Post 22 -- In dealings with "Social Justice Warriors"

In my previous post, I wrote a rapid reply to the Ra Men Podcast and Mr. James Croft of St. Louis Ethical Society. The particular podcast can be found here. In brief, Aron and Mark spoke with four members of the Ferguson community on the issues surrounding the murder of Mr. Michael Brown and grand jury's choice not to indict Officer Darren Wilson. Most of the discussion was focused on variations of "oppression" suffered by only blacks (ignoring the 28% white population in Ferguson) at the hands of only whites. There were no solutions offered by the two individuals who identified themselves as "community leaders".

I pointed this out in a reply to the video and again to Mr. Croft on Twitter. I like to believe I take a Stoic's approach when entering online discussions as an even temperament lends itself far more to discussion than trolling/flaming. In my responses specific to Mr. Croft, I focused on his rhetoric and ideas--those of "privilege" and of "white privilege". I am not someone who buys into the Social Privilege Theory. Rather, I feel it to be meaningless ravings done mostly by the people who fall into the highest tiers of privilege. Moreover, it is a pathetic escape tactic by the unintelligent, whereby they need only claim that one's "privilege" prevents them from understanding. Yes, because being a white man means I completely lack empathy and sympathy.

The Social Privilege Theory is frequently employed by Social Justice Warriors (SJWs). Now, within the SJW community it comes across as a powerful social factor, and the ability to explain privilege is considered enough to cause tectonic shifts in social policy. Outside of the SJW cult hall, calling out someone's privilege is an act of shaming in their eyes. Shaming, of course, is considered one of the pillars of bullying, along with threats, coercion, and force. For the SJW perspective, shaming is a fair play simply because one with privilege engages in invisible or unconscious shaming of those with less privilege. This is patently ridiculous on several levels.

Privilege does not exist in the terms held by these SJWs, who view it as a society wide issue. Certain individuals posses preferences, opinions, or beliefs that may view others as below or above them. That, however, does not mean everyone with a superficial similarity (e.g., skin colour, gender) also posses that identical preferences, opinions, or beliefs. The one privilege that does exist is wealth or financial privilege. Ironically (or not), the loudest voices claiming the damage caused by "white, heterosexual, cis-male privilege" come from those of wealth (e.g., Ms. Quinn, Ms. Sarkeesian, Mr. Mcintosh, Mr. Lifshitz, Mrs. Wu).

Now, I decided to write this little post because of my exchange with Mr. Croft. Here's the first part:

Mr. Croft appears to have been generous with his time and stated he both read and replied to my posting. This looked to be promising for me to have some discussion with his views contrasted with mine. Unfortunately, it was not to be the case. I immediately went to my page and see if there were any comments waiting moderation and to check my settings.

As shown here, my comments are open to anyone and never require moderation. I like discussion and feel that I can learn from being wrong. It came across as strange to me that the comment was lost. I originally gave Mr. Croft the benefit of doubt, and continued to ask for a response. At first the conversation came across as friendly:

I did not want to dismiss Mr. Croft. I continued to press for the reply in a friendly and open matter.

Here I remain open to discussion. I did not feel I targeted Mr. Croft on a personal level. Rather, that I focused on words he said, in context, and why his approach was not the best for improving the situation in Ferguson. I believe between the YouTube post and Post 21, I used about 400 words specifically to Mr. Croft, while the rest were either dedicated towards another individual, to the situation, or the my solutions. Again, I was seeking conversation on the matter and in a stoic manner; I argue the central points of people's arguments and avoid falling to weak ad hominem attacks.

The conclusion. I did not edit my post to cleanse it of any personal attacks. My post is how it was when Mr. Croft claimed to have read it. Still, I attempted to open to Mr. Croft for discussion. Then he reminded me of something: SJWs and their ilk are ideologues. So steeped in their rhetoric they are unable to discern the difference between criticism of ideas and criticism of their person. They shout aloud that you've "offended" (i.e., "denigrate", "disparage") them not as a means to correct the direction of the conversation by as a tactic to derail it entirely. There are no winners here and nothing for either parties to learn when this happens. It is an intellectually cowardly and dishonest act.

SJWs are trouble. We know this from #GamerGate, from Occupy Wall Street, and from the new Puritan policies coming into effect on college campuses. No person has a right to not be offended. It is the height of arrogance to think one particular group or person deserves special treatment or protection from such speech. Yet, SJWs forge ahead, drawing deeper and deeper lines between groups, dividing people up in unnecessary ways. When challenged, they cry foul because they were offended, and proceed to walk away in a false victory.

I have no doubt that Mr. Croft is an intelligent and passionate man. However, these actions I am seeing him engage are intellectually cowardly. If Mr. Croft does reply to this or Post 21, or if Blogger finds the lost post (if there was a post lose to begin with), I will happily redact and apologize for this paragraph. Until that time, however, I am left with another encounter with a person who claims offense at the mere criticism of his ideas in context. No rebuttal, no solutions.

This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi