SocJus

My point is not that everything is bad, but that everything is dangerous, which is not exactly the same as bad. If everything is dangerous, then we always have something to do. So, my position leads not to apathy but to a hyper- and pessimistic activism. I think that the ethico-political choice we have to make every day is to determine which is the main danger.

— Michel Foucault¹⁾

Social Justice, or SocJus, is a collection of post-modernist ideologies and, like post-modernism, they call all comfortably be described as evil.

Now that I’ve scared away the casuals by explicitly calling it evil, let me explain what the purpose of this article is…clarity.
The point is to explain SocJus^A) to people who are already suspicious of it or on the fence.
SocJus is intentionally obfuscated by its adherents and made unnecessarily more complicated, which makes it difficult for outsiders to understand and identify it. Thus: I explain it to inconvenience them.

An additional purpose is to bring to light several related ideologies that people don’t realize are Post-Modern: even those who are actively fighting against so-called ‘wokeism’/‘leftism’/‘progressivism’. Since these are also Post-Modern and, consequently, I hate them…I believe it would benefit everyone to be aware of the fact they’re Post-Modern so they, in addition to SocJus, can be comfortably eliminated.

Just to be clear! You don’t have to read these if you don’t want to. Though, technically, you don’t have to read the whole article.
A-anyway, what I mean is that this section (notes) contains supplementary information and explanations of some smaller things which make the article as a whole clearer but I don’t consider them necessary information.

I do realize that this article is long.

I almost forgot to write this, but it is important to note.

Generally…most of this comes from observation. I’ve been watching this online and offline for years at this point and I’ve directly interacted (read: argued) with several adherents.

However – and this is the most important thing for me to say – I must acknowledge the book Cynical Theories^B;C;D) by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.^E) It’s how I can describe Post-Modernism with clarity. I recommend it, though I think they failed to notice some connections that I did (like Inceldom, Free Software). Notably, I think that they failed to realize that SocJus isn’t the only Post-Modern ideology.
Another important book is A Generation of Sociopaths by Bruce Cannon Gibney. He explicitly name-drops Post-Modernism and claims it was adopted by Boomers on the left and right because it helped justify their sociopathic tendencies. I’m not fully convinced of his anti-Boomerism, but he made me realize that Post-Modernism doesn’t just exist as SocJus.

This is a small list of other people who, I believe, have noticed SocJus or Post-Modernism in some form. I should be clear in saying that I’m not super familiar with them, but I have a pretty good picture of what they believe.

• Alan Sokal and his books Fashionable Nonsense and Beyond the Hoax. Alan Sokal noticed the spread of Post-Modernism in Academia and then orchestrated the Sokal Affair as a means of exposing it. He’s since remained highly critical of Post-Modernism.^F)
• John McWorther and his book Woke Racism. His book is hyper-focused on Critical Race Theory, though I believe he exposes Post-Modern/SocJus tactics/beliefs in general.
• Thomas Sowell and the main work concerned with this is The Vision of the Anointed. I don’t think he specifically attributes it to Post-Modernism, but it’s notable because the tactics seem the same.

Generally, the ideology is referred to as ‘Social Justice’, which follows the pattern of Post-Modernists being self-aggrandizing. This term should not be confused with ‘social justice’ – notice the lack of capitalization.
This is explicitly pointed out in Cynical Theories, so I’m pointing it out here as well.

The term social justice (lowercase) is exactly what it says on the face of it: it’s about justice within society.
The term Social Justice (uppercase) is the assertion that it is the means of achieving justice in society. Effectively: making the claim that it is only thru its Post-Modern thought that justice can be achieved. Naturally, this is quite an arrogant assertion.

This also shows SocJus’ tendency to masquerade itself as something good in an attempt to appear more palatable.

You may have noticed that this article isn’t just concerned with SocJus alone, but also explains Post-Modernism. This is despite me claiming that SocJus isn’t the same as Post-Modernism. So…why?

Well, there are a few practical reasons:

• More people are aware of SocJus in some form than of Post-Modernism as a whole.
• Post-Modernism is a very intellectual term and, likely, will be associated with Conspiracy Theories.^G)
• SocJus is probably the purest Post-modern ideology, so explaining Post-Modernism without SocJus is kinda weird.
• An explanation of Post-Modernism is necessary for understanding SocJus.

SocJus has a number of alternate names. Most of these are granted to it by outsiders. Outsiders also usually get the terms wrong, or miss some things – but this is understandable because of how complicated and annoying SocJus is.

I believe that it’s best to stick to the term SocJus exclusively, though. This is despite it potentially creating confusion in the short-term (due to lack of use) but, long-term, it’s more beneficial to have just one clear term for the whole lot.

The list below is a non-exhaustive list and, also, not the best because I’m mostly operating off of memory here. I would appreciate being filled-in a little here.

• Cultural Marxist
  • Used by: Mentis Wave (IIRC)
  • Why: Cultural Marxism is the use of marxism to critique/analyze culture, which is similar to what Post-Modernism and SocJus do, so it’s easy to confuse the two.
• Leftism
  • Used by: Themselves, right-wingers, Whatifalthist, Ubersoy, Carl Benjamin (Sargon of Akkad)
  • Why: SocJus deliberately positioned itself in opposition to conservatism (which is on the political right), which is itself completely antithetical to Post-Modern thought. As a result, they’ve become heavily associated with the political left.
• Liberal
  • Used by: Carl Benjamin, Americans
  • Why: Liberalism essentially tolerates SocJus and SocJus tends to masquerade its ideas as liberal. However, Liberalism ≠ SocJus. You can remember the difference as liberalism being the naïve ideology, while SocJus is the malicious one.
• Marxist
  • Used by: Kirsche, Nerdrotic (IIRC)
  • Why: Similarities are spotted, but it’s mostly a mis-labelling. Though at this point I think it’s fair to say that most Marxists are also Post-Modernists.
• Post-Modern Neo-Marxist
  • Used by: Jordan Peterson
  • Why: This is actually a bit complicated, because Post-Modernism does descend from Neo-Marxism directly. However, this would be like labelling an ideology ‘Stalinist Socialism’. It’s kinda redundant and weird. Should generally be avoided, because SocJus love using this as a gotcha.^H)
• Progressivism
  • Used by: Conservatives, traditionalists, Carl Benjamin^I)
  • Why: Like with leftism, SocJus deliberately positions itself in opposition to conservatism. The opposite of conservatism is ‘progressivism’.
• Wokeism
  • Used by: Too many to list
  • Why: Derived from the word ‘woke’ which SocJus used to use to self-identify. Probably one of the more accurate terms because it’s used specifically to identify SocJus.

You’ll have noticed by now that despite the ideology being called ‘Social Justice’, I’ve been calling it by its nickname ‘SocJus’ instead. This isn’t just to decrease the number of characters I have to write.

I’m using the shortened term as a subtle means of denying it legitimacy. Since it arrogantly proclaims itself to be ‘Social Justice’ – I wish to deny it the satisfaction of being called that on its own terms.

I originally included a large section explaining the tactics and behaviors of the SocJus (and Post-Modernists) – in fact, that’s how I started writing this article – but I split it off because it was quite large and messy.

Those will be explained much later. My focus when releasing this article was on making something readable after all. Some of those original sections were adapted into the description where I felt it was relevant (and necessary).

Though I’ll also note that I hesitated to leave those out since I think they’re important for spotting SocJus in the wild, whilst also providing advice on dealing with it (sometimes). Hopefully it isn’t that big of a loss in the short-term.

Hm, scratch the previous paragraph, I decided to list some of the tactics here with a one-sentence description just to give you an idea of ‘what’s up’.^J)
They are listed in no particular order and some of them are related to each-other:

• Dishonesty – Post-Modernists are rarely honest about their intentions in discussions. Though this isn’t always conscious.
• Projection – Post-Modernists tend to project their beliefs/desires/actions onto their opponents or in situations where it does and doesn’t make sense. This sometimes comes off as tone-deaf or stupid.
• Sesquipedalianism – Post-Modernists like to over-complicate their language to make themselves feel and appear intellectually superior to their opponents, even if they don’t understand the meanings of those words.
• Jargon/Redefinition – Post-Modernists like to redefine words to make terminology more vague; or to make themselves appear/feel superior; or simply to explain internal ideological concepts to fellow adherents.
• Rebranding – Post-Modernists will go out of their way to change the terms they use to refer to each-other specifically to avoid accountability or hide from the general populace (which hates them). This is why the term ‘woke’ has become pejorative: people noticed that crazy people called themselves woke, so pattern-recognition took over.
• “Conspiracy Theorist” – Post-Modernists like to label their opponents as conspiracy theorists.
• Insults – Post-Modernists rely heavily on ad-hominem attacks in the form of childish insults to win arguments.
• Normalization – Post-Modernists are fine with compromising in the short-term as it contributes to their overall strategy of normalization.
• Shifting the Topic – Post-Modernists, upon detecting they are losing an argument, will choose to change the topic of conversation to avoid losing. Taking the phrase “missing the forest for the trees”: they are making you focus on the trees so you miss the forest.
• Misrepresentation – Either intentionally or unintentionally (due to stupidity), Post-Modernists will misrepresent their opponents and their arguments. This is just an ad-hominem.
• Isolation – Post-Modernists like to isolate and block opposing voices for the sake of maintaining ideological purity. This has the intentional effect of increasing radicalization and the unintentional effect of creating echo chambers which warp perception of reality.
• Crybullying – Post-Modernists like to goad their opponents into attacking them and then crying to authority to make it seem like they’re the victims. This is both a conscious and subconscious tactic.
• Victim Mentality – Post-Modernists will eternally portray themselves as victims for the sake of maintaining moral authority and superiority (within their view). The idea that a victim might be deserving of their position is directly contradictory to their worldview.

As an ideology/philosophy, Post-Modernism originated in France among French Neo-Marxists who were very bitter and cynical about society. Thus they created the most cynical and evil ideology.

From France, it spread to the rest of the West primarily via Academia. Academia ended up as the ‘vanguard’ of Post-Modernism in a sense and this is why it is dominated by Post-Modern thinking.
This infiltration occurred during the 1950s-1960s, if I recall correctly, which is also when it entered America specifically.

Post-Modernism attached itself to Boomers via Academia and, from there, started spreading to the rest of society. Though it wasn’t that noticeable until the mid-late 90s, which is when it started to get really prominent. This is where Alan Sokal noticed and tried to expose it.
I think this is also when ‘Social Justice’ actually formed as an ideology, though the constituent parts can be traced back to the 60s.

The ideology became practically mainstream in the late 2000s resulting in complete dominance in the 2010s. This is also where the first major popular backlash against it occurred in the form of GamerGate.^K) This is also the reason why some people believe all this nonsense started with GamerGate: it didn’t, GamerGate just made it visible.

GamerGate didn’t really lead to an overall dismantling of Post-Modernism/SocJus, though it did cement gamers as the enemy. The early 2020s was when the cracks really started to form because, by this point, a lot more people became aware of ‘wokeism’ via pattern-recognition…and then started wholesale rejecting it.

Currently, in 2025, SocJus is on the decline but remains quite influential. Post-Modernism itself seems to be partially but not fully affected. Hence the need for an article like this.

This brief history is very brief, extremely condensed and simplified because I don’t think it’s super necessary for understanding the ideology. If you want a more detailed (and somewhat convoluted) explanation of the history, just read Cynical Theories.

SocJus is a Post-Modern ideology. I should note that I previously made the error of assuming it was Post-Modernism, which I realized was an error because there are other Post-Modern ideologies. But let’s ignore those for now.
That said, SocJus is probably the purest Post-Modern ideology due to it being the closest to its originating roots. Plus it’s the most radical.

Let’s pivot slightly to Post-Modernism – this is relevant for later.
Post-Modernism likes to present itself as this hugely complicated ideology that takes years to understand when, in truth, it’s probably one of the more simplistic ideologies out there.
This is done for multiple reasons, but the big one is because a genius admires simplicity and an idiot admires complexity. Post-Modernists like to self-aggrandize and boost their own egos, which is why they go out of their way to increase the complexity of their ideology.
The other reason they do this is as an intentional camouflage: nobody wants to bother going thru all the books and papers and articles written by Post-Modernists because they’re all written in the most complicated and meaningless language imaginable.
The other other reason comes down to post-hoc rationalization. Don’t let their justifications distract from the fact they’ve already decided on all of their positions before they ever wrote or said a single word.

All of this applies to SocJus and many other Post-Modern ideologies, though not all of them are quite as complicated as SocJus. And yes, we can move onto SocJus now.

So…what is SocJus, really? Well, it isn’t one ideology but rather an alliance of ideologies. This is called ‘intersectionality’ and I’ll explain it in a bit more detail later but, for now, all you need to think of it as is a voluntary alliance.
The term ‘SocJus’ is used to collectively refer to the constituent ideologies of this alliance.

So what are those ideologies? Well, they typically include the word ‘Theory’ (capitalized) or ‘Studies’ prefixed by another word – which can be literally whatever.
There are a bunch of these, but the following are the ‘Big 5’:

• Queer Theory (AKA: Transgenderism; LGBT Ideology; LGBTQ+)
• Post-Colonial Theory
• Critical Race Theory (AKA: Black Studies; anti-racism)
• Fat Studies
• Feminist Theory (AKA: Gender Studies)

The ‘Big 5’ (coined by me) make up the core of SocJus, though this list can be debated on. See Other Post-Modern Ideologies for that.

Since it is difficult to conceptualize how all of these work, I’m going to explain the core framework that every Post-Modern ideology operates under. This is not that complicated because, again, it’s a very simple philosophical framework.

All of it boils down to three points: the oppressed, the oppressor and the tools of oppression. Identifying Post-Modern ideologies after realizing this is almost laughably simple…so let’s lay it all out!

At this point you may notice that there are some pretty big contradictions here: Feminist Theory places men as the oppressors, which doesn’t mesh well with CRT and Queer Theory. It doesn’t mesh with CRT because it considers black men to be oppressed and it doesn’t mesh with Queer Theory because it doesn’t even believe that ‘men’ or ‘women’ are real.^M)

How are these contradictions solved? Well…

Intersectionality is what prevents infighting and allows for collaboration between all the constituent ideologies.

The term is quite pretentious and usually explained in an over-complicated matter, but all it is is a strategic alliance. This is an agreement among all of the oppressed that, individually, they are weak but, together, they can achieve their goals. So they work together while pretending they all follow the same ideology.

To give you an idea of how unusual this is: this would be like Christians, Communists, Anarcho-Capitalists and Arab Nationalists choosing to work together. That alliance would lead to all kinds of insanity as well.

Intersectionality is the main reason a person belonging to one of the ideologies will actively and passively ignore contradictions with their allies. This is also why the ideologies blend together in ways that, on the surface, doesn’t make any sense.

Let’s use an example to illustrate what I mean:

Exercise is white supremacy.

How any reasonable person can come to this conclusion is difficult to understand…until you break it down. Believe it or not, this is a rational position – in the sense that it can be reached thru rational thought, not that it is reasonable.
This position is gained via the alliance between Fat Studies and CRT. Fat Studies believes that exercise is a tool of oppression against them. That’s step 1. But what’s step 2? Statistically, obesity is more prevalent among blacks. CRT, via its alliance with Fat Studies, has been convinced that this isn’t a crippling fact and, in fact, obesity and being fat is a core part of ‘Black Culture’. That’s step 2.
Thus, you can come to the conclusion that if exercise is a tool intended to erase fat people from existence and being fat is a core part of Black Culture™: you can only conclude that exercise is a tool of white supremacy to exterminate blacks.

Any ridiculous position you’ve ever heard can be broken down like this because, as I am stating repeatedly: these ideologies are actually extraordinarily simple.

Due to the other inherent traits of Post-Modernism – which demands ideological purity, but more on that later – it’s pretty much necessary for an adherent to adopt a lot of contradictory positions, which then necessitates rationalization.
Rationalizing multiple contradictory positions is usually quite difficult but, due to the underlying simplicity of the ideologies, this becomes quite simple.

Feminist Theory is cooperating with Critical Race Theory despite CRT including black men among their oppressed. To avoid this blatant contradiction, Feminist Theory (temporarily) adjusts its own position of seeing all men as the oppressors to singling out white men as the oppressors.
This position is then maintained and enforced even after you point out the fact that, per capita, black men are more abusive towards women than white men are (or really, any other race is). Or that black men are especially abusive towards white women.
This is where it’s important to note that Feminist Theory doesn’t care about these facts because, at the moment, they are allied with CRT: you can’t just say that your ally is bad, as that’s besides the point of the (temporary) alliance. If CRT downplays, denies and excuses this behavior; Feminist Theory will as well.

Intersectionality allows for cooperation, but it doesn’t guarantee it. That’s why I stated temporarily. Many members of these ideologies are aware: they’re just ignoring them in the moment.
Remember that Intersectionality is presupposing that they are individually weak. So, what happens when one of them gains power? Do they need the rest of them? Not really.
These ideologies are prepared to abandon each-other if they believe victory can be achieved without them. In fact, this is exactly what happened with Feminist Theory: TERFs broke off from the rest of them.

But, for the time being, most of the ideologies are co-operating. And, honestly, it’s debatable whether the alliance can break at this point.

Intersectionality has a (probably 100% intended) side-effect of rapidly radicalizing members. This is due to the need to make sure everybody is constantly on the same page ideologically-speaking which is where the ‘eternal purity test’ comes in.
The eternal purity test is a constant need for members to prove to each-other that they are ideologically pure and fully aligned with the overall direction of the ideology.

There is one more benefit of Intersectionality, which is that it makes SocJus appear more complicated on the surface than it really is. So, to re-iterate: SocJus isn’t just one ideology, it’s multiple ideologies co-operating. That’s why it looks so complicated.

What Post-Modernism and SocJus believe about reality is very important to understanding how they operate…so, let’s get into it, shall we?

To put it bluntly: Post-Modernism assumes that objective truth and, by extension, reality do not exist. Consequently, they believe that everything is subjective and can be shaped by the thoughts of people.
They believe that oppressors are in control of the perception of reality via language and systems of oppression. Basically, you are a woman because the system has defined woman to mean something very specific and that is why being a ‘woman’ is bad. That’s just an example. But, thru redefining words (among many many other things), they can break out of these systems of oppression, thus bringing Social Justice™ to everyone.

This explains why Post-Modernists seem especially sensitive towards language and how it is used. So, yeah, they literally believe that words are tools and weapons.

However, the position that truth doesn’t exist has some interesting side-effects. Among those side-effects is the accidental invalidation of their entire ideology. They are proclaiming that truth doesn’t exist which is, itself, a ‘truth’: meaning their ideology makes no rational sense. Though this is usually dealt with by claiming they wish to assert their truth. Because it doesn’t exist, it can be whatever you want it to be.

The other side-effect is that it guarantees no discussion with Post-Modernists will ever be productive and, frankly, you’re wasting your time talking with them.
Since truth doesn’t exist, they don’t have to even care about the concept of productive conversation: as far as they’re concerned, a productive conversation is a harmful social construct. This also applies to logical fallacies: logical fallacies are just tools of oppression used to dismiss the voices of the oppressed.
As well as many many other things.

They will be hypocritical and they won’t ever engage in good faith: because they don’t have to be consistent or to engage in good faith.

Post-Modernism and, by extension, all of SocJus believe that facts are irrelevant. This is because, as stated prior, they don’t believe reality actually exists objectively.
But, in practice, this manifests as strategic denial: they’ll deny the facts that are inconvenient and accept the facts that are convenient. And if the facts don’t suit them they’ll just lie.

To exemplify this, let me use a few highly controversial examples:

• Critical Race Theory believes that Cleopatra was black despite overwhelming evidence making it clear she was Greek.^N) And she probably had light skin.
• CRT also doesn’t care that the Arab Slave Trade was much larger and far more brutal than the Atlantic Slave Trade.
• Feminist Theory believes that women are actively oppressed despite having more freedom now than at any other point in history.
• Feminist Theory also doesn’t care that life honestly wasn’t that bad for women thruout history. In fact, you can point to several moments where life was very pleasant.
• Queer Theory believes that Gender Dysphoria isn’t a mental illness.
• Queer Theory also believes that men and women have zero biological differences. Though they pretend their position isn’t this extreme.
• Queer Theory also doesn’t care that ‘gender’ as a concept was invented by John Money who was wrong about his theories which resulted in causing serious damage to the lives of two children, who committed suicide as adults. Also, he was almost certainly a pedophile.
• Post-Colonial Theory believes that life under the Colonial Powers was always awful, despite the facts stating that a lot of colonial life wasn’t that bad.
• Post-Colonial Theory also believes that Post-Colonial life is a net positive despite the examples of Zimbabwe, Mozambique and South Africa existing.
• Post-Colonial Theory also doesn’t care that Europe was the richest continent on Earth before they started their colonial empires.
• Post-Colonial Theory also doesn’t care that countries like Finland, Sweden or the United States didn’t have meaningful colonial empires. Or that Israel isn’t really a colonial power.
• Fat Studies believes their lifestyle is objectively healthy despite all the evidence suggesting that it is objectively unhealthy and will contribute to a swifter death.

However, despite them actively ignoring facts, they will repeat facts that suit them. Here are examples of such:

• Queer Theory repeats that brain scans of those with gender dysphoria end up matching the scans of people of the opposite gender. This is used to justify transitioning.
  • Though this example also shoots them in the foot because if the scans resemble the opposite then that suggests the binary does exist, right? So you’ve just invalidated the concept of non-binary: one of the core parts of Queer Theory.
• Feminist Theory likes bragging about all of the ways women are scientifically proven to be superior to men: being more empathetic, more resilient in certain ways and so on.
  • They will naturally ignore all evidence that shows women being physically weaker than men or any fact that shows men as superior to women.
• Critical Race Theory will always bring up all the ways that a system can screw a person over as justification for why crime happens.
  • Though this will of course ignore situations in which the system is overwhelmingly stacked in someone’s favor…and, yet, they’ll still commit crime.

Now we’ll move onto something else: terminology.
Though getting there will require some elaboration.

Unfortunately for adherents of Post-Modern ideologies: humans are wired to think logically. This means that contradictions will be spotted. So, to avoid this…they actively avoid thinking about contradictions. And much of their strategy relies on making people not notice those contradictions.
The method they use to this end is vague terminology.

Post-Modernists will be intentionally ambiguous about the meanings of terms to avoid contradictions. Basically, they’re treating individual terms like Schrödinger’s cat: a term has both and neither meanings simultaneously.
This is a very childish yet undeniably effective method of avoiding being hypocritical. They just have to avoid making it clear what certain words men and this is why they will tend to get nervous/evasive/aggressive if any attempt at clarification is made – what is a woman?

This is also why pointing out the contradiction doesn’t do anything: in their minds, there is no contradiction, because the term has both meanings at once. This is also why, once you clearly define a term, they will start vigorously denying the contradictions.

Though this intentional vagueness in terminology isn’t just a means of avoiding contradiction, but of muddying the waters as part of their overall strategy of normalization.

Case-in-point: gynosexual.

There were a few attempts made at making the term ‘gynosexual’ the default term to describe heterosexuality instead of ‘heterosexual’. Why? Because the term ‘heterosexual’ is uncomfortably clear: it doesn’t just say what you’re attracted to but it also says what your sex is.
If you’re a heterosexual male, you are attracted to females.
This level of clarity is unacceptable because it means a trans man attracted to women isn’t heterosexual but homosexual.
Thus: gynosexual. Gynosexual only states that you are sexually attracted to females, regardless of your gender.
Though all attempts at normalizing gynosexual have failed.

I’m bringing this up because I feel it’s relevant, but I don’t have that much to say about it.

An extension of their desire to avoid clarity comes in their constant flip-flopping on whether they believe homosexuality is a choice or not. They’re flip-flopping because they can’t decide which position is more beneficial.
This is because one of the core arguments they have for why you shouldn’t discriminate against gay people is that they don’t choose to be gay. But if homosexuality is a choice, they are implying that it is fine. So they will also sometimes bring up that you can’t discriminate against people for making a choice…but this just makes everything incoherent.

Now, to be clear, it could be both ways: some choose and some don’t. Though this still messes with the underlying argument. Again, they’d be implying that it’s okay to discriminate against those who choose to be gay.

So, to avoid this…they just avoid thinking about these things. But this results in most of their philosophical positions being contradictory and incoherent.

Broadly, I think that adherents of SocJus can be placed into three categories.
Those being:

1. The ideologically pure.
2. The half-hearted.
3. The opportunists.

The ideologically pure are the most fanatical and are typically incapable of seeing their own hypocrisy.
They are so tuned-in to SocJus that they experience several mental dissonance. This is why you can point out the hypocrisy and they literally can’t see it.

The half-hearted are those who the ideologically pure have converted to their cause one way or another. These are typically the naïve college student who doesn’t think that critically about what they were told.
These are also the easiest to break free from the ideology and the most likely to become victims of ostracization.

Half-Hearted typically aren’t as tuned-in to the ideology as the Ideologically Pure, so they often find themselves running afoul of the eternal purity test.

Basically, anyone who says “I was woke once but I’m not ever since x” then they’re almost certainly a former Half-Hearted.

These differentiate themselves further by having the capacity to see their own hypocritical beliefs. Though their solution to avoiding being hypocritical is the freeze and voluntary shutdown.

A good (and public) example of a Half-Hearted is Red from Overly Sarcastic Productions. In her Gilgamesh video there’s a frame with a ranty text-wall about the issue of ‘Finders Keepers’^O) and ISIS. To summarize the rant: Red was basically trying to reconcile Finders Keepers being bad with the fact many artifacts from Mesopotamia ended up being saved from destruction at the hands of ISIS because they weren’t in the region. This text wall ends with a dramatic “aaaaaaaAAAAAAA”. In real terms, this just means that she voluntarily chose to stop thinking about it because that line of thinking naturally leads to the conclusion that Finders Keepers can’t be bad in all situations.
As a result, the Post-Colonial position that it’s always bad breaks down.

Another, more amusing example from a 4chan post involves the anon asking their friend whether they’d prefer Hitler or a random person from the Bronx as a babysitter for his baby. The friend didn’t answer the question and just walked off. This is because we all know that he instinctively picked ‘Hitler’ but didn’t want to go down that line of thinking.

Both of these demonstrate the freeze and shutdown in action. They will typically end up down a rabbit-hole that has them thinking things that directly contradict the beliefs they hold and which expose hypocrisy. So, to avoid becoming hypocritical and to avoid leaving the ideology…they choose to stop thinking about these things.

The Opportunists are probably the most annoying and the most dangerous. These are the ones who don’t actually believe in the ideology (at least at first) but they’re also among the smartest or have the most means to actually do something with it.

They come in many forms which makes describing them challenging, but you can bet that most Western Politicians fall into this category. Though it’s possible many of them mistakenly believe that SocJus is more popular than it really is.

Another kind of opportunist is the one who realizes he falls into the category of ‘Oppressed’ and then takes advantage of it for personal gain. The vast majority of ‘refugees’ in the West definitely fall into this category. These types are also the most likely to become Ideologically Pure for the simple fact they are direct beneficiaries.

The simple answer is that Post-Modernism allows one to feel righteous while ignoring reality.
Escapism (which is what ignoring reality is) is obviously appealing to everyone – I mean, who doesn’t want to play as a dashing knight who saves the day in a game, right? – but with the added bonus of being a victim who is being treated unfairly by the world, with the means of getting back at the ones who did this to you? It’s downright intoxicating.

Post-Modernism and its descendant ideologies basically fully enable being selfish to the highest degree while making oneself feel extremely good in the process. You feel like a warrior constantly battling against evil and all you really have to do is say things like “actually, calling me ‘he’ is transphobic because I identify as demisexual, so please call me ‘xer’. Check your privilege and stop being such a bigot”.

What furthers this perspective is the sensitivity to language. In their minds, literally any mistake, misunderstanding or banal comment is a targeted attack on their very being. This can give the impression that they really are being constantly attacked from every angle.
Then, of course, there’s the irony that their behavior directly attracts people who do hate them and do attack them. So it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy in a way.

If you’ve read this far and, for some reason, looked at the other ideologies I have listed further down…you may have come to the conclusion that SocJus is bad but not all Post-Modern ideologies are bad.

If this is the case, this is a grave error.

Post-Modernism is an actively venomous ideology. It is almost perfectly designed to maximize selfishness which is what makes it a net negative.
Even if some of the beliefs may seem noble or pretty good on the surface: this is always just how it looks on the surface.

No matter what form Post-Modernism takes, it should be opposed and any instance of it should be prevented from spreading.

Although Post-Modernism and SocJus may seem so stupid that it can’t affect the real-world, the fact is that Post-Modernism’s influence does have serious negative real-world consequences.

I was initially hesitant to bring it up just because of how soul-crushing it is, but the Pakistani Grooming Gangs in the UK are the ultimate proof that SocJus is dangerous. The existence of these gangs and their lack of punishment is a direct consequence of SocJus dominance in the UK. Though I won’t go into detail because finding information on them isn’t difficult and I don’t really want to. But keep in mind that the response chosen was to pretend they didn’t exist because it directly contradicted SocJus ideology.

Additional evidence which shows the negative effect of SocJus in real-life is the case of mass migration into Europe, which has led to untold suffering in Western Europe while countries that oppose it are getting punished for avoiding it.

New York and Los Angeles were formerly highly prestigious and beautiful cities which were reduced to something lesser as a result of SocJus leadership.

So, yes, people die for the ideology. And, more importantly, people die because of it. Even if they don’t die, they’ll be seriously harmed in a multitude of ways.

And keep in mind that Post-Modernists don’t care: they only care about their ideology winning.

Maybe at this point you’ve come to the conclusion that the ideology can be compromised with. Maybe the more extreme ideas can be whittled down to just the ‘good’ parts and, maybe, they’ll be satisfied with that.

Unfortunately, Post-Modernism is actively opposed to compromise in a unique way: compromise is a short-term tactic serving the overall strategy of normalization and eventual domination.
Post-Modernists actively make use of the domino effect to get their way and, no matter how much you attempt to compromise, they won’t stop pushing for more.

Don’t believe me?

Here’s the quote from the beginning of the article again:

My point is not that everything is bad, but that everything is dangerous, which is not exactly the same as bad. If everything is dangerous, then we always have something to do. So, my position leads not to apathy but to a hyper- and pessimistic activism. I think that the ethico-political choice we have to make every day is to determine which is the main danger.

This quote is by Foucault – one of the founders of Post-Modernism.
To put this quote into layman’s terms: it means that there is always more to fight, more to demand and more to gain. It’s just that, in the short-term, they need to figure out what to prioritize. But the fight will never end.

If you continue to believe that Post-Modernism can be reasoned with, or that you can compromise: you are delusional.

By this point, if you don’t agree with me…I failed. But, if you do, great!

These are other Post-Modern ideologies that I, or others, have identified. These are not as prominent as the ‘Big 5’, but many do still flirt with them and, in some cases, are basically full-fledged members of SocJus.

I’ll elaborate on some of these in the following sections (or on dedicated articles, if I get around to it). Though not all of them have sections for various reasons. Like…I just don’t know what to say about them besides ‘they exist’. I’m prioritizing the ones I know about and the ones that are relevant to me, specifically.

Something else to keep in mind is that I don’t always know the origins of these other ideologies. I’m making a lot of educated guesses basically.

Additionally I don’t like any of these ideologies. In most cases, I disliked them before I explicitly identified them as Post-Modernist.
This could lead to the issue where anything that I personally dislike may be labelled as Post-Modernist…though this is a real danger, I don’t really think this is the case here.
For example: I already disliked the dominant ideology in Piracy before I realized it’s post-modernist in thought. Prior to this I just thought it was stupid.
I don’t like China’s dominant ideology or Islamism either…and I don’t call those Post-Modernist.

So, yeah, I guess I should make it clear that I really dislike some of these and I don’t think it’s difficult to figure out which ones. The reason I went out of my way to include this section (and explain those particular ones) is the hope that backlash against them would start ASAP. So, yeah: I’m being a bit militant. But that’s only because I see these as net negatives to existence.

Oh, right: if you realize you belong to any of these: exit.

Before getting into them, let’s do a helpful little table:

Christianity and SocJus have an unusual relationship because Christianity is a target of attack as an oppressor by most of the constituent ideologies of SocJus.
However, there are two main broad types of Post-Modern Christian: SocJus Christianity and Moral Panic Christianity.

This is quite clearly just SocJus infiltrating Christian institutions and then actively modifying the faith to align with SocJus ideology. It doesn’t exist as a distinct ideology in any meaningful form because Christians are never categorized as the ‘oppressed’.

Moral Panic Christianity, however, is a distinct ideology and does place Christians as the oppressed.
These were the ones who started the moral panic in the 80s-90s in the United States. It’s possible that they still exist, though they aren’t as influential as they were back then.

This connection with Post-Modernism/SocJus is implicitly understood by many people, though they usually don’t reach the conclusion that MPC is a distinct ideology that doesn’t get along with SocJus.

When I told a friend that I started to think Richard Stallman was a Post-Modernist, he responded with “I don’t even know what is or isn’t Post-Modernist anymore” which I think perfectly encapsulates Post-Modernism.

Anyways: yes, I’m being serious. Not only am I being serious, but this one might flirt with intersectionality more often than Veganism or Environmentalism.

Now, to be a little clear: I’m going to talk about the Free Software Movement and the Open-Source Software Movement collectively and singularly. This is because, in practice, these are the same movement but they also aren’t 100% on the same page.

To start with: The Free Software Movement is the older one and it was started by Richard Stallman. Richard Stallman has a direct connection to Post-Modernism via his mother – who was a socialist – and his academic background. For a big chunk of his life, he was basically freeloading at a university’s computer lab whilst working on the GNU Project.
There’s also the fact his organizations like the GNU Project and Free Software Foundations both went SocJus. Plus he flirts with the ideology every now and again, with the biggest proof of that being the neo-pronouns he created.

That’s where both movements started and, notice, they both mostly see Stallman as some kind of prophet – with the GPL as a holy text of sorts. But let’s move on.

A lot of open-source projects gravitate towards SocJus via things like Codes of Conduct and disassociation with certain projects. There are some very extreme and laughable examples of this happening too, like Hundred Rabbits (100R) choosing to leave Github because Microsoft sells Office to ICE. No, I’m not joking, that is their actual reasoning.
Another blatant example of this would be Nilesoft which is a Windows Context Menu customizer. What on Earth does that have to do with the war in Palestine?

Both ideologies also have that one big enemy: Microsoft. And, yes, it’s explicitly Microsoft. This is because neither movement cares what corporations they work with provided those corporations aren’t Microsoft.
A very small list of corporations they’re fine with would be IBM, Red Hat, Sun Microsystems (when they still existed), Apple, Oracle and many more I can’t think of. A lot of these are at times much much worse than Microsoft, yet they don’t care: because Microsoft is the enemy, not Oracle.

And like any other Post-Modern ideology, they have the same blindspots. They don’t realize that “Embrace, Extend, Extinguish” is a far better description of GNU and Linux’s approach to competition than it does Microsoft’s.
The GNU Project was explicitly founded to clone proprietary software, then promote their use over proprietary software with the explicit goal of becoming the standard to kill proprietary software. How this is seen as ethical is beyond me, but Post-Modernists are not exactly rational thinkers.
Linux has a similar approach, though it could be argued it’s accidental rather than intentional like in the case of the GNU.

Oh, and let’s also mention the fact Academia in the West is dominated by the Free and Open-Source software movements. Even in this regard they’re similar to SocJus.

Their denial of reality (such as Open-Source software usually being inferior to Proprietary software) and their methods of indoctrination all indicate these are Post-Modern ideologies.

Something else that’s important to note is that the Free Software Movement cannot and will not support the abolition of copyright. On the surface this is strange and a little contradictory, but it makes sense once you realize…the truth.
Both movements enforce Open-Source via their software licenses which dictate what can and can’t be done with their code. Without the license, there’s no way to make sure that any fork of a project remains open-source (which is what they want).
Those software licenses are copyright licenses and, thus, copyright is a tool they use to enforce open-source.

This is why they’re always quiet when the topic of abolishing copyright comes up: their movements would immediately disintegrate.

The Open-Source Software Movement is derived from the Free Software Movement and, at times, is basically inseparable. Though these are two distinct ideologies that happen to work together 90% of the time.

The difference between the two comes down to the fact the Free Software Movement believes that open-source software is morally superior to proprietary software but not necessarily commercially superior.
The Open-Source Software Movement disagrees and believes that open-source software is commercially superior – and they don’t care about the morality, supposedly.
This is a key difference.

This also ironically makes the Open-Source Software Movement less rational than the Free Software Movement, despite most adherents of the OSS Movement thinking that philosophy and SocJus are distractions at best.
Basically, it is asserted by the OSS Movement that:

• Open-Source software is inherently superior to proprietary software.
• Open-Source software development is more efficient than closed-source software development.

When neither of these are true in practice and can be proven by simply comparing most open-source software to their proprietary counter-parts. There are cases where open-source software is better than proprietary software – but those are definitely the exception and not the rule.
Basically, the Free Software Movement understands that proprietary software is often much better than Free Software while this idea is unacceptable to the Open-Source Software Movement. Hence: the Free Software Movement is more rational.
There’s a lot more I can say to specifically criticize Open-Source, but I’ll leave that for a dedicated article.

The OSS Movement also places itself in opposition to the Free Software Movement, which it sees as being moralistic and overly concerned with ideology (ironically). This is why you’ll also see open-source advocates bashing the GNU project.

There are differences to approach here as well. The Free Software Movement sees compromise with proprietary solutions as mostly unacceptable, while the Open-Source Software Movement sees them as admissions of Open-Source superiority.

I’ll quickly note here that while open-source is not well-suited for most projects, there are a few exceptions where it is. Though what these are I’m not completely sure.
The main example that I’m sure of is with open-source programming languages. I can’t articulate exactly why, but I think that proprietary programming languages don’t make a lot of sense.
But in the majority of cases, open-source just makes everything worse for everyone involved.

Inceldom is an interesting example because I think that it partially formed as a consequence of exposure to SocJus. Which may or may not explain SocJus’ particular irritation with them.
Though I won’t get into too much detail.

I believe that there are three main things that led to Inceldom:

1. Reddit – Reddit is almost perfectly structured in a way to promote and foster Post-Modern thinking, so it’s a hub of Post-Modernism. The term incel was probably coined on Reddit and they had their own subreddit before it was nuked.
2. The Skeptic Community – Incels are definitely related to the former Skeptic Community which, you’ll note, is New Atheist…so, also Post-Modernists.
3. Contact and direct conflict with SocJus – This one is self-explanatory, but Incels and Feminist Theorists are directly opposed to each-other.

Regarding the third point, I think it’s possible that Incels adopted Post-Modern thinking as a consequence of observing it in their interactions with Feminist Theorists. Though this is a big guess, I’ve just observed that many people who call themselves ‘anti-woke’ tend to have the same kind of thought process as Post-Modernists. It may or may not have started with the Incels.

Minor Attracted Persons or MAPs was a pretty transparent attempt by pedophiles at getting into SocJus and it mostly failed, though it did survive in a way.

They were laughed at and soon disintegrated. However, it could be (and probably should be) argued that they realized it’s smarter to become ‘accepted’ via Queer Theory. So while the attempt at getting explicitly recognized failed, they still managed to get into SocJus.

This also explains why SocJus gets nervous about anything that hinders or harms pedophiles or protects children from SocJus. They are almost certainly aware of this ‘infiltration’. And, again, there’s precedent with John Money being the originator of their concept of ‘gender’.

Though it should be noted that SocJus, on the surface, claims not to support pedophilia 9most of the time). But keep in mind that they are serial liars who make a lot of claims.

Marxism and Post-modernism is an ambiguous relationship though one that should be explained.
Let’s get this out of the way first: Post-Modern Marxism is probably the dominant form of Marxism right now and, yes, it does exist.

SocJus as a whole borrows a lot from Marxist thinking, just that they prefer to cosplay as Marxists rather than be full-fledged Marxists. Socialism is the most popular ‘economic system’ among the SocJus for a reason.

Now we’ll get into the thing I hinted at: the SocJus like to deny that Post-Modern Marxism exists. I mentioned the Cynical Historian in a footnote as one example of a person denying this connection (despite Hasan and Vaush existing).

Denial occurs due to a surface-level – and, frankly, childish – look at Post-Modernism’s foundational beliefs.
Basically, Post-Modernism’s denial of reality manifests as them rejecting ‘metanarratives’ which are basically just philosophical frameworks used to view and analyze reality. The Post-Modern founders explicitly identified Marxism as a metanarrative and consequently purposely rejected it. This supposedly makes Post-Modernism antithetical to Marxism and, thus, Post-Modern Marxism cannot exist.

However, by its own definition of metanarrative…Post-Modernism is also a metanarrative…so Post-Modernism is antithetical to Post-Modernism. Does that mean Post-Modernism doesn’t exist? Obviously not.
And, again, Post-Modernism is built around a framework that allows holding multiple contradictory views. So the idea that Post-Modern Marxism doesn’t exist is just ridiculous.

That isn’t even getting into the fact Post-Modernism directly descends from Marxism via a middle-man called ‘Neo-Marxism’.

Generally, this connection is denied most often by people who are Post-Modernists. So don’t take them seriously.

I want to write a dedicated article about New Atheism at some point, so I’ll try to keep this brief. I’ll also note that this is one of the ideologies I disliked before realizing they were Post-Modernist.

New Atheists clearly exemplify all the behaviors of a Post-Modern ideology and I felt a little embarrassed once I realized this. Their position is inherently irrational^W) and they’re selective about facts.
Plus, like many Post-modern ideologies, they tend to single out one entity as the main threat – Christianity – and mostly ignore other religions.

New Atheists don’t belong to SocJus but they do flirt with the ideology occasionally. More accurately, New Atheists are split.
On the one hand, Queer Theory is filled with people with the same positions as New Atheists. On the other hand, New Atheists really don’t like the denial of science (despite their own denial of science).
Plus some overlap exists with their positions: hatred of Christianity is shared with Queer Theory. Wicca is basically a Feminist Theory religion^X) and it also hates Christianity.

What makes the relationship between New Atheism and SocJus even funnier is that one of the big early opponents of SocJus was the online Skeptic Community. That community was almost certainly birthed out of New Atheism.
So it’s a bit ironic, though not surprising, that a Post-Modern ideology was one of the first to fight back against a Post-Modern ideology. Though it also demonstrates that Post-Modernism isn’t a monolith.

This is one that I only observed super casually, so I don’t know too much. Take what I say here with a bigger grain of salt than everything else.

I think there are two broad groups here: SocJus Judaism and Post-Modern Anti-Semitism.

This one simply refers to Jews who’ve adopted the SocJus ideology and, consequently, align themselves with it. Similar to SocJus Islam, they realized that they can categorize themselves as victims (with historical backing).

They’re also aligned despite SocJus not liking them due to Post-Colonial Theory categorizing Israel (and Jews by extension) as evil Colonial Powers.

The ADL can be considered as the main representative of SocJus Judaism.

There was also a recent mini-schism caused by the war in Palestine, where SocJus Judaism partially broke off. Though I don’t think this is as big of a deal as with the TERF schism…because SocJus Jews didn’t tether themselves to reality at all. They only strongly disagree with some aspects of SocJus – but otherwise agree with everything else.

This shouldn’t be confused with SocJus’ anti-semitism, which is mostly a consequence of Post-Colonial Theory.

This is the ‘anti-woke’ anti-semitism. I think it formed as a consequence of Post-Modern exposure. Though that’s all I can say about it.
I’m not even sure how influential it is.

This is my most recent identification and it’s a weird example. I’m also likely to be hanged for pointing this one out at this time.

Anyway, piracy is actually a pretty complicated topic filled with multiple groups who all have different perspectives. But, currently, the West is dominated by two particular groups: the ‘Archivists’ and ‘Moralists’.
Though, in practice, they’re one and the same. These are the Post-Modernists.

What makes them Post-Modernists is that they wrap their pirating in moralist justifications and rationalizations. You’ve likely heard these before:

• We should be allowed to pirate this for the sake of preservation. To archive it for the good of mankind.
• We gotta pirate this because it’s being sold by evil corporations and I don’t want to give them money.

I’ll eventually write a dedicated article on piracy but, to be clear: the second position is explicitly immoral. No matter what you say, that is not a moral position you want to hold.
Generally, piracy falls into the same category as “not donating to charity” in the sense that it’s morally good to pay for a game (for example) just as it’s morally right to donate to charity (in theory). Not paying isn’t morally wrong.
But what does matter is the reason you’re pirating and, in the second example, it’s explicitly to damage a corporation.

I mean, just take the phrase they love repeating so much: “It’s always moral to pirate X” (Nintendo/Adobe/Other…)
It’s a very Post-Modern way of thinking basically.

Now, I’ll try to avoid talking about it more but, needless to say, I find this particular strain of piracy deeply irritating.

I believe that it started with Reddit’s r/Piracy, which initially spread that ideology and is the main hub of it. Though, again, it’s currently the dominant view in Western piracy.

One of the more insidious representatives of Post-Modern Piracy – though one unrelated to Reddit, interestingly enough – is ThePirateBay.
ThePirateBay is responsible for birthing the Swedish Pirate Party, from which all the other European Pirate Parties came. And all of those parties are SocJus aligned, just that they’re a little crazier due to being technocratic.
ThePirateBay is itself a big rabbit-hole of “what the Hell’ if you bother to look into it…but just keep in mind that the statement “they flirt with Post-Modernism” isn’t even the tip of the iceberg. If you’re curious, look into Piratbyrån, Telecomix and Kopimi. All of those really explain what I mean.

Ironically, one of the other big representatives of this particular ideology is probably Mutahar, who is otherwise anti-SocJus. It’s just really ironic that he doesn’t realize his ideology is Post-Modern. And he also demonstrates Post-Modern-style hypocrisy like the situation surrounding the Switch 2.

Trans-Exclusionary Raidcal Feminists or TERFs are a very interesting example and I hope to convince you why.

TERFs are quite literally just Feminist Theorists who broke off from SocJus and now actively oppose it. The reason being that they noticed a contradiction and, instead of just ignoring it, they chose to explicitly reject it.
That contradiction was with Queer Theory. Queer Theory believes that there are no differences between men and women and that it’s all socialization. So, basically: men and women don’t exist. Feminist Theory, on the other hand, believes that women are oppressed by men.
Feminist Theory requires men and women to actually meaningfully exist because, if they don’t, their entire ideology is rendered meaningless. TERFs realized this and, consequently, started to reject Queer Theory. They did this by adopting the position that men and women are biologically distinct.

Consequently, TERFs were thrown out from the greater alliance.
This is where all the interesting things start to happen.

If you haven’t noticed it, I’ll point it out explicitly: TERFs adopted the position that biological sex is real. This directly contradicts Post-Modern philosophy which asserts that nothing is real.
This means that the TERFs have done something no other Post-Modern ideology has done: they tethered themselves to reality.

And that’s why TERFs are becoming even more unusual from the perspective of someone who hasn’t noticed this key fact. They have become so radicalized that they looped all the way back to supporting traditional gender roles.
Feminists are generally known for rejecting traditional gender roles but because TERFs have adopted the position that men and women are different…they’ve started to warm up to those roles again. Because you can only really reject a lot of traditional gender roles if you start from the position that men and women aren’t different or that they shouldn’t be treated differently.
But since they believe with 100% certainty that men and women are different…a lot of those older roles are starting to make some sense to them.

So while a regular SocJus Feminist Theorist might see a prostitute nd go “Slaaaay, Queen ♥~” a TERF might look at the same prostitute with disgust. Though take this with a grain of salt, since I’m not 100% sure, only about 93%.
Though it is funny to think about.

And this is why TERFs are the most likely of all Post-Modernists to come back to the light and why this transition should be encouraged by opponents of Post-Modernism.

In the UK, TERFs and feminists have even gone a step further and started rejecting Post-Colonial Theory: with them now actively campaigning for deporting foreigners due to them being statistically most responsible for most of the sex crimes in the UK. Alongside the aforementioned Pakistani Grooming Gangs.

I actually find it a little odd and kinda sad that – to my knowledge at least – nobody else has noticed the fact TERFs have tethered themselves to reality. Like, they may actually be the source of a far more positive feminism long-term.
I mean, accepting that men and women are different also means there’s a high likelihood they’ll stop seeing men as the enemy, and simply want to celebrate those differences.

You’ll have noticed, probably, that my wiki is mostly focused around media and stories…so you might start to wonder what this article is doing here.
Well, first of all: it’s my personal wiki, so I’m the boss and I do what I want.
But the other reason is that SocJus has a heavy presence in Western Storytelling.
They are, after all, obsessed with language. And Storytelling is filled with language – plus it doubles as a convenient vessel to promote their ideologies.

This also extends to critique and analysis of stories, which is actually where a lot of very annoying terminology and now widely-held beliefs come from.

As far as I know, the following ideas are tied to SocJus/Post-Modern thought in storytelling:

• Damsel in Distress being universally perceived as negative.
• Manic Pixie Dream Girl. I believe the term originated with them and is considered universally negative.
• Ludo-Narrative Dissonance: coined by Games Journalists, probably the pre-eminent example of being ideologically compromised.

SocJus^Y) tends to dominate online fan communities (fanbases or fandoms) to the degree that the term ‘fandom’ almost certainly has a negative connotation.

However, this section is actually concerned with something else…which is why they seem to dominate online fan communities, despite being an ultra minority (even within those communities). The truth is that I don’t know, but I have heard a few theories.

1. Infiltration: they aren’t actually fans and are purely focused on changing whatever it is they’re supposed fans of.
2. Differences in taste: online fan community activities simply appeal to SocJus adherents like any other hobby. Whereas their opponents tend to have other hobbies (fishing, hunting, etc.).
3. They don’t actually dominate and are a loud minority: likely to be true, though it still doesn’t explain their prevalence.
4. Atheism: due to the lack of a faith (and SocJus isn’t suitable on its own), they tend to join the fandom in place of a religion.

It’s likely a combination of all of these.

• This section will mostly remain empty for now, because I don’t know what to put here besides a few small disconnected notes.
• When trolling SocJus, an effective counter-tactic is pretending to be a member of one of their constituent ideologies. You can then activate a purity test which will leave them bewildered. Though I don’t think of this as a super legitimate long-term tactic – mostly just for harmless fun
  • This can take the form of them arguing that “x doesn’t matter” and you responding with “how dare you suggest this doesn’t matter, it’s a case of trans rights, bigot”. This is something I actually did once.
  • Though this could be exploited to maximized in-fighting, it would be too much work, I think.
• Many Post-Modern ideologies are very transparent about what they actually believe despite them being wired to lie all the time. The main reason it doesn’t seem to be this way is because they’re lying for the sake of PR. But if they think you’re one of them…they will reveal a lot about what they actually think.
• There is one weird effect of post-modernism in that, due to how vague and subjective it is, it basically forces being clear. Plus it forces making clear definitions. This is advantageous in the realm of Storytelling Theory for example.
  • Actually, I started writing all that out due to the realization that only Post-Modern thought seems to be represented in storytelling.