Answer me two questions:

The (normative) quest to overcome the differences presupposes the (descriptive) differences being there.

it's all over sep. either way, when did it start.

Both. It's a philosophy that is pushed by political agenda.

I don't support it, what do you mean by a ''fact''?

>it's all over sep
Because it's written in the English language by people obeying the commandments of the prescriptivists.

>when did it start
Third wave femnism i.e. very late 80s. In case you didn't notice there are several pages in the SEP with "feminist" or "feminism" in their titles.

>In a 1989 article from the Los Angeles Times, for instance, writer Dan Sullivan notes, "What's wrong with reinventing the wheel? Every artist has to do so in her search for the medium that will best express her angle of vision." Alice Walker writes in 1991, "A person's work is her only signature."

well ok, I'll keep it in mind if I ever post again.

Anyway I used the expression "the left" generically and for ease of communication, because surely you understood who I was referring to. this said what I mean is you will never hear a socialist, a communist, or a liberal say anything other than everybody is equal and that sexism and racism are straight out falsehoods to be eradicated. so I stand by my statement about those who could be ascribed as being part of "the left" being completely convinced (at least in appearance) that everyone is equal not only in front of the law.

A simple wikipedia search could have answered this for you

As a social liberal I will tell you that I firmly believe that sexism and racism are unavoidable but should be disregarded avoided as much as possible in law and economic situations. There are factual differences between people in race and sex, but they should be treated as equal in society.

so basically it is a belief not a fact.

fact means and objective truth

wikipedia could not have answered my second question, which anyway basically nobody answered here neither, since every answer here says that it is a belief despite my expressly requesting an answer from someone who supports it as a fact

thanks, wasnt sure if it was just straight up feminism. it only bugs me sometimes when it would be more appropriate for the writer to use a gender neutral pronoun and so are going out of their way

>egalitarianism (i.e. the refusal of sexism and racism)
.., Classes, castes, skills, merit, biology..,

>you will never hear a socialist, a communist, or a liberal say anything other than everybody is equal
The last question of this liberal anti-marxist pamphlet presupposes race realism in direct opposition to MLK's Dream. Go ask /leftypol/ for more, because American politics is immensely boring and stupid and belongs in an American politics board, and this one is not.

>so basically it is a belief not a fact.
Such as the belief that we're better off if we're equal before the law, which presupposes the fact that this isn't already the case, otherwise we couldn't be "better off" than what we presently are.

It's not rocket surgery.

could you list the factual differences you are referring to?

They're biological. Not going to list them, there are plenty.

could you give me like 4 examples please? (2 man/woman 2 between races)

>wikipedia could not have answered my second question

It could have if you continued your independent research.

Here are some things wrong with your OP:
- Egalitarianism, while including a 'refusal of sexism and racism' is not limited to this definition
- Political ideologies stem from philosophical currents
- Philosophy and politics are not just morals
- The opposite of a 'fact' is not something induced by morals

And in the post I'm replying to now, you asked 'in either case' if someone thinks it's philosophical or political, not just those who think it is not a belief

I'm really not sure on what you are basing your ideas of things

equality before the law presupposes neither factual equality nor factual inequality.
as the liberals say inequality comes from oppression of people towards those "deemed different" so they believe we are all equal, but people discriminate, and law must prohibit that, because we are all equal.

this retarded pamphlet refers to the fact that different races and sexes have different experiences of oppressions since "white man cannot be discriminated against" so the last question basically means:
"do you believe your opinion should be valued as much as mine about equality? no it shouldn't because 'white males cannot experience oppression' so you should silently listen to us women and minorities (who experience oppression every second of our lives) to fight oppression"

it's not plant engineering

my op says:

in either case, IF YOU SUPPORT IT, ***

pay more attention senpai

I'm not that same user, but differences between these categories of people tend to reduce to generalisations and ideology just as quickly as some people ignore difference.

There certainly are patterns of difference between people based on their ethnic origins and their sex, but they aren't all encompassing.

Males and females have different bodies and different patterns of behaviour.
People from different regions tend to have different characteristics.

Exactly, 'in either case'. And you asked people who support it to prove it is a fact, not people who support it as fact. Someone might think it is morally-induced and support it for that reason

so you are saying that there are patterns that should be ignored because they do not encompass the 100% of the population?

>patterns that should be ignored because they do not encompass the 100% of the population?

No. But they should be represented as statistical data at best, otherwise they run the risk of fuelling silly ideologies and impacting on personal liberties.

1. Is there any reason it could not be both?

2.

> can you prove it is a fact

Any non-retarded form of egalitarianism is not based on saying that everyone is equal in terms of skills, physical capabilities, etc. Rather it's based on some assumption of equal ontological value (in the philosophical sphere) and that this equality should be expressed as equal rights (in the political sphere). This could be based on some type of religious basis ("we are all God's children") or humanitarian basis ("we are all human") but in any case it's got to originate from some ideological conception of the world.

In this way it is a poor question to ask "is egalitarianism a fact?" The opposite question of "is racism a fact", or "is antisemitism a fact", etc. makes equally little sense. Racism and egalitarianism are ideological stances and equating those stances to some of the evidence that their most extreme supporters cite isn't useful. What if someone believes that blacks have on average lower IQ's but should still be given equal voting rights? Your question has no applicability in this situation because the ideology and the evidence you are saying is essential to it are not actually that strongly codependent.

> inb4 someone says "but here's an article by a feminist that says women are just as strong as men and that's BS! clear evidence that all egalitarians are..."

Yes, that is BS and it's also nowhere near a proper basis for egalitarianism. I am not necessarily saying that egalitarianism is the solution to all the world's problems (and there are some dumb egalitarians out there).

> morality-induced falsehood

Yeah man FUCK morality! What has it ever done for anyone?

While you're answering please give me your wallet and watch. After that I'll take you back to my house in the woods where I'll cook and eat you. You got a problem with that? Looks like you're still under the influence of some morality-induced falsehoods!

>equality before the law presupposes neither factual equality nor factual inequality
Nope, there are (supposed) wrongs which inform normative thinkers on the (supposed) rights to direct political and legal action towards. Constitutions and international law documents are drafted this way.

>inequality comes from oppression
The story goes that biological, psychological, social (i.e. occupation, income...) and cultural differences between human beings inform how people in a historically and geographically defined setting behave with one another, resulting in a (supposed) insufficient equality in a number of social situations, and ultimately in happiness.

I'm not particularly flabbergasted by the fact certain people are not campaigning in favor of being treated like shit, but are doing the opposite.

>different races
>different experiences
Nope, by claiming race realism it affirms an ontological difference, not an experiential or social one, let alone a mere skin color, thus making sure the idiocies of the first half of last century that left through the door, can re-enter through the window.