social "justice"

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8533
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: social "justice"

Post by Sculptor »

DPMartin wrote: Mon Mar 28, 2022 5:07 pm
Sculptor wrote: Mon Mar 28, 2022 4:47 pm
Advocate wrote: Wed Mar 16, 2022 2:05 pm Black studies, women's studies, etc. should be rebranded as History of Oppression, which is the majority of what they're about. The cultural stuff otherwise is part of the common heritage of humanity and belongs to everyone.

And we must resist the urge to brand people as oppressed because of their external appearance. Only by their acts can we know them, and the real person is hidden away inside.

We are all individuals regardless of how we self-identify and what luck popped us out as. Some people identify with their race/gender/age/etc. and some do not. Justice, social or otherwise, must be individual to be justice.
The obvious problem with your problem expressed here; "And we must resist the urge to brand people as oppressed because of their external appearance", is that it is a simple truth the people have been oppressed because of their external appearance, so to deny that is telling lies.
Only by their acts shall we know them. The acts of the oppressor are that they have decided to enslave black people because they are black and treat women unequally because they are women.
na, all this hype is for reverse racism, its ok for a black to treat a white as a white bread whitey cracker full of disdain and outrage because whitey is the oppressor, and blacks a women are victims of all whites. media needs controversy and the minorities gain momentum of payback. a colored man was elected president of the US not long ago, just what is withheld from minorities?
So are you trying to pretend that people are not oppressed because of the way they look?


media magnifies an incident and the minorities are enraged. there was an incident where a white guy had a toy rifle in a hotel some jagoff saw it a called the police they had the guy in the hall of the hotel with guns drawn he was on the floor asked them not to shot and moved his hand now he's dead. no one cares. but the reason the cop was cleared just like the others was procedure. how cops make law that are rules of engagement without law makers is what is being hidden in all of this. by media fanning the race fire.
Typical moron Fox News junkie.
Idiots like you are just in denial of the bleeding obvious.
DPMartin
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

Re: social "justice"

Post by DPMartin »

Sculptor wrote: Mon Mar 28, 2022 10:55 pm
DPMartin wrote: Mon Mar 28, 2022 5:07 pm
Sculptor wrote: Mon Mar 28, 2022 4:47 pm

The obvious problem with your problem expressed here; "And we must resist the urge to brand people as oppressed because of their external appearance", is that it is a simple truth the people have been oppressed because of their external appearance, so to deny that is telling lies.
Only by their acts shall we know them. The acts of the oppressor are that they have decided to enslave black people because they are black and treat women unequally because they are women.
na, all this hype is for reverse racism, its ok for a black to treat a white as a white bread whitey cracker full of disdain and outrage because whitey is the oppressor, and blacks a women are victims of all whites. media needs controversy and the minorities gain momentum of payback. a colored man was elected president of the US not long ago, just what is withheld from minorities?
So are you trying to pretend that people are not oppressed because of the way they look?


media magnifies an incident and the minorities are enraged. there was an incident where a white guy had a toy rifle in a hotel some jagoff saw it a called the police they had the guy in the hall of the hotel with guns drawn he was on the floor asked them not to shot and moved his hand now he's dead. no one cares. but the reason the cop was cleared just like the others was procedure. how cops make law that are rules of engagement without law makers is what is being hidden in all of this. by media fanning the race fire.
Typical moron Fox News junkie.
Idiots like you are just in denial of the bleeding obvious.
really? are you for real?
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8533
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: social "justice"

Post by Sculptor »

DPMartin wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 3:57 pm
Sculptor wrote: Mon Mar 28, 2022 10:55 pm
DPMartin wrote: Mon Mar 28, 2022 5:07 pm

na, all this hype is for reverse racism, its ok for a black to treat a white as a white bread whitey cracker full of disdain and outrage because whitey is the oppressor, and blacks a women are victims of all whites. media needs controversy and the minorities gain momentum of payback. a colored man was elected president of the US not long ago, just what is withheld from minorities?
So are you trying to pretend that people are not oppressed because of the way they look?


media magnifies an incident and the minorities are enraged. there was an incident where a white guy had a toy rifle in a hotel some jagoff saw it a called the police they had the guy in the hall of the hotel with guns drawn he was on the floor asked them not to shot and moved his hand now he's dead. no one cares. but the reason the cop was cleared just like the others was procedure. how cops make law that are rules of engagement without law makers is what is being hidden in all of this. by media fanning the race fire.
Typical moron Fox News junkie.
Idiots like you are just in denial of the bleeding obvious.
really? are you for real?
I am for real.
DO you think people discriminate because of the colour of a person's skin or not?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: social "justice"

Post by Immanuel Can »

Sculptor wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 4:50 pm DO you think people discriminate because of the colour of a person's skin or not?
Absolutely, they do. Social Justice advocates, in fact, insist we MUST.

