Modern Liberal's "Social Justice" Paradigm is more Narrow-Minded than Christian Conservatism: I'm Jumping Ship

I used to support the Democratic Party as an intellectual and minority. I did so under the assumption that the objective of the progressive movement was to establish secular culture, racial unification, and scientific advancement.

Major progress has been made in the past few decades on this front, however, the intentions of the movement have shifted to a downright regressive political paradigm commonly referred to as "Social Justice".

For progressives in politics there is no end objective. Solving social and economic problems is not in their best interest. Their endless pursuit of identifying "victims" and "oppressors" in the name of Social Justice can only serve to undermine individual liberties. The self-serving, narrow-minded, hypocritical nature of Social justice brings me shame as ever having identified as a liberal democrat.

The Obvious Flaws:

1. By failing to deny that prejudices are an inevitable social aspect of any culture, you are pursuing the impossible. This is the perfect scenario for a never-ending paradigm of Social Control.
2. Political Correctness gives "shock value" or perceived power to words by elevating them to the status of taboo. The notion that words can even do such harm in the first place implies that one may engage in acts of violence that can thereafter be justified by something as simple as subjective language.
3. Peace and Harmony can only be achieved by understanding cultural diversity, respecting the opinions of one another, and allowing social barriers to dissolve over time. By suppressing prejudice with legislation, it is driven underground, erupts with violence, and become completely unpredictable.

The Social Justice Regression:

1. The non-existence of such a utopia means that there will always be an alleged victim/oppressor. This results in "seek-and-destroy" tactics intent on uncovering "hidden prejudices". Example:
   • A same-sex couple calls cake bakers until they find one that is uncomfortable with the idea of a same-sex wedding cake. "We found a bigot!"
   • The baker is forced to make the cake in the name of "tolerance" in regards to the couple's homosexuality.
   • The hypocrisy is that there is no burden of tolerance enforced upon the same-sex couple in regards to the baker's religious beliefs. Someone's rights have to be violated in order to impose Social justice. In this case it's the Conservative Christian's. The situation is easily avoided by finding a non-Christian baker.

2. The definition of what is and isn't "politically correct" is constantly evolving based on what an individual deems "offensive". A language standard being imposed on the majority because of the sentiments of the few directly undermines one's freedom of speech. There are also some consistency issues:

• • Not everyone is offended by language. Some would even argue that conforming to politically correct is an in-genuine effort to hide one's bigotry.
  • Some African-Americans may be perfectly comfortable with being described as "black", or "black people" as a collective or plurality. Others maybe be blatantly offended with being identified by their skin color. The same could be said with homosexual men and other terms used to describe their sexual orientation.
  • While some racial slurs are universally understood to be blatantly derogatory, other terms to describe someone's ethnicity, age, sexual preference, appearance, and socioeconomic status are not clearly defined as being "offensive" until the "offense" has already been committed. In certain circumstances, the laws of Social Justice aren't written until they have been broken. If you're a non-liberal public figure this is seen as a window into the depths of your hateful heart. If you're a liberal, it's an honest mistake. The problem with Social Justice is that its entirely subjective.

3. This self-perpetuating cycle imposes a "shake-down" on accused oppressors. Social Justice is completely reliant on an expanding base of "victims" by which to award justice, and "oppressors" of which can be brought to justice. This encourages self-victimization, subjects self-expression to unnecessary scrutiny, and impedes efforts for cultures to exchange ideas.

• • Someone chooses not to express a disagreement of opinion with someone belonging to a different culture/ethnicity for fear of being branded a "bigot". This creates a situation in which both parties fail to acknowledge their opposing perspectives and reach any sort of consensus or establish any relationship whatsoever.
  • Rich white conservatives are seen as enemies to the public. Their wealth is seen as illicit; the epitome of being a member of a privileged white class. The same is not true of progressives because they acknowledge their alleged "white privilege" and advocate a self-exculpatory system of Social Justice from which their wealth is conveniently excluded.
  • By turning a universal economic issue into an issue of racial oppression that only politics can solve, politicians ensure that people do not take action to find their own solutions. They do not unify with those of other ethnic backgrounds since the "progressive" politician has assured them that the issue of socioeconomic oppression and inequality is unique to their ethnic group. By reinforcing and overstating the prevalence of racism and racist oppression, Social Justice creates a false sense of helplessness, government dependence, and racial tension that benefit no one but an oppressive government.

I would challenge a liberal to persuade the family of a victim or living survivor of the Brussels attacks how utterly harmful the words "Islamic extremist terrorism" are and how the idea of "anti-Islamic immigration" is a social injustice.

When our politicians refuse to recognize the role of religion in attacks like this, they put blood right on their hands. I'm so sick of this Chomsky idea that seems to have sunk into liberal thought that everything is the United State's military's fault. His idea that all these bad things keep happening because of "The United State's need to push forward it's unique world model" is atrocious to say the least. If Chomsky was to go to Kabul in 2000, and seen Islamic leaders throwing acid in the face of girls who dared went to school, was that our fault too? Tons of liberals seem to be advocating something along the lines of pacifism. Pretending that abjuring yourself and throwing up your hands in the face of desolating evil is a moral stance, when in reality, it's nothing more than the choice to let the world's thugs perpetrate without question.

SJW is cultural marxism. Cultural Marxists are radicals, hypocrites, and not intellectual.

Good luck with that.

Going green party, independent, etc. then?

I guess you're assuming that both the Republican and Democrat parties will remain intact post 2016. Sanders and Trump will both run independent if they don't get nominated.

Liberal reasoning is that our non-compliance with Sharia Law is to blame for terrorist attacks, despite their secular ideology. They also support Muslims because they're a "minority" group, despite the fact that the religion is equally is intolerant (if not more so) than Christianity in terms of Gay rights, women's rights, and civil liberties altogether.

Whats worse? Liberals can't even agree with conservatives in terms of policy making, but are able to tolerate Radical Islamic Extremism? Even Bill Maher isn't buying that one.

Liberals take claim to minority groups with conflicting interests. African-Americans (brought here by force) should feel that illegal immigrants (coming voluntarily) undermine their interests by taking their jobs. Not to mention feminists that claim Hip-Hop music causes misogynistic behaviors and Muslims that despise feminists.

Like I said, Liberal Politicians specialize in convincing a minority group that they have their culture-specific needs prioritized by playing the "bigot" card against the conservatives.

The problem with liberals is their ability to exculpate themselves by simply acknowledging a problem or injustice within society. They don't even act according to the standards by which they expect the rest of society to act. Social Justice is going to far though. If these clowns get their way they'll use their last words of free speech to say "the conservatives did it." Blaming conservatives is the only thing that liberals are any good at.

I dont think liberals go so far as to say Sharia law is to be respected. No thinking person would advocate such a position. I do agree that they identify with the Muslims because they are a minority, though. I've often heard liberals say that we must respect the minority, but when the minority cynically use their democratic rights in a free society, they often use it to destroy their own democratic rights. Islam is most definetely more hostile to woman's rights in comparison to christian, but christianity has much to atone for on that front, and neglect to do so.

Its to be expected that liberals and conservatives cant agree on policy, but I dont think liberals are for Islamic extremism. I consider myself a liberal, but I am greatly distressed to see people on the left unable to perform self examination just like conservatives do. This type of neglect and dishonesty leads to worsening outcomes and a general lack of evolution of opinions.

People left and right are concerned about Mexicans taking their jobs. Both sides, however, neglect to acknowledge that jobs are not taken, but given by an employer.

I agree on the hyper sensitive knee jerk reaction to label someone with opposing views as a bigot, or anti semite, or racist etc.

And I agree with your final point, I do however, feel that both sides are guilty. Both sides refuse to compromise, and resort to blaming the other side. Neither side is willing to actually live up to their ideals, and that is why I am disillusioned with both sides. They seem like two sides to a coin that has no value anymore.

First of all identity politics ftl.

Also, since when did these modern liberals flat out state that they support the death penalty for groups they dont like? Until they do that, I dont see how they are more narrow minded.

Liberals are but one of many groups within hte left wing umbrella, alongside feminists, SJWs, left leaning secularists, environmentalists, socialists, communists. Just like the right wing has different groups as well such as Paleo-conservatives, Neoconservatives, Enterprisers, Christian Right, Islamic Right, Alternative Right, ect.

Members of these groups might dislike eachother despite falling under the same umbrella. In the case of the left, here is one of the more noteable left wing pundits, ripping apart feminists,

Feminists have literally tried to ban clapping (yes clapping), yet turn a blind eye to how women are treated in the middle east because they don't want to offend the muslim 'race'.

Yes race, they also seem to confuse religion out of ignorance or convenience.

I've voted Democrat in every election since I was able to vote. I've always saw how crazy the Republicans were so it was an easy choice. But now, the left has just gone insane, and conservative ideology is starting to make more sense with it's "personal responsibility" rhetoric. I never thought the day would come, but I may be voting Republican in the next election if the left doesn't take a good hard look at itself and clean itself up.

Both sides of the political spectrum have their issues. But one thing I will say is that people are using social justice as a political weapon today more than I can remember.

One example is how people like to accuse any politician that is against giving people in the country illegally (or even calling them illegal immigrants, instead of the more politically correct "undocumented immigrants" or "DREAMers") amnesty as being racist against Latinos. While it seems like social justice is used against Republicans more often, even Hillary Clinton was criticized for it when she used the term "illegal immigrant" last year and she vowed never to use it again.

As for going out of your way to find a business owner that may be against serving you just so you can force them to serve you anyway, I personally consider that a waste of time. It is one thing if they are the only one you can get a particular product from and that product is something that you need. It's another thing when they are a cake maker. Rather than force them to make a cake for me that I'm still going to have to pay for, I would rather not give them a dime of my money.

Great read, well thought out. Thank you for posting it. Seriously.

I'll answer based on my own beliefs and standards:

In response to the flaws:

• prejudices are indeed an inevitable part of society, however look at what prejudices were like 200 years ago, now look at 100 years ago, 50 and today. It has gotten better for various groups to live together in harmony, like the four nations long ago. While it is true all prejudices won't be eliminated, it is clear we can reduce them, even though there will be resistance, just like there was in the 1860's, early and mid 1900's, and now there's some resistance today. It's worth the attempt to reduce it.
• The term "Political Correctness" has always seemed a little silly to me. Define political correctness for me... it's difficult. What was politically correct 100 years ago might just seem preposterous today, what we consider politically correct today might be considered either a fantasy or the norm 50 years from now. Moreover the term "Political Correctness" categorizes things, which is not really good. It makes there be a set of rules or a list of check boxes. By having "a Political Correctness" you're making things binary and alienating a lot of people. I never go by what is "politically correct", I go by my own set of ethics and moral beliefs, and if they happen to coincide then fine.
• I agree with you in that cultural diversity and respect is the key to having social barriers dissolve, and it's true that by having it "forced" on society it can create frictions but... honestly I'm not so sure there's even a way around those frictions. People who are against are going to be against, and only time will allow those people who are against to be replaced by younger generations who aren't against. The government has a paternalistic role to play over its citizens, in the form of collecting taxes to provide public goods, pensions, securing a 100% literacy rate, reducing pollution... and making sure minorities or targeted groups are protected by the law. There may be resistance but I think it makes perfect sense for the government to intervene and legislate to protect. Moreover once the government has done that, odds are the next generations are going to see it as normal. Look at gay marriage; a few states have resisted, some people have cried foul, but odds are that 10 or 20 years from now no state is going to try to revert to banning gay marriage or allowing denial of service to gay people.

In response to the regression:

• Is there any evidence that gay couples are seeking out people who will deny them service just to make a fuss about it? Also you and I have different interpretations of "religious freedom". Telling a Christian baker he doesn't have the right to deny people service is not, in my opinion, an infringement on their first amendment rights to religious freedom. Also, if people's rights are well defined and assigned, then enforcing one person's rights doesn't necessarily mean you are infringing another's.
• This is something I've noticed. You can't say this word, so you say a different one, except now that different one is found to be offensive because 10 years have passed, so you have to say this new one. It's really not a big issue though, and it doesn't happen that often; also no, again this is a misinterpretation of what "freedom of speech" is. As for it being subjective, yeah, and like I said I follow my own morality, not the list of moralities in some figurative "PC handbook". You can do the same without renouncing ALL Political Correctness, TC.
• If I disagree with someone I will disagree with them, and if I'm accused of being a bigot for it then I'll explain why I'm not being a bigot. No problemo. The rest of it is something of a conspiracy theory...? Anyways, it doesn't affect me, I'm not believing what I'm being told to believe, I'm believing things I've given thought to.

tl;dr: I somewhat agree with some of your quips, but think you're going about it the wrong way

Not necessarily because they don't want to offend Muslims. Rather, if they were to acknowledge how women are being treated in some Middle Eastern countries, it would make the 'cause' that they were fighting for, in Western societies, blatantly irrelevant.

Political Correctness goes both sides of the spectrum. Some of my favorite examples of this include,

• Climate Change Skeptic instead of Climate Change Denier
• War on Coal
• War on Christmas
• Pro Family/Family Values instead of Anti-Gay
• Mental Gymnastics to try to deny the seperation of church and state
• "Shoving homosexuality down people's throats"
• Freedom Fries instead of French Fries
• Mediterranian food instead of middle eastern food
• Real Americans/True Americans (does this one sound familiar?)
• Very low tolerance for criticism for the police/military (to the point of being just as obnoxious as a certain group they oppose)
• Complete Opposition to burning flags
• Death Tax
• Ethical Oil
• Historical Revisionism with the Confederacy
• Trying to label abortion as murder, despite the fact that abortion fails to meet the legal standards for murder.
• Intelligent Design
• Abstinence Programs

Oh, and I am pretty sure it wont even take that long for people to try to revert those choices, to put homosexuals on the same position as everyone else. They are already losing their luster, and in 10 years time, they will be too busy opposing the next big push. Skeletons in the closet.

As i have said before more and more people are speaking out against social justice regressivism everyday.

It is an attack on liberty and people see that more and more.

Had you told me 5 years ago campuses across the states would be calling for and actually implementing segregation, attacking free speech and perpetuating hoax after hoax in order to bully people into believing a series of untrue narratives I would have laughed at you but here we are.

People have seen the true nature of rampant crybullying and the harm it does to everyone and are done with it.

Great topic and great responses.

Canada has been a lot worst lately, even after Justin Trudeau admitted that he is a feminist. They have an issue of not accepting Jian Ghomeshi, a former radio host and Iranian, being acquitted for charges he hasn't made even after the Judge caught the prosecutor lying off her ass.

@still_vicious: That's a pretty serious shift in political beliefs; you really that upset by the SJWs and PC Police that Trump and Cruz look acceptable?

Sounds like you've been on the fence for a while if that's the case.

As for feminists and banning clapping, well, that was some feminists. Not all feminists.

Just support Hillary and Elizabeth Warren, they both go against the SJW agenda. But then again, all the candidates are against the SJW agenda, so have no fear my friend.

@iandizion713: please tell me this is satire.

@Riverwolf007: No my dear friend.

Eh, the Dem party only has those crazies as a small minorty in the party at least for now.

The current GOP is becoming more and more overrun with complete racists and xenophobes who also think that freedom of religion means Christianity is this countries basis and **** YOU if you don't want to live by my beliefs.

@iandizion713: my bad, it just seemed that way to me since clinton had to step over the bodies of tyshawn lee and kaylin pryor to take a meeting with blm in chicago a few months back.

I just figured you were being sarcastic.

You should stop copying and pasting articles you don't fully understand.

Clinton dont run away from her parties problems. She reasons with them. She must understand them, learn and grow as a person to become a strong leader. And you definitely dont run from problems in Chi-town. Chicago is a very important city.

@iandizion713: this still seems like sarcasm.

Well the liberals don't really know what to do unless there enemy is a straight white mail.

There always scared of the aftermath if they pursue anything that could link them to racism or bigotry.

I despise both but being subscribed to RWW helps me decide who is the worst of the two.

For example, as much as I despise feminists and "SJWs" on the internet, Social Conservatives such as Pat Robertson and his followers will still the worst. Plus I feel like the GOP has gotten too far into the right.

And I also despise Political Correctness but I know it exists on both sides.

You most likely fall into the same demographic and had to overcome this political handicap to see the truth.

You do, similarly, realize that by removing "personal responsibility" from the equation in order to create a superior society, you're not only undermining civil liberties, you're making people weaker.

You make bad or "irresponsible" choices to which there are repercussions so that you may learn from it and take corrective actions. In a society in which personal responsibility is "corrected", no one learns because no mistakes are made. The trial-and-error human learning process has been fundamental to evolution, so if liberals are truly secular "intellectuals" they understand that you're not making society better by policing it into social compliance.

The extreme left for the past few years has irked me far more than anything coming close to the right as of late (I am a left leaning person on many issues).. What gets me extremely angry is when said group says something blatantly sexist/racist/prejudice/etc but claims the statement and them are not prejudice because they can't be because they are the victims.. This shit is even leaking over into major politics in which Hillary Clinton and her supporters are crying out sexism when something goes out awry in the primary, but at the same time Hillary herself is the only one I have seen in the primary that has brought up the fact she is a woman..

Yeah "personal responsibility" in which the poorest states in the union are all red states.. Ironic really.

This is true.

Trans-gender's for instance. A transgender is a man born with a female brain or vice versa. Does this not undermine feminist interests by implying that, indeed, there is a "female brain" that belongs on a female body?

Homosexual men are likely to be the first demographic to jump from the liberal Titanic. Until they identify as being homosexual they are assumed to be the beneficiary of "illicit white privilege", and possibly an enemy of their own party. It would be in conservatives best interests to have lifeboats for them and to NOT let their fundamentals be further constrained by Christian beliefs. Even a majority Conservative Christians understand the necessity for secular legislation.

Liberals willingness to seek justice for minorities is failing because the interests of these minorities are often in direct conflict. It is a failure of the Republican Party to not have any plans by which to become the answer to this failed paradigm.

For the liberal win?

"The issues are complex and you simply don't understand them". This is exactly what liberals want you to think. They want you to think that issues are so complex, beyond the grasp of the individual or a collective of individuals and that only the Government can bring justice. It has been their formula for success.

The prevalence of this issue may lead to the belief that I am "copy/pasting" articles. You have to regurgitate some information from sources in order to ascertain a viable theory. Researching a topic for a thesis, for example, does not make you a plagiarist when the source information is represented. It doesn't make you any less informed or intelligent either.

You know based on what you have posted I have serious doubts that you ever identified your self as a liberal democrat..

Ever heard of TERF? And no, Transgenders do not necessarily undermine the interests of 2nd wave feminists. As they merely wanted men and women to be equal.

Liberal Titanic? If any movement is on a decline, it is conservativism in the US. Europe is learning further to the right however.

Source please? Last time I checked, secularism was practically a snarl word with the Christian right. "Secular Sharia" and continued attempts to get their bible into the science classroom, and religion into the buildings. There is a reason Atheists have such a difficult time getting into office. Sure, the majority of Christians may be for secularism, but these are not the fundamentalists. The fact is, 55% of all Republicans would not vote for an atheist president (vs 36% of democrats), and I can assure you, that number gets even higher once you go to the Religious right.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183713/socialist-presidential-candidates-least-appealing.aspx

This is an amazing post. Seriously.

GOP logic is if you're losing an argument, just call your opponent "politically correct."

First, you can't reject services to persons based on uncontrollable characteristics (look at Jim Crow. We don't want that again).

Second, yes women's rights are vastly different from the United States compared to the Middle East but the similarity is this: Both have problems and that's a very broad statement. Obviously the Middle East has much larger problems but using the argument, "Muslim women in the M.E. have it worse," doesn't work since women in the U.S. still have their own problems such as intrusive policies on birth control and abortion as well as a wage gap.

As for whatever else you posted, it reads like right wing drivel. Liberals love Sharia Law? I don't think you know what being liberal means, nor do you know what Sharia Law consists of which contradicts liberal principles.

Also, prior to Bush Jr., first generation Muslims voted conservative. Why is this important? Because after 9/11, you have Muslims voting Democratic, not because of some idiotic conspiracy but rather because of the GOP's vicious hate speech towards Muslims, especially today. If you don't think Ted Cruz's proposal to have law enforcement patrol Muslim neighborhoods is despotic, then you need to reexamine if whether or not you truly support the Constitution and the principles behind it.

... The wage gap is largely a myth in which it is a oversimplification of numerous factors that have absolutely nothing to do with direct discrimination of women..

No, I have. It happens. One inconsistency leads one to question the fundamentals of a belief system. My expressed backlash is what is to be expected from many other classical progressives when they realize that the Democrat's progressivism has become the exact opposite of what they initially sought to achieve. The "defector" is usually not very friendly with the ideology from which they are defecting.

When you put liberal ideologies to the test, applying basic logic, historical context, the variables of human nature, and the current global economic situation you realize that these ideologies can only exist outside of the real world. This leads to a situation in which the only solution is for liberals to create their own world, void of civil liberties and free thought. Enforcing Peace is the current paradigm, and it should have everyone scared shitless.

Basic Logic: Go ahead and formalize it.

Current Global Situation: Considering how The economy generally does better under democrats, and the fact that the nordic countries, fared much better during the depression than the US. Obama cut the deficit by 70%. Also, blue states generally fare much better in terms of economic well being than the red states.

Historical Context: Considering how deregulation and this personal responsibility thing was largely responbsible for the great recession, back in the 1930s. Especially that failure of an economic model that is the Austrian School. I dont think history is on your side here either. Not to mention, the whole damn enlightenment era.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2012/10/10/want-a-better-economy-history-says-vote-democrat/#97b333267a16

Right now oyu have done nothing but throw out assertions, with little backing your assertions up. Go ahead and change this.

.. That is a complete understatement when it comes to economy with red states vs blue states.. The poorest states in the union are historical deep red south states by a huge margin.. That's why I mocked him with "personal responsibility" being a tenant when the poorest states are the red states..

That's funny, I thought Illinois is currently a poor state and they have been a Blue state for a long time.

Welcome to the club. I used to be OT:s crazy socialist America-hater back in the day...now I'm far right. Why? Because the west is under serious attack, both ideaologically and physically. Europe is having huge problems with islamism and America is suffering from cancerous political correctness.

Worrying about the underdog is hard when it hates you.

If this same rational-based thread was at Neogaf you would be perm banned, so be glad that people are fighting back. Those cucks and betas can't handle the truth. SJW need their outrage to be noticed, likely due to either physical or social deficiencies they face in real life. Freud would have a field day with these clowns.

But yup, it's terrible. I have a thread on it at SW about recent lunacy:

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/system-wars-314159282/blizzard-removes-overwatch-unlockable-and-optional-33064490/,

Also:

"They go so far left, they go right", "Unfuckable dudes who goes out of their way to get people to love/accept them."

1. No, actually the race card trumps any attempt at reasonable debate. Why is the fact that political support for civil rights came almost exclusively from the Republican Party so conveniently swept under the rug?

2. So no, we can't have segregation, but rejecting services is not the equivalent of Jim Crow in this scenario. Your use of absolutes is in direct contrast of classical progressivism. When you force someone to perform an act that is in direct conflict with their religious beliefs, you must do so under the assumption that it is the only available option. This was not the case.

3. The "wage gap" you refer to doesn't exist. Earnings differential? Yes, but for the sake of your argument you have to ignore the lifestyle choices that women make. I know women with 6 figure incomes that say they would rather be a home-maker. Feminists might not like this, but unfortunately what a women prefers to with her own life is not their decision to make. I work with men who's wives work part-time so that they can be home with the children and allow their husbands to work overtime. Unless you can prove that a man is being paid MORE than a woman for doing the exact same job, there is no "wage" gap.

4. It was a jest to assert that liberals want to implement Sharia Law. What is quite disturbing is that while they acknowledge the existence of such oppression, some blame anti-Islamic speech for radical extremism, suggesting that our "tolerance" of their culture would prevent terrorism. So we must tolerate intolerance? You can argue that Radical Islam exists apart from general Islam, but you can't ALSO claim that an intolerance to Islam creates Radical Islam. They either exist independently or they don't.

5. There is no conspiracy with Muslims voting democrat. It's simple-minded Christian conservative politicians like Ted Cruz that think that the Constitution only applies to Christians that drive every rational minded person away from the Republican Party. My argument is that the Democratic party is no "safe haven" either, hence the "anti-establishment" movement that Ted Cruz claims to be a part of despite being the guy that most rational conservatives are running from.

Starting with the beginning of Roosevelt's presidency.

47 years of Republican Governor

33 years of democrat Governor

I must have miscounted a bit, though, since I did miss a few years. But not enough to stem the tide. The fact is, it has more often been a republican state since roosevelt than a democratic one.