What Is the “Social Justice” Endgame?
blog.alexrohde.com
blog.alexrohde.com
Their first bullet point asks their audience to define a term they just made up, and implies that grouping people via this term is important to social justice, said as someone who has trouble making sense of social justice.
This list feels like they're trying to disprove a math proof or something. As if, if you can "catch them out" with some edge case you can blow this thing wide open. This kind of approach doesn't work outside of maths, physics and CS. It barely works there.
My advice: step back from your 12 highly specific "smoking gun" bullet points and start asking some more general questions. Or, even better than asking, doing some of your own reading.
Again: your list is a large barrage of insistent questions that require your readers to contort to a set of terms you've made up. It is not open minded, it is treating the subject as already wrong and here's why.
It reminds me of when you have a "discussion" with someone and they aren't actually interested in listening, they're just waiting until you say something they can "ah ha!" you with.
I'm a libertarian and I love it when people ask me questions, even if they're trying to bait me. I've got a consistent ideology and someone asking me questions doesn't threaten it.
I think alexrohde is a systems kind of thinker, and he's trying to understand the values and ideology that social justice lives by, because it feels inconsistent to him. But again, maybe I'm being too generous.
The post also reminds me Double-Cruxing: http://lesswrong.com/lw/o6p/double_crux_a_strategy_for_resol... but.. granted, it's one sided.
I know that Poe's Law applies to a lot of the internet, but I feel like HN is one place where people are more likely to honestly engage.
I was subjected to this indoctrination during my undergraduate degree. It can take some time to step back and properly question rather than just accepting the spoon-feeding. There was a very definite message sent that as a white man (of 18 years old!) I bore responsibility, in some way, for the oppression of women over millennia, for the horrors of colonialism, for racism, for homophobia, for God knows whatever else. I believe that everyone should have the right to pursue their ambitions without hindrance, and I treat people with respect based on their actions, not what boxes they tick. Why am I apparently the enemy in this current culture war? Why is the supposedly tolerant left so utterly intolerant of dissenting voices?
Are you? Where are your answers to the same - or other equally important - questions? Awfully convenient to have others go first and commit themselves, isn't it?
The idea itself certainly isn't one he made up - the idea that it's possible to sort people into different groups based on physical or conceptual criteria is probably older than language. It's also one that "marginalized people" or "historically oppressed groups" (or whatever label you prefer) also struggle with.
I don't know if there's a generally accepted definition of "social justice", but one of the core concepts seems to be concerned with identifying and correcting privileges and oppressions (e.g., injustices) which are enjoyed or visited upon people based on their (perceived) membership in social groups.
There's nothing unreasonable about asking for clarity about which groups fall into the "oppressor" and "oppressed" categories; and about how group membership is determined. Even within "social justice" movements, there are complicated questions about that - e.g., trans people, Rachel Dolezal, etc.
...and the OP doesn't even try. Instead he asserts his privilege by asking others to justify themselves and their actions to him individually according to his framing and questions. Does he even ask, for example, about the other culture(s) at play here, racists and sexists and so on pulling in the other direction? Surely understanding them is just as important, but that would be inconvenient. No, only one group has to be completely transparent and explicit and specific, while others remain free to roam around the rhetorical battleground changing claims however/whenever it suits them.
This doesn't seem to be about understanding. It's a delaying tactic. Keep people busy answering an endless series of questions and objections, so they can't spend that time doing anything else. It's not like we haven't seen this before. It even has a name: sea-lioning. To the author: show some evidence that you've tried to educate yourself before you expect others to do it for you.
Something I find quite amusing is you accuse the author of sea-lioning while you blatantly do so in the rest of the thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15029410 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15029531
> I even explicitly pointed out that I was doing it
It's not clear to anyone reading the thread. You never explicitly point out you are doing so.