So racism is not at all dead. It's alive and well in Social Justice ideology, if nowhere else. That's no surprise...

So what's the point?
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8533
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: social "justice"

Post by Sculptor »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 5:43 pm
Sculptor wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 4:50 pm DO you think people discriminate because of the colour of a person's skin or not?
Absolutely, they do. Social Justice advocates, in fact, insist we MUST.

So racism is not at all dead. It's alive and well in Social Justice ideology, if nowhere else. That's no surprise...

So what's the point?
You are a just a sad c u n t
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: social "justice"

Post by Immanuel Can »

Sculptor wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 10:45 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 5:43 pm
Sculptor wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 4:50 pm DO you think people discriminate because of the colour of a person's skin or not?
Absolutely, they do. Social Justice advocates, in fact, insist we MUST.

So racism is not at all dead. It's alive and well in Social Justice ideology, if nowhere else. That's no surprise...

So what's the point?
You are....
Ad hominem. And you know what I say is absolutely true, if you know anything about so-called "Social Justice." It depends on perpetual racism.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8533
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: social "justice"

Post by Sculptor »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 12:20 am It depends on perpetual racism.
And that is just how you like it.
DPMartin
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

Re: social "justice"

Post by DPMartin »

Sculptor wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 4:50 pm
DPMartin wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 3:57 pm
Sculptor wrote: Mon Mar 28, 2022 10:55 pm

So are you trying to pretend that people are not oppressed because of the way they look?

Typical moron Fox News junkie.
Idiots like you are just in denial of the bleeding obvious.
really? are you for real?
I am for real.
DO you think people discriminate because of the colour of a person's skin or not?
no actually
they favor their own kind, or ones that are like minded, or of common experience, or to say "in the same boat", or ride the same motorcycles, run the same races, live in the same household, or of the same culture or ancestorial back ground, on and on and on.

there's always an us and them mentality, always always always. its through out human nature and any other animal life form on the planet. only the supper stupid think they can eliminate it and the ones that do are only being fooled by those who know better and manipulate the fools.

and no you're not for real, its obvious from your postings you can't think for yourself and prefer to follow the daily norm of social madness what ever that may be. at least your postings show that. and if your postings reflect accurately you would have made a great Nazi back in the day because that's what most Nazi's were, followers of the daily norm of social madness based on a ideology of victimization. Hitler preached on the German public and WWI solders were victims of the German leadership's betrayal, and European oppression. and his influence made it expedient for all Germans to be a Nazi.

if your postings are your belief on the subject then your just another drop in the bucket of history repeating itself. mankind always seems to think it can out wit its own nature.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: social "justice"

Post by Immanuel Can »

Sculptor wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 11:47 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 12:20 am It depends on perpetual racism.
And that is just how you like it.
Not at all. I want us all to realize how stupid and unimportant "race" is, and get beyond it. Kind of like MLK, actually.

But I know we won't, at least at present, because the people working the hardest to keep "race" a live issue are the Social Justice Warriors, and they have a platform right now. There's no way they're going to let actual "equality" break out...they hate the very thought.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8533
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: social "justice"

Post by Sculptor »

DPMartin wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 4:05 pm
Sculptor wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 4:50 pm
DPMartin wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 3:57 pm

really? are you for real?
I am for real.
DO you think people discriminate because of the colour of a person's skin or not?
no actually
This is the sort of childish reactionary bullshit.
You are pretending that slavery never happened.
Fucking wanker
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8533
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: social "justice"

Post by Sculptor »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 4:26 pm
Sculptor wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 11:47 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 12:20 am It depends on perpetual racism.
And that is just how you like it.
Not at all. I want us all to realize how stupid and unimportant "race" is, and get beyond it. Kind of like MLK, actually.
That is exactly how I feel. And I have said so many times.
But you are just in denial about racial discrimination which is a reality. CRT examines that.
You have just taken Fox news in the mouth and swallowed.
Chauvin and his kind are indefensible yet you run to his aid.
You are a joke.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: social "justice"

Post by Immanuel Can »

Sculptor wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 5:32 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 4:26 pm
Sculptor wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 11:47 am
And that is just how you like it.
Not at all. I want us all to realize how stupid and unimportant "race" is, and get beyond it. Kind of like MLK, actually.
That is exactly how I feel. And I have said so many times.
But you are just in denial about racial discrimination which is a reality. CRT examines that.
No, CRT interprets everything AS that. It doesn't really "find" racism, so much as it reconstitutes everything AS "racism." There may still be some racism around, in the most tolerant West that has so far ever existed, but it's never been smaller, and any real racism is now doomed.

However, CRT holds that if there ever exists any disparity between one of its groups and another, the only explanation has to be "racism." Naturally, that makes practically everything into "racism." So whatever actual racism still exist, it gets buried into a great mass of false cases, the causes of which the CRTers simply refuse to allow to be examined.

So, for example, if one "marginalized" community is poor and riddled with crime, it cannot be because of a subculture of single motherhood created by Democrat handouts. It has to be "racism." But if another, equally "marginalized" non-white community becomes the richest community in North America at the same time, they have nothing they want to say about that: it does not fit the narrative, and the successful community can even be discriminated against, without conscience, because success itself is assumed to be proof positive of collusion with "racism."

In other words, everything becomes "racism," and no facts are allowed to disprove "racism." So no wonder they find so much of it. If you ever read their own essays, you know this.

But unlike you, they don't want it to go away! :shock: If "racism" ever goes away, then CRT is irrelevant. So there's absolutely no chance they're going to let it go away. No, they're going to gin up new cases forever, if they can: and when they can't find any real "racism," they're going to claim "systemic racism," or "micro-racism," or some other such bogeyman to fill the spot they need it to fill. For without enemies, their own power and prestige is threatened, and they'll never let that happen.

So you needn't worry that "racism" will disappear. The CRTers will keep inventing it, long after any real racism is negilgible or gone. They have to.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: social "justice"

Post by Scott Mayers »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Mar 24, 2022 12:23 am
DPMartin wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 5:17 pm don't you know that if you are perceived as a victim then people will believe you must be in the right.
Good point.

It's not at all clear that just because somebody is in a "down" position relative to somebody else, that that makes them any morally
"higher," anymore than it makes them morally "lower." It just makes them "in a different position."

But I think there's more to it. "Social justice," as a phrase, has the adjective for a reason.

"Justice" used to mean, "Each individual gets what he/she deserves or has merited." But "social justice" means that the alleged "injustice" is not so much the result of any individual person as it is said to be "systemic." To say it's "systemic" is to say it's a feature of "the system," a collective noun that NeoMarxists apply to the status quo of anything -- the "system" is the police, the businesses, the governmental structures, the way things are done culturally, the relgious institutions, the regnant social patterns, the infrastructure...etc. (Everything but the public education system, which they already own almost entirely.) And they allege that the "injustices" felt by "marginalized communities" are products of these "institutionalized" or "systemic" features.
"Systemic" is adjective used to generically describe ANY cause that is NOT necessarily any one person or group's fault but is an accident of the way the very causes are NOT due to SPECIFIC or UNIQUE bias. Thus, for instance, given black and white film does not easily represent darker skin, the coincidence of the 'system' within the black and white film industry would bias black people, for instance. [Blackface was more exagerated in such films beyond the technical possibilities beyond mere representation: the use of black shoe polish on white people looks more caricatured and so even where some actor in the past may themselves NOT be racist, the way that accidents without intention to harm CAN nevertheless lead to certain stereotyping biases that add up to become 'racist'.

So...
Because the "injustice" is said to be "social," not individual, it can never be located and eliminated. It can be claimed to exist permanently, and "social justice warriors" can use it as a perpetual excuse to riot, beat up Asians, steal from businesses, burn down cities, overthrow laws, and so on -- because all destruction to the status quo is considered by them to be a revolutionary act against "social injustice."

