I have noticed that in recent years there has formed a kind of... maybe the word "strange" is too strong of a word to describe it, but curious "counter-culture" to the anti-SJW movement (which is kind of a "counter-culture" itself). People who say that they "used to be anti-SJWs" but now they are not. If you ever encounter a YouTube video of such a person, especially if he has a lot of subscribers, discussing that exact thing, you'll invariably find tons and tons of people in the comment section saying the same thing.
One mildly frustrating thing about these people is that it's hard to pinpoint exactly what their opinion is on things. Where do they actually stand politically? They never seem to exactly say what they disagree with anti-SJWs and what their own opinions are.
They also seem rather absolutist in their "anti-anti-SJW" opinion. There seems to be no "they are right on some things, but I disagree with others." In one particular video, for example, the author says that after he became an atheist he became an anti-SJW for a while but then he came to the conclusion that, and I quote, "the whole thing is BS" (I'm not censoring here, he literally says "bee es").
I was left wondering. "The whole thing", he says. In other words, everything, every little thing that anti-SJWs are saying, is bullshit? Not a single thing that anti-SJWs are saying and stand for is correct, factual, or even plausible? Everything, the whole thing, is complete bullshit? The entirety of the "anti-SJW" movement is completely wrong, in everything? How else should one interpret "the whole thing" other than that? It's not like he says "most of what they say is BS". It's the whole thing.
These people also seem to have a particular disdain for Jordan Peterson in particular, for some reason. Again, the attitude is absolutist: He's a complete idiot and everything he says is bullshit, idiotic, and he shouldn't be listened to. The same of course goes with most of the big-name popular anti-SJW youtubers (like Carl "Sargon of Akkad" Benjamin).
I don't really understand this kind of absolutist approach to everything. The attitude seems to be that either someone (or some group, or some ideology) is right, correct, factual and agreeable 100%, or he is complete bullshit, through and through. There is no in-between.
They somehow seem to be incapable of accepting the notion of agreeing with someone on some things, and disagreeing with others. They seem to often take the absolutist attitude that if somebody has ever said something they strongly disagree with, then everything that person says becomes questionable and not to be listened to.
I myself don't have any problem in both agreeing and disagreeing with the same person, on different things. I don't agree with everything that people like Sargon or Jordan Peterson say, but that doesn't mean I don't accept and agree other things they are saying. I judge every claim on its own right, regardless of who is presenting the claim.
On the contrary, I would find it troublesome if someone agrees with some popular person 100% on everything. I don't think that's healthy. It easily leads to a cult of personality, and through that to being misled when that person actually states something objectionable. It's good to evaluate every claim individually on its own right, and be critical of claims that seem questionable. We should always be critical of things that are being said, even when they are said by people we really like, admire and follow.
But rather obviously even when that person might sometimes say something we disagree with, that doesn't mean we should now throw everything he has ever said to the trashcan and move to something else. That would just be an endless wild goose chase for the absolutely perfect person. That person does not exist. That would be an endless search for a ghost, an illusion, an ideal that doesn't exist. Nobody is perfect, and nobody agrees with you 100% of the time. If you think you agree with 100% of what someone says, then perhaps some self-reflection is in place.
Completely rejecting something (like the "anti-SJW" movement in this case) because of some disagreeable opinions or because of a few rotten apples is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
(Somebody could redirect all of the above to me and say that I am guilty of doing exactly that because of my complete and absolutist rejection of the "progressive intersectional feminist" movement. While I do indeed have a lot of disdain for that movement, I don't think I am such a total absolutist against it. I do concede on particular points from time to time, when I think it's warranted. As an example, in this blog post: Some thoughts on sexual harassment at the workplace and the "me too" movement.)
One mildly frustrating thing about these people is that it's hard to pinpoint exactly what their opinion is on things. Where do they actually stand politically? They never seem to exactly say what they disagree with anti-SJWs and what their own opinions are.
They also seem rather absolutist in their "anti-anti-SJW" opinion. There seems to be no "they are right on some things, but I disagree with others." In one particular video, for example, the author says that after he became an atheist he became an anti-SJW for a while but then he came to the conclusion that, and I quote, "the whole thing is BS" (I'm not censoring here, he literally says "bee es").
I was left wondering. "The whole thing", he says. In other words, everything, every little thing that anti-SJWs are saying, is bullshit? Not a single thing that anti-SJWs are saying and stand for is correct, factual, or even plausible? Everything, the whole thing, is complete bullshit? The entirety of the "anti-SJW" movement is completely wrong, in everything? How else should one interpret "the whole thing" other than that? It's not like he says "most of what they say is BS". It's the whole thing.
These people also seem to have a particular disdain for Jordan Peterson in particular, for some reason. Again, the attitude is absolutist: He's a complete idiot and everything he says is bullshit, idiotic, and he shouldn't be listened to. The same of course goes with most of the big-name popular anti-SJW youtubers (like Carl "Sargon of Akkad" Benjamin).
I don't really understand this kind of absolutist approach to everything. The attitude seems to be that either someone (or some group, or some ideology) is right, correct, factual and agreeable 100%, or he is complete bullshit, through and through. There is no in-between.
They somehow seem to be incapable of accepting the notion of agreeing with someone on some things, and disagreeing with others. They seem to often take the absolutist attitude that if somebody has ever said something they strongly disagree with, then everything that person says becomes questionable and not to be listened to.
I myself don't have any problem in both agreeing and disagreeing with the same person, on different things. I don't agree with everything that people like Sargon or Jordan Peterson say, but that doesn't mean I don't accept and agree other things they are saying. I judge every claim on its own right, regardless of who is presenting the claim.
On the contrary, I would find it troublesome if someone agrees with some popular person 100% on everything. I don't think that's healthy. It easily leads to a cult of personality, and through that to being misled when that person actually states something objectionable. It's good to evaluate every claim individually on its own right, and be critical of claims that seem questionable. We should always be critical of things that are being said, even when they are said by people we really like, admire and follow.
But rather obviously even when that person might sometimes say something we disagree with, that doesn't mean we should now throw everything he has ever said to the trashcan and move to something else. That would just be an endless wild goose chase for the absolutely perfect person. That person does not exist. That would be an endless search for a ghost, an illusion, an ideal that doesn't exist. Nobody is perfect, and nobody agrees with you 100% of the time. If you think you agree with 100% of what someone says, then perhaps some self-reflection is in place.
Completely rejecting something (like the "anti-SJW" movement in this case) because of some disagreeable opinions or because of a few rotten apples is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
(Somebody could redirect all of the above to me and say that I am guilty of doing exactly that because of my complete and absolutist rejection of the "progressive intersectional feminist" movement. While I do indeed have a lot of disdain for that movement, I don't think I am such a total absolutist against it. I do concede on particular points from time to time, when I think it's warranted. As an example, in this blog post: Some thoughts on sexual harassment at the workplace and the "me too" movement.)
Comments
Post a Comment