Humans have invented a lot of different methods to communicate, we have computer code that allows us to communicate with computers, we have mathematics that allow us to both communicate and model the world we live in and we have the written and spoken word. Within the written and spoken word, we have further sets such as academic language and political language.
Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. George Orwell
The language and vocabulary of social justice is without a doubt political, as it is a political movement that wishes to alter the rules of how humans interact, are governed and dispense justice. Once can scarcely deny that movements such as feminism and black lives matter are movement that seek political influence and to that end they employ political language suited for the political stage.
Invent your own word day
Many sub-groups of a population tend to develop their own language, their own slang term, and over time this is how human language changes over time. When the first British colonists traversed the Atlantic ocean to reach the shores of America, they spoke and wrote the Queen’s English, 400 years later, and the two have developed strong regional characteristics. For two humans to communicate successfully it requires that they speak a language that both parties can adequately understand. This is why communicating with people who do not speak your language is prone to be a catalyst for confusion, frustration and wasted effort.
The trend started with feminism, who invented their own concepts such as the patriarchy, which already at that time had a definition, however, feminism changed the definition from the commonly accepted one to one suitable for their goals. This is a subtle trick, where you can shift definitions or sentence meanings through equivocation. When this is combined with other logical fallacies it can create a formidable opponent to face even for seasoned debaters as you cannot hit a moving target.
This trend took off after the invention of what are referred to as “tumblrisms”, which is an expression for words that have been invented on the social media platform “Tumblr” that has become a haven for social justice warriors of all kinds. In order to have a proper debate, the definitions of terms have to be agreed upon, each debater is free to use the definitions they would like to, however they are required to inform their opponent of which definition they are using. Their opponent is also free to challenge the definitions.
When you face an SJW in debate, odds are that you will be faced with a string of terms that you are unfamiliar with. I remember very well the first time I heard the term “Cisgender” or “CISheteronormative”, which are words where you cannot rely on a previously established definition due to most dictionaries lacking them, and they are not in common use. One should always be willing to engage an opponent in debate using their terms, however this does require that both parties agree to not introduce obfuscation and word salads as debate strategies.
The best example of this in modern discourse is the litany of definitions that exist for feminism, where feminist debaters will use the dictionary definition of “political, social and economical equality of the sexes” both as a means of garnering support, but also to dodge accusations of misandry.
The concept of language, which pathologizes ones opponents is not uncommon on the political stage, especially within the progressive movements of the later half of the 20th century. This is similar to manipulation techniques used by narcissists and psychopaths in intimate relationships called gaslighting, in addition to making it appear as their spouse is the insane one, they also attempt to make their spouse do the same.
A great example of this is the trend of adding the term “phobia” to the end of words, such as islamophobic, homophobic and transphobic. A phobia is classified under the DSM-V and ICT-10 as anxiety disorders, where a person experiences fear of something often disproportionate to the actual risk. By using this terminology a social justice warrior not only labels their opponent as psychologically ill, they also attempt to dismiss all arguments against their position as being based in fear. This can bias an audience against every argument from their opponent, and also attempts to build a perception of the social justice warrior as benevolent.
Pathologizing language is a method that is very akin to the concept of loaded language. In fallacy form this may take the form of the loaded question, the classic example being “Have you stopped beating your wife?” This is a highly aggressive debate stance where one seeks to put the opponent on the defensive, so rather than present any of their rebuttals or counter-arguments they are left defending themselves from the accusations of the opposition.
In essence, anyone who opposes the social justice warrior position is doing so out of irrational fear, is simply rationalizing their opposition towards the SJW position post-hoc to appear less anxious. Furthermore, the fact that they are left defending themselves from accusations makes them appear more guilty.
SJW debate strategy
The goal of a social justice apologist is not reasoned discourse to arrive at the best approximation of truth. They are already convinced of their role as arbiters of truth, and therefore their goal is to further their ideology. In order to further an ideology that does not have much to stand on in terms of scholarly value, facts, reason or proven merit, their goal is to win by force. They will employ sophism on an unprecedented scale, along with a string of logical fallacies, of which the most common tend to be veiled ad hominem supported by pathologizing language.
The term “Gish Gallop” comes from Christian Apologist Duane Gish who used the strategy in debates of attacking with large volumes of arguments and data, to ensure that nobody would be capable to refuting all of it within the time limit. It was a debate strategy based on “A fool can ask more than 10 wise men can answer”. In the two previous sections I outlined the foundation of the SJW gish-gallop, which is to assault an opponent with an arsenal of unfamiliar terms, that both confuse and pathologize the opponent, while obfuscating the point the feminist is attempting to make.
The priority of the narrative over truth ensures that a social justice warrior will not be bound by constraints of intellectual integrity. Rather they will make statements such as “All women have always been oppressed” or “CIS white men have always ruled the world” in order to build the audience into a frenzy of in-group appeals. A great example of this is the quote by Presidential candidate and former secretary of state Hillary Clinton when she said:
Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat.
Is there any doubt in your mind as to what group she was appealing to in this case? Would this have received standing ovations at a conference for women, or speaking to the troops in a warzone? Claims will be made to statistics of dubious quality, and regardless of refutations it will be stated again.
Summary and conclusion
In debating a social justice warrior, you are in a situation much like Caesar was against Pompey, where if he was patient Pompey would have won, as Caesar’s troops were running out of supplies. However, eager to prove himself the greater general Pompey engaged in battle and lost. With an SJW you have two strategies, either ultra-defensive or ultra-offensive. Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos has had great success with the ultra-offensive strategy, where he is not only using facts and logic in a highly effective manner, but also engaging in many of the same techniques social justice warriors use.
What one has to understand is that SJWs use shame, guilt, obligation and fear to force their victims to kowtow. Mr. Yiannopoulos turns the shame attacks on the social justice warrior by focusing strongly on their lack of merit, their lack of logic and their lack of facts, through ridicule. He makes them feel shamed for merely being pseudo-intellectuals, coming up short when it comes to reason and debate ability. He plays on their guilt by pointing out that for people who claim to be defending the weak, they are doing little for marginalized groups in non-western countries. Most of all he plays on their fears, and hits for the soft spots that most people would not out of common decency.
You see, Social Justice Warriors are counting on their opponents to win for them by actually being decent people. An SJW will engage in every single behavior that they accuse their opponents of doing it’s much like an old joke I heard.
“Do you know how you can tell a narcissist is cheating on you?”
“They accuse you of cheating on them.”
It is this fabulous display of psychological projection, because SJWs externalize their own misogyny, their own misandry, their own racism, their own sexism, their own “phobias” which just supports my diagnosis of the entire movement has having borderline personality disorder.
Read part 1: The morals of social justice
Read part 2: The narratives of social justice
Read part 3: The tactics of social justice