User Tag List

12 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 20

  1. #1
    I could do things Hard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 sp/so
    Socionics
    EIE Fe
    Posts
    7,990

    Default Social Justice Bullies: The Authoritarianism of Millennial Social Justice

    This article explains almost exactly what I think and feel about this movement. I am really happy to see it articulated on paper.

    https://medium.com/@aristoNYC/social...e-6bdb5ad3c9d3

    Quote Originally Posted by excerpts
    in attempting to solve pressing and important social issues, millennial social justice advocates are violently sabotaging genuine opportunities for progress by infecting a liberal political narrative with, ironically, hate.

    This particular brand of social justice advocacy assaults reason in a particularly frightening way — by outright denying it and utilizing fear-mongering to discourage dissent. There is no gray: only black and white. One must mimic the orthodoxy or be barred forcibly from the chapel and jeered at by the townspeople. To disagree with the millennial social justice orthodoxy is to make a pariah of oneself willingly. Adherence to the narrative is the single litmus test for collegiate (and beyond) social acceptance these days.

    In “No matter what Jackie said, we should generally believe rape claims,”author Zerlina Maxwell suggests that we should generally write the equivalent of a blank check to someone who comes forward with a rape accusation. This is not justice and it certainly is not social justice either. It is an illiberal perversion of the justice system. ... It erodes the most essential tenet of liberalism: due process.

    What is the issue here are the tactics used by some from a purported place of moral high ground to immunize themselves from criticism while promoting a close-minded authoritarian vice-grip on society through chillingly sinister tactics.

    But here’s the thing — who I am does not (or should not) have any bearing on facts. The problem with this brand of modern social justice advocacy is that who one is as a person (race, class, gender, etc.) is the be all and end all of their capacity to have a certain viewpoint.

    The fact of the matter is, this particular brand of millennial social justice advocacy is destructive to academia, intellectual honesty, and true critical thinking and open mindedness. We see it already having a profound impact on the way universities act and how they approach curriculum.
    The article is a bit long but it's well worth the read. It addresses the core issue of the far end of the social justice movement: rejection of logic, and use of emotional pleading. People actively seek to make you feel bad. Seeing the end goal and attempting to get there by any means necessary. The town I live in is very liberal and I have seen this type of thing happen several times, and it seems to be increasing with frequency. It's extremely disenhearting to see a movement that started with initially good intentions, to slowly dissolve into something grotesque and wrong.

    Discuss.
    MBTI: ExxJ tetramer
    Functions: Fe > Te > Ni > Se > Si > Ti > Fi > Ne
    Enneagram: 1w2 - 3w4 - 6w5 (The Taskmaster) | sp/so
    Socionics: β-E dimer | -
    Big 5: slOaI
    Temperament: Choleric/Melancholic
    Alignment: Lawful Neutral
    External Perception: Nohari and Johari

    Likes Rasofy, Luke O, Crabs liked this post

  2. #2
    Theta Male Julius_Van_Der_Beak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    PORG
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    LII None
    Posts
    9,059

    Default

    Well, I think it's important to listen to and try and understand the perspectives of people not like you. I believed that for a long time. But listening is not the same thing as uncritical acceptance. If someone is trying to aggressively push me to adopt a certain position on anything, and objects when I ask questions, that stinks. It is important to see how people handle new evidence, and I don't trust people who.are dismissive of it.

    I do find a kind of paranoid mentality taking root in some circles, and that worries me. It's not my desire to steamroll over all diversity in favor of some false sense of unity; I am suspicious of that, too. But there has to be genuine discussion taking place, not merely coercing people into adopting dogmas without concern as to the basis of those dogmas.

    I won't appoint myself an expert over things I have no direct experience of, but I do think I can tell when someone is being unreasonable. If people want to share their experiences, I am all for sharing them, but this should not come at the expense of sharing my own perspective.

    I would argue that the thing I am most opposed to.is the "progressive stack" mentality. This was something that was spread at Occupy Wall Street, and is, in my opinion, a key component of that movement's failure. The idea behind it is that people from a "privileged" group and people from an "unprivileged" group are always easy to distinguish, and that the "privileged" group speaking is engaging in "silencing" of the "unprivileged." Achieving justice, then, is seen as a simple matter of flipping this around and telling the "privileged" to back up and shut up.

    This rests on false, Marxist-like assumptions, and stands a high probability of working just as well as all those attempts at Marxism. It's no surprise that it's often promoted by people hostile to liberalism. I don't trust what they intend to replace it with.

