What is wrong with social justice?
When it comes to political leans I do define myself as a progressive/liberal, and with that being said, I do believe in social justice. Although I advocate this daily both socially and professionally, I am not extreme and I do not force others to share in my worldview. But I notice that for some, especially conservative thinkers, SJW seems to be considered something bad, almost like a curse word. I wonder, what is wrong with advocating for minority and women's rights, fighting against equality, racism, sexism and the like? Why is being a social justice warrior bad?
Comments (162)
Hmmm... even if one were sympathetic to a statement like that, it is a bit too large to chew all at once. Care to perhaps elaborate or break it down (thus preventing mental indigestion)?
For example, pressuring employers so that folks wind up canned because of something they said, photographs they posted, etc.
Social justice has been hijacked by facist idealogues, from something well intentioned to something dark and authoritarian.
Evergreen College is a prime example if you look into what happened there with Brett Weinstein.
Antifa is also a good example. Dressing in masks, enforcng through violence their own ideology.
The humanities have been taken over by the same types of people, training kids to hate under the guise of social justice.
When people say they are anti-social justice, its that stuff that they mean rather than a dislike of equal rights or combating sexual harassment and the like.
Ok, thank for the reply and example, though it still a bit generalized. In your example, one could imagine the words/photo being anywhere between very mildly “politically incorrect” to virulent and violent. Though i get the gist...
But anyway, one wearies of all types of “warriors” eventually. When does protective defense become an obnoxious offense? How far is too far? It is impossible to even discuss with the verbal bombs exploding Left and Right.
@DingoJones
Yep. The extremists get the headlines, naturally. There is some psychological effect happening, like when a child starts fires to get attention from parents. We are a world of lost, sad, angry children... armed to the teeth.
A lot of that hinges on what I consider to be seriously errant views of what meaning is/how it works. My views on this are controversial--we've had plenty of discussions about meaning here, but nevertheless, they're my views.
In my view it's not possible for speech to be violent.
I'm a free speech absolutist, by the way, and I don't see freedom of speech as solely a legal issue. I see it as a social issue, with the legal aspect being a subset of it.
I know I'm at risk of opening a huge can of worms here, so please treat this as an inquiry, not a retort, but...
You said that SJW's were wrong to "pressur[e] employers so that folks wind up canned because of something they said, photographs they posted, etc.". I don't know the facts of the case, but wouldn't they be applying this pressure by speech acts? And wouldn't that therefore make it absolutely fine, from the perspective of a free speech absolutist?
It's problematic to include antifa under the general label of SJW. Antifa is older and it's ideology is distinct from "social justice".
Quoting Anaxagoras
The term " warrior " denotes more than just advocacy. And there are lots of reasons for disagreement from lots of sides. Conservatives are opposed in principle, as is the alt-right. The criticisms from moderates is anywhere from dogmatism to focusing on the wrong issues.
I think it goes way beyond the firing of people in the manner you describe, or a university setting.
For example l, According to a significant portion of SJW’s it is not possible to be racist against white people because they are taught that racism is “prejudice plus power”. This is pretty dangerous, as well as being doubly erroneous and ridiculous.
Often people will object on the basis that its just “fringe” SJW’s, to which I respond with reference to the BBC’s “Big Questions” show...specifically the episode titled “Is it possible to be racist against white people?”. That that is even a serious question should be alarming for everyone.
"What's wrong with it" = "What I don't like about it"
I have no interest in, and I'd be against, anyone wanting any SJW to be in legal trouble, to be canned from a job, to be "deplatformed," etc. for advocating that someone be arrested, lose their job, etc. because of something they say.
That doesn't mean that I have to like what they're saying, what they're advocating, or that I have to refrain from speaking out against it, or refrain from trying to persuade people not to do it. Just like they don't have to like what someone like Roseanne Barr was saying, they don't have to refrain from speaking out against it, they don't have to refrain from trying to influence, etc.
Well if I am a CEO of a hospital and my fellow employee is outted as a racist, I wouldn't want that person working at my hospital especially since I service the public at large.
Yeah, I think that stuff is just as stupid as the stuff that they're railing against.
No.
Which is solely due to the social pressure that people would put on the hospital, which is what I have a problem with.
The CEO wouldn't care less if it wouldn't affect business. And if it would positively affect business, they'd push all of their employees to say racist things.
The social pressure is the cause of the employee getting canned. And that's effectively wanting to control what people can choose to do, what they can choose to say.
hmmm
No. Because a person that hates someone for their skin pigmentation is a liability and cannot be trusted to give equal treatment to others in a hospital setting. Also, they are more likely to act out their hatred. So yes from a business standpoint racists, sexists, and the like are financial liabilities but liabilities nonetheless.
In what way do you think it is "dangerous". Racism is just a word, surely it can take any definition. If someone coined a new word to describe situations which involved prejudice and power, would that new word be dangerous? And how would that even work?
Im not sure its fringe, if that's what you mean by extremist. The movement and idealogy inevitably become “extreme”, for example the idea that words are violence. Now its perfectly justifiable to physically harm people who say things you do not like. You are just meeting violence with violence after all. Worse, you are immoral if you DONT.
That's not why, especially because there's zero evidence of the behavior/belief connection.
Yeah, I presumed as much from reading your posts elsewhere. What I was confused about is the reasoning (if any) behind that dislike. Obviously simply using words in the hope of encouraging someone to behave differently is exactly what you're doing here in publicly denouncing SJW's, so telling others what you think of them simpliciter is obviously something you find acceptable.
So is it a political thing, the reason why you don't like the things the SJW's are saying? Or is it because you don't like the possible consequences of what they're saying (that someone might lose their job). I think it's the latter, from your last response, but I just wanted to clarify.
I disagree, i think the current Antifa has the SJW idealogy at its base, and recruits from its bountiful fields.
Weren’t you aware that the term was created as a negative term? The term was coined to be derogatory NOT complimentary.
As I said, because they want to control what people can choose to do.
I have no interest in controlling what they can choose to do. They're welcome to say whatever they want to say, and I'm not going to try to CONTROL whether they can whatever. I'm not going to try to make it that their freedom is taken away, or their ability to make a living is taken away, etc., just because they said whatever they said.
Simply speaking against something isn't controlling what people can choose to do. Getting people arrested, fired, making it so they can't obtain a place to live--anything like that, effectively controls what people can choose to do.
If a company were going to fire an employee because they've advocated firing someone for being a racist, say, I'd have a problem with that. For example, if Yale were going to expel students for advocating that Christakis be fired, or if people were advocating Yale to expel those students because of that, I'd have just as much problem with it as I have with the students advocating that Christakis be fired.
As I said, I may need to look at the facts of the case in question, but to save me the time, could I just make it into a hypothetical.
If the SJW's in this case were lobbying the employer, yelling at him, telling him they're going to kill him, aren't all those things just words? Isn't the person who is actually responsible for limiting the employee's choice the employer who caved in and fired him, the subsequent employers who refuse to hire him. Assuming words are just words and have no power unless acted on, the SJW's in my hypothetical scenario wouldn't have done anything wrong, in your view? It's the employer who limited someone's choices.
Dangerous because that new definition is then used to justify something like “you cannot be racist against white people”. Once you establish that new definition, you can go after anyone, “white people” can be swapped out for any designated enemy, which is a classic and very dangerous tool of facists.
Its also dangerous because it doesnt really make any sense. Its not rational.
Yes, definitely. Again, I don't want to in any way prohibit the speech advocating that the person be fired. I don't want those people to be controlled so that they can't choose to say those things. But I have a problem with the desire to control in that way and the fact that it can work. Hence why I'll criticize it, why I'm not on board with it, etc. Anaxagoras asked us what we thought was wrong with SJWism. This is what I think is wrong with it.
It's an important point that disagreeing with something, having a problem with it, doesn't have to amount to wanting to control the ability of the person to say the thing in question. That's a point that the SJWs need to learn.
I could just as well say what I think is wrong with racism, but I wouldn't wind up saying that I want to make it illegal to say racist things, or that I want people fired because they're racists, or not able to rent an apartment because they're racists, etc. That doesn't mean that I like racism, that I'm on board with it, etc. I can disagree with it and have a problem with it without wanting to control that person's ability to choose to say those things.
This carries over, by the way, to a discussion in another thread about legal prosecution. There are things that I think aren't cool to do that I nevertheless don't want to be legally prosecutable. Sometimes it seems like it's common to think the false dichotomy of "Either we want to effectively prohibit something (either legally or via social pressure) or we're endorsing it." It's important to have a society in which people are allowed to do things that you're either neutral on or that you don't like but don't want to control a la effectively prohibiting them, because there's no way to have a large society where people only do things that you like/that you approve of.
The control you speak of uses free speech as its disguise. They arent interested in expressing a view, they are interested in what they can force other people to do. They call it free speech, but its actually not. I imagine you will disagree, but I would call it an abuse of free speech, like punching someone in the face is an abuse of your freedom to swing your fist in the air.
I don't understand how a definition is used to justify anything (other than a statement about the correct use of a word). If 'racism' were to mean prejudice plus power, then it would be entirely correct (in many circumstances) to say “you cannot be racist against white people”. The thing that people are when they're prejudiced against white people would simply be something else. Still not seeing the danger.
Quoting DingoJones
But surely you can "go after" anyone with or without a word. If some group said "we are opposed to prejudice with power, and they named that circumstance 'bob'. How would a restriction on a particular word hold them back?
Quoting DingoJones
Word meanings don't have a rational sense. There's no rational reason why 'dog' means dog and not cat.
Would you care to provide ANY evidence that beliefs have NO effect on behavior? Are the mind and body completely separate and independent of each other? Is that what you are saying? Please correct me if I’m wrong. But if that is the message, it is taking things to a whole other level... and going contrary to “conventional wisdom”, which would hold that the mind to a large degree controls or directs the body, autonomic body processes aside.
Another general point about using racism as a reason for firing someone etc, is that the label is very often misapplied by SJW types. What you wear for halloween or rap lyrics you choose to say out loud cannmake you a racist. Here is Canada, a manager was fired for using the word “nigger” in reference to something people should NOT use in a workplace. An SJW was present at the meeting, reported to his SJW social circle and the outrage machine demanded the “racist” be fired, which the company weakly did.
I get it,but I'm still not sure where your lines are, it all sounds a bit psychological. If you say, on a public forum that something is wrong with SJW's, people will inevitably feel slightly less inclined to be one, maybe less inclined to employ one (who wants to employ someone who's 'wrong'?). So your words have indirectly resulted in an SJW having their choices restricted by virtue of your influence on their potential employer. But presumably this is OK for you because you did not 'desire' to have the SJW unable to find work, it was merely an unforseen consequence of your speech.
Contrasting ly, if some SJW's say a lot of opinions at an employer who then fires the employee concerned, I understand you have no desire to restrict their actual ability to say those things, but you've expressed a dislike for them on account of the fact that their words were intended to restrict someone's choices (by getting them fired) whereas your words in the above example only incidentally restricted someone's choices (by influencing a potential employer).
As I say, I get it, but the distinction between intentionally using words to restrict someone's choices and incidentally restricting someone's choice by use of words seems a very subtle one.
Again, I fully understand you wouldn't intend to enforce any of this, I'm exploring your likes/dislikes only.
But what had any of this got to do with the meaning of racism. If the people in question were fired for wearing inappropriate costumes, or using inappropriate language, without being called racist, but being called some other term instead, how does that make any difference?
Ok. Sorry if it was vague what I was responding to. This:
Quoting DingoJones
I took this to be an example of extreme beliefs and actions. The “cutting edge” as it were, for better or worse. I would say that words do NOT literally equal violence. However, words can be (or seem or appear) violent or be thought of as inciting violence.
Quoting DingoJones
I am not sure how you mean these statements. It is unclear whether you are agreeing with them, or referring to others that believe in them? Clarification would be welcome.
...im not talking about the word itself, im talking about how the word is used as part of the rationale for behaviour. If you want to be racist against white people without being called a racist then you just redefine racism to not include racism against white people. They can then say “im not being racist, its not about skin color its about prejudice and power and white people have all the power so no racism happening.” But of course racism is precisely about skin color.
Its just like when it was ok to enslve black people but not white people in early US history, it was because they made the term “people”/“person”to not include black people. They were seen as something less than people, and therefore fair game for enslavement.
Sorry, yes, i meant that in reference to what other people believe, the way they justify their behaviour.
Good, thanks for the clarification!
This is analogous to what has occurred with 'political correctness'. For some it is a reaction to the excesses that occur in the name of justice, but the term has become another tool in the rhetorical war of conservatives. The problem is that particulars get lost under the banner. It is possible to condemn particular actions carried out in the name of social justice within condemning the pursuit of social justice.
One question that must be addressed is whether the criticism of social justice is based on opposition to progressivism. The real target for many conservatives is progressivism, the fear of changes to the political and social order.
The question of control appears to be one sided only because one side is pushing for change. But make no mistake about it, all sides are struggling to be in control, whether it is to change or maintain the status quo.
Really? Do you have research evidence or is this your opinion, because I have evidence.
No I wasn't. I don't indulge in conservative talk unless it becomes widely brought to the attention of people and I just happen to be listening to it.
I see.
Quoting Fooloso4
To me, I think this is it. I think conservatives use this as a difference of opinion against progressivism.
Quoting Fooloso4
I agree.
Right. I'm waiting for his answer to that as well and to see if he can provide proof of that.
Depends on what you think is trivial. For conservatives, a gay man should not serve in the military same with transsexuals. If we are to go based on the constitution, it is unfair to withhold someone from pursuing a passion they have. To me that is big and not trivial.
I guarantee you, if the views of "SJW's" were delivered in a calmer manner by arrogant men then they'd not get half the flack. It's not much to do with the topics at hand. It's oppressive.
It is NOT some “conservative” political tilt. It is just sensible folk saying things can go too far. It is NOT a term used to undermine political causes that look to help those in need and/or those who suffer prejudice.
Proof? When you have publicly left leaning figures openly mock the more extreme end of these virtue signaling types (mostly adolescents).
This is not true. It may be how you chose to view anyone with some conservative values though. Thinking it and saying it doesn’t make it a reality though.
A word can't provide rationale for behaviour, it's just a word. The thing a word means can provide rationale for behaviour, so if people think that it is very important to combat 'prejudice with power' but not at all important to combat mere prejudice, then that is what they will do. What term they use to describe each behaviour is neither here nor there.
