What I have learned from the social justice movement

originally posted by: rockintitz

originally posted by: syrinx high priest
wait, didn't you just play the victim card ?

lol

I think there's an echo in here.

That's at least number 4.

If you play the victim card 5 times, your 6th insult is free.

a reply to: jimmyx

Here you go. I am defending liberty from the self-righteous moral purity of the SJW doctrine. They don't see, but they are going to end up eating themselves alive eventually.

Consider last year’s protest against a Boston Museum of Fine Arts exhibit that allowed visitors to try on a kimono: Activists assailed this as “cultural appropriation” and racist imperialism, much to the bafflement of local Japanese-Americans and Japanese consulate staffers. Or consider the outcry over a T-shirt worn in promotional photos by stars of the film Suffragette, using a slogan from suffragist Emmeline Pankhurst, “I’d rather be a rebel than a slave.” This was blasted for “co-opting” the black experience of slavery and racism and ignoring the Civil War connotations of “rebel”—even though the quote had nothing to do with American slavery or Confederate rebellion and used both words in the universal sense.

Reading this, it seems that the gay marriage movement narrowly missed being blasted for equating their own fight to that of blacks during the Civil Rights era.

I guess feminists just aren't cool or victim enough anymore.

Because SocJus is so focused on changing bad attitudes and ferreting out subtle biases and insensitivities, its hostility to free speech and thought is not an unfortunate byproduct of the movement but its very essence.

SocJus, btw, is a play on IngSoc from 1984.

You can't speak, or even think freely with SJWs around. Heck, you can think whatever you want, but they will attribute the worst to whatever you do or say regardless. We've already seen that from some interactions on this very thread. If you oppose them or speak out against the orthodoxy, you MUST be racist, bigot, homophobe, etc. It is a movement that seeks to enforce moral purity of thought and action and everything else.

You rail about having morals rammed down your throat? Well, this is the essence of what SJWs are after.

Obviously, retaliation for unpopular opinions isn’t limited to SocJus, but it’s hard to think of another present-day political group so unforgiving to even inadvertent verbal offenses. At California’s Claremont McKenna College last fall, Dean of Students Mary Spellman had to resign after protests. Her crime: In an email replying to a student who had written to her about racial issues on campus, Ms. Spellman had mentioned her wish to “better serve students, especially those who don’t fit our CMC mold,” supposedly implying students of color don’t belong at the school.

Nor is any other group so preoccupied with linguistic cleansing. A discussion on a social justice forum advocates expunging from one’s vocabulary such “ableist” terms as “crazy,” “dumb” and even “depressing”; at Smith College last year, the student newspaper’s report on a panel (ironically, one dedicated to free speech) rendered “wild and crazy” as “wild and [ableist slur].” Calling somebody one’s “spirit animal” is frowned upon because it’s an “appropriation” of a concept specific to some oppressed cultures. An academic list of “microaggressions” includes asking, “Where are you from?” or complimenting a foreign-born person’s English.

SocJus speech- and thought-policing includes self-policing. “I rigorously manage my own thinking and purge myself of dangerous ‘unthinkable’ thoughts—‘mindkill’ myself—on a regular basis,” wrote columnist and former Jeopardy champion Arthur Chu in a 2014 Facebook discussion. “This is what you have to do to be a feminist anti-racist progressive, i.e. a social justice stormtrooper.”

I kid you not. There is an example of a tumblr post in this article that says that if you are gay, refusing to date someone with a vagina is discrimination and totally shallow! Seriously? What is up with that? How far gone do you have to be that you are now not letting people even have their orientation? I am straight, and gays are gay. This is self-evident and generally means I like guys and gays like guys (or women if they are lesbians). I do not question this or think it is discriminatory of them.

But, as atheist blogger Rebecca Bradley has argued, the movement also has many elements of an apocalyptic religious cult that sees the world as mired in sin and evil except for a handful of the elect. A popular post on Tumblr, a major SocJus hive, laments, “being on Tumblr all the time gives me such a deluded view of the world. I start believing that everyone is pro-choice, open-minded, have moral compass…care about sexism, racism, body shaming, etc, but then I walk out my front door and realize that everyone is still just as moronic as they were two years ago.” This is a classic cult mindset.

I can certainly see this and think again it is a product of producing spiritually "empty" children. Materialism does not fill the void and they start looking for something to satisfy it. Some find religion of some sort; some find activism.

There is a word for ideologies, religious or secular, that seek to politicize and control every aspect of human life: totalitarian. Unlike most such ideologies, SocJus has no fixed doctrine or clear utopian vision. But in a way, its amorphousness makes it more tyrannical. While all revolutions are prone to devouring their children, the SocJus movement may be especially vulnerable to self-immolation: Its creed of “intersectionality”—multiple overlapping oppressions—means that the oppressed are always one misstep away from becoming the oppressor. Your cool feminist T-shirt can become a racist atrocity in a mouse click. And since new “marginalized” identities can always emerge, no one can tell what currently acceptable words or ideas may be excommunicated tomorrow.

And it's the first sentence there that really answers your question. If the SJWs were content to go off and do their thing and live according to their own beliefs, I could care less. Let them, but they seek to impose their weird codes on me and everything around me. They want me to live in their twisted worlds of constant self-policing too.

They don't actually care what I truly think or feel about anything. They only really care about what they think or feel about what I say or do, and in an effort to spare themselves any offense and bad feelings, they want to purge anything and everything they don't like or disagree with. I find this intolerable.

The social justice movement has many well-meaning followers who want to make the world a better place. But most of its “activism” is little more than a self-centered quest for moral purity. Dropping “crazy” from one’s vocabulary won’t improve health services or job opportunities for the mentally ill. Protesting a white singer’s “appropriation” of cornrows or rap music will have zero effect on the actual problems facing African-Americans.

They make all kinds of sound and fury and spend all sorts of effort to stop white folks from have cornrows or dreadlocks or getting upset over Katy Perry having a video with an Egyptian theme, but in the end, does any of it really fix any of the world's real issues? Does it address the lack of family in the black community or the lack of education that leads to endless cycles of generational poverty?

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: JimTSpock
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

Obama is a goddam hippy commie moslem who hates merica. Sorry just had to lol.

No, you didn't have to.

That's like your opinion man. So your telling people what to think now are you, fascist.

originally posted by: rockintitz
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

You sure can bring it up though.

Attack the person, not the premise.

Check.

I'm sorry did you get offended lol, like i said earlier ive got some liberal friends that can rent you there safe place.

a reply to: ketsuko

Ketsuko, my props to you! thank you!

a reply to: dukeofjive696969

Far from it, but you're welcome to keep trying

Just pointing out your failure to make relative arguments.

originally posted by: rockintitz
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

Far from it, but you're welcome to keep trying

Just pointing out your failure to make relative arguments.

For me to fail, would mean that i tried something, this thread is a fail, your type always answer the same way, never to the point, not man enough i guess.

Better luck next time son

a reply to: dukeofjive696969

Lol you're not hiding your anger very well.

originally posted by: rockintitz
Things I have learned from the social justice movement:

1 I'm anti-women because I disagree about the "wage gap."

2 I'm anti-women because I dislike new age feminists.

3 I'm a fat shamer because I think that people should take care of their body.

4 I'm a fat shamer because I congratulate people on their weight loss.

5 I'm racist because I think we should have protected borders.

6 I'm racist because I believe that all lives matter.

I'm a racist, anti-women, fat shaming bastard because I am a white male. (With an admittedly rockin body*)

Thank god for the internet. Otherwise I would have never known any of this. We should make badges.

My point is (yes there's a point) by treating me, and others like me, as the enemy, the movement for "social justice" will not garner support. In fact it will do just the opposite.

The victim card will expire soon enough.

1 so you feel its fine to underpay women, ok.

2 new feminists biggest gripe is closing the wage cap, you already stated they should receive less.

3 so you don't like fat people.

4 so you don't like ex chubbies?

5 nope your a nationalist, you gotta keep the canadians oot, if it is those pesky latinos only, race does come into play.

6 apart from women that want fair pay and equal rights, chubbies, ex chubbies, anyone that wants to go to america.

your insecurity, adoration of yourself* (narcissist), the need to make social outcasts of women and judgement of bodystyle does point to an obvious homosexual lifestyle.
no doubt gaydar is your website of choice, after bashing women on mumsnet that want equal rights.

a reply to: ketsuko

your first example of the "protest" against the Boston modern art museum showed 3 protesters....and how big is this "social justice movement" that I keep hearing is so substantial, and has so much political clout?...this is the only place I've even heard about them....

a reply to: stinkelbaum

OP proven.

originally posted by: jimmyx
a reply to: ketsuko

your first example of the "protest" against the Boston modern art museum showed 3 protesters....and how big is this "social justice movement" that I keep hearing is so substantial, and has so much political clout?...this is the only place I've even heard about them....

You haven't been paying attention to the colleges have you?

You haven't been paying attention to Bernie Sanders campaign have you? They comprise most of his support.

BLM is a social justice movement. I suppose it isn't a very big deal for you never to have heard of it.

a reply to: rockintitz

Also, that you can get beat up for your political views and standing up to tyranny.

In life more people will not like you than like you, even if you're a good dude. They'll find all kinds of reasons not to. Getting annoyed about it is a waste of time and energy.

Maybe Nicholas Kristof would be more convincing? It says something that the New York Times would go so far as to publish this, but the article I cited before admits that even progressives are starting to realize the nature of the beast they've helped create.

WE progressives believe in diversity, and we want women, blacks, Latinos, gays and Muslims at the table — er, so long as they aren’t conservatives.

Universities are the bedrock of progressive values, but the one kind of diversity that universities disregard is ideological and religious. We’re fine with people who don’t look like us, as long as they think like us.

There it is. Straight from the horse's mouth, something I've said many, many times before. Progressive diversity is all about looking different, not about thinking different. And again, this thread is a prime example of that.

