The Dark Enlightenment

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: The Dark Enlightenment

Postby Jerky » Mon Apr 04, 2016 6:19 am

Just a minor aside in this ongoing discussion, but it struck me as indicative of how frighteningly good the Bad Guys are at manipulating the debate by poisoning language when I stopped to consider the fact that they've successfully made a pejorative out of the words "social justice". I mean, that's fucking incredible to me.

Jerky
User avatar
Jerky
 
Posts: 2240
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 6:28 pm
Location: Toronto, ON
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Dark Enlightenment

Postby jakell » Mon Apr 04, 2016 6:35 am

It's not frightening or incredible, it's just a standard use of sarcasm/irony, used successfully by good and bad guys throughout history.

Unless the shock is due to them daring to look askance at the holy of holies.
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
User avatar
jakell
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: North England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Dark Enlightenment

Postby jakell » Mon Apr 04, 2016 8:35 am

I've just come across the SJW label in an unexpected context. I was looking at some of Daniel Dennet's stuff relating to consciousness studies and in the blurb under a particular video noticed.. "Daniel Dennet predicted the rise of SJW's 8 years ago at an Atheist Alliance 'O7 meeting when he said... we may find ourselves no longer able to respect people we had previously thought rather well of."

This seems to be coming more from the direction of the 'new atheist' thing of a while back, but it seems the experiences coincide



The experiences of 'AJ' towards the end (15:40 onwards) may be fictional, but I'm sure some can relate to them. I liked this bit :

... apparently AJ had just jumped out of the narrow-minded dogma of one religion and into the narrow minded dogma of another religion...


Particularly as religiosity (applied to non-religion) has been a focus of mine for a while now
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
User avatar
jakell
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: North England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Dark Enlightenment

Postby 82_28 » Mon Apr 04, 2016 9:05 am

Seriously, someone should cordially invite him to sign up here. Mr. Rex would have his hands full. I think he would have a good time though. His position needs to be heard, as they say.
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
User avatar
82_28
 
Posts: 11194
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:34 am
Location: North of Queen Anne
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Dark Enlightenment

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Mon Apr 04, 2016 10:34 am

82_28 » Mon Apr 04, 2016 8:05 am wrote:Seriously, someone should cordially invite him to sign up here. Mr. Rex would have his hands full. I think he would have a good time though. His position needs to be heard, as they say.


Mr. Dennett is an exceedingly polite man and I'd only have my "hands full" in the sense of having to look up a lot of his references.

Also don't think Mr. D would find RI of particular interest; much easier to write us off early and go about his day.
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10896
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Dark Enlightenment

Postby jakell » Mon Apr 04, 2016 10:40 am

Wombaticus Rex » Mon Apr 04, 2016 2:34 pm wrote:
82_28 » Mon Apr 04, 2016 8:05 am wrote:Seriously, someone should cordially invite him to sign up here. Mr. Rex would have his hands full. I think he would have a good time though. His position needs to be heard, as they say.


Mr. Dennett is an exceedingly polite man and I'd only have my "hands full" in the sense of having to look up a lot of his references.

Also don't think Mr. D would find RI of particular interest; much easier to write us off early and go about his day.


I had assumed that 82_28 was talking of someone like Curtis Yavin, who is probably also exceedingly polite. It's the polite ones you need to watch though.

Daniel Dennet would probably be rather impatientl with the 'inuition' element', but would provide some well needed rigour. He doesn't fit well in this thread though, the only connection is that SJW comment.
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
User avatar
jakell
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: North England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Dark Enlightenment

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Mon Apr 04, 2016 10:41 am

Jerky » Mon Apr 04, 2016 5:19 am wrote:Just a minor aside in this ongoing discussion, but it struck me as indicative of how frighteningly good the Bad Guys are at manipulating the debate by poisoning language when I stopped to consider the fact that they've successfully made a pejorative out of the words "social justice". I mean, that's fucking incredible to me.

Jerky


In my experience, this shift happened primarily because of the people saying things like "I'm passionate about Social Justice," not a marginalized community of aspies and post-militia movement debris saying things like "I'm so motherfucking sick of these Social Justice Warriors."

Because one of those two demographics is 1) a whole lot bigger and full of people who 2) do a whole lot more "real world" activism, writing, and speech.

