Social Justice is the basis of Racism and Sexism

[Cognisant]

Racism and sexism are taking an excuse and using that excuse to pre-judge a demographic.

For example you're in a nation that's receiving a large number of refugees and one of those refugees murders someone, you could take this as an excuse to say it wasn't one of US that committed the murder it was one of THEM and therefore THEY are culpable for the murder, they are at fault for not effectively policing their own in order to prevent such things from occurring.

But is that really fair? Is it really just to attribute guilt by association?

Is it fair of me to judge a Catholic by their association with Catholicism as an institution?
Absolutely! Nobody's born a Catholic or a Nazi or a Catholic Nazi, it's a choice they made and you can totally hold people accountable for their own choices. Nothing wrong with that at all.

But what if someone's black, or Asian, or gay or even white male and straight, is it really fair to judge them by association with people they never chose to be associated with, for things they themselves haven't done?

No, and that's why ironically Social Justice is the very problem Social Justice is supposedly trying to solve.

Social Justice is in essence holding a demographic of people accountable for the actions of a few, if it was just holding people accountable for their own actions well we already have a word for that, it's called Justice and it's what Social Justice is not.

 

[ummidk]

Pretty much. The steelman is basically that certain groups get net positive benefits from their various group idenities and others have net negative ones. So they'll balance it out with social justice. This is obviously an impossible game to play with any precision.

 

[Puffy]

I'm onboard with social justice so far as it's an attempt to pursue equality of rights and opportunities. Sounds like a fair proposition on the face of it.

I agree that there can be annoying behaviours within SJW culture in the pursuit of that, such as double standards which is what I feel you're taking issue with here. It's a part of why I don't identify as SJW.

Personally, I'm curious in what way you feel afflicted by social justice? It's true that straight, white guys are going to be in the SJW 'privilege' firing line. Yet I have a lot of diverse, progressive friends who I've always been able to maintain friendly relations with without this being an issue. I find if I treat people respectfully and try to show empathy for why they might feel the way they do, even about me and my gender or sexual orientation, then they tend to treat me respectfully as well.

 

[Hadoblado]

If I am concerned with the distribution of wealth, opportunity, and privilege based on group identity (I am), how is this causing the inequity I'm seeking to reduce?

I don't understand how you're arriving at a framework that attributes judgement to the social justice position. If I advocate for the rights of gays to marry, how have I made society worse within my own social justice framework?

 

[Cognisant]

If I am concerned with the distribution of wealth, opportunity, and privilege based on group identity (I am), how is this causing the inequity I'm seeking to reduce?

Privilege based on group identity causing wealth inequity, so like selective hiring practices right?

Like how many airlines exclusively hire young attractive women to be air hostesses, at least in countries where they can get away with it. And I suppose your solution to this is to mandate diverse hiring, give companies diversity quotas and fine them for not meeting them?

Believe it or not people who become air hostesses usually do it because they want the job, it's not a normal 9-5 job it's a whole lifestyle. And there's a prestige to it precisely because they're selective about who they hire and I know that because I've dated a Korean chick who had her heart set on being an air hostess. It was her dream and more than anything she wanted to prove that she could get it and she could do it.

Now let's suppose these diversity mandates get enforced, the airlines are expected to hire 50% male, 20% non-white, 10% non-hetro and at least 20% over the age of 35. So they're doing interviews and it's a mix of people and the majority of them are young attractive women who are really serious about it because they know they have a lot of competition.

Then there's this 40yr old gay black man, he doesn't really care about the job, his qualifications are substandard, but by simply being himself he helps the airline meet its quotas and so despite the fact that he's not qualified and frankly doesn't deserve it (because he didn't work as hard for it as the other applicants) he gets the job. Indeed he wouldn't even have applied for the role in the first place if diversity mandates hadn't lowered the barrier to entry so much, making it an opportunity too good to pass up.

There you go an example of Social Justice creating inequality, do you want more examples because I've got more examples, I've got so many more

In fact let's continue the story, at first this steward is just there to collect a paycheck but he's working with these incredibly driven women who really passionate about their jobs and that affects him, he feels ashamed, their influence compels him to fix his attitude and to become the best steward he can be. So he does and he works really hard and he aspires to be a 1st class steward on the long haul United Emirates flight from Dubai to Los Angeles, only the best of the best get to do this flight.

So he tries to work his way up the ladder, from one airline to the next, from short flights to long flights, from budget economy to first class, from least prestigious to most prestigious. But no matter how hard he tries he can't get on the good flights or join the high class airlines, nobody's willing to give him a chance, no matter how many flights he does or how good his service is he's forever trapped under the glass ceiling of being that guy they hired to meet a quota.

Ok this is getting really long, I'll leave it here but if you want more examples again I could write a book on this shit.

 

[Cognisant]

I don't understand how you're arriving at a framework that attributes judgement to the social justice position. If I advocate for the rights of gays to marry, how have I made society worse within my own social justice framework?

That's just a matter of justice, hetro people aren't being held accountable indeed it doesn't really affect them at all it's something that only affects non-hetro people so I don't see what the "social" aspect of it is. It's like a class action lawsuit, many people demanding justice from one legal entity, in this case non-hetro people (and hetro) demanding justice from the government.

Now if non-hetro people demanded reparations from hetro people for the unjust treatment they received from a government almost entirely staffed by hetro people THAT would be social justice.

 

[Cognisant]

Personally, I'm curious in what way you feel afflicted by social justice?

A few quick questions.

Is this thread about me?
Are you trying to make it about me?
Are you ready for the consequences of doing so?

See making something personal like that is something you do when someone doesn't have a valid point so you're trying to root out their reason for not shutting up (in spite of a lack of a valid point) in order to them shut up.

But I think I have a valid point and I think you've read enough of my posts to understand that when someone tries to shut me down by making the thread personal I don't shut down, I double down.

So I suggest you be very sure before you make this thread about me.

 

[Hadoblado]

For the airline, I would go with something like hire the best candidate, but all else being equal, hire the minority candidate.

OR

A process by which the names and personal information that indicate group identity are controlled for, so that only the information important to the job is taken into consideration when selecting successful applicants.

I think there is room in the conversation to consider hiring slightly less qualified (but still competent) candidates for the purpose of representation, but I would not advocate for concrete quotas. In fact, I would be against them because I think this would reduce their participation to tokenism. I think it's a terrible idea to promote people beyond their competency.

But I do think it's worth thinking about why, even when controlling for racism of interviewers, the talent pool for many roles is so unrepresentative. If you're selecting a CEO and all of the competitive applicants are white men, why is this?

 

[Cognisant]

For the airline, I would go with something like hire the best candidate, but all else being equal, hire the minority candidate.

How do you enforce that, indeed should it be enforced?
And if it shouldn't well that does that say about social justice?

A process by which the names and personal information that indicate group identity are controlled for, so that only the information important to the job is taken into consideration when selecting successful applicants.

I think diversity is (and only should be) its own reward.

Suppose I'm running an Asian restaurant in an non-Asian country and standard practice is to hire Asian waiters/waitresses in order to support the restaurant's image of authentic Asian cuisine. Now this being a non-Asian country I'm limiting myself to a small talent pool and I notice when I go to non-Asian restaurants the serving staff are much better. In this scenario I have a legitimate reason for being selective but there's also an incentive to be less selective, not some government mandate it's just the nature of being prejudiced that you screw yourself over.

I think there is room in the conversation to consider hiring slightly less qualified (but still competent) candidates for the purpose of representation, but I would not advocate for concrete quotas. In fact, I would be against them because I think this would reduce their participation to tokenism. I think it's a terrible idea to promote people beyond their competency.

Indeed employment should be a meritocracy and people should be employed based on their suitability for the role and that suitability may not be solely based on their academic credentials. If I'm hiring bouncers or bricklayers the bigger the better, if I'm hiring actors/actresses their attractiveness will affect the success of my movie, if I'm running an Australian aboriginal cultural experience for tourists I'm not going to hire the guy with a heavy German accent.

That's not prejudice, that's just how the world works.

But I do think it's worth thinking about why, even when controlling for racism of interviewers, the talent pool for many roles is so unrepresentative. If you're selecting a CEO and all of the competitive applicants are white men, why is this?

Because CEOs are in a position of power and the boards/founders that hire them are very risk adverse, they have a culturally ingrained idea of what a successful CEO looks like and so that's what they look for when looking for a CEO. Then in turn because it's so hard for someone who doesn't fit that image of a CEO to become a CEO less non-white non-male people try.

Then there's massive shitstorms like Gillette's "The Best A Man Can Be" advertising campaign or Disney's Star Wars with Kathleen Kennedy proudly proclaiming "The Force is Female" and the Ghostbusters reboot, and Netflix's Masters of the Universe dumpster fire, or the live action Mulan reboot which Chinese audiences HATED.

Woke bullshit like that is exactly why nobody in their right mind is going to hire a female CEO and diversity hires in general are suspect.

Again social justice is the very problem social justice is supposedly trying to solve.

 

[Cognisant]

Would you hire that director and/or actress for a production funded with your money or money from your investors who you have to answer to?

Would you risk hiring anyone that shares their views?

 

[Hadoblado]

I'm not sure about the mechanism of enforcement or whether I think it should be enforced. There are optic pressures to have a diverse workforce, and this is a very gentle prescription, so in my mind, this is the very least people should do in their own self-interest (woke bucks are still bucks).

I don't agree diversity is its own reward. Not when power is so disproportionately distributed.

I agree with you on qualifications, although I think that you dodge the issue a bit by only supplying examples of somewhat immutable traits (but you cover it later). I agree with you about expectations for CEOs, but don't think it's the whole picture.

You lose me a bit when you list off all these controversies - I don't really understand why people are upset about this stuff. Bad takes exist? Some of them sound bad and probably are, but some of them seem like part of society has its own definition to facilitate outrage engagement (re: socialism, toxic masculinity, critical race theory). I still don't understand what's wrong with the Gillette ad.

 

[Puffy]

Personally, I'm curious in what way you feel afflicted by social justice?

A few quick questions.

Is this thread about me?
Are you trying to make it about me?
Are you ready for the consequences of doing so?

See making something personal like that is something you do when someone doesn't have a valid point so you're trying to root out their reason for not shutting up (in spite of a lack of a valid point) in order to them shut up.

But I think I have a valid point and I think you've read enough of my posts to understand that when someone tries to shut me down by making the thread personal I don't shut down, I double down.

So I suggest you be very sure before you make this thread about me.

Personally, I'm curious in what way you feel afflicted by social justice?

A few quick questions.

Is this thread about me?
Are you trying to make it about me?
Are you ready for the consequences of doing so?

See making something personal like that is something you do when someone doesn't have a valid point so you're trying to root out their reason for not shutting up (in spite of a lack of a valid point) in order to them shut up.

But I think I have a valid point and I think you've read enough of my posts to understand that when someone tries to shut me down by making the thread personal I don't shut down, I double down.

So I suggest you be very sure before you make this thread about me.

