h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

lately... well I'm not sure about how long its actually been going on but
lately on the internet (and other places I assume) there has been a spate of social justice warriors now I want to know what are the thoughts on them?

The argument of the social justice warrior seems to be that no-one who is a white hetro (cisgender?) male gets to complain about anything ever because they have all the privilege (all of it) no matter there personal circumstances
that white people are all inherently racist
and that people who are cisgender (identify as their birth gender) are inherently homophobic

now I'm sure I have made some generalisations here but...
have i understood this wrong?
have any of you found these people?
are there points real?

what are your views

Of course male white cisgender persons can have problems, they do, in droves.

I think one problem though might be that some of them bring these problems up in response to somebody elses problem - which may or may not be more severe than the original problem.

The issue with that is that by bringing up their own problems is that the original problem gets neglected, hijacked, diminished, instead of taken seriously and acknowledged. Which is a big nuisance...

So, yeah they have problems, but bringing them up when someone else has problems is bad form, and a sort of power/privilege manifestation in itself

please remove redundant "is that"

part of my concern was that this is being used to ignore or devalue any concerns or problems that 'privileged' groups have because other people have bigger problems
it seems like an extension of 'first world problem' type of thing but stronger....
I agree that often people think about their own problems more than those of others but I thought that was more of a human thing rather than a privilege thing

A couple of years ago, I met up with an old associate - something like 25% Canadian aboriginal. Read as native, indian, protected, what-ever.

He asked how I was, I told him my heart failed and I was forced into retirement.

"Yeah, that sucks. But what about what MY people have endured for 200 years?"

I am not allowed to respond, I am that common caucasian anglo middle-class male who has no problems or worries.

Think that view of the "social justice warrior" thing and those views in the original post are a weird parody at best or a straw target at worst. No doubt some people don't always express themselves brilliantly, but I can't help but wonder whether these kind of radical over-simplifications/gross distortions are done deliberately as a tactic to discredit, or just by people who either can't or won't understand what's being said.

I'd say that Milla has it spot on. It's not that anyone is saying that more privileged groups can't have any problems, more that it's pretty poor form to only bring them up in the context of problems/challenges/discrimination faced by less privileged groups.

For example, if someone only seems to care about domestic violence against men when male DV against women is being discussed, or if they're only going on about "all lives matter" when the discussion is about police violence in the US and the "black lives matter" campaign, it sounds like a way of shutting down discussions about the issues that less privileged groups face. This returns the discussion to where privileged groups feel more comfortable, discussing their own or very generic (real) problems and ignoring the (real and generally more pressing problems) of less privileged groups and their claims for action and justice.

It's hard to know what to make of claims that "social justice warriors" think that all white people are inherently racist and that all cisgender people are homophobic/transphobic. And that's because such claims have simplified a complex argument beyond recognition or debate, probably so that they can be just be straightforwardly dismissed without further thought.

It *might* be a gross distortion of one of two types of view. One would be a fairly straightforward claim that - to quote the Avenue Q song - "everyone's a little bit racist". Or, better, prejudiced in ways that they're not aware of, and probably can't entirely control. Anyone willing to claim that they're not prejudiced is either some sort of human miracle or saint or is lying to themselves. But some people would rather think that than confront it.

The other argument might be about power structures, rather than about people. The McPherson report into the botched Stephen Lawrence murder enquiry spoke of "institutional racism" - it's not necessarily about individuals, but about the way organisations and social structures work and culture works. Sometimes this view gets distorted into "only white people can be racist".

I have been told flat out, very directly, on this site and others that I am privileged by being born white and male. And that indeed, I should carry the guilt of all things wrongly done to people of other races and all women since time immemorial. My rights and privileges (still waiting to experience any) ride on the shoulders and backs of those down-trodden folks.

Hard to accept that as a quirky interpretation by myself.

I think that Milla and Otto have it exactly right. The term "social justice warrior" (or "SJW") is generally used in a perjorative sense toward those who promote socially progressive views. Like the term "politically correct" before it, the term originally had neither positive nor negative connotations. Social Justice just meant addressing injustice as a societal level instead of a personal one. But in recent years is mostly used to dismiss the concerns of those concerned with social justice issues such as civil rights or identity politics.

From my experience, it's meant to be dismissive. It puts someone in a position of defending their ideals. It's frequently used to insinuate that those who are engaged with social justice issues via social media, blogging, or other internet activity are being disingenuous, are "armchair advocates", and aren't doing anything else at all to help effect societal change.

