Difference between revisions of "Activism"
(Created page with "==== Definition ==== <hr> ==== Applications ==== <hr> ==== Interpretations ==== <hr> We shouldn’t believe that just because some noisy activist gets up...") |
(→Interpretations) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
==== Interpretations ==== | ==== Interpretations ==== | ||
<hr> | <hr> | ||
| − | + | ===== The SJW game ===== | |
| − | + | # Identify an area of human activity | |
| + | # Note a distribution of success | ||
| + | # Identify winners and losers | ||
| + | # Claim that the losers are losing only because they are oppressed by the winners | ||
| + | # Claim allegiance with the losers | ||
| + | # Feel secure in your comprehensive explanation of the world | ||
| + | # Revel in your moral superiority | ||
| + | # Target your resentment towards your newly discovered enemies | ||
| + | # Repeat. Forever. Everywhere. | ||
| + | <hr> | ||
We shouldn’t believe that just because some noisy activist gets up and says something about their membership of a minority, and the victimhood that accrues from that, that they are in any way representative of the group as a whole, or has any right to speak for that group. That would suggest that a single trait informs the entirety of a person’s political and moral outlook, which is absurd. | We shouldn’t believe that just because some noisy activist gets up and says something about their membership of a minority, and the victimhood that accrues from that, that they are in any way representative of the group as a whole, or has any right to speak for that group. That would suggest that a single trait informs the entirety of a person’s political and moral outlook, which is absurd. | ||
<hr> | <hr> | ||
| Line 39: | Line 48: | ||
* What you call somebody is not ‘a mark of respect’. You don’t get to demand one’s respect | * What you call somebody is not ‘a mark of respect’. You don’t get to demand one’s respect | ||
* The idea that you can choose your identity from moment to moment and that you have the right to impose that on everyone else is absurd. Most people grow out of that idea when they are 2 years old. | * The idea that you can choose your identity from moment to moment and that you have the right to impose that on everyone else is absurd. Most people grow out of that idea when they are 2 years old. | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
<hr> | <hr> | ||
Revision as of 17:23, 7 April 2020
Definition
Applications
Interpretations
The SJW game
- Identify an area of human activity
- Note a distribution of success
- Identify winners and losers
- Claim that the losers are losing only because they are oppressed by the winners
- Claim allegiance with the losers
- Feel secure in your comprehensive explanation of the world
- Revel in your moral superiority
- Target your resentment towards your newly discovered enemies
- Repeat. Forever. Everywhere.
We shouldn’t believe that just because some noisy activist gets up and says something about their membership of a minority, and the victimhood that accrues from that, that they are in any way representative of the group as a whole, or has any right to speak for that group. That would suggest that a single trait informs the entirety of a person’s political and moral outlook, which is absurd.
People nowadays have nothing to worry about, so we have to create something to worry about. We are exploring creatures.
Equity programs always end with everyone sitting equally on the rubble, or equally dead (Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot). It is one of the most pernicious of Marxist doctrines, and caused us to almost torch the planet.
SJWs engage in “mock behavior”, they are “phoneys”. (But they never give up. They can’t)
Do not apologize to the mob
If you need to have a safe space, go see a therapist
When you divide the world into two camps – the Innocent and the Damned, or the Victims and the Oppressed, and you think you’re in the noble of the two camps, then the chance that you are part of the solution rather than part of the problem is zero. [It is identity politics that creates 2 opposing sides out of myriad human beings. That’s its intention, because it negates the notion of the individual]
Jordan Peterson calls the SJW types "cowardly". He also says that this is a case of "Oedipal cuddling", and the Oedipal mother, who can't let their children grow. (He also mentioned the idea that today's children never play alone, so never learn to solve problems.) The problem is that this hollows out the soul, creating permanent infants.
Being a permanent child is very comforting.
Activism related to Gender Pronouns When they force you to use non-standard gender pronouns, they want to force us to:
- Fall in line with their delusion (which one should never do, because it's cruel). (This is the stance of the Useful Idiots)
- Tacitly accept their politically activist agenda (This is the motive of the True Believers)
The activism is not intended to promote transgender rights, but to push a political agenda
- Activism comes from the philosophy of intense resentment
- These are an example of extreme PC authoritarianism
- Identity is a set of tools to navigate the world, not just a subjective whi
- What you call somebody is not ‘a mark of respect’. You don’t get to demand one’s respect
- The idea that you can choose your identity from moment to moment and that you have the right to impose that on everyone else is absurd. Most people grow out of that idea when they are 2 years old.
See Also
References
