Ivory Noser

I’m beginning to realize that a lot of the problems I have with modern Social Justice culture have to do with its economic structure.

I don’t mean “economic” in the monetary sense, but in the more general sense of drawbacks/incentives. Once upon a time, advocating for the visibility and fair representation of marginalized groups was a bad thing. It came at a social cost: many people were openly racist/sexist/homophobic and saw nothing wrong with it, and pushing for these groups’ rights was seen as naive or futile. You had to legitimately care deeply about these issues if you wanted to press them, since fighting for them came at a personal detriment.

As social justice issues began to gain visibility and acceptance, however, entrepreneurs began to see it as a opportunity. New voices started to enter social justice, ones whose goal was not to change minds and laws but to cater to this newfound-yet-significant demographic of majority individuals who wanted to be progressive. These entrepreneurs took moderate, palatable positions that idolized the most progressive ideas their audience already accepted, and silenced their competition through the sheer scale of their reach. Social justice advocacy became a business: they could no longer focus on giving voice to all marginalized people, but instead had to focus on specifically giving voice to the minorities who best fit the image they were trying to sell, or best justified the need for such advocacy.

A more harmful consequence of this structuring, however, was that it changed why people got involved with social justice. Unlike its earlier years when it came at a detriment to its members, social justice now carried power. People who advocated social justice issues or showed support to notable social justice groups could be rewarded with special benefits or support, or rendered exempt from attacks and criticism. More and more people got involved in social justice despite many of them being apathetic toward (or even outright disliking) the marginalized groups it purported to support. They were in it for special considerations from the (often privileged, majority) people at the top of the totem pole, and the issues they advocated were nothing more than a tool to appease those in power.

I write a lot about anon cultures, something many self-identified social justice advocates vehemently oppose or speak out against, and I think this theory gives an interesting angle to that conflict. Like, I don’t think anyone can deny that minorities are incredibly over-represented on places like 4chan. I don’t mean the cool minorities that society accepts and praises people for defending, but the ones that are still kind of taboo: people with autism, schizophrenia, anxiety disorders, or sexual deviancies outside of vanilla-enough-for-straight-people-to-like homosexuality. Anon culture, by its design, provides them with an environment in which their identity is irrelevant and they have as much voice as anyone else.

And I think this really peeves the more mercenary social justice advocates. They can’t brag to their SJ-superiors about helping these people, since there is no way to tell which anon is and isn’t in a marginalized group. They won’t receive special treatment in an anon environment for their beliefs or positions, since they would get ridiculed for the very act of wearing an identity. And not just that, but everyone there is free to criticize or attack them - even the minorities they could usually silence - and it will carry just as much weight as anyone else. It terrifies them: the whole reason they got into social justice was to have more rights than other people, and they want their privilege back.

They lash out, claiming that anon culture only enables problematic behavior and bullying without consequence, not realizing that their privilege already lets them get away with these things. They demand new leaders and regulations on what can and can’t be said, doing everything they can to try to create an environment where they are still above others. They don’t even care that they have the ability to interact with the culture first-hand, understand it, earn its favor, and shape it from the inside, but rather they just want to receive special rights directly from someone in power. This is what they care about.

The problem is, these people defend their actions as “social justice” and there’s not really a good way to call them out. There’s not a word for exactly what they are, nor any accusation for them to try and refute.

So, I’m going to make one!

Ivory Noser

This is a silly term, and for these purposes I like that. It’s a play on “brown noser” - someone who kisses ass to gain favor. Only, this refers to someone who prefers to fellate an entire ivory tower.

Specifically, I’m going to say that this refers to someone who engages in behaviors to gain the approval of a clique or leader-group, disregarding or attacking the masses. A director makes a pretentious movie meant only to appeal to film reviewers? Ivory noser. Writer says nice things about some more popular writer while attacking their own audience as being savages who don’t “get it”? Ivory noser. Artist puts all their effort into mingling with and defending other artists while showing complete apathy toward their fans? Ivory noser.

It’s an accusation that someone only cares about the top of the totem pole and the benefits it can give them. Unlike a “brown noser”, it’s not even personalized - they just want to show the general behaviors that will gain them favor with those above them.

In some places, like the pretentious movie made specifically for reviewers, that might occasionally be acceptable. Against a social justice advocate, though, it is a dire accusation. The very nature of social justice means they are advocating for the rights and visibility of people society views as being “beneath” them, and to call them an “ivory noser” suggests they are perfectly willing to step on these people to gain favor with the higher-ups. It’s the one industry where it is completely unacceptable to be someone who serves those on top, and this term is meant to call that out.

Social justice should be leaderless. Those with the most influence should not establish themselves to the point that they can bestow favor with a single word, but rather as transient allies who make a difference by giving a critical speech or refusing to move from their bus seat. Their goal should not be to control the conversation from a place of privilege, but rather to bring all others up to their level. A true proponent of social justice should strive to create an environment where they are no more special or entitled to attention than anyone else.

The best way to stop these leaders is to call out the ivory nosers who support them. Make people remember that they’re fighting for the ones beneath, not on top, and that supporting those who already have power and voice is the very antithesis of social justice. Stuff like #NotYourShield is a decent step in at least letting minorities stand up to the people appropriating their causes, but it’s too broad, rallying people to lash out against social justice advocacy as a whole.

Social justice doesn’t need to be destroyed, it needs to be cleaned. An economic problem needs an economic solution, and in this case I believe that entails adding a social cost/stigma to the social justice advocates who focus their efforts on pleasing those with more power. If we can call these people out, stigmatize their actions, and make it so advocacy is no longer a good deal for power-hungry bigots who just want even more ability to speak over others, we can retake social justice. It can be a movement driven by minorities and other marginalized groups, with allies who will indiscriminately hold us up to speak for ourselves, rather than speak in our name or “for our own good”.

Chances are there will at least one reply to this like “that’s a pointless idea. Most people are fine with social justice as it is now; you’re just a minority.” To which I would like to pre-emptively reply… yes, yes I am, and the fact that that invalidates my feelings is exactly why a term like “ivory noser” is necessary. Because if you’re in social justice, you’re supposed to be looking out for the weird people like me, not the majority.