I’m going to preface this by saying I much prefer arguing with others on the left (or even the middle) than trying to explain global warming to someone on the right whose entire worldview is anchored in an anti-intellectual, unscientific, illogical, fear-based, bigotted, tribalistic perspective on the world.
Don’t get me wrong; there is value to exposing the utter irrationality and moral bankruptcy of the right, as some young undecided onlooker forming his or her ideas about the world may see it and realize how incorrect the right is about a great many things, but I much prefer spending my time hammering out nuances within the left and finding ways for us to overcome our own biases, shake free from our own fuzzy logic, and tear down our own misunderstandings.
We are the ones tasked with fighting for social justice, but if some people are not getting justice, we have failed, because the right certainly isn’t going to step in and help them out. Justice for all means hearing all voices and uncovering all injustices. To that end:
The thing about topics that live in the realm of nuance and philosophy is that such topics have no clear answers. Polite disagreement should be able to flourish in such a realm. CSJWs do not understand how to engage abstract arguments — there is always a right answer and a wrong answer, which leaves no room for polite disagreement and completely eliminates broad ranging conversation about ideas.
This is essentially a blanket straw man by omission. What are these arguments in question, and what are the binary truths the CSJWs are claiming exist that you are claiming are gray areas with room for polite disagreement? I realize this could be a list a mile long, but a few examples could illuminate precisely what it is you’re talking about.
When a group (or individual) truly seeks to explain something to a listening audience who are not yet the in-group but are sympathetic, curious, and ripe for conversion; there is no excuse for using the same hostile and demeaning snark that you use in the in-group. So, if you’re about to post about an issue, ask yourself: am I sharing this for the people who already know? Or for the people who don’t? And proceed accordingly, especially in the comments section.
This seems like tone policing. It also rests on the assumption that both parties agree that the audience is sympathetic, curious, and ripe for conversion. In many cases, the audience may see itself as that way but, in truth, be deeply invested in oppressive paradigms. This is especially common in cases of subtle white supremacy that white people — even those with the best of intentions — cannot detect.
This is another example of a term that has lost its meaning because it is being used in the wrong contexts, and is often pitted against art. Book burning and art censorship being discussed among CSJWs reminds us that political tendencies live in a circle, not a straight line, and indeed, the further Left you get, the closer you are to the Far Right.
I’m not sure how you arrive at the idea that the further left you are, the closer you are to the far right. That reads to me as a hyperbolic argument aimed at marginalizing the far left, to try to shame them toward the center. I don’t think any one- or two-dimensional geometric representation is adequate to describe politics, but that’s just my opinion. Each belief we have lies somewhere on a spectrum, and we have countless beliefs. Given that you are an advocate of explaining the why behind your thesis, I’m open to hearing why you think the circle analogy is an accurate representation of the political spectrum.
It astounds me how often people are unable to let minor differences regarding the solutions go, when they agree with so much else concerning the problems. I end friendships with otherwise-liked people when they cannot disagree peacefully, seem to be baiting or enjoying drama, or otherwise insist on rudely dominating the other person’s time.
What is or isn’t minor is subjective, as is how much of a roadblock to meaningful change it is perceived to be. That said, you’re obviously welcome to manage your time however you see fit, and I am all for people wasting as little time as humanly possible on Facebook. Some people just troll and argue and should be swiftly ignored, but others are passionate and not interested in being given parameters for what constitutes appropriate self-expression by you, me, or anyone else.
My filter bubble is such that I don’t even know anyone who voted for Trump and I like it that way just fine. But I don’t get my news from my bubble, and I actively keep people I disagree with within that bubble of comparative sanity as friends, and appreciate that they stay friends with me.
Trump supporters literally voted for your oppression. More to the point, they voted for the oppression of millions of people. You could make the case that’s worth ending a friendship over. At the very least, it’s good to know whose principles allow them to do something like that.