Hacker News Reader

Comment by TheLarch | Hacker News Reader

When I hear neologisms from the radical left or right this is the first thing that comes to mind. I don't take it as a writing style guide, rather as a guide to spotting tyranny.

The neologisms from FOX and social justice warriors are politics of language.

View on HN

You know Orwell himself was a fairly radical leftist, at least in his youth? He fought in a Trotskyite group in the Spanish Civil War.

People read Animal Farm's denunciations of the founding of the USSR and confuse his anti-Soviet stance with an anti-socialist stance. He was disillusioned with the behavior of the Russian communists during the Spanish Civil War, which really turned him against them.

(The anti-fascist coalition was broadly anarchist, with a smattering of foreign, communist, socialist and other forces. Despite being <5% of the total coalition, the Russian communist government refused to provide material aid unless their forces were put in charge, which the coalition declined. Since the western governments (Britain, France, US) refused to help at all, the anti-fascist forces had no support, and were overwhelmed by Franco, ushering in decades of fascism in Spain.)

Interesting, thank you. However I did not intend to condemn all radical politics. Rather my point was that the promulgation of any political views by foisting a sympathetic vocabulary onto the public is tyrannical. Are there any political ideas that require a new vocabulary? I don't know.

> Rather my point was that the promulgation of any political views by foisting a sympathetic vocabulary onto the public is tyrannical.

but the examples you gave of political views were "Far Left" "Fox News" "Social Justice Warriors" whereas George Orwell would be concerned about how the seemingly staid mainstream's use of political language. 'smart bombs' 'neutralize target' 'pacification [of Vietnam]' etc are all vocabulary promulgated by establishment politicians and mainstream newspapers and vastly more dangerous than what "social justice warriors" try to foist.

You're right in that the mainstream is guilty as well. I see SJWs as attempting to suppress free speech however, which I perceive as unambiguously tyrannical.

Do you not see a problem with your rhetoric? "SJW" is something Orwell would take issue with, especially your use of it.

I'm not so sure. "Social justice" often tramples free speech.

Would you care to define what neologisms are used by "social justice warriors"? I've never been able to take that term seriously, and instead use it, somewhat counter to your point, as an indicator that the person who is using it will not be reasonable.

My view is that freedom is the essential right, and that social justice can only follow, not precede it. Here is a clear example of a movement that values its perception of social justice over freedom of speech: https://www.google.com/search?q=university+of+toronto+mra+fi....

Now, is SJW politics of language? Arguably yes.

I'm going to be honest, that seems somewhat naive and poorly thought out. Take both the rule of law and certain laws we have regarding employee rights. In many places, you can't fire someone because you don't like homosexuals and in other places you can't fire people because they have cancer. Both of these are in fact a restriction of freedom to ensure social justice, there by completely contradicting "social justice can only follow freedom". When in our society it is actually the restriction of freedom that allows social justice its place in society (at least in my example) -- and rightly so in my opinion.

I would suggest not using one-off examples that you gave if you're wanting to paint a broader picture, or use it as a basis for a set of foundational principles.

But regardless, I would like an example of what "SJW's" words and statements are being used as thought-terminating cliches in true Orwellian fashion. I'd also like to know why you consider using such terms as "SJW" to be exempt from that (presumably). If "SJW" is politics of language, and you say it arguably is, then why did you employ such terminology in a post about not employing such rhetoric?

I agree that some laws promote justice at the expense of freedom, and have no problem with it in many circumstances. I am by no means the first to point out that there is a "regressive left" trend nowadays. Leftists can be authoritarian too, as was Stalin.

I gave you an example of SJW's who regard the "patriarchy" as a threat more significant than the free speech of the men who were trying to have a meeting. In other words, they valued "social justice" more than freedom. I feel you ought to address this before asking for another example.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com