Social Justice Warriors to Believers in Truth: Drop Dead

_{Barry Arrington
February 6, 2019

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Those of us who believe in truth, virtue and “justice” (unadorned with the modifier “social”) are inimical to the “social justice” movement. So says this UN report:

“Present-day believers in an absolute truth identified with virtue and justice are neither willing nor desirable companions for the defenders of social justice.”

Social Justice in an Open World The Role of the United Nations, The Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat, Division for Social Policy and Development, The International Forum for Social Development, 2006, 2-3

Comments

KF
BB, by now you know or should know that society cannot bear the weight of ought,...
That is where we disagree. It may not bear the weight to the extent that you would like, but it is all we got.
Where BTW the “for the most part” is a tell: it means that when calculations suit, unjust advantage can be sought.
There are plenty of examples of "unjust advantages" being sought through the calculated use of dishonesty. But that is not what I was referring to. I am referring to the numerous cases where absolute honesty does not benefit anyone, and might actually cause harm.Brother Brian_{February 8, 2019
February
02
Feb
8
08
2019
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PST}

BB, by now you know or should know that society cannot bear the weight of ought, for any number of reasons -- start with, the would be reformer swimming against the tide becomes wrong by definition. Cultural relativism fails. What is valid is that in community we have duties of neighbourliness and justice to others who are of like morally governed nature -- we do not hold a lion guilty of murder for killing a Gazelle for lunch, or a Bass for gobbling a few shiners. Where BTW the "for the most part" is a tell: it means that when calculations suit, unjust advantage can be sought. KFkairosfocus_{February 8, 2019
February
02
Feb
8
08
2019
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PST}

KF
BB, on what basis is “honesty” a binding duty you may properly expect us to conform to?
By desiring to live in a society we have a socially binding duty for honesty, for the most part, in our interactions. Without a high degree of honesty amongst individuals in society, society will fail. In short, it is a self-imposed duty.Brother Brian_{February 8, 2019
February
02
Feb
8
08
2019
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PST}

BB, on what basis is "honesty" a binding duty you may properly expect us to conform to? KFkairosfocus_{February 8, 2019
February
02
Feb
8
08
2019
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PST}

mjoels
You may be benign for now, but you may change your morality on a dime as it is nothing more than personal preference.
If you choose to mischaracterize it like that, I can't stop you. But can you honestly say that you have never modified or changed one of your moral stances?
Would I become the next enemy to suppress because of the sexual morality I believe in?
If you force your sexual morality on others, yes, you would be in my crosshairs.
Does it stop at FGM etc, or will it go so far as to consider teaching your own children abstinence before marriage child abuse as well?
Why? I taught my kids that abstinence before marriage was, in my opinion, the best approach. Even the progressive sex education programs that many here oppose emphasizes that abstinence is the best approach and the only one with no risk associated with it.
So while they tend to start out with obvious things that most people agree with (like some items on your list above)and possibly even good intentions (although the leaders of most movements should know better and probably do but their lust for power overrules), eventually it will devolve into stances that are actually things that most people do not agree with.
Like the church's stance on homosexuality and same sex marriage? One of the major pillars of any religion is the constant fight for social justice. A commendable motive to be sure. But it has, throughout history, resulted in some horrendous unforeseen circumstances. What you and others bemoan and label as "social justice warriors" is nothing more than people attempting to fight for justice within our society. Again, a commendable motive. And, as with religion, it sometimes results in bad unforeseen circumstances. Should we stop fighting for justice just because of this?
I am unsure why you never actually realized any of this. Poor education perhaps?
Is that how you argue with anyone you disagree with? claim that they must have a poor education?Brother Brian_{February 8, 2019
February
02
Feb
8
08
2019
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PST}

BB, what is truth in the absolute degree, save: the truth, the whole relevant truth and nothing but the truth? Why do you object to this? KFkairosfocus_{February 8, 2019
February
02
Feb
8
08
2019
04:27 AM
4
04
27
AM
PST}

Brother Brian:
Or would you continue to allow these because the people who do this believe in absolute truth.
It doesn't have anything to do with absolute truth. You are erecting a straw manET_{February 8, 2019
February
02
Feb
8
08
2019
03:36 AM
3
03
36
AM
PST}

