Featured Post


This essay is a very belated response to a " part 1 " published in February 2015. The gist of that essay was a response to a corre...

Friday, July 7, 2017


This brief comment just appeared on my post: SO-- PRESIDENT TRUMP.

SJWs can be annoying. But anyone who says anti Sjws don't have issues is kidding themselves. Many of them ARE racist and pall around with literal nazis
SJWs are annoying
Anti SJWs are monsters

Since this was a generalized comment on the opposition of "social justice warriors" and their opposites, I decided to use it as an excuse to address not so much the opposition itself, but the practical aspects of accomplishing some sort of rapprochement.

As I've reiterated on this blog numerous times, I don't have a problem with the quest for social justice itself. In the TRUMP essay I evinced my opinion that Dorian Johnson was more of an exploiter of a situation than any sort of warrior for social justice. Yet I certainly don't think that of Sandra Bland, whose case recently returned to cyber-headlines again, when the man responsible for harassing her-- albeit not directly killing her-- was released from the charge of perjury simply by promising not to work in law enforcement any more.

Problems arise when SJWs get hold of both cases and submit them to the test of "identity politics." Bland's mistreatment by cops was to my mind much worse than anything that happened to Michael Brown, given that I'm of the opinion that Brown was either partly or wholly responsible for his own death. Yet Brown, for various reasons, became the poster child for Black Lives Matter. I noted in this essay that some good might come of having put the national spotlight on Ferguson. Does such a statement keep me out of the company of the "anti-SJWs?" Probably not to a hardcore SJW, if my past contentions with same are any indicator.

So who can be fairly termed an "anti-SJW," one who's pretty much always opposed to any sort of liberal movement? Well, since I don't regularly seek them out, I can only cite old-timer Rush Limbaugh. I don't listen to Limbaugh either, but he has an impressive record for having made generally thick-headed, arch-conservative comments over the past thirty years, which earns him some sort of cachet, if only for longevity.

Now, there's not much one can do about the extremes of either Limbaugh or Black Lives Matter. But because even ultraliberals come out of a tradition of reasoned thought, it may on some occasions be possible to demonstrate the flaws in their extremism-- not to those who surrendered their hearts and soles to a given Movement, but to those who might be swayed into a more centrist position.

That said, I confess I haven't had much luck in opening such dialogues, as I mentioned in A TINY TORRENT OF CENSORSHIP. But hope endures, though without much of a "spring" in her eternal step.


Freya West said...

Love to read this post, thanks for share your thoughts.

Freya, UK

Ryan Moore said...

Part of the issue is at least THEIR heart is in the right place. A lot of anti sjws either literally pall around with nazis or they act like ANY diversity is a bad thing.

Laquan McDonald is a case where the cops VERY clearly murdered him in cold blood; the cop had a long history of being a racist psycho and the city in question had many of the cops try to defend the atrocities of Jon Burge (who literally tortured people). BLM can go overboard but a lot of cops really ARE racist psychopaths. Even the "good ones" tend to turn a blind eye to their fellows committing murder or the like (Michael Slager's fellows supported him in his lie until he got caught)

Gene Phillips said...

Well, as I said, cops who use their position to torture and murder are one extreme, while Micah Xavier Johnson and the scumbags who made the Facebook torture video are the other. All of these people are beyond hope. One might say that there are a helluva lot more of the former than of the latter, but one extreme doesn't get any points for being the underdog in this particular situation.

Am I associating BLM with hate criminals like Johnson? No. But I find myself wondering if they've had the effect they WANTED to have-- that of making cops more cautious-- and instead made cops more antsy about confronting black suspects, even unarmed innocents like Terence Crutcher. Of course the cops are still responsible for their own actions, no matter what external forces *may* have acted upon them. Yet IMO *something* more than just "institutional racism" seems at work in this proliferation of fatal incidents, unprecedented since the days of the 19GOS demonstrations.