Aneris wrote:I don't see a coherent ideology, or a long term plan with social justice warriors. I see Social justice warriorism as an individualist movement (ultimately) with people trying to outdo each other who is the better person. It grew from a tradition that started with the Old Left (think oily workers, class and capitalism) then brought about the New Left (think hippies, liberal reforms, freedom of speech), then modified and pulverized by academical postmodernists (think radical feminists, relativism, identity politics) and the current thing takes it a step further. Everything is individual, known as “intersectionalityâ€. This allows everyone to have their personal “lived experience†which then serves as a justification for individual bullshit that doesn't have to glue with reality. Now that needs to be weaponized, where accusations come in rather handy.
Then there is a strand from the right wing that goes well together with it: social control, peer pressure, shunning shaming, taking matters into own hands (vigilantism, doxxing, social media kangaroo court). The reason seem to be that “intersectional†individuals need a way to differentiate themselves from others. Social justice warriors are oddly similar to far right Evangelicals: they want to look better than their neighbour.
I suspect that sharing links with “good views†is simply too easy now, it's “cheap signalling†also thanks to US partisanship where you can predict well that someone who thinks one thing most likely also believes something else. A vegetarian who is pro-choice? Most likely. As a result you have news and media catering to those audience where sharing something from such respected sites is almost guaranteed the “right viewâ€. As a result, the intersectional social justice enthusiast must go beyond sharing links, but show “activism†online where the rhetorical weapons can be put to use. Perhaps social media has more to do with it. It provides an abundance of people where it doesn't matter if you go cross with thousands of them or “burn them†with shunning and shaming and that can be used by the SJW to portay themselves on the “right sideâ€. Each encounter moves them further on the various axis into the desired position, where they gain status. Here they can show that they truly, truly, want gays to marry, poor Muslims protected from backlash, and whatever else looks good right now.
That's still not all of it. There is no one true answer and the above is pretty much educated guesswork or just another lens through which this can be viewed. However, I don't see a coherent end-game or goal. The ideology is merely a means to “be a good person†mixed with an individualist worldview that borrows from postmodernism and radical feminism, condensed into a tight set of views through peer pressure, competition and partisan polarisation.
I disagree with your conclusion that this movement is individualist. There are strong group cult dynamics in both far-right evangelism and SJWism. They parade as individuals but derive most of their organization, ideology, supply and support from the group. "Amplify" is a SJW word meaning to spread the dogma far and wide on social media. "Evangelize" is the word for the far-right christian version. Both mean the same thing in practice. Whose words are being amplified? Not those of the individual. This is group think, not individual thought.
Individualism is more like Iron Pill, Ayn Rand (who was atheist,) and Zen Buddhism. These are movements which at least claim the superiority of the individual in some sense. Zen Buddhism, for example, largely rejects hierarchy in favor of introspection and satori. Of course, it's more complex than that. Ayn Rand's philosophy, as I understand it, is that the desires of the individual should supersede those of the group and the individual should be free to pursue their dreams to the best of their abilities, even if it harms others (this is the most charitable reading of Randian libertarianism.)
SJWism does not allow for the individual to in any way cause harm to an in-group SJW member or community. If an individual lesbian does not want to suck transcock, this is a heinous act of bigoted transmisogyny which hurts everyone! She must be squashed! An individual gay man with no interest in transcunts is a sexist swine who must be shamed! Freely choosing to create comics which oppose SJW group dogma is a crime punishable by doxxing and firing!
The orthodoxy is much more group-oriented than you seem to be implying, imo. I don't think it's just about looking better than the neighbors. There is a very real fear (much like Mao's "great leap forward") driving these people to become more extreme. They are not trying to build themselves up, but to
avoid becoming a victim of the ritual tear-down. I have read far too many ex-SJW articles at this point where the escaped SJW described their feelings of terror and paranoia at being surrounded by this club of toxic bullies.
The same dynamic is at work in fundamentalist religious communities, btw. I experienced this firsthand growing up. Fear, as Grand Moff Tarkin so eloquently put it, will keep the local populations in line. Fear of the social network, and what it can do to destroy you if you step out of line. SJWs, like churches, become the social center of people's lives, and then use the threat of shunning, shaming and malicious lies/rumor-mongering to keep people under the leash.
I don't see anything particularly individualistic about either of these ideologies, except perhaps the packaging they use to sell themselves to those who are not members.
