You know, if I hear one more Social Justice Bozo talk about “equality” I think my opposite and I are going to descend into collective apoplexy.
They repeat it over and over like a mantra, as though it actually means something substantial. The same way the religious repeat things such as “god is love” to reaffirm to themselves that what they believe is actually true because they know deep down that if they ever stopped telling themselves these things for even a minute reason might actually creep into their minds and they just might come to understand how meaningless those terms really are. There’s never any deep thought or introspection behind their stated belief in those words, and truthfully when you ask them to elaborate on exactly what the buggerflump they actually mean by the things they talk about you can expect to get a lot of stammering, incoherent babbling and thousand yard stares. It’s simple-minded repetition, but then if there’s one thing ideologies specialize in, simplicity is it.
Social Justice Warriors are ultimately the liberal equivalent of the conservative sides right-wing fundamentalists. They’re self-righteous asses, bound by dogmatic thinking into assuming that they (and they alone) occupy the high moral ground. Which gives them license to stoop to whatever low becomes necessary in furtherance of their moral cause. And if there’s one thing that groups like feminists have shown us is that there is really no low that is too low to go. They’ve lied to entire generations of children about the state of the world and human history. Filling the heads of the vulnerable with fake tales of oppression and bigotry in a desperate attempt to cover their own.
And the start of it all is this bunny-brained idea of “equality”.
Perhaps I should take over for a moment and let my other half calm himself.
Allow me to explain the problem with “equality”.
There is a term sometimes used by writers, called a “cheap” concept. You see there are times when poor writers or those with poor arguments can’t muster up the ability to give their audience a legitimate reason to care about a character, story, or idea they rely on attempting to tie their ideas to a vague concept that possesses an emotional quality but has no well-defined meaning. For instance the phrase “War on Terror”, does not actually mean anything substantive. It is simply a rallying cry to scare people into going along with you by implying that you’re off to fight and make them safe. As one can see from recent American history, it was a rather effective rallying cry as well. Had George Jr. and his republicans packaged their ideas honestly it’s highly unlikely they would have gotten the support for them. However by using cheap concepts such as “War on Terror”, “They hate us for our freedom”, etc. they got enough people to consent to a crazy war in a country that most of them could not even point out on a map.
In literary works it is used to gain sympathy or support for a character that is otherwise flat or badly written, but for whom the author needs the audience to rally behind. Heroes in stories are often associated with fighting for “freedom” or “justice” or “love” or any other number of concepts that make the reader feel good about the story. It is why people cheer on characters like Superman. Not because Superman is a well-rounded, interesting character. He certainly isn’t. But because he has become over time a sort of composite of various heroic concepts that when one thinks of a superhero and a heroic adjective in the same thought, it is usually Superman that pops up. Ironically this is, in itself, likely the reason why Superman is such a poorly written character, but that’s a discussion to have for another time.
A hundred and one powers. Over forty-four character iterations spanning more than six decades. Yet still hasn’t figured out that the shorts go on the inside.
While equality might have some valuable meaning in mathematics and some theoretical models of science, it becomes much more ephemeral once you bring the concept into the real world.
In order to have equality, apply it to people and society while having it be meaningful in anyway there are several things that one would first need. Most importantly among them one needs an objective set of measurements and criteria that one could use to recognize and quantify equality. Because if you can’t measure or define what you mean by equality then you have no way of knowing whether or not you have it in the first place. Or how you can possibly achieve equality. Or when you’ve managed to achieve it. Essentially ensuring that you’ll never have it.
Upon leaving the realm of the theoretical it becomes increasingly more difficult in compelling the universe to be equal, simply due to the large number of variables that effect any phenomenon that exists outside of a closed system. Even assuming that there is equal probability it is very much improbable that there will ever be equal outcome. If one rolls a ten-sided die a hundred times there are slim odds of rolling each number ten times. Random chance will ensure that some numbers will almost certainly end up appearing more often than others. Hence the “random” part.
The issue becomes even further exacerbated when you start factoring in living organisms, who will actually take actions. As opposed to passively allowing the laws of physics and the universe to act upon them and determine their destiny. The more complex the organism, the more effect they will have.
In other words; humans make choices.
Humans make choices based on their life experiences and goals. Based on their parental influence and their peer-groups. On their society and associations, needs and wants, likes and dislikes etc. Yes, even their gender as well. All of which are entirely different and, unsurprisingly, will lead to different outcomes. The simple fact is that there is no aspect of real life that breaks down into neat little delineations of “equal” and “unequal”. It simply does not occur. It is all merely a matter of the perspective of the person doing the evaluation.
Which perfectly describes why these people spectacularly fuck it up as they do. “Equality” is only really possible if you view the world and the groups in it through a very narrow lens. As you take more factors into account any sort of equality becomes progressively more impossible, so they must stick to equality in only the most simplistic of terms. Namely the ones that help them fulfill their inner-narrative of being the great warriors who stand up for the rights of the oppressed and the disadvantaged. Even when the oppressed and disadvantaged haven’t asked them to.Even when the oppressed and disadvantaged really wish they wouldn’t. Because they always know better.
The great majority of women refuse to identify themselves as feminists, despite the fact that feminists claim to be the one true force fighting for womens right. They, of course, are simply misguided.
More white people complain about Islamophobia than the nation of Islam itself. Because anyone who says something unflattering about Muslims is a racist. Even though they aren’t a race.
It’s the great paradox of Social Justice that those people who are so against sexism and racism are probably among the most sexist and racist of people in our society. Appointing themselves the one true protectors of the non-white races who for some reason can’t protect themselves. Standing up and speaking for all genders, in denial of the fact they have no wish you do so. Fighting for your rights because naturally you can’t fight for them yourself. You can’t even be trusted to know what they are. But don’t worry, they’ll tell you just exactly how you’re being oppressed so that you’ll be sure to understand how much you need them. Amd always with the arrogant assurance that they know better than the people themselves about what is good for them and what they need. If they disagree well, they’ve just been internalizing their oppression, that’s all.
Fuck these people.