Discussion on the concept of social justice

[Habelo]

I moved a number of posts from a recently necromanced thread here, since I do not wish to delete your efforts. A word of caution: if the thread descends to a caricature of the opposing parties, the culprits will be mercilessly infracted with extreme prejudice. Discuss the concept and not what you think your opponents look or behave like. Garb.

Does anyone here feel like their faction is not the underdog in the strife?

If anyone would comply in pm or here would be greatly appreciated. I am having this theory regarding the origin of Thor the rebel.

[Elfdude]

What do you mean underdog? I don't like looking at it that way because while I admit currently social justice doesn't have direct popular support, sticking to the basic meaning of it and the fact those basic principles are principles which everyone who is half decent already more or less agrees with. I feel like that's one of the reasons no one will discuss the actual concepts and instead insist upon hyperbole and fallacious attacks followed up with pure ignorance.

I feel social justice is the inevitable next political movement. Politically, pretty much every dem office holder understands it, and relatively few republicans would even risk attacking it directly because usually when they do it comes across as "I'm against sharing, I'm against caring, I'm against kindness, I'm against equity, Reinforce the status quo." It's also dominating college campuses mostly driven by scholastic and academic research.

In Oregon for example they just accepted the Higher Education Coordinating Commission's recommendation on cultural competency which is directly concerned with teaching power privilege and oppression to all faculty and staff in higher education. They weren't convinced by the social arguments, they were convinced by the fact that they can save upwards of 20-30% of dropouts which is tons in investment and future revenues with a couple hours of basic sociology a year.

California is following suit along with many other states. I see what happens in the colleges as a political indicator for how society is evolving and see college campuses as first adopters who innovate and clarify issues until the awareness of them builds public popular support or opposition. Because I work in healthcare it has always been a requirement of my position to become culturally competent, and while I totally recognize the initial difficulty I had with it and can see others having with it, I think that has more to do with delivery of the concept than anything else. Which is to say, social justice is more or less already winning the fight.

The underdog will be the racists and sexists and etc. the biggest barrier to that reality right now is simply large scale ignorance of what discrimination really is and how it exists today. Currently the underdog is social justice but IMO that has more to do with the idea that social justice is a high moral/ethics based on the work laid down by the civil rights movements. I.E. they had to come first before we could have this conversation.

[Diamat]

What do you mean underdog? I don't like looking at it that way because while I admit currently social justice doesn't have direct popular support, sticking to the basic meaning of it and the fact those basic principles are principles which everyone who is half decent already more or less agrees with. I feel like that's one of the reasons no one will discuss the actual concepts and instead insist upon hyperbole and fallacious attacks followed up with pure ignorance.

I feel social justice is the inevitable next political movement. Politically, pretty much every dem office holder understands it, and relatively few republicans would even risk attacking it directly because usually when they do it comes across as "I'm against sharing, I'm against caring, I'm against kindness, I'm against equity, Reinforce the status quo." It's also dominating college campuses mostly driven by scholastic and academic research.

In Oregon for example they just accepted the Higher Education Coordinating Commission's recommendation on cultural competency which is directly concerned with teaching power privilege and oppression to all faculty and staff in higher education. They weren't convinced by the social arguments, they were convinced by the fact that they can save upwards of 20-30% of dropouts which is tons in investment and future revenues with a couple hours of basic sociology a year.

California is following suit along with many other states. I see what happens in the colleges as a political indicator for how society is evolving and see college campuses as first adopters who innovate and clarify issues until the awareness of them builds public popular support or opposition. Because I work in healthcare it has always been a requirement of my position to become culturally competent, and while I totally recognize the initial difficulty I had with it and can see others having with it, I think that has more to do with delivery of the concept than anything else. Which is to say, social justice is more or less already winning the fight.

The underdog will be the racists and sexists and etc. the biggest barrier to that reality right now is simply large scale ignorance of what discrimination really is and how it exists today. Currently the underdog is social justice but IMO that has more to do with the idea that social justice is a high moral/ethics based on the work laid down by the civil rights movements. I.E. they had to come first before we could have this conversation.

Oh Dear God, please don't let college be an indicator of how society is changing. That would be terrible. As someone whose career resides in that sphere, I'm already troubled enough as is by the SJ movement. I hope we can end it in its rotten tracks.

As for the "racists" and "sexists" you mentioned, I hope you don't mean those people who disagree with your positions. For instance, just because I consider the gender wage gap to be a bunch of bull, I hope you don't consider me a sexist. Just because I think that women and men have proper roles in society, I hope you don't consider me a sexist. Just because I am against affirmative action, I hope you don't think me a racist.

Edit: Oh, and please stop using the word "ignorance" toward people who don't agree with your views on discrimination. It's insulting, triggering, micro-aggression, or whatever you kids call it these days.

[Phier]

It's your punishment for losing in Vietnam.

In a weird way, there is an element of truth to this. At least the hippies message was love, instead of the regressive lefts message of hate.

[Slydessertfox]

For instance, just because I consider the gender wage gap to be a bunch of bull, I hope you don't consider me a sexist. Just because I think that women and men have proper roles in society, I hope you don't consider me a sexist. .

Oh this is going to be good. Please, pray tell, what are these "proper roles" in society? Just because someone feels uncomfortable being called a sexist, doesn't mean they aren't one.

In a weird way, there is an element of truth to this. At least the hippies message was love, instead of the regressive lefts message of hate.

Accepting people for their sexual/gender orientation and trying to create true equality of opportunity is "hateful" now. Right.

[ABH2]

Libertarians are known for their love of money in politics...

EDIT: Also, if you want to really come off as someone pretending to be pro-choice, call it pro-abortion.

As far as I can tell, there are three subjects in which progressives support choice. Abortion, gay marriage, and marijuana (unless someone is making a profit from it - then it gets hazy). They are anti-choice on pretty much everything else. Well, I guess I also have the choice to pick any of a few thousand genders, as well, in this worldview. Also, money is the means by which speech is heard. The government got up before our Supreme Court and argued it had the right to ban books and pamphlets along with movies. If you criticize Citizen's United, it's a pretty good indicator of either ignorance of or authoritarianism. Because there is no one who understands the first amendment who could possibly contend that banning books, movies, and pamphlets is within the powers of Congress.

Is it too late into the thread to point out the obvious that social justice is a buzz term created to justify institutional injustice and discrimination based on race and gender? Like all words derived from Marxist perspective, it means the exact opposite of what the words strung together imply. I mean, sometimes they just completely morph the meaning of a word. Equality is another great example. Whenever you have a SJW talk about equality, you know they are about to suggest a policy that discriminates against some group of people they don't like.

Accepting people for their sexual/gender orientation and trying to create true equality of opportunity is "hateful" now. Right.

Name a law that discriminates and does not allow for equal opportunity on the books right now. Come on, should be easy with all this institutional racism and sexism.

Accepting the sexual orientation/gender identity means suppressing dissent. Like in New York where they have laws demanding the use of proper pronouns now (again, almost certainly unconstitutional). This despite the fact that the ideas SJW's hold on gender are completely incompatible with one another. Watch as out of one side of their mouth they talk about how gender is a social construct and there are no inherently feminine or masculine characteristics or preferences. Watch as out of the other side of their mouth they tell you how you must accept the gender identity of an individual that contradicts their biology as fact even if it is only based on socially constructed characteristics and preferences.

And yes - it IS hateful to lead little witch hunts to get people you disagree with blacklisted. It IS hateful to interrupt speakers you disagree with - many of whom are expressing mainstream opinions. It IS hateful to spit on people who attend a speaking event you disagree with. It IS hateful to use violence and burn down (black owned) businesses in the name of social justice. It IS hateful to argue that white life doesn't matter (as I have seen several SJ leftists explicitly do).

[Diamat]

Oh this is going to be good. Please, pray tell, what are these "proper roles" in society? Just because someone feels uncomfortable being called a sexist, doesn't mean they aren't one.

I use this notion differently from conservatives. Since I am more of a leftist, I do accept social change and a redefining of roles. However, I see this as a social and historical process. Hence roles tend to differ, in content, based on the society. And while I am a leftist, I am also a Hegelian, meaning that just because something is "constructed" does not mean that it should be resisted or rebelled against. In fact, I see "constructed" gender roles as liberating if followed willingly. Let us look at marriage, for example. In a marriage, two minds enter into a universal relationship. The universality of this relationship contains a content concerning their proper roles. Now, in our modern Western society, these roles tend to vary based on the partners, their experiences, and their beliefs. Thus a more liberal couple might have different views from a conservative couple, which is totally fine. A problem arises, however, when there exists a disagreement among the partners concerning the universal content of their relationship. Freedom is essentially a correspondence of the universal will with the particular will, objectivity with subjectivity. If I cannot realize my subjective will in a universal way, i.e., if my subjectivity is not recognized by others, I will be unfree. In a marriage, this situation arises when there is disagreement concerning roles. Here is a mundane example: A couple agrees that their roles determine that each shall conduct equal housework. If followed, this would confirm their universal will (their particular will, in carrying out a chore, would thus enable the freedom of the other). If not followed, however, i.e., if one partner does not carry out his duties, the other partner will feel unfree, because he or she is forced to subjectively carry out a duty that does not correspond with universality. This is why any marriage councilor would tell you that in such a situation it's best to create a visual list of chores, letting every partner know of their role. Indeed, a relationship which strives only for equality can sometimes be the most difficult to maintain, mainly because equality does not necessarily equal freedom. The point of human relationships should never be equality for equality's sake, but the realization of one's subjectivity in objectivity, one's self-realization in society. If that means following a certain role, then so be it. We don't all have to be the same in order to be free.

[Elfdude]

Oh Dear God, please don't let college be an indicator of how society is changing. That would be terrible. As someone whose career resides in that sphere, I'm already troubled enough as is by the SJ movement. I hope we can end it in its rotten tracks.

History says otherwise, sorry but you're on the losing side.

As for the "racists" and "sexists" you mentioned, I hope you don't mean those people who disagree with your positions.

Disagreement? I haven't seen anyone able to describe my positions much less disagree with them. Do you want to be specific with what you disagree with?

For instance, just because I consider the gender wage gap to be a bunch of bull, I hope you don't consider me a sexist.

1. Are you dismissing the issues of women?
2. Are you reifying the patriarchy?
3. Are you reifying the status quo?
4. Is the status quo sexist?
5. Are you actively discriminating against women?
6. Are you tacitly discriminating against women?
7. Are you dismissing the issues of one group without any ability to do so?

Yes, I would call that sexism. However Sexism is an action, not a character trait. You're not a sexist, you just engage in sexism from time to time. I doubt you have a the specific worldview which would make you a sexist. Most critically here you're essentially saying that the wage gap, itself which a composite of many different things is irrelevant as an indicator of inequity. So I must really question what you think equity means. Furthermore for every factor you can diminish it with I can blow it back up with a category that you weren't considering. For example single parents show the wage gap SKYROCKETS. Why is it that men who are raising children by themselves tend to make a lot more money than women do? Etc. I've put together far better far more thorough arguments numerous times. You should check them out and maybe also wonder why both the BLS and the department of labor say there is 100% a wage gap a large portion of which is composed of HISTORICAL inequity that has yet to normalize.

Just because I think that women and men have proper roles in society

Yeah, you're limiting the opportunities women have because of their gender identity. There's such few instances where you could levee any sort of valid argument on this (mostly related to biology) that yeah, offhandedly this is a sexist perspective. I'd love to hear your justification because while the earlier statement can be explained by basic ignorance, this one is a direct authoritarian view of what a woman should be which is literally taking away their freedom and imposing your will. If you respond to this with an argument asking how you're responsible for discrimination without considering the straw which broke the camel's back metaphor, I will lose my rather high level of respect for you.

edit: with regard to your post, you mentioned men and women have proper roles. The argument that something somewhere should have a role is not something we're contesting, what we're contesting is that women's roles have been defined by those other than women, so by your own definition of relationships and issues which arise you should understand why a huge number of women resent that role. I'm also curious what your explicit proper roles are.

Just because I am against affirmative action, I hope you don't think me a racist.

No, I consider you to be misinformed and I must question what you believe Affirmative Action to be and would point out that this argument has been had thoroughly and the numbers and the reality of it more or less turn the fear mongering counter argument of reverse racism into baseless hypotheses.

Edit: Oh, and please stop using the word "ignorance" toward people who don't agree with your views on discrimination.

Ignorance means they don't know. I don't know about you but I certainly never considered the impacts of discrimination and evaluated it scholastically and academically using the scientific method and known measures. If you have, I'd love for you to be transparent about it and present said argument like most people do. The consistent rehashing of the exact same point and the exact same fallacies points to the lack of any argument which points to ignorance IMO. So, I'm sorry you're sensitive to that word but it applies both rigorously, explicitly and implicitly. If this were a safe space I might use softer words but this is a forum which is literally designed for controversial discussion.

It's insulting, triggering, micro-aggression, or whatever you kids call it these days.

Insulting - Only if you consider not holding knowledge on a particular subject insulting. You've got a lot to be insulted by I guess.

Triggering - Misuse of this word, trigger is a specific reference to psychological effects of PTSD, I'd love for you to make fun of triggers in front of a veteran and find out how quickly your tumblr understanding of its definition gets you into trouble.

Micro-aggression - Another misuse of this word. Telling someone they're wrong is not a microaggression, telling someone they're so well spoken and assuming they're an immigrant when they're not is. A micro-aggression involves an assumption made based on stereotypical perceptions which doesn't rise to the status of explicit "You're an N-word."

Although I suppose you could accuse me of white tower academic discrimination, in which case yes but I don't necessarily consider that type of discrimination bad. You might also try to understand what types of discrimination I differentiate as bad versus which I don't and why. Or you could just understand that social justice means literally equity, fairness and.... well justice.

[ABH2]

1. Are you dismissing the issues of women?
2. Are you reifying the patriarchy?
3. Are you reifying the status quo?
4. Is the status quo sexist?
5. Are you actively discriminating against women?
6. Are you tacitly discriminating against women?
7. Are you dismissing the issues of one group without any ability to do so?

Wasn't directed at me, but I love SJ surveys!

1. The issues of which women? Because last I checked, only 23% of women in the US identify as feminists.
2. I deny the very existence of a patriarchy.
3. Are we talking about the status quo where women in my age bracket earn more than men, the one where women and men in earn almost the same amount for the same jobs (per a new 33 country survey), and where more women go to college then men? Yes, I'm perfectly fine with the status quo.
5. What is discrimination, and who defines it?
6. What is tacit discrimination, and who defines it?
7. Aren't you speaking for a group (or groups, really) without any ability to do so?

Most critically here you're essentially saying that the wage gap, itself which a composite of many different things is irrelevant as an indicator of inequity.

Well, if there were systematic discrimination based on gender, younger women wouldn't be earning more in the same system than men. Women doing the same work wouldn't be paid the same as men. What you seem to be lamenting are the choices made by actual, real world women. And blaming men for those choices. Which seems to be a sexist argument to me on a number of levels.

If women decide to be teachers, social workers, and nurses, what's wrong with that?

So I must really question what you think equity means.

Equality in our legal system means equality under the law. Equal opportunity under the law. Both of which currently exist. What you promise is impossible and outside the purview of others. You want equal outcomes. That can only be achieved by somehow engineering a society where women make your preferred choices rather than live by their own qualitative preferences.

Why is it that men who are raising children by themselves tend to make a lot more money than women do?

OH! OH! I know this one! It's patriarchy, right? It's definitely patriarchy!

The arguments presented by social science (grounded in feminist and Marxist 'perspectives) are tautological in nature. They start with premises that they can't prove, and then work backwards pigeonholing every piece of data into that world view with ad hoc rationalizations. Social justice starts with a premise, and demands we institute systematic discrimination to address the premise. It attempts to skip over debate. To question the premise is to be a sexist, a racist, a bigot, a homophobe...you know, a Republican.

All of this before we even get to the question of whether government (often the preferred solution of the SJW left) is capable of fixing the supposed social/cultural problems in the first place.

Triggering - Misuse of this word, trigger is a specific reference to psychological effects of PTSD, I'd love for you to make fun of triggers in front of a veteran and find out how quickly your tumblr understanding of its definition gets you into trouble.

Diamat can respond himself, but I think the implication here is that legitimate issues of PTSD sufferers have been re-purposed by the victimhood brigade. They get used to signal to others what a special snowflake that individual is. The argument is that the people who claim to be triggered don't have PTSD, aren't really triggered, and want to point to their own subjective emotional responses to silence people they disagree with.

[Diamat]

History says otherwise, sorry but you're on the losing side.

History is not on your side. It's on no one's side. It's a silly statement, one which the socialist countries also enjoyed making during the Cold War. Plus, I accept social change and embrace many things that the left stands for. However, I'm against youthful stupidity.

1. Are you dismissing the issues of women?
2. Are you reifying the patriarchy?
3. Are you reifying the status quo?
4. Is the status quo sexist?
5. Are you actively discriminating against women?
6. Are you tacitly discriminating against women?
7. Are you dismissing the issues of one group without any ability to do so?

1. No
2. There is no patriarchy.
3. No. And by the way, I don't think you know what "reify" means. Reify is usually used as a Marxist concept, coming from the German to "verdinglichen," which literally means to turn something into an object.
4. No.
5. No.
6. No.
7. I don't understand the question.

Yes, I would call that sexism. However Sexism is an action, not a character trait. You're not a sexist, you just engage in sexism from time to time. I doubt you have a the specific worldview which would make you a sexist. Most critically here you're essentially saying that the wage gap, itself which a composite of many different things is irrelevant as an indicator of inequity. So I must really question what you think equity means. Furthermore for every factor you can diminish it with I can blow it back up with a category that you weren't considering. For example single parents show the wage gap SKYROCKETS. Why is it that men who are raising children by themselves tend to make a lot more money than women do? Etc. I've put together far better far more thorough arguments numerous times. You should check them out and maybe also wonder why both the BLS and the department of labor say there is 100% a wage gap a large portion of which is composed of HISTORICAL inequity that has yet to normalize.

Paying women a different wage for the same job is illegal. You would have to artificially alter the choices that women make in order to change the disparities that we observe. Have fun, although I think that many women are quite content with their choices.

Yeah, you're limiting the opportunities women have because of their gender identity. There's such few instances where you could levee any sort of valid argument on this (mostly related to biology) that yeah, offhandedly this is a sexist perspective. I'd love to hear your justification because while the earlier statement can be explained by basic ignorance, this one is a direct authoritarian view of what a woman should be which is literally taking away their freedom and imposing your will. If you respond to this with an argument asking how you're responsible for discrimination without considering the straw which broke the camel's back metaphor, I will lose my rather high level of respect for you.

I already explained myself in this regard. I would never argue that women must follow a role if their personal experiences tell them otherwise. Society is not uni-colored, nor should it be made such. The ultimate goal for a good society is to enable the correspondence of subjectivity and universality. We should also realize that the largest part of society shares certain ideas about gender roles. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. To tell women that these standards are necessarily wrong is grounded in a mistaken worldview concerning freedom.

edit: with regard to your post, you mentioned men and women have proper roles. The argument that something somewhere should have a role is not something we're contesting, what we're contesting is that women's roles have been defined by those other than women, so by your own definition of relationships and issues which arise you should understand why a huge number of women resent that role. I'm also curious what your explicit proper roles are.

