They’re also saying that these talks about inclusion are racist because positive discrimination is still discrimination.
However, when you end a race second-to-last with weights around your feet you probably have more merits than the one ending in third place. Moreover this is about ending social reproduction more than rewarding personal merit, apparently India is the example of a long&successful experimentation of positive discrimination for their castes, of course that rich kids are better at school but that’s not justice.
And while black neighbourhoods have the same results as white urban neighborhoods of the same level of poverty(, or arabs in France, etc.), and that the main reason is that they were raised by poor parents with friends of the same mentality, in a school for children like them, in a neighbourhood and an environment very particular, and while it isn’t genetic since their lives would be totally different if they were adopted, i could envision like 1-5% of their situation being related to a collective psyche, like you don’t want to do a shitty job for a white country, in comparison to asians who are excited to seize the occasion to rise again while it seems possible, it’s a different mindset but this kinda stupid/‘outrageously wrong’ racial explanation is marginal if it ever exists, and makes much less sense in my eyes than the environmental determinism that made peasants of the past engender peasants, and nobles engender nobles.
Which would be good news since we could give everyone the same education as such nobles and that’d be good in theory.
Minorities and people considered abnormal can be disliked and unjustly oppressed, perhaps not a lot in some cases ; in comparison normal people are privileged(, perhaps not a lot but, relatively, they are).
Well, i don’t really care about these questions and there’s no point in talking about that here/‘with people that’d agree’. Woke seems like the new term for SJW
Yet, correct me if i’m wrong, but in my memories ~90% of the redditors used “social justice warrior” as a.n insult/criticism(, against someone who’s acting excessively nice in defense of someone when there’s no need, like the expression “white knight” for those men on the Internet excessively defending other women, underlining that “social justice” deals with psychological “injuries” and not real injustices, the correct term should have been “societal justice” though since it never dealt with socio-economic matters), while nowadays only conservatives use “woke” as an insult towards other people, sometimes with a larger focus than the previous SJW, targeting everyone believing that some things ought to change in order to make a better world(, while conservatives generally don’t think that such things should improve/change[1]).
Well, i.d.k., not that it matters but would you agree with this impression that “social justice warrior” was used all over the political spectrum ~ten years ago ?
[1] : Far-right political parties want some things to change b.t.w.(, as well as parties unaligned with left//right such as separatists, ~ecologists, ~democrat{for a direct democracy with referendums}, ~royalists, ~theocrats, …).
If conservatives are only defined with their unwillingness to change the current direction, then centrists are the real conservatives. Center-left and center-right bourgeois political parties were elected everywhere in the west(&‘most of the world’) for the last decades(, and had disappointed a hundred years ago in Germany leaving only two alternatives).
We(sterners) saw a lot of societal changes in the last 70 years though(, not so sure for socio-economic changes however, once the productivity increase and its expected consequences for the workers are taken into account).
If people don’t vote(, in the primaries in the u.s.,) for “extremist” parties that’s because we’ll vote for whom we’re being told to vote, and won’t stop trusting our (billionaires-owned )medias as long as we’re personally satisfied with the current situation.
The problem is that our consent isn’t real/informed/enlightened, and we don’t use our collective intelligence, so we may collectively ‘agree with falsehoods’/‘make mistakes’, and it doesn’t feel like our republics represent the will of their population.
If our government represented the will of the people then they wouldn’t hesitate before putting any important decision through a referendum, and having 3-4 of them every year(, emerging from the population instead of the government,) wouldn’t make our “representatives” afraid(, and if we’re realising our mistakes afterwards then there’s usually nothing that another referendum can’t fix).
Beyond direct/real democracy, we’ll still say that it’s our duty to “democratize” the rest of the world, otherwise dictatorships would bloom everywhere and freedom would die, chinese people are happy but we(sterners) have to save them and paint a dystopia instead of rejoicing and teaching mandarin in american schools as a second language.
They’re also saying that these talks about inclusion are racist because positive discrimination is still discrimination. However, when you end a race second-to-last with weights around your feet you probably have more merits than the one ending in third place. Moreover this is about ending social reproduction more than rewarding personal merit, apparently India is the example of a long&successful experimentation of positive discrimination for their castes, of course that rich kids are better at school but that’s not justice.
And while black neighbourhoods have the same results as white urban neighborhoods of the same level of poverty(, or arabs in France, etc.), and that the main reason is that they were raised by poor parents with friends of the same mentality, in a school for children like them, in a neighbourhood and an environment very particular, and while it isn’t genetic since their lives would be totally different if they were adopted, i could envision like 1-5% of their situation being related to a collective psyche, like you don’t want to do a shitty job for a white country, in comparison to asians who are excited to seize the occasion to rise again while it seems possible, it’s a different mindset but this kinda stupid/‘outrageously wrong’ racial explanation is marginal if it ever exists, and makes much less sense in my eyes than the environmental determinism that made peasants of the past engender peasants, and nobles engender nobles.
Which would be good news since we could give everyone the same education as such nobles and that’d be good in theory.
Minorities and people considered abnormal can be disliked and unjustly oppressed, perhaps not a lot in some cases ; in comparison normal people are privileged(, perhaps not a lot but, relatively, they are).
Well, i don’t really care about these questions and there’s no point in talking about that here/‘with people that’d agree’. Woke seems like the new term for SJW
Yet, correct me if i’m wrong, but in my memories ~90% of the redditors used “social justice warrior” as a.n insult/criticism(, against someone who’s acting excessively nice in defense of someone when there’s no need, like the expression “white knight” for those men on the Internet excessively defending other women, underlining that “social justice” deals with psychological “injuries” and not real injustices, the correct term should have been “societal justice” though since it never dealt with socio-economic matters), while nowadays only conservatives use “woke” as an insult towards other people, sometimes with a larger focus than the previous SJW, targeting everyone believing that some things ought to change in order to make a better world(, while conservatives generally don’t think that such things should improve/change[1]).
Well, i.d.k., not that it matters but would you agree with this impression that “social justice warrior” was used all over the political spectrum ~ten years ago ?
[1] : Far-right political parties want some things to change b.t.w.(, as well as parties unaligned with left//right such as separatists, ~ecologists, ~democrat{for a direct democracy with referendums}, ~royalists, ~theocrats, …).
If conservatives are only defined with their unwillingness to change the current direction, then centrists are the real conservatives. Center-left and center-right bourgeois political parties were elected everywhere in the west(&‘most of the world’) for the last decades(, and had disappointed a hundred years ago in Germany leaving only two alternatives).
We(sterners) saw a lot of societal changes in the last 70 years though(, not so sure for socio-economic changes however, once the productivity increase and its expected consequences for the workers are taken into account).
If people don’t vote(, in the primaries in the u.s.,) for “extremist” parties that’s because we’ll vote for whom we’re being told to vote, and won’t stop trusting our (billionaires-owned )medias as long as we’re personally satisfied with the current situation.
The problem is that our consent isn’t real/informed/enlightened, and we don’t use our collective intelligence, so we may collectively ‘agree with falsehoods’/‘make mistakes’, and it doesn’t feel like our republics represent the will of their population.
If our government represented the will of the people then they wouldn’t hesitate before putting any important decision through a referendum, and having 3-4 of them every year(, emerging from the population instead of the government,) wouldn’t make our “representatives” afraid(, and if we’re realising our mistakes afterwards then there’s usually nothing that another referendum can’t fix).
Beyond direct/real democracy, we’ll still say that it’s our duty to “democratize” the rest of the world, otherwise dictatorships would bloom everywhere and freedom would die, chinese people are happy but we(sterners) have to save them and paint a dystopia instead of rejoicing and teaching mandarin in american schools as a second language.
Wtf even is this?
Random thoughts, sry i guess 🤷♂️
I’m always making mistakes, so feel free to add a correction if you’d like