Sundown X 12 American bass xfl 12 Ssa makes good stuffDd , dc , ia , fi , ab , ct , b 2 , sq , etc . <| sep |> I go through one every 1012 months . <| sep |> Well , one of them is going to have to change . <| sep |> The legendary platypus bear ! <| sep |> I would rather say that it is a metaideology . There are many people with competing ideologies that can coexist , because the ideologies don ' t seek to oppress each other , but rather , to win by gaining as much support for their ideas . The point I ' m making is that we are all already indoctrinated with an ideological view that is formed through the ideals and values that our society forwards and upholds . I can ' t really say that I even understand what a metaideology even is because I honestly don ' t see a difference other than one is more ingrained into us while the other isn ' t . Similarly , in politics most people see a difference between a party that wants to eliminate Obamacare and one that wants to eliminate elections . The latter is not merely a desire that one can agree or disagree on , it is a fundamental attack on the very idea that people should have a freedom to choose their path in life . Again , I think you ' re massively overstating the effects of social justice . It just seems more reactionary than anything else . Even though I disagree with a lot of social justice advocacy I just don ' t think it ' s an existential problem for universities . The difference is that I support your and my right to speak out against this indoctrination and convince people that other ideas are better . These people don ' t want to extend that same right to the people they disagree with , they just want their ideas to be unchallenged . This , of course , just leads to other indoctrination , but one that is far more insidious , as people are prevented from hearing other ideas . See , this is where I fundamentally disagree with you , and kind of gets into the paradox of free speech . The only way to prevent social justice advocates from doing what they ' re doing would be to limit their speech in some way , because in reality all they ' re doing is exercising their right to free speech . It sucks , but even JS Mill had to admit that social pressure and backlash is a byproduct of free speech and that we shouldn ' t limit it . Sure , they might not want to allow unpopular or offensive language on campuses , but the flip side is that you can ' t really prevent them from doing so without also preventing their ability to exercise their free speech . Censoring free speech in the name of free speech seems a little too Orwellian for me . Not really , if I get my way , antifreedom people will have just as much right to be heard as profreedom people . This is not the same as people who want only one side to be heard . Except here ' s the problem . You ' re okay with them voicing their opinion only insofar as your ideological view remains the status quo , rendering their views impotent . Now look , I ' m for free speech and generally think that we shouldn ' t be coddling students too much , but there is a middle ground here where we can realize that universities have responsibilities to academic freedom and thought while also placing certain standards of conduct in place to create an inclusive learning environment for a more diverse student body . My point was that when there are ideological rules , where people are punished when they break those rules , people cannot just ignore that they rules exist . If you are not religious in Iran , you cannot afford to not know the religious rules that exist or to ignore them , because the religious police will enforce those rules on you . Similarly , if you don ' t care about SJ , you can increasingly not afford not to know the SJ rules , because the SJ police will enforce those rules on you , if they can . Again , I just don ' t think that it ' s even remotely close to what you ' re saying it is . I have a feeling that the only thing that ' s really changed is our awareness of it rather than the frequency of it , mostly due to social media . Also , the reductionist framing of gender inequalities as the ' wage gap ' is a very good example of how a onesided view is pushed as the only appropriate way to approach the issue . First of all , feminist economics isn ' t drastically changing the field , they ' re offering a critical analysis of the field of economics by pointing out how the discipline has left out housework and other traditionally female work which is essential to society but not fully recognized or accounted for by the models economists use . Second of all feminist economics isn ' t calling for some drastic shift of economics writ large , they ' re one subfield with a fairly narrow focus . They aren ' t trying to change all economics into feminist economics , just like Keynesian economics isn ' t shutting out Fresh Water or Chicago economics . In fact , there ' s a growing criticism within economics that it focuses far too much on neoliberal economic models without accepting other economic frameworks be they Marxist , Anarchocapitalist , feminist , or anything else . Economics is a field that might be able to use more diverse viewpoints rather than closing it off . Third of all , feminist economist feminist political slogans . 77 cents on the dollar isn ' t something that ' s forwarded by feminist economists it ' s a number pulled from all wage gap studies and presented completely without context for political gain . I have read feminist economic studies on the wage gap and they , like all others , place the unexplained gender gap at 47 %. Libertarian leaning economists chalk that up to personal choices made by women , feminist economists chalk it up to a combination of personal choices and premarket factors like discrimination . Feminist economics is not a threat to economics as discipline at all . The issue is that ideological science doesn ' t allow the facts to invalidate the theory . What ideological science ? I honestly don ' t want to get into this because it ' s worthy of an entire post on itself , but you ' re jumping around here to topics that aren ' t really relevant . If your beef is with the social sciences which in many cases have ideological frameworks through which to analyze data then your beef isn ' t with social justice it ' s with the social sciences as a whole . But you ' re making some exceptionally broad claims that need more time than I can put in to respond to . The problem is when people who say that men are not necessarily more advantaged in a certain situation are not called wrong and their arguments debated , but ' no platformed ' andor run out of science as being an evil person for even entertaining this option . There are not many cases statistically speaking of this happening .