Frederick Douglass - Poetic Justice Warrior or Social Justice Warrior?

Posted by mshupe 2 months, 3 weeks ago to Culture
29 comments | Share | Flag

Poetic justice is a spontaneous consequence of nature. It is peaceful and patient. Social justice is capricious and requires force. Poetic justice warriors apply reason to reality. Social justice warriors demand immediate satisfaction.
SOURCE URL: https://www.centerforindividualism.org/poetic-justice-warrior-spotlight-the-uniquely-american-self-made-man/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by  $  CaptainKirk 2 months, 3 weeks ago
    Frederick Douglas is a Black Legend nobody has heard of. I read a book about him. Amazing.

    But the Average American doesn't even know him, and the few black people I ask about him, SHUN him because they were told he was a bad conservative, and a traitor to the cause.

    The brainwashing runs deep.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 2 months, 3 weeks ago
      Yes, he was an evil Republican, and he repudiated his socialist fellow abolitionists. Harriet Tubman was also a Republican. Booker T. Washington is also shunned and labeled and Uncle Tom who also repudiated the socialist W. E. B DuBois.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Stormi 2 months, 3 weeks ago
    I have a book on him. It makes me wonder why young blacks are not pointed in his direction, or Thomas Sowell, as role models. No, they choose rap "artists" or reality stars. How fare we have fallen.I have come to beieve anything with "social" in front of it is a losing proposition. Social science, where hard science is ignored, comes to ming.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 2 months, 3 weeks ago
    I believe the description of a poetic justice warrior would also apply to Booker T. Washington, with his belief that education was the way to break down racial barriers. Martin Luther King, Jr. actually was more a poetic type, with his belief that reminding everyone of the Founders' desire for true individual freedom was key to removing division.

    Frederick Douglass loved the US Constitution for its clarity and inspiration. He understood the "three fifths" rule as a means to curb the power of slave states, which seems to escape comprehension in the eyes of the social justice types. The disdain for Douglass is actually based on a more crass basis than any ideological slant. He was married to a white woman, and unlike today, where mixed coupling is not as important, the social justice thugs believe that Douglass' marriage was just a sign he had sold out to white power.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 2 months, 3 weeks ago
      Regarding the 3/5ths compromise, I wanted to mention it the article about Publius, but couldn't do it justice in a short article. The references I made to compromise are that. To get the southern states to document 3/5ths was a huge step toward full recognition of their humanity.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by TheRealBill 2 months, 3 weeks ago
        To me one of the ironies of that compromise was that the lever they uses, IIRC, was taxation. As taxes were to be apportioned at that time by population, the prospect of bearing the financial burden more heavily was an effective bargaining tool.

        That compromise and the "Great Compromise" that led to the Constitution's branched government are probably the least understood (or known, though the fact that we had a rather different government before the constitution is even less known) aspects of our governmental history. Indeed I had a discussion with a "kill the electoral college" guy recently who actually believed the "over representation" in the Senate and EC was to get the "small states" board because they were the slavery states. Talk about being as wrong as you can be on something!
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by DrZarkov99 2 months, 3 weeks ago
        Making only 60% of the slave population count reduced the number of representatives for the slave states, which was the real impetus behind the compromise. It was a pallative for the more abolitionist northern states, who would rather have seen a total ban on slavery. The southern states, with their large slave populations, would rather have seen all of the slaves counted, but realized they had to give up something.

        What many fail to realize is that there were abolitionists in the slave states, and even slave owners who recognized holding people in chattel was wrong. Some people feared a slave uprising (especially after the Haitian revolution in 1791), while others worried about the slaves' welfare if released on their own.

        What was sad and ironic was the lost opportunity to end slavery peacefully in the last 20 years before the Civil war. Slave owners were open to an end to the institution, provided they were financially compensated for the loss of their human property, but Congress balked at the cost. Too bad they didn't have the foresight as to how little that would have been compared to the terrible price of the conflict to follow.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 2 months, 3 weeks ago
    "Social justice warriors demand immediate satisfaction."...at the risk of ignoring their own behavior, their own faults and their own past transgressions and the transgressions of those they associate with....bothered only by their own guilty conscience but remedied only by the persecution of others to satisfy their emotional state.
    As we have learned, it's not about proven bad behavior, otherwise it would be them in the stockade on the community square.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 2 months, 2 weeks ago
    I have read Douglass's autobiography (the one he wrote before the Civil War, not the later one; I understand there were things he left out of the first one, so as not to get in trouble people who had helped him escape from slavery). I think he was a sort of "poetic justice warrior". He also seemed to believe in "social justice" so far as that phrase has any actual, honest meaning; he did not seem to be in favor of socialism or welfare statism, but actual justice. He was also, so far as I know, not a "reverse racist"; in fact, he married a white woman.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 2 months, 2 weeks ago
      Thanks for bringing up the social justice perspective. To me, at one level, the term social justice doesn't mean anything - all justice is social. On another level, the modern usage is always in terms of government imposed reparations or special treatment for identity groups. Today's social justice warriors want what has not been earned. And they are total ingrates. Douglas was a PJW because he focused on self-creation. And like Booker T. Washington, he just wanted government to protect them from the initiation of force and just get the hell out of the way. Both Douglass and Washington are dismissed by today's race baiters because they don't tow the line of political correctness and socialism.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 2 months, 3 weeks ago
    I never get people's obsession with social justice. All my life the people on the social justice committee.seemed like kind people. They're not demanding use of force or immediate satisfaction. They seem completely the opposite.

    The fact that ten years later President Obama's critics are still taking a line from a speech out of context trying to shoehorn it into meaning something else makes me feel like hue must be one of the best presidents of all time. I'll probably never again in my life see a US president for whom they have to reach so hard to find something to criticize.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 2 months, 2 weeks ago
      Perhaps the best place to understand this is that social justice has become a crusade for equality. It is a direct violation of Galt's Oath. It is a claim on the lives and property of others. The social justice warriors could give a damn about the Western ideal embedded in our Constitution.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Solver 2 months, 2 weeks ago
        It is collective vengeance against great injustices they perceive. Being born white. Accumulating wealth. Being a man. Denying their religious views. And most recently, wearing a red MAGA hat.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 2 months, 2 weeks ago
          Yes, I'm afraid the indoctrination is nearly complete. Sanctimony and fake intellectualism. Harry Binswanger had a good explanation, they are not able to form concepts and connect them in a hierarchy of ideas. What I call BLTs. Brain washed little turds.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by bobsprinkle 2 months, 3 weeks ago
    I also have read stories about Fredrick Douglas. As a slave he was traded to a new "owner". The new owner was in Baltimore, Maryland. (If I remember correctly). He worked in a home in the city. The owners wife started teaching him how to read. When the owner found out he told his wife to stop because, if they learn to read, they become difficult to manage.
    Sounds like LBJ when he said giving black folks welfare will keep 'em voting democrat for years
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 2 months, 3 weeks ago
      Yes, I think it was the original owner's brother who Douglass was sent to. I've also heard about the LBJ quote, but I don't know if there's any proof he actually said that. But it sounds very likely he did say it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  blarman 2 months, 3 weeks ago
    To me "poetic" justice (some call it karma) is just plain justice. It is the result of choice - usually a bad one. The only poetry is the irony involved when the timing of the repercussions just happen to emphasize the initial poor choice.

    Douglass was a great student and far more of a role model in my mind than MLK. I think it's a disservice that more people don't learn about him in US History classes.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 2 months, 3 weeks ago
      Yes, I did some research into the definition because I thought it only had a negative connotation, the result of bad behavior. But it also applies to good choices. I call it a spontaneous force of nature that rewards virtue and punishes vice. I was looking for a counterpoint the term social justice warrior, and like you, first came up with plain justice. Then poetic justice, a term usually used in the situational context, occurred to me. There is also the Socratic meaning and the dramatic meaning.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo