Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-17-2017, 06:14 PM
Rick Sanchez Rick Sanchez is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 351
Stupid Social Justice Warrior Bullshit O' the Day.

Let's keep this short. This thread is intended as an ongoing repository of stupid, authoritarian SJW bullshit. This has been a long time coming, but for me the last straw was this:

Professor Jordan Peterson, known for what some believe to be a controversial stand on Canadian discrimination laws (particularly as they pertain to invented gender pronouns) was invited to speak at McMaster University, Ontario. This was the reception he got.

Can we please have one week, just one fucking week, without an invited speaker being shouted down by a bunch of holier-than-thou SJW cunts who think they have more of a right to speak than anyone else? Please?

Feel free to share your own examples of SJW bullshit.

Last edited by Rick Sanchez; 03-17-2017 at 06:18 PM.
  #2  
Old 03-17-2017, 06:25 PM
Ukulele Ike Ukulele Ike is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 15,244
I don't think you'll find a lot of left-wing members here who will defend shouting down right-wing speakers on college campuses.

Even anarcho-syndicalist Roosevelt New Deal nigger-loving Stalinist Wobblies like me prefer reasoned discourse, followed by throwing rotting produce and loud laughter.

Last edited by Ukulele Ike; 03-17-2017 at 06:25 PM.
  #3  
Old 03-17-2017, 06:25 PM
Penfeather Penfeather is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,309
I've always wondered why SJW is supposed to be an insult: are society and justice such terrible things?
  #4  
Old 03-17-2017, 06:27 PM
Rick Sanchez Rick Sanchez is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by Penfeather View Post
I've always wondered why SJW is supposed to be an insult: are society and justice such terrible things?
That's a bit like saying "I've always wondered why the People's Democratic Republic of North Korea is so unpopular: Who on Earth could possibly hate people and democracy?"
  #5  
Old 03-17-2017, 06:30 PM
Procrustus Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW.
Posts: 9,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Sanchez View Post
That's a bit like saying "I've always wondered why the People's Democratic Republic of North Korea is so unpopular: Who on Earth could possibly hate people and democracy?"
Except North Korea picked that name for themselves. I never met anyone who identifies as a Social Justice Warrior. It's a made up term, that truly makes no sense as an insult.
  #6  
Old 03-17-2017, 06:32 PM
Rick Sanchez Rick Sanchez is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
Except North Korea picked that name for themselves. I never met anyone who identifies as a Social Justice Warrior. It's a made up term, that truly makes no sense as an insult.
There are plenty of people who self-identify as Social Justice Warriors. The term wasn't always perjorative, y'know. It just became that way because of, well, this shit.

Last edited by Rick Sanchez; 03-17-2017 at 06:33 PM.
  #7  
Old 03-17-2017, 06:34 PM
Rick Sanchez Rick Sanchez is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ukulele Ike
I don't think you'll find a lot of left-wing members here who will defend shouting down right-wing speakers on college campuses.
FYI - Jordan Peterson isn't a right winger.
  #8  
Old 03-17-2017, 06:37 PM
silenus silenus is offline
The Turtle Moves!
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 48,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Sanchez View Post
FYI - Jordan Peterson isn't a right winger.
Of course not. He's Canadian.
  #9  
Old 03-17-2017, 06:53 PM
Procrustus Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW.
Posts: 9,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Sanchez View Post
There are plenty of people who self-identify as Social Justice Warriors. The term wasn't always perjorative, y'know. It just became that way because of, well, this shit.
My favorite professor at college made a point of bring speakers to campus every semester that would give us "alternative" points of view. I think that is in the highest tradition of academia. If he invited David Duke or Donald Trump, however, that's a step too far. I wouldn't shout down the speaker, but I would protest against the invitation.
  #10  
Old 03-17-2017, 07:10 PM
Debillw3 Debillw3 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: IL, USA
Posts: 425
Where are the cops?

When/where I went to school, this shit would get you arrested.

(That's not a hypothetical. Ann Coulter spoke on campus, and city police--not campus rent-a-cop types, but the actual city police--were on hand to prevent this. In the end, despite a majority of the audience going mainly to watch things implode, only one guy decided to be "cute". He was, of course, removed.)
  #11  
Old 03-17-2017, 08:38 PM
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 32,979
Why would I as a liberal have a problem with people being shouted down? Shouting people down is still freedom of speech. Freedom of speech means I have the right to voice my displeasure in what you are saying, even as you are saying it. I have the right to use my words to try and stop you from speaking.