Vividbleau asks:
Does this not make YOU every bit as much an oppressor, by the very definition you provided?”
To which Brother Brian responds,
Absolutely. But I will sleep well ...."
I would would think the other oppressor group would be sleeping just as well. I greatly appreciate your honesty and willingness to answer the questions asked in a forthright manner, following the logical implications. It's quite refreshing. Now, let's get to your questions. I'll be happy to answer anything you want to ask.
Wouldn’t you force a stop to honor killings, female circumcision, vaginal narrowing, not allowing women to go out alone without a male family member, the death penalty for blasphemy, etc. ? Or would you continue to allow these because the people who do this believe in absolute truth. Or would you allow them to continue because the people doing these things believe that they are protected by religions freedom?
Of course I'd stop them. Anyone with a conscience would be morally obligated to do so.William J Murray_{February 8, 2019
February
02
Feb
8
08
2019
02:13 AM
2
02
13
AM
PST}

Mj, 59: sobering, again. KFkairosfocus_{February 7, 2019
February
02
Feb
7
07
2019
10:43 PM
10
10
43
PM
PST}

PS: It is worth clipping Anthony Watts' initial commentary: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/07/green-new-deal-this-isnt-just-radical-socialism-this-is-madness/ Today, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) released the outline of the “Green New Deal.” The resolution calls for the United States to embark on a 10-year “economic mobilization” with the goal to “achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers.” The plan would shut down virtually all coal, oil, and natural gas electric plants, eliminating millions of jobs in the process; spend unspecified billions on new “zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing” and green public transit projects, and it would eliminate as many gasoline-powered vehicles “as is technologically feasible.” The plan would also require “upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency,” the creation of a federal universal college education program, and it would guarantee “a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States.” . . . --> Remember, these things are on the table while we see Venezuela unravelling before our eyes. --> To begin to understand the implications, ponder how economic information is inherently widely dispersed, uncertain and particular, choking any central planning system on a communication, processing and actuation cybernetic supertasks, where feedback control loops are inherently prone to instabilities. --> Further ponder the sort of ideological domination, imprudence and polarisation of those who hope to set up, control and effect such policies. --> Ponder the failure of the news and views media also.kairosfocus_{February 7, 2019
February
02
Feb
7
07
2019
10:37 PM
10
10
37
PM
PST}

ES58, yes, and that in turn is a proof of the betrayal of duty to truth, right reason, prudence, fairness and much more by those who dominate the major media and web forum or search and news aggregator platforms etc. The very fact that thirty years after the fall of the Berlin wall, the natural majority party of the leading Capitalistic, Free Enterprise economy in the world can be seriously contemplating economic suicide by central control of the economy under colour of environmental concern, promising fantasies that violate basic physics and economics while expecting to win votes and put others on the failing political defensive speaks deadly volumes. For one, physical work is done when macro or micro scale forced ordered motion is imparted thus requiring energy. Where, energy is one of those key quantitative, cross-cutting abstractions that are so pervasive in the world, in effect potential to do work bound up in state of motion, position, configuration at macro or micro levels etc. Such physical work becomes economically valuable when through a set of linked technologies, goods, services, information, transportation, storage, sales etc are performed that are collectively saleable in markets by which demand, ability and willingness to pay are expressed and matched to ability and willingness to supply. All of which requires energy flow from sources to provided services using feasible and sufficiently reliable technologies that can provide baseline and seasonal or moment to moment peak demands in relevant forms. Consequently, there is a calculable energy density of an economy at any given time, expressible as energy per unit of GDP etc. As technologies can be captured in Leontief style input output matrices/tables (routinely used to calculate GDP and to project policy impacts of interventions etc) and as technology patterns drift across time, we can reasonably assess policies and impacts. Where, the constraints on energy are so important that the last two major global economic crises were largely energy driven: '70's - '80's and from 2007 - 9 on with effects lingering to today. Indeed, much of the current accelerated US recovery traces to breaking energy constraints that were in material part ideologically motivated along the lines of what I pointed to above (but were far less radical). The sort of breakdown of rationality starting with fundamentals of logic and first principles of reasoning, knowledge and ethics we are currently tracing in UD's posts is directly connected. Democracies are very valuable for the freedom they bring, but freedom demands responsibility (which is closely tied to moral government -- observe the evasion of the issues raised in the current thread and OP on moral truth: https://uncommondescent.com/ethics/logic-and-first-principles-10-knowable-moral-truth-and-moral-government-vs-nihilistic-manipulation/ ). Where, from the days of Athens to today, democracy has been inherently unstable, requiring stabilisation and support from culture and community. This in turn requires sustained prudently directed effort by church, family, school, media and intellectual leaders. That is precisely where the breakdown has happened, targetting the roots of a stable, sustainable society. Once such breakdowns happen, economic and wider policy imprudence are predictable, as will be deep polarisation and targetting of scapegoats once things begin to unravel. Where, once the core stabilising groups become disaffected, collapse normally follows. This time around, nukes and other horrors are in play. That is how suicidally foolish and stubborn our civilisation has become. Where of course, many imagine trends are favourable to themselves and those they care about, and cannot imagine how collapse can come, or how devastating it can be. (Robbing us of sound history and its hard-bought lessons is part of the manipulation process.) Plato's parable of the ship of state has some sobering lessons for us: https://kairosfocus.blogspot.com/2018/10/platos-ship-of-state-parable-how.html KFkairosfocus_{February 7, 2019
February
02
Feb
7
07
2019
10:21 PM
10
10
21
PM
PST}

