That's really not an argument in favour of what happened in that case.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Social Justice Bullies: The Authoritarianism of Millennial Social Justice (Medium)
- Thread starter entremet
- Start date
- Status
Why is telling someone that their argument is facile boring? If anything it seems like the courteous thing to do if you're not an asshole about telling them.
MHWilliams
Member
Let's see.
This is no different than previous generations. Millenials are no more angry than their predecessors. They spit the same hot fire than we've spat for ages, just over different issues of right or wrong. Ben Franklin created a fake persona, Silence Dogood, to talk shit without repercussion. People talk about MLK, but he spit white hot fire at the "white moderate" in his Letter from Birmingham Jail. Does this not sound like a dreaded "SJW"?
I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
Perhaps we should understand that, yes, you can find the tactics of those aligned in a similar cause to be incorrect. You can lament the outward harasser who sets back a cause as much as you can chide the sometimes ally who does not help.
Already we're beginning from an erroneous premise. Let's continue.
Does the writer disagree that your personal life experience give you a specific perspective? One that can make you blind to the realities of others?
I refer you to the quote above. That's not hate. That's simply saying, "Hey, you're not as helpful as you think. you may think you're an ally but you're doing it wrong."
On the latter? Violence is never correct. Harassment is never correct. Attributing harassment to millennial social justice advocates - such an odd grouping - alone is specious at best.
Again, people say this, but many who seemingly agree with this article, find themselves a place on GAF? Did you somehow lie and pass the litmus test, or is the purported test not as bad as you think? I fail to see the problem being as large as the author purports.
Are there lines to be crossed, that are crossed regularly? Of course. But much of the hand-wringing is over the fact that people dislike being called out for their mistakes. If a co-worker says that black people are lazy and without work ethic, I'm not going to point out this error directly. This co-worker might be a good person, but that's a racist statement. (This has happened btw.)
Does that make the co-worker racist? I leave that up to you, but saying that we shouldn't point out the statement for what it is is simply foolhardy. As I've said before, people are more afraid of being called a racist than they are of doing actual racist actions. There's a fear and umbrage towards even broaching the subject, which frankly makes it hard to do so in an even-handed way. Trust me, I've tried.
Sigh, also a misrepresentation. See, we couch a fact in a larger opinion the author wants to present. From the CJR report itself:
Yet the editors and Erdely have concluded that their main fault was to be too accommodating of Jackie because she described herself as the survivor of a terrible sexual assault. Social scientists, psychologists and trauma specialists who support rape survivors have impressed upon journalists the need to respect the autonomy of victims, to avoid re-traumatizing them and to understand that rape survivors are as reliable in their testimony as other crime victims.
Yet the explanation that Rolling Stone failed because it deferred to a victim cannot adequately account for what went wrong. Erdely’s reporting records and interviews with participants make clear that the magazine did not pursue important reporting paths even when Jackie had made no request that they refrain. The editors made judgments about attribution, fact-checking and verification that greatly increased their risks of error but had little or nothing to do with protecting Jackie’s position.
Over the years, trauma counselors and survivor support groups have helped journalists understand the shame attached to rape and the powerlessness and self-blame that can overwhelm victims, particularly young ones. Because questioning a victim’s account can be traumatic, counselors have cautioned journalists to allow survivors some control over their own stories. This is good advice. Yet it does survivors no good if reporters documenting their cases avoid rigorous practices of verification. That may only subject the victim to greater scrutiny and skepticism.
Problems arise when the terms of the compact between survivor and journalist are not spelled out. Kristen Lombardi, who spent a year and a half reporting the Center for Public Integrity’s series on campus sexual assault, said she made it explicit to the women she interviewed that the reporting process required her to obtain documents, collect evidence and talk to as many people involved in the case as possible, including the accused. She prefaced her interviews by assuring the women that she believed in them but that it was in their best interest to make sure there were no questions about the veracity of their accounts. She also allowed victims some control, including determining the time, place and pace of their interviews.
If a woman was not ready for such a process, Lombardi said, she was prepared to walk away.
Given the difficulties, journalists are rarely in a position to prove guilt or innocence in rape. “The real value of what we do as journalists is analyzing the response of the institutions to the accusation,” Bogdanich said. This approach can also make it easier to persuade both victims and perpetrators to talk. Lombardi said the women she interviewed were willing to help because the story was about how the system worked or didn’t work. The accused, on the other hand, was often open to talking about perceived failings of the adjudication process.
Rolling Stone's failure was Rolling's Stone failure. The author attempts to paint this as "we are told not to question rape victims", trying to establish the proponents of social justice put rape victims above all else. Incorrect, it's about respecting the trauma of potential victims and the social systems that weigh upon them. It's a problem, one the CJR report fully acknowledges, that the author attempts to question within the subsequent paragraphs.
Erdely and her editors had hoped their investigation would sound an alarm about campus sexual assault and would challenge Virginia and other universities to do better. Instead, the magazine’s failure may have spread the idea that many women invent rape allegations. (Social scientists analyzing crime records report that the rate of false rape allegations is 2 to 8 percent.)
On Blackstone's formation, the commentators correctly point out that the author is attempting to blend legal doctrine (which Blackstone's statement is about) and public opinion. Moving on.
Ooooooh. I get it. Cultural marxism and feminism are evil. I was wondering where the general thrust was coming from, but now I know.
To reverse a bit here, the constructs he's talking about are largely held up against some of these persecuted classes. If you point out that black people are routinely targeted by police action, something shown in numerous statistics, the narrative steadfastly remains that perhaps black people deserve it. If you point out that sexual assault is a wide-ranging problem - in college and real-life it's generally not random malcontents, it's those known by the victim - there remains a steadfast reliance on the idea that this is not true and false accusations rule the day, despite statistics from the CDC and other organizations.
Again, this is an emotional construct shared by many - oddly enough, it's why "privilege" arose as a concept, because people have issues seeing outside of their own biases and experiences - but the author attempts to paint it on millenials (why?), and specifically socially-minded millenials. Odd.
Also incorrect. The idea is that systemic racism tends to affect minorities more as those in power tend to be white. You can be racist against anyone, but the widely-seen effects of racism are, in the US, largely aimed in a specific direction. Same with the sexism he attempts to bring up.
Honestly, as I dig farther and farther in this article, my energy to refute it wanes. Not because I have nothing to say, but because you can already tear up half of the article.
The author, like UVA story he mentions, has a specific opinion and view of the world he wants to present. You can see that within the language he uses and the concept he attacks. Hoff Sommers' (who I've already talked about at length) attempt to misuse statistics is literally the same thing the author decries, yet he's blind to it because he prefers a specific viewpoint. Sommers disagrees with the pay gap because it attempts to average oput unrelated fields? The gap doesn't disappear when you account for that.
http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/article...men-even-when-they-are-equally-qualified-mbas
But even within the same fields, women were paid less than men. Indeed, 17 of 22 industries that hired MBAs last year offered women less money. Women entering finance earned, on average, close to $22,000 less than men, the largest pay differential among companies that drive MBA hiring. Women were offered $12,300 less by tech companies, and $11,500 less by consulting firms than their male peers.
We limited this analysis to people who had full-time jobs lined up; so there was no gender difference in their commitment to working a full day. Even with those things being equal, the pattern held.
Career-switchers should, in theory, be on a level playing field. A man entering a new industry straight out of an MBA program has the same amount of experience in that industry (none) and the same level of education as a woman in the same situation. Yet women who were switching into tech, finance, or consulting—the three industries that hire the most MBAs—made an average of $12,800 less than men who were also newbies. Men who were in one of these jobs before business school, and stayed the course after graduating, made $13,300 more than women on the same path.
The postgraduation gap also wasn’t explained by the fact that women, on average, were making less than the men to start with. When we controlled for people’s compensation before getting to campus, the gap narrowed, but didn’t disappear. Women made about $8,500 less than men upon graduating regardless of what they were pulling in beforehand.
No, it doesn't have to do with the jobs women take. Even within the same position, women are offered less. That's why it's a White House priority, because it's a real problem. Not because people said things real loud. If that was the case, police departments across the country would be less likely to target minorities, because everyone is saying a whole lot about that.
The author should probably heed their own words:
Finally:
You are none of those things. You are simply incorrect. You make wide statements that sound good, but your ability to back those statements up with true information is lacking. It's worth the time to rebut simply because people are agreeing to it without thinking, but on its own, it does not represent revolution thinking and intellectual honesty. Thus, I am done with Aristotelis Orginos.
The problem is there's no PC culture. It's not millenials. It's mostly the rise of the internet bringing like-minded communities together and allowing direct connection with those you disagree with. I know as a black person that I'm not alone, there are others like me, who feel like me. And one someone says something racist, like Phil Robertson's "black people had it good under slavery nonsense" I can reach directly out on Twitter or via Email to make my discontent heard.
In the past, other may have felt alone. In the past, letter-writing campaigns would take forever to have a measurable effect. That doesn't mean the feelings and thoughts didn't exist. People are like "holy crap! where did all this come from?" It was always there. What we have are groups of people who have been marginalized for a long time, coming together. Are some of them angry? Entirely possible. When you are told your race is lazy or your sexuality is immoral and can be fixed, that can have an effect.
Is teaching and helping a good idea? Of course it is. Rock on. Should the burden of teaching and helping be solely on the back of every minority? Of course not. The burden is equally shared with the majority to step up, reach down, and attempt to understand others. If you are hurt (or angry I might note) by people simply dismissing your viewpoint, imagine the results of years of fear of being beaten or killed. Of being ignored, hate, and set aside. Of being systematically targeted while people call it "right" and "fair". Do that, and perhaps you'll find that understanding we're all looking for.
This is no different than previous generations. Millenials are no more angry than their predecessors. They spit the same hot fire than we've spat for ages, just over different issues of right or wrong. Ben Franklin created a fake persona, Silence Dogood, to talk shit without repercussion. People talk about MLK, but he spit white hot fire at the "white moderate" in his Letter from Birmingham Jail. Does this not sound like a dreaded "SJW"?
I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
Perhaps we should understand that, yes, you can find the tactics of those aligned in a similar cause to be incorrect. You can lament the outward harasser who sets back a cause as much as you can chide the sometimes ally who does not help.
Already we're beginning from an erroneous premise. Let's continue.
Does the writer disagree that your personal life experience give you a specific perspective? One that can make you blind to the realities of others?
I refer you to the quote above. That's not hate. That's simply saying, "Hey, you're not as helpful as you think. you may think you're an ally but you're doing it wrong."
On the latter? Violence is never correct. Harassment is never correct. Attributing harassment to millennial social justice advocates - such an odd grouping - alone is specious at best.
Again, people say this, but many who seemingly agree with this article, find themselves a place on GAF? Did you somehow lie and pass the litmus test, or is the purported test not as bad as you think? I fail to see the problem being as large as the author purports.
Are there lines to be crossed, that are crossed regularly? Of course. But much of the hand-wringing is over the fact that people dislike being called out for their mistakes. If a co-worker says that black people are lazy and without work ethic, I'm not going to point out this error directly. This co-worker might be a good person, but that's a racist statement. (This has happened btw.)
Does that make the co-worker racist? I leave that up to you, but saying that we shouldn't point out the statement for what it is is simply foolhardy. As I've said before, people are more afraid of being called a racist than they are of doing actual racist actions. There's a fear and umbrage towards even broaching the subject, which frankly makes it hard to do so in an even-handed way. Trust me, I've tried.
Sigh, also a misrepresentation. See, we couch a fact in a larger opinion the author wants to present. From the CJR report itself:
Yet the editors and Erdely have concluded that their main fault was to be too accommodating of Jackie because she described herself as the survivor of a terrible sexual assault. Social scientists, psychologists and trauma specialists who support rape survivors have impressed upon journalists the need to respect the autonomy of victims, to avoid re-traumatizing them and to understand that rape survivors are as reliable in their testimony as other crime victims.
Yet the explanation that Rolling Stone failed because it deferred to a victim cannot adequately account for what went wrong. Erdely’s reporting records and interviews with participants make clear that the magazine did not pursue important reporting paths even when Jackie had made no request that they refrain. The editors made judgments about attribution, fact-checking and verification that greatly increased their risks of error but had little or nothing to do with protecting Jackie’s position.
Over the years, trauma counselors and survivor support groups have helped journalists understand the shame attached to rape and the powerlessness and self-blame that can overwhelm victims, particularly young ones. Because questioning a victim’s account can be traumatic, counselors have cautioned journalists to allow survivors some control over their own stories. This is good advice. Yet it does survivors no good if reporters documenting their cases avoid rigorous practices of verification. That may only subject the victim to greater scrutiny and skepticism.
Problems arise when the terms of the compact between survivor and journalist are not spelled out. Kristen Lombardi, who spent a year and a half reporting the Center for Public Integrity’s series on campus sexual assault, said she made it explicit to the women she interviewed that the reporting process required her to obtain documents, collect evidence and talk to as many people involved in the case as possible, including the accused. She prefaced her interviews by assuring the women that she believed in them but that it was in their best interest to make sure there were no questions about the veracity of their accounts. She also allowed victims some control, including determining the time, place and pace of their interviews.
If a woman was not ready for such a process, Lombardi said, she was prepared to walk away.
Given the difficulties, journalists are rarely in a position to prove guilt or innocence in rape. “The real value of what we do as journalists is analyzing the response of the institutions to the accusation,” Bogdanich said. This approach can also make it easier to persuade both victims and perpetrators to talk. Lombardi said the women she interviewed were willing to help because the story was about how the system worked or didn’t work. The accused, on the other hand, was often open to talking about perceived failings of the adjudication process.
