If you have ever had a conversation with a social justice warrior, you may be well aware that a confusing occurrence tends to take place.
For all your effort to use reason and evidence to truly understand the position that the person holds, it’s incredibly difficult to get even a semblance of either reason or evidence out of the social justice warrior in response.
It’s a fool’s errand. The best that can be expected is often a collection of slogans practically chanted in a daisy chain in increasing volume and intensity as the conversation progresses.
The more you invite the social justice warrior to use reason and evidence, the more you are informed you are “splitting hairs” or “going around in circles.”
If the slogans fail, and the claimed faux pas of splitting hairs does not deter you, terms of derision may start to flow.
Bigot or nazi or racist may be used to describe situations that are not bigoted, national socialist, or racist. However, if you protest the misapplication of such a serious term, the social justice warrior may attempt to explain the application through the use of circular logic, or with another onslaught of slogans. It is evident that these names do not actually fit this situation. They are merely ugly words meant to silence you. At this point where name-calling emerges for the sake of bullying a person, the conversation has grown abusive, and no respectable person would feel comfortable either doing the name-calling or being a recipient of the name-calling.
The conversation quickly grows very tiring as a great deal of energy is expelled and very little reason is utilized. The volume of voices may grow elevated. There is great emotion. And sure everyone is invested in their personal opinions to some degree, everyone has topics they are passionate about, but intellectual discussion between two adults is the time to open the spigot on reason and evidence and to tighten that other spigot that prevents an uncontrolled outpouring of emotion.
Culturally, these seemingly thoughtless outpourings of emotion are increasingly encouraged in our era.
In fact, some will go so far as to call logic, “a tool of the patriarchy.” That’s right. The mental faculty that has helped humans to better our world, through millions and billions of applications a day for millennia, is to be dismissed as a mere tool of the patriarchy. What a trendy and carelessly callous insult to lob at such an awesome human capacity. One of the key distinctions between man and beast is to be dismissed because those who are poorly trained in using their executive function and limiting their emotional outpouring feel triggered by its use. To follow in their wishes is to bring us closer to beast as individuals and as a society.
Mental illness is the involuntary parting with reality. This social justice style of argumentation is the voluntary parting with reality. They are two peas in the same pod.
And that’s a scary thing. If given the power to do away with reason and evidence, the social justice warrior will do just that. In intentionally insular silos of social interaction – through social media, academia, daily life, and often even the workplace – these ideas receive nearly no challenge by reasonable people. It’s just not worth the pain of being yelled at (or worse) by someone who is either crazy and or willfully acting crazy. Counter to logic and meritocratic notions, the unreasonable silence the reasonable.
The illogical application of law makes this situation all the more likely to occur. And in the name of tranquility, treading on touchy ground is unwelcome. Heaven forbid someone may even go so far as to burst into tears, at which point it grows evident to any onlooker that this stickler for reason and evidence is surely a savage brute worthy of derision. Not only legal pressure, but also social pressure encourages the reasonable to bite their tongues.
It is not by choice, it is only by happenstance that a social justice warrior faces reason and evidence. The rest of society grows up hearing the social justice lines parroted in school, in entertainment, in media, likely even in church. Often the only controversial views welcomed in such environments are social justice views. The astute thinker, constantly inundated with these views both seeks out and is confronted with a host of additional views naturally, and must learn to reason through that conflict. The discomfort of conflict and the ability to self-soothe enough to persevere in the midst of conflict are required to grow the faculty for logic.
The social justice warrior is often done the disservice of being insulated from opposing views to the point where reality is painfully intrusive when it comes about.
This aversion to the intrusion of reality has made it natural for college professors to preface material with “trigger warnings,” in the event that someone in the room is not mature enough to handle a conflicting viewpoint without bursting out in great, seemingly uncontrollable, displays of emotion. Even with a trigger warning, an academic risks disciplinary action if the conflicting viewpoint is seen as too intrusive. This style of material from thinkers was once referred to as “thought-provoking” and was an important part of the reason for taking the time and effort to attend university.
A notable aversion to the intrusion of reality took place with the so-called emergence of Trump Derangement Syndrome in an outburst running up to, but most notably following the November 9, 2016 presidential elections. This has amounted to a multi-year tantrum in response to an election. Yes, an election. A measly election.
Thousands take place a year. Politicians aren’t that meaningful. They aren’t to be taken seriously. They are a form of sardonic entertainment that allow us to feel better about the inordinate amount of the workday we must slave away just to afford the taxes the government levies on us.
Unless you are the losing candidate, if an election means that much to you, there is something seriously wrong with you. And even the candidate probably didn’t belong in the election if they are still triggered years later. Toughen up snowflake. It’s an election.
But to say so, is to be patriarchal. To abhor involuntary crazy and voluntary crazy alike and to pursue health and wellness is to be patriarchal. To praise the successes of humanity through the ages and to want less of the failures is to be patriarchal. To desire to use emotion for all the things it is good for, and to desire to use logic for all the things it is good for, and to implement them together as a well-adjusted healthy person is to be patriarchal. To demand those same high standards is to be patriarchal.
And that is othering. And racist. And literally what only someone who is literally a fascist, literal nazi, literal bigot would do. Literally.