My name's Jamie. Here's a quote that I like: "Don't you think dreams and the Internet are similar? They are both areas where the repressed conscious mind vents." -Paprika
I believe the fact that being closed-minded is bad is something we can all agree upon, as it breeds ignorance and prevents one from learning. However, there is a problem, namely that “ignorance” has become such a fearsome buzzword among the oh-so-open-minded hyper-liberals that they would do anything to avoid even the mere suspicion of it. And in doing so, they fall to the other extreme, which is just as bad: being so open-minded that literally any idea can take hold in their minds, to the point of refusing to use critical thinking, as that would force them to resolve the contradictions and *gasp!* reject an idea!
As with most things, there is a healthy balance to this, something I’d call being critical-minded. An overly closed-minded individual rejects any concept that doesn’t fit the ones they already hold without considering it at all. An overly open-minded one will accept any idea, no matter how absurd and illogical, only rejecting those that they think may cast doubt upon their own open-mindedness, which they appear to idolize. But a critical-minded person will seek a balance; they will initially let any concept in their minds, but only to contemplate it and decide whether or not it makes sense, which decides whether it’s integrated or rejected.
I don’t think it takes any further explanation to see why the contemporary Social Justice movement is just as bad as any congregation of old-fashioned bigots. They are the opposite extreme, but they are equally dangerous and harmful. Simply put, SJ is a cult of excessive open-mindedness.
This video is always relevant.
First of all, let me address everyone and state that I don’t believe in any One True Way when it comes to ideologies. I have a worldview that I find correct, you have a worldview that you find correct, they may be completely different, and that doesn’t make either more valid than the other; should the conflict be impossible to resolve, which will triumph depends solely on which of us can spread their worldview more effectively, turning it into a dominant, “default” worldview. Think of it like sport; there are two (or in this case, maybe more) opposing teams, and you may be part of one or cheering for them, but in the end, neither team is evil or wrong. They both fight for their own goal. Although considering the hostilities that can arise between followers of opposing ideologies, it may be more accurate to compare them to armies. Either way… let me get straight to the point.
If you’re still reading this, I’ll assume you share at least one part of my views, namely that the Social Justice movement is truly toxic and a hindrance to society itself, as I have outlined it in an older post of mine (many thanks to everyone who added on to it with their own points). Now, as you may realize, to fight effectively, you must know your enemy. So here are a couple guidelines.
Assuming you aren’t just watching from the sidelines, but actually (attempted to) debate with some SJA-s before, you are probably already aware of this, but I’ll point it out nonetheless: you are never in fact debating with ONE of them. They usually form tight-knit cliques that will be quick to swarm in on any target, not unlike a swarm of hungry piranhas. Their argumentative styles naturally vary, so anytime you oppose one, you’ll find yourself the target of several different strategies.
Perhaps the most typical strategy is attempting to pressure or shame you into shutting up and/or changing your views. After all, sudden and furious opposition from several, often many people at once can easily make it seem like you’re “plain wrong”, and they will capitalize on that impression. Often, you will be offered no counterargument, as they expect you to simply succumb to the pressure of being yelled “but you’re wrong!!!” at.
A related, but somewhat different strategy is claiming moral authority and condemning you from an apparent moral high ground. This is easily rendered pointless via the concept of moral relativism, as I outlined in the very first paragraph. They will likely label you any number of undesirable things, ranging from simple insults to being called racist, sexist, etc. for things that are in fact none of those. Expect to be called racist for defending yourself against a racist claim coming from a person of color, for example. That is, expect it, but pay it no heed. They may try to make you “play by their rules”, but said rules are rather obviously skewed in their favor by redefining many things such as racism as well as inventing arbitrary -isms to attack you for, such as ableism, ageism and even ones as outlandish as “speciesism”. Disregard it all.
Should you try to engage them in rational debate, they may resort to a number of evasive tactics. Keep in mind that debating is a spectator sport; more often than not, you can achieve more by proving the validity of your views to observers than trying to convert the one you’re arguing with. As such, to avoid the possibility of any of their followers beginning to doubt them due to the flaws in their arguments that you exposed, they may resort to tactics such as replying in a(n often passive-aggressive) separate post so you aren’t notified of their reply or removing your reply from their reblogs. I don’t think there are any viable countermeasures to these particular tactics, but nonetheless, it’s worth being aware of.
Finally, should you succeed in engaging them in any even remotely meaningful debate, expect a sickeningly patronizing attitude, as their blind conviction leads the more compassionate ones to think of their opponents - you - as misguided, foolish children in need of being “educated” (read: indoctrinated) by them, a mentor who knows the One Shining Truth and as such, shall teach you.
Please note that while rare, there ARE ones who are completely reasonable, relying on none of the above tactics. Should you be as passionate about debating as I am and lucky enough to encounter one of them, you can without doubt expect a fascinating and intellectually stimulating debate. Those few are the only ones truly worth listening to and perhaps learning from.
As always, should you wish to expand this briefing with your own points you feel I may have missed, you are welcome to do so.
And you, dear enraged SJA-s who no doubt took some kind of morbid pleasure in reading this and getting awfully offended by me - bring it the fuck on. I am your enemy, and you are mine.
No reliable, unbiased source in the history of humankind (via somedeadguy)
Dear Feminists and SJers,
I know we’re not exactly the best of friends right now, but I’m going to try to be nice. So here’s the thing:
Absolutely none of us anti-you people disapprove of the idea of equality; every single last one of us is all for it. But the problem is that you don’t see it that way: you perceive it to be that, because we disagree with you, we must disagree with everything you stand for, but that’s just faulty reasoning — something I like to call the “disassociated fallacy”, because you reason that two opinions cannot share any properties if they are at least slightly opposed. Just because you go by the title of an SJer doesn’t mean we disagree with social justice.
Like I said, we completely agree with you that social equality is a good and righteous thing to pursue, but we find ourselves incapable of siding with you because of one thing: your methodology. This can be for many reasons:
- We believe that, by focusing on fringe groups and social minorities, you are missing the bigger picture: that we are all being oppressed, in one way or another, and that the answer isn’t to level the playing field so that all are equally oppressed, but to remove that oppression. Rather than squabble amongst our multicoloured, many-gendered selves, we must unite against the common enemy.
- That by concentrating on race and gender discrimination, you are failing to see that these are actually just forms of classism.
- By appealing to the mercy of your government to legislate all of your inequality woes, you are simply submitting to oppression. You fail to realise that all forms of oppression benefit the ruling class, and that making enough noise that they appease your petty squabbles will simply result in more uniform oppression.
- You blame society (your “kyriarchy”), not the ruling class, for the inequalities you observe, but fail to see that all forms of oppression are forced upon society by the governing class, not by society itself.
So in short, we see your efforts as futile because you’re entirely missing the bigger, grander picture and failing to see, therefore, the glaringly obvious answer:
- That in order to produce social justice, we must remove class oppression.
But we’re not the united front that you seem to think us to be. We antifeminists and anti-SJers hold a vast array of beliefs as to what the answer to social injustice might be; the only thing that united us is our insistence that you see the bigger picture. You could also probably say, but don’t hold me to it, that we’re all also anti-democratic. What I can say for certain is that we’re all anti this government, but our views vary. Here are but a few examples:
- Socialists believe that what we need is a new, fairer government whose goal is to uphold social equality, maintain the economy and dissolve corporate power.
- Libertarians believe that the government has no business at all in economics, but libertarian views vary so widely that they would be insulted by any summary that I can give.
- Anarchists believe that we’d all be happier if we just scrapped the government to see what happens.
I’d not like to call myself a socialist because my views predate socialism (don’t ask how that’s possible), but it’s the closest you’ll find out of those three. But anyway, SJers and feminists, I hope that has helped you to understand why we hate you so much.
Yours with love,
Your friendly neighbourhood Captain Jack.