No one is claiming to educate them. That's been tried to death and the time has past.
We're actively fighting against the rise of right-wing extremism and normalisation of racism.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Does Social justice have an image problem?
- Thread starter PixelatedProphet
- Start date
No one is claiming to educate them. That's been tried to death and the time has past.
We're actively fighting against the rise of right-wing extremism and normalisation of racism.
Suppose social justice does have a perception problem......
The immediate follow-up question should be: Are the disgruntled persons a part of the opposition or the intended audience?
Because Itellyawhat, only one of those two groups hold the intention of being adversarial. Which means, they're never going to act in a way without being an impediment to progress.
Paying them any sort of heed is playing right into their game of subterfuge.
The immediate follow-up question should be: Are the disgruntled persons a part of the opposition or the intended audience?
Because Itellyawhat, only one of those two groups hold the intention of being adversarial. Which means, they're never going to act in a way without being an impediment to progress.
Paying them any sort of heed is playing right into their game of subterfuge.
The whole label of SJW's is absurd. There are some morons who fight for social justice in the sense they parrot what they hear or take offense and verbally beat someone up rather than discuss in dialog. But to be "Anti SJW" is to be anti social justice? It's basically slapping a label on yourself that you don't care about others. In which fuck fuck you if you are "anti justice".
If there's one thing I'd like to add to the conversation, it's ease of finding and understanding information. For anyone on the fence, technically; all the studies are out there for free on the Internet -- you can find whatever studies you like on climate change, gender identity, societal pressure, racism as a culture etc. But it's not exactly easy to sift through those studies to find what you need, and when you do; it's simply not easy to read.
This is where Alt-Righters and their ilk have a foothold. Their messages are very easy to get across and very easy to understand; catching a lot of people who don't know any better in a net. I'm not stating that scientific studies should themselves be easier to understand - that higher level of jargon and intellectual discourse exists for a reason; and without it we probably wouldn't have half those studies in the first place - but I think if we want to get anywhere we NEED public speakers that are able to communicate these ideas in a much easier to understand way. This is why I've been becoming a fan of certain youtubers like Innuendo Studios, Shaun and Three Arrows recently; they're very good at picking out the important, relevant information and relaying it to the viewer. I've actually seen people converted by the likes of these guys and I think it can only be in our best interests to push further for this sort of thing in our circles.
This is where Alt-Righters and their ilk have a foothold. Their messages are very easy to get across and very easy to understand; catching a lot of people who don't know any better in a net. I'm not stating that scientific studies should themselves be easier to understand - that higher level of jargon and intellectual discourse exists for a reason; and without it we probably wouldn't have half those studies in the first place - but I think if we want to get anywhere we NEED public speakers that are able to communicate these ideas in a much easier to understand way. This is why I've been becoming a fan of certain youtubers like Innuendo Studios, Shaun and Three Arrows recently; they're very good at picking out the important, relevant information and relaying it to the viewer. I've actually seen people converted by the likes of these guys and I think it can only be in our best interests to push further for this sort of thing in our circles.
The left can't police everyone on the left just like the right can't police their mass murdering terrorist that seem to pop up every couple of months. I don't know why the duty falls on the entire left to control the few who go overboard. It's just ridiculous expectations combined with unreasonable demands. It honestly as said many times in this thread just serves as a distraction so those who don't like "social justice" can continue to not care about it.
It's not the fault of social justice. It's the fault of people who don't really engage with arguments or data. See my thread "In Defense of Social Justice", which many posters who like to attack social justice seem to have ignored: https://www.resetera.com/threads/in-defense-of-social-justice-current-affairs.46487/
The only issue I have in social justice circles is all the noise within and around it. I feel like there's always some part of it or individuals within it that are coopting it, bastardizing the original intent of the move it, making it not as agreeable. I wish there was a more based sanity within it, and a line where that makes sense where everyone agrees, that's the path, and then what's the goal? And when you have characters around various movements that take things to extremes, diluting the original intent. Confusing the overall goal.
Also, I see a whole lot of bickering and anger within social justice circles like one movement competing with other movements over who's more oppressed and marginalized. You'd think everyone would be allies within the entire focus, and it's kindof embarrassing and off-putting.
I of course am your token privileged straight white dude who won't apolo for it, but will back social justice movements 100%. I just want to know what I'm backing, within reason, and not to be in some perpetual shit show where nobody gets along. Otherwise, I'll just mind my own damn business while y'all get it sorted.
Also, I see a whole lot of bickering and anger within social justice circles like one movement competing with other movements over who's more oppressed and marginalized. You'd think everyone would be allies within the entire focus, and it's kindof embarrassing and off-putting.
I of course am your token privileged straight white dude who won't apolo for it, but will back social justice movements 100%. I just want to know what I'm backing, within reason, and not to be in some perpetual shit show where nobody gets along. Otherwise, I'll just mind my own damn business while y'all get it sorted.
Precisely. Very well put.
Don't get me wrong, I do believe there are lines in the sand. There are times when dialogue is over and you need to say no more, but I can acknowledge extremism is everywhere.
But even if these people exist they are not in any way representative of the movement on the left. On the right they very much are.
It's such a cheap tactic, but it's wonderfully self affirming for some.
Last edited:
It's easier to make memes about over reactionary people, and not giving a fuck about anything is the "cool" thing to do. The alt-right is the new counter-culture and it's dragging way too many young people down the hole. Just in terms of image and youth mindshare, it seems like bizarro world compared to when I was growing up.
Fighting for social justice will always be an uphill climb against the inertia of the status quo.
Fighting for social justice will always be an uphill climb against the inertia of the status quo.
People look for excuses to justify being awful so they don't feel bad about themselves. Insofar that the social justice movement has a bad image, it's mostly a result of people being defensive in that way — telling themselves a story that makes what they're doing ok.
This is the second time this week I've seen this posted here, how bizarre.
Did we come from the same history? Which successful populist rebellions were predicated on "honey"? Which civil rights movements were based on "honey"? Which religions spread their dogma with "honey"? Why aren't boomer hippies ruling the world when they had "honey" in abundance?
You catch "flies" with fear and hatred and force of arms. Occasionally, strength of will and sacrifice.
Last edited:
I don't care about educating bigots. I call them out on their shit, changing is on them.
I think that caring about what other people think about your fight for your rights is unproductive at best, naive at worst.
Of course people who don't want to give you rights will find ways to criticize your tone, your actions, your thoughts, and your presentation of those thoughts. It's a great diversion from having to deal with the matter of your rights, and as a bonus, they can then frame the discussion as though you are the unreasonable one. People for social justice don't need to worry about its image. They only need to worry about getting results.
Of course people who don't want to give you rights will find ways to criticize your tone, your actions, your thoughts, and your presentation of those thoughts. It's a great diversion from having to deal with the matter of your rights, and as a bonus, they can then frame the discussion as though you are the unreasonable one. People for social justice don't need to worry about its image. They only need to worry about getting results.
This is actually exactly why we haven't seen more change. Civil rights happened through protests and violence and was quelled once the war on crime started to categorize social justice organizations as criminal enterprises. So then we had more quiet and peaceful forms of activism and look how far thats gotten us. Civil rights and basic liberties to minorities has historically always been a struggle and never one that came from just being nice and letting people hold diet racist views so as not to offend them.
Not one bit sir. If anything Trump and this administration have proven how relevant and important social activism is. If anyone is still pushing the narrative that we live in a post-racial, post "anything", era, they suddenly lose all credibility in my eyes.
I remember the first time a conservative friend of mine called me a SJW. He eventually retracted the comment in shame. But that moment has left an impression on me. Doing the right thing isn't even activism. SJW is just another buzzword by the right to delegitimize a group of people they disagree with in an attempt to stifle and muddy the water and the conversation. Instead of talking about the issues that require social activism in the first place, we have threads like this where we contemplate yet another of the right's talking points which they hold in bad faith.
