Is this the end of liberalism?

[aelf]

Well... not sure why you equate "recognising the value of" with "being obsessed with". But given that Leoreth was talking specifically about how he was convinced in individual discussion by a particular method and you then said this was a really good post, you'll have to forgive me for not really understanding what point you're currently trying to make, or why you're even engaging with the topic at all, now that you've said you don't care either way.

Well, I find it hard to have a reasonable let alone a productive discussion with people who invariably fail to understand what is being said.

I never said you were obsessed with having productive discussions, but you do seem to imply that anything less than that has no value. I said I'm not obsessed with productive discussions - that's why I'm not concerned about unreasonable discussions like you are. But that doesn't mean I don't care about the topic, since as you've correctly observed but somehow failed to apprehend, I have been talking about it at length, though all signs point to it being a waste of time (i.e. unproductive).

Also, I said that "explosive incidents... are also good at forcing people to pay attention, which is basically the first step in creating any change." Which is very related to what Leoreth said. The antagonism forced him to pay attention rather than simply engage with the issues in a detached, intellectual manner that ultimately might not actually have meant anything to him.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Well, I find it hard to have a reasonable let alone a productive discussion with people who invariably fail to understand what is being said.

Tell me about it

I never said you were obsessed with having productive discussions, but you do seem to imply that anything less than that has no value.

Maybe just go back and see what I initially replied to. It was a quote about two different approaches to trying to persuade someone else to see things from your point of view, where one was stated to be more effective than the other for the person in question. I stated that I found this odd and would find the opposite approach to be more effective. I never implied anything about anything outside of this comparison between two different approaches.

If you want to now tell me that you are not obsessed with having productive discussions then... that's lovely. Thanks for the info.

 

[aelf]

Tell me about it

Funny that, because you either don't read or are completely uninterested in actually engaging in a productive discussion about something which you had wanted to talk about.

That last paragraph in my previous post couldn't have addressed what you were curious about more directly and yet you insist that I have nothing to add.

Do I need to explain further how unproductive discussions often are with people who claim to be reasonable? Seems like there is already plenty of evidence of that here; or of insincerity, as you called it.

 

[Sommerswerd]

wait, "mansplaining" is meant to be used ironically?

it's totally a thing.

Yeah it's a sexist thing some people say. Or womansplaining or blacksplaining or Muslimsplaining or whatever.

I've never heard these terms Is "mansplaining" like that show "Manswers" on the "Spike" network?

 

[Sommerswerd]

Also, in your particular example I can't help but think that there will have been a lot of people who knew exactly why they weren't voting for him but just didn't want to voice that reason on national TV, so it's not really the same thing.

Yeah warpus kinda points out the same in his post right after mine... But I think that was part of Leoreth's point... Whether its something you actively know (but know it isnt acceptable to say) or know in your subconscious... either way, on some level you are aware that what you are feeling is coming from an attitude, ideology, bias etc, that is not something you want to associate with yourself or you want others associating with you... So you either try to change the attitude, or you hide it... Either way, you're acknowledging that its "wrong" on some level.

 

[Hygro]

SJW is just a derogatory term to describe a certain subset of people who have a specific and annoying behaviour.
It can be used as a strawman, but it can also be used to simply call someone who exhibits this specific and annoying behaviour. Unless you claim that this said behaviour actually doesn't exist and everyone using this term is making a politically motivated strawman - which is a strawman and circular logic in itself, which is kinda like shooting yourself in the foot while making this argument.

I don't disagree it can be that way. When I worked for a social justice organization I came away with a visceral understanding of the disconnect between promoting social justice and wearing the uniform. I prefer the term "social justicist" because it means their actions are driven by always being able to claim the identity of a social justice promoter.

I almost even like the term social justice warrior, although soldier might be a better term, because it means they are driven to fight the fight, not driven by understanding what they are fighting for. i.e. it's not uncommon to find people doing things in the name of social justice that go against their own cause. The rate of friendly fire among the social justice crowd is so high that, even though I've been all about it most of my life, I'm not going to jump in the fray. I've already been a friendly fire target because I don't march in line. I speak in language more inclusive than they do, while cognizantly and expressly not using that as a pro-patriarchy/race-caste/capitalist-overlord cover.

But it doesn't matter, most people could but don't bother to think more granular and literal than basic cultural tropes. So if my choice of words reminds them too much of a completely different/unrelated/opposite position, that's how I get painted. And because speech is fundamentally social, this leads me to my final point:


I could have been persuaded that SJW is a valid designation to label someone. But words are both imformative and performative and to perform the speech act of calling someone an SJW you are doing more than calling someone a blowhard. You are giving strength to the greater pushback against social justice by aligning yourselves

The solutions is thus: until the social justice movement Yankee Doodlizes the term to the point that outgroup people can use it and not be pushing against social justice by association, pro social justice people (like me, and presumably even you who has always been more conservative on these things) who aren't actively part of the movement should find another term to describe what we want SJW to mean.

 

[Hygro]

"Oh yeah wait a second, isn't he black? There we go, glad we figured that one out, I thought this was going to be one of those annoying things you can't remember and it drives you nuts for the rest of the day"

that punchline after the punchline I might've woke the neighbors.

wait, "mansplaining" is meant to be used ironically?

it's totally a thing.

It's totally true and it's also true that what is often called mansplaining is something men do with each other. Perhaps this forum's unpopularity with women is in part because we are literally mansplaining to each other all the time. Women trend less confrontational, and so when they don't speak up, we tend to assume we know more, as men do with each other. And thus keep explaining.

/personal quip

Except there's no equivalent term for when a woman explains something. Oddly enough.

That's because there's no equivalent behavior. The term is rooted in sociological model that sees an unequal power relationship. Thus the equivalent term within the model done by women would be called "listening".

Well... not sure why you equate "recognising the value of" with "being obsessed with". But given that Leoreth was talking specifically about how he was convinced in individual discussion by a particular method and you then said this was a really good post, you'll have to forgive me for not really understanding what point you're currently trying to make, or why you're even engaging with the topic at all, now that you've said you don't care either way.

Leoreth is a very logical and reasonable fellow who was real enough to tell you that his motivation center of his brain is not short-run dictated by logic and reason. I challenge anyone but Zelig to claim they are otherwise.

I recognize that none of these discussions will change someone's mind, but that all of these discussions will change a lot of minds. We've never had thoughtful posters i.e. someone who doesn't cognitive dissoderp, not shift toward the dominate voice of the intelligent aggregate of CFC OT. But it always takes years.

 

[warpus]

I don't know if there is a "social justice movement" per se. There are different groups out there, each one fighting for different sorts of social justice. There's people fighting for this, people fighting for that, and it's not really a unified movement, not even in a single country.

And then you have your average college kid, who whines online about cultural appropriation or whatever and joins every single cause that shows up on his desk. I'm talking about people who go with what's popular rather than what's needed. Are a lot of people in their group of friends and colleagues complaining about a particular restaurant? These people will join right in, no matter what the details are.

Those groups overlap in many ways, so it's often not easy to point at one group and say: "Aha! These are all SJWs!" or "Aha! These are all honest people fighting for a worthy cause"

It's a lot more complicated than that, IMO. For example "Black lives matter". So.... you'll end up with bona fide social change activists as a part of that movement. But since it's popular, you'll also see those "we'll support any cause, we just like supporting causes" types of people, which overlaps with SJWs, people who are actually racist against white people, and so on. YOu end up with a hodgepodge of various groups in the whole movement, making it a lot harder to call the movement this or that.

But there is definitely a problem with people who claim to fight for a worthy social cause, while they are at the same time racist, sexist, or what have you. And those are the SJWs, which is to most people (that I have seen) an insult. That is not how you achieve social justice! Leave your sexism and racism at home and stop jumping on every single cause. Stop obsessing. And go out and make an actually good honesty difference.

 

[Hygro]

It's definitely one movement. There are a lot of parts to go after, but the philosophy is cohesive. When you understand racism and sexism as institutional oppression and not as interpersonal bias you will see how it's one movement.

 

[warpus]

If it was all one movement, those who have made attempts to push forward and discuss men's issues (for example) would have been a part of that movement. But from what I can see those people in particular have been brushed aside.

So I mean, maybe I misunderstand how everyone in the U.S. attempting to fight for some sort of a social issue is supposed to be a part of the same movement, but it really does seem to be quite a bit more complicated than that. I mean, not all social justice issue type movements are complementary - some of them seem to lie contradictory to eachother, and some just seem to be unrelated. So it doesn't make sense that everyone fighting some sort of a social issue in the U.S. is a part of the same movement.

I mean, if that were true, you wouldn't have protests and counter-protests, but that happens all the time.

 

[brennan]

It's definitely one movement. There are a lot of parts to go after, but the philosophy is cohesive. When you understand racism and sexism as institutional oppression and not as interpersonal bias you will see how it's one movement.

There's the problem, right there. The idea that all of society's ills can be cured by ascribing to one viewpoint. Quite a lot of people think that viewpoint is wrong.

 

[Hygro]

If it was all one movement, those who have made attempts to push forward and discuss men's issues (for example) would have been a part of that movement. But from what I can see those people in particular have been brushed aside.

So I mean, maybe I misunderstand how everyone in the U.S. attempting to fight for some sort of a social issue is supposed to be a part of the same movement, but it really does seem to be quite a bit more complicated than that. I mean, not all social justice issue type movements are complementary - some of them seem to lie contradictory to eachother, and some just seem to be unrelated. So it doesn't make sense that everyone fighting some sort of a social issue in the U.S. is a part of the same movement.

I mean, if that were true, you wouldn't have protests and counter-protests, but that happens all the time.

It's not an army with a general, it's a bunch of autonomous people with a shared goal of equality following an understanding of the concept of social justice. Social justice has a broad but nevertheless specific meaning.

Each person has their focus, be it race, class, ability, sex-orientation, gender, heritage, basically anything that confines individuals to a lower caste by virtue of an inescapable social confine based on how society is right now, and how we got there.

There can be debate within a movement. Overall there's deference to one another's areas of experience and expertise.

There's the problem, right there. The idea that all of society's ills can be cured by ascribing to one viewpoint. Quite a lot of people think that viewpoint is wrong.

No one thinks all of society's ills comes from structural oppression and casting. Most of the people that think the privilege-oppression model is wrong don't actually understand it.

 

[brennan]

Find me a description of it that I couldn't find a feminist disagreeing with in about ten seconds and i'll accept that as a valid criticism.

 

[madviking]

implying that disagreeing feminists are a bad thing?

 

[JollyRoger]

One should hold the privilege to oppress such disagreement.

 

[brennan]

No. Implying that is a BS cop out that doesn't withstand a minutes worth of interaction with any disparate selection of feminists. Essentially Hygro seems to be playing 'no true feminist' and he should know better.

 

[Hygro]

Find me a description of it that I couldn't find a feminist disagreeing with in about ten seconds and i'll accept that as a valid criticism.

I'm not keeping up with the pronouns. Can you be more specific?

 

[brennan]

No one thinks all of society's ills comes from structural oppression and casting. Most of the people that think the privilege-oppression model is wrong don't actually understand it.

I suspect that you'll find that some people actually do believe that. Which again comes back to your apparent assertion that everybody who believes in social justice could and should form up under one (feminist) banner. Those of us who think feminism has some major ideological flaws cannot do that. And it isn't just because our understanding of the privilege oppression model is wrong. It's because it is actually a poor descriptor of society.

 

[Farm Boy]

That's because there's no equivalent behavior. The term is rooted in sociological model that sees an unequal power relationship. Thus the equivalent term within the model done by women would be called "listening".

Erm. There is. More than one oldschool term for it even! But they're gendered terms and considered bigoted these days. That the model hasn't picked up an equivalent appropriate term is a weakness of the model. It'll probably change at some point and some term will pop up.

 

[Akka]

I almost even like the term social justice warrior, although soldier might be a better term, because it means they are driven to fight the fight, not driven by understanding what they are fighting for.

Nah, "warrior" is the better term, because it's more ironic, and irony is the point of the expression.
It's also directly linked with the "Internet warriors" joke. People who picture themselves as first-rank fighters for the big battles, but are just petty minds going for petty skirmishes, base one-liners and mulish one-way thinking.

I could have been persuaded that SJW is a valid designation to label someone. But words are both imformative and performative and to perform the speech act of calling someone an SJW you are doing more than calling someone a blowhard. You are giving strength to the greater pushback against social justice by aligning yourselves

Sorry, that's too binary as a point of view. I can aim for moderation without being automatically pushed into the "other" side. Actually, this black-and-white simplistic separation is precisely one of the things making SJW what they are.

The solutions is thus: until the social justice movement Yankee Doodlizes the term to the point that outgroup people can use it and not be pushing against social justice by association, pro social justice people (like me, and presumably even you who has always been more conservative on these things) who aren't actively part of the movement should find another term to describe what we want SJW to mean.

Sorry, that's just playing too far in the meta-games with words. I find SJW to be the good term to describe a brand of fanatics having a particular behaviour, and I don't see why I shouldn't use it.