And, no, this is not the "heckler's veto." That is the concept that a government entity shuts down speech due to the possibility of violence. It has nothing to do with the common concept of a "heckler."

Sure, you have the right to kick someone out of a private venue for disrupting the event. So these people can be told they have to leave, and, if they stay, they become trespassers. But that doesn't mean they didn't have the right to say what they said or do what they did.

I'll also point out you have not produced any indication that these people are "SJWs." In fact you haven't defined what you mean by the term. If it just means people on the left practicing their free speech rights to protest, then it's a crappy term.

I may not agree with these people, but I will continue to support their right to protest--at least as long as they are following the law when doing so.
  #12  
Old 03-17-2017, 08:51 PM
Guinastasia Guinastasia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 50,751
Because it's being a jackass. And "freedom of speech" doesn't mean what you think it means.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Penfeather View Post
I've always wondered why SJW is supposed to be an insult: are society and justice such terrible things?
I usually try to differentiate between SJWs and social justice activists. The latter are people like Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, etc. Whereas SJWs are more people who whine and yell DISCRIMINATION!!!! when anyone disagrees with them in the slightest. (Most of their so-called "injustices" are usually just First World Problems)
  #13  
Old 03-17-2017, 08:56 PM
Debillw3 Debillw3 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: IL, USA
Posts: 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
Why would I as a liberal have a problem with people being shouted down?
"As a liberal"? I don't know.

As a human being who, presumably, wants to be educated, rather than live your life in an echo-chamber of your own beliefs? I feel like that answer is obvious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
Shouting people down is still freedom of speech. Freedom of speech means I have the right to voice my displeasure in what you are saying, even as you are saying it. I have the right to use my words to try and stop you from speaking.
Yeah....... Um... That's not how this works...
  #14  
Old 03-17-2017, 09:02 PM
dropzone dropzone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Cloud Cuckoo Land
Posts: 28,043
Actually, it is, constitutionally, though it means that people who disagree with the shouters-down have the right to call them mean names. It's all part of the fun of the First Amendment.
  #15  
Old 03-17-2017, 09:04 PM
orcenio orcenio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,034
"You can't force me to respect you"

Haters don't like to be hated for their hatred. News at 11.
  #16  
Old 03-17-2017, 09:08 PM
JRDelirious JRDelirious is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 14,703
Would this not fit in the "Stupid Liberal idea/news item of the day" thread? Or is the OP trying to balance out the 273 Trump threads?
  #17  
Old 03-17-2017, 09:09 PM
Debillw3 Debillw3 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: IL, USA
Posts: 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by dropzone View Post
Actually, it is, constitutionally, though it means that people who disagree with the shouters-down have the right to call them mean names. It's all part of the fun of the First Amendment.
"Legal" is a fairly low bar for an action.

Also, Constitutionally, it's not that simple.
  #18  
Old 03-17-2017, 09:12 PM
Projammer Projammer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SW Arkansas
Posts: 5,781
Because shouting and throwing a tantrum is the best way to make your views known and be taken seriously.

The Legend of Trigglypuff
  #19  
Old 03-17-2017, 09:49 PM
dropzone dropzone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Cloud Cuckoo Land
Posts: 28,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Debillw3 View Post
"Legal" is a fairly low bar for an action.
Yes, it is, for anything more than a strong disagreement.

Quote:
Also, Constitutionally, it's not that simple.
Oh, no, it is. Our Constitution is a surprisingly simple document, "do this, don't do that." The fun comes from defining "this" v. "that." Kid, I was raised in a family of lawyers. Nothing in my life has EVER been simple.
  #20  
Old 03-17-2017, 09:57 PM
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 5,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Projammer View Post
Because shouting and throwing a tantrum is the best way to make your views known and be taken seriously.

The Legend of Trigglypuff
Good ol' Trigglypuff. I wonder what she's up to nowadays.
  #21  
Old 03-17-2017, 09:59 PM
erysichthon erysichthon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,304
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRDelirious View Post
Would this not fit in the "Stupid Liberal idea/news item of the day" thread? Or is the OP trying to balance out the 273 Trump threads?
I think this is a case of a new-ish Doper getting that lonely, not-quite-fitting-in feeling. A "Stupid ______ of the Day" seems like just the thing to flush out potential compadres.

I remember Miss Green Text Spaulding doing the same thing. It didn't work for her either.
  #22  
Old 03-17-2017, 10:00 PM
Debillw3 Debillw3 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: IL, USA
Posts: 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by dropzone View Post
Oh, no, it is. Our Constitution is a surprisingly simple document, "do this, don't do that." The fun comes from defining "this" v. "that." Kid, I was raised in a family of lawyers. Nothing in my life has EVER been simple.
The Constitution is a simple document.

Luckily for everyone, though, Constitutionality isn't decided by the document itself, but by the Supreme Court.

So the simplicity of the First Amendment (which doesn't really say anything at all) is irrelevant. (And don't think that I didn't notice you moving the goal post from a discussion of what's Constitutional to what the Constitution says.)

The fact is that nobody has an inherent right to speak whenever & wherever they want. The First Amendment doesn't protect these actions--it's why the powers that be are allowed to remove them for the premises or have them arrested.

Constitutionality has no place in this discussion.

The protesters were allowed to do what they did because the event hosts let them do what they did--not because their actions were Constitutionally protected. The same goes for calling the protesters mean names--it can be done because people allow it to be done. The Constitution has nothing to do with it.

Like I said--not that simple, "kid".
  #23  
Old 03-17-2017, 10:01 PM
clairobscur clairobscur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 16,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
I never met anyone who identifies as a Social Justice Warrior. It's a made up term, that truly makes no sense as an insult.
You're wrong. It became pejorative, but SJWs chose to call themselves that way, and still self-identify as such.
  #24  
Old 03-17-2017, 10:51 PM
Miller Miller is online now
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 42,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by Debillw3 View Post
Where are the cops?

When/where I went to school, this shit would get you arrested.
Really? What law, exactly, do you think is being violated in that video?
  #25  
Old 03-17-2017, 11:01 PM
Debillw3 Debillw3 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: IL, USA
Posts: 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
Really? What law, exactly, do you think is being violated in that video?
I'm not familiar with where it is to say what law exactly.

But in general, that act is a form of either public disturbance or trespass (or both).

Last edited by Debillw3; 03-17-2017 at 11:03 PM.
  #26  
Old 03-17-2017, 11:22 PM
Merneith Merneith is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 6,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Penfeather View Post
I've always wondered why SJW is supposed to be an insult: are society and justice such terrible things?
For the same reason that some people think "niggerlover" is a pejorative.
  #27  
Old 03-18-2017, 12:00 AM
Martini Enfield Martini Enfield is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 10,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
Because it's being a jackass. And "freedom of speech" doesn't mean what you think it means.

I usually try to differentiate between SJWs and social justice activists. The latter are people like Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, etc. Whereas SJWs are more people who whine and yell DISCRIMINATION!!!! when anyone disagrees with them in the slightest. (Most of their so-called "injustices" are usually just First World Problems)
Thank you. This is excellent and I agree unequivocally - particularly about the distinction between Social Justice Warriors (people complaining about "discrimination" or trivial "offensive" stuff) and social justice activists working to like MLK, Ghandi, the Suffragettes etc.
  #28  
Old 03-18-2017, 12:35 AM
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 56,034
Seriously? You guys have all of YouTube at your disposal to find examples and you're still arguing over definitions?
  #29  
Old 03-18-2017, 12:43 AM
Aspidistra Aspidistra is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Penfeather View Post
I've always wondered why SJW is supposed to be an insult: are society and justice such terrible things?
Internet Tough Guy is an insult to. Using the same logic - why? Isn't 'tough' a good thing to be?

SJW is sarcastic. The people using it don't think their targets are any sort of warrior, social-justice or otherwise
  #30  
Old 03-18-2017, 01:29 AM
Monty Monty is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 21,368
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Sanchez View Post
That's a bit like saying "I've always wondered why the People's Democratic Republic of North Korea is so unpopular: Who on Earth could possibly hate people and democracy?"
That's not the name of that country. It's Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
  #31  
Old 03-18-2017, 01:39 AM
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 56,034
Splitter!
  #32  
Old 03-18-2017, 02:02 AM
Monty Monty is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 21,368
Quote:
Originally Posted by Debillw3 View Post
not campus rent-a-cop types, but the actual city police--were on hand to prevent this.
There are plenty of schools, such as my alma mater (University of California, Davis), which have sworn police officers who have the same police powers as every other sworn police officer in their state.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Debillw3 View Post
I'm not familiar with where it is to say what law exactly.
It doesn't matter where the action in the video occurred; your assertion was that such actions would have gotten one arrested where you attended school. The question, then, is obviously what law or laws would be violated where you attended school. One would presume you are familiar with that particular venue.
  #33  
Old 03-18-2017, 02:25 AM
Kamino Neko Kamino Neko is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Alternate 230
Posts: 14,519
Quote:
Originally Posted by Projammer View Post
Because shouting and throwing a tantrum is the best way to make your views known and be taken seriously.
It got the King of the Temper Tantrums the job in the white house.
  #34  
Old 03-18-2017, 02:46 AM
AK84 AK84 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 14,037
Gandhi? The Hinduvata supporting, anal fixation having, young girl bed warmer keeping, black hating failed Barrister was for social justice? That Gandhi?
  #35  
Old 03-18-2017, 04:22 AM
kaylasdad99 kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 28,111
Welp. New day, time for a new Stupid SJW bullshit, I guess.

Here's an idea: Let's just have one Stupid SJW bullshit per day, for a change.

Okay, somebody go. I can't post one myself, 'cos I didn't look at the first one. Wouldn't want to post a duplicate right out of the gate.

BTW, is it the SJW bullshit that needs to be stupid to fit the thread, or could it be any bullshit that's produced by a stupid SJW?

Last edited by kaylasdad99; 03-18-2017 at 04:24 AM.
  #36  
Old 03-18-2017, 04:28 AM
Superdude Superdude is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Fortress of Solidude
Posts: 9,441
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
Gandhi? The Hinduvata supporting, anal fixation having, young girl bed warmer keeping, black hating failed Barrister was for social justice? That Gandhi?
I'll leave it to people more educated and familiar with Gandhi than I, but I'm pretty sure that you're talking about the same person. In my experience, outside of the few circles, overall, Gandhi is thought of as someone who fought for social justice issues.
__________________
My friend Dan Canon is running for Congress!
www.CanonForIndiana.com
  #37  
Old 03-18-2017, 04:50 AM
WilyQuixote WilyQuixote is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Cape Town, South Africa
Posts: 417
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
I usually try to differentiate between SJWs and social justice activists. The latter are people like Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, etc. Whereas SJWs are more people who whine and yell DISCRIMINATION!!!! when anyone disagrees with them in the slightest. (Most of their so-called "injustices" are usually just First World Problems)
Like purported concerns about ethics in video games journalism?
  #38  
Old 03-18-2017, 05:20 AM
AK84 AK84 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 14,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superdude View Post
I'll leave it to people more educated and familiar with Gandhi than I, but I'm pretty sure that you're talking about the same person. In my experience, outside of the few circles, overall, Gandhi is thought of as someone who fought for social justice issues.
You mean by Westerners whose only knowledge of Gandhi is from a movie. Gandhi the man who went on a fast unto death against proposals to give untouchables civil and electoral rights. Guy who had no problem with the way Blacks were treated in South Africa and fought to keep the laws that way? Gandhi fought for social justice issues alright, specifically his right as a Brahmin to be treated equal to whites, not the same as those "Untouchables" or Blacks.
  #39  
Old 03-18-2017, 06:05 AM
WilyQuixote WilyQuixote is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Cape Town, South Africa
Posts: 417
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
You mean by Westerners whose only knowledge of Gandhi is from a movie.
You mean Western countries like South Africa & Botswana, where public opinion generally matches that of Superdude's?

Quote:
Guy who had no problem with the way Blacks were treated in South Africa and fought to keep the laws that way?
I don't know much about Gandhi, but given that he has received numerous honourable mentions from post-apartheid leaders, (cites available) I suspect the situation was a bit more nuanced than what you've stated.
  #40  
Old 03-18-2017, 06:24 AM
Covfefe Covfefe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 218
This SJW CEO is easily offended by most humans, claiming that they suck. It was triggering for him sift thru so many of these applicants who didn't square with his rigid dogma, so he devised a mandatory SJW test to separate the chaff and now his company culture can operate more like a safe space. He claims the company boasts lots of juice boxes, a soothing physical therapist, and an office puppy. (I'm sure coloring books are included as well; he is only being modest.)
  #41  
Old 03-18-2017, 06:25 AM
clairobscur clairobscur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 16,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martini Enfield View Post
Thank you. This is excellent and I agree unequivocally - particularly about the distinction between Social Justice Warriors (people complaining about "discrimination" or trivial "offensive" stuff) and social justice activists working to like MLK, Ghandi, the Suffragettes etc.
Hmmm...I read blogs by SJWs from time to time. They don't *only* rant about trivialities. They also "fight" over very serious issues. The problems IMO are that :


-They *also* spend an inordinate amount of energy on those trivialities.

-They aren't interested in issues that aren't on their official agendas.

-They're often 20 yo college students who won't hesitate to lecture, say, a middle-aged adult, about her own life and choices. And since they're in fact lacking actual life experience, they're aren't above spouting complete nonsense, arguing that things people have actually experienced can't exist, or giving "advices" that are guaranteed to spectacularly backfire in real life.

-They seem to be motivated for a significant part by self gratification : a feeling of superiority and enlightement, the ability to perceive themselves and describe themselves as oppressed even when they're obviously amongst the privileged, the ability to couch any of their own issues, regardless how trivial and ordinary (say a bad grade or an argument over food with their partner), in terms of social oppression or suchlike (hence making the opposing party not just wrong, bur bordering evil), not to forget the ability to bully other people while still feeling self-righteous.

-They reason in terms of groups (the famous "white heterosexual man privilege" for instance), and aren't very interested in individuals, in the struggles of people who don't belong to their pet groups, in taking into account the specificity of the case when approaching an issue, in recognizing personal agency. And they inject those reasonings and worldviews into any issue, whether or not it's related, and try to impose them on everybody, "oppressors" and "oppressed" alike, lecturing both equally.

-More importantly, they are "true believers". Holier than you and self-righteous. Totally convinced that they have a monopoly on truth and that if only everybody was thinking like them and acting the way they tell everybody they should act, the world would become this kind of ideal place they have in mind. Couching all issues in terms consistent with their simplified and manicheist social grid. Following their mantras without reflecting on them or being open to any debate or exchange, and commonly willing to silence a demonized opposition. Not accepting of the slightest ritual impurity...I mean the slightest deviation from their norms of conduct.


Basically, their mindset IMO is very similar to that of religious fundamentalists or political extremists with a theory of the world like former Marxists or Trotskyists.

Last edited by clairobscur; 03-18-2017 at 06:25 AM.
  #42  
Old 03-18-2017, 06:27 AM
Rick Sanchez Rick Sanchez is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
Why would I as a liberal have a problem with people being shouted down?
Shut up, BigTrigglypuff

Quote:
Shouting people down is still freedom of speech. Freedom of speech means I have the right to voice my displeasure in what you are saying, even as you are saying it. I have the right to use my words to try and stop you from speaking.
You do, indeed, have the right to be an inconsiderate piece of shit. However, it might be worth considering the possibility that normalising this kind of behaviour will ultimately make it easier for people you don't like to shout you down when you want to say something.

Quote:
And, no, this is not the "heckler's veto." That is the concept that a government entity shuts down speech due to the possibility of violence. It has nothing to do with the common concept of a "heckler."
'The term "Heckler's Veto" is often used outside of a strict legal context'.
  #43  
Old 03-18-2017, 07:40 AM
Martini Enfield Martini Enfield is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 10,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
Hmmm...I read blogs by SJWs from time to time. They don't *only* rant about trivialities. They also "fight" over very serious issues. The problems IMO are that:
[edited out for brevity]
Basically, their mindset IMO is very similar to that of religious fundamentalists or political extremists with a theory of the world like former Marxists or Trotskyists.
I agree with all of that and a lot of it matches my experiences with SJWs too.

Part of the challenge is that, as far as most people are concerned, the "major" battles have already been fought and won. Social attitudes have adjusted to the point that no sensible person thinks gays are teh evil, people with dark skin are second-class, and women shouldn't be allowed to vote, drive, or have exactly the same rights as anyone else etc. The stuff a lot of SJWs are agitating for just doesn't seem to justify the intensity and vitriol they employ in their quest.
  #44  
Old 03-18-2017, 08:11 AM
John DiFool John DiFool is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 17,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty View Post
That's not the name of that country. It's Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
Democratic People's Republic...<sarcastic sneer>...
  #45  
Old 03-18-2017, 08:36 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 36,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martini Enfield View Post
Thank you. This is excellent and I agree unequivocally - particularly about the distinction between Social Justice Warriors (people complaining about "discrimination" or trivial "offensive" stuff) and social justice activists working to like MLK, Ghandi, the Suffragettes etc.
So the difference is, activists are the folks who fought for and won issues in the past, where surely you would have been on their side; warriors are the folks who are fighting for issues in the present, and you're against them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Martini Enfield View Post
Part of the challenge is that, as far as most people are concerned, the "major" battles have already been fought and won.
BY DEFINITION, that's always been true. Before a battle for changing social mores is won, most people believe it's not an important battle to win. It's at the point where most people decide it's important that you win it.

Your viewpoint conveniently lets you take the side of folks in the past who agitated against folks like you in the past.