Women's roles are not defined by those other than women. Role definition is a social process. There is no puppet master here. Objectivity precedes the human being; he is raised into objectivity, his very subjectivity molded by his interaction with society. And because this process is so variegated, people will never be of one uni-colored mind. Nevertheless, an objective base remains, one which helps us easily interact with each other without having to question each other's identity everytime we encounter the other. And this objectivity, by the way, changes over time, adjusting to the needs and wants of individuals. This is why most people today are pretty cool with homosexuality and accept it in an objective way, thus enabling homosexuals to practice their sexuality in a self-liberating kind of way. It's a beautiful thing.

No, I consider you to be misinformed and I must question what you believe Affirmative Action to be and would point out that this argument has been had thoroughly and the numbers and the reality of it more or less turn the fear mongering counter argument of reverse racism into baseless hypotheses.

Affirmative Action is a program that has been in place for many years, yet it has failed to achieve raising black people out of their situation. It may make certain white people feel better about themselves, but it has not really helped black people as a whole. Don't get me wrong, I am well aware of the disparate situation that blacks in the US find themselves in, but I just don't think that AA is the solution. Time has shown us this.

If this were a safe space I might use softer words but this is a forum which is literally designed for controversial discussion.

As is a university.

Insulting - Only if you consider not holding knowledge on a particular subject insulting. You've got a lot to be insulted by I guess.

Triggering - Misuse of this word, trigger is a specific reference to psychological effects of PTSD, I'd love for you to make fun of triggers in front of a veteran and find out how quickly your tumblr understanding of its definition gets you into trouble.

Micro-aggression - Another misuse of this word. Telling someone they're wrong is not a microaggression, telling someone they're so well spoken and assuming they're an immigrant when they're not is. A micro-aggression involves an assumption made based on stereotypical perceptions which doesn't rise to the status of explicit "You're an N-word."

Although I suppose you could accuse me of white tower academic discrimination, in which case yes but I don't necessarily consider that type of discrimination bad. You might also try to understand what types of discrimination I differentiate as bad versus which I don't and why. Or you could just understand that social justice means literally equity, fairness and.... well justice.

I used these terms wrong on purpose. It was fun. Great fun.

[Elfdude]

There is a patriarchy, the patriarchy is used as a catch all for the historical power of men in society. For most of this history men have defined almost every aspect of that society.

History is not on your side. It's on no one's side. It's a silly statement, one which the socialist countries also enjoyed making during the Cold War. Plus, I accept social change and embrace many things that the left stands for. However, I'm against youthful stupidity.

It's a euphemism for a trend. Nice way to dodge the point.

Paying women a different wage for the same job is illegal.

1. No it's not, offering them different wages on the basis of them being a woman is. Pay differentials are permitted when they are based on seniority, merit, quantity or quality of production.
- For example, my first job as an admission's advisor involved 4 men and 4 women, when we negotiated our salaries my initial pay negotiation point was was 18.53, 22.33, 19.20 and 23.40 for the men an the womens were 17.90 an hr, 18.20 an hr and 17.30 an hr they all had more experience than me (being my first job), and none of them were offered initially what I was. Of course every woman accepted their pay offers immediately as did every man. So the whole men are more likely to negotiate didn't even apply. This is an example of how employers can hide behind affirmative defense of salary negotiation.
2. The federal government has repeatedly pointed out that prosecuting any such discrimination is largely impossible except with regards to egregious examples of it. The barriers to prosecution under this law are transparency (salaries are generally hidden) and the loss of a job which women cannot afford much less afford to do while waging a lawsuit.

https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/fs-epa.cfm

You would have to artificially alter the choices that women make in order to change the disparities that we observe. Have fun, although I think that many women are quite content with their choices.

No, I have no interest in altering the choices anyone makes, I have interest in altering the environment which gives rise to those choices. I can point to fundamental inequities far beyond the wage gap. Personally I think the government should have investigators who look for this actively as well as mandated transparencies for pay rates forcing corporations to justify differentials from the get go rather than only questioning them at the back end.

I already explained myself in this regard. I would never argue that women must follow a role if their personal experiences tell them otherwise.

Then you don't believe in gender roles, you believe in self determination. There's a difference and I feel like your confusion by using the term role generally is to blame. Social justice is inherently about individual liberty and self determination.

Society is not uni-colored, nor should it be made such.

No one wants to homogenize society.

The ultimate goal for a good society is to enable the correspondence of subjectivity and universality.

To put it another way, self determination and equity. Yup.

We should also realize that the largest part of society shares certain ideas about gender roles. There is nothing inherently wrong with that.

You're using gender roles in a generalist way to indicate roles which are taken up by individuals who may be of either gender, when me and I'm sure several others say gender roles we're talking about stereotypical gender roles (such as subservience in a relationship) which are widely foisted upon women throughout our society. Yes some like them that's fine, but many do not, that's not fine. There's nothing wrong with definition, there's something wrong about prescribing your own subjectivity for another. Moreso when that subjectivity in large part arises in an environment which is inherently unequal and discriminates against self-determination.

To tell women that these standards are necessarily wrong is grounded in a mistaken worldview concerning freedom.

No one said any standard is necessarily wrong. The wrong part is a person with power using their power to enforce their will on a person with less power when the reasoning to do so is that the person with power believes X is the other's appropriate gender role.

Women's roles are not defined by those other than women.

That's a lie. Bras were invented by men; even most women's media is largely put together and designed by men. Yes, there's an intersection with their own subjectivity which is what makes this complicated but all SJ is railing against is the environment which makes a woman feel she has to be a stay at home mother in the same way that it rails against the environment which tells men that they can't be a stay at home father. There's an inherent dualistic nature to social justice that many privileged individuals neglect to understand. The freedom of women to engage in 'traditionally' male roles also provides men with the freedom to engage in traditionally female roles. The big difference here however is that men have the power historically to change this whereas women have not. This is even seen within family dynamics where the father's views and moralities and behaviors are more likely to be the basis of the children's views by the time they reach adulthood.

Role definition is a social process. There is no puppet master here.

No one is accusing anything of being a puppet master. There is certainly an environment however which influences said outcome and disenfranchises your/her free expression.

Objectivity precedes the human being; he is raised into objectivity, his very subjectivity molded by his interaction with society. And because this process is so variegated, people will never be of one uni-colored mind.

Irrelevant but well stated. I agree but that doesn't impact this argument whatsoever.

Nevertheless, an objective base remains, one which helps us easily interact with each other without having to question each other's identity everytime we encounter the other. And this objectivity, by the way, changes over time, adjusting to the needs and wants of individuals.

Eh, I feel like your use of subjectivity and objectivity in this concept are confusing at best. I don't see the relevance to the argument either way however.

This is why most people today are pretty cool with homosexuality and accept it in an objective way, thus enabling homosexuals to practice their sexuality in a self-liberating kind of way.

Uh... most is sort of debatable. Most millennials certainly do but that's only as a result of the social justice warriors who kept pushing against the status quo to point out the fundamental truth that we were denying liberty to a group of people for no real reason.

It's a beautiful thing.

Hence the trend I was talking about.

Affirmative Action is a program that has been in place for many years, yet it has failed to achieve raising black people out of their situation.

Not true. See california before and after the repeal of AA in education. Black people in college have only begun to reach parity with their white counterparts as a result of decades of very soft Affirmative Action.

It may make certain white people feel better about themselves, but it has not really helped black people as a whole.

That's not true whatsoever. What White people primarily have that blacks don't is intergenerational wealth and education. Affirmative Action within education was critical because Education is not a luxury, it's a direct comment on your relative opportunity in your life. Furthermore it's critical in hiring practices because while sometimes the reason you have 99 whites and 1 black is actually a random selection, statistically we know that most of those are because the selection wasn't random.

Don't get me wrong, I am well aware of the disparate situation that blacks in the US find themselves in, but I just don't think that AA is the solution. Time has shown us this.

I would love a source on this, much more to the point me and Himster have had thorough sourced and cited arguments. Again we have a beautiful case study in California. I would love some piece of information that changed that.

As is a university.

Overgeneralization. No university is a safe place and no one demands a university is a safe place. Some places on a university can and should be safe spaces. When I study film studies and the teacher is going to highlight gore, rape and torture a trigger warning is great. More to the point universities should always be inclusive and tolerant of opposing views which they often are. If you try and argue that X university students protesting X speaker or Y speaker being uninvited because of Y comments you're missing the point.

I used these terms wrong on purpose. It was fun. Great fun.

When you misuse the terms on purpose you diminish your own credibility. I become consumed with righting semantics that I don't need to go into which I'll do because I legitimately care about offering an intellectually honest discussion about Social Justice. It's not a great strategy unless you believe that me explaining something is going to change my own perspective and I'm not sure how you made any point by misusing them except to cast doubt on your own understanding of the argument at hand.

[Diamat]

There is just way too much to discuss here. And I fear that by continuing this zebra-posting contest, the result we be a rather angry and brief citing of opposing positions with little backup. So let's focus on the first issue first. Patriarchy.

You said:

There is a patriarchy, the patriarchy is used as a catch all for the historical power of men in society. For most of this history men have defined almost every aspect of that society.

You need to be precise here. Are we talking about the past or the present? Are you arguing for a patriarchy in the past or the present? If you're using the past to make an argument for the rational content of the present, then this is simply a philosophical error. The rational content of the past does not determine the rational content of the present. If you want to prove a patriarchy today, you have to prove that it is actually existing. Men today are not running society, nor are they the ones in charge of defining propriety.

[ABH2]

It's a euphemism for a trend. Nice way to dodge the point.

It's an argumentative tactic to dismiss your opponents as ideas without actually having to debate them. Anyone can say they are on the right side of history. Everyone does, and many people are wrong. Progressives in the twentieth century argued they were on the right side of history while arguing for eugenics and segregation (hey, somethings never change), among other things.

1. No it's not, offering them different wages on the basis of them being a woman is. Pay differentials are permitted when they are based on seniority, merit, quantity or quality of production.

So, which of those characteristics is patriarchal?

- For example, my first job as an admission's advisor involved 4 men and 4 women, when we negotiated our salaries my initial pay negotiation point was was 18.53, 22.33, 19.20 and 23.40 for the men an the womens were 17.90 an hr, 18.20 an hr and 17.30 an hr they all had more experience than me (being my first job), and none of them were offered initially what I was. Of course every woman accepted their pay offers immediately as did every man. So the whole men are more likely to negotiate didn't even apply. This is an example of how employers can hide behind affirmative defense of salary negotiation.

Anecdote. Irrelevant, especially considering how often SJW's lie.

2. The federal government has repeatedly pointed out that prosecuting any such discrimination is largely impossible except with regards to egregious examples of it. The barriers to prosecution under this law are transparency (salaries are generally hidden) and the loss of a job which women cannot afford much less afford to do while waging a lawsuit.

Doesn't stop progressives from proposing more of the same types of legislation. Because if it doesn't work now, more of the same will surely do it.

No, I have no interest in altering the choices anyone makes, I have interest in altering the environment which gives rise to those choices. I can point to fundamental inequities far beyond the wage gap. Personally I think the government should have investigators who look for this actively as well as mandated transparencies for pay rates forcing corporations to justify differentials from the get go rather than only questioning them at the back end.

Even though when we equalize for women in the same job and experience etc. the gap basically disappears. I mean, in the scientific fields - supposedly the professions most dominated by the patriarchy - women are now already earning more because identity politics has created a premium for their services. There are fewer of them for reasons that have nothing to do with patriarchy.

You want to altar the environment? Which means what exactly? Why so vague? Come on - let's here your big ideas. Why are so judgemental of the decisions women make, anyway?

No one wants to homogenize society.

You just think that every profession and every city/town should have a perfect and equal demographic breakdown. Otherwise, it's proof of patriarchy/racism.

You're using gender roles in a generalist way to indicate roles which are taken up by individuals who may be of either gender, when me and I'm sure several others say gender roles we're talking about stereotypical gender roles (such as subservience in a relationship) which are widely foisted upon women throughout our society. Yes some like them that's fine, but many do not, that's not fine. There's nothing wrong with definition, there's something wrong about prescribing your own subjectivity for another. Moreso when that subjectivity in large part arises in an environment which is inherently unequal and discriminates against self-determination.

Who is forcing anything on women? There's no laws doing so, that's for sure. Saying a women should smile more is not forcing anything on her no matter how much you try to twist the meaning of the word force.

No one said any standard is necessarily wrong. The wrong part is a person with power using their power to enforce their will on a person with less power when the reasoning to do so is that the person with power believes X is the other's appropriate gender role.

Of course, you have no examples.

That's a lie. Bras were invented by men; even most women's media is largely put together and designed by men. Yes, there's an intersection with their own subjectivity which is what makes this complicated but all SJ is railing against is the environment which makes a woman feel she has to be a stay at home mother in the same way that it rails against the environment which tells men that they can't be a stay at home father. There's an inherent dualistic nature to social justice that many privileged individuals neglect to understand. The freedom of women to engage in 'traditionally' male roles also provides men with the freedom to engage in traditionally female roles. The big difference here however is that men have the power historically to change this whereas women have not. This is even seen within family dynamics where the father's views and moralities and behaviors are more likely to be the basis of the children's views by the time they reach adulthood.

Women have all the power in the world to be housewives or work now if they want. Third wave feminism moves well past gender equality as defined by first wave feminists. Listen and believe as one example is not equality. Gender quotas are not equality.

You say force to dismiss the choices women make on their own. You have no evidence to show that even a large number of women feel forced into roles. Again, 77% of women reject the label of feminist, yet say they are for equal rights. The vast majority do not agree with you.

No one is accusing anything of being a puppet master. There is certainly an environment however which influences said outcome and disenfranchises your/her free expression.

I don't think you know what disenfranchise means.

Uh... most is sort of debatable. Most millennials certainly do but that's only as a result of the social justice warriors who kept pushing against the status quo to point out the fundamental truth that we were denying liberty to a group of people for no real reason.

Libertarians supported gay marriage all the way back in the 1970's. The push for gay marriage gained steam in the early 90's before millennials were any factor. If anything, millennials were only a product of the media and arguments they were exposed to that were far more gay friendly. But that doesn't let you put 'social justice warriors' front and center.

Not true. See california before and after the repeal of AA in education. Black people in college have only begun to reach parity with their white counterparts as a result of decades of very soft Affirmative Action.

Doesn't tell you what you are supposed to be looking for. Affirmative action already tends to select for black people of higher socioeconomic backgrounds to begin with. Not poor blacks.

That's not true whatsoever. What White people primarily have that blacks don't is intergenerational wealth and education. Affirmative Action within education was critical because Education is not a luxury, it's a direct comment on your relative opportunity in your life. Furthermore it's critical in hiring practices because while sometimes the reason you have 99 whites and 1 black is actually a random selection, statistically we know that most of those are because the selection wasn't random.

Completely dismisses the element of merit. Wealth correlates with better educational results. But so does parental involvement. Meanwhile, the school choice the left lashes out at and attempts to ban has produced better results for minority students. You collectivize and lose nuance. Sort of like opponents of school choice who argue that taking smart black children out of broken schools is bad for blacks as a whole. Because screw the ones who can make it - they should be sucked down for the greater good. Collectivist theories are .

I would love a source on this, much more to the point me and Himster have had thorough sourced and cited arguments. Again we have a beautiful case study in California. I would love some piece of information that changed that.

I've never seen you post a 'thorough[ly] sourced" argument. Can you link to this instead of just claiming it?

Overgeneralization. No university is a safe place and no one demands a university is a safe place. Some places on a university can and should be safe spaces. When I study film studies and the teacher is going to highlight gore, rape and torture a trigger warning is great. More to the point universities should always be inclusive and tolerant of opposing views which they often are. If you try and argue that X university students protesting X speaker or Y speaker being uninvited because of Y comments you're missing the point.

How about bias reaction teams where people are punished and harassed for wrongthink which are popping up on campuses? Nothing says we are tolerant of opposing ideas better than an anonymous reporting system for students who are guilty of microaggressions. And pushed by the Obama administration? How about kangaroo courts grounded in affirmative consent? Moreover, I fail to see how anyone is missing the point when you no platform speakers. The point is you don't want to hear dissent. It's not an occasional event. These stories appear everyday - sometimes multiple times.

You say no one wants universities as a whole to be safe places. Yet, that is exactly what was argued when someone wrote Trump 2016 in chalk on an American campus.

When you misuse the terms on purpose you diminish your own credibility. I become consumed with righting semantics that I don't need to go into which I'll do because I legitimately care about offering an intellectually honest discussion about Social Justice. It's not a great strategy unless you believe that me explaining something is going to change my own perspective and I'm not sure how you made any point by misusing them except to cast doubt on your own understanding of the argument at hand.

Most of the people who use the terms sincerely misuse them. Which is Diamat's point.

Also, I'd kindly appreciate it if you didn't compare the pussies on American campuses to veterans returning from war suffering from PTSD. Those are members of the millennial generation with courage and fortitude unlike campus crybullies.

[Elfdude]

There is just way too much to discuss here. And I fear that by continuing this zebra-posting contest, the result we be a rather angry and brief citing of opposing positions with little backup. So let's focus on the first issue first. Patriarchy.

You said:


You need to be precise here. Are we talking about the past or the present? Are you arguing for a patriarchy in the past or the present? If you're using the past to make an argument for the rational content of the present, then this is simply a philosophical error. The rational content of the past does not determine the rational content of the present. If you want to prove a patriarchy today, you have to prove that it is actually existing. Men today are not running society, nor are they the ones in charge of defining propriety.

The patriarchy is a reference to the institutional power of men. Historically it was also the only sort of institutional power as no matriarchy or any other gender identity held that power. When we talk about the patriarchy we're talking about a general term for institutional power of men. In order to explain what I mean about reinforcing the patriarchy we have to discuss power.

Society is a fluid entity (ever shifting ever changing) it is defined however by those who have power (synonymous with influence, or the ability to make your vision reality). Who has power is predicated on a variety of factors but historical power is one of them. The lack of historical power for women and the presence of historical power for men is a major source of the differential in the institutional power between men and women. We know this for several reasons 1. most overt discrimination is illegal 2. modern women are more equitable than any other point.

However we know that equity has not been reached because we can show statistically that via random sampling you cannot get a 22% etc wage gap were all things to be equitable. Now we're approaching the limits of macroscopic governance to influence individual differentiation, generally speaking +/- 5% is pretty normal and few people would at that point consider it institutional discrimination. However when I go to Lousiana and the wage gap spirals from 22% average to 45%+ we can be very certain that in Lousiana women are institutionally discriminated against. When we look at Washington DC with a wage gap of 7-9% we find it's much harder to explain where that gap comes from and it very much may have nothing to do with sexism. Furthermore different wage gaps tell us different things. Hourly wage gap tells us the differential in pay, weekly wage gap tells us the differential in hours worked per week, yearly wage gap tells us about the differential in take home earnings.

Now it's important to consider that power is always in a dynamic struggle with power. That's not to say men and women are at war, but each through their individual action (not a conspiracy) is reinforcing or detracting from the power bases of others through their individual actions. A force which reduces the power of women, inherently enhances the influence of power of others. This is one reason why social justice points out that modern racism isn't so much of the overt type (only about 1 in 5 americans still engage in overt racism) the same is true about sexism. Most sexism is the product of implicit power struggles each influencing the direction of society.

So in terms of proving a patriarchy existing. Proportion of men vs women in legislative roles, proportion of men vs women in executive and managerial roles does paint the idea that these proportions are not the result of random selection which pretty definitively says yes, at some level or some degree a patriarchy reinforcing institutional discrimination against women does exist. The Patriarchy was the status quo, for it to cease to exist it must be defeated or rather reach parity with other institutional power structures regardless of gender identity which it clearly hasn't.

*snip*

lol. You get that I get off on this stuff right?

So, which of those characteristics is patriarchal?

The ones which allow them to avoid scrutiny of by simply smuggling discrimination under the guise of merit, negotiation, etc. Current law says the onus of responsibility is on corporations to prove the reason a differential exists is based on those characteristics, I think that is appropriate, the problem is that 99% of the time the company can be sure no scrutiny will ever occur.

Anecdote. Irrelevant, especially considering how often SJW's lie.

It wasn't used as a piece of evidence it was used as an example of the theoretical possibility. You cannot dismiss a point like that in this way unfortunately. Good try though.

Doesn't stop progressives from proposing more of the same types of legislation. Because if it doesn't work now, more of the same will surely do it.

Because some progress is obviously no progress? Your argument is hilarious.

Even though when we equalize for women in the same job and experience etc. the gap basically disappears.

Basically disappears is not disappears. The gap persists in different industries and on average for a reason. This is because places where you can reduce it are less common than those which you cannot. This results in a notable wage gap hourly, weekly, and yearly overall. So no it doesn't "basically" disappear unless by basically you mean you don't understand a composite mean.

I mean, in the scientific fields - supposedly the professions most dominated by the patriarchy - women are now already earning more because identity politics has created a premium for their services.

Surprisingly no one has levied this particular argument yet, source?

There are fewer of them for reasons that have nothing to do with patriarchy.

Possibly, but in the absence of those reasons statistically we would immediately assume 1. Random selection cannot result in that distribution 2. Bias must exist in the distribution then. Now which reasons are you hypothesizing? Child rearing? The funny thing is when we look at single parents the wage gap gets worse not better. What about the idea that women just really hate the sciences? Well considering modern enrollment statistics and the trends we're seeing that doesn't seem to be the case either. Do they not negotiate enough? Possibly. However why do they not negotiate? Is it because the patriarchy has defined women's negotiation as unwomanly? Possibly. Perhaps it's because estrogen makes you a bad negotiator. It's interesting that in the absence of those facts you assert that a distribution resulting from a clear bias is the result of totes naturally biasing factors.

You want to altar the environment? Which means what exactly? Why so vague? Come on - let's here your big ideas. Why are so judgemental of the decisions women make, anyway?

Altering the environment means altering the environment. When a flower doesn't grow you typically don't blame the seed but rather the soil in which it sprouts. Once you've taken care of said soil it's much easier to negate the seed as simply not likely to bloom.

You just think that every profession and every city/town should have a perfect and equal demographic breakdown. Otherwise, it's proof of patriarchy/racism.

No I don't. However when something violates a random selection distribution there should be a good reason for it. This is basic science 101. Nothing violates random distributions without some bias somewhere acting upon that distribution.

Who is forcing anything on women?

This is a loaded question. No one is explicitly forcing anyone to do anything. However I can easily implicitly pressure you in a thousand and one ways and many of those ways are only things I can do because society, the status quo is historically on my side. There are micro reversals of this in limited environments. Think about it this way, if I never explicitly say you can't do something, but I highly discourage it while highly encouraging something else and I control your sources of knowledge and expression did you really have a free choice?

There's no laws doing so, that's for sure. Saying a women should smile more is not forcing anything on her no matter how much you try to twist the meaning of the word force.

You're forgetting the straw which breaks the camels back and are trying to ask how individual straw could possibly break a camel's back. Telling women they should smile more is a good example of a typical micro-aggression based on several stereotypes revolving around beauty and approachability. On the other hand you'll rarely hear someone tell a man to smile more and usually when they do it's a direct comment on his emotional state and rarely has anything to do with appearance. This definitional misalignment is one reason why when men say this to each other it's no big deal but women use this statement on each other to insult each other.

Of course, you have no examples.

lol what? How do you type if you can't see?

Women have all the power in the world to be housewives or work now if they want.

All the power in the world. lol. I was born and raised in Idaho, the common perception is that women can't do just about anything and that's fairly common in rural communities as I'm sure you know. It was a shock to me to learn about empowered women in Oregon and the only reason I was able to except it was that my grandfather believed that the best way to make sure his daughter wasn't a product of the system was to teach her everything he would have taught his son. This meant the concept of what was women's work vs men's work never truly existed within my family except posited from the outside.

Third wave feminism moves well past gender equality as defined by first wave feminists. Listen and believe as one example is not equality. Gender quotas are not equality.

Like they are equality, they're not equity. Your nuance is so bad.

You say force to dismiss the choices women make on their own. You have no evidence to show that even a large number of women feel forced into roles.

Yes I have pretty good evidence. The random distribution of roles chosen by men and women differ dramatically. I can cite studies that show that many women feel forced into the roles they have or don't feel that they chose their current role in life. The fact that women up until 30 years ago weren't even allowed to fight discrimination of roles makes your argument stupid. Obviously it takes time for the legal ability to influence society's standard of roles. Just because gay marriage is made legal doesn't mean everyone in the US supports it, it still takes considerable time to get there.

Again, 77% of women reject the label of feminist, yet say they are for equal rights. The vast majority do not agree with you.

82% of the population agree men and women should be equal. Feminism as a concept has been slowly corrupted by negative attacks against it but Feminism does still and will always fundamentally mean equity between men and women which most people support. This is a case of popular definition and rigorous definition not being the same.

I don't think you know what disenfranchise means.

To deprive someone of power.

Libertarians supported gay marriage all the way back in the 1970's. The push for gay marriage gained steam in the early 90's before millennials were any factor.

I didn't assign responsibility, I said Millennials opinions are the result of those social justice warriors from the 70's pushing against the status quo and winning their fight. Which is to say, the acceptability of gayness within millennials wasn't possible before the institutional change made it possible.

If anything, millennials were only a product of the media and arguments they were exposed to that were far more gay friendly.

Literally what I said.

But that doesn't let you put 'social justice warriors' front and center.

Oh, you don't consider civil rights activists social justice warriors. lol. Warrior is a modern pejorative add but SJ as a term has been used by civil rights since the 50's. Sorry you were making bad assumptions.

Doesn't tell you what you are supposed to be looking for. Affirmative action already tends to select for black people of higher socioeconomic backgrounds to begin with. Not poor blacks.

Correct, and I agree that's problematic, but the loss of 2/3 of black admissions is a bigger issue. There's a reason why every private college in the nation uses affirmative action standards in a variety of ways from race to gender to socioeconomic status. Harvard considers a poor student who scores 1540 on the SAT to be the same quality as a rich student who scores 1600 for a damn good reason. I think this is one case where the ivy league schools should have their policies adopted country wide.

Completely dismisses the element of merit.

So wait, white people have more merit than blacks? Ok. if you want to make that statement without controlling for the confounding variables have at it.

Wealth correlates with better educational results. But so does parental involvement.

True, and wealth also correlates to parental involvement. Some family who makes 30k a year is far more likely to have both parents working than some family who makes 80k a year. More to the point the historical association becomes a big factor here whereas white families have extended families who retired and blacks do not have that luxury quite yet.

Meanwhile, the school choice the left lashes out at and attempts to ban has produced better results for minority students.

What? This sentence doesn't make sense.

You collectivize and lose nuance. Sort of like opponents of school choice who argue that taking smart black children out of broken schools is bad for blacks as a whole. Because screw the ones who can make it - they should be sucked down for the greater good. Collectivist theories are .

Then leave society. We don't need you. Ultimately societal success is predicated on the best possible collectivist theory. You can have a collectivist theory which specifies individual determination and etc. It's how super organisms in biology work. Or to put it another way it's the basis of game theory.

I've never seen you post a 'thorough[ly] sourced" argument. Can you link to this instead of just claiming it?

And save you the effort of being intellectually honest? No. It's also linked in the OP which I see you haven't read.

How about bias reaction teams where people are punished and harassed for wrongthink which are popping up on campuses?

You mean political free speech. OH GOD PEER PRESSURE MY GOD ABH I DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS SOO BAD. THANK GOD NO CONSERVATIVE EVER USES NORMALIZING PEER PRESSURE CAGED IN POLITICAL FREE SPEECH. The difference between the two here is one group is fighting for liberty while the other is fighting for their right to dominate. I suppose it's hard for you to look at it that way despite your libertarian ideals you can't see institutions which exist which weren't created by the explicit flick of a pen I guess.

Nothing says we are tolerant of opposing ideas better than an anonymous reporting system for students who are guilty of microaggressions.

What? What are you going on about?

And pushed by the Obama administration?

lol.

How about kangaroo courts grounded in affirmative consent?

So I get it, when you have a wallet stuffed with 100's of bills and I take one without your permission it's not stealing because I can make an argument you never objected to it? Yeah, that seems perfectly acceptable, make victims prove that they were harmed rather than perpetrators that they got permission to take your money.

