Here is an interesting personal account of a someone who was a Social Justice Warrior but then escaped (while still remaining a leftist social democrat). Sample:
This particular brand of politics begins with good intentions and noble causes, but metastasizes into a nightmare. In general, the activists involved are the nicest, most conscientious people you could hope to know. But at some point, they took a wrong turn, and their devotion to social justice led them down a dark path. Having been on both sides of the glass, I think I can bring some painful but necessary truth to light. …
There is something dark and vaguely cultish about this particular brand of politics. I’ve thought a lot about what exactly that is. I’ve pinned down four core features that make it so disturbing: dogmatism, groupthink, a crusader mentality, and anti-intellectualism. I’ll go into detail about each one of these. The following is as much a confession as it is an admonishment. I will not mention a single sin that I have not been fully and damnably guilty of in my time.
P.S. For some comic relief look at the top left corner of the linked webpage. There is what looks to be the paper’s byline—“ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG SINCE 1911”—and right underneath it there is a more recent notice: “THE MCGILL DAILY IS LOCATED ON UNCEDED KANIEN’KEHÁ:KA TERRITORY”.
In general, the activists involved are the nicest, most conscientious people you could hope to know. But at some point, they took a wrong turn, and their devotion to social justice led them down a dark path.
Are they still purported to be the “nicest, most conscientious people you could hope to know” after “they took a wrong turn”?
This particular brand of politics begins with good intentions
Could you be more explicit about what’s funny here?
(I’m pretty sure “Absolutely nothing wrong since 1911” is meant to be funny and is not at all a serious claim to have committed no mistakes or misdeeds in a century.)
What I find funny is the juxtaposition of two elements. One element is clearly a playful light-natured wink-wink claim of “Oh, no, we certainly haven’t been up to no good, how could you possibly think that”. It implies both some misdeeds and not taking oneself very seriously.
The other element is dead serious, expresses guilt and wish for atonement, and would probably find humour on the topic to be inappropriate and in bad taste.
playful light-hearted wink-wink [...] dead serious, expresses guilt [...]
Aha, gotcha. My guess at what you had in mind was some way off base. Thanks.
(I happen not to find it so funny, but if there’s one thing less fun than explaining a joke it’s explaining why a joke doesn’t work for you so I’ll leave it there :-).)
Here is an interesting personal account of a someone who was a Social Justice Warrior but then escaped (while still remaining a leftist social democrat). Sample:
P.S. For some comic relief look at the top left corner of the linked webpage. There is what looks to be the paper’s byline—“ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG SINCE 1911”—and right underneath it there is a more recent notice: “THE MCGILL DAILY IS LOCATED ON UNCEDED KANIEN’KEHÁ:KA TERRITORY”.
Are they still purported to be the “nicest, most conscientious people you could hope to know” after “they took a wrong turn”?
Does it? What evidence do we have for that?
The link is to an account by an “escapee” from SJ. As such, it’s a personal account, it does not claim to be an “objective” or an outside view.
Could you be more explicit about what’s funny here?
(I’m pretty sure “Absolutely nothing wrong since 1911” is meant to be funny and is not at all a serious claim to have committed no mistakes or misdeeds in a century.)
Oh dear, explaining jokes...
What I find funny is the juxtaposition of two elements. One element is clearly a playful light-natured wink-wink claim of “Oh, no, we certainly haven’t been up to no good, how could you possibly think that”. It implies both some misdeeds and not taking oneself very seriously.
The other element is dead serious, expresses guilt and wish for atonement, and would probably find humour on the topic to be inappropriate and in bad taste.
I like how these two elements stand together.
Yeah, I know. Sorry!
Aha, gotcha. My guess at what you had in mind was some way off base. Thanks.
(I happen not to find it so funny, but if there’s one thing less fun than explaining a joke it’s explaining why a joke doesn’t work for you so I’ll leave it there :-).)