Stupid Social Justice Warrior Bullshit O' the Day.

[clairobscur]

@jsgoddess

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.

[clairobscur]

@Steve_MB

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.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@clairobscur

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?

[Inbred_Mm_domesticus]

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.

[RTFirefly]

@septimus

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.

Leftists who support gun rights are shunned.

Some of them have been shunned all the way into the U.S. Senate.

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.

[octopus]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

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.

[octopus]

@septimus

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.

[octopus]

@RTFirefly

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?

[wonky]

@septimus

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.

[Bricker]

@elucidator

Two questions: question* el firsto*:

Are you mocking my culture’s language?

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.

[Biffy_the_Elephant_Shrew]

@RTFirefly

Damn straight!

See? See? Your leftist anti-heterosexual agenda is showing!

[Bryan_Ekers]

@octopus

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.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@octopus

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.

@septimus

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

[The_Other_Jeffrey_Lebowski]

@septimus

Leftists who oppose gay rights are shunned.

Nice strawman!! Cite, please?

[Velocity]

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.”*

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Velocity

Some lies I’ve seen on social media:*

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?

[wonky]

@Velocity

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.”

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Velocity

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.

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.

[RTFirefly]

@octopus

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.

[Merneith]

@RTFirefly

“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?