6 ms·

There’s something missing from the social justice narrative though, demonstrated by the situation in Silicon Valley and those other fields I mentioned: it doesn

There’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.
- stcredzero 9y ago
  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. I wish more of our society's media examined Social Justice through this very lens. I would have much rather that James Damore had received such treatment at the hands of his peers, who now control the platforms of such a broad swath of online discourse.
  - grzm 9y ago
    > "I wish more of our society's media examined Social Justice through this very lens." Set aside those things outside of your control. Do what you can. Stop placing the blame on others.
    - stcredzero 9y ago
      Specifically: Does Social Justice do that?
      - grzm 9y ago
        Can you control those who you label as "Social Justice"? Can you control what "they" do? No. And it's pointless to continue to belabor the point; it's actively destructive to your own position. And what's your point anyway? Do you think it's a good idea? If others aren't doing something good or constructive, then you shouldn't, or shouldn't be expected to either? Take responsibility for making constructive change yourself, regardless of what others may be doing.
        stcredzero 9y ago
        Can you control those who you label as "Social Justice"? Honest and factually-based criticism is a good basis for society's self-correction. Can you control what "they" do? They can't control what they do. That's quite obvious. You can criticize people on a rational, factual basis, then see how they react. How they react will in turn tell volumes about their actual underlying motives, and how intellectually honest they are. Take responsibility for making constructive change yourself, regardless of what others may be doing. Sometimes, "making constructive change" is telling truth to power. It's the side which can execute the witch-hunts which has the power. It's the side which can intimidate others to keep their heads down and their mouths shut which is the side that has power. In fact, the historical record indicates that the above conditions are precisely when telling truth to power is for the good. So long as it's done on a rational and factual basis, it stands a good chance of being for the good. Here's another heuristic: You can evaluate side X, when someone "tells truth to power" to side X. How does side X react? If X are the good guys, they listen. If X are not good, then they seek to suppress and attack. Everyone who has been paying attention can now ask themselves: In the contexts where they have power, How does today's Social Justice act? (Answer: Often, they act very poorly, then deny they ever have power in any context.)
abusoufiyan 9y ago
>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. Is an eerie similarity between two online groups of people going to mean you abandon attempts to bring about equality of the sexes, races, classes, etc.? And if you will abandon it, what will you embrace instead? Conservative racism? I get that maybe there are similarities but there are so many more differences between the two groups that it's ridiculous that people resonate with this comment. One group is "witch-hunting" to root out people who might be bringing stereotypes or prejudice along with their thoughts and ideas, the other is trying to root out people who are of a different race / nationality without even ever hearing any words from them at all. Clearly one is better than the other, even if both have some similar flaws.
- haberman 9y ago
  > Is an eerie similarity between two online groups of people going to mean you abandon attempts to bring about equality of the sexes, races, classes, etc.? [...] And if you will abandon it, what will you embrace instead? Conservative racism? Can you really think of no ideology that can live between the poles of intersectional/postmodern feminism and "conservative racism?" What strange times we live in. There are a lot of articulate people out there fighting the good fight. Their vision of the world rejects extremists on both sides. Check out Helen Pluckrose, Jonathan Haidt, Steven Pinker, and anything on quillette.com, just to name a few.
  - abusoufiyan 9y ago
    It's the parent comment to mine that mentioned bigoted racism, I was just showing that the false equivalence between that and "SJWs" is a bit ridiculous. Just in case you didn't read the parent comment to mine, here's the relevant part: >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. If any of those people are like Steven Pinker, I'll pass. It's silly science-worshipping nonsense. Science/rationalism is good but it isn't the magical solution to all of the ills which plague humanity (as they like to make it seem).
qbaqbaqba 9y ago
>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. Excuse my ignorance (I'm European and don't know the American perspective) but what is the context of this sentence? You had no friends with different skin colour or heritage?
- minikites 9y ago
  I'm not the poster you're replying to but yes, it's extremely easy for white people in the USA to never have to interact on any level with someone of a different race. Suburban enclaves driven by white flight from cities entrench this effect, but it's possible in any area. Lots of cities are still extremely segregated.
- stcredzero 9y ago
  You had no friends with different skin colour or heritage? Actually, I had a number of childhood friends and playmates who would fall into the politically incorrect category of "white trash" -- even though my father was a physician and would supposedly have high status. Not being white automatically reduced our status by a significant amount. My parents were refused membership to the local country club for quite a long time. I also had middle class friends who were of Finnish, Polish, and Irish heritage.
  - Mithaldu 9y ago
    Another european here: Everytime i've heard any american talk about country clubs they were utterly awful places full of awful and ignorant people role-playing what they believe to be high status life in a very boring manner. Why did your family care about not getting in there?
    - stcredzero 9y ago
      Everytime i've heard any american talk about country clubs they were utterly awful places full of awful and ignorant people role-playing what they believe to be high status life in a very boring manner. Thanks for trading in stereotypes and rendering judgements on that basis. My sister and I went there to use the pool in the summertime, and though he went for decades being the doctor who works so much, he never played golf, my father very much got into golf in his 60's. He even eventually became awarded as the most improved and developed a circle of good friends there. At one point, he did some social justice activism and shamed his friends for saying bigoted things, and at that point he was respected enough that they listened to him. I think a bit of golf was well deserved by my father, as an immigrant who worked hard to accomplish the American Dream, and as a man who was once a child who lived through both the horrors of war and the horrors of foreign occupation. As for why it's important to gain access to the places of high status: This is something which is regarded as important across many Asian cultures. Just who are you, precisely, to judge my culture? Also, stopping the exclusion of people from clubs on the basis of ethnicity was a result of Social Justice in decades past. Look up accounts of Jewish people being excluded from "restricted" clubs. This is also the present pursuit of social justice: gaining entrance for qualified people who were otherwise excluded on the basis of irrelevant immutable characteristics. So long as there is equality of opportunity on the basis of merit, this is a worthy goal.

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.

stcredzero 9y ago
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. I wish more of our society's media examined Social Justice through this very lens. I would have much rather that James Damore had received such treatment at the hands of his peers, who now control the platforms of such a broad swath of online discourse.
- grzm 9y ago
  > "I wish more of our society's media examined Social Justice through this very lens." Set aside those things outside of your control. Do what you can. Stop placing the blame on others.
  - stcredzero 9y ago
    Specifically: Does Social Justice do that?
    - grzm 9y ago
      Can you control those who you label as "Social Justice"? Can you control what "they" do? No. And it's pointless to continue to belabor the point; it's actively destructive to your own position. And what's your point anyway? Do you think it's a good idea? If others aren't doing something good or constructive, then you shouldn't, or shouldn't be expected to either? Take responsibility for making constructive change yourself, regardless of what others may be doing.
      - stcredzero 9y ago
        Can you control those who you label as "Social Justice"? Honest and factually-based criticism is a good basis for society's self-correction. Can you control what "they" do? They can't control what they do. That's quite obvious. You can criticize people on a rational, factual basis, then see how they react. How they react will in turn tell volumes about their actual underlying motives, and how intellectually honest they are. Take responsibility for making constructive change yourself, regardless of what others may be doing. Sometimes, "making constructive change" is telling truth to power. It's the side which can execute the witch-hunts which has the power. It's the side which can intimidate others to keep their heads down and their mouths shut which is the side that has power. In fact, the historical record indicates that the above conditions are precisely when telling truth to power is for the good. So long as it's done on a rational and factual basis, it stands a good chance of being for the good. Here's another heuristic: You can evaluate side X, when someone "tells truth to power" to side X. How does side X react? If X are the good guys, they listen. If X are not good, then they seek to suppress and attack. Everyone who has been paying attention can now ask themselves: In the contexts where they have power, How does today's Social Justice act? (Answer: Often, they act very poorly, then deny they ever have power in any context.)

abusoufiyan 9y ago

>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. Is an eerie similarity between two online groups of people going to mean you abandon attempts to bring about equality of the sexes, races, classes, etc.? And if you will abandon it, what will you embrace instead? Conservative racism? I get that maybe there are similarities but there are so many more differences between the two groups that it's ridiculous that people resonate with this comment. One group is "witch-hunting" to root out people who might be bringing stereotypes or prejudice along with their thoughts and ideas, the other is trying to root out people who are of a different race / nationality without even ever hearing any words from them at all. Clearly one is better than the other, even if both have some similar flaws.

haberman 9y ago
> Is an eerie similarity between two online groups of people going to mean you abandon attempts to bring about equality of the sexes, races, classes, etc.? [...] And if you will abandon it, what will you embrace instead? Conservative racism? Can you really think of no ideology that can live between the poles of intersectional/postmodern feminism and "conservative racism?" What strange times we live in. There are a lot of articulate people out there fighting the good fight. Their vision of the world rejects extremists on both sides. Check out Helen Pluckrose, Jonathan Haidt, Steven Pinker, and anything on quillette.com, just to name a few.
- abusoufiyan 9y ago
  It's the parent comment to mine that mentioned bigoted racism, I was just showing that the false equivalence between that and "SJWs" is a bit ridiculous. Just in case you didn't read the parent comment to mine, here's the relevant part: >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. If any of those people are like Steven Pinker, I'll pass. It's silly science-worshipping nonsense. Science/rationalism is good but it isn't the magical solution to all of the ills which plague humanity (as they like to make it seem).

qbaqbaqba 9y ago

>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. Excuse my ignorance (I'm European and don't know the American perspective) but what is the context of this sentence? You had no friends with different skin colour or heritage?

minikites 9y ago
I'm not the poster you're replying to but yes, it's extremely easy for white people in the USA to never have to interact on any level with someone of a different race. Suburban enclaves driven by white flight from cities entrench this effect, but it's possible in any area. Lots of cities are still extremely segregated.
stcredzero 9y ago
You had no friends with different skin colour or heritage? Actually, I had a number of childhood friends and playmates who would fall into the politically incorrect category of "white trash" -- even though my father was a physician and would supposedly have high status. Not being white automatically reduced our status by a significant amount. My parents were refused membership to the local country club for quite a long time. I also had middle class friends who were of Finnish, Polish, and Irish heritage.
- Mithaldu 9y ago
  Another european here: Everytime i've heard any american talk about country clubs they were utterly awful places full of awful and ignorant people role-playing what they believe to be high status life in a very boring manner. Why did your family care about not getting in there?
  - stcredzero 9y ago
    Everytime i've heard any american talk about country clubs they were utterly awful places full of awful and ignorant people role-playing what they believe to be high status life in a very boring manner. Thanks for trading in stereotypes and rendering judgements on that basis. My sister and I went there to use the pool in the summertime, and though he went for decades being the doctor who works so much, he never played golf, my father very much got into golf in his 60's. He even eventually became awarded as the most improved and developed a circle of good friends there. At one point, he did some social justice activism and shamed his friends for saying bigoted things, and at that point he was respected enough that they listened to him. I think a bit of golf was well deserved by my father, as an immigrant who worked hard to accomplish the American Dream, and as a man who was once a child who lived through both the horrors of war and the horrors of foreign occupation. As for why it's important to gain access to the places of high status: This is something which is regarded as important across many Asian cultures. Just who are you, precisely, to judge my culture? Also, stopping the exclusion of people from clubs on the basis of ethnicity was a result of Social Justice in decades past. Look up accounts of Jewish people being excluded from "restricted" clubs. This is also the present pursuit of social justice: gaining entrance for qualified people who were otherwise excluded on the basis of irrelevant immutable characteristics. So long as there is equality of opportunity on the basis of merit, this is a worthy goal.