He talks about a black, evangelical sociologist. This is something the man in question says:

“Outside of academia I faced more problems as a black,” he told me. “But inside academia I face more problems as a Christian, and it is not even close.”

And who better to recognize discrimination than someone who faces it for his ethnicity? Are you going to say he doesn't recognize it when it is applied due to his religion? Or are you going to say that he is misinterpreting the discrimination inside academia?

Kristof says he had a conversation about whether or not there should be more fairness to conservatives on his facebook and he got comments from his followers (many academics) that echo what we see on this board. He was a little confused as to how people who expressed such sympathy for children who were trafficked, war victims, etc., could express such sentiment.

The stakes involve not just fairness to conservatives or evangelical Christians, not just whether progressives will be true to their own values, not just the benefits that come from diversity (and diversity of thought is arguably among the most important kinds), but also the quality of education itself. When perspectives are unrepresented in discussions, when some kinds of thinkers aren’t at the table, classrooms become echo chambers rather than sounding boards — and we all lose.

Here he is echoing my favorite George Patton quote. Notice he is not agreeing with conservative or religious viewpoints, only admitting that they should be part of the principle of diversity. They enrich the discussion and keep it from becoming stale.

He cites some studies that find that it is very difficult to find conservatives or Republicans in the social sciences. In fact:

In contrast, some 18 percent of social scientists say they are Marxist. So it’s easier to find a Marxist in some disciplines than a Republican.

So, there is a strong ideological slant in academia, and it becomes self-reinforcing when you consider the following:

The scarcity of conservatives seems driven in part by discrimination. One peer-reviewed study found that one-third of social psychologists admitted that if choosing between two equally qualified job candidates, they would be inclined to discriminate against the more conservative candidate.

It's important to understand that studies find that political ideology causes discrimination that crosses the aisle. If Democrats want to self-select other Democrats, then Republicans will tend to do the same. However, when the statistics show that so many in academia are progressives who tend to be Democrat, that means that other Democrats are more likely to be hired.

Some liberals think that right-wingers self-select away from academic paths in part because they are money-grubbers who prefer more lucrative professions. But that doesn’t explain why there are conservative math professors but not many right-wing anthropologists.

Disciplines like mathematics, science and economics tend to have many more conservatives in them (higher percentages than the other areas but not necessarily majorities). But if the studies and tendencies cited by Kristof are true, then the old progressive truism of the greedy right-winger may not be the case; it may instead be that potential conservative professors simply aren't hired because they get discriminated against.

It’s also liberal poppycock that there aren’t smart conservatives or evangelicals. Richard Posner is a more-or-less conservative who is the most cited legal scholar of all time. With her experience and intellect, Condoleezza Rice would enhance any political science department. Francis Collins is an evangelical Christian and famed geneticist who has led the Human Genome Project and the National Institutes of Health. And if you’re saying that conservatives may be tolerable, but evangelical Christians aren’t — well, are you really saying you would have discriminated against the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.?

And, of course, it's also easy to say we aren't smart, but there are very smart people who are everything progressives don't like.

So what should be done? I don't know other than to realize that diversity is more than skin deep. It involves systems of thought and belief as well.

originally posted by: rockintitz
Things I have learned from the social justice movement:

I'm anti-women because I disagree about the "wage gap."

I'm anti-women because I dislike new age feminists.

I'm a fat shamer because I think that people should take care of their body.

I'm a fat shamer because I congratulate people on their weight loss.

I'm racist because I think we should have protected borders.

I'm racist because I believe that all lives matter.

I'm a racist, anti-women, fat shaming bastard because I am a white male. (With an admittedly rockin body)

Thank god for the internet. Otherwise I would have never known any of this. We should make badges.

My point is (yes there's a point) by treating me, and others like me, as the enemy, the movement for "social justice" will not garner support. In fact it will do just the opposite.

The victim card will expire soon enough.

Dear god! Your one step away from eating meat and being patriotic.... I'm with ya chief!

a reply to: Bluntone22

I'm a black guy, with Cherokee and my paternal great great grandfather was a white guy. My wife is Irish-Italian and our daughters are a product of me and the wife. With that being said and noted, spare me the poor white guy thing. I say the same for anybody including black people. But this "I'm a white guy and I'm being persecuted" crap is ridiculous. Who the hell is discriminating against white guys?? White guys rule the friggin world. Who signs the paychecks for everybody? White guys. Who signs your favorite celebrity's , athlete's, singer's, or whomever's check? White dudes. I have no problem with that fact because it is what it is and I'm cool with that, but spare me the poor heterosexual white guy thing. You guys run everything and you know it and you want to keep it that way. I get and understand that.

a reply to: JimiBlack

I'm not a guy, and are we measuring up who is and isn't white in our respective families so we can all check our privilege?

a reply to: jimmyx

How is the OP playing the victim card, exactly? Would love you to elaborate, because any time SJWs are called out on their often illogical and nonsensical views they resort to attacking the messenger's credibility.

That wouldn't be the case in this instance, would it?

a reply to: ketsuko

I was replying to another poster and I don't know where the " who's white in our respective families" thing came from or the "check our privilege" thing neither. Reread my post.