If you don't agree that 'prejudice with power' is a vastly more important issue than prejudice alone, then make your case, don't hide behind etymology.
Quoting DingoJones
Yes, but the actual thing you are being will still be either acceptable or abhorrent to the same people no matter what you call it. I I redefine murder as "gentle persuasion", no one's going to start finding murder OK, they'll just start finding some forms of "gentle persuasion" abhorrent.
Quoting DingoJones
Do you have any clue about the history of the slave trade? I can absolutely assure you that the reason people thought it OK to enslave black people was not because they changed the meaning of the word "person". It may well have been because people were encouraged to believe that black people were actually not people, but no dictionary was responsible for slavery.
Quoting DingoJones
It's the operation of "the outrage machine" that give some advocates for a better world a bad name (trying to avoid the SJW term for a moment).
Outrage that is turned on and off with the flick of a forkéd tongue is disingenuous at best and goes down hill from there. It is a crude social control mechanism more typical of fascist groups (where disagreement is hammered down, rather than engaged in argument). It is an extremism which brooks no limit (something the right has embraced as much as the left).
People who employ the outrage machine are engaging in adolescent behavior. The knee-jerk resort to outrage is caused by (and aggravates) an inability to tolerate dissonance and ambiguity. It is most comfortable in a black and white world. Gray scale drives the SJW types and right wing nuts crazy.
SJW types will probably grow out of regular use of outrage -- just because of their own outrage fatigue [speed the day!!!]. I hope they will develop more nuanced, ambiguity tolerant, thinking -- but don't hold your breath.
Quoting Terrapin Station
Wait a minute. Are you claiming that behaviors in the social realm of politics, culture, and so on are unrelated to belief? When one votes, is lever pulling (old fashioned) or circle filling on a ballot merely a behavioral tick, like foot tapping or idly scratching?
You have beliefs which seem to be related to your expression of free speech absolutism behavior. I assume your statements on absolute free speech aren't just knee-jerk typing.
I'll readily grant that I perform behaviors that are not based on belief in areas that involve little cognition, like the way I brush my teeth or tie my shoes. But when it comes to idea-expression-behavior, I don't see how the behavior can be separated from belief.
Well of course. People traded in slaves because it was a profitable, low-overhead, and sustainable business. And, important point, it began and was firmly established way before the issue of defining 'person' became an issue in the English Colonies, late 18th Century.
My guess is that classifying black slaves as less than human made it easier to exploit them in a totally dehumanizing way.
I haven't taken a course in Comparative Slavery. I'm guessing that Moslem slave traders who traded both black and white slaves didn't discount their humanity in the same way. (Partly because Moslem slavers already counted heathens as less human than Islamic believers. Same thing, only different,)
This is simply not true. The history of the term shows that it has been used in different ways that range from neutral to positive to pejorative. Wiki cites the Oxford English Dictionary:
Oxford dictionary used the most popular useage of the term. I don’t equate “social justice” with what “social justice warrior” means at all.
It is the people declaring “I’m a Social Justice Warrior” that deserve derision. The term “Gay” for homosexuals originates from women prostitutes. The etymology of phrases and terms is interesting, but once they become popular they mean what they mean.
Yes, I think you're probably right. The point I was making is that, in the case slavery, two categories exist - those we're going to treat with dignity and those we are not. Even if we were to somehow have had the power to prevent the slave owners from restricting the application of the word "person", those two categories would still exist, and those wanting to treat slaves a certain way would still see fit to put black people into the latter of the two. I'm not denying that some names for those categories would be more powerful than others (because of the history of the word's use, for example) but ultimately it would only ever be a short term fix if the underlying social or economic motivation remained.
I mostly agree with what you said after quoting me there, although we might disagree on the prevalence of the ones giving “advocates of a better world” a bad name. Im well aware of the distinction, my sister considers herself an SJW but is an actual social worker who actually helps make the world better rather than the virtue signalling, outrage culture type. She had to go through these same courses that try and indoctrinate you to an ideology and had to deal with professors who wouldnt let her speak based on her skin colour unless she went through the proper subservient motions first. Again, id refer anyone to Evergreen College in the US for an exemple of just how long and well the termites have dined (to paraphrase A man sorely missed in these times) on our academic institutions.
Anyway, sorry to digress there. My point is that I think the SJW movement ,if we can call it that, has been co-opted by the ones giving it a bad name. They have largely succeeded in intimidating (not a word im choosing without care) the rest of the “movement” and indeed academia, media and corporate entities to tolerate if not outright support their toxic ideology. At least, in the US and (moreso) here in Canada where ive focused my attention.
You may be right about the actual numbers, its hard to tell, but I think you might be underestimating the level and scope of the control these people have as well as the control they are after. I dont want to sound to alarmist though, ive noticed a recent, rising trend of people growing weary of their game. I hope it continues.
...
Quoting DingoJones
Are the lizardmen coming to get us too?
Lots of people have lots of beliefs, desires, etc. that they never act on at all.
Yes, countless instances of people having beliefs/desires/etc. that they never act on.
People aren't so easily influenceable, especially given that whatever we're talking about, there are people on every side, and everyone is right or wrong depending on the person speaking. If people were that easily influenceable, they'd either not be able to act or they'd act in every way possible.
Seriously, people say a lot of things here that seem to indicate almost no real world experience whatsoever, and what you say above is one of those things. Go offline sometimes and interact with a variety of people in the "real world."
It was a hypothetical to try and understand your position, not a statement about the real world. I will attempt the same thing in abstract to see if that helps.
Someone says x, it influences person y to take action z which restricts the a person's choice. This is something you've said you dislike.
You said you disliked the actions of SJW's, even though those actions were only to speak words, because those words were intended to influence person y to take action z as above. In saying this, I presumed you to be tacitly agreeing with the notion (you now seem confusingly opposed to) that people are influenced by what others say. Otherwise, what was it about the now completely impotent speech of the SJW's of which you earlier disapproved?
I presume (maybe erroneously, in your view) that any speech is intended to have an influence on someone, otherwise what is the point of speaking, if after doing so we leave the world entirely unchanged? It is not unreasonable in a complex world to think that such changes might have the effect of limiting someone's choices. So my query was, if the only difference between the speech you disapprove of in the first case, and the speech you approve of in the second is whether the speaker intended to influence another to restrict the choices of a third party, does that not hang a little too much on the psychology of the speaker? Something which your judgement seems to depend on but which is ultimately unknowable to you?
Considering I typically read about it on online comments here in my state and city newspaper as well as online forums from "conservative thinkers." So I take it those who hold conservative views who use this term aren't motivated by politics themselves?
Quoting I like sushi
Um........
President Donald Trump’s administration is working on yet another anti-LGBTQ policy, the New York Times reported over the weekend.
"According to Erica Green, Katie Benner, and Robert Pear at the Times, Trump’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is considering an interpretation of Title IX, the federal civil rights law that bans sex discrimination in federally funded schools, that “would define sex as either male or female, unchangeable, and determined by the genitals that a person is born with.” (This would defy the scientific and medical evidence embraced by major organizations like the American Medical Association and American Psychiatric Association.)
HHS is the primary agency working on the draft proposal, but other agencies, including the departments of Education, Justice, and Labor, are expected to adopt it as well should the administration move forward with the change. It’s not clear when that will be, although the Times reported that HHS “is preparing to formally present the new definition to the Justice Department before the end of the year.”
