Thinking Critically About Social Justice
quillette.com
quillette.com
I grew up in a part of the country that voted Trump in 2016. When I was a child, we had to drive almost 50 miles to visit friends who were also "brown people" of vaguely the same ethnic group.
In what I've seen of Social Justice advocates both online, and in my various run-ins with them in person, I've noted the eerie similarity between them and the bigoted people who used to racially bash me and my sister when we were children. There's a sort of "seeking" going on. There's far too much "witch-hunting" and threatening conformity in it. There's a hatred, and a glee in being superior. There's a similar clinging to image and a similar rejection of logic.
I was once an ally of Social Justice, and would be still, but I've seen the underlying morality of it play out both online and in my face and in person. Unless Social Justice starts loudly calling out the injustice done in its name, then my "lived experience" of it speaks loudly that today's Social Justice is malevolent.
Please Listen and Believe.
(Another data point: This thoughtful and well considered Quillette link was flagged and had to be unflagged. Ask yourself who is behaving in a censorious fashion and trying to suppress real discourse. That side is generally not the "good guys" as much as they might try to convince themselves otherwise.)
Excuse my ignorance (I'm European and don't know the American perspective) but what is the context of this sentence? You had no friends with different skin colour or heritage?
Actually, I had a number of childhood friends and playmates who would fall into the politically incorrect category of "white trash" -- even though my father was a physician and would supposedly have high status. Not being white automatically reduced our status by a significant amount. My parents were refused membership to the local country club for quite a long time. I also had middle class friends who were of Finnish, Polish, and Irish heritage.
Why did your family care about not getting in there?
Thanks for trading in stereotypes and rendering judgements on that basis. My sister and I went there to use the pool in the summertime, and though he went for decades being the doctor who works so much, he never played golf, my father very much got into golf in his 60's. He even eventually became awarded as the most improved and developed a circle of good friends there. At one point, he did some social justice activism and shamed his friends for saying bigoted things, and at that point he was respected enough that they listened to him.
I think a bit of golf was well deserved by my father, as an immigrant who worked hard to accomplish the American Dream, and as a man who was once a child who lived through both the horrors of war and the horrors of foreign occupation.
As for why it's important to gain access to the places of high status: This is something which is regarded as important across many Asian cultures. Just who are you, precisely, to judge my culture? Also, stopping the exclusion of people from clubs on the basis of ethnicity was a result of Social Justice in decades past. Look up accounts of Jewish people being excluded from "restricted" clubs. This is also the present pursuit of social justice: gaining entrance for qualified people who were otherwise excluded on the basis of irrelevant immutable characteristics. So long as there is equality of opportunity on the basis of merit, this is a worthy goal.
I can understand why you'd feel that way, but uh, next time keep that stuff for when the person you're responding to isn't asking, but only making claims. I gave you the views i had been given (and it's not like i can go personally to verify) so you'd have something to contrast on while answering my question, instead of having nothing.
And, thanks for the details. They are educational.
Is an eerie similarity between two online groups of people going to mean you abandon attempts to bring about equality of the sexes, races, classes, etc.?
And if you will abandon it, what will you embrace instead? Conservative racism?
I get that maybe there are similarities but there are so many more differences between the two groups that it's ridiculous that people resonate with this comment. One group is "witch-hunting" to root out people who might be bringing stereotypes or prejudice along with their thoughts and ideas, the other is trying to root out people who are of a different race / nationality without even ever hearing any words from them at all.
Clearly one is better than the other, even if both have some similar flaws.
Can you really think of no ideology that can live between the poles of intersectional/postmodern feminism and "conservative racism?" What strange times we live in.
There are a lot of articulate people out there fighting the good fight. Their vision of the world rejects extremists on both sides. Check out Helen Pluckrose, Jonathan Haidt, Steven Pinker, and anything on quillette.com, just to name a few.
If that's the case, the intersectionality preached in the online public square is a fallen version.
The internet can make any system of thought bend to simplistic reasoning. Here, they've done it by "intersectinally" dividing identity into several axes, with one pole "privileged/oppressor" (e.g. white, male) and the other pole "unprivileged/oppressed" (e.g. brown, female). Stuff like "racism against whites isn't racism" lives on the white/brown identity axis. I think the reason you see so much opprobrium directed specifically at "white males" nowadays is because of this kind of thinking.
I'd like to see references. I've seen so many instances of references to idiotic equations using "prejudice + power" followed by bigoted logic which seeks to unperson entire groups wholesale on the basis of immutable characteristics. Where is the intellectual leadership of the left? Why am I seemingly alone in the condemnation of such toxic claptrap?
Seriously, I would be super gratified to see such references!
>I've noted the eerie similarity between them and the bigoted people who used to racially bash me and my sister when we were children.
