Official blog of GABRIEL WAINIO-THEBERGE
Representative of THE WORLD
>My privilege may make me more comfortable engaging with Tumblr “social justice” discourse, not less.
>Seeing as I have like ALL the privilege, I’m only writing this because people with less privilege than me have recently been critiquing the “Tumblr social justice” memeplex, specifically from their position of disprivilege. These are people who seem to know the system quite well, as opposed to the odd “female/black/gay equalist/real justice blogger” or whatever.
>”Tumblr social justice” as I’ve experienced it is one side of a weird split in the “radical” left between economic and environmental issues on one hand and race, gender and other social issues on the other. Groups like Adbusters take hardline stances on the environment, the economy and class while being incredibly problematic (the "post-autistic movement"); “SJW” will often take Ontario NDP-esque “environmentalists are elitists” positions borrowed from the right, and just ignore class for whatever reason.
>Virtually the only people on the left committed to a principled investigation of all these topics are Marxists. I don’t know how to feel about this.
>”SJW” is a functionally valid term. Not every person from an oppressed position in society who talks about their oppression on the internet does so using the common terminology or principles (“x”-ism = power + privilege, etc.) identified with “SJW”. On the other hand, at this point it’s clearly loaded and problematic.
>It doesn’t seem fair that the movement commonly known as “social justice” should need a label, but the way a lot of people tend to identify their particular views and opinions with entire demographics, or the entire range of non-bigoted thought, often seems unhelpful.
>There is no strict set of rules. Everybody tries to act as if there is one which is a noble project. Everybody also tries to acknowledge their own hypocrisy which is also noble, but sometimes they don’t succeed. For example re: cultural appropriation, I’ve never seen a definition of this applied consistently. White people using AAVE is appropriative but white people rapping rarely is. Wearing a culture’s clothes is always appropriative but making and selling their food rarely is. Being Buddhist is appropriative even though it’s a soteriological religion that makes universal claims, Drawing, cosplaying or being obsessed with anime is only appropriation in a couple of specific forms that are “OK” to look down upon - some big-name “SJW’s” are worse weebs than me (e.g. fireworkcomic draws left-to-right manga not set in Japan where everyone still has Japanese names for some reason). It’s one thing when people critique problematic things and admit that they participate in others, but another when the things people say make you an “objectively terrible person” are not necessarily worse than the things they do. Which seems to happen often.
>This may be unavoidable at some level, but a lot of these contradictions seem like problems it could benefit the movement to look at and at least try to solve, more for its own peace of mind than in the interest of an abstract “coherence”. Which it might be easier to do if the movement/opinions within it could be treated as such - as an often highly abstract attempt to represent and deal with a set of underlying problems in society - rather than ~basic human decency~ or a set of obvious things that everyone should know by default.
>People seem more interested in letting the community check everyone’s privilege for everyone else than in checking their own privilege relative to each other.
>This may have to do with the “whatever reason” people ignore class - e.g. class privilege is the one shared by maybe the largest slice of the “social justice” community
Quand vous étiez dans le noir
est-ce que vous buvez l’ADN
spirale, de pierre et sous la lumière noire,
ou aviez-vous besoin du froid cathédrale avec tout
juste pour durer la nuit
So, I just discovered Social Justice Wario through people being mad about him in this post
which strikes me as odd because from what I’ve seen of him since he’s easily one of the best social justice bloggers out there, and reminds me of my idol #based Film Crit Hulk in terms of adopting a pop cultural persona + being able to explain things incredibly well
and when I looked through their tag it seems that like with Anita Sarkeesian people are literally just making up reasons to be outraged
so I just wanted to clear up at least one thing:
like fifty percent of SJW’s tag right now is people outraged about how he supposedly said something to the effect that “it doesn’t matter if you get bullied if you’re part of an oppressed group”
Here is what Wario actually said:
He’s not talking about “being bullied for race, weight, class, clothes, interests, romance [or] looks”. He’s talking about getting ribbed about your privilege on a social media website. The context of this whole “don’t bully straight people” theme he’s addressing is internet social justice drama; legitimately no-one’s ever felt the need to bring it up anywhere else. If it’s not clear enough in Wario’s original post he reblogs another post that makes the context he’s talking about really obvious:
Yes, critics, everything that you guys are bringing up/think he’s bringing up - getting pushed into a locker every day all through high school, etc. - is a cycle and pattern of abuse, almost certainly legitimate, and almost certainly also had nothing to do with your being white/male/cis/straight. People claim to be “bullied” for those identities when people get mad at them on the internet, but that, Wario is quite reasonably saying, almost never goes as far as real bullying.
Also, I don’t ship Social Justice Wario and PinkiePony. I black!ship Social Justice Wario and Real Justice Waluigi because they’re designed in opposition to each other (or one is) and both are among the best of their respective kinds of blog and it’s really remarkable, although I disagree with way more of RJW’s opinions. (Mad props to them for linking to real charities and shit like every other post though.) Like if SJW took notice of RJW’s existence, which I don’t know if he has, it could be like a perfect Naruto/Sasuke rivalry that would happen to elevate the discourse.
The history of environmentalism is littered with Malthusianism, ecological determinism, biological essentialism, and neocolonial conservationism. Left skepticism of — or perhaps more accurately, indifference to — engagement with ecological politics is certainly understandable. But we’re not talking about preserving an idealized concept of pristine, untouched nature — we’re talking about the world we choose to make, and the world we’ll have to live in.
Green dominates the environmental landscape, from the light greenwash of “sustainable lifestyles” to the dark green of deep ecologists. But environmentalism is also black lung disease in coal-mining towns and toxic brownfields in urban neighborhoods, the iridescent sheen of an oil spill and the translucent white of melting polar ice caps.
And so I cringe a bit at the term ecosocialism — it’s too earth-toned. What we need is a cyborg socialism that points not to the primacy of ecology, but to the integration of natural and social, organic and industrial, ecological and technological; that recognizes human transformations of the natural world without simply asserting domination over it.Jacobin, Toward Cyborg Socialism (x)
Jacobin magazine has the best coverage on environmental issues.