You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Konkvistador comments on Open thread, July 28 - August 3, 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion

5 Post author: polymathwannabe 28 July 2014 08:27PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (241)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: gjm 02 August 2014 09:15:16PM 5 points [-]

I am not sure whether this even should be called "social justice". It just seems like common sense to me.

Perhaps social justice done right should just seem like common sense (to reasonable people). I mean, what's the alternative? Social injustice?

It would be a pity to use the term "social justice" to describe only facepalming irrationality. I mean, you then get this No True Scotsman sort of thing (maybe we should call it No True Nazi or something) where you refuse to say that someone's engaged in "social justice" even though what they're doing is crusading against sexism, racism, patriarchy, etc., simply because no True Social Justice Warror would engage in rational debate or respond to disagreement with sensible engagement rather than outrage.

(Minor vested interest disclosure: I happen to know some people who are both quite social-justice-y and quite rational, and I would find it unfortunate to be unable to say that on account of "social justice" and "rationality" getting gratuitously exclusive definitions.)

Comment author: [deleted] 04 August 2014 08:46:52AM *  10 points [-]

even though what they're doing is crusading against sexism, racism, patriarchy, etc., simply because no True Social Justice Warror would engage in rational debate or respond to disagreement with sensible engagement rather than outrage.

Slightly off topic, but can I ask why patriarchy is assumed to be obviously bad?

I can certainly see the negative aspects of even moderate patriarchy, and wouldn't endorse extreme patriarchy or all forms of it, but its positive aspect seems to be civilization as we know it. It makes monogamy viable, reduces the time preferences of the people in a society, makes men invested in society by encouraging them to become fathers and husbands, boosts fertility rates to above replacement, likely makes the average man more attractive to the average woman improving many relationships, results in a political system of easily scalable hierarchy, etc.

Comment author: gjm 04 August 2014 04:30:12PM 1 point [-]

I wasn't assuming it's obviously bad, I was describing it as a thing social-justice types characteristically crusade against.

As to whether moderate patriarchy is good or bad or mixed or neutral -- I imagine it depends enormously on how you define the term.

Comment author: [deleted] 04 August 2014 06:36:11PM *  5 points [-]

The post reads very much like you are implying they are bad, but I'll update on your response that you didn't.