Free Markets, Free People

Another liberal decries “social justice warriors” of today

In a rather long Medium article, another self-identified liberal lashes out at today’s “social justice warriors” (SJW), claiming in reality, they’re social justice bullies and should cease and desist forthwith.  Here’s the conclusion of the article (read the whole thing):

Let me finally be abundantly, abundantly clear (I learned this was necessary a few months back). Social justice and social justice advocacy is a good thing. To utilize one’s education to solve social ills is an admirable goal.

The version of millennial social justice advocacy that I have spoken about — one that uses Identity Politics to balkanize groups of people, engenders hatred between groups, willingly lies to push agendas, manipulates language to provide immunity from criticism, and that publicly shames anyone who remotely speaks some sort of dissent from the overarching narrative of the orthodoxy — is not admirable. It is deplorable. It appeals to the basest of human instincts: fear and hatred. It is not an enlightened or educated position to take. History will not look kindly on this Orwellian, authoritarian pervision of social justice that has taken social media and millennials by storm over the past few years.

Those who need to hear this message will probably respond that I am 1. too privileged to understand 2. tone-policing the oppressed (and that I shouldn’t tell the oppressed how to treat their oppressors) and 3. really just a closet racist/sexist in a liberal’s clothing. I expect these responses — partially because I am so used to having seen this script play out over the last four years at NYU.

Indeed, the tactics do appeal to the basest of human instincts – “fear and hatred.”  That’s by design.  And, to their credit, more and more of those identifying themselves as liberal are seeing this for themselves.  Not so much because they’ve figured out independently that this is bullying because they’ve thought about it.  No, my guess is they’re realizing it because they’ve been subjected to it – no matter how flawless their liberal credentials are.

It only stands to reason. Think about it. As this person points out, Identity Politics “balkanize[s] groups of people, engenders hatred between groups, willingly lies to push agendas, manipulates language to provide immunity from criticism, and that publicly shames anyone who remotely speaks some sort of dissent from the overarching narrative of the orthodoxy .”  And it is a part of that orthodoxy that you can’t be a credible voice for one of the groups if you aren’t an accepted member of that group.  So a straight, white, male can’t be a feminist no matter how much he believes in the feminist cause.  And a feminist, white female is already a racist (because she is a member of the “oppressor” race) by default and is likely to be shamed for speaking from “white privilege”.  So a person is pushed into various little boxes and groups that have, depending on your race, sex, sexual orientation and “privilege”, a lot or very little legitimacy in the social justice movement.

Those we hear speaking out against all of this now are in that latter group even though they’re great advocates of social justice.  They suddenly see the injustice of this movement that has stolen a step on them and now is in the process of marginalizing them.  Of course, this has been the movement’s modus operendi since its inception.  However, now that it is catching up “good liberals” in their trawling net, these good liberals are all for open and honest criticism and debate.  They’ve decided that the SWJ’s postions are neither “enlightened or educated”.  Instead it is bullying.

It’s quite a breakthrough … but only because as the circle gets smaller and tighter, those who are being excluded were once fully on board with the MO.  They don’t like being excluded and the focus of that process though (read the link about the author “learning” a lesson a few months back).  And while I appreciate their criticism of the MO and its effect, I trust them about as far as I can throw them.  Something tells me (experience?) they only want “open and honest criticism and debate” for as long as they’re on the outside looking in.

~McQ

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

25 Responses to Another liberal decries “social justice warriors” of today

  • I trust them about as far as I can throw them.

    I once knew someone who would have said, “I trust them about as far as I can throw a feather.”

  • The oh so enlightened discover history – again – “those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it”


    When the Nazis came for the communists,
    I remained silent;
    I was not a communist.

    When they locked up the social democrats,
    I remained silent;
    I was not a social democrat.

    When they came for the trade unionists,
    I did not speak out;
    I was not a trade unionist.

    When they came for the Jews,
    I remained silent;
    I wasn’t a Jew.

    When they came for me,
    there was no one left to speak out.

    Martin Miemoller

    The little SJW asshats don’t understand how this behavior cheerfully lends itself to evil greater than they can imagine.

  • I think you may need to come to terms with the idea that you’re more libertarian than left wing.

    Being illiberal isn’t a concern. Liberalism, Keynsianism, Obamacare, Civil Rights… These things are not the aim. They are the compromise. They are the minimum acceptable progress. And, it’s becoming apparent, the compromise isn’t enough. Either the right needs to move left or what we need is a separation.

    I think some people are ready to give up on dialogue both with friends and family and between regions. Let the south secede. Please, FORCE the south to secede. No more dialogue. No more compromises. Let’s just split so we can move the financial and social core of the country leftward without all this “liberal” negotiation. The dialogue has no value. The dialogue allows thieves (Wall Street) and murderers (polluters and industrial manufacturers) and rapists to act with impunity.

    You make it sound like a dialogue is a necessary thing. I may not always agree with how the internet social justice movement chooses to break down that dialogue but I think we need the dialogue to BREAK DOWN.
    A “commenter” responding to the article

    An honest, bigoted (see South) comment from a true Collectivist “thinker”. Nice and nuanced. Oh, and tolerant and respectful of diversity.

    • And yet I have more in common with this guy than the author of the article. I know I’d be well pleased to be separated from the left. I think a lot would be.

    • “Either the right needs to move left or what we need is a separation.”

      Absolutely not.

      When i comes to it, we need to kill the left until they shut and go home or are dead.

      I will not abandon any of the patrimony of 1775 to these people.

  • “And while I appreciate their criticism of the MO and its effect, I trust them about as far as I can throw them. Something tells me (experience?) they only want “open and honest criticism and debate” for as long as they’re on the outside looking in”

    Yes, I’m not about to join with them in this fight. I’m QUITE content to let people like this be devoured to be honest. Why would I lift a finger to help? Why should I? Why should you, or anyone here?

    • For the sake of tactical alliances. Because the hard-core shamers need to be shamed – by a broad range of society. Our societal discourse desperately needs a wide range of people saying that much of what passes for “social justice” is really Jacobin terrorizing and to reject that.

      I understand that some people may espouse the principal inconsistently and reject bullying only when it suits them. I agree we are well-advised not to be overly trustworthy, but I do believe in tactical alliances.

      The SJWs are very loud and have a certain kind of specious claim to moral rectitude. This must be pushed back against and it will take, not just a few right thinkers, but folks from many spectrums and stripes to say, “this is not acceptable public discourse.”

  • “fear and hatred.” That’s by design.

    This Administration has been happy to stand aside while fear, hatred and divisions are allowed to fester.
    Sure, Mr Obama hasn’t advocated it directly (at least not much), but his surrogates, including entire departments of the federal government (like DOJ) have acted on his behalf.
    America will be better when this “turd” is gone

  • his choice of Orwell as a talking point is interesting and somewhat revealing. He suggests that our world was actually arguing against extremism at both ends which is to a certain extent true. But it strikes me that what he’s really doing is defending the left.

    ponder, please, the ramifications of 90 years of liberal rule in this country and how long it would take to undo the damage. All moderation, seeking out the middle will do is solidify the hold of liberalism. To make a correct of course, you can’t take the extremes and split the difference you must turn right.

  • I have a slightly different perspective. This is probably an old school ‘Daddy was a Democrat’ Democrat who recognized the extremism brewing in his own party but probably felt it would eventually all even out. May have even thought this was a necessary counter balance to the evils of the world like the pendulum analogy that when pendulum swings the other way it over swings and eventually comes back. That the extremism would eventually slow down and maybe even rebound.

    The bulk of Democrat voters are likely unaware of what they are voting for or vote for it anyway even though that’s not where they really are. A part of this is that the Media portraying the GOP like slime (and many are slime of a sort but generally not the reasons discussed in the media) so they just kept voting Democrat and this guy is finally having second thoughts.

    • The bulk of Democrat voters are likely unaware of what they are voting for or vote for it anyway even though that’s not where they really are

      ——Eff ’em anyway. theyre responsible for their votes regardless of if they’re true believers or were just swayed because their favorite dummy at HuffpoMSNBCMTV etc told them what to do.

      • I guess the choice is whether you want to see polices you believe in implemented or just sit back and be able to say ‘I told ya so’.

        • I have no expectations for the former so I plan to indulge in the latter quite a bit, yes.

  • The idea that societal ills should be remedied such that one group is not given an unfair advantage over another is not, to me, a radical idea.

    That is as far as I got with it. You can’t have that sort of society enforced without being a bully. I regularly tell the SJW crowd that if you want social justice then you’ll need a police state. You just can’t govern in such a fashion without putting the boot of government on the necks of the people you wish to hold back in the name of equality. Social justice is an authoritarian idea and one that belongs on the scrap heap of history.

    • Social justice is an authoritarian idea …“”

      I think that one should train oneself to say — and think — “totalitarian”, rather than “authoritarian”.

      The denigration of so-called “authoritarian” has at its root the leftist denigration and delegitimization of authority … for, once there is no authority, then raw force is the only means of rule. And leftists love raw force, for it tends to result in bloodshed.

      • Well. the average leftist loves someone else initiating raw force on their behalf.

        Them, not so much. Upsets the chi of the wine and cheese parties in the evening if they’ve had to spend the day putting the boot in.
        Imagine Erb personally administering raw force for example.

        • Meh, Erb’s idea of a social justice warfare is bravely stealing slices of pizza from his employer. Not exactly the stuff of Stalingrad, or even smelling up the barricades at Occupy Wall Street for a few days.

          • Ah, the mental images you’ve evoked.

            “Not exactly the stuff of Stalingrad”
            What, you can’t imagine a ragged pilotka wearing Erb crouched in the beam strewn rubble of the tomato paste and cheese factory waiting for a conservative StuG III to roll by so he can try to stuff a frag grenade down a roof hatch?
            Bwwwaahahahahahah!
            neither can I.

            “smelling up the barricades at Occupy Wall Street for a few days.”
            Now, I can easily imagine this, dressed in his North Face parka, Starbucks vente frappuccino gripped firmly in one hand and a “We are the 99%” placard in the other, trailing around like a puppy after a gaggle of IPad wielding 22 year old co-eds who roll their eyes when he smiles at them.

        • Leftists are essentially cowards, going all the way back to the English Civil War — Roundheads were brave social justice warriors when following Cromwell; when not following Cromwell, not so brave.

          We saw the same inherent, r-selected, craven herd mentality at work in the so-called “Occupy Wall Street” movement. A few hundred very brave social justice warrior were going to stage sit-ins in various private buildings on Wall Street, but were then denied by a mere handful of rentacops. So instead they trashed occupied a park and were then guarded by a few thousand police officers charged with keeping them safe (at least from outsiders — women’s bodies were still “public property” as far as some men were concerned, occupying waaay more than the initial mandate…). The goalposts were later moved until the original mandate — actually occupying wall street and not a nearby park — was shoved down the memory hole.

          • The Lincoln-era “Copperheads”, who were happy to leave thousands of Africans in slavey.

          • And Democrat voting New Yorkers who lynched free blacks during the draft riots of 1863.

    • The idea that societal ills should be remedied such that one group is not given an unfair advantage over another is not, to me, a radical idea.

      I agree. It isn’t radical. It’s very conservative. The WAY one group gains an unfair advantage over another…and maintains it…is via government. It has been all through history. You leave people, as individuals, to rise to their own level of accomplishment and they just will. And others around them will help…without the least compulsion.

  • I notice the article linked has an author/writer who remains anonymous, presumably to protect himself from the ravening mob.