(II) Liberalism vs. SJW's (Is this now clear enough?
Yesterday I posted some verbatim remarks from a commenter on the defunct Camels with Hammers Patheos channel. Snowflake and Freeze Peach🍑 complained that the wording was "over their heads;" I promised yesterday that I would come back and edit this thing for clarity. So, here is my attempt at clarity:
👨on SJM: "From my
outsider point view (I live in Europe, and American-style "SJW"
movements are far less common here), I can see three basic problems with the
"SJW" approach (practical if not on paper):
"1. Careless, one-size-fits-all attitude
towards challengers: "calling out" a leading politician is way
different from targeting a confused, maybe unschooled, and surely angry
supporter of his - the former has power, the latter has none; the former has an
agenda, the latter probably has none. But treating both the top and the base of
the other side in the same way is dishonest, dehumanizing, and it is the best
way to make sure the latter keeps clinging to the former.
"2. Factionalism: discussing and calling
attention to one's identity (ethnic, sexual or whatever) can be a powerful
source of political thought and action, but when labels become more important
than shared goals, no progress can be made - I mean, are you really ready to
waste time and energy on arguing with me just because I'm not totally embracing
(not embracing, mind you, not opposing) your view on some obscure gender or
sexual type?
"3. Manichaeism (they’re
either with us or against us): the most extreme but logical consequence of
point #2 - whenever dogma prevails, whoever isn't 99% on board is conflated
with the enemy, no matter how trivial that missing 1% might be -- but this is a
great way to make tons of potential, good-willing allies feel rejected, or
worse.
"My 2 cents."
Posted by Jennifer A. Nolan
Comments
Post a Comment