Thinking Critically About Social Justice(quillette.com)
quillette.com
Thinking Critically About Social Justice
http://quillette.com/2018/02/17/thinking-critically-social-justice/
217 comments
>When I was a child, we had to drive almost 50 miles to visit friends who were also "brown people" of vaguely the same ethnic group.
Excuse my ignorance (I'm European and don't know the American perspective) but what is the context of this sentence? You had no friends with different skin colour or heritage?
Excuse my ignorance (I'm European and don't know the American perspective) but what is the context of this sentence? You had no friends with different skin colour or heritage?
You had no friends with different skin colour or heritage?
Actually, I had a number of childhood friends and playmates who would fall into the politically incorrect category of "white trash" -- even though my father was a physician and would supposedly have high status. Not being white automatically reduced our status by a significant amount. My parents were refused membership to the local country club for quite a long time. I also had middle class friends who were of Finnish, Polish, and Irish heritage.
Actually, I had a number of childhood friends and playmates who would fall into the politically incorrect category of "white trash" -- even though my father was a physician and would supposedly have high status. Not being white automatically reduced our status by a significant amount. My parents were refused membership to the local country club for quite a long time. I also had middle class friends who were of Finnish, Polish, and Irish heritage.
Another european here: Everytime i've heard any american talk about country clubs they were utterly awful places full of awful and ignorant people role-playing what they believe to be high status life in a very boring manner.
Why did your family care about not getting in there?
Why did your family care about not getting in there?
Everytime i've heard any american talk about country clubs they were utterly awful places full of awful and ignorant people role-playing what they believe to be high status life in a very boring manner.
Thanks for trading in stereotypes and rendering judgements on that basis. My sister and I went there to use the pool in the summertime, and though he went for decades being the doctor who works so much, he never played golf, my father very much got into golf in his 60's. He even eventually became awarded as the most improved and developed a circle of good friends there. At one point, he did some social justice activism and shamed his friends for saying bigoted things, and at that point he was respected enough that they listened to him.
I think a bit of golf was well deserved by my father, as an immigrant who worked hard to accomplish the American Dream, and as a man who was once a child who lived through both the horrors of war and the horrors of foreign occupation.
As for why it's important to gain access to the places of high status: This is something which is regarded as important across many Asian cultures. Just who are you, precisely, to judge my culture? Also, stopping the exclusion of people from clubs on the basis of ethnicity was a result of Social Justice in decades past. Look up accounts of Jewish people being excluded from "restricted" clubs. This is also the present pursuit of social justice: gaining entrance for qualified people who were otherwise excluded on the basis of irrelevant immutable characteristics. So long as there is equality of opportunity on the basis of merit, this is a worthy goal.
Thanks for trading in stereotypes and rendering judgements on that basis. My sister and I went there to use the pool in the summertime, and though he went for decades being the doctor who works so much, he never played golf, my father very much got into golf in his 60's. He even eventually became awarded as the most improved and developed a circle of good friends there. At one point, he did some social justice activism and shamed his friends for saying bigoted things, and at that point he was respected enough that they listened to him.
I think a bit of golf was well deserved by my father, as an immigrant who worked hard to accomplish the American Dream, and as a man who was once a child who lived through both the horrors of war and the horrors of foreign occupation.
As for why it's important to gain access to the places of high status: This is something which is regarded as important across many Asian cultures. Just who are you, precisely, to judge my culture? Also, stopping the exclusion of people from clubs on the basis of ethnicity was a result of Social Justice in decades past. Look up accounts of Jewish people being excluded from "restricted" clubs. This is also the present pursuit of social justice: gaining entrance for qualified people who were otherwise excluded on the basis of irrelevant immutable characteristics. So long as there is equality of opportunity on the basis of merit, this is a worthy goal.
> Thanks for trading in stereotypes and rendering judgements on that basis.
I can understand why you'd feel that way, but uh, next time keep that stuff for when the person you're responding to isn't asking, but only making claims. I gave you the views i had been given (and it's not like i can go personally to verify) so you'd have something to contrast on while answering my question, instead of having nothing.
And, thanks for the details. They are educational.
I can understand why you'd feel that way, but uh, next time keep that stuff for when the person you're responding to isn't asking, but only making claims. I gave you the views i had been given (and it's not like i can go personally to verify) so you'd have something to contrast on while answering my question, instead of having nothing.
And, thanks for the details. They are educational.
Whether the 1st sentence of your 1st paragraph and your 2nd paragraph are sincere could only be judged by your further thoughts and communications based on the "details" you just received. That is for you to know for yourself.
I'm not the poster you're replying to but yes, it's extremely easy for white people in the USA to never have to interact on any level with someone of a different race. Suburban enclaves driven by white flight from cities entrench this effect, but it's possible in any area. Lots of cities are still extremely segregated.
>I've noted the eerie similarity between them and the bigoted people who used to racially bash me and my sister when we were children.
Is an eerie similarity between two online groups of people going to mean you abandon attempts to bring about equality of the sexes, races, classes, etc.?
And if you will abandon it, what will you embrace instead? Conservative racism?
I get that maybe there are similarities but there are so many more differences between the two groups that it's ridiculous that people resonate with this comment. One group is "witch-hunting" to root out people who might be bringing stereotypes or prejudice along with their thoughts and ideas, the other is trying to root out people who are of a different race / nationality without even ever hearing any words from them at all.
Clearly one is better than the other, even if both have some similar flaws.
Is an eerie similarity between two online groups of people going to mean you abandon attempts to bring about equality of the sexes, races, classes, etc.?
And if you will abandon it, what will you embrace instead? Conservative racism?
I get that maybe there are similarities but there are so many more differences between the two groups that it's ridiculous that people resonate with this comment. One group is "witch-hunting" to root out people who might be bringing stereotypes or prejudice along with their thoughts and ideas, the other is trying to root out people who are of a different race / nationality without even ever hearing any words from them at all.
Clearly one is better than the other, even if both have some similar flaws.
Is an eerie similarity between two online groups of people going to mean you abandon attempts to bring about equality of the sexes, races, classes, etc.?
Methods matter. Principles matter. The ends do not justify the means. If one advocates, "By Any Means Necessary," then one has disclaimed morals and principles, declaring that they have the judgement to take on the power to lie, cheat, or harm. Power corrupts, and especially so in this case. The historical record bears this out -- especially in the case of those who resist or seek to reform.
One group is "witch-hunting" to root out people who might be bringing stereotypes or prejudice along with their thoughts and ideas
So you are admitting right-out that you seek to "thought-police" people. You admit to the witch-hunt, you just feel justified in it. You are straight-up admitting that you place yourself over other people -- over fellow citizens you supposedly adhere to the value of "equality" with -- to take on such power for yourself.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
Methods matter. Principles matter. The ends do not justify the means. If one advocates, "By Any Means Necessary," then one has disclaimed morals and principles, declaring that they have the judgement to take on the power to lie, cheat, or harm. Power corrupts, and especially so in this case. The historical record bears this out -- especially in the case of those who resist or seek to reform.
One group is "witch-hunting" to root out people who might be bringing stereotypes or prejudice along with their thoughts and ideas
So you are admitting right-out that you seek to "thought-police" people. You admit to the witch-hunt, you just feel justified in it. You are straight-up admitting that you place yourself over other people -- over fellow citizens you supposedly adhere to the value of "equality" with -- to take on such power for yourself.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
> Is an eerie similarity between two online groups of people going to mean you abandon attempts to bring about equality of the sexes, races, classes, etc.? [...] And if you will abandon it, what will you embrace instead? Conservative racism?
Can you really think of no ideology that can live between the poles of intersectional/postmodern feminism and "conservative racism?" What strange times we live in.
There are a lot of articulate people out there fighting the good fight. Their vision of the world rejects extremists on both sides. Check out Helen Pluckrose, Jonathan Haidt, Steven Pinker, and anything on quillette.com, just to name a few.
Can you really think of no ideology that can live between the poles of intersectional/postmodern feminism and "conservative racism?" What strange times we live in.
There are a lot of articulate people out there fighting the good fight. Their vision of the world rejects extremists on both sides. Check out Helen Pluckrose, Jonathan Haidt, Steven Pinker, and anything on quillette.com, just to name a few.
I'm not sure it's right to equate intersectional feminism with "postmodern", Marxist one. The whole point of intersectionality is that people are not defined by single identity (e.g. "white male") and each person is in fact an intersection of various identities, privileges and disadvantages. If only more "leftist" subscribed to this idea, we wouldn't hear so much about identity politics. Intersectionality is pretty much incompatible with that sort of simplistic reasoning (e.g. "racism against whites isn't racism") you can see online lately.
> Intersectionality is pretty much incompatible with that sort of simplistic reasoning (e.g. "racism against whites isn't racism") you can see online lately.
If that's the case, the intersectionality preached in the online public square is a fallen version.
The internet can make any system of thought bend to simplistic reasoning. Here, they've done it by "intersectinally" dividing identity into several axes, with one pole "privileged/oppressor" (e.g. white, male) and the other pole "unprivileged/oppressed" (e.g. brown, female). Stuff like "racism against whites isn't racism" lives on the white/brown identity axis. I think the reason you see so much opprobrium directed specifically at "white males" nowadays is because of this kind of thinking.
If that's the case, the intersectionality preached in the online public square is a fallen version.
The internet can make any system of thought bend to simplistic reasoning. Here, they've done it by "intersectinally" dividing identity into several axes, with one pole "privileged/oppressor" (e.g. white, male) and the other pole "unprivileged/oppressed" (e.g. brown, female). Stuff like "racism against whites isn't racism" lives on the white/brown identity axis. I think the reason you see so much opprobrium directed specifically at "white males" nowadays is because of this kind of thinking.
Intersectionality is pretty much incompatible with that sort of simplistic reasoning (e.g. "racism against whites isn't racism") you can see online lately.
I'd like to see references. I've seen so many instances of references to idiotic equations using "prejudice + power" followed by bigoted logic which seeks to unperson entire groups wholesale on the basis of immutable characteristics. Where is the intellectual leadership of the left? Why am I seemingly alone in the condemnation of such toxic claptrap?
Seriously, I would be super gratified to see such references!
I'd like to see references. I've seen so many instances of references to idiotic equations using "prejudice + power" followed by bigoted logic which seeks to unperson entire groups wholesale on the basis of immutable characteristics. Where is the intellectual leadership of the left? Why am I seemingly alone in the condemnation of such toxic claptrap?
Seriously, I would be super gratified to see such references!
It's the parent comment to mine that mentioned bigoted racism, I was just showing that the false equivalence between that and "SJWs" is a bit ridiculous. Just in case you didn't read the parent comment to mine, here's the relevant part:
>I've noted the eerie similarity between them and the bigoted people who used to racially bash me and my sister when we were children.
If any of those people are like Steven Pinker, I'll pass. It's silly science-worshipping nonsense. Science/rationalism is good but it isn't the magical solution to all of the ills which plague humanity (as they like to make it seem).
>I've noted the eerie similarity between them and the bigoted people who used to racially bash me and my sister when we were children.
If any of those people are like Steven Pinker, I'll pass. It's silly science-worshipping nonsense. Science/rationalism is good but it isn't the magical solution to all of the ills which plague humanity (as they like to make it seem).
If any of those people are like Steven Pinker, I'll pass. It's silly science-worshipping nonsense. Science/rationalism is good but it isn't the magical solution to all of the ills which plague humanity (as they like to make it seem).
Does Steven Pinker think he has all the answers? A fair reading of Steven Pinker would conclude anything but. He also knows full well that science isn't magic. However, the progress of science and industry has done way more to cure the ills of humanity than any other thing. Golda Meir was born to parents in conditions where parents would give birth to approaching 10 children in the hopes that a few would survive. It's vaccines, modern medicine, and bountiful food in modern societies which have changed that rotten equation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-n5JYSl_ioA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPt8ElTQMIg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk
Does Steven Pinker think he has all the answers? A fair reading of Steven Pinker would conclude anything but. He also knows full well that science isn't magic. However, the progress of science and industry has done way more to cure the ills of humanity than any other thing. Golda Meir was born to parents in conditions where parents would give birth to approaching 10 children in the hopes that a few would survive. It's vaccines, modern medicine, and bountiful food in modern societies which have changed that rotten equation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-n5JYSl_ioA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPt8ElTQMIg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk
The similarity is definitely there in its tribal intolerance for other views. Claiming to fight for inequality becomes a bit hollow when the way you do that is to hinder other people from speaking.
There is a space in between two unfortunate extremes of people who respect other peoples right to speak no matter how vile and uncomfortable it makes them feel.
There is a space in between two unfortunate extremes of people who respect other peoples right to speak no matter how vile and uncomfortable it makes them feel.
> "Ask yourself who is behaving in a censorious fashion and trying to suppress real discourse."
There are reasons members might flag a story other than to censor it, including being tired of the current volume of political stories on HN, and recognizing that not every topic can constructively be discussed in every forum.
One reason HN may not be the appropriate forum for such discussions is due to the difficulty in imagining that those that disagree with you might be doing so for any reason other than nefarious reasons, just as you assume that it was flagged in an effort to suppress real discourse. Real discourse does not assume bad faith and seeks to understand just as much to be understood, and seeks common cause rather than increasing divisiveness.
Notice there is nothing in my comment that is directed at any one political position, as it applies to any and all. Ask yourself if you thought I was attacking you and must be supporting the "other side" when reading my comment. Do you think that's a useful and accurate representation? Upon reflection, do you stand by your claim that members who may have flagged the story must be on the other side and behaving badly? What are you actually doing to move the conversation forward? Do you think you're moving the needle in a constructive direction when you do?
Remember, those that already agree with you aren't really your audience, are they? How do you think you're being received by those who don't agree with you? Or don't they matter? Are they unreachable?
These are all very real problems, and it's incredibly frustrating to see people grapple with them in ways that alienate each other, that are unconstructive, and then when people don't want to listen any more, or understandably get their backs up when they're treating each other badly, claim that they're being censored or oppressed.
There are reasons members might flag a story other than to censor it, including being tired of the current volume of political stories on HN, and recognizing that not every topic can constructively be discussed in every forum.
One reason HN may not be the appropriate forum for such discussions is due to the difficulty in imagining that those that disagree with you might be doing so for any reason other than nefarious reasons, just as you assume that it was flagged in an effort to suppress real discourse. Real discourse does not assume bad faith and seeks to understand just as much to be understood, and seeks common cause rather than increasing divisiveness.
Notice there is nothing in my comment that is directed at any one political position, as it applies to any and all. Ask yourself if you thought I was attacking you and must be supporting the "other side" when reading my comment. Do you think that's a useful and accurate representation? Upon reflection, do you stand by your claim that members who may have flagged the story must be on the other side and behaving badly? What are you actually doing to move the conversation forward? Do you think you're moving the needle in a constructive direction when you do?
Remember, those that already agree with you aren't really your audience, are they? How do you think you're being received by those who don't agree with you? Or don't they matter? Are they unreachable?
These are all very real problems, and it's incredibly frustrating to see people grapple with them in ways that alienate each other, that are unconstructive, and then when people don't want to listen any more, or understandably get their backs up when they're treating each other badly, claim that they're being censored or oppressed.
Real discourse does not assume bad faith and seeks to understand just as much to be understood, and seeks common cause rather than increasing divisiveness.
I wish more of our society's media examined Social Justice through this very lens. I would have much rather that James Damore had received such treatment at the hands of his peers, who now control the platforms of such a broad swath of online discourse.
I wish more of our society's media examined Social Justice through this very lens. I would have much rather that James Damore had received such treatment at the hands of his peers, who now control the platforms of such a broad swath of online discourse.
> "I wish more of our society's media examined Social Justice through this very lens."
Set aside those things outside of your control. Do what you can. Stop placing the blame on others.
Set aside those things outside of your control. Do what you can. Stop placing the blame on others.
Specifically: Does Social Justice do that?
Can you control those who you label as "Social Justice"? Can you control what "they" do? No. And it's pointless to continue to belabor the point; it's actively destructive to your own position. And what's your point anyway? Do you think it's a good idea? If others aren't doing something good or constructive, then you shouldn't, or shouldn't be expected to either?
Take responsibility for making constructive change yourself, regardless of what others may be doing.
Take responsibility for making constructive change yourself, regardless of what others may be doing.
Can you control those who you label as "Social Justice"?
Honest and factually-based criticism is a good basis for society's self-correction.
Can you control what "they" do?
They can't control what they do. That's quite obvious. You can criticize people on a rational, factual basis, then see how they react. How they react will in turn tell volumes about their actual underlying motives, and how intellectually honest they are.
Take responsibility for making constructive change yourself, regardless of what others may be doing.
Sometimes, "making constructive change" is telling truth to power. It's the side which can execute the witch-hunts which has the power. It's the side which can intimidate others to keep their heads down and their mouths shut which is the side that has power. In fact, the historical record indicates that the above conditions are precisely when telling truth to power is for the good. So long as it's done on a rational and factual basis, it stands a good chance of being for the good.
Here's another heuristic: You can evaluate side X, when someone "tells truth to power" to side X. How does side X react? If X are the good guys, they listen. If X are not good, then they seek to suppress and attack. Everyone who has been paying attention can now ask themselves: In the contexts where they have power, How does today's Social Justice act? (Answer: Often, they act very poorly, then deny they ever have power in any context.)
Honest and factually-based criticism is a good basis for society's self-correction.
Can you control what "they" do?
They can't control what they do. That's quite obvious. You can criticize people on a rational, factual basis, then see how they react. How they react will in turn tell volumes about their actual underlying motives, and how intellectually honest they are.
Take responsibility for making constructive change yourself, regardless of what others may be doing.
Sometimes, "making constructive change" is telling truth to power. It's the side which can execute the witch-hunts which has the power. It's the side which can intimidate others to keep their heads down and their mouths shut which is the side that has power. In fact, the historical record indicates that the above conditions are precisely when telling truth to power is for the good. So long as it's done on a rational and factual basis, it stands a good chance of being for the good.
Here's another heuristic: You can evaluate side X, when someone "tells truth to power" to side X. How does side X react? If X are the good guys, they listen. If X are not good, then they seek to suppress and attack. Everyone who has been paying attention can now ask themselves: In the contexts where they have power, How does today's Social Justice act? (Answer: Often, they act very poorly, then deny they ever have power in any context.)
Everyone believes they're speaking truth to power when they stop listening to the other side. Everyone thinks they're in the right and has the facts on their side. That's why it's so important to engage in ways that are productive and constructive.
Everyone believes they're speaking truth to power when they stop listening to the other side.
When that side intimidates and suppresses, with no fear of reprisal, then one has direct evidence they are speaking truth to power.
That's why it's so important to engage in ways that are productive and constructive.
That's why it's important for onlookers to observe how each side is engaging. The side which best engages in the intellectual potlach of openness is the side that looks the best, and is probably the best. "Productive and constructive," do not preclude criticism. Ask: which is the side that leaves out the references? Which is the side that engages in namecalling, character assassination, and suppression?
Also note, that I started out on the other side. Given what I say above, is it any wonder that I believe there are micro-agressions? I know that many of the things Social Justice says are true to some degree. I've not only listened to the other side, I've listened to it as a corroboration of my life story. But here's the thing: You can't let that stuff overcome humility and justice. "By Any Means Necessary" is a morally bankrupt "Might Makes Right." If there's bias in hiring, then it's not worth it to degrade meritocracy to improve the numbers. If there's micro-aggressions, then it's not worth it to let such accusations run rampant if it leads to unfair, unsubstantiated accusations.
It's plain to see when people are targeting other people. It's particularly plain to see when people have started to succumb to in-group/out-group psychology -- especially when you have experienced it firsthand all of your life.
When your Social Justice starts to contain a big, whopping fraction of injustice, that's worse than your baby formula containing a big whopping fraction of melamine. It's time to start speaking out.
When that side intimidates and suppresses, with no fear of reprisal, then one has direct evidence they are speaking truth to power.
That's why it's so important to engage in ways that are productive and constructive.
That's why it's important for onlookers to observe how each side is engaging. The side which best engages in the intellectual potlach of openness is the side that looks the best, and is probably the best. "Productive and constructive," do not preclude criticism. Ask: which is the side that leaves out the references? Which is the side that engages in namecalling, character assassination, and suppression?
Also note, that I started out on the other side. Given what I say above, is it any wonder that I believe there are micro-agressions? I know that many of the things Social Justice says are true to some degree. I've not only listened to the other side, I've listened to it as a corroboration of my life story. But here's the thing: You can't let that stuff overcome humility and justice. "By Any Means Necessary" is a morally bankrupt "Might Makes Right." If there's bias in hiring, then it's not worth it to degrade meritocracy to improve the numbers. If there's micro-aggressions, then it's not worth it to let such accusations run rampant if it leads to unfair, unsubstantiated accusations.
It's plain to see when people are targeting other people. It's particularly plain to see when people have started to succumb to in-group/out-group psychology -- especially when you have experienced it firsthand all of your life.
When your Social Justice starts to contain a big, whopping fraction of injustice, that's worse than your baby formula containing a big whopping fraction of melamine. It's time to start speaking out.
How do you find common cause with someone who denies your basic and essential humanity? "Black Lives Matter" has shown that large portions of White America treat black people as invisible at best and deserving of their mistreatment at worst.
Recent example: Florida school shooter Nikolas Cruz is called a "broken boy" in the media while black children killed by police (e.g. Tamir Rice, but there are dozens of examples) are viewed as grown adults, deserving of execution.
Recent example: Florida school shooter Nikolas Cruz is called a "broken boy" in the media while black children killed by police (e.g. Tamir Rice, but there are dozens of examples) are viewed as grown adults, deserving of execution.
How do you find common cause with someone who denies your basic and essential humanity?
Competence. Music. Food. By living a life of accomplishment and worth. There are some who will never be reached. They are not worth your time. There are others who can be reached, and it is your moral duty to make contact and reaffirm their humanity.
"Black Lives Matter" has shown that large portions of White America treat black people as invisible at best
That is the minimum acceptable behavior. If someone is willing to live and let live, then at least that should be appreciated. Unless one is trying to have their "SF Chinatown Adventure" many people where I live treat Asians as invisible. I, for one, think this is just fine, just so long as I can live my life and accomplish my own goals.
and deserving of their mistreatment at worst.
That is where behavior needs to be condemned. The left is now unwilling to condemn bad behavior in their own ranks. This is how a movement loses the moral high ground and devolves into bad behavior.
Competence. Music. Food. By living a life of accomplishment and worth. There are some who will never be reached. They are not worth your time. There are others who can be reached, and it is your moral duty to make contact and reaffirm their humanity.
"Black Lives Matter" has shown that large portions of White America treat black people as invisible at best
That is the minimum acceptable behavior. If someone is willing to live and let live, then at least that should be appreciated. Unless one is trying to have their "SF Chinatown Adventure" many people where I live treat Asians as invisible. I, for one, think this is just fine, just so long as I can live my life and accomplish my own goals.
and deserving of their mistreatment at worst.
That is where behavior needs to be condemned. The left is now unwilling to condemn bad behavior in their own ranks. This is how a movement loses the moral high ground and devolves into bad behavior.
This is an excellent expression of the kinds of conversations I want to be able to have with conservatives and liberals without being called one by the other.
We need more nuanced discussions like this. I hope to have, hear and see more of them.
Good luck HN.
We need more nuanced discussions like this. I hope to have, hear and see more of them.
Good luck HN.
Leave us liberals out of this. /s
This is one of those areas where liberal and leftist diverge. As the author identifies, this aspect of social justice thinking is decidedly anti-liberal.
I actually think this is one of the bigger issues we are seeing with the current debate. Historically, we have had a liberal/leftist coalition in our culture. Now that this is starting to break apart, us liberals are having to come to terms with our leftist allies not actually being liberals; while the leftists are coming to terms with us liberals not actually being leftists.
Because of how inconceivable this divide is to many people, there is a lot of strawmaning of positions. So if a leftist sees a liberal argue for the liberal position in this debate, they see it as arguing against the leftist position; and since leftist==liberal, they must be arguing for the right/conservative posisition.
Since this issue is so politized, I don't think many liberals see the left as arguing for a right/conservative posistion; but many do see them as arguing for an authoritarian posistion, which has historically been associated with the right. As a result, I think that many liberals are simply confused about what is going on since, without the liberal/left distinction, all they see is "their" side going "crazy"; when, in reality, there simply is not (and never was) the common ground that both sides thought there was.
(Obviously, any reference to "historically" refers to the recent history. One does not need to go back that far to find major examples of widely accepted leftist-authoritarians, but those are more in the history books, then in the public perception).
This is one of those areas where liberal and leftist diverge. As the author identifies, this aspect of social justice thinking is decidedly anti-liberal.
I actually think this is one of the bigger issues we are seeing with the current debate. Historically, we have had a liberal/leftist coalition in our culture. Now that this is starting to break apart, us liberals are having to come to terms with our leftist allies not actually being liberals; while the leftists are coming to terms with us liberals not actually being leftists.
Because of how inconceivable this divide is to many people, there is a lot of strawmaning of positions. So if a leftist sees a liberal argue for the liberal position in this debate, they see it as arguing against the leftist position; and since leftist==liberal, they must be arguing for the right/conservative posisition.
Since this issue is so politized, I don't think many liberals see the left as arguing for a right/conservative posistion; but many do see them as arguing for an authoritarian posistion, which has historically been associated with the right. As a result, I think that many liberals are simply confused about what is going on since, without the liberal/left distinction, all they see is "their" side going "crazy"; when, in reality, there simply is not (and never was) the common ground that both sides thought there was.
(Obviously, any reference to "historically" refers to the recent history. One does not need to go back that far to find major examples of widely accepted leftist-authoritarians, but those are more in the history books, then in the public perception).
I disagree. As a European "leftist", which I guess counts as the "far left" people like to blame things on, I think almost all these issues being discussed are right wing issues. To the point were you have to explain to people in Europe, that have been reading US articles, that the things they are opposing doesn't exist here. Overall European leftist doesn't want company policies, affirmative action or even large immigration. They want powerful unions, fair admissions to university, daycare, protection of employment and other concrete things that the US consider socialism. This entire "social justice" situation is because liberals in the US doesn't want to give up their privileges of private social insurance, good schools districts, rising housing markets, lobbying etc. So the result is the predictably a shallow shouting match, which people are uncomfortable with after the fact.
Political labels are fuzzy, and highly subject to drift. I use the term "liberal" and "leftist" because in current US politics, there are two clusters of political thought and, in current US politics, "liberal" and "leftist" are the names that we seem to be assigning them.
A European leftist is not the same thing as an American leftist. In fact, if we were to look at a different issue, the division between liberal and leftist would be different, even withing American politics.
For some issues, there is so little corralation with the general notion of liberal and leftist, that we would not even think to frame the problem in terms of those lines.
My point being, political identities are not a fundamental unit. They are an abstraction that is only meaningful in a particular contexts. There are real clusters of thought in politics; and we are currently discussing the relationship between two particular clusters of American politics. For the sake of communication, we are forced to give these clusters names, and we choose liberal and leftist because they are the best names we have available.
A European leftist is not the same thing as an American leftist. In fact, if we were to look at a different issue, the division between liberal and leftist would be different, even withing American politics.
For some issues, there is so little corralation with the general notion of liberal and leftist, that we would not even think to frame the problem in terms of those lines.
My point being, political identities are not a fundamental unit. They are an abstraction that is only meaningful in a particular contexts. There are real clusters of thought in politics; and we are currently discussing the relationship between two particular clusters of American politics. For the sake of communication, we are forced to give these clusters names, and we choose liberal and leftist because they are the best names we have available.
There are many people who identify as liberal while basking in their rising home value and exclusive school districts, but they typically do so quietly, not under the banner of liberalism. The closest example of people doing this openly and proudly under a left-wing banner is San Francisco's Progressivism, which is more closely aligned with what we're calling leftism here than what we're calling liberalism. Overall, the various shades of the left are still pretty aligned on concrete policy at the national level. Liberals are pretty reliably in favor of single payer, education funding, minimum wage, family leave, etc.
Where you start to see the fissure is around how universities should handle controversial material in the classroom and accusations of sexual misconduct in their student populations. The Christakis incident at Yale [0] is one of the best test cases. In particular,
>...if you don’t like a costume someone is wearing, look away, or tell them you are offended. Talk to each other. Free speech and the ability to tolerate offense are the hallmarks of a free and open society.
is one of those flash-point statements that separates liberals from leftists. This incident has been picked up as a rallying cry by the far-right so there's a lot of FUD flying around, but just to prove I'm not the only Democrat who would agree wholeheartedly, here's Obama [1]:
> I think you should be able to — anybody who comes to speak to you and you disagree with, you should have an argument with ‘em. But you shouldn’t silence them by saying, "You can’t come because I'm too sensitive to hear what you have to say." That’s not the way we learn either.
I would call Obama and has allies "liberals" here, and the protesters and their allies "leftists." Happy to be convinced otherwise on terminology, but it shows that there are at least two very distinct value systems going on here, which may be aligned on policy only by accident.
[0]https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/the-per...
[1]https://www.vox.com/2015/9/14/9326965/obama-political-correc...
Where you start to see the fissure is around how universities should handle controversial material in the classroom and accusations of sexual misconduct in their student populations. The Christakis incident at Yale [0] is one of the best test cases. In particular,
>...if you don’t like a costume someone is wearing, look away, or tell them you are offended. Talk to each other. Free speech and the ability to tolerate offense are the hallmarks of a free and open society.
is one of those flash-point statements that separates liberals from leftists. This incident has been picked up as a rallying cry by the far-right so there's a lot of FUD flying around, but just to prove I'm not the only Democrat who would agree wholeheartedly, here's Obama [1]:
> I think you should be able to — anybody who comes to speak to you and you disagree with, you should have an argument with ‘em. But you shouldn’t silence them by saying, "You can’t come because I'm too sensitive to hear what you have to say." That’s not the way we learn either.
I would call Obama and has allies "liberals" here, and the protesters and their allies "leftists." Happy to be convinced otherwise on terminology, but it shows that there are at least two very distinct value systems going on here, which may be aligned on policy only by accident.
[0]https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/the-per...
[1]https://www.vox.com/2015/9/14/9326965/obama-political-correc...
I just think it is inaccurate to call that leftism. There are certainly leftist in the US and there are also similarities between socialism and social liberalism, but the game being played in the US isn't a leftist one. It isn't about state intervention, union power or even legislation. That private individuals, institutions or companies should be able to do and say whatever they want is even a right wing positions in the first place. Just that it originally was about teaching about god, excluding gay people and firing union organizers. So if anything, people that want precedence for their opinions are right of liberal and not left. The left position is that important institution shouldn't be private (or at least not privately funded) in the first place and/or primarily be accountable to the state rather than individuals.
See, I really don't think it's about liberalism vs leftism. I agree with the article. It's about those who think critically, and those who chose not to. Unfortunately, the Internet gives voice to both groups equally, and idiots tend to have a lot of time on their hands to be exceptionally vocal on Twitter or other forms of social media. Since journalism has suffered so severely in the past decade, social media has just taken off as a source for every tiny criticism which just gets amplified. And there's no attempt to see how deep this outrage goes because depth doesn't make money in journalism anymore. Manufactured outrage is driving the conversation because it's sexy and gets views.
Culturally, the underlying problem is that certain people have spent too long in echo chambers that have atrophied their ability to interpret criticism rationally or thoughtfully. It's to the point that it's gone beyond oppression olympics to outright witch hunting. Liberals are terrified of being accused of not being liberal because apparently not being a complete extremist in your beliefs means you're not dedicated or passionate about them or have no credibility. This is so unbelievable as to be absurd.
Journalism and discussion have completely broken down into whichever side can throw the most hate at the other. It's just complete nonsense.
Culturally, the underlying problem is that certain people have spent too long in echo chambers that have atrophied their ability to interpret criticism rationally or thoughtfully. It's to the point that it's gone beyond oppression olympics to outright witch hunting. Liberals are terrified of being accused of not being liberal because apparently not being a complete extremist in your beliefs means you're not dedicated or passionate about them or have no credibility. This is so unbelievable as to be absurd.
Journalism and discussion have completely broken down into whichever side can throw the most hate at the other. It's just complete nonsense.
I don't disagree with you. I personally see this problem as stemming from the Two Cultures problem (sciences vs humanities), with the humanities culture leaking out of academia, into the mainstream where it can do real harm.
But, the current leftist movement, as far as I can tell, is a product of the humanities culture. In the current iteration of this fight, there seems to be, at a minimum, a liberal/science coalition, but I am not sure how fundamental that is.
I actually avoid talking about this, because people tend to get far more offended when I attack the humanities culture relative to the leftist culture (probably because humanities students take an attack on the humanities much more personally; while most non-activists would not have such a personal attachment to "the left").
But, the current leftist movement, as far as I can tell, is a product of the humanities culture. In the current iteration of this fight, there seems to be, at a minimum, a liberal/science coalition, but I am not sure how fundamental that is.
I actually avoid talking about this, because people tend to get far more offended when I attack the humanities culture relative to the leftist culture (probably because humanities students take an attack on the humanities much more personally; while most non-activists would not have such a personal attachment to "the left").
Oh, I definitely agree that a lot of this is an outgrowth of humanities in academia. I think it's clearly originating from gender and minority studies academic programs, and the translation from social sciences and cultural anthropology to general culture loses all the nuance and technical detail as well as the historic and academic background that informs all these terms. I took a few humanities courses in the late 90s, and all these ideas were clearly already present in those student's thinking. I shouldn't have difficulty passing a physical anthropology class just because I don't believe that all humans should be hunter-gatherers like the Bushmen (San) in Namibia. That was my first exposure to some very odd groupthink.
I won't deny that women and minorities still face actual discrimination, but as some minority groups are being normalized in general culture, there seems to be a drive from the same people to normalize every potential minority no matter how small or unusual. Simply put, there's a limited amount of accommodation that's reasonable to make. We're at the stage where some of the minorities that are left are well below 0.1% of the population and they don't face significant discrimination due to appearance like races and women do. Maybe someday there will be an "Other" on a form for gender, but it's not ever going to be there on a medical form where genetic sex has a real and meaningful impact on your healthcare treatment.
However, I still don't think it's necessarily a good idea to separate leftists from liberals. First of all because I'm not entirely sure how large this "leftist" group actually is. I suspect that it's actually radically smaller than the group of liberals, and it's only the Internet and social media and shitty journalism that reads individual Tweets from regular citizens on the national news that amplifies their voices. Furthermore, I don't see why they wouldn't be better classified simply as radical liberals. Just because they have extreme views doesn't make them less liberal, just less centrist. In a time when being centrist and favoring compromise is apparently a sign of weak morals, I can understand the desire to instead excise that group entirely, but I really don't believe that's correct.
I think it's also useful to note that in most European countries, they always seem to have four or five political parties: far left/liberal, left/liberal, central, right/conservative, and far right/conservative. Sometimes you'll see multiple parties in each area or an occasional party that breaks these -- some parties might be left/conservative or right/liberal -- but by and large most can still be pegged to one of those five, and the parties clustered around the middle always tend to get the most seats. It's possible that the geography and politics of the US has simply allowed the far left to stay hidden within the normal left, largely because our election process tends to favor rural communities slightly, and they tend toward conservative and right.
I won't deny that women and minorities still face actual discrimination, but as some minority groups are being normalized in general culture, there seems to be a drive from the same people to normalize every potential minority no matter how small or unusual. Simply put, there's a limited amount of accommodation that's reasonable to make. We're at the stage where some of the minorities that are left are well below 0.1% of the population and they don't face significant discrimination due to appearance like races and women do. Maybe someday there will be an "Other" on a form for gender, but it's not ever going to be there on a medical form where genetic sex has a real and meaningful impact on your healthcare treatment.
However, I still don't think it's necessarily a good idea to separate leftists from liberals. First of all because I'm not entirely sure how large this "leftist" group actually is. I suspect that it's actually radically smaller than the group of liberals, and it's only the Internet and social media and shitty journalism that reads individual Tweets from regular citizens on the national news that amplifies their voices. Furthermore, I don't see why they wouldn't be better classified simply as radical liberals. Just because they have extreme views doesn't make them less liberal, just less centrist. In a time when being centrist and favoring compromise is apparently a sign of weak morals, I can understand the desire to instead excise that group entirely, but I really don't believe that's correct.
I think it's also useful to note that in most European countries, they always seem to have four or five political parties: far left/liberal, left/liberal, central, right/conservative, and far right/conservative. Sometimes you'll see multiple parties in each area or an occasional party that breaks these -- some parties might be left/conservative or right/liberal -- but by and large most can still be pegged to one of those five, and the parties clustered around the middle always tend to get the most seats. It's possible that the geography and politics of the US has simply allowed the far left to stay hidden within the normal left, largely because our election process tends to favor rural communities slightly, and they tend toward conservative and right.
Maybe people are unhappy because "humanities culture" is an extremely broad term which is terrible at describing your target? I mean, I'm a scientist, but I have a lot of artsy hobbies, and my initial impression when I hear "humanities culture" is "oh great, this is the next SJW or feminism label, used to dismiss things." Probably not what you intended.
See, you're subscribing to the model where there is an objective truth that we access through rational methods, empiricism, and debate, where the outputs of the process you call "critical thinking" are to be privileged over other statements. The new leftism rejects your premise. According to my college classmates, the notion of objective reality is a social construct popularized by white men to reinforce their power.
I don't know how much credence that particular claim gets, but the broader context is apparently a whole academic movement [0]. Guess I took the wrong philosophy sequence.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism
I don't know how much credence that particular claim gets, but the broader context is apparently a whole academic movement [0]. Guess I took the wrong philosophy sequence.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism
No, I'm subscribing to the idea that relabeling things and being sectarian isn't particularly useful, especially because sectarianism is exactly the problem. Just because there are idiots who are liberals doesn't mean we need a new category for them so they aren't called liberals because they might make liberals look bad.
Please excuse my brevity, I'm on a phone.
I think you are right about the "coalition" between liberals and leftists. I've noticed it falling apart for a while but not really been able to describe it. Talking with friends I previously considered liberal and being shushed for questioning or simply not knowing the current vogue in social justice discourse has been a really horrible experience.
Worse, I've seen that experience turn others into frothing radicals who then do the same thing to other people. It's a forward feedback loop of people entrenching their existing preconceptions.
It's a mess.
I think you are right about the "coalition" between liberals and leftists. I've noticed it falling apart for a while but not really been able to describe it. Talking with friends I previously considered liberal and being shushed for questioning or simply not knowing the current vogue in social justice discourse has been a really horrible experience.
Worse, I've seen that experience turn others into frothing radicals who then do the same thing to other people. It's a forward feedback loop of people entrenching their existing preconceptions.
It's a mess.
us liberals are having to come to terms with our leftist allies not actually being liberals
In fact, it's so hard to reconcile that I sometimes wonder if leftists are a straw man invented by the right, but I'm starting to realize that may not be true.
In fact, it's so hard to reconcile that I sometimes wonder if leftists are a straw man invented by the right, but I'm starting to realize that may not be true.
>In fact, it's so hard to reconcile that I sometimes wonder if leftists are a straw man invented by the right, but I'm starting to realize that may not be true.
Leftists are not, but "leftists" as described by the right often are, as are "feminists" and "SJWs."
And because it will probably come up, yes, the same phenomenon exists on the other side as well.
Leftists are not, but "leftists" as described by the right often are, as are "feminists" and "SJWs."
And because it will probably come up, yes, the same phenomenon exists on the other side as well.
Thank you for succinctly describing what I've been struggling to put into words for a long time. It was confusing and disorienting to learn that my left-wing peers in college had so little in common with the values and principles of the liberalism I grew up in, even if we arrived at the same policy prescriptions on most of the issues surfacing in the news. Being able to conceptualize these things as separate political alignments is helpful.
Could you describe what you perceive to be the difference between leftism and liberalism?
A leftist violates general democratic principles in the fight against a particular injustice.
And do the people you apply this label to agree that they're "violating general democratic principles"? Seems unlikely, and also seems unlikely to generate a good discussion.
They're openly hostile to both free speech and the presumption of innocence as values and general practices (less opposed to the technical Constitutional restraints on the state, for now).
I don't know about "general democratic principles" but I would include these as ideas valued by liberalism and not by leftism.
I don't know about "general democratic principles" but I would include these as ideas valued by liberalism and not by leftism.
Just starting with the first part of what you said, I see a big disagreement about what "free speech" is. If you say something offensive, and a billion people speak back that you're being offensive, that's also free speech.
Sure. The fissure is over whether a disagreeable idea or speaker should be engaged and defeated on rational grounds, or excluded from the premises by whatever means necessary. Last generation's liberal professors value the exercise for its own sake. Today's leftist students think it's an abomination that they're allowed into the institution at all.
That's not what I see happening, but sure, you can accuse other people of that if you like.
> The fissure is over whether a disagreeable idea or speaker should be engaged and defeated on rational grounds, or excluded from the premises by whatever means necessary. Last generation's liberal professors value the exercise for its own sake. Today's leftist students think it's an abomination that they're allowed into the institution at all.
> That's not what I see happening, but sure, you can accuse other people of that if you like.
I've seen videos of it happening. Basically a speaker is invited to give a talk, but people who disagree with her crowd the auditorium and scream to prevent the talk from being given. The intention is not to "engage [or] defeat on rational grounds," but to shut down and exclude.
A lot of the people who have this done to them are in fact disagreeable, but that doesn't make the reaction less illiberal.
> That's not what I see happening, but sure, you can accuse other people of that if you like.
I've seen videos of it happening. Basically a speaker is invited to give a talk, but people who disagree with her crowd the auditorium and scream to prevent the talk from being given. The intention is not to "engage [or] defeat on rational grounds," but to shut down and exclude.
A lot of the people who have this done to them are in fact disagreeable, but that doesn't make the reaction less illiberal.
Didn't that exact scenario happen at like Berkeley? I thought Ann Coulter or someone what prevented from speaking...maybe it was someone else
Well, there were 2 things that happened at Berkeley. One was a huge, peaceful counter-demonstration (free speech), another was a small number of violent people. I find it hard to believe that closeparen intended to only label the second group "leftist". But I could be wrong about that.
Fortunately, Ann Coulter or someone has plenty of outlets for her speech. And we've come a long way from Governor Ronald Reagan ordering UC Berkeley to cancel speakers because he didn't like what they had to say.
Fortunately, Ann Coulter or someone has plenty of outlets for her speech. And we've come a long way from Governor Ronald Reagan ordering UC Berkeley to cancel speakers because he didn't like what they had to say.
It’s not even remotely a departure from liberal values to protest outside. It is to work towards disrupting/overpowering the event so that it can’t continue, or to be totally unconcerned that others are doing so because “it’s a small group” or “they have plenty of other outlets” as long as the speaker is from the wrong side.
How have we “come a long way” from Reagan doing it? No-platforming actions don’t require the backing of a democratic majority. A few self-righteous people get going and no one wants to burn political capital objecting. Making the disinvitation button available to a wider population isn’t progress.
How have we “come a long way” from Reagan doing it? No-platforming actions don’t require the backing of a democratic majority. A few self-righteous people get going and no one wants to burn political capital objecting. Making the disinvitation button available to a wider population isn’t progress.
If this is supposed to be nuanced, I'd love to see what isn't nuanced, or what you think an equivalent conversation would be from the left.
Including values in our power analysis makes it clear there can be no such thing as simply removing power, because it takes power to remove power. Consequently, power doesn’t disappear, it redirects. In order to remove what they perceive as oppression—say by class, or race, or gender—social justice advocates have to erect their own power structure. They reshape morality, the culture, the language, and the legal system to make people do what they otherwise wouldn’t. And the more they try to eliminate those other forms of oppression, the more tightly they have to oppress people’s values. To increase freedom on one dimension, one must remove it on another.
One of the central paradoxes of christian doctrine is the notion of "the power of powerlessness", though the idea exists elsewhere (and the phrase is, i think, Havel's).
It is not a coincidence, I think, that the people who put their bodies and lives on the line for their commitment to social justice tend to know this and try to live it. It demands an almost inhuman level of awareness and humility. I am thinking of historical figures like Day and King and Ghandi here, as well as people who span generations, like John Lewis.
Breaking the cycle of power-replaces-power is basically impossible to do, totally, but it's a windmill worth tilting at and at a minimum, the existence of the cycle needs to be kept in mind.
One of the central paradoxes of christian doctrine is the notion of "the power of powerlessness", though the idea exists elsewhere (and the phrase is, i think, Havel's).
It is not a coincidence, I think, that the people who put their bodies and lives on the line for their commitment to social justice tend to know this and try to live it. It demands an almost inhuman level of awareness and humility. I am thinking of historical figures like Day and King and Ghandi here, as well as people who span generations, like John Lewis.
Breaking the cycle of power-replaces-power is basically impossible to do, totally, but it's a windmill worth tilting at and at a minimum, the existence of the cycle needs to be kept in mind.
This article lost a lot of credibility with me when in the early framing of the issue, Harris writes:
> Following the release of the NLRB memo, a number of scientists on Twitter expressed alarm at the justifications provided within the memo, which appeared to relegate the discussion of sex differences outside the realm of constitutionally protected speech.
(emphasis mine)
The NLRB letter says nothing of the kind. It says that the memo contained both protected and unprotected speech, and that Damore was terminated for the unprotected form. You have very few first amendment protections in the workplace, and employees can be fired for saying almost anything. Sex differences, in particular, have never been a protected class of speech in a workplace, and to claim that this letter somehow changes the landscape of the workplace is disingenuous at best.
> Following the release of the NLRB memo, a number of scientists on Twitter expressed alarm at the justifications provided within the memo, which appeared to relegate the discussion of sex differences outside the realm of constitutionally protected speech.
(emphasis mine)
The NLRB letter says nothing of the kind. It says that the memo contained both protected and unprotected speech, and that Damore was terminated for the unprotected form. You have very few first amendment protections in the workplace, and employees can be fired for saying almost anything. Sex differences, in particular, have never been a protected class of speech in a workplace, and to claim that this letter somehow changes the landscape of the workplace is disingenuous at best.
From the memo:
>The Charging Party’s use of stereotypes based on purported biological differences between women and men should not be treated differently than the types of conduct the Board found unprotected in these cases. Statements about immutable traits linked to sex—such as women’s heightened neuroticism and men’s prevalence at the top of the IQ distribution—were discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment, notwithstandingeffort to cloakcomments with “scientific” references and analysis, and notwithstanding “not all women” disclaimers. [0]
[0] https://www.scribd.com/document/371689055/NLRB-Damore-v-Goog...
>The Charging Party’s use of stereotypes based on purported biological differences between women and men should not be treated differently than the types of conduct the Board found unprotected in these cases. Statements about immutable traits linked to sex—such as women’s heightened neuroticism and men’s prevalence at the top of the IQ distribution—were discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment, notwithstandingeffort to cloakcomments with “scientific” references and analysis, and notwithstanding “not all women” disclaimers. [0]
[0] https://www.scribd.com/document/371689055/NLRB-Damore-v-Goog...
I have to say i pereive it is weaseling out of the rules that one makes a claim and gets fired for another one. At the point of a single claim (the essay), anything contained in the memo that is not protected means you can fire for the protected things.
Of course this is all a sham. He was not fired for discriminatory things he said but because of public outrage. What is the protection you get from that?
Of course this is all a sham. He was not fired for discriminatory things he said but because of public outrage. What is the protection you get from that?
The author seems to rest on "critical theory" and come to a stop. I feel like the author is using critical theory as a ten dollar word because claiming it is central to social justice topics is a gross oversimplification. Additionally, references to it peaked in the 70s and have been declining since.
references to it peaked in the 70s and have been declining since.
But has it peaked as an ideological foundation of the ideologies of recent campus activists? It doesn't seem that way to me.
But has it peaked as an ideological foundation of the ideologies of recent campus activists? It doesn't seem that way to me.
I can only speak as an ex-postgrad philosophy major and Australian left-wing political activist, but I haven't heard anyone mention critical theory in an activist context for years.
Do you think that, say, "cultural appropriation", as a term owes anything to critical theory?
I think broadly, many movements on the left and right owe some of their language, some of their terminology - to critical theory. For example, media scepticism and the idea of education-as-propaganda were further developed by critical theorists.
So do I think cultural appropriation as a term owes anything to critical theory? Yes.
Do I think a broad swathe of terms used across the political spectrum owe anything to critical theory? Yes.
Do I think a critique of critical theory necessarily undermines any of these other terms? No.
So do I think cultural appropriation as a term owes anything to critical theory? Yes.
Do I think a broad swathe of terms used across the political spectrum owe anything to critical theory? Yes.
Do I think a critique of critical theory necessarily undermines any of these other terms? No.
I suspect your circles are ahead of trash academic circles here in the US, at places like Mizzou and Evergreen.
Australia is, bluntly, seen as a bit of a philosophical backwater. Additionally some of the most recent en-vogue leftie thought has come from the US - particularly bell hooks, judith butler, etc.
Australia is, bluntly, seen as a bit of a philosophical backwater.
One thing we've noted in traditional music: Sometimes something awesome gets preserved in the backwaters while progress devolves something in the hot-centers of rapid change. (Scottish music in Cape Breton.)
most recent en-vogue leftie thought has come from the US - particularly bell hooks, judith butler, etc.
Bell Hooks is a Marxist. She claims to be Marxist. She's a Marxist that likes some things from Postmodernist social construction.
One thing we've noted in traditional music: Sometimes something awesome gets preserved in the backwaters while progress devolves something in the hot-centers of rapid change. (Scottish music in Cape Breton.)
most recent en-vogue leftie thought has come from the US - particularly bell hooks, judith butler, etc.
Bell Hooks is a Marxist. She claims to be Marxist. She's a Marxist that likes some things from Postmodernist social construction.
This is confusing. Now you're talking about "being ahead" as something negative, but just two comments you said you thought I was "ahead" of the "trash academic circles".
Bell hooks may be a marxist but she's not just a marxist.
Bell hooks may be a marxist but she's not just a marxist.
This is confusing. Now you're talking about "being ahead" as something negative, but just two comments you said you thought I was "ahead" of the "trash academic circles".
Being behind could amount to being ahead. It all depends on your point of view. Yes, that is confusing/complex -- so be it! Also, didn't I say "perhaps?" I meant it if I didn't.
Bell hooks may be a marxist but she's not just a marxist.
True. I also respect her as an astute observer of the personal. My sister likes her. But still, the Marxian thing is a red flag for me.
Being behind could amount to being ahead. It all depends on your point of view. Yes, that is confusing/complex -- so be it! Also, didn't I say "perhaps?" I meant it if I didn't.
Bell hooks may be a marxist but she's not just a marxist.
True. I also respect her as an astute observer of the personal. My sister likes her. But still, the Marxian thing is a red flag for me.
This was a very thoughtful and well-reasoned criticism of a political stance I generally sympathize with. Kudos.
I am torn between seeing the SJWs as the emerging tea party of the left and minding my own business because I'm an old GenX fart who needs to get out of the way of whatever the millennials are cooking up to remake society in their own image. I do not agree with the firing of James Damore because I believe Google acted as an enabler here by allowing the existence of a forum entitled "Politically Correct Considered Harmful."
James Damore's plausibly deniable implication that he had a Ph.D. OTOH alone should have been grounds for his termination. But again, IMO the Boomers made a mess, GenX built on the mess, and now it's up to the Millennials to decide what they're going to do with the place.
James Damore's plausibly deniable implication that he had a Ph.D. OTOH alone should have been grounds for his termination. But again, IMO the Boomers made a mess, GenX built on the mess, and now it's up to the Millennials to decide what they're going to do with the place.
I’m also old, and my main objection to the present “SJW” movement is their strong preference for a fight fire with fire approach, in contrast with the fight fire with water approach encouraged by Ghandi and King. For example, they have reinterpreted the “respectability politics” concept to mean they can be as rude and mean-spirited as they please. In the civil rights movement, that term meant something quite different.
Agreed, they're well-intentioned, but the minute they're OK with a few innocent victims in their pursuit of the guilty, I'm no longer on board.
It’s so absurd to me. Like, I agree with them on every actual issue, but I want nothing to do with their activism because they appear to be raging, absolutist jerks to everyone including other liberals.
I think we see it through a lens of what gets upvoted and shared, and the actual irl people involved in these movements and the activism aren't the caricatures we see online.
What happened to James Damore and the surrounding events read just like other over the top SJW shenanigans.
Sure, but the over the top SJW shenanigans are shared and upvoted somewhere, amirite?
Or is this all based on SJWs you know in real life?
Or is this all based on SJWs you know in real life?
Or is this all based on SJWs you know in real life?
This is based on what I've seen online and what has happened to me, personally.
This is based on what I've seen online and what has happened to me, personally.
What happened to you?
I know what it means to be targeted. That's what happened to me.
If someone advocates for violence on Twitter, as themselves, and they aren't trolling or making a joke, is that person not real, or are the words not their own? If I see a violent protest on YouTube, did it not also happen IRL?
30 years ago were people similarly advocating for violence or conducting violent protests, which people at the time didn't see shared or upvoted, thereby creating the perception today that there's some huge rising problem when in fact the only thing that has changed is the availability and visibility of material?
they appear to be raging, absolutist jerks to everyone including other liberals
I've been a liberal practically since birth. They have been raging, absolutist jerks to me, personally.
I've been a liberal practically since birth. They have been raging, absolutist jerks to me, personally.
Is this based on personal experience, news reports, internet activity, or a combo?
Edit: I’m not sure why I expected a different answer...
Edit: I’m not sure why I expected a different answer...
the minute they're OK with a few innocent victims in their pursuit of the guilty, I'm no longer on board.
The minute anyone is OK with innocent victims in their pursuit, then that's social injustice -- almost by definition!
The minute anyone is OK with innocent victims in their pursuit, then that's social injustice -- almost by definition!
Justice systems, by and large, are OK with some non-zero probability of innocent victims. Sentences are handed down with rationalizations like "beyond the shadow of a doubt" which is not absolute certainty.
But at least the good ones try, and try quite hard, to avoid collateral damage. Some Social Justice advocates are actually for the dismantling of the presumption of innocence and due process. Some Social Justice advocates effectively argue that their goals are so important, they shouldn't even try to avoid collateral damage. That in itself is a datapoint, as to whether they really stand for justice.
It seems to me that the 'SJW movement' is a creation of the alt-right, I don't see anyone claiming it as their own
I can guarantee that it's not. I first heard the term 'social justice warrior' as a label from people who were fighting human trafficking (freeing modern day slaves) and they were proud to label themselves 'social justice warriors'. This was around 2012, long before the 'alt right' was a group or label.
Over time the people who claim to be 'social justice warriors' and the people who get labelled SJW by others has changed, but the term didn't originate from the Alt Right, and it definitely didn't originate from something people called someone else. The first users who popularized the term applied it to themselves.
Over time the people who claim to be 'social justice warriors' and the people who get labelled SJW by others has changed, but the term didn't originate from the Alt Right, and it definitely didn't originate from something people called someone else. The first users who popularized the term applied it to themselves.
The "SJW" name could be an alt-right creation, but that doesn't mean that there is not an actual movement there.
The SJW name wasn't an alt-right creation. It was a title some SJWs calimed for themselves. Anti-SJW critics in a broad swath of the Internet started using it. The far-left and SJWs have been trying to tar the GamerGate faction as a part of the alt-right. This is part of the confusion.
Yes, there's an actual "leaderless" movement there.
Yes, there's an actual "leaderless" movement there.
If you can't point out their leadership or organization, it probably doesn't exist.
As a GenXer myself, let me know when it's my turn. I see the long lasting effects of the "greatest generation" and Baby Boomers far more than anything GenX has "built".
I'm an old GenX fart who needs to get out of the way of whatever the millennials are cooking up to remake society in their own image.
Why? Because what younger people do is automatically good? Your voice is invalidated because you're older, and that makes sense because of "reasons?" I guess this is why the Cultural Revolution was such an unqualified success. I guess the young men of the Freikorps were correct because they were young.
Why? Because what younger people do is automatically good? Your voice is invalidated because you're older, and that makes sense because of "reasons?" I guess this is why the Cultural Revolution was such an unqualified success. I guess the young men of the Freikorps were correct because they were young.
No, not at all. But I'm past reproductive age, I have more than enough money to retire comfortably, and I have no kids and therefore no skin in whatever game they want to play with the planet.
I'll be gone in 30-50 years, poof, like I never existed. But I will be around more than long enough to watch a bunch of rich obese white gasbags die of coronaries and other otherwise easily preventable ailments, and to see whether AI does something magical around 2050 or so. That's enough for one life, no?
I'll be gone in 30-50 years, poof, like I never existed. But I will be around more than long enough to watch a bunch of rich obese white gasbags die of coronaries and other otherwise easily preventable ailments, and to see whether AI does something magical around 2050 or so. That's enough for one life, no?
Bizarro(2)
stcredzero(1)
A true believer in absolute freedom and the free market (a libertarian) wouldn't be against James Domore's firing. It was the free market at work. The article says that libertarians and other conservatives are becoming oppressed, but the means of their oppression is something they support. They are being oppressed by the free market and by other people's free speech.
That's an interesting way of looking at it, and I think it gets to the heart of why companies have started to embrace the "Social Justice" Harris decries. If Silicon Valley and Hollywood have embraced liberal values it's almost certainly due to a profit motive. Younger people are overwhelmingly liberal, and both tech and cinema are industries which desperately need young people to thrive. Maybe shifting corporate values really do just boil down to market forces over advocacy at the end of the day.
Yeah exactly. James Damore wasn't fired for his opinions, he was fired for the bad PR Google got from his opinions.
It's not about absolute freedom or free market it's about free speech thats a very different thing.
Your logic is opening up for the ability for anyone to discriminate other people alone for their opinions, that's a box I don't think benefit anyone.
Your logic is opening up for the ability for anyone to discriminate other people alone for their opinions, that's a box I don't think benefit anyone.
But libertarians and true believers of free speech support the right of people to discriminate with their speech. For example, from the article, "Anyone doing so would be met by a unified front of academics, journalists, and cultural figures expressing their moral outrage, wrapped up in sophisticated words and scientific-sounding terminology like xenophobia." A true Libertarian would support their right to do and say this. One can disagree with it, but it's them using their freedom of speech.
I don't know what you mean with "discriminate with their speech" what does that mean? The point of free speech is to get the ideas out in the open so we can debate them.
The article says that SJWs are labeling holder's of certain beliefs as "bad people". I'm saying that is them using their free speech.
They aren't just labeling them, they are bullying them. Calling them alt-right to NOT have to debate them. Using Hecklers Veto tactics. That's not using free speech that's refusing to engage different views.
I'm saying isn't bullying and the Heckler's veto forms of free speech/the free market? As long as the government isn't involved in it?
It's a free market of propagandistic image-mongering and name-calling. It's not a free market of ideas worthy of the name.
As long as the government isn't involved in it?
No, free speech also requires people follow the spirit of the law, not just the letter of it. What if the mafia went around a poor neighborhood and intimidated everyone to vote for their candidate, or else, and they lied so convincingly about being able to tell how everyone voted, basically everyone followed their instructions? Would this be "free speech/the free market?"
As long as the government isn't involved in it?
No, free speech also requires people follow the spirit of the law, not just the letter of it. What if the mafia went around a poor neighborhood and intimidated everyone to vote for their candidate, or else, and they lied so convincingly about being able to tell how everyone voted, basically everyone followed their instructions? Would this be "free speech/the free market?"
Yeah that's a good point, although, that involves the threat of violence. What the article says SJWs do is threaten moral condemnation "and when someone does say something, they are met with a wave of sophisticated terminology backed by academic credentials that they have no way of parsing." Those both aren't violence, but I guess you can say the first one is bullying people into not speaking. However, I believe the only examples that the author provided of that was the firing of James Damore and the survey of Silicon Valley employees that showed conservatives are afraid to be themselves and reports in the survey that they are being purged from companies like Apple. I'd say that in a free market you can hire and fire anyone you like at your business. So the conservatives and libertarians that are supposedly being oppressed by SJWs are being suppressed by a system they support.
Yeah that's a good point, although, that involves the threat of violence.
The threat of losing your job, or effectively being "un-personed" in your career isn't so great. That's basically the level of coercion which Harvey Weinstein stooped to.
What the article says SJWs do is threaten moral condemnation
It's moral condemnation in bad faith. If there were principles at stake, then there would be room for discourse. This isn't that. It's coercion in the interest of power.
So the conservatives and libertarians that are supposedly being oppressed by SJWs are being suppressed by a system they support.
By actors in bad faith. It's much like democracies that elect governments that end up being totalitarian or theocratic. Short circuiting free speech itself is fundamentally the ultimate form of bad faith in a democracy. That one side thinks such a thing is in reach is a sign that they wish to shut down dissent and act as authoritarians. It was true of the right in the 60's. It's true now of the left in the 20-teens.
The threat of losing your job, or effectively being "un-personed" in your career isn't so great. That's basically the level of coercion which Harvey Weinstein stooped to.
What the article says SJWs do is threaten moral condemnation
It's moral condemnation in bad faith. If there were principles at stake, then there would be room for discourse. This isn't that. It's coercion in the interest of power.
So the conservatives and libertarians that are supposedly being oppressed by SJWs are being suppressed by a system they support.
By actors in bad faith. It's much like democracies that elect governments that end up being totalitarian or theocratic. Short circuiting free speech itself is fundamentally the ultimate form of bad faith in a democracy. That one side thinks such a thing is in reach is a sign that they wish to shut down dissent and act as authoritarians. It was true of the right in the 60's. It's true now of the left in the 20-teens.
Let’s analyse what happens in practice on both sides. This seems to be a rather extreme example from the other side.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16418048
Clearly, tolerance for not interacting, even in the open marketplace, is not granted for political differences.
So as this is definitely forbidden for certain opinions, and I think very few people would disagree once they look at examples from both sides.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16418048
Clearly, tolerance for not interacting, even in the open marketplace, is not granted for political differences.
So as this is definitely forbidden for certain opinions, and I think very few people would disagree once they look at examples from both sides.
Dude, no one violated his free speech. His memo is still available for anyone to read.
That's not the discussion.
> In those parts of society, values like equality, liberation, and cosmopolitanism aren’t just treated as values—organisations of society that different people prefer to different degrees—they’re considered moral.
So is equality a value you share or not?
So is equality a value you share or not?
Equality of opportunity is foundational. It's a good definition of fairness.
Equality of outcomes is insanity. The presumption that it is how things are supposed to be has basically been used to justify anything, up to and including rape and genocide. "Equality of outcomes" is basically Marxian ideology dressed up as a virus to be injected into a democratic society. It throws out meritocracy. Is it any wonder that many ideologies which espouse it also seek to throw out logic itself?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPnUOcsjqgA
Equality of outcomes is insanity. The presumption that it is how things are supposed to be has basically been used to justify anything, up to and including rape and genocide. "Equality of outcomes" is basically Marxian ideology dressed up as a virus to be injected into a democratic society. It throws out meritocracy. Is it any wonder that many ideologies which espouse it also seek to throw out logic itself?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPnUOcsjqgA
Do people actually argue in favor of equality of outcomes? Can't say I've ever seen this done, but then again I haven't seen everything.
The fundamental issue that I see addressed in social justice is that opportunity is deeply and currently inextricably affected by your circumstances in life. Taking steps to address this, is, as you said, foundational.
The fundamental issue that I see addressed in social justice is that opportunity is deeply and currently inextricably affected by your circumstances in life. Taking steps to address this, is, as you said, foundational.
Do people actually argue in favor of equality of outcomes?
When people presume that a 50/50 gender distribution is the goal, and that falling short of that is evidence of discrimination, then yes, they are arguing for equality of outcome. Equality of opportunity would allow for skews in various fields to work themselves out naturally.
When people presume that a 50/50 gender distribution is the goal, and that falling short of that is evidence of discrimination, then yes, they are arguing for equality of outcome. Equality of opportunity would allow for skews in various fields to work themselves out naturally.
But that isn't how equality works. A heavily skewed field, tech for example, isn't going to self-correct. Even with the diversity efforts, tech remains hostile to underrepresented populations.
Ask a woman in tech, or a black man in tech what their experience is. Often there's an unstated assumption that they don't belong, or that they're at a lower level. I'm south asian, and when I visit my work's offices on the east coast, I get pegged as an electrical technician rather than an engineer. /And I'm in the in-group generally/.
I'd also argue that 50% is a much better goal for gender diversity in engineering than the ~10% representation women have currently, especially considering that the gender equilibrium point for engineering is currently unknowable due to the massive systemic discrimination/opportunity problems.
Ask a woman in tech, or a black man in tech what their experience is. Often there's an unstated assumption that they don't belong, or that they're at a lower level. I'm south asian, and when I visit my work's offices on the east coast, I get pegged as an electrical technician rather than an engineer. /And I'm in the in-group generally/.
I'd also argue that 50% is a much better goal for gender diversity in engineering than the ~10% representation women have currently, especially considering that the gender equilibrium point for engineering is currently unknowable due to the massive systemic discrimination/opportunity problems.
But that isn't how equality works. A heavily skewed field, tech for example, isn't going to self-correct.
I have no problem with front-loaded incentives. Google started recruiting directly on the campus of Howard University, and they have the numbers to show that it actually revealed qualified applicants that would otherwise have been missed. But mandated quotas which are equality of outcome are problematic to meritocracy itself.
Equality of Outcome logically contradicts Equality of Opportunity, and must be rejected.
I have no problem with front-loaded incentives. Google started recruiting directly on the campus of Howard University, and they have the numbers to show that it actually revealed qualified applicants that would otherwise have been missed. But mandated quotas which are equality of outcome are problematic to meritocracy itself.
Equality of Outcome logically contradicts Equality of Opportunity, and must be rejected.
I don’t agree with you, but I am upvoting you because you are contributing meaningfully to the conversation with earnest discussion and a valid, if IMO incorrect, viewpoint.
I am disheartened to see your post greying out.
I am disheartened to see your post greying out.
Thanks! I appreciate that. I'm logic-ing as best I can, but I'm definitely not a sociologist. I had to read more about "equality of outcome" because I wasn't familiar with the concept.
I concede though, that some methods of affirmative action would appear to be local attempts to enforce "equality of outcome," but I don't think this is the goal of affirmative action campaigns. If anything, it's a measure taken (locally) to create an environment that can support equal opportunity (locally). As society approaches having equality of opportunity, I imagine that this strategy would lose its utility and be discarded.
I concede though, that some methods of affirmative action would appear to be local attempts to enforce "equality of outcome," but I don't think this is the goal of affirmative action campaigns. If anything, it's a measure taken (locally) to create an environment that can support equal opportunity (locally). As society approaches having equality of opportunity, I imagine that this strategy would lose its utility and be discarded.
Sometimes people do not downvote individual comments, but rather a sequence of comments. More specifically, there might be behavior that is only apparent when looking at multiple comments that justifies the downvoting, even if the actual downvote happens to be applied to an individual comment.
In this case, in the span of two comments, the poster went from:
>Do people actually argue in favor of equality of outcomes? Can't say I've ever seen this done, but then again I haven't seen everything.
to arguing in favor of equality of outcomes.
Individually, both of these posts are fine; but together are problematic.
In this case, in the span of two comments, the poster went from:
>Do people actually argue in favor of equality of outcomes? Can't say I've ever seen this done, but then again I haven't seen everything.
to arguing in favor of equality of outcomes.
Individually, both of these posts are fine; but together are problematic.
Individually, both of these posts are fine; but together are problematic.
So either this is a troll, or it's an example of someone so "ideologically possessed" they think they're justified to lie in pursuit of their goals.
So either this is a troll, or it's an example of someone so "ideologically possessed" they think they're justified to lie in pursuit of their goals.
I'm disappointed that you've marked me as someone with an ulterior motive. If I have a logical inconsistency, feel free to point that out without making assumptions about my intentions.
Okay, sorry, I left out the possibility that you're just mistaken. So you're mistaken. There, fixed it for people who actually read carefully.
We need you to dial back the thorniness, please. These tit-for-tats are unfortunately activating for the (very few) participants and noise for everyone else.
Everybody knows this argument, you don't need to trot it out. The issue at hand is in how it is applied as a lever for power by the people who apply it.
Remember: meta-criticism.
Remember: meta-criticism.
gizmo686(1)
Between all individuals? No, I don't see much of that. Between some groups though? Yes, there are many that are aiming for parity after you split people in to different bundles. I don't think they see themselves as being for equality of outcome though.
Some of those people don't see any reason for there to not be equality of outcome between groups other than discrimination. So to them, they aren't after equality of outcome, they're fighting discrimination. It just so happens that those things are one and the same for them.
For others, I think they recognise that their initiatives are focused on equality of outcome, but the long term goal is to achieve equality of opportunity. The idea being that seeing people like yourself do something is important in considering it an option, and that making yourself a minority isn't very attractive even if the other aspects of the position might be. The equality of outcome in the short term approach is a way to address the chicken and egg style problem of for example, not wanting to be the only woman in a 15 person development team.
Some of those people don't see any reason for there to not be equality of outcome between groups other than discrimination. So to them, they aren't after equality of outcome, they're fighting discrimination. It just so happens that those things are one and the same for them.
For others, I think they recognise that their initiatives are focused on equality of outcome, but the long term goal is to achieve equality of opportunity. The idea being that seeing people like yourself do something is important in considering it an option, and that making yourself a minority isn't very attractive even if the other aspects of the position might be. The equality of outcome in the short term approach is a way to address the chicken and egg style problem of for example, not wanting to be the only woman in a 15 person development team.
People use inequality of outcomes as evidence of prejudice and forbid explanations other than inequality of opportunity or treatment as thoughtcrime. They argue for equality of outcomes in aggregate (ie in a distribution, when comparing different groups broken up by colour or sex or gender or whatever) by criticizing inequal outcomes as evidence of wrongness, a problem needing fixing.
To be sure, I think difference in outcomes in aggregate is a strong signal of unfairness in the system. But the mechanism of the critique, and its employment of thoughtcrime punishment, and ideologues' apparent complete lack of concern for inverted power situations (like when girls do better in school than boys) make me deeply suspicious of such people's motivations.
To be sure, I think difference in outcomes in aggregate is a strong signal of unfairness in the system. But the mechanism of the critique, and its employment of thoughtcrime punishment, and ideologues' apparent complete lack of concern for inverted power situations (like when girls do better in school than boys) make me deeply suspicious of such people's motivations.
How in the world do you propose to achieve equality of opportunity without equality of (many) outcomes?
The only way that equality of opportunity would lead to equality of outcomes is if skill and preference were equally distributed.
The thing is, we know that they're not. And since skill and preference are not equally distributed, equality of opportunity will inevitably lead to inequality of outcomes. And that's okay: different people are different.
The thing is, we know that they're not. And since skill and preference are not equally distributed, equality of opportunity will inevitably lead to inequality of outcomes. And that's okay: different people are different.
Equality of outcomes contradicts equality of opportunity. Your question is a non-sequitur.
Equality of outcomes, typically, means very near equal income, access to resources, etc. in adult life. Regardless of their aptitude, skill, or individual choices, or even the work they do. It's a pipe dream because there's no feasible way to achieve it.
Equality of opportunity means we aim to provide everyone access to the same chances. Reduce the (present and historic) systemic discrimination by race and gender. Improve access to the basic tools required to achieve success (education and mobility). But we cannot guarantee that everyone will turn out the same (either by choice, fortune, or misfortune it just won't happen). It may still be a pipe dream, but it's far more achievable.
Equality of opportunity means we aim to provide everyone access to the same chances. Reduce the (present and historic) systemic discrimination by race and gender. Improve access to the basic tools required to achieve success (education and mobility). But we cannot guarantee that everyone will turn out the same (either by choice, fortune, or misfortune it just won't happen). It may still be a pipe dream, but it's far more achievable.
>Reduce the (present and historic) systemic discrimination by race and gender.
How will you do this and how will you measure the results of the attempts to do this without measuring the outcomes of your attempts to do this?
How will you do this and how will you measure the results of the attempts to do this without measuring the outcomes of your attempts to do this?
Why wouldn't you measure the outcomes? You have to. What you don't ask for, though, is that all outcomes be equal, because it's a fundamentally absurd proposition.
[deleted]
What kind of equality? Liberals and conservatives tend to have different definitions.
What the hell are values if they aren't moral? What the hell do you call your value system if you don't call it your morals? Such a dumb article...
Could a better student of communist Russia go ahead and assure me that the authoritarianism was not an accident of their power analysis?
Thanks.
Thanks.
It's unfortunate that this article provides an analysis and critique of the roots of left-leaning "social justice" but absolutely zero analysis or critique of the roots of right-leaning conservatism or libertarianism.
The latter have a long history of their own victimization rhetoric, which they use for political ends, and an adherence to many conspiracy theories. Neither is even indirectly alluded to, much less analyzed or critiqued despite being directly relevant to the views expressed in the article.
The latter have a long history of their own victimization rhetoric, which they use for political ends, and an adherence to many conspiracy theories. Neither is even indirectly alluded to, much less analyzed or critiqued despite being directly relevant to the views expressed in the article.
Right but... was anybody unaware of that? There's plenty out there critiquing right-leaning beliefs that we didn't really need another. I think it was plenty fair in that it just presented a critical analysis of one side without necessarily supporting the other. You don't need to be fair to every side of an argument to point out a flaw.
I mostly got that there's parallels to draw between the idea of breaking down existing power structures while ignoring how you have to build new ones in their place. Instead of seeing a lack of critique of a side I already believe to be flawed, I see themes to be considered when I tell myself I've got the right of it.
Another way of seeing it: when attempting to knock someone else off their high horse, you don't need to be reassured that they deserved to be knocked off of their horse to be reminded not to climb up on your own afterwards.
I mostly got that there's parallels to draw between the idea of breaking down existing power structures while ignoring how you have to build new ones in their place. Instead of seeing a lack of critique of a side I already believe to be flawed, I see themes to be considered when I tell myself I've got the right of it.
Another way of seeing it: when attempting to knock someone else off their high horse, you don't need to be reassured that they deserved to be knocked off of their horse to be reminded not to climb up on your own afterwards.
> It's unfortunate that this article provides an analysis and critique of the roots of left-leaning "social justice" but absolutely zero analysis or critique of the roots of right-leaning conservatism or libertarianism.
Why would an article about social justice ideology do that? It would be rightly viewed as a digression that should be edited out or turned into an independent article.
Why would an article about social justice ideology do that? It would be rightly viewed as a digression that should be edited out or turned into an independent article.
"Why would an article about social justice ideology do that?"
Because it provides context for the very conservative complaints the article provides a platform for.
Because it provides context for the very conservative complaints the article provides a platform for.
But what you were asking for wasn't context, it was:
> analysis or critique of the roots of right-leaning conservatism or libertarianism
That's a full article in itself.
Basically, it seems you are unhappy about the article's topic and focus, and wish an article about something else that's more tailored to your predilections. I'm sure you can find want you want elsewhere, given the current political climate and the fact that conservatism and libertarianism are far older and have been widespread for far longer than the relatively novel "social justice ideology" discussed here.
> analysis or critique of the roots of right-leaning conservatism or libertarianism
That's a full article in itself.
Basically, it seems you are unhappy about the article's topic and focus, and wish an article about something else that's more tailored to your predilections. I'm sure you can find want you want elsewhere, given the current political climate and the fact that conservatism and libertarianism are far older and have been widespread for far longer than the relatively novel "social justice ideology" discussed here.
> * Because it provides context for the very conservative complaints the article provides a platform for.*
"Conservative complaints"? I am a classical liberal and I find many of the concerns in the article to be valid, as do many other classical liberals.
"Conservative complaints"? I am a classical liberal and I find many of the concerns in the article to be valid, as do many other classical liberals.
That's a red herring, what we'd call whataboutery in my home country.
A red herring and whataboutism are two different things!
A red herring seeks to tie someone's statement to Communism, and then dismiss it. For example, some people criticizing the GPL do that.
This is whataboutism.
A red herring seeks to tie someone's statement to Communism, and then dismiss it. For example, some people criticizing the GPL do that.
This is whataboutism.
> A red herring and whataboutism are two different things!
Whataboutism is a special case of red herring.
> A red herring seeks to tie someone's statement to Communism, and then dismiss it.
No, that would mostly be a special case of guilt by association (though raising the question of the validity of the link to communism could itself be an example of the red herring.)
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFalla...
Whataboutism is a special case of red herring.
> A red herring seeks to tie someone's statement to Communism, and then dismiss it.
No, that would mostly be a special case of guilt by association (though raising the question of the validity of the link to communism could itself be an example of the red herring.)
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFalla...
“Red herring” has nothing to do with communism. The expression greatly predates the idea (as a cohesive political philosophy) of communism.
Red herrings are distractions and misdirections to pull you away from the intended topic or discussion.
Red herrings are distractions and misdirections to pull you away from the intended topic or discussion.
Hey, look at that! I mostly see literal Red herrings. But even though it pre-dates Marx, it's still not the same as whataboutism.
(Edit: In case anyone misunderstands, I'm agreeing that even though I'm a native English speaker, the phrase "red herring" predates Marxism by a bunch of years, so my statement above was incorrect. From the downvotes I'm getting, apparently I wasn't initially clear about agreeing that I was incorrect.)
(Edit: In case anyone misunderstands, I'm agreeing that even though I'm a native English speaker, the phrase "red herring" predates Marxism by a bunch of years, so my statement above was incorrect. From the downvotes I'm getting, apparently I wasn't initially clear about agreeing that I was incorrect.)
> A red herring seeks to tie someone's statement to Communism, and then dismiss it.
Your original description of "red herring" was clearly erroneous, I was trying to correct that for anyone who isn't a native English speaker. No point in misleading them with red herrings about communists when the phrase has nothing to do with it.
Your original description of "red herring" was clearly erroneous, I was trying to correct that for anyone who isn't a native English speaker. No point in misleading them with red herrings about communists when the phrase has nothing to do with it.
Um, congratulations? Is repeating yourself an important part of fixing my error? Did my second statement, which agreed that I was wrong, mislead anyone?
I misread the intent and tone of your reply. Sorry.
I deal with a lot of people in person who use a lot of rhetorical tricks and logical fallacies to perpetuate various false (and easily falsifiable, if they considered science valid) beliefs. So I've developed a low tolerance for misstatements like what I originally responded to and interpreted your reply to me as sarcastic rather than an honest reaction.
Apologies for misinterpreting.
I deal with a lot of people in person who use a lot of rhetorical tricks and logical fallacies to perpetuate various false (and easily falsifiable, if they considered science valid) beliefs. So I've developed a low tolerance for misstatements like what I originally responded to and interpreted your reply to me as sarcastic rather than an honest reaction.
Apologies for misinterpreting.
John Oliver has a nice bit about whataboutism - that thing you’re engaging in.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RS82JNd0YzQ
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RS82JNd0YzQ
A mish-mash of good ideas, uninspiring references to Marxism and clearly xenophobic traits--who according to the author can't be said because it's discriminatory, ye ye ye.
I mean, he totally lost me when he started saying "immigration raises crime rates" and other xenophobic propaganda, which is clearly, pardon my French, bovine excrement that people should feel ashamed of.
I mean, he totally lost me when he started saying "immigration raises crime rates" and other xenophobic propaganda, which is clearly, pardon my French, bovine excrement that people should feel ashamed of.
Except for the fact that he was talking in context of Europe where this is - unfortunately - verifiably true.
>Some of the most explicitly social justice-oriented societies ever to exist were the communist regimes of the 20th century.
This is exactly my sentiment. SJWs are the new bolsheviks.
This is exactly my sentiment. SJWs are the new bolsheviks.
The more forcefully and loudly people try to suppress certain ideas, the more they are afraid those ideas might be right.
For example, nobody is trying to suppress astrology, because nobody is afraid it might be true. The same goes for phrenology, ancient astronauts, flat earthers, 9/11 conspiracies, etc.
For example, nobody is trying to suppress astrology, because nobody is afraid it might be true. The same goes for phrenology, ancient astronauts, flat earthers, 9/11 conspiracies, etc.
>The more forcefully and loudly people try to suppress certain ideas, the more they are afraid those ideas might be right.
What bollocks, most "ideas" people are trying to surpress like white nationalism and sexism aren't being surpress because people are secretly scared that whites are the master race or women are inferior, they're being surpress because they're objectively harmful ideas that have caused enormous suffering throughout human history.
The idea that people are trying to stop the spread of these ideologies because they're "secretly scared they're correct" is nothing but a way for people who hold these harmful views to justify having them through defending some self delusional "truth" they've substantiated purely through nonsense.
What bollocks, most "ideas" people are trying to surpress like white nationalism and sexism aren't being surpress because people are secretly scared that whites are the master race or women are inferior, they're being surpress because they're objectively harmful ideas that have caused enormous suffering throughout human history.
The idea that people are trying to stop the spread of these ideologies because they're "secretly scared they're correct" is nothing but a way for people who hold these harmful views to justify having them through defending some self delusional "truth" they've substantiated purely through nonsense.
It's unnecessary to suppress nazi speech in a free country with free speech. They get nowhere. In fact, trying to forcibly suppress them just legitimizes them.
You'll never convince people they're wrong by violently suppressing them.
You'll never convince people they're wrong by violently suppressing them.
Or by downvoting them :-)
What...? You do realize openly Nazi parties are making electoral gains in Europe right now...
> It's unnecessary to suppress nazi speech in a free country with free speech. They get nowhere.
Tell that to Germany in 1920.
Tell that to Germany in 1920.
The nazi party had their own private army, the brownshirts, that they used to violently suppress other parties and discourage non-supporters from voting. Once in power, the Night of the Long Knives was used to get rid of any opposition.
Eventually, yes. It started out as just talk, as most movements do. Shame nobody suppressed them before they got that far.
I have to disagree. Many people are trying to suppress pseudoscience; not because we fear it is true, but because disinformation is harmful to society as a whole. For example, anti-vaxers degrading herd immunity, or astrologists conning vulnerable people out of their savings, or a climate change denier dismantling the EPA... there are far too many examples to list!
Each facet of nonsense you've mentioned is being battled by one group of skeptics or another. Off the top of my head, there's the work of James Randi, Richard Dawkins, Brian Dunning, and Steven Novella. Those people aren't fighting ideas they're afraid are true, they fear the harmful outcome of misplaced beliefs.
If people weren't battling pseudoscience, you'd see a lot more of it in your day-to-day life, and society as a whole would be much worse off. That's not speculation, it's a solid fact.
Each facet of nonsense you've mentioned is being battled by one group of skeptics or another. Off the top of my head, there's the work of James Randi, Richard Dawkins, Brian Dunning, and Steven Novella. Those people aren't fighting ideas they're afraid are true, they fear the harmful outcome of misplaced beliefs.
If people weren't battling pseudoscience, you'd see a lot more of it in your day-to-day life, and society as a whole would be much worse off. That's not speculation, it's a solid fact.
Nobody is attempting to forcibly suppress pseudoscience. Speaking out against it is not "battling" it. I've read Randi's book, he's not trying to suppress misplaced beliefs. He's ridiculing them.
Carl Sagan's books ridiculed astrology. He made no attempt to suppress it.
Huge difference.
Mel Brooks once was asked why he wrote a comedy about Hitler (The Producers). He replied that ridicule was the best way to oppose bad ideas.
Not suppressing them.
Carl Sagan's books ridiculed astrology. He made no attempt to suppress it.
Huge difference.
Mel Brooks once was asked why he wrote a comedy about Hitler (The Producers). He replied that ridicule was the best way to oppose bad ideas.
Not suppressing them.
Semantics? Don't be daft...
Speaking out against something is battling it, battle is a verb in this context. Both Oxford and Webster agree [0,1].
Forceful suppression of pseudoscience can be achieved through law and education, see the Scopes Trial [2]. This is another with thousands of examples, from women's right to vote, to smoking cigarettes.
[0] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/battle
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/battle
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial
Speaking out against something is battling it, battle is a verb in this context. Both Oxford and Webster agree [0,1].
Forceful suppression of pseudoscience can be achieved through law and education, see the Scopes Trial [2]. This is another with thousands of examples, from women's right to vote, to smoking cigarettes.
[0] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/battle
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/battle
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial
Yes, but in the context of a thread about using force, it's important to make a distinction.
You didn't say anything about force in your initial statement. Maybe you forgot to mention enough context? (And no, forcefully does not mean using force.)
Stop with the red herrings and address the actual argument.
I would wholeheartedly endorse legislation against anti-vax garbage in its more extreme forms. That is not because I fear it is true.
> That is not because I fear it is true.
Are you a scientist researching vaccines and autism? No? Do you know that leading scientists are often wrong, very wrong, especially about health issues? Scientists were wrong about dietary fat causing heart attacks, for example. Isn't it a good thing that we didn't make questioning them illegal?
Besides, you'll just legitimize their opinions if you make them illegal.
Are you a scientist researching vaccines and autism? No? Do you know that leading scientists are often wrong, very wrong, especially about health issues? Scientists were wrong about dietary fat causing heart attacks, for example. Isn't it a good thing that we didn't make questioning them illegal?
Besides, you'll just legitimize their opinions if you make them illegal.
I am a medical doctor. I feel comfortable with the current state of research on the safety of vaccines for endemic diseases of childhood, annual influenza, and pneumococcus.
I don’t really care whether they feel legitimized; I see the actual physical harm their fear-mongering (and often outright fraud) causes.
There comes a point where the weight of data is such that people are not questioning unsettled science, they are merely lying. You’re welcome to paint a slippery slope if you like, but this is a difference in degree that is a difference in kind. Is there a line drawing fallacy at play? Yes, which is why my original post was specifically worded “the more extreme types.”
To your original point, which I think you have spent a lot of time shifting goal posts on: I would wholeheartedly censor these people, and not because I fear there is any germ of truth in what they are saying.
I don’t really care whether they feel legitimized; I see the actual physical harm their fear-mongering (and often outright fraud) causes.
There comes a point where the weight of data is such that people are not questioning unsettled science, they are merely lying. You’re welcome to paint a slippery slope if you like, but this is a difference in degree that is a difference in kind. Is there a line drawing fallacy at play? Yes, which is why my original post was specifically worded “the more extreme types.”
To your original point, which I think you have spent a lot of time shifting goal posts on: I would wholeheartedly censor these people, and not because I fear there is any germ of truth in what they are saying.
> I feel comfortable with the current state of research
I'm sure you do. I was also comfortable with doctors confidently recommending I eat margarine instead of butter for decades. What shit advice that turned out to be. Who knows how many years off my life from heart disease that has gotten me.
I like that people constantly question the things you are "comfortable" with. It keeps science honest. In fact, questioning the conventional wisdom is what science is all about.
You say you're an educated man. Do you know what they did to Galileo when he suggested the current state of research on the planets was wrong?
By the way, all my vaccinations are up to date.
I'm sure you do. I was also comfortable with doctors confidently recommending I eat margarine instead of butter for decades. What shit advice that turned out to be. Who knows how many years off my life from heart disease that has gotten me.
I like that people constantly question the things you are "comfortable" with. It keeps science honest. In fact, questioning the conventional wisdom is what science is all about.
You say you're an educated man. Do you know what they did to Galileo when he suggested the current state of research on the planets was wrong?
By the way, all my vaccinations are up to date.
