評価の高い 200 件のコメント全て表示する 243

[–]vuxanov 91 ポイント92 ポイント  (4子コメント)

As a proud person of Balkan using the word balkanization is appropriating my culture.

[–]randomb0y 23 ポイント24 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's worse than that since it's used with clearly negative connotations.

[–]Skeeter_N_CO 21 ポイント22 ポイント  (2子コメント)

It's microagressions such as this which led to the balkanization of the Balkans in the first place. You have every right to be triggered.

[–]vuxanov 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (1子コメント)

triggered

Just like those Muslims in Srebrenica.

[–]Metallio 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

That...made me cringe.

...I almost said "too soon", then realized how long it's been.

[–]modorra 129 ポイント130 ポイント  (79子コメント)

People really misconstrue this whole "don't question the victim". Different institutions and processes require different behavior. Its intended to describe the social response, not the legal one. Its not "never ever question the victim, even in a court of law" its "don't be an asshole. Seriously.".

Judicial proceedings and investigative reporting require fact checking, including asking the victim painful questions. Extending sympathy does not. Its better to be compassionate to 10 undeserving people than to not be compassionate to a single person who needs it.

[–]f9d8hv3sl 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Its not "never ever question the victim, even in a court of law" its "don't be an asshole. Seriously.".

Are you implying that angry mob ruining victim's life is an actual problem (compared to the accused, falsely or not)?

[–]modorra 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Being falsely accused is rather rare, but the point stands. Angry mobs rarely do any good and we should not encourage them.

[–]f9d8hv3sl 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (3子コメント)

But do they ever attack the victim?

What I'm trying to say (and I apologize for my clunky English - it's not my first language) is that people generally don't "attack" the rape victims, which is why I found your remark about not being an asshole to the victim a bit strange and out of place.

Unless, of course, you were reffering to Japan or similar cultures where "victim blaming" is an actual problem.

[–]francis2559 66 ポイント67 ポイント  (41子コメント)

Its better to be compassionate to 10 undeserving people than to not be compassionate to a single person who needs it.

That's well intentioned, until you get into situations where abusers are framing victims as the "true abuser." It's important that we don't leap to judge either. Don't ignore the victim, yes, but don't blindly believe them either. This is how we wind up with Satanist scares and false child molestation charges, etc.

[–]modorra 37 ポイント38 ポイント  (15子コメント)

The point is that as the public at large we don't really need to find the veracity of these claims. Prying into other people's trauma can be very harmful and rarely worth it. Leave it to judges and investigative reporters, not pitchfork mobs on the internet.

[–]Utenlok 46 ポイント47 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I agree, but that should also be the case for the accused until/unless they become the guilty.

[–]nognus 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Prying into other people's trauma can be very harmful and rarely worth it.

I think the point is that if they are lying there isn't actually a trauma and so prying into it isn't actually a further assault.

How are we to know if we are unwilling to ask anything at all? Just take everyone at face value for anything they say? If that is the recommendation, why is the crowd that advocates for this seemingly so unwilling to listen to so many other people? They get to cherry-pick who they listen to and on what topic but nobody else can be personally selective? Do you see how this is practically a mandate that this small group of people be allowed to dictate reality and proper thought to everyone?

[–]frotc914 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Is that a realistic expectation? That people here crazy stories and just say "oh well! We'll never know what happened!" besides, the court operates on different standards and is often not designed to find actual truth of the claim, such as with plea bargains and evidentiary exclusions.

[–]modorra 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Realistic? I'm talking about what would be ethical. Intrusive questioning by the public at large does no good to anyone.

[–]Canadian_Infidel 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (1子コメント)

You accuse someone of a crime and you are going to get questioned.

[–]BuddhaWasABlackMan 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (0子コメント)

All criminal accusations should be questioned.

[–]SexThrowaway1125 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (7子コメント)

Agreed. We need to find the accuracy - the veracity is irrelevant.

Edit: Those of you who think I'm saying things wrong need to get a better grasp of the English language.

[–]jinxjar 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (5子コメント)

I, for one, have no idea what you're saying.

[–]SexThrowaway1125 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Accuracy = whether a statement is true.

Veracity = whether a person who says something "means it."

So what I mean to say is that analyzing something subjective like a person's attitude should be a secondary consideration relative to what actually happened, and it seems that interpreting the tone of those involved takes center stage relative to waiting for harder evidence to appear.

[–]GnarlinBrando 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I get what you are trying to say, but your definitions of both words are wrong.

Accuracy is actually about precision and freedom from mistakes, not truth.

Veracity is usually about a devotion to truth or ability to convey the truth.

[–]nognus 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's not what veracity means... for someone asking us to get a better grasp on the English language, here's a mirror, look at yourself in it.

The root of veracity is the same as in verifiable. Something is verifiable because it is true. It has nothing to do with meaning or intent. You just said "we need to find the the truth - the truth is irrelevant."

noun, plural veracities for 4. 1. habitual observance of truth in speech or statement; truthfulness: He was not noted for his veracity. 2. conformity to truth or fact; accuracy: to question the veracity of his account. 3. correctness or accuracy, as of the senses or of a scientific instrument. 4. something veracious; a truth.

[–]koronicus 17 ポイント18 ポイント  (23子コメント)

"Believe them" isn't about blind belief anyway. You don't have to ignore context, but when's the last time you berated someone for saying "someone broke into my car and stole my stereo"? Why would you do it about rape?

[–]francis2559 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Depends, what do you want?

Hey, my radio was stolen, can I borrow yours? Can I use your phone to call the cops?

Is not:

Hey, that guy stole my radio! Get him!

That's what I meant about leaping to judgement. I'll listen to a sad story. But if you want me to act to cause concrete harm to another person, then you need concrete proof you have been harmed. End of story.

[–]koronicus 21 ポイント22 ポイント  (2子コメント)

If any crime victim asks you to harm their victimizer, you should probably say no and get the police involved. Someone who tells you they were raped probably isn't looking for you to execute street justice--leave the harming to the courts.

[–]francis2559 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Fair enough.

Side note: It's interesting just how much disagreement there is on what is asked of us by "listen and believe." I love this sub for a willingness to dive below the surface of assumptions and hash this stuff out. Seriously. This is why I come to reddit.

[–]BuddhaWasABlackMan 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The harm of false rape accusations comes from ruined reputations and careers and from extra-judicial tribunals by university officials who deny the accused due process.

[–]Canadian_Infidel -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Don't berate them but don't believe them until there is a sentencing hearing. People lie all the time. No reason to get rid of due process for certain crimes and not others.

[–]RexStardust 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

don't blindly believe them either

Worked great for the Catholic Church

[–]OohLongJohnson 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Its better to be compassionate to 10 undeserving people than to not be compassionate to a single person who needs it.

