Now, this wasn't as easy as some might make it look. Of course, those who have stared directly into the vapid sun that is social justice without going blind can do it well, such as the always excellent Jim, (jim81jim/Internet Aristocrat/Mister Metokur) can do an excellent job. I went to school at the liberal but respected University of British Columbia in the early to mid-2000s. The movement was already on to start "protecting" certain people's voices and ears for the views of others. There was a prevailing view on campus that the right was inherently bad, especially those war-mongering American Republicans. That was my first contact. Forensic psychology classes where a female classmate would stand up and proclaim rape only to be a problem for women and we ought to teach men to just not rape. The talking points reached far and wide.
Social justice, as a pairing of words, sounds inherently good. It is inherently good, actually, as long as the blade isn't directed at yourself. Things went astray when a group of people decided enlightenment values were white, male, and oppressive and were no longer valid in today's world, which was not yet 'Marxist equal'. Another group of people who believed race or gender were reasons for oppression came into the mix and the discussions began. Suddenly, talking about someone's race as a reason for their status in life was now allowed. Not only allowed, by entirely devoid of that syrupy irony that ought to go along with it. Social justice became not about advocating for change, but for speaking on behalf of the oppressed.
Why is that person oppressed? It's because they're black--a minority here! Why is that person oppressed? It's because she's a woman and this is the patriarchy! This narrative, so easily spun a Parkinsonian could accomplish it, scrubbed people of their individuality and turned them into coloured or gendered pieces on their own person political game board. When "oppression" of a race occurred, our valiant social justice warriors would saddle up in their own Audi SUVs and charge to the streets to speak for black community as a whole. When the black community attempted to speak, our SJW troop would condescendingly speak down to the community as the community was not educated enough to speak for itself in an impactful manner.
Let's recap that last bit. A community suffers an injustice. Social justice steps up to call attention to the injustice. Those who suffered the injustice are not allowed to share their stories, experiences, grievances, or solutions to the issue. So we have a group which has suffered an injustice only to have another group come rolling in with a savior complex to dole out a second injustice. As the injustice is perpetuated, our social justice heroes see there is even more oppression than originally thought, and work harder to speak for the community--all the while ignoring the whole community. Down and down the spiral we go. This is all made better by simple fact that criticism of the antics or tactics of the social justice idiots is viewed not as criticism of their ideas or approach but of the community which they claim to represent. 'Don't like that we keep this native community quiet and spout our own story and political views? It's because you hate natives!' Yet another injustice brought upon that community!
The pattern forms and is noted by two characteristics: silencing and exploiting. As the community which has suffered the injustice is prevented from speaking they are also being used as a shield against criticism of the social justice nut jobs. Rather than economic exploitation of a racial group as seen from the 1800s, we're seeing a political exploitation via coopting and silencing. Who wins here? Not the communities, but the fake heroes of social justice. Their status increases as they are exposed to media. Individuals like Suey Park, Anita Sarkeesian, and even Al Sharpton all fall into this category: people who stoke the fires of injustice with language from Invader Zim:
Commander: Zim, you made the fires worse!
Zim: Worse... or better?It's an interesting act of sophistry to speak in racist tones in a manner that sounds as if you are fighting against racism. It is entirely lost on social justice warriors that saying "whites are oppressive by their nature" is actually as racist as the phrase "blacks love fried chicken".
Universities have willingly gone along with the development of social justice on their campuses since the mid-90s. Again, "social justice", at the time, did not sound as Orwellian as it has turned out to be. The culture which is being fostered on these campuses and in the classrooms of gender studies, sociology, psychology (which denounces evolutionary psychology), and communications is one which lends itself to develop safe spaces, censorship for "bad ideas", and outright banning of certain ideas. It has created a culture which feeds into itself. This is the crux of the cultural relativism which I wrote of earlier: when it becomes safe to racist in the name of social justice or sexist in the name of progress then that idea has diverged from sound humanist and moral reasoning.
As we've seen from religious justifications for heinous acts against humanity (e.g., circumcision in the name of a covenant with God), cultural relativism allows groups to act in ways antithetical to morality. Rather, these cultures create their own understanding of morality. In the case of social justice warriors, being racist against whites, sexist against men, or spiteful towards straight people is fine if it is done in the name of advancing the place of minorities (i.e., non-white individuals within Europe and North America), women, or LGBT rights. What is lost here is there is no progress being made--punching down one group merely lends the appearance that the "oppressed group" is closer to the "oppressive group". No progress has been made!
Rational individuals must denounce this current breed of social justice. As a society, we must strive to enshrine enlightenment values to all humans. When second wave feminism was seeking equality, it was striving for universal rights because they are humans and not because they are women. Third/fourth wave feminism has deteriorated to demanding rights based on their sex when the moral approach calls for universal rights to be applied universally. After all, we're all humans before we're any other label. Let's fight to strip out pointless labels from laws and again fight from reasoned positions, advocating for universal rights.
This has been a (long) unedited rant. @nrokchi
No comments:
Post a Comment