Since when does a 24 year old become a pundit?
And I bet you do!
Gosh, that sounds just terrible. Just terrible.
Marriage in Australia is a Commonwealth matter so the individual states couldn’t legislate around it no matter what they wanted to do. The overwhelming majority of people want gay marriage legalised anyway and as far as I can work out, the reason it hasn’t happened has more to do with politics than religion.
And I think it’s because we don’t have the issues with things like transgender bathroom issues and other radical right driven silliness that I find SJWs so much more problematic here.
They really are, IMO, going out of their way to find things to be offended by/outraged about - like a white person innocently and without intending any offence at all asking a non-white person “Where are you from?” without realising the non-white person was born in Australia, for example.
When she’s blonde, attractive, and “conservative”.
ETA: She’s a YouTube troll that’s been elevated to the seraphim of conservative talking heads.
Not really. The law you live under is not that far removed from people’s opinions, even irrational opinions.
The problem is that it goes both ways. One person’s “Not being horrible at all” is someone else’s egregious insult/offence. There needs to be some middle ground - and that means not assuming offence where it’s fairly clear none was intended.
And considering SJWs are given to bashing people for being white hetero men or otherwise belonging to the Non-Approved List, I’d say there’s something odd about deriding anyone who uses the term SJW for “thinking maybe people shouldn’t be quite so horrible to each other” when, IME, much of the “being horrible to other people” aspect of things comes from the Left.
Look at it this way: I’ve never, ever had a conservative person call me a “Nigger lover” or a “Fucking queer” for saying I think everyone should be treated equally with the same rights and not be discriminated against for their ethnicity or sexuality.
I have, however, been called a host of unpleasant things - including but not limited to “Racist”, “Transphobe”, “Oppressor”, “Privileged Cis White Dude” and “Bigot” - by people on the Left for disagreeing with their views, or (just as badly in their eyes) not agreeing with their views strongly enough.
The middle ground is not bashing someone for being a white hetero man, and also not using stupid pejoratives like SJW. It’s a fun middle ground–come join me here!
The difference is that there is nothing intrinsically bad about being a white hetero male. They have some disadvantages when it comes to seeing some social issues because their life experience and perspective hides these issues from them but running around calling everyone who disagrees with you racist or sexist, when racism and sexism doesn’t exist is in fact intrinsically bad.
Why you think this is a refutation of what I wrote is a mystery.
Sure. But the particulars of the laws we actually have is one thing; “Why does society have any law?” is another. We can discuss Thomas Hobbes in another thread, if you feel like opening one.
Nasty, British, and short.
I don’t agree with either type calling you names unless they’re deserved, but going up to a conservative person and claiming group X deserves to be treated equally when they are not, doesn’t typically raise their ire because you’re not suggesting anything be done. So this hypothetical conservative is minimally affected by your disinterest because 1) deep in their heart they know equal rights usually doesn’t hurt them at all and 2) you aren’t going to actually do anything. So their position is not threatened in the slightest by your statement.
On the other hand, people on the left actually need you to do something with your professed opposition to discrimination. They need you to recognize that group X is discriminated against and that something must be done about it, but you don’t recognize the problem, are hesitant to do anything about it at all, or worry too much about what will happen to the advantaged group when this group X gets their rights.
So the active leftist sees you as useless for everything but one more thing: punishment for being insufficiently supportive. It does serve a purpose. It keeps their nails sharp and maybe their insult of you will get somebody ignorant of the topic to take the leftist’s side because they may not know anything but they sure do know they don’t want to be a bigot.
Lastly, any name that you happen to get called is far less stressful than a person living in North Carolina stressing over what bathroom to use and feeling the anger of a population whose bigotry has been loosened by the rhetoric of normalizing prejudice via bathroom legislation. Quit whining.
And there lies the problem with SJWs, by their metrics everyone is a bigot (or sexist, or racist, etc, etc…) and should be punished for it.
In that sense not too different from ISIS, which goes after not just non-Muslims, but also Muslims who don’t adhere to their views closely enough.
The ironic thing is that some people on the political left criticized President Bush for saying, “You are either with us or against us” shortly after 9/11, yet that is the same divisive stance that they themselves take.
Yes, what SJWs want to do is punish every human. SJWs are actually in favor of the annihilation of humanity, right? And this is a very big thing on the left, right?
Or maybe this is an absurd assertion about a silly characterization?
Beat me, whip me, make me write bad checks!
I know that I have a very hard time distinguishing between criticizing people for their ill-considered political views, and throwing people off buildings to their deaths. Same difference, right?
No: what the people you’re labeling SJWs are most like is someone who, on seeing someone who (in their view) is insufficiently committed to free speech, compares that person to mass murderers. That’s what they’re like.
Those SJWs are so terrible and have no sense of proportion! They are like ISIS!