As if we required further proof of the fragility and moribundity of progressive thought, consider that just one stylish conservative has invaded American academia, wielding nothing but words, and made thousands of SJWs literally lose their minds.
In courts of law, we take pity on the insane and defend them accordingly.
More interesting is the calculated resignation of a social justice professor (no one teaches “sociology”), reacting to the bum-rushing of Milo at DePaul University.
Is she appalled at Milo’s aggressors? No, she’s outraged that a conservative was allowed to speak. Let’s skim through this pathetic academic’s obtuse resignation
So, it’s “hypocritical” to “promote diversity” without punishing diversity of opinion? What’s going on here??
It’s simple: American academia is a philosophical pretzel locked inside of a logical box of its own creation. Social justice refutes itself, and any dissent whatsoever calls attention to this fact.
Observe that the first “argument” that she has ever presented to this person, her boss, is her biological composition – her gender and racial identity. The rest is a tangled mess of context-dropping, unfinished concepts and vacuous verbosity.
The defining assumption of social justice, which is actually a non-sequitur, is a combination of two premises: a) all points of view are equally valid, and b) female-minority-[other claim to oppressed status] points of view are more equal than others.
You can’t cite alternative points of view as a justification for throwing moral principles – like “so-called free speech rooted in market ideology” – out the window, and then whine and moralize about the emergence of alternative points of view.
Any professor worth her salt would relish the chance to debate a representative from the other side. It is not our “racist system” that needs to be exploded, but our closed-minded academic Establishment.
Relativism always descends into totalitarianism because it’s an internal contradiction. The starting premise, “All points of view are equally valid,” naturally transmutes into “It is wrong to declare that all points of view are not equally valid.”
Once this switch happens, it’s easy to accept as an axiom that “Oppressed points of view are most valid!” – and finally – “Anyone who disagrees with oppressed points of view is an asshole who deserves to die!”
Hence, the irresistible (and according to NYMag, understandable) urge on the left to tweet #KillAllWhiteMen.
Such is the process by which carefree hippies have evolved into secular evangelicals known as SJWs. I’d be interested to see how many of them inherited at least a few genes from the most humorless 18th century Protestant ministers.
Regardless, there is an a priori logical relation between moral wrongs and punishment. It is proof of the existence of moral logic, which is ineluctable – it is built into our language, just as evolution built moral emotions into our brains.
As arbitrary combinations of vowels and consonants, all words may be social constructs – but this does not meant that their referents are illusions. When you pervert the meaning of a word, such as “justice,” it’s only a matter of time before the logical consequences of this perversion come back to bite you in the ass.
Ada’s resignation is proof that the mere existence of an alternative point of view – in this case, the re-valorization of cultural libertarianism – is enough to explode the “theory” of social justice built on moral relativism.
This is why she’d rather resign than debate.