Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 03-18-2017, 11:51 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: 36,772
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
*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.
Compare like to like: do you think that in the sixties, there weren't college students making dumb arguments, even while others engaged in excellent activism? Do you think that wasn't the case in the thirties? The 1860s? Or is it Kids These Days who have invented the idea of, during their adolescence, engaging in unsubtle and self-absorbed political causes?

Martini isn't comparing like to like: he's comparing the best and most important activism from history to the shit that World Net Daily publicizes today.
  #52  
Old 03-18-2017, 12:05 PM
clairobscur clairobscur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 16,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsgoddess View Post
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,
Once again, *they* labeled themselves Social Justice Warriors. And many keep doing so, despite others shying away from this name because it took a negative connotation.

I first discovered the term SJWs from people describing themselves proudly as such. I had never heard it before, and had to search for it on the urban dictionary. And I made my (negative) mind about what it entailed not from people denigrating or mocking them, but from *their own* words, statements, and actions.

Last edited by clairobscur; 03-18-2017 at 12:07 PM.
  #53  
Old 03-18-2017, 12:23 PM
wonky wonky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: DC area
Posts: 29,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
Once again, *they* labeled themselves Social Justice Warriors. And many keep doing so, despite others shying away from this name because it took a negative connotation.

I first discovered the term SJWs from people describing themselves proudly as such. I had never heard it before, and had to search for it on the urban dictionary. And I made my (negative) mind about what it entailed not from people denigrating or mocking them, but from *their own* words, statements, and actions.
You think every person the OP calls a social justice warrior labels themselves that way? You think it took on a "negative connotation" apart from its use to mock and shame?

And even if so, do you think he means the same thing by it? He's clearly using it as a term of mockery and attack. It's okay if he focuses on trivialities to attack others for focusing on trivialities to attack others? It's okay for him to hate people for their behavior of hating people for their behavior? It's okay for him to attempt to mock, shame, and shout down others for their attempts to mock, shame, and shout down others?

Last edited by wonky; 03-18-2017 at 12:23 PM.
  #54  
Old 03-18-2017, 12:35 PM
clairobscur clairobscur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 16,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Compare like to like: do you think that in the sixties, there weren't college students making dumb arguments, even while others engaged in excellent activism? Do you think that wasn't the case in the thirties? The 1860s? Or is it Kids These Days who have invented the idea of, during their adolescence, engaging in unsubtle and self-absorbed political causes?
I you want me to say that SJWs are idiots, I obviously won't disagree. And yes, I've seen my share of kids who had a monopoly on truth in my younger years.

Which leads me to mention another prejudice I have against SJWs : I don't trust them the slighest bit. You'd think that with time they would evolve towards a more reasonable form of progressism. But my past experiences with people with this kind of mindset is that with time, they'll see the errors in their ways, have a new revelation, and will suscribe to some other all-encompassing view of the world, preferably one that very conveniently will still let them with the good role. Which can perfectly be something like unrestrained capitalism (say, after they created their own business), religious conversion, far right, etc...

I believe (of course, this is very disputable) that the important thing for this type of people isn't the specific cause they espouse, but to have this certainty that they own the truth that allows them to feel good about themselves, justify everything they do, and justify also their desire to shut up dissenters. That they're, at the core, bullies with a mission, not progressists.

There are fortunately plenty of young people engaged in worthy activism and respectful of the freedom of opinion. But they don't call themselves SJWs, and aren't called that way either.

Last edited by clairobscur; 03-18-2017 at 12:37 PM.
  #55  
Old 03-18-2017, 12:38 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 36,772
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
Once again, *they* labeled themselves Social Justice Warriors. And many keep doing so, despite others shying away from this name because it took a negative connotation.

I first discovered the term SJWs from people describing themselves proudly as such. I had never heard it before, and had to search for it on the urban dictionary. And I made my (negative) mind about what it entailed not from people denigrating or mocking them, but from *their own* words, statements, and actions.
Chances are very small that you encountered the term prior to Gamergate. While there are a very few, isolated instances of its use dating back to the mid-nineties, it was the people who doxxed Zoe Quinn and others who started using the term widely and got it placed into public conversation.

