The problem of SJWs

Post Reply New Topic

Why is it always the most privileged who pretend to be victims?

I'm not sure that the currency (or maybe "culture") of victimhood, as it is promoted by SJW/Leftist culture today, is actually very old. My memory may be off, but I believe the current obsession with victimhood derives largely from the revolutionary Marxist writer Frantz Fanon. It's based on the notion that to be a victim is to be morally superior -- and of course everyone wants to be morally superior, so everybody claims to be a victim. And if I can claim to be a victim, and claim that you're an oppressor, then that makes me especially superior to you.

The people who are most dangerous to this radical Leftist/Marxist view are former victims who get free and become independent. These people who go "off the reservation" threaten the existence of the whole victimhood scam, which can only be maintained by claims of perpetual victimhood. People who go off the victim reservation are ruthlessly, viciously, hysterically attacked (see "Uncle Tom" Clarence Thomas, "not-really-a-woman" Sarah Palin, etc.). The Leftist/SJW machine demands the constant creation of more victims, and demands that people be deliberately kept down, or be able to claim they are being kept down (even if they are not), so that they can continue to claim moral superiority.

You might be onto something there. The connection with Marxism might explain why they're more concerned about groups than individuals. They care about which groups have been oppressed, not which individuals have been oppressed. They care about statistics, not people.

The connection with Marxism might explain why they don't expect people to have free agency. Not the victims (i.e. women didn't choose to study STEM because the patriarchal culture convinced them they couldn't) or the alleged perpetrators (i.e. you're only saying that allegedly sexist thing because you grew up in a patriarchal culture).

The connection with Marxism might explain why they want equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity. We nearly have equality of opportunity. Yes a poor person grows up with less opportunity than a middle class person but there isn't really any sex based difference in opportunity.

Opportunity gives men and women the ability to choose their own careers as individuals. Women can choose to study fields that used to be reserved for men like STEM and men can choose to study field that used to be reserved for women like nursing.

But don't expect equality of outcome because that would interfere with people's free choice. If many women choose to study nursing and few women choose to study STEM, that doesn't mean you should hold girls science fairs until the numbers match, it means you should respect these women's choice. If they don't want to study STEM, that's their choice.

This sort of thing is why I don't think feminists actually care about women. Feminists care more about advancing feminism than they care about advancing women. Feminists will do anything to advance feminism even if it's harmful to women.

Marx famously said that the value of an item should be determined by the effort required to make it, not how useful it is. I see this sort of thinking in the equal pay debates on the web.

I've heard rumors that back in the 60s, some of the second wave feminists may have been known Marxists who sowed their Marxist ideology into the feminism that is now unwittingly used by third wave feminists

This might just be peak SJW:

http://reason.com/blog/2016/12/09/lefti ... ou-bitch-a

Even I was pretty shocked, and I already had a fairly low opinion of these people to begin with.

It's as old as children getting a hug when they cry.

They Kant be serious! PC students demand white philosophers including Plato and Descartes be dropped from university syllabus

--University of London college students have demanded figures like Kant and Plato be dropped because they are white
--Student union at School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) insists the majority of philosophers on the course should be from Africa or Asia...

They are titans of philosophy, without whose work an understanding of the subject is all but inconceivable.

But now students at a University of London college are demanding that such seminal figures as Plato, Descartes, Immanuel Kant and Bertrand Russell should be largely dropped from the curriculum simply because they are white....

The students say it is in order to ‘decolonise’ the ‘white institution’ that is their college.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... labus.html

This gets the biggest LOL of the week:

Students In College Bible Class Get Trigger Warning, Permission To Skip Studying Crucifixion Of Jesus Christ

Students in a Bible course at the University of Glasgow are being given trigger warnings before being shown images of the crucifixion — and permission to skip those lessons altogether if they are worried they’ll feel too uncomfortable.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog ... ixion.html

Who cares to be honest. It is nice for someone to feel as though they are smart, right and tolerant why should we take away that feeling that can be good for someone.

Beyond belief. It doesn't sound like they believe in anything, but are dedicated to playing outrage and protest.

Contempt isn't a strong enough word for what I'm feeling about this story, but it's the only one with all the right connotations. Nauseating.

Last edited by Adamantium on 09 Jan 2017, 6:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.: Fixing meaning changing typo

Why should they take it away from anyone else?

You seem like a very tolerant person. I have no doubt that you're smart, right and tolerant but imagine if some SJW accused you of not being tolerant enough and made you feel dumb, wrong and intolerant.

No one deserves that. Not me and not you.

Why should they take it away from anyone else?

You seem like a very tolerant person. I have no doubt that you're smart, right and tolerant but imagine if some SJW accused you of not being tolerant enough and made you feel dumb, wrong and intolerant.

No one deserves that. Not me and not you.

You can avoid said scenario by avoiding confrontation with an SJW. Its simple the SJW keeps his opinion and the other person keeps his own.

But what I don't like is us confronting an individual who may be an SJW. The fact is people don't change their minds often and it can feel awful to have your opinions and insight undermined by someone else.

This doesn't mean we can't counteract SJWS other ways. We can try to stage counter protests. Present counterarguments through the media. But confronting individuals is not a good way. Opinions are a core part of someone they help give them a sense of purpose, righteousness and intelligence. If we undermine that we risk taking that all away. What about their feelings?

True. Very true.

If I was wiser and more patient I'd just ignore them, even when they misuse statistics.

As we have seen in the media, SJWs sometimes confront other people. They sometimes invade other people's personal space without consent and shout abuse at them. They can make people feel awful by undermining their opinions and insight.

I agree that we should debunk them in the media, however, this presents a moral dilemma. Is it not wrong to debunk them behind their backs without giving them an opportunity to defend themselves?

I'd prefer to have a debate in the media because I believe all people have the right to defend their viewpoints, even people I disagree with. And I believe that the SJWs are not wrong 100% of the time. Let them debate and they'll sometimes make a good point.

I don't want to hurt their feelings. I believe that in a debate, we should treat our opponent with respect (even if they don't return the favour). I believe that in a debate, we should attack the argument and not our opponent. I.e. we should avoid the use of ad hominems even when your opponent does not avoid ad hominems. Most of all I believe that two wrongs don't make a right. While it's ok to demonstrate your opponents hypocrisy or inconsistency (double standards) if your opponent uses logical fallacies against you that does not justify your use of logical fallacies against him.

If we don't debunk them from behind their backs we may end up humiliating SJWs. If they do things like invade our own personal space we can just ignore them but challenging one's viewpoints is different. It is undermining their insight and making them look stupid. I am in favour of letting SJWs debate through the media but they have got to be willing to do it. I do not like the thought of us confronting SJWs who simply want to express their voice and be part of a movement.

In short if they don't want a debate or look as though they lack knowledge don't confront them. Sometimes when people choose to confront they don't do it to debate they do it in order to feel good about standing up for their principles.