Here’s a interesting video to watch:
Two things come to mind after watching this.
The young man is a college freshman who has clearly been indoctrinated into “social justice” ideology. Given he is 18 or 19 years old, and given the extent of his ideological posturing, it is clear to me he was indoctrinated by his parents and/or teachers. In other words, he was being indoctrinated as a child. Now, according to New Atheists, childhood indocrtrination is child abuse. While I may not agree with his ideology, and I also cannot agree with the New Atheists in thinking this young man is the victim of child abuse.
Secondly, Dinesh D’Souza does an excellent job of exposing the hollow nature of the boy’s ideology (especially at the end). When people want to impose a form of morality on others that they themselves are unwilling to subscribe too, the hypocrisy shows this is not about morality. It’s about ideologues trying to con people with morality as the ideologues seek one thing…….power. The so-called “social justice” movement is simply a modern day expression of the conquest ethic, one that uses psychological manipulation and guilt to secure power and wealth.
ETA: The young man in question is Tommy Raskin, who has provided his interpretation of his experience:
In his roundabout response, D’Souza gruffly insinuated that I had protested his coming to Amherst (I had not and actually welcomed the chance to hear him), that I had endorsed race-based affirmative action (I had not), that I should withdraw from Amherst College if I really care about white privilege (a complete non sequitur), and that, being an elitist Amherst college student, I am “willing to have social justice if other people pay, but you’re not willing to pay” (this is false).
Although I might now tell Dinesh that I am a highly imperfect yet committed young person who has organized voter registration drives for students at my high school, volunteered for two summers at a camp for low-income elementary school students with developmental disabilities, helped coordinate food drives at my synagogue for the homeless, spent three years co-teaching 7th graders about the Holocaust and discrimination, donated loads of clothing to a local homeless shelter, given blood to the American Red Cross and written extensively about prejudice and the brutal ramifications of the systemic atrocities that D’Souza promotes, I assumed it was sufficient at the time to say that my work as a high school tutor actually has made an inroad into structural disadvantage.
Raskin has thrown up a smokescreen to rationalize the manner in which he clings to his “white privilege.”
First, the list looks like resume padding to me. Did Tommy know he wanted to go to college when doing these things? Did Tommy supply this information as part of his college application?
Second, did Tommy enjoy these experiences? Did he enjoy doing the voter registration drives for students at his high school? Did he like helping the kids at the summer camp? Did he like tutoring kids?
If he did not enjoy any of these experiences, and doesn’t really like helping those who are less fortunate, it suggests he did them only to help secure a seat at an elite school like Amherst. In other words, he paid a small price to reap a huge benefit made possible by white privilege. As someone in a position of privilege, he is privy to the ways of “getting ahead.”
If he did enjoy engaging in such service, he has paid no price. He got into a position of great privilege (a seat at Amherst) doing the things he liked, made possible by his previous privilege.
Tommy should have given D’Souza’s points more thought. What if there was a large, academically-based group of theocrats trying to change society so that everyone was forced to give 10% of their income to the poor? And what if we discovered that the leaders of this movement, along with most of their followers, were unwilling to give 10% of their own income to the poor? At that point, critical thinkers and those wise to the ways of the world would smell a rat. It would look to me like the theocrats were just trying to empower themselves by acquiring 10% of everyone else’s wealth and using morality as part of the con.