The social justice wars

Discussion of science, technology, politics, and other topics that aren't strictly philosophical.
User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: Dark Void

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Santiago Odo »

Here is another of your posts which I do not have any reason to be bothered by. I see it as humorous and there is a certain lightness in it. Yet I will say that if you consider this as 'argument' and if you wish to present this as some sort of ideal in forum communications, or to contrast any part of your method to mine, it seems to me that you are functioning irrationally. I wrote some posts which pretended to an interview form which I though humorous. Am I to take it that you didn't? But in those posts I offered lots of sturdy communication of idea, through reasoned presentation, yet --- it is true --- without 'statistics, facts, specifics' of the sort that you seem to desire.

But would you agree to keep your focus on the two posts I wrote in this thread which I linked to just above?

(Two posts because of the 3 url limit).
You I'll never leave
User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: Dark Void

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Santiago Odo »

Kevin writes: I think the entire anti-SJW movement is, very crudely, a pro-skeptic movement. It's far from perfect, but many people are promoting skeptical modes of thinking, and are being relatively consistent in their thinking.

David responds: Yet they evidently don't like it when the skeptical gaze is directed their way....
___________________________

While I cannot be sure what Kevin is referring to because the category is so wide and loose, nevertheless as I reflect back on much material that I have read and watched, those critical of the 'SJW' movement in ideas are not only applying sceptical reasoning to the SJW-type but make a wide range of sound arguments against their hysteria and emotionalism.

But there is another pole which I have read and watched which is also based in scepticism and rational critique. I would cite almost any of the recent videos that have been put up by Chomsky as he critiques the policy activities of the present administration. He makes a good point: while people are lured into focus on Trump-as-Buffoon there are men in his administration that are quietly and methodically dismantling many policies put into place by Obama's administration.

In its pure form, the SJW-type definitely has an argument. It is the stuff that we are most familiar with and perhaps most influenced by.

What exactly is the 'anti-SWJ' position? If one were to say 'I cannot really find a centre in it. I cannot find a specific platform or policy suggestion' I think one would have a point.

Who would we select to articulate a counter-position to the general trends expressed by the SJW? I suggest that the answer is that we cannot in fact articulate a counter-proposal, or not one that we can all agree on. Can one actually articulate a coherent anti-feminist stance? If one is anti-feminist, what exactly would one mean? The same could be said in various categories in which the Left is strong and also articulate.

To explain a little further my own relationship to this problem I would here mention that I tend to focus on 'white identity politics' not because I am opposed to liberal values, but because in the present climate I discern, as part of the march of Social Justice Warriorism with its Marxian background, an attack on a specific white identity. I would mention that just now, in the US, they are now turning their attention from some old bronze monuments in the South to the removal of statues of US Presidents whose ideas and policies are now contested.

It is not hard to see --- I mean, I see pretty clearly I think --- where the SJWs will take this. But the question is On what terms, and with what arguments, could I oppose them? Now, once the people-of-color demographic grows even more stronger, and more numerous, than they are now (I suggest) their attack on whites and 'whiteness' will grow even more bold.

Thus I suggest that we are seeing the beginning of a civil struggle of proportion. When push comes to shove, I again suggest, it is people like me, not opposed to many facets in the ideology of the SJW (that is, the social policies, the liberal values which are foundational to the US), who will conclude that what is needed, what will become required, is separation. My demographic, within a larger demographic and in a democratic system, will not be able to defend itself. And I think that what I have expressed here is what motivates many who are now coming into the white identity movement in the US. Here is an interesting press conference by Richard Spencer who I respect a great deal. It is worth listening to).

What I will say is that 'The Establishment' of the US --- media, the intellectual class, the intelligence community, and the overt and also the 'deep' state establishment --- are in the process of unleashing a torrent of opposition to this movement. They will brand it, they will malign it, they will use any tool at their disposal to weaken it and destroy it if possible.
You I'll never leave
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The social justice wars

Post by David Quinn »

JohnJAu wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:has any connection to/or capacity to achieve that is utterly fucking demented.
What could realistically stop it? What could realistically stop any of the major problems or 'problematic directions' western capitalist societies have taken or are taking? I can't think of a single answer to any of it. The ways in which societies change, especially nowadays as things are more complicated than ever, is like an intricate causal ball of web with far too much momentum for anyone (perhaps save for a few people in extreme positions of power?) to be able to reliably direct in a predictable way.
As you say, it is too big for any one person to solve. It is up to all of us to do our bit to the best of our ability - being more educated, being more rational, being more understanding of other people’s circumstances and points of views, doing what we can to take the heat out of the cultural wars. Men need to stop being hostile towards women. That is the first priority. Unless this happens, it will be impossible to guide women towards an acceptance of the genetic and psychological differences between the sexes. The anti-SJW movement is never going to succeed in its aims if it continues to treat women and minority groups as the enemy.

JohnJAu wrote:
David Quinn wrote:then it is up to them to deal with the situation in a superior manner.
That's true but it is increasingly difficult when you have a feminized man who is uneducated on the differences between the sexes/genders, and feminism (and Google, and whoever else- I'm a conspiracy theorist on this subject) is attempting to make that very notion illegal speech. It's not going to help the situation and will only drive men that deny this insanity and women apart. The white knight will do just fine protecting his new alpha female of course, at least until she drives them into a wall at 100mph.

The problem here is that we already have a "PC" education system that doesn't even go near a dozen of the most important topics like this one, and it will only get worse.
I agree that is a major problem. But men are still in possession of their male genes; they still have an inbuilt level of masculinity inside them. It might be largely dormant at the moment, but cultural conditioning cannot completely wipe it out. So we do have something to work with. It is a matter of men learning how to harness and express their masculinity in ways that don’t involve being hostile and violent towards women.

Women have spent the last few decades struggling to carve out an identity for themselves and as a result they are leaving men in the dust. They are far more organized and clear about what they want from the world. By contrast, men, still under the delusion that they are the superior sex, have been asleep at the wheel and now they are resentful. If we truly want to change things, then we males are going to have to spend the next few decades undergoing our own liberation.
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Kevin Solway »

David Quinn wrote:
Kevin Solway wrote:In my view, the issue of freedom of speech is a first principle.
Yet it does not seem to stop you from playing fast and loose with it.
Again, you're not making any kind of rational argument. All you're doing is making accusations.

Where is your opposition to the widespread censorship and quashing of dissent taking place by groups other than the “authoritarian left”? We never hear a peep from you about these other forms of censorship.
Again, you're not constructing any kind of an argument. What kind of "widespread censorship" and "quashing of dissent" are you talking about? The only people trying to stop me from speaking is the authoritarian left and the radical Muslims.

Where is your outrage about Trump’s propensity to bully people into silence?
Again, you're not making an argument, but merely making accusations. What are you talking about?

Or about the Breitbart hordes intimidating their opponents into silence through torrents of threats and abuse?
Firstly, you're not making an argument, and are merely making accusations. Show me these "torrents of threats and abuse". How do you know they exist? Or do you believe it on faith?

And do you think that the writers of Breitbart don't receive torrents of threats and abuse?

And secondly, there's no such thing as "Breitbart hordes". I think you are making it all up.

Legislate against the public’s right to dissent and protest?
That sounds like bullshit to me. Show me the law that disallows people from protesting. I'll be very surprised if you can.

Or about the Trump administration’s stated plans to interfere with net neutrality?
Like a normal right wing American President, Trump wants to deregulate the internet and remove government interference. I don't know whether that's a good move or not.

In my view, the biggest problem at the moment is the authoritarian left which wants to censor every last corner of the internet with an iron fist, and which I've seen and experienced first hand.

Or about Betsy DeVos's desire to make the teaching of evolution more difficult?
I am part of the atheist community, so I'm well aware of all these issues.

The SJWs don't want us to be able to talk about "male" and "female", which will also make teaching evolution more difficult.

We never hear a single word from you about these things.
That's not true. I've made videos about political correctness in the Buddhist world, and I was the main author of the Atheist magazine for the Australian atheist society. I'm not going to comment on every single political issue under the sun. Rather, I'm going to focus on those I believe to be currently the most important.

It is not "pro-free speech" that you identify with, but "anti-SJW".
I identify as both. They're not mutually exclusive.

Kevin Solway wrote:
From a political perspective I'm primarily interested in defeating the SJWs
Yep, that is clearly your first principle.
No, you are speaking bullshit again. I specifically said "from the political perspective", and not "It is my first principle". Again, I think you are living in a fantasy world. You are rejecting reality and replacing it with an imagined world of your own.

Yet they evidently don't like it when the skeptical gaze is directed their way
It's not "skeptical" to call people misogynists, racists, white supremacists, nazis, pedophiles, sub-human, etc, when you don't know what you're talking about. In our current environment, such speech can easily get people killed.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

David Quinn wrote:Men need to stop being hostile towards women. ... The anti-SJW movement is never going to succeed in its aims if it continues to treat women and minority groups as the enemy.
But hostility and animosity is not the issue at all, it's not even the complaint from the SJW! It's for example way more about "glass ceilings", making "sexualized" compliments or remarks, or simply objectifying women in circumstances deemed inappropriate. It's quite a stretch to say this is "hostile" as that is simply not the sentiment or the accusation made by the typical SJW. Which would be more like them explaining that the other suffers from "learned" subconscious prejudices in how he responds to women, minorities or different cultures. Or how he'd rationalize those attitudes (they want it, need it, cannot help it, and so on). And that only by enforcing new rules and strong positive discrimination it will change over time. and of course to forcefully change the discourse, making certain topics and discussions unacceptable in the public sphere.

Just mentioning your phrase "acceptance of the genetic and psychological differences between the sexes" anywhere outside a safe zone like Genius forum will indeed get you grilled, fired, insulted and sometimes threatened, especially if those differences are even hinted to affect abilities to excel in certain fields, like science, philosophy, chess, inventing, comedy and so on.