Mjoels “This is where propaganda and deceit come into play as you need to sway as much of the public as possible to your new goalpost. Essentially, what happens on the way to tyranny, like with communist Russia or Nazi Germany, is that people are inundated with propaganda and outright lies to get them to some point A, and then the process repeats through point B,C etc. until the puppet masters i.e. the “Party” have complete control.” I happen to be a WW2 history buff and one of the most startling things to me was the power of the Nazi propaganda machine. Allied soldiers most feared the Hitler Youth soldiers that ranged in age from 14 to 18 that absorbed the full brunt of their educational system. They were fanatical killers, ruthless and totally committed to Hitler and the Reich. We are about to reap the whirlwind of 30 years of a massive propaganda machine here in the US called our educational system . God help us Vividvividbleau_{February 7, 2019
February
02
Feb
7
07
2019
09:46 PM
9
09
46
PM
PST}

Mjoels After reading your post I kept thinking about President Clinton’s comments about abortion where he said it should be safe,rare and legal. We have traveled down 20 years and now it’s make the baby comfortable while we decide whether it should live or not. Ideas have consequences and eventually when ideas find fertile ground they always go to their logical end. It may take many years but that’s where they eventually go .Once life is devalued we can know that infanticide,eugenics, sex selection,euthanasia and tyranny are it’s logical fruit. Anyone who opens up a history book knows this to be the case. Sadly infanticide is here as is sex selection,up next euthanasia. Margaret Sanger the founder of PP the famed eugenics racist would be proud. Vividvividbleau_{February 7, 2019
February
02
Feb
7
07
2019
09:30 PM
9
09
30
PM
PST}

This is summarily what we are talking about: Social justice warriors (SJW’s) want nothing to do with social justice defenders (SJD’s) who believe in social justice principles (SJP’s). In other words, SJW’s, the political partisans in question, demand justice only for themselves and their allies – defined as their personal self interest – ignoring the point that social justice means giving to *all* people what is due to them. -StephenB In context BB, what you are advocating is not something based on any solid universal principle that everyone agrees on. The issue, at least for me, is that you are making no distinction between right and wrong. You have no "natural rights" or "God given rights" to work with so your morality is baseless. If you perhaps conceded that there are in fact some natural universal truths that cant be violated, perhaps we would have common grounding to accept the reasoning. But since I am a man of faith, I look at someone who says that their morality is subjective like a stray dog that looks a bit sketchy. You may be benign for now, but you may change your morality on a dime as it is nothing more than personal preference. How then would you look at me? Would I become the next enemy to suppress because of the sexual morality I believe in? How far does this actually go? Does it stop at FGM etc, or will it go so far as to consider teaching your own children abstinence before marriage child abuse as well? You see, to the SJW, there is no distinction from what I can tell. The rhetoric certainly seems to go that way. The rhetoric and the outward goals of social justice and SJW's in particular appear on the surface to be about caring and protection, but the reality is that it is just another group asserting its will to power. Might makes right does not know good or evil, only power. The power will always be wielded to excess as there is no universal "brake" on it. Leaders will always want more control and will never stop pushing for it. Usually these things are started to "solve problems" but it always runs away and takes on a life of its own after a while. So while they tend to start out with obvious things that most people agree with (like some items on your list above)and possibly even good intentions (although the leaders of most movements should know better and probably do but their lust for power overrules), eventually it will devolve into stances that are actually things that most people do not agree with. This is where propaganda and deceit come into play as you need to sway as much of the public as possible to your new goalpost. Essentially, what happens on the way to tyranny, like with communist Russia or Nazi Germany, is that people are inundated with propaganda and outright lies to get them to some point A, and then the process repeats through point B,C etc. until the puppet masters i.e. the "Party" have complete control. It is somewhat like asking a frog to take a bath in your frying pan... I am unsure why you never actually realized any of this. Poor education perhaps? Using the tools and methodology of tyrants, especially without some universal boundary or legal taboo that forces it to stop at some point where it has gone too far will always land you firmly in the same destination. Tyranny. You can read the same story over and over from every "secular" revolution in the last 200 years or so. I would start with the French revolution. It is a great example of amoral people doing horrible things to other human beings in their lust for power that ends in tyranny. Perhaps communist China from the 1950's? Or maybe a more recent one like Venezuela where Maduro appears to be readying the death squads as I type?mjoels_{February 7, 2019
February
02
Feb
7
07
2019
09:02 PM
9
09
02
PM
PST}

Vividbkeau
Does this not make YOU every bit as much an oppressor, by the very definition you provided?”
Absolutely. But I will sleep well knowing that I am “oppressing” some man’s freedom to cut off his daughter’s clitoris, or sew up part of his daughter’s vagina so that the man in his arranged marriage to his daughter can enjoy his daughter’s tight “pussy”. If you want to defend these practices under the grounds of religious freedom, that is on your conscience.Brother Brian_{February 7, 2019
February
02
Feb
7
07
2019
07:20 PM
7
07
20
PM
PST}

Brother Brian Actually you have not answered all of WJM’s questions “Does this not make YOU every bit as much an oppressor, by the very definition you provided?” Vividvividbleau_{February 7, 2019
February
02
Feb
7
07
2019
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PST}

WJM
So, if you could, you’d force others to live by your preference...
Yes.
Your position is that it is your subjective preference as to how people should behave, and attach no “absolute” value to that preference, and that there is no “absolute truth” as to how people should behave or treat others.
Yes
From your perspective, then, the oppressors in your example are also forcing others to live by their preference, even though they mistakenly believe that their preference is an absolute truth.
Yes.
So, again from your perspective (correct me if I’m wrong), both you and the oppressor group are, ultimately, forcing others to live according to your personal preferences.
Yes. So, let’s pass over the rest of your BS and get back to my original question.
Wouldn’t you force a stop to honor killings, female circumcision, vaginal narrowing, not allowing women to go out alone without a male family member, the death penalty for blasphemy, etc. ? Or would you continue to allow these because the people who do this believe in absolute truth. Or would you allow them to continue because the people doing these things believe that they are protected by religions freedom?
If you are not willing to answer these questions, as I have answered yours, I will conclude that you are not attempting to have an honest discussion and our conversation is over. Bye bye.Brother Brian_{February 7, 2019
February
02
Feb
7
07
2019
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PST}

WJM RE 52 Awesome “Does this not make YOU every bit as much an oppressor, by the very definition you provided?” Of course it does. Vividvividbleau_{February 7, 2019
February
02
Feb
7
07
2019
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PST}

Kf@44&46 this should be on the front page of every paper until they all resign but it won't be will it?es58_{February 7, 2019
February
02
Feb
7
07
2019
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PST}

“A quarter of a century ago, in the great hopes of mankind, the United Nations Organization was born. Alas, in an immoral world, this too grew up to be immoral.” A.SolzhenitsynEugen_{February 7, 2019
February
02
Feb
7
07
2019
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PST}

Brother Brian, So, if you could, you'd force others to live by your preference - let's call it the non-oppression of women. Your position is that it is your subjective preference as to how people should behave, and attach no "absolute" value to that preference, and that there is no "absolute truth" as to how people should behave or treat others. From your perspective, then, the oppressors in your example are also forcing others to live by their preference, even though they mistakenly believe that their preference is an absolute truth. So, again from your perspective (correct me if I'm wrong), both you and the oppressor group are, ultimately, forcing others to live according to your personal preferences. Outside of the fact that one group mistakenly believes (under your view) that their beliefs represent absolute truth, isn't oppression and non-oppression achieved the same way - forcing people to behave in a way that they don't want to behave? Let's look at the definition you provided for oppression:
Oppression is when an identifiable group is forced to do something because another identifiable group says they must.
Aren't those you've identified as oppressors being forced to do something (not behave the way they have been, behave in an acceptable way) because another identifiable group (you and those enforcing your laws) say they must? Does this not make YOU every bit as much an oppressor, by the very definition you provided? Let's look at another part of your definition:
Oppressed is being forced to do something that everyone else is not forced to do.
Those whom you have identified as the oppressed are being forced, by you and your law enforcers, to do something that you and your law enforcers are not being forced to do - they are being forced to not act on their beliefs or preference, to stop engaging in their preferred behavior. Hmm. You might counter here that both your group and the oppressor group are being held to the same specific behavioral standard - you can't forcefully segregate women at that time of the month. Therefore it wouldn't meet the second part of your definitional standard of oppression: "Oppressed is being forced to do something that everyone else is not forced to do." Let's illustrate the problem here with a more revealing example: what if the preferred behavior of a group is homosexuality. What if another group creates a law outlawing that behavior and enforces it. Now, they could say "We do not engage in homosexuality so we are not forcing them to give up any activity we ourselves engage in." But, what the first group would be doing is denying the homosexual group the ability to engage in adult, consensual sexual relationships with their preferred gender, which the first group gets to do. So, it seems clear logically that you would be just as guilty of oppression as those whose oppression you are seeking to eliminate; in fact, there would be no way to impose enforced behavioral restrictions on anyone with out oppressing them in some way, because you would be forcing them to stop acting on their beliefs and preferences, while other groups can freely act on theirs.William J Murray_{February 7, 2019
February
02
Feb
7
07
2019
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PST}