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 03-18-2017 at 08:36 AM.
  #46  
Old 03-18-2017, 10:51 AM
wonky wonky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: DC area
Posts: 29,442
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Your viewpoint conveniently lets you take the side of folks in the past who agitated against folks like you in the past.
Indeed. "Who cares what water fountain you have to use?" morphs into "Who cares what bathroom you have to use?"
  #47  
Old 03-18-2017, 11:14 AM
JackieLikesVariety JackieLikesVariety is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Nevada
Posts: 2,275
Rick Sanchez you don't see any irony in telling BigT to "shut up" in a thread you started to complain people are shouting down others?
  #48  
Old 03-18-2017, 11:16 AM
wonky wonky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: DC area
Posts: 29,442
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackieLikesVariety View Post
Rick Sanchez you don't see any irony in telling BigT to "shut up" in a thread you started to complain people are shouting down others?
It's all part and parcel. He labels people SJWs in an attempt to mock and shame them into silence, tells others to shut up, then complains about SJWs trying to use shame and shouting to silence others.

Last edited by wonky; 03-18-2017 at 11:16 AM.
  #49  
Old 03-18-2017, 11:27 AM
JRDelirious JRDelirious is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 14,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martini Enfield View Post
Part of the challenge is that, as far as most people are concerned, the "major" battles have already been fought and won.
And the concern about that for some of us is that it sounds too much like "the End of History" -- complacency about how the major battle has been fought and won and done with, and what's important is all settled matter and nobody will dispute it, creates the environment for (a) other ills to fester ignored, (b) the existing progress to be chipped at here and there because "oh, it's just a small thing, not like we're going back to what was 50 years ago". I feel we need there to be societal forces both pushing and pulling in order to maintain a dynamic equilibrium. Social peace through stagnation is not a goal.


Quote:
Social attitudes have adjusted to the point that no sensible person thinks gays are teh evil, people with dark skin are second-class, and women shouldn't be allowed to vote, drive, or have exactly the same rights as anyone else etc.
Or that kings rule by Divine Right or that property ownership is a requisite of political franchise, or... When would it have been OK to say "all right, progress has been achieved, no need to go further"? 1787? 1866? 1920? 1968? 2014? Some of those milestones took decades or centuries longer than the others and were not mutually supported at different times.The EndOfHistory position also goes on to imply people should not complain about whatever they feel is still wrong because the important stuff has been resolved.

(plus I see a LOT of people who still seem to hold on to that Gays are teh Evil... or that at the very least it is opression to have to tolerate them publicly)

That said, reasonable people can look at the complaint, weigh pros and cons, harms and benefits, and conclude "good point, I can see how that would hinder your life" or "oh fer chrissakes it's just hoop earrings!".

Last edited by JRDelirious; 03-18-2017 at 11:29 AM.
  #50  
Old 03-18-2017, 11:32 AM
clairobscur clairobscur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 16,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
So the difference is, activists are the folks who fought for and won issues in the past, where surely you would have been on their side; warriors are the folks who are fighting for issues in the present, and you're against them.

BY DEFINITION, that's always been true. Before a battle for changing social mores is won, most people believe it's not an important battle to win. It's at the point where most people decide it's important that you win it.

Your viewpoint conveniently lets you take the side of folks in the past who agitated against folks like you in the past.

*Even* if SJWs end up being on the good side of history, as you suggest, their success in preventing white girls from wearing loops won't ever be comparable with former successes in abolishing segregation. Or their successes in preventing micro-agressions on college campuses comparable to previous successes in putting an end to lynching.

And when they're adressing more general issues, like racial discrimination as opposed to loop wearing, they're doing so when the position they're supporting is already popular and quite mainstream. They wish they would be the equals of their predecessors who fought very unpolular and sometimes dangerous uphill battles. But they'll never be.

They aren't the vanguard of progress, they're the rear guard that comes to the battlefield once the opposing army is already fleeing and search for a wounded ennemy lying somewhere so that they can slice his throat for bragging rights.

Once they'll embark on some seriously difficult and unpopular cause that might make a really significant difference in the world, send me a notice. Until then, I will consider that members of PETA are much more likely than them to be a force that will shape the future and be remembered with reverence (and it's not like I'm an ardent supporter of animal rights).

Those people could do a lot of things that I would find praiseworthy despite not having a big battle to fight, but insisting on trigger warnings, telling other people what's wrong with their sex life and shouting down speakers they disagree with aren't on the list.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:49 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017