https://archive.ph/qGV8m

Nonetheless, the phenomenon is undoubtedly global. Wherever you go, it is hard to escape social-justice warriors. World police, indeed.

data-laughing

Like all The Economist articles, this has such little substance to it.

Lmao at their recent anti-China headlines on their main page xi :

Show

  • axont [she/her, comrade/them]
    ·
    9 months ago

    They briefly define it at the start.

    The term refers to a loose constellation of ideas that have changed how educated, left-leaning folk view the world. It says all disparities between racial groups are proof of structural racism; that norms of free speech, individualism and universalism are camouflage for discrimination; and that injustice will persist until systems of privilege are dismantled.

    It's the same as when that judge tried to get the Ron DeSantis administration to define woke. They defined it as something like "a belief in structural discrimination and a call to change it." They mean any and all belief in structural oppression. The opposite of wokeness is believing everything's fine except a few scattered individuals.

    • zed_proclaimer [he/him]
      ·
      9 months ago

      It says all disparities between racial groups are proof of structural racism

      If you don’t believe this then you believe disparities between racial groups are caused by genetic or cultural inferiority. The racists are ashamed to say they are racists out loud, but it’s clearly implied by what they don’t say

      • axont [she/her, comrade/them]
        ·
        9 months ago

        The way they'd phrase it is they believe disparities come from individual acts of racism. Separate, atomized racists all acting without connection to one another. And also without connection to networks of authority, because liberals don't believe distinct economic class authority exists.

        But when you push liberals further, that's when they'll start talking about cultural inferiority