Social Justice Rights -- Friend or Faux?

Are newly legislated rights stemming from Social Justice activism real rights -- or real restrictions?

Beware the Faux Rights Movement. Elected officials hire staff specifically to monitor public opinion. Politicians gauge the feelings of their "base", re-election being their top priority. That's not new, there's always been a "loudest voice gets heard" syndrome -- it's part of democracy -- but it's amplified by the ubiquity of social media. Now, politicians re-frame waffling as "pivoting", and assure us they're "listening", especially to anything demanded by any group called "marginal".

So the new (2020's) loud voices that demand and accuse are the self-identified stigmatized, victimized, racialized, ethnicized identity groups who want recognition (preferably in the form of financial compensation) plus lots of new legislation meant to criminalize other people's attitudes toward them. 

As commentator Matthew Crawford puts it, victim dramas conjure up a "permanent moral emergency" which justifies deepening penetration of society by bureaucratic authority. The authorities hasten to pass laws which limit speech and any expression of dissent about popular victim-narratives. In the rush to limit rights of any group considered "privileged", ever more laws and restrictions are fashioned to re-shape society from above. Yet, in practice the leaders are following the popular movements of the day; they don't risk leading.

Thus, a prime minister can, with a straight face, pronounce that the desire of parents to know what gender ideologies their children are being taught at school, is an expression of "hate". And hate, of course, must be outlawed -- 'though that's a hopeless cause because no one can outlaw emotion. Hate is an emotion, and repressive bureaucracies only stoke it.

Only guard rails protecting the freedom to speak, to air and compare attitudes out in the open, can disperse the build-up of tension and resentment against other identity groups.

An obligatory "rights" movement is the friend of no group. Repeating the slogans of the grievance industry is necessary for officials, to avoid being fired. Many bureacrats, media commentators, and chairpersons have been; so it's a survival tactic. Sincerity however does not survive. Faux allegiance to grievance-groups by politicians and bureaucrats naturally wanting to keep their jobs, is not true help for anyone.  

Humanity's place in the global ecosystem?

The lure of fur, the rabbit-habit,

don't demure, you want to grab it,

you want to be warm, to change your colour,

you want to seem soft and alluring to another.

Bear's hide, sheep's fleece, wool, hair, skin,

you seize on everything you want -- a common human sin.

You dangle 'coon tails down your back, 

and must have feathers for your hat,

you must have eggs from the highest cliff

and want the bladders from bear and bat,

even the hidden oyster pearl and organs deep in a gut.

the crime is theft and the motive gain, the case is open and shut.

You're guilty, Human, you stole, you killed,

you dragged the young from the nest,

you saw the helpless mother aghast -- and did what you do best

-- F.J.

The Skeptic's Guide to Insensitivity Training

Ida Tarbell, the American 19th-early 20th century researcher, biographer and editor of McClure's Magazine, had to calm her staff whenever the owner of the magazine (Samuel McClure) drove everyone mad with his unpredictable bi-polar behaviour. 

"Try not to mind" Ida advised her staff in a soothing voice. An investigative journalist and a biographer conversant with human psychology, Ida seems to have been something of a Stoic philosopher. Her rational moderation would be helpful in today's workplace.

Corporate workplaces compete with each other to be "sensitive" by forcing employees into "training" (as China did in communist-revolution days, through self-criticism and re-education camps). Corporate training too boils down to compulsory self-criticism through "customized coaching" meant to produce "cultural competency" and curb inappropriate behaviour in the workplace. The key bad-words are bullying and harassment. Words that should ring alarm bells for employees are coaching, training, and "building trust". When employers tell you they are going to build trust -- mistrust them. 

This corporate team-building is Sensitivity Training, which aims to promote diversity even as it enforces uniformity. Never trust a thing that is being its opposite. Better to do the real opposite, which in this case would be Insensitivity Training.

How would Insensitivity Training work? Mainly it would do exactly what Ida Tarbell recommended: practice not minding things that you can't change anyway. We're meant to tolerate differences in the workplace? That would seem to mean stop minding that everyone's not the same. Some will be a pain, some delightful, some in-between: diversity. 

Rules of Insensitivity Training

1. Resist group-obsessing about skin colour, ethnicity, and diverse ableisms.

2. Forget "identities".

3. Drop the word "racism" (especially after the adjective "systemic"). Also drop "harm" and "stigma".

4. In the name of freedom of expression, appropriate whatever you like. (Let's call it intersectional creativity.)

5. As far as respect is concerned, respect the right to privacy.

6. Let no manager harass and bully you into giving up your right to introverted non-participation in group whining and parroting.

7. Understand that the core of democratic liberal humanistic civilization is about acknowledging other people's right to express opinions you despise. Then, ignore them. 

8. While it is unkind to express hate, there are times when hearty dislike is unavoidable. 

9. Forget micro-aggression, make your just aggressions adult-sized. Share them when appropriate, and then retreat into dignified silence.

10. Don't get drawn into competitive victim-narratives.

11. Embrace the Enlightenment ideal of merit. Who wants to live in a shabby, meritless world of self-obsessed equitable mediocrity?

