Our local freethought group has engaged in quite a bit of social justice dialogue recently.
OK, i suppose that phrase—social justice—needs a bit of contextualization itself first. Social justice spans a wide range of topics, including prison reform, food sustainability, poverty, theocracy, and so much more, and concerns wide swaths of religious, political, and other organizations. By my reckoning, most such topics are uncontentious, at least insofar as being important topics, among mainstream progressives and irreligious folk. In odd contrast, the dialogue on systemic discrimination, marginalization, privilege, and oppression is so contentious by its very existence that its proponents have been dealt what might be the most bizarre pejorative i’ve ever learned, “social justice warriors”, or SJWs. The notions that prejudices can be unconscious; that responsibility, vulnerability, and culpability can be asymmetric; that solutions may not be fair; and, generally speaking, that context matters*, so repulse various contingents within movement secularism that spaces in which these topics are discussed must be closely moderated.
Much of this resistance is rationalized in terms of the offending tone, taxonomic terminology, and pithy deontology of the online (hence readily accessible) though largely internal (among social justice advocates) dialogue, especially on Tumblr, or on the grounds that they level disproportionate criticism people like me (setting economic aside). While i empathize with the sense of alienation that comes with being singled out for chastisement on the basis of gender or race or somesuch, i beseech anyone who finds it unfair to consider mulling over the direct object in the first half of this sentence.
While eventually i want to dig into the various quips that have been cited to demonize the dialogue, i’ll need to first get past a definitional sticking point.
While i’ve conceded good reasons not to identify as a feminist, i’ve taken the position that they don’t outweigh the many good reasons to so identify. The burden falls to me to provide a case in which such reasons do. While i don’t have one for feminism, it is easy to furnish one for another of my own affiliations, and the subtleties segue into a common logical fallacy i’ve been meaning to discuss.
When Occupy was first making a splash, it played directly into my activist sensibilities (i am a radical) and my socioeconomic politics (i am an interventionist), but i relied on several econobloggers to make (more) sense of the web of implications among issues and policies. Foremost among these, of course, was Paul Krugman an economist at Princeton and columnist for The New York Times who spent several of his columns around that time championing OWS and detailing the origins, mechanisms, persistence, and precursors of our present grossly inequitable society and dysfunctional political arena, out of which it arose.
Objects in the Rearview Mirror
- An unexpectedly touching account of misplacing things twitter.com/longform/statu… 2 days ago
- Expanding my dystopian reading list. youtube.com/watch?v=JQpdYT… 3 days ago
- RT @GovMalloyOffice: 75 years ago today, an Executive Order was signed that created internment camps resulting in the incarceration of 120,… 3 days ago
- "Future raises would be pegged to the cost of living." Is this as impressive as it seems? cga.ct.gov/asp/CGABillSta… twitter.com/CTMirror/statu… 4 days ago
- RT @MotherJones: America's schools aren't up to the task of fighting back Trump-fueled hate. Here's a fix. mojo.ly/2jTzS7U https://… 4 days ago
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.