Ban "social justice" in education?

[NineSpine]

Pay gap -> demonstrably false.
White supremacy -> demonstrably false.
Patriarchy -> demonstrably false.

Shall I go on?

Certain extreme pay gap statistics are demonstrably false. White supremacy and patriarchy are too conceptual to call demonstrably false or demonstrably true. That's kind of the point here.

[Knolan]

Certain extreme pay gap statistics are demonstrably false. White supremacy and patriarchy are too conceptual to call demonstrably false or demonstrably true. That's kind of the point here.

Citation needed?

White supremacist societies do not elect a black president, if you are in doubt, please look for to a black KKK high leader.
Patriarchies do not let women have the same rights as men, if you are in doubt refer to the rights of women in islamic theocracies.

Ohh, I remembered another one: rape culture.

[Sky High]

I don't care if they teach that shit to a sociology major. not my field so I'm not obligated to care.

[Hell-Nicø]

That Sargon video is just perfect : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78ucO8XOw3c

You can't look at it and feel that these people are doing something "good".
They should all be fired.

[NineSpine]

Citation needed?

No, it isn't. I don't need to cite that an idea is too conceptual to categorize as "demonstrably" anything.

White supremacist societies do not elect a black president, if you are in doubt, please look for to a black KKK high leader.
Patriarchies do not let women have the same rights as men, if you are in doubt refer to the rights of women in islamic theocracies.

I don't particularly care about the arguments you have against those concepts, largely because your arguments here demonstrate a profound lack of understanding about what those concepts even mean. That doesn't change that the concepts are not grounded enough to define as demonstrably true or false. Your opinion is not fact.

[GennGreymane]

As long as I'm sitting next to you, that's fine. Gimme them big strong hands.

*bro fist*

[Templar 331]

As much as I hate "social justice", I can't see any good coming from banning it. That will only cause it to explode even more on college campuses.

Let these little snowflakes fly face first into the wall that is reality.

[Beazy]

No, it isn't. I don't need to cite that an idea is too conceptual to categorize as "demonstrably" anything.

See, at-least we can both agree that its made up bullshit.

That wasnt so hard. /backpat

[NineSpine]

See, at-least we can both agree that its made up bullshit.

That wasnt so hard. /backpat

Yes, concepts are made up. Good job.

- - - Updated - - -

Remember when I said anti-intellectualism is strong? See above, where "concepts" as a general idea were called "bullshit".

[Vynny]

That's not really how extremism works. You have it backwards. Certain types of people are attracted to extremist ideologies, and they find them appealing and buy into them as a result. That's why the profile of the extremist is so commonly uniform (young males from moderately privileged backgrounds). Extremism is generally adopted by people who feel disillusioned and that society has given them a raw deal.

Where did you get that profile of an extremist? And also, you realize that it flies in the face of what pro social justice groups have claimed for specifically Islamic extremism, which is currently the most common forms of religious extremism. And that is poverty. On top of that, one of the most notable religious extremist groups in the USA is the Westboro Baptist Church, and most of their protests and events have been carried out by middle aged women. Also, Dr. Peter T. Coleman and Dr Andrea Bartoll who have researched extremism have found that "extremism is an emotional outlet for severe feelings stemming from persistent experiences of oppression, insecurity, humiliation, resentment, loss, and rage" Sounds to me that the profile of an extremist is remarkably close to a social justice warrior.

That really depends what you mean. On a fundamental logical level, if a game has skewed rules for three quarters, you can't change the rules to be fair in the last quarter, leave the score as it is, and call it even. That's just not logical. Evening the playing field requires at that point to take points from the team that benefited for so long. There are a lot of different ways to approach that problem, but pretending that problem doesn't exist is not one of them.

But assuming that a problem exists because there are what we would expect to be effects of that problem present does not solve anything either. For example, assuming that the reason why women are underrepresented in STEM is because of sexism and then giving them all sorts of advantages and benefits in order to try and encourage them to go into STEM will not solve the issues. Identifying the specific discriminatory practices and stopping them would, but if there are none and women just are on average not interested in STEM, then there's no problem to be fixed. Claiming that black people are victims of institutional racism because of past discrimination will not solve the racial inequality in the USA because the present day laws are not the past discriminatory ones. Understanding how it takes time to rehabilitate a formerly discriminated group and how poverty reduces success and increases likelihood to commit crime and making sure that black people trust in the system enough to invest themselves in it will help solve racial inequality in the USA. The problem with a lot of black people is that they feel the game is rigged in the first place, so they don't even play. Even with black role models like a black president, black celebrities, black characters, etc. that Social Justice said would inspire young black people to succeed, black people still have a defeatist attitude and say that the system is racist and that it needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. We live in an age where the son of a black multimillionaire who drank the social justice kool-aid can say to the whole world with a straight face that he has nothing to lose but his chains . . . That is how screwed up the social justice mentality is.

This goes into what you said about Muslims and terrorism, people feel the need to generalize or collectivize when they seek to blame someone like how there are people who think it's all Muslims, but social justice doesn't discourage those attitudes, it encourages them. It purports that all black people are oppressed and that they are oppressed by all white people who are racist whether they know it or not. It purports that all women are oppressed and that they are oppressed by all men who are sexist and misogynistic whether they know it or not. It purports that LBGTQ are all oppressed and that they are oppressed by cis heterosexual people who are homophobic and transphobic whether they know it or not. If you acknowledge that a vice of humans is blaming collectives for things rather than the individuals that are actually to blame, then why would you support an ideology which encourages this?

[Beazy]

Yes, concepts are made up. Good job.

- - - Updated - - -

Remember when I said anti-intellectualism is strong? See above, where "concepts" as a general idea were called "bullshit".

Every time someone asks you for a citation of proof of your idiotic claims, you simply try to weasel your way out of it by saying "its not possible to answer that, hur dur, youre so stupid if you dont know that", pretty much proves every ones point.

Either you have proof of these silly claims, or you dont. You dont get to spout "ideas" and "concepts" as facts and then turn around and say "you dont need facts" to prove these points. Its text book SJW bullshit, and you're not even that good at it. If someone gives you a fact, you change the definition of a word suit your argument, or you change the "fact" into a concept that can be neither proven or disproven.

Get out of here with that "anti-intellectualism" bullshit.....

[Knolan]

No, it isn't. I don't need to cite that an idea is too conceptual to categorize as "demonstrably" anything.



I don't particularly care about the arguments you have against those concepts, largely because your arguments here demonstrate a profound lack of understanding about what those concepts even mean. That doesn't change that the concepts are not grounded enough to define as demonstrably true or false. Your opinion is not fact.

Lol:
"You are wrong because I say so, and you don't understand the issue because I say so. Those concepts definitely exist, don't pay attention that they have 0 impact in reality."

Seriously, next claims will be video game cause violence and porn cause rapes.

[Powerogue]

How about we just keep it general and be against scientifically illiterate, logically unsound, supremacist bigotry?

[NineSpine]

Where did you get that profile of an extremist? And also, you realize that it flies in the face of what pro social justice groups have claimed for specifically Islamic extremism, which is currently the most common forms of religious extremism. And that is poverty.

Yeah, and they'd be wrong. I'm an historian. I primarily work in the field of U.S.-Middle Eastern history, so I'm very familiar with extremist Islam. The notion that it is fueled by poverty is asinine. Look at the leaders of Al Qaeda and you will find primarily well educated people with engineering or science backgrounds.

On top of that, one of the most notable religious extremist groups in the USA is the Westboro Baptist Church, and most of their protests and events have been carried out by middle aged women. Also, Dr. Peter T. Coleman and Dr Andrea Bartoll who have researched extremism have found that "extremism is an emotional outlet for severe feelings stemming from persistent experiences of oppression, insecurity, humiliation, resentment, loss, and rage" Sounds to me that the profile of an extremist is remarkably close to a social justice warrior.