As for "first world problems", also known as the Fallacy of Relative Privation, moral equivalence can be used either to justify the existence of injustice by pointing out that there are other "worse" injustices in the world, or as a distraction. It's important to note that this argument is not being made in good faith. It's meant to derail discussion of issues instead of engaging with them.

I would still argue perhaps wrongly that social justice warriors are sometimes arguing that as Rev Nick pointed out arguing that all men, all white people, all hetrosexuals etc are responsable for the ills suffered by other groups even if they have not themselves taken part in or promoted such activities, and that arguing in such a way the argument is just as bad as first world problem arguments

is there also then a hierarchy of privilege and if so what is it
I assume white hetro sis male is top of the privilege hierarchy who is next is a white cis hetro female more or less privelagilaged than a white cis gay man?

I've given up on it all. I refuse to be dragged into the debate and I have a rule I follow to the letter.

NEVER,EVER,EVER READ the comments and replies to any blog,FB page,newspaper article or any other form of media..That way I'm not forced into trying to debate with the moronic ramblings that usually ensue.

I'll speak up in company if I hear the usual rubbish from white males of my generation but that's about it.That way means they never bring up certain subjects in conversation with me..I've better things to do than be a social justice warrior these days..That's for the younger generation to take on IF we have been bringing them up right.

That aside from time to time my blood does boil enough for me to comment and then run.

Anthea - correct, if you argued that, you would be arguing incorrectly. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, though, that you’re making the point in good faith, and just arguing what you’ve seen other people say.

Acknowledging privilege does not mean placing blame for societal injustice on specific individuals. Nor does it mean that specific individuals don’t have problems in their lives. And as previously mentioned, it’s a logical fallacy to trivialize injustice because someone else somewhere else faces even more serious injustice. That’s not what people who advocate for social justice are doing.

Acknowledging privilege means acknowledging that racism, sexism, etc. are institutional. It means acknowledging that the system is rigged in your favor, whether or not you personally benefit from that. And social justice means working and advocating to improve that system so everyone can benefit more equally. Those who criticize “social justice warriors” would have us all hold each other down (the “crab bucket” effect) rather than build each other up.

Incognitas - I try to avoid most of the comments/replies sections myself, and admit I don't always even expend the energy to speak up in company, at least when it's obvious arguments are being made in bad faith (e.g. "Not All Men", "All Lives Matter", etc.). It's especially frustrating and demoralizing at the moment, as I am in the US, and we currently have someone running for POTUS on a platform of institutional racism and misogyny. In 2016!! Meanwhile up north of us, they have someone lovely and progressive like Justin Trudeau!! I despair.

My daughter has followed the "social justice warriors" and says they are seriously misguided.

They have some odd ideas, such as that racism means white people mistreating black people - there is no other form.

I'll happily trade your the Trudeau boy for a fine southern meal. I do NOT want any of your PotUS candidates.

Agree with everything that Psychocandy has said.

"is there also then a hierarchy of privilege and if so what is it"

I don't honestly know, and I expect it varies from place to place. It's complicated.

The point about privilege is not:
(a) that it can necessarily be measured scientifically and we can compare scores
(b) that you're either privileged or not - most people are in some ways, not in others
(c) that it's your *fault* that you're privileged in some ways, any more that it's your *fault* that you're not in others
(d) that it means that you can't have serious problems or concerns
(e) that it means your life is necessarily easy
(f) that you're expected to change whole entrenched systems, single handedly.
(g) that it diminishes or negates your achievements

What the point is, I think, is to be aware of the ways in which one is privileged, as well as ways in which you might not be. And to be aware that life is unfair and unjust in significant ways that can and ought to change.

"They have some odd ideas, such as that racism means white people mistreating black people - there is no other form."

Well... I touched on this in post 6. If you take racism to mean institutional racism, then as white people typically have the power, this starts to make sense as a view. If you take racism to mean individual prejudices, it clearly doesn't make sense. But that's not what's meant.

Some people would probably define me as a social justice warrior, but then I'd define them as social injustice warriors. But I do know people who very definitely are SJWs (if anyone is). I move near and alongside some of those circles, and I see some of those posts on social media, even if I wouldn't say I'm part of that world.

But I've never any so-called SJWs make the straightforward claim that:

1) Only white people can be racist;
or
2) That CIS, straight, white, rich men are not allowed to complain about anything ever.
or
3) If you're a CIS, straight, white, rich man you're personally responsible for all the ills done to anyone who isn't.

I've heard plenty of people *claim* that's what they say/think, either by simplification to the point of distortion, misunderstanding (often wilful), inaccurate summary/characterisation, or deliberate propaganda.

I suppose the point I'd gently make is that if you want to know what a group of people think, it's often a good idea to go to the source to find out.

Of course, I don't move in those circles and I've not read the whole of the internet and perhaps there are people who seriously argue those things.

But I've never seen them, and I'd be interested to see if anyone can point to examples of these views expressed by their proponents, rather than by their opponents.

Thank you, folks, for teaching me about a new term. I had missed this transference of the term 'social justice warrior' - which used to be applied positively to people who, well, worked for social justice, like Mahatma Gandhi - to a pejorative weapon used in ideological slanging matches.

Wow. The twitter generation makes it hard to keep up with the vocabulary. And I thought *everybody* was interested in social justice. Colour me naive.

And thanks, Otto, for that great summary of the situation.

Might I point out that h2g2 itself is a good tool for dismantling racist ideas and prejudices?

>>I suppose the point I'd gently make is that if you want to know what a group of people think, it's often a good idea to go to the source to find out. (Otto)<<

That's what we're trying to do: to get out there and 'go to the source' and find out what's going on around Planet Earth.

The more Researchers we have, from more different places and backgrounds, the better this is going to be. Because if you make a friend, you want to know what the view looks like from their front porch.

I think Otto, Milla and Psychocandy have covered it but I'm going to drop my worth in anyway because I think it can never be stressed enough that calling someone an SJW is generally (not always) a attempt to shut down a conversation along the lines of: shut up because I don't want to hear what you're saying [because it makes me uncomfortable that you're calling me on something I do and I don't like that and I'm not grown up enough to have a proper conversation where I learn something and possibly admit that I have been wrong]

What Otto touched on is intersectionality and it's an incredibly useful lens to look at this kind of thing through. What it does, as described, is to allow us to look at ourselves (and others) and see where we have the privilege and where we have the disadvantage.

As an example: I'm a middle-class, cis-gendered, white woman. I have privilege coming out of my ears, to be honest. But I am also disadvantaged by being part of a (huge) minority group that has only recently had laws passed to bring us up to the norm. And even now, despite laws, there is a lot of discrimination that I'm subject to.

There are social groups that have more privilege than me, a lot who have less and some who have different ones. An awareness of that is a good thing to have before entering any conversations of the social justice type.

One thing that makes me more on the internet than most other things is if I'm in a conversation about how although more women enter higher education (and graduate? I'm not up to date on that) positions of power and influence are still massively disproportionately held by (white) men. And some Wise Guy will come up and say "how can you complain about that when FGM still exists/women in Saudi aren't allowed to drive" etc etc

SJW is used to insult and close down a conversation and there is no wonder it makes people bite.

Here's a report from 2014 that says 57% of the undergraduate population are women. 5% of women withdraw without obtaining an award and 7% of men withdraw before obtaining an award. "67% of women achieved an upper degree against 62% of men"

http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resource/undergraduate-retention-and-attainment-across-disciplines

There certainly is no hierarchy of privilege because it is like how there is no hierarchy of disability - someone who can't climb stairs but can hear audio announcements, for example, could be disabled in a railway station if there were no lift, whereas someone who can't hear but can climb stairs could be disabled if announcements were audio only, so one is not more disabled than the other, as it depends on the situation.

I am also privileged as a middle class white person, and there is more than one way that I am disadvantaged. Other people who share one of the disadvantages will have different privilege or lack of privilege depending on their other characteristics too.

part of the problem, of course, is that up to now all (nearly all) the power has been held by white men. Now the balance is shifting it must be quite frightening or galling to see other people picking up the power and doing things differently.

There's an interesting graphic about the hierarchy of privilege - I'll try to find it.

part of the problem, of course, is that up to now all (nearly all) the power has been held by white men.

That was an unfortunate result of technological development and greed.

I am fine with "social justice." Add "warrior" to it, and all sorts of alarms go off in my head.

We're civilians. If people want to be at war [whether a shooting war or a more figurative one], there are protocols to protect noncombatants. Not observing those protocols would be an injustice to those who do not wish to participate in whatever war is under way. I suspect, though, that many people who want social justice would be kind enough not to create injustice as a collateral consequence. And maybe some of them would quibble at being called "warriors." For someone else to call them warriors might be micro-aggression.

Social justice is a key element in some religious contexts. Peaceful applications are normative. Think of the Quakers' role in underground railroads before the U.S. Civil War. Think of church soup kitchens for the hungry, etc.

In the Sixties, I was profundly impressed by Martin Luther King, Jr., who said, among things, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

Isn't what's inside more important than what's outside?