13 ms·
Thinking Critically About Social Justice
- arkades 9y agoThis was a very thoughtful and well-reasoned criticism of a political stance I generally sympathize with. Kudos.
- JSMustDie 9y agoI remember the days HN was quite conservative and anti-SJW (not surprising given engineers typically are). Sadly the same kind of PC policing seems to be occurring here as well.
- oneshot908 9y agoI am torn between seeing the SJWs as the emerging tea party of the left and minding my own business because I'm an old GenX fart who needs to get out of the way of whatever the millennials are cooking up to remake society in their own image. I do not agree with the firing of James Damore because I believe Google acted as an enabler here by allowing the existence of a forum entitled "Politically Correct Considered Harmful." James Damore's plausibly deniable implication that he had a Ph.D. OTOH alone should have been grounds for his termination. But again, IMO the Boomers made a mess, GenX built on the mess, and now it's up to the Millennials to decide what they're going to do with the place.
- stcredzero 9y agoI'm an old GenX fart who needs to get out of the way of whatever the millennials are cooking up to remake society in their own image. Why? Because what younger people do is automatically good? Your voice is invalidated because you're older, and that makes sense because of "reasons?" I guess this is why the Cultural Revolution was such an unqualified success. I guess the young men of the Freikorps were correct because they were young.
- oneshot908 9y agoNo, not at all. But I'm past reproductive age, I have more than enough money to retire comfortably, and I have no kids and therefore no skin in whatever game they want to play with the planet. I'll be gone in 30-50 years, poof, like I never existed. But I will be around more than long enough to watch a bunch of rich obese white gasbags die of coronaries and other otherwise easily preventable ailments, and to see whether AI does something magical around 2050 or so. That's enough for one life, no?
- stcredzero 9y agoI'll be gone in 30-50 years, poof, like I never existed. Nihilism -- ever the source of far-seeing wisdom. But I will be around more than long enough to watch a bunch of rich obese white gasbags die of coronaries Looking forwards to the deaths of others on the basis of racial stereotypes? Always a good sign. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wreDa1xarTM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wreDa1xarTM
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- Bizarro 9y agoNo, not at all. But I'm past reproductive age, I have more than enough money to retire comfortably, You think you'd be safe and gone before they would have a chance to confiscate everything you have? SJWs are just old fashioned collectivists, marxists. The author seemed to be afraid to call them what he knows they are, even though he danced around it.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- Jtsummers 9y agoI dig this paranoia. Very fashionable these days. On what do you base your fears and anxieties?
- justherefortart 9y agoAs a GenXer myself, let me know when it's my turn. I see the long lasting effects of the "greatest generation" and Baby Boomers far more than anything GenX has "built".
- psyc 9y agoI’m also old, and my main objection to the present “SJW” movement is their strong preference for a fight fire with fire approach, in contrast with the fight fire with water approach encouraged by Ghandi and King. For example, they have reinterpreted the “respectability politics” concept to mean they can be as rude and mean-spirited as they please. In the civil rights movement, that term meant something quite different.
- oneshot908 9y agoAgreed, they're well-intentioned, but the minute they're OK with a few innocent victims in their pursuit of the guilty, I'm no longer on board.
- psyc 9y agoIt’s so absurd to me. Like, I agree with them on every actual issue, but I want nothing to do with their activism because they appear to be raging, absolutist jerks to everyone including other liberals.
- tomlock 9y agoI think we see it through a lens of what gets upvoted and shared, and the actual irl people involved in these movements and the activism aren't the caricatures we see online.
- stcredzero 9y agoWhat happened to James Damore and the surrounding events read just like other over the top SJW shenanigans.
- tomlock 9y agoSure, but the over the top SJW shenanigans are shared and upvoted somewhere, amirite? Or is this all based on SJWs you know in real life?
- bem94 9y agoThis is an excellent expression of the kinds of conversations I want to be able to have with conservatives and liberals without being called one by the other. We need more nuanced discussions like this. I hope to have, hear and see more of them. Good luck HN.
- gizmo686 9y agoLeave us liberals out of this. /s This is one of those areas where liberal and leftist diverge. As the author identifies, this aspect of social justice thinking is decidedly anti-liberal. I actually think this is one of the bigger issues we are seeing with the current debate. Historically, we have had a liberal/leftist coalition in our culture. Now that this is starting to break apart, us liberals are having to come to terms with our leftist allies not actually being liberals; while the leftists are coming to terms with us liberals not actually being leftists. Because of how inconceivable this divide is to many people, there is a lot of strawmaning of positions. So if a leftist sees a liberal argue for the liberal position in this debate, they see it as arguing against the leftist position; and since leftist==liberal, they must be arguing for the right/conservative posisition. Since this issue is so politized, I don't think many liberals see the left as arguing for a right/conservative posistion; but many do see them as arguing for an authoritarian posistion, which has historically been associated with the right. As a result, I think that many liberals are simply confused about what is going on since, without the liberal/left distinction, all they see is "their" side going "crazy"; when, in reality, there simply is not (and never was) the common ground that both sides thought there was. (Obviously, any reference to "historically" refers to the recent history. One does not need to go back that far to find major examples of widely accepted leftist-authoritarians, but those are more in the history books, then in the public perception).
- bem94 9y agoPlease excuse my brevity, I'm on a phone. I think you are right about the "coalition" between liberals and leftists. I've noticed it falling apart for a while but not really been able to describe it. Talking with friends I previously considered liberal and being shushed for questioning or simply not knowing the current vogue in social justice discourse has been a really horrible experience. Worse, I've seen that experience turn others into frothing radicals who then do the same thing to other people. It's a forward feedback loop of people entrenching their existing preconceptions. It's a mess.
- tomlock 9y agoThe author seems to rest on "critical theory" and come to a stop. I feel like the author is using critical theory as a ten dollar word because claiming it is central to social justice topics is a gross oversimplification. Additionally, references to it peaked in the 70s and have been declining since.
- stcredzero 9y agoreferences to it peaked in the 70s and have been declining since. But has it peaked as an ideological foundation of the ideologies of recent campus activists? It doesn't seem that way to me.
- tomlock 9y agoI can only speak as an ex-postgrad philosophy major and Australian left-wing political activist, but I haven't heard anyone mention critical theory in an activist context for years.
- stcredzero 9y agoI suspect your circles are ahead of trash academic circles here in the US, at places like Mizzou and Evergreen.
- tomlock 9y agoAustralia is, bluntly, seen as a bit of a philosophical backwater. Additionally some of the most recent en-vogue leftie thought has come from the US - particularly bell hooks, judith butler, etc.
- stcredzero 9y agoAustralia is, bluntly, seen as a bit of a philosophical backwater. One thing we've noted in traditional music: Sometimes something awesome gets preserved in the backwaters while progress devolves something in the hot-centers of rapid change. (Scottish music in Cape Breton.) most recent en-vogue leftie thought has come from the US - particularly bell hooks, judith butler, etc. Bell Hooks is a Marxist. She claims to be Marxist. She's a Marxist that likes some things from Postmodernist social construction.
- zbyte64 9y ago> In those parts of society, values like equality, liberation, and cosmopolitanism aren’t just treated as values—organisations of society that different people prefer to different degrees—they’re considered moral. So is equality a value you share or not?
- jeffreyrogers 9y agoWhat kind of equality? Liberals and conservatives tend to have different definitions.
- stcredzero 9y agoEquality of opportunity is foundational. It's a good definition of fairness. Equality of outcomes is insanity. The presumption that it is how things are supposed to be has basically been used to justify anything, up to and including rape and genocide. "Equality of outcomes" is basically Marxian ideology dressed up as a virus to be injected into a democratic society. It throws out meritocracy. Is it any wonder that many ideologies which espouse it also seek to throw out logic itself? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPnUOcsjqgA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPnUOcsjqgA
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- asteli 9y agoDo people actually argue in favor of equality of outcomes? Can't say I've ever seen this done, but then again I haven't seen everything. The fundamental issue that I see addressed in social justice is that opportunity is deeply and currently inextricably affected by your circumstances in life. Taking steps to address this, is, as you said, foundational.
- stcredzero 9y agoDo people actually argue in favor of equality of outcomes? When people presume that a 50/50 gender distribution is the goal, and that falling short of that is evidence of discrimination, then yes, they are arguing for equality of outcome. Equality of opportunity would allow for skews in various fields to work themselves out naturally.
- skookumchuck 9y agoThe more forcefully and loudly people try to suppress certain ideas, the more they are afraid those ideas might be right. For example, nobody is trying to suppress astrology, because nobody is afraid it might be true. The same goes for phrenology, ancient astronauts, flat earthers, 9/11 conspiracies, etc.
- thraway1 9y agoDo you have proof of that? Isn't it possible people are trying to suppress certain ideas because they've been tried before with objectively catastrophic consequences?
- catdograbbit 9y agoIf that was the case, you wouldn't need to suppress the ideas, but rather counter them with the evidence of their past failure.
- asteli 9y agoWhat ideas are being suppressed because of fear that they could be correct? To be US centric for a moment, I can see examples of attempted suppression of ideas by conservatives - defunding climate change research and the refusal to allow CDC research into gun control, for example. I'm racking my brain trying to think of counterexamples of suppression from the left. Suppression of white supremacist thought? Anti-gay sentiment? The value of diversity? Who on the left is genuinely (if secretly) afraid that whites are the master race, or that the gays are destroying family values?
- skookumchuck 9y agoNobody would actually admit they are afraid that the ideas may be correct. Free speech kills bad ideas. The nazis, for example, have free speech in the US. They get nowhere.
- millermp12 9y ago
- sklivvz1971 9y agoA mish-mash of good ideas, uninspiring references to Marxism and clearly xenophobic traits--who according to the author can't be said because it's discriminatory, ye ye ye. I mean, he totally lost me when he started saying "immigration raises crime rates" and other xenophobic propaganda, which is clearly, pardon my French, bovine excrement that people should feel ashamed of.
- lerno 9y agoExcept for the fact that he was talking in context of Europe where this is - unfortunately - verifiably true.
- pmoriarty 9y agoIt's unfortunate that this article provides an analysis and critique of the roots of left-leaning "social justice" but absolutely zero analysis or critique of the roots of right-leaning conservatism or libertarianism. The latter have a long history of their own victimization rhetoric, which they use for political ends, and an adherence to many conspiracy theories. Neither is even indirectly alluded to, much less analyzed or critiqued despite being directly relevant to the views expressed in the article.
- Beamer92 9y agoRight but... was anybody unaware of that? There's plenty out there critiquing right-leaning beliefs that we didn't really need another. I think it was plenty fair in that it just presented a critical analysis of one side without necessarily supporting the other. You don't need to be fair to every side of an argument to point out a flaw. I mostly got that there's parallels to draw between the idea of breaking down existing power structures while ignoring how you have to build new ones in their place. Instead of seeing a lack of critique of a side I already believe to be flawed, I see themes to be considered when I tell myself I've got the right of it. Another way of seeing it: when attempting to knock someone else off their high horse, you don't need to be reassured that they deserved to be knocked off of their horse to be reminded not to climb up on your own afterwards.
- barrkel 9y agoThat's a red herring, what we'd call whataboutery in my home country.
- greglindahl 9y agoA red herring and whataboutism are two different things! A red herring seeks to tie someone's statement to Communism, and then dismiss it. For example, some people criticizing the GPL do that. This is whataboutism.
- Jtsummers 9y ago“Red herring” has nothing to do with communism. The expression greatly predates the idea (as a cohesive political philosophy) of communism. Red herrings are distractions and misdirections to pull you away from the intended topic or discussion.
- mattzito 9y agoThis article lost a lot of credibility with me when in the early framing of the issue, Harris writes: > Following the release of the NLRB memo, a number of scientists on Twitter expressed alarm at the justifications provided within the memo, which appeared to relegate the discussion of sex differences outside the realm of constitutionally protected speech. (emphasis mine) The NLRB letter says nothing of the kind. It says that the memo contained both protected and unprotected speech, and that Damore was terminated for the unprotected form. You have very few first amendment protections in the workplace, and employees can be fired for saying almost anything. Sex differences, in particular, have never been a protected class of speech in a workplace, and to claim that this letter somehow changes the landscape of the workplace is disingenuous at best.
- gizmo686 9y agoFrom the memo: >The Charging Party’s use of stereotypes based on purported biological differences between women and men should not be treated differently than the types of conduct the Board found unprotected in these cases. Statements about immutable traits linked to sex—such as women’s heightened neuroticism and men’s prevalence at the top of the IQ distribution—were discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment, notwithstandingeffort to cloakcomments with “scientific” references and analysis, and notwithstanding “not all women” disclaimers. [0] [0] https://www.scribd.com/document/371689055/NLRB-Damore-v-Google-Advice-Memorandum-1-16-2018 https://www.scribd.com/document/371689055/NLRB-Damore-v-Goog...
- conanbatt 9y agoI have to say i pereive it is weaseling out of the rules that one makes a claim and gets fired for another one. At the point of a single claim (the essay), anything contained in the memo that is not protected means you can fire for the protected things. Of course this is all a sham. He was not fired for discriminatory things he said but because of public outrage. What is the protection you get from that?
- gizmo686 9y agoThe NLRB memo: https://www.scribd.com/document/371689055/NLRB-Damore-v-Google-Advice-Memorandum-1-16-2018 https://www.scribd.com/document/371689055/NLRB-Damore-v-Goog...
- hprotagonist 9y agoIncluding values in our power analysis makes it clear there can be no such thing as simply removing power, because it takes power to remove power. Consequently, power doesn’t disappear, it redirects. In order to remove what they perceive as oppression—say by class, or race, or gender—social justice advocates have to erect their own power structure. They reshape morality, the culture, the language, and the legal system to make people do what they otherwise wouldn’t. And the more they try to eliminate those other forms of oppression, the more tightly they have to oppress people’s values. To increase freedom on one dimension, one must remove it on another. One of the central paradoxes of christian doctrine is the notion of "the power of powerlessness", though the idea exists elsewhere (and the phrase is, i think, Havel's). It is not a coincidence, I think, that the people who put their bodies and lives on the line for their commitment to social justice tend to know this and try to live it. It demands an almost inhuman level of awareness and humility. I am thinking of historical figures like Day and King and Ghandi here, as well as people who span generations, like John Lewis. Breaking the cycle of power-replaces-power is basically impossible to do, totally, but it's a windmill worth tilting at and at a minimum, the existence of the cycle needs to be kept in mind.
- Miner49er 9y agoA true believer in absolute freedom and the free market (a libertarian) wouldn't be against James Domore's firing. It was the free market at work. The article says that libertarians and other conservatives are becoming oppressed, but the means of their oppression is something they support. They are being oppressed by the free market and by other people's free speech.
- ThomPete 9y agoIt's not about absolute freedom or free market it's about free speech thats a very different thing. Your logic is opening up for the ability for anyone to discriminate other people alone for their opinions, that's a box I don't think benefit anyone.
- Miner49er 9y agoBut libertarians and true believers of free speech support the right of people to discriminate with their speech. For example, from the article, "Anyone doing so would be met by a unified front of academics, journalists, and cultural figures expressing their moral outrage, wrapped up in sophisticated words and scientific-sounding terminology like xenophobia." A true Libertarian would support their right to do and say this. One can disagree with it, but it's them using their freedom of speech.
- ThomPete 9y agoI don't know what you mean with "discriminate with their speech" what does that mean? The point of free speech is to get the ideas out in the open so we can debate them.
- Miner49er 9y agoThe article says that SJWs are labeling holder's of certain beliefs as "bad people". I'm saying that is them using their free speech.
- 9y ago
- stcredzero 9y agoThere’s something missing from the social justice narrative though, demonstrated by the situation in Silicon Valley and those other fields I mentioned: it doesn’t take into account the power and oppression it exerts itself. In a society where social justice advocates are outside the dominant power structure—as was the case when these ideas were originally articulated—this doesn’t matter much, since their power is negligible. That’s increasingly no longer the case, as social justice advocates have come to exert major influence over central areas of society, and consequently have also gained substantial power over society as a whole. Clearly, an accurate model of societal power must include social justice ideology and its advocates. I grew up in a part of the country that voted Trump in 2016. When I was a child, we had to drive almost 50 miles to visit friends who were also "brown people" of vaguely the same ethnic group. In what I've seen of Social Justice advocates both online, and in my various run-ins with them in person, I've noted the eerie similarity between them and the bigoted people who used to racially bash me and my sister when we were children. There's a sort of "seeking" going on. There's far too much "witch-hunting" and threatening conformity in it. There's a hatred, and a glee in being superior. There's a similar clinging to image and a similar rejection of logic. I was once an ally of Social Justice, and would be still, but I've seen the underlying morality of it play out both online and in my face and in person. Unless Social Justice starts loudly calling out the injustice done in its name, then my "lived experience" of it speaks loudly that today's Social Justice is malevolent. Please Listen and Believe. (Another data point: This thoughtful and well considered Quillette link was flagged and had to be unflagged. Ask yourself who is behaving in a censorious fashion and trying to suppress real discourse. That side is generally not the "good guys" as much as they might try to convince themselves otherwise.)
- grzm 9y ago> "Ask yourself who is behaving in a censorious fashion and trying to suppress real discourse." There are reasons members might flag a story other than to censor it, including being tired of the current volume of political stories on HN, and recognizing that not every topic can constructively be discussed in every forum. One reason HN may not be the appropriate forum for such discussions is due to the difficulty in imagining that those that disagree with you might be doing so for any reason other than nefarious reasons, just as you assume that it was flagged in an effort to suppress real discourse. Real discourse does not assume bad faith and seeks to understand just as much to be understood, and seeks common cause rather than increasing divisiveness. Notice there is nothing in my comment that is directed at any one political position, as it applies to any and all. Ask yourself if you thought I was attacking you and must be supporting the "other side" when reading my comment. Do you think that's a useful and accurate representation? Upon reflection, do you stand by your claim that members who may have flagged the story must be on the other side and behaving badly? What are you actually doing to move the conversation forward? Do you think you're moving the needle in a constructive direction when you do? Remember, those that already agree with you aren't really your audience, are they? How do you think you're being received by those who don't agree with you? Or don't they matter? Are they unreachable? These are all very real problems, and it's incredibly frustrating to see people grapple with them in ways that alienate each other, that are unconstructive, and then when people don't want to listen any more, or understandably get their backs up when they're treating each other badly, claim that they're being censored or oppressed.
- maxerickson 9y agoCould a better student of communist Russia go ahead and assure me that the authoritarianism was not an accident of their power analysis? Thanks.
- dgudkov 9y ago>Some of the most explicitly social justice-oriented societies ever to exist were the communist regimes of the 20th century. This is exactly my sentiment. SJWs are the new bolsheviks.