SJW thinking on the right: The lack of agency
The nut-left got a dilemma with Islamic terrorism: On one hand their natural instinct is to defend Muslims from any (perceived) attack on Islam and on the other hand radical Islam is shock full of values that are 100% opposed to everything they believe: The nut-left would simply be stoned to death in a country which properly followed Sharia law.
How do you fix the cognitive dissonance? Well, the standard script includes the following items:
- First, you don't really defend Sharia, at least not in its entirety, but spend time talking about the evils of the west, in particular, Israel. The purpose is often not really to say western value has the same moral Islamism (but some go that far), but rather that there are serious problems with western culture. Often that critique is correct (albeit exaggerated) or at least not irrational.
Then you get to the important points:
- When a Muslim drive a car into a crowd of people, it is important to recognize he does so for a number of reasons that do not derive from Islam. He has been subject to ridicule by those in power (i.e. the white community), unfair discrimination and a society who sees him with suspicious. He is marginalized, without political or economic powers. When he airs his frustrations he is called an angry Muslim and he continuously have to fight a system unfairly rigged against him: he has no job, no prospects, no real influence on society (well, he does in a formal sense, but not practically). Isn't it obvious such a person lashes out? Sure we don't condone what he does, but we got to recognize that he is a symptom of a much larger problem of systemic oppression which will continue to rob Muslims of basic rights and give them no other outlet than taking to their guns within the only counter-culture that listens to them and takes them serious is only what we should expect.
- When people criticize his beliefs (i.e. points to his video where he drones on about the virgins and jihad), they are reacting to the last, severe symptoms of what is really systematic oppression.
- Attacking Islam is, therefore, counter-productive. Talking about Burkas or the systematic oppression of women in Islam is not helping: It is EXACTLY talking about those things that CREATE violence.
- It does not matter that it is really only a minority on the right who are really going after the Muslims ("and by the way, we don't think it is a minority"). After all, the entire society is rigged (implicitly) against them, and all it takes to react are the few bad apples on the right who spread their racist propaganda. To fix the problem, we got to fix the systemic issues with our society (not possible in practice...) and make sure the most extreme elements on the right do not create problems (not possible either). Anyway, THOSE are the issues we should focus on, not blaming Islam or have a conversation about Islamic vs. liberal values.
Does any of that sound familiar?
I think the above analysis contains grains of truth but that it is ultimately mistaken: It is incredibly smug and counter-productive. It is also deeply pessimistic: It is a form of racism to think Muslims don't have the agency to make decisions and claiming they are not responsible for what is obviously very conscious choices is simply denying reality. I have seen that point being made time and time again on this forum.
...that gets us to the right-wing version fo the above script...
Trump is a liar, a bully, and a fraud. A serial sexual harasser accused by his wife of rape who ticks all boxes for an antisocial disorder. On top fo that he is a science-denier and an anti-vaxer; he supports war crimes such as torture and the killing of families of militants. Etc. etc. etc.
...but we can't agree with the left/HRC supporters so what are we to do?...
The script is familiar:
- First, we can't really defend Trump, but we can certainly talk about the many problems of Hillary (emails, podesta, robotic, political establishment, SJW, "the left" yadda yada yadda). As for the nut-left, the point is not to say: Trump is a better candidate than Hillary (because as for Sharia few people can say that and believe it too), but to lay the groundwork for the next item:
- When people voted Trump, it is really because of N contingent reasons out of their control: They are left out by globalism, the left/center, mainstream media and powers in Washington do not respect them. They don't have jobs. They are considered as a lower class in society. Nobody is speaking for their concerns except in a very superficial manner and most often they are simply dismissed as racists or hill-billies. That leads us to conclude:
- When "the left" criticise them for voting Trump because of their hard-felt beliefs in Trumps ideas (for instance, that global warming is a hoax or that Obama is not a Kenyan Muslim or that Obamacare won't destroy the fabric of society), gosh golly, that's just giving these poor marginalized folks the middle finger! Moreover, members of the elitist left go as far as saying they are backward, perhaps subscribing to antiquated ideas (like, the idea that the US can't really be a mining country), and that is a lack of respect for their deeply-held values. (Sounds familiar? "If you say that Islam is an antiquated ideology of course they won't listen to you!"). And the left even has the audacity to insinuate their values are not good enough! (like, everyone who doesn't accept gay marriage is not keeping up with moral progress, something that pisses off both camps).
Who can really blame these poor simple folks for revolting, for voting and rallying behind the person who comes along and finally says the things they feel are true? (even if it isn't strictly true from our enlightened perspective, like global warming is a hoax, that crime is going up, or that Muhammad flew on the horse,...)
- When "the left" talk about "the left" ideas, such as global warming, gay rights or Obamacare, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IS CREATING THE PROBLEM. These people are just REACTING to what the left does.
- It does not matter that it is really only a minority on the far-left that are really saying nutty things ("and by the way, it is not a minority"; cue Jordan Peterson and the 4M SJWs that have infiltrated society...): After all, the entire society is rigged (implicitly) against them, and all it takes to react are the few bad apples on the far left who spread their idiotic ideas such as toilet-laws or strange pronouns. To fix the problem, we got to fix the systemic issues with our society (not gonna happen in a looong time) and make sure the most extreme elements on the left do not create problems (not possible either). Anyway, THOSE are the issues we should focus on, not blaming the people who voted Trump or have a conversation about Trumpism vs. liberal values.
In my view, the above contains some grains of truth, but it is misguided: People who vote Trump does so for reasons that are not good. Blaming the left, especially the most misguided elements on the left and general features of the society that are not going to change in 50 years, for a group's conscious choice is not productive.
I found it hard to figure out what exactly you're saying.
The simple truth is that the "left" are the ones acting like fascists and are the thugs and the biggest threat right now. The right generally aren't the ones actually threatening and attacking people.
Their behavior is rightly being rejected.
Simon: I want to know, when you say "the left" who do you mean?
I am part of the left because, well, that's what I vote. Do you think I am acting like a fascist, a thug and present a threat to you?
You elsewhere write we should not generalize. When you generalize (such as you do here) do you think that is an okay exception because your generalization is true?
My point in the OP (which I am also making elsewhere) is that now that I have followed the left/right break-out segments of what used to be the atheist community (I am sure you are familiar with the big elevator gate shit feast where Pharyngula went up its own arse and sprouted the slymepit) I can't help to notice what I see as very strong parallels in rhetoric. I would really invite you to look at youtube SJWs, make it clear to yourself what they are doing wrong, and then try to look at e.g. Sargons videos.
There are also differences. For instance, the right-wing SJWs don't have witch hunts within their own ranks the same way.
The right generally aren't the ones actually threatening and attacking people.
- A couple, who were at the infamous Bundy ranch incident went, sometime later, to an eating establishment in Nevada with a shopping cart full of weapons. They shot and killed two policemen; draped their bodies with a Gadsden flag (The Tea Party's flag with the rattle snake); and said that the revolution has just begun. Afterwards they went to a shopping mall were they told everyone to leave and then the girlfriend shot her boyfriend and committed suicide.
- A man went to a Unitarian church with a shotgun, killed two and wounded seven. He later said that Liberals must die and that he went to that church because he couldn't reach Liberal politicians. Unitarians are known to be Liberals. This man had political books in his home which included Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly.
- A white supremacist shot and killed six victims at a Sikh temple before he was shot by a police officer. He survived the shooting and immediately committed suicide.
- A mosque in Florida was set afire.
Those, and more, are the ones that made the news.
On one hand their natural instinct is to defend Muslims from any (perceived) attack on Islam - this is the problem, and a mistake the Left often makes.
Of course, Muslims should be protected form racial abuse, discrimination, violence, etc. but not from attacks on the religion of Islam, such as the Muhammad cartoons or serious debates.
After all, the Left doesn't protect Christians from attacks on Christianity or the church, does it?
In fact, the Left generally laughs at and encourages attacks on Christianity (e.g. the film The Life of Brian). But I can guarantee that if the remaining Pythons made a film called The Life of Muhammad, there would be po-faced members of the regressive Left that would protest against such an attack on Islam.
The Left really needs to sort its double standards out - at the moment it's a joke, and not a particularly funny one ...
Edit: Talking about Burkas or the systematic oppression of women in Islam is not helping: It is EXACTLY talking about those things that CREATE violence - you've lost me. How on earth does talking about the systematic oppression of women within Islam create violence?!
The first one is nonsense. The second one is obvious. Overall I gave it a like.
Reply here also applies:
No they are both wrong I didn't read it carefully, plus there's some sort of sophisticated parody going on in the text that may have escaped me.
I have noticed that whenever anyone uses the phrase "social justice warrior", which is a fairly new one on me, as if it's a real thing, the accompanying argument is invariably garbage.
LUHE: "Talking about Burkas or the systematic oppression of women in Islam is not helping: It is EXACTLY talking about those things that CREATE violence - you've lost me."
It is an example of speech found on the nut-left (I can provide examples). My point of the post is that the arguments used by the nut-left and nut-right rely on the same fallacies.
Those, and more, are the ones that made the news.
You will always be able to find examples of violence on both sides, it doesn't alter the fact that the vast majority of thuggery and "shouting people down" comes from the left right now.
They seem incapable of rational debate.