Have you ever been cleaning your house, sweeping the floor or vacuuming the carpet, and after hours of work, you put away your vacuum, hang up your broom, and chillax with a beer…
…and then you see it. A crumb that somehow missed the dustpan. A dust bunny the vacuum failed to suck up. A smudge on the baseboards that you just did not see until you put everything away.
What do you do?
Well, if you’re OCD about these things, as I can be sometimes, perhaps you break out all of your cleaning gear again, and go to town on the smudge, hit the floors one more time, and go through the whole process all over. Or maybe you just get up, and physically pick up the speck, or rub the smudge on the baseboard with your shirt. I’ve done that, too.
You return to your now-lukewarm beer. You got the speck this time. No more smudges. It’s time to relax after a job well done. And then you see it. Another speck of dirt… You sigh. But you’re not getting up again. No way.
This sort of thing applies to almost every corner of life. If you’re a car guy (as I also am), the small scratches and paint chips you accumulate on your daily driver can drive you nuts.
Social Justice operates like this.
If we imagine the various ills of racism, sexism, homophobia, and the myriad of other -isms and -phobias decried by the Progressives as a messy room, we can see how ending Jim Crow, passing the 19th amendment, and passing the Civil Rights Act might be seen as cleaning that room.
And the specks of dirt left in the room after we’ve cracked open that beer are the microaggressions, the privileges, and the various imperfections in the ‘level playing field’ that feature prominently in political discourse.
In many ways, I think the political Right has made a mistake in trying to say these privileges, microaggressions, and other such things do not exist. Instead, I wonder if the better approach is to point out that the carpet will never be entirely free of dirt particles. Your baseboards will never be perfect. You can break out the cleaning gear again and again, and only succeeded in rubbing the paint off the baseboards in your obsession to have perfect cleanliness.
Oftentimes there are relatively obvious things that can be done to address very blatant inequalities. Certainly, eliminating government-enforced segregation was a big one. And perhaps police reform is urgently needed in a lot of places. But after a while, you reach diminishing returns in the quest for perfection. How has affirmative action worked out?
Adam Corolla gave the example of how he wanted to become an LA firefighter, and had to wait years – in the process giving up on this desire – because he was white, and continually shuffled to the bottom of the stack. Somebody rubbed the paint off the baseboards. Even if being white is probably still a net gain in some situations, it is also a net negative in others. Imagine being the white kid trying out for the basketball team.
Intersectional privileges, in Social Justice parlance, are essentially infinite in nature anyway. That is to say each person will have a personal collection of advantages and disadvantages based on various attributes. What is gained by privilege A is lost by privilege B, and so on. I recall a debate on Twitter back in the Gamergate days, where an SJW ranted on about blue-eyed privilege. Theoretically, sure, maybe having blue eyes statistically means a 1% more likely chance of some good thing happening. But my brown eyes have never bothered me. And it is difficult to see what my brother’s blue eyes really bought him in life.
These privileges are specks of dirt on the carpet. And in some cases, a good pass with the vacuum will eliminate the worst and most visible effects – especially when those privileges are mandated by a hostile government.
But the SJWs do not know when to stop, crack open a beer, and just live with it. They keep scrubbing until the paint is gone. They keep vacuuming until the carpet is torn up. Knuckles bloody, beer expired, and angry, they just keep going.
A white woman in a kimono must be cancelled.
The Golden Girls with that mud mask stuff on is blackface, get rid of it.
To hell with Aunt Jemima syrup.
Tear down the emancipation monument.
All because there’s a speck somewhere.
When called out on this behavior, they point to the speck of dirt and say “see! Look! Racism still exists!”
Yes, it does. You’re never going to get rid of it all. Start from the assumption that humanity is a flawed creature, that individuals are full of biases you will never rid them of entirely, and that some in-group preference is unavoidable. Start from the assumption that every human has advantages and disadvantages in life, and you will not be able to level them all. There will always be a smudge or a speck.
At a certain point, crack open your beer and chill, damnit.
A different way of looking at it is defining what clean means to you. Does a clean country mean that no incidents of racism will occur? No. Does it mean there will be no monuments that offend anyone? No. Does a clean country mean every demographic permutation or ‘group privilege’ situation will be equally represented in everything? No.
Also, given that there are nearly an infinite number of potential overlapping privileges, what makes this particular speck you’re focusing on so much more important than the others?
Feminists gloss over atrociously bad male suicide rates and workplace deaths. Why is #metoo so much more important than men killing themselves, or dying in workplace accidents? It’s not so much that I want to obsess over the “men kill themselves” speck of dirt on the carpet. Rather, why is THIS speck so much more worthy of obsession than THAT speck. It’s subjective and emotionally driven. White privilege is a problem when it confers advantages over some other demographic group. But when the white kid is picked last for the basketball team, or Adam Carolla can’t even get an interview for the firefighter job he wanted, nobody cares about Non-white privilege.
Even if we conceded that, net-net, White privilege outweighed Non-white privilege (and I’m not so sure it does – SJWs tend to focus on the advantages of one and the disadvantages of the other with little balancing in the reverse direction), is the return on investment really worth it?
How much is complete fairness worth?
In Harrison Bergeron, it was worth bringing all of society down to the lowest common denominator. Is that what we want?
And let’s assume we finally figure out this one privilege in the infinite Social Justice Pantheon of privileges. Great! Only a near-infinite number more to go. What’s next? Height privilege? Blue-eye privilege?
Or maybe it’s male privilege, which is one I really find laughable. Progressives often focus on higher overall pay for men. Or the fact that women are often valued for their looks. The second one his kind of hilarious, because in many ways being valued for appearance is an advantage if you’re an even modestly attractive woman. This is a card most men can never play. It’s not in their privilege deck at all.
I ran a poll on Twitter – and let’s be clear, Twitter polls are for fun only, don’t take this as serious business – and 91.5% of folks rated “hot girl privilege” as higher than male, white, and straight privileges. Again, very biased sample set.
But if we ran that same poll out in the world and got real statistical data out of it, can anyone imagine hot girl privilege losing? I can’t. Can you?
Of course, like the others, there are disadvantages too, even there. A hot girl probably has to deal with a lot more creepers and internet stalkers than some random dude-bro.
The main point I’m trying to make here, is that SJWs and Progressives tend to be very arbitrary when it comes to selecting which privileges to be worried about, and furthermore, they tend to be very arbitrary when describing them, selecting only the disadvantages of one and the advantages of the other with little thought to a balanced comparison.
And they can never stop cleaning. There is never a point where something is good enough. The house is never clean. Nobody can ever relax, crack open a beer, and chill. Social anxiety must continue forever. Never stop cleaning. No peace.
But also, that privileges, microaggressions, and other Social Justice talking points do exist in some fashion. Saying they do not gives SJWs leverage in the argument. The speck of dirt on the carpet is real. It’s there.
It’s just that I’m not getting up from the couch second time over one speck of dirt. Oftentimes, it is not anywhere near as important or dramatic as they claim. I’m not going scrub the baseboards until the paint peels off for a tiny smudge. The ROI isn’t there.
I’ll keep a clean house, mind you. But we’re never going to have perfection. And eventually, people just need to stop, live with it, and get on with their lives.
One of the fascinating claims I’ve heard lobbed around political debates on social media is this: “women never lie about rape/sexual assault.” This is sometimes qualified or modified to be “women rarely lie about rape/sexual assault.” That happens most often when someone brings up something like the Duke Lacrosse case, or something like this. If challenged, the Leftist (this is claim is most common among them) will attempt to back up the statement with statistics like this bit of research conducted by Stanford. The meat of the study is that only 2% of rape accusations are proven to be false.
At first glance, this would appear to support the Leftist assertion. But it really doesn’t. First off, while I cannot verify Stanford’s claims, let’s operate under the assumption that the stats are true. Here’s another statistic you may or may be aware of. According to RAINN, out of 310 reports made to the police (i.e. accusations), only 11 cases are referred to prosecutors, and only 7 result in felony convictions. This means that only about 2% of rape/sexual assault accusations are proven true.
What does this mean, if all these stats are true? It means that 96% of rape cases are indeterminate. We don’t know if the accuser is lying, or if the accused is guilty. Neither is proven true. Furthermore, given the fact that human memory is not infallible, and that human interpretation/perception can result in one participant believing it is a rape and the other believing it is not, there are permutations where both are speaking truthfully. There was some speculation to this effect with Kavanaugh, especially given that the alleged incident was both 36 years old, and involved copious amounts of alcohol.
In other words, the Leftists are either lying or are ignorant of the facts. Fact is, rape accusations are proven to be lies at roughly the same rate as they are proven to be true, but the vast majority are unproven either way.
