't think it is a good example that shows that people who tend toward NIMBY or pro-vouchers are reasonable people.
And yeah even e.g. 28-22-18-16-16 would be better. I'm not claiming I'm special; I'm taking at face value what they told me that my kid is bottom of the pack of the smart kids (I'm actually skeptical of that claim, but I don't think it's particularly relevant to my point). You still have the question of why is this large cohort of smart kids in class with kids who can't count to four? Like, if we take at face value that there's an entire classroom worth of kids who are multiple years ahead of curriculum, why aren't we teaching them at their level? Even if my kid isn't in that classroom. The school is well aware that they have multimodal distribution in ability, so why aren't they designing the class composition around that? They know the statistics better than I do, so I'm sure that they could fit it much better than these numbers I'm throwing out, but even the numbers I'm saying would be a dramatic improvement, and again, I'm asking for fewer resources allocated to my child and more for the lower performing children.
You've done a fantastic job illustrating the type of person who thinks this is an unfair proposal (poor baseball field box analogy and all), and therefore everybody just has to move at the bottom 10th percentile pace, which is what the current system actually does.
This is not at all obvious from your explanation. But also, between you and them, if I had to bet, I would say that they are way better positioned to know about resources that you do. They are the ones providing the resources, they are the ones doing the "accounting", they see, with their own eyes, what needs resource or not. Did you even consider that maybe they are right on this point?
> You still have the question of why is this large cohort of smart kids in class with kids who can't count to four? ... why aren't we teaching them at their level?
Did you do some research on this subject? Apparently, there is a lot of academic research there, and the conclusion is that grouping by levels is not as beneficial or as an obvious good idea as it seems.
Especially in young children, skills can vary very quickly and "smartness" is not one dimensional. Apparently the best recommendation is to have mixed class but with the teacher aware of the level of each kids. Which can perfectly be exactly what your school is doing: in which case, they are doing the best for your kid and you are pushing them to adopt something that is worse.
On top of that, you said that they say HP requires more resource. If it is the case, it means that having them all in one classroom may be impossible to manage. So, it would _hurt_ the HP classroom and be dragging everyone to the bottom.
> and therefore everybody just has to move at the bottom
I don't understand why you are saying this. Nothing in my argument have been about "moving to the bottom for the sake of some minority".
In my first message, I have done some math showing that, in the context where HP require more resource, it looks to me that YOUR proposal is moving everyone to the bottom.
In my second message, I argue that your proposal is based on what will be best for your child, and that another parent will ask for something different. No "moving to the bottom" there either.
What is happening is that you don't know much about the subject, but you have _decided_ that splitting classroom is "obviously" the best way to go, you've _decided_ that you better how resources are divided than people whose job is literally to provide the resource.
YOU are the one who come with a simplistic "good idea" that people have tested in past, studied, and concluded that it brings everyone to the bottom.
Like her freshly three-year-old sister is at a level more advanced than the class, and is apparently more of a cognitive peer than most of the classmates.
I think at this point the failings of the education system with respect to phonics are widely known enough that you can just discount professional opinion entirely. We're talking mass incompetence and failure. A complete disaster.
It's crazy to me that you're now arguing that I don't understand enough about education to criticize professional educators when I'm wildly outperforming them as a layman dedicating a few minutes a day to the task. And just using some basic logic, how is a kid supposed to benefit from learning something they mastered when they were two years old? Before you say, oh well, maybe they could use additional practice. No, they mastered it when they were two years old. Literally, none of their day is spent at their level. So, how could a mixed classroom possibly be better for them? Why don't we put kindergarteners with 12th graders and only teach the kindergarten curriculum if mixed ability is so beneficial?
How does the current situation not bring everyone to the bottom when they literally don't teach past the bottom?
The fact that you are explaining that because you have experienced TWO situations, you are in a position to know better than people wo have way more experience, with a way more diverse set, shows that the main problem is you acting like a "Karen".
> I think at this point the failings of the education system with respect to phonics are widely known enough that you can just discount professional opinion entirely. We're talking mass incompetence and failure. A complete disaster.
First, you realise the conclusions I've presented are obtained by studies in plenty of different countries. Are you saying that somehow every education system all over the world (including the ones that did not do the mistakes you pretend is the proof they are unreliable) are all incompetent?
> ... when I'm wildly outperforming them as a layman dedicating a few minutes a day to the task
How many children have you taught? Because from what you said, it was ONE. You have no idea of the diversity of students, you have never experienced student for which your approach crashes and burns lamentably.
But, yeah, you are an armchair educator on the internet, so, obviously you know wayyyyyy better. You even say something (which is: it's better to have classroom separated by levels) that a simple google search demonstrates is terribly simplistic, and even risk bringing everyone to the bottom.
> So, how could a mixed classroom possibly be better for them?
That argument is the level of "how can the earth be round, I see it flat around me".
I don't care about your specific kid. You base all your conclusion on this single data point. The studies are looking at thousands of gifted kids, and conclude that mixed classrooms are better, including for the high performing ones. Maybe not for your kid, but then you are asking to bring everyone else to the bottom just for your special kid.
Also, your kid is not even on the top of her class. There is no way that the teacher don't provide tasks also for the smart ones as they are a big fraction of the classroom. But you will tell me that you know exactly what the teachers are providing, despite not being in the classroom, just because "I know better than them".
Do you have any experience as a gifted child? Or are you an educator defending the system or something? It's incredibly easy to find stories about how much gifted kids hate school and how bored they get being in genpop classes covering the same topics over and over for a decade straight because their classmates somehow never learn it. Guidance from our state on identifying children with disabilities (which covers giftedness) literally talks about how gifted children have a risk of becoming bad students and developing behavioral problems because they get so checked out. This is not some unknown thing.
I'm telling you what the school communicated to me, and what's on the worksheets that come home with her. Like I said, I actually suspect that the ranking here is incorrect because the testing methodology is kind of poor (they basically measure who's extremely good at the first six weeks of kindergarten instead of who's operating at a 2nd-3rd grade level), but I'm taking their claim at face value, saying that my kid isn't top of the pack. Taking that for granted makes the entire system seem even more absurd since that means there's an entire class worth of kids that could essentially skip multiple grades for instruction while remaining together socially. So why don't they do that?
And I know they don't do that, because I know who the kids are in her class who scored at the 99th. I talk to the parents. They get a 30 minute pullout every other day, but still also participate in the same hours of math and reading instruction that everyone else gets (learning their alphabet or counting single digits). During the pullout time, my kid is told to sit quietly and color so the teacher can focus on helping the lower performing kids. I also know from the parents that this has been an ongoing issue for years. I know from the school that if you don't ask about it, they just won't even tell you, and even when you do ask, they stay pretty cagey. e.g., my kid scored a little higher on her reading than she did on math, when I asked what they do in the pull-out group, she mentioned that they do leveled readers (which I've come to learn from parents are at a lower reading level than my daughter is at), and just didn't mention the math group, which, again, I've come to learn does exist from talking to other parents. I asked whether they could at least give my daughter the same work that the other kids are doing while she sits quietly and she said no, but I could send her to school with a workbook or books from home that I provide. I asked if they would let her go to the library outside of the scheduled every-other-week time, and she said no. So basically, I can do the entirety of the work myself to figure out the curriculum to provide her, and the school will be useless in that area.
Which is what I already planned for. I've been through this system myself, so I know that they'll be useless, but at least let the smart kids sit and play games with each other or something. That's really the only reason she's there in the first place.
I already know that gifted kids are not at all prioritized, but it's just wild for me to see somebody in the wild defending this. Like if I told you that my kid were struggling to learn her alphabet when she's in third grade, and that they were saying they weren't going to try to get her any kind of help, and they were just giving her the same work as the other third graders that she has no hope of comprehending, would you have the same attitude? And if 20% of the school were operating at that level, and I said, hey, maybe let's group them all together so they can get the help they need since we don't have the resources for them to have individual attention, you would say that's not a good idea?
This is the level of insanity on display. I'm literally asking for discrimination in the sense that I am given less. I ask that fewer resources go to my child, and you push back on it. Because that's how deeply ingrained this idea of everybody being equal is within some people. You know she would do better, and you can't see that happen.
As a proof, you were coming with your genius idea "let's create per-level classroom". Did you even googled it? People have tried, with a scientific methodology, blind study and all, with absolutely no reason to lie and with different concurrent teams re-trying, hoping to gain from proving their competitors wrong, and yet reaching the same results. And their conclusion is that "per-level classroom" drags kids to the bottom and "mixed classroom" is just better for the kids.
You are telling me you have sooooo much expertise on the subject, but at the same time you felt head first in the first naive trap on the book.
The "I talk to parents", the "I've checked on the internet", the "I've asked ChatGPT", the "I've read a book", ... This is not expertise.
I pity the teachers who have to see you giving them lessons on things that they obviously know 100x better than you. Do you realise that when you were teaching 1-2 kids and talking to 5-10 parents, they taught HUNDREDS of gifted kids (you said yourself that in this school they have tens of those per year) and talked to HUNDREDS of parents. If what you went through gave you some expertise, then the teachers you have in front of you have 100x your expertise: they've done exactly what you've done, but 100x more than you.
As for the ending, it's so ridiculous. Why would I want to do something bad to your kid? We want the SAME thing: for the kids to get the best. You came and said "per-level classrooms are obviously the best answer". I quickly check and see "per-level classrooms is a stupid and naive idea, don't do that". Because I want to HELP your kid, I just say that maybe you should not assume you know all the answers (initially quite friendly, but the arrogance and the insults have slowly eroded that), when you apparently haven't read a book on the subject, assumed by default that the teachers are all stupid, and concluded that if anyone does not do as you say they are trying to hurt the children for no reason at all.
And this whole conversation has nothing to do with "discrimination". I SUPPORT organising classroom with the primary objective to be more useful for the students. I don't consider this being discrimination. The reason I don't think you are right is not because there would be "discrimination". I haven't said that anywhere. The reason I don't think you are right is because you are a parent with very limited expertise (a couple of children and some social network, that is all anecdotic data points) and you are proposing solutions that are naive and known to be stupid. But you are unable to even conceive that I'm not motivated by some kind of ideology. It tells so much about your capacity to analyse the reality.
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.101.5.1739
> While the direct effect of high-achieving peers is positive, tracking benefited lower-achieving pupils indirectly by allowing teachers to teach to their level.
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20150484
> Minorities gain 0.5 standard deviation units in fourth-grade reading and math scores, with persistent gains through sixth grade. We find no evidence of negative or positive spillovers on nonparticipants.
https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/15528/patterns-determina...
Here's the real problem:
> we find positive effects on high-achieving students with no negative effects on low-achieving students, suggesting that tracking may increase inequality by raising the ceiling.
And yeah if I'm producing better results, I'm going to go ahead and characterize myself as having more expertise, evidently. This is also a known thing: homeschooled students (i.e. students taught by "non-experts") tend to do better than public schooled students even with very little time investment. They are, charitably, acting like "expert beginners." Less charitably, they refuse to do the correct thing, and fall into weird memes like when they explicitly told kids not to use phonics-based reading strategies for 20 years.
And when talking about science, you need to take a step back and think about whether what you're saying is even plausible. Your claim, basically, is that putting my child in a group of kids that is operating on a level several years beneath her somehow benefits her. That she would actually be pulled down by being in a group of peers that's at her level. What kind of mechanism would possibly produce that result? I can easily list mechanisms for the reverse. And just with some basic logic here, why do we let some kids take AP calculus and not keep them in algebra 1 over and over for years for their benefit?
But obviously, you "forgot" the articles that don't go in your direction, such as https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1756-5391... (which is easier to find than one of the articles you quote, so you probably either did a search that target specific articles, or saw it and choose to ignore it). This is a meta-analysis (so it is not just one study), and it concludes that per-level classrooms does not improve high performing students while improving the low performing students. In other terms: it says that non-mixed classrooms will drag students to the bottom.
> And yeah if I'm producing better results, I'm going to go ahead and characterize myself as having more expertise, evidently.
You DON'T produce better results, you had ONE student, this is way not enough to conclude if you are producing better results.
> Your claim, basically, is that putting my child in a group of kids that is operating on a level several years beneath her somehow benefits her.
You said yourself that the class contains a big fraction of kids that are better than her (and, yeah, I know, you don't believe the experts, your kid is in fact sooooo smart). Even if your kid is smarter than them, it is a lie to pretend that your kid is in a classroom that has a level which is several years beneath her.
And again, a naive non-expert would have a naive intuition: "oh, if some students are not at her level, of course she will not learn as much new stuff at her level so of course it is not good". Experts know that this reasoning is naive: learning is not just force-feeding books in the kid's brain, and what works with kid X may not work with kid Y. At the end of the day, if what you were saying was true, it would be clearly evidenced in data. But it is not. Even if you can find some articles where they say high performing students in non-mixed classroom did a bit better, how do you explain that there are so many studies that say they don't see the clear gap that your reasoning implies? How do you explain that? Let me guess: they are all communists part of the strange conspiracy because they are afraid of how smart your daughter is.
