blitzem wrote:Creativity73 wrote:I probably will leave. i was looking for ANTI Social Justice Warriors here but instead it's full of ANTIFA. Basically your view against "racism" are on the exact same level as the feminists who have hysterics over "patriarchy". The Free Thought Blogs I have heard of have men just like you on there. Your differences are arbitrary. But I have learned all I need to here.
I know I am feeding the Nazi troll, but....
If you really think that people here are antifa, which I understand to mean middle-class people that only hate racism directed to non-whites, then I suggest that you are trolling, haven't been paying attention and/or didn't do enough back-reading.
People here are constantly calling out SJW's for their gender bias towards men and their racial bias towards whites and are usually in favour of a meritocracy based on skill level and effort. Pitters, though not monolithic (see what I did there?), generally call out any racism regardless of the source and mock those who, in their attempt to be inclusive, actually seem to forget to include white men in their meetings and social activities (it's okay when they do it).
But, since you are apparently all about the confirmation bias (we suck and you have "proven" it remarkable quickly) and are trolling...ass and smack and all that.
I did hang out with many of the Antifa, though never counted myself to that movement. Some in the Antifa are Neo-Nazi-reflections and it's not unheard of that people on the fringes swap from one side to the (seemingly) extreme other. All they need to do is shave their head and replace the red shoe-laces with white ones (literally). But that's exactly the fringe corner that makes the social justice warriors the problem that they are. Are they really left? I doubt that. When the political dimension is really curved, as it seems to be the case, those direction become increasingly meaningless as you approach the far sides.
I feel part of my current reasoning to oppose SJWs is that I view them as a type of facism, in a very similar horseshoe theory kind of way. I know it's a slightly crass view on them, but it isn't entirely unfounded. I'd go as far and characterise the US secular movement as a proto-fascist movement. The trouble in the US and with such things as Heterodox Academy is that US politics only has two parties. US society is increasingly partisan and Republicans are unelectable. Swing or floating voters are in the 10–15% range only, which means that the vast majority of Americans hardly live in a democracy on these grounds alone (billionaire lobbyists and corporatism makes this only worse). The result is that academia and everything else that is halfway sane is under the Democratic party only, and for good reasons.
That's the scary part. Different opinions and views are important, heterodoxy in principle is good, but attaching this to the parties doesn't strike me as a good idea. It's treating one-sidedness with false balance.
Large political movements happen outside of the democratic system. People basically have to go with whatever the Democrats do, no matter how inane, because the alternative is even scarier. Having an enemy to point at makes people conform and comiplicit to whatever is on the menu, which brings us to the SJWism, a postmodernist fascist variety that bills itself as the “the Left” and can swoop up and dissolve also the sensible positions that come with the left, and thus saner side of the political spectrum. This is why there are hardly alternatives. It's either White Privilege or racism, as if no other (non-postmodernist) models existed. Of course there are others. There is even
Marxist critique that can be made against the conception of White Privilege and Critical Race Theory (for example aggression against Poles in the UK, who are obviously white and where the whole CRT take doesn't work).
In this landscape it's very difficult to keep a firm ground, because you constantly have to reject one idiot position after another and then people assume it's the opposite, where you are busy rejecting that too. It's seemingly impossible to just be a left-leaning person on board with social justice causes, but who rejects the postmodernist, fascist, race-theorist, standpoint theory, intersectionality etc. bollocks of the social justice warriors. We can hardly express it, because the Orwellians even try to erode the language to express such thoughts, and go as far and deny that their SJW movement exists (it's billed as “the Default” on the Left, an old postmodernist tactic). But of course, we see a change. “Regressive Left” is defacto an Othering label, and it expresses for now in a makeshift fashion that people want to distance themselves from that fascist SJW lot, without eschewing the left-leaning positions itself.
So, no, I don't care about white people or any other such groups. I reject this entire framework. It's american-centrist and does not reflect adequately what's going on in the world. There's more than SJW and SJW mirrior universe, which is both pseudo-science hogwash. By the way, it's also not really something big in sociology. Scholars there disagree about Intersectionality; can't agree on how many axis there are; don't know if this is the right way to go about this. It also originally doesn't come out of sociology, either, but from Harvard Law School. So, this is a nightmare coming true: postmodernist lawyers (or “scholars”) have cooked it up.
The ideology itself apparently hasn't progressed far in the last 20 or so years. I read Sokal and Bricmont only fairly recently and it's essentially the same rubbish all over again they described around 1997 — now radicalized and exploded over the internet (for the excellent reason that postmodernist discourse was effective in impressing academics before, which is now a good charlatan's way to win arguments on the internet, hence the Stephanie Zvans, Rebecca Watsons and PZ Myers of this world are drawn to it). Paired with safe space fascism and trolling tactics, it's practically unassailable (for now).
Here's what Noam Chomsky says about this (based on Soakl/Bricmont), which I transcribed from this video.
Noam Chomsky wrote:It's all very inflated, you know lots of prestige and so on — it has a terrible effect in the Third World. In the First World, rich countries, I doesn't really matter that much. So if a lot of nonsense goes on in the Paris cafés or Yale comparative literature department – Ok. On the other hand in the Third World, poplular movements really need serious intellectuals to participate. So if they are all ranting postmodernist absurdities, ... well they're gone. I've seen real examples of this — could give them to you.
But — so there is that category. It's considered very left wing, very advanced. Some of what appears to some sort of actually makes sense, but when you reproduce it in monosyllables, it turns out to be truisms. So yes, It's perfectly true that when you look at scientists in the West, they're mostly men. And it's perfectly true that women have had a hard time breaking into the scientific fields. And it's perfectly true that there are institutional factors determining how science proceeds that reflect power structures. I mean ALL of this can be described literally in monosyllables, and it turns out to be truisms. On the other hand, you don't get to be a respected intellectual by presenting truisms in monosyllables.
A lot of the left criticism – considered left – when the Left criticism (so called) happens to be accurate. Okay, that's fine! So you point it out, been a lot of things, that's fine. Point it out. Everybody understand it. Take a look to see if it's true, and so on. On the other hand, a lot of so-called Left criticism seems to be pure nonsense. In fact, that's been demonstrated. Conclusively. [... refers to Sokal and Bricmont's "Intellectual Impostures" (Fashionable Nonsense) ...] where they simply go through — they happen to concentrate on Paris which is the center of the rot, but it's all over [gestures an explosion]...
Indeed. Note “considered very left wing” and the part about movements and activism. Atheists and skeptics ought to know what to do. Reject the whole proposal and remain unconvinced by it. And then, secondarily, come up with whatever they believe individually. I really hope a
Science Wars II breaks out.
