Talk:Social justice

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon SJ.svg

This Social justice related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately.

This article is of HIGH importance to the wiki.

See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Steelbrain.png

This page is automatically archived by Pibot

Contents

[edit] Moving the article

This was brought up above, but I want to give the idea its own unique thread. "Social justice" is a broad term with a long history, much of it germane to an encyclopedia but not to The Mission (tm). Lots of groups define their activism in terms of social justice, and lots of them are not really relevant to what we do. It seems like there's a desire in the article to focus on the topic as a contemporary internet phenomenon. What would people thing about moving it to "social justice warriors" with a stronger focus on the contemporary online/Tumblr aspects, with lots of links to MRA stuff, privilege (a contemporaneous concept, it seems), stuff, PC stuff, etc.? Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea. I think it would also be a good opportunity to more closely examine the article for some of the things KnightOfTL;DR brought up above. A move and a refocus seems like a good way to accomplish that. - Grant (talk) 15:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
It's already on the To-do list, sort of. People have started working on a separate article about Tumblr SJWs, but nothing solid yet. Nullahnung (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I would say that actually a lot of the modern, secular social-movement stuff online is relevant to our mission (if that's what is in question?): SJ communities are constantly embroiled with fighting denialism of social issues ("we live in a post racial society," "feminism is over," "trans people are just confused," "the gays are always in our face", etc.) that affect our world. Anti-information and anti-science cultures are heavily tied in with these concepts. Communities themselves often has a lot of flaws that arise to entanglements with these anti-information cultures... and plenty of more self-aware people trying to be more inclusive to battle them. Such flaws for many blogs and topics include: failure to be intersectional at times, USA-centrism, inability for privileged allies to check privilege, etc. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRgoing galt: the literal crazy train 15:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
If the contemporary secular ones, why not religious ones? And, at the end of the day, I fear that an article that deals meaningfully with '"we live in a post racial society," "feminism is over," "trans people are just confused," "the gays are always in our face" failure to be intersectional at times, USA-centrism, inability for privileged allies to check privilege, etc. and all the other stuff you mention would be huge, potentially lacking in focus, and would duplicate already-existing articles. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate you're very wedded to claiming this term exclusively for religion, but the world is a bigger place than that - David Gerard (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I am in no way interested in any such thing. I am only interested in an article that's at least bordering on accuracy. Calling "social justice" a "generally secular" phenomenon is inaccurate. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Another issue is the misinterpreting of valid feminist theories as thought stoppers rather than to further discussions. Intersectionality is often misinterpreted as some kind of hierarchy where only the most oppressed are allowed to say whatever they want (something brought up by the "DIE CIS SCUM" people) and internalized whatever-ism is often used the same way Reds treat false consciousness, for example.--|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg The neural network broke the phase space!? REVERSE THE TANGENT GRAPH!!! 15:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I would point out that intersectionality is misinterpreted by people who are told to check their privilege far more than it is by people using the term themselves-- as a rehash of the old "Oh because I'm white/male/whatever I'm not allowed to say anything anymore?!" bullshit-- when people bring up intersectionality as a "pause to consider" moment within SJ it's usually because someone has usually spoken without realizing their perspective has a level or two of privilege the original topic wasn't assuming or can't take for granted. It's the people who then FEEL STOPPED when their invisible privilege they just dismissed as part of the woodwork is revealed. It's kind of the danger of pointing out whiteness, maleness, whatever on the internet: the entire discussion then becomes about their whiteness, maleness, etc. and defending it rather than the topic at hand. In reality, "check your privilege" and other requests for intersectionality are more like Bill Nye's "Consider the following" (that one's ideas might be rooted in assumptions that are going unsaid at the time) than "STOP TALKING YOU HAVE PRIVILEGE," but because people with privilege are not used to that being pointed out, it can be shocking and startling to them. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRjust shut up already 16:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
As I said, it's not used that way by the people referred as the "Tumblr crowd". It's less "consider the following" and more like this. --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg So you see, we have to kill animals, or else they'll die. 17:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
This appears to be an argument from personal butthurt - David Gerard (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I keep saying that whenever we talk about "the vast non-hive-mind within a social media community" as "the tumblr crowd" we are erasing that they are not a monolithic entity with the same beliefs and identity, but are made of many more individuals of different identities. It's as vapid and unacceptable to say "facebookers" as a way to sum up and erase the identities of thousands that happen to use facebook as a media VENUE. When people refer to "tumblr SJWs" as a mass, what they are really saying is "I'm too afraid to say "all of those people of color, gay people, trans people, women who don't agree with me." ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRyeah, well you fight like a cow! 17:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
@Gerard You're probably right. Tbh I was kind of thinking about the infighting that happens in SJ communities more than anything else, but I worded it poorly because my pointless contrarian instincts took over. In Reddit at least, infighting is a regular feature in LGBT spaces (and I'm pretty sure it extends beyond that), except that sometimes some people add a side helping of "but we're less privileged than you!" and such.
@KOTLDR: But we're fine and dandy doing blanket statements about the also vast non-hive-mind withing a social media community of Reddit (although to be honest most SJ/LGBT spaces on reddit were ruined by power-tripping mods, such as Laurelai and /r/transgender or RobotAnna, SilentAgony and rmuser and /r/LGBT or /u/bluebank and /r/AskTransgender). --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 19:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry for being snippy. I read Reddit but I stick to nice places like TrollX/TrollY - David Gerard (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Reddit also has some of the damn best cute animal pictures communities in the internet, as well as THE best science forum (/r/AskScience, although /r/Science ain't exactly bad). -|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg If you post on Reddit, a space whale'll crush your house 02:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I have tweeted on @RationalWiki asking for anything usable as documentation for the Internet version of the thing. I am actually surprised there is nothing I can easily find, given how rabid sociology and anthropology students are to cover anything even vaguely plausible - David Gerard (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I suspect that's because the underlying ideologies themselves are products of academia, and in large portions of academia identity politics is a reigning ideology that generates rote piety and powerful taboos. Entire departments are devoted to Women/African-American/LGBT studies. Studying how these beliefs are enacted in human social space and on the Internet would likely yield results that cast doubt on, if nothing else, the political effectiveness of their founding ideologies, or examples of their appeal to people who'd probably be better served by psychotherapy. And they will portray your research as a stock drama about a racist villain with you cast in the role of Simon Legree. This is how they argue. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 03:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Your suspicions are a bunch of poppy-cock. Don't leap to conclusions on the basis of minimal personal experience and minimal academic background in the areas you are theorizing about. Nullahnung (talk) 10:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
except UH, NO, most of what people label as "SJ" communities online, tumblr or otherwise, are NOT rooted in academia but are rooted in the actual experiences of oppressed peoples, and USE the language STUDIED in academic settings to DESCRIBE THE WORLD because THAT'S WHY THE PEOPLE ACADEMIA IS STUDYING INVENTED IT. Why the fuck is it that when academic ideas are made more accessible to people who never studied those things, people of color, women, and others affected by the ideas and concepts within can often understand the issues (that they deal with on a daily basis) just fine but dudes, white people, and others in positions of social advantage complain that it's too haaaarrrddd and ivory-tower for them? Fuck. Fuck you, the concept of intersectionality was not concocted in a clinical university classroom by removed nerds distantly studying the oppressed, it was invented by a black woman legal scholar (not sociologist!) talking about her life and experiences. Fuck you, fuck your overly-obtuse comment that I can barely decipher, fuck the horse you rode in on, and may this bullshit be crushed by a shipping pallet full of Kimberlé Crenshaw's writings. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRsufficiently advanced argument still distinguishable from magic 04:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
See what I mean? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 06:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Uh, you're the one being an example of something dismissive and fuckwitted here. Please reconsider for a moment or ten - David Gerard (talk) 08:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what type of documentation you're looking for exactly, but maybe it'll help if you look for stuff about more specific SJ-related sites, like Freethought Blogs maybe, and specific terms like "ableism", "transphobia" and "fatshaming" which rarely occur together outside of a broad SJ environment. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 05:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Transphobia I've heard offline. Ableism and fatshaming/fatphobia I've seen exclusively online. The former is extremely misused by seemingly everyone involved (like one person saying that because videogames are hard, therefore ableism). --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg The devil found it objectionable, so he banished it to Dollarama 13:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I've seen all offline. Not sure why that matters to validate them as concepts/causes? ·FemiliskSJ 15:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Article still smells. ·FemiliskSJ 14:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


[edit] Major rewrite/Start over

In light of all of these peer reviewed papers , secular courses and books written by qualified people on the topics of social justice one is hard pressed to make any sort of claim that social justice is a limited phenomena on one social media website. I think its safe to say that this articles premise has been blasted to a lot of tiny pieces by all of this and the author should rightfully be ashamed.

--Laurelai (talk) 12:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a wiki. You can edit it. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
She's being polite, because it now seems the only option is full nuke. ·FemiliskSJ 12:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Very polite considering the blatantly manipulative slant of the article. --Laurelai (talk) 13:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree that there is too much of a focus on tumblr in the article. If you rewrite it into something that is as respectably referenced as this talk page I would appreciate that. Nullahnung (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
The gender people are on it. ·FemiliskSJ 15:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
*cracks gender knuckles*--Dgener8 (talk) 08:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I just put some gender on the article. I hope the non-gender people are pleased. ·FemiliskSJ 10:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Othering people accomplishes nothing. As for the article, very good work. Nullahnung (talk) 10:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
You've got my vote to go ahead with the re-write. There's enough in this current article to make it salvageable, so I see no reason to blank slate the article outright. However, a less Tumblr-centric article would be a blessing, espcially if it incorporates the citations you listed. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 10:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not othering, I am reacting with a joke to the previous reaction to my edits on this article. ·FemiliskSJ 10:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
PS: edited caused I messed up link. ·FemiliskSJ 10:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Wikis are not very conducive to jokes that require context to understand, due to various factors, like people shifting their attentions around and new people arriving. Nullahnung (talk) 11:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, it was a reply to my m8 Dgener8 anyway. ;) ·FemiliskSJ 11:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
*cracks gender joke knuckles sarcastically*---Dgener8 (talk) 11:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
On a slightly more serious note, the article is still very problematic IMHO. Taking the contents as a guide, I'll explain what I mean:
1 Basic concepts
Explains some basic-level 101 SJ stuff taught on the academic courses on SJ (linked to in main article). A good section.
2 History
2.1 Religious and historical ideas
Explains the basic historical points. A good section.
2.2 Contemporary social justice movements
Explains practically nothing about modern SJ, no reference to the work by the UN, for example. Also the length is about half that of the historical subsection above it. Misleading in contents and in size.
3 Criticism
3.1 Religious social justice movements
Explains the problems and criticisms with the religious-flavoured SJ. A good section.
3.2 The online social justice community
Explains nothing about online SJ, basically just talks about Tumblr. Not entirely sure what Tumblr has to do with representing all of SJ online when online SJ activism is a very wide-ranging thing, from online charities, to the Occupy movement, to clicktivism, to academic courses, etc. In addition, the section is disproportionately long and seems to thus imply that modern SJ is synonymous with Tumblr. That really is not so. A bad section.
So... anybody want to have more of a go on the problematic sections? ·FemiliskSJ 12:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I can do some research on JSTOR regarding the historic roots of "Social Justice" The quip about the Catholic church is not sufficient. Lager (talk) 12:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Please do! ·FemiliskSJ 12:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, I set up the subheadings as an attempt to deal with the material that was already there, and suggest a template for some of the material that seemed to be missing. The "contemporary social justice movements" section was empty when I added it at first. I added what text is now there; Rawls seemed a fairly obvious starting point, as the philosopher who sought to articulate the high-modernist assumptions of New Deal style liberalism. It does need to march on from there into perceived inadequacies of that vision, and the contemporary movement's tendency to address subjective and intangible concerns rather than wealth and poverty. FWIW, I do think the SJW phenomenon needs to be addressed. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, this is not a direct criticism of you or any specific editor, just the article needs some love. ·FemiliskSJ 10:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Project

Mainly because of the pushback we have been receiving over this and other articles and other drama NO it will not be linked DO NOT ASK IF YOU DO NOT KNOW LET US FORGET IT ALL. We have decided to form RationalWiki:Project Social Justice. It's still making baby-steps, but I thought I'd mention it here in case anybody else is interested. The basic point is that we are trying to add science and other academic sources to the current SJ articles. Including this one. So, we are trying to make all SJ articles as clear, on-mission, and free from pseudoscience as we can. ·FemiliskSJ 09:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


[edit] Come on now.

[edit] Coughlin?

The paragraph on Religious Social Justice Movements has a sentence reading:

This caused a bit of a furor when Glenn Beck, displaying his usual powers of perception and confusing this usage with Coughlin's and the Marxists...

Should Coughlin be mentioned elsewhere in the article, as this appears to not make sense otherwise. Pastor Cary (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, Father Coughlin, the raving Nazi supporter. True story, my Great Grandfather once punched him in the face. CorruptUser (talk) 05:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Invisible link?

The inter-link to Twitter doesn't seem to be showing up. Is there a reason for this? As an example, I can't see what's between these two pairs of periods (one's normal, the other's Red2WP): .Twitter. .Twitter . ; But, I can see the following: Twitter Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 10:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support