About the tactics of "social justice warriors" (SJWs):
“Take all statements by an SJWs about himself as diametrically opposite the truth, and all accusations flung at others to be tacit confessions about himself, their odd and neurotic speech patterns, hypocrisies, and insolent self contradictions fit into a clear pattern, and can be understood.” —John C. Wright
Sir Tim Hunt apologized for his remarks almost immediately. So did James Watson. So did Brandon Eich. But SJWs don't seek apologies for the same reason normal people do. They don't demand apologies in order to see that the individual who has offended them admits that he has committed an offense, regrets having done so, and will seek to avoid doing so again in the future. The reason SJWs demand apologies is in order to establish that the act they have deemed an offense is publicly recognized as an offense by the offender. The demand for an apology has nothing whatsoever to do with the offender. It is focused on the SJW's need to prove that the violation of the Narrative involved is publicly accepted as a real and legitimate offense for which punishment is merited. And once the apology is duly delivered by the accused, who is usually bewildered at the accusation and in a state of shock at the unexpected social pressure he faces, it is promptly rejected because it is not the action, but the actor, that is the real target. Keep in mind that it is not in the interests of the SJWs to accept the apology anyhow, because if the action that violated the Narrative can be forgiven, that will limit its utility to use against others who reject the Narrative in the future. What use is it to go through the whole process of publicly crucifying a Nobel Prize winner if you're only going to let him off the cross when he says he is sorry? After all, Voltaire didn't observe that the Royal Navy found it necessary to criticize an admiral from time to time to encourage the others, he observed that the British found it necessary to kill one. The ultimate purpose of an SJW attack is not to destroy the individual attacked, but rather to make an example of him that will dissuade others from violating the SJW Narrative in a similar fashion. And that is why it is absolutely and utterly futile for the target of an SJW attack to apologize for whatever offense he is said to have caused.
Consider the sequence of events in three of the most significant SJW lynchings in recent years. In each case, the sequence is the same.
1. SJWs attack a statement or action by the target. 2. The target apologizes in the hope of resolving the situation. 3. The apology is deemed to be insufficient or irrelevant in some way, and the social pressure actually increases. 4. The target is destroyed.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2018-03-24 07:09 pm (UTC)“Take all statements by an SJWs about himself as diametrically opposite the truth, and
all accusations flung at others to be tacit confessions about himself, their odd and
neurotic speech patterns, hypocrisies, and insolent self contradictions fit into a clear
pattern, and can be understood.”
—John C. Wright
Cited from: Vox Day, "SJWs always double down" (2017)
---
Sir Tim Hunt apologized for his remarks almost immediately. So did James Watson. So did Brandon Eich. But SJWs don't seek apologies for the same reason normal people do. They don't demand apologies in order to see that the individual who has offended them admits that he has committed an offense, regrets having done so, and will seek to avoid doing so again in the future.
The reason SJWs demand apologies is in order to establish that the act they have deemed an offense is publicly recognized as an offense by the offender. The demand for an apology has nothing whatsoever to do with the offender. It is focused on the SJW's need to prove that the violation of the Narrative involved is publicly accepted as a real and legitimate offense for which punishment is merited. And once the apology is duly delivered by the accused, who is usually bewildered at the accusation and in a state of shock at the unexpected social pressure he faces, it is promptly rejected because it is not the action, but the actor, that is the real target.
Keep in mind that it is not in the interests of the SJWs to accept the apology anyhow, because if the action that violated the Narrative can be forgiven, that will limit its utility to use against others who reject the Narrative in the future. What use is it to go through the whole process of publicly crucifying a Nobel Prize winner if you're only going to let him off the cross when he says he is sorry? After all, Voltaire didn't observe that the Royal Navy found it necessary to criticize an admiral from time to time to encourage the others, he observed that the British found it necessary to kill one.
The ultimate purpose of an SJW attack is not to destroy the individual attacked, but rather to make an example of him that will dissuade others from violating the SJW Narrative in a similar fashion. And that is why it is absolutely and utterly futile for the target of an SJW attack to apologize for whatever offense he is said to have caused.
Consider the sequence of events in three of the most significant SJW lynchings in recent years. In each case, the sequence is the same.
1. SJWs attack a statement or action by the target.
2. The target apologizes in the hope of resolving the situation.
3. The apology is deemed to be insufficient or irrelevant in some way, and the social pressure actually increases.
4. The target is destroyed.