Which is a great example of why Martini is wrong to suggest that the current social activism fights are trivial. In our current era, women who speak out in traditionally male fields are finding themselves the subject of rape threats, death threats, and the like. It ain't all about hoop earrings.
  #56  
Old 03-18-2017, 12:40 PM
Merneith Merneith is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 6,274
Complaining about "SJWS" is not really any different than Republican complaints about "treehuggers" and "libs". They're trying to discredit the anti-discrimination movement by focusing on the silliest edge cases. It also lets them handwave any suggestion that racism or sexism are still ongoing problems. They can say things like, "Hey - everyone agrees that women should be allowed to vote so there can't be any major problems any more (oh, and pretend you didn't see all the white men on tv saying that women voters are bad for America).
  #57  
Old 03-18-2017, 12:54 PM
clairobscur clairobscur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 16,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsgoddess View Post
You think every person the OP calls a social justice warrior labels themselves that way? You think it took on a "negative connotation" apart from its use to mock and shame?
It took a negative connotation because they brought it unto themselves. As a result of *their* discourses and *their* actions. It's certainly my experience. "Social Justice Warrior" sounds rather nice until you see them lecturing, harassing and bullying people.


Quote:
It's okay if he focuses on trivialities to attack others for focusing on trivialities to attack others? It's okay for him to hate people for their behavior of hating people for their behavior? It's okay for him to attempt to mock, shame, and shout down others for their attempts to mock, shame, and shout down others?
Absolutely yes, for the most part (mostly excepting shouting them down). What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Self-important bullies don't deserve respect. They deserve to be mocked and shamed in return.


Would you have showed up to defend Trump afficionados, for instance, against people trying to mock and shame them?

Last edited by clairobscur; 03-18-2017 at 12:55 PM.
  #58  
Old 03-18-2017, 01:06 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 36,772
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
It took a negative connotation because they brought it unto themselves. As a result of *their* discourses and *their* actions. It's certainly my experience. "Social Justice Warrior" sounds rather nice until you see them lecturing, harassing and bullying people.
No. It took a negative connotation because the Gamergate people liked having gaming be a mostly-male pursuit with games made for teenaged dudes by older dudes, with women involved mostly as eye candy; and when gaming started being the subject of critical feminist attention and when women started becoming major players in gaming press, the Gamergate douches COMPLETELY FLIPPED THEIR SHIT. They're the ones who turned SJW into an insult; they're the ones you're following.
  #59  
Old 03-18-2017, 01:07 PM
Rick Sanchez Rick Sanchez is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 351
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?
Nope:

1) It's BigTard and 'Shut up, BigTard' is a thing, here. I didn't make it a thing. I was just riffing on it.
2) BigT clearly has no problem with the "wrong" people being silenced and what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
3) I'm not actually shutting him up because this is a fucking internet message board and it's impossible to "type someone down". Jesus Christ...

Look, if I'd banned BigT, and threatened people who objected with the same treatment, then, maybe, we'd be kinda sorta comparing apples to apples. Such as it is, there's no sane basis for comparison with what those SJWs did to Peterson. Ergo, no irony. Your post is just a poorly thought through attempt at a "gotcha".
  #60  
Old 03-18-2017, 01:09 PM
clairobscur clairobscur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 16,837
In fact, after checking wikipedia, it appears that the term SJW only began to take a negative connotation around 2011. And that this negative connotation became mainstream only after the rather recent "Gamergate".

I only heard about it being applied in a negative way to people who don't qualify themselves as such on this board, and I think during the last year or couple of years.
  #61  
Old 03-18-2017, 01:14 PM
Rick Sanchez Rick Sanchez is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsgoddess View Post
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.
You think BigTard is "part and parcel" with this?

Okay, nutcase. Whatever you say
  #62  
Old 03-18-2017, 01:15 PM
clairobscur clairobscur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 16,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
when women started becoming major players in gaming press, the Gamergate douches COMPLETELY FLIPPED THEIR SHIT. They're the ones who turned SJW into an insult; they're the ones you're following.
Then, *they* are the ones following me. Because I had an issue with SJWs (more specifically originally due to the problem they have with D/s relationships, and their attempts at shaming practicioners and trying to shut down their internet pages) before I ever heard of the Gamergate.
  #63  
Old 03-18-2017, 01:24 PM
Steve MB Steve MB is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 11,927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Sanchez View Post
Stupid Social Justice Warrior Bullshit O' the Day
Awwww.... lookit the little GamerGate Bro trying to look all intimidating!
__________________
The Internet: Nobody knows if you're a dog. Everybody knows if you're a jackass.
  #64  
Old 03-18-2017, 01:25 PM
Rick Sanchez Rick Sanchez is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 351
In a more amusing example of stupid SJW bullshit, it turns out that, if you're a white politician, quoting Beyonce is "cultural appropriation".
  #65  
Old 03-18-2017, 01:36 PM
Chefguy Chefguy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Portlandia
Posts: 38,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by dropzone View Post
Yes, it is, for anything more than a strong disagreement.

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.
Well, no it isn't, really. I went to an ACLU talk a week ago, where one of the attorneys defined 'freedom of speech' as being dependent on where you're standing when you exercise it. For instance, if you don't have a permit to demonstrate, you may not block traffic or impede pedestrian flow on public property for the sake of getting your point across, and can be arrested for doing so. In a public park, you can, for the most part, yammer on at will without fear of prosecution.
  #66  
Old 03-18-2017, 01:42 PM
JackieLikesVariety JackieLikesVariety is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Nevada
Posts: 2,268
Quote:
Which is a great example of why Martini is wrong to suggest that the current social activism fights are trivial. In our current era, women who speak out in traditionally male fields are finding themselves the subject of rape threats, death threats, and the like. It ain't all about hoop earrings.
QFT

Quote:
It's BigTard and 'Shut up, BigTard' is a thing, here. I didn't make it a thing.
I don't care, Rick Sanchez "everyone is doing it" is a cowardly excuse.
  #67  
Old 03-18-2017, 02:48 PM
Procrustus Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 9,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Compare like to like: do you think that in the sixties, there weren't college students making dumb arguments, even while others engaged in excellent activism? Do you think that wasn't the case in the thirties? The 1860s? Or is it Kids These Days who have invented the idea of, during their adolescence, engaging in unsubtle and self-absorbed political causes?

Martini isn't comparing like to like: he's comparing the best and most important activism from history to the shit that World Net Daily publicizes today.
Agreed. In the 70s we protested against U.S. support for apartheid and debated whether selling Playboy in the college bookstore objectified women. You know what? I learned a lot about both issues, despite the latter being similar to what people today might calll a SJW issue. Although I came down on the side of freedom of choice, I also came to understand the contrary arguments and I believe a lot of good came out of the debate. Like today's' young people, the debate often had its share of excesses and violations of people's' rights. Lessons were learned. Civilization survived.

So, yes, we should call these people out when they pull stupid shit, but we should also try to understand the injustices they are motivated by.
  #68  
Old 03-18-2017, 03:20 PM
Guinastasia Guinastasia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 50,737
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.
Um no, that's totally not it at all.


Warriors are people who fight over trivial issues -- how DARE you wear that style of jewelry, eat that kind of food, how DARE you have a Trump bumpersticker (remember students freaking out over "TRUMP written in chalk?) how DARE you not be like MEEEEE!!! Or if someone asks a question, genuinely wanting to learn, they'll be told, "It's not my job to educate you."

If you don't understand the difference in fighting for the right to use the preferred bathroom and freaking out because a white girl has dread locks, I can't help you.
  #69  
Old 03-18-2017, 03:22 PM
Guinastasia Guinastasia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 50,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Sanchez View Post
In a more amusing example of stupid SJW bullshit, it turns out that, if you're a white politician, quoting Beyonce is "cultural appropriation".
THAT is a great example.
  #70  
Old 03-18-2017, 03:26 PM
wonky wonky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: DC area
Posts: 29,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
Um no, that's totally not it at all.


Warriors are people who fight over trivial issues -- how DARE you wear that style of jewelry, eat that kind of food, how DARE you have a Trump bumpersticker (remember students freaking out over "TRUMP written in chalk?) how DARE you not be like MEEEEE!!! Or if someone asks a question, genuinely wanting to learn, they'll be told, "It's not my job to educate you."

If you don't understand the difference in fighting for the right to use the preferred bathroom and freaking out because a white girl has dread locks, I can't help you.
So... it's not your job to educate him, huh?
  #71  
Old 03-18-2017, 03:28 PM
Rick Sanchez Rick Sanchez is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsgoddess View Post
So... it's not your job to educate him, huh?
How about you spend a little less time coming up with lame snark and a little more time learning the difference between "can't" and "won't"?
  #72  
Old 03-18-2017, 03:41 PM
Richard Parker Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 11,645
That snark was pretty on point, actually.
  #73  
Old 03-18-2017, 03:42 PM
clairobscur clairobscur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 16,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Chances are very small that you encountered the term prior to Gamergate. While there are a very few, isolated instances of its use dating back to the mid-nineties, it was the people who doxxed Zoe Quinn and others who started using the term widely and got it placed into public conversation.
I already said at least a couple times that I didn't hear (read, in fact) the name first from people opposing SJWs, but from self-defined SJWs themselves. On top of which I never followed the Gamergate controversy that seemed very confusing. You might have heard of it first when it became derogatory, I heard of it first when it was worn as a badge of pride (and a free license to bash and silence others).
  #74  
Old 03-18-2017, 03:57 PM
Rick Sanchez Rick Sanchez is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
That snark was pretty on point, actually.
No it wasn't, actually. Guinastasia, actually, was saying that if Left Hand of Dorkness couldn't grasp the distinction she was trying to make then actually, she couldn't actually help him, actually.

When an SJW says "It's not my job to educate you" they are actually saying that actually, they won't help. They are refusing, point blank, to engage. That, actually, is a salient difference which, actually, jsgoddess's lame snark actually missed.

Actually.

Last edited by Rick Sanchez; 03-18-2017 at 03:59 PM.
  #75  
Old 03-18-2017, 03:58 PM
Richard Parker Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 11,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Sanchez View Post
No it wasn't, actually. Guinastasia, actually, was saying that if Left Hand of Dorkness couldn't grasp the distinction she was trying to make then actually, she couldn't actually help him, actually.

When an SJW says "It's not my job to educate you" they are actually saying that actually, they won't help. That, actually, is a salient difference which, actually, jsgoddess's lame snark actually missed.

Actually.
u mad bro?
  #76  
Old 03-18-2017, 04:03 PM
Rick Sanchez Rick Sanchez is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
u mad bro?
That's a meme of African-American origin. I'd thank you to stop culturally appropriating it.
  #77  
Old 03-18-2017, 04:44 PM
clairobscur clairobscur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 16,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsgoddess View Post
You think every person the OP calls a social justice warrior labels themselves that way?
Coming back to this question.

Yes, in fact, I assumed that, essentially.

Having (once again) come into contact with the name from people who labeled themselves that way, my assumption had always been that people talking about SJWs were talking about people who would consider themselves SJWs. I didn't find the fact that those comments were overwhelmingly negative notable, since my own impression of SJWs had been extremely negative too from the get go.

I noticed recently on the SDMB, indeed, that some posters considered using this label as a way of insulting people, but : 1) being accustomed to view SJW as a self-designation, I assumed these people were wrong (*), or were talking in bad faith, or wanted to distance themselves from SJWs and 2) Given my opinion of SJWs, I found perfectly normal that this designation had taken a negative conotation, richly deserved IMO, and found "shadenfreude"and irony in thinking that those proud SJWs were now feeling insulted when their name was used.

I realize only today, after participating in this thread and reading various entries about SJWs, that it's now indeed overwhelmingly considered a slur used to designate people who wouldn't call themselves this way. And that many people probably never heard of SJWs before it became a pejorative meme.


(*) That said, they still are quite wrong in the sense that SJW as a name predates its pejorative use, and the pejorative use is actually born from the very real attitude people calling themselves that way had. It might now be extended to many others sharing the same attitude but rejecting the name, but I still say that it's the actual SJWs who brought it upon themselves (and I realize now on others), by being absolute jerks.
  #78  
Old 03-18-2017, 05:14 PM
wonky wonky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: DC area
Posts: 29,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
I realize only today, after participating in this thread and reading various entries about SJWs, that it's now indeed overwhelmingly considered a slur used to designate people who wouldn't call themselves this way. And that many people probably never heard of SJWs before it became a pejorative meme.


(*) That said, they still are quite wrong in the sense that SJW as a name predates its pejorative use, and the pejorative use is actually born from the very real attitude people calling themselves that way had. It might now be extended to many others sharing the same attitude but rejecting the name, but I still say that it's the actual SJWs who brought it upon themselves (and I realize now on others), by being absolute jerks.
Are you assuming the attitude when you hear the name?
  #79  
Old 03-18-2017, 07:58 PM
Martini Enfield Martini Enfield is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 10,293
One of the recurring themes I notice in discussions I get involved in is the idea that if I have a problem with trivial bullshit like "trigger warnings" or made-up and unintentional "microaggressions" that I'm also against change for more serious issues.

This is not correct.

For the record:

- I completely support the right of consenting adults regardless of gender/sexuality, to engage in whatever sexual activities they like - and to get married to another consenting adult of any gender.

- I completely support the right of transgendered people to use whichever restroom facilities matches their gender identity.

- Everyone, regardless of gender, ethnicity, sexuality etc deserves a fair go.

History is written by the winners (notable exception: The Spanish Civil War) so while we remember the suffragettes, the civil rights movement, the abolitionists and Gandhi, they were also fighting for things that (for the most part), we tend to forget those folks were striving for things lots and lots and lots of people agreed they should have anyway (the vote, no slavery, not being treated like shit for having the "wrong" skin colour).

As clairobscur notes, today's social justice folks generally aren't fighting for things on the same scale as the suffragettes or MLK. When we get around to having the "Are robots legally people?" or thing then yeah, you'll have another "worthy" social matter to fight over with very real consequences and an outcome that matters.

But ranting about "trigger warnings" and "safe spaces" is not nearly in the same league as saying "Hey, literally owning people like property and forcing them to work on our cotton plantations isn't cool and that shit needs to stop", IMHO - hence the disdain for the Offenderati/Perpetually Outraged/Social Justice Warrior League of Calamitous Intent.
  #80  
Old 03-18-2017, 11:32 PM
Guinastasia Guinastasia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 50,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Sanchez View Post
No it wasn't, actually. Guinastasia, actually, was saying that if Left Hand of Dorkness couldn't grasp the distinction she was trying to make then actually, she couldn't actually help him, actually.

When an SJW says "It's not my job to educate you" they are actually saying that actually, they won't help. They are refusing, point blank, to engage. That, actually, is a salient difference which, actually, jsgoddess's lame snark actually missed.

Actually.
No, I found it to be a pretty good zinger -- I'll give her points for that.
I think MY point still stands, though. I think there's a huge difference between asking for equal rights to be able to use the same bathroom as everyone else instead of "separate but equal", not to be discriminated for being transgender, and the whole "White Girls, Take Out Your Hoops". Or the kids at Oberlin College that claimed it was racist when the cafeteria served sushi made with crappy rice and frozen fish rather than fresh.

There are people out there freaking out over Wonder Woman's ARMPITS, for fuck's sake.

What people wear, what they eat, armpit hair hair, that's completely irrelevant. Those are basically luxuries. Whereas trying to create another "separate but equal" catagory is an entirely different ball game.
  #81  
Old 03-19-2017, 12:29 AM
Joey P Joey P is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 26,585
My issue with SJWs is the (seemingly) constant self contradiction. I'll see SJWs complain that you shouldn't categorize people, especially by a single action. But then a few posts later, they'll call someone out, but their post will have 3 or 4 -ist words in it. For example, 'ewww, you support ___ that's makes you no different than all the other imperialist, racist, misogynist white privileged men out there...like, wow, blocked, have fun buddy'. And the other guy is sitting there like 'I just said that one of my stocks jumped 3% today and I got a PM saying I'm no different than a KKK member?'

Similarly, another thing I see SJWs say, constantly, is that people of the non-oppressed group have no business inputting their opinion into the discussion. Now, while I want to say 'as a person that's part of the group that's oppressing you, but not actually oppressing you, perhaps my insight may have some value', but I just keep my mouth shut because 99% of the time the people telling everyone else to stay out of the discussion and that their opinion is less than worthless is, wait for it, 30-40 year old, well to do, white women. I'm sorry, when discussing police brutality against black people why do you get to shut me down, but you get to continue in the conversation?

Another contradiction I see is that "everyone has been raped", "stop all the raping", "report rapes", "so much violence against trans/blacks/gays/etc". Okay, got it, makes sense (except maybe the everyone has been raped part), but that doesn't jive when you're also crying to totally and utterly get rid of jails and police, period. So, um, who do you want responding to all these raping? What do you want done with them?

Two more quick ones, still more self-contradictions
Person on social media site puts up a post about a technical issue she's having. A bunch of people, myself included, toss out some ideas. I and I alone got called out for 'mansplaining'. The two females, nothing. To me, I saw that as 'fuck you, I don't want help from a man'. She also sent me a message telling me she knew more about the subject than I do so she didn't need my opinion anyways. I didn't respond, but all I could think was that she's a FOAF and I've only met her once for a few minutes at a bar, there's no possible way she could have any idea about her knowledge vs mine on an extremely specific subject. It's was, literally, nothing more than 'stop talking, male'. To this day I wish I had responded to that comment with 'how do you know?"

One of my favorites. SJW, complains about something. Non-SJW, says it's no big deal. SJW tells him he has no business and his opinion doesn't count since he's not part of the oppressed group. Non-SJW says 'neither are you, so why are you talking about it?'. SJW comes back with the fact that they were just quoting someone from that group. This is similar to the argument that when an SJW accuses someone, they're right and you're not allowed to defend yourself. What was funny, to me at least is that the non-SJW found an official PR statement from the head of the 'oppressed' regarding the (non) situation, and brought it to her attention and said that if all that matters is quotes, here's one from the top person specifically saying that they're actually happy about the way this is playing out. SJW continues to tell the other poster that he's wrong.

You know, I'm (most of the time) a lefty, but, it's funny, the more of this I see, the more I understand my super-right friends when they say things like 'the left is supposed to be tolerant, but they're only tolerant to people with their view point and as soon as you disagree with them, they yell and scream and call you names until you give them what they want'.

I think the internet has made this considerably worse and, as I've said before, if the way left and way right would both just take a few steps towards the middle and stop digging their heels in, we might be able to get somewhere. Like c'mon, do you, honestly, think getting rid of the police is a good idea, do you truly think that every.single.cop is a terrible human being or could you maybe look at Shaun King's list of ways to make the police force better and and say 'yeah, if we could implement half (or so) of these, it would really make a difference. And again, to stick with the cop thing, yes, there's a lot of cop/minority issues, but if we get rid of them, what do you want to happen when someone breaks into your house and you call 911?
Could you maybe attempt to think more than an hour into the future? Maybe try not to call someone a nazi or a racist or an imperialist or a (gasp) capitalist because they dared to say 'that makes sense, but I'm not so sure about one of your points".


FTR, I do like to keep SJW's in my facebook feed because even when I think they're reactions are beyond ridiculous, I think sometimes it's necessary and, also, it brings attention to the issues facing people that I wouldn't otherwise be aware of. Same reason I keep the super-right people in my feed and together they sort of balance out.

On preview, this turned out to be a way longer post than I thought it would be...
TLDR, probably pretty much what was said above.
  #82  
Old 03-19-2017, 02:58 AM
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 5,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
No, I found it to be a pretty good zinger -- I'll give her points for that.
I think MY point still stands, though. I think there's a huge difference between asking for equal rights to be able to use the same bathroom as everyone else instead of "separate but equal", not to be discriminated for being transgender, and the whole "White Girls, Take Out Your Hoops". Or the kids at Oberlin College that claimed it was racist when the cafeteria served sushi made with crappy rice and frozen fish rather than fresh.

There are people out there freaking out over Wonder Woman's ARMPITS, for fuck's sake.

What people wear, what they eat, armpit hair hair, that's completely irrelevant. Those are basically luxuries. Whereas trying to create another "separate but equal" catagory is an entirely different ball game.
If SJWs make a big enough stink that we get a Wonder Woman with armpit hair I will need a safe space.
  #83  
Old 03-19-2017, 05:58 AM
I Love Me, Vol. I I Love Me, Vol. I is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 3,926
I don't understand the anger expressed toward Single Jewish Women. I've known some who were delightful and then some.
  #84  
Old 03-19-2017, 06:36 AM
clairobscur clairobscur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 16,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsgoddess View Post
Are you assuming the attitude when you hear the name?
Yes, I do. In fact I almost added that even if the name is now considered a pejorative, those people, even if they now shy away from calling themselves SJWs, deserve the scorn (for those who want to silence opponents) or the ridicule (for those who want to forbid yoga classes).

I assume that you're going to tell me that nowadays, this name is applied to people who don't have this attitude?

In this case, whether or not it's still an useful category depends on my opinion on whom exactly it is applied. I wrote earlier in this thread a post listing the attributes of SJWs (the one ending with my statement that they have a mindset exactly similar to that of religious extremists), and could add to that sheep who, despite maybe not having the same mindset, follow suit because it's trendy and popular.
  #85  
Old 03-19-2017, 06:52 AM
clairobscur clairobscur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 16,837
Given the previous argument about the wording SJWs, I'm going to specify that I'm talking about people who fall into *my* definition of SJWs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Martini Enfield View Post
For the record:

- I completely support the right of consenting adults regardless of gender/sexuality, to engage in whatever sexual activities they like
SJWs don't support that. Not if it's the kind of activity they don't approve of. Homosexual sex is fine, if not even a positive trait, but D/s should be banned. And for many of them, sex work too.


Quote:
- I completely support the right of transgendered people to use whichever restroom facilities matches their gender identity.
A number of SJWs (with a RadFem bend) don't, on the basis that transexuals aren't real women, with the life experience of being a woman with a vagina. And, being in fact men, they pose a threat to actual women. I've even seen the argument that transexuals shouldn't be allowed to be gynecologists (or at least should advertize that they're transexuals), because it could mislead women into believing that they're safe, being examined by a female while they're in fact examined by a male with presumably doubtful intents (because of course why else would a man chose to be a gynecologist)


Quote:
- Everyone, regardless of gender, ethnicity, sexuality etc deserves a fair go.
They don't think so, either, at least in practice. When you read something like "that's why you shouldn't trust or engage with white heterosexual men" (in a discussion about a model being harassed by a photographer), it shows that in this person mind, white heterosexual men don't deserve a fair go.

Last edited by clairobscur; 03-19-2017 at 06:57 AM.
  #86  
Old 03-19-2017, 07:06 AM
Northern Piper Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Je suis Ikea.
Posts: 25,297
clairobscur, just add me as a data point who has only heard of "SJW" or "Social Justice Warrior" used as a derogatory phrase. Perhaps I just don't move in the right circles to hear it being used as a badge of honour.
  #87  
Old 03-19-2017, 08:23 AM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 34,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
No, I found it to be a pretty good zinger -- I'll give her points for that.
I think MY point still stands, though. I think there's a huge difference between asking for equal rights to be able to use the same bathroom as everyone else instead of "separate but equal", not to be discriminated for being transgender, and the whole "White Girls, Take Out Your Hoops". Or the kids at Oberlin College that claimed it was racist when the cafeteria served sushi made with crappy rice and frozen fish rather than fresh.

There are people out there freaking out over Wonder Woman's ARMPITS, for fuck's sake.

What people wear, what they eat, armpit hair hair, that's completely irrelevant. Those are basically luxuries. Whereas trying to create another "separate but equal" catagory is an entirely different ball game.
Actually, I think this is a LOUSY point. What you're basically saying is that people who are fighting for justice but on issues you consider trivial are SJWs and are an annoyance and a discredit to those who ARE fighting more serious issues.

The reasons it's a bad point are these: first of all, it's a kind of separating the sheep from the goats - THOSE liberals are doing it all wrong, but US liberals are doing it right. They're the sinners, we're the elect.

And second, who makes the distinction? Sure, there are some obvious cases, but there's gonna be a lot of gray areas.

Third, fuck this use of 'SJW' as a derogatory thing. I for one think fighting for social justice is in general a Good Thing, and if some people are doing so in a trivial way, well, that comes with the territory. No movement is going to be perfect, or going to be composed of people of perfect judgment.

Fighting to keep the Republicans from depriving 25,000,000 Americans of health insurance - that's fighting for social justice. Are we all 'social justice warriors'? If we aren't, then the term has no meaning except as a concept we were too wimpy to defend. Yes we are SJWs, and being one is a good thing. I, for one, am in favor of taking the term, owning it, and asking people like Rich Sanchez just what they feel is wrong with being a SJW anyway? Are they for taking away health insurance from one out of every 13 Americans, just because some college students acted like college students? That's the issue here.
  #88  
Old 03-19-2017, 08:48 AM
RitterSport RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,189
Can we use this thread for Social Injustice Warriors, too? For example, the North Carolina legislature cutting off its nose to spite its face by overriding local LGBT-friendly bathroom laws, thereby losing the state all kinds of business including hosting some of the NCAA basketball tournament?

How about the current administration, overturning the LGBT-friendly hiring rules? Are they SIWs?

How about the two dozen states that have put anti-Sharia laws on the books? I mean, come on, we all agree that the US is a Christian-dominated place, right? Are they SIWs or SJWs?

How about people, including the President, getting offended when people say Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas? SJWs? SIWs? Help me out here. They seem to be fighting something that doesn't really affect anyone, right?

Martini Enfield, I'm happy that you think that LGBT people and others shouldn't face discrimination, but as you can see, people in this country don't agree with you and there's all kinds of discrimination in real life in the US.
  #89  
Old 03-19-2017, 08:50 AM
wonky wonky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: DC area
Posts: 29,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
What people wear, what they eat, armpit hair hair, that's completely irrelevant. Those are basically luxuries. Whereas trying to create another "separate but equal" catagory is an entirely different ball game.

I'm a white woman. Can I wear blackface? Or war paint and a war bonnet?

Or hell, let's go for the obvious one. Can I wear a KKK robe and hood?

Is it okay to kill endangered species so I can make powders that will enhance virility? How about whales?


Are these things irrelevant?

There are people in this thread who would say these things are irrelevant. I'm guessing you wouldn't be among them. But I honestly think you might run into difficulty saying exactly why they are different.

There are colossal idiots out there of every ideology. Every ideology can go to extremes. That isn't in question, for me.

But I think it takes hindsight to figure out the exact boundaries of sense-making and nonsense-making. Each of us is only as wise as our minds and our experiences. We do not know the whole of the world, just our slice of it, and that slice not as well as we think.

We're all fumbling through this. Some people are fumbling through trying to ensure justice, some are fumbling through trying to ensure injustice, and sometimes it's harder to tell the difference than any of us would like.
  #90  
Old 03-19-2017, 08:58 AM
Bridget Burke Bridget Burke is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 9,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
clairobscur, just add me as a data point who has only heard of "SJW" or "Social Justice Warrior" used as a derogatory phrase. Perhaps I just don't move in the right circles to hear it being used as a badge of honour.
Surely some of those early SJW's used the term online. Perhaps we can see a "link"?

Nope?
  #91  
Old 03-19-2017, 09:10 AM
Malleus, Incus, Stapes! Malleus, Incus, Stapes! is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Middle ear
Posts: 5,780
Social Justice Warrior is like Men's Rights Activist*. Both sound fine on the surface, and there are a probably a few uniformed souls left using those titles to fight homophobia or child-custody bias or whatnot, but for the most part those terms have been co-opted by the extremists and their detractors.

