This is amusing considering that perhaps the defining trait of SJWs is their resolute unwillingness to actually reason with people. They much prefer screaming and yelling to actual conversation.
However, very few women like the financial precariousness that that situation often entails. The fact that traditionally patriarchal societies have decided that the activities men are traditionally expected to engage in deserve financial compensation and individual autonomy, while the activities women are traditionally expected to engage in should be unpaid and entail financial dependence, is not a choice that individual women are freely making.
:rolleyes:
See, to me the defining trait of "SJW"s is a passion for social justice. Which it really takes a retrograde privilege-addict to turn into a BAD thing…
There are many activists with a passion for social justice doing good work. What distinguishes them from SJWs is mainly that SJWs are eager to use bullying, foot-stamping, and screaming to shut down people they disagree with. In the video I linked to above, Christina Hoff Summers laid out a calm and reasonable case for being skeptical about the oft-quoted “78 cents on the dollar” wage gap figure. The SJW in the audience responded by screaming “FUCK YOU!!!” and “KEEP YOUR HATE SPEECH OFF THIS CAMPUS” over and over again until she was escorted out by security, at which point another SJW took over from her.
It’s perfectly possible to have a passion for social justice without being and SJW.
…argumentum by out-of-context video clips. That should be a fallacy of some sort. Anyone want to come up with a name? At least you managed to find one longer than five seconds this time.
Oh by all means: please continue to demonstrate to the people of the dope how much of an ass you are. Please post away!
The first link showed that Harper was a serial harasser? Really?
That “evidence” I presented was a bunch of exaggerations, distortions and out-right untruths. Harper isn’t a serial harasser. Her block bot was probably the single biggest thing that helped to cut down the harassment on twitter from gamergate.
The blockbot uses complex algorithms to block people who follow a certain subset of users. And Roberto Rosario followed a lot of people who were proponents of gamergate. So he got blocked. Calling Chris von Csefalvay a “fake data scientist” was entirely appropriate because what he did with the data he has was appalling. The lack of evidence in the article that Harper “silenced” Csefalvay is overwhelming.
There isn’t any evidence that Claire Schumann actually exists. Milo certainly didn’t interview her for this article. As for Vivek Wadhwa: Harper expressed her opinion about him and wrote a fake amazon review. Not exactly crimes of the century. There are thousands of fake amazon reviews posted every week. Shall we write articles about those people as well?
The article is the very definition of a “hit job.”
As I said: I didn’t say Milo was responsible. You’ve just quoted me where it is clear I didn’t say Milo was responsible. No readers of my actual words would get the wrong idea. So perhaps you should read more carefully next time.
Nope: I’m pretty sure you posted a five second video clip.
:: goes back and checks ::
Yep. Five seconds.
Have you actually listened to them speak? I’m getting all cringy just thinking about it.
Jobs in the workplace aren’t compensated financially because the “patriarchy” decided they “deserve it” more, they are compensated because workers are trading [their role in the creation of] goods and services with other people in exchange for a paycheck. Being a housewife means you are only providing services to your children, yourself and your husband, so of course strangers aren’t going to pay you for it. Your husband’s support is a form of financial compensation.
“Traditionally patriarchal societies” seems to be your term for capitalistic societies. Apparently you want a communist society where the government decides how much money each person deserves on some sort of cosmic moral basis. We all know that work great. I’m not clear on where the money is supposed to come from. Who will risk their lives in coal mines if they can get paid for staying home with kids?
Not at all. What I’m saying is that women are left holding the bag on childcare and running the household - because somebody has to do it, and our society is set up to reward men who put their careers first.
This is a bullshit sexist stereotype, developed over thousands of years of dumping childcare on women who had no choice but be slaves to biology.
Your rejection of that idea is easily the most privilege’d thing I’ve read all day. For your penance, I want a 1200 word essay, by Friday, on the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Passed in 1974, this law allows women to apply for loans at banks without needing to get a man to cosign for them.
I want to see particular mention of Lindy Boggs and the methods she took to include “sex” and “marital status” on the list of banned reasons for discrimination.
Women earning regular wages and participating fully in financial matters is a very recent development in Western civilization. This is not ancient history. It is not a settled matter. Pretending that sexism doesn’t exist is easy when you don’t have to worry about being on the receiving end of it.
Sorry for interrupting the tard fight but I feel a real genuine moment for fighting ignorance has been over looked in this thread.
You see, BPC, when a mommy people and a daddy people love each other very much they slam gonads like rabid bunnies and 9 months later God gives them the gift of their little shitheads.