What you say about resentfulness is true though. Many groups feel ill-treated or under threat because of a changing world and a gigantic information landscape without any clearly defined institutions, vague sounding complexities and uninspiring leadership. But my take here would be that the SJW is exactly one of those resentful groups, resentful because their modern, over-idealized world is not turning out what they thought it would become and is actually moving into a whole other direction. Then the sticks and stones come out, literally as well.
User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: Dark Void

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Santiago Odo »

David wrote:As you say, it is too big for any one person to solve. It is up to all of us to do our bit to the best of our ability - being more educated, being more rational, being more understanding of other people’s circumstances and points of views, doing what we can to take the heat out of the cultural wars. Men need to stop being hostile towards women. That is the first priority. Unless this happens, it will be impossible to guide women towards an acceptance of the genetic and psychological differences between the sexes. The anti-SJW movement is never going to succeed in its aims if it continues to treat women and minority groups as the enemy.
I think you could rewrite this and if you had an acoustic guitar make it into a moving ballad. It is just a bunch of tripe. I do not see what its relationship is to 'dangerous ideas'.

The present status of women, what they can do, how they can act, what power they have, and how their influence affects society, have come about because these choices were made and deemed the best options. These conditions came about as the 'traditional family' was deliberately weakened and undermined, and through the inculcation of different forms of sexual excitement and opportunity which were presented to people as options to their former social commitments, to their religious practices centered around their Christian faith. These newer opportunities and conditions were created because they were deemed the best option. And the only way that they could be countered would be through presenting another set of options that were attractive enough to people so that they would choose them.

If one shall be 'more educated' and 'more rational' and maintains that this itself and alone will become a solution to what is going on in the present, seems a benign statement devoid of any ideological force. What education? What sort of education? Who will educate? And what will their teaching materials be?

Modernity gives women a platform of power and supports them and protects them as they enjoy the benefits of that power. On one level it could be said that women have 'rebelled' against what you refer to as their psychological and genetic situation. It is men who have given this to them. How did this come about? What are the ideas that stand behind this? Do you oppose those ideas? What do you counter-propose? I suggest that you have no inkling of a counter-proposal and that is why what you declare seems fluffy.

Why do you assume that you have anything to say on this topic? On what basis would you defend your authority to have an opinion or a program that anyone could take seriously? You are completely out of the loop. You have no relationship to women. I do not think you have a job or a business. You are a housewife within your own State.

It will be required to establish some sort of conceptual model about what, precisely, one is envisioning. Restructured family-life? A return to traditional roles? A return of focus to family and the creation of children? And then the education of those children?

You are doing no work at all in these categories. And what you say --- with or without an acoustic guitar --- is meaningless. In contrast to these cardboard statements, and in more manly contrast, there are philosopher and theorists in the New Right which are working in idea and also in organization of communities, to propose real and actionable alternatives.

You sound overall like a liberal Newager with a crystal around your neck. It is ridiculous.
You I'll never leave
User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: Dark Void

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Santiago Odo »

This is an example of the reach of the SJW and the SJW-program as it links to government and police. It deals with a fellow who went to the rally in Charlottesville and somehow that his attendence there was reported back to the university he attends. The debate here is if he should be expelled and also fired from his employment (also at the university).
You I'll never leave
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The social justice wars

Post by jupiviv »

Kevin Solway wrote:
jupiviv wrote:
Some [anti-SJWs], such as Milo, or Ben Shapiro, are right wing and still reasonable on most matters.
Define "most matters". Do you just mean criticism of SJWs and support for free speech
Yes, those are the main areas in which I agree with them. I've heard them express ideas on climate change and religion that I think are unreasonable to varying degrees.
I can think of many other ideas that they express which cannot be accommodated by a rational worldview, but I'm assuming you either know about them but choose to call them the side of reason nevertheless because "the authoritarian left is worse", or don't know about them because "the authoritarian left is worse". Either way, I think your perspective on this matter is skewed.
Deluded views like Islam itself being responsible for immigrant crime in Europe
I think Islam is largely behind the terrorist attacks, and possibly partly behind the sex attacks. Islam may also be partly behind ordinary everyday crime, since Islam teaches that non-Islamic cultures are not to be respected, and that they should be destroyed.
This is definitely a deluded view, if only because you are assuming that a religious doctrine has acquired sentience and is controlling the minds of its adherents. If this were true, you would see a lot more Islamic terror in India, where Muslims and Hindus live in close proximity in many regions. Hinduism is worse than Christianity according to Islam, and we have the 2nd/3rd largest population of Muslims, probably close to that of the entire M. East.