You say that, but do the accused not deserve your "compassion"? The accused fraternity was frequently attacked and vandalized, students were slandered and alienated for months. Student "activists" harassed fraternity members on their steps for months leading to the closure of ALL fraternities on campus.

All of this because of a "story" with zero journalistic integrity. That's exactly what it is, a "story", not an article. Personally, I think all of these men who suffered because of this fabrication are "deserving" of our compassion as well.

We can be sympathetic to victims without starting up a witch hunt every time someone makes an accusation. There's a difference between support and being sensitive, and taking everything an accuser says as absolute fact. This is why we have due process in our legal system and the social justice side of things should take note.

[–]yawningangel 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

And that is why the above comment is delusional...

Serious claims need serious proof and sore feelings don't fucking count..

If you can prove a rapist commited their crime I'd personally castrate them, but the above poster is asking us to look beyond that..

[–]RT17 26 ポイント27 ポイント  (21子コメント)

It's better to be compassionate to 10 undeserving people than to not be compassionate to a single person who needs it.

That includes people facing life destroying rape accusations, right?

Right?

[–]verty101 16 ポイント17 ポイント  (5子コメント)

It's natural to be suspicious of someone accused of a crime. That doesn't mean you should tar and feather them based on the victim's word alone, but you don't have to buy them a beer either.

[–]Tecktonik 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

And why would anyone complain about having to sew the letter "A" onto all of their clothing? I mean it is just a letter, you can still have a social life, nothing to worry about.

[–]Canadian_Infidel -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (3子コメント)

I'm equally suspicious of accusers when there is motive for them to lie.

[–]Musai -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (14子コメント)

That includes people facing life destroying rape accusations, right?

Right?

You mean the 8% of cases that are false accusations, right?

[–]pottzie 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Having known someone who spent 3 years locked up because they were accused by an adopted daughter who got mad when she was grounded for not doing her homework and accused her adopted father of rape, take those down votes with pride

[–]yourfaceisannoying 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (6子コメント)

I would be genuinely interested to see some legitimate sources for that statistic. I hear all kind of figures thrown around and would like some context.

[–]Jarkus86 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (2子コメント)

This was reported in the FBI "Uniform Crime Statistics" 1996 report as well as the US DOJ report from 1997.

BUT

We don't have a good model for actualy identifying false rape accusations statistically at the moment. Different jurisdictions have different legal definitions of "false accusation" if such a legal concept exists there at all (i.e. use of terms such as unfounded or unproven in place of).

We can also only count "proven" false accusations. So circumstances where it cannot be proved that the accuser or the accused broke the law leave us with a lot of gaps in our data (not to mention withdrawn accusation whether legitimate or not).

The statistics around rape are so lacking in enough data to be of any real use. Based on the variance in false claim statistics, anywhere between 2% and 10% seems to be about where the mark is.

[–]OohLongJohnson 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

We can also only count "proven" false accusations. So circumstances where it cannot be proved that the accuser or the accused broke the law leave us with a lot of gaps in our data (not to mention withdrawn accusation whether legitimate or not).

This is very true and is something a lot of people don't account for. Furthermore, there are absolutely men that have been convicted and throw in jail for crimes that they did not commit, including rape accusations.

[–]Jarkus86 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It goes both ways. Sad for either side. Sometimes we can't prove a wo/man committed a rape and sometimes we can't prove that a wo/man made a false rape claim. Sometimes we can despite neither having happened which skews the results.

[–]Metallio 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I think the thing that bothers me about it is that even if it's the smaller (2%) of the numbers bandied about, that means one in fifty accusations are false. That's massive and justifies quite a bit of scrutiny especially with what's at stake. The thing that bothers me then is that people blow it off as nothing and become angry when discussing it. It's not about rape being a fine and dandy thing, it's about extremely reasonable concern that people might lie about something that people have been proven to lie about.

[–]GnarlinBrando 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Putting it in terms of 1 in X helps make percentages significantly more real. Good move.

[–]dspeyer 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Here's some good analysis, though ultimately it's a hard problem and our conclusions will never be much more solid than our data sources, which are basically quicksand.

[–]vesman 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I love how this exact talking point was discusses in the article and you used it right on queue like it was part of the script

I'm not even mad, that's amazing

[–]RT17 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

So... It's not better to show ten undeserving people compassion, than risk not being compassionate to a single person who needs it?

[–]GnarlinBrando 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The original saying is; 'it is better to let ten guilty men go free than one innocent man rot in jail.' Paraphrased. It is about the importance of due process and the system of innocent until proven guilty.

While to many both seem equally true, in practice they can be in conflict with one another.

[–]alcaron 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah but human beings as a group are not subtle, so trying to make the point that saying every victim of rape didn't enjoy it isn't something easily grasped by the world at large.

Take a controversial point; "the way she was dressed, she was asking for it" on one side and "maybe you shouldn't be dress like that" on the other, both things I have heard people say about the very same incident. Both taken very differently.

Some people defended "she asked for it" saying that moral, decay, blah blah whatever, I don't care it's dumb, but people defend it because they think "my rights! I want to say things, and fuck you if you don't like them!"

Which, you know, is not wrong. I still believe people have the right to stand in the middle of a public space and say how much they hate whatever racial/ethnic/religious group. And while I don't want to hear that shit I also don't want anyone deciding what is and is not acceptable. And it isn't like you can't stand in the same public space with signs saying "these guys are assholes". We have options.

I've seen people lambast the "maybe you shouldn't dress like that" and in this instance the victim was walking some number of blocks away, going from the nightclub to the parking garage, and the description of her clothing was pretty common club attire.

So why wouldn't you roast someones nuts for saying that?

For the same reason you wouldn't call someone an asshole for saying you shouldn't wear a jumper made of steaks in grizzly territory...because you're gonna have a bad time.

But people can't get past two primary things to see the validity there, first, that the world has bad people/things in it, and not ever comment is ascribing blame. Saying that if you show the maximum amount of cleavage late at night downtown and walk to your car by yourself after midnight you are not making a very smart choice regarding your personal safety is in NO WAY saying "so fuck you, you deserved to be raped".

No more so than saying that, given we know the woods are full of bears, and given we know the scent of fresh meat attracts them, and given we know you are unlikely to fight off a bear...you should probably avoid doing certain things in the interest of not being mauled by a bear.

But look at how much text it takes to explain a nuance, and then we haven't even gotten into the argument over anything I might have mis-communicated, nobody has tried to argue against the point yet...

People just don't have the attention span (and frankly desire) to deal with it. Plus it's fun being part of a mob. You get to be righteous, vindicated, people agree with you, it isn't lonely...what is not to like.

[–]colonel_bongwater 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

But "don't question the victim" seems to be plenty viable for rape cases in a court of law. I think the context was soundly applied.

[–]imhotze 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Exactly this. I work in University Residence Halls and have done so for about 7 years now. I'm often the first person to speak to a student after they admit they've been sexually assaulted. These students are in INCREDIBLY distressed states by and large, usually self-blaming, self-hating - they're messed up. If the reaction you give them is questioning/disbelief, it can be very harmful to them.

In my career I've personally responded to several dozen sexual assault complaints. I can tell you that students who experience sexual assault are almost never looking for anything to happen to the person they accuse - they just want support. Every policy on sexual assault delineates the survivor response (where you have to believe everything they say) from investigation.

In sexual assault cases it usually comes down to a he said-she said argument. In University investigations the standard of proof is always "More likely than not" - much less than "beyond a reasonable doubt." So if it ever does come down to an investigation to pursue the accused under university codes of conduct, it basically becomes a credibility test. You can look up a lot of case law about what should be considered in credibility tests, but it basically comes down to whether the person is truthful and has the ability to clearly recollect the event.

Anyways, I'm very frustrated by the current tone of sexual assault discourse. Do people make things up? Yeah. To people get sexually assaulted? Yeah, and a lot more often than they make things up. But the media disparity (thanks, fucking Rolling Stone) is undoing a lot of good.

EDIT: TL;DR - Believing the student has nothing to do with the accused. Most sexual assault cases have nothing to do with the accused. Students just want support.

Source - I work in Uni Residence Halls

[–]monstred 52 ポイント53 ポイント  (42子コメント)

I only see articles and reddit posts crying out against so-called social justice warriors (SJW).

Besides on Tumblr, where are these people online? Besides the Rolling Stone article, where are the articles which promote this particular brand of identity politics? Is there any affect in the real world, outside of speakers being rejected from a invited talks at Unis (which was a not an uncommon occurrence before Tumblr, so it's not clear if the SJW Tumblr community is related)?

There seems to be more froth coming from the movement against the social justice movement than from the movement itself. It's just hard to see the point of it if you aren't exposed to the offensive so-called SJWs.

[–]rabidbot 23 ポイント24 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I feel like you not looking that hard, I don't often see news about professional bicycling. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist or isn't a huge deal. Same with cricket, never see shit about that sport, but it exist and drives a huge industry and fan base. Just because you or I haven't recognize something or don't see much from something doesn't make it any less relevant or true. There are billions of humans, your bound to something in the shuffle.

[–]TomFooligan 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (6子コメント)

It's slowly leaking into all the left-leaning media. As an example, this article is on the front page of the Huffington Post at this very moment: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-mcgorry/a-message-to-anyone-who-thinks-the-wage-gap-is-a-myth_b_7077802.html

[–]Logan_Chicago 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (4子コメント)

To be fair, that's not real journalism. That's a poorly written opinion piece.

[–]j035u5 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's all well and good, and I agree, but lets not forget that Huff Po is one of the most read new sources in the world.

[–]TomFooligan 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

One could argue that for probably 90% of the articles on HuffPo and I'm certainly not going to defend them. But my parent is essentially stating that the "SJW" movement and corresponding anti-movement don't really exist outside of Tumblr and Reddit. It very much does and I was able to immediately provide a link as proof. I opened up HuffPo and it was one of the first articles on the page. It was virtually effortless.

[–]DoogieHueserMD[🍰] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's an editorial and even then it's HuffPo. I respect local newspapers more than I respect HuffPo.

[–]GnarlinBrando 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Sure, but they also get a fucking massive number of hits per day. A lot of it driven by that kind of content. They make money off of those hits. Controversy sells, therefore as a seller of controversy it is in your best interest to promote controversy.

[–]alnarra 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I wouldn't really call the Huff Post Media any more then I'd call the opinions section of my newpsaper media. They'll hire just about anyone to write for them. Not to say I'd turn them down if they ask me Puts the best smile on

[–]Skeeter_N_CO 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Umm, they're all over TrueReddit. Nearly every other post is related to identity politics or class warfare.

[–]SexThrowaway1125 26 ポイント27 ポイント  (10子コメント)

Demonizing an imaginary group is a convenient way to get a sense of vindication, that you are struggling in a morally righteous fight against an evil "other." So while rallying against the evil of bigotry assumed to exist in the form of a SJW, you get to dismiss all claims that you don't like (i.e. that it's worth it to pay attention to consent and negotiation regarding sex, that there isn't any difference in the cognitive capabilities between men and women, that racism is counter-productive, etc.).

Although the examples you hear of SJW behavior are pretty radical, it lets people refer to me for example as a SJW even though the most radical idea I have is that consent is important and can be followed with some basic rules, and that maybe we should stop saying mean things about women even though it makes us feel better about ourselves.

[–]Orangemenace13 20 ポイント21 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Straw men.

[–]SexThrowaway1125 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Yeah, exactly. The archetypal SJW is a straw man.

[–]Orangemenace13 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Right. I'm not saying SJWs don't exist - just that they are often over exaggerated (their views and in particular their numbers) for effect.

[–]SexThrowaway1125 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Excellent. We are agreed then.

[–]Metallio 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

consent is important and can be followed with some basic rules, and that maybe we should stop saying mean things about women even though it makes us feel better about ourselves.

I think the issue is that those things are a little excessively high concept, a little below "world peace" and things like that...and that real life is a lot more complicated.

Not that you wrote that with the intention of having it nitpicked (so I apologize a bit, but those words are the entirety of an argument for some people I've met, some just yesterday)...but when someone says "basic rules" they mean what they think is enough and often disagree that there is often a situation where things are more complicated or grey. That doesn't mean that some "basic rules" are a good idea or that they won't clear up many or most of the problems but it's a far sight from solving the problems of miscommunication that plague even the simplest of sexual/intimate interactions. The next line suggests not saying "mean things" about women...there's certainly a segment of society filled with asshats saying mean things about women simply because they're asshats, but by the same token there are asshat women who get mean things said about them because they're mean and it's an accurate and reasonable statement. Even if an asshat makes that statement to feel better about themselves it doesn't make it wrong for instance.

The difficulty comes from these ideas being simple and playing out in general conversation based on uncomplicated rules governing a complicated world. The social injustice that people are concerned about is real, but so is the inaccuracy of the response. If anything you ever say comes across as saying that something is "common sense" ("basic rules") then there's a pretty good chance it's not. This is one of those laws right up there with "if there's a question in the title it can always be answered with 'no'!"

This isn't an SJW/social injustice issue alone and of course plagues all areas of human politics and disagreements, it's just a good place and time to chat about it, hope you don't mind.

[–]arthen78 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Bingo

[–]isometimesweartweed 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's honestly a credit to western culture that the thing that seems to threaten so many people are 'SJWs'. People are living such comfortable and safe lives that the threat of 'SJWs' pose to 'video game journalism' etc et al is telling of how good we have it.

There are far more important problems and threats in the world and people are wasting their time worrying about SJWs.

[–]Surfacetovolume 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (10子コメント)

The implication in the term SJW that social justice is a bad thing is also unsettling.

[–]Metallio 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (9子コメント)

Hm. Well, amongst my friends it's not the "social justice" that's considered bad, but the overreaction and injustice that comes from someone seeking to shelter their abuses under the auspice of social justice. The angry and self righteous folks who lather their pain on everyone around them and play whatever social justice card is necessary to shut down discussion they don't like.

It's not the social justice, it's disagreement about what social justice actually is.

Well, that and of course "when fascism come to America it will be carrying a cross wrapped in a flag" doesn't need to become "carrying social justice on its shoulders" either. Power flows from these things and some people will use that power improperly.

[–]DoogieHueserMD[🍰] 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Social justice used to mean helping the disadvantaged now a mutated form of the word has become a buzzword to shut down argument and argue about ideology instead of issues.

[–]SilentMobius 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (2子コメント)

IMHO anyone using the pejorative "SJW" has already illustrated their bias, It's generally the point at which useful information and/or dialogue drops to zero.

[–]LtCthulhu 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Which makes sense after dealing with people who believe Nike's slogan is "ableist."

[–]SilentMobius 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

and how many of those have you actually spoken to?

[–]Surfacetovolume 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I'm not talking about the behavior. I mean the term. It's used to mock anyone who has a concern and shut down any discussion.

[–]workerbee77 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's exactly how it's used.

[–]getridofwires 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Is it fair to say that more passive approaches, even those used by MLK, have been somewhat ineffective in achieving equality in a timely manner? Is that the justification for a more aggressive stance?

[–]Metallio 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's an interesting question. I think the issue is more that this is more nuanced than laws and blatant/open discrimination. There's not really something you can directly attack like people getting kicked out of diners for being black etc. It's a bias that's shown statistically, that's it.

The aggression is probably more from frustration than utility, as it really hasn't done anyone much good. If there were an easily visualized end result then aggression might help us achieve it, but there simply isn't. There's extensive disagreement concerning whether many problems even exist, then the extent to which they exist, followed by what solution is appropriate, and finally how the heck you achieve that solution.

Racism/sexism/etc isn't dead in the western world, but destroying it via anything other than cultural creep seems like a bad idea to me. There just doesn't exist a power strong enough to make things change like that.

[–]Canadian_Infidel -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

R/srs

[–]Telodzrum 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You can find them in the wild sometimes. [This](www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/12/at-law-school-is-insensitivity-grounds-for-an-objection/383882/) was discussed in /r/law a while ago and it was generally regarded as one of the most ridiculous things that the commenters had ever heard of.

[–]GnarlinBrando 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think people refrain from pointing out specific examples for a few reasons. The main reason is that in many cases when people have they are then accused of being abuseres and inciting harassment and mob mentality. The other that people really don't want to give them more attention because many of them function in the click bait sphere of the media and would make money from any attention, positive or negative.

IMHO, there are some unfortunately misguided but probably well meaning true believers, and there is a group of people in positions of relative power who, believers or not, are, if not genuinely malicious, very self interested and willing to manipulate others.

[–]jellicle 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's cheeto-eating man-children in their basements, railing against the imaginary cabal of women that prevents them from getting laid.

There's also a core of misogynistic divorced men in their 50's who have extrapolated their grievances against a single woman.

[–]i6i 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

It's more noticeable if you aren't american and don't care about america's social issues how anything that doesn't neatly tick a box under [race, sex, sexual orientation] gets thrown under the bus to support whatever it is you guys are dealing with in ferguson.

[–]TheSpellingAsshole 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (3子コメント)

It's spelled noticeable, you titanic cunt.

[–]i6i 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Thanks! I fixed it you cocksucker

[–]TheSpellingAsshole 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Leave me alone you cum-guzzling mess

[–]i6i 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Okie-dokie assmuncher

[–]internationalslapdap 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Just wanna clarify a distinction: This was a moment of journalism, not an actual trial. I think the article was there just like everything else they write, to sell copies, to be opportunistic. In that sense, yes, The Rolling Stone article is a good representation of a cultural current run wild. But we ought to be careful not to conflate mistakes of a magazine with the mistakes of a courtroom. Just sayin'.

[–]Jarkus86 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ahhh, but as part of the "fourth estate" journalists have a bit of a responsibility to ensure that they are providing people with a well researched and executed article. They certainly aren't a courtroom but have as much social power as the judiciary and they need to be a bit more Spider Man about this shit.

[–]-RyN- 37 ポイント38 ポイント  (17子コメント)

It's amusing how the biggest "social justice" zealots are also the ones most likely to be white and upper-class.

[–]internationalslapdap 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is an ironic place for you do bring this up, given the issue of "balkanization" as mentioned in the article.

[–]BorderColliesRule 34 ポイント35 ポイント  (5子コメント)

"White guilt" is a thing and not being flippant about that. Seriously, reading through the comments sections on Alternet, Mojo, Huffy and others, it's amzing how quickly some of them are to leap on their proverbially swords of angst and Dog help those who don't toe the line..

As a Brown-skinned Bro, I quietly laugh at the self flagellation and think, what a bunch of assclowns

[–]cannibaljim 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's cool. As a White-skinned Bro, I quietly laugh when brown people fight amongst themselves over who's not brown enough. Every group has their assclowns.

[–]Deviant_Fart 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Exactly. And if they're soooooo concerned about those being oppressed and suffering, why don't they actually go help some people?!?

[–]Giant__midget 17 ポイント18 ポイント  (0子コメント)

They aren't concerned with helping anyone so much as pointing a finger and trying to position themselves on a moral high ground.

[–]BorderColliesRule 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Because ## are easier..

[–]BlisterBox 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, the "white knight" phenomenon is pretty amusing, especially when they end up being attacked by the very people they're trying to defend. It must be extremely soul-crushing when they suddenly realize that, as white males, they'll never be able to placate the true social justice warrior.

[–]RexStardust 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

If you know injustice exists, even though you've never suffered it, you're not supposed to speak out against it?

So if you see a house is on fire, but you've never had your house burn down, you're not supposed to call 911?

[–]-halcyon 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Do you have anything to back up that assertion or are you just speculating?

[–]pgc 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

There are educated white people who use the language of social justice but its not a movement exclusive to educated white people. Not in the slightest

[–]GnarlinBrando 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Not what the poster said. The point is that much of the public face of it seems to be people who would have had little to no experience with it. That and quite a few of them are making a tidy sum off of focusing and directing related outrage.

[–]pgc 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Who are those who make a tidy sum focusing and directing the outrage?

[–]GnarlinBrando 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Generally a growing portion of the clickbait media, but they operate on both sides of the line and do the same thing in many other contexts.

Specifically, Antia Sarkeesian is a good example, as are many of the people kotakuinaction takes issue with. They have their own problems and echo chamber, but I do agree the amount of money some of these people are getting through patreon, etc, for the quality of content they produce is ridiculous. Specially while still focusing primarily on the negative responses they get. Any public person is bound to catch flack, it does not make you special.

[–]kru5h 24 ポイント25 ポイント  (7子コメント)

I find a striking similarity between the new "social justice" and Broken Window Theory, the idea that vigilantly overpunishing small crimes and "microaggressions" somehow leaves us safer from larger scale crimes.

That is, it is believed that excessive punishment for a broken window is acceptable because in the long run it prevents more broken windows, which prevents more vandalism, which prevents local society from becoming welcoming to small crimes and makes more upright citizens feel that they are safe, discouraging a criminal environment.

This is similar to claims of "rape culture", that is, not accepting women's views by default, being sexually aggressive, or not being attentive to women's messages leads to something else which leads to something else which leads to a culture that encourages and promotes rape.

The problem with both of these is that the statistics don't really bear it out and are murky at best. We've already been through similar crises in the past with the supposed violence culture of violent cartoons and video games. Sure, cartoons used to be too violent, but there was a radical movement to end all video and game violence because it leads to an overall more violent society. I'm not sure that we want to complete another cycle of slippery slopes and vigilante vigilance without first seeing where the data comes out.

[–]emanresu_sdrawkcab 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I knew that something bothered me when people I know get all in a tizzy about "microaggressions" (other than the fact that none of the ones I've seen described are really any worse than the rudeness that everyone deals with from time to time), but I never really could articulate it as more than just an overreaction. This is what bugs me about it - it's the same sort of slippery-slope-esque argument that tough-on-crime conservatives use to justify draconian punishments for minor offenses.

[–]-halcyon 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (1子コメント)

not accepting women's views by default

Why do you think this is rape culture? Who is claiming that it is?

being sexually aggressive

Definition of "Aggressive": hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another; readiness to attack or confront

I definitely think that "sexual aggression" and rape go hand in hand. I cannot see any possibly way that sexual aggression should be considered socially acceptable (outside of scenarios where consent for this behaviour has been clearly received).

the statistics

Which statistics?

[–]decerian 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

not accepting women's views by default

Why do you think this is rape culture? Who is claiming that it is?

As far as I can tell, its a very vocal minority on tumblr, and then the same people on their twitter accounts.

[–]SexThrowaway1125 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Fixing rape culture is more than addressing concerns specific to women - rape culture is made up of a network of assumptions about the sexual roles that both genders are "supposed" to play.

[–]nbseivjbu 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The problem is it's hard to pin down 'rape culture'* to a definition and then test to see it even exists much less how to go about fixing it. Interestingly enough one of the areas with the most agreement (prison rape) doesn't even involve women directly.

*Including academic verses layman definitions.

[–]NoSpicyFood 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (34子コメント)

Even as the author lays out a clear and polite article, taking care to address arguments and positions rather than people and character, he still takes the time to qualify what he stands for: at multiple instances, he says he supports equality and he believes the fight against social ills is needed. The unfortunate reality is that he must do this. A good portion of his article is pointing out the flawed counter-arguments SJW's are going to employ; the author continues that trend by making it clear that should an SJW say he hates equality, he can point to where he already said exactly the opposite. It's frustrating. Half of any response given to an SJW needs to be filled with denials of sexism, racism, and whatever other type of discriminatory position one may be assigned.

Edit: On a related note, the atheist community has been suffering from deep rifts the past few years. A number of SJW's have tried to make a name for themselves (mostly by calling the previous heavy hitters in the movement sexists and racists). One guy* even made an unsubstantiated rape accusation against someone. Well, it's all coming to a head now. Major atheist groups are disassociating from these people.

http://www.michaelnugent.com/2015/04/07/atheist-ireland-dissociates-from-pz-myers/

*That guy (mentioned in the above link) was once accused of raping a college student. He "zoom" went straight to administrators and shut down all chance of an inquiry into his actions before the girl could formally make her accusation.

[–]kru5h 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (17子コメント)

It is well-known that when discussing controversial issues, you spend 10% of your time explaining what it is you're saying and 90% of your time explaining to people what you're not saying.

[–]-halcyon 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (15子コメント)

I don't think there's anything wrong with that though. It's a natural consequence of language being ambiguous and context-dependent.

[–]thecarebearcares 22 ポイント23 ポイント  (9子コメント)

I think it's more a sign of an uncharitable argument; where people aren't trying to engage with the meat of what you're saying, just trip you up.

[–]SexThrowaway1125 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Well, that's the inherent distinction between discussions and arguments. And whenever anyone talks about contentious issues, it's very tempting to turn it into an argument. But if you do a good job of anticipating this, and by employing these conversational strategies, you can keep everyone within the realm of a discussion.

[–]GnarlinBrando 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

IMO it has everything to do with people getting paranoid (for good reason or no) and no longer operating in good faith. The problem isn't having to explain ambiguities, the problem is that too many people assume dishonesty, ulterior motives, and malicious intent. This true of many public/mass disagreements and almost universally true of anything that has ever degraded into a flame war.

[–]pommedeguerre 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Absolutely this! It shouldn't be necessary, because an open-minded and reasonable person should be able and willing to discuss the actual points you've made. Every SJW I've ever seen debating someone on reddit has a strawman ready to deploy. This strawman might as well have a Snidely Whiplash moustache and "unabashed rapist" tattooed on its face. I'd go as far as to say that they usually aren't acually debating against the person they are responding to, they are debating against a caricature of that person. They aren't responding to ideas that person has expressed, they are responding to what that person must really mean

[–]thecarebearcares 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Oh man, I'm pleased you agree with me but not chuffed that you were talking about SJWs. They are the ULTIMATE strawmen. People find a couple of dumb things about triggering off a 14-year-old's tumblr, and all of a sudden it's what all 'SJWs' believe. Infuriating.

[–]GnarlinBrando 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

This is also a vast over generalization that functions in exactly the same way and produces just as much straw.

[–]thecarebearcares 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

It's not my intention; my point was don't dismiss someone as an SJW, just deal with whatever they're actually saying.

[–]GnarlinBrando 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Surely it was not. Unfortunately what we intend often means little to what the results are. Thus, one might consider that it is probably also not the intention of those on the opposite side an argument, even if it does have a negative affect.

[–]pommedeguerre 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Maybe we've got a different concept of what an "SJW" is. To me, it's a word describing the over-the-top ones. The ones beyond reason, the ones with minds that are just as closed as the MRAs and rape-culture-enthusiasts they see lurking in the shadows everywhere. Maybe I've got the wrong connotation associated with "SJW".

If SJW actually means anyone with an active interest in social justice issues then I absolutely don't mean to paint them all with that same brush. The sort I dislike are a small minority.

