You ever notice that Social Justice as an ideology possesses basic logical incongruities? Why Hollywood needs more Indians but Bollywood doesn't need Chinese people? Stuff like that?
All philosophopies have some logical incongruities, but social justice lacks even the basics of any sort of consistency.
If the people that really believed in it followed its logic, they would be acting a whole lot differently and promoting different things. Like they say they value black people until a black person disagrees and they are just unpersoned as a black person at all?
Thats because its all just cover for the generally more insidous philosophy of critical theory. Its TLDR is:
All of life and history is a horror show. It couldn't have come about as part of just the human condition, or even the nature of the universe. It must have been engineered by the evil people in charge. The system is so intrinsictly corrupt that every aspect of life has been engineered to serve this corrupt version of reality. To participate in any part of the system is to further it.
So destroy the system and everybody that benefits from it until all of reality is perfect.
Its the rapture for staunch materialists effectively.
So whenever a goal of Social Justice doesn't seem to make sense in the persuit of diversity & representation or even somesort of justice, you can generally find a logic to it within the persuit of the destruction of the corrupt ruling society. The reason it rarely creates, mostly destroys, and doesn't see as needing to make any solutions is because it follows a hegalian model that believes that reality is fair and logical at the core. They don't see it as necacary to create a replacement system as they see the natural order (as they imagine it) of things as perfect. So all of perfection will reasert itself once the corruption is gotten rid of.
There is an underlying dislike (or even hatred) of the western world in modern social justice. It often goes together with an overly rosy view of other cultures.
I often like to put up all sorts of nonsensical jokes on Facebook. I have noticed that my Facebook SJW friends and family will put a "laugh" as response if I write a post making fun of America or Britain, but not India, Mexico, or China. Also related to this, the "noble savage" runs very deep on the far left. "Tribal" societies are just the bees knees😀. Even worse; the worst SJW I know tends to go all starry eyed whenever someone's skin color is non-white. Seriously, she keeps talking about my wife and her friends' "wonderful ethnicity". But you can tell she knows nothing about them except what they look like. I guess they just look "ethnic" enough to her. Post a picture of some African woman with a child wrapped colorful cloth and she'll immediately start raining praise on you. In many cases it really is that brain dead.
Greetings!
More fake racism--perpetrated by a black woman. Gee, there have been so many incidents of phony Goddamned racism and "Hate Crimes"--all perpetrated by liberal, cock-sucking Marxists.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
https://www.foxnews.com/us/black-woman-charged-posing-white-ku-klux-klan-member-terroristic-threats
Quote from: SHARK on October 03, 2021, 07:38:33 PM
Greetings!
While a neat story, I would like more discussion about the actual subject. I feel so much debate around SJWs kinda orbits this instead of addressing its core.
Quote from: SHARK on October 03, 2021, 07:38:33 PM
Greetings!
More fake racism--perpetrated by a black woman. Gee, there have been so many incidents of phony Goddamned racism and "Hate Crimes"--all perpetrated by liberal, cock-sucking Marxists.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
https://www.foxnews.com/us/black-woman-charged-posing-white-ku-klux-klan-member-terroristic-threats
And don't forget the right-wing asshole that fired off his AK while shouting it was for Floyd to point blame at BLM. But I'm sure he was really false-flagging the false flag, right?
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 03, 2021, 07:40:48 PM
Quote from: SHARK on October 03, 2021, 07:38:33 PM
Greetings!
While a neat story, I would like more discussion about the actual subject. I feel so much debate around SJWs kinda orbits this instead of addressing its core.
Greetings!
My apologies, my friend. I just saw some connections between the peddling of "Critical Race Theory" being supported by so many *false episodes* of supposed current-day racism and "Hate Speech".
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
A point id like to discuss is when did critical theory really take off? My estimate is post WWI when that event caused a crisis of faith within the western world about itself.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 04, 2021, 12:39:57 AM
A point id like to discuss is when did critical theory really take off? My estimate is post WWI when that event caused a crisis of faith within the western world about itself.
Critical theory is derived from both the Frankfort school and postmodernism, which can be traced in turn to Marxism and earlier philosophers like Hegel. That isn't particularly clustered around the 1920s, and it's modern incarnation appeared very specifically in the 1970s and 1980s, at Harvard.
I don't think the spread and influence of critical theory we see is at all coincidental, but rather is intentionally pushed along by elites who seeded it as a convenient justification for diverting attention from their own ambitious (and evil) goals.
