The fallacy of social “justice”

I have recently been considering Star Trek: Discovery, since I just watched the finale of Star Trek Continues. You could not ask for two more different shows. Star Trek Continues is a show which is much more in the vein of Roddenberry’s vision, while Discovery is nothing more than a social justice warrior’s bully pulpit. In fact, I would posit that Star Trek Discovery (STD) sacrifices storytelling, acceptance of differing viewpoints, and leaving the viewer something to consider and work out in his own mind, in order to push their social agenda. As an example of the acceptance of differing viewpoints, Gene Roddenberry was, it was said, an agnostic. Yet in the TOS episode Bread and Circuses, Septimus and his band of Sun (Son) worshipers (Christians) were the good guys of the episode. And the episode didn’t virtue signal about slaves or slavery.

Meanwhile, STD seems to have taken the Federation into a U-turn. Set 10 years before TOS, it appears that they have decided that the United Federation of Planets have gone imperial and have more in common with the Borg. The war with the Klingons started because the Klingons only wanted to be left alone. The Federation, on the other hand, seems to believe that no one can be truly happy, unless they are part of the giant collective that is the Federation, and you will be happy, even if we have to break your arm twisting it behind your back. And if you want to be left alone, or if you have different viewpoints, well, that is not allowed.

Coming back to planet earth in 2017, the creatives on STD have stated in interviews that they have written the “isolationist, racist, xenophobic” Klingons to represent Trump voters. Can they wear their politics any further out on their sleeves? Well, I guess they could take a knee in protest of injustice or something… Oh wait…

This is the problem with social justice movement. When broaching subjects they don’t agree with or pointing out he illogic of their position, they do the social equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting “that’s racist/sexist/misogynistic/transphobic/etc.” Yet, on subjects which they support, they are all in the faces of those that they think hold opposing views. You know, the way they treat people who just want to be left alone with their beliefs or moral stance, or thoughts on an issue. They don’t want to accept the “you do you, I’ll do me” mentality with respect to their hot-button issue du joure. They feel it is their mission in life to push their controversial views on those that don’t agree with them. Hence, they claim that everything is racist, gay couples target Christian bakers and force them to make wedding cakes, they force their gender fluidity or racial ambiguity upon society, such as forcing the allowance of men to use the womens’ bathrooms and vice versa. In this way not only do you need to accept that they hold those beliefs, but social justice rubs your nose in it, and requires that you agree with those views, otherwise you are labeled as racist or sexist or misogynistic or homophobic or whatever phobia makes you hold an anti-SJW-viewpoint. Even ambivalence is considered a negative trait to the SJW. A transexual penned an article a few month ago, in which it was stated that “if you don’t desire a “woman with a penis” then you are “transphobic.” It’s not that you accept his choices, but that if you don’t desire someone with those traits, it somehow makes you a bad person. So to the SJW, you are not allowed to have your own opinion or preference. You are expected to march along with whatever fuzzy, illogical, hare-brained idea that comes out of their heads. Coed bathrooms, flexible gender, white privilege, whatever.

But on the other hand, if you are a white person or embrace a cultural norm, and you do anything, including eating a burrito or tikka masala, this makes you guilty of “cultural appropriation.” They call out cultural appropriation, without consideration of the intent or personal preference, and label the “appropriator” as racist…even if the person is doing it out of respect or personal preference. And to complete the cycle of illogic, if someone does just the opposite, they are still racist. A SJW once claimed that the Pioneer Woman’s husband as being racist because she mentioned that he preferred spicy hot wings to Asian wings. But the converse, if he liked Asian wings, that would be cultural appropriation. So his crime is being white. And the forces claiming that cultural appropriation is a thing are now claiming that this cultural appropriation is causing tangible  damage, as in theft. So I am damaging a culture because I like Korean food? Please. And the thing is that most cultures believe, like any right-thinking entity, that emulation is the sincerest form of flattery. Most cultures love to share with others. It’s only the SJWs who have attempted to model themselves as the arbiters of fairness, that take offense.

Anything that can be used to belittle or reduce what people have decided is the dominant race or societal norms (like transgender or gay marriage) is good in the eyes of the SJWs. They want nothing more than to upend society. They defy logic and science (males have an X and a Y chromosome, and females have two X chromosomes. And having surgery to mutilate your genitals, or loading your body with estrogen or testosterone to try and overcome the natural tendencies of a body with your gender does not change your gender.

You know, as I read back through this post, it sounds like I am dismissive of the SJWs. Actually I am. Or what SJWs have become. Traditionally, there have been social justice issues that have needed attention, and to a much lesser extent today, there still are. But SJWs in 2017 seem to be “majoring in minors” or finding non-existent problems, which they then use as a club to beat those who disagree with the liberal agenda into submission. Their primary tool is manufactured outrage. And, news flash for that vocal minority that wants to push society in a direction that the majority doesn’t want to go. Our patience is not infinite, and at some point, your platform is going to get too ridiculous, and we are going to start pushing back.