15 ms·

Social Justice Bullies: The Authoritarianism of Millennial Social Justice

113 points by bovermyer 12y ago

dudul 12y ago
"When Fascism comes to America, it will be called anti-Fascism!" - Huey Long
- john_butts 12y ago
  "It's hip to be square" - Huey Lewis
  - classicsnoot 12y ago
    "Uncah Donald, Uncah Donald!" -Huey, Dewey, and Louis
wtbob 12y ago
> In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. —George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four Well, doesn't that sum up the modern West in a nutshell. War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength.
spacemanmatt 12y ago
Cheap synopsis: MRA tries to make make a cogent case without the overt whining, misogyny, bigotry. Still a privileged rant. Author may be feeling strident in the wake of Rolling Stone's retractions and recriminations.
- spacemanmatt 12y ago
  I've been through divorce in Texas. I know how sexist the system can be towards men. But I have looked into the issues and the politics, and it's clear that feminist policies would have served me much better than sexist ones. Author's premise that feminism is a propagandistic response to actual sexism faced by men is offensive to all my experience with the facts and the people involved. Thus my conclusion is, this tries to be a high-minded sounding article but it is a hit piece.
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    You know what else is offensive? The disgusting perversion of the justice system called out in the article. It's not a "hit piece" if it's completely true.
    - spacemanmatt 12y ago
      Know what else is offensive? The disgusting perversion of the justice system supported by people who don't know the difference between bullies and victims. Feminism didn't break the system.
      - Karunamon 12y ago
        The system isn't broken - but the people who want to literally abolish due process would like to see it that way.
      - pjc50 12y ago
        It's often hard to work out who to apply the labels of "bully" and "victim" to, especially once something has become a controversy on social media.
      - classicsnoot 12y ago
        Every bully was at some point a victim. Many who suffer from sexual assault early on are in very real danger of being warped from victims into aggressors. It is important to remember that everyone becomes something through a process. Not a defense for bullies; i just think we should attack the root cause and not the symptom.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
- Karunamon 12y ago
  You just proved how you either didn't read the article, or read it and completely missed the point as the author directly addresses what you're complaining about. It's very telling (and actually directly proves the author's point) that the best criticism you can come up with is the author's identity (i.e. a personal attack, i.e. an adhom) rather than a concrete problem with his ideas.
  - spacemanmatt 12y ago
    No sir, I don't do my very best here on HN. I have a day job. Nice try.
    - classicsnoot 12y ago
      Completely beside the point. Many here have a day job. Horrible try.
Lancey 12y ago
This is like some kind of Clickhole parody that mashes up MRA literature with How Millennials are Destroying the World(TM). There's no discussion to be had because the author's engaged in a dialog in his head about what the counter argument is and decided to format his thoughts in regards to that. Pepper a little Orwell here and some allegory there and you've got an article that shows exactly what's wrong with this argument - a refusal to listen to reason and instead substitute your own perception of how the world works.
- Karunamon 12y ago
  Except, for that part where he directly responds to a WaPo author who thinks due process isn't a thing that should exist.
  - wpietri 12y ago
    The WaPo author explicitly says, "This is not a legal argument about what standards we should use in the courts; it’s a moral one, about what happens outside the legal system." The Medium piece conflates social justice and legal justice. Slavery was legal, so forcibly returning slaves to their owners was legally just. However, we came to recognize it as a moral wrong, something socially unjust. Eventually, we changed the laws, but the cultural change had to happen first.
    - Karunamon 12y ago
      What is the end game in a world where an accusation of a crime is accepted as factual, and any questioning of that accusation makes one an apologist for the crime at best? The legal system is supposed to be a reflection of society's morals. If you challenge the moral framework, by asserting that an accusation should never be questioned, you challenge the legal framework by extension.
      - wpietri 12y ago
        Nobody is saying that accusations should never be questioned in court. But we live in a society that, outside of court, treats rape victims very differently than victims of other crimes. The dynamic is lampooned here: https://feministphilosophers.wordpress.com/2011/09/17/a-useful-rape-analogy/ https://feministphilosophers.wordpress.com/2011/09/17/a-usef... It is that aspect of the moral framework that people are attempting to change. Like it or not, society has collectively acted to excuse rapists for millennia. That has been gradually declining; at least now it's a crime that is taken somewhat seriously.
jellicle 12y ago
I'm really looking forward to all the white men on HN ranting about how women and minorities oppress them in America. This will be a great set of insightful comments!
evincarofautumn 12y ago
Every time I try to argue for intellectual honesty, I get labeled “part of the problem”. Every time I try to encourage people to listen to others and treat them equally because it’s a good thing to do and not because they identify as a feminist, I am met with hostility. If I make friends with someone of a different background than me and then mention them at all in a discussion about equality, I am accused of tokenism, because I’m cis-het white male scum (hey, thanks for asking, but I’m not all those). I am tired of this abusive rhetoric. I want real feminism, real equality, whatever label you want to use, and it starts with treating people with respect and conducting honest dialogue.
- bonesmoses 12y ago
  Ironically, by dismissing your input because of your race or gender, they are engaging in the exact behavior they are purportedly against. That kind of juvenile hypocrisy should be avoided by everyone, but sadly, is not.
  - gaius 12y ago
    I don't mind people believing that men have no right to speak on gender issues - it's a free country, people can believe anything they want to believe, and even say it out loud. But if that person is white and has a lot to say on race issues anyway, or went to a $40,000/year liberal arts college and majored in something with no vocational application, and speaks about poverty, then I think they maybe don't have an entirely logically consistent philosophy behind them.
    - bonesmoses 12y ago
      Unfortunately that's not where it ends. I wish it was only gender or sociological issues. Beyond that, you don't have to be poor, or female, or black, or... etc., to understand empathy. In a world where empathy didn't exist, maybe they would have a point. But humans can and do empathize, and can bring in elements from that divergent background to improve the overall situation. But only if the discussion isn't cut off with, "STFU, what do you know!?"
  - 12y ago
saboot 12y ago
I'm not sure how other tech individuals feel about these issues, but with the accounts of mass public shaming by everyone against perceived injustices and their supporters I feel like the best thing for myself is to say and do nothing at all. Until the tone of the discussion changes I think many people will continue to feel this way as well
- return0 12y ago
  Say nothing, do as your conscience tells you.
- zxcvcxz 12y ago
  That's exactly what they want you to do. Don't try to form any sort of counter argument against them or you'll immediately be painted as a racist, bigoted, misogynist. And if you use your real name they'll attempt ruin your career and destroy your life.
- koralatov 12y ago
  I nearly always just keep my mouth shut because I know that I can be shot down and 'discredited' purely because I'm white, male, and straight. Part of it is perhaps age (I'm 31 now, and less angry/opinionated than I once was), but it's mostly just that I have, in the past, been repeatedly disregarded or outright abused because of who I am rather than what I'm saying. That kind of response is fundamentally censorious, and it has worked; I'm effectively self-censoring now to comply with the wishes/intentions of this lunatic fringe. From your comment, I get the impression you're doing the same. The scary outcome of that is a continued chokehold on the narrative and conversation by these extreme fringes, and no change for the better because nobody is willing or able to engage in a reasonable discussion or take reasonable action.
  - bonesmoses 12y ago
    Which, to me, raises an interesting question: If someone can direct the wrath of the lunatic fringe at you with utmost impunity, can it really be claimed that they have no voice? Because they're claiming they don't, while still exercising that exclusive privilege.
fweespeech 12y ago
While the author has a couple good points [there is alot of 1984 kind of Doublespeak in Western culture and it is getting worse] and there are those overzealous individuals who will use false information to push an agenda... > The fact of the matter is, this particular brand of millennial social justice advocacy is destructive to academia, intellectual honesty, and true critical thinking and open mindedness. We see it already having a profound impact on the way universities act and how they approach curriculum. The first link in this paragraph is: > http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=6356 http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=6356 Student petitions, not actual changes. That entire site is backed and run by people with an agenda: http://www.leadershipinstitute.org/aboutus/ http://www.leadershipinstitute.org/aboutus/ The mere fact political propaganda from a known biased source would be used as "evidence", honestly, shows the OP has the same biases as the SJW but from a different direction. Intellectually honesty isn't repeating stories from a well known political organization that solely exists to train future conservatives to spread their message as fact [without disclosing that is what they are]. --- Since I'm rate limited I'll reply to the accusation below here: > Your argument is simply ad hominem. Either the ideas themselves are wrong, or they're not. It doesn't matter where the information came from. If Hitler told me about gravity that doesn't mean there is no gravity just because I learned about it from him. Hitler in a clown mask coming to tell you about how the Jews are ruining society. The author knows its Hitler, but he doesn't tell you. All the while claiming he is a paragon of intellectual honesty and the opposition is not. That is the actual comparison and why him doing this is a problem.
- ManFromUranus 12y ago
  Your argument is simply ad hominem. Either the ideas themselves are wrong, or they're not. It doesn't matter where the information came from. If Hitler told me about gravity that doesn't mean there is no gravity just because I learned about it from him.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- Karunamon 12y ago
  >Most people are feminists in some sense. ..using the completely contrived (and incorrect) definition of "feminism" that asserts anyone who believes in equality is a feminist. That is not how groups work. I believe that black people should have the same rights as everyone else too, but that does not make me a member of the "black power" movement. I believe in meditation and stilling of the mind, but that does not make me a Buddhist. Why is feminism the only group that tries to claim dominion over otherwise unaffiliated people? As far as I know, it is unique in that respect. I can't think of any other ideology, good or bad, that operates in this way. Given the behavior of prominent/famous feminists (say, campaigning for the abolition of due process, which is the single most fucked up thing I think I've read this year), that is not a label I want to be anywhere near. It is anti-intellectual, it is toxic, and I want nothing to do with it.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
    - Karunamon 12y ago
