Amusing joke and I've run across similar ones (South Park, for one, had two old guys grumbling about how long it took "PC" to run its course last time) but on a more serious note, I wonder how much of it is just the nature of young, relatively wealthy/privileged people to want to "change the world" and find a cause.
I'm a bit past college age these days but in the mid/late 90's when I was at university, there were plenty of "causes" that students took up (myself included) to various degrees and in retrospect, a lot of it came down to the newly-found freedom of adulthood combined with the idealism of youth and the lack of wider awareness that comes with a bit more exposure to the world at large.
I think it's a good thing that young people are able to see some of the real injustice in the world that some of us older folks have learned to accept (or at least take for granted) and have the drive to want to improve things. At the same time, cultural attitudes don't change through force or under threat. Additionally, there's still a bit of that youthful naivete where just because something is a huge deal for you, you may not realize the bigger issues at play or know which "battles" to choose yet.
I'm sure my attitudes will keep evolving over time but just between my college years and 20 years later, I think about how some things seemed so important and unfair back then but I've since found that there are usually bigger issues or at least more subtle and effective ways to address the problems you recognize in ways other than shouting matches or mob-mentality public shaming.
The biggest failure of such people is that their own conduct serves as a terrible advertisement for the sort of worldview they promote. Look at these people: do you see happy, healthy, mindful, compassionate, self-confident, well-adjusted human beings? I don't. I see bitter, spiteful, demanding, insecure, Us-vs-Them types, perpetually searching for the next perceived slight. Are these the sort of people I'm supposed to want to emulate? They are so caught up in making me a good person that they have not made good people of themselves. And everyone suffers for it.
That's actually our biggest hope of getting rid of SJW phenomenon. The underhanded methods they use means also that as they grow, they start to turn on each other. The cancer gets cancer, and dies before it can grow too much. I think the general population will slowly realize that being evil is not the best strategy for making others better people.
The post you replied to described "bitter, spiteful, demanding, insecure, Us-vs-Them types." I think there are people in various leftist movements that can fairly be described in that way. But I also think it's a good description for anyone who describes a desire for social justice as a cancer.
Temporal was referencing what's remembered as the Whale Cancer post [0]. The metaphor is meant to (rather than insult) describe a social dynamic by analogy of a biological mechanism.
Yes, I was referencing that post; the phrasing of "cancer getting cancer" stuck with me. I admit that I might have sprinkled a little bit of hidden insult, because it's hard to filter out the feeling of anger at uncivil behaviour so that it doesn't show up in writing.
But I mean cancer mostly in the same way Scott Alexander used it - uncontrolled growth by "all means necessary", not an insult. Cancer happens when some cells eschew cooperation and start promoting their interests at the cost to everyone else. As it grows in size it grows in complexity, and given that it's made of components who tend to disregard cooperation, Scott argues that instead of self-organizing it tends to develop a cancer of its own, which slows the overall growth. Similarly, if the group gains voice by using every dirty trick in the book and then some because it's most effective, they should not be surprised that - as their movement grows in size - they end up fighting each other at some point.
Here is a good litmus test if someone is hurting the society with the participation in said society - they have seriously written or said the phrase - "I support free speech, but ..."
I hear that phrase more on the left lately than right. Which says a lot ...
And the problem now is that if you say something like that the response will range from being told to "check your privilege" to sensitivity training. You may be told your speech is violently aggressive and creates an unsafe environment.
>Look at these people: do you see happy, healthy, mindful, compassionate, self-confident, well-adjusted human beings? I don't. I see bitter, spiteful, demanding, insecure, Us-vs-Them types, perpetually searching for the next perceived slight.
And do you think that's a random sampling of everyone who believes in similar causes? From where I sit, "the butthurt minority" are such a self-selecting group, and their rage is so completely independent of their actual cause, that they don't constitute evidence for or against any particular idea, cause, or proposition.
I'm a bit past college age these days but in the mid/late 90's when I was at university, there were plenty of "causes" that students took up (myself included) to various degrees and in retrospect, a lot of it came down to the newly-found freedom of adulthood combined with the idealism of youth and the lack of wider awareness that comes with a bit more exposure to the world at large.
I think it's a good thing that young people are able to see some of the real injustice in the world that some of us older folks have learned to accept (or at least take for granted) and have the drive to want to improve things. At the same time, cultural attitudes don't change through force or under threat. Additionally, there's still a bit of that youthful naivete where just because something is a huge deal for you, you may not realize the bigger issues at play or know which "battles" to choose yet.
I'm sure my attitudes will keep evolving over time but just between my college years and 20 years later, I think about how some things seemed so important and unfair back then but I've since found that there are usually bigger issues or at least more subtle and effective ways to address the problems you recognize in ways other than shouting matches or mob-mentality public shaming.