I remember the first time a conservative friend of mine called me a SJW. He eventually retracted the comment in shame. But that moment has left an impression on me. Doing the right thing isn't even activism. SJW is just another buzzword by the right to delegitimize a group of people they disagree with in an attempt to stifle and muddy the water and the conversation. Instead of talking about the issues that require social activism in the first place, we have threads like this where we contemplate yet another of the right's talking points which they hold in bad faith.
Last edited:
Yes, it does have an image problem. But then, this is how it works.
The civil rights era had an image problem. Women want to vote? Image problem. And on and on and on.
See, the image problem is not their own doing, but from outside of it.
Take a standardized term like toxic masculinity. Now, we all know what toxic masculinity means, but other people might not.
So because they don't know what it means, they're open to people co-opting the message and substituting their own. So instead of "Toxic masculinity is the societal expectation that men act a certain way and any deviation from this is unmanly, so it's unhealthy for both society and men both," it becomes "Toxic masculinity is the generalization against all men that because they're men, they are toxic, so they need to be stamped out."
Where before, the onus would be on people to teach others what they're talking about, now it's on them to defend why their term seems so accusatory and 'anti-men.' The more resources you put into fighting that latter battle is the fewer resources you have to fight the former.
Or, to put it plain, in an ideal world, we shouldn't have to literally police our tone and explain in public what terms mean when we use them in any particular subject. But because people are fucking morons, and the ones that aren't fucking morons have vested interest in shutting you down, your image starts to suffer.
Put it plainer, we aren't in an ideal world and this change has to happen mostly uniformly or else it will be met with massive backlash and may never actually achieve anything.
So when you talk a bout toxic masculinity, assuage the fucking idiots. "Toxic masculinity, or the idea that if you're a man, you aren't allowed to cry ever" or "toxic masculinity, the idea that if you're a man you aren't as good at caring for your child as a woman" or "toxic masculinity, the idea that if you're a man, you're going to bust your ass working until you die because that's all you're good for," or what-have-you.
It has an image problem because people with vested interest in the status quo beat the average internet dweller to the messaging punch. Now we have to fight the falsities and still find time to offer alternatives.
My advice is that the image problem that suffragettes had didn't stop women from getting the right to vote...and let's be honest, here, but the anti-social justice crowd are basically just reusing the same bullshit propaganda from that time, anyway. Best not to worry about it so much.
The civil rights era had an image problem. Women want to vote? Image problem. And on and on and on.
See, the image problem is not their own doing, but from outside of it.
Take a standardized term like toxic masculinity. Now, we all know what toxic masculinity means, but other people might not.
So because they don't know what it means, they're open to people co-opting the message and substituting their own. So instead of "Toxic masculinity is the societal expectation that men act a certain way and any deviation from this is unmanly, so it's unhealthy for both society and men both," it becomes "Toxic masculinity is the generalization against all men that because they're men, they are toxic, so they need to be stamped out."
Where before, the onus would be on people to teach others what they're talking about, now it's on them to defend why their term seems so accusatory and 'anti-men.' The more resources you put into fighting that latter battle is the fewer resources you have to fight the former.
Or, to put it plain, in an ideal world, we shouldn't have to literally police our tone and explain in public what terms mean when we use them in any particular subject. But because people are fucking morons, and the ones that aren't fucking morons have vested interest in shutting you down, your image starts to suffer.
Put it plainer, we aren't in an ideal world and this change has to happen mostly uniformly or else it will be met with massive backlash and may never actually achieve anything.
So when you talk a bout toxic masculinity, assuage the fucking idiots. "Toxic masculinity, or the idea that if you're a man, you aren't allowed to cry ever" or "toxic masculinity, the idea that if you're a man you aren't as good at caring for your child as a woman" or "toxic masculinity, the idea that if you're a man, you're going to bust your ass working until you die because that's all you're good for," or what-have-you.
It has an image problem because people with vested interest in the status quo beat the average internet dweller to the messaging punch. Now we have to fight the falsities and still find time to offer alternatives.
My advice is that the image problem that suffragettes had didn't stop women from getting the right to vote...and let's be honest, here, but the anti-social justice crowd are basically just reusing the same bullshit propaganda from that time, anyway. Best not to worry about it so much.
Last edited:
I want to qualify my last post a little.
When I say extremism is everywhere, there is a STARK difference between extremism on.the left, of which any violence is directed at the hateful intolerant... and extremism on the right, which is violence directed at people who are different and have the gall to exist.
When I say extremism is everywhere, there is a STARK difference between extremism on.the left, of which any violence is directed at the hateful intolerant... and extremism on the right, which is violence directed at people who are different and have the gall to exist.
The only problem I have with it is results. Completely anecdotal, but I know so many people who post about social justice and equality on social media all day long, and they didn't vote in 2016 and I guarantee they won't this year or in 2020. Hell, I was one of them until 2016 (to be fair, this was only the second election I was eligible to vote in.)
I'm hoping the last two years have lit a fire under people and it'll change this go-around, but I don't expect it.
I'm hoping the last two years have lit a fire under people and it'll change this go-around, but I don't expect it.
Civil Rights movements historically have "image problems". The majority really fucking hates it when those they consider below them start demanding a seat at the table.
I just think we underestimated who right wing the world really is...
Also there's a lot of things that were done politically in the past decade or so (campaigns of misinformation by Fox News et al like Rupert Murdoch throughout the first world, and recently the russians spreading propaganda by manipulating facebook, reddit, twitter, etc)
Yes this is a problem, but I would also like to point out one more category that might be miscategorized as trolls. Just well meaning people who aren't good at convincing people or emotionally stable enough to confront the kind of bullshit being spewn out and they unfortunately overreact. Not saying that this doesn't happen to the best of us sometimes, but some people simply go over the top.
You have to understand, that the opposition is financed by many rich people who have been in power for decades and decades and know how to play the manipulation game. Which is why a lot of people get frustrated by politics or just give in to the dark side.
Also there's a lot of things that were done politically in the past decade or so (campaigns of misinformation by Fox News et al like Rupert Murdoch throughout the first world, and recently the russians spreading propaganda by manipulating facebook, reddit, twitter, etc)
Yes this is a problem, but I would also like to point out one more category that might be miscategorized as trolls. Just well meaning people who aren't good at convincing people or emotionally stable enough to confront the kind of bullshit being spewn out and they unfortunately overreact. Not saying that this doesn't happen to the best of us sometimes, but some people simply go over the top.
You have to understand, that the opposition is financed by many rich people who have been in power for decades and decades and know how to play the manipulation game. Which is why a lot of people get frustrated by politics or just give in to the dark side.
ding ding ding.
it's a bad faith argument, and it works like a charm. they know exactly what they're doing. fascists live and breathe on bad faith tactics like this. now the well is poisoned, and even 'liberal' 'moderates' really believe that the kid on tumblr demanding to be recognized as a unicorn speaks for movements like blm.
feel bad for those kids, tbh. they got passion, which is hard to come by these days, and we all say stupid things when we're 13. now they're reviled as the disease killing america.
the worst, though, is when one quotemines, in a middle of an argument, to make you look like an unreasonable lunatic — and it works. why i avoid social media like the plague these days.
so technically, yes, the left has an image problem... because we're too passive in letting fascists spin the narrative however they please.
Treating human beings with equity and decency has always had an "image problem"
If you watch Eyes on the Prize or check out some Little Rock Nine footage, you'll see that there is nothing new going on. The hate is old, the shitty rhetorical fallacies appealing to emotion are old. Today's memes are as old as their old propaganda posters. These folks aren't thoughtfully engaging the issues. Never have been.
Cherry-picking some crazy example from the fringe to represent an entire movement is a Confederate propaganda tactic. It's a Nazi tactic, a Mussolini tactic, it's a Jim Crow tactic. Responding by running around saying "not all liberals" is a waste of time--the people who throw that shit together already know. They know what they're doing.
If you watch Eyes on the Prize or check out some Little Rock Nine footage, you'll see that there is nothing new going on. The hate is old, the shitty rhetorical fallacies appealing to emotion are old. Today's memes are as old as their old propaganda posters. These folks aren't thoughtfully engaging the issues. Never have been.
Cherry-picking some crazy example from the fringe to represent an entire movement is a Confederate propaganda tactic. It's a Nazi tactic, a Mussolini tactic, it's a Jim Crow tactic. Responding by running around saying "not all liberals" is a waste of time--the people who throw that shit together already know. They know what they're doing.
As someone who is progressive, I agree that some time people push too hard in situations where people may make an honest mistake. I sometimes wonder the reason some people double down on their mistake as "not being a big deal" is because they're not given a fair chance to simply be explained to why the thing they did was wrong and be given the opportunity apologize for it, learn from it, and move on from it without constantly being red lettered for life.
Sadly this issue is aggrivated by actual racists, especially smart racists who know how to alert others with their dog whistle comments while having plausbile deniability. You also have the ian miles cheong and boogie's of the world who try and spin any kind of negative, racist/sexist comments as a "mistake obviously not really racist/sexist/heated gaming moment" while unironically blasting "sjw's" who criticize them.
I do agree with the general concensus that 75% of the time you hear someone call someone else an SJW that you'll find their racist/homophobic/sexist opinions buried deep under the cover. I think in the end it's important to be able to identify the honest mistakes or deep ingrained ideas that people may not even realize are hurtful, and help to correct those issues, as opposed to dunking on everyone like they're ian or boogie who deserve the dunking for their history of behaviour.
Sadly this issue is aggrivated by actual racists, especially smart racists who know how to alert others with their dog whistle comments while having plausbile deniability. You also have the ian miles cheong and boogie's of the world who try and spin any kind of negative, racist/sexist comments as a "mistake obviously not really racist/sexist/heated gaming moment" while unironically blasting "sjw's" who criticize them.
I do agree with the general concensus that 75% of the time you hear someone call someone else an SJW that you'll find their racist/homophobic/sexist opinions buried deep under the cover. I think in the end it's important to be able to identify the honest mistakes or deep ingrained ideas that people may not even realize are hurtful, and help to correct those issues, as opposed to dunking on everyone like they're ian or boogie who deserve the dunking for their history of behaviour.
The thing is that the whole "be nice to convince people" thing doesnt work as well as people want to think it does. Empowering victims of oppression is incredibly important, and seeing people fight tooth and nail for the rights of other people does that.
Yeah, I'd say so. I have a friend who lives and breathes this stuff and means all the best in the world, but you could pay me and I would do better job of doing what she wants to do. Presentation matters. I know it sucks that it does, that people don't just do the right thing when someone tells them what exactly is the right thing. All the charismatic monsters who get loads of people on their side teaches us that presentation matters A LOT on these matters.
Probably. I also don't think you should be an activist in any capacity if you're doing it to be liked or admired.
Anything demonized long enough develops image problems. Republicans have a more favorable view of Kim Jung Un and North Korea than they do most Democrats. Yet at the end of the day those Democrats are more often than not proposing solutions to problems that even the Republican haters would benefit from yet the republicans still view them as worse than the devil.
Its the Same way with People pushing for Social Justice. It upsets certain elements and those elements will work til the day they die to make Social Justice seem like an evil thing. Sure there can be obnoxious Social Justice people just like there can be obnoxious people in any movement. That does not suddenly make the movement bad yet people along partisan lines allows such mentality to take hold.
Its the Same way with People pushing for Social Justice. It upsets certain elements and those elements will work til the day they die to make Social Justice seem like an evil thing. Sure there can be obnoxious Social Justice people just like there can be obnoxious people in any movement. That does not suddenly make the movement bad yet people along partisan lines allows such mentality to take hold.
