The cluster I think of as SJW would, I'm pretty sure, say you couldn't possibly be committed to the advancement of gender equality if you have a positive view on Kill la Kill.

If they're the stupid jerks you've portrayed, they probably would do that without even watching it first, nor hearing what hyper-badass Satsuki's views on nudity.

I think that's an inadequate rationalization. As a straight white male who assigns low probability to any of those changing, there is very little selfish benefit in joining the cause - and certainly a social cost to doing so.

It would take me time to quote studies to this effect, but I'm pretty damn sure things are changing in that sense, and I'm getting away with stuff that would have been deemed unthinkable back when I was a child (and, in fact, still are, back where I was born and raised).

I don't think engaging with a social justice movement would be productive.

At this point, I really need to question what you mean by "productive". If we were in the sixties, wouldn't it be "productive" to participate in the Civil Rights movement? If we were in the nineteenth century, wouldn't it be "productive" to be an active abolitionist?

I think the big problem is that it's unacceptable to apply the scientific method. When we find out that one group performs differently on an IQ test (say) from another, even considering the possibility that maybe one group is more intelligent than another is seen as unacceptable; we're expected to start from the axiom that all people are equal, and therefore conclude that the test is biased.

Heck, it's got to the point that many empirical facts are unacceptable. As much as we might wish it were otherwise, race predicts criminality even when we control for every other factor we can think of - but you can't say that openly. (I'm using race as an easy example, but there are similarly unsayable things on sex, sexuality and so forth)

You know, I have dealt with idiots who, because of such discussions, have made the following reasoning: "lesswrongers are willing to seriously consider and give a fair look to arguments that, if they were true, could be used by racists and similar scum to further their evil agendas" -> "some lesswrongers are actually racist etc." -> "all lesswrongers are racist etc., rationalism is racism, X notorious racist is the best rationalist ever" -> ???????

-> we're expected to start from the axiom that all people are equal, and therefore conclude that the test is biased.

As far as I know, there seems to be strong evidence towards humans being genetically nigh-identical, so I would hardly think this an axiom, and... oh, screw this. Let me represent to you how this goes in my mind:

"Oh my, I wouldn't want to believe that white people are inherently stupid and violent!, that women are actually more rational, that sex is, by and large, good for you, and so on and so forth"

"Oh, but what if it were true? Don't you want to believe what is true? It already is so, looking away from it won't make it go away!"

"Yeah, but what if it were false? Remember about learned epistemic helplessness? Can you really afford to spend time considering these notions which would cause you much grief and discomfort, to which you already ascribe a low probability, and which, were they true, would dramatically change your worldview and cause you a lot of effort in updating your causality tree, just for the sake of thoroughness?"

"Not really, no."

"Well then, screw that."

"Indeed."

"Wait, but aren't we running afoul of motivated stopping/motivated continuing and learned epistemic helplessness?"

"Possibly. But I really can't be arsed to argue with myself about whether that should be reason enough for me to persist in studying this topic."

"But what about this poor man, who is silenced and censored because of his unconventional hypotheses. Don't you remember what that feels like?"

"Well, speaking of motivated continuing, stopping, etc., what if he's a racist etc. who has said unspeakable opinions as his bottom line, which he's grasping at straws to justify. What if he were an intelligent one and it took time and effort to disentangle his bullshit? Do you really want to discuss theology with a bishop?"

"Or worse, what if he's a contrarian and he's just playing Devil's Advocate to these unspeakable views because he's an annoying smug smartass, like so many others you've encountered?"

"Oh hell no. Never again."

"You gotta admit, though, both types are pretty damn useful to sorting one's ideas out. Especially when they're intelligent; they do all the work of building iron men for you."

"That may be so, but I'm not interested in honing my arguments on this topic"

"What's wrong? Chicken? Bwok bwoook boDECK?!"

"No, more like, some fights you just walk away from. I am certain I would win this one, it would just take me a lot of time and effort I can't spear right now, and it wouldn't teach me much. Worse, it might not teach him much either."

"So, are we agreed?"

"Yup."

"Yeah. Not worth it."

"Indeed."

So, yeah, Imm, I won't stop you from posting your unspeakable arguments, but I'm just not interested in engaging you in them. And that's a rationalist's reaction. A normal person would simply heuristic that you're a prejudiced person looking for arguments after the fact, and a non-rationalist who's committed to "social justice" would let you know that they're not interested in hearing you out without bothering to be nearly as apologetic as I'm being. And, frankly, I can't find it in my heart to blame them.