Never mind, then.
Ahh, another Doper mind reader! Where did you get these amazing powers? It must be so wonderful knowing that people who disagree with you can be analyzed and dismissed so easily. I imagine actually engaging them and trying to figure out why they actually disagree could be very challenging, so I suppose it’s understandable why one would prefer the easy path.
I try my best to explain my beliefs, and I’m sure sometimes I don’t do a great job. But I enjoy these sorts of discussions, even when occasionally my thought process and responses are dismissed and mischaracterized.
No, you’d be rather unhappily astonished at the unpleasantness that you have to deal with every day that doesn’t fit in your “shut up and be (sort of) equal!” mindset.
I’ve been reading PZ Meyers since years before he joined FTB. I used to be a commenter before his focus moved from science and fighting creationism to Social Justice. I haven’t commented in years, but continue to read the posts and many of the comments (and yes, I’ve noticed a familiar name there) and occasionally touch on a few other blogs at FTB. I am a regular reader of themarysue, Rawstory, and Wonkette and occasional reader of everydayfeminism, Jezebel, and some of the other sites connected to Jezebel. I read comments at all of these sites. Don’t take my disdain for some of the extreme positions of that side as coming out of ignorance of those positions. Much of “Social Justice” doesn’t mean gaining equal treatment, it means “getting back at” groups that caused opression. It is about thinking that two wrongs make a right.
The bottom line is that I do not think that whites or males should have any more rights or any better treatment than women or minority groups. But I also do not think that women or minority groups should have more rights or any better treatment than whites or males. Equality means equality.
I also am a regular PZ Myers reader (and occasional commenter, which is what you may be implying here), and I occasionally read many of those other blogs and sites you mention. I think you’ve pegged the motivations of the “social justice” crowd mostly wrong, just like right-wing talk radio has mostly pegged the motivations of liberals and Democrats wrong. There might be some small amount who are motivated by dislike or vengeance towards straight white males, but I’ve talked to lots and lots of social justice folks (or SJWs, if that’s what you want to call us), and most that I’ve talked to are motivated by positive and progressive values, not by vengeance or negative feelings towards anyone.
How do you know that I and many other like-minded folks don’t really believe that privilege exists, and is a useful concept in discussing bigotry and oppression in society? How do you know we’re lying and really motivated by some sense of vengeance? Is it really that unbelievable that my motives might be mostly pure? That I really might think this is best explanation for how society functions, and for what I think is the most moral way to act in society?
I don’t get why you’d attack motives for people when you couldn’t possibly know what’s going on in their minds. I really believe what I say I do, and I really think these concepts and factors (privilege, power dynamics, etc.) exist and are useful in describing how different groups interact in society.
I also don’t believe that whites or males should have any more rights or any better treatment than women or minority groups. And I also do not think that women or minority groups should have more rights or any better treatment than whites or males. I believe that the various actions and policies that I’ve advocated for are in keeping with this and indeed required for this. For example – I don’t support affirmative action because I think black people need a leg up due to past discrimination… I support AA because I think various minorities currently have a lesser chance to succeed, in general, due to various forms of current systemic and societal discrimination, and AA is needed to minimize this disadvantage – to make sure “equality is equality” (as much as possible, anyway – AA is a flawed and only partial bandaid for a larger problem, but I think society would be a lot worse without it).
I find critics of a philosophy or political “team” rarely have any more insight into their thoughts and motivations than those neutral to it. Feel free to disagree with my arguments and attack them on their merits, but why bother trying (and almost certainly inevitably failing) to read my mind? If what I advocate for is wrong or ineffective, my motivations don’t need to be attacked.
Not quoting because I’m posting from a phone and the formatting is a gigantic pain (also why response may be limited.) On the concept of privilege, I don’t question that certain groups really believe that it is really important. And I agree with the fact that some people have advantages that are invisible to them (since I’m dropping names, I’ve read a few of Scalzi’s posts on the matter.) My problem is with people considering a claim of privilege as being a slam-dunk magic bullet of both winning and shutting down an argument (“check your privilege” means “shut up, scum”.) It is used as the conclusion of an argument, not an element of it. If you make an argument that why I should capitulate in a certain way is because the other person has less power and privilege than me, you (and I mean a general “you” here) need to be able to explain why that means I should act that way, otherwise it is like saying “why is the sky blue?” “privilege.” It isn’t a real answer.
Anyone can be a jerk, and “check your privilege” is often used rudely and counterproductively.
But what you’re complaining about is just the actions and words of a handful of assholes, not from the social justice crowd as a whole. More often, privilege is a valid concept in various phenomena in society, but the Pooh-poohing of the concept based on its occasional misapplication has made it easier for many to dismiss the entire concept, despite its validity.
Good news! We don’t.
Seriously, though, I get where you’re coming from. I am a longtime career SJW in the midst of a political identity crisis for just the reasons you describe. I believe, based on the scads of statistical and psychological evidence, that institutional oppression exists. I believe privilege is a real, often misunderstood concept with maybe a bad label. I do not believe that people who disagree with me should be shouted down, fired, or chased around with baseball bats. Nor should they be accused of racism or sexism, if they’ve done nothing to indicate their thought process is derived from prejudice. In my perfect world, the social justice strategy would start from a place of assuming good intent. I feel less and less often that a certain contingent of the left is willing to extend the benefit of a doubt, and their close mindedness embarrasses and frustrates me. Ultimately I had to distance myself from most of the people I went to school with.
Here’s the thing. People think in different ways, based on their life’s experiences and choices. People develop certain ‘articles of faith’ that underlie their belief system. A lot of differences, especially political ones, are based on these, which can never be questioned. A lot of times you need to address those underlying differences of opinion, to understand that either their faith has a fundamental ‘of course this is true, everyone knows this is true’ or yours does, or both.
The ‘Taxation is Theft’ people think that the perfect economic system was circa 1910, before the income tax. There are a lot of baseline assumptions built into that idea that have to be addressed individually and when I’ve pushed hard enough, I’ve gotten a few of them to agree that modern society would not be possible at those taxation and limited government levels, but they still *believe *that Taxation is Theft!!!
Young people often more easily accept articles of faith without doing their research.
Because that sort of thing happens much, much less often than someone not getting what they did that offended the other person.
I know it’s human nature to get angry, but it’s not the best reaction. I know I’ve been trying forever to get my reaction to be what it should be, which is an apology. I’ve clearly offended this person, and that was not my intent. The only way I will learn what it is that I did that offended them is if I apologize and try to find out. I clearly hurt them, intentionally or not.
Sure, maybe I still conclude they are completely off base. But I can’t know that initially, since racism can be accidental, and getting angry, which clouds rational judgement and makes me want to win more than worry about right vs. wrong, does not in any way help…
Of course, I’m not at all perfect. I do get angry. Fortunately, most of my interactions of this nature are online, and thus I have time to stop and think before I respond. I don’t always take that time, but I try in these situations.
I always advise people not to defend how they aren’t racist when they are called racist. It may be your gut reaction, but it never comes off well. It never convinces the other person that they were wrong.
(I’ll admit, last night, I was upset at what I saw as iiandyiiii calling Stephen Colbert racist. And I so wanted to respond to him in anger. But then I saw what he was talking about, and even though I still wanted to be angry at him, I decided I needed a break. Come morning, I find I basically agree with him. Colbert’s original Ching Chong character from 2005 was racist, and Colbert should not have done it. [This is not the 2014 version, which was not racist.]
Of course, that’s about someone else, and not even someone I know. But I think it’s similar enough to describe.)
No one is saying anyone is obligated to do anything. But, if a man is clearly uncomfortable, and the woman chooses to wear something different, she has done nothing wrong, and the man has every right to be appreciative. Same goes for the other scenario.
Not that I fully accept your comparison. It’s at most slightly distracting unless you deliberately start thinking certain thoughts. It’s not remotely the same thing as a fear reaction, which completely overwhelms the ability for rational thought.
I guess if someone baselessly accused me of racism I wouldn’t have much hope of convincing them they are wrong anyway. Darren Garrison said nothing remotely racist or sexist, though I disagree with his characterization of leftist motivation. I think at this point in my life I would just ignore someone who threw a groundless sucker punch like calling me sexist simply because I disagreed. But I feel like I’ve grown up ten years in the last six weeks. I don’t think “you’re a bigot” is an effective argument in favor of the existence of privilege. In fact it seems like a total dodge to me. The entire approach is a sucker punch, and a dodge, basically.
Then just call me Martin Luther. Still working on the manifesto.
Would you also allow women, blacks, trans, etc to see from the inside what it is to be a young white Christian male or female? Or do you only allow the idea of ‘hate crimes’ to be from ‘white people’?
Only if done gently, so they aren’t shocked and overwhelmed by their first exposure to the strange and mysterious secret world of white Christians.
But one can argue that she has done something wrong, in that it violates her rights and freedoms. And jumping on the slippery slope, what level of “uncomfortable” would she have to accommodate covering up for? Cover up enough to not offend Pat Robertson? To not offend the Amish? Enough not to offend an ultra-Orthodox Jew? To not offend a Wahhabist?
(Briefly touching back on the “two girls running” incident I have mentioned, it occurred to me that thanks to the magic of Google Street View, I can show the exact stretch of sidewalk I was walking along on in the middle of that day. Intimidating location, huh?)
Not if she made a choice, no. The whole idea of freedom is that you have choice. We all get to decide what we will and will not accommodate. And yes, I do believe empathy is very much a part of where we land on that spectrum. If we accept the CDC stats as a reasonable gauge for the prevalence of sexual assault, there’s a 60% chance that any woman you encounter has experienced sexual assault, ranging from unwanted touching to forcible rape. I think that is worth consideration as we reach our individual conclusions. But any fair consideration requires empathy for all involved, not just the person most closely aligned with our own demographic.
I’m torn, honestly. PTSD is a bitch, but there’s something paternalistic in the idea that women need to be protected from their own discomfort. I would be highly accommodating to just about anyone in an attempt to make them feel comfortable, but that’s just my nature.
Just catching up on this thread but if that’s a reference to me, raventhief’s summary is correct. If you’re referring to someone else, never mind.
It was a reference to the blog post that I mentioned just after bringing up the concept of Schrodinger’s Rapist.