    (I'm also not comfortable with the belief that blatant antisemitism is "acceptable" in certain contexts because of "power dynamics." This is a concept that sometimes, but not always, accompanies the "progressive stack" thinking. Admittedly, I'm biased, but this is another reason I mistrust it.)
    [Trump's] rhetoric is not an abuse of power. In the same way that it's also not against the law to do a backflip off of the roof of your house onto your concrete driveway. It's just mind-numbingly stupid and, to say the least, counterproductive. - Bush did 9-11


    This is not going to go the way you think....

    Visit my Johari:
    http://kevan.org/johari?name=Birddude78
    Likes Hard liked this post

  3. #3
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,912

    Default

    So, basically, I agree with the part about identity politics being a terrible thing, about the whole practice basically being ad hominem, and that the truth of what one says is not determined by who they are. Hell, I'm not even a fan of pluralism.

    Other than that, I think I have some issues with almost every part of this. I give a cursory writing of what stood out to me, and maybe I'll elaborate in a more sophisticated manner at some other time.

    He references intersectionality in a weird way. I'd say it's one of the best ideas we have for actually alleviating a lot of things that he is complaining about, because it is intersectionality that allows us to appreciate that a poor white man still has to deal with the struggles of being poor. He might be targeting the wrong thing there.

    I feel that he is unifying too much that is not unified. I don't think there is actually a movement, and mistaking it for one results in over-generalizing or seeing contradictions where there aren't any. For example, the whole thing about racism against white people being impossible. I've encountered people who think that, but many, probably the majority, of the people I've encountered who might be called Social Justice Warriors did not believe that. Likewise, if you decide a bunch of people represent a group, you start thinking that the difference in ideas expressed by two different individuals is contradictory because you are treating them as one unit. I don't think his point about one-way sexism and feminism helping men actually overlap all that often. This is one of those areas where there seem to be pretty strong, dividing lines. Which reminds me that he makes a point about following a narrative. I find that hard to believe because I have a hard time finding a single narrative that has consolidated real power.

    I'm just going to have to say I'm slightly different from him on the topic of attitude. Sometimes justice does mean being angry, hostile, and in rare cases, violent. I don't think that's automatically a point against something.

    I feel that while he is trying to illustrate misleading statistics, he is also letting his guard down. Any half-vetted feminist would be quick on the retort about how sexism in society is partially responsible for those differences in the employment between men and women that would hypothetically close the wage gap. In that regard, the wage difference is still a manifestation of the problem.

    I'm talking from experience here again (but then, so is he), but I guess I just don't see his account of things where these people are especially unreasonable or opposed to logic. They are of course often unreasonable, but that's because people are in general. I haven't witnessed some kind of Social Justice Warrior contingency that is especially unreasonable, and is perhaps not even equally as unreasonable as the factions we would typically consider the SJW's opposition.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  4. #4
    I could do things Hard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 sp/so
    Socionics
    EIE Fe
    Posts
    7,990

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    So, basically, I agree with the part about identity politics being a terrible thing, about the whole practice basically being ad hominem, and that the truth of what one says is not determined by who they are. Hell, I'm not even a fan of pluralism.

    Other than that, I think I have some issues with almost every part of this. I give a cursory writing of what stood out to me, and maybe I'll elaborate in a more sophisticated manner at some other time.

    He references intersectionality in a weird way. I'd say it's one of the best ideas we have for actually alleviating a lot of things that he is complaining about, because it is intersectionality that allows us to appreciate that a poor white man still has to deal with the struggles of being poor. He might be targeting the wrong thing there.

    I feel that he is unifying too much that is not unified. I don't think there is actually a movement, and mistaking it for one results in over-generalizing or seeing contradictions where there aren't any. For example, the whole thing about racism against white people being impossible. I've encountered people who think that, but many, probably the majority, of the people I've encountered who might be called Social Justice Warriors did not believe that. Likewise, if you decide a bunch of people represent a group, you start thinking that the difference in ideas expressed by two different individuals is contradictory because you are treating them as one unit. I don't think his point about one-way sexism and feminism helping men actually overlap all that often. This is one of those areas where there seem to be pretty strong, dividing lines. Which reminds me that he makes a point about following a narrative. I find that hard to believe because I have a hard time finding a single narrative that has consolidated real power.

    I'm just going to have to say I'm slightly different from him on the topic of attitude. Sometimes justice does mean being angry, hostile, and in rare cases, violent. I don't think that's automatically a point against something.

    I feel that while he is trying to illustrate misleading statistics, he is also letting his guard down. Any half-vetted feminist would be quick on the retort about how sexism in society is partially responsible for those differences in the employment between men and women that would hypothetically close the wage gap. In that regard, the wage difference is still a manifestation of the problem.

    I'm talking from experience here again (but then, so is he), but I guess I just don't see his account of things where these people are especially unreasonable or opposed to logic. They are of course often unreasonable, but that's because people are in general. I haven't witnessed some kind of Social Justice Warrior contingency that is especially unreasonable, and is perhaps not even equally as unreasonable as the factions we would typically consider the SJW's opposition.
    You make very good points.

    One of my friends responded to this when I posted it on facebook in a very mouth-foamy way. I am not touching that with a 10ft poll. Granted, it was more or less saying what you're saying (though he did go a lot father). After hearing what he said, and what you're saying, I can see where there are issues in the article. I think what I was more taking away the general message (as I understood it anyway): Stop being irrational and applying illogic to a well-intended movement. Ultimately though I think you and my friend are right, he did put together a shotty argument when you get to the details.

    I never really felt like this is or was a unified movement. I mean, I generally don't see any unified movements anywhere. There kinda is with the tea party, and a little but during the occupy wallstreet movement. Even then though it's just clusters of individuals who share common values that every now and again join together out of incident.

    That said I can almost never condone angry, hostile, and never violent protest unless there is an absolute crystal clear right/wrong position to be made, because of this this is a huge reason why I get so bent out of shape over people pushing illogical "I am gonna make you feel guilty for existing!" BS. It doesn't help that for all intents and purposes I believe what feminism pushes to advance (read: equality and fairness without bias), so seeing people who should be helping with this do the exact opposite of what they should be just makes my blood completely boil.

    I live in a very liberal town and I have seen individuals act like a stereotypical bad SJW before, so I do regard it as a legitmate thing. It's largely confined to the internet at the moment because it's mostly people in our generation (according to your profile I am only 4 months younger than you) or slightly younger. The thing is though, eventually we'll be older, and a bunch of us will wind up getting louder, and in public spaces, and public office, and I really don't want to see these stereotypes wind up there. Unfortunately, like anyone with an axe to grind and agenda, they often seek power.
    MBTI: ExxJ tetramer
    Functions: Fe > Te > Ni > Se > Si > Ti > Fi > Ne
    Enneagram: 1w2 - 3w4 - 6w5 (The Taskmaster) | sp/so
    Socionics: β-E dimer | -
    Big 5: slOaI
    Temperament: Choleric/Melancholic
    Alignment: Lawful Neutral
    External Perception: Nohari and Johari


  5. #5
    I could do things Hard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 sp/so
    Socionics
    EIE Fe
    Posts
    7,990

    Default

    For those interested, this is what my facebook friend said. For an ENTP he is quite moody. EDIT: Turns out he was drinking when he wrote it and got hyperbolic cause of it. He's a good guy though.

    MBTI: ExxJ tetramer
    Functions: Fe > Te > Ni > Se > Si > Ti > Fi > Ne
    Enneagram: 1w2 - 3w4 - 6w5 (The Taskmaster) | sp/so
    Socionics: β-E dimer | -
    Big 5: slOaI
    Temperament: Choleric/Melancholic
    Alignment: Lawful Neutral
    External Perception: Nohari and Johari


  6. #6
    Wake, See, Sing, Dance Cellmold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,810

    Default

    Appearances > identity attachment > thought.

    I've always thought it should be identified the other way around so as not to attach too strongly to what is only an appearance. Unfortunately one is quicker and easier than the other and the vast majority will take the shorter, quicker route as it is more immediately rewarding to that identity.
    'One of (Lucas) Cranach's masterpieces, discussed by (Joseph) Koerner, is in it's self-referentiality the perfect expression of left-hemisphere emptiness and a precursor of post-modernism. There is no longer anything to point to beyond, nothing Other, so it points pointlessly to itself.' - Iain McGilChrist

    Suppose a tree fell down, Pooh, when we were underneath it?"
    "Suppose it didn't," said Pooh, after careful thought.
    Piglet was comforted by this.
    - A.A. Milne.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    617

    Default

    I think a big part of the problem is the democratization of the Internet. Once upon a time, computers were expensive and relatively few people had the skills to work them. The Internet was pretty intellectual for a time. But now every kid knows how to log on and follow social media, and the Internet has sunk to the lowest common denominator. The same thing happened to television and pretty much every other new type of media before it.

    This same process also leads to the democratization of social movements and their subsequent reflection of the lowest common denominator. Once upon a time social movements found their homes in academia, and they were pretty intellectual. Now they've moved onto the Internet for purposes of organizing the masses, but in the process they've been dragged down into the mud. The intellectual facade is still there, but the content is mostly about the politics of envy and distrust of anyone who doesn't look, talk, and think just like "you and me." In turn, that cheapens the discourse in academia. Academics can't help but fall in love with the lowest-common-demominator popularity they find on the internet, and they end up feeding the hate in order to get the big hit counts.

    I recall when feminism was about fighting for rights to abortion, divorce, etc., and I supported all that. Now the Internet version of feminism has degraded to basically just what women have done all through time: Getting together over coffee and doughnuts and bitching about how men suck.

    Lest you think this is just counter-bitching on the part of a bitter male, here's an old post about a world-famous first-wave feminist who thinks third-wave feminists have become too anti-male:

    Quote Originally Posted by RDF View Post
    ....Camille Paglia is a lesbian, an old-style feminist (she fought in the 1960s and 70s for women's rights, abortion on demand, and the sexual revolution), and has an 11-year-old son. She's part of the older "libertarian" wing of feminism, and she is critical of the political correctness of modern feminism...

    [Rest of post here:] Men of the Forum... Please have a look at this article
    I don't see any solution for this situation. Women kind of own social media; they do the social thing better than men. So I think men just have to bail on social media and seek out more traditional pursuits to socialize (sports, rod & gun club, lodges, whatever). Or they can participate in social media and just try to tune out the complaining and abuse.

    Same with other social justice movements (some of which I support). I think a lot of them have been dragged down to the level of the lowest common denominator. They were more intellectual and worthy of attention when they were confined to the halls of academia. Now that they've escaped out onto the Internet and been democratized, a lot of them turn into just raw combativeness and hate. Hell, I've posted my fair share of in-your-face posts in favor of atheism. Things can get kind of bare-knuckle on the Internet, and I'm not necessarily better than anyone else at keeping the level of debate properly intellectual.

    It just is what it is. Like television, I think the Internet is going to be a permanent swamp of democratization which cheapens discourse and academic thought rather than improving it.

  8. #8
    Post Human Post Qlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,494

    Default

    People who have causes tend to have a contingent that go for cheap shots, wield an 'emotional crowbar'. The conservatives' main line is "What about the children?!". This should not detract from legitimate causes.

  9. #9
    Theta Male Julius_Van_Der_Beak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    PORG
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    LII None
    Posts
    9,059

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qlip View Post
    People who have causes tend to have a contingent that go for cheap shots, wield an 'emotional crowbar'. The conservatives' main line is "What about the children?!". This should not detract from legitimate causes.
    Indeed, but I find it very easy to lose patience with people who do things like accuse me of being a sex offender or dining on the bones of Arab children for not agreeing with them. Sometimes I don't even disagree with them, I just don't have the appropriate levels of RIGHTEOUS OUTRAGE to mollify them.

    I find it best to avoid talking about these subjects too much these days, because I tend to draw the ire of crazies like moths to a flame.
    [Trump's] rhetoric is not an abuse of power. In the same way that it's also not against the law to do a backflip off of the roof of your house onto your concrete driveway. It's just mind-numbingly stupid and, to say the least, counterproductive. - Bush did 9-11


    This is not going to go the way you think....

    Visit my Johari:
    http://kevan.org/johari?name=Birddude78
    Likes Cellmold liked this post

  10. #10
    Senior Member Passacaglia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    647

    Default

    Hm, didn't read the medium article, but the title is certainly misleading, at least with regards to the linked WP article. I read that and saw no sign of authoritarianism or bullying. In fact:

    Quote Originally Posted by Zerlina Maxwell
    Even if Jackie fabricated her account, U-Va. should have taken her word for it during the period while they endeavored to prove or disprove the accusation. This is not a legal argument about what standards we should use in the courts; it’s a moral one, about what happens outside the legal system.
    One can of course argue about the wisdom of personally believing rape claims by default, but Maxwell is not arguing against due process of law.

Similar Threads

  1. The Psychology of Social Conformity
    By Crabs in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-04-2015, 05:09 AM
  2. The politics of the social web
    By UniqueMixture in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-08-2012, 03:39 PM
  3. The premise of social conservatism
    By Ruthie in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 101
    Last Post: 12-04-2009, 02:35 PM
  4. Social entrepreneurship and the business of helping people
    By proteanmix in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 12-09-2008, 02:16 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO