Wednesday, July 8, 2015

Social Justice

[Very long]
Hugo Pelland, thanks for the interesting question:
”I am curious to know where you draw the line between a 'bad SJW' and a 'good SJW'? Because surely you agree that there is such a thing as someone fighting for good social justice causes obviously... or perhaps the label is not to be used in that case? For example, if we were to live under an Atheistic tyrant who tries to shut down all places of worship, you and I would be on the same side of the issue: I would fight for the rights of people to practice their religion, even if I don't do it myself. In this case, any "SJW" trying to fight that tyrant and give people the ability to worship would be good "warriors", no?”

There is no such thing as a “good” social justice issue, and therefore, there is no such thing as a “good” Social Justice Warrior. I will explain why. It requires understanding the modern conceptualization of the term, Social Justice, as redfined by the modern Progressive, and as opposed to the normal semantics of the words as commonly understood. So we need to explore Social justice as a Progressive, Leftist phenomenon. This will be lengthy.

The Frankfurt School of philosophy and its influence will be discussed below. For now it is enough to recognize that Social Justice is predicated on distaste for personal limitations due to external circumstances. While fighting this might seem normal and noble, what Social Justice is about is the limitations placed on the individual by the mere existence of cultural standards for behaviors. The sexual revolution of the '60's was about exactly that: the iconoclastic rejection of all rules regarding sexual restraint. "Why don't we do it in the road", sang the Beatles.

All prior cultural restraints are now anathema to SJWs. The old morals no longer exist, new inverted morals replace them. Old rules of logic are ignored; feelings replace them (the recent Supreme Court Decision has affirmed that "feeling" respect is a human right, replacing the old cultural requirement of having to earn respect).

In short, Social Justice is the desire to remove all restrictions on behavior for the anarchic self which feels bad when restricted, and conversely, to develop harsh restrictions on the behaviors and even the beliefs of those who subscribe to traditional behavioral restraint. Turning the tables from culture A to Anti-culture A with punishments for anyone still supporting culture A.

But there is more to it; it has a structure and objectives and tactics.

Social Justice is always based on classism and class warfare. The primary class, the Messiah Class, the population of which are known as Social Justice Warriors, consists of those who have created their own moral basis for application to all humanity. Nominally this consists of a corruption of traditional, natural law and Magna Carta based concepts of tolerance, equality, justice, freedom and natural rights, etc., and always consists of a rejection of the entire First Amendment Rights (and others too). And it always excepts themselves from any restraints on their own behaviors, which are always "righteous".

Social Justice has its roots in self-hatred and loathing of the western societies, cultures, and all things western. This is an internally incoherent hatred by westerners who live under the protection of the western laws and cultural decencies, and who utilize the considerable benefits of the west, even in making and distributing their condemnations of the west. Examples are those educated, overstuffed white males who despise white males based on their whiteness and maleness, and the protected, cloistered feminists who hate strong women for their non-victimness. So identity is an important feature of Social Justice as well. As will be expanded upon below, hatred of certain identities is a main feature of what is called “Social Justice”, and Social Justice cannot survive without it.

Because they define the new morality for their own glorification as elite class saviors, or Messiahs, the new, redefined “Social Justice” concepts become focused on both (a) protecting their own status and (b) eradicating dissent. This enables, in fact requires, creating SJW mobs to attack dissenters; this is seen almost daily now. Thus "tolerance" now means to tolerate any and every absurd, destructive, irrational but iconoclastic issue from the SJW, with total IN-tolerance of intelletual dissent or moral difference from the SJW.

Because classism in its beginning stages requires three classes, as historical Communism and Fascism have demonstrated bloodily, the Messiah Class adopts certain groups (generally not single individuals) into one of their Victimhood Classes. This designated class is maintained as official “victims” – forever – and is never released from its captivity in the designated class. The reason is the necessity of always having that class available for the Messiahs to “Save”, as a pretext for its war on the Other. In fact, many in the Messiah Class have dual membership, and are also in their own Victimhood Classes (e.g. Feminist/lesbian). Victimhood classes tend to be identity-based, and tribalism is strong (e.g. non-Victimhood blacks are “not black enough” or are “Uncle Toms” or “House niggers”, so defined as the means for depriving them of their identity, and ejecting them from the tribe). However, other existential issues such as saving Gaia from humans also allow for non-human Victimhood. Evolution is an example of a non-empirical science which is adopted into Victimhood for its protection by Messiahs; dissent is “anti-science” and dissenters are Oppressors of science, and are attacked personally rather than on the merits of their arguments.

So of course there is the necessary Oppressor Class, which is to be hated as loud, often and visibly as possible, with threats of violence whenever desired. Everyone who is not either a Messiah or in a Victim Class is automatically assigned to the hated Oppressor Class. The stated objective of SJWs is to eradicate the entire set of Oppressor Classes. Nevermind that to actually do so would eradicate most of the productive population of the planet, certainly all males and most whites except for lesbian feminists.

These three classes, Messiah Class, Victimhood Class, and Oppressor Class, form the Social Justice universe.

For Lenin, it was the Communists (Messiahs), the Proletariat (Victimhood Class), and the tsarist/bourgeois/capitalist/imperialists (Oppressor Class).

For National Socialism under Hitler, it was NAZIs (Messiahs), Aryans (Victimhood Class), Jews and all non-Aryans (Oppressor Class) - except for the immediately useful such as Italian fascists and Islamist fascists, who were granted temporary, conditional Messiah status.

Social Justice is bipolar, in the sense that it is (a) wonderfully self-anointed, self-deified, elitist, self-glorification; and (b) an official hate propagation mechanism for promoting and preserving their position in (a). By virtue of their own deification they describe their hate as righteousness. Inversion of reality becomes a standard feature.

Now, let’s examine some operating principles of Social Justice. Take blacks (not all blacks, but the large group of dependent blacks) as a Victimhood Class. There are two main, diametrically oppositional approaches available for dealing with underprivileged peoples.

The first approach is to give them enough stuff (just enough) to maintain their position of minimal survival willingly, hence, perpetual victims. To declare that they are not capable of many or most basic requirements for existing in mainstream society, and therefore giving them discriminatory advantages based on race. To condemn all whites as unconscious racists as a class, thereby maintaining the fear of racism in perpetuity. All the while maintaining plantation-type ghettos ad infinitum, as has been done in every Leftist-controlled city in the USA.

The second approach would be to assume that race does not confer any automatic inferiority, to teach properly in the plantation-ghetto schools about the benefits of traditional culture in terms of work/reward, personal responsibility for one’s own outcome, literacy, history (including the historical racism of the Democrat Party) and other cultural competencies as are taught in the elite white schools. To reward, not mere existence with blue ribbons, but work and progress. To develop positive character instead of teaching that character development is “too hard” for some (an actual principle). To teach parents and adults as well as children. Unfortunately, this would require the unteaching of current school teachers, however.

Social Justice will always choose option 1, because their need is for the continuation of the victimhood class, not its actual salvation. All Social Justice issues are approached this way: to preserve the "need" for Social Justice and the ramping up of Class War.

Social Justice is couched in a series of logical and semantic inversions: they are not true, but they cannot be lies since no truth is acknowledged to exist, and thus, lies cannot exist either. Inversions don't stop with morality. They include the SJW approach to reality, itself, by inverting the concepts of truth and existence as found in Aristotle's deductive logic and the First Principles which ground it. The result is a worldview based solely on emotional neediness of the SJW, their need for personal validation which they cannot get under the old cultural demands for respect due to work/reward. Their approach is to bestow respect upon themselves by the demands of their new culture. They consider themselves to be self-anointed (in Sowell's terms) to positions which they merely take, without achieving them.

The class system is in place to be maintained for the glorification (I know, that’s the third time the term has appeared here – it is valid) of the Messiah Class. Should the class system somehow be dismantled, the Messiah Class could no longer self-elevate to elitism. Should the Victimhood Class be elevated out of its tribal status and cease to exist, Social Justice Warriors would be without personal identities. Therefore, the vector is not to relieve the Victimhood Class, it is directed specifically to maintain the Victimhood Class in stasis or worse and increase its size, as well as to create as many new Victimhood Classes as possible. The vector requires the ultimate destruction, if possible, of the Oppressor Class, so that only the two classes remain: The elite controlling class and the dependent, submissive, controlled class (Hunger Games; Communism).

Perhaps you think this is not the case, this class system and its warfare. Carefully observe the behaviors of the SJWs. Observe how they pull back into sub-classes of elites and victims which attack each other – as classes. An example is feminism: subclass lesbian: sub-subclass eliminationist (anti-male) which attacks Victimhood/Messiah Class transsexuals because they are XY. But they also surge back together as they are doing for the destruction of traditional marriage restrictions by implementing marriage of all regardless of disorder or moral principle.

Although there are Victimhood Classes which are legitimate (ghetto blacks), some of those actually exist as victims – not of the Oppressor Class – but of the Messiah Class itself, which adopts policies of class maintenance and not solutions.

Keep in mind this fact: the Department of Homeland Security has again defined the promotion of Constitutional principles as "Right Wing Hate" behavior, for police scrutiny. Universities have restricted free speech to remote areas, and even there many do not allow distribution of copies of the US Constitution, which is now described by some SJWs as a Hate Document. Professors openly deride the US Constitution as an unintelligible, late middle ages document made by primitive men which cannot apply to today’s complex social requirements.

Are there redeeming features for Social Justice and SJWs? Their features are:
(a) destruction of actual moral principles which they find restrictive;
(b) self-elevation to dictatorship positions in government and universities, law and education;
(c) creating and maintaining victims for their own exploitation;
(d) spewing eliminationist rhetoric at the Other (Oppressors) constantly;
(e) Inversion of all principles of rationality and logic, as well as language and word definitions.
There are no redeeming features for SJWs or their Social Justice, if one subscribes to Enlightenment rights and principles.

Social Justice as a class is related to Atheism because it rejects all religious principles, and establishes itself as the supreme moral arbiter, and the creator of all morality for the new society it craves. Social Justice objectives are to make their moral order and utopia out of existing society regardless of whether the denizens of that society want it. (Hence, legislation through the courts, not the popularly elected legislatures). It is of the same essence as the New Man principles advocated by Hegel, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Marx, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Che, and yes, Adolph Hitler. It is social engineering by dictatorship to achieve their utopia on earth. It is prejudicial, exclusionary and it is vicious as it seeks to destroy any and all opposition.

Social Justice is likely based at least in part on the Frankfurt School of intellectual criticism and “critical theory”.
”According to these theorists, a “critical” theory may be distinguished from a “traditional” theory according to a specific practical purpose: a theory is critical to the extent that it seeks human “emancipation from slavery”, acts as a “liberating … influence”, and works “to create a world which satisfies the needs and powers” of human beings (Horkheimer 1972, 246). Because such theories aim to explain and transform all the circumstances that enslave human beings, many “critical theories” in the broader sense have been developed. They have emerged in connection with the many social movements that identify varied dimensions of the domination of human beings in modern societies.”
James Bohman; Stanford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Obviously, the valorous objectives of “emancipating from slavery” and stopping the “domination of humans” entails the defeat of putative slaveholders and oppressors. Hence, three classes arise immediately.

An example from the Frankfurt School is the psychological work, “Authoritarian Personality”, by Adorno, et. al., in which personalities are ranked on the “f” (fascist) scale. This book of psychological studies attempted to relate racism to “right wing authoritarian fascism” but has later been refuted on the basis of flawed studies, prejudicial sampling and other errors. Still the influence on the Left persists, likely due to its attack on a general class. This led to another example from the Frankfurt School, which is the idea that dissent can be dealt with by declaring it to be a form of insanity.

There is no good to be found in “Social Justice”, if one holds that both evil and good actually exist.

Finally the concept of social justice as extending to “fighting tyranny” falls outside the current definition for Social Justice. “Social Justice” was once the beneficent idea of society supporting widows and orphans. That is no longer the case. The term Social Justice, along with all other necessary SJW terms, is completely inverted now, and currently means to support SJWs in whatever quest they pursue in their iconoclastic march toward destruction of all old standards and destruction of the designated Oppressors which maintain them. Remember, Social Justice has no meaning regarding traditional justice for individuals; it is purely class and identity-based. In other words, extremely tribal.

The phrase, “fighting the tyrant” is an interesting semantic problem in the new Progressive lexicography. SJWs are themselves the tyrant-wannabes who are fighting to dominate and eradicate the Constitutional, Bill of Rights based, limited government, libertarian/conservatives who support the older, traditional concepts such as freedom, justice, and equality. These people, in turn, are now redefined as Oppressors despite their adherence to beliefs in personal liberty. This is the standard inversion of all tyrants who use the “people’s revolution” as their excuse for dictatorial suppression of … the people.

This is all empirical, in the sense that it can be observed and documented inductively, and it can then be cause/effect tested deductively (go to a Social Justice website and make a conservative remark regarding, say, Leftist racism/anti-semitism of Obama or some such, then observe the results and take data; repeat at other sites with other provocations, um, I mean causal forcing functions).

It can all be done historically, too, by documenting the SJW attacks on Chik-Fil-A, FRC, AGW skeptics, people fired for violating SJW issues, the pizza parlor in Indiana and the laws of state of Indiana, the Confederate flag hysteria, all wedding cake bakeries attacked by homosexuals, on and on … and on. Look for the drive toward destruction of the Other, the Oppressor Class. Look for frothing, foaming hysteria in the attacks, the wishes for your silencing, death and the promise of violence (remember homosexual response to Prop 8 in CA?).

It can also be done demographically by investigating the real outcomes of the Messiah/Victimhood relationships in Messiah-dominated American cities even in the absence of Oppressors, the standard examples starting with Detroit, Baltimore etc.

There is more information about all this in these sources:

Richard Wolin; “The Seduction of Unreason – The Intellectual Romance With Fascism, From Nietzsche to Postmodernism”; Princeton University Press; 2004.

F. A. Hayek; “The Fatal Conceit – The Errors of Socialism”; University of Chicago Press; 1988.

Thomas Sowell; “The Vision of the Anointed – Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy”; Basic Books, 1995.

And these three classics:

Julien Benda; “The Treason of the Intellectuals”; originally published by Wm Morrow and Co., 1928. Leftist affection for Communism and loathing of democracy.

Paul Berman; “The Flight of the Intellectuals”; Melville House, pubs, 2010. Berman focuses on the Leftist affection for Islam, a protected species, a Victimhood Class.

Paul Johnson: “Intellectuals – From Marx and Tolstoy to Sartre and Chomsky”; Harper and Row, pubs, 1988. Especially Ch 13: “The Flight of Reason”.


Robert Coble said...

OMG! OMG! I can't believe he actually wrote out the n-word!


Other than using that one bad "n-word" (I'M KIDDING!!!), that was an excellent summary of why Social Justice Warriors must be fought on every front. We may lose, but the attempt must be made if we wish to avoid a long miserable reign of tyranny.


There Is No Such Thing As A "Good" Social Justice Warrior!

Vox Day provides Three Laws of SJW:

(1) SJWs always lie.
(2) SJWs always double down.
(3) SJWs always project.

Those 3 laws were empirically derived.

As a proper response to all of the nattering from SJWs, Vox Day recommends:


Hugo Pelland said...

When my wife asks me a yes/no question, be it for something concrete or just as a matter of discussion, I often answer 'yes and no', and she finds it amusing. It seems that, even after a very long response, if I were to be asked 'has Stan answered the question' I would reply 'yes and no'. So first, here's what was answered very clearly:

"There is no such thing as a “good” social justice issue, and therefore, there is no such thing as a “good” Social Justice Warrior."

Therefore it’s clear what the answer to 'perhaps the label is not to be used in that case?' was. It is indeed the wrong label when talking about people fighting for, or at least agreeing with, something good for society. The 'libertarian/conservatives who support the older, traditional concepts such as freedom, justice, and equality' are working towards something good, but are not to be labeled as 'Social Justice Warrior' even if they fight for justice in our society; the label is wrong. So what label should be used to represent what you consider to be the good side of social issues? That would be the first, and main, question for you, and I wonder if it would be accurate to say that the opposite of SJW would be 'American Conservative' ? This might be too specific for some cases, but since you are an American, it might make sense; I don't know...

But going back to what SJW mean, and who they are, my understanding is that the following bits are what define SJW the best, but maybe not completely of course. SJWs accept the following beliefs and principles, which are copy/pasted from the comment. There are small adjustments to create that readable list, but also make sure I understood the gist of it:

"- Old rules of logic are ignored; feelings replace them.
- Desire to remove all restrictions on behavior for the anarchic self which feels bad when restricted; if it feels right it must be right for SJW.
- Develop harsh restrictions on the behaviors, and even the beliefs, of those who subscribe to traditional behavioral restraint.
- Creation of their own personal moral basis, but for application to all humanity.
- Focused on both protecting their status and eradicating dissent.
- Total intolerance of intellectual dissent, or moral difference.
- Self-anointed, self-deified, elitist, self-glorification position; and conversely, an official hate propagation mechanism for promoting and preserving that position, against others.
- Worldview based solely on emotional neediness, not logic and reason.

Or, your own summary was:
"(a) destruction of actual moral principles which they find restrictive;
(b) self-elevation to dictatorship positions in government and universities, law and education;
(c) creating and maintaining victims for their own exploitation;
(d) spewing eliminationist rhetoric at the Other (Oppressors) constantly;
(e) Inversion of all principles of rationality and logic, as well as language and word definitions.

I think it's fair to say that no one would ever want to be identified by these principles; no one would claim that 'yes, this defines me as a person'. It is thus not a definition of what some people believe or fight for, but rather an observation of how certain people appear to be, based on their actions and/or position on certain issues, be it social, ethical, political, and so on... That's why the very last bit "language and word definitions" is so important here, because without proper definitions and agreement on what we are talking about, there is no way society can work and people can have meaningful discussions.

Hugo Pelland said...

Therefore, even after reading your post a couple of times, I still don't know who SJW is really referring to. There are so many issues mentioned in just that 1 comment, but also a lot in other comments/posts referring to SJW, that it's hard to understand who these people are exactly. For instance, these topics were mentioned:
"- Rules regarding sexual restraint
- Same-sex marriage
- Shaming/blaming of the West / White / Men
- Feminism / anti-male agenda
- Legal notion of protected classes
- Climate change / environmentalism
- Human biological evolution
- Communism / socialism / leftist agenda
- Free speech / freedom of religion and ideas
- Application of the US Constitution
There would also be a few more topics perhaps, which were implied but not listed explicitly. However, there are enough here already to explain what I meant in the previous paragraph: very few people would agree 100% on 100% of these topics. So, again, who are these SJWs?

It seems to me that the usage of the words "SJW" is stretched across such a broad landscape that anyone could be on the "SJW" side for some of these issues, and some people who are usually "SJW" might actually be on the "non-SJW" on some other issues. Hence my question (sorry for repeating): how do you draw the line? and what's the point of this label if there is literally no issue at all that's a 'good' social issue? How do you call social issues that you would vote 'yes' for at a poll? You mentioned Prop 8 for instance; wasn't that a good social cause in your opinion? Why aren’t the people who were campaigning across California to encourage people to vote for it 'good SJW' in that case? The answer, from above, seems to be that it's not the label you would use. But it seems odd to me that you would need another label for people fighting for 'social justice' depending on whether you agree with them as to what is 'just' or not. Or, in other words, why is that 'not' social justice? What is it called?

Finally, regardless of what issue is good/bad for SJW/non-SJW, would you call SJW only the people who are actively fighting for an issue, or anyone who agree with it, as a matter of opinion? I am curious to know if that might be why I am misunderstanding the label... perhaps it's focused more on people actively lobbying? In other words, to make it more personal, if I happen to disagree with you on most of these issues (which we already know is the case) does that make me a SJW even if I am just talking about it? I never went to a protest, and I cannot even vote here in the USA, so clearly I am not a 'warrior' And what about the many things I agree with you on... I had a pretty bad conversation with my wife about this notion of 'blaming the West' for instance; I may bring that up eventually the next time you write on the topic.

Thanks again for the thoughtful response Stan, looking forward to more clarifications if you are interested.

Stan said...

So many questions. There is no club, association, or group called "Social Justice", members of which are called "Warriors". Barry Rubin elaborated on that in his book, "Silent Revolution", the history of the invisible takeover of the USA by the radical Left. Because there is a strong taint on the previous Leftist terms, "New Left", "Marxism" and "Communism", those names were purposefully left behind as the Left regrouped in the 80s and 90s and became invisible, in terms of specific names, and more importantly the ability to be tracked easily. They became adults, infiltrated the power positions, and presto, they now have enough control to self-identify again.

It might help to know that SJWs are largely self-identified, and are proud of that appellation. It still is not an organization, not an association; it is a worldview. Those who are not publicly identified as SJW are easily identified by their "hot" issues, which are always iconoclastic and always morally "righteous", and therefore totally non-negotiable. It would be unthinkable for an SJW NOT to support the generally accepted Victimhood Classes as authentic, and any SJW who questions authenticity will be immediately mob-attacked and have his/her SJW identity stripped. It has happened to high profile Atheists and to high profile "Skeptics", and it is vicious to watch.

Thus the SJW is kept in line by fear of losing his/her righteous identity of Class Association. And by that sort of control, the SJW will immediately be one of the mob, rather than one of the mobbed, and divested of identity in the righteous tribe. The basic tactics for the SJW are found in Alinsky's "Rules For Radicals" book, a handbook of Leftist insurgency. Obama taught Alinsky methods when he was a "Community Organizer". I think it's not possible to understand Leftist activities without a thorough understanding of Alinsky's book.

The contrary worldview to the SJW has no specific name, and includes, as I said, those who believe in traditional tolerance, freedoms and the protections of the US Constitution. There are many unaffiliated groups which hold these beliefs, and self-identified conservatives are just one, as are libertarians and federalists but not Republicans. One of the many traditional freedoms is the freedom to disagree, and that freedom is called tolerance, but it is not the "tolerance" of the SJW lexicon. So you and I are FREE to disagree, and we will grant that right to the other party and to all parties. The SJW does not. For the SJW, disagreement with their "righteousness" is purely evil and is to be destroyed (that's what a good Messiah should do).

Probably the largest single collection of SJWs is the Democrat Party. It is difficult to be a Democrat if one does not accept the Victimhood status theories of feminists, abortionists, race mongers, tradition-haters and issues like AGW, evolution, Scientism, Environmentalism (not mere conservation), etc.

I don't know if that clarifies anything, if not, I'll try again. Ask if you wish to.

Hugo Pelland said...

Yes, I had lots of questions; you had written a lot :) thanks for the answers.

But that last comment clarified only a tiny portion of what I was asking about... actually, I am not even sure if it did clarify anything at all honestly, as the SJW appear to be mostly Democrats in the US, but I am left wondering if the term would apply for others who support some/most of their ideas, and whether or not most people who support the Democrats are to be labeled as SJW as well, regardless of whether they self-identify as such or not. So the 'who' was kind of clarified, but to me it still looks like a large blanket statement with little purpose, except as a label for 'others' that you disagree with... because it's not just the ones who identified as SJW that you label SJW, no?

