Being against discrimination against anyone is common sense and written in the US as well in most European Constitutions. Calling white people out and holding us accountable for what systems of oppression we support and uphold is very far from discrimination but is criticism and doesn’t actually affect white people negatively besides our own flakiness.
You have retreated to the Motte, but most of Social Justice lives in the Bailey.
In other words, what you describe is not at all how Social Justice is being implemented on the ground. On the ground, Social Justice is being used as a blatant tool to justify racial prejudice and gender prejudice itself. And if someone points that prejudice out, they’re accused of “white/male fragility” and told to “sit down” etc.
I’ve had discussions as recently as last month with white male volunteers with the progressive caucus of the Democratic Party, who said that they are literally not permitted to speak in meetings because of their skin color and gender. One of them bemoaned, “it’s as if my opinions and efforts aren’t any value because of my immutable birth characteristics.” I told him, “yeah, see, we used to have a word for that. That used to be called ‘racism.’”
The evidence for this is everywhere. It’s all over Medium, Reddit, Twitter, major media, and in the news.
Unfortunately, human beings have a biological predisposition to prejudice, probably for evolutionary reasons. And we have a sociological predisposition to build or adopt virtue structures to organize our societies around. When these two things interact, they create virtue-driven-prejudice. In the past, this manifests as “white man’s burden,” or Naziism, or Communism. But right now it is manifesting in Social Justice.
You dismissed prejudice offhand in the quoted paragraph above, but I’ll tell you, it is almost impossible to get a Social Justice person to say or type the words “prejudice against men is bad” or “prejudice against white people is bad.” They refuse to even engage the possibility, because they’re addicted to the dopamine high that virtue driven prejudice gives them when they go to marches bearing “White Genocide Now” signs.
And all this flows from Bivol-Pavda’s stipulative definition.
I don’t think I ever said in order to right the wrongs that the system of Rracism created we should now target other groups in power.
I never intended to strawman your position, and if I did so in error, I apologize profusely. Instead, I’d like to pivot and reiterate what I said above. There is a disconnect between how you envision the thing working, and what’s happening on the ground. You probably aren’t using the Social Justice framework as a way to make prejudice virtuous, but many of the rest of them are, and those are the ones that concern me.
And returning to the issue of the Jews, those ones will absolutely pivot to attacking Jews once they apply the indoctrinations of (intersectionality)+(you didn’t earn that)+(R) to the socioeconomic facts on the ground. That’s why the prior analysis is important.
Further, if you don’t find yourself expressing gender or racial prejudice from those three indoctrinations, while others are, the analysis would indicate that you must be interpreting them differently than they are. The most valuable result of this discussion, in my opinion, would be for you to clearly identify where you differ from them in your interpretations of those three indoctrinations. I want to know the difference. I’d like to write an article about that, quite honestly, to hopefully do some hand-holding among the SJ crowd and lead them away from the dark prejudiced hole they’re in, and more towards where you’re at.
This is actually interesting as you said you are an individualist but you try to implicate arguments to what I’m saying that you assign to a non-existent Social Justice homogeneous group.
I will grant that any individual may not be part of a group, on an individual level, including you. And were you and I having a beer I would not stereotype you as being in a particular group based on your race, sex, or political opinions. But that does not negate the existence of groups. Here I’m critiquing a group.
What racism, sexism, antisemitism have done very very well in the past until today is that they adapted their wordings and arguments but maintained the effects for the groups targeted by it. Instead of targeting Jews, they target the “elites” that just happen to be Jewish, instead of targeting Black people, they criminalized drug abuse (of substances mainly used by black people) and established a stereotype of black criminals, instead of telling women that they belong in the kitchen and their job is to please their husbands, we created systems that hold them back in their career progression and created stereotypes them as not wanting to lead.
The term victimization is actually quite interesting here. There is John Ehrlichman on record who said that they specifically targeted Black people & the anti-war lefts (https://youtu.be/1WU608Z2678?t=1080). As mentioned the War on Terror followed that same logic and has done similar things to the Muslim community. I highly recommend to watch the full movie “the 13th” and watch closely how framing, manipulation, and propaganda transformed the way how racism is executed but still successful.
I wanted to quote all this just to state that I agree with basically all of it, to make sure any opportunities for olive branches aren’t wasted. :)
There are no things the government could do which would be more important to racial harmony that ending the drug war and the war on terror. Both should end tomorrow.