Sunday, December 13, 2015

Intellectual Cowardice: A SJW Virtue

While people love to mock SJWs for their timidity and cowardice - their need of 'safe spaces', their mortal fear of intellectual opposition - what many fail to realize is that SJWs consider their frailty a virtue, not a vice.

The inability to encounter an idea without feeling physically ill is considered praiseworthy. Being unable to finish - or even start - a book they disagree with is a sign of moral development. If you're capable of reading things you deeply disagree with without being shaken to your core, the SJW regards you as at best an oddity, and at worst, somehow deficient. And if you regard a Wrongthink book as containing valid points (however few) that don't fit neatly with your own, you are not a thoughtful or open-minded person. You are morally deficient, and quite possibly a threat to everyone else by virtue of what thoughts you're willing to entertain, even if you thoroughly reject them.

In the SJW world, the proper reaction to dissent is not argument, or even rejection. It is stomach-twisting, incapacitated terror.


12 comments:

Craig said...

Why? Because it shows you have a properly sensitive heart? Because it shows you're determined to avoid ritual impurity?

(No doubt I could answer these questions with a little internet research, but if you've already been doing the work of reading these people....)

Crude said...

In my view? Because, tribally, it accomplishes a few things.

It blares loud and clear that you're On Their Team. Defection is presented as incomprehensible, and thus you can be trusted. They can relax around you.

It also signals that what you despise is The Other. You're painting a target sign on an idea and a person, marking it off as Wrongthink to avoid, ostracize, and hopefully destroy.

And it establishes the proper protocol for dealing with intellectual threats: to disqualify. SJWs try hard to keep engagement and argument to a minimum. Wrongness of the target is something that has to be fundamentally agreed upon at the outset. The Live Possibility of Fundamental Error does not fit in the SJW world.

Codgitator (Cadgertator) said...

This is because crimethought = terrorism. Nominalism can only deal in words, so bad words are bad actions.

Craig said...

So internally, it's just a prejudice in the literal meaning of the word, a pre-judgment that the other guy must be completely wrong?

Crude said...

it's just a prejudice in the literal meaning of the word, a pre-judgment that the other guy must be completely wrong?

No, it's something more than that. In fact, I almost think it's barely prejudice, precisely because judgment is a stage that isn't reached in a meaningful sense. They pride themselves on not being able to fully judge something, because that would require reading it.

Part of it is because, I think, the main SJW intellectual currency is emotional trauma. And yes, I do mean currency - trauma is influence in their worlds. Feelings of horror and trauma and worry and distress translate into power. Being horrified is its own form of authority.

There are races in fantasy books that aren't as screwed up as these guys.

John Mitchell said...

"The inability to encounter an idea without feeling physically ill is considered praiseworthy. "

"I was challenged to watch an anti-feminist video on youtube! My challenger told me he got 16 minutes in before he “couldn’t stomach any more.” I told myself I was made of sterner stuff than that, and the challenge was accepted.

I only got through the first 8 minutes before gagging and having to stop. I am weak."

- PZ Myers


That's from a pretty recent blog post on Pharyngula.
Anyone who does not believe me can go there and see it but there is no need to give this buffoon any traffic

Crude said...

Oh, PZ Myers is a pussy extraordinaire, yes. And he was one of the first atheists to turn on a dime and start attacking fellow atheists. Come to think of it, a good share of the more prominent ones did - Dawkins and Harris were holdouts, and they're now on the outs with the 'movement'.

John Mitchell said...

"Dawkins and Harris were holdouts, and they're now on the outs with the 'movement'."

I'm not entirely sure whether the hardcore Gnu-atheists really gravitate so much towards this social-justice warrior movement

Freethoughtblogs seems to attract people whose main concern in life is to fight these evil people who think that works like the 'Critique of Pure Reason' may not need a trigger-warning.
To these people the existence (or non-existence) of God is, at best, a secondary issue. Because to them it is perfectly obvious that if God exist he is a SJW who thinks sex and gender are social constructs and despises traditional religion, just as they do.

A lot of hardcore-Gnu's have moved on to the comment-section of thunderf00t videos that have titles like: "How feminism ruined the new-atheist movement" and they seem to be as fond of Harris and Dawkins as they were five years ago.

Crude said...

I'm not entirely sure whether the hardcore Gnu-atheists really gravitate so much towards this social-justice warrior movement

I think originally, a substantial portion of the Gnu fanbase was SJW or proto-SJW. That would include, crucially, journalists and media members in general. Eventually they began to get disenchanted with the leading Gnus - Hitchens was a warmonger, Harris is a kind of Israeli-boosting gun owner, and all of them aren't fans of muslims. Team Atheism+ split off and rejected Dawkins, Harris, etc, and 'The world's greatest living evolutionary biologist' became 'Some shitty pop-sci writer' overnight to them.

Now yeah, Thunderf00t and company still are fans of Dawkins and Harris. But that is only a portion of their original fanbase - and said fanbase is now more and more concerned with SJWs, what with them being an actual imminent threat. And a Gnu Atheist movement that now prioritizes SJW topics over religious topics is a Gnu Atheist movement no longer.

I've said before, I find it hilarious that the 'New Atheist' movement didn't take a decade before succumbing to schism, whereupon they realized that fellow atheists were a bigger threat to more precious and imminent freedoms than Christians have been for, literally, centuries - despite their being culturally dominant until relatively recently.

John Mitchell said...

"I think originally, a substantial portion of the Gnu fanbase was SJW or proto-SJW"

They were virtually all liberals, i think.
I wonder if you think that that makes one a proto-SJW.

"And a Gnu Atheist movement that now prioritizes SJW topics over religious topics is a Gnu Atheist movement no longer."

Then i wonder if there still is a New-Atheist movement at all.
They either drank the Kool-Aid Of SJWism and hate everybody who didn't or they didn't and hate those that did.
Sure, there are some lost souls like Loftus who didn't get the message that it's time to choose sides but nobody cares about them.

Crude said...

They were virtually all liberals, i think.

I'm not so sure. Not SJW liberals. Look at Penn and Teller. They were on the Gnu train, and still are idiot-style atheists, but 'liberal' in an SJW style doesn't seem to apply.

I do not think the portion of ones like that was insubstantial.

They either drank the Kool-Aid Of SJWism and hate everybody who didn't or they didn't and hate those that did.

Well, I really suspect there isn't much of one anymore. SJWs will cling to SJW theists, of which there is no small number.

Loftus, yeah, he did miss the boat. I think he was always hoping to one day make it big like Dawkins or Hitchens, but it never materialized. And now he's just some idiot atheist in a cowboy hat who doesn't know a thing about science, and who is basically a college dropout. And the new breed that remains demand at least ex-scientific credentials.

John Mitchell said...

"And the new breed that remains demand at least ex-scientific credentials."

Yeah they demand having a PhD in something scientific but not really much beyond that and it does not really matter which side you look at.

Harris and Myers have basically published their PhD thesis and that's it.
As far as i remember Coyne has, at least, published a few dozen papers. Doesn't make him less obnoxious.

"And now he's just some idiot atheist in a cowboy hat"

Loftus shows strong signs of mental illness.