Now, you might wonder why looting a Target store for Nikes or burning a car dealership to the ground for fun can be considered actions of "revolutionary" zeal...but when you understand that the entire status quo -- they system complete, the present instutitions, rules and economics, etc. -- are the locus of the alleged "injustice," even looting the computer store serves the purpose of destabilizing an element of the status quo. And the owners of the shop are not considered "victims," but rather "colluders with the status quo," who can be called "Nazi" and punched at wiil.

This, too, explains why you be black or hispanic and still get called a "white supremacist" or a "racist." What it means to the SJWs is "a cooperator with the existing (racist) order of things: a "systemic" racist. And you can be a fat woman and be called a "fatphobic misogynist," not because you're personally either, but because you are deemed by the SJW court-in-the-street to be "complicit with the fatphobic-misgogynist system."

The upshot: in social justice terms, you're not allowed to exempt yourself from their ideology. If you do, you're a colluder with the status quo, and they'll hate you. They'll find a way to hate you later anyway, because that's all they ever really do; but they'll hate you faster and burn your house down sooner if you show that you're not impressed with their juvenile preening, or if you seem not to be joining their frenzy.
In light of my explanation and example, I think you need to redress this. While the extremes among the SJWs exist, they are not representative of the logical meaning and use of 'systemic' as a term. So you are mistaking the meaning of the adjective. IF NOT, what word or words would you prefer to use to describe unintentional side effects that occur without any one component being directly at fault? The extreme advocates, like strong feminists or masculists, do not represent those creating the terms that those investigating these issues may use to describe in an appropriate analytical way.

You are just such an 'advocate' given you falsely interpret ALL intents of those attempting to fight for "justice" regarding social issues. You also have some psychological problem with the use of the very terms, like 'social', because you find fault with ANY associative use of it. Anyone using "social" to describe something seems to make you falsely link them to the extreme IN AN EXTREME way.

This is also not an insult to the extreme advocating where called for. So, for instance, since every prosecutor in our courts 'advocates' strictly FOR a charge against the defendant, if the defence were not partial to the defence in the same strict way, their clients would not be represented fairly. Thus, strict advocacy as you practice is not necessarily a flaw. BUT given you are strict without an admitted bias or cause, you are being inappropriately extreme since it is unnecessary. I keep pointing out your relative anonymity. So you certainly have no personal RISK to look at things more objectively 'neutral' or at arms length. So why stick to the extreme interpretations of others?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: social "justice"

Post by Immanuel Can »

Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Mar 31, 2022 5:14 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Mar 24, 2022 12:23 am
DPMartin wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 5:17 pm don't you know that if you are perceived as a victim then people will believe you must be in the right.
Good point.

It's not at all clear that just because somebody is in a "down" position relative to somebody else, that that makes them any morally
"higher," anymore than it makes them morally "lower." It just makes them "in a different position."

But I think there's more to it. "Social justice," as a phrase, has the adjective for a reason.

"Justice" used to mean, "Each individual gets what he/she deserves or has merited." But "social justice" means that the alleged "injustice" is not so much the result of any individual person as it is said to be "systemic." To say it's "systemic" is to say it's a feature of "the system," a collective noun that NeoMarxists apply to the status quo of anything -- the "system" is the police, the businesses, the governmental structures, the way things are done culturally, the relgious institutions, the regnant social patterns, the infrastructure...etc. (Everything but the public education system, which they already own almost entirely.) And they allege that the "injustices" felt by "marginalized communities" are products of these "institutionalized" or "systemic" features.
"Systemic" is adjective used to generically describe ANY cause that is NOT necessarily any one person or group's fault but is an accident of the way the very causes are NOT due to SPECIFIC or UNIQUE bias.
This is partly true, in the sense that that is what "systemic racism" claims to be about. it claims there is a bunch of racism "out there," that's nobody's fault. But when you ask them to point it out, they cannot. All they point to is unequal effects between "racial " groups, and then yell, "There! You see? Systemic racism!"

As for whether that is actually true or not, and whether your definition of "systemic racism" is the same as anybody else's, here's a really good article on the subject: https://newdiscourses.com/2020/10/there ... ic-racism/

So "systemic racism" gets claimed, but essentially means nothing. However, notice the intention and the effect: since it stipulates that racism is "not any specific person's fault," it cannot be found. It's just "out there, somewhere." By making it impossible to locate and defeat, they make racism into a permanent problem...which is exactly what they want. Derrick Bell, for example, is quite explicit in saying that Social Justice claims racism as ordinary and permanent in everything.

Conveniently, this means that the witch-hunters of Social Justice will have a job and status forever. That works well for them. But it does not help society locate and remove the problem of racism, if it's "systemic"; in fact, it makes it utterly undoable.
Because the "injustice" is said to be "social," not individual, it can never be located and eliminated. It can be claimed to exist permanently, and "social justice warriors" can use it as a perpetual excuse to riot, beat up Asians, steal from businesses, burn down cities, overthrow laws, and so on -- because all destruction to the status quo is considered by them to be a revolutionary act against "social injustice."

Now, you might wonder why looting a Target store for Nikes or burning a car dealership to the ground for fun can be considered actions of "revolutionary" zeal...but when you understand that the entire status quo -- they system complete, the present instutitions, rules and economics, etc. -- are the locus of the alleged "injustice," even looting the computer store serves the purpose of destabilizing an element of the status quo. And the owners of the shop are not considered "victims," but rather "colluders with the status quo," who can be called "Nazi" and punched at wiil.

This, too, explains why you be black or hispanic and still get called a "white supremacist" or a "racist." What it means to the SJWs is "a cooperator with the existing (racist) order of things: a "systemic" racist. And you can be a fat woman and be called a "fatphobic misogynist," not because you're personally either, but because you are deemed by the SJW court-in-the-street to be "complicit with the fatphobic-misgogynist system."

The upshot: in social justice terms, you're not allowed to exempt yourself from their ideology. If you do, you're a colluder with the status quo, and they'll hate you. They'll find a way to hate you later anyway, because that's all they ever really do; but they'll hate you faster and burn your house down sooner if you show that you're not impressed with their juvenile preening, or if you seem not to be joining their frenzy.
In light of my explanation and example, I think you need to redress this.
I just did re-address it. It's still totally right.
IF NOT, what word or words would you prefer to use to describe unintentional side effects that occur without any one component being directly at fault?
Name any "racist" effect that ever happens without some human being or beings being the cause.

There is none. "Racism" is a belief; and inanimate objects have no beliefs. Nor do collective abstractions like "system," except if the members of that group also harbour racist beliefs and practices. Now, if you pin the particulars down, and show WHO is perpetuating the racism, you can fix it. If you leave it at the level of abstraction, of "system," not only are you deceiving yourself as to the real cause, but you're making the problem permanently unsolvable.

Which is, again, exactly what Social Justice advocates need: an enemy unfindable, and a problem unfixable forever.
You are just such an 'advocate' given you falsely interpret ALL intents of those attempting to fight for "justice" regarding social issues.
The case has been ably documented by James Lindsay in his books, and particularly in his new one, Race Marxism. Pick up a copy, if you're interested. It's an excellent read.
This is also not an insult to the extreme advocating where called for.

Well, let me ask you: do you want to see racism defeated?

If so, you're going to have to locate it in order to attack it. So tell me: where is the racism in our society today? And don't just point to any inequality, as if subcultures, criminality, low educational interest, drug abuse, resentment, poverty, single-motherhood, welfare, ghettos, alcoholism and so on are not causes of unequal outcomes: clearly, they are. So show me where racism is the substantive cause of racial inequality, not merely a guess made from one of these other effects.

Then you and I can fight it together. Or at least, we can tell people how to fight it. But if you just say, "well, it's systemic," then you've utterly defeated the fight against racism, and rendered it as an unsolvable problem.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: social "justice"

Post by Scott Mayers »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Mar 31, 2022 3:07 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Mar 31, 2022 5:14 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Mar 24, 2022 12:23 am
Good point.

It's not at all clear that just because somebody is in a "down" position relative to somebody else, that that makes them any morally
"higher," anymore than it makes them morally "lower." It just makes them "in a different position."

But I think there's more to it. "Social justice," as a phrase, has the adjective for a reason.

"Justice" used to mean, "Each individual gets what he/she deserves or has merited." But "social justice" means that the alleged "injustice" is not so much the result of any individual person as it is said to be "systemic." To say it's "systemic" is to say it's a feature of "the system," a collective noun that NeoMarxists apply to the status quo of anything -- the "system" is the police, the businesses, the governmental structures, the way things are done culturally, the relgious institutions, the regnant social patterns, the infrastructure...etc. (Everything but the public education system, which they already own almost entirely.) And they allege that the "injustices" felt by "marginalized communities" are products of these "institutionalized" or "systemic" features.
"Systemic" is adjective used to generically describe ANY cause that is NOT necessarily any one person or group's fault but is an accident of the way the very causes are NOT due to SPECIFIC or UNIQUE bias.
This is partly true, in the sense that that is what "systemic racism" claims to be about. it claims there is a bunch of racism "out there," that's nobody's fault. But when you ask them to point it out, they cannot. All they point to is unequal effects between "racial " groups, and then yell, "There! You see? Systemic racism!"

But notice the intention and the effect: since it stipulates that racism is "not any specific person's fault," it cannot be found. It's just "out there, somewhere." By making it impossible to locate and defeat, they make racism into a permanent problem...which is exactly what they want. Derrick Bell, for example, is quite explicit in saying that Social Justice claims racism as ordinary and permanent in everything.

Conveniently, this means that the witch-hunters of Social Justice will have a job and status forever. That works well for them. But it does not help society locate and remove the problem of racism, if it's "systemic"; in fact, it makes it utterly undoable.
The squeaky wheel gets the grease. So those with stronger emotional experiences will tend to take the lead regardless in any novel political movements. I am always against these extremes TOO and often come across as though I'm their opposing enemy because of their emotions. But I can recognize this without bias....only to have it thrown back at me for demonstrating that I am not for advocating positions based upon religious emotional thinkers regardless of the side they are appearing to advocate for.

Yet, WHY do you think that I still argue for that 'side'? I'm a LOGIC 'advocate', not a SOCIAL one, meaning that regardless of who I am speaking to, I ignore the arguments based upon emotional interpretations or declarations of intrinsic 'virtue'. So I completely agree that IF your beliefs about what is true WERE true absolutely of the social justice warriers I'd have to step out of politics altogether because I'd see them as equally corrupt as their opponents, ...your preferred 'side'. And I have for the most part. I cannot even bring myself to vote in my own country based upon my own disgust of the favoritism FOR the 'social' factors that exist. In particular with MORE danger are those who have more concentrated power to legislate with ease. It is easiest for those 'conserving' their political view when in power to dismantle any 'progressive' view. To me, the problem relates to the emotional factor most predominantly describing ones' religious views that get used to make policy.

So MY reason for preferring the "left" is based on the logic of the Utilitarian view (to favor the most), the liberal/libertarian original view that demands as much freedoms as possible without the infringement upon others of the same, and one that divorces itself from making legislation based upon non-human, non-Earthbound sources, like one's religious gods. Anyone in power representing us risks us for simply having the power to utilize their religious views. A PEOPLE's representative should not be able to back out of their accountability by asserting some religious justification for action/inaction when legislating.

The real distinctions that determine people's prosperity minimally requires looking at one's wealth. Given that the extremes of wealth define one's success (and why I opened a thread regarding whether success is due to luck or effort), I hold that governments must serve to give all people in society an equal chance to succeed. This is my 'socialist' part I favor in governing. It is NOT the predominating view though within the Left in practice any more than on the Right politically because everyone prefers that emotional utility of religion over logic or 'fairness' unqualified by virtues or vices based upon their various religions.

So the BEST hope is to favor the Left because where everyone is racist and sexist and just plain stupid regardless, I'd rather be with the side that cannot collectively agree to ONE or FEW specific "cults" of identity, AND who permits the modern "liberal" views of social lifestyle freedom, including a right to CHOSE your own culture versus accepting something inherent in something presumed 'genetic'. This cannot occur with the conservative Right because wealth creation FAVORS religious intolerance: the most optimal way to "capitalize" over others requires cheating others in some way (that 'deceptive' factor I loathe) and thus that side will foster religious extremes that beg others to TRUST or have CONFIDENCE in products and services because people buy more based upon the emotional and NOT the logical facts.

So the 'social warriers' while apparently defining of those on the Left, exist on the Right by default by their concentration of PARTICULAR biases based primarily on religious emotional thinking, where the Left has MANY PARTICULAR biases but from MANY different religious and emotional drives. The Left is thus SAFER for the independent individual AND who the most in number and variety are NOT wealthy but most representative among the poor and isolated in power however defined.

