Social Justice Warrior becomes Social Revenge Warrior becomes Lemming...
Yesterday a fairly new user here at steemit.com @cupidzero wrote an excellent article on meritocracy being dead. There were some things that were stated that really resonated with me. One of these in particular was the concept that SJW is often no longer actually seeking any justice. Instead it is based upon revenge. If you don't understand the difference then you should take some time to find out. Revenge is not about justice. Revenge perpetuates wrong doing, and it doesn't actually have a lot to do with justice.
Since I read this idea it has been rising in my mind from time to time. It makes a lot of sense. I started thinking about this and what I think these Social Revenge Warriors are perhaps too naive to realize is that they are setting precedent.
Martin Niemoller has a quote which I believe illustrates the dangers of precedent.
If you decide something petty is truly so important that you would attack someone, you are setting precedent for someone to decide something YOU are doing that is petty is to be condemned. This is what is known as a slippery slope. Once you begin down this petty path of revenge and control it becomes difficult to stop the slide down the slope.
A thing about weapons whether they are physical, mental, or legal is that if you USE them aggressively then at some point they are likely to be used aggressively against you.
If you are seeking justice then you will be seeking to stop a problem. If instead you are targeting people with the same activities you are condemning then that becomes hypocritical and becomes an act of revenge, not justice.
If you are condemning for example the fact a woman can't get a certain job, then justice would be to institute equality and make that so that is no longer the case. What we are often instead seeing is that a job may become women only need apply. That is not justice, that is revenge. It didn't fix anything it just shifted the target of the injustice.
If you are condemning for example the fact that a person of some skin color is not being allowed to do something, then justice would be to institute equality and make it so the person of some skin color is permitted to do the same as other people. Revenge is making it so that skin color can now do it, and making it so some other skin color cannot.
If you are condemning people who have called for the genocide of one race, ethnicity, etc then justice would be to stop such advocacy. Revenge would be allowing people to start calling for genocide of another race, ethnicity, etc.
You cannot solve problems by doing the same thing that is causing the problem.
You cannot solve bigotry by being a bigot.
You cannot solve racism by being racist.
You cannot solve slavery by enslaving others.
You cannot be considered tolerant when you are intolerant.
You cannot have free speech if you only believe certain things should be allowed to be said.
You cannot have freedom of religion if you only permit specific religious beliefs.
You cannot have gender equality by giving one gender special treatment.
Are wrongs done? Yes. What is the solution? Stop doing wrong. A big part of the problem is in this concept of reparations. Rather than being satisfied with the fact the problem is solved, people will go on to demand reparation which is giving someone special treatment and/or consideration. That is not equality. That just turns the entire affair into a pendulum, a teeter totter, a see saw. It solves nothing it just moves the goal post.
The problem with Social Revenge Warriors is they are setting precedent. I am starting to view them as Lemmings rushing after the other lemmings as they prepare to jump off the cliff together. That precedent can in a long term sense of things be almost suicidal in nature.
![](https://steemitimages.com/DQmWc8U4ZhHmzGiNDFgvq2UeSEHT1x9bheZ56rPAPhDH4eX/image.png)
That was beautiful, a most excellent explanation. Justice is an individual centric concept, social justice would negate what which is just for the individual.
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
I've gotta say that was a spot on opinion piece. There are too many people on the left that possess this fundamental misunderstanding. I am a liberal further left than Bernie, but I can see right through the idiots trying to ban people like Richard Spencer from speaking on their college campus; I may not agree with the guy but it is fundamentally anti-free speech to deny someone the right to speak! Also, when you directly go after the police people start to lose trust in the entire institution of law enforcement and even develop a disdain for them. The result does lead to a "SRW" taking a horrible step, such as what happened in Dallas (I was there btw). The snowflakes on both sides of the aisle need to take a break.
Well said. I don't consider myself left or right but I do respect what you said, especially considering how you describe yourself as these days hearing that from that direction is pretty rare. I do believe there are plenty of people like you, they just are not speaking up.
I like your post and your concept of social revenge warrior. Also I agree with what you said. On that note, its far more productive to settle the differences with humor for example then being an aggressive cunt, and the reason people behave that way can be find in there deep frustrations and lack of actual love and acceptance for themselves. Projecting your own frustrations into society, trying to shape it so that it fits you, rather changing yourself. Those social revenge warriors are miserable people. What other can make you actively seeking revenge then feeling of wrongdoing upon you?
I had that game. It was hard as hell!!
Multiplayer was funny...
Yeah it was. Me and my father would play. Hilarious screaming would ensue!
Great post..resteeming
Woops, no button to resteem?? Mst be older post but great one.
Thank you very much for referencing my post in yours. The lemming analogy is very apt. The unintended consequences of cyclical reciprocal revenge is very much embedded in the current 'cultural misappropriation' mindset seeking to establish social justice hegemony and I don't think it is seen how that concept is setting the stage for a clash of cultures where everyone loses.
I have been working out the formulation for a few days now, but in essence once it is said that a "majority" culture has no right to integrate a "minority" population's cultural constructs into their own (unless it is done in terms acceptable to the minority) without fear of violent "retaliation", we are in deep trouble. Demographic shifts will guarantee ever new minorities and may ultimately engender a complete fracturing of civil society. It appears to me the misappropriation mindset is calculated not to achieve justice, but to exact revenge.
"You cannot be considered tolerant when you are intolerant.
You cannot have free speech if you only believe certain things should be allowed to be said."
Man i must agree on this so much, in my country with the current political situation we see much of this attitude, and this way of thinking have buried us as a society...
First they came for the Communists, I said nothing, because Communists are tyrannical filth
Then they came for the Socialists, and I said nothing, because Socialists are simply Communists who haven't started shooting people yet
Then they came for me, and they rued the day; I am an American from the Jacksonian tradition, and I bear arms. I, too, understand decapitation strategy, and I am legion.
Heheh... yeah that's what so many of these people don't get. Those of us with guns, we don't go out protesting and interfacing with these people regularly.
It's not just my guns. I spent a huge chunk of my life thinking of martial arts (training in quite a few but not particularly skilled at any). I can find weapons almost anywhere. Many things look like weapons to me. I also don't punch people in the face, stomach, etc. I punch people in places you shouldn't punch people unless you want to put them into a hospital or a morgue.
The first rule of my training from the best instructors was to not put yourself into a situation where you need to use the training.
Which I don't. Yet if they truly push the people like me and try to take our rights away and they come for people like me (and you) the hospitals and graveyards will overflow.
On one hand, I hate saying things like that. I really just want to be left alone.
On the other, (as we talked about yest'day), there has to be pushback to the ideas the do-gooders and the corruptocrats put forth in public...many of these people honestly believe that their tyranny is justice
If it ever comes to that... I'm not marching in any stupid lines or such... no more civil war, revolutionary war linear combat being honorable, etc. If I am at that point I care about survival, lining up and grouping up so we're easy to target is just a stupid mans game where they let other jerks move them around like little lead army men.
And yeah... I believe in the NAP, so it is something I resort to in defense of my family, friends, etc.
As long as we are not threatened it would be really hard to convince me to go against the NAP as I believe very strongly in it.
I really do need to study the NAP; it has been brought up so often, and I haven't really looked at it...
Is this summary correct?
Basically that can work.
NAP = Non-Aggression Principle. Keyword Aggression. Completely willing to defend ourselves AND our property and if they are like me and pushed to that point I'll do my damnedest to end it as quickly and directly as possible.
If someone directed them to come at me I'd consider that person fair game too. Leave me and my family alone and you're totally safe.
the person that made the decsion to target you; yes, that is morally sound
His character in the Patriot basically followed the NAP. They came for his family and killed one of his kids and basically all hell broke loose.
As far as decapitation strategy. I am not familiar with the term, but I have a sinister feeling that I know exactly what it means and it is exactly what I'd do.
Ignore the front line and go straight for those calling the shots and directing the zombies.
Exactly; it's where we have our greatest successes against terrorists and cartels...and thus we don't use it as often as we should /smh
I have an entire section of my database "devoted" to it; if you are interested, I can list you some references. The concept is going to be the subject of a future post anyhows...
Let me know when you make them.
War between huge armies is games for jack asses higher up. The world would be much more peaceful if those who want WAR would just directly fight each other and leave the rest of the people out of it. :)
Yet they say that's not "honorable". Yet killing hundreds, thousands, millions rather than taking out a couple of people is somehow "honorable".
Let the professionals and the ideologues fight it out; I think I could get behind that.
I don't really understand the evolutionary flow of mass conscription in military history beyond saying it's what humanity has done forever and a day; even in those cultures where only professionals fought, thy fought it on top of some dumb unfortunate farmer's land...I really do think there is more to it than corruptocrat manipulation of society, but I wouldn't bet on that judgement either
Population control, land grabs, etc. Consider land vaccuums left behind from dead soldiers. Free for the taking. Those most deserving of being put to the sword rarely set foot on any battlefield until long after the war when they are dividing the spoils.
there are sociopaths who do think in those terms
but there also highly aggressive folks and extroverts
I'm strating to drift off, so this isnt fully developed, but the earliest warlords were just robber barons...they HAD to put themselves on the front of the battle, and from what i've read, most of them liked it there
at some point the sociopaths take over the leadership roles
there is also chevauchee, total war before grant did it to the South. produtive property and humanity destroyed simply to deny acess to the enemy, not even to control it (think SJW ere)
This thought isnt coming togehter, so I'm going to leave it here; I know where I want to take it, but not how to get there and I'm gonna turn in. there is a post out of this
gnight!
Nicely written and well explained.
Congrats! You're a winner of @msg768's daily giveaway #38. To find out more, click HERE.