> I would wholeheartedly censor these people
And I am sad that you would dispense with free speech rights so cheaply. I have family members who fought in terrible bloody battles to ensure we have these rights.
Be very, very careful what you wish for.
And I am sad that you would dispense with free speech rights so cheaply. I have family members who fought in terrible bloody battles to ensure we have these rights.
Be very, very careful what you wish for.
What ideas are being suppressed because of fear that they could be correct? To be US centric for a moment, I can see examples of attempted suppression of ideas by conservatives - defunding climate change research and the refusal to allow CDC research into gun control, for example.
I'm racking my brain trying to think of counterexamples of suppression from the left. Suppression of white supremacist thought? Anti-gay sentiment? The value of diversity? Who on the left is genuinely (if secretly) afraid that whites are the master race, or that the gays are destroying family values?
I'm racking my brain trying to think of counterexamples of suppression from the left. Suppression of white supremacist thought? Anti-gay sentiment? The value of diversity? Who on the left is genuinely (if secretly) afraid that whites are the master race, or that the gays are destroying family values?
(speaking as a self-identifying liberal) - Some examples that a "conservative" person might give:
- "by definition, PoC can't be racist" - e.g. as an argument to shut down complaints of "reverse racism"
- white people must listen to PoC's before they can engage in discussions about racism (e.g. - don't force PoC's to engage in the emotional labor of educating you)
- you can't make assertions about the experiences of PoC/women/trans/non-binary people if you haven't lived as one
etc.
I'm not making ANY judgements about the truth/validity of the aforementioned "rules of engagement".
I try to follow these rules when talking about social justice issues. It's no skin off my back - but it certainly adds some limits to the types of conversations I'll participate in, and the kinds of things I might say. I don't think there's anything wrong with that - as long as I don't slip into outright dishonesty as a result of these constraints.
I think some of the backlash against social justice by conservatives comes from the belief that these kinds of constraints are unacceptable, and are concocted by stupid, illogical people.
- "by definition, PoC can't be racist" - e.g. as an argument to shut down complaints of "reverse racism"
- white people must listen to PoC's before they can engage in discussions about racism (e.g. - don't force PoC's to engage in the emotional labor of educating you)
- you can't make assertions about the experiences of PoC/women/trans/non-binary people if you haven't lived as one
etc.
I'm not making ANY judgements about the truth/validity of the aforementioned "rules of engagement".
I try to follow these rules when talking about social justice issues. It's no skin off my back - but it certainly adds some limits to the types of conversations I'll participate in, and the kinds of things I might say. I don't think there's anything wrong with that - as long as I don't slip into outright dishonesty as a result of these constraints.
I think some of the backlash against social justice by conservatives comes from the belief that these kinds of constraints are unacceptable, and are concocted by stupid, illogical people.
One example is the idea that the gender imbalance in tech could be caused by population-level differences between the genders. This is what Damore was arguing for and got fired for.
Nobody would actually admit they are afraid that the ideas may be correct.
Free speech kills bad ideas. The nazis, for example, have free speech in the US. They get nowhere.
Free speech kills bad ideas. The nazis, for example, have free speech in the US. They get nowhere.
re-reading your question, I realize that I ignored the "fear that they are correct" part. That was framed in response to the parent past - I don't have any useful response to that question!
Seems to me you're making a lot of sense in your responses to comments on this, not sure why people seem to think you aren't. It seems by try to suppress, you meant, as you've tried to explain, acts like try to make illegal, not acts like ridicule. Also I notice your phrasing "The more..the more.." explicitly claimed only correlation, not causation either way, or a feedback loop.
You gave a lot of examples of things nobody is trying to suppress, but no examples of things people are trying to. So..can you give as many examples of things you think fit what you said? Thanks.
You gave a lot of examples of things nobody is trying to suppress, but no examples of things people are trying to. So..can you give as many examples of things you think fit what you said? Thanks.
The James Damore case mentioned in the article, for one. In Damore's lawsuit, he provided evidence of threats of violence against conservatives.
For another,
http://crosscut.com/2017/01/uw-shooting-milo-yiannopoulos-ho...
During the last election, there were bricks thrown through the windows of the GOP campaign office in Seattle.
For another,
http://crosscut.com/2017/01/uw-shooting-milo-yiannopoulos-ho...
During the last election, there were bricks thrown through the windows of the GOP campaign office in Seattle.
Thanks. Holy crap, that whole scene in the crosscut.com story sounds so crazy, so glad I don't live in the US! Anyway..I don't know anything about these issues, just curious.
So..these are all things you think happened because the people doing the suppressing were afraid the ideas involved might be true?
(Hmm now I notice there was mention of causality in your initial claim)
So..these are all things you think happened because the people doing the suppressing were afraid the ideas involved might be true?
(Hmm now I notice there was mention of causality in your initial claim)
I think the best answer is to look at the history of violent suppression of ideas. Those ideas tended to turn out to be more correct than the suppressors' ideas, and turned out to be not so good for the suppressors' fortunes.
Thanks for those. Well, I'm in Australia. We have some of our own small crazy moments too..One that comes to mind was the 2012 story that "Alan Jones did not breach the radio industry's code of conduct or his broadcaster's licence conditions when he said five times that Julia Gillard should be “put in a chaff bag” and dumped at sea, the broadcasting regulator has found" - she was at the time Australia's first female Prime Minister (i.e. leader). Jones had a popular right-wing radio talk show.
edit: OMG, I just read that Ebert page. Are you kidding, that made you like Ebert less?! Can't follow you on that one. He hardly just 'said' it, it was the very start of Ebert's open letter to Limbaugh, it seems. "You should be horse-whipped for the insult you have paid to the highest office of our nation." In context, it sounds a fair enough remark to me.
Ebert goes on, disgusted Limbaugh and caller agree "that Obama might steal money intended for the Red Cross to help the wretched of Haiti. .. This conversation came 48 hours after many of us had seen pitiful sights from Port au Prince. Tens of thousands are believed still alive beneath the rubble. You twisted their suffering into an opportunity to demean the character of the President of the United States." etc Well, I didn't hear about that, maybe Obama did steal the money, in which case I apologize. But I kinda doubt it.
So how does that fit into "suppression because they fear it's true"? I don't see any part of it fits that. But anyway. :-) Thanks for this exchange, it was enlightening.
edit: OMG, I just read that Ebert page. Are you kidding, that made you like Ebert less?! Can't follow you on that one. He hardly just 'said' it, it was the very start of Ebert's open letter to Limbaugh, it seems. "You should be horse-whipped for the insult you have paid to the highest office of our nation." In context, it sounds a fair enough remark to me.
Ebert goes on, disgusted Limbaugh and caller agree "that Obama might steal money intended for the Red Cross to help the wretched of Haiti. .. This conversation came 48 hours after many of us had seen pitiful sights from Port au Prince. Tens of thousands are believed still alive beneath the rubble. You twisted their suffering into an opportunity to demean the character of the President of the United States." etc Well, I didn't hear about that, maybe Obama did steal the money, in which case I apologize. But I kinda doubt it.
So how does that fit into "suppression because they fear it's true"? I don't see any part of it fits that. But anyway. :-) Thanks for this exchange, it was enlightening.
Roger Ebert said Rush Limbaugh should be "horsewhipped" for insulting the President:
https://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/a-letter-to-rush-l...
Ebert was a prominent liberal, and I liked him a lot. But I was shocked at that article of his. I hope liberals today, given how fashionable it is to insult the President, are glad that Ebert's wish was not granted.
Isn't it grand that we (still) live in a country where one can insult the President and not get horsewhipped? That's a precious right.
https://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/a-letter-to-rush-l...
Ebert was a prominent liberal, and I liked him a lot. But I was shocked at that article of his. I hope liberals today, given how fashionable it is to insult the President, are glad that Ebert's wish was not granted.
Isn't it grand that we (still) live in a country where one can insult the President and not get horsewhipped? That's a precious right.
"The Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax staged with paid crisis actors."
"Volcanoes add more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than fossil fuel combustion."
"Vaccines cause autism."
I have no fear that these ideas might be right. I am nonetheless loudly and forcefully against them. Spreading anti-vaccination falsehoods is literally a bannable offense on a scientific forum I run. If I were God Emperor of Facebook it'd be a bannable offense on Facebook too.
"Volcanoes add more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than fossil fuel combustion."
"Vaccines cause autism."
I have no fear that these ideas might be right. I am nonetheless loudly and forcefully against them. Spreading anti-vaccination falsehoods is literally a bannable offense on a scientific forum I run. If I were God Emperor of Facebook it'd be a bannable offense on Facebook too.
Do you have proof of that? Isn't it possible people are trying to suppress certain ideas because they've been tried before with objectively catastrophic consequences?
If that was the case, you wouldn't need to suppress the ideas, but rather counter them with the evidence of their past failure.
What?
>The same goes for phrenology, ancient astronauts, flat earthers, 9/11 conspiracies, etc.
If you've ever listened to these people they constantly, constantly talk about how their ideas (just asking questions!) are being suppressed.
>The same goes for phrenology, ancient astronauts, flat earthers, 9/11 conspiracies, etc.
If you've ever listened to these people they constantly, constantly talk about how their ideas (just asking questions!) are being suppressed.
Another example of this statement being wrong is that there was a movement among astronomers to stop supplying sunrise/sunset moonrise/moonset information to newspapers which also published horoscopes.
A heuristic at best. I don't think people really fear the earth is flat.
Exactly, they laugh at the idea. No need to suppress it.
So, people keep refuting your core assertion here, and you keep moving the goalposts to different arguments.
I want to see you support and expand on your argument that people only try to suppress ideas that they fear are correct. Are you literally saying that anti-Nazis secretly fear that Jews run the world? That gay rights activists secretly fear that homosexuality is a depraved plot to destroy our moral fibre? If not, then what are you saying?
I want to see you support and expand on your argument that people only try to suppress ideas that they fear are correct. Are you literally saying that anti-Nazis secretly fear that Jews run the world? That gay rights activists secretly fear that homosexuality is a depraved plot to destroy our moral fibre? If not, then what are you saying?
We all know people who go to great lengths, despite all contrary evidence, to prove themselves correct. Like the convict who was exonerated by DNA evidence, yet the prosecutor still insists he was guilty. Like the pastor who insists that his flock close their ears to any contrary viewpoints. Like the authoritarian societies who jail anyone daring to question them. Etc.
Just think of the beliefs you hold dear. What would you do if someone produced evidence that you were wrong? You'd be a very rare person to accept it and change your mind. Remember the physicists (including Einstein) who could not accept quantum mechanics?
Just think of the beliefs you hold dear. What would you do if someone produced evidence that you were wrong? You'd be a very rare person to accept it and change your mind. Remember the physicists (including Einstein) who could not accept quantum mechanics?
> Just think of the beliefs you hold dear. What would you do if someone produced evidence that you were wrong?
It is literally impossible to produce solid, well-supported evidence that homosexuality is a Satanic plot. It is exactly as likely as Flat Earth.
And you're still evading the question. Do you, or do you not, believe that dedicated gay rights activists secretly fear the above is true? Yes or no, please.
It is literally impossible to produce solid, well-supported evidence that homosexuality is a Satanic plot. It is exactly as likely as Flat Earth.
And you're still evading the question. Do you, or do you not, believe that dedicated gay rights activists secretly fear the above is true? Yes or no, please.
[deleted]
This seems like the classic "everyone says I'm wrong, which somehow just proves that I'm right" Usenet argument.
The only modern viewpoint I can think of that remotely fits your narrative is the tendency of outspoken homophobes to get caught having gay sex, and even that's a stretch.
The only modern viewpoint I can think of that remotely fits your narrative is the tendency of outspoken homophobes to get caught having gay sex, and even that's a stretch.
I grew up in a part of the country that voted Trump in 2016. When I was a child, we had to drive almost 50 miles to visit friends who were also "brown people" of vaguely the same ethnic group.
In what I've seen of Social Justice advocates both online, and in my various run-ins with them in person, I've noted the eerie similarity between them and the bigoted people who used to racially bash me and my sister when we were children. There's a sort of "seeking" going on. There's far too much "witch-hunting" and threatening conformity in it. There's a hatred, and a glee in being superior. There's a similar clinging to image and a similar rejection of logic.
I was once an ally of Social Justice, and would be still, but I've seen the underlying morality of it play out both online and in my face and in person. Unless Social Justice starts loudly calling out the injustice done in its name, then my "lived experience" of it speaks loudly that today's Social Justice is malevolent.
Please Listen and Believe.
(Another data point: This thoughtful and well considered Quillette link was flagged and had to be unflagged. Ask yourself who is behaving in a censorious fashion and trying to suppress real discourse. That side is generally not the "good guys" as much as they might try to convince themselves otherwise.)