|
I would argue that providing support and space for marginalised groups often requires extra-legal methods to get there (as the entrenched majorities often create oppressive structures which cannot be altered without such means), but the ultimate aim is to influence legislation such that society adopts and embraces a pluralistic, tolerant, and egalitarian stance with minimal intrusion in personal beliefs and affiliations - no more than is necessary for the maintenance of basic social order - at a constitutional and judicial level. Therefore, I must believe that Sanctuary Cities are inherently True Neutral, in that they recognise the realpolitik necessity of illegal methods to attain the desired cultural outcomes, but ultimately idealise integrating these desired outcomes into a legal framework to create a truly egalitarian society.
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 04:42 |
|
|
There is no such thing as artificial egalitarian outcomes, if we are talking about equal treatment under the law in terms of rights and freedoms. The mechanisms used to arrive at that outcome do not compromise the legitimacy of the outcome; whether it takes armed slave revolts and violent demonstrations, or is possible through policy reform and education, speaks more to the nature of the oppressive society and the level of entrenchment of its prejudice at a personal an institutional level, rather than to anything about the marginalised group. Neither of these routes makes the eventual state artificial or forced, nor do the attributes of being artificial and forced even meaningfully detract from the legal equality produced. Certainly, at non-institutional levels, people will likely retain their old prejudices. But your concern that no society can ever be truly egalitarian because of the differing levels of talent, ability, education, or 'deservingness' between people presents an impossibly high standard of what egalitarian means. Eliminating racism from society doesn't require that every individual gets the same results, but that, all other things being equal, race alone is not a factor in the 'deservingness' leading to better outcomes.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2015 14:12
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:wouldn't that make them neutral good? the D&D alignment matrix pretty explicitly does not equate legality with goodness This is true. Where a sanctuary city falls on the alignment between true neutral and neutral good might depend on their motivations and foreign policy. For example, if the only reason for racial equality is because racism hurts trade potential and causes violence/ other inefficiencies, and a city is a major trade hub, I would hesitate to describe their alignment as caring about 'good' (equality as a pragmatic consequence of a free market). On the other hand, if a sanctuary city views equality as an inherent social good, and actively tries to promote that agenda encouraging reform in other cities, then it would sit far more appropriately in neutral good. So really, I guess it depends how the city role-plays its equality.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
Rodnik posted:Do you guys often find that Sanctuary Cities demand a certain level of conformity from those they give shelter? Does a Sanctuary City require that it's inhabitants give up a certain amount of what makes they and their cultures unique in order to function in the new society? Is this censorship enforced through implied violence? No, it is a voluntary by-product of free market capitalism and globalisation. Half-orcs, Drow, or Gnome - as long as people have full bellies and are making bank, their cultural rituals and beliefs matter less, and they all just want to bling out their horse and carriage with after market gilded trim while wearing the latest fashionable cloaks from Neverwinter.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2015 01:26
|
|