The hypocrisy of social justice warriors.

I think I prefer Houyhnhnm society. Now, how can I get there? Might there be any intelligent horses on this website that can point me in the right direction?

Like Brobdingnag, Houyhnhnm (pronounced "whinim") Land is completely cut off from other nations – no one on Houyhnhnm Land has ever visited another country. This kind of isolation appears to be good for producing relatively virtuous societies. After all, the chief problem Gulliver sees with Lilliput and Laputa – their tendency to fight and conquer other peoples – isn't really possible on Brobdingnag and Houyhnhnm Land, where there are no other peoples readily available for conquest. At the same time, there are two distinct kinds of people living on Houyhnhnm Land, and it is the differences between these two that form the final part of the satire of Gulliver's Travels.

Gulliver arrives on Houyhnhnm Land by chance. After a really brief stay in England, Gulliver becomes captain of his own ship. He sails towards the South Seas when suddenly his men mutiny against him and lock him in his own cabin. Eventually, they maroon Gulliver on an island – Houyhnhnm Land.

When Gulliver first starts exploring this island, he runs across a herd of deformed animals with hair on their heads and covering their genitals but leaving the rest of their bodies bare. They seem agile, but they also tend to sit around on their butts a lot. The females have bare faces, without the long, goatish beards of the men, and their breasts ("dugs" (4.1.4)) hang down almost to the ground. These creatures are violent and easily frightened. When Gulliver strikes one with the flat part of his sword, a whole bunch of them swarm around him throwing feces, until he thinks he's going to be smothered in poo.

Just as Gulliver thinks he's going to suffocate in poo, another resident of the island comes to his rescue: a kind, gentle looking gray horse who seems to frighten these gross animals away. The horse seems fascinated by Gulliver, and particularly by Gulliver's clothing. As Gulliver hears this horse apparently speaking to another horse, he realizes that the horse's neighs and whinnies (from which the word "Houyhnhnm" comes) are slowly starting to make sense to him. The horse keeps saying the word "Yahoo" and gesturing to Gulliver.

The gray horse leads Gulliver through his own house and out to a kind of stable where a bunch of those vile beasts from the earlier scene are kept chained to a wall, surrounded by bits of raw donkey meat. Suddenly, Gulliver realizes the awful truth: these grotesque, violent, brutal, cowardly, hairy-but-also-way-too-naked creatures are, in fact, humans just like Gulliver. The horses, which are the reasonable creatures of this island, call humans "Yahoos," and keep a tight leash on them, because otherwise they'll misbehave.

This slow introduction to the Yahoos (gross humans) and the Houyhnhnms (lovely, smart horses) makes humanity unfamiliar and horrible to the reader. Just as the tininess of Lilliput and Blefuscu make the problems and wars of Britain and France seem silly and insignificant, this moment of lack of recognition that Gulliver has with the Yahoos suddenly forces humankind itself to seem unfamiliar and revolting.

Houyhnhnm Land is the one place out of all the islands he visits where Gulliver wishes he could stay. Sadly, though, he is forced to leave: the Houyhnhnms have an island-wide assembly every four years where they discuss important matters. Gulliver happens to be the important matter at the current assembly. The Houyhnhnms all decide that, as a superior Yahoo, Gulliver might some day go off and convince all the other Yahoos to organize and rise up against the Houyhnhnms. They decide he's too dangerous to have around, so they boot him out of the country. Gulliver has to make his own boat and sail to a nearby island.


So, let's get a little more specific about the Houyhnhnms. We love them because, well, they're horses – who doesn't like talking horses? But Gulliver kind of worships them, and it's worth talking about why. Here are some of the characteristics Gulliver singles out for comment: there are no words in Houyhnhnm language for any of the bad things we humans do, including lying, power, greed, or jealousy. In fact, Gulliver has a lot of trouble explaining human nature to his best buddy, the Master Horse, because he keeps having to talk around things that the Master Horse has no concept of. The best example of this kind of talking around that Gulliver has to do is "the thing which is not" (4.5.6), a phrase that the Master Horse uses to get as close as he can to "lie" in Houyhnhnm language.

The Houyhnhnms don't need laws or a special class of lawyers because they are completely governed by reason. Breaking laws is not rational, so they don't need to spell out their codes of behavior. This is like a more perfect version of the less-than-twenty-words Brobdingnagian rule about law – the Houyhnhnms don't need to limit the length of their laws because they don't even need laws. They all agree about the rightness of what to do.

The fact that all the Houyhnhnms agree about law points to something else Gulliver loves about them: they don't understand opinions or factions. To have an opinion about something, you have to speculate about something you can't know for sure. The Houyhnhnms accept hard facts; anything outside of fact, you can't argue about, because by definition you can't know what the correct answer is. It makes no sense to argue about something you can never answer correctly. This is why the Houyhnhnms have no law.

As you may have guessed from the fact that the Houyhnhnms don't have arguments or differences of opinion, they are equally friendly with all members of their tribe. They value "friendship and benevolence" (4.8.10) above everything else. In fact, this friendship thing is so important to Houyhnhnms that they treat all of their children as their own, and will educate all the kids in the same way.

This total lack of preference for one Houyhnhnm over another means that they always, always arrange marriages for their children. There's no such thing as a love match. Families will get together and decide: oh, your daughter is smart? My son is attractive. Let's breed them together to get smart, attractive children. And Houyhnhnm couples never cheat on each other because it makes no sense – they're in this relationship for the kids, not for love or sex or anything. And it gets even more technical: Houyhnhnm couples are limited to one boy and one girl foal (a baby horse). If one couple has two girls and another couples has two boys, they trade one of their kids. If a couple is unfortunate enough to lose a child to an accident, they can have one more child to supply the loss.

This type of rigidity in family arrangements is hugely different from what we've seen in, say, Laputa, where the wives are constantly on the lookout for other men. Or even Lilliput, where infidelity is clearly enough of an issue that Flimnap suspects his wife of sleeping with Gulliver. The Houyhnhnms have managed to subordinate their feelings to logic – like horse-shaped Vulcans or something.

To me "social justice warrior" has become a blanket term utilized to dismiss those one disagrees with. I say this because it's become a term thrown at anyone, irrespective of the specifics or nuances of their positions, someone disagrees with. It's devoid of subtlety and context. It's just a generic pejorative that serves more as some sort of name calling attack, rather than pointing out the specific points being disagreed with.

The same is true of "right wingers," "conservatives," "liberals," "progressives," "libtards," etc. Language on both "sides" has lost all meaning. People call people fascists (on both sides) and Marxists without knowing the terms' historical contexts anymore. They just become bludgeons like "Barry" and "Dubya" before them. They have no meaning to me anymore.

Such labels are a way to not have to discuss anything with anyone or find ways to actually talk about differences of opinion. You're just this catch-all 'thing' which isn't worthy of engagement with, and is the enemy and clearly responsible for the degradation of society. This especially occurs on the internet.

Examples seen earlier today:

"Hey guys, maybe you could like, NOT immediately comment on this lady's breasts every time she's on the screen. She reads these comments and replies sometimes, you know."

"Shut up, SJW. White knight harder."

"Hey, I'm a supporter of a lot of what the left has to say. It's pretty much solely the 2nd amendment issue that I have grave misgivings about."

"Too bad, fundie. The world is changing, deal with it."

Both sides do this.

In short, context matters, but such abstract and diluted meme-like labels strip all context away from discussions in my opinion. They're just buzzwords, and easily exploited by those with agendas on both "sides."

My two cents.

Peace.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Forcing them to be whatever they're told to be until they're 18 seems like cruelty to me

I said guide. Read what is written, not what you choose to see. Parents have every right and obligation to guide their children.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: SomeDumbBroad

That video is painful to watch, but reveals perfectly their dishonesty. "People of color" and minorities need a voice, that is, until they start saying things we don't like. That has been the case with social justice for many years. Ask any black conservative how many times he's been called racial epithets simply for holding different opinions.

I agree 100%

I met a guy while I was working in the inner city of STL. His name was D. From a distance he was very "hard" and stern. I instantly made friends with him and we talked a lot about different situations among races. We would have, what I called "White Girl Question Sessions" and I would pick his brain about things I didn't feel comfortable talking about. Topics ranged from slang terms to feelings on political issues and so on.

He came from a sordid background. He was inducted into a gang at 9 and had almost gotten into some trouble. When I met him he was 23, going to college, worked with me full time and had just bought his own house. He used to go on tirades about how he was treated and it would enrage me. Racism is out there and it comes from all sides. That's the part that is ignored. We all need to work together to support and understand each other, not just fight and claw our ways to the top and think we are somehow better than each other.

a reply to: AntiDoppleganger

I read what you said - I understood it

You are somewhat correct. He/She and 'crew' are not going to dictate identity for children. Neither should schools or society. It is up to parents to guide their children, and when the child is no longer a child then they will decide for themselves.