(by the way, do you realise how stupid your argument is: neither me or my kids will ever have to compete with your daughter. And competition is not even about high-performer or smart people: the smart people often end up being uninterested in the stupid egomaniacal competition, they prefer fulfilling lives. The fact that your daughter is smart does not make her a threat to anyone, and if she is smart, the fact that she was in a non-mixed classroom will certainly not impact her opportunities. If it does, I guess it means she is not really as smart as you think she is)
This is yet another "armchair scientist" approach: in science, we know these kind of intuitions are very risky. You fall for it because you are not an expert, you are just a self-entitled "Karen" who got confirmation bias that they know better than everyone.
Again, maybe your kid (and the handful of your "social network") is one of these outliers who thrive in home-schooling or non-mixed classroom, but it does not mean it is true. It does not mean your "genius idea" is not something totally bad to apply.
discrimination is about rules not about individual actions.
It would be "everyone can eat ice cream", or "ice cream is unhealthy and no one can eat ice cream".
If the rule is "Ice cream has too much sugar and because of the obesity epidemic we decided to ban ice cream, except for my son who is super special boy and he can have it every day" that is discriminatory. Even if your son doesn't eat it and effectively the rule is the same for everyone in practice.
On the basis of "resources are limited" you end up with discussions of rights that are equal on paper but discriminatory in practice. "Everyone can buy a house", but some people are rich and some have nothing. You have freedom and equality but also homeless people.
Here the question however is about in groups and out groups. So its for example about "theft is wrong" where you only arrest people stealing from supermarkets but not the CEO of the supermarket when he is stealing people salaries with mandatory unpaid overtime.
That is a law where rich people are covered by the law (their business is protected) but they are exempt (their theft is unprosecuted). That is the kind of in gorup/ out group being debated
For most people it follows pretty basic principles that are based on notions of "goodness" which might include humility, fairness, generosity, courage...
Under those circumstances, almost all humans believe that treating everyone as equals is aligned with those principles and therefore makes you a good person. Having to square that with conflicting dehumanised views of others, means that the easiest way to do it is to simply pretend that you are treating everyone the same while subjecting those you discriminate with a harshness that isnt applied equally.
> In reality there is nothing inherently wrong with discrimination itself,
You are using two different definitions of the word in a way that is sophist and not sophisticated.
Discrimination of humans is the mistreatment of others based on characteristics that are protected (those that are predetermined). Discrimination as the noticing differences and evaluating them based on taste is a second definition of the word, used in very different contexts.
That is not "liberal sensitivity" that is just polysemic words.
In the same way that standing in a room with a very powerful light bulb would not make your argument any brighter.
> We are talking about modifications to what constitutes bad vs good forms of discrimination.
No. We were talking about the psychological tools used by conservative people to deal with the cognitive dissonance of wanting to believe themselves as moral and accepting of inherently good precepts like the equal value of all human life while they want to not accept the consequences of the police state they set up to control people they believe inferior.
YOU tried to make it about the semantic similarity between two of the three meanings of the word discrimination. Which is the kind of parlour trick that only works if your audience is stupid.
Liberalism does neither uniquely hold the axiom that all humans are equal, nor does it shape the minds of people to hold it as a universal principle. It is a pretty universal tenant of almost all ethical systems, the only exceptions being system where some humans are not considered human (to avoid the everyone should be treated the same principle still being upheld), or systems that are openly discriminatory in which case they hardly call themselves moral.
Systems that say "we win because we are more powerful" do not do it based on ethics, and systems that have an underclass tend to dehumanise it (slaves not being citizens in rome). Everywhere else people are "equal", where the upper class are exempt from the worst consequences of legal frameworks (see sunset towns in jim crow america only affecting black people).
Conservatives fight long and dirty to prevent equality in all cases, I have no idea what you are thinking of when you made your statement.
Aka Magna Carta '3 tiers of society' - the Monarch, Nobles, Plebes etc.
Or in Roman society, Nobles/Senators, Free people, slaves.
Historically, conservatism would have been strongly related to power structures.
In more contemporary terms it is as well, but not ostensibly about class.
There are no popular conservative movements that are mostly concerned with 'noble birth' for gosh sakes, or titles.
This whole discussion is ridiculoous.
Nobody is saying that 'The children of Senators should have special titles and special legal status'.
The “conservative movement” in the US is just liberalism, the US was conceived as a liberal project. The founding mythology is a revolution against a king
This is one of the few places where people would try to make the case.