4 ms·
I'll propose that there is a reason for this. The tactics of the Social Justice movement is to demonize people who disagree with you and attempt to get them fir
by aero142 10y ago
I'll propose that there is a reason for this. The tactics of the Social Justice movement is to demonize people who disagree with you and attempt to get them fired or ostracized from society. The tactic is to find the most extreme version of that opinion and try to make that the model for the whole group, even though the center of it might be more moderate. For example, there are a lot of people that have been concerned about the amount of immigration to the US for years and any attempt to restrict immigration was called racists. It's easy to do since there will be extreme racists that also support restricting immigration. You just need to interview one of the clear racists and make them the poster child for the whole group. I saw tons of the meme with Pepe the frog from the alt-right and never saw a single one that was racists. When it went mainstream, someone found out that racists were using it too, so they attached the racist label to the whole thing and tried to get any discussion from the alt-right tied directly to racism and Nazism. There are racists in the group for sure, but I heard a lot of other parts of it as well.
This is the same reason I was so opposed to the witch hunt of punishing everyone associated with Peter Thiel. Trying to get someone fired for their political beliefs sends the middle people underground. They are fearful, and their whole lives are not centered around their political identity, so they just stop talking about it.
The result is that the only people willing to talk about these things are the extremes, or the weird or the people who really take "I don't care what you think of me" to the extreme. This is why Milo Yiannopoulos is the spokesman for these ideas to people. He is the only one willing to talk publicly. He is an extreme, and deeply flawed person, but he is willing to say things no one else is, so he has a following. Trump is also a version of this. Lots of his supporters are more reasonable than him, but they got shouted out of the public discourse and were call racists anyway, so that only left the extremes left to represent the center.
I think there are lots "worthy opponents" out there, but if they said they support less immigration, they would be called racists and everything they ever said would be quote-mined until something unacceptable was found and they would be run out of the public space.
- therpe1 10y agoIt seems you've concocted this fantasy where "SJWs" are hunting down anybody who dares to discuss immigration and driving them out of town with pitchforks. I'm sure you believe this but it has no basis in reality. In fact what you'll find if you step back and look at the bigger picture is that (1) the debate around immigration isn't new, it's been going on literally since the birth of the Republic (2) for most of the Republic's history both the State and the people have been violently anti-immigrant and (3) this has moderated and most respectable polls on America now show a population that largely welcomes diversity [1]. My own theory is that immigration is just a symbol that culture warriors like to throw around. It doesn't mean anything in itself. It's not like the situation in Europe where you've seen recent spikes in immigration, in fact by most accounts (largely due to the poor economy) immigration has lessened in America. The thing that changed really was the complete, unreserved embrace of immigration as "the greatest evil" by the right. The real point being that... it's certainly possible to have reasonable discussions about immigration. Up until -- I want to say the late 70s -- this happened all the time. But reasonable discussion is no longer possible about this topic. The people pushing for it have constructed a paradigm where immigration is going to destroy America and anybody who doesn't see this is a stupid... SJW. There's no facts, no evidence, just propaganda and fear. So that's where we are and it's unlikely to change any time soon. The challenge now will be having a democracy and constructing policy when a good chunk of the people have abandoned the rationalist tradition. [1] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/06/diversity-welcomed-in-australia-u-s-despite-uncertainty-over-muslim-integration/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/06/diversity-we...
- didibus 10y agoThere's some good arguments in here, but I'm not sure I see something that proves the chicken and egg problem. Though I admit, even when I look I can't seem to find centrists in the USA. It appears the center works like interlaced video, every 4 or 8 years, we alternate between far left and right, and over 100 years it centers itself on average. But I'd much rather just be close to the center at all times, just like full resolution video is better then interlaced.
- malcolmreynolds 10y agoI'm in total agreement with this reply. Regarding the silence of the centrists it is due to fear of being labeled with a pejorative that will be difficult to shake, even if it's within a small community and not widely publicized. That kind of ostracization, even if only in your neighborhood/town/city/workplace, can have a significant negative effect on your life, and the lives of your loved ones. For example, if you vocalize even mild support of some sort of immigration restrictions you are branded a racist, regardless of whether your reasoning for your support is logically sound or whether your implementation approach is measured or thoughtful. The result is that the extremism rampant today has a chilling effect on the voices of what I believe is the vast majority of people. Where that may lead is something that could be quite scary.