Political Correctness

Social Justice Warriors—or Just Dipshits?

More victim than thou


hans s / Foter / CC BY-ND

At the New York Observer, frequent Reason contributor Cathy Young takes on the frequently used epithet "social justice warrior" to delve into the ideas that motivate the people who embrace that term. At the core of conceptions of social justice is the idea of "privilege"—specifically, very narrowly defined and tendentious conceptions of privilege that predetermine the outcome of any argument about the topic.

At the core of social justice dogma is fixation on identity and "privilege." Some of this discourse touches on real and clear inequities: for instance, the widespread tendency of police and others to treat African-Americans, especially young and male, as potential lawbreakers. Yet even here, the rhetoric of privilege generates far more heat than light. University of California-Merced sociologist Tanya Bolash-Goza, who accepts the social justice left's view of pervasive structural racism in America, points out that the term "white privilege" turns what should be the norm for all—not being harassed by cops or eyed suspiciously by shop owners—into a special advantage unfairly enjoyed by whites. (Indeed, in its dictionary meaning, "privilege" refers to rights or benefits possessed by the select, not by the majority.) This language speaks not to black betterment but to white guilt. It also erases the fact that the "privilege" extends to many non-white groups, such as Asians.

Privilege rhetoric offers an absurdly simplistic view of complex social dynamics. A widely cited essay by pro-"social justice" sci-fi writer John Scalzi seeks to explain privilege to geeks by arguing that being a straight white male is akin to playing a videogame on "the lowest difficulty setting." Does the white son of a poor single mother have it easier than the daughter of a wealthy black couple? As a minor afterthought, Scalzi mentions that "players" in other groups may be better off if they start with more "points" in areas such as wealth. But generally, the "social justice" left strenuously avoids the issue of socioeconomic background, which, despite upward mobility, is surely the most tangible and entrenched form of actual privilege in modern American society. Rather, the focus is on racial, sexual, and cultural identities.

The outcome of conversations based on this sort of spun version of "privilege" can be bizarre, Young notes. One particularly egregious example involves the charges of "punching down" and bigotry levelled at Charlie Hebdo after its staff were slaughtered in retaliation for publishing cartoons mocking Mohammed.

Read her entire piece here.

NEXT: Shikha Dalmia on Obamacare's Internal Contradictions

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Without having read the article, I’m going with the latter.

    JD, you just got uninvited from several cocktail parties. I couldn’t be prouder.

    1. JD needs to check his cocktail privileges…WHICH HAVE JUST BEEN SUSPENDED.


      /mixed meme

    2. Tucille strikes me as the least cocktail-party-ish Reason writer anyway.

      1. Slim pickings in northern Arizona.

        1. … go join the winos in Cornville. They absolutely don’t get the point of a NY Observer cocktail party. And neither do I.

  2. Let’s stop calling them Social Justice Warriors and instead go with Social Justice Whiners. It’s a lot more accurate.

    1. I dunno – I still usually go with “pussies”, but brevity has been drilled into me, being a manufacturing guy and all.

      1. Sometimes extra modifiers are absolutely called for. Stupid shit-eating fuckwads, for example.

    2. I generally go with “Punching Bags”. That’s the only constructive use I can think of for them.

  3. I’m gonna go with “dipshits.” BTW, best headline ever. Nicely done, JD. I’ve noticed your snark level has gone up a couple of notches since you’ve got one foot out the door. I like that.

    1. JD is the People’s Editor. He gets us.

    2. What, 2Chilly is leaving? Noooooooooooooooooooo

      I honestly didn’t care when they drove away Lucy, but to lose 2Chilly…

      1. He announced a few weeks ago he is stepping down at the end of this month to spend more time with his kid.

        Which sounds like the excuse you always here when a public figure steps down in ignominy but in JD’s case I believe it.

        1. Just how much work is involved in surfing the Internet and throwing together a quick takedown of something stupid?

        2. He announced a few weeks ago he is stepping down at the end of this month to spend more time with his kid.

          Fuckin’ breeders, man. Always puttin’ their “kids” and “families” first. Godammit.

      2. Now I’m sad. They’re probably going to hire another Ricky Suave but I hope they’ll hire another ENB.

        1. Personally I’m hoping for another Emily Ekins. We don’t have enough eye candy around here. TIWTANLW.

          1. Shackford is woofy.

          2. I’d like to see if The Jacket really has special powers, if you get my drift.

          3. I think the reason staff is severely lacking in bears.

            1. *frantically sets up Grindr account*

            2. Agreed 😀

        2. The next hire will be a DOJ false flag.

          “Hey, what is going on, dudes? I am just a cool guy who is down with what you all really like. True anarchy, am I right?”

          1. “It was I, you fools! The man you trusted wasn’t ‘wavy gravy’ at all! And all this time I’ve been smoking harmless tobacco! “

          2. Welch = “This new hire is one outrageous dude”
            Gillespie = “He’s totally in my face!”
            DoJ Mole = “(playing guitar) Wiggity wiggity, Word up? Rock on party!”

          3. “Whoa, this paper shredder is like a little mini woodchipper, right?”

          4. “Did you get your tickets to Coachella yet? Yeah, I’ll be checking badges…”

  4. A widely cited essay by pro-“social justice” sci-fi writer John Scalzi seeks to explain privilege to geeks by arguing that being a straight white male is akin to playing a videogame on “the lowest difficulty setting.”

    *tedium intensifies*

    1. Don’t deny all of the As you got for your white maleness, Warty.

      1. “Take the diploma! No charge! Pay us back whenever. Or don’t. It’s only money!”

        1. I was born with a JD tattooed on my ass.

          1. What a silly Negro!

            1. I’d have started practicing law sooner, but I didn’t see the degree until later in my youth, and no one else bothered to tell me.

              1. Leela: He’s just a nobody who doesn’t want to be a delivery boy. I’d rather not force it on him.

                Ipgee: Well, too bad, because it’s your job, whether you like it or not. And it’s my job to make you do your job, whether I like it or not. Which I do. Very much. Now get back to work!
                [Leela leaves grumbling]

                Ipgee: Life is good.

    2. His books are listed in the “other works you may like” kindle page.

      Can anyone recommend his writing?

      1. His first big book ‘Old Man’s War’ is cookie cutter scifi mil fic. Not bad, not as great as the fanbois made it out to be.
        I thought his ‘Red Shirts’ was clever and fun.

      2. I like him okay. Kind of derivative, but I’ve liked a few. Oddly, he also is the “John” in “Uncle John’s Bathroom Reader” (series of trivia books), which I used to to read sometimes.

        However, he’s a political asshole from what I’ve seen.

        1. well shit, thanks for ruining the Bathroom Readers for me

            1. You saying there’s something wrong with my gear?

              1. Yeah, my fuck stick.

                (one of my top 5 favorite movies)

                1. Absolutely one of mine too. My wife launches into this bit any time she hears the word “performance”.

      3. He’s an easy read and a tedious human being.

        Stross is equally tedious, but a much better and far more interesting writer.

        1. I like Stross’ Laundry series. Next one out early July.

        2. Stross is terrible – EOM

        3. Can’t let the author’s assholeness interfere with your appreciation of his works. I like sever Gore Vidal novels, and he makes Scalzi seem like, I dunno, some really pleasant person.

    3. being a straight white male is akin to playing a videogame on “the lowest difficulty setting.”

      This is stupid. We play on God mode. Just like we do in life.

      1. God mode, permanent quad damage power up. I don’t about you but I’m always going around gibbin’ minorities in one shot. /old school Quake references

    4. Scalzi has been transforming from a relatively normal Joe, who happened to get into writing and make it – to another tedious lefty bore. Very sad to see.

      1. Identity politics: The turd in the punchbowl of life.

      2. You made me look up your new handle. I thought for sure vorladung was going to translate to a large mulch making tool.

        Sorta dissapoint.

        1. Now that it’s all out on the table, I’m disappointed too.

        2. This is why it’s always better to simply assume in ignorance than to look up and verify. Sad Beard taught me that.

        3. Woodchipper, in German was already taken.

      3. This article predates his SFWA presidency and was back before he went full-on crazy. Like “Being Poor”, I don’t agree with all of it, but it was written in a reasonable tone.