Moreover, I fail to see how anyone is missing the point when you no platform speakers.

No platform speakers?

You're talking about normalizing peer pressure again or are you talking about speakers being removed from a panel because they decided to link a video on youtube talking about how feminists and islamics enjoy rape? You don't think public entities should be able to be held accountable for their statements? More to the point as a businessman if walmart insults it's primary consumer basis and they decide to stop buying walmart's products walmart has the right to force it on them?

Interesting arguments you're levying here.

The point is you don't want to hear dissent. It's not an occasional event. These stories appear everyday - sometimes multiple times.

Yes, because students shutting down hate speech is a new thing. Oh wait... the entire civil rights movement was based on exactly what you're talking about. What do you think marching down a street is? What do you think sitting in the front of a bus is? What do you think camping out in a politician's office is? What do you think chants are? What do you think call backs are about? Do you really think these things are new? No?

Ok so it's not the tactics you disapprove of, it's what they're being used on. I see. Maybe be honest in the first place?

You say no one wants universities as a whole to be safe places. Yet, that is exactly what was argued when someone wrote Trump 2016 in chalk on an American campus.

Inclusive =! safe space. You can cite as many extremist arguments as you want. As soon as they leave the rigorous definition of social justice, they're no longer relevant. Funny how that works right?

Most of the people who use the terms sincerely misuse them. Which is Diamat's point.

Interesting point, it would have been more salient had he stated it. More importantly what's your basis of this statement? Tumblr?

Also, I'd kindly appreciate it if you didn't compare the pussies on American campuses to veterans returning from war suffering from PTSD.

Trigger is literally a term which entered Social Justice rhetoric because of social justice veterans. You understand social justice applies to veterans too right? Veterans are a marginalized group too. Single parents too!

Those are members of the millennial generation with courage and fortitude unlike campus crybullies.

lol. Special pleading is special.

[Diamat]

The patriarchy is a reference to the institutional power of men. Historically it was also the only sort of institutional power as no matriarchy or any other gender identity held that power. When we talk about the patriarchy we're talking about a general term for institutional power of men. In order to explain what I mean about reinforcing the patriarchy we have to discuss power.

Society is a fluid entity (ever shifting ever changing) it is defined however by those who have power (synonymous with influence, or the ability to make your vision reality). Who has power is predicated on a variety of factors but historical power is one of them. The lack of historical power for women and the presence of historical power for men is a major source of the differential in the institutional power between men and women. We know this for several reasons 1. most overt discrimination is illegal 2. modern women are more equitable than any other point.

However we know that equity has not been reached because we can show statistically that via random sampling you cannot get a 22% etc wage gap were all things to be equitable. Now we're approaching the limits of macroscopic governance to influence individual differentiation, generally speaking +/- 5% is pretty normal and few people would at that point consider it institutional discrimination. However when I go to Lousiana and the wage gap spirals from 22% average to 45%+ we can be very certain that in Lousiana women are institutionally discriminated against. When we look at Washington DC with a wage gap of 7-9% we find it's much harder to explain where that gap comes from and it very much may have nothing to do with sexism. Furthermore different wage gaps tell us different things. Hourly wage gap tells us the differential in pay, weekly wage gap tells us the differential in hours worked per week, yearly wage gap tells us about the differential in take home earnings.

Now it's important to consider that power is always in a dynamic struggle with power. That's not to say men and women are at war, but each through their individual action (not a conspiracy) is reinforcing or detracting from the power bases of others through their individual actions. A force which reduces the power of women, inherently enhances the influence of power of others. This is one reason why social justice points out that modern racism isn't so much of the overt type (only about 1 in 5 americans still engage in overt racism) the same is true about sexism. Most sexism is the product of implicit power struggles each influencing the direction of society.

So in terms of proving a patriarchy existing. Proportion of men vs women in legislative roles, proportion of men vs women in executive and managerial roles does paint the idea that these proportions are not the result of random selection which pretty definitively says yes, at some level or some degree a patriarchy reinforcing institutional discrimination against women does exist. The Patriarchy was the status quo, for it to cease to exist it must be defeated or rather reach parity with other institutional power structures regardless of gender identity which it clearly hasn't.

I will have to be blunt: what are you talking about? Where are you getting this stuff from? Anyone with a realistic understanding of our society knows that there is no patriarchy with men as the powerholders.

And the power you speak of is such an esoteric concept. Moreover, I don't buy the argument that women have a harder time making their vision a reality than men. Perhaps you simply do not like the vision that women choose. Your notion of power sounds suspiciously Foucauldian. Today's society is not simply structured between those who have power and those who don't. There are no such clear dividing lines. It's much more complicated. Everyone is able to realize himself in the universal, and the better one can navigate his field, the more power he has when it comes to realizing his visions. Bourdieu here is much more capable at explaining power than Foucault.

You are talking about fictional power struggles that simply are not taking place, mainly because there is no patriarchy. You are haunted by the specters you yourself have created.

[Elfdude]

I will have to be blunt: what are you talking about? Where are you getting this stuff from? Anyone with a realistic understanding of our society knows that there is no patriarchy with men as the powerholders.

Ok, let's keep it simple. Men write the laws, argue the laws and enforce the laws disproportionately. Which part of that is not a patriarchy? Do you not get the concept of an informal patriarchy existing through the operation of forces and history?

And the power you speak of is such an esoteric concept.

True enough, I would've loved to have this debate much earlier. However in order to prevent power from becoming super esoteric we use it with a few rulesets. Firstly we look at real sources of change in society. Money, Fame, Knowledge and Law. Those who control or possess these resources disproportionately are empowered by them. Those who do not control or possess them are marginalized by their inability to marshall them. Women are a hard argument to get into because women are probably the closest of any of the SJ marginalized communities to true equity. I would say Lesbian and Gay and Women don't have the same barriers to normalization that institutional racism affecting entire communities intergenerationally does.

However we try to avoid this oppression olympics because the voice of women is one major way that voices for blacks and hispanics and gays and trans and etc can be heard. Essentially you must convince the majority or build a majority. Building a majority is massively difficult. The best real world example of that IMO would be religiosity vs science. Despite the scopes trial which more or less made evolution ubiquitous within the classroom, it's taken a huge uphill battle to get it to the point of popular acceptance. The convincing the majority idea is a bit easier. For example slavery, convincing the majority that slavery was wrong was rather easy because the majority had little stake in it.

Now SJ does pull in a bit of game theory modeling. What happens when laws are controlled, written and debated by men? Now we do know there's certain eventualities that men simply aren't aware of. Look at some of the congressional debates about women's issues. Some of the statements otherwise great men make are simply shocking and utterly off base, at the same time they're not women so there's no natural way for them to learn these topics.

Moreover, I don't buy the argument that women have a harder time making their vision a reality than men.

If men wanted to, they could write laws and pass them tomorrow that forced every woman to be a glorified incubating chamber. If women wanted to pass ANY law that they wanted whatsoever they'd still have to go through men. That's a very simple way that it's harder. Obviously men disagree with men, but the enemy of my enemy is my friend and that often means that even without intending to group dynamics tend to homogenize and polarize.

Perhaps you simply do not like the vision that women choose.

Nope. I'd never dream of invalidating anyone's individual choices. If you choose to be a slave have at it, if you choose to be a prostitute, have at it, if you choose to be a murderer, have at it but understand I'm locking you up, if you choose to be a house husband have at it. I don't care about individual decisions. What I care about is macroscopic influences from the top down. To put it another way the choices you described earlier are grass roots in origin, the pressure to conform to expectations, laws and etc are top down pressures on where that grass can or cannot grow.

Your notion of power sounds suspiciously Foucauldian.

Discourse analysis or dialectics... yup pretty much.

Today's society is not simply structured between those who have power and those who don't.

I wouldn't say that. Me being rich pretty clearly gives me massively more power than a homeless man. What the basis of that power is has shifted, the opportunity for people to utilize their power for self determination has improved over time but power structures still define our every day interactions. Even our brain runs on a dialectical power distribution where cross-competitive inhibition controls our decision making process. I'm not sure such a thing can be escaped from.

There are no such clear dividing lines.

Yeah, there's a gradient. It's easy to compare averages because we skip the fuzziness that exists at the edges. Doing that also prevents us from looking at the problem at high resolution and invariably averages, however these averages are useful if we keep in mind their origins. It's useful to know that one side of your garden gets a fifth less sunlight even if that doesn't provide you with perfect accuracy of which plants are affected.

It's much more complicated.

Agreed. It's not so complicated however as to make these measures invalid or worthless.

Everyone is able to realize himself in the universal, and the better one can navigate his field, the more power he has when it comes to realizing his visions.

Well I wouldn't say everyone is able to realize themselves, but the rest of that statement I agree with.

Bourdieu here is much more capable at explaining power than Foucault.

You'll have to specify what you feel the distinction is because as far as my understanding of the two is concerned (while I get they're different) neither one explicitly disagrees with the conflict theory under which power privilege and oppression is based upon.

You are talking about fictional power struggles that simply are not taking place, mainly because there is no patriarchy. You are haunted by the specters you yourself have created.

You've sort of ignored all of the evidence that a patriarchy exists and refused to respond to the central points directly. You referenced two philosophers arbitrarily with no clarification of why or how you're referencing them and then you proceeded to reify your perception. That's fine I suppose but don't think this is a discussion then because you've refused to open your reasoning to critique and your expressed reasoning is insufficient to support the conclusions you've come to.

[Diamat]

Ok, let's keep it simple. Men write the laws, argue the laws and enforce the laws disproportionately. Which part of that is not a patriarchy? Do you not get the concept of an informal patriarchy existing through the operation of forces and history?

