10 ms·

Interesting how moral fashion trends in the U.S. have changed since 2004. As I recall, in 2004, it was morally unfashionable to criticize the war effort. In 201

Interesting how moral fashion trends in the U.S. have changed since 2004. As I recall, in 2004, it was morally unfashionable to criticize the war effort. In 2018, it's morally unfashionable to mention the excesses of the social justice movement. Although I was much less afraid of being a heretic in 2004 than I am in 2018; I'm curious if others have similar or different experiences/opinions?

kennywinker 8y ago
> In 2018, it's morally unfashionable to mention the excesses of the social justice movement. It seems like there are many social circles where this is expected, not unfashionable. In the world we live in, all these “norms” are context dependent.
- lowry 8y ago
  He should have said, criticise publicly.
  - zabuni 8y ago
    Jonathan Chait makes a living doing that.
- candiodari 8y ago
  I guess those circles just seem very far away when you're in the bay area.
  - weberc2 8y ago
    I'm in the midwest fwiw.
    - scarecrowbob 8y ago
      Here in the Texas hill country, there is this funny fashion where folks complain about how they can't complain about the excesses of "the social justice movement". It's a very meta kind of fashion to see in action. It's neat though... it's always funny to hear some duder talking about how he can't even say something that he's saying.
      - candiodari 8y ago
        Okay. I feel like it's time for experiment ! Or, one might say, "reproducing the behavior of which is spoken". "I think the immigration flows into Europe are over the top, the EU population cannot seriously be expected to cope with them, or with the economic consequences of said flows, without massive protests" This is not even a racist statement, at least not in my opinion. But it is definitely "something you can't say". Let's see how quickly this post gets downvoted. One might argue "but surely nobody would be baited out that easily and transparently", right ? Let's see. I leave myself fully open to being shown to be very wrong here. I'm making it real easy. All that has to be done is that such a statement must be left alone when it's an obvious bait, and in facts repeats 3 times that it is bait. Let's see.
        candiodari 8y ago
        Well I must admit I'm wrong. Glad to see it actually.
        kennywinker 8y ago
        But late to the party, but: > the EU population cannot seriously be expected to cope with them, or with the economic consequences of said flows, without massive protests This statement makes no sense. People don’t like it, therefore it’s bad? Not an argument against it. :)
Meekro 8y ago
Do you know any examples of people being fired from their jobs for criticizing the Iraq war in 2004? There are many examples of people getting fired for questioning the tenets of social justice, including some fired for relatively minor violations.
- natestemen 8y ago
  could you give some examples of people being fired for "relatively minor violations"?
  - dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
    What about a Python conference and two guys joking about forking a repo?
    - drewrv 8y ago
      The woman who called them out also got fired. And swarmed with rape/death threats too.
      - dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
        This doesn't change the fact much. Moreover, later it turned out she misunderstood the part about forking. Which leads to the question: do we accept the world in which someone can be fired because of a false accusation? Can we really call it “progressive”?
        drewrv 8y ago
        It changes the narrative of "liberal bullies are ruining our dongle jokes". The fact that a woman was fired for trying to make our industry more inclusive shows we're not a leftie monoculture. The fact that she was subjected to rape and death threats shows there's a lot of toxic misogyny in our industry. It can be simultaneously true that people are afraid to talk because of SJWs criticizing them, and also they can be afraid to talk because right wing trolls will target them for harassment. Who in their right mind would want to risk being the next Zoë Quinn?
ryanmarsh 8y ago
- aisengard 8y ago
  Huh, looks like nothing happened. What do you know? Turns out, white men have always been the most protected class of them all, and any change to that paradigm feels like an assault. The onus is on the formerly-protected class to think outside of themselves.
- mcherm 8y ago
  I'm not sure what reaction you are expecting. I also don't have any idea what you mean by "a member of an un-protected class so-to-speak".
bootsz 8y ago
Yeah the post-9/11 years were definitely pretty weird in the US, from people claiming you couldn’t morally criticize the president to the ubiquitousness of “SUPPORT THE TROOPS” bumper stickers and signs (which meant what exactly? I still have no idea)
- tyingq 8y ago
  There are honest uses of "SUPPORT THE TROOPS", like promoting improved healthcare for veterans. Of course, it's also a way to phrase something like "support the war" while being hard to argue with. Like "pro life" and "pro choice". Both deliberate naming schemes to make a position seem hard to argue with.
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    "Support the troops" was always "Support the war" and it was designed that way. In my view the best that could be done to support the troops would be to bring them home and think twice about foreign adventures.
  - jstanley 8y ago
    If troops are agents of war, and you don't support war, why would you support troops?
    - tyingq 8y ago
      I suspect it's meant for people that oppose the "current war" versus "any and all war".
- jcoffland 8y ago
  “SUPPORT THE TROOPS” is newspeak for "SUPPORT THE WAR."
- taserian 8y ago
  One of my favorite stand-up routines talks about the infamous bumper sticker philosophy, and what happened when the person moved from a left-leaning location to a right-leaning one. https://youtu.be/pKBKLeTZbM4 https://youtu.be/pKBKLeTZbM4
acheron 8y ago
There were large anti-war protests in 2003-2004, supported and propped up by most media organizations. It was hardly "morally unfashionable to criticize the war effort".
- weberc2 8y ago
  Dunno. This is just my recollection. It's likely flawed to some degree and biased by my locale. Like I said, I didn't recall it being nearly as severe as the current moral regime.
- antidaily 8y ago
  Propped up by media organizations? No. Or maybe I'm not understanding. Who propped up protests?
jf- 8y ago
It’s already peaked and has started to decline. There’s a definite sense that questioning the radical left is less transgressive than it used to be. We’re currently coming out of a period which will be looked back upon as being very left, and how the culture shifted so far in such short a time will be a topic of much debate. However, when the pendulum swings it rarely stops in the center. I fear an over-reaction to the right. Really what we need is for people to stop being crazy ideological zealots, regardless of inclination.
- claudiawerner 8y ago
  >Really what we need is for people to stop being crazy ideological zealots, regardless of inclination. I notice two things worth commenting on here; firstly it seems as though you've assumed a position of being unideological, that is to say, you don't have an ideology, but those crazy people to my left and right do. Almost everyone believes certain ideologies, and most people aren't aware of which ones they believe in. Zizek says somewhere that the most successful ideologies are those which do not appear ideological, which are accepted because they do not appear ideological. Liberal democracy, the conception of rights, the separation of church and state, the precedence of the individual who owns property is built on ideology. In fact, I would say this: your ideology is believing that you live in a post-ideological world. The second point I'd like to make is that denying "crazy ideological zealots" also denies qualitative change. It means you're excluding their ideas because they are extreme and "ideological". Because they seem irrational. But what is rational and irrational changes in time and place. This is roughly the golden middle fallacy at best, and a strong endorsement of the status quo (whatever it is) at worst.
  - jf- 8y ago
    Zizek is a purveyor of nonsense. I think it’s obvious to most readers that I have a belief system, and that I am advocating for that belief system, and that belief system is roughly described as centrist. You’ve written rather a lot of words to state the obvious. And to name drop Zizek. Edit: If you disagree with the Zizek statement and have never listened to him speak, you may wish to look him up.
jawarner 8y ago
It was also morally unfashionable to criticize liberating the slaves in the Northern states. So, thankfully, "moral fashion" presided in that case. In the Me Too social justice movement, for instance, Things You Can't Say come in two varieties: Just as men feel their nuanced opinions are misinterpreted and shamed, women too feel their experiences are doubted or ignored. I think it's also important to note that exactly one of the two "sides" of this movement has historically been a marginalized group. That in of itself is not sufficient to make an opinion, so do your own research of course.
- sheepmullet 8y ago
  > I think it's also important to note that exactly one of the two "sides" of this movement has historically been a marginalized group According to social justice ideology.
  - jawarner 8y ago
    Interesting. So, for instance, you are aware that women did not have the fight to vote until 1920. Is your belief that women have never been marginalized? Or that they used to be, but in quantitative terms this group by now in 2018 has attained an equal amount of power?
    - sheepmullet 8y ago
      > you are aware that women did not have the fight to vote until 1920. And? I didn’t have the right to vote until I immigrated to America. > Is your belief that women have never been marginalized? Throughout history lots of people have had a shit time. Some groups worse than others. I think there is a lot to unpack in your statement. Marginalized as compared to who?
      - sheepmullet 8y ago
        To expand on this for example in the US we have an interesting history of lynching black men based on the accusations of white women.
cm2012 8y ago
There's a NYtimes opinion column every few weeks decrying campus culture social justice. Forget about conservative news where decrying it is a routine daily schedule item.
CryoLogic 8y ago
One issue with questioning the social justice movement is a lot of the big supporters are tribalistic and rather than debating an opinion with real stats and logic, many of them fire back with tantrums and irrational dialog. Look up some of the campus protests, in particular in Canada. These far left social justice warriors are literally trying to break windows to prevent some guy from talking about supporting freedom of speech at campuses. This happened when the university was attempting to get the local politicians to pass a law making it a illegal to call someone the wrong pronoun, punishable by fines and jail time. These people literally resorted to irrational rage and violence. I believe it was at UTorronto. And there where dozens of them. It's hard to speak out against a horde that is irrational and irresponsive to debating opinions. And in many of the clips I've seen, some of these very well known "SJW" with big social media following are actually misusing statistics! Like literally taking stats, and mis-using them on purpose to push their agenda. A popular example is talking about a minority and saying "x whites make 100k but only y non-whites make 100k" - this looks really bad until you realize the percentage of whites in the demographic was purposefully left out. The stats where misrepresented so there was not a fair comparison.
- kadendogthing 8y ago
  This is such an unoriginal and unexceptional thread. You try to illicit a veneer of servitude towards reason and logic, but then you can't help but be disingenuous about the subject you're discussing. You're virtue signaling in the worst way possible; you're not as smart as you want to make yourself out to be. >These far left social justice warriors are literally trying to break windows to prevent some guy from talking about supporting freedom of speech at campuses. The rally that you're referencing was pretty volatile because of attendees, mainly your dutiful patrons of Reason and Logic (TM) 2018, were shouting slurs and engaging in physical violence. See the following report: * In one confrontation with BLC protesters, a man shouted, “We need more Michael Browns,” in reference to the 2014 fatal shooting of the 18-year old unarmed black man by police officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri. * One attendee brought three dogs to the event and was openly criticized by many people for what was interpreted as an aggressive move. * Steven Ainneta wore a “Support Local 81” jacket — the Downtown Toronto chapter of the Hell’s Angels Motorcycle Club * told The Varsity that he “was accosted by two separate older men with no affiliation to the university. One was wearing Hell’s Angel’s clothing, and the other, along with his wife, seemed to be identifying themselves as white supremacists. Both shoved me unprovoked, while my hands were up, and used racial, homophobic, and transphobic slurs and epithets with myself and other protestors on separate occasions >This happened when the university was attempting to get the local politicians to pass a law making it a illegal to call someone the wrong pronoun, punishable by fines and jail time. Out of all the things that have never happened online or in real life, this has never happened the most. How can you be so angry over something that isn't even happening? I don't understand the ilk that surrounds Peterson. It's a literal cult of personality. Here's the wikipedia article of the bill you're trying to lie about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_to_amend_the_Canadian_Human_Rights_Act_and_the_Criminal_Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_to_amend_the_Canadian_H... Here is the section you're lying about: >The law also adds "gender identity or expression" to section 718.2 of the Criminal Code.This section is part of the sentencing provisions and makes gender identity and gender expression an aggravating factor in sentencing, leading to increased sentences for individuals who commit crimes motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression. So no. No one is going to jail for using the wrong pronoun. Let me know when SJW's start running over people with their cars just because they don't like their existence.
kadendogthing 8y ago
> In 2018, it's morally unfashionable to mention the excesses of the social justice movement. Who, when, and where? Have you seen who's running the U.S. government lately?
- dhimes 8y ago
  There's an argument out there that the leader(s) of the US govt is/are amoral.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

kennywinker 8y ago

> In 2018, it's morally unfashionable to mention the excesses of the social justice movement. It seems like there are many social circles where this is expected, not unfashionable. In the world we live in, all these “norms” are context dependent.

lowry 8y ago
He should have said, criticise publicly.
- zabuni 8y ago
  Jonathan Chait makes a living doing that.
candiodari 8y ago
I guess those circles just seem very far away when you're in the bay area.
- weberc2 8y ago
  I'm in the midwest fwiw.
  - scarecrowbob 8y ago
    Here in the Texas hill country, there is this funny fashion where folks complain about how they can't complain about the excesses of "the social justice movement". It's a very meta kind of fashion to see in action. It's neat though... it's always funny to hear some duder talking about how he can't even say something that he's saying.
    - candiodari 8y ago
      Okay. I feel like it's time for experiment ! Or, one might say, "reproducing the behavior of which is spoken". "I think the immigration flows into Europe are over the top, the EU population cannot seriously be expected to cope with them, or with the economic consequences of said flows, without massive protests" This is not even a racist statement, at least not in my opinion. But it is definitely "something you can't say". Let's see how quickly this post gets downvoted. One might argue "but surely nobody would be baited out that easily and transparently", right ? Let's see. I leave myself fully open to being shown to be very wrong here. I'm making it real easy. All that has to be done is that such a statement must be left alone when it's an obvious bait, and in facts repeats 3 times that it is bait. Let's see.
      - candiodari 8y ago
        Well I must admit I'm wrong. Glad to see it actually.
      - kennywinker 8y ago
        But late to the party, but: > the EU population cannot seriously be expected to cope with them, or with the economic consequences of said flows, without massive protests This statement makes no sense. People don’t like it, therefore it’s bad? Not an argument against it. :)

Meekro 8y ago

Do you know any examples of people being fired from their jobs for criticizing the Iraq war in 2004? There are many examples of people getting fired for questioning the tenets of social justice, including some fired for relatively minor violations.

natestemen 8y ago
could you give some examples of people being fired for "relatively minor violations"?
- dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
  What about a Python conference and two guys joking about forking a repo?
  - drewrv 8y ago
    The woman who called them out also got fired. And swarmed with rape/death threats too.
    - dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
      This doesn't change the fact much. Moreover, later it turned out she misunderstood the part about forking. Which leads to the question: do we accept the world in which someone can be fired because of a false accusation? Can we really call it “progressive”?
      - drewrv 8y ago
        It changes the narrative of "liberal bullies are ruining our dongle jokes". The fact that a woman was fired for trying to make our industry more inclusive shows we're not a leftie monoculture. The fact that she was subjected to rape and death threats shows there's a lot of toxic misogyny in our industry. It can be simultaneously true that people are afraid to talk because of SJWs criticizing them, and also they can be afraid to talk because right wing trolls will target them for harassment. Who in their right mind would want to risk being the next Zoë Quinn?

ryanmarsh 8y ago

aisengard 8y ago
Huh, looks like nothing happened. What do you know? Turns out, white men have always been the most protected class of them all, and any change to that paradigm feels like an assault. The onus is on the formerly-protected class to think outside of themselves.
mcherm 8y ago
I'm not sure what reaction you are expecting. I also don't have any idea what you mean by "a member of an un-protected class so-to-speak".

bootsz 8y ago

Yeah the post-9/11 years were definitely pretty weird in the US, from people claiming you couldn’t morally criticize the president to the ubiquitousness of “SUPPORT THE TROOPS” bumper stickers and signs (which meant what exactly? I still have no idea)

tyingq 8y ago
There are honest uses of "SUPPORT THE TROOPS", like promoting improved healthcare for veterans. Of course, it's also a way to phrase something like "support the war" while being hard to argue with. Like "pro life" and "pro choice". Both deliberate naming schemes to make a position seem hard to argue with.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  "Support the troops" was always "Support the war" and it was designed that way. In my view the best that could be done to support the troops would be to bring them home and think twice about foreign adventures.
- jstanley 8y ago
  If troops are agents of war, and you don't support war, why would you support troops?
  - tyingq 8y ago
    I suspect it's meant for people that oppose the "current war" versus "any and all war".
jcoffland 8y ago
“SUPPORT THE TROOPS” is newspeak for "SUPPORT THE WAR."
taserian 8y ago
One of my favorite stand-up routines talks about the infamous bumper sticker philosophy, and what happened when the person moved from a left-leaning location to a right-leaning one. https://youtu.be/pKBKLeTZbM4 https://youtu.be/pKBKLeTZbM4

acheron 8y ago

There were large anti-war protests in 2003-2004, supported and propped up by most media organizations. It was hardly "morally unfashionable to criticize the war effort".

weberc2 8y ago
Dunno. This is just my recollection. It's likely flawed to some degree and biased by my locale. Like I said, I didn't recall it being nearly as severe as the current moral regime.
antidaily 8y ago
Propped up by media organizations? No. Or maybe I'm not understanding. Who propped up protests?

jf- 8y ago

It’s already peaked and has started to decline. There’s a definite sense that questioning the radical left is less transgressive than it used to be. We’re currently coming out of a period which will be looked back upon as being very left, and how the culture shifted so far in such short a time will be a topic of much debate. However, when the pendulum swings it rarely stops in the center. I fear an over-reaction to the right. Really what we need is for people to stop being crazy ideological zealots, regardless of inclination.

claudiawerner 8y ago
>Really what we need is for people to stop being crazy ideological zealots, regardless of inclination. I notice two things worth commenting on here; firstly it seems as though you've assumed a position of being unideological, that is to say, you don't have an ideology, but those crazy people to my left and right do. Almost everyone believes certain ideologies, and most people aren't aware of which ones they believe in. Zizek says somewhere that the most successful ideologies are those which do not appear ideological, which are accepted because they do not appear ideological. Liberal democracy, the conception of rights, the separation of church and state, the precedence of the individual who owns property is built on ideology. In fact, I would say this: your ideology is believing that you live in a post-ideological world. The second point I'd like to make is that denying "crazy ideological zealots" also denies qualitative change. It means you're excluding their ideas because they are extreme and "ideological". Because they seem irrational. But what is rational and irrational changes in time and place. This is roughly the golden middle fallacy at best, and a strong endorsement of the status quo (whatever it is) at worst.
- jf- 8y ago
  Zizek is a purveyor of nonsense. I think it’s obvious to most readers that I have a belief system, and that I am advocating for that belief system, and that belief system is roughly described as centrist. You’ve written rather a lot of words to state the obvious. And to name drop Zizek. Edit: If you disagree with the Zizek statement and have never listened to him speak, you may wish to look him up.

jawarner 8y ago

It was also morally unfashionable to criticize liberating the slaves in the Northern states. So, thankfully, "moral fashion" presided in that case. In the Me Too social justice movement, for instance, Things You Can't Say come in two varieties: Just as men feel their nuanced opinions are misinterpreted and shamed, women too feel their experiences are doubted or ignored. I think it's also important to note that exactly one of the two "sides" of this movement has historically been a marginalized group. That in of itself is not sufficient to make an opinion, so do your own research of course.

sheepmullet 8y ago
> I think it's also important to note that exactly one of the two "sides" of this movement has historically been a marginalized group According to social justice ideology.
- jawarner 8y ago
  Interesting. So, for instance, you are aware that women did not have the fight to vote until 1920. Is your belief that women have never been marginalized? Or that they used to be, but in quantitative terms this group by now in 2018 has attained an equal amount of power?
  - sheepmullet 8y ago
    > you are aware that women did not have the fight to vote until 1920. And? I didn’t have the right to vote until I immigrated to America. > Is your belief that women have never been marginalized? Throughout history lots of people have had a shit time. Some groups worse than others. I think there is a lot to unpack in your statement. Marginalized as compared to who?
    - sheepmullet 8y ago
      To expand on this for example in the US we have an interesting history of lynching black men based on the accusations of white women.

cm2012 8y ago

There's a NYtimes opinion column every few weeks decrying campus culture social justice. Forget about conservative news where decrying it is a routine daily schedule item.

CryoLogic 8y ago

One issue with questioning the social justice movement is a lot of the big supporters are tribalistic and rather than debating an opinion with real stats and logic, many of them fire back with tantrums and irrational dialog. Look up some of the campus protests, in particular in Canada. These far left social justice warriors are literally trying to break windows to prevent some guy from talking about supporting freedom of speech at campuses. This happened when the university was attempting to get the local politicians to pass a law making it a illegal to call someone the wrong pronoun, punishable by fines and jail time. These people literally resorted to irrational rage and violence. I believe it was at UTorronto. And there where dozens of them. It's hard to speak out against a horde that is irrational and irresponsive to debating opinions. And in many of the clips I've seen, some of these very well known "SJW" with big social media following are actually misusing statistics! Like literally taking stats, and mis-using them on purpose to push their agenda. A popular example is talking about a minority and saying "x whites make 100k but only y non-whites make 100k" - this looks really bad until you realize the percentage of whites in the demographic was purposefully left out. The stats where misrepresented so there was not a fair comparison.

kadendogthing 8y ago
This is such an unoriginal and unexceptional thread. You try to illicit a veneer of servitude towards reason and logic, but then you can't help but be disingenuous about the subject you're discussing. You're virtue signaling in the worst way possible; you're not as smart as you want to make yourself out to be. >These far left social justice warriors are literally trying to break windows to prevent some guy from talking about supporting freedom of speech at campuses. The rally that you're referencing was pretty volatile because of attendees, mainly your dutiful patrons of Reason and Logic (TM) 2018, were shouting slurs and engaging in physical violence. See the following report: * In one confrontation with BLC protesters, a man shouted, “We need more Michael Browns,” in reference to the 2014 fatal shooting of the 18-year old unarmed black man by police officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri. * One attendee brought three dogs to the event and was openly criticized by many people for what was interpreted as an aggressive move. * Steven Ainneta wore a “Support Local 81” jacket — the Downtown Toronto chapter of the Hell’s Angels Motorcycle Club * told The Varsity that he “was accosted by two separate older men with no affiliation to the university. One was wearing Hell’s Angel’s clothing, and the other, along with his wife, seemed to be identifying themselves as white supremacists. Both shoved me unprovoked, while my hands were up, and used racial, homophobic, and transphobic slurs and epithets with myself and other protestors on separate occasions >This happened when the university was attempting to get the local politicians to pass a law making it a illegal to call someone the wrong pronoun, punishable by fines and jail time. Out of all the things that have never happened online or in real life, this has never happened the most. How can you be so angry over something that isn't even happening? I don't understand the ilk that surrounds Peterson. It's a literal cult of personality. Here's the wikipedia article of the bill you're trying to lie about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_to_amend_the_Canadian_Human_Rights_Act_and_the_Criminal_Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_to_amend_the_Canadian_H... Here is the section you're lying about: >The law also adds "gender identity or expression" to section 718.2 of the Criminal Code.This section is part of the sentencing provisions and makes gender identity and gender expression an aggravating factor in sentencing, leading to increased sentences for individuals who commit crimes motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression. So no. No one is going to jail for using the wrong pronoun. Let me know when SJW's start running over people with their cars just because they don't like their existence.

kadendogthing 8y ago

> In 2018, it's morally unfashionable to mention the excesses of the social justice movement. Who, when, and where? Have you seen who's running the U.S. government lately?

dhimes 8y ago
There's an argument out there that the leader(s) of the US govt is/are amoral.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]