Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
BrutalistMcDonalds
Oct 4, 2012




Lipstick Apathy

There's been a lot of good theories about SJWs so far. I just want to leave a few theories/notes. Of course, I don't reject the notion of social justice but am focused on unhinged, extremist and hateful people masquerading as progressives on the internet.

+ 'Doth protest too much.' A constant and hyper-sensitive policing for any perceived racial, gender, or sexual slights can be a psychological mechanism used to conceal hidden racist, sexist or homophobic thoughts. A person realizes they possess bigoted attitudes, which creates cognitive dissonance and results in them over-identifying with "oppressed peoples." Yet they still act in a racist way, like the white girl who goes up to the Middle Eastern Christian and prostrates herself about how terrible white people like her treat Muslims (she's still stereotyping). This is also where you get the "Stormfront or Tumblr?" game. The white girl who calls herself a "transnigger" and thus cannot be racist. Or the goon who railed against rape culture but secretly publishes lots of rape erotica. These people are the left-wing equivalents of right-wing conservative ideologues who secretly desire anal sex / prostitutes / etc.

+ Internet competition. The internet fuels a hyper-competitive arms race for attention. The most attention-seeking people (narcissists) thrive in this environment, and behaving in the most extreme and outrageous manner is a way to out-do the competition. Suey Park's interviews revealed she was not interested in the specifics of what she was saying when she got called out on it, but how provoking the online masses was a means of promoting her personal brand. Social justice politics for these people is just a vehicle to fulfill their narcissistic impulses. If social justice politics ceased being effective at doing this, they would switch in an instant to another form of politics that did. (For example, see Brandon Darby, an ultra-left anarchist who became a Tea Party ideologue. Also had a history of sociopathic/narcissistic and disruptive behavior.)

+ Identity politics in the Obama era taken to an extreme. Since the election of Barack Obama, the U.S. has entered into a bloodless social conflict over race and identity. This is an updated form of the culture wars that replaced the one fought over evangelical Christianity and red states vs. blue states in the 2000s. Liberals have invested their own self-worth in a black president, and his election has also fueled a racist backlash among elements of the political right. At the same time, the right believes liberals unfairly use accusations of racism as a weapon, while the left believes racism exists everywhere and is simultaneously hidden and concealed (and is mounting a counter-attack against social progress). Both sides are correct. The result is an escalating atmosphere of mutual hostility and suspicion. The social justice wars are simply an unedited and more extreme form of what's playing out on Fox News and MSNBC every night and will most likely recede in a few years. It's important to note that SJWs are typically ultra/extreme left-liberals and not Marxists or revolutionary leftists. Some Marxist groups are now attempting to incorporate SJW/intersectionality/privilege politics but this is an opportunistic attempt to capitalize on a fad, and will most likely cause more harm than good.

BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 09:04 on Apr 8, 2014

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

BrutalistMcDonalds
Oct 4, 2012




Lipstick Apathy

I think a lot of it also has to do with youth.

A lot, I would say most, of SJW politics is really identity politics, and young people's identities are experiencing a great deal of flux. They're experimenting with new identities, and necessarily creating new boundaries by doing that. Some people become very protective of those boundaries. It might be something like your identity as a lesbian or an Asian woman in America and how you express that, or it might be something ridiculous like the white girl who calls herself black. It might be your identity as a vampire, or wookie, or whatever. They're insecure about their identities and compensate by being extra-protective of perceived slights. At the same time, they're also leaving the protective bubbles of their suburban hometowns and are encountering a world that's way more complicated than they know, including how to deal with other people.

They like to say their hyper-progressive politics are a reflection of the more progressive millenial generation, and there might be something there, but I don't think most of them will behave this way after age 40 or even 30. The most radical voices for this I've seen among older people not coincidentally appear to be people who actually work in the rigmarole of academic social theory. I forget the exact age of the girl who tried to cancel Colbert, but she had to have been barely out of her teen years.

This isn't to say older people aren't concerned about basic issues of fairness. Or issues of racism or sexism. It's not to say "you become more conservative as you grow older." But it's to say that older people are busy with life and don't have as much time or energy to devote to flipping their ever-loving poo poo over any perceived slight. (Not flipping your poo poo is considered a sign of maturity!) They're better at regulating their emotions and come to accept that giving in to those emotions would be giving the perpetrators of those slights too much room inside your own head. You can remain calm when other people treat you poorly because you've already been through a bunch of poo poo already.

Edit: If you have a few minutes, listen to this:

http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/24028?in=17:09&out=20:55

BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Apr 13, 2014

BrutalistMcDonalds
Oct 4, 2012




Lipstick Apathy

So the latest SJW blow-up is that Sky Ferreira's latest music video is racist. Video:

http://www.ssense.com/video/sky-ferreira-i-blame-myself-video-ssense/

Article:

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/apr/17/sky-ferreira-racist-i-blame-myself

BrutalistMcDonalds
Oct 4, 2012




Lipstick Apathy

So I looked at this Sky Ferreira thing and grew somewhat depressed. Why?

So take this:

https://twitter.com/AlexfromPhilly/status/456481565782974464

Girl of indeterminate ethnicity criticizes the white pop singer for dancing with black men. People disagree, and tell the girl that the pop singer is not white but Portuguese-Brazilian (which doesn't mean not white, though?). Her co-worker says "she's also not a gang member from Compton." People say no one ever assumed the black guys were. Then the girl apologizes for assuming Sky Ferreira was white but still calls the video "problematic" and criticizes her critics for being privileged.

Now, was this just some Tumblr lunatic losing their poo poo? You'd be surprised. This is the girl's bio:

quote:

Alex is an openly LGBTQ host & associate producer at HuffPost Live. She previously covered politics & entertainment for Beast TV, Newsweek & The Daily Beast's video initiative. During the 2012 presidential election, Alex produced & shot videos on the GOP primaries from the campaign trail. In 2014, her coverage of the Bisexual White House Summit was nominated for a GLAAD Media Award.

A graduate of Cornell & the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, she earned honors for her reporting on prison nurseries & taught writing at the Auburn Correctional Facility. In her free time, Alex plays roller derby & mentors teenage writers through Girls Write Now. A proud queer journalist, her videos and writing have also appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Post & iVillage.
And this is her co-worker:

quote:

Noah Michelson is the Executive Editor of Gay Voices at The Huffington Post. Noah received his MFA in poetry from New York University, and his poems have been featured in The New Republic, The Best American Erotic Poetry from 1800 to the Present, and other publications. Before joining The Huffington Post, Noah served as Senior Editor at Out magazine, and he has also contributed to Details and Blackbook and served as a commentator on CNN, BBC, Fusion, 'Inside Edition' and Sirius XM, among other outlets.
I mean, let that sink in. Editors for large, influential media outlets with degrees from the Columbia School of Journalism and NYU, who have covered politics for national and international media companies including the New York Times, are representing themselves as the voices of underprivileged people in Compton. SJW politics isn't just a Tumblr thing. It's very much part of the media machine now.

I heard one theory yesterday that much of internet culture is a "you're doing it wrong" culture. The SJW politics might tie into this. We're under tremendous pressure to constantly have the screen in front of our face, and that everything you do needs to be validated by the crowd. At the same time, we are uncomfortable with people who are different than us, might be living cooler lives than us, and that there are people out there (somewhere) secretly laughing at us. So nit-picking how people present themselves, the media they consume, how they interact with other people - all of this is a reflection of a deeply insecure culture from people who feel aggrieved but have no direction for that grievance. The boundaries between "high" and "low" culture have evaporated, society elites are listening to "underground" music. And progressive cultural politics in particular has a hard time formulating a coherent critique of all this. So SJW politics is just one reflection of how internet culture and media culture in the 21st century has descended into a Hobbesian war of all against all. "You're doing it wrong" and there's no consensus to what is right.

BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 18:41 on Apr 17, 2014

BrutalistMcDonalds
Oct 4, 2012




Lipstick Apathy

So weaboos are calling Avril Lavigne's latest pop single/video racist for appropriating Japanese culture. What's being left out is that (I didn't know this) the singer is arguably one of the most popular Western artists in Japan, and the song was only released in Japan:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZsf4F7Oe7A

BrutalistMcDonalds
Oct 4, 2012




Lipstick Apathy

Berke Negri posted:

Cultural Appropriation is a Very Real Thing but the problem with SJWers is the nuance that fashion and taste are ephemeral things influenced by multiple factors. It is one thing for a white hipster girl to "play" in fake native headdress but another for clothing that incorporates Native motifs into the design. This can be lost on a lot of people who pull the appropriation card reflexively.

Oh but gently caress anyone who talks about appropriation re: whites celebrating dia de los muertos.
Yeah I've seen cultural appropriation done badly, like the fake native headdress. That's simply poor taste. But cultural appropriation is also inevitable when different cultures communicate. As you say, there's a lot of nuance involved.

Like with the Avril single, the claim it's racist evaporates when people realize the artist is popular in Japan and the single is intended for the Japanese market. Here, Japanese culture isn't even being repackaged for a Western audience! (And this also ignores that Japan also spends a lot of money exporting its culture around the world.)

BrutalistMcDonalds
Oct 4, 2012




Lipstick Apathy

A theory just occurring to me is that part of this is a reflection of how globalization has upended a lot of our assumptions. East Asian k & j pop is a massive and globally influential cultural force. The idea that Avril is a threat to that is hard to swallow. It reminds me of geeks who complain their culture is being disenfranchised at the same time geek culture has never been more dominant. There are geeks that complain their culture is being appropriated by the mainstream, despite the fact that the boundaries between geek culture and the mainstream no longer exist. (Maybe this is where Bronies came from? As a reaction maybe?)

I'd make a comparison between SJWers to a similar phenomenon on the political right that's become increasingly wary of immigration and foreign culture. In Europe there's been a big rise in populist parties that fear Muslim immigration, which is perceived as a threat to European culture. But these are hardly rational fears, considering the most powerful political blocs in those countries do not reflect the interests of those immigrants at all.

In the U.S. there's the Tea Party, which fuels itself on grievance and claiming that it's oppressed. But really, the Tea Party is much more interested in demanding other people recognize them as oppressed, rather than actually freeing itself from their oppression. What they consider oppression is that there's a liberal media which doesn't recognize them. Which is a fantasy. And it's extremely doubtful that if the Tea Party got what it wanted - if the liberal media (which doesn't actually exist) went away - that they would stop acting like they were oppressed.

At the same time, SJWers points to the existence of groups like the Tea Party as evidence that SJWers are oppressed, rather than recognizing that Tea Party types represent the dying gasps of some seriously unpopular politics. The SJWers can at least point to past grievances. But they still define themselves by their oppression to an unhealthy degree.

BrutalistMcDonalds
Oct 4, 2012




Lipstick Apathy

Earwicker posted:

"SJW" is a pejorative label that people have started lobbing at each other about two years ago, of course it has done nothing.

I'm pretty sure most of the more extreme people you guys are complaining about in this thread are around 14 years old and are not any more indicative of any kind of actual societal movement than the poo poo goons were dredging up on Livejournal in the previous decade. Which, granted, did not have the catchy name. I seriously doubt, if you pick 10 people off the street over the age of 20, that more than one would have even heard of the term.
I think it's become more popular than that, now to the point of it being a regular part of the media debate. The walls between internet backwaters and the mainstream are a lot fuzzier than they used to be. Here are just a few headlines pulled from Salon.com right now:

Bye-bye, whiny white dudes: Tucker Carlson, Tal Fortgang and the weakening grip of entitlement

Kim Kardashian “discovers” racism — what’s wrong with that?

How whites should talk about white privilege: (Hint, it’s not like Tal Fortgang)

Nintendo’s anti-gay cop-out: Why its demented same-sex ban is no game

BrutalistMcDonalds
Oct 4, 2012




Lipstick Apathy

I think if you pulled random people off the street and asked them about this, you'd get different answers depending on where you were. But I'd say that the SJW-type language is very much part of how people of a certain strata now talk about politics, which is middle-class urban progressives. But this is also probably incomprehensible to people outside that strata. Which leads me to believe it's largely a matter of social signalling within those communities. Being able to use a SJW vocabulary allows you to compete for social status - you're able to demonstrate that you possess the right values among people of the same cohort. This confers certain advantages and ... ahem ... privileges.

I have friends like this.

Here's a story. I went to a drag king show (think drag queens, but drag kings), so of course everyone there had a Tumblr and was super into progressive identity politics. I'm sitting on the patio having a drink with a group of drag kings and a friend, who is a straight dude and a progressive activist. I'm gay and don't work in activism at all. This is the scenario.

One of the drag kings gets up and goes inside.

I say to the group: "Oh she looks fantastic, doesn't she?"

Dude friend: "He."

Another drag king: "It's okay she goes by she."

Dude friend: "Oh."

The drag king: "But when in doubt, gender-neutral pronouns."



I wasn't in doubt, so no harm, no foul. No one was triggered or offended or anything. But socializing in this world increasingly feels like being on a knife's edge. And people are constantly policing the people around them, even when no one has broken any rules. So I think it's mainly about social signaling.

BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 00:39 on May 9, 2014

BrutalistMcDonalds
Oct 4, 2012




Lipstick Apathy

Berke Negri posted:

To be fair Salon is kind of a backwater.
Haha true. But it's just to demonstrate that this isn't just Tumblr. The Suey Park / CancelColbert thing was all over the media, for instance.

Edit: HuffPost is hardly a barometer for quality commentary, but it's popular. SJW stuff is all over it. The Gay Voices section in particular has been consumed by it. Like here's an article about "top privilege" which uses an anecdote about how bottoms are underprivileged because they can't eat Chipotle before sex (which isn't true, anyways).

quote:

But the one thing I think many people will still see as a top privilege, especially with gay men, is Chipotle. Tops still can eat at Chipotle before sex, and that is a privilege. A huge one.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zach-stafford/top-privilege_b_3916143.html

BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 00:49 on May 9, 2014

BrutalistMcDonalds
Oct 4, 2012




Lipstick Apathy

foutre posted:

Honestly, since I don't read tumblr (tumbl? Is that a thing? hopefully no) I don't really encounter the more absurd "SJW" people. Instead, most of the time that I hear people accused of being a SJW it's because they're trying to divest from fossil fuels of Israel, or decided to protest ROTC rather than just hope that the military changed it's policy on trans people. In my experience, a lot of the time its used as an excuse to get out of engaging in dialogue -- by painting people who disagree with you as myopic fanatics it becomes a lot easier to avoid engaging with the issues that they're trying to discuss, and dismiss them.
I see it as mainly an inter-left war. The SJWers are a product of living in an internet bubble world so you won't typically encounter them unless you enter that bubble. And the biggest social justice shitstorms I've seen have been between people who would describe themselves as leftists. So the extreme manifestations of it come across as heresy hunting. The idea being that heresy is a variance of belief that goes against established orthodoxy, rather than a rejection of the faith altogether. People who completely reject the entire social justice project--and by extension the left--don't make good targets.

Did you all see this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r7cwWegXCU

This is what the speaker wrote that got her the SJW treatment. I'm assuming she's a radical feminist considering the blog and that she was speaking at an anarchist conference.

http://towardfreedom.com/29-archives/activism/3455-the-politics-of-denunciation

Some choice quotes:

quote:

The weeks that followed produced an atmosphere of distrust and recrimination unlike anything I had experienced in more than twenty years of radical organizing. A few people were blamed for specific transgressions. (My friend was one: she was accused of violating the venue's "Safer Space" policy, "triggering" audience members, and employing "patriarchal mechanisms" in her statement.) Others were called out for unspecified abusive or sexist behavior. And a great many more were alleged to have supported or defended or coddled those guilty of such offenses.

The ensuing controversy destroyed at least one political organization, and an astonishing number of activists––many with more than a decade of experience––talked about quitting politics altogether. I know people who lost friends and lovers, often not because of anything they had done, but because of how they felt about the situation. Several people––mostly women, interestingly––told me they were afraid to say anything about the controversy, lest they go "off-script" and find themselves denounced as bad feminists.

quote:

In the situation I've described here, these moves are being made in the name of feminism, but there is no reason to believe the pattern will stop there. The same tactics are available to any identity politics camp, or any ideological sect seeking to rid itself of bourgeois influences, or pacifists wishing to make a total break from the culture of violence, or environmentalists looking to escape from civilization, or really anyone whose radicalism consists of decrying other people's purported shortcomings. The obsessive need for political conformity, the mutual fault-finding that animates it, and the sense of embattled isolation that results––combined with a kind of self-righteous competitiveness (on the one hand) and a masochistic guilt complex (on the other)–– practically guarantees the sort of internecine squabbling we've seen emerge, not only in Portland, but in Oakland, Minneapolis, and New York as well.

The totalitarian impulse has found its expression, and it has proven so destructive, in part because we have consistently failed to find the means for handling disagreements, for resolving disputes, for responding to violence, and (yes) for holding each other accountable. Without those tools, we rely––far too often––on ideological purity tests, friend-group tribalism, peer pressure, shaming and ostracism, as well as general poo poo-talking and internet flame wars. Such behavior has been part of our political culture for a long time.

It is unsurprising, then, that our tendency is to push people out, rather than draw them in; but when we do that, our capacity for meaningful action diminishes. A cycle of suspicion and exclusion takes hold. As we grow less able, and even less interested, in having an effect on the larger society, we become increasingly focused on the ideas and identities of those inside our own circle. We scrutinize one another mercilessly, and when we discover an offense––or merely take offense––we push out those who have lost favor. As our circle grows ever smaller, minor differences take on increasing significance, leading to further suspicion, condemnation, and exclusion––shrinking the circle further still.

We behave, in other words, not like a movement but like a scene––and a particularly cliquish, insular, and unfriendly scene at that.
Now I think it's interesting there are people--who are on the left--saying this SJW thing is a form of totalitarian extremism. And if you've studied totalitarianism you'll know it's chaotic and sort of lawless by design. The idea being there's nothing set in stone, the rules are constantly changing, and everyone is policing everyone else all the time. You can be betrayed and turned in at any moment. That's a totalitarian system.

This sorta reminds me of reading about western communist groups in the 1930s, weirdly enough. It was a lot different and those were top-down organizations, for one. But this constant sniffing out of minor differences and drumming people out for byzantine ideological reasons reads exactly like how those groups operated. And the way it worked, any party member who happened to be targeted (usually for personal reasons) could be conceivably found guilty of a transgression. Like one example would be a party member who wrote propaganda leaflets being singled out and put on a show trial because being literate enough to write propaganda showed an insufficiently proletarian spirit. This wasn't even in Stalinist Russia but the CPUSA meeting halls in Chicago! Now just replace "bourgeois" with "privilege" and you get the same vibe. I need to read up on the Spanish Inquisition.

BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 10:34 on May 13, 2014

BrutalistMcDonalds
Oct 4, 2012




Lipstick Apathy

blowfish posted:

It's feminist , basically.
Activate the gendered power dynamics fluctuator.

"But captain, that would be problematic!"

BrutalistMcDonalds
Oct 4, 2012




Lipstick Apathy

I've been reading James Baldwin and Arthur Koestler and I was tired last night when I typed that they're like a bunch of totalitarian communists from the 1930s. Which sounds a little unhinged looking back on it. But I still see a lot of similarities reading about the KPD and CPUSA back then.

The constantly shifting and insulated rhetoric, the pervasive hunt for dissidents within the group, and the focus on identity as a reflection of "revolutionary consciousness" or whatever. Like these parties would consider a stoic and broad-shouldered proletarian named Ivan Ivanovich who worked at the Orel Collective Farm as the ideal person to emulate, who they've only seen represented in party newspapers, and anyone in the party who didn't measure up to Comrade Ivanovich's example was considered automatically suspect (which was everyone in the party). You wear glasses? That's a hint of a bourgeois upbringing! It wouldn't affect you at first, but over time these little things would blow up into a shitstorm.

The language was a lot different, but it sort of rhymes with SJW language. After the KPD went underground, and the Gestapo started hunting for communists to send to the concentration camps, the secret police could spot them just by striking up conversations, as (for example) words like "concrete" and "sectarian" were only used by communists. Instead of saying "can you clarify that?" you'd say "can you put that in more concrete terms?" So it set you apart from everyone else. And inside the party, if you were unable to speak the language exactly right, then you were also automatically suspect. The trap here is that no one can speak the language exactly right, because it's incredibly vague and constantly shifting around. So everyone is paranoid all the time and fearing they'll be the next ones to get found out.

--

Edit:

But go back and read that statement. They say there's really no ground at all for debate or argument of any kind. Their opponents' may have the best intentions, they may also be objectively wrong, but there's not going to be any debate to determine this because your positions are the result of distortions caused by a patriarchal and white supremacist society.

And how they're all standing and chanting in unison? I've got a hunch that the real purpose to that is to check the other members of the group. If you don't stand up and say the exact same words as everyone else, then why is that? Are you not committed to this? Why are you not showing solidarity with us? Actually we're not asking you. We're telling you. Because you're hosed up. You're not standing because it's a reflection of your privilege. We have to stand because we don't have the privilege not to, etc. etc. etc.

If anyone in the group can be drummed out at any moment for having the wrong opinions, then you're going to get a small core of hardcore conformists.

--

Edit:

Thanks for the info!

BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 21:11 on May 13, 2014

BrutalistMcDonalds
Oct 4, 2012




Lipstick Apathy

Looking through that Facebook page, I read one post from an activist who said she wasn't going the conference this year because the same thing happens every year. Which is really interesting to me.

Because I'd think if that was the case, then the anarchist community must be overrun by racism/sexism/imperialism/patriarchy. But as someone who isn't an anarchist or leftist at all--politically moderate really--it seems more like the narcissism of small differences. I went to one of these conferences once with a friend, and they didn't seem nearly as different to each other (to me, at least) as they seem to think about each other. So it seems more likely that the reason it keeps happening over and over again is because of the internal dynamics of the group engaging in these protests.

It's speculation, but I could imagine members of these groups looking through the list of speakers and very deliberately hunting for something they can use to justify disrupting an event. And once they've found the person of the year, they will dogpile onto him/her.

BrutalistMcDonalds
Oct 4, 2012




Lipstick Apathy

Problematising the post-problematisation of problematism.

A lot of this stuff originates in academic sociology / cultural studies departments, so I'm assuming "problematic" was used there before making the jump. A quick search tells me it was being used in academic papers 20 years ago.

I've read some theories as to why academics like to use jargon. A lot of it is practical -- it allows you to sum up complicated ideas and move on. But it can also show you lack confidence in what you're saying. And a lot of it can also be used to dress up biased arguments and make the quite ordinary people who do it appear to be fantastic super-geniuses, which is good career-wise.

BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 17:29 on May 15, 2014

BrutalistMcDonalds
Oct 4, 2012




Lipstick Apathy

Tartarus Sauce posted:

Something that often bothers me about liberalism in general is that people often castigate themselves and one another for failing to meet what strikes me as a nigh-unattainable Platonic ideal of Social Awareness and Social Justice.

So, you get people yelling at each other for being "bad allies," or apologizing deeply for being "bad allies" themselves when they make a mistake or gaffe, or discover that they have an unconscious bias, stereotype, or inappropriate thought.

Me, I find the idea of a "bad ally" to be a contradiction in terms, because if you're really that lovely, you're not really an ally, and if you're an ally, then whatever your mistakes, flubs, or screw-ups, you're still fundamentally a friend, and that is what should count in my book.

I absolutely don't think people should rest on their laurels and just ignore, excuse, or dismiss mistakes, problems, or injustices because "it's all good enough," but I do think some people could stand to take a more relaxed attitude to the fact that life is messy and people are imperfect, and that we will probably never be able to create a totally fair, just, equal society (without introducing new inequalities and injustices, at least).
Yeah that's pretty much my feeling. And well, I think one long-running theme in progressivism is that human beings and society are capable of being improved upon. Even to the point of thinking that society is inevitably moving forward, that there's an arc to history that favors progressive justice. If you don't get with the program you're on the "wrong side of history." The logic is that government can be used to accomplish this, or speed up the progress.

But it's not entirely wrong: You can look to history and see that governments have certainly been able to make people behave worse. Why can't they make people behave better? But to demand human *perfectibility* seems like a bad way to go, and in the 20th century resulted in some really catastrophic political experiments. I don't think we're in danger of that today, but mainly, I think progressive politics too often puts too much of a burden on people and expects too much from them. This isn't to endorse the opposite conservative view that people cannot do any better, which is another argument.

This is a silly example, but take the shitstorm after Macklemore won the Grammy. People were criticizing him for appropriating hip-hop and stripping it from its power to challenge white supremacy. But to say that hip-hop must do that and serve as the cure for the ills plaguing black America really puts an impossible burden on the artists who do it. That's just an example. Who can really live up to that standard?

BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 19:25 on May 15, 2014

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

BrutalistMcDonalds
Oct 4, 2012




Lipstick Apathy

Tartarus Sauce posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqevO_zrxsA
I remember coming across a blog post somewhere not too long ago where the author basically went on and on about having accidentally mis-gendered someone, and how that proved he "still had work to do" on himself. It was one of the milder and less melodramatic and/or self-blamey posts I've read of this type, and it still reminded me too much of the penitentes who whip and cut themselves in the public square as an act of penance.

Then, in "SJW-esque" circles, I've seen folks in those groups basically demand nothing less than the most groveling, self-abasing apologies for offenses against the group from "offenders," and it can get pretty creepy at times.
That video is hilarious because I think it gets into how social competition between progressive-minded types who live in cities is a big driver of this. And you can see how it developed as academics started using increasingly obscure jargon to compete with other academics. So it's made the jump into the mainstream.

And it could be a reflection of our consumer choice society (bear with me here). You only drink fair trade coffee and eat from fad diets and so forth. If you're crammed into a city and competing with all these other people, then you can get a leg up by being more socially responsible and what-not. I also wonder if some of the triggering stuff is a reflection of consumer choice as well. We're now very used to the idea that we don't have to read, watch or see anything unless we've specifically chosen to read, watch or see that particular thing. So when something intrusive filters through, it provokes anxiety. That might be a bit of a stretch, though.

Speaking of stretching, take the skinny white girl in the yoga class who started freaking out when a fat black woman joined up, because it gave her some kind of white guilt identity crisis. It might actually be a troll because it's so ridiculous:

http://www.xojane.com/it-happened-to-me/it-happened-to-me-there-are-no-black-people-in-my-yoga-classes-and-im-uncomfortable-with-it

quote:

I was completely unable to focus on my practice, instead feeling hyper-aware of my high-waisted bike shorts, my tastefully tacky sports bra, my well-versedness in these poses that I have been in hundreds of times. My skinny white girl body. Surely this woman was noticing all of these things and judging me for them, stereotyping me, resenting me—or so I imagined.
This is a great example of social justice ideas going off the rails, and of course this article turned into a big viral joke and she was made fun of because of it. But you see the problem here. No one in this situation even got into any beef with anybody. She was just going about her day and encountering people who had a different body shape and color and she just. couldn't. handle.

And I mean, COME ON PEOPLE. I think people are wrapped up too tight about potentially offending others -- not even by anything they've done but just by being who they are. Like they think who they are is tantamount to an offense to others. Of course you shouldn't disrespect people. But I think my general rule should be to just let other people be themselves. That's what it means to respect other people, you know? And if everybody did that, then things would get by ok and people would generally respect each other. Just be yourself. There's being thoughtful and then there's overthinking this poo poo.

BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 20:33 on May 15, 2014

  • Locked thread