Men don't write the laws. Both men and women have the ability to vote. It is women who disproportionately vote men into office. Nor is the fact that there are disproportionately more men in positions of governance evidence for patriarchy or gender inequality. You are just choosing to interpret the world this way. As I said, you are haunted by the specters you yourself have created.

True enough, I would've loved to have this debate much earlier. However in order to prevent power from becoming super esoteric we use it with a few rulesets. Firstly we look at real sources of change in society. Money, Fame, Knowledge and Law. Those who control or possess these resources disproportionately are empowered by them. Those who do not control or possess them are marginalized by their inability to marshall them. Women are a hard argument to get into because women are probably the closest of any of the SJ marginalized communities to true equity. I would say Lesbian and Gay and Women don't have the same barriers to normalization that institutional racism affecting entire communities intergenerationally does.

As I said before, equality does not necessarily equal freedom. An obsession with equality can in fact hamper freedom. And what on Earth do you mean by fame? You are stuck in a questionable worldview about power relations and sources of that power, deriving your arguments from that worldview. However, I disagree with the very foundation of that worldview. In a sense, we are both talking about human self-realization (and hence also freedom), but we have completely different understandings as to how that self-realization is achieved.

Now SJ does pull in a bit of game theory modeling. What happens when laws are controlled, written and debated by men? Now we do know there's certain eventualities that men simply aren't aware of. Look at some of the congressional debates about women's issues. Some of the statements otherwise great men make are simply shocking and utterly off base, at the same time they're not women so there's no natural way for them to learn these topics.

Again, women make up half of the voting population. It's not like they don't have a say in this.

If men wanted to, they could write laws and pass them tomorrow that forced every woman to be a glorified incubating chamber. If women wanted to pass ANY law that they wanted whatsoever they'd still have to go through men. That's a very simple way that it's harder. Obviously men disagree with men, but the enemy of my enemy is my friend and that often means that even without intending to group dynamics tend to homogenize and polarize.

You can't be serious. That would never happen. First of all, because most men actually care about the welfare of women. Second, because women have the ability to voice their opinion, vote, organize, and inform.

Nope. I'd never dream of invalidating anyone's individual choices. If you choose to be a slave have at it, if you choose to be a prostitute, have at it, if you choose to be a murderer, have at it but understand I'm locking you up, if you choose to be a house husband have at it. I don't care about individual decisions. What I care about is macroscopic influences from the top down. To put it another way the choices you described earlier are grass roots in origin, the pressure to conform to expectations, laws and etc are top down pressures on where that grass can or cannot grow.

Macroscopic influences? We are socialized into these pressures. Both men and women feel them, because they understand that by following what is socially viewed as universal, they will be empowered.

Discourse analysis or dialectics... yup pretty much.

That's funny since I also employ dialectics, but with a completely different result. I also draw on the notion of discourse, but I break with Foucault at a crucial point: I see the discourse as liberating, because by acquiring the discourse, one cannot only realize oneself in it, but also change it.

I wouldn't say that. Me being rich pretty clearly gives me massively more power than a homeless man. What the basis of that power is has shifted, the opportunity for people to utilize their power for self determination has improved over time but power structures still define our every day interactions. Even our brain runs on a dialectical power distribution where cross-competitive inhibition controls our decision making process. I'm not sure such a thing can be escaped from.

These structures are not a bad thing. Nor are they necessarily power structures in the sense that you understand them. We are born into these structures, and as we grow up, we learn to navigate them, i.e., our field. We habitualize our interactions with others, because habit, to an extent, is the basis for freedom and allows for higher, creative thinking. Because of this habitualization, to begin with, are we able to criticize the very structures that we have sublated in spirit. And in our everyday life activity, we give rise to new structures that we did not intentionally create. We are in fact right now in the process of such creation, and we have no control over this. Even when humans think that they are masters of their destiny, they are in fact giving rise to structures that subsequently structure them. Freedom does not lie in controlling these structures, but in navigating them toward one's self-realization.

[Garbarsardar]

I moved a number of posts from a recently necromanced thread here, since I do not wish to delete your efforts. A word of caution: if the thread descends to a caricature of the opposing parties, the culprits will be mercilessly infracted with extreme prejudice. Discuss the concept and not what you think your opponents look or behave like.

[ABH2]

The ones which allow them to avoid scrutiny of by simply smuggling discrimination under the guise of merit, negotiation, etc. Current law says the onus of responsibility is on corporations to prove the reason a differential exists is based on those characteristics, I think that is appropriate, the problem is that 99% of the time the company can be sure no scrutiny will ever occur.

Unless SJW's can read minds, they have no way of actually determining the motive behind any decision. More to the point, if I could save 23% on labor costs or whatever the pay gap supposedly is, why wouldn't I hire women? Apparently they are just willing to work for less and it has nothing to do with merit/productivity. As a capitalist pig myself, I'd personally love to have cheaper labor that gets me more bang for my buck.

Of course, your entire premise falls apart for reasons I've already posted. It is flatly untrue when we compare women performing the same jobs that they are being paid less. Apples to apples comparisons, to include the one I recently posted, show no statistically significant pay gap. Younger women are outearning their male counterparts based on the same criteria you use. Younger women are wealthier than young men based on how much they are earning. Within some fields, we are seeing women paid more for the same jobs in order to attract women to meet artificial quotas.

More to the point, what sort of institutional power comes along with women dominating certain professions? If I were to peg one area where there is actual discrimination against one of the sexes, the one that would stand out to me is education. It's a field dominated by women which the SJW left is silent on. What are the repercussions of a female dominated and organized educational system on little boys? Do we need to go through the various literature that show that in fact boys learn differently from their female counterparts? Women are over represented in high education despite males outperforming them on IQ and organized testing. The SJW left is silent on that unequal outcome.

I don't care about the demographical make-up of individuals entering different fields. But the arguments that selectively and only focus on patriarchal oppression have massive blindspots. THey aren't even internally consistent.

It wasn't used as a piece of evidence it was used as an example of the theoretical possibility. You cannot dismiss a point like that in this way unfortunately. Good try though.

Oh? And how about a very real, non-hypothetical and non-theoretical reality where women in sciences are being paid more so institutions have protection against attacks on them based on demographics? The individual women benefiting aren't better at these jobs - but they are getting paid more to perform them. That's not anecdotal. You brought that up to support your argument. It was used as evidence. Well, I can point to actual studies that show the exact opposite sort of discrimination that is based purely on gender.

How about my own anecdotes, though? Women getting paid the same in the military despite not being able to perform the same physical tasks required of them as the men.

Because some progress is obviously no progress? Your argument is hilarious.

According to you, there's no progress with the law at all because 99% of the time it achieves nothing.

Basically disappears is not disappears. The gap persists in different industries and on average for a reason. This is because places where you can reduce it are less common than those which you cannot. This results in a notable wage gap hourly, weekly, and yearly overall. So no it doesn't "basically" disappear unless by basically you mean you don't understand a composite mean.

Really? Because I just posted a study on the last page that looked at males/females in the same jobs across 33 countries and found a 1.6 cent gap. The stats you use don't make any apples to apples comparison. They don't say what you say they do.

Surprisingly no one has levied this particular argument yet, source?

Women have a 2-to-1 advantage when applying for academic jobs in STEM fields. According to a 2015 Cornell study, they’re rated higher and seen as more hireable than identically qualified men by employers (Thanks, Milo!). Women make up the majority of college grads. They and they alone choose their areas of study. Research on this subject goes back to the 1980's and much shows the opposite of the narrative pushed by the left. Women are more readily hired. The idea that academia of all places is a hotbed of patriarchal oppression is absurd.

Possibly, but in the absence of those reasons statistically we would immediately assume 1. Random selection cannot result in that distribution 2. Bias must exist in the distribution then. Now which reasons are you hypothesizing? Child rearing? The funny thing is when we look at single parents the wage gap gets worse not better. What about the idea that women just really hate the sciences? Well considering modern enrollment statistics and the trends we're seeing that doesn't seem to be the case either. Do they not negotiate enough? Possibly. However why do they not negotiate? Is it because the patriarchy has defined women's negotiation as unwomanly? Possibly. Perhaps it's because estrogen makes you a bad negotiator. It's interesting that in the absence of those facts you assert that a distribution resulting from a clear bias is the result of totes naturally biasing factors.

I have no clue what you are even referring to when you say modern enrollment numbers.

Again, thanks, Milo!
Here’s something you probably don’t know: in countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh, the gender split in science courses at university can be as high as 50-50. But, when you look at more equal, enlightened societies such as Norway and Sweden, the number of women doing STEM subjects plummets and goes down every year relative to admissions.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...t-you-to-know/

Altering the environment means altering the environment. When a flower doesn't grow you typically don't blame the seed but rather the soil in which it sprouts. Once you've taken care of said soil it's much easier to negate the seed as simply not likely to bloom.

There is an inherent value judgement in this. It implies that women should be making other choices. There's no objective basis for that claim. I have already posted the numbers - women in my age bracket are outperforming men. Women are in fact doing fine. They aren't, say, overrepresented in crime data as men are. They aren't overrepresented among the homeless or the poor. How come those aren't examples of institutional discrimination? Are we going to acknowledge men are making more poor choices or that they are perhaps hardwired to make certain types of choices?

No I don't. However when something violates a random selection distribution there should be a good reason for it. This is basic science 101. Nothing violates random distributions without some bias somewhere acting upon that distribution.

The SJW left has already ruled out a number of the answers that explain the distribution right off the bat. Not because they have a sound reason for doing so, but because it is wrongthink.

This is a loaded question. No one is explicitly forcing anyone to do anything. However I can easily implicitly pressure you in a thousand and one ways and many of those ways are only things I can do because society, the status quo is historically on my side. There are micro reversals of this in limited environments. Think about it this way, if I never explicitly say you can't do something, but I highly discourage it while highly encouraging something else and I control your sources of knowledge and expression did you really have a free choice?

Progressives, leftists - you guys are the system. As much as you try to pretend you aren't, the institutions that discriminate worse are dominated by people who think like you. And in terms of social pressure, if it even exists, it doesn't matter. That isn't force. Anyone is free to make choices for themselves and say screw that I'm doing what I want. If women choose not to do it, that's not on society. That's the fault of women. Of course, the reality isn't that women are being excluded from anything. Most of the fields in question are overly accommodating to women already. Women just choose not to make use of those routes.

To answer the last part of that post - yes, you really did have a choice. If someone is too mentally weak to make it, that's on them.

Telling women they should smile more is a good example of a typical micro-aggression based on several stereotypes revolving around beauty and approachability. On the other hand you'll rarely hear someone tell a man to smile more and usually when they do it's a direct comment on his emotional state and rarely has anything to do with appearance. This definitional misalignment is one reason why when men say this to each other it's no big deal but women use this statement on each other to insult each other.

I could question the evidence behind all of this. I'm sure there's like one social science study that can't be replicated filled with self-perpetuating logic on it, but there's no actual evidence for any of the inherent premises. Then we get into actually taking this and showing harm from it. I know men who are told to smile more frequently. By women no less.

Moreover, people who believe this stuff never seem to question whether they can actually change it. Or whether people want it to change. Those questions aren't even worth asking it seems. They think they identify something is happening, and jump to conclusions that make it fit their worldview. They then demand change regardless of the preferences of others.

Like they are equality, they're not equity. Your nuance is so bad.

the examples provided are examples of neither. They produce neither. They are institutional discrimination.

I can cite studies that show that many women feel forced into the roles they have or don't feel that they chose their current role in life.

Then do it.

82% of the population agree men and women should be equal. Feminism as a concept has been slowly corrupted by negative attacks against it but Feminism does still and will always fundamentally mean equity between men and women which most people support. This is a case of popular definition and rigorous definition not being the same.

82% of the population explicitly reject the label of feminist, yet support equality. A rational person may ask why the overwhelming majority of people reject that the former is the same as the latter. I would point to the above - the actual particulars of third wave feminism have nothing at all to do with creating equality or equity. They want to actively discriminate based on gender to achieve their own desired outcomes.

I didn't assign responsibility, I said Millennials opinions are the result of those social justice warriors from the 70's pushing against the status quo and winning their fight. Which is to say, the acceptability of gayness within millennials wasn't possible before the institutional change made it possible.

Which is nonsense. Through the 1970's gays organized themselves and engaged in advocacy. they had few friends on the left and Marxists were hardly kind to homosexuals. This is an attempt to go back and whitewash the history giving your preferred movement credit where little is deserved.

Literally what I said.

Literally not what you said. To literally say something, you actually have to say it. You said: "Uh... most is sort of debatable. Most millennials certainly do but that's only as a result of the social justice warriors who kept pushing against the status quo to point out the fundamental truth that we were denying liberty to a group of people for no real reason." You LITERALLY didn't say what you claimed.

Oh, you don't consider civil rights activists social justice warriors. lol. Warrior is a modern pejorative add but SJ as a term has been used by civil rights since the 50's. Sorry you were making bad assumptions.

Actually, the warrior was first used by leftists themselves. It's just a pejorative now because people mock social justice warriors. Equating modern leftists with those who fought the civil rights movement is an embarrassment.

Correct, and I agree that's problematic, but the loss of 2/3 of black admissions is a bigger issue. There's a reason why every private college in the nation uses affirmative action standards in a variety of ways from race to gender to socioeconomic status. Harvard considers a poor student who scores 1540 on the SAT to be the same quality as a rich student who scores 1600 for a damn good reason. I think this is one case where the ivy league schools should have their policies adopted country wide.

You set up a bogus hypothetical where a 1540 is equated to a 1600. Rather than letting in a black student who scores a 1100 compared to a white or Asian student scoring a 1400. You pretend that the gap is narrower than it is. You are the one arguing that black students can't get in on merit. They need help. The other issue - most affirmative action isn't based on class at all. The blacks who were getting admitted were very often times blacks from upper class families to begin with who were given weight based on skin color. Not poor blacks. That just highlights the issues with lumping people together by race. But there is an obvious sleight of hand in confusing black students with the poor as you did in this paragraph. The issue up for discussion here is affirmative action based on race which is the predominant metric used - not class.

So wait, white people have more merit than blacks? Ok. if you want to make that statement without controlling for the confounding variables have at it.

If whites are outperforming them in every metric used to judge admissions, then yes. They have more merit and deserve those spots. Just like Asians who outperform whites deserve those spots. Race shouldn't be a factor in the process because there is no inherent disadvantage based on race. If you want to argue whether poor students should be given some sort of curve, I'd be more open to that discussion. But that isn't the argument as the subject brought up was affirmative action based on race. that process did not select heavily for class at all. It wasn't picking poor black students out of inner city Detroit to go to Harvard.

Yes, because students shutting down hate speech is a new thing. Oh wait... the entire civil rights movement was based on exactly what you're talking about. What do you think marching down a street is? What do you think sitting in the front of a bus is? What do you think camping out in a politician's office is? What do you think chants are? What do you think call backs are about? Do you really think these things are new? No?

The civil rights movement was not about no-platforming. It was about gaining a platform denied through institutional discrimination which was very real and very observerable. It was enshrined in law. No-platforming everyone you disagree with or basically any conservative is literally the opposite of what the civil rights movement was about. It's about silencing opposition and disengaging from a market of ideas.

Trying to pretend that those getting no platformed are hate mongerers itself is absurd. These aren't klansmen and Nazis being no-platformed. The left is no-platforming feminists who aren't fully on board with intersectionality.

Trigger is literally a term which entered Social Justice rhetoric because of social justice veterans. You understand social justice applies to veterans too right? Veterans are a marginalized group too. Single parents too!

I feel pretty safe in saying that 99% of veterans laugh at social justice warriors.

lol. Special pleading is special.

Literally every element of the social justice movement is predicated on special pleading. We need to discriminate to stop discrimination. We support free speech, but not in all of these cases. There is no intellectual consistency or sound principles to speak of.

So I get it, when you have a wallet stuffed with 100's of bills and I take one without your permission it's not stealing because I can make an argument you never objected to it? Yeah, that seems perfectly acceptable, make victims prove that they were harmed rather than perpetrators that they got permission to take your money.

This is an awful analogy. Affirmative consent shifts the burden of proof onto the defendent. If someone takes a $100 bill out of my wallet, the burden of proof is on me to show they did it. The issue isn't the underlying crime but the standard of proof being used. The social justice left thinks its so wise that it can overturn the key pillar of our justice system. Of course, this is another example of special pleading. We believe in due process, but not for rape because it's really bad and stuff.

This stuff is blatantly illegal and unconstitutional. Which is why we have slowly had to have the courts universities engaging in it. Unfortunately, it's a very costly and time consuming endeavor while real injustice is taking place on campuses routinely as a result of this bastardization of the concept of justice.

You mean political free speech. OH GOD PEER PRESSURE MY GOD ABH I DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS SOO BAD. THANK GOD NO CONSERVATIVE EVER USES NORMALIZING PEER PRESSURE CAGED IN POLITICAL FREE SPEECH. The difference between the two here is one group is fighting for liberty while the other is fighting for their right to dominate. I suppose it's hard for you to look at it that way despite your libertarian ideals you can't see institutions which exist which weren't created by the explicit flick of a pen I guess.

When the universities themselves - public universities at that - are sending representatives to sanction students for microaggressions, that is well beyond the lines of peer pressure. That is the definition of institutionalized discrimination. It is using public university funds to suppress ideas you don't like. It is using a public institution to punish those guilty of wrongthink. When public universities ban the expression of certain ideas, and certain speakers based on the whines of a small minority of insane students, that isn't peer pressure.

It's funny because the social justice left will lose. They've only been able to run rampant so far because most of society hasn't been subject to their insane antics. Yet it is slowly going mainstream to the point where even the media won't be able to protect you.

Hey, question - if social justice warriors are so proud of what they do, why are they so opposed to having their faces seen or recorded? Why do they launch ridiculous and baseless threats to sue when they are named/outed? If you are on the right side of history, why try and hide it? I don't recall Martin Luther King ever threatening to sue because his name was mentioned after he attended a rally, or he was photographed. He owend it and was proud of it because his cause was just.

[ABH2]

I did want to draw attention to one other thing. Elfdude argues that no platforming on campuses is merely 'peer pressure.' It's no big deal because it's just holding people accountable for bad thoughts. Of course, it's legal in some cases (not in others I've highlighted - using public institutions to implement anti-free speech codes is not legal in the US), but that doesn't make it right. Moreover, just compare that to how he argues women and minorities are 'forced' into certain roles. They are effectively robbed of choice he argues because our collective culture supposedly discourages them. This isn't real force, as he admits, but pressure. You know, social pressure to conform. The two mechanics are in fact very similar only there is a lot more overt force involved in when an angry hate-mob is trying to interrupt your public speech. By using such tactics on campuses, it reveals that social justice warriors are interested more in redirecting cultural pressure to meet their own values rather than liberating anyone. The issue isn't that people are being 'forced' to do anything, but that they are forced to do the wrong kinds of things. Moreover, there is no proof that most people agree with them as to what sort of outcomes are preferable.

That the only evidence for force in this equation is the demographics of individual outcomes just shows what a flimsy argument it is to begin with.