It is so weird how anti-sj people are literally fighting tooth and nail with their own opinions. They argue against people who are citing centuries worth of refined social theory, a science!
Like they are fighting to be less accountable for what they think. They are fighting to believe what they…
That’s a lot of assumptions there. I see plenty of sjws go without fact checking or providing sources for ridiculous claims like “1 in 4 women are raped” And I’ve seen plenty of anti-sjws provide actual evidence and sources. Look at “under-the-goddess-heel” for a good example of that. I don’t always agree with him, but at least he has the courtesy to source his shit. Furthermore, not all of us are sexists/racists/homophobes. Some are, and they’re terrible, but not all. I am not a sexist/racist/homophobe. I belive in equal oppurtunity for all. I just believe that some of the sjw claims of discrimination can be a little farfetched at times.
Also, that claim that anti-sjws aren’t receptive to new information can just as easily be applied to you guys too.
Also, social science is a soft science at best. And you haven’t provided any sources or examples.
1) Case in point: 1 in 4 women aren’t raped. I think you’re talking about the well known rape study that is cited by college campuses everywhere that 1 in 4 women on a college campus have either been sexually assaulted or suffered attempted sexual assault. While this study was conducted in the 1980’s, it is not outdated because little has changed in the way of rape culture/rape prevention to imply that the figures have gone down.
2) But you wouldn’t know that because you don’t actually understand how the study of social phenomena works. “Soft science” is a non-scientific, non-academic, colloquial term often used by practitioners of natural sciences to delegitimize findings of social sciences, despite the fact that scientific method is employed the same way and scientific theory is garnered the same way. That is to say, scientific fields which are disproportionately dominated by affluent white males try to delegitimize the findings of scientific fields that are not. WHAT A SURPRISE.
3) But of course, you didn’t see it that way because your argument is devoid of critical thought. You don’t hold yourself accountable for your beliefs in that you don’t seek knowledge for the purpose of growing from and adapting your thinking to that knowledge. Which is why I’m really skeptical of your cries to “provide sources,” because what is a source to you? Is it going on to google, typing your opinion, and citing the first willy nilly source that agrees with it? When I go into google and type “1 in 4 women are raped,” I get a bunch of national, accredited organizations who are citing actual studies providing me actual facts regarding women’s rape statistics. I also get skeptical, self-described men with no knowledge of what constitutes rape dedicating articles to why their cynicism she be regarded as fact, even though it’s completely formed of their own opinions and not theory or study or even fucking reading Wikipedia. The worst is when they treat fact as subjective, then believe they can argue with their own shitty uninformed opinions. For example, I study social justice and practice social justice. You don’t. So why do you think you’re more qualified than me to speak on social justice?
4) Which gets me to my next point, that even the most insidious, awful, angry sj is on the side of theory. Even if the only place they get their info is tumblr, they are getting their info from people who are getting their info from people like ME. No matter how many degrees away believers in social justice seek from theory and critical thought, these people are dedicated to annoyingly arguing on the side of justice and liberty. Whereas anti-sj—that literally means they are anti social justice. Wikipedia the meaning of social justice and see if you want to be anti-that. Anti-sj people are more concerned with debunking arguments than deconstructing our world to be less oppressive. For example, you yourself said that you are only so willing to support the oppressed as long as you can fathom their experiences to be true (which is flawed logic on its own as it’s probably difficult for you to believe them if you don’t live as them). And as I said in my OP, anti-sj people truly believe that their opinions hold more weight than theory and fact. You said “social science is a soft science at best” as if it gave weight to your argument! Even if “soft science” meant anything, decades/centuries of soft scientific studies would mean more than the shoddy uninformed opinion of an anti-sj. The fact that you’ve relegated being accountable for what you believe to “citing sources” just goes to show that the idea of having knowledge is more important to you than actually getting that knowledge. Which is typical, because anti-sj people convince themselves they have knowledge when they actually don’t.
5) So this is a personal question that I am directing at you, because I truly want you to consider it: do you actually know what you’re talking about? Do you feel well versed enough about this to have a conversation with me, someone who studies social justice theory and engages in the practice of it as a job and a hobby? Have you dedicated time OUTSIDE of an argument to learning about what you’re arguing against?