[ SECRET POST #3601 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3601 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.









Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 52 secrets from Secret Submission Post #515.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Well, they're basically distinct ideologies. Broadly speaking, social justice is a pretty diffuse idea that's more or less a descendant of 20th-century liberalism - it's a call for equality and multiculturalism and valuing diversity. It's also pretty compatible with most forms of political organization. It's a little tricky to talk with precision about communism, because of 150 years of ideological in-fighting and argument, but broadly, with communism, you're talking about a much more intrinsically radical and revolutionary ideology. It's fundamentally tied to economic ideas, and specifically to a critique of the existing forms of capitalism and to the idea that there is some more equitable way of distributing labor and property. And Chinese socialism is a very particular, strongly statist and centralized version of communism. So, broadly, that's the difference - they're two fundamentally different ideologies.

There is certainly an argument that people make that sees the one as a stalking-horse for the other, and argues that both of them are basically totalitarian - you're probably going to want to be talking about people like Voegelin here. Basically, the argument being that people only talk about either one because they want to control other people. I don't have a lot of time for that argument personally, because if you look at what people are actually saying and asking for and doing, I think there's a wide gap between the practice of communism and of social justice, and I don't think that the proponents of either ideology are especially insincere. I certainly don't think that progressives are calling for, like, making sure that all media is in accord with the 'scientifically precise predictions of socialist theory' in the way that the Chinese government is.

Don't think that's going to make a lot of difference to someone who's inclined to see it that way, of course.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, it doesn't. Because I don't see progressivism as remotely related to liberalism. I see it as a direct descendant of Marxism.

[(Anonymous)]

Feel free to explain why you think it's a descendant of Marxism, if you like, but I'm kinda getting the sense that you're going to be one of those people who thinks it's all absolutist totalitarian thought control. Which would mean it'll probably be too boring to argue with you.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, I'm one of "those people," and ditto on the boring part.

[(Anonymous)]

Alright, cool, then.

I do think it's probably not best practices to assume that kind of conspiratorial explanation for things in general, and to presume a general insincerity on the part of your opponents. And I'd also point to the importance of people like Rawls who I don't think could reasonably be described as basically Marxist in the development of the thought. But, you know, it's all good.

[feotakahari]

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory'," Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't- till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"

"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."