Social Justice

[Sunshine Jesse]

This section is boring as sheet lately so I want to see if I can start up a discussion on a certain issue that almost everyone has strong opinions about. I want everyone to be free to say what they want to, and don't want mods to really get involved unless it gets out of hand. I want people to argue passionately about this. What issue, might you ask? Well, it's in the title lmao:

Social Justice!

 

It's something everyone has put varying amounts of thought into. A lot of the time it tends to be kneejerk reactions to the movement and what it stands for, be it coming from the left or the right, so I'd like to ask everyone what their actual thoughts on it are. Mine?

 

Well. They're a bit complicated.

 

It's no secret that I'm as left as they come. I'm so left-wing that I have to do backflips to explain my actual ideology. But my views on the topic of social justice have a reasoning behind them that I don't really see anywhere in left-wing circles. A lot of them tend towards believing in the inherent equality of races, cultures, religions, genders, ideas, etc, or some combination of the above.  You know, "all men are created equal," a supposed American ideal (that America has historically never applied to anything).

 

I don't actually buy that, like at all. I might've at one point, but I certainly don't anymore, and I don't think I was ever earnest in that belief to begin with. My actual view is that inherent inequalities in belief systems (I'm not opening that can of worms for anything else in this thread) absolutely exist, and the only "inherent value" in those ideas comes from universal, inherent principles that could probably be called "objective." This also means that I don't believe that inequality, even inherent inequality, is an injustice at all.

 

Yes, a commie tranny social justice advocate actually doesn't believe that every idea or belief system has inherent value, nor does she believe people have inherently equal (even potential) value.

 

So why? How does it make sense?

 

The actual thing I think is an injustice that needs to be fought against is the perceived and, by extension, enforced inequality of others. My problem with social injustice is that it inherently lowers or raises the perceived value of others, which means people are held to different standards. This distorts the whole idea that one should succeed based on their merit, which is- surprise surprise- something that I also actually do seriously believe. 

 

My other problem with the forced inequality and the social authoritarian angle on both sides- left and right- directly relates to why I hold the value of free speech so dear:

 

Enforcing ideals through force is a sign of weakness in those ideals.

 

Unless you're enforcing ideals that can actually be considered objective (protip, they probably can't), to me, leveraging force (and the law) to protect them shows a lack of confidence that they'll stand the test of time. I hold the belief that good ideas will win out in the marketplace of ideas, assuming equal ground. Every indication I've seen is that any position that isn't argued with the backing of two (maybe three, depending on your perspective, but I won't go into them here) specific ideals does not last.

 

This is why I believe in the idea of social justice and don't really oppose the movement itself. This is also why I make fun of it at any given opportunity. While inherent inequality does exist, the societal perception of inherent inequality based on factors other than one's own raw, objective merit should not.

 

(This is about the only time you'll hear me make a "both sides" argument, because at my core, I'm arguing against authoritarianism from a libertarian perspective, be it left or right wing.)

 

In an ironic twist, I generally look upon the stereotypical* right-wing ideal of the world with more respect than I do the stereotypical left-wing one. I just think that humanity, at large, is currently incapable of properly applying those ideals without creating unnecessary inequality that undermines the whole idea behind earning what you have, among other things. As a result, I'm willing to go as far as to burn any semblance of social order to the ground, because I believe that the truly good ideals will still rise up from the ashes and take us in the right direction. You could essentially call it Social Darwinism applied solely to ideas.

 

*By stereotypical, I mean each wing's own perception of the logical conclusion and optimal application of their ideas. Not the opposing one.

 

So to get this thread off the ground, I'd like to ask everyone here a few guiding questions. These are what I mainly want people to post about, not any arguments against my own views (yet) unless said arguments are inherent in your own.

 

What is your opinion on social justice as a whole?

What's your opinion on the movements for and against it?

And why do you hold these opinions?

 

Please go into as much detail as you can. I'm interested in hearing some ideas, and I'd love to have my perspective on this changed or shaken.

[vla1ne]

a post like this deserves at least some response, but while i won't attack your own ideas, you probably shouldn't expect them to be left in peace after putting them out there as the topic starter. but that's besides the point:

 

 

What is your opinion on social justice as a whole?

my opinion on social justice as a whole is that it's a well meaning ideology that's gone well beyond the range of too far. social justice in and of itself isn't something i'd call bad,(fighting for equality, or getting as close as possible to it, isn't something that i'm against at all) but the fact that outrage has been given free range, and attempts to reign in unfounded outrage via rational argument are met with even more outrage, is basically all the movement has left going for it (at least in first world countries) we've reached a time where first world social justice (most, if not all branches of it) have little to nothing left to fight for. in other words, social justice is a powerful tool, that can achieve lots of good, but it's only as effective/useful as the equalities that you use it against. and where we are now, as far as the first world s concerned, we've long since pased the point where social justice needs to be wielded as heavily as it is currently, and as a result, it's liable to reverse much of what it was once credited for fixing.

 

 

What's your opinion on the movements for and against it?

since i dipped into it above, i'll start with the movements for social justice, currently, the movements for social justice are often pointless, trivial, or vastly overblown (first world only). social equality, arguably the main goal of social justice, has already been achieved, as things stand, there's nothing really left worth fighting over. unfortunately, this very lack of worthy subjects, is what leads to so many problems overall. social justice asi it is now, takes single incidents and slights (microagressions, ect), blows them up way out of proportion, and causes people to act like children over subjects that would be better of looked at calmly and logically. one person not making a cake for another person because of their sexual orientation is a shitty move, but it is not the end of the world, and there is no shortage of people who would make said person a cake regardless of orientation. one race shooting another person of a different race for racist reasons is a tragedy, but it does not signify the return to the 1920's. a job having more men than women, or more of one race than another, isn't an immediate sign of sexism. the list goes on. many times, people see these kinds of things and it leads to more problems from the sheer outrage, than simply pursuing the outcome from a legal standpoint would have caused. sure, there are inequalities, and said inequalities are worth looking into, but understanding how to handle said issues without outrage is another quality required, and one that's rarely seen anymore. good guys won't always win, but knowing how to handle those losses, and improve the responses is another responsibility that's recently been neglected by those claiming to desire social justice.

