Updates: Currently slacking off

Saturday, 7 May 2016

Why the social justice "left" is not "extreme left wing"

Social justice is somewhat rampant on the left.
Now, this isn't explicitly bad. It's just an opinion man.
The problem comes with advocacy for "social justice" because empty virtue signalling and attacking anyone that doesn't agree hard enough.

Now, it's not so much that "the left" isn't "at fault" with this, it's that this just HAPPENS to be dominant on the left.
I see so many right wingers that will happily eat the asshole out of people on the right that are INDISTINGUISHABLE from SJW in tactics, conduct and sometimes even goals (differing only in justification) and still somehow think they're superior because they aren't "on the left" (which is the only metric that can make people "wrong" in a shocking irony of DOING EXACTLY WHAT SJW DO towards anyone on the right)
This culture war is largely a civil war on the left, with sympathetic people from the right standing with "us" in solidarity and other (dogmatic) right wingers just joyous that their "enemies" are getting a beating.

I will maintain that "fauxgressives" that are considered "far left" atm (even by many liberals/lefties fighting them) are nothing of the kind.
They are people with set values and dogma that are willing to coopt left wing politics for their own ends.

You get feminists decrying the white male patriarchy claiming "capitalism" is evil, but their big solution is just to have more people at the top of that pyramid own vaginas. Everyone knows that all of the social, economic and systemic problems that the left has largely been attempting to counter are caused by the penis!
Marx MUST have written that, considering how often his name is invoked by everyone...

Every time an actual left winger with some credentials in left wing politics comes along, they are not judged on policy, but on identity.
When these so called "left wing extremists" are saying quite openly that the only right choice for the left is to vote for a woman regardless of her politics, I simply can not credit such arguments. I cant accept that this is an honest argument from "the extreme left"
They're certainly on "the left" in as much as they're against tradcon values.

Personally, I lay the blame at liberalism, not "leftism"
What happened was the parties all drifted towards centrist liberalism, with focus on personal liberty and capitalism, which left little room for parties to distinguish themselves.
The right has its identity politics baked in.
Religion, family values, nationalism (both rational and racist) and class.

The left embraced "social liberalism" (which is not necessary in the wider context of liberalism) and the overton window took over. Pushing the accepted thinking into retarded places in an effort for candidates to "out do" each other in competition to be the most pure.

We have milk toast centrists happy to concede to right wing demands on all manner of social policy that fiercely contend over identity politics. Why? Because such a focus does not actually require ANYTHING to function. It's ambiguous nonsense that "sounds good" to certain audiences.

Meanwhile, the ACTUAL left wing candidates have long histories of being on the correct side of issues ALL ALONG.
Not through political expedience or to prove how progressive they are, but simply through rational application of the values of their own political philosophy.

We've seen time and again in recent years.
The "left wing establishment" favours liberal, centrist (or even outright conservative) candidates based on identity politics and empty virtue signalling.
Bernie Sanders is too white, too male and too old. He's unelectable, because the democratic base is split on him. Just ignore that unaffiliated that overwhelmingly seem to support him...
Corbyn is unelectable! He's far left! If labour don't elect a female leader they're sexist!

Can anyone actually argue that such thinking fits into the ideals that those in left wing parties profess?