Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 03-19-2017, 11:25 AM
Rick Sanchez Rick Sanchez is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
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".

Here's an idea: Start your own thread about what shit heads Nazis are. I'll back you 100%.
  #102  
Old 03-19-2017, 11:27 AM
Jackmannii Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 28,683
While it's dumb and self-defeating* for leftists to prevent those with contrary views from speaking (on campus or elsewhere), I'm not sure this practice is so much more prevalent now than it was in past decades.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-h...harvard-speech
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/19...-kansas-after/

*it should be mortifying to see right-wingers casting themselves as defenders of free speech.
  #103  
Old 03-19-2017, 12:31 PM
Ibanez Ibanez is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Earth
Posts: 1,968
It's entertaining whenever the term SJW gets brought up in a negative sense on the SDMB half of you start to lose your shit.

People are starting to catch on to the lefts hypocritical bullshit. Notice I said left, not Liberals there's a difference.
  #104  
Old 03-19-2017, 12:46 PM
RitterSport RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibanez View Post
It's entertaining whenever the term SJW gets brought up in a negative sense on the SDMB half of you start to lose your shit.

People are starting to catch on to the lefts hypocritical bullshit. Notice I said left, not Liberals there's a difference.
Can you point to the shit-losing half of this thread? I'm not seeing it.

Anyway, back to SIWs -- Steve King, SIW from Iowa is apparently looking for a safe space for white people.

Many SIWs are calling for a boycott of Hawaii because, I think, some judge there is following the law. I guess those snowflakes need a safe space from the rule of law.

Let's not forget the annual boycott of Starbucks because they use the wrong cups at Christmas, or something ridiculous like that. Christian SJWs, amirite?
  #105  
Old 03-19-2017, 01:02 PM
Rick Sanchez Rick Sanchez is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
Can you point to the shit-losing half of this thread? I'm not seeing it.

Anyway, back to SIWs -- Steve King, SIW from Iowa is apparently looking for a safe space for white people.

Many SIWs are calling for a boycott of Hawaii because, I think, some judge there is following the law. I guess those snowflakes need a safe space from the rule of law.

Let's not forget the annual boycott of Starbucks because they use the wrong cups at Christmas, or something ridiculous like that. Christian SJWs, amirite?
Why are you so hell-bent on hijacking the thread? You don't see me posting about kids accidentally shooting each other in the 'Positive gun news of the day' thread, or about old ladies fending off home invaders in the 'Stupid gun news of the day' thread. You don't see me going into the 'Controversial encounters with police' thread, posting entirely uncontroversial encounters with the police and signing off my posts 'Good job, officers!' You don't, in short, see me threadshitting in other people's threads. So why are you so determined to fuck up this thread by shitting all over it?

If you want to start a thread about Steve King, start one about Steve King, or post in the 'Stupid Republican idea of the day' thread where your complaints would constitute a salient contribution instead of a threadshitting hijack. If you want to start a thread about fake war on christmas bullshit, no-one is stopping you. Why do you insist on dumping your irrelevant bullshit here, and what the fuck is your problem?

Last edited by Rick Sanchez; 03-19-2017 at 01:03 PM.
  #106  
Old 03-19-2017, 01:11 PM
RitterSport RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Sanchez View Post
Why are you so hell-bent on hijacking the thread? You don't see me posting about kids accidentally shooting each other in the 'Positive gun news of the day' thread, or about old ladies fending off home invaders in the 'Stupid gun news of the day' thread. You don't see me going into the 'Controversial encounters with police' thread, posting entirely uncontroversial encounters with the police and signing off my posts 'Good job, officers!' You don't, in short, see me threadshitting in other people's threads. So why are you so determined to fuck up this thread by shitting all over it?

If you want to start a thread about Steve King, start one about Steve King, or post in the 'Stupid Republican idea of the day' thread where your complaints would constitute a salient contribution instead of a threadshitting hijack. If you want to start a thread about fake war on christmas bullshit, no-one is stopping you. Why do you insist on dumping your irrelevant bullshit here, and what the fuck is your problem?
Sorry, snowflake. I should have put a trigger warning in.

Trigger warning: I'm about to disagree with you.

I'm not sure what you mean by hijacking. I thought SJWs spend time worrying about trivial bullshit. Isn't that what the Starbucks coffee-cup-gate thing was? What would you call those calling for a boycott of Hawaii if not SJWs?

Wait, are SJWs only on the left of the political spectrum? What's the word for those who get all worked up about trivial bullshit on the right?
  #107  
Old 03-19-2017, 01:14 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: 36,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Sanchez View Post
Why do you insist on dumping your irrelevant bullshit here, and what the fuck is your problem?
The fuck is the problem is that you've taken a term popularized by one of the great misogynist movements in the US in the past decade, and you've tried to act like there's some utility to the term beyond branding yourself as a flunky of the 4chan brigade.

The fuck is the problem is that you persist in pointing your finger and laughing at folks who have virtually no impact on public discussion--indeed, the only way you find out these people exist is through right-wing blogs that also mock them--acting as though these people are worth talking about.

Meanwhile, the fuck is the problem is that when people point out to you that the real outrages are coming from Republicans who hold actual power, you--let me borrow Ibanez's phrasing here--lose your shit.

That's the fuck is the problem.

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 03-19-2017 at 01:14 PM.
  #108  
Old 03-19-2017, 01:17 PM
elucidator elucidator is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 56,931
Quote:
... and what the fuck is your problem?
Doesn't have one. Wants to talk about stuff you don't want to talk about, and you can't stop it.

Last edited by elucidator; 03-19-2017 at 01:18 PM.
  #109  
Old 03-19-2017, 01:17 PM
Joey P Joey P is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 26,588
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
Let's not forget the annual boycott of Starbucks because they use the wrong cups at Christmas, or something ridiculous like that. Christian SJWs, amirite?
I wouldn't call them SJWs I think those nutjobs were Religious Right. Jesus fucking christ, your starbucks cup was plain red and you flipped the fuck out. Maybe you could use a bit less caffeine.
Here's the video that (I think) really got this all started, you can find your way to his page if you want, he's about as religious right as they come.

But let's think about this for a minute, it's not like Starbucks changed their cup to 'There's no god', they just put out a plain red cup. This guy, and so many like him, are up in arms (literally and figuratively) because one year their cups had a design he liked and the next year it didn't have any design. IIRC, the design was just some ornaments or snowman or something. I don't even think it had wording on it.

But it seems with the RRs, like with the SJWs it still seems like 'you need to do it my way or you're wrong and evil'. We've all seen SJWs tell people that they're nazis or rapists or racists if they don't support some statement they made. Go look your RR friend's pages and it's the same thing. Don't agree with me, off to hell with you, sinner. Though it is a bit entertaining watching them struggle with the current considerably more liberal pope.
  #110  
Old 03-19-2017, 01:25 PM
Rick Sanchez Rick Sanchez is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
Sorry, snowflake. I should have put a trigger warning in.

Trigger warning: I'm about to disagree with you.

I'm not sure what you mean by hijacking. I thought SJWs spend time worrying about trivial bullshit. Isn't that what the Starbucks coffee-cup-gate thing was? What would you call those calling for a boycott of Hawaii if not SJWs?

Wait, are SJWs only on the left of the political spectrum? What's the word for those who get all worked up about trivial bullshit on the right?
You're being disingenuous in order to justify your threadshitting. Earlier, you tried coining the term 'SIW' for 'Social Injustice Warrior' and you're now trying to shoehorn examples you believe fit that description into this thread and calling them SJWs in an attempt to derail the thread.

I don't know what the word is for people who get worked up about trivial bullshit on the right. How about you make one up and start a thread calling them out and leave this one alone.
  #111  
Old 03-19-2017, 01:42 PM
RitterSport RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Sanchez View Post
You're being disingenuous in order to justify your threadshitting. Earlier, you tried coining the term 'SIW' for 'Social Injustice Warrior' and you're now trying to shoehorn examples you believe fit that description into this thread and calling them SJWs in an attempt to derail the thread.

I don't know what the word is for people who get worked up about trivial bullshit on the right. How about you make one up and start a thread calling them out and leave this one alone.
Trigger warning: This post may disagree with you. Also, it mentions Satanists, which may trigger some people. Also, Christians may feel slightly uneasy associating with some people mentioned in the article.

Check out these SJW: http://www.peacock-panache.com/2016/...est-26752.html

They were so freaked out by some Satanists expressing themselves that they protested the display. Here's a quote from the article:

Quote:
Originally Posted by SJW
“This is terrible. As a Christian, I cannot stand for this. This should not be included in our freedom of speech.”
Here's another great one:

Quote:
Originally Posted by SJW #2
“Would they be OK with a Nazi flag? They’re both evil...”
Here's another one:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Also SJW #2
Boykin shouted, “tear this thing down!”
Can you believe how they are trying to squelch the Satanists free expression and exercise of religion? Comparing them to Nazis? Christian SJWs, amirite?
  #112  
Old 03-19-2017, 01:53 PM
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,705
In order to avoid anything resembling a threadshit, could you explain what "SJW" means? Because by my understanding, it's essentially a right-wing snarl word, intended to impugn any liberal standing up for any liberal cause. It doesn't actually have a real meaning, instead simply being a verbal cudgel against anyone from video game critics who think a particular art style is demeaning to journalists who think white people are evil to antifa rioters who violently break up a bigoted douchebag's speech at a college to Jim Fucking Sterling, Son. People often try to define it in terms of moralists, or people who use force to stifle speech, but I have never seen it used to describe, say, the Christians who would illegally tear down a Satanist monument, so clearly there's some inconsistencies here. It's bizarrely broad and overused to the point of cliche, and it's not made better by the fact that the origin of the term can be found in the Gamergate Movement, which is like being a term invented by Rush Limbaugh or Milo Yiannopolous - not a point in its favor. So to avoid all future hijacks, perhaps you'd like to explain what the fuck a "social justice warrior" actually is.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 03-19-2017 at 01:55 PM.
  #113  
Old 03-19-2017, 01:58 PM
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 56,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibanez View Post
It's entertaining whenever the term SJW gets brought up in a negative sense
When has it ever been brought up in a positive sense?

Serious question - it seems to me the only time I see a person invoking the concept, it is to sneer at it and broadly generalize about it.
  #114  
Old 03-19-2017, 02:01 PM
RitterSport RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
In order to avoid anything resembling a threadshit, could you explain what "SJW" means? ...
My guess is that it's a word for left wingers who do stuff the OP doesn't agree with. In that case, I'm not sure why he just doesn't use the Stupid Liberal Idea of the Day thread, since that thread is directed at all liberals, not just Democrats (unlike SRIOD, which specifies Republicans). But, since he hasn't defined it that way, I'm going to continue to assume it means people getting worked up over things, right or left.
  #115  
Old 03-19-2017, 02:10 PM
Rick Sanchez Rick Sanchez is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
The fuck is the problem is that you've taken a term popularised by one of the great misogynist movements in the US in the past decade, and you've tried to act like there's some utility to the term beyond branding yourself as a flunky of the 4chan brigade.
What a trivial nitpicker you are. The term SJW, as a pejorative, is now so well established that it has its own entry in the dictionary. And I'm supposed to abandon it because you don't like the people who popularised that definition? I hope for your sake you never find out who popularised the term Nazi.

Furthermore, it has been patiently explained to you, over and over again, that SJW is only a pejorative because of the actions of the foot stamping toddlers I linked to in my OP. If college progressives weren't egregiously authoritarian and self-righteous, how did SJW ever take on negative connotations in the first place?

It seems to me there are two possible answers to that question. The first is that the bored teenagers on 4chan are actually evil geniuses who launched a propagandistic hate campaign against reasonable progressivism that was so successful the dictionary definition of SJW had to be amended to reflect its new status as a pejorative. That's explanation one. That's your explanation. To save time, I'll simply refer to it as "The retarded explanation", because it's retarded and so are you.

The second explanation is that regular people saw these shrieking asshole activists and realised that a lot of the things they stood for were bigoted, intolerant, authoritarian, and just generally awful. They then decided that if people as unpleasant as that were calling themselves Social Justice Warriors, then maybe a Social Justice Warrior wasn't such a good thing to be.

I know it's comforting to hold on to the weird conspiracy theory that the meaning of all words is dictated by capricious meme jihads on 4chan, but the fact of the matter is that the term SJW has negative connotations because people who call (or once called) themselves SJWs have been behaving very badly for a very long time. The link in my OP was just the most recent example. There are so many such incidents, referenced in so many other threads, that I decided that keeping all these incidents in one place might be useful.

Quote:
The fuck is the problem is that you persist in pointing your finger and laughing at folks who have virtually no impact on public discussion--indeed, the only way you find out these people exist is through right-wing blogs that also mock them--acting as though these people are worth talking about.
Firstly, I'm not laughing at SJWs. I don't find authoritarians funny.

Secondly, while individual SJWs may not have much impact on public discussion, they do have some, and this impact is multiplied when they gang up on people. When SJWs flip their shit because a speaker they don't like is coming to campus, they make it less likely that other universities will invite that speaker, or others like him. This stifles discussion by narrowing the scope of "acceptable" opinions. This is bad. Bad enough that I would have thought even a lead paint chip sucking simpleton like you would be able to grasp the ramifications. I guess I've over-estimated you.

Quote:
Meanwhile, the fuck is the problem is that when people point out to you that the real outrages are coming from Republicans who hold actual power, you--let me borrow Ibanez's phrasing here--lose your shit.
Then why don't you start your own thread about those outrages? Better yet, why don't you, in your capacity as a deadbrained fucknut who knows nothing about anything, rank the problems facing our public discourse in order of importance so us peons know which ones we're "allowed" to tackle and when.

Quote:
That's the fuck is the problem.
Well, I hope you got all that out of your system.

Now piss off.

Last edited by Rick Sanchez; 03-19-2017 at 02:12 PM.
  #116  
Old 03-19-2017, 02:15 PM
Chimera Chimera is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 21,638
So do we have any actual SJW bullshit in this thread yet?
  #117  
Old 03-19-2017, 02:30 PM
Guinastasia Guinastasia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 50,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsgoddess View Post
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?


Yes. Hoop earrings are the equivalent of war bonnets. That's was my exact point.

Quote:
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.
Right. And it's the idiots that are being referred to as SJWs. Ones who DO seriously see no difference between someone wearing a war bonnet vs hoop earrings.

Quote:
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.
Doesn't mean they aren't stupid or annoying. It doesn't mean we can't point out, hey, that's a really stupid position.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
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.
Yes and no. Social justice is a good thing, a great thing. But as I said before, I generally differentiate between social justice warriors and social justice activists. The latter are the people you're talking about. A SJW is a term for someone who's too busy worrying about FWPs, for the most part. You really, really believe that whether or not a fictional character character has shaved arms is a social justice point? Or the fact that school cafeteria food wasn't authentic? That I, as a white woman, can't wear hoop earrings?

I'm not talking about wearing a war bonnet, or a bindhi. Those have actual religious and/or cultural significance. (FWIW, I feel the same way when I see those little goth shits wearing Rosary beads as necklaces). But hoop earrings, winged eyeliner, etc -- those are somehow the equivalent of all that? Where do we draw the line?

Honestly, how would YOU term these things? Would you really see these as "social justice issues"? Or just stupid people being stupid?
Reclaiming the term? I think it's a little late for that. But in this case, does it really matter? As long as you're actively working to make sure people have health care, that they aren't being discriminated against for being gay, or black, or trans, that there's no lead in our water, why waste time argueing semantics? Unfortunately, the assholes ruined the term for the rest of us. That happens a lot in language.

It has nothing to do with "MY cause is good, YOUR cause isn't." It's more like "just because someone says it's about social justice doesn't mean it is." Sometimes it's just like a bunch of middle school girls bitching over each other's clothes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Knowed Out View Post
Can you explain it to me? I couldn't understand what the issue was.
A white politician quotes Beyonce to make a good point. Others tell her that because she's white, she's not allowed to use the words of a black woman to make her point.
  #118  
Old 03-19-2017, 02:30 PM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 34,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibanez View Post
It's entertaining whenever the term SJW gets brought up in a negative sense on the SDMB half of you start to lose your shit.
Could you point to specific posts that you consider good examples of posters 'losing their shit'?

Maybe I'm jaded these days, but I don't recall seeing much in this thread that would make it ineligible for moving to GD.
Quote:
People are starting to catch on to the lefts hypocritical bullshit. Notice I said left, not Liberals there's a difference.
Well, sure, there's a difference. 'Left' is an all-inclusive term that includes everything that isn't center, right, or just plain uncategorizable. 'Liberal' is part of 'left.'

Maybe you mean 'far left.' Or maybe you don't. Since you don't provide examples of "the lefts hypocritical bullshit," there's no way to tell.
  #119  
Old 03-19-2017, 02:39 PM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 34,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
Yes and no. Social justice is a good thing, a great thing. But as I said before, I generally differentiate between social justice warriors and social justice activists. The latter are the people you're talking about. A SJW is a term for someone who's too busy worrying about FWPs, for the most part.
Huh. You mean if social justice activists are fighting* for or against something, it's not a first-world problem? (Had to look up FWP, btw; I'm not hep to the latest acronyms.)

Oh good. Then there's no first-world battle over health insurance or the minimum wage or paid overtime or paid parental leave or lead in the water supply; we've won, and I can stop calling my Congresscritters about such things.


*Doesn't this make them warriors?

Last edited by RTFirefly; 03-19-2017 at 02:39 PM.
  #120  
Old 03-19-2017, 02:44 PM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 34,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
Honestly, how would YOU term these things? Would you really see these as "social justice issues"? Or just stupid people being stupid?
Reclaiming the term? I think it's a little late for that. But in this case, does it really matter? As long as you're actively working to make sure people have health care, that they aren't being discriminated against for being gay, or black, or trans, that there's no lead in our water, why waste time argueing semantics?
Becaue the term is going to be thrown at us when we're fighting those sorts of battles. No, not 'going to be' - it's already been happening. Too late.
Quote:
Unfortunately, the assholes ruined the term for the rest of us. That happens a lot in language.
Yeah, happened to 'queer' a long time ago. The gays took it back.

Look, we've lost the battle to shear it off and see that it only applies to a particular class of lefties. And this is a hell of a lot easier to reclaim than 'queer' because fighting for social justice is really and truly and blatantly obviously a Good Thing.
  #121  
Old 03-19-2017, 02:47 PM
Rick Sanchez Rick Sanchez is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet
In order to avoid anything resembling a threadshit, could you explain what "SJW" means?
I'm hesitant to do this, because I worry that dishonest threadshitters like Rittersport will take any definition I present, pretend that it's all-encompassing, and then pollute the thread with bullshit examples of things which meet the letter but not the spirit of it. But, since that will probably happen anyway, I'll give it a shot:

An SJW is someone who aggressively espouses intersectional identity politics and does so in an overtly authoritarian way, silencing opposing views using the heckler's veto or outright force. Common beliefs among SJWs include, but are not limited to, (i) the belief that only white people can be racist and only men can be sexist, (ii) that the United States is a white supremacist capitalist patriarchy, and that questioning this is a form of bigotry at best and violence at worst (iii) that it's perfectly acceptable to silence those who disagree with you because (as per point 2) disagreement is violence and the proper response to violence is resistance, not debate.

Now, this is very important, I am not going to debate a single jot or tittle of that definition. It is not comprehensive and it is not meant to be. It's just a working definition we can use so that this thread doesn't get bogged down in further threadshitting hijacks like Rittersport's. If you don't like it, too bad. I don't care. Truth be told, given that the problem of SJW authoritarianism is, and has long been, a hot topic of conversation on American news shows, topical discussion shows, and even on sitcoms like South Park which devoted its entire 19th season to it, I don't believe for a moment that you don't know what I mean when I use the term SJW. Since I honestly don't believe you are making your request in good faith, I am not going to debate my definition with you at all. You can take it or leave it.

As an aside, it's worth noting that posters here are generally much more willing to allow threads to get bogged down in nitpickery over definitions when it's left-wing shibboleths being targeted. I doubt anybody starting a thread about the problems inherent to the worldview of the modern conservative movement had to spend the first three pages trying to nail down exactly what a conservative is and isn't. Furthermore, I imagine anyone who tried dragging such a thread down such pointless definitional tangents would be accused of threadshitting by more or less everyone. All I ask is that people adopt the same philosophy here.
  #122  
Old 03-19-2017, 02:48 PM
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Sanchez View Post
What a trivial nitpicker you are. The term SJW, as a pejorative, is now so well established that it has its own entry in the dictionary. And I'm supposed to abandon it because you don't like the people who popularised that definition? I hope for your sake you never find out who popularised the term Nazi.

Furthermore, it has been patiently explained to you, over and over again, that SJW is only a pejorative because of the actions of the foot stamping toddlers I linked to in my OP. If college progressives weren't egregiously authoritarian and self-righteous, how did SJW ever take on negative connotations in the first place?
How did "political correctness" become a terrible awful no-good bad thing, despite never being well-defined and inherently describing things which, for the most part, are overwhelmingly positive?

Quote:
It seems to me there are two possible answers to that question. The first is that the bored teenagers on 4chan are actually evil geniuses who launched a propagandistic hate campaign against reasonable progressivism that was so successful the dictionary definition of SJW had to be amended to reflect its new status as a pejorative. That's explanation one. That's your explanation. To save time, I'll simply refer to it as "The retarded explanation", because it's retarded and so are you.
That is retarded. I'm sensing a bit of an excluded middle here. It's entirely possible for the parlance of 4chan to leak into the larger popular culture, particularly when you have things like, say, the living embodiment of a chantard posting about it on a disturbingly popular website. The modern Rush Limbaugh, as it were. People started using the term because it was an easy, brain-dead way to attack someone else for doing something that was seemingly quite positive. Because the term is still not well-defined. It's still impossibly vague, a perjorative to be thrown at anyone and anything people don't feel like talking to or about, like a game designer who made a game about depression or a woman who wants to talk about sexism in video games or <insert literally any number of a thousand other people here>.

EDIT: this was made before your last post. Lemme go read that.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 03-19-2017 at 02:49 PM.
  #123  
Old 03-19-2017, 02:57 PM
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Sanchez View Post
I'm hesitant to do this, because I worry that dishonest threadshitters like Rittersport will take any definition I present, pretend that it's all-encompassing, and then pollute the thread with bullshit examples of things which meet the letter but not the spirit of it. But, since that will probably happen anyway, I'll give it a shot:

An SJW is someone who aggressively espouses intersectional identity politics and does so in an overtly authoritarian way, silencing opposing views using the heckler's veto or outright force. Common beliefs among SJWs include, but are not limited to, (i) the belief that only white people can be racist and only men can be sexist, (ii) that the United States is a white supremacist capitalist patriarchy, and that questioning this is a form of bigotry at best and violence at worst (iii) that it's perfectly acceptable to silence those who disagree with you because (as per point 2) disagreement is violence and the proper response to violence is resistance, not debate.

Now, this is very important, I am not going to debate a single jot or tittle of that definition. It is not comprehensive and it is not meant to be. It's just a working definition we can use so that this thread doesn't get bogged down in further threadshitting hijacks like Rittersport's. If you don't like it, too bad. I don't care. Truth be told, given that the problem of SJW authoritarianism is, and has long been, a hot topic of conversation on American news shows, topical discussion shows, and even on sitcoms like South Park which devoted its entire 19th season to it, I don't believe for a moment that you don't know what I mean when I use the term SJW. Since I honestly don't believe you are making your request in good faith, I am not going to debate my definition with you at all. You can take it or leave it.

As an aside, it's worth noting that posters here are generally much more willing to allow threads to get bogged down in nitpickery over definitions when it's left-wing shibboleths being targeted. I doubt anybody starting a thread about the problems inherent to the worldview of the modern conservative movement had to spend the first three pages trying to nail down exactly what a conservative is and isn't. Furthermore, I imagine anyone who tried dragging such a thread down such pointless definitional tangents would be accused of threadshitting by more or less everyone. All I ask is that people adopt the same philosophy here.
To be fair, "modern conservative" is not an all-purpose partisan snarl word, and you're considerably less likely to find someone claiming that someone who is absolutely not a conservative is a conservative, the way Jim Sterling gets labeled an SJW. And while the definition is not clear, it's also not stretched in such bizarre ways. I appreciate your definition, but it is very specific and does not have anything to do with the vast, vast majority of cases I have ever seen the term used. I'll keep that in mind for the rest of the thread, I guess. I wonder - do the ANTIFA folks who broke up Milo's speech at Berkeley count? I have no idea if those folks endorse intersectional identity politics. For all I know, they don't, they just really fucking hate nazis, like it says on the tin.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 03-19-2017 at 02:58 PM.
  #124  
Old 03-19-2017, 03:15 PM
RitterSport RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Sanchez View Post
I'm hesitant to do this, because I worry that dishonest threadshitters like Rittersport will take any definition I present, pretend that it's all-encompassing, and then pollute the thread with bullshit examples of things which meet the letter but not the spirit of it. But, since that will probably happen anyway, I'll give it a shot:

An SJW is someone who aggressively espouses intersectional identity politics and does so in an overtly authoritarian way, silencing opposing views using the heckler's veto or outright force. Common beliefs among SJWs include, but are not limited to, (i) the belief that only white people can be racist and only men can be sexist, (ii) that the United States is a white supremacist capitalist patriarchy, and that questioning this is a form of bigotry at best and violence at worst (iii) that it's perfectly acceptable to silence those who disagree with you because (as per point 2) disagreement is violence and the proper response to violence is resistance, not debate.

Now, this is very important, I am not going to debate a single jot or tittle of that definition. It is not comprehensive and it is not meant to be. It's just a working definition we can use so that this thread doesn't get bogged down in further threadshitting hijacks like Rittersport's. If you don't like it, too bad. I don't care. Truth be told, given that the problem of SJW authoritarianism is, and has long been, a hot topic of conversation on American news shows, topical discussion shows, and even on sitcoms like South Park which devoted its entire 19th season to it, I don't believe for a moment that you don't know what I mean when I use the term SJW. Since I honestly don't believe you are making your request in good faith, I am not going to debate my definition with you at all. You can take it or leave it.

As an aside, it's worth noting that posters here are generally much more willing to allow threads to get bogged down in nitpickery over definitions when it's left-wing shibboleths being targeted. I doubt anybody starting a thread about the problems inherent to the worldview of the modern conservative movement had to spend the first three pages trying to nail down exactly what a conservative is and isn't. Furthermore, I imagine anyone who tried dragging such a thread down such pointless definitional tangents would be accused of threadshitting by more or less everyone. All I ask is that people adopt the same philosophy here.
Trigger warning: I may ask you to back this up, snowflake. I'm sorry you have to discuss things on a discussion board. Maybe you should find a safe space.

So, tell me -- how did the people who wanted to boycott Starbucks or tear down the Satanist display not meet your definition there?

Also, if you don't think right wingers don't resort to nitpickery, I want to introduce you doorhinge and, to a much lesser extent, Bricker. (Sorry, in advance, Bricker, I appreciate your contributions to the board, but you do get nitpicky.)
  #125  
Old 03-19-2017, 03:17 PM
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,705
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
Trigger warning: I may ask you to back this up, snowflake. I'm sorry you have to discuss things on a discussion board. Maybe you should find a safe space.

So, tell me -- how did the people who wanted to boycott Starbucks or tear down the Satanist display not meet your definition there?
They're not looking for intersectional identity politics. Which seems to me like a silly criterion, personally; after all, the problem here is not that the people in question "aggressively espouse intersectional identity politics", it's that they do so in an authoritarian or violent way.

...Right?
  #126  
Old 03-19-2017, 03:23 PM
Vinyl Turnip Vinyl Turnip is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 18,810
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
Trigger warning: I may ask you to back this up, snowflake. I'm sorry you have to discuss things on a discussion board. Maybe you should find a safe space.

So, tell me -- how did the people who wanted to boycott Starbucks or tear down the Satanist display not meet your definition there?

Also, if you don't think right wingers don't resort to nitpickery, I want to introduce you doorhinge and, to a much lesser extent, Bricker. (Sorry, in advance, Bricker, I appreciate your contributions to the board, but you do get nitpicky.)
Bricker and I have seldom seen eye to eye, but my God, man, he's never done anything so heinous as to deserve being mentioned in the same breath with doorhinge, even conditionally.
  #127  
Old 03-19-2017, 03:35 PM
RitterSport RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip View Post
Bricker and I have seldom seen eye to eye, but my God, man, he's never done anything so heinous as to deserve being mentioned in the same breath with doorhinge, even conditionally.
You are definitely correct. I withdraw that post! Apologies again to Bricker.
  #128  
Old 03-19-2017, 03:38 PM
RitterSport RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
They're not looking for intersectional identity politics. Which seems to me like a silly criterion, personally; after all, the problem here is not that the people in question "aggressively espouse intersectional identity politics", it's that they do so in an authoritarian or violent way.

...Right?
I'm not really sure what intersectional identity politics is (neither is Chrome, since it's underlining intersectional in red). Is it not something that Christians do?

If this is all about stupid things that liberals do, then why not just merge it into the SLIOD thread?
  #129  
Old 03-19-2017, 03:43 PM
Guinastasia Guinastasia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 50,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Huh. You mean if social justice activists are fighting* for or against something, it's not a first-world problem? (Had to look up FWP, btw; I'm not hep to the latest acronyms.)

Oh good. Then there's no first-world battle over health insurance or the minimum wage or paid overtime or paid parental leave or lead in the water supply; we've won, and I can stop calling my Congresscritters about such things.


*Doesn't this make them warriors?
Oh for fuck's sake. Once again, do you not get the distinction between fighting for minimum wage vs. fighting over shaved armpits?

Why do I even bother?
  #130  
Old 03-19-2017, 04:02 PM
clairobscur clairobscur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 16,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bridget Burke View Post
Surely some of those early SJW's used the term online. Perhaps we can see a "link"?

Nope?
Nope. I've no intent to search for a 5 years old blog or whatever by someone defining himself as a SJW. I wouldn't even know how to do that. That they existed isn't controversial, anyway. According to wikipedia, the term even dates back from the late 90s.

And yes, of course, it was mentioned online. That's where I had the pleasure to discover them. In fact, I could narrow down when : between february 2011 at the earliest and november 2013 at the latest.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
So what IS your definition?
Again, I wrote a post about this in this thread. Those who think and behave as religious fundamentalists.

Last edited by clairobscur; 03-19-2017 at 04:03 PM.
  #131  
Old 03-19-2017, 04:05 PM
Red Wiggler Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,217
I really can't afford to have advocating for social justice reduced to a pejorative so I'll just say "fuck off" to all the people who use SJW as such. It's only "well established" in its usage by assholes.
  #132  
Old 03-19-2017, 04:44 PM
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,705
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
I'm not really sure what intersectional identity politics is (neither is Chrome, since it's underlining intersectional in red). Is it not something that Christians do?

If this is all about stupid things that liberals do, then why not just merge it into the SLIOD thread?
"Intersectionality is a concept often used in critical theories to describe the ways in which oppressive institutions (racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, xenophobia, classism, etc.) are interconnected and cannot be examined separately from one another."
- Geek Feminism Wiki

Beyond that, it also can be used to describe the ways that privileges are multifaceted and complex, i.e. if you're a white guy living in a trailer park, you still have white privilege over Oprah (meaning simply that were all other factors equal, you being white would give you privileges that her being black would not), but clearly that privilege does not outweigh the numerous other privileges Oprah has as an incredibly rich celebrity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wiggler View Post
I really can't afford to have advocating for social justice reduced to a pejorative so I'll just say "fuck off" to all the people who use SJW as such. It's only "well established" in its usage by assholes.
+1. It's like "PC" - when used unironically, typically a dead giveaway that you are talking to a douchebag.
  #133  
Old 03-19-2017, 04:57 PM
Chimera Chimera is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 21,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wiggler View Post
I really can't afford to have advocating for social justice reduced to a pejorative so I'll just say "fuck off" to all the people who use SJW as such. It's only "well established" in its usage by assholes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
+1. It's like "PC" - when used unironically, typically a dead giveaway that you are talking to a douchebag.

Better a warrior for social justice than a card carrying douchebag belittling those s/he considers beneath him/her.

Seriously, if someone gets that tone in their voice and makes derogatory statements about people who are actually fighting to better this world (and not the batshitters), then I have to fall back to my old (new) standard; "Thank you for self-identifying." Because now I know you're just a hate filled asshat and I shouldn't bother with you. And I mean long term, because unfortunately as we all know, the Deplorables never get the clue that certain audiences are not the place for their shit. They'll spew it out any time, even if you've made it abundantly clear you have no time for it.
  #134  
Old 03-19-2017, 04:57 PM
Steve MB Steve MB is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 11,951
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
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?
Another news item along the same lines: Will Steve King’s immigrant comments keep wary tourists out of Iowa?
__________________
The Internet: Nobody knows if you're a dog. Everybody knows if you're a jackass.
  #135  
Old 03-19-2017, 04:59 PM
Steve MB Steve MB is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 11,951
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey P View Post
I wouldn't call them SJWs I think those nutjobs were Religious Right.
That doesn't change the fact that their fee-fees tell them that they must get their way as a matter of Social Justice, and they have decided to go on the Warrior path about it. They're SJWs. QED.
__________________
The Internet: Nobody knows if you're a dog. Everybody knows if you're a jackass.
  #136  
Old 03-19-2017, 05:00 PM
wonky wonky is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: DC area
Posts: 29,442
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
What people wear, what they eat, armpit hair hair, that's completely irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsgoddess View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
Yes. Hoop earrings are the equivalent of war bonnets. That's was my exact point.
What you said was that what people wear is irrelevant. I've quoted it for you again. I suggested that you don't actually believe that, and I suggested you'd find it hard to explain why.

So, was I right?
  #137  
Old 03-19-2017, 05:03 PM
Steve MB Steve MB is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 11,951
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Sanchez View Post
I worry that dishonest threadshitters like Rittersport will take any definition I present, pretend that it's all-encompassing, and then pollute the thread with bullshit examples of things which meet the letter but not the spirit of it.
If you can't get your ducks in a row and all your sugar-free-porridge rules stated up front, that's hardly Rittersport's fault.

Quote:
Now, this is very important, I am not going to debate a single jot or tittle of that definition. It is not comprehensive and it is not meant to be.
If you're stipulating that the definition is non-comprehansive, and that examples that arguably don't fit it (e.g. several cited on this thread) are therefore not excluded from the SJW umbrella, I'm not sure what your objection is.
__________________
The Internet: Nobody knows if you're a dog. Everybody knows if you're a jackass.

Last edited by Steve MB; 03-19-2017 at 05:06 PM.
  #138  
Old 03-19-2017, 05:27 PM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 34,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
Oh for fuck's sake. Once again, do you not get the distinction between fighting for minimum wage vs. fighting over shaved armpits?
Yes, I do.

The people who use the term 'SJW' as an insult don't give a damn about the distinction. They'll lump them all together, and use the stupid fight to tar the good fight.

The only answer is to keep throwing it back in their faces: "College students are stupid, and in other news, dog bites man. If that means you're OK with seeing 25 million Americans lose their health insurance, well, that's on you."
Quote:
Why do I even bother?
Damned if I know. But you're arguing with the wrong person. Ask Rick Sanchez if he regards the fight to preserve the ACA as being fundamentally different from the college students shouting down speakers, if he's opposed to what the students are doing, but wants to see us preserve health care.
  #139  
Old 03-19-2017, 05:41 PM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 34,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Sanchez View Post
I'm hesitant to do this, because I worry that dishonest threadshitters like Rittersport will take any definition I present, pretend that it's all-encompassing, and then pollute the thread with bullshit examples of things which meet the letter but not the spirit of it. But, since that will probably happen anyway, I'll give it a shot:

An SJW is someone who aggressively espouses intersectional identity politics and does so in an overtly authoritarian way, silencing opposing views using the heckler's veto or outright force. Common beliefs among SJWs include, but are not limited to, (i) the belief that only white people can be racist and only men can be sexist, (ii) that the United States is a white supremacist capitalist patriarchy, and that questioning this is a form of bigotry at best and violence at worst (iii) that it's perfectly acceptable to silence those who disagree with you because (as per point 2) disagreement is violence and the proper response to violence is resistance, not debate.

Now, this is very important, I am not going to debate a single jot or tittle of that definition. It is not comprehensive and it is not meant to be. It's just a working definition we can use so that this thread doesn't get bogged down in further threadshitting hijacks like Rittersport's. If you don't like it, too bad. I don't care. Truth be told, given that the problem of SJW authoritarianism is, and has long been, a hot topic of conversation on American news shows, topical discussion shows, and even on sitcoms like South Park which devoted its entire 19th season to it, I don't believe for a moment that you don't know what I mean when I use the term SJW. Since I honestly don't believe you are making your request in good faith, I am not going to debate my definition with you at all. You can take it or leave it.
Shorter Sanchez: my words mean something when I want them to mean something, but if you want them to mean what they say, they don't, and it's dirty pool for you to take them at face value.

Pele yells "we're out of here,"
Xena says, "right on."

- OMC

Last edited by RTFirefly; 03-19-2017 at 05:42 PM.
  #140  
Old 03-19-2017, 05:45 PM
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 5,795
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Sanchez View Post
Why are you so hell-bent on hijacking the thread? You don't see me posting about kids accidentally shooting each other in the 'Positive gun news of the day' thread, or about old ladies fending off home invaders in the 'Stupid gun news of the day' thread. You don't see me going into the 'Controversial encounters with police' thread, posting entirely uncontroversial encounters with the police and signing off my posts 'Good job, officers!' You don't, in short, see me threadshitting in other people's threads. So why are you so determined to fuck up this thread by shitting all over it?

If you want to start a thread about Steve King, start one about Steve King, or post in the 'Stupid Republican idea of the day' thread where your complaints would constitute a salient contribution instead of a threadshitting hijack. If you want to start a thread about fake war on christmas bullshit, no-one is stopping you. Why do you insist on dumping your irrelevant bullshit here, and what the fuck is your problem?
Wait till the cookie trolls arrive.
  #141  
Old 03-19-2017, 05:47 PM
Procrustus Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 9,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
Oh for fuck's sake. Once again, do you not get the distinction between fighting for minimum wage vs. fighting over shaved armpits?

Why do I even bother?
There is value in debating armpit shaving.
  #142  
Old 03-19-2017, 06:23 PM
Martini Enfield Martini Enfield is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 10,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
Oh for fuck's sake. Once again, do you not get the distinction between fighting for minimum wage vs. fighting over shaved armpits?

Why do I even bother?
The social justice warrior crowd really don't. I had pretty much exactly this conversation in another thread on the subject and it turned into people saying "You only use the term against people with opinions you don't like!" despite me clearly saying "No, it applies to people with views I also agree with too, although that rarely happens."

I maintain that SJWs are not fighting for worthwhile stuff. Raging because white people have dreadlocks or society says women should shave their armpits or whatever is in no way nearly in the same league as saying "Every adult citizen should be able to vote" or "We shouldn't discriminate against people for being gay" or "Slavery is appalling and should be stamped out".
  #143  
Old 03-19-2017, 06:26 PM
crowmanyclouds crowmanyclouds is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ... hiding in my room ...
Posts: 4,100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Sanchez View Post
{...} As an aside, it's worth noting that posters here are generally much more willing to allow threads to get bogged down in nitpickery over definitions when it's left-wing shibboleths being targeted. I doubt anybody starting a thread about the problems inherent to the worldview of the modern conservative movement had to spend the first three pages trying to nail down exactly what a conservative is and isn't. Furthermore, I imagine anyone who tried dragging such a thread down such pointless definitional tangents would be accused of threadshitting by more or less everyone. All I ask is that people adopt the same philosophy here.
Looks at Rick Sanchez's join date,
Remembers own join date,
Dood, you are such a n00b, nitpickery is this place's life blood!

CMC fnord!
  #144  
Old 03-19-2017, 06:32 PM
Chimera Chimera is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 21,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martini Enfield View Post
I maintain that SJWs are not fighting for worthwhile stuff. Raging because white people have dreadlocks or society says women should shave their armpits or whatever is in no way nearly in the same league as saying "Every adult citizen should be able to vote" or "We shouldn't discriminate against people for being gay" or "Slavery is appalling and should be stamped out".
I would maintain that the first group are not Social Justice Warriors, they're just mouthy idiots who have learned that being outraged is the way to claim power.
  #145  
Old 03-19-2017, 06:49 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: 36,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martini Enfield View Post
The social justice warrior crowd really don't. I had pretty much exactly this conversation in another thread on the subject and it turned into people saying "You only use the term against people with opinions you don't like!" despite me clearly saying "No, it applies to people with views I also agree with too, although that rarely happens."

I maintain that SJWs are not fighting for worthwhile stuff. Raging because white people have dreadlocks or society says women should shave their armpits or whatever is in no way nearly in the same league as saying "Every adult citizen should be able to vote" or "We shouldn't discriminate against people for being gay" or "Slavery is appalling and should be stamped out".
Pobrecito. I have told you repeatedly that your definition comes across as people who fight for causes you don't think are worth fighting for. You seem to hate that, but then you come back and say essentially the same thing.

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 03-19-2017 at 06:50 PM.
  #146  
Old 03-19-2017, 06:53 PM
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 32,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martini Enfield View Post
The social justice warrior crowd really don't. I had pretty much exactly this conversation in another thread on the subject and it turned into people saying "You only use the term against people with opinions you don't like!" despite me clearly saying "No, it applies to people with views I also agree with too, although that rarely happens."

I maintain that SJWs are not fighting for worthwhile stuff. Raging because white people have dreadlocks or society says women should shave their armpits or whatever is in no way nearly in the same league as saying "Every adult citizen should be able to vote" or "We shouldn't discriminate against people for being gay" or "Slavery is appalling and should be stamped out".
And there you just contradicted yourself. The people who fight for things you don't support are the SJWs. It is just a label for things you don't think people should be fighting for.

Last edited by BigT; 03-19-2017 at 06:56 PM.
  #147  
Old 03-19-2017, 06:54 PM
Knowed Out Knowed Out is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: North Kakkalakee
Posts: 11,111
OP, this isn't turning into the mocking of SJWs like you wanted, is it?

For one thing, Dopers don't condense their thoughts to 140 characters or less, hashtags notwithstanding. For another, there's very few millennials here, and SJWs are mostly a millennial concept. Dopers have experienced a longer multilayered history, and the novelty of SJWs is just another compact turd nugget that will come and go like pet rocks and polish jokes. Mocking SJWs is just a momentary amusement in the stream of life that becomes stale and boring after 5 minutes.
  #148  
Old 03-19-2017, 07:43 PM
septimus septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 14,922
Suppose that whenever Donald Trump lays a stinking turd right in the middle of the Oval Office, he sends a Tweet "Never mind me; Billy the Toddler in Oshkosh isn't toilet trained either!"

We'd all agree that Donny the Toddler is the bigger offender. But Billy's parent should toilet train Billy anyway. Don't let Donny be a model for what is acceptable.

I take sides with OP in this "debate." It was asinine to boo down Prof. Jordan Peter, a renowned intellectual and himself a progressive activist. It is disheartening and maddening the way that the "left-wing" increasingly tries to imposes uniform thought on all people who would oppose the forces of evil — forces whose powers are growing throughout much of the world. To list the tragedies which Trump may inflict on us would hijack the thread, but all sane people in the center or left must lament the votes cast for him. Many of these votes were a backlash to the extreme "political correctness" which has taken over the left.

And now Dopers applaud, in the name of "free speech," the ignorant booing of an esteemed intellectual. With dire crises threatening America and the world, we revert to a discussion of what earring types are politically correct.

I hope I don't need to buttress my credentials as a militant centrist. I endorsed Yvette Felarca's assault on a neo-Nazi for heaven's sake! And now I say ... Enough is enough. Let's fight for some important things ... and hope our grandchildren have the leisure to argue about earrings, or to boo down their intellectual superiors.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
The fuck is the problem is that you've taken a term popularized by one of the great misogynist movements in the US in the past decade, and you've tried to act like there's some utility to the term beyond branding yourself as a flunky of the 4chan brigade.
...
Meanwhile, the fuck is the problem is that when people point out to you that the real outrages are coming from Republicans who hold actual power, you--let me borrow Ibanez's phrasing here--lose your shit.

That's the fuck is the problem.
I don't know what OP's politics are. The fuck the problem is you oh-so-smug leftists insisting on uniformity of thought, and sacrificing mountains to save a molehill.

HTH.
  #149  
Old 03-19-2017, 07:46 PM
Guinastasia Guinastasia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 50,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martini Enfield View Post
The social justice warrior crowd really don't. I had pretty much exactly this conversation in another thread on the subject and it turned into people saying "You only use the term against people with opinions you don't like!" despite me clearly saying "No, it applies to people with views I also agree with too, although that rarely happens."

I maintain that SJWs are not fighting for worthwhile stuff. Raging because white people have dreadlocks or society says women should shave their armpits or whatever is in no way nearly in the same league as saying "Every adult citizen should be able to vote" or "We shouldn't discriminate against people for being gay" or "Slavery is appalling and should be stamped out".
Pretty much. But hey, forget it Jake, it's Dopertown.
  #150  
Old 03-19-2017, 07:51 PM
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 5,795
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wiggler View Post
I really can't afford to have advocating for social justice reduced to a pejorative so I'll just say "fuck off" to all the people who use SJW as such. It's only "well established" in its usage by assholes.
And that would be a lie.
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 10:26 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