That puts a different spin on the notion, doesn’t it? That means, if there is no supporting evidence, you may as well flip a coin as to whether or not the accusation is bullshit, and whether or not the accused is actually a rapist. A coin flip doesn’t support destroying a man’s reputation.
And that’s what all this is about. By claiming that rape accusations are rarely falsified, the Leftist is implying this is itself a form of evidence. The Leftist is saying, without having to actually back up the claim, that the accusation means there is now a 98% chance of the accused being a rapist. It is a tacit method of getting around the presumption of innocence.
The whole thing is flimsy rhetoric. It’s a bald-faced fallacy. The accusation doesn’t change the actual odds. Either the rape happened, or it did not. Consider also that, even if the Leftists were right about a 2% lie rate, it doesn’t take into account that humans cannot be governed by anything like the Kinetic Theory of Gasses. Asimov was wont to speculate on the possibility that such analysis was possible, that a psychohistory could be made to work. It cannot. Think about it very carefully. If you’re a woman who hates a particular man, for whatever reason, and you know that people will say only 2% of rape accusations are lies, you can intentionally and cynically use this to make the man look guilty. People are willful, and can defy the statistics whenever they choose to do so. Statistics do not govern individual actions. And even Asimov said in Foundation that psychohistory could only work if people were unaware of its application, and so could not willfully sabotage it (that happened anyway in Foundation & Empire).
Using statistics on the accuracy of accusations to determine probability of individual guilt is thus a category error to begin with. I’ve been very confused with people treating it as if this had any meaning whatsoever. Guilt or innocence is independent of accusation. People aren’t molecules in a cloud of gas. Probability and statistics has some utility with large human groups as a whole, but psychohistory does not exist, and the accuracy of the generalization does not apply to the individual in any case. These things are not hard to understand, and yet everywhere I look, people are thinking about this thing backwards.
Usually, when you encounter an item with no definitive price tag, it is because the item is significantly overpriced. When a customer must ask for the price, the salesman can estimate wealth, gullibility, and many other things before finding a way to screw the customer. It also provides an opportunity to sell the customer, rather than merely counting on the item and its price to convince the buyer.
In simple terms, forcing another to be open about his wants, and being closed off on your own, gives a man a decided bargaining advantage.
Lately, we’ve seen this at work with Antifa, BLM, #TheResistance, and other assorted left-wing groups. Grievances are produced, from slavery, to the plight of Native Americans, to American foreign adventures in the Middle East. Being honest with ourselves, some of these grievances have at least a historical merit to them. But for such leftist groups, the price for burying the grievance is obfuscated behind buzzwords and jargon. We must dismantle the cisheteropatriarchy, we must check our privilege, we must become a positive advocate for change. Everything from microaggressions to cultural appropriation are cited as examples of these things.
But I ask, what change?
Allow me to step into the shoes of one of Babylon 5’s villains, Mr. Morden, and ask the question: “what do you want?”
Well, leftists? What do you want? What is your price for putting away identity politics and your incessant portrayals of right-wing racism, sexism, homophobia, and islamophobia? These portrayals have silenced some of us, enraged others, and sent many conservatives running for the political closet. And once there, they still voted right-wing. Thus we now have one Donald J. Trump, despite all predictions to the contrary.
Some of us, like the esteemed Francis at Liberty’s Torch,have made peace with the incessant accusations and said something to the effect of “if you think that means I’m a racist then fine, I’m a racist. Now what?” Others, like myself, maintain that the portrayal of racism as the greatest of all evils is a mistake, dredged up because of the relative historical freshness of Nazi evil, and America’s own struggles with slavery. These evils most Americans are familiar with, but judging from the proliferation of Che Guevara t-shirts, the evils of Communism are less well understood.
And so racism becomes the number one evil in America, a sort of 21st century red scare, except there are even fewer to play the part of the reds (and many more actual reds).
All of that is immaterial, however. What is the end goal of the leftist? What does he want? What does his ideal America (or world, for those of a globalist persuasion) look like? Who gets to live there? What becomes of us and others who do not fit this progressive vision of the future?
When asked, leftists are often quite silent on the price. Just today, one explained that I should google the matter (never mind that I’ve exhausted google as a resource for this) because she didn’t want to “perform free emotional labor” on my behalf. Naming the price is now something that, in itself, costs money. Imagine if you asked the salesman what the price of a thing was, and he replied “you have to pay me to find out.”
Like the little psychological trick of decreasing sticker shock with slick salesmanship, the left understands that by hiding the price, they increase the possibility of ripping off some gullible idiot. Namely, us. And it works well enough on some. Enough that the thought of being accused of racism or prejudice is enough to elicit outright fear in many, not just an answer to the question.
Once an accusation of racism is leveled, very little is sufficient to dismiss it. Do you have many friends of the race in question? RationalWiki tells you that this is insufficient (after all, Hitler liked one Jew). You’re still a racist. What if, instead, you married a black woman, loved her and her family, and had a child with her? Well, you’re still a racist, because as some Puppy-kickers explained on Facebook (they have since deleted the posts in question, but I saved a screenshot, and Brad Torgersen can confirm it), black pussy doesn’t mean you aren’t racist. The Puppy-kickers even made this into a t-shirt. This argument was recently resurrected on Twitter by Talib Kweli Greene where he explained that if you marry an Indian woman, you’re still a racist, you just like Indian pussy.
So your friends, family, and relationships are dismissed. The accusation still stands. And remember, you are guilty unless proven innocent. And to prove your innocence, you must embrace leftist politics. That is the only accepted coin. And even by doing that, you would still have to abase yourself thoroughly and completely. Meanwhile, a woman who murdered her own 4 year old son applied to Harvard, and was denied. Naturally, this had something to do with racism, according to Vox.com. Of course it has little or nothing to do with being a convicted murderer of a child.
Ultimately, the choice is this: convert to leftism, or risk being tarred as a racist with no possible way to prove otherwise, because you are guilty until proven innocent, and all evidence except leftist political sentiments will be summarily dismissed as insufficient.
Meanwhile, a reasonable man might be inclined to ask the price of buying this weapon off the left. What would it take for them to put it away?
Their rants and raves on this matter are difficult to parse. Ta-Nehisi Coates penned a long piece in support of reparations, and when I first read it I expected a concrete answer to the question “what do you want?” Instead, we were treated to a historical lecture on the plight of blacks in America. We already knew this. Everybody knows about slavery, Jim Crow, and discrimination against blacks. How can anyone not know? The media has been bombarding us with these things for as long as I’ve been alive. And if the media wasn’t, BLM sure has been making a rather more raw effort at doing so. We get it. These things happened, and blacks got a raw deal.
What I want is a price. What are the demands? What do they really want?
I suspect the reason the demands aren’t named is that the sticker shock is likely to be quite mighty. I recall reading some time ago (and I can’t remember where presently, but if any of my readers know, please reply in the comments) that one black leader suggested a one-time payoff of $1 million to each black citizen. That bill would come out to approximately $36 trillion, approximately double the GDP of the United States, and likely an impossible sum. But to be honest, I suspect the left’s real demands would be much more expensive, and involve something much more Marxist than a massive one-time payment. The left would probably want to ensure the racist right-wingers never got to express their racism again, and would need to be actively suppressed. Somebody has to be the kulaks when things go bad, after all.
In the end, it’s just like Barack Obama’s campaign of hope and change. What change? How much will it cost? Hopeful for whom? These are questions the left leaves unanswered. There are never any (accurate) price tags on their merchandise. And so, I’ve no interest in buying.
The story is pretty simple, a British father who lost his wife to cancer years before took his 13 year old daughter on a short little vacation. He booked a room at the Travelodge, and went to check in, and the only type of room they had left was a double room, so he said he’d take it…
…then a whole dramatic escapade ensues where the Travelodge manager interrogates the customer, calls the police, and accuses the father of being a pedo. Police take the child away from her father, and interrogate her as to whether not he is her father.
It’s absurd that a meddling hotel manager would do this, of course, but at the same time consider the blindness the British authorities had toward the Rotherham rape cases. If the supposed perp is a Muslim or non-white, the practice is largely ignored out of fear that the authorities will be tarred as racist. If a British man takes his daughter on a vacation, he is subjected to ludicrous accusations with absolutely no evidence whatsoever behind them. Then both father and daughter are interrogated by the police.
This is rather like the absurdity of old grandmothers being subjected to random deep TSA screenings.
I’ve taken to calling this phenomenon Reverse Profiling, insofar as whatever the common sense profiling might suggest, the authorities must do the exact opposite. If, for instance, purple Martians were known to be more likely to commit random acts of terrorism, those same purple Martians must be let in without any screening whatsoever. And if old grandmothers were known to rarely, if ever, commit said acts, the book must be thrown at as many of them as possible.
The hotel chain, meanwhile, crafts lies to try and justify their actions:
Mr Darwell complained and says that the company are now falsely claiming that he tried to pay by cash in order to justify their suspicion.
‘They say I insisted on paying cash when I arrived but its rubbish. I had already paid by credit card before I even arrived,’ he added.
The increasing involvement of companies in policing and politics is starting to become quite worrisome to me. They are becoming a cog in demands of the State. And meanwhile, SJWs make demands that companies embrace political correctness, that is to say Leftism. We like in a bizarre world wherein Capitalism is, itself, being bent to the will of Leftism. It’s beyond crony Capitalism and into some kind of bizarre hybrid not entirely dissimilar from Chinese Market Communism, or whatever they are calling their system these days.
‘Our colleagues are trained based on current national guidelines from the NSPCC, the police and other agencies and in the past, hotel team actions have led to successful intervention to protect young people.
The government said to jump… and even in a blatant case of obvious misjudgment, they jumped. A decree comes down from on high that hotels should do (x), no matter how ridiculous or stupid it may be, and off they go.
I bet dollars to donuts that the hotel manager wouldn’t have said a damn thing if the father had been a Pakistani and his daughter had been in a burkha. And just who do you think the odds favor in cases of kiddy diddling? After all, Mohammed himself was okay with the practice, so long as they were older than 9.
Imagine, even, that the father had been, instead, a mother. Feminists would have crawled out of the woodwork to make this an instance of sexism, and proof of the evil Patriarchy. But they’ll be silent for this. No outrage, because deep down, most of them would probably think the man deserved it because he was male.
But let’s be honest, if it were a mother and her child, nobody would have batted an eyelash anyway. Only white men are evil, after all, didntcha know?
Just a quickie for today. Over at Sarah’s place, I read this little gem:
Look, it’s not my fault. I was bit by International Socialism as a child and it’s the sort of thing that causes an allergy for life. Oh, yeah, and International ANYTHING day is a socialist thing, because they never fully realized that they didn’t control the whole world. Or they didn’t care and just wanted to make their rubes believe they were worldwide. The Happy People of Brutopia celebrated whatever day they were ordered, and they marched in orderly ranks past the red draped stands, and Socialism would Conquer the WORLD.
Right. So that was part of why I blew up. I hate “International” this and that, and the idea behind it. Whatever good it is supposed to do never actually works where needed, and it does very bad things everywhere else.
It’s true. International (insert thing here) is almost invariably a Socialism thing. If there was an International Shoe Shiner’s Day, I’d presume the shoe shiners in question were probably Commies. Workers of the World Unite! That’s the rallying cry. Only, since the Frankfurt school popularized the idea of scapegoating various demographic groups as privileged, or whatever, they now have more flexibility in slogan generation.
Women of the world unite! Not-white people of the world unite (white people go away)! Transgendered people of the world unite! Muslim lesbian genderqueer androgynous robot anime furries of the world unite!
Whatever. Leftist agitprop has become functionally retarded. I can’t believe people still legitimately fall for this bullshit. But RadFems are full of contradictions. Observe:
Yeah… I got nothing.
RadFems are all up in arms when a man holds open a door, or for whatever reason (probably blindness), when he shows any kind of sexual interest in them. But they are silent about Islamic oppression of women. Yes, I know, it’s a tired cliche. Us rightists always talk about Islam when RadFems start complaining about this or that. But it’s true.
I’ve spoken at length about the darker side of the feminist psyche, how they actually crave oppression. Just not, it should be noted, from you. The barbarian bad boys outside the gate are much more interesting, I suppose. That’s why Islam gets a pass, and why the nastiest, most violent assholes in the club walk away with swooning feminists, arm-in-arm, dedicated fighters of the patriarchy taking a break by letting some thug have his way with them.
In essence, the woman above is asking for it. Just not, it should be noted, from you. Where’s her romantic migrant-in-whatever-jihadis-wear to enslave her and honor-kill her?
International Socialism is full of such contradictions. The Progressive stack is confused about who is the greater victim, the white woman, or the black gay man? What if the woman is a Muslim, or the black man of Hispanic descent? These are the great conundrums of the left, the questions that burn in their psyches, underneath layers of pink pussy hats.
A Day Without Women, they said. No, no. There are plenty of women. I imagine Sarah Hoyt kept on writing, and, of course, my wife cooked up some good buffalo wings for dinner yesterday. My friend, who is an MD, went to work, same as always, caring for her patients (I imagine many of them were women, also). No, it wasn’t a day without women. It was a day without Socialist RadFems. Society did not crumble, we didn’t lose power, starve to death, or suffer great tragedy. The bulk of America hardly even noticed their absence. And, to be frank, I wish we had more days like that.
So a long time ago, in a universe far, far away… I was in High School. Okay, 20 years ago. But whatever. I remember sitting in Spanish class while the teacher yapped to the administrators about some such thing, during which the class predictably descended into chaos. Theoretically, we were supposed to be discussing certain words relating to government, but somehow the topic went into politics, and not, I should note, in Spanish.
Somebody accused me of being “Republican” and suddenly conversation stopped, and all eyes turned to me. Now, since we were all in high school at the time, saying one is a member of a political party was academic at best. But in those days, as now, being called “Republican” might as well have meant being called a Neo-Nazi. I said that I was too young to be in a party, but that I considered myself somewhere in the middle, politically. I was not really Republican, but neither was I a Democrat.
“So you’re against helping people,” the accuser replied. To him, membership in the Democratic party was a prerequisite to not being a hateful bigot. And bear in mind that this was the 90s. I imagine today’s schools suffer much worse, now that Social Justice rhetoric has had more time to breed. We went back and forth for a time, and it was a remarkably civil debate for being a bunch of high schoolers talking about political matters they knew nothing about. But those inclined to watch the debate nodded and agreed that if you’re not a Democrat, you’re at least suspect in this matter.
And so the notion stuck with me. “You’re against helping people.” It’s the most common rhetorical charge laid upon anyone who is not a radical Leftist. We can go on about how the Leftists are wrong about this, and that we believe that it is best to help people help themselves, and that Capitalism is a wave that lifts all boats, and so on and so forth. But it never really penetrates, does it? All such replies fall on deaf ears, and even knowing these things as I do, I have a hard time considering my replies equal to the task of dismantling this myth. Matching dialectic to rhetoric doesn’t work.
But there is a response to this, one that is equally effective, equally simple, and perhaps even stronger, for it correlates with human nature well enough.
No. I’m against helping you.
That’s right. Does it sound harsh? Perhaps it is, but remember, they accused you of an untruth whereas you, at least, responded with a truth. I like helping people. I have helped my brother on occasion, and my father more frequently. I have helped friends, and they have helped me. I have done favors for my in-laws, and given money to friends when they needed help. Most of those in my life know that I can be counted on reliably even in the worst of times. I’m not against helping people as a principle. I’m against helping accusatory assholes. I’m against helping people I don’t know, people I have no connection to.
Or, aimed at my accuser, I’m against helping you.
If SJWs say that I’m against helping black people, or women, or gay people… wrong. I have helped people who are black, I have helped women, and I have helped gay people. But the difference is, those I have helped are people I know, people in my life in some capacity or another, and whom I know will help me in turn (or who may have already helped me in some capacity), should I find myself in a bad place. No, I’m just against helping you. If Black Lives Matter tells me that I’m against helping blacks… wrong. I’m against helping your group, specifically.
If a welfare queen with 15 kids (yes, one exists here in Tampa — she was big news for awhile) says “I want you to help me,” I will say no. And if someone holds a vote to determine if the government should reach into my pocket, and take money from me, and give it to her to help her, my vote will be no. I’m against helping you. If someone else wishes to help the woman, then that is their business. I will decline.
It’s not because you are poor, or black, or a woman, or whatever other myriad of identities you may or may not have. It is because I don’t know you, you are not in my life in any capacity, and I’m pretty certain you would not help me, were the situation reversed. So no, I’m against helping you, specifically.
I prioritize helping my family, and my friends, and business partners, and so on, over helping random people I don’t know, and with whom I have no dealings. Yet even so, there are times I have chosen to do that, on my own account. I donate time and money to a local cancer patient charity, because it pleases me to do so. But that is my business, and you don’t get to force me to do it. Indeed, if I were forced to give money to the charity, the act would lose its luster for me. I am for helping that group, specifically.
So next time an SJW says something like that to you “you’re against (x)” just shake your head sadly, and tell them that they are mistaken. There are plenty of people in the world whom you would help, some whom you may even give your life for. It is just simply that the SJW and his preferred victim groups are not among them. “I like helping people,” you might say, “I’m just against helping you. Sorry, bub.”