DCP on Chauvin Trial: "Black-on-black crime and violence" is More of a Problem than "police overreach"

[Morley]

I realized as soon as I offered the quotes this wasn't going to really fit...not much anyway. I'm seeing it as a kind of fit and I don't mean to really say anyone's arguing otherwise. As I said I'm not feeling too concerned about DCP's comments. But I would come up short of condemning him completely. There is plenty to work through on the topic of Social Justice and it certainly feels religious-like when it comes up in certain quarters. A very dogmatic and self-righteous world. I suppose I just toss it in there for some level of balance. Something to think about, as we ready ourselves on DCP's comments.

Thank you.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Huh. Yet another piece of evidence that we’re living in a simulation ‘race realist’ cartoonist Stonetoss posted this today:



And here are his Twitter fans’ commentary for consideration:

https://mobile.Twitter.com/stone_toss/s ... 3859557376

Anyone notice if Freethinker made a comment, yet?

- Doc

[huckelberry]

Doc, what sort of universe is that in . The comments go on and on and on and on and amount to pretty much hicups and butt scratching.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Doc, what sort of universe is that in . The comments go on and on and on and on and amount to pretty much hicups and butt scratching.

I learned of Stonetoss from 4chan/pol and occasionally check him out. He has his thumb on the pulse of the alt-Right, Trumptards, zoomer edgelords, and nuConservatives (I think Nick Fuentes is their current darling, but I’m not really read up on him since I’m not overly political these days since Biden was elected).

- Doc

[Kishkumen]

I realized as soon as I offered the quotes this wasn't going to really fit...not much anyway. I'm seeing it as a kind of fit and I don't mean to really say anyone's arguing otherwise. As I said I'm not feeling too concerned about DCP's comments. But I would come up short of condemning him completely. There is plenty to work through on the topic of Social Justice and it certainly feels religious-like when it comes up in certain quarters. A very dogmatic and self-righteous world. I suppose I just toss it in there for some level of balance. Something to think about, as we ready ourselves on DCP's comments.

I’ll bite. So, I am somewhat interested and a little knowledgeable in theory, and yet I think of it primarily as a method for interpreting texts in different and interesting ways. For the most part, I am a historian, and I try to be driven by the facts in my analysis of historical problems. Your authors have a point regarding the extreme ideologues of the Social Justice movement. But that point really only goes so far, and it misses the underlying historical realities that continue to drive inequality. You can’t have certain civilizations run roughshod over entire continents and their peoples and continue that exploitation centuries after the most noticeable outrages have stopped, only to point at the end of the worst and say, “See, we’re all good now; the real problem is over.” The system has been and continues to be rigged against brown people. If I allow you to vote, but then I make you drive a hundred miles to do so, while your white fellow citizen can practically stumble out the door into the voting booth, that is a huge inequity, and GOP state legislatures are fighting hard to tilt the game ever more against brown people exactly in that way. So, forget about the postmodern, social justice bogeyman. Once Republicans stop actively trying to make it hard for Black people to exercise their rights as citizens, not to mention so many other inequities, then we can talk about the hysterical cult of the far left. The fascism on the right is equally cultish and stupid. It is not as though your text is talking about something that maps neatly onto our current political situation.

[dastardly stem]

I’ll bite. So, I am somewhat interested and a little knowledgeable in theory, and yet I think of it primarily as a method for interpreting texts in different and interesting ways. For the most part, I am a historian, and I try to be driven by the facts in my analysis of historical problems. Your authors have a point regarding the extreme ideologues of the Social Justice movement. But that point really only goes so far, and it misses the underlying historical realities that continue to drive inequality. You can’t have certain civilizations run roughshod over entire continents and their peoples and continue that exploitation centuries after the most noticeable outrages have stopped, only to point at the end of the worst and say, “See, we’re all good now; the real problem is over.” The system has been and continues to be rigged against brown people. If I allow you to vote, but then I make you drive a hundred miles to do so, while your white fellow citizen can practically stumble out the door into the voting booth, that is a huge inequity, and GOP state legislatures are fighting hard to tilt the game ever more against brown people exactly in that way. So, forget about the postmodern, social justice bogeyman. Once Republicans stop actively trying to make it hard for Black people to exercise their rights as citizens, not to mention so many other inequities, then we can talk about the hysterical cult of the far left. The fascism on the right is equally cultish and stupid. It is not as though your text is talking about something that maps neatly onto our current political situation.

Thank you, good Reverend for your thoughts. I wouldn't say I entirely disagree either. Allow me a personal anecdote.

Recently my son and I planned to go hit golf balls. We drove separately because he had other engagements to get to. I pulled up to the stop sign, spotted a cop sitting near, turned left and headed on my way. My son, who is black, pulled up right behind me, stopped, turned left to continue on his way. The cop, upon seeing him, raced to get right behind him--checking out his information, apparently, following him closely up the last turn we had on our drive. There was nothing to see, for the cop, when a white 44 year old male pulled up and carried on...but a 22 year old black man was worth looking into. Of course it turned into nothing this time. But that creeping suspicion is never something I have to worry about and it tears me up to think of the absolutely ridiculous run-ins my son has had with police officers in his short life. I could certainly carry on telling many incidents that frustrate me.

