The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart (no surprise) subscribes to the pejoritive usage of the term "social justice warrior". In the past the term "had been used to refer to Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr [re] their efforts on behalf of social justice". Social justice being defined as "the fair and just relation between the individual and society [which] is measured [by looking at] distribution of wealth, opportunities for personal activity and social privileges".
Sounds good, right? I mean, a wide gulf between the poor and the wealthy is not considered a desirable thing (How income inequality hurts America). One of the points of pride for the United States being the fact that we have a strong, powerful and vibrant middle class. Or we used to, at least (it has been eroding ever since the election of Ronald Reagan).
But being called a "Social Justice Warrior" is now an insult. At least when flug by those on the Right. Wikipedia notes that it is "a pejorative term for an individual promoting socially progressive views; including feminism, civil rights, multiculturalism, political correctness, and identity politics".
Willis Hart being opposed to all of these. His opposition taking the form of commentaries on his blog. Misogynist tirades deriding the radical Marxist feminists (AKA feminazis) as well as racist screeds decrying the Black Lives Matter movement (how dare Black people complain about the fact that they're 300% more likely to be shot by the police than a White person).
Tyranny? Or is Hart "pushing the term in order to divert attention from more substantive matters of discrimination and as part of a broader culture war against liberalism"? (which according to Wikipedia, "commentators on the left have said").
Yes; I think they say this because it's true. According to Conservatives it's intolerant when a Liberal points out a Conservative's intolerance (intolerance of intolerance is intolerant) and "tyranny" when the force of law is used to protect minority rights.
Regarding the "broader culture war against liberalism", Willis Hart uses tactics of the Right and directs his anger most frequently at the Left. Ironic on a blog called "Contra O'Reilly" that Willis too is a culture warrior. Although he dispenses with the defense of "traditionalism" (except when it comes to his transphobia or defense of bakers to not be forced to produce a gay wedding cake) and Christianity (Bill O'Reilly's war on Christmas being one example). Because Hart is a non-believer.
But both Willis and culture warriors on the Right like O'Reilly hate the Left (Progressives, IMO, easily beating out Neocons as the source of the bulk of his ire). And he employs many of the Right's buzzwords. Marxist feminists (women for pay equality who speak against our rape culture, etc), minstrels (Black Liberals with a media platform), Warmists (people who believe in science re AGW) as well as others I'm likely overlooking.
And now (to add to that list) he employes (as a pejorative) "Social Justice Warrior" (SJW).
|Willis Hart: Like with this Garrison fellow who did the Michelle Obama looking like a power-forward cartoon (which, yes, was somewhat distasteful but then a great amount of satire tends to be - HELLO!!!!!!!!!!!!!). The SJWs went after him full-bore (he even got death-threats which makes SJWs no better than al Qaeda) and now he's more popular than ever. Oops, OOOOOOOOPS. (5/31/2016 AT 5:13pm).|
I don't know about death threats against Garrison. I'll believe Willis that there have been some. Although I'd point out that ALL that this proves is that there are nuts of all political persuasions. But Willis uses the (supposed) death threats to paint ALL SJWs as "no better than al Qaeda".
FYI, Willis, al Qaeda ACTUALLY kills people, whereas people who respond badly to slimes such as Ben Garrison hardly ever follow through. Not that death threats are OK (they aren't), but I'd be ASTOUNDED if (we later found out) that anyone who (supposedly) made such a threat then proceeded to (attempt) to carry it out (it's all hyperbole, or "an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally"). Unlike the Taliban. Who threaten people with death... and then kill them.
Secondly, Willis' description of Garrison's cartoon as "Michelle Obama looking like a power-forward" and "somewhat distasteful", is highly offensive. IMO and in the opinion of many others, I'm sure (see OST #148 for my expanded commentary on Garrison's racist, misogynistic and transphobic cartoon).
Although, that Willis cheers Garrison gaining popularity (supposedly) due to the outrage of SJWs, is no surprise given how much he has in common with this sack of excrement.
|Ben Garrison is an American editorial cartoonist from Montana. His stated goal is "to help raise awareness of the drift toward tyranny". He is a self-described libertarian, though his cartoons tend to contain a strong paleoconservative streak as well. In his cartoons and writing on his blog, he has expressed strong opposition to Islam, political correctness, social justice warriors, neoconservatism, gun control, the Federal Reserve, [etc]. (RationalWiki/Ben Garrison).|
Paleoconservatives apparently are Conservatives who have gone back to the roots of Conservatism. The roots being the belief that (as per RationalWiki) "more capitalism and xenophobia can solve everything". Paleoconservatives are also subscribe to religious bigotry (homophobia), nationalism, isolationism, and economic protectionism".
So, although Garrison's Paleoconservative ideology doesn't quite square with Libertarianism, it does explain explain why he is a Trump supporter. Willis Hart, as a Libertarian, rejects (or says he rejects) most of that (with the exception of worshipping capitalism). Yet he takes schadenfroh delight that the (supposed) SWJ campaign to damage Garrison's livelihood (supposedly) backfired (and benefited the dirtball Garrison instead).
What this points too, I think, are the Hartster's biases. And shows he is MUCH more strongly aligned with the Right (despite his claims of criticizing the Right and Left equally). The truth is that his criticisms are (most often) confined to anti-Neoconservative screeds. As well as screeds against anyone voicing opposition to free trade. Something the Garrison-supported Trump has done.
Trump, while he SAYS he's a "free trader", has made his opposition to "bad trade deals". Not that I disagree with Trump. I think he has a point. But Willis is NOT with Trump (or Garrison) regarding "trade". Willis being VERY much in favor of destroying American jobs via unrestricted labor offshoring/outsourcing, which is NOT THE SAME thing as trade.
My point is that Willis has PLENTY he could disagree with Garrison on, but instead he cheers Garrison's attacking SJWs over perceived injustices (re people's RIGHT to protest via boycott) and laughs at the (supposed) backfiring of anti-BG SJW efforts.
Although, as far as Libertarians being "socially liberal", I think that is debatable. As I pointed out, Willis FREQUENTLY comes back to the topic of "Christian" business owners discriminating against gay customers (he thinks they have the right to do so), etc.
And Libertarians are HUGE on the idea that the minimum wage should be done away with so African American workers can be hired for lower wages than White workers. Because they believe Black labor is less valuable than White labor (DSB #2). Although they frame it as labor union racism. In the past "lily-white union schmucks" negotiated for higher pay thereby freezing out Black labor which is worth less (See WTNP post Waging Wages for an example of what I'm talking about).
So, maybe Hart and Garrison have a LOT more in common than one might think. Because a lot of Libertarians are really not that "socially tolerant" (The Ben Garrison and Willis Hart types). Which is why I speculated that Willis might vote for Donald Trump (OST #158). But, hey, I'm sure Gary Johnson despises SJWs a lot too. Because Gandhi and MLK were actually total dicks. Poor laborers SHOULDN'T be exploited to further enrich the oligarchs? Come on!
Image: Ben Garrison cartoon that depicts Donald Trump as... the adult in the room?