Why Social Justice And The Far Left Are Doomed To Collapse
Social Justice And The Far Left Are Doomed To Collapse due to internal inconsistency within itself. They advocate for the rights of groups at odds with each other and for positions that can't be brought together.You can't advocate for Abrahamic fundamentalists while also advocating for the rights of women and other marginalized groups. You can't support health care for all but also open borders as resources are finiteSocial justice groups and feminists constantly fight among themselves over issues yet still try to bring in more groups and ideologies. We are left wondering which is the real feminists? Second wave feminism? Third wave? Fourth?
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Recently we heard that a university cancelled the Vagina Monologues because it was not trans-inclusive.
For those that aren't familiar, the Vagina Monologues is a play about women's issues.
And this isn't the first time it's happened.
Years ago, we saw the same thing.
The Vagina Monologues was called not trans-inclusive, thus it was cancelled.
There are numerous stories that we've seen throughout the years, and more so in the past few months, where far-left ideology is contradicting itself.
We see socialists who want free healthcare for all, but also believe in open borders, which means it's entirely impossible to implement.
And there are various other issues showing us that social justice ideology, in its attempts to be so inclusive, is bringing together groups that are at odds with each other, like how we saw the women's march get criticized for being homophobic and antisemitic.
Right now we're actually seeing an editing war over the idea of trans versus women and female on Wikipedia.
So today, I want to talk about various instances that show us evidence social justice ideology is unsustainable.
Social justice and the far left are actually at odds with themselves and may be collapsing.
But before we get started, please head over to patreon.com forward slash Timcast to help support my work.
Patrons are the backbone of the content I create, and if you like these videos and want to see more, then go to patreon.com forward slash TimCast and become a patron today.
From the Daily Wire, Vagina monologues cancelled at university because not all women have vaginas.
Conservative Twitter has some thoughts.
The School's Women Resource Center informed students via email that following an evaluation of survey responses about the production, the vagina monologues was cancelled.
Survey respondents opposing the production consistently indicated they were concerned the play centers on cisgender women, that the play's version of feminism excludes some women, including trans women, and that overall, the Vagina Monologue lacks diversity and inclusion.
In the first example, I want to think about what this means.
There are certainly people in this world who are born female.
They face specific issues to being female.
Because they don't want to bring in people or they're not talking about issues faced by other people, their event has been shut down.
It would seem that activists in favor of social justice, feminists, are being shut down by activists in favor of social justice.
It's an inherent contradiction within itself.
It makes no sense.
Why you would shut down activists for social justice?
Why?
Well, because the two groups are at odds with each other.
And we see this time and time again in various other examples that I'll move on to.
According to The Root, trans women are women, this isn't a debate.
And the reason I'm using The Root is that according to Newswhip, The Root is the most shared left-wing source on Facebook.
The idea that trans women are women is considered fact among ideologues and social constructivists.
However, according to science editors on Wikipedia, this isn't true.
There's an extremely interesting contradiction happening in our understanding of the world right now, based on Wikipedia.
We can start by looking at the article, Transwoman.
It says, A transwoman is a woman who was assigned male at birth.
That is a definitive statement.
But something strange happens when you click the word woman.
It brings you to an article that says, A woman is a female human being.
Well, that's completely at odds with what we just read on the other article.
But something even more interesting happens when you click female.
According to Wikipedia, female is the sex of an organism that produces eggs.
The same exact phenomenon can be seen on trans men.
They say that a trans man is a man who was assigned female at birth.
And once again, if you go to the man page, it says a man is a male human.
And once again, when you go to male, It says, a male organism produces sperm.
Specific scientific definitions.
When we look at the talk pages as to why this is happening, it actually gets even more interesting.
For those that aren't familiar, the talk page of Wikipedia is where the article is debated and what to include or exclude is talked about.
The first section on trans women says, it contradicts the articles woman and female.
It talks about how the intro paragraph says a trans woman is a type of woman.
The article in turn says that women are female.
The article in turn defines female as the biological definition, making Wikipedia internally inconsistent.
The same is true for trans man.
In the talk page for trans man, there's an extremely similar discussion.
They offer the possible definition saying a trans man is a woman who wants to be identified by others as a man.
Naturally, Merriam-Webster the Dictionary also defines women as an adult female and man as an adult human male.
I think this is a really good example of the inherent contradictions in social justice and far-left ideology.
The far-left wants to be so inclusive, they're willing to include different groups that believe different things, even when they're at odds with each other.
And that's why we see the vagina monologues get cancelled.
There are people who are born female who state that because females are smaller, have less muscle mass, have less bone density, less collagen, there are inherent disadvantages that they have that men don't.
That means there needs to be special consideration when dealing with certain issues, when it comes to the law, when it comes to sports.
The idea that males have an inherent advantage over females is something that is plainly visible to many feminists.
However, this is at odds with the trans community who feels this isn't the case, and thus they actually come at each other.
We saw this when a feminist was banned from Twitter for saying men aren't women.
Feminist Megan Murphy wrote for Quillette, Twitter's trans activist decree.
In talking about how she was banned for hateful conduct, according to Twitter, she says, The notion that my commentary could be construed as hateful baffled me.
One tweet read simply, men aren't women.
And the other asked, how are trans women not men?
What is the difference between a man and a trans woman?
The last question is one I've asked countless times, including in public speeches, and I've yet to get a persuasive answer.
This is what got Meghan Murphy banned from Twitter.
But as I just showed you on Wikipedia, it clearly defines a man as a human male, and male as someone who produces sperm.
In which case, the basic definition is correct.
What she's saying is true.
Feminists have long fought for civil rights for women.
Over time, the idea of what feminist actually means has become different.
Now people say there's third wave and fourth wave.
Some people argue that women were never fighting for civil rights, but I think it's fair to say they were.
Women fought for the right to vote, and because of this, whether or not you agree with what feminists do is not the point.
The point is, there is a group of people who have banded together to fight for their idea of civil rights.
Today, this group which sought protected class is now at odds with the same group called feminists.
If you believe that males and females should have their own sporting league separate from each other, then you are transphobic.
If you believe that lesbians should not reject trans women in terms of having a relationship, you are also transphobic.
And we are seeing this now with lesbian activists being called hateful and anti-trans because they are fighting for the right to love a specific type of person.
In July, we saw this story from the BBC.
Pride in London sorry after anti-trans protest.
Members of lesbian and feminist group Get the L Out demanded to march behind the rainbow flag which marks the start of the event, organizers said.
The group argues the trans movement is attacking lesbian rights and said it protested to protect those rights.
Long story short, a protected group, lesbians, are upset that there are many people in the trans community saying lesbians are transphobic for not wanting to have relationships with trans women who are biologically male.
Thus, we can see this again.
Two protected groups within the same ideology at odds with each other Often when we're talking about internal contradictions, it's from what we call trans-exclusionary radical feminists or radical feminists versus the trans-inclusionary feminists.
Because of this, I think it's pretty prominent.
But there are many other issues that are extremely prominent too.
That was just the first example.
I now want to give you the second example I have of the internal inconsistency of the social justice movement and the far left.
This is from the Jewish Telegraph Agency.
Women's March statement condemns anti-semitism while standing with leaders Linda Sarsour and Tamika Mallory.
The Women's March said its leaders reject anti-semitism in all its forms and that it stands with leaders Linda Sarsour and Tamika Mallory who have been accused of aligning themselves with Louis Farrakhan.
This statement came after multiple leaders within the Women's March criticized Linda Sarsour, Tamika Mallory and others for aligning themselves with Louis Farrakhan who is an anti-semite.
These women calling out Sarsour also called out Homophobia and anti-trans beliefs.
Now, it's kind of going the other way.
The Women's March, this massive protest, this massive movement aligned with the left and social justice, once again, at odds with its own ideology.
You can't have the LGBTQ community in alignment with an Abrahamic religion that opposes that ideology.
Because when put into the same groups, they'll actually be at odds with each other.
Once again, it looks like, in an attempt to include everybody, they have brought together varying ideologies at odds with each other.
My third example is probably one of my favorite.
This story from the Daily Beast.
Why young men of color are joining white supremacist groups.
Patriot prayers leader is half Japanese, black and brown faces march with the Proud Boys, is the future of hate multicultural.
White supremacist has a clear and understood definition.
What is happening here literally makes no sense.
White supremacy is defined by almost all people as the belief that white people are superior to other races.
Thus, it is inherently contradictory of a white supremacist group to welcome in men of color or of men of color to believe that whites are superior.
It is entirely possible for men of color to really believe they are inferior to white people.
But for a white supremacist group to welcome in men of color just doesn't make sense.
How does something like this start to happen?
It happens when the ideology pushed by the far left is internally inconsistent and can't reconcile their definition of white supremacy with what is actually going on in the world.
Thus you end up with people who are traditional conservatives or who are religious being called white supremacists Because the internal logic of the far left and the social justice movement has to contend with varying ideologies that don't make sense when they're placed next to each other.
Thus, when there are men of color who oppose certain aspects of the far left, the only defense they have is to say, well, they must be white supremacists if they don't agree with us.
The far left claims to be intersectional.
That means they support varying races, religions, ethnicities.
They're inclusive of everybody.
How, then, do you rectify people of color who disagree with you and think you, in fact, are being racist?
Well, I, for one, have experienced this firsthand.
When I say I don't agree with your ideology and the authoritarian tactics and the idea that you can bring all of these different groups together even when they don't like each other, I certainly get called these names, too.
But I want to make sure I talk a bit about the far left and not just overt social justice.
I want to show you Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's platform as my final example.
In it, she says, Medicare for all, a federal jobs guarantee, immigration justice, and abolishing ICE.
Housing as a human right.
These things actually sound really great, as far as I'm concerned.
I do like the idea of providing health care for people, of guaranteeing jobs.
I just don't know if it's possible.
Though I would say my personal politics lean in this direction.
I don't know if it can be done, but I'm certainly interested to hear what someone like Ocasio-Cortez has to say when we're talking about these issues.
However, along with these ideas of guaranteeing healthcare jobs, college, housing, you also have the fact that Cortez is a democratic socialist.
Who don't believe in borders.
This is not my opinion.
The Democratic Socialists of America, numerous times, various chapters, have advocated for abolishing borders.
Here we can see a New York protest.
Now, this isn't the only example, but I'm not going to go through every single different chapter and show you the various tweets.
I just want to show you that the chapters do support this.
If you want to argue that Democratic Socialists don't really support this, I would contend you are wrong.
Because we do know that socialists, for the most part, believe borders should be open.
I can present to you this from leftvoice.org, abolishtheborder2, and also from socialism.com.
What immigrants need?
Amnesty, open borders, and a movement that won't back down.
Here we can see another inherent contradiction within the far left.
Ocasio-Cortez certainly is a culture warrior, intersectional feminist.
She wants to provide all of these great benefits to people, that's what she campaigned on.
But if you are for open borders, the idea just doesn't really make sense.
Because if you want to provide your citizens, your constituents, with healthcare, college, and jobs, but you also say anyone is welcome to come to this country, eventually you have to realize resources are finite.
If you say to your constituents, we're gonna get you healthcare.
But the bill is expected to be $32 trillion over 10 years just for America.
What happens then when you open the borders to anyone who wants to come here?
You basically say anyone who's here will get healthcare.
That's an incentive for people to come here to then take the healthcare.
Clearly.
We can't provide infinite resources.
Thus, you would actually take away healthcare from your own constituents by advocating for these contradictory positions.
The purpose of this video is not to claim that there are not contradictions among the right, but I want to point out this graph from The Economist, which I have shown in many of my videos, to give you an example of why I think it's so important we talk about the inherent contradictions on the left.
We can see that over time, according to this economist graph from 1980 up to 2018, conservatives have been relatively consistent in the bulk of their beliefs.
Now, if you took someone from the center and someone from the far right, they would probably disagree, but we can see the majority of conservatives fit the bell curve.
They're mostly in the middle, meaning the bulk of conservatives will have a consistent worldview whose internal logic can work within itself.
But since 1980, the Democrats have moved increasingly further and further left, and their base has been spread out.
They do not have a bulk ideology in the same way that the conservatives do.
Thus things get unsustainable.
We can see that there are many more people who are further left, and there are many people who are near the center.
These people are going to have vastly different ideas of what should or should not be.
When the Democrats, or the left, tries to encompass the entire spectrum of left, you end up bringing in people who are over here and believe in no borders, and people who are over here and believe in labor rights and strong borders.
You can't have them both at the same time, because they're at odds with each other.
Even though they're on the left, it is not black and white, there is nuance.
As conservatives coalesce around core ideas, the bulk of the group is able to function rather well.
Even with internal debate from the center-right and the far-right, the core group will function because most people will agree on certain values.
The left does not have that.
We are continually seeing, over time, the left spreading out further and further and trying to bring in people who do not agree with each other.
On top of that, I think one of the most obvious contradictions is how the modern left in the U.S.
will criticize Christianity, which is an Abrahamic religion, while opening their door and trying to be inclusive and protective of the Islamic community, which is also an Abrahamic religion.
They believe many of the same things.
They follow many of the same stories, have many of the same rules.
Yet, for some reason, the left is very concerned about Islamophobia, but not Christiophobia, or whatever you would call it.
I would say it's entirely internally inconsistent, if you would be willing to protect one Abrahamic religion over the other.
And I've been told by people, well, it's about protecting the right to religious freedom.
And because there are so many Christians, they don't really need it.
And that's fine, if that's the argument you want to make.
But the point I'm trying to make is that, among many fundamentalist Muslims, They do not believe in LGBTQ rights or women's rights, and thus it is internally inconsistent to try and bring that under the same umbrella.
And thus we see the women's march in controversy, with people telling Linda Sarsour to denounce antisemitism, homophobia.
But let me know what you think in the comments below and we'll keep the conversation going.
Do you have any criticisms of the right?
Because I'm sure there are, but I think I've laid out my point pretty well.
That it's not to say the right isn't inconsistent sometimes, just that the left is increasingly becoming unstable and inconsistent.
So comment below, let me know what you think, we'll keep the conversation going.
You can follow me on Twitter, at TimCast.
Stay tuned, new videos every day at 4pm, and I'll have more videos up on my second channel, youtube.com slash TimCastNews, starting at 6pm.