My conservative (and worse!) friends definitely make jokes about "SJWs" -- it's a full acronym inside joke -- but what really surprised me in the past 2 years was liberal friends and family distinguishing and distancing themselves from "that Social Justice stuff." That's not a concession to Pat Buchanan, you know?
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10896
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Dark Enlightenment

Postby jakell » Mon Apr 04, 2016 10:49 am

Wombaticus Rex » Mon Apr 04, 2016 2:41 pm wrote:
Jerky » Mon Apr 04, 2016 5:19 am wrote:Just a minor aside in this ongoing discussion, but it struck me as indicative of how frighteningly good the Bad Guys are at manipulating the debate by poisoning language when I stopped to consider the fact that they've successfully made a pejorative out of the words "social justice". I mean, that's fucking incredible to me.

Jerky


In my experience, this shift happened primarily because of the people saying things like "I'm passionate about Social Justice," not a marginalized community of aspies and post-militia movement debris saying things like "I'm so motherfucking sick of these Social Justice Warriors."

Because one of those two demographics is 1) a whole lot bigger and full of people who 2) do a whole lot more "real world" activism, writing, and speech.

My conservative (and worse!) friends definitely make jokes about "SJWs" -- it's a full acronym inside joke -- but what really surprised me in the past 2 years was liberal friends and family distinguishing and distancing themselves from "that Social Justice stuff." That's not a concession to Pat Buchanan, you know?


It's notable that (roughly) the same folks who coined SJW also came up with the term 'cuckservative' so their scorn seems to be projected in all directions.

Liberals distancing themselves from SJW's seems not unlike women distancing themselves from third wave feminism. I don't find that too surprising, it's a gut reaction to overshoot by clear thinkers (ie, not overthinkers)
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
User avatar
jakell
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: North England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Dark Enlightenment

Postby slimmouse » Mon Apr 04, 2016 11:28 am

Religion is for sure a system term

Instead we need to talk Spirituality.

Thats when it gets personal and Freaks them out to fuck.

Because, you see, personal is all it ever really is.
Last edited by slimmouse on Mon Apr 04, 2016 11:38 am, edited 2 times in total.
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: The Dark Enlightenment

Postby Sounder » Mon Apr 04, 2016 11:34 am

My conservative (and worse!) friends definitely make jokes about "SJWs" -- it's a full acronym inside joke -- but what really surprised me in the past 2 years was liberal friends and family distinguishing and distancing themselves from "that Social Justice stuff." That's not a concession to Pat Buchanan, you know?



Can one be liberal while rejecting the SJW model? I sure hope so. Could it be that more and more liberals are coming to associate SJW with 'color revolutions' and 'responsibility to protect' style liberal interventionist policy people? In that case they would be looking at the argument that NED, Open Society, et al are simply using social justice as a marketing ploy and cover for larger projects and objectives, and do not in fact care a whit about social justice.

If true, then 'social justice' by being used and maintained as an empty form, is a sure impediment to an actual and substantive flowering of social justice.

So, remind me again jerky, who are the bad guys and why are they 'bad'? :confused
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Dark Enlightenment

Postby 82_28 » Mon Apr 04, 2016 11:48 am

Yes. I meant Yarvin. Should have made that more clear.
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
User avatar
82_28
 
Posts: 11194
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:34 am
Location: North of Queen Anne
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Dark Enlightenment

Postby jakell » Mon Apr 04, 2016 11:49 am

Sounder » Mon Apr 04, 2016 3:34 pm wrote:
My conservative (and worse!) friends definitely make jokes about "SJWs" -- it's a full acronym inside joke -- but what really surprised me in the past 2 years was liberal friends and family distinguishing and distancing themselves from "that Social Justice stuff." That's not a concession to Pat Buchanan, you know?



Can one be liberal while rejecting the SJW model? I sure hope so. Could it be that more and more liberals are coming to associate SJW with 'color revolutions' and 'responsibility to protect' style liberal interventionist policy people? In that case they would be looking at the argument that NED, Open Society, et al are simply using social justice as a marketing ploy and cover for larger projects and objectives, and do not in fact care a whit about social justice.

If true, then 'social justice' by being used and maintained as an empty form, is a sure impediment to an actual and substantive flowering of social justice.

So, remind me again jerky, who are the bad guys and why are they 'bad'? :confused


Yeah, the almost invisible good/bad guys framework pre-empts most thinking on the issue, any conclusions reached are coloured by that.

Regarding the term 'Social Justice Warriors', I think the sarcasm is laid heavily on that last word, not the first two.
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
User avatar
jakell
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: North England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Dark Enlightenment

Postby tapitsbo » Mon Apr 04, 2016 12:45 pm

Wombaticus Rex » Mon Apr 04, 2016 10:41 am wrote:
Jerky » Mon Apr 04, 2016 5:19 am wrote:Just a minor aside in this ongoing discussion, but it struck me as indicative of how frighteningly good the Bad Guys are at manipulating the debate by poisoning language when I stopped to consider the fact that they've successfully made a pejorative out of the words "social justice". I mean, that's fucking incredible to me.

Jerky


In my experience, this shift happened primarily because of the people saying things like "I'm passionate about Social Justice," not a marginalized community of aspies and post-militia movement debris saying things like "I'm so motherfucking sick of these Social Justice Warriors."

Because one of those two demographics is 1) a whole lot bigger and full of people who 2) do a whole lot more "real world" activism, writing, and speech.

My conservative (and worse!) friends definitely make jokes about "SJWs" -- it's a full acronym inside joke -- but what really surprised me in the past 2 years was liberal friends and family distinguishing and distancing themselves from "that Social Justice stuff." That's not a concession to Pat Buchanan, you know?


Anti-SJW liberals have their own fascinating fanaticisms - atheism, tech fetishism, and more! This category of people is going through an intense series of adjustmentsand adaptations right now...
tapitsbo
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 6:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Dark Enlightenment

Postby Jerky » Mon Apr 04, 2016 1:13 pm

jakell » 04 Apr 2016 10:35 wrote:It's not frightening or incredible, it's just a standard use of sarcasm/irony, used successfully by good and bad guys throughout history.

Unless the shock is due to them daring to look askance at the holy of holies.


Actually, it is quite disturbing to witness how easily a sizable chunk of a population can be convinced into reflexively despising a concept (in this case, social justice) that was, until very recently and for the vast majority of those who used or heard it, viewed as positive, if not unequivocally righteous.

Then again, I have to remember that some people are so silly and easily led that they believe SJWs pose an existential threat, and that "cultural Marxism" is an actual thing.

J

PS - The "bad guys" in this case would be the same think tank mind-whores who wrote the white papers and talking points that were fed to their well-remunerated minions in the massive right-wing propaganda Wurlitzer of the so-called "liberal media" (fucking hilarious that). You know... the same assholes who managed to turn "liberal" into a pejorative that every politician in the USA had to reject and run away from from the 1980s onward.
User avatar
Jerky
 
Posts: 2240
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 6:28 pm
Location: Toronto, ON
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Dark Enlightenment

Postby jakell » Mon Apr 04, 2016 1:23 pm

Jerky » Mon Apr 04, 2016 5:13 pm wrote:
jakell » 04 Apr 2016 10:35 wrote:It's not frightening or incredible, it's just a standard use of sarcasm/irony, used successfully by good and bad guys throughout history.

Unless the shock is due to them daring to look askance at the holy of holies.


Actually, it is quite disturbing to witness how easily a sizable chunk of a population can be convinced into reflexively despising a concept (in this case, social justice) that was, until very recently and for the vast majority of those who used or heard it, viewed as positive, if not unequivocally righteous.


Try this:

jakell » Mon Apr 04, 2016 3:49 pm wrote:
Regarding the term 'Social Justice Warriors', I think the sarcasm is laid heavily on that last word, not the first two.




Then again, I have to remember that some people are so silly and easily led that they believe SJWs pose an existential threat, and that "cultural Marxism" is an actual thing.


Is any idea an actual 'thing' though, and if so, what makes one real and another not?
This is a rhetorical question, but it can put things in perspective



PS - The "bad guys" in this case would be the same think tank mind-whores who wrote the white papers and talking points that were fed to their well-remunerated minions in the massive right-wing propaganda Wurlitzer of the so-called "liberal media" (fucking hilarious that). You know... the same assholes who managed to turn "liberal" into a pejorative that every politician in the USA had to reject and run away from from the 1980s onward.
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
User avatar
jakell
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: North England
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 161 guests