These questions and what you said are two different things. You don’t need to treat any group poorly and none of those questions suggest you do. You made a leap that doesn’t logically follow.
You clearly have not read the book or even the quoted parts of it in the article. This quote is highlighted by Haidt who even supports and says there is a place for anti-racism.
> "The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination."
The book makes its point of view as plain as day. I haven't made any kinds of leap whatsoever.
Haidt only drew the line at his work being compelled to promote anti-racism because that's contradictory to the aim for truth and why we do research in the first place.
Your characterization of poor treatment seems like a leap. I guess the question for you is: if I discriminate against you in the post in such a way it creates inequity, but never attempt to correct it but merely say from this point forward no one can discriminate — is everyone being treated fairly?
You say it's a leap but then you present an argument where only way to achieve "fairness" is to engage in discrimination the other way. WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE BOOK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CALLS FOR!
Life isn't and will never be fair. The fairness you seem to be seeking is "eye for an eye". You know what does make life fair though? We're all headed for worms and dirt eventually. None of us escape that. That's how you square the inequalities of what happens in between.
I can't engage with you any more on this. The doublethink required to accept your argument is off the charts.
Your rationale for the lack of attempting to right past wrongs is we all die? Is that how you view the Justice system? I assume you see no need for detectives.
As a society we view “further wrongs” differently. Taking money from someone who stole from you (with the help of the legal system) isn’t considered a further wrong. Criminals rarely utilize the “let’s do no further wrong defense” at sentencing. But maybe they should, as there seems to be a huge appetite for this sort of thing.
There is a big difference between punishing a criminal for a thing they did, and punishing a disfavored-race-person for a thing their ancestor did. It’s both a moral difference (collective punishment is wrong) and a practical difference (unwinding history to determine the true victim and true perpetrator is almost always impossible - as illustrated by the case of “mixed-race” people with both slave and slave-owning ancestors).
> As a society we view “further wrongs” differently.
Yes, and that includes letting bygones be bygones when we all have terrible injustices in our collective past. This is what a generalized amnesty is all about. The only alternative is a destructive war of all against all, as indeed is often seen in "honor-bound" societies where "the duty of righting wrongs" is taken as an absolute.