Rolling Stone's failure was Rolling's Stone failure. The author attempts to paint this as "we are told not to question rape victims", trying to establish the proponents of social justice put rape victims above all else. Incorrect, it's about respecting the trauma of potential victims and the social systems that weigh upon them. It's a problem, one the CJR report fully acknowledges, that the author attempts to question within the subsequent paragraphs.
Erdely and her editors had hoped their investigation would sound an alarm about campus sexual assault and would challenge Virginia and other universities to do better. Instead, the magazine’s failure may have spread the idea that many women invent rape allegations. (Social scientists analyzing crime records report that the rate of false rape allegations is 2 to 8 percent.)
On Blackstone's formation, the commentators correctly point out that the author is attempting to blend legal doctrine (which Blackstone's statement is about) and public opinion. Moving on.
Ooooooh. I get it. Cultural marxism and feminism are evil. I was wondering where the general thrust was coming from, but now I know.
To reverse a bit here, the constructs he's talking about are largely held up against some of these persecuted classes. If you point out that black people are routinely targeted by police action, something shown in numerous statistics, the narrative steadfastly remains that perhaps black people deserve it. If you point out that sexual assault is a wide-ranging problem - in college and real-life it's generally not random malcontents, it's those known by the victim - there remains a steadfast reliance on the idea that this is not true and false accusations rule the day, despite statistics from the CDC and other organizations.
Again, this is an emotional construct shared by many - oddly enough, it's why "privilege" arose as a concept, because people have issues seeing outside of their own biases and experiences - but the author attempts to paint it on millenials (why?), and specifically socially-minded millenials. Odd.
Also incorrect. The idea is that systemic racism tends to affect minorities more as those in power tend to be white. You can be racist against anyone, but the widely-seen effects of racism are, in the US, largely aimed in a specific direction. Same with the sexism he attempts to bring up.
Honestly, as I dig farther and farther in this article, my energy to refute it wanes. Not because I have nothing to say, but because you can already tear up half of the article.
The author, like UVA story he mentions, has a specific opinion and view of the world he wants to present. You can see that within the language he uses and the concept he attacks. Hoff Sommers' (who I've already talked about at length) attempt to misuse statistics is literally the same thing the author decries, yet he's blind to it because he prefers a specific viewpoint. Sommers disagrees with the pay gap because it attempts to average oput unrelated fields? The gap doesn't disappear when you account for that.
http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/article...men-even-when-they-are-equally-qualified-mbas
But even within the same fields, women were paid less than men. Indeed, 17 of 22 industries that hired MBAs last year offered women less money. Women entering finance earned, on average, close to $22,000 less than men, the largest pay differential among companies that drive MBA hiring. Women were offered $12,300 less by tech companies, and $11,500 less by consulting firms than their male peers.
We limited this analysis to people who had full-time jobs lined up; so there was no gender difference in their commitment to working a full day. Even with those things being equal, the pattern held.
Career-switchers should, in theory, be on a level playing field. A man entering a new industry straight out of an MBA program has the same amount of experience in that industry (none) and the same level of education as a woman in the same situation. Yet women who were switching into tech, finance, or consulting—the three industries that hire the most MBAs—made an average of $12,800 less than men who were also newbies. Men who were in one of these jobs before business school, and stayed the course after graduating, made $13,300 more than women on the same path.
The postgraduation gap also wasn’t explained by the fact that women, on average, were making less than the men to start with. When we controlled for people’s compensation before getting to campus, the gap narrowed, but didn’t disappear. Women made about $8,500 less than men upon graduating regardless of what they were pulling in beforehand.
No, it doesn't have to do with the jobs women take. Even within the same position, women are offered less. That's why it's a White House priority, because it's a real problem. Not because people said things real loud. If that was the case, police departments across the country would be less likely to target minorities, because everyone is saying a whole lot about that.
The author should probably heed their own words:
Finally:
You are none of those things. You are simply incorrect. You make wide statements that sound good, but your ability to back those statements up with true information is lacking. It's worth the time to rebut simply because people are agreeing to it without thinking, but on its own, it does not represent revolution thinking and intellectual honesty. Thus, I am done with Aristotelis Orginos.
The problem is there's no PC culture. It's not millenials. It's mostly the rise of the internet bringing like-minded communities together and allowing direct connection with those you disagree with. I know as a black person that I'm not alone, there are others like me, who feel like me. And one someone says something racist, like Phil Robertson's "black people had it good under slavery nonsense" I can reach directly out on Twitter or via Email to make my discontent heard.
In the past, other may have felt alone. In the past, letter-writing campaigns would take forever to have a measurable effect. That doesn't mean the feelings and thoughts didn't exist. People are like "holy crap! where did all this come from?" It was always there. What we have are groups of people who have been marginalized for a long time, coming together. Are some of them angry? Entirely possible. When you are told your race is lazy or your sexuality is immoral and can be fixed, that can have an effect.
Is teaching and helping a good idea? Of course it is. Rock on. Should the burden of teaching and helping be solely on the back of every minority? Of course not. The burden is equally shared with the majority to step up, reach down, and attempt to understand others. If you are hurt (or angry I might note) by people simply dismissing your viewpoint, imagine the results of years of fear of being beaten or killed. Of being ignored, hate, and set aside. Of being systematically targeted while people call it "right" and "fair". Do that, and perhaps you'll find that understanding we're all looking for.
No you started your post equivocating that those that are pushing back against social media are advocating for the status quo. Utter and complete bullshit.
You then went on to equivocate pushing back against doxxing and harassment as the same as pushing back against MLK. Again, bullshit.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Anyone really interested in who did what with MLK can look over the thread and see for themselves
entremet
Member
Dude, there's a way to call or correct people without the rancor in your post.
Why would I want to listen to you after that?
If I'm wrong. I'm fine to copping to that. But why would I want to engage you with that response?
Look at MHWilliams post as an example.
captainnapalm
Member
Yeah, it happened, the joke was about a "dongle" as someone said, and the guy got fired. And he had a wife and kids as well - he wasn't just some young punk. So really no joke at all what happened to him and his family.
That's just one example that sprang to mind, but I've come across a number of them during my time on GAF.
No he attempts to paint with a broadbrush that push back against things like Doxxing is equivalent to pushing back against MLK. Against secretly advocating for the status quo. One can criticize violence and illegal activity and harassment as protest and still advocate that protest and change is necessary. This isn't some zero sum game.
You seem to continue to misunderstand my argument so until I see a post of yours that seemingly understands it and shows you clearly took the time to read my earlier posts and understand my position you will understand why I may no longer address you further.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
This is what bothers me the most lately. Every attempt to discuss racist or sexist activity or speech is treated as a personal attack, which just makes those actual personal attacks feel like part of the noise
They always seem like some kind of asshole-ish preachers to me. "If you could only depart from your wrong ways and see the light...!"
The one thing I'd really like to know is if they're convinced they're actually going to change something by their behaviour. Because I'm convinced that they won't.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
He got another job. The woman who reported him became a victim of a harassment campaign of her own and also didn't find another job right away. What she did was arguably shitty, but lets not pretend like the fallout from that only extended in one direction.
The Hermit
Member
Yeah me too. I feel this happens a lot here in Gaf too which makes me afraid to even discuss controversial topics.
CrimzonSamurai
Member
Is that really surprising on the internet though? This whole thing is a vitriolic cesspit. Nobody would say 80% of the crap they say online. Without the relative anonymity afforded here, I doubt as many people would participate in these kind of conversations. Is it because of the kind of internet swarm "SJW" or what have you mob mentality that's been so prevalent since like, 4chan was still the big shit on the pile? I dunno. I don't trust anyone enough to talk about sensitive issues in public. For all I know someone is recording to put it on YouTube later.
I mean, not really, but I think that's where a significant percentage of that fear comes from.
MHWilliams
Member
It is a problem. How do you educate someone on the fact that a statement they made may be racist, without them attempting to internalize that? Once that happens, they believe that it's an assault on their character. You can say racist or sexist things without being labelled as a racist or sexist, though if you double down after I try to correct you, I'm probably just going to call a spade a spade and walk away.
Yes, internet culture and the fact that most conversation is recorded somewhere makes these kinds of discussions more difficult.
Glass Shark
Banned
To me, this reads like a GamerGater got a dictionary and thesaurus for Christmas and has just been dying for a chance to use them.
Poodlestrike
Banned
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
It is especially magical as it missed the point. He's saying that those tactics are meant to smother discussion rather than further it.
I'm not sure you know what GamerGate is
Just wanted to say that I thought this was a very good post
captainnapalm
Member
The fallout is irrelevant to the rightness or wrongness of the incident in question. Just because she then got treated badly by some people doesn't in any way validate or justify the original incident.
Also, 'he got another job' is a very poor defence as well.
Actually it's about ethics in social justice campaigning.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
If she had reported him and nothing had come of it, no-one got angry at him and he didn't lose his job, would people would still be upset about her reporting it in the first place? The original incident is her calling it out, nothing more, nothing less. The vitriol that both he and she faced were both equally parts of the reaction to that.
A lot of this has to do with whether our goal is honestly to change other people's beliefs and understandings.
If our goal is to alter the beliefs of another person, then our approach has to be carefully considered -- beating people over the head with their wrong behavior (or at least, what we personally perceive as wrong) has the opposite effect in most cases. The common human instinct is to dig one's heels in and defend once we perceive we are under attack.
If the goal is just to be right and glory in our righteousness, well then obviously no decorum is necessary or even advantageous. I think a lot of the types of jerks we're talking about in this thread are just that; people who revel in feeling right and moral, while castigating those who are wrong, evil, or backwards.
That type of jerk is not particular to social justice warriors, by the way; they can reasonably be compared to the deeply religious who are convinced they're right and that everyone who disagrees is a foolish sinner who has not seen the light. I have personally met such people who clearly revel in their perceived certainty and righteousness.
The problem with attacking the argument and not the person is that it gets old after a while.
If somebody says to you they think black people are inferior, and you go through an extended conversation with them detailing why they are wrong, and even if they see the error of their ways, you might not want to be so patient with the next thirty people that say the same thing.
People who have irrational opinions on things, especially destructive irrational opinions, are frustrating to deal with. And they don't always deserve to have their arguments legitimized by the effort it takes to break down all their irrational values.
Having the abortion debate is tiring over and over again. The same arguments get brought up with the same rebuttals over and over and over, and the same walls are hit time and again.
Same tends to be true with social justice issues. If somebody says black people are poor because they are lazy, is that really an argument that is worth attacking or should you just write that person off? Does everybody`s argument, no matter how hateful or irrational, deserve to be broken down with respect and patience?
If somebody says to you they think black people are inferior, and you go through an extended conversation with them detailing why they are wrong, and even if they see the error of their ways, you might not want to be so patient with the next thirty people that say the same thing.
People who have irrational opinions on things, especially destructive irrational opinions, are frustrating to deal with. And they don't always deserve to have their arguments legitimized by the effort it takes to break down all their irrational values.
Having the abortion debate is tiring over and over again. The same arguments get brought up with the same rebuttals over and over and over, and the same walls are hit time and again.
Same tends to be true with social justice issues. If somebody says black people are poor because they are lazy, is that really an argument that is worth attacking or should you just write that person off? Does everybody`s argument, no matter how hateful or irrational, deserve to be broken down with respect and patience?
Yep, that would be exactly why it's so magical.
Mr_Antimatter
Member
It's an anti social issues \political correctness in media campaign.
And that to me is cool. The line I draw is when the illegal activity starts flying: the hacking, the death threats, the general doxxing, the harassment, stalking etc. Especially in instances where context isn't fully understood. This cuts on both sides. To the liberal authoritarian and the religious nut job or the racist fascist.
The actual discussion of the racist behavior when it is done constructively: protests, elections, scrutiny of public figures, advocacy, grassroots movements, forum discussions etc. I am pretty much fine with universally. Hell I think it is the best way to effect change. It crosses lines occasionally but that again is the only time I am going to step in and put my foot down.
What is ridiculous, and you aren't the one I am talking about, but is the posters trying to point to pushback against the initial things I posted as being akin to being the white moderate that is in the letter MLK wrote. That is ridiculous to me.
To me what I don't hear a whole lot of is the direct argument for what and how those sort of actions(doxxing, piling on, harassment etc.) not only effectively lead to change but how they are the best and most ethically responsible means to do so. I mean if you are going to defend breaking the law, you better have a pretty good fucking reason for doing it. And if they aren't meant for those purposes, then what purpose are they serving and lets investigate the legitimacy of those.
Also, discussions like these are desperate for more specific examples. Too often we end up talking past each other by talking too generally. You say a "sjw" goes to far? Give an example, then someone can say yes I agree they went too far and should have done this, or no that person acted properly because of this.
This was a poor article. He touches on an important point but misfires so many times in the body of his article.
Author is mistaking a demand that people take accusations seriously enough in order to investigate the problem with a blank check for being automatically trustworthy.
Author fails to realize many rape kits have gone unused even in the face of rape reports. Author exagerates the claim that there is little recourse for the accuseR with no outlets.
Most people have the stance that people have racist tendencies but it is the racism of the majority group (in the case of America white people) is more relevent and damaging than the other way around.
Sexism is similar but instead of a definite majority it's a problem felt by those who are majority sex in positions of power and authority.
This is unreal. To consider this as something most people accept or take part in is silly. This point may have relevance if the more prominent social leaders defended such radical behavior but unlike the other sections with citations this one is unsupported.
This is the only section he doesn't screw up horribly. I'll need some more time to read his sources but overall it looks like he made a very compelling case for the gender wage gap to be not as serious as it has been portrayed.
I really question the judgement of the people on this forum who couldn't see the majority of flaws in this article.
I feel the main point their exist progressive advocates who create a hostile unthinking environment is correct because of how mob justice has been justified in the past. This though wasn't the article that addresses or explains the problem effectively.
Author is mistaking a demand that people take accusations seriously enough in order to investigate the problem with a blank check for being automatically trustworthy.
Author fails to realize many rape kits have gone unused even in the face of rape reports. Author exagerates the claim that there is little recourse for the accuseR with no outlets.
Most people have the stance that people have racist tendencies but it is the racism of the majority group (in the case of America white people) is more relevent and damaging than the other way around.
Sexism is similar but instead of a definite majority it's a problem felt by those who are majority sex in positions of power and authority.
This is unreal. To consider this as something most people accept or take part in is silly. This point may have relevance if the more prominent social leaders defended such radical behavior but unlike the other sections with citations this one is unsupported.
This is the only section he doesn't screw up horribly. I'll need some more time to read his sources but overall it looks like he made a very compelling case for the gender wage gap to be not as serious as it has been portrayed.
I really question the judgement of the people on this forum who couldn't see the majority of flaws in this article.
I feel the main point their exist progressive advocates who create a hostile unthinking environment is correct because of how mob justice has been justified in the past. This though wasn't the article that addresses or explains the problem effectively.
freenudemacusers
Member
it's even more distressing when they are people you generally find yourself aligning with on moral/ethical issues but wanting strongly to have no association with as a person in society.
MHWilliams
Member
Indeed. People approach these subjects from either education or catharsis. I can't say that someone must always stick to the former method.
There is always an issue of the backfire effect you mentioned occurring even when the information is presented in an even manner.
Also true.
Bingo.
Not sure I will forgive you since all three of the gay, black, and poor attributes were made up by you as a mirror of the author. I understand attacking the author for the points he makes but I don't get the point of making up a demographic, which you seem to think he is being bullied by(?), that he never actually mentioned just so you can get a nice last line to your OP.
Yeah, I know what Gamergate is. I said I don't think that jrh2 does.
Maybe once Anita Sarkeesian starts making valid points we will.
MrCunningham
Member
Did anyone ever really know what GamerGate was about?
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Perhaps the issue is the lack of critical thinking skills and jumping to conclusions among some people?
Several posters here have said some SJW's are not open to debate, will not budge, know they are right.
That is true, but depending on the situation, there is no compromise to be made. For example, gay people objectively deserve the same rights as straight people. There is no compromise to be made here. Saying they will not budge is intellectually dishonest in such case. You are implying that Gay people do not deserve the same rights.
Things break down, when the same logic is applied to something that is not empirically obvious, where there is not enough information, especially when referring to specific examples instead of broad situations. This where the jumping to conclusions bit comes into play. This particular bit plays both ways too. Look at the countless cases of cops killing black people receiving so much attention recently. Sometimes there is not enough information available to make an educated guess as to what happens. Some people will side with the copy in such instance others, and when looking at other recent examples, they will side with the victim. Then when evidence presets itself that one set of events is considerably more likely then the other, some people dig in. They won't budge when presented with new information. However, this phenomenon is not exclusive to SJWs, it effects anybody any group, any political leaning, etc etc.
So basically, creating this article is fruitless because it's nothing specific to SJWs.
Several posters here have said some SJW's are not open to debate, will not budge, know they are right.
That is true, but depending on the situation, there is no compromise to be made. For example, gay people objectively deserve the same rights as straight people. There is no compromise to be made here. Saying they will not budge is intellectually dishonest in such case. You are implying that Gay people do not deserve the same rights.
Things break down, when the same logic is applied to something that is not empirically obvious, where there is not enough information, especially when referring to specific examples instead of broad situations. This where the jumping to conclusions bit comes into play. This particular bit plays both ways too. Look at the countless cases of cops killing black people receiving so much attention recently. Sometimes there is not enough information available to make an educated guess as to what happens. Some people will side with the copy in such instance others, and when looking at other recent examples, they will side with the victim. Then when evidence presets itself that one set of events is considerably more likely then the other, some people dig in. They won't budge when presented with new information. However, this phenomenon is not exclusive to SJWs, it effects anybody any group, any political leaning, etc etc.
So basically, creating this article is fruitless because it's nothing specific to SJWs.
Semantics is the whole thing. The phenomenon he identifies is only worth censuring if it matters. This tendency or movement or whatever is only a thing if it actually has consequences in the world. Words like "blood thirsty" and "attack" carry a weight he doesn't establish.
So some people dogged on writers for questioning the Rolling Stone Rape on Campus article? So what? The reasoned doubters proved out to have been right.
Guy claims "the resulting sociopolitical culture among millennials and their slightly older political forerunners is corrosive and destructive to progress in social justice". That's a super strong claim! "Destructive to progress in social justice" is an empirical question. You gotta back that shit up. Likewise "millennial social justice advocates have taken to verbal, emotional  and sometimes physical  violence".
"Erdely took Jackie at face value. Why? Because, at the behest of millennial social justice advocates, we are told not to question rape victims. To do so is 'victim blaming' and can potentially 're-traumatize' the victim." How does he know Erdely took Jackie at face value *because of* millennial social justice advocates? Erdely has claimed that sort of thing but she just as likely used the language of "re-traumatizing" as cover for her pursuit of a juicy, high-profile story. And that cover was not effective *at all*, Erdely's legacy will be as a textbook example of shitty journalism. So we can't say that Those Raging SJWs caused this bit of bad reporting.
Guy claims "Cooke writes that there was an initial questioning of Jackie and Erdely and he notes that the backlash to this line of inquiry was met with extreme hostility." Let us see this example of "extreme hostility":
Charles C.W. Cooke said:
That's not hostile at all! That's in fact a totally reasonable thing to say!
Guy does a poor job of reading the things he cites.
Maxwell *literally and explicitly* says "This is not a legal argument about what standards we should use in the courts; its a moral one, about what happens outside the legal system." Guy here uses Maxwell's piece to jump off on a thread about how These Damn Millennials represent a threat as an "illiberal perversion of the justice system".
The piece is vapid. His never even supports his conclusion "anyone unwilling to engage in productive, open, mutually critical conversations with people they disagree with [...] [are] bullies." What from the Erdely episode is an example of people being unwilling to engage with people they disagree with?
Glass Shark
Banned
That didn't take long.
Oh boy...
That's a mistake you're making. To convince people to your side you have to do your best to try and not alienate people. Besides one of the article writer's goal is to encourage people advocating for social change to not undermine their cause with the same tactics of their adversaries.
It's not a fruitless endeavor. His own sloppiness illustrates how much you can undermine your own objectives.
Christ.
Princess Carl
Member
Ah, there it is.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Hmm, I see the point your making. But what do you do with people who want to compromise on something that has no compromise?
It feels like there are two separate issues are play here.
I think just like we are having a discussion about the ethics and tactics of social justice, there to is a discussion about when it is appropriate, right or smart to try and illicit that tool.
It is pretty clear by now what the effect and consequences can be - both to the person committing the action and the person who posted the action - and most of the time they are not pretty.
Like anything, you need to think through your actions before you make them. That isn't me excusing what happened, far from it. The effect of what happened was wrong, very wrong, from both sides. It frankly disgusts me when I am reminded of it. Frankly from all parties involved and the extremists on both sides mostly.
It illustrates though how seeking social justice does often have lots of problems with it that can spiral out of control fast and no real way to reign them in. How a mistake and sometimes something you meant in a completely well intentioned way can end up deeply hurting you because oft he unintended consequences. To which sometimes there were alternate methods that probably should of been tried first with much lower risk.
To me the examples viral photos or videos reaching critical mass through social media has far fewer instances where it was effective, illicited a positive change and done in a ethical manner then the instances where once something reached that critical mass threshold, the hacktevists and vigilante justice people attempt or successfully commit acts of harassment, doxxing, threats and other illegal behavior. For every OKC fraternity we have an instance of someones life being ruined for one mistake or sometimes something completely out of context or for just trying to share a moment on inequality.
Kid Kamikaze10
Member
EDIT: Forget it. No point.
Lol, for real. I just don't get what's so wrong about justice in general. I always end up feeling like some people simply don't like not being able to be jerks to other people.
You try and educate them, respectfully. if that doesnt work you ostracize them. In a way that doesnt break the law or push the moral boundary of acceptable behavior. Then you focus on those people that actually can affect change and are willing to listen. Allow there ideas to wither away in the dark while you build momentum from the more reasonable sections of society.
I understand this viewpoint, and I think it's valid, but I think writing off a person with bad beliefs is always worse than at least giving a shot at educating them. Of course it's tiring, and some arguments/people are so obviously dumb that there is no saving them, but oftentimes they're somewhere in between, and you risk further alienating them. And look at it on the bright side, maybe if you educate them, they will educate more people themselves and the improvement will grow.
I know because it happened with me. I was brought up in a Muslim country in an environment with terrible attitudes towards women and lgbt people. When I moved to America I slowly learned that those views were bad views, and over time, my views were corrected by interacting with people. I don't know what could have happened if I was shut down and told to GTFO, I'd probably have gotten more insular in my bad views. Since then I've made several of my friends more progressive as well.
#cancelcolbert and shirtgate are very interesting case studies to these type of discussions. When people talk about how dangerous social justice mafias I just think to myself that Suey Park probably still gets online harassment and death threats for creating the hashtag but Colbert was never canceled by it's doing.
- Status