Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 03-19-2017, 08:11 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 36,810
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
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!"
That's exactly what's happening here--except that this entire pit thread is dedicated to pitting Billy the Toddler.
Quote:
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.
Nobody here is insisting on uniformity of thought, ferchrissakes. What a stupid fuckin objection.
  #152  
Old 03-19-2017, 08:21 PM
Bridget Burke Bridget Burke is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 9,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
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..... .
So, you have no proof that anyone called themselves a SJW. I've just got to have faith. Sorry, the Roman Catholic Church couldn't persuade me to have faith--and they've been in the business lots longer than you.

Yes, some very young folks (usually in an academic setting) get a bit too picky about certain issuess They'll learn proportion. At least they aren't Fascists.
  #153  
Old 03-19-2017, 08:45 PM
Chimera Chimera is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 21,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
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.

Do you know how to tell if someone is a retard? Statements like the bit highlighted above.
  #154  
Old 03-19-2017, 08:51 PM
RitterSport RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
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.



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.
Hold on a second, I'll head down to the barn and pick up some more hay. You've used a lot of it, but I think there are a few more bales in there.
  #155  
Old 03-19-2017, 09:42 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 36,810
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bridget Burke View Post
So, you have no proof that anyone called themselves a SJW. I've just got to have faith.
There are, as near as I can tell, two groups that call themselves "Social Justice Warriors."

The first is folks who VERY RARELY used the term dating back to the nineties. It doesn't appear to have been much of an idiom, just some words that people stuck together. "Social Justice" was a common term, and putting "warrior" as a complimentary label on folks who are fighting for a cause is not uncommon (Google your favorite terms--I'm finding hits for "ecowarrior," "pro-life warrior," and "animal rights warrior," and I guarantee you can findmore). These folks used the two terms together in a sincere fashion. The WaPo article I linked to a couple pages back had details.

The second is folks who adopt it ironically, as a badge of pride, in the same way that Dan Savage used to ask readers to call him "faggot," or that a lot of Trumpheads call themselves "deplorables." They figure if you use the insulting term in a positive way, it loses its power as an insult. I've definitely seen this use, but some folks here seem unaware of the ironic intent behind the usage.
  #156  
Old 03-19-2017, 09:52 PM
Martini Enfield Martini Enfield is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 10,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
Pretty much. But hey, forget it Jake, it's Dopertown.
I've noticed. I mean, BigT and LHoD are literally doing it a few posts upthread.

Let's pretend, purely for argument's sake, that "SJW" means "any lefty agitating for change I don't like and/or regard as trivial". So what? How does that invalidate any point I've made? And why are some of the SJW Defence League so completely unable to differentiate between Significant Things like slavery/civil rights/gay marriage and Trivial Bullshit like "white people with dreadlocks"?

The term "Social Justice Warrior" was floating around when I was first at uni (early-mid 2000s), usually applied to greenies with dreadlocks who'd go around insisting "women" be spelt with a "y" instead of an "e" becase of men or something, and related stuff that was considered almost laughably silly if it wasn't being done so humourlessly and with an edge of nastiness to anyone who didn't agree with them.

Last edited by Martini Enfield; 03-19-2017 at 09:53 PM.
  #157  
Old 03-19-2017, 09:59 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 36,810
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martini Enfield View Post
I've noticed. I mean, BigT and LHoD are literally doing it a few posts upthread.

Let's pretend, purely for argument's sake, that "SJW" means "any lefty agitating for change I don't like and/or regard as trivial". So what? How does that invalidate any point I've made? And why are some of the SJW Defence League so completely unable to differentiate between Significant Things like slavery/civil rights/gay marriage and Trivial Bullshit like "white people with dreadlocks"?
Listen, you git, we can distinguish between them. That's not the fucking question at hand. The question is twofold:
1) Why do you need a special term to describe liberals who advocate for causes you disagree with; and
2) Why do you, discovering you need that term, choose the one popularized by the misogynistic tweakers behind Gamergate?

I ignored Guin when she brought up this idiotic straw man multiple times above because, well, I've been ignoring Guin's stupid points for nearly two decades now, and I saw no reason to change course in this thread. It beggars belief that you're taking this stupid point seriously.

