A
Algernon
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2026
- Posts
- 1,154
- Reputation
- 1,243
in this i am going to assume equality is a good thing, i don't believe it is but the point is i am taking normal peoples views
we begin with a scenario, there is a minority (in power, not in size), and a majority
the minority wants to become equal in power with the majority at first (womens rights movements, civil rights movement, etc)
this is the first flow, we go from minority -> equality
this is perceived as good by society and brings benefits (at least whats reported)
equality would represent for example 2000s (idk i'm js guessing)
however, once they are equal, there is resistance for the old majority to become the majority once more due to past experience and they are still flowing towards the direction of beng a minority, it wont just stop and become rigid
but the old minority group? now they want more power (this can be explained as rather them seeing inequality to equality bringing good, they see the increase in their power as a good thing rather then it being the equality), maybe the old group of them wanted rquality, but this new generation wants to become more powerful
so, they organize and since they already have the momentum and flow from previous movements, they push into becoming the majority by power, the new equality group is fractured and wont assemble, while the old minority turns into the new majority, becoming the powerful side
this would describe most social movements, they see their lack of power and the majority conceding for equality, and they take it at first in good faith, then build on it with bad faith and take over the old majority, becoming the new ones in power
assuming equality is good, the foundation of their beliefs, then they just ruined society
the majority can never fracture or never concede in order to protect equality and create a good society
+ in order for the original switch to even happen, this whole process takes resources, marches, energy, etc
unless equality is truly necessary (the current state is incredibly bad), it takes more risk and harms more people and resources, it is contradictory and just leads to harm
the foundational principle of a society cannot be equality, there must be some other moral value
edit: there may be some stabilization where the majority and minority keep switching until the difference goes to 0, but as i mentioned before it takes a lot of resources and energy from society and pushes away any benefits the movement could have had
summary by ai if you don't want to read but i recommend reading anyways
"The argument is that equality-based social movements can start by correcting an unfair power imbalance, but once equality is reached, the old minority may use the momentum and organization of the movement to become the new dominant group. In this view, the process does not stabilize at equality; it keeps moving, causing social churn, resource waste, and new forms of power imbalance. So the claim is that equality should not be the foundational goal of society, because it is contradictory, since it can create instability and eventually replace one form of dominance with another."
we begin with a scenario, there is a minority (in power, not in size), and a majority
the minority wants to become equal in power with the majority at first (womens rights movements, civil rights movement, etc)
this is the first flow, we go from minority -> equality
this is perceived as good by society and brings benefits (at least whats reported)
equality would represent for example 2000s (idk i'm js guessing)
however, once they are equal, there is resistance for the old majority to become the majority once more due to past experience and they are still flowing towards the direction of beng a minority, it wont just stop and become rigid
but the old minority group? now they want more power (this can be explained as rather them seeing inequality to equality bringing good, they see the increase in their power as a good thing rather then it being the equality), maybe the old group of them wanted rquality, but this new generation wants to become more powerful
so, they organize and since they already have the momentum and flow from previous movements, they push into becoming the majority by power, the new equality group is fractured and wont assemble, while the old minority turns into the new majority, becoming the powerful side
this would describe most social movements, they see their lack of power and the majority conceding for equality, and they take it at first in good faith, then build on it with bad faith and take over the old majority, becoming the new ones in power
assuming equality is good, the foundation of their beliefs, then they just ruined society
the majority can never fracture or never concede in order to protect equality and create a good society
+ in order for the original switch to even happen, this whole process takes resources, marches, energy, etc
unless equality is truly necessary (the current state is incredibly bad), it takes more risk and harms more people and resources, it is contradictory and just leads to harm
the foundational principle of a society cannot be equality, there must be some other moral value
edit: there may be some stabilization where the majority and minority keep switching until the difference goes to 0, but as i mentioned before it takes a lot of resources and energy from society and pushes away any benefits the movement could have had
summary by ai if you don't want to read but i recommend reading anyways
"The argument is that equality-based social movements can start by correcting an unfair power imbalance, but once equality is reached, the old minority may use the momentum and organization of the movement to become the new dominant group. In this view, the process does not stabilize at equality; it keeps moving, causing social churn, resource waste, and new forms of power imbalance. So the claim is that equality should not be the foundational goal of society, because it is contradictory, since it can create instability and eventually replace one form of dominance with another."
Last edited:
