Tuesday, September 27, 2016

A recent example of SJW bullying going off-line

Swarthmore student called 'white b*tch,' told 'kill yourself' over op-ed that upset liberal peers - The College Fix:
Jenson said she has received four physical threats and been cyberbullied almost 100 times on social media. She told The Fix some of the more extreme comments came from one person who told her she should have her tongue removed, and another, a written note she found in her bag at the gym the day after the op-ed came out, which stated: “kill yourself bitch.”
I'm sure there are earlier examples, but the first one I noticed was The Outing of Zathlazip.

Sunday, September 25, 2016

Actually, rich black kids are less likely to go to prison than poor white kids

Poor white kids are less likely to go to prison than rich black kids - The Washington Post: is worth reading, but it admits its title is wrong further into the article than many people will read: "Only the very wealthiest black youth —  those whose household wealth in 1985 exceeded $69,000 in 2012 dollars — had a better chance of avoiding prison than the poorest white youth. Among black young people in this group, 2.4 percent were incarcerated."

Read the whole thing. The second half is more nuanced than the first. As usual, they don't discuss another fact that may be relevant: white and Hispanic poverty is more rural than urban poverty; it would be interesting to know if the urban white poor are more likely to go to prison than the rural white poor.

Wednesday, September 21, 2016

No, I did not invent or promote "social justice warrior" in 2009

I'm a bit obsessive about getting facts right, so here is the reason I'm often credited with coining or promoting "social justice warrior" in 2009.

I found the term in 2011 or 2012 (see note below) at Be a SJ Ally, not a SJ Sally. I went to Urban Dictionary to verify it. I didn't like the term because it was ironic and irony is always misunderstood by literal-minded people, but it was already being used and I couldn't think of a more precise name for the people who rage, mob, dox, and issue death threats in the name of social justice. So I accepted the name when I made this blog, which was originally titled Social Justice Warriors: Do Not Engage. I imported some posts I had made elsewhere, including some from 2009, which had the unintended effect of making it look like Social Justice Warriors: Do Not Engage had existed under that name since 2009.

Since "social justice" was coined in the 19th century, it had been associated with pacifists who believed in working in the world and treating everyone with love and respect, so the common expression for those people was social justice workers. A few times, "social justice warrior" was used as a term of praise by the kind of people who use "Christian warriors" as praise—they fail to see that "warrior" evokes the Crusaders who massacred Albigensians and sacked Christian Constantinople because it was an easier target than any Muslim city.

Calling Martin Luther King a "social justice warrior" is a retcon. If you search his writings, you'll find few references to social justice. Durng the 1960s, "social justice" was primarily a theological concept. King, a democratic socialist, was more concerned with economic justice, which is why his most famous speech was given at the culmination of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom and he was killed during the Memphis Sanitation Workers Strike while planning the Poor People's Campaign.

ETA: To my amusement, people are discussing my use of the term at Talk:Social justice warrior/Archive1 - RationalWiki. I suspect David Gerard is correct about the timing.

Monday, September 19, 2016

More men than women think the US is ready for a female president

Poll: Most Americans ready for female president | TheHill:
Women are slightly less confident than men about the country's readiness. Seventy-six percent of women say the country is prepared to elect a female president, compared with 83 percent of men. 
And though the country overwhelmingly says it's ready to elect a woman, just 3 in 10 respondents identify as feminists.

Sunday, September 18, 2016

Are Female Candidates Still Running Against Gender Bias? | Columbian College of Arts & Sciences | The George Washington University

Are Female Candidates Still Running Against Gender Bias? | The George Washington University:
We systematically looked at media coverage of 800 U.S. House races involving more than 1,500 candidates across two different election cycles from 2010-2014. It turns out that female candidates run virtually identical campaigns as men—from the issues they talk about to the language they use to the personal traits they stress. They are just as likely to be covered fairly by the media as men. Voters are just as likely to regard women as strong leaders. The bottom line is: When women run for electoral office, they are just as likely to win as men.