In other words, that's the main question that is left unanswered: who is 'bad' enough to be considered a SJW? Is it really just the people who self-identify as such, as you said, or do we become 'SJW' if we merely agree with them some or most of the time? (That's interesting by the way as I did not even know some people called themselves like that; I might read a bit more into this...) And what about my question on involvement; is it really that bad to just agree with some of their positions, or do you consider SJW to be the ones who are actively involved in politics and going to rallies, starting petitions, etc...? You mentioned it's a worldview but the definition you gave is so harsh that it cannot possibly be 'just' a worldview, no?

Or to take a different approach; if you discuss a single topic, or even just 1 issue within a larger topic, and run into someone who you strongly disagree with, would that automatically make that person a SJW even if that's the only issue you know you disagree on? What would it take for them to go from a non-SJW, which includes lots of different groups and labels as you said, to a full on SJW, which is the worst of the worst by the definitions presented here. One example I have in mind is the vaccination issue, which I actually discussed briefly with you a few months ago... for that topic, the ones you call SJW here are highly divided; some are for mandatory vaccination while others think it's a big pharma company scam. So some self-labeled-SJW might be on both sides, some non-self-label-but-still-SJW might be on both sides, and some anti-SJW might be on both sides... quite confusing!

I am sorry if it's still too many questions... I guess the main issue I have is that this is not related to any specific issue. Also, 1 more thing that was not answer, and perhaps the most important: how do you call people that are fighting for social issues that you agree with? I guess they don't call themselves SJW but aren’t they fight for Social Justice?


Jason T. said...

Hugo, your patience is greater than mine. At times Stan has seemed like someone with whom it is possible to have a reasonable conversation. At other times he seems interested only in condemning atheists and trying to justify his absurd assertion that atheists have no principles and no arguments. I doubt that you've made much of an impression on him, but maybe some of his readers will be prompted to read what you've written.

Stan said...

Jason T. says:
"trying to justify his absurd assertion that atheists have no principles and no arguments."

That is a blatant lie. I have said that Atheism starts in a VOID due to the rejection of all moral authority for historical moral principles, and assumes for itself that moral authority. Then the Atheist proceeds to create his own set of moral principles, if any. Usually these moral principles are perfectly congruent with his existing proclivities for behaviors, and are actually meant to be applied to all others. This is one of the bases for the inversions found in Social Justice Warfare, where rejection of all western principles, starting with onerous moral restrictions, replaces all principles of logic and rational thought.

It's empirical. But refute it if you wish, using your skills of Aristotelian deduction, and/or empirical scientific data. I'm happy to discuss it on a rational basis.

So. If you have logical, rational reasoning which proves categorically that (a) there is no deity, can be no deity, and (b) you have objective moral principles which neither you nor any Atheist invented out of thin air, then show your work.

Otherwise, you actually do have no arguments and no objective moral principles.

Stan said...

I'll try to be very short and concise.
A social justice warrior is defined by the following characteristics:

1. Iconoclastic regarding western culture.

2. Considers his opinion to be morally correct, therefore dissent is immoral. This produces the designation of the Oppressor Class, and the moral intolerance of dissent, which characterizes their designated Oppressor Class.

3. Utopian, in the sense that he "knows" that his own plan for society is the only, singularly correct plan.

4. Dogmatic. Moral superiority leads to self-delusion of being a "savior", i.e. a Messiah. This produces the designation of Victimhood Classes.

5. Runs in packs of like-thinking moral, utopian iconoclasts, who are also totalitarian to the point of Stalinist in their assault on the Oppressor Class.

This is not the same as considered discussion of two dissenting opinions. This is not the same as supporting one or some of the same issues as do the SJWs. This is about a false religion which uses the Class system as its basis, with the SJW at the top.

If this is not clear, I'm not sure that your issues can be addressed further.

Stan said...

I should add this:
6. Total moral and legal condemnation of all principles put forth by the Oppressor Class, by using moral condemnation, censorship, bullying, and legal hate crime (thought crime) legislation - mostly legislated by one Supreme Court Leftist Justice, but applied to the entire population.

There is no "discussion" with SJWs; their response is purely condemnation and bullying in attempt to silence all contrary thought.

Hugo Pelland said...

Hi Stan, I'll be as short as possible too, at the risk of not being clear, but I think the problem is that you keep telling 'what' these people you call SJW are, but never 'who' they are. Your definition is so vague that it sometimes include the entire Democratic party of the USA, but also really narrow when it comes to thr harsh adjectives you use, as you cannot possibly think that 25-50% of your fellow Americans are that crazy... but I don't know. So I'll move on from this topic and might instead comment on specific issues when they come up on your blog, when I have the time... Thanks for the answers!

Stan said...

Um. You wanted names? All this time, you wanted names, while asking all that other stuff? I now doubt your sincerity in searching for the truth of the issue. Do you not read the posts I put virtually daily, with pointers to various sources? I think you don't really want to know anything about SJWs, given your sliding requirements. By knowing what they stand for, their tactics, their class identity, you should be able to identify them by their issue and effluent.

But perhaps you just don't read the news, or you read only the Leftist news and believe it, or, as I really suspect, you don't really care. That's fine; I'll stop these comments, then. And yes, I'm guessing that possibly a slim majority of Americans now fit into this Class War category, having been mal-educated into it for several generations, plus all the new illegals who will fit into it almost immediately even with no English.

There is a violent conflict brewing, though; you'll be confused when you are forced to take a side.

Hugo Pelland said...

Sorry, you sound upset, that was not the intention, hopefully I am wrong... and no, even if I read almost all of your posts, I don't really know who the SJWs are according to you because, again, you label people across an incredibly large spectrum. So yes, names would help actually; names of groups, or individuals who write publicly, as examples of who is a SJW, or not. And you don't need to literally do it here, I don't want to take more of your time on that. The most recent post is actually a good example; that's pretty much what I was asking about. So I can discuss that case and see where that individual, and the group he is part of, fall into irrationality and thus the SJW category. Thats what I said might make more sense instead of expanding more here.

Overall the explanations were clear and it's good to hear that you think only a minority of Americans are crazy enough to be considered SJWS, otherwise that would be a scary view to have! Though, that last bit about upcoming violence is troubling... you really see the American society in such bad light? I see you write about things you find annoying, but worth violent outbursts? I didn't think so honestly. Again, maybe for other posts where that gets raised.


Stan said...

The progressing history of the USA is following the history of Germany in the 30's, down to the anti-semitism and favored status for Islamists, with the moral certainty of the putative totalitarians who are in charge.

"Annoyed" is too pusillanimous a term for my position on these things. If you are not aware of the potential for violence in the USA, then you really are not paying attention.

You probably should look out beyond this blog, and get in contact with the fly-over part of the USA. Don't even waste time here; you don't believe it anyway. If you want the truth, then go out and find it.

Stan said...

Since it appears that you are not American, here's a vital piece of American history: The vicious American Civil War was fought between Democrats who thought they had the moral right to keep blacks as slaves, and Republicans who thought otherwise. The Republican party was formed for the specific reason of fighting against the Democrat hegemony of slavery of blacks.

Today is a virtually complete analog of that history of violence in the USA, but still in the ramp up period.

Robert Coble said...

May I suggest reading Fred (Reed) On Everything regarding this brewing storm:

“Payback’s a Bitch”: Rural Wisdom and the Gathering Storm

Relevant excerpts:

A lot of people quietly hate the sonsofbitches [in Washington DC].

A surprise may be coming.

. . .we have to do what Washington says.
Unless, of course, one day we don’t.

We are winding a spring.

Stoking the flames under the pressure cooker is the unending, ever-tightening control of every aspect of life by Washington.

Washington pushes, pushes, and pushes, thinking that with just enough pressure, we will all come to kowtow.

What if one day we don’t?

When groups begin competing for dwindling resources, things will get ugly. It could explode. It really could. You might be surprised how many people out there think, “Bring it on.” Not a good idea, but we go that way.

Tick Tick. Tick.