Why Can’t We Communicate?

It seems as though the war of ideas between the social justice warrior (SJW’s) and the anti-SJW’s is coming to a head. At least on social media platforms like Youtube, the anti’s have won. On college campuses and in government, SJW’s won a long time ago. This would make sense because social media is available for any voice who wants to join the conversation. College and government is just not like that. They are both sheltered from the real world. Social media is a more interesting beast. A better description of what is happening on social media would be to say SJW’s vs. The Real World.

Right up front, I have to admit that I’m in camp “real world”. It seems obvious to me that the majority of positions held by the SJW crowd is not only wrong, but dangerously so. It would be easy to say that I have yet to hear any convincing evidence showing concepts like, “patriarchy”, “systematic oppression”, or “privilege” are even real, much less happening. I’ve written several times as to why I think they are not, and my opinion as to what I think those things really are. But here’s the problem, SJW’s absolutely think those concepts are real. For real, real. It is virtually impossible for most people who advocate for social justice to even entertain the thought that what they believe may be wrong. Why can’t we communicate? I have an idea as to why, and I will try to be as neutral as possible, with the reader’s understanding that I am an anti-SJW.

Have you noticed how anyone who disagrees with an SJW is called a Nazi? Then the person being called a Nazi says something like, “you’re the real Nazi!”? Well, this got me thinking. Picture a line moving from left to right. The extreme left is labelled communism. The extreme right of the line is labelled anarchy. Anarchy involves zero government, rights are personal. As you move left, the government plays a larger and larger part in your life until you get to the extreme left, communism, where government controls 100% of your life. At this point rights are communal. You can find the different political philosophies along this line. Next to anarchy is libertarianism, then republican, then democrat. From the other end, next to communism you have socialism, then ancillary socialist like philosophies such as syndicalism, then progressivism. What about the mid-line? Just to the left of the mid-line you would have a system where the means of production are owned by the government but controlled by corporations. Just to the right of the mid-line you have a system where the means of production are owned by the private segment of society, but controlled by the government. This describes two sides of the same coin…fascism.

Now picture the line from above with a concrete wall, with barbed wire running over the top where fascism goes. Social justice is solidly on the side of communism, communal rights, group ownership, etc. When they look right, all they see is the wall of fascism in the way of progress. Anti-SJW’s are on the whole, solidly on the side of the individual and support individual rights, ownership, etc. When they look left they see a wall of fascism in the way of progress.

I believe this is why it is so hard to communicate with each other. An SJW sees things like race through the lens of collective power, whereas on the other side, we see race and color more as demographics describing individuals. For example, you might hear an SJW say that the black experience is one of systematic oppression by white people. Therefore, all white people are racist and all black people are oppressed. An anti-SJW would argue that there is no such thing as the “black experience” because every black person goes through life individually and their experience is their own. Also, “white people” do not make laws or the system. Elected individuals might be overwhelmingly white, but those people are not all people. All people are subject to the same laws as all other people. To an SJW, you are just part of a group, not a person per se. Interestingly, they acknowledge that most people are part of several groups and try to reconcile the concept of being, for instance, both a woman and black with the concept of intersectionality. This is where all your group identifiers intersect to tell you how oppressed or privileged you are. Anti-SJW’s see an individual and everything about that individual are just adjectives describing that person, for instance, you are a black, gay, obese woman. The important part of you is the “you” part, not the adjectives that describe you.

The non-partisan section is over. So What’s the solution? This is the hard part. Due to the nature of individualists, we tend to be much more open to dialogue than those on the left. Leftists tend to make anyone who disagrees an “other”. We tend to get auto-blocked by the major SJW leaders. For this reason, I would start small. A small Facebook or twitter discussion, or one on one. Be courteous and understanding. Do your best to explain the concepts I outlined above. If they are receptive, great. If not, bid them a good day and move on. I think we have an excellent opportunity with women or people in the gay community. Social justice seems, to me at least, to be in direct conflict with a woman, or a gay or trans person’s personal interest. Especially now that it seems Muslims are seen as more oppressed than either of those groups. If an SJW does take an interest in what you have to say, run with it. Sure, it may be a waste of time in the end, but at least they escaped their bubble for a few minutes and heard your point of view. None of this is easy, but we can’t give up.

I’m Offended!!!!

