5 ms·

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

by 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.)
- grzm 9y ago
  Everyone believes they're speaking truth to power when they stop listening to the other side. Everyone thinks they're in the right and has the facts on their side. That's why it's so important to engage in ways that are productive and constructive.
  - stcredzero 9y ago
    Everyone believes they're speaking truth to power when they stop listening to the other side. When that side intimidates and suppresses, with no fear of reprisal, then one has direct evidence they are speaking truth to power. That's why it's so important to engage in ways that are productive and constructive. That's why it's important for onlookers to observe how each side is engaging. The side which best engages in the intellectual potlach of openness is the side that looks the best, and is probably the best. "Productive and constructive," do not preclude criticism. Ask: which is the side that leaves out the references? Which is the side that engages in namecalling, character assassination, and suppression? Also note, that I started out on the other side. Given what I say above, is it any wonder that I believe there are micro-agressions? I know that many of the things Social Justice says are true to some degree. I've not only listened to the other side, I've listened to it as a corroboration of my life story. But here's the thing: You can't let that stuff overcome humility and justice. "By Any Means Necessary" is a morally bankrupt "Might Makes Right." If there's bias in hiring, then it's not worth it to degrade meritocracy to improve the numbers. If there's micro-aggressions, then it's not worth it to let such accusations run rampant if it leads to unfair, unsubstantiated accusations. It's plain to see when people are targeting other people. It's particularly plain to see when people have started to succumb to in-group/out-group psychology -- especially when you have experienced it firsthand all of your life. When your Social Justice starts to contain a big, whopping fraction of injustice, that's worse than your baby formula containing a big whopping fraction of melamine. It's time to start speaking out.

by grzm 9y ago

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.)

grzm 9y ago
Everyone believes they're speaking truth to power when they stop listening to the other side. Everyone thinks they're in the right and has the facts on their side. That's why it's so important to engage in ways that are productive and constructive.
- stcredzero 9y ago
  Everyone believes they're speaking truth to power when they stop listening to the other side. When that side intimidates and suppresses, with no fear of reprisal, then one has direct evidence they are speaking truth to power. That's why it's so important to engage in ways that are productive and constructive. That's why it's important for onlookers to observe how each side is engaging. The side which best engages in the intellectual potlach of openness is the side that looks the best, and is probably the best. "Productive and constructive," do not preclude criticism. Ask: which is the side that leaves out the references? Which is the side that engages in namecalling, character assassination, and suppression? Also note, that I started out on the other side. Given what I say above, is it any wonder that I believe there are micro-agressions? I know that many of the things Social Justice says are true to some degree. I've not only listened to the other side, I've listened to it as a corroboration of my life story. But here's the thing: You can't let that stuff overcome humility and justice. "By Any Means Necessary" is a morally bankrupt "Might Makes Right." If there's bias in hiring, then it's not worth it to degrade meritocracy to improve the numbers. If there's micro-aggressions, then it's not worth it to let such accusations run rampant if it leads to unfair, unsubstantiated accusations. It's plain to see when people are targeting other people. It's particularly plain to see when people have started to succumb to in-group/out-group psychology -- especially when you have experienced it firsthand all of your life. When your Social Justice starts to contain a big, whopping fraction of injustice, that's worse than your baby formula containing a big whopping fraction of melamine. It's time to start speaking out.