8 ms·

> Not only would they disagree with you, but their strategy actually works. Leftists, "wokeness", and social justice wouldn't be the hot topics they've been if

> Not only would they disagree with you, but their strategy actually works. Leftists, "wokeness", and social justice wouldn't be the hot topics they've been if the strategy of leftists weren't effective. Is the goal of social justice movements just to be hot topics? Your statement makes it seem like success is measured by the amount of retweets or something. Clearly that can't be true, but if global fascism and ethnic nationalism is on the rise, what actual victories can this strategy claim to have won? In general I think there has been progress, but it's all come from other corners: economics, regulatory reforms, art, and so on. Other than getting attention, are there any specific things you're thinking of when you say this strategy has been effective?

ravenstine 6y ago
> Is the goal of social justice movements just to be hot topics? I'm not sure I understand precisely what you're getting at but, for the record, anyone reading this should understand that I am not suggesting that hot topics are the goal of social justice. In fact, I wasn't even making a value judgement of left wing causes in general, but people seem to always take the word "leftists" as a pejorative. All I'm saying is that leftist political strategies have been successful in that, on any given day, I can tune in to any given medium and count on trans rights, BLM, UBI, social equity, anti-racism, and so forth being a topic of conversation. This wasn't nearly as true before the current wave of leftism gained steam.
- a1369209993 6y ago
  > I am not suggesting that hot topics are the goal of social justice. "their strategy actually works." implies that their strategy accompishes their goals. "Leftists, "wokeness", and social justice wouldn't be the hot topics they've been if the strategy of leftists weren't effective." impies that hot topics are what their strategy accompished. The transitive property between "goals" == "what strategy accompished" == "hot topics" is at least pretty clearly implied there.
ralusek 6y ago
I think the current primary strategy is to destabilize Western liberalism. Every tenet of liberalism is actively under attack, and successfully so. Individualism? Long gone, the name of the game is collectivism and your identity groups are everything. Color blindness? It's officially considered to be an outdated, laughable mode of thinking. If your identity collective is paramount, how can you be blind to the parameter by which we should first be characterizing you by? Freedom of speech? Muh freeze peach. This is now a dog whistle value for hate speech. Freedom of speech just means freedom for the identity groups in oppressive positions. Rule of law? The application of the law should, of course, not be universal. It should be applied with context, with the context being...you guessed it...your identity group. Objectivity? Facts? Reason? Tools of the colonialists in order to snuff out alternative modes of thinking. Any claim at truth is simply done within the context of the identity group. If you don't think the left has succeeded in this objective, I don't know what planet you're living on. As a liberal, I can hardly communicate with any of my peers within the framework that has been foundational to Western civilization.
- hn_in_shambles 6y ago
  Western liberal democracy is collapsing because the right wing reactionaries were right about diversity destroying society, but their mistake was attempting to focus on things like racial and religious diversity. Diversity of ideas is not sustainable. Now we can see multiple “factions” each with different ideas about the direction to take society with many of these ideas being excluding of or outright hostile to a different faction. So the solution? You have to kill them before they kill you (not in a literal sense, or at least not yet). Some of these factions will band with others (see right-libertarians typically siding with reactionaries and the progressive adoption of various leftist ideas) though it will be interesting to see what happens there when whichever group comes out on top.
- penetraitor69 6y ago
  "Individualism" was never really implemented as "western" value; it was only ever a catch-phrase to defend the status quo by insisting those at the top "earned the right" to be there. "Color blindness" likewise has mostly been used to argue that those on the bottom of society deserve to be there; (again) preserving the status quo. I.E. shutting down discussion by labeling racism a "solved problem". "Freedom of speech" complaints most often come from those claiming to be "censored" because they are no longer being given a megaphone. "Rule of law" is used to prevent analysis of those laws by, among other things, demonizing any discussion of those laws' motivations, or the cultural context in which they are enforced. "Objectivity, Facts, and Reason" are used as buzzwords, often by those who know they aren't actually on their side, because 1) everyone knows they are good, and so claiming to already possess them is convincing rhetoric, 2) painting your opponents as "rejecting" them is also persuasive rhetoric, especially to your uninformed audience. Claiming that people are actually demonizing them is a mischaracterization.

ravenstine 6y ago

> Is the goal of social justice movements just to be hot topics? I'm not sure I understand precisely what you're getting at but, for the record, anyone reading this should understand that I am not suggesting that hot topics are the goal of social justice. In fact, I wasn't even making a value judgement of left wing causes in general, but people seem to always take the word "leftists" as a pejorative. All I'm saying is that leftist political strategies have been successful in that, on any given day, I can tune in to any given medium and count on trans rights, BLM, UBI, social equity, anti-racism, and so forth being a topic of conversation. This wasn't nearly as true before the current wave of leftism gained steam.

a1369209993 6y ago
> I am not suggesting that hot topics are the goal of social justice. "their strategy actually works." implies that their strategy accompishes their goals. "Leftists, "wokeness", and social justice wouldn't be the hot topics they've been if the strategy of leftists weren't effective." impies that hot topics are what their strategy accompished. The transitive property between "goals" == "what strategy accompished" == "hot topics" is at least pretty clearly implied there.

ralusek 6y ago

I think the current primary strategy is to destabilize Western liberalism. Every tenet of liberalism is actively under attack, and successfully so. Individualism? Long gone, the name of the game is collectivism and your identity groups are everything. Color blindness? It's officially considered to be an outdated, laughable mode of thinking. If your identity collective is paramount, how can you be blind to the parameter by which we should first be characterizing you by? Freedom of speech? Muh freeze peach. This is now a dog whistle value for hate speech. Freedom of speech just means freedom for the identity groups in oppressive positions. Rule of law? The application of the law should, of course, not be universal. It should be applied with context, with the context being...you guessed it...your identity group. Objectivity? Facts? Reason? Tools of the colonialists in order to snuff out alternative modes of thinking. Any claim at truth is simply done within the context of the identity group. If you don't think the left has succeeded in this objective, I don't know what planet you're living on. As a liberal, I can hardly communicate with any of my peers within the framework that has been foundational to Western civilization.

hn_in_shambles 6y ago
Western liberal democracy is collapsing because the right wing reactionaries were right about diversity destroying society, but their mistake was attempting to focus on things like racial and religious diversity. Diversity of ideas is not sustainable. Now we can see multiple “factions” each with different ideas about the direction to take society with many of these ideas being excluding of or outright hostile to a different faction. So the solution? You have to kill them before they kill you (not in a literal sense, or at least not yet). Some of these factions will band with others (see right-libertarians typically siding with reactionaries and the progressive adoption of various leftist ideas) though it will be interesting to see what happens there when whichever group comes out on top.
penetraitor69 6y ago
"Individualism" was never really implemented as "western" value; it was only ever a catch-phrase to defend the status quo by insisting those at the top "earned the right" to be there. "Color blindness" likewise has mostly been used to argue that those on the bottom of society deserve to be there; (again) preserving the status quo. I.E. shutting down discussion by labeling racism a "solved problem". "Freedom of speech" complaints most often come from those claiming to be "censored" because they are no longer being given a megaphone. "Rule of law" is used to prevent analysis of those laws by, among other things, demonizing any discussion of those laws' motivations, or the cultural context in which they are enforced. "Objectivity, Facts, and Reason" are used as buzzwords, often by those who know they aren't actually on their side, because 1) everyone knows they are good, and so claiming to already possess them is convincing rhetoric, 2) painting your opponents as "rejecting" them is also persuasive rhetoric, especially to your uninformed audience. Claiming that people are actually demonizing them is a mischaracterization.