If any of those people are like Steven Pinker, I'll pass. It's silly science-worshipping nonsense. Science/rationalism is good but it isn't the magical solution to all of the ills which plague humanity (as they like to make it seem).
Does Steven Pinker think he has all the answers? A fair reading of Steven Pinker would conclude anything but. He also knows full well that science isn't magic. However, the progress of science and industry has done way more to cure the ills of humanity than any other thing. Golda Meir was born to parents in conditions where parents would give birth to approaching 10 children in the hopes that a few would survive. It's vaccines, modern medicine, and bountiful food in modern societies which have changed that rotten equation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-n5JYSl_ioA
There is a space in between two unfortunate extremes of people who respect other peoples right to speak no matter how vile and uncomfortable it makes them feel.
Methods matter. Principles matter. The ends do not justify the means. If one advocates, "By Any Means Necessary," then one has disclaimed morals and principles, declaring that they have the judgement to take on the power to lie, cheat, or harm. Power corrupts, and especially so in this case. The historical record bears this out -- especially in the case of those who resist or seek to reform.
One group is "witch-hunting" to root out people who might be bringing stereotypes or prejudice along with their thoughts and ideas
So you are admitting right-out that you seek to "thought-police" people. You admit to the witch-hunt, you just feel justified in it. You are straight-up admitting that you place yourself over other people -- over fellow citizens you supposedly adhere to the value of "equality" with -- to take on such power for yourself.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
There are reasons members might flag a story other than to censor it, including being tired of the current volume of political stories on HN, and recognizing that not every topic can constructively be discussed in every forum.
One reason HN may not be the appropriate forum for such discussions is due to the difficulty in imagining that those that disagree with you might be doing so for any reason other than nefarious reasons, just as you assume that it was flagged in an effort to suppress real discourse. Real discourse does not assume bad faith and seeks to understand just as much to be understood, and seeks common cause rather than increasing divisiveness.
Notice there is nothing in my comment that is directed at any one political position, as it applies to any and all. Ask yourself if you thought I was attacking you and must be supporting the "other side" when reading my comment. Do you think that's a useful and accurate representation? Upon reflection, do you stand by your claim that members who may have flagged the story must be on the other side and behaving badly? What are you actually doing to move the conversation forward? Do you think you're moving the needle in a constructive direction when you do?
Remember, those that already agree with you aren't really your audience, are they? How do you think you're being received by those who don't agree with you? Or don't they matter? Are they unreachable?
These are all very real problems, and it's incredibly frustrating to see people grapple with them in ways that alienate each other, that are unconstructive, and then when people don't want to listen any more, or understandably get their backs up when they're treating each other badly, claim that they're being censored or oppressed.
I wish more of our society's media examined Social Justice through this very lens. I would have much rather that James Damore had received such treatment at the hands of his peers, who now control the platforms of such a broad swath of online discourse.
Set aside those things outside of your control. Do what you can. Stop placing the blame on others.
Take responsibility for making constructive change yourself, regardless of what others may be doing.
Honest and factually-based criticism is a good basis for society's self-correction.
Can you control what "they" do?
They can't control what they do. That's quite obvious. You can criticize people on a rational, factual basis, then see how they react. How they react will in turn tell volumes about their actual underlying motives, and how intellectually honest they are.
Take responsibility for making constructive change yourself, regardless of what others may be doing.
Sometimes, "making constructive change" is telling truth to power. It's the side which can execute the witch-hunts which has the power. It's the side which can intimidate others to keep their heads down and their mouths shut which is the side that has power. In fact, the historical record indicates that the above conditions are precisely when telling truth to power is for the good. So long as it's done on a rational and factual basis, it stands a good chance of being for the good.
Here's another heuristic: You can evaluate side X, when someone "tells truth to power" to side X. How does side X react? If X are the good guys, they listen. If X are not good, then they seek to suppress and attack. Everyone who has been paying attention can now ask themselves: In the contexts where they have power, How does today's Social Justice act? (Answer: Often, they act very poorly, then deny they ever have power in any context.)
When that side intimidates and suppresses, with no fear of reprisal, then one has direct evidence they are speaking truth to power.
That's why it's so important to engage in ways that are productive and constructive.
That's why it's important for onlookers to observe how each side is engaging. The side which best engages in the intellectual potlach of openness is the side that looks the best, and is probably the best. "Productive and constructive," do not preclude criticism. Ask: which is the side that leaves out the references? Which is the side that engages in namecalling, character assassination, and suppression?