You propose above that the 'systemic' factors are unknowable indirectly by asserting this as a mere tactic that serves to LACK 'proof'. But that 'Critical Race' set of theorists were then hoping to determine these but you don't want them either because you assume they are ALL political SJWs only meant to foster lies??

An example systemic bias that I am aware of might be something like the potential factor of whether those who are given a car by their parents before they turn 18 may statistically coincide with their relative 'success' in getting stable work. I believe this is a major factor considering my own experience and observations of others of the same. The 'systemic' part would be that while there is no intentional 'fault' of the parents giving their kids a car, the SAME people with these background who JUDGE someone as not trying hard enough, of which one factor is to be able to travel broadly just to apply for jobs. Given such people who lack such a 'right-of-passage' gift of one's first car, this makes such an apparent factor a SYSTEMIC contributer to why someone may not succeed.

You have to look at multiple such factors and you'll then get the essence of what the "critical race theory" concept of 'systemic' issues is about. The problem is that those emotionally invested are themselves running the 'lead' to associate the CLASSIFICATION of who fails as based upon race or sex RATHER THAN economic preconditions. !!!! <--- IMPORTANT FACT . Since you should be aware that the very conservative ALSO wants us to NOT CLASSIFY people based upon economic factors as the contributing significant factor of success.. This proves that BOTH political extremes run by the more emotionally driven extremes among them is being deceptive. But the VARIETY exists on the Left regardless and while the extreme SJWs there will attempt to frame the economic discrimination as due to some bias regarding things like "cultural genocide" when it was a bias due to economic preconditions instead. That the tendency to favor those who are most like ourselves then indirectly causes a concentration of wealth based upon those identifying factors of which racism and sexism eventually become an easy means to discriminate rather than investing in whether they 'fit' within the stereotypes that those ECONOMIC biases are being excused as being caused by.

In this post from "Is Success Luck or Hard Work..." I gave an example to RCSaunders that may be helpful. Look at the bottom where I gave two distinct candidates who are assumed to be of equivalent qualifications. Which one would you choose to hire without knowing anything else.

The SJW extreme would recognize the correct reason why one might select the candidate living in a nice neighborhood but would reason that since we stereotype literal neighborhoods based upon common majority racial identies, they would point to that race as being biased to stay poor with its opposite biased to another race to stay wealthy.

Can you not see that the SJW will interpret race as the cause for statistically being unbalanced in numerical equal representation. While 50% of whites may be poor to the 50% of them on the wealthy side, you might find that 90% of Blacks are poor and 10% wealthy. This rationalization is coincidental but DOES contribute 'systemically' as a feedback when we use mnematic shortcuts to decision making. So instead of where I gave these candidates specific qualities based on economically based origins, we could replace or add a racial identity. Which 'race' of Black versus White (for simplicity) would those candidates likely have that represents the stereotype OF the poor and wealth today in say, Chicago?

So what if they are looking distinctly at a subset of the poor based upon which race is more dominant when I cannot even get you, who might otherwise agree with me, ALSO demand that we NOT look at someone's literal wealth as being what is unfair? I see both of you wrong. I am LESS welcome for me pointing this out where I have tried to on the left because the present dominating paradigm is to foster intentionally biased laws that discriminate against race (or sex) still by EXCLUSIONARY means and NOT to increase "social welfare" for the poor in general. That they DO favor a SUBSET of those in need where they have race/identity based quotas or incentives BIASES the race that most represents the opposing racial makeup on the Right. So White people who are poor suffer for the wealthy whites on the right intentionally scapegoated and certainly not voluntarily sacrificed on the part of being the goat.

In contrast, the poor whites will still have a better chance at work. However, the entry level employment jobs there where they exist represent mostly Right-wing based businesses like "McJobs" who prefer to exploit the desperation of the poor regardless and so represent the counter stupidity and discrimination BY the 'right' for systemically discriminating against the poor and for the nepotism in favoring one's own kind (race/sex) stereotypical of any culture that places 'family' first. Thus, the favoritism on the right DOES tend 'systemically' to favor the wealthy and more 'white' while the favoritism on the left 'systemically' favors anyone "non-white".

[I'll end this here given I meant for this to cover the topic. I preread the whole and so this should cover the rest too. If not, I'll adress them where needed later. ]
Post Reply