1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Is 'Social Justice' a Cultural Revolution Reboot?

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Herojuana, Apr 11, 2019.

  1. D.P.

    Caporegime

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 30,141

    Before watching the video can someone post references to all the claims and facts, preferably peer reviewed, along with s complete resume of the author. I assume if this is supposedly an intellectual evidence based argument then proof of all assertions will be trivially sourced
     
  2. efish

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Jan 11, 2014

    Posts: 1,322

    Jonthan Haidt has plenty of peer reviewed stuff a google away.

    Personally I would contrast his take with Bill Miller. Miller is scholar who specializes in legal history specifically honor culture.

    Humiliation: and other Essays on Honor, Social Discomfort, and Violence.

    Not so familiar with Haidt, the historical frame and model the victim-hood scholars are all using which seems to stem from Haidt, is over inflected and not accurate (why I would suggest a compare and contrast with a specialist in honor culture).

    The claim in the first vid and the title of the post is ahistorical entirely rhetorical and overtly political. Not worth the effort unless you want to engage in an entirely political grudge match. Very poorly framed and thought out. The commentators certainly have valid points to make but its not a critical perspective, its far to close to the fire.

    Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning are sociologists who maintain a blog on the subject, the victim hood report . They are also responsible for a key paper
    microaggression and moral culture,

    Research is not balanced yet, early days and the examples are small and related almost exclusively to one specific group. Tiny sample set from which much larger generalizations are being claimed.

    Its also a group of which the academics and writers are members of and at times in direct competition with the folks they are criticizing for funding, tenure etc. Poacher declaring himself gamekeeper element that makes things somewhat problematic.

    Take time to get the emotion and heat out of the way and see whats left standing and actually valid.

    But that's is not uncommon with academic debate.

    Whats going to win out vid's specifically designed for high emotional engagement and viral impact forming part of an intentional social media blitz or actually doing the heavy lifting and the reading?

    I think the the thread suggests we may already have a winner and can move on to cute cat videos or just to keep things honest, gaze in horror at the multitude of images of men in maga hat's being defiled by evil liberal.
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2019
  3. robgmun

    Capodecina

    Joined: Apr 30, 2006

    Posts: 15,192

    Location: London

    No need, all the evidence are complied, videoed and posted by the very people who doing the aggressive targeting. All the events told in the documentary have been actually filmed and shown right there, often from the perspective of the perpetrators.

    And if you don't trust the film makers then there are many other videos on YouTube (I went down a rabbit hole after my last post on this) that tell the same story but this is the most comprehensive of them all. Calling the events a hoax is utterly ridiculous and I pity the ignorant who say so.
     
  4. efish

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Jan 11, 2014

    Posts: 1,322


    I think you may be getting a little confused and engaging in a somewhat emotive rush to judgement using some rather unfortunate and ill considered language.

    Mike Nanya (the documentary maker) is best known for his documentary on what is known as the, ''Grievance study affair' 'Sokal Squared' or just the 'hoax' (I got the terms slightly confused first time round)

    It concerns a group of academics who presented fake and fraudulent papers and got them past peer review in post modernist publications.

    Subjects included



    It demonstrates how heated the subject is when tactics like this are deployed.

    It's a very well known and much discussed academic scandal.

    Clearly you are unaware of the subject, which is no big deal but rather unfortunate given the dramatic claim in regard to other peoples ignorance you just made.
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2019
  5. mid_gen

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Dec 20, 2004

    Posts: 8,456

    Sociopaths still desperately trying to paint their brand of exploitative groupthink as a virtuous struggle against oppression.

    Oh for the days when this drivel was confined to imageboards....
     
  6. Herojuana

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Nov 24, 2007

    Posts: 1,261

    Location: Lancashire

    Here's a short 7 min video by Vice News

    Campus Argument Goes Viral As Evergreen State Is Caught In Racial Turmoil (HBO)

    "Weinstein has taught at Evergreen state for 23 years, he describes himself as deeply progressive, but has been denounced as a racist tool of the alt right by students and faculty"

     
  7. Herojuana

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Nov 24, 2007

    Posts: 1,261

    Location: Lancashire

     
  8. Herojuana

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Nov 24, 2007

    Posts: 1,261

    Location: Lancashire

    Bret Weinstein Testifies to Congress on The Evergreen State College riots, Free Speech & Safe Spaces

    Bret Weinstein's testimony to the House of Representatives about the free speech crisis on U.S. college campuses.

