That in any situation in which a system is put in place to help a group of people who are presumed to need it, some people who do not "need it" will seek to take advantage of the assistance anyway, and some will succeed. Then, a large third party will equate every single person who utilizes the help to be cheating the system by taking its assistance on false pretenses, creating a social and political situation with loud, vocal deriders claiming that these people are (all) leeches who could get by fine on their own, and any and all users of the systems become stigmatized. It happens with welfare, it happens with food banks, it happens with the LGBT community and supports therein, it happens with trans people and feminists and ethnic minorities; any group of any kind that is partially or wholly disadvantaged in some way, and which people seek to help out of that disadvantage by giving them focused support.
The stigma generally does not start because they are given help, but is deepened or shaped by it.
I wonder what that would be called? Perhaps the Ayn Rand Effect?
The stigma generally does not start because they are given help, but is deepened or shaped by it.
I wonder what that would be called? Perhaps the Ayn Rand Effect?
Thinking on this got me taking a second look at her philosophies. Some of it's quite sensible if I look at it to understand, rather than outright seeking conflict. I think I can see precisely what she's talking about and warrant her her insight on it, and then see exactly where she makes an oversimplification and calls something an absolute that isn't.
For instance the assertion that sex is "not possible in self-abasement". I read what she's describing about sex, and I know what she's talking about. To see in one's partner's surrender the glorification of one's identity... Suggesting then that I love and desire another person because they, as I understand them, are a complement to my own self-image; because taking them (and them in particular) as mine to please and please myself upon glorifies what I am. I don't actually have any objection to that; she's right, it does. But she stumbles, I think, it defining that as "Sex". It is Ideal and Idealized Sex, as she sees it, and I do not disagree, but it's only one subset of the many possible acts called sex. Sex IS possible in self-abasement. She talks about that as well, and in so doing contradicts herself; but only because she has stooped to making a battle cry of an oversimplified absolute statement and an emotional trope, because one cannot easily make battle cries of the complicated, grey-shaded and fiddly truth. Amusingly, if I am reading this right, that act is against her own philosophy, but nevertheless a mistake she is frequently prone to.
That and a tendency to really overblown patriotism, and perhaps a blindness to downsides of decisions and ideals that she cares for strongly. Common problem, that. Significantly worse problem for a philosopher than a member of the general populace to have. More damaging there. Ah, but of course she speaks of her vision of Idealized America, just as she speaks of Idealized sex. Its victories, without its failures, as though those could be separated and held in different histories. Disregarding the times, and the frequency of the times, that it has failed to live up to its own ostensible vision, and to uphold its own ostensible values. Or indeed, the places where its apparent victories were attributed to glorious virtue, but were as much the result of, for instance, oppression and literal slavery.
Ha. I feel like doing a bit of my own political-sounding speechifying, so I will:
That and a tendency to really overblown patriotism, and perhaps a blindness to downsides of decisions and ideals that she cares for strongly. Common problem, that. Significantly worse problem for a philosopher than a member of the general populace to have. More damaging there. Ah, but of course she speaks of her vision of Idealized America, just as she speaks of Idealized sex. Its victories, without its failures, as though those could be separated and held in different histories. Disregarding the times, and the frequency of the times, that it has failed to live up to its own ostensible vision, and to uphold its own ostensible values. Or indeed, the places where its apparent victories were attributed to glorious virtue, but were as much the result of, for instance, oppression and literal slavery.
Ha. I feel like doing a bit of my own political-sounding speechifying, so I will:
"I disagree with her. Altruism and selfishness, for all that they seem often to pull in opposite directions, are not enemies and are not mutually incompatible any more than the expansion and the contraction of a person's beating heart are enemies and mutually incompatible. They can be balanced. Indeed, they must be balanced, or the individual quickly collapses and dies.What brought all this on?
I believe that it IS possible to construct a society in which there is a bottom absolute limit, a floor, to how far a person's wealth and quality of life is allowed to fall, but with no corresponding absolute limit to how high it may rise; if only it were to be agreed that this state is desirable, and to then construct it with this goal in mind.
I believe that giving to others and keeping for oneself are both forces that belong in every life, are both sources of happiness and joy, and that they complement one another as such. To find a healthy balance between them is one of the necessary steps to create a happy and purposeful life, without resentment or hate or shame."
Well, the study of and comments on Ayn Rand were of course off of the thought that her name and reputation might fit the effect I was describing, and the thoughts on that effect are a repetition of something I find myself mulling over from time to time. In this case, it was all prompted, somewhat indirectly, by a SciShow video on the Taboos of Science. In the comments, biological and formative differences between different ethnicities and sexes was a (fairly obvious) subject discussed as a taboo of science, as it has become faux pas to admit or suggest that there are meaningful and significant differences there due to some irritating exaggerations associated with the equality movements.
There was also mention of the classification of gender dysphoria as a disease, which got me thinking about the way some people question the existence or legitimacy of trans people and also sufferers of things like Aspergers and Bipolar Disorder, and on from there to an old recurring series of thoughts on how youth who are acting destructively or poorly are frequently dismissed as "just seeking attention," as though seeking attention when one is lonely, hurt, or confused and facing something they don't know how to solve is inherently wrong and shameful, which is obvious bullshit. While acting out destructively is not an acceptable means to it (albeit sometimes true that suffering people do not know how to ask directly), seeking attention should not be seen as a wrong. The "just seeking attention" tends to imply lying and making up ailments or exaggerating them in order to get the attention that may actually BE needed.
Admittedly this actually does happen a fair bit because lesser problems or less severe cases of problems are often dismissed, mocked or ignored, making exaggeration sometimes (tragically and socially destructively) necessary to get help of any kind. And then those who do truly suffer from the ailments most often used as excuses suffer further from stigmatization and an impression that their ailment does not exist because the false complainers reflect badly on them. That's an example of the broad effect I was talking about, which I think also holds true in this broader sense.
That's what brought this on.
That's what brought this on.