The proposal would effectively erase protections for trans people, who identify with a gender different from the one assigned to them at birth, from federal civil rights laws — ensuring that the laws do not prohibit discrimination against trans people in any setting, including the workplace, housing, schools, and health care........
For much of the past couple of years, the administration has been mired in court battles over its attempts to ban transgender people from the military after the Obama administration lifted the original ban. And different parts of the Trump administration have already taken steps to prevent federal civil rights protections from applying to trans and gay people."
Source:https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/22/18007978/trump-administration-lgbtq-transgender-discrimination-civil-rights
Thanks for this explanation you actually explained it very good BC. I agree with you.
According to Wikipedia, "gay" in the context of which you are speaking...
Cartoon from Punch magazine in 1857 illustrating the use of "gay" as a colloquial euphemism for being a prostitute.[8] One woman says to the other (who looks glum), "How long have you been gay?" The poster on the wall is for La Traviata, an opera about a courtesan.
So, it was a euphemism for "whore"; just like "courtesan" is a nicer term than prostitute, whore, kept woman, and so on. Gay guys had nothing to do with it.
I have my doubts about people not acting on their beliefs. My theory is that a person can have an idea that they don't act on, but that beliefs are related to action in a reciprocal relationship. Executing a belief contributes to the strength of beliefs that require execution. In other words, if one believes in mercy, one has to demonstrate it. Is it possible to really believe in mercy on the one hand and enthusiastically work as a guard at Auschwitz? I don't think so. If the guard arrived at Auschwitz believing in mercy, he won't believe it for long. A belief in the existential threat to Germany posed by Jews will trump his belief in Mercy as long as he works there. After the war he will probably revert to a belief in mercy and forget about Jewish threats to Germany (well, partly because they mostly don't exist any more).
I've never believed in tithing to the church, because actually giving 10% of my income was always too painful. 3 or 4%, OK, but 10% -- OUCH!!! I've been on church boards, and as such thought tithing was a great idea. Great for the budget. I never did it, however. It was a good idea, not a belief. In order to believe in tithing, I would have to actually tithe. Behavior and belief go together, and belief is not necessarily the prima mobile.
That demonstrates the difficulty with the term SJW. I think most people would agree that the treatment of the Christakises was terrible, and if the term SJW were only applied to people that conducted the sort of personal vendetta that we saw against the Christakises then it might be a useful term.
The trouble is that the term is used in a pejorative way by people on the hard right to describe anybody that campaigns for social justice. They are deliberately equivocating the term in order to bundle constructive, compassionate, reasonable progressives together with extremists that shout down or even physically attack anybody that disagrees with their view.
Given that confusion, it's best not to use the term about others. If one wants to criticise de-platformers or violent antifas then criticise them by name, rather than calling them SJWs.
I don't agree that encouraging employers to fire somebody is necessarily bad though. The cases where I have seen this done is where the person in question has publicly made violent threats against women or racial minorities, or encouraged such violence, on a platform where they identified themselves as working for that employer. I think it entirely appropriate that an employer would sack somebody in that case. They are bringing the employer into disrepute. If the threats had been made privately, or in a context when there was no reasonably prominent connection to the employer, that would be different. It would still be revolting behaviour, but not sackable.
What is your explanation for when non-hard right people make the same criticisms of SJW’s?
What do you say about lefties or hard lefties that agree there is a problem with the SJW “movement”?
That is why the term is best abandoned. It means different things to different people.
Well, many terms mean different things to different people, I dont think we should abandon them.
What about people who are lefties and use the term and they do not mean extremists? The lefties who think it is not just a fringe of the SJW “movement”?
This is not true. Some people espousing homophobic tendencies is hardly representive of all conservatives. Quite a number of liberals use the term in a derogatory fashion too (note: talking “liberals” and “conservatives” as political inclinations not simply within the microcosm of the US).
I’ll just assume you meant “some” and not exclusively conservative.
Female prostitutes were called “gay women,” and then when male prostitute came onto the scene they were called “gay men”. The term stuck for the males for some reason and became part of our language - it is also worth noting homosexual activity was not particularly shunned by society years ago and that some of a group of men on a night out would end up in bed with another young man.
In my unbiased and extremely modest opinion! ;)
What about them?
Tons of beliefs simply have nothing to do with any way many people would act, other than the person reporting that they have the belief if you should ask them. For example, a belief about who was the second U.S. president, a belief about how far away the moon is from the Earth, a belief about what a plagal cadence is (re music theory).
What about when they use the term “SJW” as a pejorative? If its only used that way by the hard right or progressives who are talking about extremists, how do you explain its use as a pajoritive by people who are not hard right or progressives who are talking about extremists?
That's not what I'm saying though. I'm talking about things that effectively control someone, because if they choose to do something, there's a good chance that they'll be arrested/imprisoned, or not able to make a living (at least in their preferred career, situation etc. that they've been able to make a living in), or not able to provide shelter, etc.
Basically, it's control of as significant as legal prohibitions, but not necessarily achieved by something being illegal. Non-legal social pressures can be applied so that someone's life can be affected just as significantly, just as badly, if not worse, than being imprisoned. The mere fact that were not talking about legal prohibitions and legal system actions doesn't make that morally okay.
I have yet to see that and so with that, all I have is your word and that is not good enough for me considering this administration politically says otherwise.
Quoting I like sushi
Or perhaps I meant most if not all.
Aren’t those examples of knowledge though? They are only “beliefs” specifically when that knowledge is being acted upon.
If you disagree with that, then is there any useful distinction at all between knowledge and belief in your view or is it just that knowledge can only ever be a kind of belief?
The standard definition of knowledge in (at least analytic) philosophy is "justified true belief." I agree with that definition. So I'd not say that there's any distinction between knowledge and belief in terms of belief. It's just that knowledge has the additional attributes of being justified and true.
OK, you are using the term "belief" somewhat differently than I am using it. Your examples of president, distance to the moon, or plagal cadence are what I would classify as information that I know I would have to look up to state precisely. This knowledge doesn't entail any action. What would prompt me to look up who the second president was is the BELIEF that I should display such information accurately. As it happens, I did have to look it up because I couldn't remember (John Adams). The moon is around 250,000 miles away -- close enough for philosophy. Were this an astronomy forum, I'd am pretty sure I'd believe I had to be more precise -- 238,855 miles away on average. I believe that NASA would be a lot pickier about distance than I am, but it doesn't affect what I do for a living. I haven't the faintest idea what a plagal cadence is. Something to do with the plague?
I believe I should pay my utility bills on time. This belief entails an action. I believe I should bathe regularly, so I do. We quickly get into the territory of habitual behavior (I put my keys in my right front pocket, my comb in my back right pocket, my wallet in my back left pocket...) which are not related to belief at all.
I believe that certain behaviors are meet, right, and salutary and others are just plain wrong. These beliefs have something to do with behavior--we can agree that they aren't as controlling as habits or reflexes. As I said earlier, belief and behavior are related. If one acts contrary to one's beliefs often enough, the belief will be degraded, and it will be less related to behavior than it was. The belief may even disappear.
Even for normatives, many people believe they should clean their house, declutter, etc., but they do not. Many people believe they should lose weight and eat better, but they do not. Many people believe that they should make a lifestyle change--a different job or career, a different area to live, a different family situation, etc.--but they do not.