Word-usage analysis in propaganda media (NYT, WaPo, Time, etc) shows the Woke language trend in media occurred pretty suddenly during the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis (& 2011's OWS movement). Someone activated key agents to begin disseminating propaganda.
Quote from: Zelen on October 04, 2021, 03:34:22 AM
I don't think the spread and influence of critical theory we see is at all coincidental, but rather is intentionally pushed along by elites who seeded it as a convenient justification for diverting attention from their own ambitious (and evil) goals.
I don't think so. While some people think they can use it, too many up-toppers have been shot by the force once it gains control.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 04, 2021, 01:56:45 PM
Quote from: Zelen on October 04, 2021, 03:34:22 AM
I don't think the spread and influence of critical theory we see is at all coincidental, but rather is intentionally pushed along by elites who seeded it as a convenient justification for diverting attention from their own ambitious (and evil) goals.
I don't think so. While some people think they can use it, too many up-toppers have been shot by the force once it gains control.
Sounds like the French Revolution writ small. And those who would, would make it large.
How to put it: I think so far its largely being kept alive by non-true believers that want to use it for clout/distraction. But once it grows big enough their behinds will be some of the first lined up at the wall.
Quote from: Zelen on October 04, 2021, 03:34:22 AM
I don't think the spread and influence of critical theory we see is at all coincidental, but rather is intentionally pushed along by elites who seeded it as a convenient justification for diverting attention from their own ambitious (and evil) goals.
Word-usage analysis in propaganda media (NYT, WaPo, Time, etc) shows the Woke language trend in media occurred pretty suddenly during the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis (& 2011's OWS movement). Someone activated key agents to begin disseminating propaganda.
Zelen, how many actual "agents" do you think there are? i.e. people who know they are agents, rather than people who genuinely believe in the material they are publishing?
I am open to believing in a conspiracy among a handful of people. I know that in past decades agencies have planted provocateurs to engage in false flag or such action. I am sure that they continue to do so. But if there are more than a dozen people involved, then I don't believe that the secret will keep. There will be a Panama Papers or Snowden or similar revealing it.
Something like "Woke" language is far too broad a popular trend to attribute solely to a handful of planted agents, in my opinion.
Quote from: jhkim on October 04, 2021, 04:50:59 PM
Quote from: Zelen on October 04, 2021, 03:34:22 AM
I don't think the spread and influence of critical theory we see is at all coincidental, but rather is intentionally pushed along by elites who seeded it as a convenient justification for diverting attention from their own ambitious (and evil) goals.
Word-usage analysis in propaganda media (NYT, WaPo, Time, etc) shows the Woke language trend in media occurred pretty suddenly during the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis (& 2011's OWS movement). Someone activated key agents to begin disseminating propaganda.
Zelen, how many actual "agents" do you think there are? i.e. people who know they are agents, rather than people who genuinely believe in the material they are publishing?
I am open to believing in a conspiracy among a handful of people. I know that in past decades agencies have planted provocateurs to engage in false flag or such action. I am sure that they continue to do so. But if there are more than a dozen people involved, then I don't believe that the secret will keep. There will be a Panama Papers or Snowden or similar revealing it.
Something like "Woke" language is far too broad a popular trend to attribute solely to a handful of planted agents, in my opinion.
That time also coincides with the rise of social media and tumblr. I think the real answer is that poorly designed algorithms promoted extremist material that warped the Overton window. Along with plenty of other chaotic effects as a result of the internet suddenly surging in usage and mobile phones making it easier to access than ever before. Along with human civilizations being wildly unequal. It's the perfect storm for a positive feedback loop of crazy on all sides of the political spectrum across the planet.
People, generally speaking, are judgmental and like to feel important and superior to others. Social justice warrioring is a perfect outlet for those tendencies. When combined with social media, pocket computers, and freedom, you get a perfect storm of self-important judgmental behavior without consequences. There may be Critical Theory zealots who try to shape the noise, but it could just be opportunism.
I believe that certain states, such as China and Russia, are more capable of reaping a benefit from the chaos. Who is better positioned to socially destabilize Western democracies than authoritarian regimes that tightly control their own people? They have means and opportunity. Do they have motive? Perhaps it's the modern version of that time when Germany sent Lenin to Russia to stir some shit up.
Quote from: rytrasmi on October 04, 2021, 05:58:50 PM
People, generally speaking, are judgmental and like to feel important and superior to others. Social justice warrioring is a perfect outlet for those tendencies.
I believe this is also example of this in action. Before you could be a colonialist or a eugenicist. Now that those theories are unpopular, you need a way to hate large groups of people while at the same time being not-racist. CT scratches that itch.
Quote from: jhkim on October 04, 2021, 04:50:59 PM
Zelen, how many actual "agents" do you think there are? i.e. people who know they are agents, rather than people who genuinely believe in the material they are publishing?
This is a false distinction, because the people who are agents (of their employers, who are agents of their employers, etc) certainly believe in the causes they engage in, to the extent that those causes benefit them (economically, socially, sexually, etc). They exist within a hierarchy and the expression of certain beliefs and behaviors is essential to proceeding through that hierarchy.
Nobody needs explicit orders to know that when the King tells a joke, you laugh. If a joke gets told at the King's expense, you don't laugh. High-functioning, high-IQ people like you will find in professional positions take this much further. For example, I doubt that the AP stylebook editors needed anyone to tell them that "birthing person" needed to replace "mother." Yet if they stepped out of line by doing something outrageous like quoting actual scientific papers on Male/Female sex differences they'd get disciplined all the same. Moreover, they know what will get them disciplined, so they don't do it. Meanwhile,
explicit rules do pass down from these organs through to lower levels of bureaucracy & corpos.
None of this is new, this is how basically all human structures have always worked, only now it's possible to exert far more influence further and more pervasively, yet with more precision, due to various technological and scientific advancements.
Quote from: Zelen on October 04, 2021, 07:32:38 PM
Quote from: jhkim on October 04, 2021, 04:50:59 PM
Zelen, how many actual "agents" do you think there are? i.e. people who know they are agents, rather than people who genuinely believe in the material they are publishing?
This is a false distinction, because the people who are agents (of their employers, who are agents of their employers, etc) certainly believe in the causes they engage in, to the extent that those causes benefit them (economically, socially, sexually, etc). They exist within a hierarchy and the expression of certain beliefs and behaviors is essential to proceeding through that hierarchy.
Nobody needs explicit orders to know that when the King tells a joke, you laugh. If a joke gets told at the King's expense, you don't laugh. High-functioning, high-IQ people like you will find in professional positions take this much further. For example, I doubt that the AP stylebook editors needed anyone to tell them that "birthing person" needed to replace "mother." Yet if they stepped out of line by doing something outrageous like quoting actual scientific papers on Male/Female sex differences they'd get disciplined all the same. Moreover, they know what will get them disciplined, so they don't do it. Meanwhile, explicit rules do pass down from these organs through to lower levels of bureaucracy & corpos.
None of this is new, this is how basically all human structures have always worked, only now it's possible to exert far more influence further and more pervasively, yet with more precision, due to various technological and scientific advancements.
I think this is a very important point. Unspoken etiquete and understandings. Seeing social justice activism as a conspiracy with a few masterminds is not a good way to percieve it. It's more like individuals come up with 'social justice-y' ideas and then those ideas disseminate through the communities. Individuals use those social justice-y ideas to apply social pressure on others.
This whole mess is actually the antics of an elite that hates white western society. There, somebody had to say it.
Does anyone really believe Black Lives Matter, LBTG, white SJWs, etc. can possibly coexist? No. Too many groups with conflicting grievances. The fighting between TERFs and "transsexuals" is just one part of that.
Years ago, when this had not reached critical mass, none of this was a problem. But now that things are reaching a later stage, infighting must result. White women given jobs in the upper ranks of corporations will NOT like the idea of transsexuals, black women, etc. moving in on their cushy positions.
Leftists failed to take into account that things are a hierarchy, not an equalist utopia. There is less and less room as one moves up through the ranks, so suddenly the "unity" breaks down. For every woman who reaches a higher position, there will be many below her who will be envious and resentful.
So far that elite has been successful in keeping this under control, but doing so requires increasingly drastic and crazy measures.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 04, 2021, 06:27:40 PM
Quote from: rytrasmi on October 04, 2021, 05:58:50 PM
People, generally speaking, are judgmental and like to feel important and superior to others. Social justice warrioring is a perfect outlet for those tendencies.
I believe this is also example of this in action. Before you could be a colonialist or a eugenicist. Now that those theories are unpopular, you need a way to hate large groups of people while at the same time being not-racist. CT scratches that itch.
Bingo. The hate isn't a bug, it's a feature. In fact, it's the point.
