How Social Media is Killing Democracy

Democracy has long been a contestable topic in political science. Thinkers like Jean Jacques Rousseau called for a democracy with massive levels of citizen participation, while others such as Max Weber were more skeptical of the common person’s ability to effectively participate in government. Though the ideal level of citizen participation will be debated into the future, there certain aspects of democracy upon which both Rousseau and Weber could agree. Democracy is fundamentally about accountability; some amount of power, perhaps minimal, perhaps maximal, lies within in the people, and it is the people who choose to keep or discard of their government officials. Thus, democracy relies upon the people’s ability to identify their interests, identify who represents their interests, and vote for said representative. The three key aspects of a healthy democracy, then, are citizen participation (to actually vote), citizen deliberation (to identify who best represents their interests), and a dependable news source (to inform the citizens and keep the government accountable). The widespread adoption of social media, however, poses a serious threat to democracy, as it has produced a populace which is less willing to go out and vote, less able to successfully deliberate, and less informed about that which truly matters.

Contrary to the supposed effectiveness of “go vote” tweets and Facebook shares, social media actually does not increase democratic participation. The empirical reality is that “social media users are not more politically engaged than nonusers” (Gayo-Avello, 14). Problematically, there does even seem to be a negative correlation between social media usage and political participation. Firstly, young people are “declining users of traditional media” (Ceron, 226). Whenever they do access traditional media, they are “more likely to do so through online editions or social media links” (Ceron, 226). Thus, young people are turning away from newspapers and magazines in favour of social media. What is interesting is that this age group specifically is “decreasingly interested in traditional forms of political participation such as supporting political parties and voting” (Ceron, 226). This growing disinterest can be attributed to young people’s increasing use of social media and subsequent abandonment of traditional media, as when one gets their news primarily from social media, which “is radically different from online and offline traditional media”, they report a “lower satisfaction with democracy” (Ceron, 229). On the other hand, “Internet users that consume news primarily from new media (e.g., websites of newspapers and magazines)” profess a much larger “satisfaction toward democracy”(Ceron, 229). Thus social media fosters a dissatisfaction with democracy which results in decreased political participation. Moreover, when young people who use social media do actually participate politically, they “tend to indulge in slacktivism”, which are “online actions performed in support of a political or social cause but regarded as requiring little time or involvement, such as singing an online petition” (Gayo-Avello, 14). Petitions are certainly an important political tool, but if young people who gleefully sign petitions do not actually go out and vote (the petition that most matters) than they have skipped the single process which is most important to a democracy. Thus, social media results in a decreased satisfaction with democracy, a decreasing willingness to participate in the democratic process, and an ability to be politically fulfilled by participating in mere slacktivism.

Social media is a terrible place to go to for public deliberation. The term ‘deliberation’ calls forth images of people calmly discussing the pros and cons of their arguments, exploring the consequences of their policies, and displaying a willingness to change their opinion. The very nature of social media is antithetical to such calm, rational discussion. Firstly, short, impulsively written media posts will always be an insufficient method of communication for a topic as dense, consequential and nuanced as politics. On Twitter, insightful deliberation is greatly affected by a 280 character limit, which (as anyone using Twitter for political deliberation would know) is simply not sufficient to make a complete point. People may sometimes ‘discuss’ politics on Twitter, but when their ability to properly articulate themselves is constrained by a character limit, people often misinterpret and talk past one another. If true deliberation requires mutual understanding, than social media is simply not the place for it to happen. Secondly, the nature of social media promotes discussion that is “typically informal, frank, colloquial, humorous, satirical” and “often emotional” (Macnamara, 72). The emphasis on humour in the social media landscape, while good for satire, is bad for political deliberation, as nuanced political positions can not be reduced to simple punchlines. Perhaps Socrates, to this day the absolute personification of philosophical and political deliberation,  was a funny fellow, but there are very few jokes in The Republic and the Crito. This is because topics like the ideal state and the nature of poverty cannot be properly examined through comedy. Moreover, if a social media post about politics is not trying to be funny than it is probably just angry. Social media debate “often [takes] the form of a ‘flame’ rather than that of a compromise” (Ceron, 235). When people ‘deliberate’ about politics on social media, “64% of the time” (Ceron 237) one of the participants leaves the conversation liking the other person less than they did before. Such disdain does not grow out of healthy deliberation, but out of emotional encounters with someone over a screen. Lastly, though “deliberation assumes everyone has an equal voice”, the reality is that, contrary to the pluralist egalitarianism proposed by social media optimists, social media is “actually still a very elitist form of dialogue”, because “everyone still see’s the elite tweets whilst others are largely ignored” (Gayo-Avello, 11). Moreover, elites, who garner the most attention on social media, interact “mostly with each other and rarely with non-elite users” (Gayo-Avello, 11), meaning that social media remains a top-down, elitist form of communication. Social media enables you to tweet at Donald Trump but not talk to him, and that is just not deliberation. Thus, it is merely a reality that “social media discussion of politics rarely meets the criteria of the deliberative public sphere” (Gayo-Avello, 15).

Lastly, the present nature of social media makes it a terrible news source for a functioning democracy. The tension between democracy and social media is enabled primarily because of surveillance capitalism, which is the revenue model upon which most social media sites (including the titans like Facebook and Twitter) are built. Because these services are free, they make their revenue by selling ad space and consumer data to companies. Ad space is only effective when consumers actually see said an advertisement, so the absolute most crucial variable for all free social media sites is a high TOS (Time on Site) per active user, as a high TOS means a high likelihood that said consumer will see said advertisement (Tufecki, 2007, 22). Thus, everything about social media (down to the shade of the font any platform uses) is designed to maximize TOS (Tufecki, 2007, 22). This business model, upon which social media functions, is detrimental to the proliferation of news and compromises a healthy democracy in three primary ways. Firstly, machine learning algorithms (the algorithms which determine what shows up on your newsfeed) prioritize stories with high engagement value over ones with significant public importance, as such algorithms have determined that there is a positive correlation between a high engagement value and a high TOS (Carr, 66). Stories that are likely to yield comments, likes and shares are what the algorithms controlling your news feed select for, and this has significant effects on the news itself (Carr, 66). This was made obvious to social scientists abroad when, in 2014, “Facebook’s newsfeed algorithm largely buried news of protests over the killing of Michael Brown” because the story was “not ‘like-able’ and even hard to comment on” (Tufecki, 2016). Thus, in the name of TOS, an incredibly significant news story was buried from the consumer base. Had there not been traditional news media to cover the story, and had everyone been reliant upon social media as their primary news source, than the Michael Brown story simply would not have become the incredibly significant national phenomenon it deserved to be. What is more disconcerting than the burying of stories, however, is what such stories are replaced with. Once again, in the name of TOS, “social media dishes out compulsive stuff that tends to reinforce people’s biases” (Clavo, 24) because the algorithm knows you are more likely to like, share or read something you agree with. While in theory the unmediated nature of social media makes it a more pluralistic news source, in reality “social media increases the likelihood that users filter and interpret news on their own, according to preexisting ideological bias” (Ceron, 231). This means that liberals are likely to follow fellow liberals such as John Oliver and Glenn Greenwald, and conservatives are more likely to follow fellow conservatives such as Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson. Thus, two news selection factors are at work; people tend to ‘like’ pages they agree with, and the news feed algorithm keeps showing them content they agree with because they like/comment/share such content more often. The consequence of this is that people become engrossed in ideological echo chambers where their worldview is constantly reinforced with news that supports their existing bias. People thus rarely hear the other side and become more and more convinced that they are right. In a democracy, which depends upon deliberation, accountability, and a willingness to change sides, having two sides who are absolutely convinced they are right does not lead to proper functioning. Lastly, there is the phenomenon of ‘fake news’, which since last year’s election has become widely known and disputed. Fake news has of course always existed in the political sphere, but social media has allowed such news to travel farther, faster, and more often than ever before. And of course, the rapid proliferation of fake news was and still is enabled by the TOS business model of social media. Fake news stories, which are often sensationalist, fulfill all the criteria social media algorithms filter for in news stories. For example, fake news is invariably accompanied by an attention grabbing headline that seemingly begs the user for a share and a comment. And in practice, people oblige sensationalist fake news stories, as a recent study has shown that, at minimum, during 2016 there were “115 pro-Trump fake stories that were shared on Facebook a total of 30 million times” (Alcott, 213). It is almost impossible to calculate just how many people then saw such fake stories, but that same study suggests a healthy estimate would be “upwards of 150 million” (Alcott, 214). Thus, during the last election season, perhaps 150 million potential voters were exposed to false information about one of the candidates. This means that some number of voters went to the polls with information informing their vote that was, perhaps, completely false. This directly violates the principle democracy, which supposes that voters are (at least to some minimal extent) rational and self interested. Both of these principles are directly violated if the information informing such voters, or at least portion of their information, is just false.

Though Rousseau and Weber could barely agree on what ‘political participation’ means, they would certainly concur that actually voting, deliberating with fellow citizens, and utilizing true information are actions integral to a democratic process which holds politicians accountable and keeps the interests of the people at the core of political discourse. Unfortunately for us, social media poses a formidable threat to all of these principles.  Social media has fostered a decreasing willingness to democratically participate among active users. The actual ‘deliberation’ which occurs on social media has become invariably funny, angry, or insufficient. And current social media is a terrible news source for democracy, as its business model discourages consequential yet hard hitting stories, prioritizes confirmation bias, and even encourages the proliferation of sensationalist and blatantly false news. Though it does not look good, it is hard to say if social media and democracy are necessarily incompatible. As discussed, many of the problems posed by social media emerge from its dependence upon the TOS revenue model. If sites like Twitter and Facebook moved over to a subscription based revenue model, perhaps they could focus more on encouraging healthy, thoughtful deliberation, and proliferate pluralistic views which propel people out of their self induced echo chambers. But would people be willing to pay for a service they are used to getting for free? It is probable that Facebook and Twitter are not willing to take such a risk. But then again, if we take into account the problems social media currently poses for democracy, 5 dollars a month seems like a small price to pay.


Alcott, Hunt, and Matthew Gentzkow. “Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 31, no. 2, Apr. 2017, pp. 211–235., .

Carr, Nicholas. The Glass Cage – Automation and Us. WW NORTON & CO, 2015.

Ceron, Andrea, and Vincenzo Memoli. “Flames and Debates: Do Social Media Affect Satisfaction with Democracy?” Social Indicators Research, vol. 126, no. 1, 2016, pp. 225–240., .

Clavo, Guillermo. “Do Social Media Threaten Democracy? the Politics of Outrage.” The Economist (US), 4 Nov. 2017, pp. 23–26.

“Do social media threaten democracy?” The Economist, The Economist Newspaper, 4 Nov. 2017,

Gayo-Avello, Daniel . “Social Media, Democracy, and Democratization.” IEEE Multimedia, vol. 22, no. 2, 2015, pp. 10–16., .

Macnamara, James. “Democracy 2.0: Can social media engage youth and disengaged citizens in the public sphere?” Australian Journal of Communication, vol. 39, no. 3, 2012, pp. 65–86., .

Tufekci, Zeynep. “Can you see me now? Audience and disclosure regulation in online social network sites.” Bulletin of Science, Technology &Amp; Society, 2007,

Tufekci, Zeynep. “Opinion | Beware the Big Data Campaign.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 16 Nov. 2012,

Tufekci, Zeynep. “The Real Bias Built In at Facebook.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 19 May 2016,

The Hidden Virtue of Victim Blaming

‘Victim blaming’ is a phrase associated with now antiquated views of sexual assault. In previous decades those now infamous ‘she was asking for it – esque’ attitudes haunted the victims of sexual misconduct, as they were dismissed as either liars or whores and shame was inevitable to follow. Naturally, allegations were often not pursued and victims were left alone and unable to seek justice.

Fortunately, we have progressed in our attitudes about gender and sexual assault. For the most part, reasonable people recognize the moral blindness that these horrendous dismissals of sexual assault unambiguously possess. Thus, victim blaming itself has now become a serious allegation, and those who are the recipient of it will find themselves shamed and reprimanded by society. It is safe to say that being accused of ‘victim blaming’ is something people try their best to avoid.

But in recent years, the attitudes accompanied by the phrase have grown exponentially. Victim blaming no longer exclusively refers to those jukebox era attitudes we all identify immediately; rather, it has come to encompass a wide range of attitudes and statements that are entirely reasonable. Victim blaming, as it is used to today, is an allegation hurled at anyone who even suggests that rape is something that can be prevented.

This attack on preventive attitudes is occurring because such attitudes hint at a certain amount of personal responsibility. These attitudes (specific examples will be given later on) tend to point out what is likely to increase the probability of a rape occurring, and thus seem to scorn victims of rape who find or put themselves into those situations. These preventive attitudes are now stigmatized because they attribute ‘blame’ to the victim, and seem to say ‘you should’ve known better and it’s your fault you were raped’. Presently, anything which does not completely admonish the victim of any part of the causal process is now considered victim blaming.

This new attitude also declares that all cases of rape should be treated and looked upon exactly the same. It argues that if we dwell on the specifics of cases then blame is inevitably administered, and rape victims will continue to be hesitant to come forward. If this viewpoint could be universally adopted and all rape cases were looked upon in the exact same way, it would certainly make victims of rape feel much more comfortable getting the help they deserve. However, if such an egalitarian investigative process were to take hold then we would lose our ability to actually prevent cases of rape from occurring in the first place.

In demanding that we stop finding a minimal amount of fault with the behaviour of some sexual assault victims we lose the essential tool that a) helps us predict sexual assault and b) helps us prevent sexual assault. Namely, the tool to identify contexts that increase rape probability.

With this essay, I will not be attempting to draw a definitive line in the sand about what is and isn’t victim blaming. I am simply trying to unshackle reasonable assessments from unreasonable stigma. To compare cases of rape and examine and critique the behavioural processes is not blaming the victim, rather, it is giving people the information they need to make informed decisions.

Actions and Consequences

To begin, a simple two part concession must be made. A) you are the author of your own actions, and B) your actions have consequences. Unless this essay turns into a metaphysical examination of free will, this concession should be one in which everyone is in agreement. If you are a smoker and you get lung cancer, it is reasonable to say that that consequence is a result of your actions. (determining the specific level of responsibility might be impossible, but there is responsibility nonetheless).

Relevant information is a variable which should certainly be included as well, as information is always playing a part in your decision making process. Being a smoker in the 1940’s is different than it is today; now we have a much more comprehensive understanding of the correlation between smoking and lung cancer. Though the smoker who acquires lung cancer in the 40’s and today did the same thing, their decisions varied in how much information they had.

So what we can conclude is that you make decisions and your decisions have consequences. Knowing this, informed decision making is superior to uninformed decision making because at least in the former you have some inkling of the impending consequences.

Gradations of Blame

Blame is a concept that is inherently tied to this discussion. Blame is defined by Merriam Webster as,

  1. To hold responsible,
  2. To find fault with,
  3. To place responsibility for.

The only thing clear about this definition is its ambiguity. It seems to cover the entire spectrum of responsibility; these three definitions don’t elicit a clear and specific concept of blame, but rather they cover any attribution of responsibility or fault. This is a problem, because there is a significant difference between a ‘sole responsability’ type of blame and a ‘minimal criticism’ type of blame, yet this difference is not captured by the uniformity of ‘blame’. If you fall down some stairs because you missed a step, you can be blamed for that consequence. If your friend who is texting you back falls down some stairs, you can also be blamed for that consequence. The difference in the amount of blame, however, is significant. In the former case, you are solely responsible, whereas in the latter, you are minimally responsible.

And blame, though it is a cousin of the word responsible, is the cousin that nobody likes to see at the family dinner table. It is a concept that is inherently linked to negative events and decisions. People will always say “Mike was responsible for his company’s recent success” instead of “Mike was blamed for his company’s recent success” even though they mean the same thing.

Thus, the problem I am facing is clear and formidable. The word blame covers the entire spectrum of causal responsibility. Though the different parts of the spectrum can be accessed through careful deliberation, the broad ambiguity of the word ‘blame’ makes it easy to misinterpret just which part of the spectrum is being discussed. Furthermore, I am dealing with this concept of ‘blame’ in the context of an incredibly horrendous personal violation. Thus, if misinterpreted, my association with the word blame can seem heinous and despicable. Clarity of writing on my part, and carefulness of reading on your part is therefore required if we wish to traverse this tightrope together.

Minimal Criticism

So, when discussing blame, what we are dealing with is a troublesome vocabulary. However, we clearly have the capacity to navigate this problematic environment. Until recently, victim blaming has only been associated with the “place responsibility for” type attitudes; the ‘she was asking for it’-esque mantras were distinguishable from the minimal criticism type of blame.

This distinguishment has been lost with the recent push to admonish victims of all responsibility, which is prima facia a just thing to do. But this loss takes away our ability to analyze and compare situations, and to critique and discourage certain behaviours. Though it may seem harsh to criticize the behaviour of rape victims, such minimal criticism is necessary to prevent it in the future. If at any point it seems like ‘sole responsibility’ is being attributed, it is most certainly not. To make it quite clear, let’s examine two distinctly different cases of a girl being raped by a stranger while blackout drunk.

Case a) Sarah, by herself, goes out to a rowdy, drunken frat house with a notorious reputation for sexual misogyny. She proceeds to get blackout drunk and is raped.

Case b) Katie stays home by herself with the doors locked. She gets blackout drunk watching her favorite TV show. In the middle of the night, a burglar breaks into the room and rapes her.

Just to make it crystal clear; in neither of these cases is the victim solely responsible for her rape. The fact that they (Katie and Sarah) were blackout drunk does not change the fact that someone else had to make the decision to rape them. They did not decide whether or not they were raped. That was an uncontrolled variable.

It is clear, however, that there is a controllable variable in both of these stories; this being the context in which Sarah and Katie placed themselves.

It’s important to be very careful here.

Let’s evaluate these cases as according to the spectrum of responsibility encompassed by blame. Imagine a straight line; on the right side of the line is ‘sole responsibility’, and on the left side of the line is ‘minimal criticism’. We can imagine this line as ‘amount of blame’ increasing the farther right you find yourself.

In comparing these cases, we are not dealing with the right half of the line. The girls are not majorly responsible for their rape in either of these cases. However, they are not in the exact spot on the line either. If the left side of the line is the ‘minimal criticism’ or “find fault with” definition of blame, it is clear that one case can be criticized more strongly than the other.

It is reasonable and empirically true to say that your chances of being raped by a stranger increase when you leave your house; they increase again when you go to a frat house; and they increase even more when you get blackout drunk at said frat house. Thus, Sarah committed actions that increased the likelihood she was going to get raped, whereas Katie committed actions that decreased the likelihood she was going to get raped. The independent variable is the same, but the dependent variables are incredibly different.

Victims and Blame

Now let’s connect everything we have said thus far;

  1. You are the author of your actions and your actions have consequences.
  2. The more information about the possible consequences of your actions the better.
  3. Some consequences are uncontrollable, (ie rape)
  4. But some variables are controllable.
  5. Some controllable variables are more likely to lead to certain consequences than others (ie rape)
  6. So comparing the controllable variables and informing people which ones are more likely to lead to which consequences is good information to have.

Now that we near the end, you may be wondering why it took 6 pages to explain why telling your daughter to not get blackout drunk at frat houses is a good idea. To most of us that is just common sense and hardly worth the time I dedicated to it.

But this common sense opens up the ability to administer blame to victims of sexual assault, and throughout history has been horribly abused to dismiss the most heinous of crimes. As soon as what I said becomes true, the ‘she was asking for it’ type arguments are given the tiniest shred of validity, and this alignment is not a comfortable one. Everything I said in this essay which seemed reasonable has most certainly used in the past to justify those despicable dismissals discussed in the introduction. It is important that we are aware of this. However, if we sacrifice the tools needed to prevent rape in order to make the victims of rape more comfortable then we have already lost the fight.

It is completely understandable why this topic is so vehemently avoided by most people. In a politically correct culture, any minimal attribution of responsibility to people who have survived the most horrible assault can be grossly misrepresented. And, indeed, the argument I have been putting forward does not have a happy ending. If what I said is true, then that means it’s likely that Sarah will receive less sympathy and more scrutiny than Katie, even though they both suffered the same thing. Thus, knowing that a terrible situation might get even worse, Sarah might be inclined to not come forward about anything at all.

But the truth is tragic and does not capitulate to feelings. The fact of the matter is that there is a difference between the cases of Sarah and Katie, and the differences are certainly significant. It’s an incredible burden to shoulder, but it is a necessary one.  If we refuse to talk honestly about the choices people make and the consequences they can experience then we are creating a much larger injustice. In order to prevent rape, we have to make informed decisions and that means asking the hard questions.

How Being White Became The New Original Sin

Most white people have nothing good to say about the social justice movement.

SJW’s (self proclaimed warriors of social justice) will attribute this to the fact that most (if not all) white people are racist and intrinsically opposed to the notion of equality. While there is undoubtedly a significant amount of racism lurking in America’s basement, and though it may be difficult for an SJW to imagine, people have reasons to disagree with their ideology that extend beyond xenophobia and bigotry. In general, people just don’t like hyper-sensitive political correctness; they don’t like race baiting and identity politics; outrage culture annoys them; they consider the assault on free speech rather revolting; and they then recognize that all of these despised phenomena find refuge behind the gilded halls of social justice

But there is another reason white people distance themselves from the talons of a toxic ideology, and that reason provides the bedrock for all the phenomena listed above.

Most white people have abandoned the social justice movement because it treats white people like children. And not just like any old kids, but silver spoon, Billy Madison style children, who have temper tantrums, are always used to getting whatever they want, and have no idea about how the world really works. Thus, white people find themselves in a peculiar position regarding social justice; if they reject it, a swarm of intolerant bullying can reasonably be expected; if they accept and join the movement, they’re forced to sit at the kids table whilst the grown ups do the actual talking.

This essay will seek to explain why ‘allies’ (white people who aligned themselves with social justice) are treated so poorly, and how that can explain the lack of support from white people in general. It will be informed by articles you can find here, here, and here.

What we will find is that, to SJW’s, ‘allies’ are people who know their place, hold their tongue, and stay out of the way. To explain why this is the case, a sufficient understanding of social justice thinking must be established. Examining the now infamous phrases “respect my experience” and “check your privilege” do a lot of the heavy lifting, as the underlying psychology can be accessed in a rather simple dialectic.

Social Justice Psychology

The first thing a social justice ally might discover is that their role in the movement is not heading debates, guiding discussions or even talking at all; and this is because their voice is worth less than the voices of other, more marginalized individuals. To explain this, the smouldering cauldron that is social justice must be filtered out, so that the ingredients can be examined and their respective roles in the end product identified.

Firstly, the social justice movement is one that is captivated with demolishing existing systems of oppression. Moreover, it is fuelled by the personal experiences and feelings of the oppressed. If you ever have the pleasure of attending a social justice rally, you might be bewildered by just how much time they spend talking about themselves. Prepare to be bombarded with a nearly endless parade of personal stories. To social justice types, what matters most is the feeling of alienation, of otherness, that perpetually plagues the marginalized groups of society. As long as these feelings exist, to any subjective extent, that is a gross injustice that requires maximal attention. And simply put, white people do not and can not share that experience.

This is because the social justice movement draws much of its inspiration from a school of philosophy known as postmodernism. This philosophy has much to say about seemingly everything us humans value, including aesthetics, linguistics, literature, and epistemology. But postmodernism as a social theory essentially boils everything down to power; the world is merely but a zero sum contest of various groups vying to control resources by exploiting and manipulating other groups. Suffering from a love of dualisms, they then divide the world into two categories; oppressor and oppressed. The next step is then simply identifying which groups are oppressed and by whom.

Viewing the world in this manner explains the game that is identity politics, as in order to figure out which groups are oppressed, you have to first divide the world into groups. Identity politics, at its most fundamental level, is the practice of reducing people to their societal affiliations. Basically, it says the most important part of your individual identity is the group you belong to. If you’re a black woman, the two most important parts of your identity are the black and the woman parts. If you’re gay, than being non-heterosexual is your defining characteristic. 

So, once they have divided the world into groups (be it by race, ethnicity, gender, etc), they can begin identifying which groups are oppressed and which groups do the oppressing.

This process of identification creates a hierarchy of oppression, because some people belong to multiple oppressed groups. White women are oppressed, but not as much as muslim women. Transgender people are oppressed, but not as much as transgenders who are black. Identity politics helps explain why social justice orators such as Yasmin Abdel-Magied, an Australian activist, are able to attain such astonishing success so quickly. Yasmin, being a black female muslim, can claim three separate victim identities and thus has the utmost experiential authority to speak on three distinguishable issues. As a woman, she can talk about sexism; as a black, she can talk about racism; as a muslim, she can talk about islamophobia.

For those of you who have lives that extent beyond thinking about the political mindset of college students, first, I envy you, and second, I understand that all of this can be a lot of take in. Here’s a quick road map to summarize everything I just said; 1. SJW’s use postmodern thinking, which views the world through oppressor-oppressed relationships. 2. They then divide the world into groups and identify whose oppressed and who isn’t. 3. This process creates a hierarchy of oppression, in which some groups are more oppressed than others.

“Respect My Experience”

The phrases “respect my experience” and “check your privilege” are loaded with ideological doctrine, but understanding the psychology of an SJW makes them much easier to discern. Once you understand the above process, you understand why SJW’s don’t really value the voices of white people. To put it bluntly, those dastardly white folk don’t share the genuine feeling of oppression that unites America’s minorities; and even worse than that, it’s because whites are the group actually doing the oppressing!

When a black or any other minority tells you to “respect my experience”, they are telling you that you do not have the authority to talk about what it feels like to be oppressed. It doesn’t matter if you are severely impoverished, discriminated against by police, and/or abandoned by society, because you are merely a constituent of your group. And your group is not oppressed. Therefore, you do not have the right to talk about genuine oppression; especially when there are people who whose voices are much more valid, because they belong to multiple oppressed groups.

What “respect my privilege” really amounts to is an ideological tool used to override arguments from white people. If I’m a white male and we’re debating affirmative action, whatever arguments I present, whatever statistics I point out, are invalid compared to the genuine feeling of oppression experienced by a black female muslim. If I’m an ‘ally’, it amounts to whole-heartedly conceding that I have no idea what it means to be oppressed and should put the voices of those who do above my own.

“Check Your Privilege”

The other demand one must satisfy to become a social justice ally is conveniently summarized in the phrase “check your privilege”. As with “respect my experience”, there is an extensive amount of hugely consequential assumptions packed into a single phrase here, and though they run on the same algorithm, they are designed to elicit different results.

Harkoning back to postmodernism, social justice types are convinced we live in a white supremacist society. Though equality before the law is protected, there are invisible societal forces that are exclusively designed to maintain existing inequalities. Since everything is power, and that power is zero sum, whites keep themselves on top by pushing everybody else down. Moreover, whites are only able to accomplish this insofar as white people actually act out these systems.

Thus, because we are living in a white supremacist society, white people, since the day they are born, are indoctrinated with white supremacist forms of thinking. They internalize certain ideas about blacks, about women, about the economy, without even realizing it, and thus perpetuate forms of oppression.

This is what “check your privilege” really means; you have implicit beliefs that shroud your thinking and guide all of your actions in the direction of oppressing minorities. The relationship this concept shares with original sin is quite striking; there is something inherently wrong with you; no matter how hard you try to be good you will fail, and all you can do is give yourself over to the faith. The faith, in this case, being the altruistic leadership of those with experiences of oppression, who want nothing else but to usher in an egalitarian utopia.  

It seems we are at a point where the shroud of nuance and incoherence that characterizes social justice thinking is beginning to fade away. “Respect my experience” says your voice isn’t worth much; “check your privilege” says it’s probably wrong anyway.

Now that these two concepts are understood, we can begin to piece together the puzzle that is the expectations placed upon a social justice ally.

Expectations of Allies

Firstly, to be an ally, you must admit that you get everything wrong. All white allies “in many ways fail at it everyday”. After all, the privileged life you have lived is founded upon the backs of all those oppress, and each time you move your foot you just dig your heel deeper into their spine.

The next step is attempting to empathize with those who are oppressed. Keep in mind, being a white person, you will never be able to have genuine empathy for those minorities you work with. But nonetheless, a good ally is one who is “constantly asking myself what it means to be white in this situation”. The social justice interpretation of ‘what it means to be white’, of course, simply amounts to ‘how is my skin colour benefiting me at this moment’. As an indoctrinated white supremacist who has become desensitized to benefiting from horrific societal oppression, you really don’t know and can’t know ‘what it means to be white’. Therefore, just assume “it’s always helping you”. After all, non-whites know what it really is like to be white better than anybody, right?

Thirdly, don’t try to actually to do anything yourself, since you will inevitably mess things up. Remember, everything you do and have always done in some way perpetuates systems of oppression. Since you might not recognize these systems, you should just assume that you are making things worse when you are merely trying to help. But why should I bother explaining this, when the National Association of Student Administrators (quite the title) put it so succinctly in 2006; “Some who genuinely aspire to act as social justice allies are harmful, ultimately, despite their best intentions, perpetuating the system of oppression they seek to change. Different underlying motivations of those who aspire to be allies can lead to differences in effectiveness, consistency, outcome, and sustainability.”

Since you shouldn’t do anything yourself, all you can do is enable and justify the platforms of those who have experienced oppression. It is important that whites “support the leadership of people of colour”. Be faithful to your social justice overlords; do not question them, do not criticize them, as only they have experienced oppression and only they know how to fight against it. If you feel tempted to criticize the tactics of a person of colour, remember that all you are doing is perpetuating oppression and that your privilege is obscuring your vision. Remember that “when the term ally becomes a way for privileged folk to determine how we grieve, when we should take action, what is considered worthy of national attention, and who is given agency, allies transform back into disempowering forces.” A true ally is one who realizes that they actually don’t know best.

Even if the recognition that you will make things worse by voicing your opinion fails to deter you, remember that your voice isn’t worth as much as those who belong to an oppressed group. Since you don’t have an experience of oppression, you lack the feeling of alienation upon which the social justice movement is founded. In a movement fuelled by experiences of oppression, you have little to offer. Thus, whenever you decide you think you should be heard, remember that a) you’re making things worse by talking, and b) you’re taking the platform away from someone who has a much more valid voice than you.

What white allies can do is recognize “that their place is at the margins, not at the center”. They need to “relinquish their seat at the table to make room for those with lived experiences” (postmodernism, anybody?). The only people with valid voices are the oppressed, and the only people who can be holistically opposed to systems of oppression are the oppressed. So what the whites can do is shut up and get out of the way.

Lastly, after doing all of this, “don’t expect a pat on the back” for merely “doing what you’re supposed to do”. A true ally doesn’t need gratification or validity, because a true ally recognizes that they can’t actually help the movement, but they can just try their best not to hurt it.


The worldview of a social justice fundamentalist involves dividing the world neatly into manichean categories, and thus discovering that the whites are oppressive, tyrannical rulers who must be stopped. This is why white SJW’s are called allies; because all other white people are enemies.

One reason, among many, white people detest the social justice movement is because of phenomena such as this. The social justice movement has demeaning, racist, and paternalistic attitudes towards whites.

Most people are sensible enough to recognize that the social justice movement is not nearly as benevolent as it claims to be in the first place. But if they are tempted by the powerful anecdotal rhetoric of what it feels like to be oppressed, they are reminded that unless they kiss the feet of people of colour than they are still the enemy. The only people who can genuinely act altruistically in the name of equality are those people who belong to marginalized groups, and if white people refuse to accept that their role “is to support, not lead” than they are no better than their oppressive and insatiably greedy fellow whites.

Ironically, the social justice movement has succeeded in making white people become the ‘other’. And given their resentful attitudes towards whites, it really does seem like that was their intention all along.

Why Saying “You Can’t Be Racist To White People” Is Wrong

It’s impossible for fat people to bully skinny people.

After all, skinny people are supported and idealized by society, whilst fat people are thought of as lazy and unattractive solely based upon this one characteristic. Undeniably, skinny people have it easier in the workforce, in everyday encounters, and in interviews.  Even a lifeguard is much more likely to try and save the skinny person than the fat one. And if that’s not enough, fat people have to pay higher insurance rates, once again, solely because of this characteristic.

Given this extensive sociological analysis, can we not factually state that, since fat people bear a much heavier burden than skinny people, it is impossible for a fat person to bully a skinny person?

Fortunately, there are not many people that would agree with this conclusion. Unfortunately, however, there is a staggering amount of people who agree with this conclusion if you just replaced ‘skinny’ with ‘white’ and ‘fat’ with ‘black’ or any other minority. Get rid of the lifeguard bit (though I’m sure there’s some statistic proving more blacks drown more than whites and that this is evidence of racist lifeguards) and everything else provided in the second paragraph comes straight from the mouths of social justice warriors.

Such a provocative statement, (that you can’t be racist to white people) is not only accepted in the social justice community but it seems to be one of their fundamental tenants. This is why LGBT and BLM activists can get away with saying outrageous and explicitly racist things against white people. They have redefined racism to fit their postmodern philosophy, and moulded it in such a manner as to excuse and obscure their most absurd  statements.

For those unfamiliar with postmodernism, I really do envy your ignorance. It’s one hell of a philosophy to comprehend. But as it applies to politics, it basically boils everything down to different groups vying for power in a zero sum world. The social justice types, who memorize Madness and Civilization like it’s the Quran, view racism exclusively through an oppressed-oppresser lens.

To them, racism means possessing political, economic, and institutional power. To be clear, they equivocate racism with oppression; racism is merely possessing the requisite power to oppress. This is why only whites can be racist; because whites have the most power. And this general, abstract power is utilized only in malicious and malevolent manners, to the benefit of exclusively whites, and if the blacks could just get their hands on some more power they, with their big hearts and compassionate minds, would usher in a post-racial egalitarian utopia. This isn’t hyperbole, but the implicit assumption made by SJW’s.

And I’m not merely plucking this assumption out of a hat, but it reveals itself without shame whenever an SJW is asked to elaborate on their definition of racism. An article titled “That’s Racist Against White People” explains to us inherently bigoted whites that it’s not possible to be racist against whites because that “removes any mention of societal power, oppression and privilege” (see the postmodernism popping up?). “In reality”, certain words are “are backed by a history and current system of domination, violence, oppression, repression, dehumanization”  etc.. The author felt the obligation to run through their vocabulary for a little bit longer, but you get the point.

To social justice types, all of history is packed into everything you say and do. That’s why it’s okay for a black person to call a white a cracker; because the black person is not participating in a system that perpetuates oppression of whites. When I do something comparable (guess what guys, I’m white!) I am no longer Connor Chase the indebted undergrad, but a slave owner wielding the whip of institutional power for my own sadistic pleasure against those I keep beneath my feet. When a black person calls me a cracker, they are essentially a slave rising up against my tyranny, single handily abolishing the Jim Crow laws and distributing racial equality throughout the land like candy on halloween.

That’s why the social justice types not only don’t believe in racism against whites but defend it whenever it comes up (and sometimes even call for more). Whenever you treat white people differently because of their skin, you are acting righteously and claiming some of their institutional power for your community. After all, white people are privileged beyond comprehension so a little abuse doesn’t actually mean anything, right?

But let’s put aside common sense for a moment and take this definition of racism as seriously as the SJW’s take it. When you take the time to actually follow social justice thinking through to its logical conclusions, you arrive at a thrift shop displaying all kinds of quality objections and inconsistencies. In fact, there’s so many on sale that it’s hard to choose where to start.

How about we just consider the idea that racism is determined by institutional, economic, and political power as well as contextual history. Then let’s imagine some magical social justice heaven, in which the revolution has been achieved and the insatistable demand for equality of outcome has been satisfied. Every institution and political riding is dived proportionately to the population, with 50/50 men and women, 30% blacks, 12% latinos etc… Thus, every race has an equal amount of political and institutional power. Here’s the kicker; even if every race had equal power, it would still be impossible to be racist towards whites.

This is because the social justice types demand that contextual history and the prorogation of systems of oppression are inherently linked. Historically, blacks have been enslaved by whites and been discriminated against severely for hundreds of years. In case you did’t know, this is not a reciprocal history. So this means that, even if the racial power divide is levelled out, the whites have a history of genuine racism towards blacks that they have not been atoned for. Thus, in this equality wonderland, the word nigger would still be worse than cracker.

The only way to achieve true equality is to have blacks enslave whites for a couple hundred years then fight their way back to an equal society. Only then would all the aspects  of the criteria that define racism be met, as then and only then would both nigger and cracker have a history of racism attached to them.

And sometimes, it really does seem like that’s exactly what the SJW types are after. The amount of bitterness, resentment, and intolerance that boils out of social justice camps smells eerily of revenge. A “how do you like it, whitey” attitude seems to drift about in the air whenever they congregate to stop people they don’t like from speaking.

Another more obvious problem emerges when you define racism as inequality in history, politics, economy and institutional representation. If we return to our fantastical social justice land, there still exists the problem of economic disparity.

The reality is that even if racial equity could be achieved this would not bring about absolute economic equality. In a capitalist system, there will always be inequality. It’s inevitable. Some people work a little harder, some people save money better, some people know how to invest intelligently etc… And if institutions were to be divided, who’s to say they the specific constituents of that institution would be completely equal? If the profession of doctor were to be racially allocated, who’s to say that there won’t be a disproportionate amount of black pediatric neurosurgeons (as there are now)? Or who’s to say that the Japanese domination of STEM fields would flatten out? If the SJW’s think that having universities be proportionate to race is the final solution to equality, what makes them think that all races are the same? What makes them think that blacks and latinos and Koreans all have the same values and interests? What makes them think that every specific job will be absolutely equally represented?

What this reveals is the implicit communism hidden and obscured away from the spotlight. If racism can only be abolished when we have economic equality, then the wealth will have to distributed accordingly. Some authority will have to redistribute the money to make sure it’s equal, as it definitely will never be equal in capitalist system.

Maybe if you think communism is a great idea, then me pointing this little detail out won’t be such a big deal. But to those of us who have taken an economics class, a little communism goes a long way in destroying whatever it touches.

And building off the hidden communism, this definition of racism is divisive by its very nature. Defining racism in the social justice manner divides the world into manichean categories, with clearly identifiable indicators revealing your alignment with the good guys or bad guys. On this view, if a white person is a social justice ally, they are saint-like, benevolent, god-given gifts who act entirely altruistically and are willing to sacrifice their own privilege in order to make the world more just. They are all modern day Robin Hoods, stealing from the privileged and distributing it to everyone else. People like me, however, are either ignorant monsters who know not what they do, or white-supremacist demons who perpetuate slavery and other forms of oppression.

The left likes to parade how ‘tolerant’ they are other cultures and ethnicities, and they paint themselves as being accepting and reasonable. But in reality, they only tolerate you if you share their goal of abolishing traditional western society. To them, ‘diversity’ means a bunch of people who look different but think the same. As this definition shows, they believe there are good guys and bad guys, and this is determined by how much you support the system. Additionally, if you are a minority, your probably a good guy, because you’ve been horribly oppressed and anything you do acts to rebel against that injustice. If you’re white, you’re already a part of the problem, but you can do your part by shutting up and making sure other white people follow suit.

Once again, maybe you’re a fan of a black and white interpretation of the world, with identifiable good and bad guys. But the world is a complicated place, and any ideology which utilizes manichean categories misses a lot of the nuance that characterizes such a world.

There’s another axiom hidden in this definition you might have missed; it’s collectivist. Remember, according to social justice types, you do not act individually but are merely a puppet of the institutions which dictate everything you do. When a white is racist to a black, it is not an individual encounter, but a manifestation of all the white power and privilege attempting to keep all blacks down, a recurrence of hundreds of years of slavery, and a regurgitation of the white-supremacist ethos from which you are not yet ‘woke’. You are not an individual but merely a cog in a machine, and there is only one way you should be spinning.

One of the primary ideas of western civilization is that the individual is sacred and accountable, so it’s no surprise that the people who detest western civilization have abandoned the individual. In fact, this is another revelation pulled from the transcendent postmodernism movement. And then again, this might be another point that won’t convince you. Maybe you do think that group identity (your skin colour, gender, country of birth etc…) is the most important part about you. But I just wanted to point this out for everybody else; for all the individuals who like the idea of autonomy and freedom.

There is an undeniable problem with the collectivist mindset, however; this being that it makes it impossible to distinguish individuals. In accordance with the theme of racism, the social justice definition takes away the ability to notice who is a genuine bigot and who is just a conservative. If every racist act is a gauche propagation of institutional power, with the exact same goal of maintaining that power at the expense of everybody else, then we have a problem. Social justice types say that anyone who acts against their doctrine does this implicitly, whether they understand it or not. But what about people who do this explicitly?

What’s the difference between me, who says that this definition is silly, and Richard Spencer, who says that whites are supreme and all other races weigh us down? According to SJW’s, Spencer just says what I’m thinking subconsciously, and is merely just voicing the indoctrinated thinking that white society has pressed upon me. This is a bold and obviously ineffective political move. I would love to team up with the social justice camps and intellectually humiliate Spencer and his supporters, as his views disgust me. But the SJW’s see me and him as doing essentially the same thing; I’m just a little more careful with my words.

And lastly, I’m far from the first person to notice that this definition of racism is contextual and therefore incredibly complicated. Perhaps we could assume that the SJW’s never expected their new definition to be taken seriously, but if their logic is applied internationally its simplicity inverts on itself.

Let’s take the example of the Japanese. They hold an incredible amount of institutional and economic power, with Japan being one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Even in America, Japanese dominate the SAT’s in universities and the high paying professions in the sciences. So it seems that, proportionately, the Japanese, who account for less than 1% of the population, wield an unjust amount of power and influence. Simultaneously, however, Japanese Americans have a history of being discriminated against, from the 1800’s basically until the 1980’s. So is their history of oppression sufficient to exempt them from being racists? Or does their current power and influence make them just another oppressor?

It’s certainly impossible for Chinese people to be racist to Japanese, as these two nations have a history that consists of the Japanese abusing and exploiting the Chinese seemingly without any regard for human life in the 20th century (Rape of Nanking, anyone?).

And what do we call it when a Korean uses a racial slur against a Latino? Does the answer to this question change if it happens in America, or Brazil, or Korea?

And is it possible to be racist to whites in countries where they hold little to no power and influence? What about in Syria and Iraq, which is and has been undergoing religious cleansing of christians (who are disproportionately white)? In those countries, christians hold little to no power, and there is certainly a history of their abuse and oppression. So maybe you can be racist to whites, but you have to go to Iraq to do it?

I could go on like this much longer. All we have to do is change the location, change the people’s, change the minority, and suddenly the racism equals ability to oppress + history of oppression definition begins to crumble into sand. And just like a grain of sand by itself is insignificant, a sea of sand is enough to swallow an empire. No matter how harmless this definition may seem, there is one thing about it that is clear; it is in no way a passive or non-consequatial definition.

When you apply this definition internationally, you realize that it was constructed exclusively for the purpose of justifying the horrible things SJW’s say about the whites of the west. Most certainly, they have not even considered applying the definition in other contexts, as they are pathologically obsessed with abolishing our tyrannical, patriarchal, white supremacist society.

That’s why it’s important to understand the true danger that such ideological possession presents. Though it may be hard to see, because social justice types hide behind the emancipation of the oppressed, they are just as power hungry as the people they deem their enemies. And if the SJW’s were to acquire the power they desire, they have an excuse to act in a genocidal manner against white people.

I’m not exaggerating here either. We’ve had a century of marxist, collectivist revolutions where the oppressed overthrew their oppressors. While it sounds great, what it amounted to was the extermination of the bourgeois (for us it would be the whites) and the destruction of any capability to compete with a free market without the use of forced labor camps.

Thus, this idea of ‘you can’t be racist to white people’ is not just another brilliant liberal discovery. It’s a machiavellian power move, used to silence the fearful, condemn the opposition, and justify the horrible.