I have friends who are social-justicey and I've read a lot online, and it continually feels like Social Justice is just an extended application of marxism. (I.e. there are some disadvantaged groups, and it's because the system, so take down the system by any means necessary!!) And Marxism itself suffers from being more of a critcism than offering an alternative moral system. http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/13/book-review-singer-on-m... I'm telling you so that you know that I've done the research.
And I hear you, I also get the feeling that mainstream political discourse is just different camps shouting out eachother's most obvious flaws. And our last election was a _perfect example of that_. When surveyed for why someone was going to vote Trump/Clinton, the most common answer was: "Well they're not Clinton/Trump!!". [citation needed]
But like, where do we go from there? We just can't talk to eachother because the other side is just trying to fuck with us? We gotta keep trying. Even if AlexRohde is not asking questions in good faith, you've got a chance to win over the audience.
OK, it's not quite sea-lioning, but it's similar in effect - and, I still strongly suspect, in spirit. The asymmetry of one person asking dozens of questions, without much context or any hint of their own answers (except where those are evident from the leading nature of the questions), is a poor basis for dialog. If you want to engage with someone, there has to be give as well as take. Anyone who has tried to find common ground on a contentious topic before is likely to realize that. I guess I should just assume Alex doesn't have such experience.
> Even if AlexRohde is not asking questions in good faith, you've got a chance to win over the audience.
Indeed, that's a good point. I do so all the time, here and elsewhere. It's important. However, the "please fill out form ABC" format is a terrible way to do that. When the best outcome is a very small increase in understanding and the more likely outcome is an exercise in goalpost-chasing, I'll pass. I'd rather save my energy to persuade people of the points I consider important, in a less biased frame, with some interactivity thrown in.
But - at the risk of taking a troll's bait - perhaps we can just assume that the author of the linked blog isn't actually expecting anyone to respond to his questions literally. Instead, he's obliquely asserting that the questions he poses haven't been, and can't be, answered reasonably by people who subscribe to a "social justice" worldview. He's saying that people with that worldview are illogical or hypocritical or unreasonable, because questions like those he's raising deserve (and aren't getting) satisfactory answers.
Ultimately, the point that he's belaboring is that the "social justice" movement as he understands it doesn't rest on any fixed values, but that what's just depends on the perspective of individuals, e.g., is essentially applied moral relativism. And he's doesn't believe moral relativism is an appropriate foundation for organizing human life.
So the challenge is to either disagree, and identify fixed moral positions/values that support "social justice"; or to agree that social justice is moral relativism, but that's OK because moral relativism is OK.
Or one can say "I reject that characterization/argument" - but the danger is that others may perceive the rejection as motivated by fear or an admission of failure, especially if you don't present an alternative characterization that seems at least as reasonable.
Often, the purpose of an argument isn't to influence the other participant, but to influence others who may observe the exchange. Even if the author is "sea lioning" (aka concern trolling), if he does it effectively enough, third parties who can't tell the difference may find it convincing, and claims that "the answer is obvious" or "you should already know the answer" are unpersuasive.
That's no more true for social justice than for any other view or principle held by many. There is in fact a large established body of work exploring what social justice means and exploring the concept in excruciating detail, from the Englightenment through Rawls, Nozick, and others. Yes, everyone brings their own personal interpretation, but so does every liberal, white nationalist, feminist conservative, Nazi, libertarian, etc. Singling out social-justice theory, when it's among the most developed of these ideas, is absurd.
> So the challenge is to either disagree, and identify fixed moral positions/values that support "social justice"; or to agree that social justice is moral relativism
As I said, I often do that, but not within an opponent's frame according to their priorities and subject to their judgment of which answers are sufficient.
> third parties who can't tell the difference may find it convincing
And if it's called out clearly enough, those same third parties might find it singularly unconvincing and be put off by the attempt to instigate a false debate.
It is fascinating (and illustrative) that you are apparently unable to even imagine something that isn't moral relativism.
You are missing the point. What if everyone doesn't bring their own personal interpretation?
This is one of my favorite XKCDs: https://xkcd.com/1053/
Disclaimer: not a native english speaker, i might lack vocabulary and do some grammar mistakes.
1/ I have no idea of what a protected group is. A discriminated group however, depends on where you live. Erythreen jews in israel are discriminated against by the “dominant” group (white conservative isreali). Chinese suffer discrimination in some parts of India and Philipines, while people from Philipines suffer some in China (sorry, no idea how englsh call them).
Past oppression is only relevant if some discrimination is done because of this (Hello Rwanda). Let’s take South Africa. Past oppression was relevant even after Nelson mandela because the culture was still related to the apparteid. This is less true today, so this is not as relevant now (my question: how did you not figure this on your own? Do you like asking leading question that much?)
2/Leading question, again, nice. None. But people in discriminated groups should have an easier time joining profession that brings power or visibility, so related to law (even if it is as paralegal), politics or television, or company management. Again with the S.A example, the culture changed because there were more and more black people in courthouses, politics and at the head of national companies. The fact that there is some racial inequalities there come from class inequalities (not the subject here) and not racism.
3/ What agenda?
4/ None. I don’t see your point there, it might be lost in translation.
5/ What? Why would you punish statement made at work? Except if there is a client (let’s say, the state want to buy your product, and you say “public worker are paid doing nothing” to his face, get ready to be fired or put in a closet). Is this a leading question?
6/ Victims are defined by law in my country, i don’t know about the us though. I’d define “offensive” a statement that i would not say out loud to all my friends or family. Like “i find that any theism is dumb as f…”, which i would never say to my grandmother, despite being my real feeling, is offensive. 3rd part is a leading question, but my response is that i do not care about you and you can tell whatever you want to anyone, but if you say the previous sentence to anyone and get called out, i would not help you
7/ I’m not advocating for anyone, but i can see (in my country anyway) that some people (obese people) have it worst than anybody in some places (hospital mainly). I defend them orally with my friends and on internet when i feel like it (not often in english though). Well, since i’m 20 i don’t really hang with anybody that would judge people for their looks (because its tiring /time-consumming to defend people i’m not related too for no reason but my personal ethic) but i did that.
8/ Do you know that apostasia is punishable by death in pakistan, but not in other countries (tunisia come to mind), and in some, nobody cares. So it depends on WHERE you live, obviously. Do you feel that in USA/UK, the way most of the people treated Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam when he choose, after nearly dying twice, to change his religion, was justified/ subjectivly fair/fair isn’t the question? Where i lived, no one cared about this. So probably MORE protected if you live surrounded by dumb a-holes, about the same else.
8bis: Sorry about the passive-agressive subtitle there, i might have no personnality and just mimic the way of expression of the people i’m talking to.
9/ Well, you can see my response in 6/. Yes, there is studies that make correlation about IQ and how religious people feel, still, making any remark about that out loud (or on a forum where religious people gather, on a video about gregorian chant) is just rude.
10/ Depending on where you live, discriminated people are not the same, so i don’t really care. I spent entire vacations with my racist cousin, we had no problems. He is quite honest with his hate and while i disagree, i still quite like him. Honestly, most of those are leading question and i decided early to go away from people i perceive as manipulative, so i would never hang out with you anyway, but we could coexist just fine.
11/ No, i don’t care about the majority, i’m old enough to think on my own.
12/ Sorry, how does work safety come with guilt and social pressure? I think this is manipulation, but w/e. Guilt and social pressure are sadly two educational levers, that are used and abused with children in school quite often (and in dog training too). Using it against adult are less effective, but it still works for some reason. I do hate this way of doing things, but whne i was a youth camp consellor, i had to use social pressure to make activities run smoothly. I’m still feeling guilty about it. I disliked doing it because i feel this was dishonest, even if this was the easiest way to get thing started. Those questions being a bit dishonest, are you feeling a bit guilty about it or do you feel its fine being dishonest to try to convince people they are mistaken (or do you think those question where objectively honest and i’m mistaken)?
It was an interesting game, thank you.