I seriously would like to do this experiment; to first put up a Facebook post with this wonderful picture of some Sebei women. My SJW friends love this sort of stuff (context really doesn't matter). I could write up some gushing platitudes and let the warm fuzziness simmer for a few hours....
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.GJInC01LBTFwF2yaTV2kDAAAAA%26pid%3DApi&f=1)
.....only to put up this next photo of their "traditional surgeon woman" who performs female genital mutilation, considered an essential part of their culture. I would love to see the heads exploding.
(https://images.medicaldaily.com/sites/medicaldaily.com/files/styles/full_breakpoints_theme_medicaldaily_mobile_1x/public/2013/08/04/0/54/5481.jpg)
Only problem would be that people who know me would suspect that something was a bit off about that first post 😄
Quote from: Zelen on October 04, 2021, 03:34:22 AM
I don't think the spread and influence of critical theory we see is at all coincidental, but rather is intentionally pushed along by elites who seeded it as a convenient justification for diverting attention from their own ambitious (and evil) goals.
Word-usage analysis in propaganda media (NYT, WaPo, Time, etc) shows the Woke language trend in media occurred pretty suddenly during the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis (& 2011's OWS movement). Someone activated key agents to begin disseminating propaganda.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 04, 2021, 08:13:13 PM
I think this is a very important point. Unspoken etiquete and understandings. Seeing social justice activism as a conspiracy with a few masterminds is not a good way to percieve it. It's more like individuals come up with 'social justice-y' ideas and then those ideas disseminate through the communities. Individuals use those social justice-y ideas to apply social pressure on others.
It seems to me that these two are in conflict. Zelen is speaking about how the spread was pushed by elites, while Ratman is talking about viral spread of social justice-y ideas.
For what it's worth, I agree more with Ratman.
Quote from: jhkim on October 05, 2021, 02:40:08 AM
Quote from: Zelen on October 04, 2021, 03:34:22 AM
I don't think the spread and influence of critical theory we see is at all coincidental, but rather is intentionally pushed along by elites who seeded it as a convenient justification for diverting attention from their own ambitious (and evil) goals.
Word-usage analysis in propaganda media (NYT, WaPo, Time, etc) shows the Woke language trend in media occurred pretty suddenly during the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis (& 2011's OWS movement). Someone activated key agents to begin disseminating propaganda.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 04, 2021, 08:13:13 PM
I think this is a very important point. Unspoken etiquete and understandings. Seeing social justice activism as a conspiracy with a few masterminds is not a good way to percieve it. It's more like individuals come up with 'social justice-y' ideas and then those ideas disseminate through the communities. Individuals use those social justice-y ideas to apply social pressure on others.
It seems to me that these two are in conflict. Zelen is speaking about how the spread was pushed by elites, while Ratman is talking about viral spread of social justice-y ideas.
For what it's worth, I agree more with Ratman.
Note my last sentence in that post. I don't think it's an either-or situation. The elites, in this case, pick up those social-justice-y ideas and wield them to their own advantage.
Where I would disagree with Zelen is the ominous sounding statement about "key agents". I think social justice ideology has been simmering for a long time, and the social justice increase in the late 2000's is more due to the ideology being "taught" in colleges, and those graduating students bringing the ideology into the workforce, government and social environment. They simply hit a critical mass around that time.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 01, 2021, 08:36:07 PM
You ever notice that Social Justice as an ideology possesses basic logical incongruities? Why Hollywood needs more Indians but Bollywood doesn't need Chinese people? Stuff like that?
All philosophopies have some logical incongruities, but social justice lacks even the basics of any sort of consistency.
If the people that really believed in it followed its logic, they would be acting a whole lot differently and promoting different things. Like they say they value black people until a black person disagrees and they are just unpersoned as a black person at all?
Thats because its all just cover for the generally more insidous philosophy of critical theory. Its TLDR is:
All of life and history is a horror show. It couldn't have come about as part of just the human condition, or even the nature of the universe. It must have been engineered by the evil people in charge. The system is so intrinsictly corrupt that every aspect of life has been engineered to serve this corrupt version of reality. To participate in any part of the system is to further it.
So destroy the system and everybody that benefits from it until all of reality is perfect.
Its the rapture for staunch materialists effectively.
So whenever a goal of Social Justice doesn't seem to make sense in the persuit of diversity & representation or even somesort of justice, you can generally find a logic to it within the persuit of the destruction of the corrupt ruling society. The reason it rarely creates, mostly destroys, and doesn't see as needing to make any solutions is because it follows a hegalian model that believes that reality is fair and logical at the core. They don't see it as necacary to create a replacement system as they see the natural order (as they imagine it) of things as perfect. So all of perfection will reasert itself once the corruption is gotten rid of.
Sounds like it echoes Rousseau, by denying any form of Original Sin.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on October 13, 2021, 01:44:05 PM
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 01, 2021, 08:36:07 PM
You ever notice that Social Justice as an ideology possesses basic logical incongruities? Why Hollywood needs more Indians but Bollywood doesn't need Chinese people? Stuff like that?
All philosophopies have some logical incongruities, but social justice lacks even the basics of any sort of consistency.
If the people that really believed in it followed its logic, they would be acting a whole lot differently and promoting different things. Like they say they value black people until a black person disagrees and they are just unpersoned as a black person at all?
Thats because its all just cover for the generally more insidous philosophy of critical theory. Its TLDR is:
All of life and history is a horror show. It couldn't have come about as part of just the human condition, or even the nature of the universe. It must have been engineered by the evil people in charge. The system is so intrinsictly corrupt that every aspect of life has been engineered to serve this corrupt version of reality. To participate in any part of the system is to further it.
So destroy the system and everybody that benefits from it until all of reality is perfect.
Its the rapture for staunch materialists effectively.
So whenever a goal of Social Justice doesn't seem to make sense in the persuit of diversity & representation or even somesort of justice, you can generally find a logic to it within the persuit of the destruction of the corrupt ruling society. The reason it rarely creates, mostly destroys, and doesn't see as needing to make any solutions is because it follows a hegalian model that believes that reality is fair and logical at the core. They don't see it as necacary to create a replacement system as they see the natural order (as they imagine it) of things as perfect. So all of perfection will reasert itself once the corruption is gotten rid of.
Sounds like it echoes Rousseau, by denying any form of Original Sin.
Which is particularly interesting as current year CRT insists on whiteness and past exploitations (real or imagined) as original sins.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 13, 2021, 02:11:26 PMWhich is particularly interesting as current year CRT insists on whiteness and past exploitations (real or imagined) as original sins.
To frame 'orginal sin' as 'reality/ humans are imperfect and will always be imperfect', they do reject that notion, and to them 'whiteness' (built around that notion) is the only possible sin.
Quote from: rytrasmi on October 04, 2021, 05:58:50 PM
People, generally speaking, are judgmental and like to feel important and superior to others.
What a horrible thing to say! I'm glad
I would never descend to such an extreme of nastiness. ;)
To answer the original question more seriously, though, I don't know if "smokescreen" is a fair description for something that was (I think, anyway) always pretty obvious if examined closely enough, and was even openly admitted if the right questions were asked; critical race theory was
always one of the motivating philosophies behind most social justice movements.
What torpedoed what coherence the movement had was the introduction of "intersectionality", which is the attempt to reconcile the hierarchy of how Group B can be privileged over Group C but still disadvantaged vs. Group A. The whole phenomenon of "we support people of disadvantaged group X solely up to the point they disagree with our proposed policies" is usually based on the assumption that disagreement with a policy can only be founded in the desire to maintain advantage over a different disadvantaged group farther down on the intersectional hierarchy. This is the source of the recent Trans vs. TERF clash, for example, where feminists defending the unique biological status of women are decried as negating the justice claims of gender-dysphoric men.
One hitherto unmentioned thing which I think has contributed to this, especially post-'60s, is what might be called the "moralization" of politics as a substitute for civic religion, the urge to cast every social issue of politics in terms of a black-and-white irreconcilable conflict rather than a practical matter of reaching compromises about citizen satisfaction. (There is a mordant and brilliant article on The Federalist's website called "Selma Envy" which talks a lot about this phenomenon.)
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on October 20, 2021, 12:00:50 PMTo answer the original question more seriously, though, I don't know if "smokescreen" is a fair description for something that was (I think, anyway) always pretty obvious if examined closely enough, and was even openly admitted if the right questions were asked; critical race theory was always one of the motivating philosophies behind most social justice movements.
I go beyond 'race theory' and just call it critical theory because on a larger scale its just a rejection of EVERYTHING. And you could always suss out the truth if you looked closely, but its like a insect with camoflage. In theory its out in the open, but it depends on you not looking too closely.
QuoteOne hitherto unmentioned thing which I think has contributed to this, especially post-'60s, is what might be called the "moralization" of politics as a substitute for civic religion,
I 100% agree on this. Thats why I call it rapture for materialists.