        1. Then again, I stopped reading his blog when he malleted A friend and I who had separately (on the same posy) mentioned that Kevin J Anderson is a terrible writer who destroyed several series.

  5. It’s all so fucking stupid. Do you know how many poor white people there are and have been? Including poor white men? What fucking “privilege” do they have?

    Labeling classes as different in any real way is just stupid collectivization, which serves little useful purpose. Sure, some groups may have tendencies, but when it comes down to opportunity, happiness, affluence, etc., the sole relevant measure is at the individual level. Is a wealthy black engineer who votes Republican but grew up in the ghetto privileged? Why not? What about his kids?

    1. It’s all about the guilt of the SJW’s.

      1. I feel no guilt whatsoever. While we don’t have perfectly equal opportunity in this country, we certainly have enough–virtually every damned one of us–to succeed. A willingness to work hard to advance yourself, native intelligence, and/or even just dumb luck can give a specific person much more advantage than someone merely born white, with money, with Nobel Prize-winning parents, whatever.

        1. Most problems with the “disadvantaged black” are cultural. And while I fully recognize and denounce the role the state has played in encouraging that culture, mainstream black culture is not making lives better for the people who wield it.

          1. Even that is a generalization, even to the extent true, that doesn’t mean that individuals can’t succeed. They aren’t being held down by intentional oppression (at least, not direct intentional oppression–not sure what the motives of the left’s leadership really are here), just by cultural and economic factors, including parents who often don’t advocate hard work and education.

            And that’s not all a “black” problem. God knows we’re seeing this reduced work ethic and lesser interest in learning across the spectrum of native Americans.

            1. Of course it doesn’t mean individuals can’t succeed. But do you think Thomas Sowell would be the great mind he is if he were preoccupied with not “acting white”?

              Of course all conceivable groups have their share of problems. Blacks are not an exception. For example, white children born to single mothers is certainly a problem, but it’s clear and evident that it’s a far more prevalent problem in black communities and we can safely rule out “white racism” as the cause for that increased prevalence.

              1. I’m not big on social engineering except maybe eliminating government coercion that leads to negative social results, but you’d think that someone would notice that all of the stuff that has happened for many decades now has had little net improvement during that time. The big change came when the government(s) got out of the discrimination business (leaving aside the new version of that for the moment). Since then, not so much.

                1. All government social engineering has negative social results. You can’t underwrite something with crime and call it a win. But not only has there been no improvement, the social and economic status of blacks and poor in general were improving right up until the Great Society programs came into being. The government has made poverty and disadvantage a permanent feature of the economy and society.

          2. Most problems with the “disadvantaged black” are cultural

            I think progressive government policies, beginning with LBJ, are a huge issue for the poor black community. They’re essentially shunted off into ghettos of the government’s creation.

            You know who else liked to put certain ethnic groups into ghettos?

            1. The Boxers?

              1. Woo. Swearengen. Cocksucka.

            2. The Great Society?

            3. Spike Lee?

            4. Norman Lear?

        2. I feel no guilt whatsoever.

          This is why you’re a horrible person. You should be guilty and deeply ashamed to be a white male, all because of shit your ancestors may or may not have done many generations ago. At least that’s what the dipshits claim.

      2. No, it’s not about guilt, it’s about completely shutting down any dissent. If white males benefit from privilege, then no matter what they’ve accomplished, they didn’t build that. If you accept the privilege argument as valid, it is exceedingly difficult to argue in response that individuals from certain groups have a claim over all that they produce.

        Progressives know this. They don’t feel guilty when they benefit from all the extra perks they’ve experienced in life. After all, it’s a basic human right that they should get to go to a nice liberal arts college and live in a nice apartment in New York or San Francisco.

        It’s just an excuse to take people’s shit and walk all over them.

        1. Well, maybe they’ll win, but I know how hard I’ve worked to get and to maintain what I have. The heck if I’m going to pretend that it was gifted to me, regardless of whatever lies and misinformation they want to spew.

          1. Shut up Whitey McWhitey. Now gives us the wealth you appropriated from our culture with your whiteyness.

            1. I already gave at the office.

        2. My oldest friend really believes that there is no such thing as a rich person who came by their wealth honestly. Except writers, artists, and musicians, of course.

        3. If you accept the privilege argument as valid, it is exceedingly difficult to argue in response that individuals from certain groups have a claim over all that they produce.

          No, it isn’t. Life not being fair doesn’t mean you don’t own the product of your labor, and it never have. This is the same recycled stuff people who believe in strong property rights have argued against for centuries.

        4. “It’s just an excuse to take people’s shit and walk all over them.”

          There you are – it’s a way to nerve oneself up for robbing people – delegitimize the potential victims and say their wealth is ill gotten…so that you won’t feel guilty about stealing their stuff.

    2. I would like to take some of these people on a drive through the big white ghetto of West Virginia. Let’s see how open-minded and unprejudiced they are.


        1. Look at all these these illiterate drug addicted 14 year old mothers of 6. They make me sick with their privilege.

          1. Look at Steve Martin. While he was raised as a poor black child, he became incredibly wealthy, just because he was really white. That’s all you need. Everyone knows that white people who don’t succeed are just lazy good-for-nothings.

            1. Steve Martin was a good dancer, though.

            2. Only after he had his cock shortened could he really succeed.

          2. Mark, that means they’d have to leave the sanitized suburbs they’ve lived in their entire meaningless lives. Poor people are like, icky, and stuff.

            1. Perhaps they could watch a special video, with trigger warnings interspersed throughout.

              1. A Buzzfeed listicle should do it.

                1. Those are the best for acquiring good information.

                  I used to read some BuzzFeed when it first started. When did it get so ridiculous? I can’t even attempt to read through that crap anymore.

                  1. When it decided that listicle fluff + leftist dogma was a winning equation.

      2. I would like to take some of these people on a drive through the big white ghetto of West Virginia. Let’s see how open-minded and unprejudiced they are.

        Why? So they could see proof of what shitty human beings Republicans are?

    3. My lily-white grandmother was the daughter of a dirt poor sharecropper. I love telling people that because the popular conception of sharecroppers is that they were always black. Not even close to being true. All it meant was a farmer too poor to own his own land. Her husband, my grandfather, is the son of Italian immigrants who grew up with his parents and 2 sisters in a 2 room apartment. The entire floor shared one bathroom, which had only cold water. His father was a custodian, and later a cook, at the Plaza Hotel in Manhattan. The idea that my family is steeped in some kind of unearned “priviledge” is laughable. I grew up comfortably middle-class because those two people busted their asses to rise out of the poverty they were born into despite having no more than a high school education.

      1. Remember back when Italians were not white?

        1. Not me, but I’m sure my grandfather does.

          He’s a great man in my eyes. He taught me the supreme stupidity of identity politics via the story of his congressman when he was a young man, Vito Marcantonio. Marcantonio was beloved by all the dagos in the neighborhood because, hey, he’s Italian like us! Yet, as grandpa still raged about 50+ years later, “The sonofabitch was a Communist! Who cared if he was Italian??”

      2. My Irish ancestors and I agree with you.

    4. Collectivization serves many purposes, for statists.

  6. Social justice warriors would be hilarious if not for (like soccer moms before them) all the damage they do.

  7. Illogical conclusions are to be expected when the goal is to basically provide comfort for one’s own insecurities.

    If you are a minority of some kind, white and male privilege means your personal failings are not your fault because the world is out to get you. If you’re white, it means you are complicit in the oppression of others and are thus assuaging your inherent guilt by joining the correct cause.

    Issues with racist policing and drug policy aside, it’s telling that the majority of outrages we see from the social justice type are over ridiculous things that demonstrate First World privilege, like the lack of diversity in comedy or sexism in movies or whatever.

    1. Logic and intellectual rigor are just tools of the white patriarchy’s oppression. Check you privilege!!!

    2. I’m also puzzled by the SJW totems like Michael Brown, when there are plenty more egregious examples of cop-on-black violence.

      Here’s a test: ask an SJW what they feel about Aiyana Jones, or Kathryn Johnston. Probably should be done in person, so they can’t use the Googles to look them up.

      1. It is bizarre. Even if you just want to focus on black victims of police violence, there are tons of very sympathetic examples. Corey May, Isaac Singletary, Tamir Rice to add a few more to the list.

        1. There is a theory that the choosing of such seemingly inappropriate martyrs to the cause of social justice is intentional, because the really point is not justice but political/social intimidation. The idea is that what the SJWs want is for police and the public to be too intimidated to challenge thugs like Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin.

          1. That idea has certainly crossed my mind. I try not to assume too much about people’s motivations, but sometimes I have to wonder.

      2. I’m also puzzled by the SJW totems like Michael Brown, when there are plenty more egregious examples of cop-on-black violence.

        I think there’s probably something to the theory that they latch onto cases like Michael Brown because of the controversy around whether or not he was a criminal, and the fact that it wasn’t an obvious case of a cop just executing a young black man for no reason. The cases that are obvious abuse don’t stir up enough controversy to keep people separated. Divide and conquer.

        1. That also makes sense, but see my comment above.

      3. I’ve said this many times to people in real life regarding Michael Brown, and all you get in reply is a thoughtfully reasoned “RACIST!!!!”

        I’ve also asked why horrifying police abuses on non-black people, like Jose Guerena, Erik Scott, James Boyd, Kelly Thomas, etc. can be killed with very little national interest. Either crickets or “RACIST!!!!!” If anything, chalking everything up to police racism lets them off the hook for all the non-racially motivated abuses.

        1. Well, if it’s racism, then they can write nonsensical academic papers about it, create more touchy-feely task forces and laws, and deflect any sort of blame to the big scary white man.

          They refuse to consider that the real solution to the system, which, as it is currently composed creates opportunities for abuse and oppression, racially motivated or otherwise, is to TAKE AWAY power from the government.

  8. Oh, finally…. the headline Robby could never write, but which sums up his entire beat.

    1. You’re good…

  9. But generally, the “social justice” left strenuously avoids the issue of socioeconomic background, which, despite upward mobility, is surely the most tangible and entrenched form of actual privilege in modern American society.

    Of course they do. Looking at socioeconomic backgrounds would be honest. Can’t have that.

    1. Looking at socioeconomic background would unmask every SJW in existence, because most of them come from upper middle class families, probably with two parents and a golden retriever in the yard. I think most of their whining is their own embarrassment at coming from such bland and non-descript backgrounds.

      1. ” most of them come from upper middle class families”


        most people with rural or working-class backgrounds seem to find zero appeal in the self-flagellation-game that SJW’s play, constantly pretending to publicly ache on behalf of the ‘oppressed and disadvantaged’ in between their visits to Whole Foods to spend 5X more than oppressed and disadvantaged people spend on basic foodstuffs.

        the hardest-core Progressive Liberalism is almost entirely sourced to very-wealthy suburban/urban communities. their obsession with ‘Privilege’ is so much Lady-Macbeth handwashing.

        1. SJW:
          Out, damn’d privilege! out, I say!?One; two: why, then
          ’tis time to do’t.?Hell is murky.?Fie, my cis-shitlord, fie, a prog, and
          afeard? What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our
          pow’r to accompt??Yet who would have thought the old white man to
          have had so much blood in him?

      2. most of them come from upper middle class families, probably with two parents and a golden retriever in the yard.


        Not anymore.


  10. Maybe OT (And I’m sure everyone is tired of talking about it):

    Internet assholes get someone fired.

    One of the moms that was allegedly involved in the fight that got the police called in McKinney loses her job after being doxed and twatted (that’s what I’m calling anyone who gets fucked by twitter mobs).

    1. Certainly a step in the right direction

      Is it?

    2. I’m sure there’s no way this power will ever be used against them.

    3. Is the lady who got fired the lady in the video who was in the initial fight or the lady who tried to break it up and then had to defend herself a little bit? Also, watching that video made me sad for human-kind.

  11. I still don’t get this language business. How does one take a word, repurpose it, and release it into the wild, where an army of trained, barking seals waits ready to use the word for its new purpose?

    1. A significant portion of the human population are no more than biological automatons. They contain sophisticated heuristic software, but it works no differently than training a neural network on a computer. You feed them a bunch of scenarios and give them the proper results. Then, once their network is trained, you can feed them new scenarios, and they’ll bark out the right answer in a nearly unthinking manner.

  12. Let’s just say that if political affiliation was a race, and progressivism was metaphorically white, this country would like the Jim Crow south. Just look at universities, the media, business, government, what they’re trying to do in tech. Progressives belong on the bottom of the progressive stack.

    1. The logical conclusion of progressive ideology would be the mass suicide of all of humanity, of course starting with the most privileged and all the way on down from there. Or at least until the only humans who remain are ones that don’t exhale carbon dioxide or methane, don’t modify the environment, own property, reproduce or even feed themselves.

      1. Yeah, I’m pretty sure their ideal society would closely resemble Miranda in the movie Serenity after the Pax was released into the atmospheric processors.

        1. I’m sure no small proportion of progressives get some good jerk off material out of those History Channel “what if people suddenly disappeared” hypothetical documentaries they did a few years ago.

          1. Yep, had a boss that was a big fan of those “Life After People” shows. He was an environmentalist who repeatedly stated that humanity was a blight on the planet and that the planet would be better off without us.

            It didn’t stop him from taking 2-3 cruises/international vacations a year, though.

            1. Tell that fuck to be consistent and kill himself. Unless he’s a federal judge…

        2. Good reference. I remember when I saw the movie, that when the story got that point I thought “yeah the progs would totally do that, and like Mal says they’d try again if it disastrously failed”.

        3. And the SJWs would be the small % that turned into Reevers?

          1. And the SJWs would be the small % that turned into Reevers?

            No the Reevers are the remnants of the patriarchy and the fallen cis shitlords.

          2. SJWs don’t rape. Ever.

          3. Naw, they’d all become Purplebellies.

          4. No, the Reavers are the inevitable fascist backlash against SJW bullshit. Of the white*, straight men who don’t collapse and give up on life from the guilt induced by the relentless SJW whineslaught, some non-negligible percentage are going to get very angry, and be very receptive to first charismatic leader that tells them that minorities are stupid and lazy and hate them for being intelligent and hard working (viz. “acting white”); that women are weak, timid, and irrational and hate them for their strength, courage, and reason; that strength and power are virtues, that equality is slave morality and freedom promotes corruption and weakness, that privilege is not something to be ashamed of but a mark of superiority, etc.

            The more self-evidently stupid, insane, and destructive the progressive movement becomes, the more appeal fascists will have, since on the surface they seem to offer the exact opposite.

            *whatever that term comes to encompass by the time this goes down, e.g. could also refer to many Asians and Hispanics.

          5. See, I think the Reevers are the SJWs, and the Pax ripped their violent, rapey masks right off.

    2. And it isn’t even really an invalid comparison, since studies show that a fair bit of political orientation seems to be genetic, or at least a deeply rooted aspect of personality, rather than a deliberate choice. So, hating someone for being libertarian or conservative makes about as much sense as hating someone because they’re gay.

      1. Libertarians are overwhelming white and male, but whites don’t have a “libertarian” gene. I think we carry more of our ancestors cultural baggage than we often realize and people who are themselves descended from Europeans and much more importantly those whose societies are are rooted in European culture and western philosophy tend more often to be libertarians than other ethno-cultural groups.

        The same way some Asian groups tend to be more collectivistic in their philosophical leanings despite not having a collectivism gene and Arabs tend to be more religious despite not having a “zealotry” gene.

        1. I can’t imagine that there are genetic causes for suck specific things. But I could believe that there is some sort of genetic root for anti-authoritarian and contrarian tendencies, which most libertarians seem to share. I don’t think it is the only political direction those tendencies can lead you in, though.

          1. I do have berserker blood in me…
            The whirling dervish would be considered the first wood chipper…
            I do this (…) too much…

        2. Guess what?

          people interested in any political philosophy are overwhelmingly white and male

          people who actually like to think about *reasons* for things? and test them in debate (that doesn’t involve screaming and clawing people’s eyes out)? are overwhelmingly white and male.

          almost everyone else is more concerned with just *shouting louder* and saying whatever is popular. “Global Warming!! Inequality!! Allah Wills It!!”

          and the best attack they have against “people who try and appeal by means of logic and reason”…?

          is to accuse them of being *too white, too male*…. as though that’s supposed to mean something.

          1. @Gilmore; Interestingly enough, some studies have shown some real cognitive differences between ethnic groups, even when controlling for culture. Asians tend to excel in engineering, medicine and math and are overrepresented in those fields compared to other groups. Europeans tend to be overrepresented in fields like law and philosophy et cetera. So seemingly, whites are hardwired to be a little better at abstract thought and Asians a little better at the practical application of empirical knowledge.

            1. Lucky for the Europeans that the Chinese were mired in dynastic infighting for so long.

              1. The Chinese problem was their social institutions. Europe wasn’t lacking in dynastic infighting either. But their social institutions were hugely decentralized whereas the Chinese model was greatly centralized placing a great deal of legitimacy in bureaucracy. The Chinese bureaucracy was as notoriously inept as it was long-lived. And still is.

  13. Cathy Young fights the good fight.

    1. Indeed.

      It pains me that for every Cathy article which speaks courageous truths, we have a Sheldon article to offset it.

      1. Gil, your linked video is tremendous.

        1. The music really makes it work

    2. Yes. I like her.

      1. She combats the insipid sjw/dipshit stuff with well-reasoned journalism, and it seems like the only responses she gets from the dipshits are “rape denier” and “gender traitor” and other pathetic insults.

        1. They’ve got nothing because she actually is a feminist, minus the Marxist idiocy and perpetual victimhood.

  14. I interact with a clade of SJW types via marriage. The wife’s old college friends are caricatures of the SJW stereotype. Not nearly as bright as they’d like to think, arrogant to the point of hubris, anti-religious while being loudly jewish, yet not knowing much about their own faith. And ready to argue vociferously on any topic, regardless of their lack of knowledge.

    There’s very few things more surreal than watching a white, jewish woman lecture a conservative black man about racism in America. It really makes your head swim. Apparently her PhD in “alternative dispute resolution” concentrating in minority studies trumps his “I’ve lived my whole life as a black man in the United States.” The argument really went sideways when they got into the current murder rate vs lynchings. She was pretty adamant that blacks were lynched by the thousands, all the way into the 70’s and 80’s. Even today! Back in the 50’s and 60’s she claimed more than 50k lynchings per year. No kidding….

    A quick google left her chagrinned, but not apologetic or open to the idea that she might be wrong about her overall point.

    All of which is a long way of saying… yeah, dipshits. Completely and utterly dipshits. But their “privilege” construct insulates them from any possibility of being wrong. Disagree about race relations? That’s because you need to check your privilege, you racist. It truly is a wonderful tool for maintaining the facade of superiority.

    1. Upper class twit is the best kind of correct.

      Who is she going to believe, all of her fancy and expensive agitprop book learnin’ or your lying eyes?

    2. The irony is that, at least in some contexts, these people are creating exactly the kind of privilege that white males supposedly have for themselves. They are the ones who think they should be able to shut down conversations and win arguments simply because of their social position. I would argue that there is no one more privileged in the US today (except maybe politicians) than a member of a traditionally oppressed minority on a college campus.

      1. It is not ironic Zeb. It is by design. The entire thing is about power and giving them the ability to control other people and shut up anyone they disagree with.

        1. It’s not done ironically, but it is an interesting bit of situational irony from an outside perspective. Of course, it is also maddening and dangerous.

          1. It is not so much irony as pure mendacious.

    3. People like the woman you describe are almost long term field experiments in Pavlovian conditioning. That woman spent 20 plus years as a student. The entire time she was constantly rewarded for saying the right things and taking the accepted positions regardless of their truth or their relation to the real world. So like Dr. Pavlov’s famous dogs, she has been conditioned to mouth the the right talking points and spout the right ideology. She has never in her life been challenged, told people on the other side are anything but evil and beneath contempt or that any “fact” no matter how outrageous might be untrue if it fits the narrative.

      Her intellectual life consists entirely of conditioning. The bell rings and she slobbers expecting food. Your showing her something as simple and obvious as the fact that blacks were not lynched by the tens of thousands in the 1950s is like ringing the bell and giving the hungry dog a plastic toy. She had no idea what to do in response.

  15. Maybe some day we’ll have a black family in the whitehouse.

    1. Why are so many of these people such social misfits? People always make fun of the evangelicals, but even the most committed of them who honestly believe the world is 6 thousand years old and such, have jobs, families, and normal lives. Progs in contrast are almost never like that. Time and again they are like Chu or Yglesias and look like something that fell out of the back of the short bus and no one noticed was gone.

      1. Well John, some reject your religious beliefs for rational reasons. Others do it for emotional reasons or otherwise just to be a rebel somehow. Distinguishing between the two is apparently hard for a great many of those evangelicals, among whom the conventional wisdom seems to be the gateway theory, that atheism leads to communism or some such nonsense.

        1. That is not what I am talking about. You can believe the world sits on a giant turtle and still have a job and a girlfriend and be a normal reasonably well adjusted person. Yet, for some reason, being a SJW makes being that way hard.

          1. I agree. SJW “thought” is at least as wrong as the giant turtle theory but it’s so full of inconsistencies and poorly reasoned postulates that being a “well adjusted SJW” is a contradiction in terms.

          2. Being an SJW is all about taking up the struggle of the downtrodden. It’s almost impossible to do that to the required level when you live a normal, well-adjusted life.

            1. Also, having a normal, well-adjusted life tends to teach people that many of the “cures” for social injustice are inefficient, ineffective, or counter-productive. It takes the steam out of warriors if they realize their weapons don’t work.

        2. And every communist is an atheist. So while correlation does not equal causality, it doesn’t rule it out either.

          1. But quite obviously not every atheist is a communist. And I’m sure even some communists out there will profess their allegiance to some flavor communism and their religion at the same time. Post-Soviet Russian Orthodox Communists abound. Similarly, the Russian Communists of the Soviet era were historically nationalist in practice, however much that may have contravened the official byline that they were internationalists.

            1. It was a joke. I realize not every atheist is a communist.

              1. Well the No True Scotsman argument could conceivably apply to the Marxist brand of communists in particular since atheism was so fundamental to that doctrine. But maybe a religious Marxist isn’t as much of a contradiction as a pro-state Rothbardian, I can’t say for sure.

          2. And every communist is an atheist.

            Counterexample: Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig.

            1. She is a socialist. She is not however a doctrinal communist. She is too stupid to be one. Being an actual communist, while insane, does take some effort and thought.

  16. I checked my privilege and found it wanting.

    1. Mine was a little low this morning so I added another quart.

  17. My best friend’s step-mother makes $85 hourly on the computer . She has been fired from work for nine months but last month her pay check was $17089 just working on the computer for a few hours. see it here
    LINK HERE?????? http://www.BuzzReport20.com

    1. Is it Aldolpho Wisner, or Adolph O. Wisner?

      I read it as Adolpho Wisner, and he’s from Brazil. Knowudimean?

      1. I think it’s Adolph O’Wisner. It certainly seems Irish to me.

        1. *dances Irish jig while applauding*

  18. Socioeconomics is a common theme among conversations on the left as well as the topics of racial, sexual, and cultural identities.

    The only thing I learned in that piece, was that only the fringe battles for social justice are held up by right-wing authors as “profound” flaws in the overall search for social justice.

    It’s a common theme among Republican leaning folks these days that, because “social justice” is one of the two main purposes for government, it must be discredited as overreaching (just like many Republicans think of all government). The modern Republican only becomes increasingly myopic with the adoption of this mentality to the detriment of the political party at large.

    In more simpler terms, if you want to win an election as a Republican, you can’t say much about what you stand for, so you discredit the work of your opponents instead. Republicans these days struggle to make arguments in the affirmative for giving them positions of power in government.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.