Also, you are ignoring the fact that most of the immigrant criminals are refugees displaced from regions which have suffered US/NATO initiated destabilisation. It's unrealistic to expect young male refugees who have seen their homes destroyed and are now in a foreign country with no certainty of what will happen to them to be peaceful and reasonable. The practical solution which would benefit the host country would be to not let them in to begin with, but this would almost certainly result in a lot of suffering for the refugees. It's a hard but necessary choice, but it's unnecessary to provide a sham moral justification for it along the lines of Islam being an evil hive-mind that wants to kill or rape everyone. In fact, I would call such sham moral fabrication contemptible.
or Trump as saviour of humanity
While Milo supported Trump over Clinton - not as saviour of humanity - Shapiro supported neither Trump nor Clinton.
You're right about Shapiro. To be precise Milo supported Trump as saviour of the US and by extension the west, which is just as irrational as supporting him as saviour of humanity itself. Not to mention that he has proven to be a ruthless opportunist in his allegiances and controversy-based suspect "business ventures".
The entire mainstream media, as well as many in academia (social sciences), have been demonizing the anti-SJWs for years, and most people get their views from these sources, in which case it represents a mass delusion, such as with religion.
It is a mass delusion, which is precisely why it embraces both SJWs and anti-SJWs in cosmetically different ways.
People generally end up believing that they themselves should have freedom of speech, but that this freedom should not extend to others. This usually happens when people gain power.
It also happens when the tide of events turns against them, so they can't use the "truth" (i.e., the part of it that favours their worldview) to destroy their opponents.
The measure of expression is the number of people listening to you (willingly or otherwise), but this doesn't apply to thoughts.
Even if you don't speak or write, people can still see what you do, and so you are still communicating, which some people think is a punishable offense.
That wasn't my point. Expression by definition requires someone else, but the lack of someone else willing to listen to you does not by itself invalidate your thoughts. You yourself say that you don't discuss philosophy with the anti-SJWs, whom you call reasonable people. If free speech were inseparable from free thought, the fact that reasonable people don't want to listen to those thought would make them false/meaningless.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The social justice wars

Post by jupiviv »

Kevin Solway wrote:I think the entire anti-SJW movement is, very crudely, a pro-skeptic movement. It's far from perfect, but many people are promoting skeptical modes of thinking, and are being relatively consistent in their thinking. Jordan Peterson or Gad Saad are good examples.
Wasn't Jordan Peterson the guy who was telling all the loser single men to get some nice traditional wives (who are perfectly free to assrape them in family court) and make western civilisation great again? So he can fuck himself with a vibrating gerbil. David might find common ground with him though. Gad Saad on the other hand has put out some good work without the associated culture war/Muslims will destroy everything bullshit.
We can't resolve all delusions, and become Buddhas, before we do anything else, because the human race will probably be extinct by then. Some immediate action is necessary.
I agree, but it won't be initiated or led by the anti-SJWs, who see the age of schism as a great opportunity to legitimise and empower their respective cookie cutter ideologies. The most likely outcome will that they will lose funding and wither away because people will steer away from useless academic courses amidst a collapsing economy. Education will probably become more regional, as will journalism. They may still hang around in little niches, but their current level of influence is simply unsustainable in the short-mid term.
User avatar
Eric Schiedler
Posts: 76
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 1:13 pm

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Eric Schiedler »

Kevin Solway wrote:I think the entire anti-SJW movement is, very crudely, a pro-skeptic movement. It's far from perfect, but many people are promoting skeptical modes of thinking, and are being relatively consistent in their thinking. Jordan Peterson or Gad Saad are good examples.
Relative is indeed the critical qualifier, if for no other reason than the universal benchmark for consistency is such a low standard. Perhaps even more so now that Trump has declared the existence of an "alt-left."
jupiviv wrote:Wasn't Jordan Peterson the guy who was telling all the loser single men to get some nice traditional wives (who are perfectly free to assrape them in family court) and make western civilisation great again?
Peterson literally believes that the pressure of marriage, specifically the illusion of permanence of the marriage vows, makes individuals stick to a spouse, and thus become forced to pay attention to criticisms from said spouse, which in turn are to have a therapeutic effect to get one to see their most crucial blind spots.

Apparently, a wife complaining about a man's shortcomings in worldly matters and needling them on their masculine inadequacies are a key way to lead a man to dispel his delusions. Incredible.

And to make matters worse, Peterson admits he gives this advice to his therapy clients and it doesn't work very well at all! Not that the poor results seem to stop him from giving similar counsel via paid subscriptions on video to impressionable people who find him charismatic en masse.
JohnJAu
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: The social justice wars

Post by JohnJAu »

jupiviv wrote: Wasn't Jordan Peterson the guy who was telling all the loser single men to get some nice traditional wives (who are perfectly free to assrape them in family court) and make western civilisation great again? So he can fuck himself with a vibrating gerbil.
Well, only 20% of men would be able to do that anyway.

http://imgur.com/wMCefU4

David's position seems to be a lot like Jordan Peterson's on this: "Just man up!"
David Quinn wrote: They are far more organized and clear about what they want from the world.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SluttyConfessi ... e_tonight/

They sure are.
Manning up should solve the effects of sexual license and the end of the family also I suppose.