The Westboro baptist church isn't really what we are talking about here. When I say "extremist", I'm really using it as shorthand for "violent extremist". I could just as easily say that description sounds like a Trump supporter. It's not really constructive.

But assuming that a problem exists because there are what we would expect to be effects of that problem present does not solve anything either. For example, assuming that the reason why women are underrepresented in STEM is because of sexism and then giving them all sorts of advantages and benefits in order to try and encourage them to go into STEM will not solve the issues. Identifying the specific discriminatory practices and stopping them would, but if there are none and women just are on average not interested in STEM, then there's no problem to be fixed.

I don't disagree, and the STEM issue is overblown. However, there is evidence of issues of sexism in hiring in STEM fields.

Claiming that black people are victims of institutional racism because of past discrimination will not solve the racial inequality in the USA because the present day laws are not the past discriminatory ones. Understanding how it takes time to rehabilitate a formerly discriminated group and how poverty reduces success and increases likelihood to commit crime and making sure that black people trust in the system enough to invest themselves in it will help solve racial inequality in the USA.

Ignoring the still existing issues of institutionalized racism won't make them go away. That's just fundamentally silly, as is the notion that discriminatory laws are the only form of institutionalized discrimination.

The problem with a lot of black people is that they feel the game is rigged in the first place, so they don't even play. Even with black role models like a black president, black celebrities, black characters, etc. that Social Justice said would inspire young black people to succeed, black people still have a defeatist attitude and say that the system is racist and that it needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. We live in an age where the son of a black multimillionaire who drank the social justice kool-aid can say to the whole world with a straight face that he has nothing to lose but his chains . . . That is how screwed up the social justice mentality is.

There's certainly a problem with privileged blacks trying to be the face of oppression, but the idea that this somehow undoes the issue of underprivileged blacks is just silly.

This goes into what you said about Muslims and terrorism, people feel the need to generalize or collectivize when they seek to blame someone like how there are people who think it's all Muslims, but social justice doesn't discourage those attitudes, it encourages them. It purports that all black people are oppressed and that they are oppressed by all white people who are racist whether they know it or not. It purports that all women are oppressed and that they are oppressed by all men who are sexist and misogynistic whether they know it or not. It purports that LBGTQ are all oppressed and that they are oppressed by cis heterosexual people who are homophobic and transphobic whether they know it or not. If you acknowledge that a vice of humans is blaming collectives for things rather than the individuals that are actually to blame, then why would you support an ideology which encourages this?

First of all, it's not a question of whether I support it. It's a question of whether it should be banned.

Second off all, it's because that's not the entirety of the ideology. Social justice includes things as benign as "We should have Social Security."

- - - Updated - - -

Every time someone asks you for a citation of proof of your idiotic claims, you simply try to weasel your way out of it by saying "its not possible to answer that, hur dur, youre so stupid if you dont know that", pretty much proves every ones point.

If you don't understand why concepts are impossible to prove true or false, I don't know what to tell you. Maybe, take a philosophy class? Learn basic logic? Think about it for ten seconds instead of pounding on your keyboard? Imagine this question: "IS CAPITALISM TRUE OR FALSE?" What the fuck does that even mean? Capitalism is a concept, not a fact that you can demonstrate the validity of.

Either you have proof of these silly claims, or you dont. You dont get to spout "ideas" and "concepts" as facts and then turn around and say "you dont need facts" to prove these points. Its text book SJW bullshit, and you're not even that good at it. If someone gives you a fact, you change the definition of a word suit your argument, or you change the "fact" into a concept that can be neither proven or disproven.

Get out of here with that "anti-intellectualism" bullshit.....

No, you are just too busy pounding on your keyboard and looking for an argument to understand what I am saying. I don't think the U.S. is a patriarchy, and I think people that make the argument that it is are silly. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean I can just declare patriarchy as a concept DEMONSTRABLY FALSE. It means I have a different opinion than those people about an ideological construct.

- - - Updated - - -

Lol:
"You are wrong because I say so, and you don't understand the issue because I say so. Those concepts definitely exist, don't pay attention that they have 0 impact in reality."

Seriously, next claims will be video game cause violence and porn cause rapes.

Yeah, you just don't read what I type at all, but I'll try one more time. You can't prove an ideological concept TRUE OR FALSE. By definition, that's not what an ideological concept is.

- - - Updated - - -

Why am I surprised that people who don't even understand what an ideology is are arguing for banning ideologies they don't like?

[Belize]

Certain extreme pay gap statistics are demonstrably false. White supremacy and patriarchy are too conceptual to call demonstrably false or demonstrably true. That's kind of the point here.

I'm sorry, but are women or people of color forbidden from holding power?

As I've, and now he said, demonstrably false.

- - - Updated - - -

How about we just keep it general and be against scientifically illiterate, logically unsound, supremacist bigotry?

Thankfully, most of the people under that umbrella are already kept out of Uni.

[Deleted]

Yes, concepts are made up. Good job.

I think you are the ones confusing things, 'patriarchy' is a concept, applying it on the west, that is the bullshit.

[NineSpine]

I'm sorry, but are women or people of color forbidden from holding power?

As I've, and now he said, demonstrably false.

That's not what either of those concepts mean.

[Knolan]

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, you just don't read what I type at all, but I'll try one more time. You can't prove an ideological concept TRUE OR FALSE. By definition, that's not what an ideological concept is.

Of course you can, your ideology makes claims and those claims can be verified.

For instance, SJWs claim that we have a rape culture in the west, in this case they claim that rape is not taking serious in our society and that it is rampant in our culture. All those claims can be shown false.

[NineSpine]

I think you are the ones confusing things, 'patriarchy' is a concept, applying it on the west, that is the bullshit.

That really depends on how you choose to construct the concept, and there is a difference between DEMONSTRABLY FALSE and calling something bullshit. Remember, this came up because I said you can't compare patriarchy, which I agree is not a valid concept to apply to most Western countries, to a demonstrably false scientific concept that can be proven false using the scientific method.

[Vynny]

You fundamentally don't understand what the term privilege means in these contexts.

Explain it to me then, please. Because I've always been told that a privilege is an unearned advantage. But maybe you think that genetics and such aren't unearned so I'll use the same analogy, but with a different privilege.

So a just world to a kid born into an impoverished family would be a world where he is afforded all the same advantages as a kid born into an upper class family; whereas, a just world for a kid born into an upper class family is one where he is not denied advantages in order to give the impoverished kid the same advantages his parents had to work hard in order to provide him. And again we get into the paradoxical nature of privilege in reference to social justice. A person born into an upper class family has more privilege than someone born into an impoverished family, but that was by sheer luck and random chance; however, in giving the poor kid the advantages that the upper class kid has you are privileging that kid and their parents because the poor parents didn't have to earn the resources necessary to provide their child those advantages while the upper class parents did have to earn the resources necessary to provide their child those advantages.

Now, I'm actually from a working class background, so I understand how shitty it is being born into a poor family. I also used to think that poor people should be given extra in order to help them keep up with the upper class, but as I grew up, I realized how inherently unjust it is to purposefully give undeserved advantages to someone compared to someone getting an undeserved advantage due to luck of the draw. We don't live in a naturally just world. The good always die young and all that, but the point is that eliminating privileges like white privilege is fine because no one earned that whereas the upper class kid's parents had to earn the resources that they buy his advantages with, but giving privileges to people who you arbitrarily deem to be oppressed at the cost of others is wrong. This is also why I want an example of white privilege, because if there is a strictly racial privilege being extended to white people then I want to get rid of it, but whenever I ask, people tell me examples of upper class privilege which I do not have as a white person born into an impoverished family, or they tell me to educate myself.