RE: I filmed this video of @ned @pkattera and @sneak talking about the SMTs and the future of Steemit
I hear you, the variety that I was speaking about were the types of social justice warriors that have totally jumped the shark. In America things have gotten really weird.
This video is a good example. At first I thought the video was a parody, and I found it humorous.
What I didn't know that this was probably inspired by this man's experience in either high school or college at the time.
Then a couple years later is when the phenomenon started hitting the media. Students going bat shit on their professors because Halloween?
People confronting people about cultural appropriation.
Then there's just the purely insane variety too.
I'm thinking we might be thinking about two entirely different things.
Or these crazy people infiltrated an existing movement, and brought a really bad name to it.
Were you aware of that stuff at all, what do you call those people, are they social justice warriors or? Or even advocating for true social justice as you see it?
I have seen that video before, yes. We are currently in a process of emotional and psycho-spiritual balancing and unfortunately the vast majority are unaware of this and thus we see from them various forms of denial rather than health and balance. This applies just as much to those who are stuck on the more masculine 'thinking' end as it does to those who are stuck on the other end, the feminine 'feeling' end.
Thoughts that are not balanced by guidance from feelings are psychopathic and feelings that are not balanced appropriately with conscious understanding of the present moment may be out of balance and appear dangerous or judgmental. This partially explains what that video is pointing to and also describes what this 'SJW' logic is fighting against.
The evolved self has balance between thoughts and emotions, such that balance radiates throughout.. This is what has been largely missing from humans since the beginning.
Social Justice is defined as essentially egalitarianism, which is defined as:
To be equal in society does not mean though that everyone is homogenised, non-unique and that individual qualities are denied. There can be no balance in life while denial is involved. The fact that many are so internally divided and injured (in denial) and thus they cannot manifest equality in a balanced way, is not itself evidence that equality is a false or dangerous priniciple.
Equal voting rights is an example of equality that makes sense (albeit that the actual voting system is corrupt, fake and rigged). Equally allowing everyone the 'right' to 'educate' your own child is an example of alleged 'equality' that does not make sense since it over-rides free will. The essence here always comes down to whether free will is being over-ridden or not.
Denial of free will and other denials are at the root of all of our problems. When denial ends, problems are solved.
"Thoughts that are not balanced by guidance from feelings are psychopathic and feelings that are not balanced appropriately with conscious understanding of the present moment may be out of balance and appear dangerous or judgmental." – @ura-soul^That was very wise!
We are probably going to have to agree to disagree on egalitarianism, mainly because I think it's impossible to achieve in the sense that you might mean. However, in another sense; I think that America had achieved it on paper with the 'immortal declaration'. Yet they made the BIG mistake of not applying 'men' to all men, and to women. Even if they said all 'people', with their mindset at the time, they still probably would have justified slavery with the trick of wordplay (legalese).
I made a post in jest where I poked fun at that issue, just to portray how ridiculous it can get. For example their are so many different genders, faiths, nationalities, religions, and ethnicities, that if we attempt to raise, or "equalize" any particular slice of the pie (, or group) in an attempt to achieve parity, that it many times results in a disparity for an an individual.
That's why as a libertarian, which is how I lean politically, I prefer to only look at individual rights. I don't know if that's the ultimate answer, but it seems like more of a pragmatic one to me anyhow. There are probably some laws that they created for groups in the past that didn't result in too much harm. Yet they still may have resulted in unnatural results.
In the above I was thinking specifically of if someone highly qualified for something is overlooked for an opportunity in favor of someone who may not be nearly as qualified so that a company can fill a quota to prove that they are not discriminating against this or that group.
If an individual witnessed something that happen to them first hand, it might be as dispiriting as getting censored on a platform that was supposed to be about free speech. LOL, I think I just came a full 360 with that one. Anywho not trying to talk your ear off, you made very interesting points!