Also note, that I started out on the other side. Given what I say above, is it any wonder that I believe there are micro-agressions? I know that many of the things Social Justice says are true to some degree. I've not only listened to the other side, I've listened to it as a corroboration of my life story. But here's the thing: You can't let that stuff overcome humility and justice. "By Any Means Necessary" is a morally bankrupt "Might Makes Right." If there's bias in hiring, then it's not worth it to degrade meritocracy to improve the numbers. If there's micro-aggressions, then it's not worth it to let such accusations run rampant if it leads to unfair, unsubstantiated accusations.
It's plain to see when people are targeting other people. It's particularly plain to see when people have started to succumb to in-group/out-group psychology -- especially when you have experienced it firsthand all of your life.
When your Social Justice starts to contain a big, whopping fraction of injustice, that's worse than your baby formula containing a big whopping fraction of melamine. It's time to start speaking out.
Recent example: Florida school shooter Nikolas Cruz is called a "broken boy" in the media while black children killed by police (e.g. Tamir Rice, but there are dozens of examples) are viewed as grown adults, deserving of execution.
Competence. Music. Food. By living a life of accomplishment and worth. There are some who will never be reached. They are not worth your time. There are others who can be reached, and it is your moral duty to make contact and reaffirm their humanity.
"Black Lives Matter" has shown that large portions of White America treat black people as invisible at best
That is the minimum acceptable behavior. If someone is willing to live and let live, then at least that should be appreciated. Unless one is trying to have their "SF Chinatown Adventure" many people where I live treat Asians as invisible. I, for one, think this is just fine, just so long as I can live my life and accomplish my own goals.
and deserving of their mistreatment at worst.
That is where behavior needs to be condemned. The left is now unwilling to condemn bad behavior in their own ranks. This is how a movement loses the moral high ground and devolves into bad behavior.
We need more nuanced discussions like this. I hope to have, hear and see more of them.
Good luck HN.
This is one of those areas where liberal and leftist diverge. As the author identifies, this aspect of social justice thinking is decidedly anti-liberal.
I actually think this is one of the bigger issues we are seeing with the current debate. Historically, we have had a liberal/leftist coalition in our culture. Now that this is starting to break apart, us liberals are having to come to terms with our leftist allies not actually being liberals; while the leftists are coming to terms with us liberals not actually being leftists.
Because of how inconceivable this divide is to many people, there is a lot of strawmaning of positions. So if a leftist sees a liberal argue for the liberal position in this debate, they see it as arguing against the leftist position; and since leftist==liberal, they must be arguing for the right/conservative posisition.
Since this issue is so politized, I don't think many liberals see the left as arguing for a right/conservative posistion; but many do see them as arguing for an authoritarian posistion, which has historically been associated with the right. As a result, I think that many liberals are simply confused about what is going on since, without the liberal/left distinction, all they see is "their" side going "crazy"; when, in reality, there simply is not (and never was) the common ground that both sides thought there was.
(Obviously, any reference to "historically" refers to the recent history. One does not need to go back that far to find major examples of widely accepted leftist-authoritarians, but those are more in the history books, then in the public perception).
A European leftist is not the same thing as an American leftist. In fact, if we were to look at a different issue, the division between liberal and leftist would be different, even withing American politics.
For some issues, there is so little corralation with the general notion of liberal and leftist, that we would not even think to frame the problem in terms of those lines.
My point being, political identities are not a fundamental unit. They are an abstraction that is only meaningful in a particular contexts. There are real clusters of thought in politics; and we are currently discussing the relationship between two particular clusters of American politics. For the sake of communication, we are forced to give these clusters names, and we choose liberal and leftist because they are the best names we have available.
Where you start to see the fissure is around how universities should handle controversial material in the classroom and accusations of sexual misconduct in their student populations. The Christakis incident at Yale [0] is one of the best test cases. In particular,
>...if you don’t like a costume someone is wearing, look away, or tell them you are offended. Talk to each other. Free speech and the ability to tolerate offense are the hallmarks of a free and open society.
is one of those flash-point statements that separates liberals from leftists. This incident has been picked up as a rallying cry by the far-right so there's a lot of FUD flying around, but just to prove I'm not the only Democrat who would agree wholeheartedly, here's Obama [1]:
> I think you should be able to — anybody who comes to speak to you and you disagree with, you should have an argument with ‘em. But you shouldn’t silence them by saying, "You can’t come because I'm too sensitive to hear what you have to say." That’s not the way we learn either.
I would call Obama and has allies "liberals" here, and the protesters and their allies "leftists." Happy to be convinced otherwise on terminology, but it shows that there are at least two very distinct value systems going on here, which may be aligned on policy only by accident.
[0]https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/the-per...
[1]https://www.vox.com/2015/9/14/9326965/obama-political-correc...
Culturally, the underlying problem is that certain people have spent too long in echo chambers that have atrophied their ability to interpret criticism rationally or thoughtfully. It's to the point that it's gone beyond oppression olympics to outright witch hunting. Liberals are terrified of being accused of not being liberal because apparently not being a complete extremist in your beliefs means you're not dedicated or passionate about them or have no credibility. This is so unbelievable as to be absurd.
Journalism and discussion have completely broken down into whichever side can throw the most hate at the other. It's just complete nonsense.
But, the current leftist movement, as far as I can tell, is a product of the humanities culture. In the current iteration of this fight, there seems to be, at a minimum, a liberal/science coalition, but I am not sure how fundamental that is.
I actually avoid talking about this, because people tend to get far more offended when I attack the humanities culture relative to the leftist culture (probably because humanities students take an attack on the humanities much more personally; while most non-activists would not have such a personal attachment to "the left").
I won't deny that women and minorities still face actual discrimination, but as some minority groups are being normalized in general culture, there seems to be a drive from the same people to normalize every potential minority no matter how small or unusual. Simply put, there's a limited amount of accommodation that's reasonable to make. We're at the stage where some of the minorities that are left are well below 0.1% of the population and they don't face significant discrimination due to appearance like races and women do. Maybe someday there will be an "Other" on a form for gender, but it's not ever going to be there on a medical form where genetic sex has a real and meaningful impact on your healthcare treatment.
However, I still don't think it's necessarily a good idea to separate leftists from liberals. First of all because I'm not entirely sure how large this "leftist" group actually is. I suspect that it's actually radically smaller than the group of liberals, and it's only the Internet and social media and shitty journalism that reads individual Tweets from regular citizens on the national news that amplifies their voices. Furthermore, I don't see why they wouldn't be better classified simply as radical liberals. Just because they have extreme views doesn't make them less liberal, just less centrist. In a time when being centrist and favoring compromise is apparently a sign of weak morals, I can understand the desire to instead excise that group entirely, but I really don't believe that's correct.
I think it's also useful to note that in most European countries, they always seem to have four or five political parties: far left/liberal, left/liberal, central, right/conservative, and far right/conservative. Sometimes you'll see multiple parties in each area or an occasional party that breaks these -- some parties might be left/conservative or right/liberal -- but by and large most can still be pegged to one of those five, and the parties clustered around the middle always tend to get the most seats. It's possible that the geography and politics of the US has simply allowed the far left to stay hidden within the normal left, largely because our election process tends to favor rural communities slightly, and they tend toward conservative and right.
I don't know how much credence that particular claim gets, but the broader context is apparently a whole academic movement [0]. Guess I took the wrong philosophy sequence.
I think you are right about the "coalition" between liberals and leftists. I've noticed it falling apart for a while but not really been able to describe it. Talking with friends I previously considered liberal and being shushed for questioning or simply not knowing the current vogue in social justice discourse has been a really horrible experience.
Worse, I've seen that experience turn others into frothing radicals who then do the same thing to other people. It's a forward feedback loop of people entrenching their existing preconceptions.
It's a mess.
In fact, it's so hard to reconcile that I sometimes wonder if leftists are a straw man invented by the right, but I'm starting to realize that may not be true.
Leftists are not, but "leftists" as described by the right often are, as are "feminists" and "SJWs."
And because it will probably come up, yes, the same phenomenon exists on the other side as well.
I don't know about "general democratic principles" but I would include these as ideas valued by liberalism and not by leftism.
> That's not what I see happening, but sure, you can accuse other people of that if you like.
I've seen videos of it happening. Basically a speaker is invited to give a talk, but people who disagree with her crowd the auditorium and scream to prevent the talk from being given. The intention is not to "engage [or] defeat on rational grounds," but to shut down and exclude.
A lot of the people who have this done to them are in fact disagreeable, but that doesn't make the reaction less illiberal.
Fortunately, Ann Coulter or someone has plenty of outlets for her speech. And we've come a long way from Governor Ronald Reagan ordering UC Berkeley to cancel speakers because he didn't like what they had to say.
How have we “come a long way” from Reagan doing it? No-platforming actions don’t require the backing of a democratic majority. A few self-righteous people get going and no one wants to burn political capital objecting. Making the disinvitation button available to a wider population isn’t progress.
One of the central paradoxes of christian doctrine is the notion of "the power of powerlessness", though the idea exists elsewhere (and the phrase is, i think, Havel's).
It is not a coincidence, I think, that the people who put their bodies and lives on the line for their commitment to social justice tend to know this and try to live it. It demands an almost inhuman level of awareness and humility. I am thinking of historical figures like Day and King and Ghandi here, as well as people who span generations, like John Lewis.
Breaking the cycle of power-replaces-power is basically impossible to do, totally, but it's a windmill worth tilting at and at a minimum, the existence of the cycle needs to be kept in mind.