Saturday, September 17, 2016

Those who "don't do 101" and those who do: a cartoon

I have no idea who made this, but it's true. If you care about something, you "do 101".

Found via Let the Kooks Speak

Wednesday, September 14, 2016

Art Class Politically Incorrect - first TV appearances of SJWs?

A very simple meme that SJWs can't grasp

I was thinking this was too simplistic to share, then thought of all the vicious things SJWs do that they somehow believe serves social justice and decided to go ahead. Because the original social justice workers understood this:

Perhaps the first trait of the SJW is a desire to destroy people, to get them fired and to send them threats to terrify them.

Friday, September 9, 2016

What MTV gets wrong about "cracker" and "white trash"—they are racist—and no, Oprah wasn't a victim of racism in Switzerland

Like many race reductionists, Franchesca Ramsey gets the history right, then spins it.

What’s racist has to do with how a word's used, not how it was invented. As she admits, historical context matters: Blacks who speak of "crackers" today are not slaves; they’re just black racists referring to white people.

During the antebellum era, black slaveowners undoubtedly spoke of white trash. We know that slaves did. Wikipedia says,
In 1833 Fanny Kemble, an English actress visiting Georgia, noted in her journal: "The slaves themselves entertain the very highest contempt for white servants, whom they designate as 'poor white trash’”.
The owner of the luxury-goods shop, which has since been outed as Trois Pommes, is not in agreement, however. “This is an absolute classic misunderstanding,” Trudie Goetz told Reuters today. To CNN, she clarified, “Mrs. Oprah said she just wanted to look at the bag, she didn’t want it taken down, and because my sales assistant felt a little embarrassed about the price, she quickly said that she also had the model in other materials such as ostrich and suede, which weren’t so expensive. . . This had nothing whatsoever to do with racism.” In case anyone was wondering how the offending saleswoman was doing, Goetz added, “She feels very bad because she feels the way it’s being represented is very unfair.”
Another point from the article: "Even more shocking than the fact that the Pretty Woman Rodeo Drive treatment is apparently still a rampant elitist epidemic in Switzerland, and that $38,000 purses—accessories used to carry loose change, hair ties, and gum—exist at all, is the fact that someone on this planet did not recognize Oprah."

Note to anti-racists: Even the most racist capitalists know there are rich black people, and they like to take their money. If the clerk had screwed up, the employer would've fired her, because shops that sell $38,000 purses don't like to offend anyone who might have $38,000 to spend on a purse.

Saturday, September 3, 2016

Social experiment - most people are sheep

A helpful demonstration of how people in general and cultists in particular develop customs that serve no purpose other than a crucial one: shared practices make people feel united.

Friday, September 2, 2016

David Brooks (yes, really!) is right about how identity politics serves the right

Identity Politics Run Amok - The New York Times:
First, it is Manichaean. It cleanly divides the world into opposing forces of light and darkness. You are a worker or an elite. You are American or foreigner.

Seeing this way is understandable if you are scared, but it is also a sign of intellectual laziness. The reality is that people can’t be reduced to a single story. An issue as complex as immigration can’t be reduced to a cartoon. It is simultaneously true that immigration fuels American dynamism and that the mixture of mass unskilled immigration and the high-tech economy threatens to create a permanent underclass.

Second and most important, identity politics is inherently the politics of division.
It just goes to show that no one is wrong all the time. I tend to see the issue as divided between right-identitarianism and left-identitarianism. The motives are different, but the result's the same.

ETA: I left this comment there:
Brooks is 2/3 right when he says, "Human beings are too complicated to be defined by skin color, income or citizenship status." Income is not a social identity because it can change in an instant. Win the lottery, and you join the 1%. Have a financial disaster, and you join the working class. Income is only a relationship to economic power—black women like Melanie Cain have privileges that poor whites can only dream of.

Identitarianism is a problem on both the right and the left. It distracts from the issue that Brooks does not want to address, the growing wealth gap.