12. Claim your inalienable right to walk away from invasive staff meetings to the safety of your own desk. 

Can we talk?

"Can we talk?"

No, we can't.

"That's unfortunate, from a communication point of view."

You might reveal wrong positionality. Or say something triggering. You might cause harm (meaning: harm me).

"Might I? Powerful me! Is a positionality the same as a position?"

No. It's obviously got three more syllables' worth of dimensionality.

"Oh. I still don't see why we can't talk."

Okay, let me itemize the reasons. Check off those that apply:

    fake news (everything I don't believe in)

    wrongthought (yours)

    disfavoured opinion

    microaggression (yours)

    you might use non-correct neopronominalism

"Uh ... no, that doesn't sound like a thing I would use in any form."

You see? Bullying. And you're meritocracy-adjacent, which is harmful.

"No, I'm reality-adjacent, and I'm meritocracy-immersed. Sorry about that. But your attitude is negative. Couldn't we just get along?"

Well no ... add that to the list of reasons not to: toxic positivity. 

 

I'm not sleeping, I'm revealing my peaceful positionality

A one-day stand -- Visiting the Museum of the De-platformed

The phrase "one night stand" originally referred to a one-night engagement by a performer at an entertainment venue. 

On another time-scale, fame seems to last but a single "day". The heyday of someone famous can vanish in a flash to be replaced by infamy when attitudes change --when different "influencers" do the influencing.

Distinguished people whose busts once stood in museums, or their statues in squares, are suddenly "cancelled". For them a city needs a new type of history museum that highlights the vanishing past: the Museum of the De-platformed.

We're not allowed to hate others, but we can despise them

Is it okay to openly despise the despicable? To call out what's offensive and ridiculous?

An article in Quillette describes the "training" foisted on employees in the Office of the Ombudsperson of BC. When one press-ganged participant raised questions about the partisan "decolonizing" language being used, he was attacked and shut down by the two-spirit trans trainer. (No, I don't know what two-spirit is either ...)

It seems that in public service jobs adults are treated like delinquent children. (At the same time, actual children are brought up to believe they're mentally ill, with quite a range of phobias, anxieties and traumas to choose from, and if they haven't had any actual trauma in their lives they can always fall back on an inherited "inter-generational" or societal one. 

"Ombuds-" is Swedish for investigator of complaints, but only some kinds of complaints get investigated. In the BC government training session there was a complaint against "hate" and against white supremacy (which, confusingly, you're obliged to hate. ) You know you've encountered white supremacy when you see someone "being on time”, and displaying “manners” or “perfectionism.”

We've all noticed how workers today feel entitled to be late, rude, and incompetent, but those who point it out are being "bullies". Regarding punctuality, remember the phrase "90 percent of success in life is just showing up"? (I'm not going to mention which comic first said it, for we're definitely supposed to hate him.) Now employees don't always turn up (note how often BC Ferries sailings are cancelled due to staff absenteeism). But "being on time" is white supremacy, right?

Children too are taught that if they put down their smart phones and do their school work in school (i.e. their job), they are being victimized and subjected to emotional trauma. Literacy and education are colonialist bullying. "White" values.

There are despicable prejudices folded into all this -- in the way kids are brought up to be fragile instead of resilient and workers are ideologically brain-washed through "training" (bringing to mind Maoist re-education and "self-criticism" camps?) 

Woe betide the employees at the Ombuds Office training who questioned whether trans men who identify as women and are still sexually attracted to women, are lesbians? If you express surprise at this imaginative use of definitions, you're guilty of hate. That means no one can beg to differ or freely exchange ideas, because that would be hate speech and hate speech (aka speech somebody else doesn't like) must be censored. 

So to preserve their jobs, commentators don't "hate" other people -- though they can't help but despise a lot of them.

From "Do Humanities Care About Academic Freedom?" in City Journal: "the three parts of the trio of free inquiry, intellectual diversity, and civil discourse are antithetical to the new holy trinity of diversity, equity, and inclusion."

How should we judge medical laboratories that rely on cruelty, and the medical data they produce?

It's time for everyone with a sense of compassion and an interest in medical science to pay attention to the annual World Day For Lab Animals: it's time to reject outdated animal-based methodology in disease research. 

April 24th is the World Day For Animals in Labs --  https://worlddayforlaboratoryanimals.org/.  Please also check out the Animal Defence and Anti-vivisection Society based in Vancouver, BC, to find out why cell culture, stem cell, in-vitro study and computer modelling imaging techniques are the way forward:  https://adavsociety.org/

These techniques are explained at https://www.uwindsor.ca/ccaam/ (Canadian Centre for Alternatives to Animal Methods). Many labs in Europe are pursuing the same types of alternative research, the better to advance effective medical treatment. In the U.S. the Physicians Committee For Responsible Medicine (nonprofit) provides a wealth of detail: 

https://www.pcrm.org/

Canadians appalled at the immense cruelty toward over 4 million animals used in lab research, including over 120,000 per year "subjected to severe pain", can contact their MPs to voice their concern. 

They can also email Francois-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, at  ISI.minister-ministreISI@canada.ca.