No, I didn't, for the simple reason that I don't argue that it is an intent. I would argue it can be a
result because of the willingness to subordinate individual liberty in groups that have benefitted from structural power and intellectual diversity in order to benefit sacrilized victim groups, but I would say that (generally) the SJW/Very Liberal types are blind to that.
In what way does wanting to end systemic discrimination mean that we subordinate the liberty of the people who happen to belong to the less-discriminated against group?
Hm. Well, let's see. Have we seen
increased willingness and
efforts to tamp down on or punish free speech that is deemed
offensive or hurtful to victim groups? How about a willingness to override
property rights and freedom of conscience when their exercise produces results that
SJW's find harmful to victim groups? When these are pointed out, is the response from the SJW/Very-Liberal community a thoughtful recognition that they may have overstepped, or is it a mocking of the notion that members of groups that have benefited from structural power are having their rights/freedoms/privileges subordinated combined with claims that there can be no such thing as bigotry against them, because bigotry is systemic, not individual?
A
couple of
liberals have pointed this out:
Contemporary liberals increasingly think and talk like a class of self-satisfied commissars enforcing a comprehensive, uniformly secular vision of the human good. The idea that someone, somewhere might devote her life to an alternative vision of the good — one that clashes in some respects with liberalism's moral creed — is increasingly intolerable.
But it’s not a very popular opinion, because it would require SJW’s to consider whether or not they are violating their own Harm/Care foundation when they seek to defend it (nobody, really, likes to sit and honestly reflect on whether or not they are unintentionally harming others).
And actually, whatever grain-of-sand worth of truth there may be to this, it actually becomes less and less true the more progressive of a person you're talking to. You've got this completely in reverse.
In fact, the opposite of your claim is true.
The more progressive a person becomes, the more they lean on Harm/Care and a particular notion of Fairness (based in equitability rather than proportionality) to the exclusion of all other values.
By the time you get to someone like me, I'm talking about the kyriarchy, which we all live under, and which I think systemically degrades the quality and value of human life, even of the people at the top of it.
:shrug: While I agree, so? You are holding up the purity of how you feel about your motives as a counter-example of the consequences of coercive applications of SJW value sets. That’s like saying that I love God and want to do as much good as I can in the world, and so you should ignore that occasionally this seems to involve executing homosexuals. You are trying to use "I am trying to be a good person and fight injustice" as "Therefore my actions do not result in unintended consequences".
Just because you can't envision any possible way to stop discriminating against others
Except that SJW’ism isn’t simply about not discriminating against others one’s self. It’s about
pushing others to stop engaging in what one perceives of as discrimination. SJW’ism doesn’t interact with others simply through good examples, but also via varying levels of coercion.