:dubious: Because of course bringing up children and feeding, clothing and caring for children and working men has no greater societal value at all. It’s nothing but a personal hobby, and if women as a group no longer felt like doing it, it wouldn’t affect the viability of societies in the least. :rolleyes:
This is an example of sexist thinking being so built into our cultural framework that some people simply refuse to see it. For some reason, you are ideologically committed to not acknowledging that traditional social structures in any way discriminate on the basis of gender.
[QUOTE=thirdname]
“Traditionally patriarchal societies” seems to be your term for capitalistic societies.
[/quote]
No, patriarchy and capitalism are two different things. All capitalist societies, like all other societies, are traditionally patriarchal, but that’s just because we humans as a species have a common ancestral culture that long pre-dates economic systems like communism and capitalism.
[QUOTE=thirdname]
Apparently you want a communist society where the government decides how much money each person deserves on some sort of cosmic moral basis.
[/quote]
You seem a bit touchy and high-strung in your reactions here; surely when you calm down you’ll recognize that there’s a big difference between pointing out the simple fact of inherent sexism in patriarchal societies and actually espousing a communist ideology.
Problem is the term is so pathetically overused that it essentially means nothing. Think there is a disparity in payment between the sexes? YOUR A SJW! Think Milo is a harassing scumbag who writes hitpieces? YOUR A SJW! Think that juuuuust maybe women online can face harassment and threats more than men? YOUR A SJW!!! Think maybe african americans might face harassment from the cops needlessly? SJW! SJW! SJW!!! Think positively of any liberal policy or idea? ESS JAY DUBLE-U!!
You’ve pretty much watered down the term to nothingness with overuse.
Because it is part of the GG/Milo narrative now, they say it enough times they believe it.
The number of people who used this bot is surprising. The number of GGers who whined about it being used is stunning: “Wah! I’m being stopped from being read by someone who doesn’t want to hear me insult them!”
The blockbot uses complex algorithms to block people who follow a certain subset of users. And Roberto Rosario followed a lot of people who were proponents of gamergate. So he got blocked. Calling Chris von Csefalvay a “fake data scientist” was entirely appropriate because what he did with the data he has was appalling. The lack of evidence in the article that Harper “silenced” Csefalvay is overwhelming.
Huh, that is a new one to me.
And sadly, not the example of Milo’s most appalling work. Just par for the course shitty for him.
Hard to imagine how being a social justice warrior could possibly be a bad thing. MLK Jr was one of the greatest social justice warriors in our history, and I would think decent people would want to emulate his example. I can’t call myself a warrior, since I don’t risk anything, but I certainly strive to support social justice and oppose social injustice whenever I can.
By “our society” I think you should clarify “women’s choices not to date guys who work at McDonalds and live with their parents.” That’s what rewards men who put their careers first.
No, it’s obvious to anyone who has ever witnessed someone bringing a baby into a room that has men and women in it. There are psychological differences between men and women. There are exceptions of course, some people don’t fit the norms, but the general trends are well supported by science and obvious to normal people. And liberals who think society should recognize the chosen identities of transgender people have to agree. The entire concept of transgenderism is that they are born with brains of the opposite gender as their bodies. Feminists are fond of pointing out certain sex differences such as men’s greater propensity for violence.
1974 was 42 years ago. Nobody in the Western world today is proposing that women not be allowed to take out loans.
The clip distils the context perfectly. If you can find a longer video of that encounter, which meaningfully changes its nature, by all means post it. I doubt you’ll find one. The video I posted fairly encapsulates what happened. A group of students at Yale University - some of the most privileged people in the world - started yelling, screaming, and, in one case, literally breaking down in tears, because couldn’t handle the idea that someone might wear a Sombrero to a Halloween party. Classic SJW.
The videos demonstrate one thing. SJWs aren’t “mythical”. Here’s another: SJWs disrupt Milo lecture by spreading fake period blood over themselves and yelling abuse until they’re dragged out by security.
The first link didn’t actually show much of anything. I scrolled down through about ten pages and I saw a bunch of juvenile fat jokes. That’s a pretty low bar for “harassment”.
I’m no expert on gamergate. Computer games aren’t really my thing. I’ll happily take your word on this. It doesn’t change the fact that some people disagreed, and those people were harassed by Harper’s followers. By your own argument, that makes her just as bad as Milo.
According to the article, he was also doxxed by some of Harper’s followers.
According to the article, his wife started receiving death threats from some of Harper’s followers.
I googled “Harper Wadhwa Amazon Review” and I actually found it. Here’s the full text of the “review”
*"The author Vivek Wadhwa spends his time harassing women on twitter when they try to call him out on his approaches to feminism. He’s not interested in inviting conversation, but instead thinks it’s acceptable to intimidate and silence women from his book’s twitter account when criticism is directed at his personal account. He’s using feminism to profit, and not because he actually believes in empowering women. This is despicable behavior, and it’s been confirmed by multiple women at this point.
If you want to read about how to empower women, actually buy a book that has a woman listed first on the cover, at the very least. Even the highlighted review on his website is by a man. Men that are actually trying to help feminism don’t profit off of it, financially or with cred. They empower women’s voices and amplify them. While this may be a collection of contributions by women, Vivek’s behavior online casts doubt on his intentions.
No, thanks. I already know what it’s like to be an empowered woman in tech, and to have men like Vivek Wadhwa speaking down to me."*
I’m no expert, but if those allegations can’t be substantiated they’d pretty much fit the textbook definition of libel.
That’s a subjective value judgement, not a fact.
You implied it. Or, at the very least, your sloppy writing left room for a reasonable person to infer it. In your first sentence you accused Milo of both “contributing” to, and personally engaging in, online harassment. In the very next sentence you cited a specific instance of harassment and blamed his followers (assuming, of course, they are his followers, which has yet to be proven). If you honestly think there’s no room for a reasonable person to infer that Milo “contributed” to the harassment of Lesley Jones, you’re deluding yourself.
If that wasn’t what you meant, fine. I’ll take your word for it. But the fault lies with your writing, not my or anyone else’s reading.
I don’t understand. There’s a link to the full hour and fifteen minute video in the bit you quoted. That crazy SJW wasn’t ranting for five seconds. She was ranting for a good half-hour before security finally managed to get her out.
I’m not saying I agree with everything they say. Indeed, I disagree with most of it. I’m just pointing out that only an SJW would think screaming “KEEP YOUR HATE SPEECH OFF THIS CAMPUS” would be a valid response to an argument against the idea of the gender wage gap. People like that are obnoxious bullies. Milo makes fun of them in ways which a lot of people find amusing. That, to drag this back to the OP, is why I think a lot of people like him.
He exists because people persist in feeding trolls. Most of what was directed at Leslie Jones was from him and his stupid neckbeards. They were probably giving each other virtual high-fives and fist bumps every time she replied. I’m not defending what they did, but not all bullies can be dealt with equally. Some back down when you stand up to them, some get worse. These were the latter type.
(And while SJW used to refer to people like Martin Luther King, nowadays it’s usually a term for people like these idiots who freaked out over someone writing TRUMP 2016 in chalk. THOSE types. When even The Daily Show thinks you’re too much of a wimp.)
What people regard as “obvious” biological facts often turn out to be just cultural expectations. What is actually well supported by science is the finding that men and women are in fact very similar mentally and psychologically.
[QUOTE=thirdname]
And liberals who think society should recognize the chosen identities of transgender people have to agree. The entire concept of transgenderism is that they are born with brains of the opposite gender as their bodies.
[/quote]
I think you may be a little confused about the distinctions between physical brain structure and psychology. What makes people transgender isn’t how “nurturing” they are or whether they possess various other conventionally “masculine” or “feminine” personality traits, but apparently a much more fundamental hormonal development of the fetal brain.
It’s certain that there are some innate psychological differences between men and women, but it’s also certain that as yet we have no way of knowing how much they really affect our personalities and behavior. Whatever truly innate differences we have are inextricably entangled with vast amounts of learned differences produced by cultural gender expectations.
[QUOTE=thirdname]
1974 was 42 years ago.
[/QUOTE]
Millennia-old cultural expectations and societal patterns don’t just magically disappear in a mere 42 years. They are gradually changing, but they’re nowhere near extinct.
Yeah if your a literal social justice warrior, like someone who worked on the Underground Railroad, not when your a modern day college student living on campus in a liberal echo chamber complaining about lack of safe spaces. Its a sarcastic moniker, it shouldn’t have taken you this long to figure that out.
Thank you for the perfect encapsulation of how conservative morons think:
“We might be wrong 90 percent of the time, but being that fucking stupid is totally worth it if we can occasionally upset the people on the other side.”
This should be the slogan for lobotomy victims like you and DerekMichaels00.
Nero just got permanently banned from Twitter.
:dubious: Interesting how a conservative trying to come up with an example of fighting for social justice that he thinks should be considered legitimate has to reach all the way back to a time when it was literally illegal to help people escape from literal chattel slavery over a century and a half ago. As though there couldn’t possibly be any valid struggles for social justice still going on in the present day. :rolleyes: