Haters promoting hate. Such is the case of today’s social justice warriors. According to one Aristo Orginos, the groups that are supposedly militating against hate are fomenting hate… and violence.
…in attempting to solve pressing and important social issues, millennial social justice advocates are violently sabotaging genuine opportunities for progress by infecting a liberal political narrative with, ironically, hate.
So deeply do these warriors believe in the righteousness of their cause that they have produced an authoritarian movement to impose their views on everyone else:
… this particular brand of millennial social justice advocates have warped an admirable cause for social, economic, and political equality into a socially authoritarian movement that has divided and dehumanized individuals on the basis of an insular ideology guised as academic theory.
In so doing they have created an alternative justice system, produced by a bureaucratic edict from the Obama administration, that forces colleges and universities to deprive anyone accused of sexual assault of all rights to due process.
For an extended study of this problem see Laura Kipnis’s new book: Unwanted Advances.
Social justice warriors are so worried about campus sexual assault that they have overturned the basic principle of our criminal justice system. Orginos explains it:
Sir William Blackstone is famous for what is known as the Blackstone formulation: “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.” This axiom is a foundation of modern justice systems worldwide. It as a formulation that assumes innocence; to condemn on the basis of a certain accusation because of the identity or oppressed status of the accuser is a dangerous road to go down. It erodes the most essential tenet of liberalism: due process.
Due process, or the idea that a governing body must respect all legal rights of an individual, is granted to Americans by the 5th and 14th Amendments. To suggest that there is no recourse for the accused — and to ask for it is actually rape apology — is absurd, reactionary, and further highlights the black-and-white nature of this certain brand of millennial social justice advocates. To speak dissent against— or even question at all — the orthodoxy is to have your words twisted into less positive terms: one does not ask for “due process,” one asks to let rapists go, perpetuates rape culture, and favors rape apology. Why, after all, would someone ask for due process when a woman is accusing a man of rape? The millennial social justice advocate views this as an insidious question that results from sexism against women and is corroborated, they feel, by a statistically insignificant rate of false rape accusations.
Social justice warriors would rather convict the innocent than to allow a single guilty male go free. They have tried to overturn the principle that makes a jury the trier of fact.
Remember the hue and cry about how Donald Trump plays fast and loose with the facts. If a woman who accuses a man of rape is taken to be truthful and if we must accept her word at face value, we are living in an alternative criminal justice system, where sexual abuse occurs when a woman feels that it has occurred or when she says it has occurred. The chances for abuse are legion. Which is why we have, criminal investigation, trial by jury and due process of law. Would you rather have lynch mobs and Star Chambers?
Wasn’t Emmett Till murdered because Carolyn Bryant lied about her encounter with him?