Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

You have retreated to the Bailey, but most of Social Justice lives in the Motte.

Page 1 of 3

BJ Campbell Follow
Feb 14 · 4 min read

Being against discrimination against anyone is common sense and

written in the US as well in most European Constitutions. Calling white
people out and holding us accountable for what systems of oppression we
support and uphold is very far from discrimination but is criticism and
doesn’t actually affect white people negatively besides our own flakiness.

You have retreated to the Motte, but most of Social Justice lives in the

In other words, what you describe is not at all how Social Justice is
being implemented on the ground. On the ground, Social Justice is
being used as a blatant tool to justify racial prejudice and gender
prejudice itself. And if someone points that prejudice out, they’re
accused of “white/male fragility” and told to “sit down” etc.

I’ve had discussions as recently as last month with white male

volunteers with the progressive caucus of the Democratic Party, who
said that they are literally not permitted to speak in meetings because of
their skin color and gender. One of them bemoaned, “it’s as if my
opinions and efforts aren’t any value because of my immutable birth
characteristics.” I told him, “yeah, see, we used to have a word for that.
That used to be called ‘racism.’”

The evidence for this is everywhere. It’s all over Medium, Reddit,
Twitter, major media, and in the news.

Unfortunately, human beings have a biological predisposition to

prejudice, probably for evolutionary reasons. And we have a
sociological predisposition to build or adopt virtue structures to
organize our societies around. When these two things interact, they
create virtue-driven-prejudice. In the past, this manifests as “white
man’s burden,” or Naziism, or Communism. But right now it is
manifesting in Social Justice.

You dismissed prejudice offhand in the quoted paragraph above, but

I’ll tell you, it is almost impossible to get a Social Justice person to say
or type the words “prejudice against men is bad” or “prejudice against
white people is bad.” They refuse to even engage the possibility,
because they’re addicted to the dopamine high that virtue driven
prejudice gives them when they go to marches bearing “White
Genocide Now” signs.

And all this flows from Bivol-Pavda’s stipulative definition. 4/19/2019
You have retreated to the Bailey, but most of Social Justice lives in the Motte. Page 2 of 3

I don’t think I ever said in order to right the wrongs that the system of R
[2]racism created we should now target other groups in power.

I never intended to strawman your position, and if I did so in error, I

apologize profusely. Instead, I’d like to pivot and reiterate what I said
above. There is a disconnect between how you envision the thing
working, and what’s happening on the ground. You probably aren’t
using the Social Justice framework as a way to make prejudice
virtuous, but many of the rest of them are, and those are the ones that
concern me.

And returning to the issue of the Jews, those ones will absolutely pivot
to attacking Jews once they apply the indoctrinations of
(intersectionality)+(you didn’t earn that)+(R[2]) to the
socioeconomic facts on the ground. That’s why the prior analysis is

Further, if you don’t find yourself expressing gender or racial prejudice

from those three indoctrinations, while others are, the analysis would
indicate that you must be interpreting them differently than they are.
The most valuable result of this discussion, in my opinion, would be for
you to clearly identify where you differ from them in your
interpretations of those three indoctrinations. I want to know the
difference. I’d like to write an article about that, quite honestly, to
hopefully do some hand-holding among the SJ crowd and lead them
away from the dark prejudiced hole they’re in, and more towards
where you’re at.

This is actually interesting as you said you are an individualist but you try
to implicate arguments to what I’m saying that you assign to a non-
existent Social Justice homogeneous group.

I will grant that any individual may not be part of a group, on an

individual level, including you. And were you and I having a beer I
would not stereotype you as being in a particular group based on your
race, sex, or political opinions. But that does not negate the existence
of groups. Here I’m critiquing a group.

What racism, sexism, antisemitism have done very very well in the past
until today is that they adapted their wordings and arguments but
maintained the effects for the groups targeted by it. Instead of targeting
Jews, they target the “elites” that just happen to be Jewish, instead of
targeting Black people, they criminalized drug abuse (of substances
mainly used by black people) and established a stereotype of black
criminals, instead of telling women that they belong in the kitchen and
their job is to please their husbands, we created systems that hold them
back in their career progression and created stereotypes them as not
wanting to lead.

The term victimization is actually quite interesting here. There is John

Ehrlichman on record who said that they specifically targeted Black
people & the anti-war lefts ( 4/19/2019
You have retreated to the Bailey, but most of Social Justice lives in the Motte. Page 3 of 3

As mentioned the War on Terror followed that same logic and has done
similar things to the Muslim community. I highly recommend to watch the
full movie “the 13th” and watch closely how framing, manipulation, and
propaganda transformed the way how racism is executed but still

I wanted to quote all this just to state that I agree with basically all of
it, to make sure any opportunities for olive branches aren’t wasted. :)

There are no things the government could do which would be more

important to racial harmony that ending the drug war and the war on
terror. Both should end tomorrow. 4/19/2019