> We’re talking about a basic human sociological reality that is modeled incorrectly by liberalism.

It is not "modeled incorrectly", literally the entire point is that liberals know this and are attempting to change the status quo. We can, as you appear to be advocating for, accept this as an immutable fact of life. Or we can encode into law that when a noble rapes a peasant's wife, he gets the same punishment as a peasant raping a noble's wife. The law is, in the end, words on paper, and a noble may have the connections and power to get away with raping a peasant's wife some percentage of the time. But if 50% of the time, or, even 1% of the time the noble is held to account -- progressivism is achieving better outcomes. Does it have to be 100%? If we can't achieve 100%, we should just accept nobles raping our peasant wives freely?

> In reality there is nothing inherently wrong with discrimination itself, only with particular forms of it.

Yes. It is fine to discriminate based on a person's actions. It is not fine to discriminate based on immutable facts of their birth. That is why the US, for instance, specifically encodes these as "protected classes" of traits that are okay to discriminate against vs. those that are not. Can your tiny little lizard brain figure out why it might be okay to discriminate against someone who intentionally behaves poorly vs. someone who was born with a different melatonin content in their skin and can do nothing about this?

▲

monideas 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You need to consider what is actually the “citizenry” of a society. In your example it sounds like the nobles are the citizens and the peasants are non-citizens. Using the term “noble” and “peasant” confused the matter with inter class or socioeconomic concerns.

What you’re describing seems to be unequal justice for the poor rather than an in group or out group dynamic but it’s not clear because you’re mixing ideas. Note that in Ancient Roman society there wealthy Plebeians and poor Patricians.

The Greeks had a similar arrangement in their various city states with regards to citizenship and non-citizenship (the helots being the most legible example of this).

I would encourage you to consider that you are at least an order of magnitude not thoughtful enough to really understand what we’re talking about and keep that in mind when it occurs to you to use insults.

▲

applfanboysbgon 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> You need to consider what is actually the “citizenry” of a society. In your example it sounds like the nobles are the citizens and the peasants are non-citizens. Using the term “noble” and “peasant” confused the matter with inter class or socioeconomic concerns.

In-group and out-group dynamics go far, far beyond citizenry. It is clear that you wish to declare all you consider to be undesirables as non-citizens to justify your discrimination against them, but this is not actually a useful model for anything.

> What you’re describing seems to be unequal justice for the poor rather than an in group or out group dynamic but it’s not clear because you’re mixing ideas.

No, I am talking about the literal basis for modern liberalism's existence. Liberalism has gradually expanded to encourage equality between more types of people, but the origin was in anti-royal and anti-noble sentiment, in opposition to birthright privileges and an immutable social hierarchy. You appear to be woefully ignorant of history, which is understandable for a tiny little lizard, but you should perhaps not speak of things you know nothing of.

	▲	monideas 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It’s not about desirable vs undesirable. You have a different relationship and rules that govern conduct for your mother and father, wife, and children than you do your neighbors or someone who you don’t know who lives in the other side of the country. Those are not “undesirables”.

▲

sokoloff 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If you believe the person you’re discussing this with really has a “tiny little lizard brain”, that’s an immutable fact of their birth and you shouldn’t be discriminating against them based on it.

	▲	applfanboysbgon 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Come, now. Where did I discriminate against them? I am engaging in dialogue with the tiny little lizard as equally as I would with a human!