SJWs of the Right

“Hey, our prissy skirt-clutching authoritarian moralism is nothing at all like the prissy skirt-clutching authoritarian moralism of SJW leftists!”

Oh, I’m sure there are differences to be drawn — so long as no one is pretending they extend to (classic Neo-Puritan witch-burner) personality types.

February 9, 2015admin 19 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Discriminations

TAGGED WITH : , , , ,

19 Responses to this entry

  • RorschachRomanov Says:

    I’m wondering what is more the concern- moral authoritarianism simpliciter or the hypocrisy? There is something rather unscrupulously shameless in lamenting ideologically contrawise authoritarianism while oneself practicing it- at least in theory.

    People lament, for example, impingements on free speech, but if democracy really believed in itself, most of us would have been tossed into the gulags long ago.


    Alrenous Reply:

    Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue. Both of us admit the moralizing is wrong, but one of these groups practices it anyway.

    There’s two kinds of these tributes. The first is healthy, the second vicious.
    If a drunkard tells you not to drink, they are a healthy hypocrite. They’re trying to help, even though they’re unable to overcome their own weakness.
    The second kind uses their claims of virtue precisely to spread their vice. These rightist SJWs are like a drunkard telling you they’re not drinking, “Drinking is bad. By the way, this totally unalcoholic beverage,” they slur, “is great and you should have some.”

    As I’ve hopefully made clear, these two kinds are very different. Indeed now I’ve thought about it I’m going to stop using the word ‘hypocrisy’ for either, it’s unavoidably equivocation.

    Futilely, I’ll add that the second kind of lie is essentially part of the human condition and trying to eliminate it would have almost no impact. To cut down on the damage, It’s necessary to attack the gulls who are fooled by it instead.


    Garr Reply:

    “moralizing is wrong” … har har har.


    admin Reply:

    If you express dissent in a way that sounds like a jackass, don’t be surprised if you get binned.

    Garr Reply:

    Sorry — “heh heh heh.”

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    it’s way too detailed, but here is the first in a series of essays about virtuous and vicious hypocrsy that I enjoyed.


    Alrenous Reply:

    A hit tip for you, sir. It was thought provoking.

    Posted on February 9th, 2015 at 7:50 am Reply | Quote
  • SJWs of the Right | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on February 9th, 2015 at 10:05 am Reply | Quote
  • Garr Says:

    Yup, Cromwell was a prissy fag.


    Posted on February 9th, 2015 at 10:44 am Reply | Quote
  • Artxell Knaphni Says:


    “If you express dissent in a way that sounds like a jackass, don’t be surprised if you get binned.”

    Is the practice of “binning” jackasses, or jackass-soundalikes, immoral?
    justice for jackasses!
    “jackass-justice warriors” unite!

    Binning? This gives a whole new cast to Foucault’s ” You must refuse what you are!” lol


    admin Reply:

    An attack on cheap, vacuous moralism is not a dismissal of goodness. As you well know, good government is the Law here.


    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    “An attack on cheap, vacuous moralism is not a dismissal of goodness. As you well know, good government is the Law here.”

    I can agree with that. But it kind of defers the issues: what is “cheap, vacuous moralism”, and “good government”, exactly?
    Aside from obvious issues of localisation and relativity, different contexts can have different solutions: there is the problem of varying degrees of epistemological competence and access, as these are distributed over a society. Real solutions are often complex, context-sensitive rationales difficult to reduce to populist sound-bites. As such specialisation involves arduous commitment, there is a reluctance to abandon these theoretical structures of insight, especially if they have strong explanatory power. So, whether in a populist democracy, or in right-wing, conservative subsets of the same, there is a communication issue. Nobody really knows what’s going on, at every level. If they attempt to know, the variables requiring configuration escalate, exponentially, especially when there are disputes over anything.
    So, really, because the general discursive field of public interaction is configured by the genre of ‘populist sound-bitery’, expressions of “cheap, vacuous moralism” are all that is left. But such expressions are symptomatic of something else, and it would be too easy to weave yet more politicised and inadequate, populist explanations for them.
    I don’t know that “good government” is a possibility, any more. Technically, it’s impossible, considering those requiring governance, comprise fundamentally opposed groups. So, any governance of such necessitates a kind of Hegelian balancing synthesis of contraries, or an Anthony Giddens type of approach, forget what that is, but it’s relevant.
    I’m beginning to think your “city-state” idea might be useful, but not in the way you’re conceiving it. I was thinking about various futurological possibilities recently, in discussions, and realised the ‘city-state’, or even ‘global village(s)’, are viable now, or very soon.


    Chuck Reply:

    For Williamson, the “right” is better because it’s more tolerant (i.e., less coercive on moral issues). This is a quintessentially liberal position — what leftists strategically argued in opposition to traditional right moralizing. Williamson et al. problematically take this as a principled, not rhetorical, stance. A true rightist position would attack leftist morality as such. Of course, leftism has percolated so into the Western soul that to attack unqualified equality seems contrary to order. Aristotle’s definition of injustice — treating unequals equally — is now barbaros.


    Posted on February 9th, 2015 at 11:28 am Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:


    1] Are you denouncing Williamson? For what?
    Well I’ll denounce him. For a Bald man you’d think his balls had dropped.

    2] From NRO –“Rather, the fight between Right and Left is about coercion.”

    Yes NRO Politics is about Power, and the Fags/Hags/Crooks/Fag Hags of the Left GET IT, and you actually ARE SHOCKED to discover this is going on.


    Izak Reply:

    If we’re going to denounce Williamson, it should be because he cares deeply about Lena Dunham and spends hours and hours researching what she does.


    admin Reply:

    I’m not denouncing Williamson, I’m linking his denunciation of leftist coercive moralism.


    vxxc2014 Reply:

    OK thanks. I actually couldn’t quite tell.


    Posted on February 9th, 2015 at 4:36 pm Reply | Quote
  • CuiPertinebit Says:

    Neocon moralizing IS leftist moralizing.


    Posted on February 9th, 2015 at 5:34 pm Reply | Quote
  • pseudo-chrysostom Says:

    >“Hey, our prissy skirt-clutching authoritarian moralism is nothing at all like the prissy skirt-clutching authoritarian moralism of SJW leftists!”

    and they are right.

    really, pointing out leftist contradictions and hypocrisy is basic, entry level conservatism. ‘they say they are for freedom and equality, but how can that be true when such and such results in the opposite!”

    isint this a familiar spiel to everyone here? you should recognize it; both sides speaking in the same language, making the same rough ideals their object.

    the take away should be obvious then; maybe the real problem is that authoritarianism (read, ‘coercion’ in all its convenient definitions) isint exactly a problem itself (nor is it avoidable). its a problem for the left because A. they arnt *explicitly* honest about it (though reading between the lines is easy, hence entry level conservatism), and more simply, B. they arnt authoritarian about the right stuff (both cause of and consequence of A).

    hummm, it is often said that demographic is destiny, cladistics are the case, modes of thought among a people change window dressing over time but oft remain essentially the same. i hope im not the only one who sees the irony then, where, after being told anglo-saxons are the root of modern evil, we are treated to the spectacle of a coterie of anglo-saxons assured they have a solution.

    keep a salt shaker handy admin.


    Posted on March 7th, 2015 at 7:24 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment