Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

>That some (on the left) have picked up on academic usage of some words or models is perhaps more accurate, and the misuse of words and terms.

That is absolutely true. And there has even been some pushback from the academics who coined these terms. But, in the end, words are tools, and tools meet a need, and there was apparently a great need for a new narrative that explained personal feelings of failure and self loathing. So it was inevitable that these terms would be used in this way. These words, as tools, are also potent for those who desire power, and look for any means to win, including invocation of race and gender stereotypes. It is galling for anyone who values liberty to see this, when the goal has always been to deprecate the prejudice function, and not merely to call the same function with different arguments.

It is fascinating, though, how the desire to improve, to be more virtuous than before, can turn out so badly! It's a real slippery slope situation - we made progress, civil rights, women's rights, interracial marriage, gay marriage, sexual identities, gender identities acknowledging the momentum of racist policies in our demographics...but then it turns into: gender is purely a construct, lets modify children's bodies if they think they're trans, lets force people to use certain pronouns, lets have teachers share their sex lives with kindergarteners, lets give women and students of color the power of professional life and death over white teachers, lets teach reverse CBT. And if you try to make this point, you're called a racist and a bigot! Social justice warriors push an insidious form of injustice that harms everyone. Because, as the GGP put it, it's anti-human.



I recently discovered Sam Harris, and started going down a bit of a rabbit hole that is his body of work. He has his critics, and I haven't spent enough time in his materials to have a fully formed opinion of my own, but I found that following his work unearths some interesting insights about these culture wars.

His arguments about religion and society's collective unwillingness to have an honest conversation about it are compelling. But what's fascinating to me is that he manages to piss off both the religious right and the SJW left, and I think he's onto something important.

The reason he pisses them off is that his fundamental position boils down to: dogmatism is the problem. And no one wants to admit they are dogmatic.

The same instinct in a right-wing pro-life person to shut down any consideration whatsoever that their position is suspect is the same instinct in the SJW who can only see the world as an unjust manifestation of the patriarchy, or systemic racism, etc. This is not to say that those things don't exist or have no impact, but it seems those things have been used to harness the same base behavior we're all capable of, to effectively form what resembles an entirely new religious dogma.

This dogmatism shuts down substantive dialog, and perpetuates the same kinds of problems one finds with folks who insist Jesus is coming back to earth in the next 50 years.

A mindset that removes willingness to engage in conversation - even if the person holding the mindset happens to be right (or at least closer to right than some others) - is a mindset every bit as dangerous and problematic as the mindset held by right-wing extremists.

I'm not trying to just parrot Sam's message here, but he's saying things that I've long believed, and didn't know how to articulate, and the basic takeaway is this: dialogue is the only thing that can change the collective consciousness.

The current trends around identity politics, cancelling people for the things they say, creating taboos so strong that people don't feel comfortable even touching on some topics is the antithesis of liberalism, and I'll repeat what you and GGP said - anti-human. If dialogue is the only path forward, and our current path involves the complete demonization of certain dialogue to the point that you are no longer allowed to participate in the conversation, we are at what can only be called an impasse as a culture.

We should properly put bad ideas to bed, absolutely. We should address systemic issues where they exist, absolutely. We should learn from our major mistakes, absolutely.

But the current climate is somewhat terrifying. One need only try to make the argument I just made on Twitter, Facebook or Reddit to see what I'm talking about. You'll quickly be branded a right-wing or alt-right sympathizer (despite the fact that in terms of policy, I'm about as liberal as they come, identity politics notwithstanding). People will manufacture a version of you that they believe to be true, and then abuse you for it, while feeling righteous and justified in the process.

It's a sad state of affairs.


"Above all, no zealotry." --Talleyrand


You state more eloquently what I wanted to respond as a comment. I am not interested in left/right, I am interested in outcomes that make people feel more valued, more part of a community, more prosperous. If there is one thing I know for sure is that entrenching yourself in your insert favourite beliefs here and shutting others out is not helping or helpful.

Certain outcomes seem to be more favorable using typical left wing policies and others using what’s thought of as right wing. Finding out which is which is far more interesting.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: