[Godstud]

I never said I was a SJW, you racist Nazi. You are simply wanting to apply the same derogatory term to anyone who slightly disagrees with you, as is typical for racist Nazis, I guess.

[mikema63]

The question is not whether it's okay or not. It's about putting people into a defensive position and watch them trying to distance themselves from a minority within their own group. That's fair game as far as I can see.

I'm actually amused that so many people (not on this board) react so strongly to it.

You mean like musli....

In all seriousness though, while I can't stop people from doing it, I would like to think at least on PoFo we could aim for some clarity.

Not that PoFo is a bastion for well thought out argument and calm rhetoric.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

You mean like musli....

In all seriousness though, while I can't stop people from doing it, I would like to think at least on PoFo we could aim for some clarity.

Not that PoFo is a bastion for well thought out argument and calm rhetoric.

I think the name is descriptive enough. They are the more extreme end of those for whom social justice for a variety of identities has top priority. The threshold where you start being regarded as an SJW will vary depending on who makes the judgment. Personally, I'm not particularly interested in defining this concisely. If the right had sufficient people in social science departments, they'd no doubt would produce plenty of research on this question.

I never said I was a SJW.

People often don't realise they are an SJWs. It's subconscious.

[Igor Antunov]

This just about covers it:

[Godstud]

People often don't realise they are an SJWs. It's subconscious.

People, like you, often don't know they're racist Nazis. They're too stupid.

Personally, I'm not particularly interested in defining this concisely.

Because you're a racist Nazi, right? That's why I'll continue to refer to you as one, unless you actually take the time to figure out that calling people a SJW, is the same as when Israelis scream out "Anti-semitist!", when someone disagrees with what Israel does. Racist Nazis aren't usually interested in defining things concisely, though.

[Mercenary]

Well, it is a solid debating tactic...... not.

[Godstud]

It's the same tactic as calling someone a SJW when you don't like what they are saying. Identical.

Just yell, "SJW!!" and you silence the opposition which then ends the argument, allowing you to claim victory.

[recurnal]

Sociocultural discourse between left and right has reached a dead end in name-calling.

Yes, the term "social justice warrior" contributes little, if anything, to the conservative's semantic toolkit. Neither, really, do terms like "racist" or "bigot," when coming from the liberal left. All have been overused, a la the boy who cried wolf.

Ad hominem, in general, is a bad way to carry out reasoned debate. Many of the problems we're now having, we owe to our tendency to hide in vague terms directed at our opponents.

[Mercenary]

The words we commoners use have little bearing on politics. Left and right are two wings of the same bird, and the differences have more to do with blind factionalism than real philosophical differences.

Those terms just make it easier for the media to turn us against each other, and for politicians to manipulate us through rhetoric.

[MB.]

Did any of you even watch the debate? Right now this thread is effectively an echo-chamber with people arguing about the validity of the term Social Justice Warrior without actaully discussing the opinions of the people (University Academics) involved in the discourse.

I actaully watched the entire debate and would appreciate discussing it with someone who isn't a member of the utterly boring echo-chamber.

The convergence between social justice warriors and liberal-capitalism is directly setting up for nationalist reaction and rejection of economic liberalism and international finance. The far-right is completely outmaneuvering the far left in seizing on the last couple years, and it's become apparent the centre-left is not only the new party of big business, but has absolutely nothing to offer the (especially white) working class.

By squeezing the native working class/middle america from two sides, one from a left establishment (creating a legitimately right wing counter-culture) and one from below, the outside in-group competing for jobs and institutional and cultural power, this directly sets up for the 'beset from two sides' siege mentality that was historically key to the rise of the third position both as opposed to leftism and capitalism

I think this is too deterministic in its predictions, but otherwise a fairly typical analysis of the situation today. The neoliberal revolutionary movement on the left was co-opted by the Democrats yet the mass media appeal of a demagogue defeated the other demagogue by less than 2 million popular votes. Also Brexit and now Nigel Ferrange will be a diplomat with America. I don't know when the centre-left as you imagine it has ever not been controlled by the bourgeoisie.

[Political Interest]

That's exactly what it is, and as a Marxist I have no problem with such a left wing movement in principle. However 50 years after the 60s when we've accomplished legal equality and capitalism is leaving behind the nation, they play a key role in splitting the working class and preventing anyone from bringing the white working class to the left. They shatter the idea that the West is a meritocratic liberal-democracy of individuals, and set it up as a playing field between competing in-groups where the majority is the oppressor. Meanwhile this is to the background of globalization which is seeing the middle class and social mobility collapse and the native working class (that also happens to be the majority) endure, to the delight of bosses, competition with cheap labor.

If they had any real interest in socialism they would start discussing it at their rallies instead of white patriarchy and privilege. For the most part they hardly ever say anything about socialism or labour issues. Most of it is identity politics. You do find a number of socialists and Marxists in the USA but they again cannot divorce themselves from the concept of white privilege. I find many of them are extremely hostile to white males. None of this is going to appeal to the average Western white male worker because very few among the working class like to be told they are privileged. It is entirely possible that Marxism and lefism have just become a vehicle for advancing the ethnic interests of non-white minorities. Such a development could have been a product of the New Left and the infusion of Cultural Marxism into the labour movement.

None of them have realised that Russian and Chinese socialism were based in the broad masses of these two countries. Lenin never pontificated about Great Russian privilege and Mao Zedong did not prattle on about Han privilege to the starving peasants. I can only imagine what would happen if Lenin had walked into a factory in St. Petersburg and told the workers there that they are part of a privileged ethnicity within the Russian Empire and that the solution to all Russia's ills would be to have more Kazakhs and Uzbeks in the Tsarist cabinet.

Part of me suspects that this state of affairs has arisen because there were different interpretations of Marxism depending on the specific national context. Perhaps leftists in England and America came to the conclusion that their working classes benefit from the system and that the only way to advance revolution is to support the cause of oppressed minorities? A lot of the left wing narratives appear to conflate whiteness with the ruling establishment. The struggle of the African American people was portrayed as the only authentic struggle for social justice in the United States. Additionally Marxism as gone in a third worldist direction in recent years, including in the first world. Essentially Marxists have come to the conclusion that the working class in countries like England and America lacks revolutionary potential and benefits from capitalism and imperialism. In all honesty, how can socialism be established when the idea of the "privileged white boy" reigns supreme in all Western class discourse? It is as almost as if they have denied the very existence of a white working class and believe that the only working class in the Anglosphere consists of immigrants and ethnic minorities.

The result is a sense of economic zero-sum game between in-groups, a soft totalitarianism in the form of PC, and a social culture war where you have 'problematic' popular demographics being condemned by the wealthier, liberal, urban and cosmopolitan elites of the country as racist, sexist, islamophobic, and so on.

These cosmopolitan elites want to replace their working class with immigrant labour. I am not quite sure why they want to do this. What is patently obvious is that they hold the indigenous labour force in extreme contempt. You can see it on British television where they deride British workers as lazy and praise foreign labour as hard working and ambitious.

The convergence between social justice warriors and liberal-capitalism is directly setting up for nationalist reaction and rejection of economic liberalism and international finance. The far-right is completely outmaneuvering the far left in seizing on the last couple years, and it's become apparent the center-left is not only the new party of big business, but has absolutely nothing to offer the (especially white) working class.

It is actually becoming quite dangerous and very quickly. The cosmopolitan elites and middle class liberals continue in this direction and then wonder why the far right is growing. If they had any sense they would realise that all of this is a problem of their own making. If and when a new Hitler emerges in Europe they will have no one but themselves to blame. Of course, they will not accept any responsibility. Are they simply not intelligent enough to realise that this is what they are bringing into fruition?

By squeezing the native working class/middle america from two sides, one from a left establishment (creating a legitimately right wing counter-culture) and one from below, the outside in-group competing for jobs and institutional and cultural power, this directly sets up for the 'beset from two sides' siege mentality that was historically key to the rise of the third position both as opposed to leftism and capitalism

Fascism arose as a nationalist movement and the new proto-fascism that we see emerging is also nationalist. Leftist movements in eastern countries succeeded when they accomodated the nationalistic sentiments of the masses. When the left do not accomodate the national sentiments of the working class the result is a turn to the far right as a solution to the failure of liberal politics.

[mikema63]

I'd be interested in you creating a thread explaining your position on race and white privilege in full PI. Given the context of your thread calling for the right to abandon racism it's interesting to see you use that sort of rhetoric dismissing white privilege.

By acknowledging that the right needs to abandon racism you tacitly admit that racism is a political force in western politics. Then you totally dismiss the effects of that racism.

You also seem to at points create a dichotomy between racial issues and nationalism. That's simply not true though, some of the most nationalistic people are immigrants and some of the least nationalistic is young white Americans. What better way to develop an appreciation and love for a country than moving to it from a worse one and having it embrace you?

As for british TV showing British workers as lazy and foreign workers as hard working I wouldn't know. Though it would be fair enough in the US where most of our agricultural labor is done by immigrants and you literally can't find any white workers in the US willing to do those jobs. Though that is more about exploitation than laziness.

[Frollein]

What are MENA men? I haven't seen that before.

Middle Eastern&North African. Although in the case of Cologne, it was almost entirely North African "asylum seekers" (from countries like Marocco where Germans go for holidays... and incidentally, many of those "seeking protection (Schutzsuchende)" go back to visit their families, too).

Feminists? German feminists? How many feminists? A representative and significant percentage of German feminists?

Most German "feminists" didn't comment at all about NYE. That silence was deafening. It's a message in itself, too, don't you agree? The few who did write articles about NYE (for example in Die Zeit) made that comparison to the Oktoberfest. The only exception was Alice Schwarzer, who was then accused of racism by the "good" feminists. I can dig up those articles if you want.

I don't know about there, but here, a rape is a rape no matter who the attacker is.

If identity politics degenerates further, you'll get there eventually, too.

[Albert]

@Frollein is back! Where have you been!?

[Frollein]

Living the analog live.

[Albert]

Sounds exciting.

[Frollein]

You should try it some time.

[Political Interest]

I'd be interested in you creating a thread explaining your position on race and white privilege in full PI. Given the context of your thread calling for the right to abandon racism it's interesting to see you use that sort of rhetoric dismissing white privilege.

What I refer to as racism is the crass hatred of other ethnic groups but I do not think it is necessary or possible to abandon an acknowledgement of the role ethnicity plays in political choices.

I am trying to get the right to understand that accusing other ethnic groups of certain negative types of behaviour is counter-productive to the cause of Europe. At best it results in most audiences viewing rightists as dangerous and potentially violent racists, at worst it can result in being arrested and interviewed at the police station. And on top of this, it is simply not very nice. There exists a comfortable middle ground between violent racist caricatures and a complete denial of reality.

By acknowledging that the right needs to abandon racism you tacitly admit that racism is a political force in western politics. Then you totally dismiss the effects of that racism.

It most certainly is a force but the way in which it expresses itself is another question entirely. And there are many ways of solving the issue. Its also important not to forget that whites can be victims of racism as well. BLM supporters seem like racists to me.

You also seem to at points create a dichotomy between racial issues and nationalism. That's simply not true though, some of the most nationalistic people are immigrants and some of the least nationalistic is young white Americans. What better way to develop an appreciation and love for a country than moving to it from a worse one and having it embrace you?

Immigrants can most certainly be nationalists for the country they migrate to. What I mean is that Western leftists often attack the national identity and integrity of the countries in which they reside. They also create narratives that alienate the vast majority of the working class in these countries.

What use are discussions of white privilege when the vast majority of the American population is white? How is that going to win them over to the cause of socialism? Or is it the case that you do not believe most white Americans are working class and that the workers are mostly immigrants and non-whites?

American socialism can only be built by integrating itself into American identity and combing itself with American social conservatism.



They are Russian people who are building Russian socialism.



They are Chinese people building Chinese socialism.



Here ethnicity is alluded to but only in a positive way, in other words, friendship of the peoples.

Unfortunately American leftist discourse seems to exclude the white worker and associate whiteness with the cause of the ruling bourgeois establishment. That is racist and counterrevolutionary. To build American socialism you need to have the entire American people behind it, which must always include the white American people. They are only alienated by racist SJW discourse.

As for british TV showing British workers as lazy and foreign workers as hard working I wouldn't know. Though it would be fair enough in the US where most of our agricultural labor is done by immigrants and you literally can't find any white workers in the US willing to do those jobs. Though that is more about exploitation than laziness.

What does this observation do for the cause of American socialism?

[Pants-of-dog]

....

Also in the same post, in reply to someone else, you tacitly admit social justice is non-revolutionary and a movement of white people. You basically called it petty bourgeois liberalism.

...

I said that racism and sexism divide the working class.

That would imply that racism and sexism are "non-revolutionary" and therefore "petty bourgeois liberalism".

The struggle against racism has mostly been the product of the work of people of colour. To dismiss it as a movement of white people is not only historically inaccurate, but could also be racist as it dismisses the work of people of colour.

------------------

The trouble with this pejorative term is that it is used to describe too many people. Actual socialists who are also progressive get lumped in with H. Clinton, and her policies and politics are then projected onto people who do not even support her because both are "SJWs". Thus, we have accusations that SJWs are somehow ignoring or oppressing white working class men because H. Clinton ignores them.

The same thing seems to be happening with the professor in the OP. As far as I can tell, there are three separate subjects being conflated: Bill C-16 and trans activism, censorship of free speech, and SJWs.

[mikema63]

It most certainly is a force but the way in which it expresses itself is another question entirely. And there are many ways of solving the issue. Its also important not to forget that whites can be victims of racism as well. BLM supporters seem like racists to me.

BLM isn't an organization, lots of different activist groups just identify them and they run the gamut. Sure it's possible that some BLM activist group out there legitimately hates white people for being white, but the majority do not. They are just rather unhappy with the number of unarmed black men being shot. What exactly makes all BLM groups seem racist to you?

Immigrants can most certainly be nationalists for the country they migrate to. What I mean is that Western leftists often attack the national identity and integrity of the countries in which they reside. They also create narratives that alienate the vast majority of the working class in these countries.

The problem is that the left isn't perpetuating the untrue narratives our national identity has been built with. I see no particular reason to respect a mythical narrative and would prefer we build our national identity on positive values not static myths about the past. Our history is bloody and no amount of denial in the name of nationalism will change that. Some groups let bitterness about their position get in the way of that, and they become youtube fodder for the right to spread the message that all the left is like that, but the vast majority are not what you've seen online. The working class shouldn't feel threatened by BLM because BLM is not threatening them. BLM want's accountability for police, demilitarization of our police, and fairness in our judicial system. Things we should all want regardless and all of which would help the working class.

What use are discussions of white privilege when the vast majority of the American population is white?

We could, I suppose, take the cynical view that we should ignore the problems that exist in minority communities in the US because we happen to be in the majority and have power. Of course this will eventually produce rioting but it would also be a simply nasty situation for those people we decide don't matter. Some on PoFo don't really care, but you never struck me as someone happy to ignore the suffering of others for same financial gain or simply because it makes you feel better to not address it.

The use of the discussion is that it exists and I think it matters. I just think fairness is important.

How is that going to win them over to the cause of socialism?

Trying to improve society so they don't get denied jobs and jailed disproportionately isn't going to make them pro socialism. It will just improve their lives. I'm not playing some long con to bring about marxism by wanting to make peoples lives better.

Or is it the case that you do not believe most white Americans are working class and that the workers are mostly immigrants and non-whites?

No. I also don't think most white working class people are racists or willing to overlook the suffering of their neighbors.

American socialism can only be built by integrating itself into American identity and combing itself with American social conservatism.

Social conservatism is dead in america. Trump didn't win because he was a social conservative or because voters were social conservatives. They voted for him because he promised them a job and people really really hated Hillary Clinton.

43% of americans support BLM, only 22% oppose it.

55% of american support gay marriage.

66% say premarital sex is fine.

79% of americans say abortion is fine in at least some circumstances.

Social conservatism isn't going to make america socialist because it's been losing the american people for a long time. Social conservatives have power in the republican primaries because they all vote, but they lose ground every election.

What does this observation do for the cause of American socialism?

America has very large minority groups, and is pretty social liberal. That's what american socialism will look like. Beyond that not everything is about socialism. Maybe I think it's okay to do things that help people without have an ulterior motive.