If you read my post you’ll notice I acknowledge your point about certain contradictions in SJW culture. I’m responding by saying it’s a question of how we respond to that, which is a valid point.

I could just as much say you’re invalidating and ‘shutting me down’ here by making this into some form of personal attack that it’s not through presumption about my posting.

 

[Cognisant]

I'm not sure about the mechanism of enforcement or whether I think it should be enforced. There are optic pressures to have a diverse workforce, and this is a very gentle prescription, so in my mind, this is the very least people should do in their own self-interest (woke bucks are still bucks).

You're saying you would judge a business by the diversity of its staff but by doing that aren't you being racist/sexist/whatever (Istist?) when really not being racist (for example) is as simple as not caring about it.

Remember that episode of South Park where there's whole debate over the clearly racist South Park flag so the kids make a new flag which is even worse because now it's people of all colours hanging a black person and then it turns out they just don't understand what all the fuss is about because to them people are just people.

Chef Goes Nanners - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I don't agree diversity is its own reward. Not when power is so disproportionately distributed.

And how exactly does social justice solve that?

I agree with you on qualifications, although I think that you dodge the issue a bit by only supplying examples of somewhat immutable traits (but you cover it later). I agree with you about expectations for CEOs, but don't think it's the whole picture.

Since when are race or sex mutable traits?
And sure maybe there is a white men's club in positions of power but woke types are equally if not more infamous for taking over organizations by firing everyone that doesn't agree with them and only hiring like-minded types and they brag about it, they think they're entirely justified in doing, heck not even justified they think what they're doing is justice.

You lose me a bit when you list off all these controversies - I don't really understand why people are upset about this stuff. Bad takes exist? Some of them sound bad and probably are, but some of them seem like part of society has its own definition to facilitate outrage engagement (re: socialism, toxic masculinity, critical race theory). I still don't understand what's wrong with the Gillette ad.

It's a pattern that keeps repeating, go woke go broke.

In of itself that doesn't really matter, it's a bit disappointing to see one popular franchise after another ruined but the legacy will always be there and capitalism is a meritocracy, the people in power are losing money on one project after another and they're not happy about it.

What's concerning is how this social justice agenda is being pushed in "popular" media, both in that it's indoctrinating more people into this fallacious way of thinking, and it's a sign of how prevalent the fallacy has already become.

Again social justice is the very problem social justice is supposedly trying to solve.

This isn't helping it's making the problem worse.

 

[Cognisant]

If you read my post you’ll notice I acknowledge your point about certain contradictions in SJW culture. I’m responding by saying it’s a question of how we respond to that, which is a valid point.

I could just as much say you’re invalidating and ‘shutting me down’ here by making this into some form of personal attack that it’s not through presumption about my posting.

Fine let's see how this goes, I don't appreciate being an acceptable target because I'm a white straight male and I'm not going to put up with it, I think social justice is a fallacy and I think I've adequately explained why.

It's true that straight, white guys are going to be in the SJW 'privilege' firing line. Yet I have a lot of diverse, progressive friends who I've always been able to maintain friendly relations with without this being an issue. I find if I treat people respectfully and try to show empathy for why they might feel the way they do, even about me and my gender or sexual orientation, then they tend to treat me respectfully as well.

And I agree that respect should be met with respect, but I also think when I am unfairly disrespected I am entitled to challenge it. I'm not going to just endure being in the SJW firing line I'm going to fire back and I'm shooting to kill, the fallacy not the people.

 

[Puffy]

If you read my post you’ll notice I acknowledge your point about certain contradictions in SJW culture. I’m responding by saying it’s a question of how we respond to that, which is a valid point.

I could just as much say you’re invalidating and ‘shutting me down’ here by making this into some form of personal attack that it’s not through presumption about my posting.

Fine let's see how this goes, I don't appreciate being an acceptable target because I'm a white straight male and I'm not going to put up with it, I think social justice is a fallacy and I think I've adequately explained why.

It's true that straight, white guys are going to be in the SJW 'privilege' firing line. Yet I have a lot of diverse, progressive friends who I've always been able to maintain friendly relations with without this being an issue. I find if I treat people respectfully and try to show empathy for why they might feel the way they do, even about me and my gender or sexual orientation, then they tend to treat me respectfully as well.

And I agree that respect should be met with respect, but I also think when I am unfairly disrespected I am entitled to challenge it. I'm not going to just endure being in the SJW firing line I'm going to fire back and I'm shooting to kill, the fallacy not the people.

Sure thing, it’s a complicated area that touches on a lot of complex history of oppression and persecution in certain populations, a lot of which has been perpetrated by white men. So for me I’m just wary of that and try to bring empathy into the conversation as there are likely real experiences of being treated unfairly behind what they say even if it comes out fallacious or as projected onto me. If you acknowledge someone’s hurt they’re more likely to put their guard down and see you as on their side and be more willing to listen to your side of the story.

I suppose our exchange here exemplifies that where you’re accusing me of not listening to you, and doubling-down as a result of it. Just bare in mind a lot of people will probably respond the same way to you in turn.

I agree that it’s a fallacy with some people that if you’re seen to challenge SJW culture that you’re then lumped into some anti-progress antagonist stereotype btw. Or that the experiences of certain populations like straight, white men tend to get negated. Personally I feel there’s a lot of anger in SJW culture, which exists for valid historical reasons, and that this is as an aspect of expressing that anger against a group of people they feel historically marginalised by. So it’s like a ‘we’ll negate your experience so that you know how it feels’ type thing. That’s obviously unfair as it effects a lot of people who are relatively innocent. At the same time it’s of course possible someone might highlight behaviours in me that they feel contribute to the marginalisation, in which case I’ll try to listen and take it on board.

For me, it’s important to acknowledge that for the most part it’s not really about me, unless I can think of something I’ve genuinely done wrong. So better to sweep the projection aside, not take it on, and not take it personally.

 

[Cognisant]

You're absolutely right and at the same time, die mad about it

I am a straight white guy with British ancestry and I don't owe anyone a goddamn thing because I'm not my ancestors and I don't give a flying fuck what grievances anyone thinks they're entitled to. Now I totally get what you're saying about empathy but no one has, or ever had, empathy for me, even now you're trying to put the onus of peace on me, asking me to see things from the other side's perspective.

I already do, I just don't give a shit.

My gender is under attack, my sexuality is under attack, my race is under attack, my lineage is under attack, my culture is under attack (Terminator, Star Wars, Dr Who, yes I'm a nerd) I am under attack from all fronts and I'm not attacking anyone.

I don't has issues with any other races to me a label like "Chinese" is just what they look like and has no deeper meaning. I don't have an issue with women, I think women are as different from men as men are from each other, we're all different and that's fine, it doesn't make anyone inherently more or less than another. Likewise I'm not going after anyone's culture... actually I do go after US culture but that's like going after the British Empire in the 18th century, it's a valid criticism.

So why is the onus on me to make peace happen?
As I see it this thread is me fighting tooth and nail against a popular movement of aggression against my identity and I've pushed the front line all the way back to neutral ground. I've claimed my rightful territory and I'm telling everyone to mind their manners or stay the fuck out.

I'm not going on the offensive, there's your olive branch.

 

[BurnedOut]

Limitations of human memory makes us gullible to use heuristics and holding people guilty by association is one of the sad side-effects of so. Rational thinking is continuously trumped by seemingly rational thinking in the garb of 'understanding the phenomenon logically'. You cannot prevent this tragicomical occurrence. There is a similar wave going on in Germany due to excess amounts of Syrian migrants being absorbed. One solution is to bring everybody on par in terms of their basic amenities and other economical requirements. I know I am being Marxist right now but more often than not economical differences and massive cultural differences end up sparking a conflict.

Pakistanis and Indians are regularly on the receiving end in Europe. It is hard to say which side is to blame - The Pakis and Indians refusing to adapt to European culture or the Europeans refusing to accommodate the aforementioned. I believe that the Machiavellian view about property being quintessential to one's identity is quite valid - If you are living on someone else's land, you should know better than to toot your own horn if you are not strong enough to turn the tables on them. Of course, this is controversial to say because it fucks over the concept of Human Rights but let us face it - Human Rights is a concept that is hard to inculcate. It is politically enticing, not personally. That being said, Feminists and Anti-sexists have a very long way to go in order to assert themselves.

Or even better - just uniformalize cultures. Flatten them and squeeze the differences out that may irk people. Japanese and Koreans may agree to this statement. USA-bashing was prevalent there until it turned into semi-USA itself. Now they really don't care much about it. Neither do the Americans.

 

[Puffy]

You're absolutely right and at the same time, die mad about it

I am a straight white guy with British ancestry and I don't owe anyone a goddamn thing because I'm not my ancestors and I don't give a flying fuck what grievances anyone thinks they're entitled to. Now I totally get what you're saying about empathy but no one has, or ever had, empathy for me, even now you're trying to put the onus of peace on me, asking me to see things from the other side's perspective.

I already do, I just don't give a shit.

My gender is under attack, my sexuality is under attack, my race is under attack, my lineage is under attack, my culture is under attack (Terminator, Star Wars, Dr Who, yes I'm a nerd) I am under attack from all fronts and I'm not attacking anyone.

I don't has issues with any other races to me a label like "Chinese" is just what they look like and has no deeper meaning. I don't have an issue with women, I think women are as different from men as men are from each other, we're all different and that's fine, it doesn't make anyone inherently more or less than another. Likewise I'm not going after anyone's culture... actually I do go after US culture but that's like going after the British Empire in the 18th century, it's a valid criticism.

So why is the onus on me to make peace happen?
As I see it this thread is me fighting tooth and nail against a popular movement of aggression against my identity and I've pushed the front line all the way back to neutral ground. I've claimed my rightful territory and I'm telling everyone to mind their manners or stay the fuck out.

I'm not going on the offensive, there's your olive branch.

Tbh I think the onus is on everyone in any situation to make peace including those you feel attack your identity. Unless someone initiates it, it doesn’t happen.

Empathy’s important as if you spoke to a lot of people in the SJW camp, you’d likely hear similar voices speaking of how they feel their culture and identity is threatened by aggression. Through empathy you learn the irony that deep down both sides want the same thing. But unless someone’s able to see both sides, acknowledge the other, and initiate peace it doesn’t happen. It just results in conflict which ultimately perpetuates the same aggression.

So to me it’s futile, as by going on the offensive ultimately it just perpetuates the very thing you’re going on the offensive about. Peace is the better solution as it’s both better for yourself and the other party involved, where aggression makes it worse for both.

 

[Hadoblado]

Re: Pressures
You just accused Puffy of making it personal, but you just started interpreting neutral observations as my personal opinion. "There exist pressures" != "I judge businesses by the diversity of its staff".

Re: Southpark
I don't watch Southpark.

Re: How does social justice address...
Social Justice has a lot of prescriptions for addressing the unjust distribution of power. For instance, when you talk about CEOs having expectations about what a CEO can be, shifting these expectations through representation is intended to reduce bias.

Re: Immutable
You cite size, attractiveness, and accent. This isn't the same as the descrimination you talk about with CEOs. When you hire a man in a wheelchair, there is an insurmountable obstacle to him becoming an effective brick layer. When you hire a woman as a CEO, the obstacles they face are mostly social and something that can be changed. Hiring female CEOs gradually addresses obstacles to a more equitable distribution of power, hiring thick accented ESLs for a call centre does not.

Re: SJWs bragging about taking over
I don't know what you're talking about but it sounds bad and I don't support it?

Re: Go woke go broke
Coporations are cynical capitalists, they're not going woke for altruistic reasons. They're doing it explicitly to reach demographics they wouldn't otherwise. I'm yet to see any evidence that "Go woke go broke" is anymore than a cancel culture slogan. Disney is not broke. Nike is not broke.

 

[Cognisant]

Ok lets recap.

I established how social justice perpetuates racism and sexism because it supports judging people by association which is the basis of racism and sexism, thus any attempt to solve these problems with social justice is ultimately doomed to fail. Put simply you can't solve racism or sexism by being racist or sexist back, there's no counter-racism or counter-sexism it's just more of the same, or to put it even simpler still: two wrongs don't make a right.

Then you asked me how this applies to wealth inequality and so I gave you examples that demonstrated how the principle applies, you can't fix inequality by trying to counterbalance it with more inequality and you seem to agree that trying to enforce diversity quotas is going to do more harm than good.

Now there's this whole thing about CEOs and I'm sure by that you mean positions of power in general not jut CEOs specifically and yeah there tends to be more white male leaders, particularly in countries with a majority of white people and much less so in Africa, Asian and South America... huh. And it's not like there aren't female politicians or female CEOs or female whatevers, there's less of them certainly at the very pinnacle of power but in my life both in the public and private sector most of my bosses and team leaders have been female.

Social Justice has a lot of prescriptions for addressing the unjust distribution of power. For instance, when you talk about CEOs having expectations about what a CEO can be, shifting these expectations through representation is intended to reduce bias.

It really depends what you mean by "representation", if you expect boards to diversity hire CEOs or people to vote for politicians based on their skin color and/or gender I think that's fucked up. Now if you mean representation as in representation in fiction well that's less fucked up but I'm still uncomfortable with the idea of pushing an agenda like that, it's basically propaganda and even propaganda for a supposedly good cause is still propaganda.

The problem is you're politicizing things that have nothing to do with politics and by "politics" I'm not just referring to national politics but also the office politics of the private sector. By propagandizing race and gender you're making race and gender political platforms, when you divide parties and people along lines of race and gender whichever side takes power will use that power to undermine their opposition.

As a consequence you will see companies selectively hiring based on race and gender which again IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM YOU WERE TRYING TO SOLVE!!!

Look mate I agree that there's an over-representation of white straight males in positions of power, at least in western countries with majority white populations, but I don't think it's a problem you can fix through social engineering. Rather I think diversity is its own reward and the truth has a way of asserting itself over time, I think nations and companies that are overly selective are doing so to their own detriment and must change or they will succumb to those that have.

It's going to take a long time, but you can't rush progress.

Look on the bright side, the USA had a black president and he made a great impression on the world and then the white guy after him (orange?) was a complete dipshit, consequently the western world now sees black leaders in a new more positive light. It's happening, it's glacial but it's happening.

You just accused Puffy of making it personal, but you just started interpreting neutral observations as my personal opinion. "There exist pressures" != "I judge businesses by the diversity of its staff".

Well yeah you had this whole point about "woke bucks are still bucks" and I've countered that with examples of how going woke has ruined high profile decades old franchises. Sure every dollar's a dollar but if you try to diversify your customer base at the expense of alienating the majority of your customers that's just not good business. If you personally don't factor in a company's woke-ness when making your purchasing decisions then that just further supports my point, if your bucks aren't woke bucks then who is using this currency?

 

[Beliefofmine]

I think the problem is hypocrisy. "we" as a society want to be inclusive and homogeneous, but at the same time we are tribal and seek out our own.

What we see in society today, with the equality that we have, is the ebb and flow between those two camps. As we drift more towards one than the other, there's push back from the other.

As the OP pointed out there is villainization of people, which I think is an attempt by a camp to pull the pendulum back to their side, only to be repeated once the balance changes in the other direction.

So is it fair to do that? All is fair in love and war. I don't think it's right or wrong, however as opposed to physics where pendulums seek equilibrium, and eventually settle in the middle, we've seen the pendulum of social justice only become more and more wild in it's swings and back lash against one camp or the other.

 

[Beliefofmine]

I would ask this.

If you believe that privilege exists, are you not a racist/supremacist?

Because, in order to believe there privilege for one group, you have to feel that there is lack of privilege for another. Therefore creating a scenario where you believe one group is "better" than another simply by the traits of that group. Which is racist and the definition of racial supremacy.

You may not be actively working towards a racist or supremacist outcome, but mentally you believe that even if you're against it.

How do you reconcile that?

So would it be fair to say that if you didn't believe that privilege exists, you're inherently less racist than somebody who believes it does exist.

I could see it argues that if privilege did exist, and you didn't believe in it, that you could be labeled naïve, or ignorant, however I think both of those are less detrimental than being racist/supremacist's in believing that one racial group is superior to another.

 

[Cognisant]

I think we're all perfectly capable of being different and not hating each other for it, people have excuses for racism/sexism/etc but it's just that, an excuse for the inexcusable. Fundamentally there is not such thing as "social justice" it's just judging people by association, it's a fallacy and it needs to be called out as narrow minded and hateful because that's all it is.

SJW types aren't trying to change us, there's nothing a white straight male can do to make themselves any less white male and straight, except maybe being cowed and submissive but even then if their media is anything to go by they'll still expect us to be ashamed for existing.

Now you might notice a parallel between this and patriarchal societies (Islam for example) where women are actually oppressed and indoctrinated into believing that they should be ashamed for being women, e.g. not allowed in temples when menstruating, not allowed out without a male escorting them, forced to hide their appearance and do what they're told.

You would think opposing this is the sort of thing is what social justice is all about, but no they don't focus on actual women's suffrage, no it's all about how women in the west don't get paid enough and there aren't enough female CEOs, and the male gaze in cinematography and gawwd why don't men just fuck off and die?

It's really simple, SJWs are just female neckbeards, they're misandrists.
The whole social justice totem pole is just a means for them to elevate and superficially legitimize their bullshit, a lot of gay people and black people have woken up to the reality that their "allies" are just using them to push their own toxic agenda.

I know we've got a good mix of gender/races/etc here, I put it out to you all, am I wrong?

 

[Beliefofmine]

I agree, I think it's hypocrisy. The SJW people use the same means and tactics to achieve their means, that they call out. And as you've pointed out, it's not really to destroy the structure, it's to replace/elevate their position within the structure. So if you destroy the patriarchy and replace it with a matriarchy, have you really done anything other than shift whose at the top?

Should all groups get a chance at the top? Would that be equality?

 

[Perfectly Normal Beast]

 

[Beliefofmine]

I've seen this before, and it's is, in the words of the video, eye opening, and taking the bananas from my ears.

We live in a very fast paced culture where we don't often think or care about geopolitics. So things like this which should be show stopping, just get lost in the hustle and bustle of our media cycle. I would say confidently that 99.99% of people have not seen this or consider this at all in their daily consumption of media.

 

[Cognisant]

Interesting, I think he's taking too much credit though, the USA's libertarian/individualist culture was bound to run into problem's with entitlement, and no matter how corrupt and totalitarian the US government gets I don't see it being ripe for Communist takeover.

Not while Russia has its own problems, which are partially (and hilariously) due to a growing social justice movement.

 

[Beliefofmine]

It's a war of ideas not of arms. If they win the ideological war, then they have won and done more damage than missiles ever could.

An international studies professor once told me, that in the game of geopolitics, while we're sitting here drinking our coffee, trying to decide what movie to watch, there's countries playing a game several levels above us, pulling strings, positioning and posturing over strategic resources and locations.

So while this is may seem trivial, in the war of ideas, I think its important to realize when you're being subverted by an external force. So the the OP's point, the SJ movement may have been completely organic, however at this point I think it's clear to say that it's been exacerbated by external forces with the intent to undermine America's stability.

 

[ummidk]

Probably wasn't Russia. Maybe China, maybe not even a foreign power.

 

[Puffy]

I would ask this.

If you believe that privilege exists, are you not a racist/supremacist?

Because, in order to believe there privilege for one group, you have to feel that there is lack of privilege for another. Therefore creating a scenario where you believe one group is "better" than another simply by the traits of that group. Which is racist and the definition of racial supremacy.

You may not be actively working towards a racist or supremacist outcome, but mentally you believe that even if you're against it.

How do you reconcile that?

So would it be fair to say that if you didn't believe that privilege exists, you're inherently less racist than somebody who believes it does exist.

I could see it argues that if privilege did exist, and you didn't believe in it, that you could be labeled naïve, or ignorant, however I think both of those are less detrimental than being racist/supremacist's in believing that one racial group is superior to another.

My understanding on the topic of privilege is that it’s saying statistically one group of people will have advantage over the other, and that focus is put on interpreting this down to the nurture aspects like social engineering, rather than the nature aspect like biology. From that perspective it’s not really racist or supremacist to say privilege exists. It’s more saying Western society works in such a way that one group is favoured over another. It’s social critique.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Everything in politics, even democratic ones, is war of wills.

There would be no racism or sexism, if people were not competing.

You could argue that competition no longer exists once people have enough.

Unfortunately exact opposite is true.

The more you have the more you stand to lose.

Losing 10 dollars and losing 10 000 000 dollars will definitely make you feel different.

People don't take 1 cent coins. They always take bigger coins, because its hard to internally justify losing 50 cents for nothing.

Values are entirely arbitrary.

Let me ask you this..... when you do something you perceive as valuable.

What exactly is the thing that underscores the value of the given thing.

Like how much are you willing to do for 10 dollars.


The only people who do not compete are the ones who have enough to be content.

How much do you need to be content is the question.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
So if you men do not have enough why should females have enough?
Good question.
Females doubled the work force and that means the cake is now half of what it used to be.

Unfortunately the productivity of humans did not go up. Its about the same as before.

However there is twice as many pockets to fill.

When it comes to racism is the same thing.

There is no need for actual racism if you are better than the next guy.

After all why would world class athlete cheat if he can win????

SO racism is insecurity in a way.

 

[scorpiomover]

Racism and sexism are taking an excuse and using that excuse to pre-judge a demographic.

For example you're in a nation that's receiving a large number of refugees and one of those refugees murders someone, you could take this as an excuse to say it wasn't one of US that committed the murder it was one of THEM and therefore THEY are culpable for the murder, they are at fault for not effectively policing their own in order to prevent such things from occurring.

But is that really fair? Is it really just to attribute guilt by association?