      ..and Feminism is far from the only ideology that believes in equality for all, yet is literally the only one that tries to claim I'm a member because I believe in equality. Seriously, you did it, to me, in your original post. Why is that? What is the authoritative definition you use that allows you to presume other people's ideologies in such a way?
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
        Karunamon 12y ago
        I asked a couple of very simple questions. I've got a donut in front of me, some code open in another window, and enjoying a snowy Friday. Believe me, I'm calm :) Unfortunately, once again, you kind of didn't directly answer what I asked you. I'm starting to sense a pattern here. Let's try this again: What is the authoritative definition you use that allows you to presume other people's ideologies in such a way? As previously mentioned, I do not wish to be associated with feminism in any sense, broad or otherwise, because of its ever increasing association with (ir|a)rationality and toxicity. I prefer to be called a humanist, or an egalitarian, because I believe in equality for all, not just for a particular sex. With that in mind, I'm asking you to define, preferably from a dispassionate and neutral source, how you can claim that label applies to someone. From what I can see, the "if you believe in women's rights, you are a feminist" definition is circular and held primarily by self-described feminists. If you have any evidence to the contrary, I would love to see it.
ls66 12y ago
I would agree in general that the left has appropriated and advocates the kind of extreme, life-changing response to perceived enemies that it has accused the right of using. I do think that ultimately there will be backlash against this. The left mentions routinely that it has demographics on its side, but I could just as easily envision them being perceived as having gone too far and being the 'establishment' that people will eventually work to rebel against - though at that point, it may be too late.
makeitsuckless 12y ago
The problem here is that there is also an equal opposite force. Pretty much all of those who use the derogatory term "SJW" turn out to be misogynistic right-wing bullies for whom feminism equals evil, and who think rape threats are free speech. The whole gamergate movement is utterly disgusting and spreading. (For instance, the right-wing bullies are now terrorizing the Hugo awards.) It's a movement towards intolerant extremism from both sides.
- classicsnoot 12y ago
  Really?? So by using a term, whether quoting, asking, or actually applying, you can infer deep motivation? That is a pretty awesome skill... or maybe you are being the change you refuse to see...
abruzzi 12y ago
Is this really a millennial thing? While the prominence may be a recent thing, the mindset discussed in the article goes back a long way.
- borgia 12y ago
  The mindset may not be a millennial thing but its prominence in modern society most certainly is. Where once the hate-fueled rhetoric these kinds spew all day and night would have been written off as the delusions of a bitter lunatic, social media has given them a platform to find those similar to them, to network, to organise, etc. and those people tend to be within the millennial age group.
michaelochurch 12y ago
I stopped hating my generation (born 1983, so I'm just barely a Millennial rather than an Xer) when I stepped back and looked at the picture in its totality and realized that we looked bad because (except in athletics, where objective genetic talent rules the day and rich parents or producers alone can't make a career) most of the prominent Millennials were produced by the worst of the Baby Boom generation. First of all, authoritarian leftism isn't new. The ex-leftist neoconservatives of 2003 who got us into the Iraq War? They weren't the civil rights activists or the hippies. They weren't the ones fighting for desegreation or womens' or gay rights activists. Rather, those people were the communists, Stalin-defenders in the 60s, the left-wing authoritarians who swung right when they were older and richer. It's not really a loss that they went from left to right in the Reagan Era, as they were assholes the whole time. Anyway, someone being a jerk on Twitter is not the same thing as what the Weather Underground was up to. For good and bad, we're pretty moderate in comparison to the Baby Boomers. I stopped hating Millennials when I realized that the worst of us are products created by the worst of the exiting generations. You can find anything in any generation, so one bad apple (or few) says little about the generation and much more about those who endeavored to find it. And a young generation will be defined, when it is young, based on the uses that older generations find for it. Evan Spiegel? Lucas Duplan? Miley Cyrus? Justin Bieber? Lena Dunham? They're detestable, but they reflect on their producers, the ones who made their careers, and not on "our generation" in any meaningful way. If you look at the currently small-- and it's small not because we suck but because we're still young and most of us haven't had a chance to get started yet-- percentage (in the arts and business) of prominent Millennials who are actually self-made, the picture is a lot more flattering.
- CPLX 12y ago
  > Evan Spiegel? Lucas Duplan? Miley Cyrus? Justin Bieber? Lena Dunham? They're detestable, but they reflect on their producers, the ones who made their careers, and not on "our generation" in any meaningful way. I'm with you otherwise but this line of reasoning is pretty dubious, a sort of counting the hits and not the misses approach. It doesn't reduce well. If we blame the boomers for "producing" millennials why can't we just turn around and blame the prehistoric Madison Avenue types that produced the boomers[0], and so on and so forth. [0] http://www.amazon.com/The-Conquest-Cool-Counterculture-Consumerism/dp/0226260127 http://www.amazon.com/The-Conquest-Cool-Counterculture-Consu...
Karunamon 12y ago
This article appears to have fallen off the front page rather precipitously. It was at position 5 last I looked, and now that I refresh the page, it's not even there anymore - older posts with fewer votes are now far above it. Would any staff care to chime in? It seems as if this posting was penalized.
- vonmoltke 12y ago
  Note: not staff There is (used to be?) a flamewar detection algorithm built into the larger ranking algorithm that would penalize stories which sparked rapid discussion accompanied by frequent downvoting.
  - classicsnoot 12y ago
    Kind of sad. A case where the algorithm is wrong. This is not a flame war, rather it is a passionate discussion between opposed ideologies. The nefarious tentacles of PC culture infecting the maths. Maybe they should add a word search for certain terms (No, idiot, fucking moron, you are dumb) as well as rapid responses and downvotes to determine if it has gone all Reign of Fire up in here...
littletimmy 12y ago
This is quite unsurprising, since the political system in the United States is very authoritarian. The entire political discourse lies between the authoritarian center (Democrats) or the authoritarian far right (Republican). There are no real libertarians. There were a few fringe candidates in the past (e.g. Ralph Nader, Ron Paul) who were basically unelectable, and there are a few fringe candidates now (e.g. Rand Paul) who have begun singing the tune of authoritarian government to get elected.
dropit_sphere 12y ago
If anyone hasn't had the chance, I highly recommend reading Scott Alexander's "Meditations" series, particularly the ones on superweapons and bingo: http://squid314.livejournal.com/329171.html http://squid314.livejournal.com/329171.html http://squid314.livejournal.com/329561.html http://squid314.livejournal.com/329561.html
borgia 12y ago
This piece belongs on HN as much as any of the pieces that spring up and are flag killed about feminism i.e. it doesn't. However, the fact that it is on HN and has received quite a bit of support let's me know I'm certainly not alone in my frustration with the modern social justice movement, their antics, and its creep into the "tech media". It is an incredibly divisive, hate-fueled movement based on flawed, debunked statistics and what amounts to a game of oppression olympics. Where once the type of person to spout their hateful rhetoric would be simply ignored, through social media they have been enabled, given a voice to, and been able to form an echo-chamber with other similarly deluded, hate-fueled people. Through their network they have wielded an undue amount of power and we have unfortunately witnessed the result of it in real life, as a man who landed a probe on a comet millions of miles away had his team's achievement pushed to the back in favour of the furor over the shirt he wore while doing so, and who then wept on TV as a result of the sheer level of hate he received. We have seen GitHub shamed for its rug championing unity in meritocracy, who then quickly moved to throw the "problematic" rug into the trash amidst the furor from these online "feminists". We saw two people lose their jobs and have their names ran into the ground online by these "feminists" over a bad joke at a tech convention. And the list goes on. They have become simply too large to ignore. Their presence, and their narrative, drives so many clicks that we now see the "tech media" latch onto it, give their toxic views air and promote their narrative in the name of gaining clicks. Facts no longer matter when it comes to these people, only the narrative. It doesn't matter that Ellen Pao was proven to have no case against Kleiner Perkins and was exposed as an incredibly shady person while doing so, you wouldn't tell she lost as the media driving this narrative cherry picked that which was convenient to the narrative and brushed over everything which was not. I could go on about this, but all I will say is that I'm glad to see backlash against this movement increasing. I'm glad to see more speaking out against it. I'm glad to see their hashtags on Twitter being used against them, and I'm extremely glad to see some of their champions like Sarah Noble being held accountable in real life for the hate they spew online.
- morbius 12y ago
  I think this is a bit disingenuous. I have definitely seen many articles on the web playing "oppression olympics" pitting supposedly privileged and oppressed groups against one another in literally every possible category, but these are usually met with scorn from rational individuals who identify as feminists or social justice warriors who believe that it harms the relevancy of actually oppressed minorities. There are fringe groups on every topic -- just as the Tea Party isn't representative of the visions of Libertarians and Islamic extremism isn't representative of the views of most Muslims, most radical exclusionary feminism isn't representative of the views of the vast majority of feminists. And as for Pycon 2013, most feminists I know argued that Adria had done enough by complaining to staff and had no right to post the employees' names and pictures on Instagram/Twitter/whatever, and that the individuals involved did not deserve to lose their jobs. But being a jerk isn't a prerequisite for being a voice for a traditionally oppressed group. It's just a result of being impassioned and hopelessly misguided, both traits that are indicative of naïveté rather than malice.
bakhy 12y ago
My god, why can't white cis males handle any criticism? It's as if people live in paralyzing fear of being called a name. And then can't wait for an opportunity to say "Aha! You're now exactly like your oppressors!" WTF? If you can think these things are the same, you automatically prove you do not actually understand anything. And yet you preach, and preach...
- classicsnoot 12y ago
  I'm here, I'm white, I'm male. Criticize me. Let's see how well your blanket statement holds up...
atlantic 12y ago
The prerequisite for civilized discourse is that arguments should stand or fall on their own merits. To evaluate opinions on the basis of the sociopolitical identity of the author, and to shout down those who do not pass this test, is pure prejudice indicative of intellectual debility. I enjoyed reading the contrarian comments attached to the article, because they were revealingly thin on argumentation. My favourite one was "this is not a good article", closely followed by the inscrutable "you need to come to terms with the idea that you're more libertarian than left-wing."

113 points by bovermyer 12y ago

dudul 12y ago

"When Fascism comes to America, it will be called anti-Fascism!" - Huey Long

john_butts 12y ago
"It's hip to be square" - Huey Lewis
- classicsnoot 12y ago
  "Uncah Donald, Uncah Donald!" -Huey, Dewey, and Louis

wtbob 12y ago

> In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. —George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four Well, doesn't that sum up the modern West in a nutshell. War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength.

spacemanmatt 12y ago

Cheap synopsis: MRA tries to make make a cogent case without the overt whining, misogyny, bigotry. Still a privileged rant. Author may be feeling strident in the wake of Rolling Stone's retractions and recriminations.

spacemanmatt 12y ago
I've been through divorce in Texas. I know how sexist the system can be towards men. But I have looked into the issues and the politics, and it's clear that feminist policies would have served me much better than sexist ones. Author's premise that feminism is a propagandistic response to actual sexism faced by men is offensive to all my experience with the facts and the people involved. Thus my conclusion is, this tries to be a high-minded sounding article but it is a hit piece.
- Karunamon 12y ago
  You know what else is offensive? The disgusting perversion of the justice system called out in the article. It's not a "hit piece" if it's completely true.
  - spacemanmatt 12y ago
    Know what else is offensive? The disgusting perversion of the justice system supported by people who don't know the difference between bullies and victims. Feminism didn't break the system.
    - Karunamon 12y ago
      The system isn't broken - but the people who want to literally abolish due process would like to see it that way.
    - pjc50 12y ago
      It's often hard to work out who to apply the labels of "bully" and "victim" to, especially once something has become a controversy on social media.
    - classicsnoot 12y ago
      Every bully was at some point a victim. Many who suffer from sexual assault early on are in very real danger of being warped from victims into aggressors. It is important to remember that everyone becomes something through a process. Not a defense for bullies; i just think we should attack the root cause and not the symptom.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
Karunamon 12y ago
You just proved how you either didn't read the article, or read it and completely missed the point as the author directly addresses what you're complaining about. It's very telling (and actually directly proves the author's point) that the best criticism you can come up with is the author's identity (i.e. a personal attack, i.e. an adhom) rather than a concrete problem with his ideas.
- spacemanmatt 12y ago
  No sir, I don't do my very best here on HN. I have a day job. Nice try.
  - classicsnoot 12y ago
    Completely beside the point. Many here have a day job. Horrible try.

Lancey 12y ago

This is like some kind of Clickhole parody that mashes up MRA literature with How Millennials are Destroying the World(TM). There's no discussion to be had because the author's engaged in a dialog in his head about what the counter argument is and decided to format his thoughts in regards to that. Pepper a little Orwell here and some allegory there and you've got an article that shows exactly what's wrong with this argument - a refusal to listen to reason and instead substitute your own perception of how the world works.

Karunamon 12y ago
Except, for that part where he directly responds to a WaPo author who thinks due process isn't a thing that should exist.
- wpietri 12y ago
  The WaPo author explicitly says, "This is not a legal argument about what standards we should use in the courts; it’s a moral one, about what happens outside the legal system." The Medium piece conflates social justice and legal justice. Slavery was legal, so forcibly returning slaves to their owners was legally just. However, we came to recognize it as a moral wrong, something socially unjust. Eventually, we changed the laws, but the cultural change had to happen first.
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    What is the end game in a world where an accusation of a crime is accepted as factual, and any questioning of that accusation makes one an apologist for the crime at best? The legal system is supposed to be a reflection of society's morals. If you challenge the moral framework, by asserting that an accusation should never be questioned, you challenge the legal framework by extension.
    - wpietri 12y ago
      Nobody is saying that accusations should never be questioned in court. But we live in a society that, outside of court, treats rape victims very differently than victims of other crimes. The dynamic is lampooned here: https://feministphilosophers.wordpress.com/2011/09/17/a-useful-rape-analogy/ https://feministphilosophers.wordpress.com/2011/09/17/a-usef... It is that aspect of the moral framework that people are attempting to change. Like it or not, society has collectively acted to excuse rapists for millennia. That has been gradually declining; at least now it's a crime that is taken somewhat seriously.

jellicle 12y ago

I'm really looking forward to all the white men on HN ranting about how women and minorities oppress them in America. This will be a great set of insightful comments!

evincarofautumn 12y ago

Every time I try to argue for intellectual honesty, I get labeled “part of the problem”. Every time I try to encourage people to listen to others and treat them equally because it’s a good thing to do and not because they identify as a feminist, I am met with hostility. If I make friends with someone of a different background than me and then mention them at all in a discussion about equality, I am accused of tokenism, because I’m cis-het white male scum (hey, thanks for asking, but I’m not all those). I am tired of this abusive rhetoric. I want real feminism, real equality, whatever label you want to use, and it starts with treating people with respect and conducting honest dialogue.

bonesmoses 12y ago
Ironically, by dismissing your input because of your race or gender, they are engaging in the exact behavior they are purportedly against. That kind of juvenile hypocrisy should be avoided by everyone, but sadly, is not.
- gaius 12y ago
  I don't mind people believing that men have no right to speak on gender issues - it's a free country, people can believe anything they want to believe, and even say it out loud. But if that person is white and has a lot to say on race issues anyway, or went to a $40,000/year liberal arts college and majored in something with no vocational application, and speaks about poverty, then I think they maybe don't have an entirely logically consistent philosophy behind them.
  - bonesmoses 12y ago
    Unfortunately that's not where it ends. I wish it was only gender or sociological issues. Beyond that, you don't have to be poor, or female, or black, or... etc., to understand empathy. In a world where empathy didn't exist, maybe they would have a point. But humans can and do empathize, and can bring in elements from that divergent background to improve the overall situation. But only if the discussion isn't cut off with, "STFU, what do you know!?"
- 12y ago

saboot 12y ago

I'm not sure how other tech individuals feel about these issues, but with the accounts of mass public shaming by everyone against perceived injustices and their supporters I feel like the best thing for myself is to say and do nothing at all. Until the tone of the discussion changes I think many people will continue to feel this way as well

return0 12y ago
Say nothing, do as your conscience tells you.
zxcvcxz 12y ago
That's exactly what they want you to do. Don't try to form any sort of counter argument against them or you'll immediately be painted as a racist, bigoted, misogynist. And if you use your real name they'll attempt ruin your career and destroy your life.
koralatov 12y ago
I nearly always just keep my mouth shut because I know that I can be shot down and 'discredited' purely because I'm white, male, and straight. Part of it is perhaps age (I'm 31 now, and less angry/opinionated than I once was), but it's mostly just that I have, in the past, been repeatedly disregarded or outright abused because of who I am rather than what I'm saying. That kind of response is fundamentally censorious, and it has worked; I'm effectively self-censoring now to comply with the wishes/intentions of this lunatic fringe. From your comment, I get the impression you're doing the same. The scary outcome of that is a continued chokehold on the narrative and conversation by these extreme fringes, and no change for the better because nobody is willing or able to engage in a reasonable discussion or take reasonable action.
- bonesmoses 12y ago
  Which, to me, raises an interesting question: If someone can direct the wrath of the lunatic fringe at you with utmost impunity, can it really be claimed that they have no voice? Because they're claiming they don't, while still exercising that exclusive privilege.

fweespeech 12y ago

While the author has a couple good points [there is alot of 1984 kind of Doublespeak in Western culture and it is getting worse] and there are those overzealous individuals who will use false information to push an agenda... > The fact of the matter is, this particular brand of millennial social justice advocacy is destructive to academia, intellectual honesty, and true critical thinking and open mindedness. We see it already having a profound impact on the way universities act and how they approach curriculum. The first link in this paragraph is: > http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=6356 http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=6356 Student petitions, not actual changes. That entire site is backed and run by people with an agenda: http://www.leadershipinstitute.org/aboutus/ http://www.leadershipinstitute.org/aboutus/ The mere fact political propaganda from a known biased source would be used as "evidence", honestly, shows the OP has the same biases as the SJW but from a different direction. Intellectually honesty isn't repeating stories from a well known political organization that solely exists to train future conservatives to spread their message as fact [without disclosing that is what they are]. --- Since I'm rate limited I'll reply to the accusation below here: > Your argument is simply ad hominem. Either the ideas themselves are wrong, or they're not. It doesn't matter where the information came from. If Hitler told me about gravity that doesn't mean there is no gravity just because I learned about it from him. Hitler in a clown mask coming to tell you about how the Jews are ruining society. The author knows its Hitler, but he doesn't tell you. All the while claiming he is a paragon of intellectual honesty and the opposition is not. That is the actual comparison and why him doing this is a problem.

ManFromUranus 12y ago
Your argument is simply ad hominem. Either the ideas themselves are wrong, or they're not. It doesn't matter where the information came from. If Hitler told me about gravity that doesn't mean there is no gravity just because I learned about it from him.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

Karunamon 12y ago
>Most people are feminists in some sense. ..using the completely contrived (and incorrect) definition of "feminism" that asserts anyone who believes in equality is a feminist. That is not how groups work. I believe that black people should have the same rights as everyone else too, but that does not make me a member of the "black power" movement. I believe in meditation and stilling of the mind, but that does not make me a Buddhist. Why is feminism the only group that tries to claim dominion over otherwise unaffiliated people? As far as I know, it is unique in that respect. I can't think of any other ideology, good or bad, that operates in this way. Given the behavior of prominent/famous feminists (say, campaigning for the abolition of due process, which is the single most fucked up thing I think I've read this year), that is not a label I want to be anywhere near. It is anti-intellectual, it is toxic, and I want nothing to do with it.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    ..and Feminism is far from the only ideology that believes in equality for all, yet is literally the only one that tries to claim I'm a member because I believe in equality. Seriously, you did it, to me, in your original post. Why is that? What is the authoritative definition you use that allows you to presume other people's ideologies in such a way?
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
      - Karunamon 12y ago
        I asked a couple of very simple questions. I've got a donut in front of me, some code open in another window, and enjoying a snowy Friday. Believe me, I'm calm :) Unfortunately, once again, you kind of didn't directly answer what I asked you. I'm starting to sense a pattern here. Let's try this again: What is the authoritative definition you use that allows you to presume other people's ideologies in such a way? As previously mentioned, I do not wish to be associated with feminism in any sense, broad or otherwise, because of its ever increasing association with (ir|a)rationality and toxicity. I prefer to be called a humanist, or an egalitarian, because I believe in equality for all, not just for a particular sex. With that in mind, I'm asking you to define, preferably from a dispassionate and neutral source, how you can claim that label applies to someone. From what I can see, the "if you believe in women's rights, you are a feminist" definition is circular and held primarily by self-described feminists. If you have any evidence to the contrary, I would love to see it.

ls66 12y ago

I would agree in general that the left has appropriated and advocates the kind of extreme, life-changing response to perceived enemies that it has accused the right of using. I do think that ultimately there will be backlash against this. The left mentions routinely that it has demographics on its side, but I could just as easily envision them being perceived as having gone too far and being the 'establishment' that people will eventually work to rebel against - though at that point, it may be too late.

makeitsuckless 12y ago

The problem here is that there is also an equal opposite force. Pretty much all of those who use the derogatory term "SJW" turn out to be misogynistic right-wing bullies for whom feminism equals evil, and who think rape threats are free speech. The whole gamergate movement is utterly disgusting and spreading. (For instance, the right-wing bullies are now terrorizing the Hugo awards.) It's a movement towards intolerant extremism from both sides.

classicsnoot 12y ago
Really?? So by using a term, whether quoting, asking, or actually applying, you can infer deep motivation? That is a pretty awesome skill... or maybe you are being the change you refuse to see...

abruzzi 12y ago

Is this really a millennial thing? While the prominence may be a recent thing, the mindset discussed in the article goes back a long way.

borgia 12y ago
The mindset may not be a millennial thing but its prominence in modern society most certainly is. Where once the hate-fueled rhetoric these kinds spew all day and night would have been written off as the delusions of a bitter lunatic, social media has given them a platform to find those similar to them, to network, to organise, etc. and those people tend to be within the millennial age group.

michaelochurch 12y ago

I stopped hating my generation (born 1983, so I'm just barely a Millennial rather than an Xer) when I stepped back and looked at the picture in its totality and realized that we looked bad because (except in athletics, where objective genetic talent rules the day and rich parents or producers alone can't make a career) most of the prominent Millennials were produced by the worst of the Baby Boom generation. First of all, authoritarian leftism isn't new. The ex-leftist neoconservatives of 2003 who got us into the Iraq War? They weren't the civil rights activists or the hippies. They weren't the ones fighting for desegreation or womens' or gay rights activists. Rather, those people were the communists, Stalin-defenders in the 60s, the left-wing authoritarians who swung right when they were older and richer. It's not really a loss that they went from left to right in the Reagan Era, as they were assholes the whole time. Anyway, someone being a jerk on Twitter is not the same thing as what the Weather Underground was up to. For good and bad, we're pretty moderate in comparison to the Baby Boomers. I stopped hating Millennials when I realized that the worst of us are products created by the worst of the exiting generations. You can find anything in any generation, so one bad apple (or few) says little about the generation and much more about those who endeavored to find it. And a young generation will be defined, when it is young, based on the uses that older generations find for it. Evan Spiegel? Lucas Duplan? Miley Cyrus? Justin Bieber? Lena Dunham? They're detestable, but they reflect on their producers, the ones who made their careers, and not on "our generation" in any meaningful way. If you look at the currently small-- and it's small not because we suck but because we're still young and most of us haven't had a chance to get started yet-- percentage (in the arts and business) of prominent Millennials who are actually self-made, the picture is a lot more flattering.

CPLX 12y ago
> Evan Spiegel? Lucas Duplan? Miley Cyrus? Justin Bieber? Lena Dunham? They're detestable, but they reflect on their producers, the ones who made their careers, and not on "our generation" in any meaningful way. I'm with you otherwise but this line of reasoning is pretty dubious, a sort of counting the hits and not the misses approach. It doesn't reduce well. If we blame the boomers for "producing" millennials why can't we just turn around and blame the prehistoric Madison Avenue types that produced the boomers[0], and so on and so forth. [0] http://www.amazon.com/The-Conquest-Cool-Counterculture-Consumerism/dp/0226260127 http://www.amazon.com/The-Conquest-Cool-Counterculture-Consu...

Karunamon 12y ago

This article appears to have fallen off the front page rather precipitously. It was at position 5 last I looked, and now that I refresh the page, it's not even there anymore - older posts with fewer votes are now far above it. Would any staff care to chime in? It seems as if this posting was penalized.

vonmoltke 12y ago
Note: not staff There is (used to be?) a flamewar detection algorithm built into the larger ranking algorithm that would penalize stories which sparked rapid discussion accompanied by frequent downvoting.
- classicsnoot 12y ago
  Kind of sad. A case where the algorithm is wrong. This is not a flame war, rather it is a passionate discussion between opposed ideologies. The nefarious tentacles of PC culture infecting the maths. Maybe they should add a word search for certain terms (No, idiot, fucking moron, you are dumb) as well as rapid responses and downvotes to determine if it has gone all Reign of Fire up in here...

littletimmy 12y ago

This is quite unsurprising, since the political system in the United States is very authoritarian. The entire political discourse lies between the authoritarian center (Democrats) or the authoritarian far right (Republican). There are no real libertarians. There were a few fringe candidates in the past (e.g. Ralph Nader, Ron Paul) who were basically unelectable, and there are a few fringe candidates now (e.g. Rand Paul) who have begun singing the tune of authoritarian government to get elected.

dropit_sphere 12y ago

If anyone hasn't had the chance, I highly recommend reading Scott Alexander's "Meditations" series, particularly the ones on superweapons and bingo: http://squid314.livejournal.com/329171.html http://squid314.livejournal.com/329171.html http://squid314.livejournal.com/329561.html http://squid314.livejournal.com/329561.html

borgia 12y ago

This piece belongs on HN as much as any of the pieces that spring up and are flag killed about feminism i.e. it doesn't. However, the fact that it is on HN and has received quite a bit of support let's me know I'm certainly not alone in my frustration with the modern social justice movement, their antics, and its creep into the "tech media". It is an incredibly divisive, hate-fueled movement based on flawed, debunked statistics and what amounts to a game of oppression olympics. Where once the type of person to spout their hateful rhetoric would be simply ignored, through social media they have been enabled, given a voice to, and been able to form an echo-chamber with other similarly deluded, hate-fueled people. Through their network they have wielded an undue amount of power and we have unfortunately witnessed the result of it in real life, as a man who landed a probe on a comet millions of miles away had his team's achievement pushed to the back in favour of the furor over the shirt he wore while doing so, and who then wept on TV as a result of the sheer level of hate he received. We have seen GitHub shamed for its rug championing unity in meritocracy, who then quickly moved to throw the "problematic" rug into the trash amidst the furor from these online "feminists". We saw two people lose their jobs and have their names ran into the ground online by these "feminists" over a bad joke at a tech convention. And the list goes on. They have become simply too large to ignore. Their presence, and their narrative, drives so many clicks that we now see the "tech media" latch onto it, give their toxic views air and promote their narrative in the name of gaining clicks. Facts no longer matter when it comes to these people, only the narrative. It doesn't matter that Ellen Pao was proven to have no case against Kleiner Perkins and was exposed as an incredibly shady person while doing so, you wouldn't tell she lost as the media driving this narrative cherry picked that which was convenient to the narrative and brushed over everything which was not. I could go on about this, but all I will say is that I'm glad to see backlash against this movement increasing. I'm glad to see more speaking out against it. I'm glad to see their hashtags on Twitter being used against them, and I'm extremely glad to see some of their champions like Sarah Noble being held accountable in real life for the hate they spew online.

morbius 12y ago
I think this is a bit disingenuous. I have definitely seen many articles on the web playing "oppression olympics" pitting supposedly privileged and oppressed groups against one another in literally every possible category, but these are usually met with scorn from rational individuals who identify as feminists or social justice warriors who believe that it harms the relevancy of actually oppressed minorities. There are fringe groups on every topic -- just as the Tea Party isn't representative of the visions of Libertarians and Islamic extremism isn't representative of the views of most Muslims, most radical exclusionary feminism isn't representative of the views of the vast majority of feminists. And as for Pycon 2013, most feminists I know argued that Adria had done enough by complaining to staff and had no right to post the employees' names and pictures on Instagram/Twitter/whatever, and that the individuals involved did not deserve to lose their jobs. But being a jerk isn't a prerequisite for being a voice for a traditionally oppressed group. It's just a result of being impassioned and hopelessly misguided, both traits that are indicative of naïveté rather than malice.

bakhy 12y ago

My god, why can't white cis males handle any criticism? It's as if people live in paralyzing fear of being called a name. And then can't wait for an opportunity to say "Aha! You're now exactly like your oppressors!" WTF? If you can think these things are the same, you automatically prove you do not actually understand anything. And yet you preach, and preach...

classicsnoot 12y ago
I'm here, I'm white, I'm male. Criticize me. Let's see how well your blanket statement holds up...

atlantic 12y ago

The prerequisite for civilized discourse is that arguments should stand or fall on their own merits. To evaluate opinions on the basis of the sociopolitical identity of the author, and to shout down those who do not pass this test, is pure prejudice indicative of intellectual debility. I enjoyed reading the contrarian comments attached to the article, because they were revealingly thin on argumentation. My favourite one was "this is not a good article", closely followed by the inscrutable "you need to come to terms with the idea that you're more libertarian than left-wing."