I'd like to say that this image, even independent from its caption, is hilarious! It's also reflective of a big idea.
Across the internet- where its easiest to indulge in hyperbole- there are people that would be called "social justice warriors". Those that will take up the cause of a person or group of people in the name of justice whether or not said group particularly feel the need for such radical representation.
People that would vehemently push against popular opinion and apathy have existed before the internet. Suffragettes, 2nd wave feminists, black rights activists, gay people campaigning for effective management of the AIDS epidemic in 80's America* are to name but a few. Their effort and determination have been priceless in the progression of our society. So, where does the difference lie?
Well, as I have already mentioned, such social justice movements can sometimes be composed of those who aren't a part of the groups for whom they campaign. The above examples could observe, first hand problems that their demographic faced. They were reacting against specific pressure. Sometimes with extreme displays, yes, but for them it was a movement against a tangible injustice that directly affected their lives.
In the case of online communities there can sometimes be an unrealistic and knee jerk reaction to a perceived problem that might be overvalued by the media. This can be any media but online communities are especially insular. Those that want to be there will be there, those who do not will not. The things that the group desires to see will be strongly drawn to their community and as such a malformed view of the world can be created. For those that are a part of the group that view is real- as real as any perspective any person holds- however, "real" doesn't necessitate evidence and there are perspectives that can be shown to be more or less right than others.
...I suppose that's a side note- always defer to data! Your source of opinion might be right, but get facts before raining hellfire.
I see the above picture as a push back against the sometimes absurd lengths some people will go to be offended by something. It's a reaction to the rhetoric of those that see societal injustice in the decisions of others. I think that's great.
A lot more can be written on this topic and I know that many people will do that for me. I've missed out a lot of important critiques and so this post isn't particular useful to summarise a world view with. However, if you get nothing else from it understand that it's important to see the light side behind the stern faces that assert something; even if that something sounds very authorative.
It's equally important to create and develop your point of view, being apathetic is an ignorant way to live one's life! Just don't hold on to your opinions as if they are fragments of your soul and treat those that do with a certain lightness. With so much seriousness comes an indefensible wave of perceived silliness; whether you're a Marxist in your mid 20's or a wealthy, stalwart supporter of the political right. Like the pacing of a play, people will get bored if you try and indefinitely maintain intensity in your cause.
Sadly I think this might be equally true of global warming and fraudulent claims of gender inequality. The hivemind hath spoken.
*Watch "How to Survive a Plague".
Across the internet- where its easiest to indulge in hyperbole- there are people that would be called "social justice warriors". Those that will take up the cause of a person or group of people in the name of justice whether or not said group particularly feel the need for such radical representation.
People that would vehemently push against popular opinion and apathy have existed before the internet. Suffragettes, 2nd wave feminists, black rights activists, gay people campaigning for effective management of the AIDS epidemic in 80's America* are to name but a few. Their effort and determination have been priceless in the progression of our society. So, where does the difference lie?
Well, as I have already mentioned, such social justice movements can sometimes be composed of those who aren't a part of the groups for whom they campaign. The above examples could observe, first hand problems that their demographic faced. They were reacting against specific pressure. Sometimes with extreme displays, yes, but for them it was a movement against a tangible injustice that directly affected their lives.
In the case of online communities there can sometimes be an unrealistic and knee jerk reaction to a perceived problem that might be overvalued by the media. This can be any media but online communities are especially insular. Those that want to be there will be there, those who do not will not. The things that the group desires to see will be strongly drawn to their community and as such a malformed view of the world can be created. For those that are a part of the group that view is real- as real as any perspective any person holds- however, "real" doesn't necessitate evidence and there are perspectives that can be shown to be more or less right than others.
...I suppose that's a side note- always defer to data! Your source of opinion might be right, but get facts before raining hellfire.
I see the above picture as a push back against the sometimes absurd lengths some people will go to be offended by something. It's a reaction to the rhetoric of those that see societal injustice in the decisions of others. I think that's great.
A lot more can be written on this topic and I know that many people will do that for me. I've missed out a lot of important critiques and so this post isn't particular useful to summarise a world view with. However, if you get nothing else from it understand that it's important to see the light side behind the stern faces that assert something; even if that something sounds very authorative.
It's equally important to create and develop your point of view, being apathetic is an ignorant way to live one's life! Just don't hold on to your opinions as if they are fragments of your soul and treat those that do with a certain lightness. With so much seriousness comes an indefensible wave of perceived silliness; whether you're a Marxist in your mid 20's or a wealthy, stalwart supporter of the political right. Like the pacing of a play, people will get bored if you try and indefinitely maintain intensity in your cause.
Sadly I think this might be equally true of global warming and fraudulent claims of gender inequality. The hivemind hath spoken.
*Watch "How to Survive a Plague".