I'm not fighting - I just disagree with what you said

All this fuss over political correctness - it's interesting to me

Every time someone complains that the politically correct are only doing things out of political correctness, or because they're overly sensitive - it turns out that it's about something that's been one way for a long time - and now that situation is changing

We know things now that we didn't know before. We've learned a lot about gender, sexuality and identity. There's still so much we don't understand, but one thing we're beginning to see is that gender is never all one way or another. That's not what we're used to

For ages - people had no real choice but to either conform and fit in, or to risk the dangers that come from doing what feels natural. What kind of hell is that to wish on a person?

Turns out - kids aren't stupid. They know who they are. Some parts of society really aren't quite ready for this yet. But so many of us are ready - and it doesn't seem right any longer to force kids to be something they're not

At some point - push is going to come to shove. It's inevitable. Looks like that's beginning now...

Saying that a kid needs to wait until they're no longer a child is kind of a weird way of trying to control the child. If they know now - why put them through that?

Social convention? This isn't about being politically correct - it's about the welfare of the child. Not the welfare of the parents - but the kids. If people can reduce all of it down to a fight about political correctness - trivialize it and make it seem like there's no thought behind it - it makes it easier to hold on to tradition

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

No, its cool we're just discussing. If you're insinuating that guide means " tell the child who/what to be" then you continue to misunderstand. The only part where we appeared to be at odds on this matter was the mention from someone's earlier post concerning grade school curriculum involving gender fluidity. To me "guide" was less about control and more about support and educate. It should start at home.

Social convention? This isn't about being politically correct - it's about the welfare of the child. Not the welfare of the parents - but the kids.

Maybe you meant this for someone else?

My children will be whoever they are, and I'll stand with them in all cases. I'd just rather not have school try to press a viewpoint on my children to satisfy some social agenda.

a reply to: AntiDoppleganger

Maybe you meant this for someone else?

Definitely

This thread is about hypocrisy and social justice warriors - I'm pretty prone to mini rants, ponderous rambling and forgetting where I am

My children will be whoever they are, and I'll stand with them in all cases. I'd just rather not have school try to press a viewpoint on my children to satisfy some social agenda..

Your kids are lucky

And I agree - schools should be neutral. Like I said earlier - they should be a safe place to learn where everyone is treated fairly and with respect

SJWs are the most hateful, toxic group of group of people I have ever come across. Keep in mind that SJWs are not the same as people who have liberal or progressive views. They are people who are essentially extremist lunatics that have progressive viewpoints.

I ran afoul of some of them online a few years ago when I said that a movie studio could make whatever kind of movie they wanted and it didn't really matter because movies come out all the time, and that it was no big deal. Nothing I said was particularly offensive or vitriolic or controversial or anything. But apparently this apparently angered them and made them think I was a racist and a sexist (despite the fact that I am a woman) and I got mobbed by them with endless death threats, people telling me to kill myself, that I deserve to be raped. This was from multiple people, including people running blogs about feminism and things like that. Because nothing says feminism like telling a woman she deserves to be sexually assaulted because of her opinions on movies, right? I've also seen them defend stuff like honor killings and female genital mutilation, by saying that white people commenting on these things is colonialism. I've seen them argue that free speech needs to be limited.

I say this as someone who considers herself to be a liberal and a pretty left-leaning person. These people are extremely toxic and they do not help society. They merely divide.

a reply to: woodwardjnr
Thank you so much for calling me paranoid. I know what I know brother. The definition of cultural Marxism is what it is and why would you bother with a retort like this? It seems like some sort of a denial as many here do. I know that you made the favorite posters list and I didn't but that doesn't make me any less right. Some people just have a knack for being wrong and being popular at the same time.

originally posted by: ladyworgen
SJWs are the most hateful, toxic group of group of people I have ever come across. Keep in mind that SJWs are not the same as people who have liberal or progressive views. They are people who are essentially extremist lunatics that have progressive viewpoints.

I ran afoul of some of them online a few years ago when I said that a movie studio could make whatever kind of movie they wanted and it didn't really matter because movies come out all the time, and that it was no big deal. Nothing I said was particularly offensive or vitriolic or controversial or anything. But apparently this apparently angered them and made them think I was a racist and a sexist (despite the fact that I am a woman) and I got mobbed by them with endless death threats, people telling me to kill myself, that I deserve to be raped. This was from multiple people, including people running blogs about feminism and things like that. Because nothing says feminism like telling a woman she deserves to be sexually assaulted because of her opinions on movies, right? I've also seen them defend stuff like honor killings and female genital mutilation, by saying that white people commenting on these things is colonialism. I've seen them argue that free speech needs to be limited.

I say this as someone who considers herself to be a liberal and a pretty left-leaning person. These people are extremely toxic and they do not help society. They merely divide.

.

And these are the exact SJW types I was referring to.

I wasn't very clear apparently and opened up a can of worms, but it was really just that simple.

I don't think there are very many, if any on ATS. I hope.

I appreciate this discussion though!

I'm learning.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis
Ever set foot in a Montessori classroom? I bet not. There may be kids of different ages. The children can pick the lessons they want and do them for as long as they like during the lesson time. The children are not forced to sit still for long periods of time. Dr Montessori was a brilliant educator. So now when you suggest that it is respecting children's right to force gender confusion upon them for a preset agenda using the children as fodder in a calculating way.... I say no that is not respecting children's rights and certainly NOT respecting their parents who are their natural guardians. But that is ever the way of the Totalitarian State. Dr Montessori wrote a book called The Absorbent Mind, which essentially states that up to age 7 children are like sponges that absorb whatever is in their environment and so the cultural Marxists and Progressives know that to fully program people to
The will of the state they must do it as early as possible.

Seems there is a common root cause that transcends politics and that is -- being human. Humans in a group seem to always believe their group is the only one that has the truth and all the other groups are idiots or haters.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

BLM
Obamma
Holder
Jackson
Sharpton
Black Panthers
Farrakhan

You are aware BLM formed the day Zimmerman was let go for killing Treyvon Martin? All they protest for is equal justice under the law. I also noted you left out MLK, Malcom X, Gandhi (hardly white), all fought against inequality under the law.

Yes...I'm aware of that. Are you aware that if you take every person who refuses to take self and group responsibility for themselves and throw them out of the country, you solve 99% of the social problems? I'm talking about black people who say too many blacks are arrested without taking into account that more blacks commit crimes. I'm referring to people who always believe that the members of their group are usually innocent when they are actually, usually guilty. I'm talking about liars, cheaters, thieves, killers, etc. The dregs of society who if thrown out of the country, solve most of our problems. Black, white, yellow, red...color doesn't matter.

So back to Zimmerman. When the black community claimed that Zimmerman was a racist murderer and were proven wrong by a court of law...why didn't they accept the verdict? Why didn't they believe in "innocent until proven guilty"? Same with so many other cases...they NEVER assume police innocence...only black innocence. And sorry to say...they are rarely correct and will never admit their wrong.

They are the problem. I long for a solution for every civil citizen's sake.

PS: If a pitbulls bite more people than labs, it is not racism to walk further away from the pitbull than from the lab. Sometimes if not most of the time, the stigma is accurate and the problem is that of the group, not everyone else. In other words..."look in the mirror" comes to mind.

You know ... *chewing thoughtfully on some gum*

Many regulars here know me well, and know that I'm usually left of center on social issues. Hell, even in this thread I pointed out examples of what "white privilege" was.

I have also yet failed to mention that I have been attacked by these so-called "SJW" types in the past. Can you believe that? Can you believe I am somehow now "liberal" enough? Or "self-hating" enough? Can you believe that? I'm having a LGBT person as one of my groomsmen for goodness sake. I've been an ardent opponent to these stupid transgender bathroom laws.

Trust me when I tell you this: You do not want to seriously tangle with the militant ones. Trust me. They're just as bad as any hardcore militant hate group. They can, will, and have make your life and other's lives a living hell. These aren't poor terrorists in a 3rd world country. These are educated people with resources and computer skills. They can and DO cyber-stalk and ruin the lives of people who they are angry at.

What it comes down to is that the hardcore ones are opposed to diverse and different opinions. Diversity is great, but only their particular flavor and kind of diversity. Alternate viewpoints are not allowed or accepted, and if you present any -- you WILL be blamed as some kind of oppressor based on your sex, race, nationality, religion ect, ect.

