Will UT Austin and Texas A&M survive beyond this week?

Regular people. I've been, long ago, at college, before "woke" was coined I believe. To be honest the vitriol was over the top, I found it funny. Just my experience, not proxy for anyone else's.

What was your experience? Genuinely curious. I've definitely experienced the "economic" prejudice since college was when I found out the hard way that my family was poor. I had a friend who had to deal with insecure butthurt white folks being mad that the kid from China swept them in exams. I was not at his level but we bonded because I was the only girl in class. Dude is legit gonna be one of those mathematicians where every other theorem is named after him. Oh god and the computer science shit. Fuck that "make me a sandwich" nonsense. That was the subject where I had the upper hand but you'd never know come project time when nobody wanted to work with me because they thought I wouldn't pull my weight.

If you mean fundamentalism in the strict sense of rigid adherence to a core principle, religious fundamentalists act as they do because the core they follow, scripture, has claims over all aspects of personal and private life and makes assurances about the absolute correctness and necessity of its followers bringing everyone under its mantle.

I don't see that "social justice fundamentalists" would have any such requirement imposed by their core principle. I'm pretty sure their core principle would be one of or some set of the things we already acknowledge, that we claim our society values: equality, personal freedom absent harm to others, justice yes. The difference isn't what they believe or even maybe how strongly. It's that they're calling our bluff on what we believe.

These things are more social norms than moral necessities: you don't need to believe everyone is equal but you need to act as if you do. A liberal would say the right way to fight bigotry is to convert the bigots, a social justice-oriented leftist would say it's to limit the impact of their bigotry. I think history is in their favor too. If we had waited until every racist was on board before ending segregation we'd still have segregation.

There are people who actively wish ill on all kinds of groups and the “woke” are no exception. Plenty of people hate their political enemies and have no great concern if they are hurt and some take real joy in the idea.

Yale invites speakers who talk about their fantasies of killing white people. Mainstream feminist websites do backflips trying to sugarcoat that they think every single man is a threat.

> Yale speaker says comment about killing White people was meant to spark deeper talk about race

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2021/06/09/yale-lec...

> But the socialization of men is such that even a good man – a supportive man, a respectful man, a trusted man – has within him the potential for violence and harm because these behaviors are normalized through patriarchy.

> And as such, we know that even the men that we love, never mind random men who we don’t know, have the potential to be dangerous. Surely, all people have that potential. But in a world divided into the oppressed and the oppressors, the former learn to fear the latter as a defense mechanism.

> So when you enter a space – any space – as a man, you carry with yourself the threat of harm.

https://everydayfeminism.com/2016/10/yes-actually-it-is-all-...

More narrowly the demographic that loves censorship is of the left now.

https://news.artnet.com/art-world/professor-terminated-art-h...

> In a controversial move, an adjunct professor at Hamline University in St. Paul, Minnesota, has lost her job after showing her class Medieval paintings depicting the Prophet Muhammad, founder of the Islamic religion.

Ezra Klein supports laws he believes will lead to miscarriages of justice because of the political consequences.

> "Yes Means Yes" is a terrible law, and I completely support it

> For that reason, the law is only worth the paper it's written on if some of the critics' fears come true. Critics worry that colleges will fill with cases in which campus boards convict young men (and, occasionally, young women) of sexual assault for genuinely ambiguous situations. Sadly, that's necessary for the law's success. It's those cases — particularly the ones that feel genuinely unclear and maybe even unfair, the ones that become lore in frats and cautionary tales that fathers e-mail to their sons — that will convince men that they better Be Pretty Damn Sure.

https://www.vox.com/2014/10/13/6966847/yes-means-yes-is-a-te...

> If you mean fundamentalism in the strict sense of rigid adherence to a core principle, religious fundamentalists act as they do because the core they follow, scripture

I don't like the way many people use the term "fundamentalism". It started out to describe an early 20th century movement in American Protestantism. And indeed, they were all about following scripture–or at least what they claimed it was saying, since other Christians have always disagreed with their interpretations of it. And I don't have a problem with calling them "Fundamentalists", since that is their own term they chose to describe themselves. Nor do I have a problem using the term to describe (ultra-)conservative Protestants who consciously continue the same approach today, and look back on the early 20th century Fundamentalists in admiration.

The problem is when the term "fundamentalism" gets extended to (ultra-)conservative factions within other religions such as Catholicism, Islam, Judaism, etc. None of those belief systems shares the Protestant belief in "Scripture Alone" (sola scriptura). All three believe in the binding nature of extra-scriptural/post-scriptural traditions. So while "the core they follow, scripture" is an accurate description of the basis of the original Protestant fundamentalism, it ends up misrepresenting "fundamentalism" in other religions, and distorting them through a Protestant-coloured lens. Which is why a lot of scholars of religion object to using the term "fundamentalist", and instead advocate using customised terminology for each religious tradition. Hence people speak of "Islamism" or "jihadist Salafism" or "Khomeinism" rather than "Islamic fundamentalism", for example. Instead of "Catholic fundamentalism", people speak of "Feeneyism" or "radical traditionalism" or "integralism" or so on. Instead of "Jewish fundamentalism", we have terms like "Kahanism". Instead of "Hindu fundamentalism", "Hindutva".

And I know by trying to talk about a "core principle", maybe you are acknowledging that for "non-Protestant fundamentalism", the core might not be "scripture". But, just because Protestant Fundamentalists might be said to have a single core principle, doesn't mean every other religion does. Sometimes there is no single core principle, just an assortment of views. People use "fundamentalism" to describe religious views which have a rather hostile attitude towards what we might call "modern scientific liberalism", and whether you have a single core principle or an amorphous blur of many principles is irrelevant to whether you have such a hostile attitude or not