Is it fair of me to judge a Catholic by their association with Catholicism as an institution?
Absolutely! Nobody's born a Catholic or a Nazi or a Catholic Nazi, it's a choice they made and you can totally hold people accountable for their own choices. Nothing wrong with that at all.

But what if someone's black, or Asian, or gay or even white male and straight, is it really fair to judge them by association with people they never chose to be associated with, for things they themselves haven't done?

No, and that's why ironically Social Justice is the very problem Social Justice is supposedly trying to solve.

Social Justice is in essence holding a demographic of people accountable for the actions of a few, if it was just holding people accountable for their own actions well we already have a word for that, it's called Justice and it's what Social Justice is not.

You ALMOST had a good argument.

ALMOST.

But then you wiped it off the face of the map.

You cannot be judged for being born a man. But you grew up in an environment that was sexist and racist, and yet did not reject the racism and sexism by joining left-wing SJW movements and protesting in favour of left-wing removal of racism and sexism.

You are judged for the same reason as someone born a Catholic. You chose to stick with your irrational status quo and not join the sane rational moral left-wing SJWs.

Had you been smart enough to not say that Catholics are OK to be judged neatively for their choices, you could not be judged for your choices.

But you did, and so you put your head in the noose, so to speak, and then refused to make the choice that you demanded of Catholics, by demanding that they choose other people's beliefs or be persecuted.

So you've judged yourself.

 

[Beliefofmine]

Racism and sexism are taking an excuse and using that excuse to pre-judge a demographic.

For example you're in a nation that's receiving a large number of refugees and one of those refugees murders someone, you could take this as an excuse to say it wasn't one of US that committed the murder it was one of THEM and therefore THEY are culpable for the murder, they are at fault for not effectively policing their own in order to prevent such things from occurring.

But is that really fair? Is it really just to attribute guilt by association?

Is it fair of me to judge a Catholic by their association with Catholicism as an institution?
Absolutely! Nobody's born a Catholic or a Nazi or a Catholic Nazi, it's a choice they made and you can totally hold people accountable for their own choices. Nothing wrong with that at all.

But what if someone's black, or Asian, or gay or even white male and straight, is it really fair to judge them by association with people they never chose to be associated with, for things they themselves haven't done?

No, and that's why ironically Social Justice is the very problem Social Justice is supposedly trying to solve.

Social Justice is in essence holding a demographic of people accountable for the actions of a few, if it was just holding people accountable for their own actions well we already have a word for that, it's called Justice and it's what Social Justice is not.

You ALMOST had a good argument.

ALMOST.

But then you wiped it off the face of the map.

You cannot be judged for being born a man. But you grew up in an environment that was sexist and racist, and yet did not reject the racism and sexism by joining left-wing SJW movements and protesting in favour of left-wing removal of racism and sexism.

You are judged for the same reason as someone born a Catholic. You chose to stick with your irrational status quo and not join the sane rational moral left-wing SJWs.

Had you been smart enough to not say that Catholics are OK to be judged neatively for their choices, you could not be judged for your choices.

But you did, and so you put your head in the noose, so to speak, and then refused to make the choice that you demanded of Catholics, by demanding that they choose other people's beliefs or be persecuted.

So you've judged yourself.

There was a comedian who had a good point, he said why is it only now once we have electricity and cars that women want to be equal. They didn't want to be equal when it came to killing the sabortoothed tigers.

Humor aside, I think we have been able to build the great society the world exists currently because of those gender rolls, and sexism and racism. Without those we wouldn't have been able to. So it's comical that now, reaping all the benefits. People want to cast aside the structures that brought is everything.

 

[Cognisant]

You cannot be judged for being born a man. But you grew up in an environment that was sexist and racist, and yet did not reject the racism and sexism by joining left-wing SJW movements and protesting in favour of left-wing removal of racism and sexism.

Not really but even if I did I didn't get to choose what environment I grew up in whereas being supportive of the institution of Catholicism is a choice.

Every institution I've been a part of be it educational, occupational or hobbyist had rules against racism/sexism and/or required me to complete orientation programs that included diversity sensitivity as part of the code of conduct training.

I have never (to my knowledge) supported an institution that practices racism or sexism, unless you count paying taxes to the Australian government but then that's never really been a choice.

 

[scorpiomover]

You cannot be judged for being born a man. But you grew up in an environment that was sexist and racist, and yet did not reject the racism and sexism by joining left-wing SJW movements and protesting in favour of left-wing removal of racism and sexism.

Not really but even if I did I didn't get to choose what environment I grew up in whereas being supportive of the institution of Catholicism is a choice.

Every institution I've been a part of be it educational, occupational or hobbyist had rules against racism/sexism and/or required me to complete orientation programs that included diversity sensitivity as part of the code of conduct training.

I have never (to my knowledge) supported an institution that practices racism or sexism, unless you count paying taxes to the Australian government but then that's never really been a choice.

You argue that it should not be OK to criticise whites, and you consider yourself white.
You argue that it should not be OK to criticise males, and you consider yourself male.

You argue that it should be OK to attack Catholics, and you do not consider yourself a Catholic.

Your arguments are consistent, in that they support the groups that you associate with, and attack those that you do not associate with.

 

[Cognisant]

You argue that it should not be OK to criticise whites, and you consider yourself white.

Catholicism isn't race exclusive... is it?
I thought they were just pedophiles, not racist pedophiles.

You argue that it should not be OK to criticise males, and you consider yourself male.

I consider myself a robot trapped in a meatsack THANKYOUVERYMUCH

You argue that it should be OK to attack Catholics, and you do not consider yourself a Catholic.

Yup, that's exactly it.

Your arguments are consistent, in that they support the groups that you associate with, and attack those that you do not associate with.

Yes my actions are consistent with my thoughts.

 

[The Grey Man]

I'm more worried about being judged for being associated with 'social justice' than for being associated with the Catholic Church. Those who would judge me for rejecting their absurd and perverse conceptions of justice, thus arrogating to themselves the role of a moral authority despite their intellectual puerility, are not among those whose opinions I respect.

 

[Beliefofmine]

The problem with social justice is that it is not absolute, and changes with the times.

At one point the social justice view was that blacks were not equal.

What if in the future they social justice view was all indigenous people are backwards and holding back society and should be exterminated. It's easy to say we wouldn't support that, but if 51% of society did, our views would be the minority view.

I think this just highlights that the thoughts of society or a group at large aren't nuanced enough to encompass all of our individual views. I agree with some of the things that social justice stands for, but I also disagree with some, and how they are being acted upon.

Be a free thinker.

 

[Cognisant]

Fundamentally the "social" in social justice is the notion that you can hold a group of people accountable for actions or traits that the individuals themselves may not have actually committed or possess, it is in essence guilt by association.

What's truly horrendous about this is that there doesn't even to be a legitimate basis for it, the whole witch trials thing was a matter of paranoia and rumor, there was never any actual witches.

@The Grey Man
Here's the thing about Catholicism, Christianity and the Abrahamic faiths overall, it all revolves around the concept of inherited sin, that we are all born sinners until we are saved, which as I've just explained makes it a form of social justice.
Guilt by association.

I agree with some of the things that social justice stands for, but I also disagree with some, and how they are being acted upon.

I think the things you agree with are simply matters of justice, gay marriage isn't social justice it's just justice, taxing the rich and fixing our economic systems to prevent ever escalating wealth inequality isn't social justice, it's just justice.

Social justice itself is nothing but an insidious fallacy that corrupts people's good intentions.

 

[scorpiomover]

You argue that it should not be OK to criticise whites, and you consider yourself white.

Catholicism isn't race exclusive... is it?

1) This is a white person:

This is a person of colour (pink-skin):

People of colour (pink-skins) say they are part of "the white race", and call brown-skins "people of colour".

2) Europeans and Aussies and Canadians and Americans all descended from Africans. It's in their genes, forever. So they ALL are POC.

So clearly, race has nothing at all to do with colour of skin or genetics or family history, or anything like that.

It's about tribalism and competition.

Even when anti-racists talk about stopping racism, they also target entire groups, rather than racists. They also protect racists within their own tribe.

It's about tribalism and competition.

I thought they were just pedophiles, not racist pedophiles.

2.1% of Syrians are Catholics.

22% of Australians are Catholics, with 5.292 million Catholics. The USA has the same percentage. Australians are 10 times more likely to be Catholics than Syrians and as likely to be Catholics as Americans.

0.0003% of Afghans are Catholics (200 are Catholics, out of almost 30 million). In Afghanistan, Catholics are almost unheard of.

If your argument was not an example of the same tribal behaviour as racism and sexism, then you would be believe the following:

1) Australian children are 10 times more likely to be victims of paedophilia than Syrian children,

2) Australian adults like yourself are 10 times more likely to be paedophiles than the Syrian members of ISIS.

3) In Afghanistan, paedophilia is almost unheard of.

You argue that it should not be OK to criticise males, and you consider yourself male.

I consider myself a robot trapped in a meatsack THANKYOUVERYMUCH

You claimed you were under attack because of being white and male, (and other things). So you clearly consider yourself white, and male.

You argue that it should be OK to attack Catholics, and you do not consider yourself a Catholic.

Yup, that's exactly it.

So you don't have a problem with people who think it should be OK to attack other demographics, because they are no part of a demographic?

You are OK with jocks who beat up geeks like yourself?

Your arguments are consistent, in that they support the groups that you associate with, and attack those that you do not associate with.

Yes my actions are consistent with my thoughts.

Then you would be a danger to humanity because of your thoughts, and under the laws of most Western countries, it would be the duty of the police and doctors to hold you in a secure ward for the mentally ill, until you became rational.

 

[scorpiomover]

Fundamentally the "social" in social justice is the notion that you can hold a group of people accountable for actions or traits that the individuals themselves may not have actually committed or possess, it is in essence guilt by association.

That would be judging Catholics as all being paedos, just because some were.

What's truly horrendous about this is that there doesn't even to be a legitimate basis for it, the whole witch trials thing was a matter of paranoia and rumor, there was never any actual witches.

When has tribalism and competition had a legitimate basis?

Here's the thing about Catholicism, Christianity and the Abrahamic faiths overall, it all revolves around the concept of inherited sin, that we are all born sinners until we are saved, which as I've just explained makes it a form of social justice.
Guilt by association.

Inherited sin is a term that means that you were born into a society where people are often irrational and immoral in a thousand ways, and as a result, you have been accustomed to thinking that both are normal and reasonable in lots of situations and lots of ways.

If you don't believe that, I think doctors and most people would say you are suffering under a delusion.

 

[Cognisant]

 

[The Grey Man]

@Cognisant Abrahamic religion is not a form of social justice any more than original sin is an example of the past exploitation of one race of people by another. God is not a historically disadvantaged group in need of social reform to rectify the 'injustice' of the Fall. To be sure, it is possible to speak analogically of slave-owning as the 'original sin' of the American founding fathers, for example (and the most zealous social justice fanatics would certainly like to imagine that all white North Americans are 'stained' by the crimes of our ancestors), but, as with any analogy, it becomes absurd if it is taken too literally.

 

[Cognisant]