Telford UK Sex Abuse and no word from #metoo

[icehorse]

You want to use the term SJW, that is fine. My words to Crossfire are what you are communicating when you do. I do not know which social justice causes you think are worthy of exemption, but I imagine it varies among people who use the term SJW. I don't want to assume to much here, but the term is very much meant to conjure up a pejorative image. Please do not pretend otherwise.

Let me be VERY CLEAR. There is a subset of activists who take a "oppressed vs. oppressor" worldview and who will not debate what they believe. It is this subset that I want to label, so that this phenomenon can be discussed. I would be happy with "illiberal" or "extreme left" or whatever. I am not married to the phrase SJW.

 

[Poseidon Soter]

I’ve been asking - literally for years - why feminists are largely silent on the tsunami of abuse perpetrated in the name of Islam.

In Telford, UK, it’s come to light that yet another massive Islamic “grooming” ring has come to light, probably abusing at least 1000 girls over the last 30 years:

MP 'inundated' with grooming reports (you can easily find many more articles)

Warning: I’m about to make some generalizations!

Until someone comes up with a better label, I’m going to say that a large percentage of liberal college and uni. professors, a large percentage of feminists, a large percentage of the media, the province of Ontario*, and a large percentage of students share beliefs in “social justice”, so I’m going to call members of this ideology “social justice warriors” (SJWs). I understand that many people think this is a disparaging term, as I said, I’m happy to substitute a different term, but SJW seems sadly accurate.

I’m starting to discover a number of people who are trying to understand the SJW movement better (Steven Pinker, Jonathan Haight. Camille Paglia, Douglas Murray, Christina Hoff Sommers, Jordan Peterson, Gad Saad, Mark Steyn, Lindsay Shepherd, Ben Shapiro, the administration at the University of Chicago. FIRE, Lauren Southern, Michelle Rempel, Heather MacDonald, Ella Whelan, and others).

A common theme in their analysis is that SJWs often simplify the world into two camps: oppressors and the oppressed. Given this world view, it’s plausible to conclude that western civilization is the great oppressor, and that Muslims (for example) are oppressed. So, Harvey Weinstein gets a lot more press than the tens of thousands of girls who are sexually “groomed” by Muslim men, and he gets more press than the millions upon millions of girls and women upon whom FGM (female genital mutilation) is perpetrated.

When you think about it from this perspective, I’d say you can demonstrate uncanny powers of prediction. When “oppressors” are guilty it’ll be big news. When “the oppressed” are guilty, yawn.

(As another example of this, think Israel and Palestine)

For those of you who want to shout “you’re generalizing”, let me ask you this, in the realms of science and law and history and engineering aren’t we mostly starting off by finding patterns and yes, gulp, generalizing?

*Ontario has official “Social Justice Tribunals” placed highly in the government hierarchy.

Can I just say, what's your evidence that this kind of sexual abuse was carried out 'in the name of Islam'? By Muslims, yes. But I don't see any evidence that they abused these vulnerable young girls/women in the name of Islam?

 

[icehorse]

Can I just say, what's your evidence that this kind of sexual abuse was carried out 'in the name of Islam'? By Muslims, yes. But I don't see any evidence that they abused these vulnerable young girls/women in the name of Islam?

Well it's a good point, I don't have specific evidence in this case. But I do have a lot of circumstantial evidence and Occam's razor to fall back on.

 

[crossfire]

I would say that the characteristics of the "w's" I'm discussing is that they have a simplistic "oppressor vs. oppressed" worldview, and they are not willing to discuss their beliefs. There are many people doing good work in social justice who do not behave this way.

Again, I'm not locked into using the phrase "SJW", but it's important that we give a label to that subset of activists who operate from the "oppressed vs. oppressor, not up for discussion" stance.

Again, how does telling your story or simply saying #metoo equate to activism?

edit to add: Why should my personal stories be up for debate? Should my simply using the #metoo hashtag be up for debate?

 

[Curious George]

Again, how does telling your story or simply saying #metoo equate to activism?

Because engaging in public dialogue about current issues is engaging the political process i.e. a level of political activism.

 

[icehorse]

Again, how does telling your story or simply saying #metoo equate to activism?

edit to add: Why should my personal stories be up for debate? Should my simply using the #metoo hashtag be up for debate?

Personal stories are fine. The problem occurs when the individuals turn into a mob.

 

[crossfire]

Personal stories are fine. The problem occurs when the individuals turn into a mob.

So, should personal stories or simply using the #metoo hashtag be up for debate?

 

[icehorse]

So, should personal stories or simply using the #metoo hashtag be up for debate?

It depends.

 

[Curious George]

Let me be VERY CLEAR. There is a subset of activists who take a "oppressed vs. oppressor" worldview and who will not debate what they believe. It is this subset that I want to label, so that this phenomenon can be discussed. I would be happy with "illiberal" or "extreme left" or whatever. I am not married to the phrase SJW.

I really do not mind you choosing to use the term. I just don't believe that the use of the term doesn't express contempt and is not meant to disparage. I am quite capable of understanding your points regardless, and that is in what I am interested. You have suggested that your issue with SJWs is that they create more social injustice by advocating for their social justice causes. I was hoping you would explore this. You asked if I would recognize a group of movements as all qualifying as SJWs, I gave it some thought and can see a common thread between the groups so I can categorize them as whatever name you want to use. You chose SJW, I said sure. Now we are on a tangent about the name SJW. I do not see how this is moving us in forward in our discussion. The name doesn't mean much, it is a label. A label that is used for unrelated reasons but still a label. I can separate your use of the label with your ideas regarding justice and injustice. It is not pragmatic to continue to dwell on the label.

 

[crossfire]

It depends.

On what?

I don't mind debating, but I'm not going to debate my own stories. That doesn't put me into the "refusing to debate the issues" category. It does, however, put me into "don't put the victims on trial" camp, however.

 

[icehorse]

You have suggested that your issue with SJWs is that they create more social injustice by advocating for their social justice causes. I was hoping you would explore this.

Awesome (sincerely).

My problem with the group we're currently labeling as SJWs is twofold:

1 - They view every social issue through the lens of "oppressed vs. oppressor". Sometimes this is a useful perspective, but often it's not. It makes "the oppressed" free of responsibility and it makes the "oppressor" guilty without a trial.

2 - They view their SJ beliefs as beyond reproach and are not willing to discuss or debate them. This is of course a type of tyranny. We see this whenever we see the heckler's veto in action.

 

[icehorse]

On what?

I don't mind debating, but I'm not going to debate my own stories. That doesn't put me into the "refusing to debate the issues" category. It does, however, put me into "don't put the victims on trial" camp, however.

See post #71. It depends on how they go about telling their stories and whether they are willing to hear opposing views.

 

[Curious George]

Awesome (sincerely).

My problem with the group we're currently labeling as SJWs is twofold:

1 - They view every social issue through the lens of "oppressed vs. oppressor". Sometimes this is a useful perspective, but often it's not. It makes "the oppressed" free of responsibility and it makes the "oppressor" guilty without a trial.

I do not understand how this necessarily follows from any of these issues.

2 - They view their SJ beliefs as beyond reproach and are not willing to discuss or debate them. This is of course a type of tyranny. We see this whenever we see the heckler's veto in action.

This seems like an individual to individual thing. Why is the social justice belief beyond reproach? Again, I just do not see how this necessarily follows either.

 

[crossfire]

See post #71. It depends on how they go about telling their stories and whether they are willing to hear opposing views.

How can you have opposing views about someone's personal experience unless you were there?

 

[icehorse]

I do not understand how this necessarily follows from any of these issues.

This seems like an individual to individual thing. Why is the social justice belief beyond reproach? Again, I just do not see how this necessarily follows either.

These behaviors do not follow because of the issues. They are simply the proclivity of the folks defending these issues.

 

[icehorse]

How can you have opposing views about someone's personal experience unless you were there?

If it's a general claim you can debate it on its general merits. If it's an individual claim then of course, like any individual claim, you'd have to have access to the specifics.

But, for example, the SJW might say, "Because I'm a gay, black female, and you're a white male, my 'lived experience' trumps your expertise on the topic, and I simply will not listen to anything you have to say."

 

[Curious George]

These behaviors do not follow because of the issues. They are simply the proclivity of the folks defending these issues.

And how do we know it is a proclivity of folks defending the issues?

 

[icehorse]

And how do we know it is a proclivity of folks defending the issues?

With respect, please go re-read the OP. thanks

 

[Curious George]

With respect, please go re-read the OP. thanks

With respect, you said:

A common theme in their analysis is that SJWs often simplify the world into two camps: oppressors and the oppressed.

Speculation. If this is how you know, then it explains nothing.

Given this world view, it’s plausible to conclude that western civilization is the great oppressor, and that Muslims (for example) are oppressed.

Do you mean I am to assume this world view? That sounds like begging the question if this is supposed to show me how you know there is a proclivity towards this simplistic worldview of oppressors v. oppressed.

So, Harvey Weinstein gets a lot more press than the tens of thousands of girls who are sexually “groomed” by Muslim men, and he gets more press than the millions upon millions of girls and women upon whom FGM (female genital mutilation) is perpetrated.

I am assuming this is the evidence. But let us rearrange that.

Harvey Weinstein gets more press...
Therefore SJWs view the world in a simplistic oppressors vs oppressed worldview.

When put like that, do you see the non sequitur?

When you think about it from this perspective, I’d say you can demonstrate uncanny powers of prediction. When “oppressors” are guilty it’ll be big news. When “the oppressed” are guilty, yawn.

(As another example of this, think Israel and Palestine)

More of the same non sequitur. Or begging the question and then assigning the outcome of whoever gets "more press" to the category of oppressors that are guilty.

For those of you who want to shout “you’re generalizing”, let me ask you this, in the realms of science and law and history and engineering aren’t we mostly starting off by finding patterns and yes, gulp, generalizing?

Patterns from begging the question? That should not be a surprise.

*Ontario has official “Social Justice Tribunals” placed highly in the government hierarchy.

Tribunals would indicate that views can be challenged, not that they cannot. Or at least an appearance of views being challenged is presented. It could be all for show, but I don't know because you never indicated how you knew about SJWs proclivity to view their Social Justice beliefs as beyond reproach. Unless this paragraph is the key:

I’m starting to discover a number of people who are trying to understand the SJW movement better (Steven Pinker, Jonathan Haight. Camille Paglia, Douglas Murray, Christina Hoff Sommers, Jordan Peterson, Gad Saad, Mark Steyn, Lindsay Shepherd, Ben Shapiro, the administration at the University of Chicago. FIRE, Lauren Southern, Michelle Rempel, Heather MacDonald, Ella Whelan, and others).

Which amounts to an appeal to authority.

So please:

And how do we know it is a proclivity of folks defending the issues?

 

[sayak83]

Well it's a good point, I don't have specific evidence in this case. But I do have a lot of circumstantial evidence and Occam's razor to fall back on.

I, on the other hand am certain that this abuse did not occur in the name of Islam. Instead it's racism and patriarchal sexism.