rigorousintuition.ca

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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)

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.

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'?

Yes. I meant Yarvin. Should have made that more clear.

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'?

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.

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...

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.

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.