> Following the release of the NLRB memo, a number of scientists on Twitter expressed alarm at the justifications provided within the memo, which appeared to relegate the discussion of sex differences outside the realm of constitutionally protected speech.
(emphasis mine)
The NLRB letter says nothing of the kind. It says that the memo contained both protected and unprotected speech, and that Damore was terminated for the unprotected form. You have very few first amendment protections in the workplace, and employees can be fired for saying almost anything. Sex differences, in particular, have never been a protected class of speech in a workplace, and to claim that this letter somehow changes the landscape of the workplace is disingenuous at best.
>The Charging Party’s use of stereotypes based on purported biological differences between women and men should not be treated differently than the types of conduct the Board found unprotected in these cases. Statements about immutable traits linked to sex—such as women’s heightened neuroticism and men’s prevalence at the top of the IQ distribution—were discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment, notwithstandingeffort to cloakcomments with “scientific” references and analysis, and notwithstanding “not all women” disclaimers. [0]
[0] https://www.scribd.com/document/371689055/NLRB-Damore-v-Goog...
Of course this is all a sham. He was not fired for discriminatory things he said but because of public outrage. What is the protection you get from that?
But has it peaked as an ideological foundation of the ideologies of recent campus activists? It doesn't seem that way to me.
So do I think cultural appropriation as a term owes anything to critical theory? Yes.
Do I think a broad swathe of terms used across the political spectrum owe anything to critical theory? Yes.
Do I think a critique of critical theory necessarily undermines any of these other terms? No.
One thing we've noted in traditional music: Sometimes something awesome gets preserved in the backwaters while progress devolves something in the hot-centers of rapid change. (Scottish music in Cape Breton.)
most recent en-vogue leftie thought has come from the US - particularly bell hooks, judith butler, etc.
Bell Hooks is a Marxist. She claims to be Marxist. She's a Marxist that likes some things from Postmodernist social construction.
Bell hooks may be a marxist but she's not just a marxist.
Being behind could amount to being ahead. It all depends on your point of view. Yes, that is confusing/complex -- so be it! Also, didn't I say "perhaps?" I meant it if I didn't.
Bell hooks may be a marxist but she's not just a marxist.
True. I also respect her as an astute observer of the personal. My sister likes her. But still, the Marxian thing is a red flag for me.
James Damore's plausibly deniable implication that he had a Ph.D. OTOH alone should have been grounds for his termination. But again, IMO the Boomers made a mess, GenX built on the mess, and now it's up to the Millennials to decide what they're going to do with the place.
Or is this all based on SJWs you know in real life?
This is based on what I've seen online and what has happened to me, personally.
I've been a liberal practically since birth. They have been raging, absolutist jerks to me, personally.
Edit: I’m not sure why I expected a different answer...
The minute anyone is OK with innocent victims in their pursuit, then that's social injustice -- almost by definition!
Over time the people who claim to be 'social justice warriors' and the people who get labelled SJW by others has changed, but the term didn't originate from the Alt Right, and it definitely didn't originate from something people called someone else. The first users who popularized the term applied it to themselves.
Yes, there's an actual "leaderless" movement there.
Why? Because what younger people do is automatically good? Your voice is invalidated because you're older, and that makes sense because of "reasons?" I guess this is why the Cultural Revolution was such an unqualified success. I guess the young men of the Freikorps were correct because they were young.
I'll be gone in 30-50 years, poof, like I never existed. But I will be around more than long enough to watch a bunch of rich obese white gasbags die of coronaries and other otherwise easily preventable ailments, and to see whether AI does something magical around 2050 or so. That's enough for one life, no?
Your logic is opening up for the ability for anyone to discriminate other people alone for their opinions, that's a box I don't think benefit anyone.
As long as the government isn't involved in it?
No, free speech also requires people follow the spirit of the law, not just the letter of it. What if the mafia went around a poor neighborhood and intimidated everyone to vote for their candidate, or else, and they lied so convincingly about being able to tell how everyone voted, basically everyone followed their instructions? Would this be "free speech/the free market?"
The threat of losing your job, or effectively being "un-personed" in your career isn't so great. That's basically the level of coercion which Harvey Weinstein stooped to.
What the article says SJWs do is threaten moral condemnation
It's moral condemnation in bad faith. If there were principles at stake, then there would be room for discourse. This isn't that. It's coercion in the interest of power.
So the conservatives and libertarians that are supposedly being oppressed by SJWs are being suppressed by a system they support.
By actors in bad faith. It's much like democracies that elect governments that end up being totalitarian or theocratic. Short circuiting free speech itself is fundamentally the ultimate form of bad faith in a democracy. That one side thinks such a thing is in reach is a sign that they wish to shut down dissent and act as authoritarians. It was true of the right in the 60's. It's true now of the left in the 20-teens.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16418048
Clearly, tolerance for not interacting, even in the open marketplace, is not granted for political differences.
So as this is definitely forbidden for certain opinions, and I think very few people would disagree once they look at examples from both sides.
So is equality a value you share or not?
Equality of outcomes is insanity. The presumption that it is how things are supposed to be has basically been used to justify anything, up to and including rape and genocide. "Equality of outcomes" is basically Marxian ideology dressed up as a virus to be injected into a democratic society. It throws out meritocracy. Is it any wonder that many ideologies which espouse it also seek to throw out logic itself?
The fundamental issue that I see addressed in social justice is that opportunity is deeply and currently inextricably affected by your circumstances in life. Taking steps to address this, is, as you said, foundational.
When people presume that a 50/50 gender distribution is the goal, and that falling short of that is evidence of discrimination, then yes, they are arguing for equality of outcome. Equality of opportunity would allow for skews in various fields to work themselves out naturally.
Ask a woman in tech, or a black man in tech what their experience is. Often there's an unstated assumption that they don't belong, or that they're at a lower level. I'm south asian, and when I visit my work's offices on the east coast, I get pegged as an electrical technician rather than an engineer. /And I'm in the in-group generally/.
I'd also argue that 50% is a much better goal for gender diversity in engineering than the ~10% representation women have currently, especially considering that the gender equilibrium point for engineering is currently unknowable due to the massive systemic discrimination/opportunity problems.
I have no problem with front-loaded incentives. Google started recruiting directly on the campus of Howard University, and they have the numbers to show that it actually revealed qualified applicants that would otherwise have been missed. But mandated quotas which are equality of outcome are problematic to meritocracy itself.
Equality of Outcome logically contradicts Equality of Opportunity, and must be rejected.
I am disheartened to see your post greying out.
I concede though, that some methods of affirmative action would appear to be local attempts to enforce "equality of outcome," but I don't think this is the goal of affirmative action campaigns. If anything, it's a measure taken (locally) to create an environment that can support equal opportunity (locally). As society approaches having equality of opportunity, I imagine that this strategy would lose its utility and be discarded.
In this case, in the span of two comments, the poster went from:
>Do people actually argue in favor of equality of outcomes? Can't say I've ever seen this done, but then again I haven't seen everything.
to arguing in favor of equality of outcomes.
Individually, both of these posts are fine; but together are problematic.
So either this is a troll, or it's an example of someone so "ideologically possessed" they think they're justified to lie in pursuit of their goals.
Remember: meta-criticism.
Some of those people don't see any reason for there to not be equality of outcome between groups other than discrimination. So to them, they aren't after equality of outcome, they're fighting discrimination. It just so happens that those things are one and the same for them.
For others, I think they recognise that their initiatives are focused on equality of outcome, but the long term goal is to achieve equality of opportunity. The idea being that seeing people like yourself do something is important in considering it an option, and that making yourself a minority isn't very attractive even if the other aspects of the position might be. The equality of outcome in the short term approach is a way to address the chicken and egg style problem of for example, not wanting to be the only woman in a 15 person development team.
To be sure, I think difference in outcomes in aggregate is a strong signal of unfairness in the system. But the mechanism of the critique, and its employment of thoughtcrime punishment, and ideologues' apparent complete lack of concern for inverted power situations (like when girls do better in school than boys) make me deeply suspicious of such people's motivations.
Equality of opportunity means we aim to provide everyone access to the same chances. Reduce the (present and historic) systemic discrimination by race and gender. Improve access to the basic tools required to achieve success (education and mobility). But we cannot guarantee that everyone will turn out the same (either by choice, fortune, or misfortune it just won't happen). It may still be a pipe dream, but it's far more achievable.
How will you do this and how will you measure the results of the attempts to do this without measuring the outcomes of your attempts to do this?
The thing is, we know that they're not. And since skill and preference are not equally distributed, equality of opportunity will inevitably lead to inequality of outcomes. And that's okay: different people are different.
Thanks.
The latter have a long history of their own victimization rhetoric, which they use for political ends, and an adherence to many conspiracy theories. Neither is even indirectly alluded to, much less analyzed or critiqued despite being directly relevant to the views expressed in the article.
I mostly got that there's parallels to draw between the idea of breaking down existing power structures while ignoring how you have to build new ones in their place. Instead of seeing a lack of critique of a side I already believe to be flawed, I see themes to be considered when I tell myself I've got the right of it.
Another way of seeing it: when attempting to knock someone else off their high horse, you don't need to be reassured that they deserved to be knocked off of their horse to be reminded not to climb up on your own afterwards.
Why would an article about social justice ideology do that? It would be rightly viewed as a digression that should be edited out or turned into an independent article.
