Dinesh D'Souza on Hypocrisy on the left

Gary Childress

Student for and of life
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
4,466
Location
United Nations

Link to video.

So I saw this posted on another forum I visit (the one in my sig) and thought it interesting so I am posting it here because I think it raises an objection that may be an uncomfortable one, at least to me--the idea of putting one's money where one's mouth is.

So here's a question: if I were a white guy working at a fortune 500 company and I truly believe in social justice, even advocate it, should I be the first one to go to the HR department and give my job up to a minority? If I didn't, would that make me a hypocrite?

Thoughts?
 
How does one 'give up your job to a minority'?

Surely if you resign then your company shrugs and puts out an ad like normal?
 
How does one 'give up your job to a minority'?

Surely if you resign then your company shrugs and puts out an ad like normal?

I am actually not sure. Perhaps it would be expected that--seeing how unfair I perceive the system is--I make a noble gesture and walk away from it or something by quitting my job and not participating in it. I guess that's what D'Souza is proposing in the video? I don't know. He seems to be saying that the left is being hypocritical or something. Maybe some of our resident "conservatives" can explain it a little better. :dunno:
 
Follow the logic back a step: you should never have gotten any education after school leaving age so that you wouldn't be competing for jobs in which minorities are under-represented in the first place.

It's just a silly non-sequitur.
 
I will not watch the video – I just can’t stand these. But there is a very simple answer to your question: No, and he’s not a hypocrite.

Here is a logic so simple even conservatives and neoliberals can follow: In a democracy we all play by the same rules. The same laws. The same rights. They may be unfair but they are the same for all of us.

It’s not a personal responsibility. His vote and his actions to see the rules made fairer is. But so long as the rules stay the same he should play by them as anyone else.

If some of us want to change the rules – we are free to express that wish and why it’s important for us and society. We will probably have to suffer these stupid counters which are as predictable as they are asinine;
- You pay for their healthcare then!
- You house those refugees then!
But no. That is not how a democratic society works. We make the rules together and we fulfil them together.

Gary, you should not feel at all uncomfortable. You seem to do pretty much exactly what you should be doing – except the feeling uncomfortable part. Be proud in your social justice efforts.
 
So I guess my best attempt at explaining D'Souza's position would be this. If I work at a fortune 500 company then I am privileged. That seems like a valid statement. Is it possible to be a social justice warrior and work at a fortune 500 company without being a hypocrite? D'Souza seems to be saying that it isn't possible. I suppose I would agree there too. So my perception is that maybe D'Souza is trying to call out his fellow elites for being "hypocrites" if they begin to parrot the concerns of the underprivileged. D'Souza seems to be insisting that the privileged NOT show self awareness of their privilege or the past injustices that led to it. Again, maybe "conservatives" who follow D'Souza more closely could put it better than I can.

[EDIT: Just saw ironsided's post. Thank you for the sentiment. :) ]
 
Well there are two things here. Just generally, diversity and equal opportunity are not zero sum games. I don't have to lose for another minority to gain. The goal is we all win. This so called "counter argument" misses the mark and in my opinion sort of exposes one of the issues with what might be labeled the "conservative" perspective on affirmative action and related issues.

But to some extent there is a conundrum with white, elite "privileged" citizens lamenting the problems of blacks and hispanics and minorities while they listen to NPR in their BMW on their way to Yoga. I mean yeah that is sort of hypocritical if you literally do nothing other than complain. But at least recognizing that, internalizing it, making any adjustment in how you act at all is a positive step. What's the alternative? If you can't just fix it then do nothing? No.

Getting more granular: there is a difference between outright charity ("giving" someone your job) and working to change the system so others have equal opportunity, or equal rewards for similar effort. I.e., at your next promotion, if you advocated for more diverse hiring practices and promotional efforts, and then you resent the fact that a (equally or better qualified) black woman took your promotion, then yeah you are a hypocrite. Not getting a promotion sucks but if you are in favor of diversity and you know the foundational roots of affirmative action and so on and so forth, in some part of your brain you should be satisfied with that result. I.e., "the system works!"

But you're not a hypocrite if you don't just say "OK here take it." You're not doing anyone any real favors then. That's not changing the system.
 
Sounds to me like the same logic that is used so often - "As long as I advocate against the system I'm one of the good guys, even if I continue to benefit from the system and use it to generate wealth for myself."

I wouldn't exactly call it hypocrisy though, after all that kind of behavior does not change anything about the goal of societal change, it's not like he wants everyone else to give and keep his stuff for himself - he just doesn't want to give while everybody else keeps their stuff.

It's just a human flaw - only very few are willing to give up benefits even if they perceive something as unfair, unless everyone else is dragged down with them.


I think his actual argument that we must make up for the past is BS though and it got demolished very well. Help people who need help the most, not people whose grand grand grand grand grand parents have been treated unfairly.
 