If I ever get cancer I'm just going to heal it by manning up.
David Quinn wrote: As you say, it is too big for any one person to solve. It is up to all of us to do our bit to the best of our ability - being more educated, being more rational, being more understanding of other people’s circumstances and points of views, doing what we can to take the heat out of the cultural wars.
I've never been a believer in 'small hopeful change'. Non-solutions just aren't solutions. If anything it would make more sense to brainstorm on a plan that would actually make a difference.
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Kevin Solway »

jupiviv wrote: If this were true, you would see a lot more Islamic terror in India, where Muslims and Hindus live in close proximity in many regions.
I spent a few months traveling around India, and one thing that was repeatedly impressed upon me was the long history of extreme violence and conflict there has been between the Hindus and the Muslims - mostly, but not exclusively from the side of the Muslims, from what I could tell. Things might be peaceful at the moment, but if history is anything to go by, it won't last forever. It's difficult for religious people to completely ignore what is written in their scriptures, and very often taught by their priests as well. I predict that when the conditions are right the conflict will be let loose again.

It's unrealistic to expect young male refugees who have seen their homes destroyed and are now in a foreign country with no certainty of what will happen to them to be peaceful and reasonable.
Yes, this may be the most important factor, and that's why I think Islam might be only partly to blame - at most.
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Kevin Solway »

Men need to stop being hostile towards women
I don't believe men are hostile to women, so I think your whole argument is based on a false presumption.

That some women believe men are hostile to women is meaningless.

The anti-SJW movement is never going to succeed in its aims if it continues to treat women as the enemy.
You are simply repeating propaganda you have heard in the left-wing media. It doesn't have any relationship to reality whatsoever.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The social justice wars

Post by David Quinn »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
David Quinn wrote:Men need to stop being hostile towards women. ... The anti-SJW movement is never going to succeed in its aims if it continues to treat women and minority groups as the enemy.
But hostility and animosity is not the issue at all, it's not even the complaint from the SJW! It's for example way more about "glass ceilings", making "sexualized" compliments or remarks, or simply objectifying women in circumstances deemed inappropriate. It's quite a stretch to say this is "hostile" as that is simply not the sentiment or the accusation made by the typical SJW.
Yes, but hostility is at the root of it all.

What does the anti-SJW movement fundamentally object to? A political correctness that forces everyone to refrain from making comments deemed to be offensive.

Why do the SJWs want to force this political correctness on everyone? Because women and non-whites do not trust the white population, particularly the old school white males, to treat them as human beings.

And why do they lack this trust? Because old school white males have a long history of treating women and minority groups like shit.

This has a bearing on the things you mentioned, like “glass ceilings”. If women can be sure that they are not being prevented from joining boards and becoming CEOs simply because of sexism and old boys networks and like, if they can be sure that they will be treated as individuals and judged on their merits, they will be far more open to the idea that there are some areas in life, like physics and engineering, that men are statistically better at, just as there are some areas in life that women are better at.

Quotas are like laws. Most of them only exist because there are so many assholes in the world.

Santiago Odo wrote:If one shall be 'more educated' and 'more rational' and maintains that this itself and alone will become a solution to what is going on in the present, seems a benign statement devoid of any ideological force. What education? What sort of education?
As I say, men need to follow women's lead and liberate themselves from their traditional roles, from their genetic programming. As a first step, I would suggest this involves overcoming their constant need for women's approval and learning to become more independent from them.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The social justice wars

Post by David Quinn »

Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote:
Kevin Solway wrote:In my view it's the SJWs and the "regressive left" who want to go back to "the good old times". You even have feminists calling for women to completely cover themselves with burkas, and supporting fundamentalist Islam. They want separate laws for men and women. Many of the extreme left are calling for strict racial segregation based on skin color, while many others are calling for the institution of communism. All of that is regressive in my view.
Who cares what those lunatics think?
I care, for one. It was lunatics who got the Google memo writer to lose his job.
No, the Google memo writer lost his job because he went against the culture of the company. It would be the same if a Breitbart journalist decided to write the truth about Trump, or if a Fox presenter decided to speak the truth about climate change - they too would be dismissed from their employment in no time.

Seriously, the stuff you write about above is truly demented. No one is going to be forced to wear burkas or be forced into racial segregation. Where do you read such crap? And communism? Communism is a discredited political ideology that virtually no one believes in any more. There is as much chance of communism catching on in the West as there is of Barack Obama going to jail for supposedly forging his birth certificate. (Yes folks, Kevin actually thinks this is a possibility)

Speaking of the birther nonsense, I had a laugh when I saw this widely reported item a couple of months ago.

http://www.independent.co.uk/News/world ... 64791.html

https://twitter.com/espiers/status/8688 ... 12/photo/1
During Mr Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign and throughout his presidency, multiple theories emerged falsely claiming he was not a natural-born American US citizen and it was therefore unconstitutional for him to become US President. Mr Trump was among those who pushed the “birther” conspiracy theory and consistently questioned former President Obama’s birthplace of Hawaii.

The former New York Observer editor has now claimed that Mr Kushner, the former publisher of the paper, informed her that Mr Trump did not believe the “birther” lies he was peddling.

“When I was the editor of the New York Observer, Kushner and I were going back and forth about how the paper should cover him,” Elizabeth Spiers wrote in a post on Twitter.