    The testimony delivered by Dr. Weinstein to the members of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform explained that the crisis isn't primarily about free speech, and won't be limited to college campuses for long.

    [/QUOTE]
     
  9. mid_gen

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Dec 20, 2004

    Posts: 8,456

    This is a forum for discussion, it's not here as a platform for spreading political youtube videos.
     
  10. efish

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Jan 11, 2014

    Posts: 1,322

    No reason to believe either side in this argument as I don't understand the picture fully enough.

    A wide range of factors and disputes playing out here. Simply posting vid's supporting one perspective is not balanced.






    Another side of the Evergreen State College Story Huffpost

    'look its all liberals making the complaint'

    Why are the vid's being selected to make this persistent point?

    Its clearly not the case.

    Are S.W.J's a commie reboot? does not suggest the speaker is a member of the far right but it certainly does not exclude the possibility, its going to draw in right wing extremists like bees to a honey pot as its a far right talking point.

    Strange lack of concern in regard to this aspect and instead the stress is all placed on 'look its all liberals making the compliant.'

    Very selective choice of material. Particularly given the source is You Tube.



     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2019
  11. Herojuana

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Nov 24, 2007

    Posts: 1,261

    Location: Lancashire

    There are recordings of what happened allover YouTube of the behavior of the students.

    The course of events is also explained in the above videos. I'm not sure why some people have video-phobia here, but as an attempt to summarise in the case study on this topic:

    1. The students wanted to arrange a day for white people to leave the campus ('day of absence')
    2. Teacher (Bret Weinstein) wrote an email suggesting this is counter productive to progressivism
    3. Groups of students and faculty turn on Bret Weinstein calling him racist, take over the college campus and abuse faculty and president

    The reason for stating there are progressives and liberals in the videos is because there seems to be some inference that any youtube video is far right propaganda or something.

    I suggest that if we want to defuse the polarisation between the left and right (and bring back civil discourse and working together) then we can't ignore these issues.
     
  12. efish

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Jan 11, 2014

    Posts: 1,322

    Because you think people believe you tube is far right propaganda you chose to deliberately limit what you are presenting because we cant ignore the issue?

    You believe that this is caused by people having some form of mental phobia which results in you having to spoon feed selected evidence?

    Are you being serious or is this just an attempt to be insulting?

    Are you really suggesting that other forum members are so stupid?
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2019
  13. Herojuana

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Nov 24, 2007

    Posts: 1,261

    Location: Lancashire

    I'm making a joke about the consistent nitpicking in the thread about the medium of information, rather than the content.

    If you don't want to watch any of the videos to discuss the topic, please explain why not?
    I appreciate you not knowing enough about the situation, that's why I posted more videos to help.

    Please why not just take 10-15 min to listen to the testimony, and we will discuss it?

    "Strange lack of concern in regard to this aspect and instead the stress is all placed on 'look its all liberals making the compliant.'

    Very selective choice of material. Particularly given the source is You Tube."​

    If you are suggesting these videos are biased, ask yourself why an evidently well-liked progressive professor would testify to US HoR about his experience at the college? Why would he go against 'his own' unless there is a legitimate problem?
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2019
  14. efish

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Jan 11, 2014

    Posts: 1,322

    Oh its a joke. You are just having a laugh.

    I am discussing the issues.

    Not suggesting the videos are biased. They are eye witness evidence. I have had to sit through sociology class 1a on the issue of using photographic and video evidence. Although that was a long time ago and I have had to do a lot more work since then on the subject.

    Engaging in mind reading to infer what the professor thinks gets you no where.

    Just as engaging in what other people think about you tube results in a self serving and satisfying joke that does not translate particularly well.

    The easy answer would be to address fully why you are being so selective with the material rather than engaging in end of the peer comedy.

    I would suggest a solution to this issue would be to engage in a more full discussion of the evidence.

    You need to seriously drop the mind reading.

    What makes you think I have not watched the videos? Perhaps I may even have seen them before and have some understanding of the subject:eek:

    Who knows I may even be engaged in research surrounding aspects of this:eek::eek::eek:

    As shocking as that thought might be.
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2019
  15. Herojuana

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Nov 24, 2007

    Posts: 1,261

    Location: Lancashire

    Well you said yourself you don't regard this as evidence as it seems like cherry picked testimonials. What kind of evidence would satisfy you in a situation like this? Or is there absolutely no way of finding truth of the situation in your eyes?

    If you watched one of the videos, let me know which so we can discuss it and you can explain what you find suspect?
     
  16. Herojuana

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Nov 24, 2007

    Posts: 1,261

    Location: Lancashire

    [​IMG]

    Can we agree on this?
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2019
  17. efish

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Jan 11, 2014

    Posts: 1,322

    ? I stated things clearly. I don't have an issue with the evidence. You read in something else entirely which I can make no sense of.

    The fact you are being selective picking cherries does not imply the object you are picking is therefore not a cherry.

    No idea how you arrive at the conclusions you do.





    No I don't hold the post modern philosophical position many on the left and right deploy these days.

    I have already pointed out some of the academic issues here.

    Philosophical dispute is one related aspect. Pointed this out in relation to the "Grievance study affair."

    Clearly also a right wing political perspective at play here.

    The debate is wider than what you can infer from what you are posting.

    I don't find the videos 'suspect' or as one other commentator unfortunately claimed 'a hoax'

    The suggestion is you are limiting discussion to one perspective. The answer to that issue is not going to be found in one of the videos is it?

    All that would do is limit discussion further to what you are posting.

    Would it not?

    If you want specifics, the academic one you posted sets out a historical model, its somewhat generalized. Do you agree with it? Can you think of any counter models?

    Does it matter that the model itself is a generalization and may not be entirely historically accurate?

    The model itself suggest wide scale cultural changes in regard to morality.
    Yet discussion is limited to one small social group.

    Can one group be responsible for such a large scale cultural shift in morality?

    Or is the subject being used to illustrate a wider cultural movement that we can find in other groups and aspects of our culture?

    What kind of sample set do we have to make such a claim?

    Have the academics selected the correct target, is the wider theory being applied to this limited evidence base appropriate?

    Can we think of any issues that may occur when the group and institution that is under investigation is being done by members of the the self same group?

    Do we have any evidence to suggest that when groups self -police a degree of self interest, bias and misinterpretation of evidence may result?

    Or is self regulation and self policing a good idea that has a glowing history of institutional successes?
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2019
  18. efish

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Jan 11, 2014

    Posts: 1,322

    [​IMG]
     
  19. platypus

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jul 25, 2003

    Posts: 38,971

    Location: Rhône-Alpes+Cambridge

    What a pity they don't practice it.
     
  20. efish

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Jan 11, 2014

    Posts: 1,322

    That remains to be seen.

    Like the cartoon. Its not the number six or the people that are the cause of dispute. Its the situation things find themselves in, that can and will change.

    Our thoughts will alter as the world around us alters. Although what that world will look like is anyone's guess and at the moment we are fearful of that change.

    Its a fearful situation we find ourselves in and we act on that impulse.


    Heaping together a collection of material won't work without being critical of you're own thought and impulse.

    One of the early videos is on a thesis in grievance studies 'Victimhood' it claims this is a new form of moral culture. That the contemporary situation of things is altering.

    The title of the thread suggests that this phenomena is a reboot of the cultural revolution. That's an entirely different claim and one supported by no evidence other than the eerie feeling and childhood memory of one subject. Seems to be a measure of evil type claim. Whatever its made from within a culture which according to the other thesis is altering in regard to its understanding of morality. i.e the measure by which we judge the past, present and future has altered dramatically.

    Contrary to opinion here being critical does not mean you are rejecting the evidence or conclusion of the thesis.

    It's an attemped to alter the situation to view from a perspective other than 'I feel.'

    Liberty from the tyranny of the self- belief 'that I can think no wrong.'

    What inspires these eerie feelings and claims? Feeling of fear that the world is a strange and frighting place that leaves us howling in the dark.

    Its the situation we are in. We do not however have to hold on to it and replicate this fear and loathing in others.

    We are perfectly capable of getting over ourselves as hard as that may be. Redemption is never certain but always a possibility.

    Martin Luther King on the situation he found himself in. A situation of fear and injustice.
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2019