If I work at a fortune 500 company then I am privileged. [...] Is it possible to be a social justice warrior and work at a fortune 500 company without being a hypocrite?

Yes, it is possible. Moreover, it is possible to actively pursue being privileged and still be a social justice warrior.

It is possible simply because being privileged just puts you to a better position. Any warrior (if he is sane and not suicidal) searches for and tries to get to a good position on a battlefield. That will help the warrior fight more effectively and increase the odds of victory.

Therefore, occupying good social positions should be a primary tactical objective for any social justice warrior out there.
 
So here's a question: if I were a white guy working at a fortune 500 company and I truly believe in social justice, even advocate it, should I be the first one to go to the HR department and give my job up to a minority? If I didn't, would that make me a hypocrite?

Thoughts?


No. This isn't about individual action. This is about changing the system. His argument sounds like the old one of why don't people donate more to charity instead of supporting welfare? Well the reason is that doing so would fail to address the problem in any meaningful way. And giving up 1 job would also fail to address the problem in any meaningful way.

It's nothing but a strawman argument.
 
No. This isn't about individual action. This is about changing the system. His argument sounds like the old one of why don't people donate more to charity instead of supporting welfare?
It's not "instead" though. One can support welfare AND donate money to charities at the same time. If you think there is a problem and that welfare is needed to completely solve that system, would it not make sense to at least donate your excess money to help the situation as much as you personally can? It's once again "I won't commit until every one else commits/is forced to commit!".

It not a counter to the welfare-argument but certainly make the person look like someone who doesn't really do anything other than talking.
 
So here's a question: if I were a white guy working at a fortune 500 company and I truly believe in social justice, even advocate it, should I be the first one to go to the HR department and give my job up to a minority? If I didn't, would that make me a hypocrite?
I haven't watched the video, but it seems like the question assumes that there is only one good job for you and the hypothetical minority, and your employment and theirs are mutually exclusive. So simply giving them your job wouldn't be addressing the underlying problem.
 
One can support welfare AND donate money to charities at the same time.

Sure. But in order to have the money to donate one should get the spare money in the first place. Working in a fortune 500 company or being otherwise privileged helps with that.

Besides, aggravating a problem as much as possible is a widely practiced (though controversial) way of making people in charge to finally solve the problem on a systemic level instead of keeping camouflaging its existence and scale with a patchwork of palliative measures.
 
It's not "instead" though. One can support welfare AND donate money to charities at the same time. If you think there is a problem and that welfare is needed to completely solve that system, would it not make sense to at least donate your excess money to help the situation as much as you personally can? It's once again "I won't commit until every one else commits/is forced to commit!".

It not a counter to the welfare-argument but certainly make the person look like someone who doesn't really do anything other than talking.


Donate some, sure. But not donate to the point of being in poverty yourself. That's insane. And, most importantly, does not in fact address the problem.

Doesn't even touch the problem.

Isn't even, if you think about, related to the problem.

It's a bait and switch argument at best.

If your goal is to truly help the poor, then no matter what you you do with your own personal money, you still have to support a strong welfare state. Because if you don't, then you could annually 10,000 times your income, and and that would be no different than choosing to laugh at people starving in the streets when you knew you could have helped.

Now to give up a job to another: Would the employer actually give the job to that other? Not within your power. Would the other be qualified for that job? Not within your power. Does the other want your job? Not within your power.

It is a nonsense argument that is truly not an ethical or moral argument to make at all.
 
Why do we care about a video from a professional troll and convicted felon?

Not only that, I have a hard time getting past his jerky hand movements. My city councilman in L.A. had the same jerkiness in his legs, and it turned out he was into cocaine big time. Has anyone heard if this guy is on drugs?
 
Donate some, sure. But not donate to the point of being in poverty yourself. That's insane. And, most importantly, does not in fact address the problem.
Well, I'd say if you truly think that you don't deserve what you have because you are privileged to have the parents, grand-parents etc. that you have, then you should donate everything you don't need to live the minimum life that you'd ideally want everyone else to live. Some exceptions of course if you need to keep a certain standard for your job, but other than that? Big-Screen TV? Nope. Big house? Nope.

But I agree (and have already stated) that it is not a counter-argument. Still, it shows that the person is not willing to follow what they're advocating for unless the whole of society does the same. This whole concept of "I acknowledge my privilege so it's okay." is bogus. Just another way of saying: "Yeah, under the system I'm advocating for I'm the bad guy, but I speak out against the system, so I'm actually a good guy."

Sure. An the higher you get the better you serve your cause. Simply because your opinion matters more (or at least it is heard better).
Having ones voice heard more than others is by definition a privilege though. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but even if we assume that a person does all of this just to help the underprivileged, that person themselves is still getting into a privileged position when they climb the ladder.
 
Top Bottom