全 18 件のコメント

[–]justajust [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

What can we as a movement do about accusations where people with credibility distort and sabotage the movement?

Stop thinking in terms of "movements," because what a movement wants is something to agree on. Social justice isn't a club, there aren't really rules, everyone is bound to disagree on something and those are fights nobody ever wins.

Abolishing hierarchical thinking -- that's what the endgame is, right? -- starts here.

"People with credibility" aren't "sabotaging" the "movement." Who's the caricature now? That's the problem right there, with the entire construct. It's not sabotage simply because somebody "pushes back."

If you have a shred of faith in your system of beliefs, defend it! That harried prof is essentially on your side, he's not a distorter trying to break up your pyramid.

Recognize that no one person will ever have the answer. Be OK with that. Listen to people you disagree with. Stop being the caricature you hate.

Stop trying to be a movement and just move.

[–]tilia-cordata [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

A friend shared the Vox article, and the biggest thing I took away from it was we really treat adjunct faculty terribly. I don't buy the idea for a minute that social justice or "liberal" students are the problem.

I once saw an adjunct not get his contract renewed after students complained that he exposed them to "offensive" texts written by Edward Said and Mark Twain.

is the problem. There are so many more graduating PhDs than there are academic slots, so university admins can easily find someone who won't rock the boat or draw attention.

What this article, and the others I've seen do, however, is blame a legitimate problem on a caricature of social justice advocacy. They have inflated a reasonable request for content warnings on syllabus material into an attack on intellectual rigor.

On the internet it's so easy to find the most extreme voice or the loudest voice, and prop that person up and say "look, this is what feminism wants to do!" This isn't a new problem, but it's made so much easier when you can find someone's rather extreme views on Twitter and tell those who don't know better that this is what everyone wants to do.

I don't know what the solution is, except to keep fighting for things that are important and to keep pointing out the problems in arguments like these. To show where academics are being disingenuous, are using their authority and people's assumptions about "liberal academia" to uphold the status quo instead of understanding that things change.

And we can help call for better job security for adjuncts, so that honest discussion can happen and discipline can be for real complaints/abuses instead of any kind of student unhappiness.

[–]qwe2323 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

There are certainly reasons to object to certain readings as offensive to social justice values. Many of these readings could also be important to read in an academic setting. Context is important. The problem is when one student can object to any reading for any reason and it carry weight enough to have a severe negative effect on the instructor.

You're right, it is not the students claiming to be doing this for reasons of social justice - it is our current academic climate/system overall. Professors are scared for their jobs because they are more replaceable than ever. It is easy to blame current socio-political movements for this threat, but they're just the pushing force on the weakening academic environment. For some things, this is great. But when anyone's pet project can cause immediate reactionary changes in the academic environment, professors begin to feel threatened by it.

So basically, I can totally see where the author of the Vox article is coming from. It is easy to blame current the far-left or "social justice warriors" for what is happening - but they just happen to be the ones currently there to push forward on a system that coincidentally is more reactionary to student demands. Really, anyone with a voice loud enough will probably find most liberal arts schools giving in to some degree.

I also think that the author's finger isn't pointed at a caricature of social justice advocacy, but at (to some degree) the fringe. Most people reading this who are unfamiliar might take away that the finger is really just pointed at socially conscious liberal students.

[–]JohnHenryAaron [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

It feels like if you proclaim yourself as a feminist or academic, it gives you a free reign to write bullshit to cover your own bigotry.

It really does blow my mind how people can just make a statement like "Now, I'm very liberal, but..." and then go off on some reactionary rant and people will still take that initial statement seriously.

I think the important thing to keep in mind is that this sort of pushback happens because people are out there publicly taking a stand, confronting individuals and institutions and holding them accountable for their actions.

We just have to keep engaging and confronting it when it comes up. When these articles are posted it can be a great opportunity to criticize dishonest arguments and educate people on SJ concepts.

[–]quickhorn [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Man, I remember reading through that Vox article and thinking "These aren't...social justice problems. These are entitlement problems, why is he pushing that onto social justice people". Especially when his first example was something much more right-wing than left-wing (It's obvious that it was the black's fault that the economy collapsed).

[–]praxulus [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

I think the point of that first example was that superfluous complaints from students were ignored in the past. Then when they started couching them in "social justicey" language those complaints started carrying a lot more weight, and so those entitlement problems became more damaging.

I'm not sure if that's a valid point, I'm just trying to classify clarify what (I think) he meant.

[–]papermoon1 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I think the situation is tragic.

I've been out of college for some time, but the broad outlines of what is going on seem to be the following 2006-2013: A MASSIVE increase in the influence and visibility of social justice discourse, especially in the later years. Things that you once saw only on obscure blogs becoming mainstream. At the same time though, increasing radicalization within parts of the movement. Eventually, I think that it became so radicalized that it started turning off too many people. The turning point was #CancelColbert, because that's when they decided to go after a popular, liberal white man. I can't even remember what Colbert was supposed to be canceled over. But that is when I think a lot of social justice became a parody of itself. What is going on now is a Thermidorian reaction focused against feminism in particular. It really started last summer with the whole Women Against Feminism thing. GamerGate, and the backlash to the failed Rolling Stone article are additional chapters of the story.

As I said, I think the whole situation is a tragedy. Since the Social Justice position is already marginalized, and the public is primed to fall into the worst caricaturizations of us, these kinds of articles are essentially another form of abuse.

[–]Victory___ [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I dunno. Academia's sort of weird on things. On one hand, it's pretty easy to blame things on "reactionaries" (and this is most certainly a case of it) but academia does have a history of being selective about social issues, such as the culture towards trans people in the 60s/70s. It's just a matter of trying to better portray/address things. Could it be that there's a wild administrator firing people at first complaint? Yes. Could it be that this teacher is a reactionary with selective opinions? Yes.

But the so-called pushback isn't really new.

[–]bacchianrevelry [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

There was a shift when social justice went from "this is a problem we face" or "our problem is" to an exclusive "Us v. Them" mentality. The intent was no longer to have a meaningful conversation; in fact it seems like the entire point is to silence and end discussion, especially when challenging. At the point that allies were called out and ridiculed and threatened over even the slightest of expressed thought that could in any be considered against groupthink, people began to lose respect. Then some realized that becoming the loudest and most offensive could make them famous. Truth no longer mattered, just perception (feels). And how can there be any helpful conversation when the loudest among us are screaming "Death to (fill in group)"? This idea to work towards positive change has been warped into a disgusting, holier-than-thou fight for moral superiority and attention.

Some of us still want to change things, one person at a time if necessary, by inviting those who disagree to a discussion. Like it or not, the FIRST job of an activist is to educate. If that is not your job, then you aren't advocating for change, you are just screeching for attention.

[–][削除されました]  (7子コメント)

[deleted]

    [–]acl5d [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

    Yeah, you're in the wrong place bud.

    [–][削除されました]  (5子コメント)

    [deleted]

      [–]Quietuus[M] [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

      I'm not a sexist...sweetums

      Do you write your own material?

      Scoot now.