I want to talk about the disturbing trend lately of being offended. Well, not so much the being offended, but trying to outlaw offensiveness. Whether we are talking about the confederate flag, words, a football team name or mascot, someone’s political views, religious views, lifestyle choices, comedy, or anything else people are being offended by this week. It’s all nonsense. All of it. I guess I’ll use the rest of this blog explaining why, although I wish I could just stop right here.

First of all, there are tons of things that are offensive. Too many to list. There are words I won’t say, and there are offensive words I love to say. People are social creatures and like to make each other laugh. They like to make fun of each other. People like to point out faults in a comical way. People can be mean. I don’t think this will ever change. The easy targets, or low hanging fruit, if you will are: looks, intelligence, attitude and physical ability. So we call each other “retarded”, “gay”, and any of countless other, more creative ways of saying the same thing. I know several people with children on the autism spectrum and can certainly understand how referring to someone as “retarded” would make them angry. But here’s the thing, before the word retarded was used, the technical terms for the different levels of low IQ were idiot, moron and imbecile. The word “retarded” was created as a way to replace those words as they became known as derogatory terms. Now “retarded” is derogatory and we can’t use that. Guess what, whatever replaces “retarded” will soon be used to call people stupid and will then need to be changed. It all means the same thing. It’s a never ending cycle!

By all means be offended, nobody can take that away from you. Just realize that whatever you change the word to, it will also be used in a way that is offensive. Instead of trying to change the language, try creating an argument that would persuade people to be nicer to each other. Better yet, understand that when you hear one person call another one “retarded”, they are not making fun of your child or mentally disabled people in general. A literal comparison is not being made. If I were to call someone a “scumbag” or “douche”, I’m just calling them a jerk in a slightly more creative way. There is no literal connection between jerky behavior and used condoms or vagina cleaner. When the vast majority of people call other people “retarded”, there is no literal connection between the victim of the insult and mentally handicapped people, in their minds. The few for which there is a connection are scumbags. (See what I did there?)

The other currently trendy way to be offended is through symbolism. Specifically in the news right now is the confederate flag. Ever since a racist, white moron shot up a black church, and we found out he loved the confederate flag, there has been a concerted effort to eradicate that flag from human existence. This is the same flag that previously represented southern pride, or pride in being from the south. It was proudly worn by white people and black people alike. Sure, it was one of the flags of the south during the civil war. Yes, the south had slaves. Yes, at one point the confederate flag represented a system that endorsed slavery. I live in the south. My relatives, for the most part live in Georgia. You can’t get more southern that that. I have met many a racist in Georgia and not one of them would advocate for the return of slavery. The meaning of the flag has changed over time. What I believe the racist moron who killed those people, and the people I hear making racist comments when visiting family in Georgia mostly complain about is the perceived preferential treatment for black people over white people by the government. What the flag means to these people is a solidarity against northern aggression, (Washington, DC). In and of itself, this is not racist. Their racism is a completely separate issue. While their logic is maddening to say the least, it’s not the flags fault.

Again, eradicating the confederate flag from Amazon.com, Walmart and the television will not take away the history of the civil war. It will not end racism. It will not even change the attitude of racist people. If anything, it will make it worse. The civil war was a real thing that really happened. The other thing is that it’s a slippery slope when you cave in to mindless, mob mentality, pop culture rage protesters. There are very few flags or symbols that don’t offend someone. How can Walmart sell Che Guevara t-shirts, but not confederate flag t-shirts? He was a sociopathic killer and communist revolutionary! How can you want to eradicate Chic Fil A from existence for supporting traditional marriage, but freely fill up your tank with gasoline made in Saudi Arabia where being homosexual is illegal?

There are tons of arguments against the banning of books, symbols, words, etc… They are all good arguments, but apparently they are not working. We are raising a generation of people who are perpetually offended. My guess is that this mentality is mostly coming from college campuses where social justice warriors are castrating the minds of young people. When these young people graduate and enter the real world, they are not prepared for what they see. Catering to the mild sensibilities of these people is enabling in a way that is not only harmful to their perception of the real world, but dangerous to our freedom. These young people will be the next generation of elected officials. They will be in a position to make laws. They will be in a position to redefine what free speech is. If we let them define the terms of our language now through private means like social media, is it a stretch to think they won’t define those terms through legal means later?

At any rate, supporting free speech means defending offensive behavior, but not necessarily agreeing with that behavior. I firmly believe that words and symbols only hold the power that we give them. Please give me your best offensive term in the comments below so that we can laugh at them and remove some of their power.