 

 

as for the movements against it, i often find myself on this side more often than not, but yeah, i can see why it's not looked upon with much respect, the very sentence: "I'm against social justice", makes the people on it seem like villains doesn't it? but really, it's nothing so simple, and it does come with some unique flaws of it's own. for one, there's no real way to discern what people are and aren't against, the side of "against social justice" is, by nature, a side that has to actively own both the best, and worst intentions. those who believe social justice has gone far enough, can either wish for it to stop, or actively wish to reverse it, a serious problem (something similar can be said for the movement for it, but not quite to the same extent). and then you have those who, while having reasonable positions, have nothing actually worth contributing. peoplewho go "look at that feminist/SJW/ect, they're so stupid lol" without giving actual reasons why, or providing any constructive criticisms of the position that they happen to be against. these may in fact be the most difficult ones to have on your side, while the racists and sexists are liable to side with you, they might at least be able to give you some strong arguments to use or argue for/against every now and again (even if you don't agree with an overall philosophy, learning from it only increases your pool of available options and arguments, allowing you to potentially bridge discussions easier), providing discussion on what to improve and remove is possible some, if not much of the time with such people. the people who just come to laugh though, they give nothing, and only serve to increase tensions on and between both sides. the movement against social justice is a strange set of lines, where everybody has a reason, but not everybody has something to contribute, and many contributions may heavily conflict with each other. it's  clusterf*** of an opposition, but it remains the side of the fence that i sit on.

 

And why do you hold these opinions?

because i've seen where the opposite goes, well before it actually made it here in fact. i was on the side of social justice for a long while, but the people i lived around, and the people i went to college with, made me rethink this greatly. before the whole social justice thing became big, i was somebody who avidly argued against religions (not opening that can here, just showing it to give perspective). i enjoyed going up against arguments, and thinking them through while making up counterarguments, this lead me to entering a debates class in college, and it was about then that i started to use the skills i got in class to look at some of my own long held views, and sharpen them up, leading to me throwing away a lot of old beliefs that i once held. this was when i looked at my social justice side (before it even had that moniker) and realized a few things about it. i was still an advocate of equality, but i started to look deeper into the reasons i argued for things, and over time, i slowly drifted back and forth from the far left, to the center, and i've been sitting about center since the advent of the actual social justice issue.

 

if you're thinking that this doesn't give too much info on why i sit where i do, or even where exactly i sit, that's because i myself have no exact idea where i sit. i know what i think, what i believe, and why i believe it, but my position changes depending on the topic, and i've even flipped over to the social justice side now and again, for one or two topics.

 

and that's about the gist of my response.

[Sunshine Jesse]

a post like this deserves at least some response, but while i won't attack your own ideas, you probably shouldn't expect them to be left in peace after putting them out there as the topic starter. but that's besides the point:

I just didn't want that to be the focal point of anyone's responses to my post. I want to hear people's central ideas before I argue anything.

 

I appreciate your response. Shows a good deal of actual thought on the issue and not just a kneejerk reaction.

[VCR_CAT]

Gonna chop these up into lil' tagged-sized pieces for pleasant enjoyment and digestion.

 

[spoiler=What is your opinion on social justice as a whole?]

I think we've come very far as a race and as societies. Women and PoC can vote and get the same jobs as the next guy and the wages (hopefully) are equal. The same cannot be said across the world, but you do what you can and things are getting better.

 

It's not all hunky-dory, unfortunately. Systematic racism still exists, and while it's not nearly as bad as "Get to your part of the bus days", have any conversation with a person of colour about how they're treated by others walking into stores and just in public spaces and you'll see, WOW people are still pretty bad about this whole thing. In the hard system we've done very well working against this with wages and potential opportunities, but there's only so much that can be done on paper and in immediate ways. A lot of this has to do with mindsets that people have and their own presuppositions about other people. We can advocate for treating your fellow human being with respect and dignity as much as we want, but there's only so much you can do.

 

I think awareness is pretty important. Be aware of how businesses and governments are treating people and work towards a better system, and just pay attention as a whole. But a lot of problems in racism are much more deep-rooted that cannot be changed because, especially by more aggressive means, you're not going to change the mind of someone by yelling at them. The best hope is that the current generation is raising the next better than the previous and that society can naturally evolve into a better version of itself over time.

 

Yes, some people take it too far, and some people don't take it far enough. There are right ways and wrong ways to go about things. I think the base ideas around social justice are good, working towards a culture that looks out for its fellow human being without discrimination is definitely a positive. But, with any ideology or mindset, you're going to have people that just aren't doing things the right way, that make oceans out of puddles or vice-versa. That will happen, those people are everywhere, in every mindset, every demographic, every country. But I don't think that should take away from the core ideas that a lot of people are working towards, and I think it's important to take it all in stride.

 

 

 

[spoiler=What's your opinion on the movements for and against it?]

