Thursday, May 07, 2015

Bad Astronomy And SJWs

   I think it was Aa who directed my attention to this post at Slate/Bad Astronomy. I guess I disagree with it, though...
   FWIW, my view is that this post (a) is pretty bad, and (b) illustrates pretty well what's wrong with the SJW / neo-PC stuff, and (c) also shows how the stuff is infecting the mainstream.
   Apparently the author had his face superimposed over Botticelli's Venus and noted how funny that would look. He was subsequently (of course) accused of being a retrograde this case, of having offended people who are transexual/transgendered. He subsequently prostrated himself about it. He notes that some might think this (ahem) transgression to be minor/imaginary (I think that, incidentally). He, however, asserts that "nobody gets to tell someone else what offends them."
   That's the current madness in a nutshell: A does something innocuous. B notes that it can be interpreted as "offensive" to some group (got to be a group, of course!). B then accuses A of something-ism. A then prostrates A's self and begs for forgiveness...
   Is it true that you have no right to tell me what I find offensive? Well, only technically. You have no control over what I find "offensive"...but you have every right to point it out if I find something offensive that a reasonable person would not object to. And if my assertion comes along with a demand that you apologize or cease and desist, then of course you get to tell me if you think I'm being unreasonable. Liberalism has always had to find a way through such disputes by applying a reasonable person standard, prone though that is to error. The illiberal left, however, decrees that certain (but not all) groups get carte blanche to declare such things wrong. Their judgments are not to be questioned. And that's just stupid.
   (Note: none of this means that I might not be wrong about the particular case in question. Of course I might. And so might Plait and company... People sometimes get things wrong. That's what views that are more-or-less built on relativistic foundations always fail to understand...)
   Plait goes on to write:
And for the other bit, people derisively calling us “social justice warriors”? They may use it as a derogatory term, thinking of SJWs as shrill and overbearing, but to me it’s a term that refers to people willing to go to bat for others who don’t have as big a soapbox. I might prefer the term “ally,” but SJW fits fine, too. This world could use a lot more social justice. I’ll be happy to fight for it when I can.
   Yeah, well, "to me" it's the other thing. The shrill thing...
   Thing is, the 'J' in 'SJW' has about as much to do with justice as the 'D' in 'DPRK' has to do with democracy. Contrary to what such folk believe, declaring yourself to be something does not make you that thing. And declaring yourself a champion of justice doesn't make you one.
   And questions of offensiveness are not questions about justice anyway...  Questions about hurt fee-fees are of a much lower order of seriousness than questions of justice.


Blogger The Mystic said...

These people are desperately trying to find a way to make their emotions unquestionable and unassailable. They also wish to strike back at anyone who causes them further distress by questioning this behavior, being already overwhelmed by the immense distress natural to one who invests so heavily in the denial of reality, and this is the result.

They argue that others can't tell them what and how to feel, and that's fine. No one except those who see the trajectory here leading towards emotional relativism would disagree. The part that betrays the ulterior motive, again, is the attempt at a corollary that everyone else must agree with and act on those feelings.

Maybe that's the best place to start any counter-argument against this nonsense: ask the SJW, "Do you think your feelings can be irrational? If your feelings ARE irrational, does that exempt me from the obligation to agree with or act on them?"

Said SJW will probably go on a tirade about your western attempt to colonialize his mind, or perhaps throw out a "who are you to tell me what's rational?" characteristic of those who deny objectivity, so I don't expect that this is a surefire way to dispatch this idiocy or anything, but it at least isolates the main issue up front.

My guess is that these folks have NEVER thought seriously about the fact that feelings, (e.g. sadness that one is not a chipmunk), can be irrational and that it is unwise to act on them if so.

The one thing from which all SJWs are running is the responsibility to reject one's own feelings/desires/beliefs if they are irrational. They do not want to believe that they are bound by rationality. Instead, they want to believe rationality is a made-up form of oppression.

Not only do they frantically retreat from such a responsibility, but they want to further defend themselves by coercing everyone else to agree that their feelings/desires/beliefs are not to be disagreed with or critically examined in any way. They gussy this attempt up with fluffy pop-psychology language in the following manner:

What should be said to accurately express the SJW position:

"Accept my opinion as true, regardless of its actual truth value, and act accordingly."

What SJWs say to get people to at least initially agree with their insane position:

"Accept me for who I am and treat me as I want to be treated."

The trick is that the latter is acceptable when the speaker is rational, but it becomes insane when the speaker thinks he's a super hero or an emperor of a nation which doesn't exist or a girl.

These folks are cowards, and they are not to be feared, but pitied.

2:51 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home