Social Justice vs Internet Activism

DeadHand wrote: »

My position is not one totally opposed to any immigration but on tighter controls of immigration, most especially immigration of a parasitic and potentially dangerous nature (uneducated, of cultural/religious belief incompatible with a modern democracy).

Any discrimination an honest traveller (I've known a few) would sadly experience is more due to the consistent, apalling behaviour of large swathes of their own community than any unthinking bigotry on the part of the majority.

Anyway, that's a derailment.

Now, many would disagree with those sample positions and they wouldn't all be SJWs. The disagreement wouldn't make them so, I never said it would. They are examples of arguments that would likely excite SJWs and have them shouting racist at me.

Unlike RayM, who felt able to state anyone who isn't an SJW is a c unt, I wasn't generalising.

The problem is that is quite easy to see a element of racism in arguing that a "cultural/religious belief incompatible with a modern democracy" should be the basis for immigration restrictions since you simply cannot assume religious belief translates to antisocial actions. Western democracies punish the crime not the thought. If you are getting called a racist, then surely it behoves you to examine the flaws in the argument you put forth to see if there is some blanket discrimination in your argument. It can be well-intentioned but still racist in execution. There are shades of this, for example, an immigrant from Malaysia may have exactly the same religious views as the ones you object to, yet may not be seen as a person for whom immigration controls (in some's view) should be targeted at, unlike the Iranian (for example).

We either allow the notion that all are equal in the way we apply laws or we fall into arbitary distinctions between people who may not share anything in common other than the membership of a national, ethnic or cultural group. That's quite a wedge to be on the thin end of...

RWCNT wrote: »

Yet any thread about a typically SJWish subject is always full of people with a persecution complex arguing against the "SJWs". Any thread about sexism against women will be full of men having a cry at how hard life is for them and that nobody cares, for example.

Y'see, this is a lot of the problem - SJW's appoint themselves as the sole arbiter of their own particular brand of 'justice', which means that they ignore anything which falls outside their idealist view of the world. They claim to be an authority on humanity, and yet are some of the most selfish, self-interested misanthropes you're ever likely to see in front of a webcam.

NachoBusiness wrote: »

You are suggesting so that the men which you refer to don't really have all that much to complain about in comparison to women (with regards to sexism) but don't you think that the fact that you referred to those men as them "having a cry" would be indicative of quite the opposite of that? Just a thought.

I wasnt suggesting that in this instance although I may very well think it. To answer your question, no, I wouldn't think that would be indicative of that at all.

RayM wrote: »

By all means, view the term 'Social Justice' as some kind of slur, but don't be surprised if people view you negatively for it.

Ever so slightly disingenuous there though - the term is "social justice warrior' as opposed to "social justice". Social justice warriors are insincere people who appropriate "causes" more often than they change their underwear.

They claim to "represent", and "raise awareness", but all they're actually interested in is self-promotion.

See, if I felt the need to engage in a deflection exercise right now, I could be really pedantic and point out that I never asserted that anyone who isn't an 'SJW' is a cunt

Oh...

RayM wrote: »

The term 'SJW' has been devalued to the point where it now just means 'anyone who isn't a cunt'.

What's this then?

RayM wrote: »

A bit of a petty afterthought there, no? A poor attempt at some sort of 'GOTCHA!' moment. If I reject the validity of the term 'SJW' in the first place, I'm hardly going to call anyone who isn't one 'a cunt', am I?

Alright, I now accept your original musing was just an attempt to look edgy and appeal to a certain section here by branding people with violent language.

I love when these noble crusaders start doing exactly what they are trying to criticise others for.


You cant tar all travellers like that and if you do you're all *****.

You cant not find this sign offensive or else your a bigot.

You cant discriminate against anyone unless they disagree and then you can discriminate away.

If you dont agree with gender quotas you're sexist.


You either agree with the bandwagon 100% or you get the hip labels thrown at you while they blame others for labelling. And of course this viewpoint is strictly flexible and depends on the tone of the thread.

The OP has conflated a few different issues imo, but those are somewhat interrelated so it can be tricky to tease them out. I offer below my imperfect attempt.

The first issue is using the internet as a tool in activism. Like any tool it can be used well or used in a piss poor manner, and we've got plenty of examples of both. The internet is unique in that it can allow those with relatively few resources to spread a message as effectively a multi-million euro advertising campaign. This has allow the traditionally powerless to compete with the traditionally powerful. It's a very interesting topic.

The second issue is one of internet culture. Given how diversely different websites approach moderation (compare something like Boards.ie to Encyclopedia Dramatica) it can be dicey to try drawing generalised conclusions. Having said that I do think there are some discernible trends. Internet culture as a whole tends not to harbour traditional prejudices (eg: racism) in the same way as pre-internet cultures. This makes sense when you consider than any person can contribute and participate in shaping that culture, which it makes a melting pot of what the internet-connected world has to offer. Internet culture as a whole tends to be meritocratic, with the cream of the contributions tending to rise to the top. To me this meritocratic melting pot tends to view the world without the prejudices and blinders of pre-internet cultures, and imho lends itself naturally to concepts of individual rights and social justices.

The third issue is the 'Social Justice Warrior' phenomenon. ITT people have complained that the term is vague. That's certainly a valid criticism, but it doesn't mean you can ignore the phenomenon. The hunting of Tim Hunt happened. #CancelColbert happened. The hunting of Matt Taylor happened. The Rolling Stone rape witch-hunt happened. These are just some high-profile examples of the phenomenon, and thus far I am utterly unaware of any attempt to lend description to them outside of phrases like 'Social Justice Warrior'. When I use that term most people think of examples like those listed above, so until I am presented with a better term I'm kind of forced to use it.

If someone makes a point about subject X that is reasonable and evidence-based then I doubt you'd get much accusations of being an SJW. If you say something about subject X that is bollocks then you will likely get accusations of being an SJW. I personally don't see the problem with that, and am glad there is a term that can be used to call out such illogic. Take the recent referendum on gay marriage as an example. You had people whose main contribution to the yes side seemed to be labeling people as being homophobic. Aside from the strictly logical point that even if the accusation of homophobia were true it had absolutely no bearing on whether or not a yes vote as a good/bad idea, it was a tactic that was rightly seen as lazy, irrational and content-free. By contrast you had people who went out knocking on doors and engaged people, telling their stories, dispelling the no side's misinformation, and making the rational and evidence-based argument for the yes vote. I'd have no issue calling the former people out as being SJWs, but that label cannot be used to describe the latter.

The truth is that there is a lot of misinformation and bollocks doing the rounds. Case in point being some of the argumentation over rape and consent. By such argumentation I have been raped multiple times because I had indulged in alcohol. This sort of argumentation is completely divorced from reality and should be, in the strongest terms, called out as being bollocks. For me, this sort of irrationality 'feels before reals' evidence-free gobbledygook* is at the heart of the 'Social Justice Warrior' phenomenon. It leads to witch-hunts of the innocent and it leads to absolutely deluded feckwits like Suey Park getting a platform on Time magazine to spew bollocks.

Any campaign, no matter how well-intentioned, is going to look completely irrational when nonsense rules and evidence is chucked out the window. This should be easily recognised as being a bad thing. It seems that all too often people get swept up by being part of a campaign and totally lose sight of what the campaign is about. How to police that and keep it on track is a difficult challenge, and if that can't be done then the lunatics may end up running the asylum.

* I've been called a racist on more than one occasion for using this term. This sort of willful ignorance anti-intellectualism just blows my fecking mind.

Here endeth the rant.