Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski
My thing is this, back in the early me too days I’d read FB friends takedowns of different people for doing different things. And some of them were so extreme that I could only be glad I was no longer dating. You say why does your opinion matter, but the louder voices don’t ask that question. If something bugs them, there is not the next step of “is my opinion mainstream enough to insist on it.”
|
The thing about the internet is you can always find enough wingnuts holding the same extreme views as you to give the appearance, thru sheer numbers, that your insane view is actually mainstream.
QAnon is a good example of this.
Plandemic is another. These are both clearly crackpot conspiracy theories, but thru sheer numbers of people supporting them, they almost appear kind of legitimate to a person who isn't savvy about the pervasiveness of "fake news" on the internet. (More
Plandemic, which is packaged to look real, rather than QAnon, which is on its face ridiculous.) Most social justice warriors are loons. They say absurd things. But a lot of them say it all at once, and so a clearly counterproductive phrase like "defund the police" sounds like a serious mainstream policy consideration (rather than a policy plank mayors are pretending to treat as serious to simultaneously discredit and placate the cuckoo-pants left).
These social justice mob folk are simply borrowing Trump's playbook, which he borrowed from Goebbels, who borrowed it from Edward Bernays: Just repeat a thing enough and eventually it becomes a fact, or a serious policy consideration (whichever you need it it to be). "Lots of people are saying..." They don't care whether what they're saying is mainstream. They detest the mainstream and want to change the mainstream so that their non-mainstream ideas become mainstream.
You suggest that a notion, idea, or rule be vetted to determine if it is mainstream before it can be accepted as a baseline the violation of which should be punished. The internet has no such laddering of views.* There is no significant elitism of ideas online. And most of the social justice crowd rejects the idea of elitism of ideas in the same way the Trumpkins reject expertise. Both groups seek a leveling in which everyone's voice is as worthy as everyone else's. It's a true democratization. But with that leveling, the fools get as much airtime as the serious thinkers. Often more.
You can see the wages of this leveling in our current moment. On one side, we have the preposterous notion that journalists must apologize for long ago sins, the frivolous binary idea that one can only be sexist or racist or antisexist or antiracist, and endless purity tests in which those who challenge or in some cases merely fail to adhere to most orthodox tenets of wokeism are to be publicly scorned and made pariahs - have their economic lives ruined. On the other side, you have a different breed of know nothing, believing in outrageous conspiracy theories, envious and distrustful of any expert offering knowledge or insight, paranoid in the belief their way of life (largely fictionalized) is under attack from "coastal elites."
The internet had and still has so much promise. So much great shit comes from it. So many life enhancements. But alas, with that also comes the congealing of idiots, acceleration of moral panics, and delusional class warfare. Your attempt to apply rational thought would only work in regard to a small sliver of those online. The overwhelming majority are credulous imbeciles who probably ought not to be allowed to have any voice of any kind.
_______
* ETA: You also assume, I think, that we would use logic and rationality to determine what is mainstream. Social justice does not observe those rules. Nor does it observe science. When logic or rationality challenge social justice, social justice argues that empathy and victimization allow for its illogical or unwise demands or assertions to nevertheless persist. That one has been a victim or has a grievance inoculates one's words from logical or rational criticism. When science stands in its way, such as studies showing differences between male and female brains (a clinically irrefutable observation), science must stand down. Why? Because women have been historically oppressed, and this fact could be used by dishonest brokers to oppress them further. So to the extent you'd base "mainstream" on science or logical reasoning, your definition would be rejected, rendering your effort to determine a baseline for behavior pointless. (Your definition only works in the corner of the room, where moderate, normal people are having conversations outside earshot of extremists. It's the baseline applied before one rolls his eyes when hearing the latest nonsense offered by the priests the right or left religions of the day. Before one says, "Christ... They're all fucking nuts. I don't even bother with news anymore.")
