Social Justice Warriors - poisoning Rational Discourse?

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Screaming racism when someone critiques a religion, Islam, is stifling debate.

Screaming racist because someone voted for Trump is stifling debate.

Screaming racist because someone critiques the BLM movement is also stifling debate.

Every idea or ideology should be open to criticism and not throwing out the nuclear option of stifling debate - labelling someone racist.

This is all too common amongst those that are classed as "SJWs".

Equally screaming sjw, screaming snowflake, screaming marxist is also stifling debate.

There's 2 sides of this.

JupiterKid wrote: »

I used the term SJW to get the discussion flowing. There are also plenty of perjorative terms used for those who hold right wing views. Also, my appeal is for critical, independent thinking and reasoned debate, which sadly seems to very lacking at times as posters become entrenched in their views and attack each other. And the hard left is just as guilty of doing it as the far right. I am centrist in my political views.

What saddens me is that people don't seem to read up various differing viewpoints in the wider media, even ones that they may not like or agree with and form an informed opinion. They prefer to reinforce their prejudices and world views by reading material and opinions that agree with their own to gain a sense of smug self-satisfaction. That, to me, is not critical thinking. If a student of mine submitted an assignment where they asserted a certain view without any data or facts to back it up I would fail them. And a left wing orthodoxy without adequate counter arguments has infected the postmodernist discourse in academia - in the humanities disciplines - to an alarming degree. Like a type of absolutist orthodoxy. This has polarised opinion between right and left and that is regrettable.

You see, I believe informing oneself is about reading up the facts and engaging in proper debate, not resorting to infantile reactionary retorts.

Do you not see that your use of sjw, far left, cultural marxist is exactly what you are opining is wrong in the first place?

The problem I find is that a lot of people these days aren't willing to engage in debate with those who think differently. They just dismiss their opinions and live in echo chambers, where they just get reassuring voices convincing them they're right and the others are wrong. This happens on all parts of the political spectrum but is most noticeable in those on both extremes.

I myself am very much to the left and I find it ironic that there are some on the left, who preach tolerance, acceptance and understanding, are very quick to shut down people who don't agree with them. It's to be expected from people on the right so I'm not surprised whatsoever when they do it but these people (not all but enough for it to be noticeable) on the left, again who are openly preaching these values, completely ignore them and lose all reason when they have to engage their opponents.

I also find that some people read far too much into things, particularly some people who take offense at the most trivial of things. To give you an example, I recently had a debate with a friend of mine about sexism. My point was that feminism would be able to get more men onside if they focused their dialogue on gender equality instead of making everything about women.

Somehow the example of male tennis players earning more money came about. I pointed out that male tennis players play more sets, i.e. longer games, i.e. they work more, why is it so offensive that they should earn more? She said it was because men were earning more. I changed tact and said if two people, who do the exact same job but one does it for an extra hour, earn the same amount, is that fair? She refused to answer, she kept dragging gender back into the debate whereas I was debating that if all people are really treated equally, then gender is irrelevant and the amount people earn should depend on the work they do, in the case of male tennis players, who play longer games, it's only normal that they earn more because they work more. She, however, saw it as men against women and that's why men earned more.

Now, I'm aware it's a far more complicated issue and I don't deny that there probably is a bit of sexism involved to some extent but her argument was women tennis players who play less games should earn the same as men whereas my argument was that both groups of players should earn the same relative to the amount of time they play and their gender should not be a factor in what they earn, which what I believe is gender equality.

silverharp wrote: »

but the "SJW's" brought this on themselves , it was their initial tactics and when people were trying to question them there clearly wasn't a conversation allowed. Might as well dismiss them now as "snowflakes" and move on.

Again this is doing exactly what the op was opining about. And resorting to the "he said it first" - do you realise how childish that sounds?

The op was opining that debate is stifled by people broadly on the left because they stifle debate by calling people racists, bigots and that this is childish reactionary retorts. He and then you to resort to what he is opining about - childish reactionary retorts of calling people cultural marxists and the "he said it first" stuff.

Arghus wrote: »

The term Social Justice Warrior is a perjoritive term that is used by some - usually on the internet and usually by, but not always, on the right - to dismiss any argument or valid point that they don't agree with out out of hand and denigrate the person making it; thereby reducing intellectual engagement down to simple name calling. If you call someone a Social Justice Warrior, you aren't really trying to debate with them - just dismissing them right from the off. The irony of people complaining that it's only so-called The SJW brigade that stifle debate is pretty acute.

If you use the term SJW you are arguably as much to blame for the climate of polarised intolerant political discourse as someone from the opposite end of the poltical spectrum who mindlessly shouts "Facist!" at the sound of arguments they don't like. Grow up.

Super post.

professore wrote:

You're both wrong. Tennis players "earning" the same makes no sense. If I play a thrilling 3 set encounter in the local tennis club with my work colleague, should I "earn" as much as Tim Henman who can attract millions of viewers? Tennis players and their agents should demand to be paid based on how successful they are attracting viewers, not the number of hours they put in - but this is a typical leftist position - or equally what gender they are. That's why female fashion models get paid far more than male fashion models for the same work.

I'm aware of all that. I'm also aware that there's probably more people watching the male players, hence bigger advertising and sponsorship revenue, etc. I'm well aware that the issue is far more complicated than the simplistic terms me and my friend were discussing.

But that's what it was, a pair of uninfluential mates at a house party chatting about gender equality and what are own views on it were.

Arghus wrote: »

The term Social Justice Warrior is a perjoritive term that is used by some - usually on the internet and usually - but not always - on the right - to dismiss any argument or valid point that they don't agree with out out of hand and denigrate the person making it; thereby reducing intellectual engagement down to simple name calling. If you call someone a Social Justice Warrior, you aren't really trying to debate with them - just dismissing them right from the off. The irony of people complaining that it's only so-called The SJW brigade that stifle debate is pretty acute.

If you use the term SJW you are arguably as much to blame for the climate of polarised intolerant political discourse as someone from the opposite end of the poltical spectrum who mindlessly shouts "Facist!" at the sound of arguments they don't like. Grow up.

but its ok to call this individual a snowflake and make "triggered" jokes? call it a positive form of social shaming if you will :pac: