4 ms·

There's a very disturbing difference between the gay rights movement and the current social justice people. In the case of a gay marriage, a small minority was

There's a very disturbing difference between the gay rights movement and the current social justice people. In the case of a gay marriage, a small minority was directly affected by a tangible and quantifiable problem: not being able to have the same legal status as straight families. It wasn't about taking something from the majority, or guilt-tripping others. So adopting what they asked for had a net-positive effect: straight people were unaffected, while the gays got perks previously unavailable to them. The current trends are different. Climate change and social justice issues don't personally affect most the people who are vocal about it. Interestingly, most of them do have one thing in common: lack of highly marketable skills or professional weight. Most of them are priced out of property ownership or retirement. Many are depressed to a point where they cannot find anyone to make family with (in my experience, strong marriages boil down to having common constructive interests, working on the same goal together and relying on each other). Except, they are not addressing the quantifiable problems. Instead, their fury got redirected to much broader problems that are almost impossible to quantify or address in a measurable way. So now it's a fight with no winning, it keeps people busy blowing their steam off at random strangers who dare to disagree with them, but all it does in the long term is increases the divisiveness of the society and makes fear and anger the new normal.

TulliusCicero 6y ago
> Climate change and social justice issues don't personally affect most the people who are vocal about it. Okay, I'm stopping reading here to start replying, because there are already numerous problems with your reasoning: * In the case of gay marriage, many of the people fighting for it were not, in fact, gay, and were not personally affected. Why does that matter? There were white people fighting in the civil rights movement for black rights, is that somehow lesser? Why is fighting for others a problem? * Climate change already has, in fact, displayed some impact on most people by now. * The fight over climate change is focused on the future, it's focused on prevention of larger harms, we're talking about a timeline that includes decades. Waiting until things are already a total, unmitigated disaster and then doing something about it would obviously be deeply stupid. * Social justice issues actually do affect tons of people -- my wife, being a woman, is affected by various problems of sexism. Women and girls comprise half the population, add in basically any ethnicity or sexual minority and you're already at a majority of people. * Again, even if you're personally the whitest, straightest, cis-est, male-st person possible, what's wrong with standing up for the rights of others? How is that disturbing in the least? I think you may be confusing "disturbing" with "encouraging" or "inspiring". > Interestingly, most of them do have one thing in common: lack of highly marketable skills or professional weight. Imagine someone making an identical argument for MLK's march on Washington DC, or for the broader civil rights movement at large. This is basically a character attack designed to deflect from the actual problems they're protesting. "These people only protest because they're losers!" is basically the message you're sending here. If you look at social conservatism as a whole, this is basically always the argument, the way that history is rationalized. As soon as they lose one fight -- women being able to vote, civil rights movement, gay marriage, etc. -- the mantra suddenly goes from "okay okay, fine, [last change] was totally a good thing after all, but [new change] is completely crazy! For real this time!"
- Viliam1234 6y ago
  > Why is fighting for others a problem? Generally, it is not, but there is a risk that "people who are not X, but are fighting for X" will misrepresent the opinions of "people who are X". Also, "people who are X" usually have diverse opinions, while the "people who are not X, but are fighting for X" crowd often develops a monolithic opinion, and if you disagree with it, you are called anti-X. To give an example, I know gay people who want equal rights, but are disgusted by the "prides". If a woke straight person heard me saying that I support equals rights but don't like the "prides", they would call me a homophobe. Because it is known -- among the woke straight people who support gay rights -- that all gays support the "prides". Similarly, an Indian person probably wouldn't be offended by finding out that I practice yoga (they might actually be happy about it), but a woke white person might sic a Twitter mob on me for the sin of cultural appropriation. > Again, even if you're personally the whitest, straightest, cis-est, male-st person possible, what's wrong with standing up for the rights of others? Nothing, unless I appropriate their cause in service of signaling my wokeness and attacking people I don't like. For example, when racism is used as a weapon in fight between two groups of white people, who already had another reason to fight each other, but used this opportunity to make their attack more socially acceptable.
  - orf 6y ago
    > but a woke white person might sic a Twitter mob on me for the sin of cultural appropriation. Who cares. Wasn’t the point of the article you’re commenting on that a tiny minority is responsible for outsized impact in discussions like this? So who cares what a “Twitter mob” says about you practicing yoga? Does this really have any bearing on current social justice issues like real cultural appropriation, anymore than a right-wing figure posting a video of someone yelling about the patriarchy has any bearing on feminism? It’s a distraction that boils down the issues to figures you can hate: Cultural appropriation is stupid because someone got angry on Twitter because of yoga. Feminism is stupid because Ben shapiro filmed himself winning a debate against a feminist.
    - f1refly 6y ago
      Your employer who's afraid of a pr disaster cares. Maybe your landlord cares. Some of the more unstable mobsters might care and threaten your physical well-being. Those three points happened already, they destroyed lifes and careers. Also I never understood the concept of "cultural appropriation", what the heck does that even mean? As long as human history goes we've been copying cultural perks from other lands, regions and tribes. To tell people this is suddenly not okay for some reason is beyond crazy.

TulliusCicero 6y ago

> Climate change and social justice issues don't personally affect most the people who are vocal about it. Okay, I'm stopping reading here to start replying, because there are already numerous problems with your reasoning: * In the case of gay marriage, many of the people fighting for it were not, in fact, gay, and were not personally affected. Why does that matter? There were white people fighting in the civil rights movement for black rights, is that somehow lesser? Why is fighting for others a problem? * Climate change already has, in fact, displayed some impact on most people by now. * The fight over climate change is focused on the future, it's focused on prevention of larger harms, we're talking about a timeline that includes decades. Waiting until things are already a total, unmitigated disaster and then doing something about it would obviously be deeply stupid. * Social justice issues actually do affect tons of people -- my wife, being a woman, is affected by various problems of sexism. Women and girls comprise half the population, add in basically any ethnicity or sexual minority and you're already at a majority of people. * Again, even if you're personally the whitest, straightest, cis-est, male-st person possible, what's wrong with standing up for the rights of others? How is that disturbing in the least? I think you may be confusing "disturbing" with "encouraging" or "inspiring". > Interestingly, most of them do have one thing in common: lack of highly marketable skills or professional weight. Imagine someone making an identical argument for MLK's march on Washington DC, or for the broader civil rights movement at large. This is basically a character attack designed to deflect from the actual problems they're protesting. "These people only protest because they're losers!" is basically the message you're sending here. If you look at social conservatism as a whole, this is basically always the argument, the way that history is rationalized. As soon as they lose one fight -- women being able to vote, civil rights movement, gay marriage, etc. -- the mantra suddenly goes from "okay okay, fine, [last change] was totally a good thing after all, but [new change] is completely crazy! For real this time!"

Viliam1234 6y ago
> Why is fighting for others a problem? Generally, it is not, but there is a risk that "people who are not X, but are fighting for X" will misrepresent the opinions of "people who are X". Also, "people who are X" usually have diverse opinions, while the "people who are not X, but are fighting for X" crowd often develops a monolithic opinion, and if you disagree with it, you are called anti-X. To give an example, I know gay people who want equal rights, but are disgusted by the "prides". If a woke straight person heard me saying that I support equals rights but don't like the "prides", they would call me a homophobe. Because it is known -- among the woke straight people who support gay rights -- that all gays support the "prides". Similarly, an Indian person probably wouldn't be offended by finding out that I practice yoga (they might actually be happy about it), but a woke white person might sic a Twitter mob on me for the sin of cultural appropriation. > Again, even if you're personally the whitest, straightest, cis-est, male-st person possible, what's wrong with standing up for the rights of others? Nothing, unless I appropriate their cause in service of signaling my wokeness and attacking people I don't like. For example, when racism is used as a weapon in fight between two groups of white people, who already had another reason to fight each other, but used this opportunity to make their attack more socially acceptable.
- orf 6y ago
  > but a woke white person might sic a Twitter mob on me for the sin of cultural appropriation. Who cares. Wasn’t the point of the article you’re commenting on that a tiny minority is responsible for outsized impact in discussions like this? So who cares what a “Twitter mob” says about you practicing yoga? Does this really have any bearing on current social justice issues like real cultural appropriation, anymore than a right-wing figure posting a video of someone yelling about the patriarchy has any bearing on feminism? It’s a distraction that boils down the issues to figures you can hate: Cultural appropriation is stupid because someone got angry on Twitter because of yoga. Feminism is stupid because Ben shapiro filmed himself winning a debate against a feminist.
  - f1refly 6y ago
    Your employer who's afraid of a pr disaster cares. Maybe your landlord cares. Some of the more unstable mobsters might care and threaten your physical well-being. Those three points happened already, they destroyed lifes and careers. Also I never understood the concept of "cultural appropriation", what the heck does that even mean? As long as human history goes we've been copying cultural perks from other lands, regions and tribes. To tell people this is suddenly not okay for some reason is beyond crazy.