Because it provides context for the very conservative complaints the article provides a platform for.
> analysis or critique of the roots of right-leaning conservatism or libertarianism
That's a full article in itself.
Basically, it seems you are unhappy about the article's topic and focus, and wish an article about something else that's more tailored to your predilections. I'm sure you can find want you want elsewhere, given the current political climate and the fact that conservatism and libertarianism are far older and have been widespread for far longer than the relatively novel "social justice ideology" discussed here.
"Conservative complaints"? I am a classical liberal and I find many of the concerns in the article to be valid, as do many other classical liberals.
A red herring seeks to tie someone's statement to Communism, and then dismiss it. For example, some people criticizing the GPL do that.
This is whataboutism.
Whataboutism is a special case of red herring.
> A red herring seeks to tie someone's statement to Communism, and then dismiss it.
No, that would mostly be a special case of guilt by association (though raising the question of the validity of the link to communism could itself be an example of the red herring.)
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFalla...
Red herrings are distractions and misdirections to pull you away from the intended topic or discussion.
(Edit: In case anyone misunderstands, I'm agreeing that even though I'm a native English speaker, the phrase "red herring" predates Marxism by a bunch of years, so my statement above was incorrect. From the downvotes I'm getting, apparently I wasn't initially clear about agreeing that I was incorrect.)
Your original description of "red herring" was clearly erroneous, I was trying to correct that for anyone who isn't a native English speaker. No point in misleading them with red herrings about communists when the phrase has nothing to do with it.
I deal with a lot of people in person who use a lot of rhetorical tricks and logical fallacies to perpetuate various false (and easily falsifiable, if they considered science valid) beliefs. So I've developed a low tolerance for misstatements like what I originally responded to and interpreted your reply to me as sarcastic rather than an honest reaction.
Apologies for misinterpreting.
I mean, he totally lost me when he started saying "immigration raises crime rates" and other xenophobic propaganda, which is clearly, pardon my French, bovine excrement that people should feel ashamed of.
This is exactly my sentiment. SJWs are the new bolsheviks.
For example, nobody is trying to suppress astrology, because nobody is afraid it might be true. The same goes for phrenology, ancient astronauts, flat earthers, 9/11 conspiracies, etc.
What bollocks, most "ideas" people are trying to surpress like white nationalism and sexism aren't being surpress because people are secretly scared that whites are the master race or women are inferior, they're being surpress because they're objectively harmful ideas that have caused enormous suffering throughout human history.
The idea that people are trying to stop the spread of these ideologies because they're "secretly scared they're correct" is nothing but a way for people who hold these harmful views to justify having them through defending some self delusional "truth" they've substantiated purely through nonsense.
You'll never convince people they're wrong by violently suppressing them.
Tell that to Germany in 1920.
Each facet of nonsense you've mentioned is being battled by one group of skeptics or another. Off the top of my head, there's the work of James Randi, Richard Dawkins, Brian Dunning, and Steven Novella. Those people aren't fighting ideas they're afraid are true, they fear the harmful outcome of misplaced beliefs.
If people weren't battling pseudoscience, you'd see a lot more of it in your day-to-day life, and society as a whole would be much worse off. That's not speculation, it's a solid fact.
Carl Sagan's books ridiculed astrology. He made no attempt to suppress it.
Huge difference.
Mel Brooks once was asked why he wrote a comedy about Hitler (The Producers). He replied that ridicule was the best way to oppose bad ideas.
Not suppressing them.
Speaking out against something is battling it, battle is a verb in this context. Both Oxford and Webster agree [0,1].
Forceful suppression of pseudoscience can be achieved through law and education, see the Scopes Trial [2]. This is another with thousands of examples, from women's right to vote, to smoking cigarettes.
[0] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/battle
Are you a scientist researching vaccines and autism? No? Do you know that leading scientists are often wrong, very wrong, especially about health issues? Scientists were wrong about dietary fat causing heart attacks, for example. Isn't it a good thing that we didn't make questioning them illegal?
Besides, you'll just legitimize their opinions if you make them illegal.
I don’t really care whether they feel legitimized; I see the actual physical harm their fear-mongering (and often outright fraud) causes.
There comes a point where the weight of data is such that people are not questioning unsettled science, they are merely lying. You’re welcome to paint a slippery slope if you like, but this is a difference in degree that is a difference in kind. Is there a line drawing fallacy at play? Yes, which is why my original post was specifically worded “the more extreme types.”
To your original point, which I think you have spent a lot of time shifting goal posts on: I would wholeheartedly censor these people, and not because I fear there is any germ of truth in what they are saying.
I'm sure you do. I was also comfortable with doctors confidently recommending I eat margarine instead of butter for decades. What shit advice that turned out to be. Who knows how many years off my life from heart disease that has gotten me.
I like that people constantly question the things you are "comfortable" with. It keeps science honest. In fact, questioning the conventional wisdom is what science is all about.
You say you're an educated man. Do you know what they did to Galileo when he suggested the current state of research on the planets was wrong?
By the way, all my vaccinations are up to date.
And I am sad that you would dispense with free speech rights so cheaply. I have family members who fought in terrible bloody battles to ensure we have these rights.
Be very, very careful what you wish for.
I'm racking my brain trying to think of counterexamples of suppression from the left. Suppression of white supremacist thought? Anti-gay sentiment? The value of diversity? Who on the left is genuinely (if secretly) afraid that whites are the master race, or that the gays are destroying family values?
- "by definition, PoC can't be racist" - e.g. as an argument to shut down complaints of "reverse racism"
- white people must listen to PoC's before they can engage in discussions about racism (e.g. - don't force PoC's to engage in the emotional labor of educating you)
- you can't make assertions about the experiences of PoC/women/trans/non-binary people if you haven't lived as one
etc.
I'm not making ANY judgements about the truth/validity of the aforementioned "rules of engagement".
I try to follow these rules when talking about social justice issues. It's no skin off my back - but it certainly adds some limits to the types of conversations I'll participate in, and the kinds of things I might say. I don't think there's anything wrong with that - as long as I don't slip into outright dishonesty as a result of these constraints.
I think some of the backlash against social justice by conservatives comes from the belief that these kinds of constraints are unacceptable, and are concocted by stupid, illogical people.
Free speech kills bad ideas. The nazis, for example, have free speech in the US. They get nowhere.
You gave a lot of examples of things nobody is trying to suppress, but no examples of things people are trying to. So..can you give as many examples of things you think fit what you said? Thanks.
For another,
http://crosscut.com/2017/01/uw-shooting-milo-yiannopoulos-ho...
During the last election, there were bricks thrown through the windows of the GOP campaign office in Seattle.
So..these are all things you think happened because the people doing the suppressing were afraid the ideas involved might be true?
(Hmm now I notice there was mention of causality in your initial claim)
edit: OMG, I just read that Ebert page. Are you kidding, that made you like Ebert less?! Can't follow you on that one. He hardly just 'said' it, it was the very start of Ebert's open letter to Limbaugh, it seems. "You should be horse-whipped for the insult you have paid to the highest office of our nation." In context, it sounds a fair enough remark to me.
Ebert goes on, disgusted Limbaugh and caller agree "that Obama might steal money intended for the Red Cross to help the wretched of Haiti. .. This conversation came 48 hours after many of us had seen pitiful sights from Port au Prince. Tens of thousands are believed still alive beneath the rubble. You twisted their suffering into an opportunity to demean the character of the President of the United States." etc Well, I didn't hear about that, maybe Obama did steal the money, in which case I apologize. But I kinda doubt it.
So how does that fit into "suppression because they fear it's true"? I don't see any part of it fits that. But anyway. :-) Thanks for this exchange, it was enlightening.
https://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/a-letter-to-rush-l...
Ebert was a prominent liberal, and I liked him a lot. But I was shocked at that article of his. I hope liberals today, given how fashionable it is to insult the President, are glad that Ebert's wish was not granted.
Isn't it grand that we (still) live in a country where one can insult the President and not get horsewhipped? That's a precious right.
"Volcanoes add more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than fossil fuel combustion."
"Vaccines cause autism."
I have no fear that these ideas might be right. I am nonetheless loudly and forcefully against them. Spreading anti-vaccination falsehoods is literally a bannable offense on a scientific forum I run. If I were God Emperor of Facebook it'd be a bannable offense on Facebook too.
>The same goes for phrenology, ancient astronauts, flat earthers, 9/11 conspiracies, etc.
If you've ever listened to these people they constantly, constantly talk about how their ideas (just asking questions!) are being suppressed.
I want to see you support and expand on your argument that people only try to suppress ideas that they fear are correct. Are you literally saying that anti-Nazis secretly fear that Jews run the world? That gay rights activists secretly fear that homosexuality is a depraved plot to destroy our moral fibre? If not, then what are you saying?
Just think of the beliefs you hold dear. What would you do if someone produced evidence that you were wrong? You'd be a very rare person to accept it and change your mind. Remember the physicists (including Einstein) who could not accept quantum mechanics?
It is literally impossible to produce solid, well-supported evidence that homosexuality is a Satanic plot. It is exactly as likely as Flat Earth.
And you're still evading the question. Do you, or do you not, believe that dedicated gay rights activists secretly fear the above is true? Yes or no, please.
The only modern viewpoint I can think of that remotely fits your narrative is the tendency of outspoken homophobes to get caught having gay sex, and even that's a stretch.