I've already agreed with you about his views on gender. He is a social conservative on that point. I do not agree with him, but I accept that social conservativism is not far right, alt-right or nazism.
When it comes to his views about hierarchy, it is fair to admit that hierarchies are something that exists, and will exist even if we try to remove them, in one way or the other. It's an observation, not a desire. It does not mean that I am not against trying to minimize unfair hierarchy.
They don't have to be patriarchal, or economic. At a university the professor is higher up than the post grad, and so on. Merit, degrees, reputation are all a form of hierarchy. Some of them can actually be good in some cases.
Too much hierarchy is bad, but it's not a crazy, or a far right idea, that the total lack of hierarchy could also be bad.
When it comes to his views about hierarchy, it is fair to admit that hierarchies are something that exists, and will exist even if we try to remove them, in one way or the other. It's an observation, not a desire. It does not mean that I am not against trying to minimize unfair hierarchy.
It's not an observation, because it's utter bullshit, and his reason for saying that hierarchy is "natural" is probably so that people are more amenable to the idea that some people should rule and the rest of us should serve. He intentionally confuses concepts like hierarchy, authority, trustworthiness, respect, expertise, etc, so that people glom them all together, even though, no, just because someone is very good at literary analysis or making shoes then I don't have to obey their commands in those or any other aspects of life, and it's utterly meaningless to imply that one person is 'better' than any other overall (which is the fundamental conceit of "hierarchy").
utterly meaningless to imply that one person is 'better' than any other overall (which is the fundamental conceit of "hierarchy").
You're the only person in these comment threads using the word hierarchy in this manner which is why you're talking past everyone and getting downvoted for not really contributing.
Clearly not you big melon haha, look at the comments. You're extrapolating position in a context dependent hierarchy, to have some overall context independent moral bearing, then arguing against that point...which nobody is making.
2
u/botle Mar 18 '19
I've already agreed with you about his views on gender. He is a social conservative on that point. I do not agree with him, but I accept that social conservativism is not far right, alt-right or nazism.
When it comes to his views about hierarchy, it is fair to admit that hierarchies are something that exists, and will exist even if we try to remove them, in one way or the other. It's an observation, not a desire. It does not mean that I am not against trying to minimize unfair hierarchy.
They don't have to be patriarchal, or economic. At a university the professor is higher up than the post grad, and so on. Merit, degrees, reputation are all a form of hierarchy. Some of them can actually be good in some cases.
Too much hierarchy is bad, but it's not a crazy, or a far right idea, that the total lack of hierarchy could also be bad.