Another well articulated post.
This is what the right claim the left are when they use it.
Sorry, I already got what I wanted out of this exchange. Which was to have a few folks come out of the woodwork to admit that yes, they do actually celebrate the death of people who disagree with them politically. The first person to reply to me said that nobody really condones that point of view, but it was really easy to find a few folks who think that way, and no one has rushed to condemn them or anything.
In the interest of making common ground, I noticed in one of the other threads that you're arguing against the use of the term "bitch" and other gendered insults when applied to women who you and I jointly dislike. I agree with you on that, and I argued along those lines in a thread about Samantha Bee and Ivanka Trump. You and I probably have quite different worldviews, but there are some areas of agreement here.
It doesn't work anywhere near significantly enough for it to even be considered.
And yes.
There's something substantially different about the current anti-SJW movement compared to the movement from years ago. There was always an anti-SJW movement, but back in like say, the 90s or most of the 2000s, you basically saw this type of shit on Fox News and the opinion pages of some fuddy duddy on the NYT or Wapo or whatever. Basically, the people that complained about college kids and the like, were always older, uptight Republicans and centrists. What's different now, is that the movement, through shit like Gamergate, has managed to tap into the young crowd as well. So now you don't have senior citizens bitching about college kids, but rather, college kids (or at least, college age kids) bitching about other college kids. I think this will end up being one of the right-wing's greatest success in decades, as they'll be cultivating kids who will grow up to be conservatives for the rest of their lives.
Being nice doesn't convince vile people of anything. So yeah. In fact, that's even part of how the alt right messages, the "libs" are toothless and they aren't. It might be one of their most truthful arguments. Too many centrists masquerading as actual progressives afraid of hurting "feelings." It's pretty prevalent on era even.
My post was about the negative image associated with "social justice warriors." It is not a call to just play nice and hope everything works out. However, I don't think limiting yourself to an echo chamber of people that already agree with you solves shit either.
It's very easy for people to dismiss each other when they can see nothing but a name and profile picture. We start throwing people in groups rather than focusing on the individual. Conservatives don't suddenly accept gay marriage because it's law now. They start to accept it because friends and family come out to them. And all of a sudden, gay people are people too. Of course I'm painting with a broad brush but that fits within the context of this thread too, right? If the goal is to outshout the alt-right we shouldn't be surprised if they come with a magnifying glass and bullhorn everytime a video of a shitty person on the left pops up.
We can always use more charismatic leaders who speak for us.
And yes, I've been the overreactive type before who criticizes improper uses.
The gaters and alt-righters took advantage of the more vocal amateur advocates to paint everyone as that.
Even still, the Alt Right is far, far worse than us in both ideals and actions. SJWs at worst are just annoying.
And yes, I've been the overreactive type before who criticizes improper uses.
The gaters and alt-righters took advantage of the more vocal amateur advocates to paint everyone as that.
Even still, the Alt Right is far, far worse than us in both ideals and actions. SJWs at worst are just annoying.
Thank you for responding. I don't know that our worldviews are all that dissimilar because I don't know you, I'm sure we have plenty of common ground besides just that.
What I was getting at though and remains unanswered, I understand not wanting to celebrate death, on its face I don't think that is at all unreasonable. However, with someone who has made racism worse and fueled it like CK did, would you say the same thing to a black individual who is celebrating his death? If you had to bear the awfulness this guy helped perpetuate, and knowing upon his death he's lost his platform, would you tell a black person they are wrong to celebrate or be happy about the man's death and by extension the revocation of his platform?
People have to let go of this dumb shit idea that people become/stay bigots because someone on "the left" wasn't nice enough
Bigotry comes from apathy/antipathy that's taken advantage of by people who stand to benefit financially
Fuck bigots and fuck those who cape for them
Bigotry comes from apathy/antipathy that's taken advantage of by people who stand to benefit financially
Fuck bigots and fuck those who cape for them