There's no doubt there's a problem. Pointing out the weakness of the general Social Justice movement is not fighting against solving that problem. Instead talking about it's weakness helps us identify the better way forward. The right certainly doesn't have many answers here and is only contributing to what ails us at this point. I will add I tire of the Us vs Them mentality, and how politics is so front and center on this topic. The solution is certainly not more division, I don't think.

It is therefore no exaggeration to observe that Social Justice Theorists have created a new religion, a tradition of faith that is actively hostile to reason, falsification, disconfirmation, and disagreement of any kind. Indeed, the whole postmodernist project now seems, in retrospect, like an unwitting attempt to have deconstructed the old metanarrativies of Western thought--science and reason along with religion and capitalist economic systems--to make room for a wholly new religion, a postmodern faith based on a dead God, which seem mysterious worldly forces in systems of power and privilege and which sanctifies victimhood. This, increasingly, is the fundamentalist religion of the nominally secular left.

If there is no room for serious conversation, for starters on this, then we're doomed to come up short. If we can't unleash our problem solvers, our great minds because we are dealing with a religion, then we're going to come up short too.

Liberalism also contains both the features and flaws that allowed postmodern Theory to undermine public status. By tolerating differences of opinion and viewpoint diversity, liberalism allows for people nto to support liberalism. By insisting on freedom of debate, liberalism explicitly permits and even welcomes criticsm of its own tenets. By proclaiming universal human values, liberalism invites attention to the ways in which Western societies, both past and present, have failed to live up to those proclaimed values. By proclaiming the legal and political equality of all citizens, liberalism invites attention to the ways in which some citizens have acquired vastly more political influence than others. By being ever focused on progress, a liberal society shines the spotlight on its own imperfections, in the hope that they can be corrected or at least mitigated. Liberalism is not perfect. Nevertheless it is the antidote to Theory.

[Morley]

There's no doubt there's a problem. Pointing out the weakness of the general Social Justice movement is not fighting against solving that problem. Instead talking about it's weakness helps us identify the better way forward. The right certainly doesn't have many answers here and is only contributing to what ails us at this point. I will add I tire of the Us vs Them mentality, and how politics is so front and center on this topic. The solution is certainly not more division, I don't think.

It is therefore no exaggeration to observe that Social Justice Theorists have created a new religion, a tradition of faith that is actively hostile to reason, falsification, disconfirmation, and disagreement of any kind. Indeed, the whole postmodernist project now seems, in retrospect, like an unwitting attempt to have deconstructed the old metanarrativies of Western thought--science and reason along with religion and capitalist economic systems--to make room for a wholly new religion, a postmodern faith based on a dead God, which seem mysterious worldly forces in systems of power and privilege and which sanctifies victimhood. This, increasingly, is the fundamentalist religion of the nominally secular left.

If there is no room for serious conversation, for starters on this, then we're doomed to come up short. If we can't unleash our problem solvers, our great minds because we are dealing with a religion, then we're going to come up short too.

Liberalism also contains both the features and flaws that allowed postmodern Theory to undermine public status. By tolerating differences of opinion and viewpoint diversity, liberalism allows for people nto to support liberalism. By insisting on freedom of debate, liberalism explicitly permits and even welcomes criticsm of its own tenets. By proclaiming universal human values, liberalism invites attention to the ways in which Western societies, both past and present, have failed to live up to those proclaimed values. By proclaiming the legal and political equality of all citizens, liberalism invites attention to the ways in which some citizens have acquired vastly more political influence than others. By being ever focused on progress, a liberal society shines the spotlight on its own imperfections, in the hope that they can be corrected or at least mitigated. Liberalism is not perfect. Nevertheless it is the antidote to Theory.

Stem, I vowed I wouldn't wade into this, but apparently I can't be trusted to keep my word to myself.

Critical theory does not equal social justice warrior. Critical theory is merely a critique on modernity, and as a critique, it does not seek to provide answers.

The authors have it wrong: Liberalism and critical theory are not opposed. Social justice advocates use critical theory to look at systems of power--but so does the right wing, though I doubt they're even aware they're doing so. (The Trump presidency was a prime example of Post-Modernism.) Obviously, the left and the right both offer different solutions to the questions that are raised.

Social justice isn't a religion; neither is critical theory. We love to call those ideologies we don't like 'religions' (and those religions we don't like 'cults'), but that doesn't make the designation accurate.

.

[Kishkumen]

Recently my son and I planned to go hit golf balls. We drove separately because he had other engagements to get to. I pulled up to the stop sign, spotted a cop sitting near, turned left and headed on my way. My son, who is black, pulled up right behind me, stopped, turned left to continue on his way. The cop, upon seeing him, raced to get right behind him--checking out his information, apparently, following him closely up the last turn we had on our drive. There was nothing to see, for the cop, when a white 44 year old male pulled up and carried on...but a 22 year old black man was worth looking into. Of course it turned into nothing this time. But that creeping suspicion is never something I have to worry about and it tears me up to think of the absolutely ridiculous run-ins my son has had with police officers in his short life. I could certainly carry on telling many incidents that frustrate me.

I am deeply pained on your behalf. My children are Chinese, so we have been able to see racial prejudice more clearly through their eyes than we might otherwise have been. Coincidentally, I have been pulled over for no apparent reason with them in the backseat, and I kinda think that the officer saw the dark heads in the back and saw an easy target, only to be confused when he reached the driver-side window.

There's no doubt there's a problem. Pointing out the weakness of the general Social Justice movement is not fighting against solving that problem. Instead talking about it's weakness helps us identify the better way forward. The right certainly doesn't have many answers here and is only contributing to what ails us at this point. I will add I tire of the Us vs Them mentality, and how politics is so front and center on this topic. The solution is certainly not more division, I don't think.

Sure, pointing out problems in the SJ movement is not of a logical necessity opposition to the goals of the movement itself, but I think we both understand that mischaracterization of the movement can serve to frustrate those goals. As Exhibit A I offer the same passage you quoted:

It is therefore no exaggeration to observe that Social Justice Theorists have created a new religion, a tradition of faith that is actively hostile to reason, falsification, disconfirmation, and disagreement of any kind. Indeed, the whole postmodernist project now seems, in retrospect, like an unwitting attempt to have deconstructed the old metanarrativies of Western thought--science and reason along with religion and capitalist economic systems--to make room for a wholly new religion, a postmodern faith based on a dead God, which seem mysterious worldly forces in systems of power and privilege and which sanctifies victimhood. This, increasingly, is the fundamentalist religion of the nominally secular left.

Look, the Civil Rights Movement and the new Social Justice Movement have as much to do with liberal Christianity and Black Christianity as they do Marxist intellectuals. Scratch that, they have more to do with forms of Christianity than they do with Godlessness. And, Christianity and Marxism may not be comfortable bedfellows, but in some instances they are reconciled to bring greater equality and lift up the poor. Sure, there are those pointy-headed liberals who are atheists and Marxists, but they are far outnumbered, I would say, by the Black Christians and liberal Christians who want to see certain teachings of Jesus put into action.

I dunno. I have a hard time taking this piece too seriously. As someone who spends all of his time around academics, I do get the frustration with illiberal leftists, but even on campus these people are not necessarily in the majority. The student body is not a bunch of mindless drones who forgot everything mommy and daddy taught to have their wills coopted by "Theory." I have yet to see anything really substantive come out of last year's fracas over the murder of George Floyd on my campus.

If there is no room for serious conversation, for starters on this, then we're doomed to come up short. If we can't unleash our problem solvers, our great minds because we are dealing with a religion, then we're going to come up short too.

There's so much that could be done to change the prospects of all of our citizens if we were manipulated into fearing each other by doom screeds like the one you quoted. I will not say that I am not concerned about illiberal leftists. They annoy me and sometimes freak me out a little. I am tired of all of the new jargon for properly referring to this or that group. Hey, if anyone wants me to call them "X," I will gladly use that term and any pronoun they want, but there is only so much time in the day, and I have even less patience than there is time. I will do my best to respect everyone, but I am not going to be hectored by some activist freak who wants to force me to live in their monastery of political and rhetorical purity.

[Kishkumen]

Critical theory does not equal social justice warrior. Critical theory is merely a critique on modernity, and as a critique, it does not seek to provide answers.

The authors have it wrong: Liberalism and critical theory are not opposed. Social justice advocates use critical theory to look at systems of power--but so does the right wing, though I doubt they're even aware they're doing so. (The Trump presidency was a prime example of Post-Modernism.) Obviously, the left and the right both offer different solutions to the questions that are raised.

Social justice isn't a religion; neither is critical theory. We love to call those ideologies we don't like 'religions' (and those religions we don't like 'cults'), but that doesn't make the designation accurate.

These are the important points I neglected to make. I agree with Morley. The authors of that piece were cherrypicking things that sound bad and exotic and putting them together to create a bogeyman. Social justice is a goal. Critical theory is a set of tools. And, yes, fascism is as much a product of modern theory as marxism is. The new fascism has done a great job of appropriating the tools of post-modernism to fortify and stake out its post-truth mind-screw.

[Morley]

I am deeply pained on your behalf. My children are Chinese, so we have been able to see racial prejudice more clearly through their eyes than we might otherwise have been. Coincidentally, I have been pulled over for no apparent reason with them in the backseat, and I kinda think that the officer saw the dark heads in the back and saw an easy target, only to be confused when he reached the driver-side window.

My god, I agree. Having been born in the Middle East, my wife is fairly dark, and her perfect English is heavily accented. Even standing next to each other, it's often assumed that we're not together. I didn't fully appreciate prejudice until seeing how she's treated and spoken to. When those addressing her realize I'm with her, the embarrassed glances ensue, and the tone immediately changes. I don't know if it's because she's a woman, her small stature, or because of her ethnicity. Though I quietly rage about it, I realize how much worse the situation is for others than it can be for her.

.