I read SRS (and related subreddits) occasionally. The odd post on there is insightful and I've learned a lot from it. That's the odd post, though. The majority of it is utter trash.

[–]thecarebearcares 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I sympathise with your interpretation of it; I'm on the liberal side of things, but there's certainly an issue within the community of 'offence culture' and excessive policing of tone. It's just at the point where SJW is often thrown at people who are, say, anti-Gamergate or similarly relatively moderate.

[–]yourfaceisannoying 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Do you actually believe that? That the written word as a.communication tool is so ineffective that it requires you to clarify, expand and defend in advance every statement you make? Couldn't just be that there are people out there that will mindlessly focus on the minutiae of the argument rather than the core, because it's easier to silence dissent that way? No?

[–]DeathHamsterDude 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

You see, I partly agree with that, in that language is indeed fluid, and thoughts are complex things to box in with words, but the sad thing is, if I argue with a Social Justice Extremist, and I don't specifically say that I'm against sexism and racism, they'll peg those beliefs on me. I feel more and more that I should copy paste a large list of 'isms' that I do and do not subscribe to at the beginning of every discussion with one of them, but I really hate the idea of reducing my nuanced opinions into a checklist.

Unless I say something explicitly racist or sexist, it's ridiculous that I am then accused of being such. It's happened multiple times now, when I disagree with one of them, they automatically start calling me out on homophobia, sexism, racism, being 'conservative' (as if that in itself should be a scarlet letter), when in fact, except for the authoritarian angle of their beliefs, and the insanely extreme ways in which they act on those beliefs, I'm probably pretty close to them on the political and social spectrum.

There's a reason that most of the people I know, including myself, who are so against these Social Justice Bullies, are very liberal themselves. We see our beliefs being skewed and twisted into these monstrosities. Horseshoe theory indeed.

This got a bit long-winded, apologies.

[–]GnarlinBrando 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

For whatever it is worth I feel you.

It is a very frustrating thing when you come to a discussion trying to build bridges, find resolution and common ground, or with genuine curiosity and are immediately attributed as an outsider with malicious intent. I find it deeply concerning. Almost as concerning as, as you say, those twisting things I believe in for their personal gain. I wish I could just ignore it, but it has created a surprising amount of blowback. In side many communities I am accused of being a 'conservative bigot' while to people outside that community I am just another SJW.

[–]DeathHamsterDude 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Absolutely. I think after Shirtgate, the idea of SJW's has really started to enter the social consciousness. It's interesting to see articles written from both sides gaining traction, because to many of us, we've been fighting against that extremism in smaller communities for years. It's a perversion of what are at heart valid topics. Gay rights, minority rights, women's rights (men's rights, but never those two words shall meet, or there will be hell). All noble purposes, but then to see them paved over with this facade of hate and hypocrisy is incredibly disheartening. And as you say, you're seen as a conservative bigot to them. You're either one hundred percent in accord with their doctrine or you are a traitor.

In reality, I'm probably more liberal than most people, but I value intellectual rigour, and not letting emotions get in the way of facts. I do not toe the liberal line, it's just that in thinking these things through I generally find myself veering in that direction. It doesn't mean that I will blindly subscribe to everything that has a 'liberal' seal of approval on it. So because I refuse to pull the blinders down, I'm, as Scientology puts it, a 'suppressive person'. Thankfully I've only met a handful of these people in person, most of my liberal friends are pretty level-headed, and I don't think the same authoritarian left has caught on in my country as much as in America.

[–]GnarlinBrando 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Perhaps "burdened with a literal mind?"

Joking aside, I like you. I believe similarly.

Unfortunately I lost/was alienated/decided to leave a group of friends because this kind of behavior became a serious issue and a concern to multiple peoples livelihoods and even personal safety. Trust was lost all around and a group of motivated people who once did good for their community fell in upon each other leading to life long consequences for more than one member.

I am sometimes tempted to go into the details when people ask for real world examples, as while it was tragic it was also enlightening, but doing so would potentially identify those involved and even those I feel were at fault do not deserve to have those events dragged back into their lives.

[–]grendel-khan 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (1子コメント)

That guy (mentioned in the above link) was once accused of raping a college student. He "zoom" went straight to administrators and shut down all chance of an inquiry into his actions before the girl could formally make her accusation.

Whoa, first I've heard of this. Source? Or is this just rumor?

[–]internationalslapdap 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I clicked on this article hoping to have some words put to some similar feelings I have on the subject, but I was disappointed. For someone who is criticizing lines being falsely drawn, he does not do much to demonstrate his understanding of the more developed aspects of identity politics, and in doing so lumps a whole movement into a strawman (though he does better than most). Furthermore, his treatment revolves too much on the principles of justice, as an abstract, perfectable object. One of the main critiques this generation has is that defined principles are not working. There are already definitions of justice, there are already laws based on sound principles. The problem is that they are not working in this country, and people are being oppressed because of that. It's a complicated situation -- I don't expect the author to solve it, but I would have appreciated a recognition of some complexity in the issues discussed.

[–]GnarlinBrando 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, but maybe that has a lot more to do with the economics of power and access to politics than identity. Frankly to me, while I am sure in many cases it is genuine and organic, it is the perfect place to put pressure if you want to watch a community tear itself to shreds.

[–]VelvetElvis 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (7子コメント)

As a person involved with offline leftist activism on a regular basis I have never once encountered anything like is discussed in this article.

I maintain that it's it's either an internet myth or that these people do not actually engage in real life politics.

[–]Orangemenace13 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (3子コメント)

They certainly exist - they're just not a majority, by any means. But they're easy to vilify, and serve the purpose of making whoever is denouncing them appear more moderate and reasoned.

For instance, the #killallmen business referenced by the first person to respond be to your comment is a thing that happened (still happens? IDK) - but mostly it's a way to point at something that is obviously batshit crazy so that you can bash feminists.

It's like if I used those crazy people saying Obama isn't a US citizen and is a secret Muslim to trash all Republicans. It's both ignorant and unfair, but it may further my agenda.

[–]cheerful_cynic 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Wasn't killallmen started by 4chan?

[–]distinctvagueness 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Even if 4chan parodied the concept it doesn't mean some of these aren't: https://www.tumblr.com/tagged/kill-all-men

[–]bradamantium92 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The KillAllMen hash tag was a dumb joke exaggerating the way "feminazis" are perceived, anyways. Sure some folks might appear to use it seriously (or even actually do so), but yeah, it's ridiculous to look to these kinds of cases as exhibiting ALL of feminism or ALL of social justice, and doing so leads to their opposition doing the same thing they are.

[–]Canadian_Infidel 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I've seen it. But those people I assure you were literally man haters. They hated men like Hitler hated the Jews. Plus there is the #killallmen movement. I'm sure you will attack me for saying those people even exist. Or you will pull a "no true Scotsman".

[–]sdfser[S] 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (17子コメント)

The author discusses the trend of polarized identity balkanization that seems to be going on in the younger generations. This doesn't bode well for things such as freedom of speech, academic freedom, or for working on future political compromises need to keep society functioning.

[–]MightyCapybara 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I think it's interesting to compare the Steubenville rape case to the University of Virginia (non)rape case.

It's as if our gender politics have polarized the country into two extremes: in the former one side pretends a rape never happened and defends the accused even when the evidence is incontrovertible, and in the latter the other side is so convinced that a rape did happen that they're willing to eschew due process and judge the accused as guilty without any real evidence.

So you get one side complaining about rape culture and the other side complaining about false rape accusations, and they just end up talking past each other.

In both cases, fortunately the truth eventually got out, but not before the partisans got egg on their faces.

[–]cannibaljim 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (1子コメント)

they just end up talking past each other.

This always happens in any discussion where both parties are convinced beforehand that they are right.

[–]SexThrowaway1125 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

[jokingly] What!? Liar! I'll hunt you down!

[–]pgc 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (12子コメント)

Can you give any examples of such compromises?

[–]grendel-khan 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (10子コメント)

Perhaps a better way of thinking about this is to consider that it never looked like a compromise. Things that aren't politicized just look like... things. This identity-politics madness is what happens when you make everything political.

For example, climate change and the thing Naomi Klein is doing where climate activism is necessarily anti-capitalist. If you were worried that climate change was actually a Marxist plot to destroy capitalism, well, Naomi Klein is here to tell you that you're right! Did you know that the first cap-and-trade programs were started by Republicans, as was the first carbon cap-and-trade, and Sarah Palin was in favor of carbon cap-and-trade before 2009? And now it's unthinkable.

(As always, Scott Alexander has it covered better.)

[–]pgc 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (9子コメント)

How is this example you give of climate change being a Marxist plot related to identity politics? And what compromises are you talking about when you say future political compromises?

[–]GnarlinBrando 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (6子コメント)

If you make everything part of a group identity then compromise necessitates giving up part of that identity. Not only is this harder to do, but also increases the tendency of others to make accusations of betrayal.

The example given shows how an idea, when associated with an identity, becomes unpalatable to those who define their own identity in part by opposition of the former identity.

[–]pgc 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (5子コメント)

That does not answer my question. How is climate change being a Marxist plot an example of a political compromise that identity politics prevents?

[–]Maslo59 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

How is climate change being a Marxist plot an example of a political compromise that identity politics prevents?

Isnt it obvious?

By strongly associating climate activism with Marxism (politicizing the issue), you directly attack the identity of climate activists who identify as capitalists/anti-Marxists, alienating them from the movement.

[–]pgc 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thats not what identity politics is. Identity politics deals with people's identities as they're based on race, class, gender, etc. What follows then is that those who are concerned with identity politics then must confront racism, classism, sexism, homophobia, etc. People's political philosophies are not the same thing as their identity. Its a little semantic since you can say people identify with their political leanings, but when you're discussing identity politics, you're talking about the identities people are born with and socialized into.

[–]GnarlinBrando 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Uhh, that is what I was answering, but okay let me trying explaining this a different way.

First of all, the compromise is not climate change being marxist/anti-capitalist. That is an example of identity politics being injected into a subject that affects all people regardless of identity or political beliefs. Cap and trade, and other similar programs, are the compromise, one originally supported by republicans. The prevention is that as climate change was increasingly associated with anti-captialism/marxism it became something that those who identify as republicans no longer supported. The reason being that they feared being seen as supporting anticap ideas by others who identify as republicans, and thus risking loosing the next election, because they were not republican enough.

Does that explain it better?

[–]pgc 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Anti-capitalism is not founded on identity politics. Identity politics concerns people's identities based on race, class, gender, etc. The resulting -isms that identity politics tries to confront are racism, classism, sexism, homophobia, etc. There are connections made between these -isms as they manifest in institutional ways and between the politics of climate change, whats causing it and who it is affecting (the poor and disadvantaged), but to say that Republicans turned down cap-and-trade due to identity politics and Marxist associations with the environmental movement doesn't make much sense. The democrats in Congress arguing for action on climate change do not do so using anti-capitalist language but the opposite: they argue that green energy ought to be an industry that the US leads in the world, which is why we have to invest in green energy infrastructure that private businesses can do R&D on. Thats not Marxist at all

[–]GnarlinBrando 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Your not exactly wrong, but you are talking about something else.

For one, I am just trying to help the original poster get their point across. Take it as nothing more than a hypothetical or metaphor if you must.

Secondly, while as a strict definition of a movment you are correct, as it is observed IRL the politics of identity extends much farther, encompassing political ideology and really anything that involves membership based on shared beliefs and traits.

Third, representatives are almost never arguing against their opposites on the congressional floor, they are arguing for the beliefs of their constituents (again because of short election cycles) and against the image those people hold of the opposition. I think that if you looked up public statements in opposition you would find a fair number of references to socialism (as that is usually the buzzword for marxism and anticapitalists in general) even if that is not what was discussed on the floor (or even the real reason they voted against).

This all refers to (in-group) signalling theory. I seem to have lost the paper connecting identity politics, but this pdf is a good technical overview of its cause from an evolutionary perspective.

[–]palsh7 -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Identity Politics and Social Activism, as discussed in the OP, show a tendency today to balcanize, overreact, be hypersensitive and hypercritical, and to be unsatisfied with anything that strays even slightly from what The individual or group sees as the perfect (and absolutely necessary) solution.

[–]pgc 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

These terms such as 'balkanize', 'hypersensitive', they're not useful without the use of examples. Can you give me a specific example of the kind behavior you're suggesting social justice carries out?

[–]ctindel 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

But isn't it the older generation voting in Republican politicians that refuse to compromise?

[–]Wasnt_Me 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

strong title/topic but for me the long-winded writing style made this tough to read

[–]lightninhopkins 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I dunno, it just seems like two large groups of people yelling at each other over shit that doesn't matter.

[–]yourfaceisannoying 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

That's 100% true. The problem is, they're yelling so loud and so much that the genuine issues these idiots (on both sides) claim to be arguing over are lost in the noise.

[–]negotiationtable 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

As a really cynical weary person I'd say that might not matter either. :)

[–]itwentok 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (8子コメント)

This shocks the conscience, as it should, and is used to fuel the hysteria of rape culture on campuses nationwide.

Wow, this is a really unfortunate choice of words in this context. I wish the author had made a trip to the dictionary here.

hys·te·ri·a

həˈstirēə,həˈsterēə/

noun

a psychological disorder (not now regarded as a single definite condition) whose symptoms include conversion of psychological stress into physical symptoms (somatization), selective amnesia, shallow volatile emotions, and overdramatic or attention-seeking behavior. The term has a controversial history as it was formerly regarded as a disease specific to women.

[–]jellicle -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Alternately, the author is well aware of what hysteria means and chose it on purpose.

[–]Priceofmycoffee 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

"Consider the UVA/Rape Scandal..."

"Let's return to the UVA/Rape Scandal..."

This article is trash, this subreddit eats this shit everyday.

[–]locallyunscene 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

For example: this is not an article, but an article written by a straight, white, middle-class (etc.) male (and for this reason will be discounted by many on account of how my privilege blinds me — more on this later).

That is a complete fantasy. I will discount what you're saying because it's a psuedo-intellectual mess of "the-other-side-does-it-too" followed by claiming that because one rape accusation was potentially false, rape culture doesn't exist. This segues "seamlessly" into a 1984 non-sequitur and tops it off with power dynamics don't real. Oh and let's throw the wage gap in there for good measure to ensure I hit all my talking points. This garbage does not belong here.

[–]Diffie-Hellman 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think this article gives a minority of groups on the Internet way too much credit, such as the Tumblr social activists. I don't think these concepts are anything new, rather they have a more distributed medium.

[–]randomb0y -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

I fully subscribe to the sentiment. I hate inequality and always vote left, but I think that SJWs do more harm than good. There's really only one privilege that matters: wealth. Something like a basic income would do more good for the underprivileged than all the political correctness in the world.

[–]Jarkus86 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

The other thing regarding this concept of privilege that has been lost on most people is that not all members of a privileged group have access to that privilege. It is possible to be a straight, white, cis-male from a middle-class background and have less access to health care or legal support than most minorities.

Because I'm a bit more worried about the individuals than the groups, this troubles me. In fact, it shows that somewhere along the way, we fucked up. I'm not saying that minorities don't need assistance or additional support but I am saying that the "privileged" as individuals can sometimes be worse off.

Did you know that there are no homeless shelters in my state that allow men to bring children? (To my knowledge, at all in Australia) None... If a single dad is out on the street, he is fucked but because we understand that for the most part, a parent having to leave home with a child will likely be a woman, we see men as privileged in this situation. I'd argue that most cases of privilege are actually cases of "statistically likely to be less fucked than others".

[–]randomb0y 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I think that the big problem is as the title of the article points out that we are really in the same boat, 99% of the white cis males and all minorities, but SJWs are causing us to become more polarized instead. It's almost as if they were part of a plot to keep left leaning folks divided and fighting each other instead of fighting "the man" as we bloody well should.

[–]Jarkus86 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, I've noticed this and its a big problem. You have to fight things from within on the scales most of these issues are on. If every white dude is too scared to debate, not speak up and agree but debate issues, we aren't going to get anywhere. The majority has to make the change but at the moment it feels like its been made unsafe to step out of your space so people tend to stay quiet or even embrace the identity they've been given. If all I hear is that I take advantage of others, after a while I might as well reap the benefits if it's all I'm allowed to be.

[–]hoffmanz8038 -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

This isn't "just how millenials are," this is their reaction to a broken system.

[–]SpecOpsTriceratops 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

What broken system? This was an old fashioned lynch mob.

[–]alnarra 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

There is some truth to be had in Balkainzation. Much like Tea Party Politics have turned the conservative movement into warring factions of Not conservative enough, in many respects the idea of "Social Justice" has starkly divided the progressive movement, hence the invention of such words as "BroGressive" (the idea that one holds progressive ideas but not all that strongly or only when they suit the needs of their established privileges).

The Idea of a Patriarchy, Social Privileges, and the like are nothing that's actually new to the playing field. It's just usually we didn't have 14 year olds who haven't taken even the most basic classes in Women's Studies or African American History espousing those ideas.

Social Ideas are a very sensitive matter and are important, but we've let anger become so overwhelmingly prevalent that we've even managed to demonize the word feminism. We have in many ways sparked a counter culture movement that honestly should have no reason for being (The Men's Right's movement). Who's claims easily would have fit under what was supposed to be the egalitarian views of Feminist study. The problem of course is those outside the field hijacked the ideology to spread a very... Us v. Them bubble. They turned what was a quiet progressive movement into a very vocal one.

That's not always a bad thing, sometimes there is a boiling point, and as my generation by and large has failed to make any substantial impact on economic issues, perhaps the issues that are doing the most damage to us (the obvious failures of the Occupy Wall Street movement come to mind), it has instead turned it's objectives to furthering egalitarian ideology at the cost of some angry white boys.

It's not my place to say weather or not that has done them any good, but righteous anger about social movements isn't unheard of and while they aren't wholly correct (in my short sighted opinion), there is certainly something to be said about needing to adjust the social outlook to remind people that the "Minority of the Day" is not what the progressive movement focuses on. That is to say just because in a political sense trying to establish a society in which LGBT rights are recognized does not mean that the progressive movement has forgotten Women's Issues and Issues of Race.

So the "SJW" archetype is born to remind people, that yes, there is still a problem with slurs, violence, and general inequitable things being levied against those of a different Sex or Race. Again this isn't a bad thing, but the way it has been done has scratched a few chalkboards, because by and large the movement (like /r/shitredditsays ) was born out of anger and being fed up with the situation rather then just another progressive branch.

For the most part, the idea of the "SJW" is used like a scary ghost story, intended to be an online Boogyman where you can lump blame for a perceived sight. We have managed again to demonize the word feminism and all this does is serve non progressive ideaology. One only need look through the replies here to realize that even the implication that you identify with this "Far Left" ideology clearly indicates a lack of thought or understanding of the situation as a perception rather then a truth.

[–]bafflesaurus -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I fucking hate my generation.

[–]SexThrowaway1125 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I hate yours too. Goddam 70 year olds ruined this country (France).

[–]bafflesaurus 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You have absolutely zero reading comprehension. I'm a Gen Y American, technically a millennial, the subject of this article.

[–]ScreamingCrab 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm not convinced by this. That's not to say the article doesn't make some good points, but more that it jumps to conclusions based on a sample of limited proportions.

I see nothing wrong with showing awareness and sensitivity in relation to your own background and others. The 'privilege checking' is simply a way of trying to get some critical perspective on your own circumstances. However, I feel, online at least, that it fails. People who are told to 'check their privilege' don't, while those who do the telling rarely explain their own privileges. It's weird that one has to be privileged to come across privilege theory, showing how in that sense, often theory and its practitioners have failed.

However, I am 99% certain that this exists only online, as I have never come across this tendency in real life, and I'm involved in a lot of political stuff. I think this article is overreacting and using this as some kind of judgement of Social Justice in the same way that 4Chan is used as a judgement of the internet.

Also horeshoe theory is bullshit. No matter how annoying, I have never heard of gangs of radical feminists lynch a man to death for being a man, unlike a white supremacists lynching black people.

[–]monsieurpommefrites -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

And we all know how the Balkans turned out.