Social Justice Reformation

a reply to: zosimov

Part of the problem too is that this movement is taking on the characteristics of fundamentalist religion in fanatic, zealot way.

This is a very long panel discussion on it by a trio of academics and they aren't really conservatives.

a reply to: ketsuko

I completely agree.

Listening to the link you provided now.

I am so turned off by the mere mention of social justice that I think you need to find a new term or verbiage in order to make people like me even listen to your cause. Liberals have ruined this word for many folks.

a reply to: Metallicus

I think this is very constructive criticism and surely you're not alone in your disgust (or disinterest- don't want to assume how you feel on it) for the term "social justice" or anything to do with it.

Something to think about for sure!

a reply to: zosimov

Who is in charge of deciding what's just?

Who is in charge of deciding who deserves justice?

Who is in charge of deciding which people have no clue?

How is shaming social justice warriors any different from them shaming anyone else?

How is not acknowledging what one group of people is saying then claiming it as your own even rational?

Just a few questions I have :-)

Seems to me there's not just one group of people claiming to have all the answers - it all seems a little self deluding and self congratulatory to me

We could all start by first deciding we don't need an enemy. The hostility in this thread gives away the plot

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

We humans decide, we have all been given the tools to distinguish just from unjust.

Some just choose to disregard justice which harms people in many different forms.

I honestly wasn't expecting this post to be very popular among my fellow liberals-- we're all just so entrenched that it hurts to admit to any kind of fault.

I personally would never have presumed to tackle this issue on my own, which is why I was so pleased to find some "OGs" in the movements (civil rights activists from a different era) who took issue with the current tactics.

Check out the site, you might be pleasantly surprised! The woman who wrote it is super loving and has been fighting "the good fight" for quite some time.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: zosimov


How is not acknowledging what one group of people is saying then claiming it as your own even rational?

Also I honestly did not understand this question at all. Could you explain what, specifically, you mean by this?
- not acknowledging which group.. who is claiming anything?

a reply to: zosimov

I meant no criticism of your thread

Anytime people start a movement - you have to examine what they're really up to

SJW is a pejorative now - but many (many) SJWs are just people on the wrong side of (ahem) some people's thinking

I'm sure she's super loving. But, if she needs to call out some people in order to make her point, then her point is no different

If you catch my drift

We recognize that mass movements can often deteriorate into mobbing behaviors that bring fear, violence and cruelty into the world and that this can occur across the political spectrum. We want to focus on the movements and frameworks that claim to speak on behalf of empathy, human rights and social justice because the troublesome patterns that have been arising over the past few years in the world of social justice are likely to escalate if these patterns are left unchecked.

We also recognize the growing pattern of heresy-hunting and the constant search for hidden beliefs and motives that the more ideologically-driven adherents of SJI engage in. Therefore, we want to assert that none of these resources are so-called right wing or part of an elaborate plan to put social justice in a bad light in order to maintain “the status quo” and protect the power or perceived advantages of any demographic group.

Oh, the irony

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Ah. Yes I can see your point. Although I might not have represented her true gist well in my synopsis (which used a bit more inflamatory language than I am comfortable with. I regret a few choice words in my OP and wish I could edit them now.)

I am certain that the site linked takes issue with the ideology rather than the individuals which make it up, and this is exactly where I want my focus to be.


I especially agree with what you said here:

SJW is a pejorative now - but many (many) SJWs are just people on the wrong side of (ahem) some people's thinking

a reply to: zosimov

Social Justice Warriors - is there a coherent definition?

I doubt it. It gets thrown out there whenever one group is calling out the actions of another group - when that group doesn't like it

If social justice warriors are (for instance) people who are speaking out against racial inequality - how do you plan to speak out against racial inequality without being exactly like them?

How do you decide that you know best - when you've decided they don't?

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Absolutely agree with you that the individual adherents are not the problem, but imo the ideology is something else.

The Social Justice Ideology (SJI) I can't support is the one given in the link. And I know that verifying that particular definition with the actual mindset of the average activist today would be an impossible task; however by close attention to the current issues and the approaches taken to address them, and in the vast majority of national conversations, one might recognize some of the more pervasive and damaging trends.
(I haven't read all of the linked essays on the Social Justice Reformation site but this link might be better addressed there)
Damaging as seen by the neurosis we've all been suffering... all sides and the middle too have been increasingly polarized and quick to dismiss any conflicting ideas.

Thank you for adding some more nuance to the discussion!

a reply to: zosimov

Damaging as seen by the neurosis we've all been suffering... all sides and the middle too have been increasingly polarized and quick to dismiss any conflicting ideas.

This^

Time to start identifying those that are encouraging us to think less, indulge our smaller selves and give in to our worst, first inclinations

Once identified we can start ignoring them. That's all it will take for us to start talking to each other again

This doesn't require a new movement or a messiah. Exactly the opposite

This is about taking personal responsibility for our behavior and using some self control. I think it will surprise most of us to see how fast the spell can be broken

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: zosimov




Time to start identifying those that are encouraging us to think less, indulge our smaller selves and give in to our worst, first inclinations

Once identified we can start ignoring them. That's all it will take for us to start talking to each other again

I love this and hope a few posters who commented earlier decide to jump back in!

You make an excellent point that no big, new movement is needed here-- rather just a bit of restraint, understanding, and conversation.