In debates involving social justice there is one term which is frequently used and which I think is widely misunderstood. That term is Equity. Most people, I believe, think that this is simply another word for equality - it is not.
Equity, in the sense used here, means equality of OUTCOME, not equal opportunities. That apparently minor difference is actually huge. It separates the left-liberal (equal ops) from the identitarian/SJW (equity) on the left, and the liberal right from the authoritarian right on the other wing of politics.
I think that it is increasingly clear that recent shock election results - Trump, Brexit, Boris - are closely linked to a rejection of, and reaction to, authoritarian politics. Whilst people might have quite liked some labour politics - Rail Nationalisation seemed popular, for example - many could not bring themselves to vote for a man who is seen as coming from the authoritarian left - Marxist/Stalinist. Unfortunately the reaction, in every case, from the left - both liberal and authoritarian - has been to first ridicule, them castigate the majority of the voters in each case. Trump voters are morons, right wing and probably racist and sexist. Brexit voters are stupid, gullible, right-wing and probably racist. Boris voters are nationalistic, right-wing idiots, and probably racist.. Do you spot the pattern ? People do not like being cast in these terms. Mobs are stupid but individual people are generally not stupid. Many in the media will have humanities degrees. Many of these will be from faculties which are overwhelmingly left wing and, increasingly, authoritarian. As I have written elsewhere, the ideological and academic left largely shifted to post-modern ideas after it became clear to most that Marxism was increasingly difficult to defend. A new position had to be unassailable, unlike Marxism. Post structuralism provided the answer.
This clip explains my thoughts more concisely than I can :
I agree with almost all of that - including the hope that the liberal left will be able to come together in sufficient confidence and numbers to reject identitartian, authoritarian and, ultimately, irrational dogma, which defines all dissent as proof of guilt.The mainstream left needs to clearly identify with enlightenment values, reason, evidence, and oppose the attack on those values coming from within their own ranks.
Again, from the same interview :
Within academia a huge amount has been conceded already. The quality of teaching and research undertaken in parts of many university faculties is abysmal. Post modernists give equal importance to emotion as they do to any claim of objective reality, including scientific. Most universities will have large areas within humanities faculties in which there is a dominant ideology which sees the role of teacher/lecturer as recruiting their young students into the ideas and practices of Social Justice - as THEY define it, of course. Little or no counterargument or alternate viewpoint is acknowledged, let alone presented. Anyone not agreeing is, by definition, an enemy of social justice and therefore a morally inferior person. Couple this to a deliberate and strategic redefinition of language, xo that it is a mainstream belief amongst the young left - both liberal and post-modern - that language can be violent, and we are well on the way to some serious violence. Once we have an out group that is agreed to be morally inferior, and that is committing violence upon members of the in-group, then violent defence becomes easy to justify. Hence we get the Anti-Fa movement, which uses violence - against property and person - as a routine tactic.
Please watch the full interview HERE.
Finally, the academy in the US is further down this road than here in the UK. To get a glimpse of a possible near future, I thoroughly rec0mmend taking the time to watch the video in Bikerman's Videos called The Regressive Left - or you can click HERE to open a new window.