WHM
In your mind, is the idea that “all humans are equal and should have equal access to freedom and opportunity” an absolute, universal truth,...
No. It is a man made ideal. Desire. Hope. Totally subjective.Brother Brian_{February 7, 2019
February
02
Feb
7
07
2019
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PST}

Brother Brian said:
There might be a little confusion. When I said that, if I had the power, I would force them to stop this type of oppression, I was not referring to physical force. I was thinking more along the lines of force of law.
Okay. However, there are penalties that are physically forced on us if we do not obey the law, correct? A law without any threat of physically forced penalty isn't really much of a law, it's more like a suggestion.
My justification is that I believe that all humans are equal and should have equal access to freedom and opportunity.
I appreciate you providing these answers to my questions. In your mind, is the idea that "all humans are equal and should have equal access to freedom and opportunity" an absolute, universal truth, meaning it is true regardless of whether or not anyone else agrees, or is it a personal, subjective perspective?William J Murray_{February 7, 2019
February
02
Feb
7
07
2019
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PST}

Mj, correct. And, those who have the guns of the state pointing where they want under false colour of law need to realise the corrosive, cancerous, spreading nature of injustice especially blood guilt. KFkairosfocus_{February 7, 2019
February
02
Feb
7
07
2019
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PST}

The guns aren't pointed at the women wanting abortions in your example. They are pointed at those of us watching what we view as a holocaust of the unborn. Or do you somehow not realize that the force of law only binds? You cant actually make positive laws. Only negative. So the guns point at whomever you wish to restrain, be they murderers, thieves or simply people who believe differently than you.mjoels_{February 7, 2019
February
02
Feb
7
07
2019
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PST}

KF
BB, obfuscation. Law takes its force from two things, being backed by frankly guns in the end and being manifestly just. Without the first, it is unenforceable. Lacking the second (which requires truth as a necessary component — especially moral truth), unjust decrees under false colour of law are tyranny; exactly what is happening with the abortion holocaust.
Where are the guns behind the abortion laws? There is no law forcing women to have abortions. With respect to law taking its force from guns and being manifestly just, I am interested in your opinion on our laws against honor killing, female circumcision and forcing women to wear the burqua? And what about our laws that guarantee the right for women to go where they like without male supervision? Are these laws just or do you believe that they are protected under freedom of religion?Brother Brian_{February 7, 2019
February
02
Feb
7
07
2019
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PST}

PS: The Moon shot was done in accord with Physics and Economics; 100% renewables (while locking out major but politically incorrect sources) in 10 y while proposing to create [net?] jobs and fund huge education and health programs . . . aka state takeover . . . without stupendous economic collapse triggering a global ~~recession~~ [--> depression] is simply not possible or responsible or truthful. And BTW the economy controlling state is the biggest "monopoly" of all.kairosfocus_{February 7, 2019
February
02
Feb
7
07
2019
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PST}

BB, obfuscation. Law takes its force from two things, being backed by frankly guns in the end and being manifestly just. Without the first, it is unenforceable. Lacking the second (which requires truth as a necessary component -- especially moral truth), unjust decrees under false colour of law are tyranny; exactly what is happening with the abortion holocaust. KFkairosfocus_{February 7, 2019
February
02
Feb
7
07
2019
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PST}

F/N: looks like the SJW pols wish to politically repeal economics and physics: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5729035/Green-New-Deal-FAQ.pdf I think this is a highly relevant case of failure to be humble before warranted credible, reliable knowledge. KFkairosfocus_{February 7, 2019
February
02
Feb
7
07
2019
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PST}

WJM
Why? Meaning, what is your reasoning and justification for using force to make oppressors stop their oppression?
There might be a little confusion. When I said that, if I had the power, I would force them to stop this type of oppression, I was not referring to physical force. I was thinking more along the lines of force of law. In the western world we have already done this to a large extent. My justification is that I believe that all humans are equal and should have equal access to freedom and opportunity.Brother Brian_{February 7, 2019
February
02
Feb
7
07
2019
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PST}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply