Cynical Theory Book Review: The Social Justice Movement is Toxic for Society and How to Respond To SocJus

Joined
Nov 5, 2014
Messages
463
Likes
299
Points
1
Hey Buso, I'm reading a book that I think you'd be interested in. It's Cynical Theory by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.

Oftentimes on this forum, people pose questions such as "people are complaining to a business or to my business or about an industry or about my industry for some reasons regarding race, gender, or some other social issue, how should I respond or what's your view?" The reply ranges from "do not resist the complainer and let them cry themselves to sleep" to "incite more anger so that you can gain publicity." I don't agree with this. Neither would Pluckrose and Lindsay and let me explain and it'll be in your best interest to read this post and understand this argument too.

Pluckrose and Lindsay's argument is much different than these replies and they're critical of SocJus too. Learning about Pluckrose and Lindsay's argument would change your view about SocJus, how to evaluate their complaints, and what to do with regards to their complaints. The hope is that your business operation improves because of it.

The gist of their argument is that the social justice movement is a system of secular intolerance, with it's own meaning for everyday words, which erodes democracy, as it creates two groups, who speak the same language, but have totally different meanings for the same words. This difference in meaning prevents the two groups from reaching a compromise, solution, or resolution. For the social justice side, power is a zero-sum game and they won't stop until their goals are achieved. For the other side, because of the rhetoric of social justice, they're also in a position of a zero-sum game and must also not stop until their goals are achieved. This, therefore, undermines democracy, as the two sides do not have a common language to build a resolution with.

How does this have to do with business? The social justice movement does act against businesses and individuals whom it views as against its cause. This is called "cancel culture" or "cancelling" a person or group or company. Cancelling is a form of shunning, ignoring, rejection, and neglect. To go against SocJus is to risk being shamed, shunned, and boycotted. To go with it is to lose individuality, if you don't really believe in it.

What is a business owner to do? First, we must examine how SocJus works before we can act. SocJus is about perceived societal injustices. It separates the world into two groups, an identity group with power and an identity group without power. The one with power is deemed to be oppressing the one without power and is therefore viewed as bad. The one without power is deemed to be oppressed and, therefore, being freed from the oppression would be viewed as good.

SocJus argues that language is shaped by those in power and what's deemed as knowledge by that group is shaped by those in power, to reinforce their social hierarchy and power structure of that group. Therefore, SocJus argues that the oppressed group should have their own language, which reinforces a different power structure, one of their own creation. This is the problem that Pluckrose and Linsay talked about, as it ruins a common language between the oppressed group and the power group.

Therefore, what should a business owner do when facing someone from SocJus? The answer is simple. Calm down and listen to the complainer. Acknowledge their presence, acknowledge their complaint, and make a good faith effort to take their perspective into consideration.

By adding their complaint into your knowledge, where "your" is either you personally or on behalf of the company that you're acting for, it recognizes the complaint within the perceived dominant group's sphere of knowledge, which would prevent the need for the opposed group from acting against or a perceived member of the dominant group. Within the SocJus circle, remaining silent is viewed as accepting the power group's social structure and, therefore, opposing the oppressed group; however, acknowledging the complaint does not mean that you're a member of SocJus. It just means that you stand by them and have a similar interest and concern for the social inequality that they're advocating for. The stance says that you truly do hope that there would be a fairer society one day, one where people are in harmony with each other, where people live happy lives. Doing so makes it so that you recognize that there is social injustice today, that society is not fair for everyone, and that there are oppressed groups. Not doing so means that you're rejecting the idea of the existence of oppressed groups and in doing so, are oppressing the oppressed group.

However, the Social Justice Movement is not all social justice movements. It is only one way towards a fairer society. You don't have to join their cause to be for their cause. You can simply state that you're with them and have a different route to that aim. The SocJus member might question this, but if you share your personal experience of how you came to this conclusion and how you're well intended, they'll listen as personal experience is a form of knowledge in SocJus.

So, there you go. If you're ever in the situation where you have thousands of angry protesters demonstrating against your business online and offline, you've gone too far and need to turn back! Taking heed of this advice now would prevent that from happening. It starts with listening to SocJus when they're just one or two individuals, acknowledging their complaint, and sharing your story with them, if it is called for. SocJus is about personal narratives and allowing oppressed groups to be freed of their oppression, from whatever system that they happened to be oppressed by. Doing this will also allow society to function, as the mechanisms of SocJus actually hinders democracy.
 

Stones

BuSo Pro
Joined
Nov 3, 2018
Messages
120
Likes
62
Points
0
You seem to be encouraging people to accept the insane demands of those who have been propagandised to believe that being a victim is a virtue.

That is not a good idea.

"...With a whimper, not a bang."
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 22, 2020
Messages
21
Likes
5
Points
0
The problem with the solution offered by this book is that it seems, based on your summary, to accept the idea that these people are arguing with good faith. We all know they're being disingenuous. You give them the first inch and then they seek the next mile. You never give quarter to oppressive radicals.
 

EyesExist

White Hat Genius
BuSo Pro
Joined
Nov 7, 2016
Messages
1,079
Likes
332
Points
2
Acting against people you view as foolish is pointless is my only life motto.

Life is perfect as is.

IF you're of value in life, realize it and dont be afraid to pull yourself away from any equation that has your 'variable' wrongly valued.

And the beauty of technology, i can live away from people and in peace.

I find most people weird to connect with because my brain is wired to think about everything logically and how to create solutions and build to the next level. I can find value in anything, even someone telling me something is wrong. However, if I know i'm right, i'll 'ok' it but will move on to the next valuable situation for my time.

but that 'cancel culture' and all that.. Yeah. It's moronic to me. People today are hyping themselves to hate whoever achieved something imo . People who made pitiful decisions in life, usually looking for instant gratification, realistically hate their mature life and use all sorts of 'covers' for it. The internet has allowed these types of people to make powerful of the popular choice, which is socially influenced loser decisions.

Just an opinion. Nobody's perfect but most people choose to continue in a Hamster on Wheel lifestyle, recycling the same mistakes.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 5, 2014
Messages
463
Likes
299
Points
1
You seem to be encouraging people to accept the insane demands of those who have been propagandised to believe that being a victim is a virtue.

That is not a good idea.

"...With a whimper, not a bang."
I'm not encouraging it. I just don't want these people, who problematize people with power, to problematize my business or me personally.

I can't prove this but, we have like a 10% refund rate, but a 4.5 star review from XX,XXX customers. I'm sure the 4.5 star review from XX,XXX customers does more for our bottom line than the 10% refund rate.

Like the saying goes, "if you pay peanuts, you'll get a monkey." It's about how, if you pay low wages, you'll only get low skilled workers. That's a headache in itself. Similarly, I'm sure that being a tight fisted, greedy capitalist would get negative results in today's social atmosphere. Kindness, generosity, and goodwill goes a long way, especially if everyone else is terrible.
The problem with the solution offered by this book is that it seems, based on your summary, to accept the idea that these people are arguing with good faith. We all know they're being disingenuous. You give them the first inch and then they seek the next mile. You never give quarter to oppressive radicals.
No, the solution I present in the original post is my own. The authors argue for death to Critical Theory.

The reason for me to present my solution is because I can only speak for myself and my company. Are there disingenuous people? Yes. However, I would want that disingenuous customer out of here and in good spirits. An angry customer would cause more BS than what it's worth. A full refund, an apology (even if it's not merited), and doing whatever it takes to make it right to the customer, in their eyes, is an attitude that prevents negative reviews, backlash, and tons of BS that a bad reputation carries.

I'm not stating this opinion because it's some original opinion of mine. I was doubtful of this position when I first heard it but the customer service manager whom I worked with, who came from Amazon, propositioned for this policy. It has resulted in a lot of negative reviews turning into 5 star reviews. It seems stupid to tell Customer Service Agents to help customers with their shopping, even if it means turning them away and to another site, but that mentality really makes for a good customer service experience, which is vital for the company's brand.
Acting against people you view as foolish is pointless is my only life motto.

Life is perfect as is.

IF you're of value in life, realize it and dont be afraid to pull yourself away from any equation that has your 'variable' wrongly valued.

And the beauty of technology, i can live away from people and in peace.

I find most people weird to connect with because my brain is wired to think about everything logically and how to create solutions and build to the next level. I can find value in anything, even someone telling me something is wrong. However, if I know i'm right, i'll 'ok' it but will move on to the next valuable situation for my time.

but that 'cancel culture' and all that.. Yeah. It's moronic to me. People today are hyping themselves to hate whoever achieved something imo . People who made pitiful decisions in life, usually looking for instant gratification, realistically hate their mature life and use all sorts of 'covers' for it. The internet has allowed these types of people to make powerful of the popular choice, which is socially influenced loser decisions.

Just an opinion. Nobody's perfect but most people choose to continue in a Hamster on Wheel lifestyle, recycling the same mistakes.
I agree that cancel culture is moronic. The guide is for people who have B2C companies or people who are public figures. I agree in part, that people are responsible for their life decisions and that it's a bitter pill to swallow, to accept personal responsibility for one's state of affairs; but, responsibility is something the vast majority of people do not want to accept. This is especially true for financial responsibility. Politicians know this and target this, knowingly or unknowingly, to further their own aims, while not truly helping out the people.

Knowing that this is the social situation, it'll be in one's best interest to not be the successful person, whom people are envious of. A successful person who is sympathetic and empathetic is better received than one who is not; however, I have a feeling that your company is not a company that interacts with the public.
 
Joined
Jun 24, 2015
Messages
37
Likes
16
Points
0
If everyone knew how to deal with those morons, companies that deal with 'public relationship' would go broke. And the diversify industry would go broke.

Same people that control the protesters are going to stop all that nonsense only if you pay them big time. Perfect example is Starbux drama.
 

EyesExist

White Hat Genius
BuSo Pro
Joined
Nov 7, 2016
Messages
1,079
Likes
332
Points
2
I agree that cancel culture is moronic. The guide is for people who have B2C companies or people who are public figures. I agree in part, that people are responsible for their life decisions and that it's a bitter pill to swallow, to accept personal responsibility for one's state of affairs; but, responsibility is something the vast majority of people do not want to accept. This is especially true for financial responsibility. Politicians know this and target this, knowingly or unknowingly, to further their own aims, while not truly helping out the people.

Knowing that this is the social situation, it'll be in one's best interest to not be the successful person, whom people are envious of. A successful person who is sympathetic and empathetic is better received than one who is not; however, I have a feeling that your company is not a company that interacts with the public.
Yeah. I'd agree to an extent for sure.

I dont keep up with Politicians though.

Trump's end is the first time I've had a President effectme b/c his got the S&P and Cryptos going wild.