Like I said, you have people doing things in right ways and people doing things in wrong ways. It really all depends on who we're talking about. I will say this, though: the people who are working just as actively against it as the people who are taking things too far are two sides of the same coin. They're just as bad as each other. I've had a prof in one class say before that "You can tell who is the most intolerant based on who is yelling the loudest." People are who taking things too far are going to be intolerant of some people and aspects, and the people who are vocally against that are going to be intolerant of their own things. Intolerance is intolerance. Some intolerance is good, like a dramatic example would be that, hey, you shouldn't tolerate theft or murder. But there's definitely a degree that takes things way too far.

 

The people are too-much-for and too-much-against are just as bad as each other. To be perfectly frank, there's no such thing as "Anti-PC". They're not advocating for no definition of political correctness, they're advocating for a different definition of political correctness. Their movement is essentially saying "I don't like the definition of political correctness you are pushing; mine/our's is better and/or more accurate". To be perfectly honest, anti-PC people are just as PC as the PC people they're actively working against. They'll never want to admit or believe this, but that's exactly what they're doing.

 

The same goes the other way. If someone is claiming they're not racist, yet demonize white people, then they're racist. They won't want to admit it or believe it, but that's what's going on. It's what people do: they demonize their opposition as they root themselves in their belief.

 

It's two sides of the same coin.

 

And like I said before, again: you will find these people everywhere. You will find people going about their business or ideas in the wrong fashions, in ways you don't like, in degrees you don't like. Those people will always exist, and there is nothing you or anyone can do to change that. So instead of trying to scream louder than the other person, just take a deep breath, go about your day, and treat people with the dignity and respect you would like them to treat you with.

 

 

 

[spoiler=And why do you hold these opinions?]

I'm on the internet. I pay attention to twitter, I see the news, I see all these people and their perspectives. I grew up in a conservative household, in a conservative town, going to a conservative church. I've taken in ideas on both sides, and I've just seen a lot. I've come to accept the idea that there's going to be "those people" (whoever that is for you) are always going to be around, and that instead of trying to get everyone else to think the way you do, just go along trying to make life a better place for people. A lot of it is, honestly, just from Christian teaching and realizing what Jesus says by "loving your neighbor as yourself". That's something I've been trying to put into practice more over the years, and social justice becomes a part of it in a way. I don't agree with the people that take things too far; if a feminist is going with their beliefs to a degree that they, instead, just shift the sexism over to men, then they aren't accomplishing that goal. They're being just as bad as the people they're trying to work against.

 

So, with that in mind with social justice, if the means and ends fit the bill of "loving your neighbor as yourself" well, then it's being gone about in the right way. People are being cared for, and the ideal goal of social justice is being achieved. If not, then you're not doing what you set out to do.

 

 

[Sunshine Jesse]

opinions

 

 

It's easy to understand where your thought process came from- after all, we're the same person- but something seems distinctly off about this. I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but this post reeks of you working backwards from your conclusion, using your new views to justify your old ones even though the link isn't as strong as you think. Let's break this down:

 

But my views on the topic of social justice have a reasoning behind them that I don't really see anywhere in left-wing circles.

There's a reason for that, you know. A big part of the justification behind most (socially, especially) left-wing positions is that the inherent differences between us don't- or shouldn't- matter, as you said, but I don't think you realize the implications behind this. A lot of the time, this comes about through either denial of those differences, or a belief that "better" people have an inherent responsibility to share what they have with others. When people are just inherently "better," it's easy to come to the conclusion that they don't deserve the things that made them better because they didn't work for them. These "gifts" are often seen as unjust, to put it simply. People have an inclination towards wanting justice to be served, and whether or not it's societal or inherent in human nature (I think it's the latter), the idea of redistribution of wealth and social status makes a lot of sense because of this fact.

 

The actual thing I think is an injustice that needs to be fought against is the perceived and, by extension, enforced inequality of others. My problem with social injustice is that it inherently lowers or raises the perceived value of others, which means people are held to different standards. This distorts the whole idea that one should succeed based on their merit, which is- surprise surprise- something that I also actually do seriously believe.

At face value, I can agree with this. Prejudice is most definitely not a good thing, and most of the time, it's based in faulty logic and reasoning. However, I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with noticing the inherent differences in others and holding them to that standard. As long as you don't deprive them of the opportunity to prove themselves, I don't think it's society's fault that people notice trends in behavior and performance, no matter how faulty the logic behind it is. Instead, I think we should start thinking about it in a different light. For the sake of playing devil's advocate, I'd like to present an idea often parroted in a lot of right-wing circles, although sometimes for the wrong reasons:

 

The idea of being a victim is more harmful than prejudice, as long as opportunities to prove yourself aren't being denied.

 

You're not always responsible for what goes wrong. However, perceiving yourself as a victim, even if you legitimately are, often deprives you of the chance for growth as a person. Instead, that victimhood would be better utilized as a source of strength, if only as incentive to prove people wrong, or prove yourself right. There's far more net benefit in this as it more often results in you bettering yourself as a person. Depriving yourself for a chance at growth just because something isn't your fault is selling yourself short. You always have the potential to be better, you just have to want it hard enough. If you're willing to brave the pain and keep trying, you'll eventually be able to use the strength you've obtained to your benefit. This logic falters in the face of corrupt, prejudiced law enforcement as they can prevent you from even being able to keep trying, but that's an issue that can easily be solved by law enforcement that strictly and consistently adheres to strong moral principles, through absolute faith in either their own ideas (in the case of the higher ups) or the cause itself (in the case of the common policeman or whatever, as you shouldn't commit yourself to enforcing law if you're not at least willing to concede your own ideas). And believe it or not, there are ways to realistically achieve this even in the face of systemic sexism/racism/etc, but that's another topic for another day.

 

People also don't have infinite time to succeed, sure, but I question the idea that we should prop up people who are unable to adapt to new circumstances in that timeframe. I think we should make concessions to give people as much time as possible, but if someone wastes their whole life in the pursuit of success and never achieves it, they just didn't have what it takes to begin with.

 

Make no mistake, these prejudices absolutely need to go away, but I think the SJW movement goes way too far in the other direction, as it's far too eager to sacrifice strength for short-sighted compassion. Enabling weakness weakens us as a whole, and focusing too much on attacking the holders of these prejudices can paradoxically end up strengthening them, if only because it gives people who don't feel privilege incentive to join their cause.

 

This is why I believe in the idea of social justice and don't really oppose the movement itself. This is also why I make fun of it at any given opportunity. While inherent inequality does exist, the societal perception of inherent inequality based on factors other than one's own raw, objective merit should not.

 

This doesn't have to be achieved through the destruction of social norms. It can simply be achieved through a fundamental change in the mindset of society. I think we agree at this on face value, but I'm highly skeptical of the idea that a "reset" wouldn't codify toxic and unhealthy principles into humanity as a result. Our old societal norms were here for a reason, and even though many of them are superfluous and outdated, I think it's unwise to throw them all away. All of them have some basis in truth, even though we might have seen them through a flawed framework in the past. Instead, we should seek to change perspective, and if that fails, we should probably prevent those people from having a say in which direction society could go, as uncomfortable as a thing that may be to say. I just don't think those who refuse to change perspective deserve a voice. Maybe you think differently.

 

Ultimately, I believe that our differences are actually a perfectly valid source of strength rather than an inherent weakness, and that there's nothing wrong with drawing strength from those differences even if you technically didn't "earn" them. Being a better person is far more important than things being fair, because I believe that too much of a focus on fairness is counteractive to both your own personal growth and the growth of humanity as a whole.

 

These are what I mainly want people to post about, not any arguments against my own views (yet) unless said arguments are inherent in your own.

 

I'm sorry. I just can't accept ideas I view as flawed when I see them. I'm sure you know how self-righteous I can be.

[VCR_CAT]

Also, one thing I want to chime in on: it's inaccurate to talk about the "SJW movement" as if it's some sort of majorly organized thing with a mission's statement. It's generally a broad spectrum of a huge amount of people with wildly varying ideals and beliefs. Some people absolutely take it too far, and some people don't take it far enough, but I'd hesitate to treat the "movement" as having any significant degree of consistency beyond the general genre of subjects that these people are choosing to advocate for. With something like a political party that has a set statement on what it is that they aim to accomplish and through what means, what they stand for, there comes with it a greater consistency in general what that movement is and stands for. The "SJW Movement" lacks anything of that sort, it's just kind of a tag-word slapped onto people that stand up for a given status quo in society that they see as wrong.

 

Anyways, that's kind of just regurgitating what I already said in my first post.

 

As for your post...

 

 

 

...it's far too eager to sacrifice strength for short-sighted compassion. Enabling weakness weakens us as a whole, and focusing too much on attacking the holders of these prejudices can paradoxically end up strengthening them, if only because it gives people who don't feel privilege incentive to join their cause.

 

I'd like a bit more clarification on this statement. I could draw implications as to what you're saying, but any sort of conclusion I come to feels like it's reading too much into it and jumping the gun, so I'd like to hear from you, in your words, what you mean by "enabling weakness".

[Sunshine Jesse]

Also, one thing I want to chime in on: it's inaccurate to talk about the "SJW movement" as if it's some sort of majorly organized thing with a mission's statement. It's generally a broad spectrum of a huge amount of people with wildly varying ideals and beliefs. Some people absolutely take it too far, and some people don't take it far enough, but I'd hesitate to treat the "movement" as having any significant degree of consistency beyond the general genre of subjects that these people are choosing to advocate for. With something like a political party that has a set statement on what it is that they aim to accomplish and through what means, what they stand for, there comes with it a greater consistency in general what that movement is and stands for. The "SJW Movement" lacks anything of that sort, it's just kind of a tag-word slapped onto people that stand up for a given status quo in society that they see as wrong.

 

Anyways, that's kind of just regurgitating what I already said in my first post.

 

As for your post...

 

 

I agree. Viewing it as some monolithic movement is dishonest at best- and negligent at worst. You're tossing aside the good ideas and their merit just because of what the long term implications might be. You can call me short-sighted all you want, but this seems like it's going in the entirely opposite direction. It's ignoring a real fix for real problems solely out of fear that things will end up poorly. You argue in favor of humanity while simultaneously lacking faith that they can sort things out- does that really make sense to you? It's reactionary, and being reactionary tends to get in the way of real change for the better.

 

 

I'd actually argue that I have even more faith than you. You have faith that order will rise up from chaos, but I have faith that order can be upheld and that it's possible for us to be put back on track by adhering to said order. I view the broken system as perfectly fixable, and don't want to cause more destruction just on the gamble that things will fix themselves in the end. I have faith in the way things are, you have faith in the way things could be. That's the difference between us. That's one of the reasons your view is so dangerous to me. It's absolutely a gamble that I don't think needs to be taken.

 

I also believe that a reactionary perspective is important to slow down change. It gives us time to introspect on the implications behind said change, allowing us to implement the results in a more balanced, cautious manner. If we go too fast, we run the risk of losing sight of the value in the steps we took to get there.

 

I'd like a bit more clarification on this statement. I could draw implications as to what you're saying, but any sort of conclusion I come to feels like it's reading too much into it and jumping the gun, so I'd like to hear from you, in your words, what you mean by "enabling weakness".

 

With a few major exceptions, don't think that people should be encouraged to view their hardships as something they couldn't prevent, or at least better protect themselves against. I think people should be taught to endure them and grow from them when they come. If you encounter a problem, the solution should usually be tailored to both preventing it from happening and resisting it if it happens again, and I think a lot of left-leaning ideas and movements completely lose sight of the former then the latter is just as important.

 

What about sexual assault? Emotional and physical abuse from authority figures such as parents?

 

Like I said, major exceptions. It's too easy for your authority figures to instill the idea that the above things are okay or justified. I draw the line at authority figures abusing their power, but I believe it's fair game for your peers to apply pressure on you, with the exception of things that are as fundamentally damaging as assault (both physical and sexual) and the like, as long as it's something you can actually be taught to resist and better yourself from.

 

I also think you might be strawmanning yourself a bit and need to represent your side a bit better, me.

 

That idea seems dangerously close to victim blaming. While that mindset is good for the sake of personal growth, applying it to society as a whole makes it far too easy to downplay the struggles of others. Downplaying those struggles doesn't lend well to your idea of "strength," as convincing someone that their struggles aren't important is disempowering. If you perceive yourself as having "deserved" something bad happening to you, it's far more difficult to use that event as a source of personal growth. You just accept it. In your own mind, you don't deserve better.

 

I don't think we should give society the means or mindset to victim blame people, because I don't think people can be trusted to not go in that direction.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I abhor, admire, and fear Social Justice. I think it is a manipulative new iteration of fascism which is being used to control the populations by means of tugging at humanity's greatest weakness. Our compassion for others on a local scale* (Nihilism concept).

 

It's weaponized pathos and in some cases ethos. Notably it's an omission of logos

 

Allow me to elaborate. In many case, people can be manipulated to your whims by promoting a negative. 

 

Social Justice is an indirect form of negative punishment

 

Instead of directly punishing and individual, you're forcing a proxy to take a punishment, which you know, your manipulation target would personally not want to endure. This in turn helps coerce them to attempt to lessen the proxy affliction.

 

Ex. Want to coerce people to donate to a food shelter? Inundate them with pictures or videos of starving people, or malnourished people.

 

Would you like to starve? Most likely not. Ok, so here's this kid starving - is that fair; would you like to be in that spot? Most likely not. Will you do task x to help lessen that kid's predicament? In most cases the manipulation target will be willing. 

 

Now that doesn't sound so bad does it? You're merely using operant conditioning to fix the worlds problems right? 

 

Well, not if you're using nonobjective persuasion by starting at false or misleading premises. Let's look at gun control for a clear example. 

 

M: Manipulator

R: Rube

P: Proxy

 

M to R: Have you heard about the latest horrific mass shooting? *Displays news about P's horrific death*

R to M: Oh god! No! This is awful!!

M to R: Yes, it is, evil even. Those god darn assault weapons are being used to exterminate our children!

R to M: *shakes head in horror*

M to R: Would you want your child killed like P?

R to M: NO!

M to R: Will you support an assault weapon ban, think of your children?

R to M: Yes, anything

 

M uses (1) Frightening language designed to entice fear in R (2) uses P to promote sadness and sympathy in R (3) then attempts to push agenda using these footholds

 

Leaving out objective information such as (1) Police were warned 37 times about P's killer, including by P's killer (2) The weapon in question is significantly less likely to be cause of mortality relative to other causes they don't care much about (unregulated hand guns in this case).

 

And you see this all over the SJ framework. Does Black Lives Matter protest at (1) The thousands of deaths that happen in majority AA Chicago or (2) the publicized dozen of deaths cause by white police officers? You go for where you can maximize the pathos effect. Objectively? Clearly Chicago is the larger problem on a sheer magnitude of loss of life. But you wouldn't notice it that way unless you looked.

 

Social justice doesn't always work. Psychology is a fickle tool like that, some people might be sadists, or the conditioning might fail, or they might be onto your game, but it'll affect 6/10 useful idiots.

 

Now weaponize it to push your political agendas. Find that one illegal immigrant who is a Neurosurgeon with 5 kids and a white wife, plaster his face all over the wall. Would you rather use him as your poster boy, or the guy taking a sheet on the sidewalk in Harlem who cashes in his food stamps for the last 20 years?

 

Want to push Abortion rights? Are you going to use the mother who wanted her child, but had a ruptured fallopian tube and had to get an abortion to save her life and stay alive for her other 6 kids, or are you going to use the snotty daughter of a rich white man who was too lazy to take the pill?

 

The unhelpful statistic that former is 4% of all abortions, and the latter is closer to 80% of all abortions, is just an unhelpful fact you can omit. The rubes won't know.

 

 

Similar constructs can be made for much of the progressive agenda. If tomorrow I tell the press that, like, a gang banger will get shot or a truckload of soldiers will be blowing up, nobody panics because it's all part of the plan. But when I say that one gay, colored, tranny will be shot...well, then everyone loses their minds.

 

To be fair, many parts of the right wing nationalist agenda (such as Islam) also use a similar logic. Though not to the level of dishonestly progressivism does.

 

I abhor it cause it creates an artificial reality not based in objectivity and subjective debates cannot be won

 

I admire it because of how effective it is on the normies

 

I fear it because of how effective is is on the normies

[Sunshine Jesse]

I'm going to lift the rule against arguing against the core points in my opening post because I want to inspire more discussion.

 

I'm going to preface this by saying that I don't disagree with your conclusion that much. I do, however, see very big holes in the logic you used to reach it and need to address those so you can argue your point better. I think we need to attack the SJW movement from the right angles with the right methods.
 
 

I abhor, admire, and fear Social Justice. I think it is a manipulative new iteration of fascism which is being used to control the populations by means of tugging at humanity's greatest weakness. Our compassion for others on a local scale* (Nihilism concept).

I don't think I'd call it fascist. It fits one- maybe two, if you want to stretch it- of the core indicators of it lined up in the Wikipedia article, but fascism requires a level of organization that the social justice movement simply doesn't have. It has no leaders and no direction.

Perhaps that's one of the reasons it's so dangerous. It, as a concept, is almost entirely unfocused, making it come off as a dissolution of social order rather than an upheaval of it. Nobody knows what it'll result in, even (perhaps especially) the people who adhere to it. It's a move towards nothing. and setting standards makes it far too easy for someone to label you as a wholesale opponent to it.
 
But people do label themselves as opponents to the whole concept- that's the thing. That's part of what I'm arguing against.
 

M uses (1) Frightening language designed to entice fear in R (2) uses P to promote sadness and sympathy in R (3) then attempts to push agenda using these footholds
 
Leaving out objective information such as (1) Police were warned 37 times about P's killer, including by P's killer (2) The weapon in question is significantly less likely to be cause of mortality relative to other causes they don't care much about (unregulated hand guns in this case).

 Leaving out that information is important, yes, but you fail to realize the crux of why it doesn't matter. It doesn't have as much to do with ignoring objective reality as you think.
 
1 is irrelevant because it operates under the assumption that contacting the police would've fixed the problem. If contacting the police didn't solve the problem, in that they failed or didn't act quick enough, banning those weapons would have in fact been a valid, effective solution, despite it being short-sighted. The objective truth is the fact that the police were contacted, but the idea that they would've made a difference is completely subjective.
 
Discovering truth is still an A->B->C causal relation, and if you want to actually be correct, you need to learn to recognize when you've defined C before you started and eliminate C outright. You have defined C from the get-go (banning assault weapons is bad), and so have they (it's good). You can deny this, but I can tell from the nature of your arguments that you presupposed C before finding A or B. Even though you are correct, you're still arguing based on what you wanted to begin with and you won't change anyone's minds like that. To put it simply, Ben Shapiro has it backwards: Feelings don't care about facts. People don't change their minds until their feelings and core assumptions are properly brought into question.
 
The police were notified 37 times is irrelevant to them because that's not pertinent to what they're trying to argue. They're trying to argue that the ban of assault weapons could've lessened the scale of the crime, resulting in fewer deaths. You need to get on their level and argue from their perspective, by their standards, and their logic. The inability/refusal to do so is quite possibly the whole cause behind the backfire effect.
 
You need to apply this logic to the other aspects of the movement you argue against, too.
 

And you see this all over the SJ framework. Does Black Lives Matter protest at (1) The thousands of deaths that happen in majority AA Chicago or (2) the publicized dozen of deaths cause by white police officers? You go for where you can maximize the pathos effect. Objectively? Clearly Chicago is the larger problem on a sheer magnitude of loss of life. But you wouldn't notice it that way unless you looked.

 
You're completely missing the point behind BLM. The problems they're actually fighting against are the systemic issues that cause 2 to happen, one of which is institutionalized racism. While 1 is relevant to them, eliminating the problems that cause 2 is actually what they were built upon, so the fact that 1 exists is entirely irrelevant to their cause unless they choose to fight against it. In fact, they'll (sometimes correctly) try to argue that the reasons behind 2 are why 1 even happens.
 
 

Social justice doesn't always work. Psychology is a fickle tool like that, some people might be sadists, or the conditioning might fail, or they might be onto your game, but it'll affect 6/10 useful idiots.
 
Now weaponize it to push your political agendas. Find that one illegal immigrant who is a Neurosurgeon with 5 kids and a white wife, plaster his face all over the wall. Would you rather use him as your poster boy, or the guy taking a sheet on the sidewalk in Harlem who cashes in his food stamps for the last 20 years?
 
Want to push Abortion rights? Are you going to use the mother who wanted her child, but had a ruptured fallopian tube and had to get an abortion to save her life and stay alive for her other 6 kids, or are you going to use the snotty daughter of a rich white man who was too lazy to take the pill?
 
The unhelpful statistic that former is 4% of all abortions, and the latter is closer to 80% of all abortions, is just an unhelpful fact you can omit. The rubes won't know.
 
 
Similar constructs can be made for much of the progressive agenda. If tomorrow I tell the press that, like, a gang banger will get shot or a truckload of soldiers will be blowing up, nobody panics because it's all part of the plan. But when I say that one gay, colored, tranny will be shot...well, then everyone loses their minds.
 
To be fair, many parts of the right wing nationalist agenda (such as Islam) also use a similar logic. Though not to the level of dishonestly progressivism does.
 
I abhor it cause it creates an artificial reality not based in objectivity and subjective debates cannot be won
 
I admire it because of how effective it is on the normies
 
I fear it because of how effective is is on the normies

 
 
I mean yeah, the idea what public perception is so easy to shift in a negative direction is exactly why Democracy is falling out of favor as of late. The SJW movement and its effects are a pretty strong argument in favor of fascism for those who truly despise the direction it could take society in. 

 

But that's unrelated to the matter at hand.

[VCR_CAT]

The problem with Winter's argument is that it's not exclusive to what people that fall under the SJW tag practice. This isn't a description of "SJW-ism" but rather a description of what people in general will do regarding the movements they believe in but framed in such a way that has it appear as being disingenuous and/or plagued with ulterior motives. The argument isn't so much "why SJW is bad" but rather a pretty good deconstruction of "This is how I've demonized the people that I disagree with and see them".

 

The thing is, you can see that same behavior on all sides. People will focus on information that supports their rhetoric, because that's what people do. Some will weigh all the evidence and consider all sides equally, while others would much rather listen to what already agrees with their presuppositions. To use language that Winter is using, some folks will argue that people of all races and nationalities share the same inherent potential as anyone else to become something great and use those examples of peaceful, successful immigrants, while others will argue that all people of a given race or nationality are horrific monsters predisposed to mindless violence using just as selective evidence to support their argument.

 

It happens. That's what people do. This isn't a product of SJW-ism, this is a product of humanity.

 

If you really want to think about it, you'll realize that if you boil through the particular subjects and topics that they rally for, the only significant difference between an SJW and an Anti-SJW are the particular subjects they fight for or against.

 

Yes, I would argue that the Right-Wing Nationalists use a level of dishonesty to a level that is equal, if not greater, than a given SJW. I've seen their rhetoric form those sorts of people first hand, and it's the same. Trying to argue that these people are vastly different from each other is trying to argue that "Dude, Coke is so much better than Pepsi how could you support such an abhorrent drink" when really their taste is practically identical; the only difference is branding.

 

The issue isn't any one "movement" or brand of belief. The issue is that, as Jesse said, people are presupposed to their position and no amount of properly structured and valid argument or research will convince them otherwise. People don't research subjects to see if they're wrong, they research subjects to find something that says they're right.

 

None of this gets any better, because just as people dig into their presupposed stances and feelings, they also work to demonize their opposition (as seen above). What this does is it creates a personal narrative that everyone who disagrees with them lacks a comparable intelligence or competency and/or are morally bankrupt, or whatever negative traits that qualify the opposition as being lesser. The personal narrative only serves to harden their presupposition because now, deep down, they believe their opposition is incapable of delivering a position worth considering because it's inherently less than their own.

 

These people exist everywhere. Humanity is a gradient where everyone is capable of the same intelligence, stupidity, violence, peace, acceptance, and rejection. There are going to be a lot of SJW's that have the wrong idea, there will be a lot of nationalists that have the wrong idea, and there will be people that have the right idea. But if we want to actually come to actual, productive, and good results, then we have to stop demonizing and belittling our opposition, listening to other people, and weighing evidence before we come to conclusions.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Well, speaking as the 2Pac of Canada,

 

I feel there is a revolt to be lead

 

concerning social justice

 

we need to bring MORE social justice *pounds fist*

MORE revolution, MORE gay rights

 

and until that day, there will always be poverty.

 

You don't even know the morning from the dark until you've seen the sun for what it really is.

 

You think you see the SUN, but if you only see the shine you don't see the SUN for what the SUN is, and those are the people that I am now speaking on behalf of. 

 

And if you ain't with it 

 

THEN YOU NEED THERAPY

 

Start listening WITH YOUR EARS, PEOPLE

 

What must be done musts be done

 

If it doesn't happen we'll end up like NAZI GERMANY or HUTU POWER

 

so just get your head out ta your ass

 

and make some sense

 

You have to win the battles

If you don't, don't speak to me *block_emoticon*

 

If you don't speak to me, you'll never find any inspiration in your life

 

So, get some sense in your skull, and I speak those words in general not as a personal comment

 

Get some sense in your skull and vote for me when I run. 

 

My name is 2Pacanada, Canadaveli

 

You shouldn't stand between me and the glorious prytaneum of 24 Sussex, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 

 

*applause*

 

Thank you! 

 

 

• 

• 

 

I'm BACK IN DEBATES

 

you thought it would never happen but I'm BACK

 

and here I can source some of my arguments:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupac_Shakur

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

hawt damn a real jabroni in the house now

 

Well, speaking as the 2Pac of Canada,

 

I feel there is a revolt to be lead

 

concerning social justice

 

we need to bring MORE social justice *pounds fist*

MORE revolution, MORE gay rights

 

and until that day, there will always be poverty.

 

You don't even know the morning from the dark until you've seen the sun for what it really is.

 

You think you see the SUN, but if you only see the shine you don't see the SUN for what the SUN is, and those are the people that I am now speaking on behalf of. 

 

And if you ain't with it 

 

THEN YOU NEED THERAPY

 

Start listening WITH YOUR EARS, PEOPLE

 

What must be done musts be done

 

If it doesn't happen we'll end up like NAZI GERMANY or HUTU POWER

 

so just get your head out ta your ass

 

and make some sense

 

You have to win the battles

If you don't, don't speak to me *block_emoticon*

 

If you don't speak to me, you'll never find any inspiration in your life

 

So, get some sense in your skull, and I speak those words in general not as a personal comment

 

Get some sense in your skull and vote for me when I run. 

 

My name is 2Pacanada, Canadaveli

 

You shouldn't stand between me and the glorious prytaneum of 24 Sussex, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 

 

*applause*

 

Thank you! 

 

 

• 

• 

 

I'm BACK IN DEBATES

 

you thought it would never happen but I'm BACK

 

and here I can source some of my arguments:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupac_Shakur

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice

Muh Man

[Dad]

Well, speaking as the 2Pac of Canada,

 

I feel there is a revolt to be lead

 

concerning social justice

 

we need to bring MORE social justice *pounds fist*

MORE revolution, MORE gay rights

 

and until that day, there will always be poverty.

 

You don't even know the morning from the dark until you've seen the sun for what it really is.

 

You think you see the SUN, but if you only see the shine you don't see the SUN for what the SUN is, and those are the people that I am now speaking on behalf of. 

 

And if you ain't with it 

 

THEN YOU NEED THERAPY

 

Start listening WITH YOUR EARS, PEOPLE

 

What must be done musts be done

 

If it doesn't happen we'll end up like NAZI GERMANY or HUTU POWER

 

so just get your head out ta your ass

 

and make some sense

 

You have to win the battles

 

If you don't, don't speak to me *block_emoticon*

 

If you don't speak to me, you'll never find any inspiration in your life

 

So, get some sense in your skull, and I speak those words in general not as a personal comment

 

Get some sense in your skull and vote for me when I run. 

 

My name is 2Pacanada, Canadaveli

 

You shouldn't stand between me and the glorious prytaneum of 24 Sussex, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 

 

*applause*

 

Thank you! 

 

 

 

• 

• 

 

I'm BACK IN DEBATES

 

you thought it would never happen but I'm BACK

 

and here I can source some of my arguments:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupac_Shakur

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice

  

hawt damn a real jabroni in the house now

 

 

Muh Man

This isn't Misc. Keep your posts formatted neatly and your arguments clear of memes.

 

In addition, quoting a post and replying with a single line response is not acceptable. You need to contribute more.

[vla1ne]

social justic might seem to be attacking the core, but from what i've seen, it's merely attacking what could arguably be called the ghosts of the past. to start with:

 

gun control, counters to the argument that gun control would have worked can be used in the exact same manner as the argument for gun control

 

gun control) we all seem to be of similar agreement that contacting the police, does not really fix the problem, or at least that it does not fix the problem within a reasonable time frame when factoring in emergencies like shootings and other such violent crime. moving past that though.

banning the weapons being the solution, ignores the rights of actual law abiding citizens many of whom own said weapons, and less than one percent of whom, actually use them to cause harm. bet before even that, what weapons are getting banned? why are they being banned while others are not, what of the livelihoods of the thousands of people who sell guns, and the millions who buy them? and what happens when those control measures fail?  this isn't japan or australia i'm talking about, this is america, we aren't small islands that can afford to remove all of our guns, this isn't like Europe either, where the gun owning countries are landlocked inside countries that have no guns at all. our closes neighbor mexico has guns for days, and they're always selling. ban whatever you like, in america, if i want a gun, i'm getting one whether it's banned or not. and social justice agendas seem to not grasp this concept. for the sheer amount of guns america has, and the size of america itself, we have very few gun deaths (no, i'm not counting chicago, because that city is it's own level of funked, and i'll deal with them when i get to the BLM portion of my point). handguns, by far, the most commonly used weapon in mass shootings, are overlooked in favor of rifles and shotguns, the scarier looking weapons. this is why social justice is a terrible front to start on in relation to guns, guns are not the issue, fear of guns is, at least, as far as america factors into things. it uses (for the most part) the wrong information, and often overlooks the most simple of solutions, in favor of the most drastic and sweeping solutions, in an overzealous attempt to solve the issue.

 

 

next up, since they got a light mention above, BLM. it's been stated above, but their goal and their actions are backwards, their perceived opponents; the police and the law itself, are little more than ghosts at this point. by all statistics, be they percentages or outright numbers, police are overwhelmingly favorable towards black people. they shoot far fewer black people than almost any other race, but somehow, every single time they shoot one, it becomes a prolific case. many of which have already been shown to be justified shootings, yet they don ot correct themselves, but continue to use said people in their marches, as martyrs and not criminals. this is a problem that does the group no favors as a whole. their very approach is wrong, (most at least, i've seen some who i can get behind) instead of trying to fix the black community, many of the BLM  movements that i've seen have instead damaged the reputation of the black community, either by rioting, or misinforming the public. the worst part though, is the monolith problem. it's mob mentality, granted to the entirety of a race, it does nothing for the collective good of a race to be so focused on unifying, soley based upon race. (the same thing many in BLM accuse white of doing, and the same thing that people seem to call white privilege.) as for their aversion to law, they've clearly never heard of affirmative action, quotas, and minority scholarships, all of which were worked into society simply to give minorities the leg up. in asociety that hates blacks, why would such things exist? but instead of realizing this, and moving onto the real issues, they instead choose to look at the old issue, and no matter how dead the horse, they beat it even further.

 

for the abortion issue, it's an sjw approach, but in conservative flavor. conservatives view lie in the womb as sacred, and (many, not all) wish to legislate what women do with their wombs, not acknowledging that it is the exact opposite view that they are facing on the other side of the fence, from people who believe it's their choice what they allow their body to cultivate, and do not view potential life, as a good enough excuse to legislate what others can and cannot be forced to carry. the people who wish to have children will have them, and the people who do not, will not. it is a stance that's bitter to both sides, but nonetheless remains as fair as it needs to be.

 

and again, social justice is, on it's face, a good thing, it's advocating, and fighting for the rights and freedoms of others less fortunate, elevating them to a status equivalent ot any other citizen, but that's the face alone, and if that were all there were to it, then egalitarianism would be the proper term for it. and with that, the backside of SocJus shows itself. by mostly no fault of it's own, social justice has become the continued fighting for things that nobody needs, and few people still want/don't have. equality is trashed for making groups "more equal" than others, Percieved insult is seen as a great injustice, no matter who has to be sacrificed to make the point, and thought control is blown far out to attack unknown and unconfirmed threats. it's gotten to the point that professional  witch hunting is essentially a college course away.