*Well, my brother says there are people calling themselves MRAs who talk about legit social issues. I've never seen one in the wild myself.
  #92  
Old 03-19-2017, 09:24 AM
Knowed Out Knowed Out is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: North Kakkalakee
Posts: 11,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by yezlles View Post
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.)
Some questions from the Snowflake test:
Quote:
Outside of standard benefits, what benefits should a company offer employees?
Whatever other companies define as "standard" that you don't.
Quote:
What are your feelings about employees or clients carrying guns?
If I was employed at a gun range, I'd be copacetic.
Quote:
What are your feelings about safe spaces in challenging work environments?
You mean like the room where they keep the bandaids and rubbing alcohol? All for them.
Quote:
Should “trigger warnings” be issued before we release content for clients or the company that might be considered “controversial”?
Controversial as in what Adam & Eve stock? I think the buyer understands the inherent risks, or lack thereof.
Quote:
How do you feel about police?
Why do you ask? Will we be wanting to call them while we're here?
Quote:
When was the last time you cried and why?
November last year
Quote:
What are your thoughts on the current college environment as it pertains to a future workforce?
You mean all colleges or just the ones you currently have a beef with?
Quote:
What does “faith” mean to you?
I have faith that the leaders of our country and working environments won't be blame-shifting man-babies who believe everything they see on Fox News, but my faith is often displaced.
Quote:
You see someone stepping on an American Flag. What happens next?
I would assume I'm in another country our president pissed off, so I would get the fuck out.
  #93  
Old 03-19-2017, 09:29 AM
Knowed Out Knowed Out is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: North Kakkalakee
Posts: 11,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
THAT is a great example.
Can you explain it to me? I couldn't understand what the issue was.
  #94  
Old 03-19-2017, 09:51 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: 36,772
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
Given the previous argument about the wording SJWs, I'm going to specify that I'm talking about people who fall into *my* definition of SJWs
So what IS your definition? Drawing generalizations from the multitude of anecdotes offered, it still seems to me that people here are defining SJW as activists fighting for issues they consider not worth fighting for. I don't really think we need a word for that. Sure, there are plenty of issues that people fight for that I don't think are worthy. So what?
  #95  
Old 03-19-2017, 10:13 AM
Rick Sanchez Rick Sanchez is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 351
This SJW reads this article and her conclusion is this.

Also, this SJW would like you to know as a matter of urgency that 'Straight white men are generally trash'.

Do you know what these two SJWs have in common? They both write for TEEN vogue.

h/t @thesafestspace
  #96  
Old 03-19-2017, 10:31 AM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 34,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Sanchez View Post
This SJW reads this article and her conclusion is this.

Also, this SJW would like you to know as a matter of urgency that 'Straight white men are generally trash'.

Do you know what these two SJWs have in common? They both write for TEEN vogue.

h/t @thesafestspace
If you're gonna have to resort to linking to tweets to find your outrages, then I don't see the point in bothering. A lot of shit goes on in Twitter interactions, it's easy to take one tweet out of context - 140 characters doesn't have room to convey nuance and sarcasm to someone who hasn't been following the conversation - and it isn't worth anyone's time to dig out the full conversation just to see if your gripe makes sense or not. Nuts to that.
  #97  
Old 03-19-2017, 10:36 AM
Rick Sanchez Rick Sanchez is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 351
They're journalists with substantial followings. Change white to black and straight to gay. Would they still have their jobs?
  #98  
Old 03-19-2017, 10:47 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: 36,772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Sanchez View Post
They're journalists with substantial followings. Change white to black and straight to gay. Would they still have their jobs?
Can we change white to black and straight to gay through all society, or are we pretending like changing them only in these Tweets while leaving everything else the same is a reasonable thing to do?

In any case, when on the one hand we have a freelancer who's been published in Teen Vogue making shitty tweets, and on the other hand we have congressman Steve King openly calling for a white nation, I have a hard time getting worried about the Teen Vogue freelancer.

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 03-19-2017 at 10:48 AM.
  #99  
Old 03-19-2017, 10:50 AM
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,701
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Sanchez View Post
This SJW reads this article and her conclusion is this.
It is perhaps worth noticing the responses to that tweet. Folks like BasedWhiteMale, who had this to say:
Thanks for showing whites that #antiwhite hate is deep in the hearts of POC. Truly, thx, making our job easier
While tagging this guy. And then the number of neonazis who went on to agree with him.

But yes, clearly the problem we should be worried about is "teh SJWs".

  #100  
Old 03-19-2017, 11:24 AM
Rick Sanchez Rick Sanchez is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness
Can we change white to black and straight to gay through all society, or are we pretending like changing them only in these Tweets while leaving everything else the same is a reasonable thing to do?
It is a reasonable thing to do. Unless you're one of those "Racism = prejudice + power" retards, bigotry is bigotry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness
In any case, when on the one hand we have a freelancer who's been published in Teen Vogue making shitty tweets, and on the other hand we have congressman Steve King openly calling for a white nation, I have a hard time getting worried about the Teen Vogue freelancer.
Why the fuck are you comparing those two things? I'm certainly not.
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 10:29 PM.

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