“I told Jared that I was particularly appalled by his father-in-law’s birtherism stance, which I viewed as cynical and racist.

“He rolled his eyes and said ‘He doesn’t really believe it, Elizabeth. He just knows Republicans are stupid and they’ll buy it’”.
Ouch!
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The social justice wars

Post by jupiviv »

Why is Kevin Solway as David Quinn responding to David Quinn as Kevin Solway?
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Kevin Solway »

David Quinn wrote:What does the anti-SJW movement fundamentally object to? A political correctness that forces everyone to refrain from making comments deemed to be offensive.


That's correct. And this doesn't mean they are being "hostile". They want to be able to speak the truth. Speaking the truth isn't "hostile".

Why do the SJWs want to force this political correctness on everyone? Because women and non-whites do not trust the white population
Nonsense. So you think women trust black men more than white men?

As I say, men need to follow women's lead and liberate themselves from their traditional roles, from their genetic programming.
Anti-SJWs would agree with you. Women should not be protected from hearing the truth. They should not be treated like children.

The Google memo writer lost his job because he went against the culture of the company.
Of course he did. That's the problem. Google has an SJW culture.

No one is going to be forced to wear burkas
Tell that to all the women who are forced to wear burkas.

Communism is a discredited political ideology that virtually no one believes in any more.
Tell that to Antifa and the feminists.

There is as much chance of communism catching on in the West as there is of Barack Obama going to jail for supposedly forging his birth certificate.
If he did in fact forge his birth certificate, why do you think he shouldn't go to jail?

Do you know for a certain fact that he didn't? If so, then I think you are delusional.


“He rolled his eyes and said ‘He doesn’t really believe it, Elizabeth. He just knows Republicans are stupid and they’ll buy it’”.
This is only gossip. You have reduced yourself to being a gossip-monger.
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Kevin Solway »

jupiviv wrote:Why is Kevin Solway as David Quinn responding to David Quinn as Kevin Solway?
Good question. I'm guessing I hit the "edit" button instead of the "quote" button. I hope David has a copy of his post.
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Kevin Solway »

David Quinn wrote:widely discussed in various forms of media.
The left wing media. That's not an argument. It's like saying "It's in the Bible". It's a logical fallacy - the appeal to authority.

They are obviously not doing a very good job of it!
They're doing an excellent job of censorship on the big social media platforms, and within the company of Google itself. They just haven't got around to controlling the private forums yet.

If the Republicans had their way, they would be installing fundamentalist Christianity across the length and breadth of the land
We would have to cross that bridge when we come to it. For now, we have to tackle the problems that are immediately confronting us.

the hostility that you display towards anyone who opposes you
That's not true. Jupiviv opposes me, and I haven't been hostile to him, have I?

I am hostile to anyone who:

a. Calls people white supremacists on the grounds that it is a "gray area" for them.
b. Diagnoses people with mental illnesses to try and poison the well.
c. Calls people misogynists or haters of women, in place of a rational argument.
d. Tries to link their political views to enlightenment.
e. Appeals to the authority of the media.

(just to name a handful)

Since I believe all of these things are egregiously bad behaviors.

Kevin Solway wrote:I don't believe men are hostile to women
This alone is a clear expression of your hostility to women.
Brilliant reasoning. If you don't think you are a misogynist then it means you are a misogynist.

I haven't heard that reasoning anywhere before </ sarcasm>

Trump’s following is steadily shrinking as we speak
And here you are again using yet another logical fallacy - the appeal to the number.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The social justice wars

Post by jupiviv »

Kevin Solway wrote:
jupiviv wrote: If this were true, you would see a lot more Islamic terror in India, where Muslims and Hindus live in close proximity in many regions.
I spent a few months traveling around India, and one thing that was repeatedly impressed upon me was the long history of extreme violence and conflict there has been between the Hindus and the Muslims - mostly, but not exclusively from the side of the Muslims, from what I could tell. Things might be peaceful at the moment, but if history is anything to go by, it won't last forever. It's difficult for religious people to completely ignore what is written in their scriptures, and very often taught by their priests as well. I predict that when the conditions are right the conflict will be let loose again.
You're talking about close to a millenium of history. Since independence, the conflicts have mostly coincided with periods of political and economic turmoil (partition by the British) or war with Pakistan (arguably a direct consequence of partition by the British). For the vast majority of recent history, though, Hindus and Muslims weren't fighting each other because of what their scriptures taught them.

I have Muslim friends whom I've known almost my entire life, and also visited their homes during eid, ramadan etc. They are practicing Muslims as far as I know, and so are their parents. I and others made circumcision jokes about them all time, but they didn't want to kill me because of that. You'd be hard pressed to find any examples of religious conflict motivated primarily by religious differences.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The social justice wars

Post by jupiviv »

Eric Schiedler wrote:Peterson literally believes that the pressure of marriage, specifically the illusion of permanence of the marriage vows, makes individuals stick to a spouse, and thus become forced to pay attention to criticisms from said spouse, which in turn are to have a therapeutic effect to get one to see their most crucial blind spots.
What is that - comparative ontology with reference to evo-psych? Nothing is permanent forever, but 40 years is doable, especially since your wife will therapeutically nag you for about 38 of them! Besides, no one (male or female) *actually* believes in permanent marriage vows; that's just a word men came up with to bestow value on desire and necessity. Much like religion or political ideology. In Weininger's terms, it is the will to value tragically attempting to break out of time within time itself.

Since I mentioned Weininger, here are some Kierkegaard quotes:

...he did not become a saint through the woman he married, for he did not marry, and would have married but one—the one whom he did not marry...

If you marry, you will regret it; if you do not marry, you will also regret it; if you marry or do not marry, you will regret both; Laugh at the world’s follies, you will regret it, weep over them, you will also regret that; laugh at the world’s follies or weep over them, you will regret both; whether you laugh at the world’s follies or weep over them, you will regret both. Believe a woman, you will regret it, believe her not, you will also regret that; believe a woman or believe her not, you will regret both; whether you believe a woman or believe her not, you will regret both. Hang yourself, you will regret it; do not hang yourself, and you will also regret that; hang yourself or do not hang yourself, you will regret both; whether you hang yourself or do not hang yourself, you will regret both. This, gentlemen, is the sum and substance of all philosophy.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The social justice wars

Post by David Quinn »

Luckily, I was able to track down a copy of the accidentally deleted post. It is going to be out of sequence now, but hey, what you can do? This was originally the first post in my series of posts immediately above:

Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote:Where is your opposition to the widespread censorship and quashing of dissent taking place by groups other than the “authoritarian left”? We never hear a peep from you about these other forms of censorship.
Again, you're not constructing any kind of an argument. What kind of "widespread censorship" and "quashing of dissent" are you talking about?
It’s all out there in plain view, widely discussed in various forms of media. You only have to go out there and look.

Get your head out of the sand, Kevin. Get over your antipathy towards the media and inform yourself.

Kevin Solway wrote:The only people trying to stop me from speaking is the authoritarian left and the radical Muslims.
They are obviously not doing a very good job of it!

If the Republicans had their way, they would be installing fundamentalist Christianity across the length and breadth of the land, and a philosopher's freedom to speak out about the truth would be a hundred times more restricted than it is now. The existence of the "evil left" is the only thing that stops this from happening.

Sorry Kevin, your free speech shtick is a sham. Given your exclusive focus on the SJWs and your denial about everything else and the hostility that you display towards anyone who opposes you, it is clear that you are emotionally involved in something which is very base. You remind me of a wife-beater, in fact. You are married to the SJWs and you spend every day beating them up.

Kevin Solway wrote:I don't believe men are hostile to women,
This alone is a clear expression of your hostility to women.

Kevin Solway wrote:Like a normal right wing American President, Trump
You have to be kidding me. Are you still in denial about this as well?

Trump’s following is steadily shrinking as we speak, as more and more people see him for the complete fraud that he is. The way things are going, his following will soon consist of nothing more than a fringe bunch of neo-Nazis, KKK members, conspiracy nutters, and a former bodhisattva.
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Kevin Solway »

jupiviv wrote:the conflicts have mostly coincided with periods of political and economic turmoil
Yes, it's not the religion alone that results in the violence, but political and economic conditions, combined with the religion. It may be because at these times people feel they need someone to blame, and their religion tells them who to blame, and what to do about it. This is especially so with Islam, which is a more political religion than most. The religion comes to the fore in times of desperation.

Unfortunately I think our entire world is headed for desperate times.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

David Quinn wrote:
Kevin Solway wrote: Like a normal right wing American President, Trump
You have to be kidding me. Are you still in denial about this as well?
But that's not a proper way to quote anyone, David! It's clear Kevin did not claim Trump was a "normal right wing President" (he was elected on the whole idea of not being that) but he quite rationally explained that the issue of net-neutrality is just a whole other topic, which has little to do with Trump or alt-right. It's simply a fairly standard conservative position which you drag into the discussion, without good reason at all.

Could we all just temper our emotion and be more thoughtful? I think the level of discussion on these topics is more often than not rather disappointing, suggesting that these "justice wars", if it's a real serious phenomenon, might have invaded more than we think. The same possibility exists for alt-right types of thinking. This might be a viral thing, a wild positioning without reasoning attached?
User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: Dark Void

Re: The social justice wars

Post by Santiago Odo »

David wrote:Yes, but hostility is at the root of it all.
I find this comment astounding when I consider it in relation to hundreds of posts of yours, and a general timbre in your view, of more or less overt hostility toward women and 'woman'. I wonder if you have a clear vision of your own self. To a large degree your motivations have arisen out of resentment of women. But it is more than just to rebellious feminist woman. The resentment is of woman and the feminine at the most basic level. This mood is still quite evident, or I should say the ideas that support the mood still prevalent, within the psychology of this forum. Now, the one who best expresses it is Jupi.
What does the anti-SJW movement fundamentally object to? A political correctness that forces everyone to refrain from making comments deemed to be offensive.
Thatwould be a superficial description. David, where have you been for the last 3-4 years? What are you reading and studying? I don't mind referring so generaly to an 'anti-SJW' but we really need to at least make reference to specific theorists, or developing schools of thought. I propose that there is a traditionalist movement that arises out of European/pan-European cultures that is attempting to confront hyper-liberalism. Hyper-liberalism is associated with 'the Americanopolis' and the 'Americanization of world culture'. And behind that stand forces and, though it does not appear so, ideas. Modern feminism is (I will suggest) profoundly associated with Americanism and Americanism associated with hyper-liberalism: the distortion of liberal principles. If you want to begin to talk about 'what the 'anti-SJWs' fundamentally object to, you will need to do some reading. You could start with Pierre Krebs and Alain de Benoit. When you read them, I propose, you will see how their reaction can be compared to *your* reaction (that of Genius Forum and the ideas and sentiments that put it into motion). I suggest to you that you MUST widen your perspectives.

There are people who are attempting to arrive at platforms of definition to confront 'hyper-liberalisation' and 'the Americanopolis'. These oppositions connect to anit-multicultural and anti-globalisation ideas. But that is not all, not by far. They deal in profound analysis of man's relationship to his self and the world and to *meaning* in these senses.
Why do the SJWs want to force this political correctness on everyone? Because women and non-whites do not trust the white population, particularly the old school white males, to treat them as human beings.
I suggest that you sit quietly and meditate on what you have written. I will counter-propose to you that it is these 'whites' who have transformed the world, and the 'worlds of color', and also the 'world of women' but the application of their values. You have internalized a destructive narrative, more common to the Marxist set, which seeks to team up people of color with women against men, against masculinity, but significantly against 'whiteness' 'patriarchy' and other abstractions.

What the SJW is doing, that is, what motivated him or her must be very carefully analysed and thought about. You seem unaware of the work done in this domain. It is critical work and demanding intellectual work that requires discernment but discernment fairly performed. You would have to consider the post-Marxist idea-movements of the postwar era --- The Franlfurt School --- and begin to understand how profoundly their influence penetrated Academia, social thought, and popular culture. The 'liberation of woman' seen from these angles becomes very very complex. Liberation to what exactly? Liberation from what?
And why do they lack this trust? Because old school white males have a long history of treating women and minority groups like shit.
I suggest that you will need to carefully analyse the ideas that stand behind this statement. It is more complex, more labyrinthian, than you seem aware. Mistrust has been sown and inculcated. Mistrust has been taught. Mistrust has been introduced as a poison for people who have political reasons to exploit gender differences (one example). But this 'mistrust' is also something that you have dealt in and which at a fundamental level has informed you: the mistrust of woman. The mistrust of the very metaphysical platform of manifest life which, it has seemed to me, you rebel against.

How to approach, how to look at, and what finally to decide about, say, the British conquest and exploitation of India, or the European conquest and domination (for exploitive purposes) of African and the New World, these require nuanced mental positions, not Rxs based in reverse-engineering. The conquest of N Europe by the Romans: How shall we look at it? It is what made us us. Do we now regret it?

You are 'captured' by critical views that are common motivators among the SJWs. It is not really *thinking* that they do, it is reacting against emotional impulses which have a good deal of unconscious content. A particular narrative is suggested to them, they take it in and *feel* it at e sentimental level, and then act out against their feelings. This explains I suggest the SJW in a significant sense. They are, in many ways, a misfortune.
This has a bearing on the things you mentioned, like “glass ceilings”. If women can be sure that they are not being prevented from joining boards and becoming CEOs simply because of sexism and old boys networks and like, if they can be sure that they will be treated as individuals and judged on their merits, they will be far more open to the idea that there are some areas in life, like physics and engineering, that men are statistically better at, just as there are some areas in life that women are better at.
You embody, down to your socks, a simplistic liberal view of the world. I do not say that because I think it is morally wrong. But it is intellectually questionable. You are driven by your internalised perspectives. It is your very 'self' that you express and you simply cannot help it. You have not made a very profound analysis of the structures that inform you! But that was your whole project! It was revolutionary, bold, powerful, 'bloody'. And now your *philosophy* is like golf-chatter.

You must understand what has been brought about by the so-called 'liberation of women' and what it means to separate women from child-raising and their central role in family life. You must see how you yourself are a creation of that breakdown and how your choices, and the manner you support your choices, have been determined by the same processes that impulse hyper-liberalism.

If there is going to be a critical position about *what has made the present what it is* and how women have been conditioned to be as they are now, the analytical project must become more pointed. But one requires an intellectual base, a philosohical base, from which to proceed. We (in postmodernism) flounder in this sense. We have been overpowered by ideas, narratives, sentimetal ideas and social processes that have removed us, significantly, from connection with ourselves and with certain more genuine or original truths. If there is going to be a movement against any of this, it will be a profound shift in how people relate to the present and their self in that present.
You I'll never leave
Locked