I'm actually surprised they don't eat themselves alive trying to out do one another, given the voracious appetite the hardest-core ones seem to have for self-victimization. The hardcore ones I've witnessed can't stand someone else being a victim. They have to be the oppressed victim. This all goes back to what I've said about attention seeking and feeding the ego.

Somehow, these people have bought into "learned helplessness" and found it fashionable or vogue to blame everyone else for the ills in their life, while not taking personal responsibility for their own lives. It's now fashionable to put oneself on a pedestal by adopting obscure sexual identity terms like 'cisgender'. Yeah, I had to look it up too, don't feel bad.

The more out there you are, the more of a victim you can claim to be. Through the eyes of these people, the world is nothing but a rigged system setup specifically to hold THEM back. Everyone is working against them, knowingly and unknowingly.

I'd honest like to know who the hardest-core ones look up to as role models? Seriously....

They are creating a culture of silence because of their tenacious and furious behavior and attacks. Why bother having a dissenting opinion when you are going to be stoned to death online, and possibly face real-world backlash? Why even say you don't agree when you are going to be drowned out by the cries of 100 victims, all claiming you somehow are the cause of all the world's ills?

It's not worth it. It's just not. And this is exactly what they want. On the exterior, the most radical ones claim to want equality and acceptance, but in the end? They only want equality and acceptance of a very specific few people and ways of thinking.

And look, are there people who go over the line? Absolutely. There are people who really do a lot of harm with their words. Should we socially outcast them and look down upon them? Absolutely. Words are incredibly powerful and can carry immense weight. But who I am to judge someone else? Who made me a moral authority? What divine spirit anointed me, or anyone else as the moral spokesperson?

I'm not saying hate-filled speech doesn't exist. I'm not denying that people are hurt all the time, I know some of these people and have worked with them to help them. What these people need are sensible, sane, and credible allies -- not radical 'knights' (or whatever they want to be called) to swoop in on their behalf. They need friends and family to work WITH them not FOR them to overcome hate and prejudice.

Level-headed self-policing is all that's required. People taking responsibility for what they say, and admitting if they've overstepped a line.

According to some of the extremists of the group, free speech shouldn't be allowed because it breeds hate speech and hurts people. And we're not just talking a repeal of the 1st Amendment, we're not talking about laws prohibiting what CANT be said, we're talking about laws governing what CAN be said.

Look, I want (on paper at least) what most of these folks want. I want people to have equality, respect, understanding and compassion for one another. I want everyone to just be able to go about their lives in peace without being judged.

It's a two way street though. This means that even if I disagree with someone, I'm not going to stalk them or harass them. It's not the person I have a problem with, it is their beliefs.

You don't defeat a belief by attacking the person. You defeat a belief by presenting/convincing someone else that your belief is superior. You defeat a belief with a belief.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

I'm talking about black people who say too many blacks are arrested without taking into account that more blacks commit crimes.

Because they are profiled more, jacked up more and 'caught' more than whites…

I'm referring to people who always believe that the members of their group are usually innocent when they are actually, usually guilty.

S How you determine that guilt? Sentenced to jail more often with longer sentences for more petty crimes.

I'm talking about liars, cheaters, thieves, killers, etc. The dregs of society who if thrown out of the country, solve most of our problems. Black, white, yellow, red…color doesn't matter.

Wow, not bashful about playing the skin color card, are we? You do realize the US government is the biggest liar, cheater, thief, killer… industrial scale mayhem waging aggressive war on whole countries.

Makes the ghetto pale by comparison. But you wouldn't know that because the media covers the black crime thing more than the US government crime thing.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

The schools are not being neutral they are all caught up in promoting social warrior agendas. That is my point. Their excuse is always that it's for children's rights but it is not and never was. I've seen the books with pics of boy heads in girl bodies and vice versa. Now tell me truly is that promoting natural rights of the child or just cussing gender confusion? I know the answer, do you?

a reply to: Spiramirabilis what reason the State has for putting boy heads on girl bodies and presenting this to all children as normal ? See this is where the logic of the radical breaks down. The State has absolutely no business doing this. Common core and especially national sexuality education standards are a flop and a disaster and morally outrageous.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis. Well you know, you say that it's not about political correctness but it's about the welfare of the child, but Cultural Marxists have always known that it was really about tearing down the old conventions and mores to make way for the Revolution.