I'm of course not saying that no one acts on beliefs. But at least as often people do not.
That seems to be exactly what we're both talking about. Someone {the SJW} says X {"sack the racist!"} , it influences person y {the employer} to take action z {sack the 'racist'} which restricts the person's choice. I'm not seeing how this is different from the quotes below.
Quoting Terrapin Station
Quoting Terrapin Station
Quoting Terrapin Station
So presuming that is what you're talking about, I'm enquiring as to where and on what justification you draw your line.
Someone {a racist} says X {"black people are all thieves"} , it influences person y {the employer} to take action z {not employ black people} which restricts the person's choice. - presumably this is something you also disapprove of?
But then...
Someone {an unsensitive person} says X {"black people are (insert insensitive joke here) "} , it influences person y {several employers} to take action z {take their black employees less seriously when it comes to promotion, because they are seen by his entire sub-culture as the butt of jokes} which restricts the person's choice. Seems like exactly the sort of behaviour SJW's campaign against which you'd prefer they left alone.
I'm basically confused between your hard-line position on free speech (which seems predicated on the fact that speech acts alone do not cause harm) and your opposition to the SJW's in these cases who (despite their nefarious objectives) were, afterall, only performing speech acts, and were therefore harmless.
Surely if we want a world of free speech on the basis of speech alone being harmless, then the blame in these situations lies 100% with the employers who allowed themselves to be affected, and the SJW's (who merely verbally expressed their preference that the employee in question be sacked) are totally blameless?
The point is that what it means varies depending on who is using it and to what end. For some it is a term of derision, but as such it fails to distinguish between a legitimate concern for social justice and misguided efforts to promote social justice. That failure is in some cases deliberate, an attempt to shift focus from the problem of social justice, to dismiss the problem in toto, as if there things are fine as they are and that those who attempt to make changes in the name of justice are only causing harm.
You may distinguish between social justice and a social justice warrior but others will call anyone who is concerned with or raises issues of social justice a social justice warrior.
If someone comes to me calling themselves an “eco-warrior” or some such gibberish I won’t pay much attention to them. That term was also used as a term of derision. It is youth taking up some quest, just part of growing up.
If someone is called a SJW in a viscious manner then why complain? Just take it as a compliment if it means something good to you. I most certainly wouldn’t make a habit of using it as a self-given title though - that’s just plain arrogance.
First, I just want to make sure that you understand that I'm not saying that the speech acts of SJWs are harmful in any way. I feel like that's not clear, and I hate having to repeat the same thing over and over.
How they use it changes what they mean when they use it.
Yeah, I had tried to make that clear to start with. You don't want to prevent them from speaking and you don't think their speech is harmful. But you do think it's 'wrong'. I'm trying to understand why, basically.
Um, ok
Sure there is no guarantee that one will contribute to the other but if we're talking about likelihood to commit a crime and one who is exhibiting poor impulse control, it would seem likely someone is more prone to commit a violent act. That being such the case how is reprimanding such a person wrong?
You cite a good example of belief and behavior. People have to actually eat differently to have effective beliefs about diet and/or weight loss. Actually eating a lower calorie meal strengthens belief.
Believing one should quit smoking without so much as smoking 1 less cigarette a day is not an effective belief. It's idle. IF they stop smoking for a day, the whole project will have more reality.
Safer sex programs rest on the idea that guys will actually put the condom on and discover that pleasure still happens. Efficacious belief can not happen in the absence of behavior.
You might object that bringing behavior up is either more hocus pocus or it is only relevant to after-the-fact behavior change, which could always be the case, of course.
Williams James pointed out the relationship between behavior and beliefs, emotions, and so forth. ACTING reinforces or undermines belief, depending on whether it is consonant. If we wish to overcome a fearful belief ("There are monsters in the dark cellar") we have to actually go into the dark cellar with a light and discover that there are no monsters there. Turn the light off while we are in the cellar to learn that monsters do not suddenly pounce on us when the light is off. Eventually go into the dark cellar without a light.
By so behaving, we can strengthen our belief in a monster-free cellar. By avoiding the cellar at all costs, we confirm our belief that ghastly creatures are lurking down there.
I think that is exactly right, collateral damage is a consequence of free speech. The degree and nature of that damage should be measured against the damage NOT having free speech results in. Free speech for the win, imo.
I have a problem with people wanting to control others to that extent, where they're in favor of them losing their jobs, etc.
In my experience it is not used pejoratively outside those two contexts. If you think otherwise, supply some examples and we can discuss them.
Really?
Yes . . . not sure why that's surprising?
In terms of the people of the centre making the same criticism, they are banding together with the hard right to avoid criticism and rejection of hard right beliefs.
The "SJWs" are calling people to have specific respect and value for various minority groups, such that we recognise their mistreatment doesn't just invove thinking they should be subject to genocide. Any belief that the minority is somehow lesser or doesn't belong is a problem. These positions are found not just in the extreme genocidal wings of politcal movements, but in the mainstream right, center right, centre and even certain left politcs.
Worse these sentiments (e.g. "immigrants don't belong" ) are a festering ground for the genocidal extremes. (e.g. why must group die? "Well, they don't belong here. This is our country.)"
"SJWs" criticise the "non-extremist" parties because mistreatment extends beyond just wanting a group to be slaughtered. And the veiwpoint these other mistreatments are okay, that it is fine to devalue those groups, are bricks which build a bridge to genocide.
Well, Im not hard right or a progressive talking about extremism and Im saying it.
There's no discussion possible from a cryptic statement like that.
You need to identify an individual about whom you are saying it, the activities of that individual that cause you to say it, whether you mean it as pejorative, praise or something else, and your reason for saying it with that intent.
Strawmanned me right out of the gate, perhaps you didnt mean to. I didnt ask about people in the “centre”, here is what I said:
“In general to anyone saying the term SJW is a term used as a weapon by the hard right to smear any kind of progressive or anyone invested in social justice:
What is your explanation for when non-hard right people make the same criticisms of SJW’s?
What do you say about lefties or hard lefties that agree there is a problem with the SJW “movement”?”
A good portion of your response was a description of the most charitable view of SJW activism. Uneccassary, I understand that already. As Ive said, i do not think SJW activism resembles what you describe (what its supposed to be) but rather has been co-opted by authoritarians under the guise of something benign like you describe.
Anyway, I would still be interested in your answer to my actual question.
I do not understand why that is cryptic to you.
I am not hard right, nor a progressive talking about extremists. You said those were the only people using it as a pejorative. I asked for an explanation for the people that are not of those two types who are saying it. You asked for an example, I offered myself. I am not of those two types, but I am using it as a pejorative because I think the SJW “movement” is toxic. Obviously, I recognise that not everyone calling themself an SJW is a toxic person or part of the problem, just in case your tempted to hurl “not all!” my way.
The most prominent accusation of "authoritarianism" ("You are not letting people think what they want" ) is the exact point of "SJW" argument regarding discrimination against various groups.
Since our thoughts about people, our understanding and expectations of them, define what actions are appropriate towards them, there are in fact many thoughts we ought not have about people. We have ethical reason to think certain things about people and speak about them in certain ways.
There was no strawman."SJW"s pull up non-extremists because they ignore this ethical responsibility for how we think about others. The non-extremists refuse to acknowledge there are thoughts about other we ought not have.
Doesn't that seem a bit odd to you?
No, that is not what I am asking.
