Bigoted activists gets schooled on bigotry by immigrant.

Post Reply New Topic

Intersectionalism has done damage to the civil rights movement because the privilege model it perpetrates skews basic common sense to the extent the believe they are immune from being bigoted.

My principles and sympathies are with those deemed 'SJWs', but I think the whole thing has taken a wrong turn somewhere. I think neither the SJWs or their opponents have it right.

There were several points raised in the documentary series 'The Century of the Self' that I can feel at the edge of my memory/awareness that I think are pertinent here, but I haven't got four hours to watch it right now to try and find them.

(Actually, there are lots of pertinent points raised in that series, and y'all could do worse than go watch it).

I think those arguing against censorship and control generally have it right. You don't solve problems that way.

I was careful with my choice of title not to use SJW.

However is true that "black people can't be racist" nd similar ideology has it origins flaw ideas perpetrated by Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw.

That is a thread in its own right, why Intersectionality is a flawed approach especially the model of privilege and how it has undermined and damaged the civil rights movement.

The term SJWs was coined in response to those that were intolerant of different point of views and were using various means or control (from taboo, to legislative campaigns), to not allow ideas to be discussed in an open way or other forms of expression.

Anyone who has been following what has being going on in universities would be aware of this.

The second millennium, which is likely to be influenced to a far greater extent than ever before by women, - or what might be described as 'female energy' - has already brought an upsurge of openness, transparency and a desire to accept diversity of all kinds. What it has also brought, however, is violent resistance from the old order - mostly male, white, right-wing and conservative - who are desperate to hold on to their long-established hegemony. A major, and dangerous upshot of this is the rise of far-right parties in Europe and the USA.

SJWs don't do themselves any favours, and as Hopper says, they've gone wrong somewhere. But I also support their point of view. And the vitriol directed at them is proof that they are a threat to the increasingly fragile status quo.

The college kids (SJW) are naive.

In ten years, they will be just as racist as their elders.

Regarding BLM.

There is a differnce between concern for the black community and BLM leadership. Alicia Garza a founding member of BLM has been influenced and defended Assata Shakur

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assata_Shakur

This is what I mean when I say that that thes moment aren't always in the same mould of Martin Luther King and the other principled people like Mandela and Nora Parks. This not what they fought for.

The far right want a race war, and black separatist/segregationists are no different from their white counterparts.

Isn't this a classic logical fallacy? The idea of no smoke without fire, or if there is vitriol or backlash this somehow validation of the cause.

SJWs lack principles, unlike actual civil right leaders. They are more concerned about offense than freedoms. They they think they can fight inequality through inequality.

They are more concerned about affirming their status as victim than overcoming these problems.

What is actually more fragile are freedoms and rights themselves. They go wrong but not understand how draconian policies can undermine that.

Also if you have be following it closely many of them have little feel oppressed by, or at least not more so that anyone else.

One of the biggest problems with intersectionalism is it is an ideology totally preoccupied with labeling and pigeon holing people. Which is ironic given the racial clarification of fascist ideologies.

All lack principles? All are concerned about offence? Can we try not to generalize? It's useless to create some three-lettered acronym out of thin air and attribute to it whatever...

Coming from the guy who's entire contribution here is umpteen threads generalizing about the right wing?

I'm exploring the idea in another thread, but I think they could succinctly be described as bullies for a cause.

If they are principled their principle violate the principle of rights, which is one's rights cannot superseded another's.

So yes they are very unprincipled in their modus, compared to someone like Martin Luther king who was actually about judging people by the content of their character. He believed in equality and would no argue in favour of segregation in universities for instance. Considering how hard fought it was to remove segregation.

Forgive me, but how do you know? What do you base this on? One of the misconceptions by those who haven't been following events closely, is that social justice courses in universities are simply exploring the topic of justice and equality as a social concern. This is just not the case. These are not general courses in civil rights or civil rights history. Overwhelmingly they stem from a singular ideology, which are demonstrably ridged and intolerant to other points of view. There is a direct connection between these course and activist who are trying censor through intimidation, violence, taboo and legislative campaigns. They themselves are indoctrinated with the double think of this mindset.

The ideology that has influenced these courses the most is Intersectionality. This is a Marxist ideology. it is not hyperbolic to say that one of the main proponent Intersectionality Patricia Hill Collins identifies as a Marxist and she consider it a Marxist critical theory, and it very much in the mould of social Marxism.

One of the most problematic aspect Intersectionality is the privilege model which an over simplistic and unrealistic model of power, which leads to pigeon holing people with labels and dismissing large sections of the population who can be be disadvantaged becuase they don't fit in with their narrative. E.g. poor white 'trash'. Also you get these activist appeasing civil rights issues abroad, becuase it doesn't fit into their narrative of western colonial oppression.

The other fallacy of Intersectionality is the notion that various privileges/disadvantages can be added up with a sort of arithmetic. A good example of this flaw is those that says stuff like "women have a hard time getting hired, and black women have an even harder time getting hired". The implication is that they have it worst becuase they are both women and non-white. The problem is is black men even less success in the job market than black women. So in essence they have tried to latch onto to another cause to bolster their own credibility. This illustrates the flaw of this ideology in a nutshell.

To use their own phrase Intersectionality has "appropriated" various civil right movements, high-jacked their message, and infected them with a divisive message, which offers no real solutions.

Another common misconception is that those that oppose these movements are unsympathetic to social issues presented. The reality is SJW attract opposition from across the politcal spectrum, and for good reason. It is not a progressive movement, the term "regressive" used to describe them was coined by a liberal progressive.

Many of these activist don't really know any better TBH. They have not being exposed to an environment were critical thinking is encouraged, so they are vulnerable to being spoon fed ideologies like this. Al they are doing is parroting the one narrative they know an entire world view.

That's pretty true for a lot of young people, regardless of their ideology.

You can do 'critical thinking' around the notion of 'critical thinking', and reason a political/ideological subtext to it. What then? In some of the behaviour, I see a concerted (essentially) non-violent political effort to change things. Whether or not anyone outside that effort thinks it is for the better is neither here nor there, but then that's true of any political movement or ideology.

Whenever I immerse myself in politics, I see too many people who are hooked on the drama, on the fight. What the belief is doesn't really matter - what matters to them is the certainty with which they can espouse it, that they can throw themselves into it and construct narratives around victimhood and heroism. It's not about the content of the belief, but the structure of the belief, how they believe. Any actual victimhood or heroism is coincidental. It's all about the fight, about having an external enemy to scapegoat.

The pattern can most clearly be seen in the mindset of the conspiracy theorist and, like that mindset, it cannot be addressed on what it thinks is its own terms ('the facts').

I have my beliefs, my principles, and I'll stick up for them whenever someone attacks them. But, in the privacy of my own head, I'll regularly doubt them. I don't like certainty, not in myself or others, and when I engage it's not to replace someone's certainty with my own, but to try and make them doubt.

The most important thing is to be exposed to a range of different views an idea so they are not in an echo chamber.

Herein lies the problem with these courses: They try to control the narrative so tightly, they actively resit anything that challenges their narrative, which is not what you would expect from a university course.

The also instill strong taboos, so that their student carry this on this behavior into the wider world. It is a propaganda technique that was honed in Mao's China, and the Soviet Union, and is used in places like North Korea.