The government is not at fault for the actions of the bigoted.
The government is, however, completely at fault for placing easily-abused tools into the hands of the bigoted, in the absence of functional checks, balances, controls, and functional consequences for abuse of those tools.
Callously multiplying the power of abusers is a grave sin, even if you are not the one doing the abusing.
Does that clarify things?
"[...] reverse discrimination [...]"
Many writers dismiss the entity of "reverse discrimination" as being a tool of denial. The rationale for this is stronger than it might first appear; the idea is that personal bigotry, which is near-universal, is almost insignificant as a social force without the multiplying effect of institutional power. The bigotries generally described as "reverse discrimination" generally do not have access to the multiplying effect of institutional power; as such, they are relatively insignificant as a social force, and are of concern primarily when describing individual or idiosyncratic issues, and not when describing social trends.
This ties back into the earlier idea; although we tend to focus on the wrongs of the individual, the fact is that the quantity and quality of institutional power given that individual (e.g. the presence or absence of effective impunity for abuse) is actually much, much more important than the individual factors that tend to preoccupy us.
"Is he a bigot?" is trap and red herring on multiple levels.
Another related phenomenon is the degree to which "good" people routinely do wrong when placed in problematic frameworks- cf. Zimbardo's prison experiment etc.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2007-06-12 03:23 pm (UTC)The government is, however, completely at fault for placing easily-abused tools into the hands of the bigoted, in the absence of functional checks, balances, controls, and functional consequences for abuse of those tools.
Callously multiplying the power of abusers is a grave sin, even if you are not the one doing the abusing.
Does that clarify things?
"[...] reverse discrimination [...]"
Many writers dismiss the entity of "reverse discrimination" as being a tool of denial. The rationale for this is stronger than it might first appear; the idea is that personal bigotry, which is near-universal, is almost insignificant as a social force without the multiplying effect of institutional power. The bigotries generally described as "reverse discrimination" generally do not have access to the multiplying effect of institutional power; as such, they are relatively insignificant as a social force, and are of concern primarily when describing individual or idiosyncratic issues, and not when describing social trends.
This ties back into the earlier idea; although we tend to focus on the wrongs of the individual, the fact is that the quantity and quality of institutional power given that individual (e.g. the presence or absence of effective impunity for abuse) is actually much, much more important than the individual factors that tend to preoccupy us.
"Is he a bigot?" is trap and red herring on multiple levels.
Another related phenomenon is the degree to which "good" people routinely do wrong when placed in problematic frameworks- cf. Zimbardo's prison experiment etc.