RE: Were social justice warriors responsible for the election outcome?
December 22, 2016 at 11:50 am
(This post was last modified: December 22, 2016 at 11:52 am by Regina.)
I think that reaction is real, personally
When you've got a situation where we've got used to shutting down anything perceived as "racist" speech with just that one word, and not actually using reasoned arguments to back up what we're saying, of course it's going to eventually backfire. Like I said in another post the other day, it shouldn't be difficult to convince someone why racism is not only wrong, but also damn stupid. But when the entire argument is "that's racist." they're not hearing what they need to hear to change their views.
Any post I've made on this forum where I'm arguing something "anti-racist" against someone who I perceive to have biased views, I deliberately avoid the r-word and have for a while. Why? I want to actually engage them and give them arguments they can think about. That goes so much further. Same with when I'm talking about gay issues, I'm not trigger-happy using "homophobic" either.
It's not talking about race that's the problem, it's the way "that's racist." is automatically accepted as a profound argument.
I do also think these hippy dippy arguments - "racism = prejudice + power, so People of Colour can't be racist" and "ALL white people are racist" do not help. All these do is alienate potential allies and oversimplify a complex issue.
When you've got a situation where we've got used to shutting down anything perceived as "racist" speech with just that one word, and not actually using reasoned arguments to back up what we're saying, of course it's going to eventually backfire. Like I said in another post the other day, it shouldn't be difficult to convince someone why racism is not only wrong, but also damn stupid. But when the entire argument is "that's racist." they're not hearing what they need to hear to change their views.
Any post I've made on this forum where I'm arguing something "anti-racist" against someone who I perceive to have biased views, I deliberately avoid the r-word and have for a while. Why? I want to actually engage them and give them arguments they can think about. That goes so much further. Same with when I'm talking about gay issues, I'm not trigger-happy using "homophobic" either.
It's not talking about race that's the problem, it's the way "that's racist." is automatically accepted as a profound argument.
I do also think these hippy dippy arguments - "racism = prejudice + power, so People of Colour can't be racist" and "ALL white people are racist" do not help. All these do is alienate potential allies and oversimplify a complex issue.
"Adulthood is like looking both ways before you cross the road, and then getting hit by an airplane" - sarcasm_only
"Ironically like the nativist far-Right, which despises multiculturalism, but benefits from its ideas of difference to scapegoat the other and to promote its own white identity politics; these postmodernists, leftists, feminists and liberals also use multiculturalism, to side with the oppressor, by demanding respect and tolerance for oppression characterised as 'difference', no matter how intolerable." - Maryam Namazie
"Ironically like the nativist far-Right, which despises multiculturalism, but benefits from its ideas of difference to scapegoat the other and to promote its own white identity politics; these postmodernists, leftists, feminists and liberals also use multiculturalism, to side with the oppressor, by demanding respect and tolerance for oppression characterised as 'difference', no matter how intolerable." - Maryam Namazie
