There is no opening at all to respond to attacks of this type. The woke cult is a religion, and mouthing the slogans and dogmas gives the members a feeling of power that is more important to them than anything else. The string of phrases “racist, male supremacist, cisheteronormative,” etc., is the equivalent of street corner preachers ye…
There is no opening at all to respond to attacks of this type. The woke cult is a religion, and mouthing the slogans and dogmas gives the members a feeling of power that is more important to them than anything else. The string of phrases “racist, male supremacist, cisheteronormative,” etc., is the equivalent of street corner preachers yelling that you are “under the influence of Satan.”
Focusing on the content of verbal abuse is not worth anyone’s time. It is admittedly easier to shrug it off when we are in fact not “heteronormative” or “white” or whatever, but none of that really matters to the social justice activists. Glenn Loury, John McWhorter and Coleman Hughes have all said that they have been characterized as “not black,” “race traitors,” and worse, because they disagree with a lot of “anti-racist” dogma.
What matters most is that you don’t allow social justice fundamentalists to rattle your sense of yourself. They are superficial thinkers with very limited life experience, being mostly young white women from affluent, sheltered backgrounds. They have a lot of difficulties getting along with other people because of their anger issues, hysterical emotionality, and abusiveness. Ultimately, they will end up with only their self-righteousness to keep them company, because they are at least as horrible to each other as they are to the rest of us.
I love the similarity you draw between street corner preachers and CSJ proponents, and I appreciate your statement about not focusing on the content of verbal abuse. It really is the same, in that their beliefs are unfalsifiable, and that engaging with these people is a waste of time. (The authors you mentioned are great examples that even occupying the “right” categories is insufficient for acceptance)
Perhaps I extend too much grace in trying to understand, or give their voices too much weight in my own thought processes (as in, I get rattled). I think I do this because I see the nuggets of truth in their worldview and statements. For example, when someone confidently states “I know I’m not a racist,” I admire that and would like to have that same level of confidence in making a statement like that about myself. I don’t think I am racist, and I certainly strive to treat everyone with dignity and respect, regardless of their superficial characteristics.
However, can I really state that I don’t have unconscious biases toward people who are different than me, and that those unconscious biases don’t impact my treatment of others in ways of which I am not aware? Isn’t the tendency to treat people as “other” so fundamental to being human that, despite my best efforts, it will always be possible that this shows up, even unconsciously, in my behaviour?
I use “racist” here as emblematic of the various types of discrimination which CSJ adherents purport to be targeting. I also see that “softer” versions of these ideas have really taken in the general culture (I live in an urban centre in Canada), and it’s just so challenging to speak against them, even in a group of moderate progressives, because there is a general acceptance of ideas like “if you’re white, you are inherently privileged” and the like.
I advise that we give no weight at all to accusations that are shaming, punitive and absolutist, as in "You are stained with the Original Sin of your ancestors and are beyond redemption. All you can do is eternally confess your sin and put yourself last in every line." People who want to join religions that teach the doctrine of hereditary sin are of course free to embrace that belief, but no one has the right to impose their religious beliefs on the rest of us.
The idea that all of us might at times prejudge individuals incorrectly and unfairly because of their group identities, is realistic and reasonable. (At the same time, "stereotypes" of groups are the best predictors of behavior of randomly selected members of those groups. This has been known by psychologists at least since I was a grad student in the 1970's). Social justice activists who attack people for being "transphobes" and the like are not, however, talking about occasional mistakes made by well-intentioned people who might be unfamiliar with the norms of a domestic or foreign subculture. In fact, most social justice activists are completely unfamiliar with the subcultures of the minority groups they claim to speak for, and they frequently push policies that these groups do not like and which affect them adversely.
Decent, mature people should reflect on feedback they receive from individuals they may have inadvertently hurt, but there are limits to this. Arrogant accusers who present their own claims with absolute certainty, who seek to legislate how everyone else should behave, and even claim to know what other peoples' unstated feelings, thoughts and intentions were in a particular situation, are individuals whose commentary is not worth our attention.
Thanks so much for all your thoughtful replies here Sandra. You've clearly thought this all through, and your knowledge of the subject and the various nuances is abundantly clear.
I've only recently started to become willing to articulate any of my thoughts on this beyond my immediate close friends, in truth because I've feared being publicly attacked. And while I'm not likely to be the next strong public voice on this, conversations/exercises like these ones help grant me the confidence I'd need to speak more openly and be able to challenge people a step or two outside of that circle in a respectful, thoughtful manner without fear of their rebuttals or even attacks; as you say, being "confident in myself."
So thank you. And thanks to Colin for this space! The people here are really fantastic.
I too had a lot of fears about voicing online and in real life public settings opinions that are silenced and shamed in my locale. I am not free of those fears after a couple years of commenting on other peoples’ articles, but I have found ways to live with the heightened risk. Discovering that a lot of other people besides me see the social justice cult differently from how the SJ adherents present it has been empowering and made me feel much better than I did pre-Substack.
The link below is to a social psychology article on stereotypes and how to measure their accuracy relative to a criterion established as valid. It is a long, nerdy piece by a specialist in the field. He does bring in difficulties of doing this research and publishing it, due to censoring by peer reviewed journals and publishers of professional books. I thought of offering you this link even though it addresses only a piece of your very important questions about reflecting upon and measuring one’s own racism or other biases might be coming out in behaviors that are hurtful to minority groups.
There is no opening at all to respond to attacks of this type. The woke cult is a religion, and mouthing the slogans and dogmas gives the members a feeling of power that is more important to them than anything else. The string of phrases “racist, male supremacist, cisheteronormative,” etc., is the equivalent of street corner preachers yelling that you are “under the influence of Satan.”
Focusing on the content of verbal abuse is not worth anyone’s time. It is admittedly easier to shrug it off when we are in fact not “heteronormative” or “white” or whatever, but none of that really matters to the social justice activists. Glenn Loury, John McWhorter and Coleman Hughes have all said that they have been characterized as “not black,” “race traitors,” and worse, because they disagree with a lot of “anti-racist” dogma.
What matters most is that you don’t allow social justice fundamentalists to rattle your sense of yourself. They are superficial thinkers with very limited life experience, being mostly young white women from affluent, sheltered backgrounds. They have a lot of difficulties getting along with other people because of their anger issues, hysterical emotionality, and abusiveness. Ultimately, they will end up with only their self-righteousness to keep them company, because they are at least as horrible to each other as they are to the rest of us.
I love the similarity you draw between street corner preachers and CSJ proponents, and I appreciate your statement about not focusing on the content of verbal abuse. It really is the same, in that their beliefs are unfalsifiable, and that engaging with these people is a waste of time. (The authors you mentioned are great examples that even occupying the “right” categories is insufficient for acceptance)
Perhaps I extend too much grace in trying to understand, or give their voices too much weight in my own thought processes (as in, I get rattled). I think I do this because I see the nuggets of truth in their worldview and statements. For example, when someone confidently states “I know I’m not a racist,” I admire that and would like to have that same level of confidence in making a statement like that about myself. I don’t think I am racist, and I certainly strive to treat everyone with dignity and respect, regardless of their superficial characteristics.
However, can I really state that I don’t have unconscious biases toward people who are different than me, and that those unconscious biases don’t impact my treatment of others in ways of which I am not aware? Isn’t the tendency to treat people as “other” so fundamental to being human that, despite my best efforts, it will always be possible that this shows up, even unconsciously, in my behaviour?
I use “racist” here as emblematic of the various types of discrimination which CSJ adherents purport to be targeting. I also see that “softer” versions of these ideas have really taken in the general culture (I live in an urban centre in Canada), and it’s just so challenging to speak against them, even in a group of moderate progressives, because there is a general acceptance of ideas like “if you’re white, you are inherently privileged” and the like.
I advise that we give no weight at all to accusations that are shaming, punitive and absolutist, as in "You are stained with the Original Sin of your ancestors and are beyond redemption. All you can do is eternally confess your sin and put yourself last in every line." People who want to join religions that teach the doctrine of hereditary sin are of course free to embrace that belief, but no one has the right to impose their religious beliefs on the rest of us.
The idea that all of us might at times prejudge individuals incorrectly and unfairly because of their group identities, is realistic and reasonable. (At the same time, "stereotypes" of groups are the best predictors of behavior of randomly selected members of those groups. This has been known by psychologists at least since I was a grad student in the 1970's). Social justice activists who attack people for being "transphobes" and the like are not, however, talking about occasional mistakes made by well-intentioned people who might be unfamiliar with the norms of a domestic or foreign subculture. In fact, most social justice activists are completely unfamiliar with the subcultures of the minority groups they claim to speak for, and they frequently push policies that these groups do not like and which affect them adversely.
Decent, mature people should reflect on feedback they receive from individuals they may have inadvertently hurt, but there are limits to this. Arrogant accusers who present their own claims with absolute certainty, who seek to legislate how everyone else should behave, and even claim to know what other peoples' unstated feelings, thoughts and intentions were in a particular situation, are individuals whose commentary is not worth our attention.
Thanks so much for all your thoughtful replies here Sandra. You've clearly thought this all through, and your knowledge of the subject and the various nuances is abundantly clear.
I've only recently started to become willing to articulate any of my thoughts on this beyond my immediate close friends, in truth because I've feared being publicly attacked. And while I'm not likely to be the next strong public voice on this, conversations/exercises like these ones help grant me the confidence I'd need to speak more openly and be able to challenge people a step or two outside of that circle in a respectful, thoughtful manner without fear of their rebuttals or even attacks; as you say, being "confident in myself."
So thank you. And thanks to Colin for this space! The people here are really fantastic.
I too had a lot of fears about voicing online and in real life public settings opinions that are silenced and shamed in my locale. I am not free of those fears after a couple years of commenting on other peoples’ articles, but I have found ways to live with the heightened risk. Discovering that a lot of other people besides me see the social justice cult differently from how the SJ adherents present it has been empowering and made me feel much better than I did pre-Substack.
The link below is to a social psychology article on stereotypes and how to measure their accuracy relative to a criterion established as valid. It is a long, nerdy piece by a specialist in the field. He does bring in difficulties of doing this research and publishing it, due to censoring by peer reviewed journals and publishers of professional books. I thought of offering you this link even though it addresses only a piece of your very important questions about reflecting upon and measuring one’s own racism or other biases might be coming out in behaviors that are hurtful to minority groups.
https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2018-63180-001.html
Thanks, I will check it out! Thanks for all your time and thoughtful responses Sandra, especially at this busy time of year.