You said there are only two types of people who use “SJW” as a pejorative, the fact that I am not of those two types and I use it as a pejorative directly refutes your claim. Please explain that.
Ok whatever you say. I don't get you with these one lined sentences. If you don't like the answer so be it but I cannot do more beyond something like what you're saying.
1. I said the main pejorative use of SJW is by hard right figures
2. You said 'what about when progressives use it' and I responded that when they use it, they are referring to extremists.
More generally, anybody might use the term pejoratively when referring to extremists.
People misuse words all the time, so it would not surprise me if you are misusing a word. I don't know whether you are hard right or not, it would be unwise for me to decide based solely on your protestations, since people on the hard right generally reject the label.
if you use SJW pejoratively against moderate progressives then I expect you are either hard right - despite your denials, or applying it to people who you think are extreme but are not, or you are misusing the term. Since you have given us no example of this alleged use, we cannot pick between those possibilities.
You would do better to pick an example of a non-hard-right public figure, whose political stance is well-known, using 'SJW' pejoratively about non-extremists. That would at least provide the basis for some sort of discussion.
Why would I speak for someone else, when I can speak for myself? Im not interested in debating about who is and who isnt hard right when I have a perfectly good example of someone I KNOW isnt hard right. Me. I am not hard right, or any kind of right. I am not conservative, or republican or alt-right. Progressive may or may not describe me depending on how you use the term but when I use the term “SJW” I am not refering to extremists, I intend it to describe the movements primary actors, not a fringe. (Although, there are fringe and extreme actors as well). So I am not one of these two people you say use the word.
Ok, so I see an answer in your response there I think. Your explanation for the example I gave (me) is that im actually hard right but do not realise it or I do not know what “SJW” means? Is that right?
You may know what it means but still be misusing it. Until you give an example of your using it, with the details I requested above, it's all guesswork.
Well, I understand its a terribly unsatisfying response but I have already described my use of the term and my thoughts on the SJW “movement”. I believe all your requested details are at least implicitly found therein.
Ok, so one explanation is that im essentially delusional about where I stand on the political spectrum. Not much I can do to defend myself on that charge since if that were true everything I would say to that end can be dismissed as delusion or product of that delusion. Agree to disagree, I do not think I am mistaken about being hard right or a progressive refering to extremists.
So with your second explanation, that I do not know what the term means...do you think Im using the term to describe an extreme? You said “or the people to whom you apply the term are not extreme”. I do not think “SJW” describes an extreme. I think it describes the primary actors of the SJW “movement” and my criticisms are directed there. I feel like Ive made that clear, but maybe you havent read my other posts in this thread? Have you been following along or did you just pick up on that one post I made and started there?
That doesn't identify anybody. Name some names and explain why you refer to them as SJW. Until you do that all your posts are just nebulae.
Im talking about people who refer to themselves as SJW’s in general. I'm talking about the SJW “movement”. You are beginning to tire me out here, have you read what ive said on this thread prior to our exchange?
What are the "extreme" positions of those in the "SJW" movement you are referring to?
We can then relate these to the "moderates" andrewk is talking about and yourself, to tell who means what, where that sits in the political context and how it relates to usage of "SJW."
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oLbQy6kCP4s
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sMbntisLmZI
Somethings not getting accross here, I feel like ive been saying Im not talking about SJW extremists. I feel like ive been pretty clear on that point.
Do you mean by “extreme”, the parts of the SJW movement that I disagree with?
I think the SJW ideology is dangerous and misguided. The saying “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” was never so salient, but in addition there is a real insidious part to it, which is being taught in academia.
Again, Ive made my points on my criticisms already.
What I was wondering is why, if criticising SJW types is a tool or game of the hard right, people who are not hard right do it? This would seem to indicate that it is not just a tool or game of the hard right. Dare I suggest that it might even be the case that there is such a thing as fair criticism of SJW types? Indeed I do.
That might be the problem then., because I think that category of people is almost empty. As I understand it, the OP is about people that use SJW as a term of derision, not about people who voluntarily apply it to themselves.
As I understand the history of the term, it was used mostly by people self-identifying as SJWs up to about 2011, but then it swung completely around and now is used mostly as a sneer by hard right people, against progressives who would not describe themselves as SJWs, or as a criticism by anybody of somebody that is seen as too trenchant.
This reversal has been so marked that these days if somebody describes themselves as a SJW, they are being facetious, in the same way as they might describe themselves as a 'bleeding-heart lefty'.
I know lots of lefties but I don't know anybody that non-facetiously describes themself as a SJW, so I think the question of what to think of somebody that self-identifies as a SJW is a non-issue.
I understand andrewk to be saying "moderate progressives" are making some sensible arguments about society, people and their relationships.
He is then saying that "SJW" has become a term of ridicule amongst the hard right for these "moderate progressives" and their sensible policy, a way denigrating them as being ridiculous and extreme.
The question being, are you using "SJW" in the fashion the hard right does? Are you saying these "moderate progressives" have this dangerous "SJW ideology?"
*Edit*
I already understanding you are not talking about just extremists. My earlier posts were partly directed at this, that you had in mind anyone who would make certain points regrading our how we ought to think about others.
That's why lots of people will criticise you like the hard right; you share their rejection that certain beliefs about minorities ought to be abandoned.
Ah, ok. I think you are right, talking past each other a bit there.
Also, I disagree the catagory is empty.
Here we go. I do not think those two things are the same. The hard right does use the term as you say, I agree. I am not using it that way, but indeed I do think there are folks who would self identify as moderate progressives that have a dangerous SJW idealogy. This is what I was getting at. I can level that criticism without the ulterior motives of the hard right.
Like what?
The idea, for example, that certain ways of thinking about others ought to be avoided. I mean this in the serious moral sense. Many "modern progressives", for example, hold we ought to avoid/stop think about minorities in certain ways-- use of stereotypes, beliefs the bon't belong, thoughts they fall outside the "natural" order, etc.-- in a serious moral sense. They hold people ought to be shamed for those beliefs.
In this respect, your motive is exactly aligned with the hard right. You want to to stop the "modern progressive" making this situation a social reality. You want a society in which people can "think whatever they want," where one's beliefs and speech about others, isn't subject to a "shouldn't" or "you ought not" sanction.
The society you want to produce is like the hard right in this respect: one without the moral obligation to hold certain respectful beliefs about the minorities. You, along with the hard right, are in direct opposition to the social moves "modern progressives" want to make to reduce discrimination against these minorities. You'd rather a society in which the hard right are free to get away with whatever the want, so long as they don't cross a certain line of physical action.
Nah, you are conflating my distaste for authoritarianism and thought policing and my thoughts on minorities. One might say I disagree with the methods, but not the goal.
I don't think you do, at least if your argument against "thought policing" is of the usual form, that is, directed at any serious moral demand upon what we think about others.
The "SJW" point is what we think about others and discrimination are tied together. We can't have people thinking "minorities don't belong as much" without those people having a basic foundation which grows into discriminatory action towards minorities. The very idea itself is a discrimination-- "These people (my group) have more value than others (minorities) here"-- against minorities.
If our goal is to tackle these discriminations, part of our goal is to recognise thoughts like these are damaging and false, that individuals ought not be thinking them. The "SJW" point is without taking what people think or believe about others, any one will be free to discriminate a they wish in these respect. (as is the case in the "centrist" liberal society which the progressives have been opposing).
We have to be able to say, "No, that is a thought we ought not have about others."
Yes, the key word there is 'accept'. I'm trying to establish what people think to 'accept' should constitute. If I disagree that homosexuals should be allowed to sit in parliament, and I (and my mob) heckle, swear and yell at them every time they go in to speak, if I speak out against them at every opportunity, am I 'accepting' them doing so simply by virtue of the fact that I'm making no attempt to physically restrain them. It seems like an odd use of the word to me.
So I'm trying to get at where people draw the line. For me, the reason I posted in the first place was that the discussion had turned to what was 'wrong' with SJW's. Not 'what about the position they hold is wrong', what is actually wrong with them. And their heckling a professor for his views on Halloween costumes was cited as an example.
But if we're in favour of free speech, and accepting of collateral damage, then this must surely go both ways. If the free expression of the students in wearing whatever they want at Halloween is not to be infringed upon by verbal instruction even if it may cause collateral damage, then the free expression of those who (for their own bizarre reason) think that the Christakises should be sacked for their views must also not be infringed upon by verbal instruction (even in an Internet forum). And if the collateral damage from that is that they lose their jobs, then so what. We just accepted that there must be such collateral damage.
So what starts out as an absolutist stance quickly turns into just a series of complicated questions. Exactly how much power do your words need to have before it is your duty to refrain from using them to influence others? Exactly what strength of collateral damage outweighs how much free expression?
The point of all this is that somewhere between an expression of disapproval on an internet forum and a verbal request that someone should be removed from their job is the line people in favour of free speech seem to think is OK. Afterall, apart from a single accusation of spitting, absolutely all the actions around the Christakis affair were speech based. Even the threats. So what does it mean for free speech to be unopposed?
OK, so can you pin down the 'extent', or is it just a gut feeling? People engaging in racist language, in my opinion, want to control others to an unacceptable extent. They want, by their use of pejorative terms, to create an environment where minority ethnic groups find themselves unable to find work, get a property, freely move around without fear.
So if I, hypothetically, thought that professorswould be who ignored racial insults in Halloween dress were, by doing so, creating such an environment, where the ability of ethnic minority groups to find work etc were constrained, I would be no less right in speaking out against such control.
And yet, that speaking out is exactly what you cited as being 'wrong'.
Basically, it seems like the real debate is hidden behind free-speech, and I think that's a shame because free-speech in general is a far more esoteric matter than the more empirical matter of who is constrained by what.
The debate about the Chistakises is not about free-speech or free expression at all. Both sides were freely speaking and freely expressing their views, if that's what it were about there'd be no debate, move on, nothing to see here.
What it was really about is power. Who has the power to constrain student's dress choice simply using their words? Who has the power to cause a professor to step down simply by using words?
You mean preemptively? Because no one's rights are being violated simply because someone says something, or dresses a particular way, etc. Not that I really frame anything in terms of rights, but I'm just sayin'.
I've done that many times already. I'm talking about where you want the person to lose their job, lose anything like their shelter, healthcare, etc., more or less lose their ability to make a living, to be imprisoned --anything like that.
Ah, my mistake. I wasn't clear enough. I meant 'extent' as in the extent to which some action inexorably leads to the restrictions you speak about.
Demanding someone is sacked does not inexorably lead to them being sacked. It requires the employer to cave to social pressure, and yet you've said that merely applying that pressure is something you disapprove of, because of its intention to get someone sacked - have I got that right so far?
Wearing a 'racist' Halloween costume, among others doing the same, does not inexorably lead to ethnic minorities being unable to find work, housing etc, it requires that potential employers and landlords cave to social pressure. But in this case, you disapprove of those who disapprove of this behaviour.
Now obviously the first example leads more inexorably to its freedom-quashing conclusion than the second. But it is not a binomial thing, and arguments still need to be raised in each case. One student yelling "sack him" might less inexorably lead to an actual sacking than a thousand people dressed in 'racist' costume might inexorably lead to a state of affairs where ethnic minorities find their choices severely restricted.
All of this argument, I think, would lead to the conclusion that a mass of people calling for some professor's resignation is worse than a few people dressed in inappropriate Halloween costume. Which is the same conclusion you reach, I think. But the philosophical point is that, haven't we ultimately just reached it by looking at the consequences of what people are doing and deciding that, because the consequences are bad, the action is bad. I mean couldn’t we just cut out the bit about free speech entirely and just say people shouldn't do stuff that causes bad things to happen?
In my opinion, one of the worst things about boards like this is that people can type posts if not of unlimited length, at least a couple thousand words long. We wind up with rambling, unfocused posts that introduce a plethora of issues. The vast majority of those issues wind up being overlooked, and points and questions that people bring up are regularly overlooked. I've always preferred a chat format for discussions because of this, and also because of the direct, focused, extended back and forth of chat. In my opinion it's easier to make progress in chat--at least the progress of understanding other persons' views (which of course doesn't imply agreeing with their views).
At any rate, I wasn't clear on what your question was. Or were you simply commenting on the brevity of my post?
It seems that you're still focusing on speech. I'm not saying anything about speech. My problem with SJWs is that they want--they WANT to control people to that extent.
Well I thought so, but that point seemed to have been dismissed (or perhaps just lost) it was the point I made in my first post (I think) that this then relies, for one's judgement, on a factor the truth value of which is completely unavailable to the person making the judgment. What people want to achieve by their speech.
How do we know the people wearing silly Halloween costumes don't want to bring about a society in which ethnic minorities have their choices restricted by social pressure in exactly the same way. They're just doing it more subtly and relying on numbers rather than loudness. But what they want is the same type of control over the freedom of others.
But perhaps the main point I wanted to make is that it is still the outcome of the act you're judging, which means the act itself (speech in this case) seems irrelevant. If it brings about a bad outcome, it's a bad act. If it brings about a good outcome, it's a good act. I don't get why people feel the need to generalise to some entire class of actions (like speech) and declare them all good (or at least not bad enough to warrant restriction) sensu lato. What's wrong with simply judging the outcome of each act?
The way that we know that SJWs want to control people's ability to make choices in the ways I noted is that they say as much, and they laud when people are fired, and so on.
So the way we'd know that in the case you present is if they say as much, if they laud someone (who?--we're not talking about targeting any specific person usually) being fired because of it, etc.
Quoting Isaac
I'm not judging speech, though. My problem isn't at all with any speech. My problem is with how people want other people to be treated--namely controlled, so that particular choices (such as speech choices) aren't practically available to them, because the consequences of making those choices is too severe. I don't like people controlling other people in general. I agree it's necessary in some situations--with really violent criminals, say, but even there I don't agree with how we handle that. I don't agree with a bunch of stuff re the legal system, there are tons and tons of laws I'd just get rid of (I think we should reward legislators who remove laws, not who create more), I don't agree with the way the prison system is set up, etc. I have a problem with people who want to control other people in these significant ways.
A lot of folks express such sentiments with having a problem with various things being illegal, but making something illegal is just one way to express control over others. There are social means of exerting control that are just as significant as imprisoning someone. My issue is with control. Whether we achieve that control legally or some other way is irrelevant in my view.
The method is authoritarian. I do not think anyone should be able to police anyone else's thoughts on anything.
The goal, people should get along and not discriminate against minorities or anyone else, seems like a good one, but the “discriminate” must be an action, not a thought.
The social/political order is always about control, whether it is those who are in control or those who want to be in control or those who simply want to bring about change. Using the term SJW to discredit a group or individual is a form of control, a way of dismissing out of hand whatever it is that one says or stands for . Pointing only to extreme cases is a form of control - as if fighting for social justice is extremism.
I specified what I'm referring to. I'm referring to things like people losing their freedom (by being imprisoned), losing their job, not being able to rent/buy a home, etc.
Yeah, I was more thinking about how we'd know in the other case that they didn't want to control people, in order to judge it harmless, but I presume you'd take their word for it, maybe?
Quoting Terrapin Station
Absolutely. My point is, that describes SJW's no more than it could be argued to describe the halloween costume wearers. Their actions indicate (it may be claimed) that they secretly want whites to maintain a certain privilege, even if only small, over other ethnic groups and use ridicule to achieve this end. Or maybe its just a professor using misogynistic language because he wants to maintain a society where women have certain choices restricted. My point is loads of people take action to influence society in the direction they want it to go, and that direction very often involves restricting serious choices for some group of people.
Just arguing powerfully in favour of one position on an Internet forum could theoretically have an influence on society which ends up restricting someone's freedom. It won't actually, of course. But the reason it won't isn't because it is in some category of behaviour which is immune from such effects by virtue of its properties alone. It won't because of the entirely contextual facts about society which make it vanishingly unlikely.
All of this means that it is the sociological and psychological facts about the society within which actions are taken which determine if those actions might foreseeably result in the loss of someone's freedom. Although I don't agree with them, it's my understanding that the reason why SJW's want to oppose certain speech acts is exactly because they have carried out what they believe is an assessment of the sociological and psychological facts about the society we are in, and have determined that, in that context, such speech acts will have the consequences you state you wish to avoid.
That being so, they are wrong (if they are wrong) not on a matter of principle, but on matters of fact ie that society is not arranged the way they claim, such that these acts they wish to oppose won't actually have the effect they fear. Facts such as these are best determined empirically
Yes, but the issue of SJW goes beyond what you have specified. We might agree that such actions are wrong but still not understand what is at issue. Not everyone who might identify with SJW condones such extreme actions. There is, however, a deliberate attempt in some quarters to discredit any attempt to promote social justice by labeling it extremism based on examples like those you point to.
Sure, there are enough bad apples, though.
The Social Justice Movement is not a movement against free speech or free expression -- unless it is expression as part of criminal action. In characterizing it so, you demonstrate that you do not understand what social justice is.
Yes and no. Giving the patient what they want in this instance would go against the Hippocratic oath especially if there aren't any available doctors. However we would give the patient the option to leave AMA (Against Medical Advice) usually this advice is accompanies with telling the patient if they do not get the recommended treatment (in this case surgery) they will die.
Not sure what you're referring to re "you mean," but in any event, I agree with your criticism here.
I've never come across that particular prejudice, thank goodness. But I recall a scene in a US sitcom years ago (I can't remember which one) in which a character, who was not Jewish, was taken into hospital and then freaked out upon learning that he was to be operated on by Dr Armstrong. He reasoned that all the best American surgeons are Jewish, so Dr Armstrong, presumed to not be Jewish because of his name, could not be any good.
One is free to refuse treatment. If the only doctors available are black then the hospital is under no obligation to provide a doctor for this patient who is not black. If other doctors are available then the patient's wishes should be honored. His prejudice is not a good reason to refuse to provide treatment.
“So the hospital would only have black doctors available? Sounds like a racist hospital to me.”
Did you smoke hashish before you wrote that?
I said in the previous post:
“Yes and no. Giving the patient what they want in this instance would go against the Hippocratic oath especially if there aren't any available doctors. However we would give the patient the option to leave AMA (Against Medical Advice) usually this advice is accompanies with telling the patient if they do not get the recommended treatment (in this case surgery) they will die.”
As I stated in the bold, when it comes to saving one’s life, hospitals will accompany only so much. If you’re dying or needed a life saving procedure and you’re asking something as ridiculous as the following:
“What if a patient was admitted into your hospital and said that they didn't want any black doctors operating on them? Would it be right to refuse the patient service and kick them out of your hospital? Would you give them what they want?”
— Harry Hindu
If you’re about to die or needed a serious procedure most hospitals will not accommodate a racist especially if in fact there are no other available specialists. If you value your racial prejudice more than your life hospitals will definitely make you sign a waiver against medical advice if you choose to leave.
That is like someone saying don’t give me blood from a Latino if I need a blood transfusion. Heck you might as well not get blood at all. It has nothing to do with a hospitals racism, it has something to do with something that is insignificant.
Now, a hospital may offer you a different surgeon to perform but it also depends on the doctors that work at said facility. I’m not going to assume you’re of ethnic Indian origin but I just find the question quite odd coming from someone with Hindu being the last name, after a faith in a country of people who had to endure White European colonialism.
It is sort of a meaningless phrase. Justice suffices enough to address injustice. The “social” aspect is the problem, as social inequalities are not always unjust. Used as it is as an excuse for discrimination and redistribution, social justice is often unjust in practice.
Have you read aristotle? He is the first advocate of social justice.
No, we have to be able to say that is an action we should not take against others. Thoughts are private to the individual and nobody else's business. We all have uncharitable and rude thoughts about this or that person for whatever reason. But it's what we do or say that matters.
He also defended slavery!
1. You didn't answer.
2. I suppose you were trying to poison the well so that what he said about social justice is prima facie wrong. That's a fallacy.
I take it then that you haven't read his Nichomechean Ethics?
You said he was the first advocate of social justice, as if that meant something. I merely replied that he also defended slavery.
Quoting Benkei
Uhuh. Learn to read buddy.
You appealed to authority and then didn’t like it when I point out that authority also defends slavery.
Edit: also superfluous I might add, I didn't appeal to authority. I referenced a philosopher who discussed (using different words) social justice. We haven't gotten into why "social justice is injustice" is wrong yet and that requires me to first understand what you know and don't know, philosophically speaking.
It’s been a while but yes I have.
I do not recall rectificatory, but the other two I do.
His distributive justice is about people getting their fair share; e.g. unequal shares for equal people and equal shares for unequal people are unjust. In other words, it's justice as equality.
But it extends into the political as well. From his Politics: justice to Aristotole is proportional and communally relative to the political status/merit of individuals along the lines of the predominant culture and its institutions. Injustice violates this proportionality. Aristotle likens this form of justice to the manner of redistribution of the common funds found in an economic partnership.
The second form of justice, rectificatory/corrective justice concerns itself with equality as well, including redistribution resulting from injustice.
The third form of justice, reciprocal justice is about the natural fairness within economic exchange. This is where it gets interesting as in his view both grace and friendship ought to be the ethical norms that ought to institutionalise economic exchange. Exchange is not to be based on market prices, profit, supply and demand, desires or utility. No, economics is simply a means to maintain the all-important solidarity for its common objective in its pursuit of happiness/flourishing.
So each type of justice has something to say about the distribution of wealth.
Thanks for the explanation.
But wasn’t distributive Justice determined on the basis of merit? that it is determined on the basis of the contributions one has made? It seems to me the whole notion of “proportion” in his reciprocity conflicts with modern notions of “social justice”. Excuse me if I’m mistaken about this.