What Is the “Social Justice” Endgame?

https://blog.alexrohde.com/archives/603

28 23 9 years ago

blog.alexrohde.com

SCdF2• 9 years ago

This is one of the most "HN" things I've read in awhile.

Their first bullet point asks their audience to define a term they just made up, and implies that grouping people via this term is important to social justice, said as someone who has trouble making sense of social justice.

This list feels like they're trying to disprove a math proof or something. As if, if you can "catch them out" with some edge case you can blow this thing wide open. This kind of approach doesn't work outside of maths, physics and CS. It barely works there.

My advice: step back from your 12 highly specific "smoking gun" bullet points and start asking some more general questions. Or, even better than asking, doing some of your own reading.

alexandercrohde• 9 years ago

It feels to me that you're treating this as more of a power game than a mutual pursuit of truth.

notacoward8• 9 years ago

What evidence is there that it's a search for truth? What have you done to show good faith? What sources have you already consulted? What answers have you already considered? And a hundred other questions that you MUST ANSWER before we can move on. Why not? By what right do you do all the grilling, and suffer none yourself?

SCdF2• 9 years ago

What does that even mean? What possible power could I (?) have over you (?).

Again: your list is a large barrage of insistent questions that require your readers to contort to a set of terms you've made up. It is not open minded, it is treating the subject as already wrong and here's why.

It reminds me of when you have a "discussion" with someone and they aren't actually interested in listening, they're just waiting until you say something they can "ah ha!" you with.

Boothroid• 9 years ago

I think the list pretty skewers many of the contradictions in the SJW perspective. You have refused to answer them - are you scared of doing so?

I was subjected to this indoctrination during my undergraduate degree. It can take some time to step back and properly question rather than just accepting the spoon-feeding. There was a very definite message sent that as a white man (of 18 years old!) I bore responsibility, in some way, for the oppression of women over millennia, for the horrors of colonialism, for racism, for homophobia, for God knows whatever else. I believe that everyone should have the right to pursue their ambitions without hindrance, and I treat people with respect based on their actions, not what boxes they tick. Why am I apparently the enemy in this current culture war? Why is the supposedly tolerant left so utterly intolerant of dissenting voices?

notacoward8• 9 years ago

are you scared of doing so?

Are you? Where are your answers to the same - or other equally important - questions? Awfully convenient to have others go first and commit themselves, isn't it?

blakdawg3• 9 years ago

If your quibble is with the idea of a "protected group", his language is very close to that of a well-established term, "protected class" that's familiar to anyone working on the legal side of anti-discrimination.

The idea itself certainly isn't one he made up - the idea that it's possible to sort people into different groups based on physical or conceptual criteria is probably older than language. It's also one that "marginalized people" or "historically oppressed groups" (or whatever label you prefer) also struggle with.

I don't know if there's a generally accepted definition of "social justice", but one of the core concepts seems to be concerned with identifying and correcting privileges and oppressions (e.g., injustices) which are enjoyed or visited upon people based on their (perceived) membership in social groups.

There's nothing unreasonable about asking for clarity about which groups fall into the "oppressor" and "oppressed" categories; and about how group membership is determined. Even within "social justice" movements, there are complicated questions about that - e.g., trans people, Rachel Dolezal, etc.

notacoward8• 9 years ago

what is harder is presenting a superior alternative.

...and the OP doesn't even try. Instead he asserts his privilege by asking others to justify themselves and their actions to him individually according to his framing and questions. Does he even ask, for example, about the other culture(s) at play here, racists and sexists and so on pulling in the other direction? Surely understanding them is just as important, but that would be inconvenient. No, only one group has to be completely transparent and explicit and specific, while others remain free to roam around the rhetorical battleground changing claims however/whenever it suits them.

This doesn't seem to be about understanding. It's a delaying tactic. Keep people busy answering an endless series of questions and objections, so they can't spend that time doing anything else. It's not like we haven't seen this before. It even has a name: sea-lioning. To the author: show some evidence that you've tried to educate yourself before you expect others to do it for you.

Pilfer2• 9 years ago

It's a delaying tactic. Keep people busy answering an endless series of questions and objections, so they can't spend that time doing anything else. It's not like we haven't seen this before. It even has a name: sea-lioning.

Something I find quite amusing is you accuse the author of sea-lioning while you blatantly do so in the rest of the thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15029410 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15029531

notacoward8• 9 years ago

Yes, it's very amusing that I deliberately put the shoe on the other foot. I even explicitly pointed out that I was doing it. Some people recognize their own bad behavior much more readily when it's reflected back to them. There, now you're all caught up.

civilian4• 9 years ago

The accusation of sea-lioning is ridiculous. Alex wrote in his blog, he's not pestering someone on twitter. All he's done is committed a thoughtcrime for questioning. :-]

I have friends who are social-justicey and I've read a lot online, and it continually feels like Social Justice is just an extended application of marxism. (I.e. there are some disadvantaged groups, and it's because the system, so take down the system by any means necessary!!) And Marxism itself suffers from being more of a critcism than offering an alternative moral system. http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/13/book-review-singer-on-m... I'm telling you so that you know that I've done the research.

And I hear you, I also get the feeling that mainstream political discourse is just different camps shouting out eachother's most obvious flaws. And our last election was a _perfect example of that_. When surveyed for why someone was going to vote Trump/Clinton, the most common answer was: "Well they're not Clinton/Trump!!". [citation needed]

But like, where do we go from there? We just can't talk to eachother because the other side is just trying to fuck with us? We gotta keep trying. Even if AlexRohde is not asking questions in good faith, you've got a chance to win over the audience.

notacoward8• 9 years ago

The accusation of sea-lioning is ridiculous. Alex wrote in his blog, he's not pestering someone on twitter.

OK, it's not quite sea-lioning, but it's similar in effect - and, I still strongly suspect, in spirit. The asymmetry of one person asking dozens of questions, without much context or any hint of their own answers (except where those are evident from the leading nature of the questions), is a poor basis for dialog. If you want to engage with someone, there has to be give as well as take. Anyone who has tried to find common ground on a contentious topic before is likely to realize that. I guess I should just assume Alex doesn't have such experience.

Even if AlexRohde is not asking questions in good faith, you've got a chance to win over the audience.

Indeed, that's a good point. I do so all the time, here and elsewhere. It's important. However, the "please fill out form ABC" format is a terrible way to do that. When the best outcome is a very small increase in understanding and the more likely outcome is an exercise in goalpost-chasing, I'll pass. I'd rather save my energy to persuade people of the points I consider important, in a less biased frame, with some interactivity thrown in.

orwin• 9 years ago

Hey a game!

Disclaimer: not a native english speaker, i might lack vocabulary and do some grammar mistakes.

1/ I have no idea of what a protected group is. A discriminated group however, depends on where you live. Erythreen jews in israel are discriminated against by the “dominant” group (white conservative isreali). Chinese suffer discrimination in some parts of India and Philipines, while people from Philipines suffer some in China (sorry, no idea how englsh call them).

Past oppression is only relevant if some discrimination is done because of this (Hello Rwanda). Let’s take South Africa. Past oppression was relevant even after Nelson mandela because the culture was still related to the apparteid. This is less true today, so this is not as relevant now (my question: how did you not figure this on your own? Do you like asking leading question that much?)

2/Leading question, again, nice. None. But people in discriminated groups should have an easier time joining profession that brings power or visibility, so related to law (even if it is as paralegal), politics or television, or company management. Again with the S.A example, the culture changed because there were more and more black people in courthouses, politics and at the head of national companies. The fact that there is some racial inequalities there come from class inequalities (not the subject here) and not racism.

3/ What agenda?

4/ None. I don’t see your point there, it might be lost in translation.

5/ What? Why would you punish statement made at work? Except if there is a client (let’s say, the state want to buy your product, and you say “public worker are paid doing nothing” to his face, get ready to be fired or put in a closet). Is this a leading question?

6/ Victims are defined by law in my country, i don’t know about the us though. I’d define “offensive” a statement that i would not say out loud to all my friends or family. Like “i find that any theism is dumb as f…”, which i would never say to my grandmother, despite being my real feeling, is offensive. 3rd part is a leading question, but my response is that i do not care about you and you can tell whatever you want to anyone, but if you say the previous sentence to anyone and get called out, i would not help you

7/ I’m not advocating for anyone, but i can see (in my country anyway) that some people (obese people) have it worst than anybody in some places (hospital mainly). I defend them orally with my friends and on internet when i feel like it (not often in english though). Well, since i’m 20 i don’t really hang with anybody that would judge people for their looks (because its tiring /time-consumming to defend people i’m not related too for no reason but my personal ethic) but i did that.

8/ Do you know that apostasia is punishable by death in pakistan, but not in other countries (tunisia come to mind), and in some, nobody cares. So it depends on WHERE you live, obviously. Do you feel that in USA/UK, the way most of the people treated Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam when he choose, after nearly dying twice, to change his religion, was justified/ subjectivly fair/fair isn’t the question? Where i lived, no one cared about this. So probably MORE protected if you live surrounded by dumb a-holes, about the same else.

8bis: Sorry about the passive-agressive subtitle there, i might have no personnality and just mimic the way of expression of the people i’m talking to.

9/ Well, you can see my response in 6/. Yes, there is studies that make correlation about IQ and how religious people feel, still, making any remark about that out loud (or on a forum where religious people gather, on a video about gregorian chant) is just rude.

10/ Depending on where you live, discriminated people are not the same, so i don’t really care. I spent entire vacations with my racist cousin, we had no problems. He is quite honest with his hate and while i disagree, i still quite like him. Honestly, most of those are leading question and i decided early to go away from people i perceive as manipulative, so i would never hang out with you anyway, but we could coexist just fine.

11/ No, i don’t care about the majority, i’m old enough to think on my own.

12/ Sorry, how does work safety come with guilt and social pressure? I think this is manipulation, but w/e. Guilt and social pressure are sadly two educational levers, that are used and abused with children in school quite often (and in dog training too). Using it against adult are less effective, but it still works for some reason. I do hate this way of doing things, but whne i was a youth camp consellor, i had to use social pressure to make activities run smoothly. I’m still feeling guilty about it. I disliked doing it because i feel this was dishonest, even if this was the easiest way to get thing started. Those questions being a bit dishonest, are you feeling a bit guilty about it or do you feel its fine being dishonest to try to convince people they are mistaken (or do you think those question where objectively honest and i’m mistaken)?

It was an interesting game, thank you.

What Is the “Social Justice” Endgame?

Related Stories