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 03-19-2017 at 09:59 PM.
  #158  
Old 03-19-2017, 10:42 PM
Firebreather1 Firebreather1 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimera View Post
Do you know how to tell if someone is a retard? Statements like the bit highlighted above.
So, you're saying anyone who believes there are smug people in this country who try to force group-think on people who might disagree with them is automatically a retard?

Last edited by Firebreather1; 03-19-2017 at 10:46 PM.
  #159  
Old 03-19-2017, 10:46 PM
Firebreather1 Firebreather1 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 20
Okay, now this definitely takes the cake for stupid SJW bullshit of the day.
  #160  
Old 03-19-2017, 10:47 PM
Chimera Chimera is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 21,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firebreather1 View Post
So, you're saying anyone who believes there are smug people in this country who try to force group-think on people who might disagree with them is automatically a retard?
If you think this is a left wing thing, you would be a retard, yes.
  #161  
Old 03-19-2017, 10:47 PM
Firebreather1 Firebreather1 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimera View Post
If you think this is a left wing thing, you would be a retard, yes.
I don't, I know that people of both political persuasions do it.
  #162  
Old 03-19-2017, 10:48 PM
Chimera Chimera is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 21,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firebreather1 View Post
Okay, now this definitely takes the cake for stupid SJW bullshit of the day.
Nothing to do with Social Justice. Just your average angry asshole.
  #163  
Old 03-19-2017, 10:50 PM
Chimera Chimera is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 21,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firebreather1 View Post
I don't, I know that people of both political persuasions do it.
Well there you go. He was insisting it was smug left-wing people, and that is what I highlighted.
  #164  
Old 03-19-2017, 11:06 PM
Guinastasia Guinastasia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 50,752
It's not merely "causes one disagrees with". It's seeing everything in terms of black and white, good or evil, with no shades of gray. In the minds of a SJW, white people who wear dread locks are no better than the KKK. Or that fighting for a living wage is equivalent to just as important as fighting to make sure that Barbie isn't too skinny.

I'm not talking about their causes, per se. (Although many of these kids latch onto things that have no meaning) I'm talking about the way they approach things. Seeing EVERYTHING as bigoted. And claiming that only certain groups of people can be bigoted, because of priveledges, etc.

Remember those college students who freaked the fuck out when their classmates were writing "TRUMP" on the sidewalk with chalk? THOSE are the kinds of people who are usually described as SJWs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimera View Post
Nothing to do with Social Justice. Just your average angry asshole.
You know that, and I know that. But often these people claim they ARE fighting for social justice, and that is where the term SJW comes in. It's like calling religious nuts "fundies".

Last edited by Guinastasia; 03-19-2017 at 11:08 PM.
  #165  
Old 03-19-2017, 11:08 PM
Martini Enfield Martini Enfield is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 10,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Listen, you git, we can distinguish between them. That's not the fucking question at hand. The question is twofold:
1) Why do you need a special term to describe liberals who advocate for causes you disagree with; and
2) Why do you, discovering you need that term, choose the one popularized by the misogynistic tweakers behind Gamergate?

I ignored Guin when she brought up this idiotic straw man multiple times above because, well, I've been ignoring Guin's stupid points for nearly two decades now, and I saw no reason to change course in this thread. It beggars belief that you're taking this stupid point seriously.
Name calling, LHoD? Is it really that hard to keep a civil tone to someone who's extended you the same courtesy?

As to your questions - 1) Because "Fuckwit" or "Dickhead" is far too broad a category, which segues nicely in point number 2) Because I think it excellently describes the sort of people who do the things that would cause me to label them SJWs.

Happy now?
  #166  
Old 03-20-2017, 12:03 AM
elucidator elucidator is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 56,933
Two questions: question el firsto: Aren't we discussing a personality type rather than an ideological persuasion, or a religious conviction? Uptight, scolding, self-righteous. Assholes. If progressivism were the one persuasion that was free of assholes, it wouldn't be human, it wouldn't be comprised of people but temporarily misplaced angels.

And what the heck does hooped earrings have to do with anything? As Eugene V. Debs is my witness, I have no clue. By the way, caves on Mars smell like damp rust.
  #167  
Old 03-20-2017, 12:13 AM
Guinastasia Guinastasia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 50,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Two questions: question el firsto: Aren't we discussing a personality type rather than an ideological persuasion, or a religious conviction? Uptight, scolding, self-righteous. Assholes. If progressivism were the one persuasion that was free of assholes, it wouldn't be human, it wouldn't be comprised of people but temporarily misplaced angels.

And what the heck does hooped earrings have to do with anything? As Eugene V. Debs is my witness, I have no clue. By the way, caves on Mars smell like damp rust.
White Girl, Take Off Your Hoops!!!
  #168  
Old 03-20-2017, 06:37 AM
RitterSport RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,197
The problem is that the term SJW is used to describe:

1. Powerless racist idiots who say that white people can't wear hoops
2. Peaceful protesters at my daughter's school where Milo was allowed to speak
3. Violent protesters and outsiders at Berkeley where he wasn't allowed to speak
4. Very violent protesters where the Bell Curve guy and his host were assaulted
5. People looking for more balanced treatment of women in video games
6. People pushing to allow trans-kids to use the bathroom that matches their identity

If it was just used to refer to (1), sure, have at it. But (1) is used to make 2, 5, and 6 seem equally trivial and 3 is used to make 2, 5, and 6 seem equally dangerous. Do you know what I do when some powerless racist idiot says that my kids can't wear hoops? I ignore her.

What is the name for the kind of term that can be used to put all of those people above into the same bucket? Over-broad? Useless?

Sure, I'm sure when you, and you, and you use it, you only mean (1), but that's not how it's generally used.

Anyway, it's back to work for me, and I'm not supposed to post from there, so I'm out.
  #169  
Old 03-20-2017, 06:53 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 36,810
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martini Enfield View Post
Name calling, LHoD? Is it really that hard to keep a civil tone to someone who's extended you the same courtesy?
This whole thread is about namecalling, and your entire participation in the thread is to support and defend a particular name that you like to call others. Pardon me if I deny you the high ground here.
  #170  
Old 03-20-2017, 07:46 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 36,810
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
The problem is that the term SJW is used to describe:
This is an excellent post, and it's why I've been trying--and failing--to get people to give a clear definition. If folks point to leftists causes they disagree with, but don't trigger them into namecalling, that'd be one thing--but nobody has done that, as far as I've seen. Instead, they use the epithet for any leftist cause they disagree with, and then it ties into bullshit like F-P's thread awhile ago in which he applied his patented psychoanalysis technique to all SJWs, and it ties into all the nonsense in this thread.

Sure. Disagree with folks on leftist causes, that's cool. Call people out for being assholes when they're being assholes, that's ducky. But using a term popularized by misogynists to namecall those who disagree with you politically? THat does more to label you than to label anyone else.
  #171  
Old 03-20-2017, 08:36 AM
JackieLikesVariety JackieLikesVariety is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Nevada
Posts: 2,275
Quote:
What is the name for the kind of term that can be used to put all of those people above into the same bucket? Over-broad? Useless?
exactly
  #172  
Old 03-20-2017, 08:49 AM
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
The problem is that the term SJW is used to describe:

1. Powerless racist idiots who say that white people can't wear hoops
2. Peaceful protesters at my daughter's school where Milo was allowed to speak
3. Violent protesters and outsiders at Berkeley where he wasn't allowed to speak
4. Very violent protesters where the Bell Curve guy and his host were assaulted
5. People looking for more balanced treatment of women in video games
6. People pushing to allow trans-kids to use the bathroom that matches their identity

If it was just used to refer to (1), sure, have at it. But (1) is used to make 2, 5, and 6 seem equally trivial and 3 is used to make 2, 5, and 6 seem equally dangerous. Do you know what I do when some powerless racist idiot says that my kids can't wear hoops? I ignore her.

What is the name for the kind of term that can be used to put all of those people above into the same bucket? Over-broad? Useless?

Sure, I'm sure when you, and you, and you use it, you only mean (1), but that's not how it's generally used.

Anyway, it's back to work for me, and I'm not supposed to post from there, so I'm out.
+1.

This is what I mean when I call it a snarl word. "A word used to induce a negative response or association in the person hearing or reading it. Commonly used to appeal to people's emotions rather than their reasoning, and thereby get them on your side," as UrbanDictionary explains it. It's a term woven intentionally broadly, to tar as many people with the same brush as possible, and pretend they're all equally bad. It's quite typically extended far beyond the definition that the OP set out, to include anyone with a feminist, civil rights, or LGBT rights bend. It's a stupid, useless term.
  #173  
Old 03-20-2017, 08:49 AM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 34,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
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.
Leftists insisting on uniformity of thought? It's always nice when visitors drop in from other timelines. Please sign the guestbook! In this timeline, at no time during the past 50 years have leftists been able to come close to uniformity of thought amongst themselves.
  #174  
Old 03-20-2017, 08:59 AM
Martini Enfield Martini Enfield is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 10,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
This whole thread is about namecalling, and your entire participation in the thread is to support and defend a particular name that you like to call others. Pardon me if I deny you the high ground here.
The difference is I haven't actually identified a single, specific individual and declared them an SJW (or any other unpleasant name). So if it's all the same you, I believe I'll retain the high ground on that front.
  #175  
Old 03-20-2017, 09:27 AM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 34,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
It's not merely "causes one disagrees with". It's seeing everything in terms of black and white, good or evil, with no shades of gray.
Sounds like how people tend to be in high school and college, before the real world forces most of us to deal with all the grays.

Since the main examples of SJW behavior seem to have been drawn from college students, and a publication aimed at teens, this still seems to fall under "college students do stupid shit, film at 11."

Quote:
In the minds of a SJW, white people who wear dread locks are no better than the KKK. Or that fighting for a living wage is equivalent to just as important as fighting to make sure that Barbie isn't too skinny.
Can you provide quotes of alleged SJWs saying these things, or is it just something you're reading into their behavior? Because you know, we all have a tendency to chase the shiny object of the moment, whether it's fighting female circumcision or objecting to Barbie dolls with unrealistic bodies, and young people haven't had a chance to build up their resistance to chasing shiny objects. (And again, who's to say the latter issue is trivial? First-world problem though it may be, negative body image affects one hell of a lot of American women, and that quite frankly sucks. I'm glad that doesn't affect you, but why do you get to decide that's trivial?)
Quote:
Remember those college students who freaked the fuck out when their classmates were writing "TRUMP" on the sidewalk with chalk?
Yep, college students being stupid again.

You know, if some sort of less-than-optimal behavior primarily exists among young people, does it need a special name when it's just young people doing the same sort of stupid shit that young, inexperienced people of every generation do? Did you have it so much more together when you were in college? Because I sure as hell didn't.
  #176  
Old 03-20-2017, 09:30 AM
Ale Ale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Bangkok
Posts: 5,059
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".
Perhaps one definition of a SJW would be someone that wishes to wrap their inane, insane and/or idiotic crusade in a mantle of respectability by associating it with truly worthwhile causes.

That's why
Dr. Sakena Yacoobi
is not called an SJW, but the morons that blocked the runway at London City airport to fight the racism of Climate Change are.
  #177  
Old 03-20-2017, 09:52 AM
clairobscur clairobscur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 16,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bridget Burke View Post
So, you have no proof that anyone called themselves a SJW. I've just got to have faith. Sorry, the Roman Catholic Church couldn't persuade me to have faith--and they've been in the business lots longer than you.
Once again, nobody apart from you is disputing that the word was originally used positively. Believe what you want, you're the outlier, here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wikipedia
The phrase originated in the late 20th century as a neutral or positive term for people engaged in social justice activism
Quote:
Originally Posted by rationalwiki
"Social Justice Warrior" (abbreviated "SJW"[1]) is a once positive term for "progressive" that turned into a derogatory term circa 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by infogalactic
Head of U.S. dictionaries for Oxford University Press Katherine Martin said the term was previously used as a compliment.[3] She observed: "All of the examples I've seen until quite recently are lionizing the person."[3] Martin noted the phrase had mostly positive usage in the 1990s through 2000s.[3] The Washington Post gave examples of its earlier positive connotation as well as from pop culture that illustrated the recent debate surrounding its negative connotation.[3]

Use in a positive sense in 2011 by the ACLU

Last edited by clairobscur; 03-20-2017 at 09:55 AM.
  #178  
Old 03-20-2017, 10:01 AM
wonky wonky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: DC area
Posts: 29,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
Wow.

Quote:
As a result of the Wagners' involvement in the lawsuit and learning about the abuse of many teens by their parents, the couple took in scores of mistreated kids over the years, some of whom were straight, many of whom were gay or perceived as gay by the parents.

In 2006, Carolyn Wagner was assaulted on her family's property by a man posing as a police officer who brutally beat her and told her he didn't take to "queer-loving ACLU types." Undaunted, Wagner carried on with her support of LGBT children and their families.

Carolyn Wagner also cofounded Families United Against Hate to serve as a support for victims and families of victims of hate crime, where she served as a liaison between victims and law enforcement, ensuring that others would not fall victim to official complacency such as she and her son experienced.
Just so you know, when you link to a story like this in a thread where you defend your utter contempt for "social justice warriors," it makes me horrified about your argument, not about social justice warriors.
  #179  
Old 03-20-2017, 10:56 AM
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 14,927
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Leftists insisting on uniformity of thought? It's always nice when visitors drop in from other timelines. Please sign the guestbook! In this timeline, at no time during the past 50 years have leftists been able to come close to uniformity of thought amongst themselves.
I should have said some leftists seek to impose uniformity on other leftists. Why wasn't Peterson permitted to speak? Fear that some leftists would be "corrupted"?

Leftists who support gun rights are shunned. Leftists who oppose gay rights are shunned. Had the left been more gracious in embracing diverse opinions the Tragedy of November Eighth might have been averted.
  #180  
Old 03-20-2017, 11:03 AM
Steve MB Steve MB is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 11,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsgoddess View Post
Just so you know, when you link to a story like this in a thread where you defend your utter contempt for "social justice warriors," it makes me horrified about your argument, not about social justice warriors.
Er, perhaps you should specify exactly what is wrong about the events of the linked story when addressing someone who clearly does not know.
__________________
The Internet: Nobody knows if you're a dog. Everybody knows if you're a jackass.
  #181  
Old 03-20-2017, 11:17 AM
clairobscur clairobscur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 16,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsgoddess View Post
Just so you know, when you link to a story like this in a thread where you defend your utter contempt for "social justice warriors," it makes me horrified about your argument, not about social justice warriors.

The ones I crossed the path of weren't of the same caliber.
  #182  
Old 03-20-2017, 11:20 AM
clairobscur clairobscur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 16,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve MB View Post
Er, perhaps you should specify exactly what is wrong about the events of the linked story when addressing someone who clearly does not know.
Yes, I actively support beating up gays, as you cleverly guessed.
  #183  
Old 03-20-2017, 11:26 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 36,810
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
The ones I crossed the path of weren't of the same caliber.
So this is super-confusing. Are the folks in that article folks you'd call "Social Justice Warriors"? If so, how does that fit your definition?
  #184  
Old 03-20-2017, 11:40 AM
Inbred Mm domesticus Inbred Mm domesticus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,551
I love these social justice warriors and I thank the thoughtless individuals who bring them to my attention. You make my day! I love it when some douche speaker uttering the same inanities we've heard all our lives are just simply yelled at by these kids. It makes me feel good to know these kids recognize what they're hearing for what it is and use their God given right to yell to shut these idiots down. It's just politics and another way to defeat your opponent.

Just remember, as the alt-right has been ascendant, hate crimes have gone up up up. I'm all for nonviolent submission of these petty litter fascist speakers that conservative groups invite to campus. Good on the SJWs. The people I think of as Securing a Just World.
  #185  
Old 03-20-2017, 11:51 AM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 34,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
I should have said some leftists seek to impose uniformity on other leftists. Why wasn't Peterson permitted to speak?
Because college kids, that's why. And that's all.

Quote:
Leftists who support gun rights are shunned.
Some of them have been shunned all the way into the U.S. Senate.
Quote:
Leftists who oppose gay rights are shunned.
Damn straight! There's only one reason to be against equal rights for gays: because you believe your God hates guy-on-guy buttsex AND you believe U.S. government should be subservient to your God on this topic.

And here's the deal: even if lots of people believe that God doesn't want guys having sex with guys, and doesn't want gals having sex with gals, "no establishment of religion" means that their beliefs shouldn't have the force of law. This isn't a damned theocracy, no matter what people like Ted Cruz and Mike Pence want.
  #186  
Old 03-20-2017, 12:15 PM
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 5,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
This is an excellent post, and it's why I've been trying--and failing--to get people to give a clear definition. If folks point to leftists causes they disagree with, but don't trigger them into namecalling, that'd be one thing--but nobody has done that, as far as I've seen. Instead, they use the epithet for any leftist cause they disagree with, and then it ties into bullshit like F-P's thread awhile ago in which he applied his patented psychoanalysis technique to all SJWs, and it ties into all the nonsense in this thread.

Sure. Disagree with folks on leftist causes, that's cool. Call people out for being assholes when they're being assholes, that's ducky. But using a term popularized by misogynists to namecall those who disagree with you politically? THat does more to label you than to label anyone else.
Come up with a definition of liberal or conservative that works perfectly.
  #187  
Old 03-20-2017, 12:17 PM
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 5,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
I should have said some leftists seek to impose uniformity on other leftists. Why wasn't Peterson permitted to speak? Fear that some leftists would be "corrupted"?

Leftists who support gun rights are shunned. Leftists who oppose gay rights are shunned. Had the left been more gracious in embracing diverse opinions the Tragedy of November Eighth might have been averted.
You are using reason in a religious argument.
  #188  
Old 03-20-2017, 12:18 PM
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 5,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Because college kids, that's why. And that's all.

Some of them have been shunned all the way into the U.S. Senate. Damn straight! There's only one reason to be against equal rights for gays: because you believe your God hates guy-on-guy buttsex AND you believe U.S. government should be subservient to your God on this topic.

And here's the deal: even if lots of people believe that God doesn't want guys having sex with guys, and doesn't want gals having sex with gals, "no establishment of religion" means that their beliefs shouldn't have the force of law. This isn't a damned theocracy, no matter what people like Ted Cruz and Mike Pence want.
Why does society have any law? Where is that power derived?
  #189  
Old 03-20-2017, 12:21 PM
wonky wonky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: DC area
Posts: 29,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Leftists who support gun rights are shunned. Leftists who oppose gay rights are shunned. Had the left been more gracious in embracing diverse opinions the Tragedy of November Eighth might have been averted.
I will continue to shun the fuck out of cretins who oppose gay rights. Yes, I have some standards, and that's one of them. I also don't support serial killers, pedophiles, racists, and people who stick gum on chairs. If that makes my side lose elections, I'm okay with that.
  #190  
Old 03-20-2017, 12:25 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 55,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Two questions: question el firsto:
Are you mocking my culture's language?

Quote:
By using Mock Spanish, ``Anglos'' signal that they possess desirable qualities: a sense of humor, a playful skill with a foreign language, authentic regional roots, an easy-going attitude toward life. The semiotic function by which Mock Spanish assigns these qualities to its Anglo speakers has been called ``direct indexicality'' by Ochs (1990). ``Direct indexicality'' is visible to discursive consciousness. When asked about a specific instance of Mock Spanish, speakers will often volunteer that it is humorous, or shows that they lived among Spanish speakers and picked up some of the language, or is intended to convey warmth and hospitality appropriate to the Southwestern region. They also easily accept such interpretations when I volunteer them.
Language & Culture: Symposium 2, quoting Mock Spanish: A Site For The Indexical Reproduction Of Racism In American English, Jane H. Hill.
  #191  
Old 03-20-2017, 01:11 PM
Biffy the Elephant Shrew Biffy the Elephant Shrew is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Over on the left
Posts: 13,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Damn straight!
See? See? Your leftist anti-heterosexual agenda is showing!
  #192  
Old 03-20-2017, 02:02 PM
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 56,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Why does society have any law? Where is that power derived?
It turns out when you have a sufficiently large number of sufficiently educated people, civilized societies tend to spontaneously form.

It's like fractals.
  #193  
Old 03-20-2017, 02:38 PM
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Come up with a definition of liberal or conservative that works perfectly.
The problem here is, as I have explained previously, twofold. Firstly, neither of those terms is a snarl word. When you say "conservative" or "liberal", it's typically not meant as an insult. Secondly, most people have a basic idea of what is meant by the term - nobody is going to call Bernie Sanders or Noam Chomsky "conservative", and nobody's going to call Paul Ryan or Ted Nugent "liberal". So while the definitions are vague and shifting, you can still have a reasonable conversation about the terms.

SJW (like its colleague "PC") is intentionally vague because its primary usage is as a cudgel against any person or idea the person speaking doesn't like.

Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Leftists who oppose gay rights are shunned.
Also on this list, leftists who:
- support Jim Crow
- support anti-sodomy laws
- support banning video games
- think the earth is 6000 years old and that that should be taught in schools
- think vaccines should be banned
- believe in other heinous or awful things
  #194  
Old 03-20-2017, 02:41 PM
The Other Jeffrey Lebowski The Other Jeffrey Lebowski is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Smog City, USA
Posts: 2,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Leftists who oppose gay rights are shunned.
Nice strawman!! Cite, please?
  #195  
Old 03-20-2017, 02:58 PM
Velocity Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 10,389
Some lies I've seen on social media:

"There is more inequality in America today, than in any country, at any point in history."

"Only 1 percent of people in the world have any access to education of any quality."
  #196  
Old 03-20-2017, 03:06 PM
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 56,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Some lies I've seen on social media:[/I]
Okay, now why are the writers of these particular lies "Social justice warriors" and the writers of comparably untrue lies ("The Jews were behind 9/11", "unemployment just before the election was as high at 45%", "abortion causes breast cancer") not?
  #197  
Old 03-20-2017, 03:13 PM
wonky wonky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: DC area
Posts: 29,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Some lies I've seen on social media:

"There is more inequality in America today, than in any country, at any point in history."

"Only 1 percent of people in the world have any access to education of any quality."
Some lies I've seen on social media:

"Vaccines cause autism."

"A child-trafficking ring is operating in the basement of Comet Ping Pong."
  #198  
Old 03-20-2017, 03:41 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 36,810
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Some lies I've seen on social media:

"There is more inequality in America today, than in any country, at any point in history."

"Only 1 percent of people in the world have any access to education of any quality."
For the first one, a related cite.
Quote:
According to Lindert and Williamson’s calculations, today’s income inequality may be the highest the nation has ever known.

“We went from one of the most egalitarian places in the world to one of the least,” Williamson said. “What happened?”
...
It should go without saying that early America was a moral catastrophe. The genocide of the Native Americans and the enslavement of African Americans can’t be reckoned with in purely economic terms. But we also cannot talk about income inequality without somehow figuring in all the lives that were oppressed in service of the nation’s economy.

The slaves were obviously not paid for their work, but they did receive food and shelter, which the economists considered a form of compensation. This represented a mere fraction of the value of their labor, but it wasn’t insignificant, either.

Whether this was the right or the wrong way to calculate the situation of the slaves can be debated. But when the economists say that income inequality in the late 1700s was exceedingly low, they are making a claim that includes all Americans, enslaved or free. Through this narrow economic lens, America (with its slaves) distributed the rewards of its economy more equally than England (with its peasants).
Obviously not "than in any country"; but it appears there's a substantial, if controversial, argument that it's higher now than at any other point in our own history.

For the second claim, I got nothin'. Is that really a direct quote? Did the person cite it?

Certainly I've been around leftists making stupid claims. I lost friends in college because I'd call them on their bullshit (not often enough, too often I kept my head down). What I've not seen is any sign that such stupid claims have any particular character when they're on the right or on the left. What I've not seen is that people using SJW as a pejorative are generally doing so for good reasons.
  #199  
Old 03-20-2017, 03:43 PM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 34,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Why does society have any law? Where is that power derived?
"Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony." - Dennis the Peasant

I figure that's not quite as much a non sequitur as your question, but it's the best I can do right now.
  #200  
Old 03-20-2017, 04:09 PM
Merneith Merneith is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 6,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
"Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony." - Dennis the Peasant

I figure that's not quite as much a non sequitur as your question, but it's the best I can do right now.
Well, then, what am I supposed to do with this watery tart, here?
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 09:06 AM.

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

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

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

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

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

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

Copyright © 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017