Why do SJWs think I'm obligated to kiss their ass?

Post Reply New Topic

You forced yourself into a corner. Like you said, just because some people use a term differently doesn't mean I'm beholden to their definition. And people use words in stupid and inaccurate ways.

And just because I know what you mean doesn't mean I know what the next person means. Like my example, feminism has a clear definition, "SJW" doesn't.

We all agreed with you that there are a**holes who misinterpret the goals and meanings of some social movements. The disagreement is in how much damage they cause. All I've seen you provide is a some random anecdotal evidence. That does nothing to show the ratio of the harm caused by "SJW's" to other groups. I stand by my assertion that their impact on society is relatively minimal.

YOU SHOULDN'T. Got it? All that matters is that the people within this thread understand what is being discussed. And I never defined feminism as an all SJW movement as you seem to be implying. I may have used it generally to refer to third-wave feminists, because once again, they are the topic of discussion, and I assumed that in a thread about SJWs that would be clear. I'm not here to talk about the feminists I agree with, I'm here to talk about the ones I disagree with.

Why are you linking me an article about white extremists? Did I say I like those people? Did I claim they don't exist? Did I defend or deny their actions? No, I did not. Nor did anyone else here. They are irrelevant to this discussion, even if I were to grant you that they do cause more harm than SJWs. The fact that a worse group exists does not negate the wrong actions of other groups. Plus, the number of people killed is not the only factor to consider when determining how harmful a group is. Spreading lies and misinformation is harmful. Unlawful censorship is harmful. Harassing and assaulting people is harmful. Starting riots is harmful.

I like how the article you linked, first of all, is a comparison between right-wing extremists and radical Muslims (who are also far-right extremists btw), not SJWs. I also like how they conveniently write out 9/11 and worldwide Muslim terror attacks to make it seem as though white right-wing extremists are a much bigger issue. The icing on the cake is that the article you linked does not even reflect the current numbers, given the recent Orlando shooting.

Why don't you go to college already?

How's that potential trucking job coming along?

You might find some "radical" SJW's in college--but rarely do they extend their vitriol beyond the college situation. They grow up, in other words.

In trucking: very few SJW's.

Last edited by kraftiekortie on 07 Jul 2016, 10:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

You're the one refusing to have an open discussion because you don't like the terms being used, not me. So no, I'm not forcing myself into a corner; you are using a red herring to force me to talk about the term itself rather than the group of people I'm so obviously referring to when I say it, because I stated who I am actually talking about I think three times now. Or do you still really not understand what group of people I'm talking about?

Feminism does not have a clear definition. Maybe the word itself does, but feminism the ideology/movement does not. It has different factions with vastly different ideas. No true Scotsman fallacy, again.

I provided one bit of anecdotal evidence, and I actually admitted it was anecdotal right after. I was simply making a point. I also provided several examples which are NOT anecdotal (Milo, Ms. Click, Concerned Student 1950 etc.), which you have completely skipped over. Why don't you talk about that, instead of whining about words you don't like, or how some groups are in some ways worse than others? By the way, I'm curious: do you even know what anecdotal means?

Because I don't have the money yet. And I am not fully decided on becoming a truck driver, it's just something I'm considering. I don't even qualify for it until I'm 21, and even then most trucking companies actually prefer you to be 23.

What does this have to do with anything?

L_Holmes,

Find me some articles quantifying the amount of harm caused by "SJW's." And no you didn't deny those groups exist but you've minimized their impact greatly while overstating the amount of and the effects of "SJW's"
And remember you called me an "SJW" earlier.

Honestly you should find a different term as "SJW" is too loosely defined and is too often associated with racists and bigots trying to talk back to the people calling them out on their s**t.

I don't even believe in the no true Scotsman fallacy. It doesn't make sense. Muslims say no true Muslim would commit acts of violence in the name of Islam to denounce terrorists. I think the majority of Muslims shouldn't be tarnished by the actions of lunatic terrorists. Same as I don't think feminism should be tarnished by the actions of people who don't understand what it means.

Feminism does have a clear definition and goal that can be explained by the majority who follow that ideology. On the other hand "SJW" changes meaning from person to person and there is no definition.

Again your examples don't show a widespread pattern of damage caused by "SJW's" they are just random incidents. Again no one said they don't exist just that they're impact is minimal and they're mainly on the internet and some insulated college campuses.

Instead of stewing about SJW's and stuff, you could be out there trying to improve your lot in life.

I've experienced this myself when I was about your age. I stewed and I stewed about such things as injustice. And other abstract, philosophical sorts of things. This prevented me from accomplishing anything. It kept me isolated.

It just made me angrier and angrier. That also kept me from accomplishing anything.

It's really not a good situation when one cannot see the forest for the trees.

I've already given examples of the harm they are causing. I'm not going to sit here and do a ton of research for you to have you just completely ignore it like it was never even said. You still haven't even acknowledged the examples I mentioned, let alone state whether or not you agree with the actions of the people in them.

Also, I did not "minimize their impact greatly". Point out where I did that.

Here, since you are apparently incapable of doing a quick Google search:

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/05/2 ... niversity/ (article about Milo)
http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/05/3 ... vent-ucla/ (another about Milo)
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ri-profes/ (article about Ms. Click)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bc6Z7AEEao8 (video about Ms. Click with original video)
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... -peaceful/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAAeVU5jnHo (video about ALL the student uprisings in 2015)

Watch pretty much anything by Sargon. He addresses new, recent SJW BS on his channel weekly.

I'm really bored with continually pointing out your inability to address my arguments and examples directly. You're giving me the same silly arguments which I already refuted over and over and over.

I'm going to assume your reply will be to not specifically address any of the events in the articles and videos I shared, and instead simply dismiss them as the actions of a few, and say it's not enough to "quantify the damage caused by SJWs"? First of all, what do you even mean by that? Do I literally need to give you every single news story about SJWs doing deplorable things? Do your own research if it's that important to you, or be willfully ignorant. I really don't care.

And anyway, I'm not making any claims about exactly to what extent the SJWs are harmful, so I don't need to quantify it. I'm just pointing out that they exist and that they do f****d up things, and I've given you the examples to prove it. If you can't accept that you either agree with their actions or are denying facts that have been clearly presented to you.

The point of the no true Scotsman fallacy is that the idea of what "true" anything is (true feminists, true Muslims, true Scotsmen) is both completely subjective and a diversion from the real issue being discussed.

I'll use an example you can understand: if a white, right-wing Christian goes and shoots up an abortion clinic, and you try to argue to Christians that this is a problem they should recognize and address, some of them will certainly say, "But that guy wasn't a TRUE Christian!" So what? It doesn't change the fact that he got his anti-abortion ideas from Christianity, and it certainly doesn't make what he did acceptable. Don't you think they should be addressing that, instead of saying silly things like, "Yeah, but he's not a TRUE Christian!" and basically changing the subject? That is when you say they are using the no true Scotsman fallacy.

Actually, SJW does have a definition. Try searching it. Oh wait, you don't know how, so here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior

These are not "random incidents". What if I called your examples of white racism "random incidents"? Would that be acceptable to you, or would you see at as me just dismissing a real problem, as you are clearly doing here?

Last edited by Skilpadde on 09 Jul 2016, 4:24 am, edited 1 time in total.: removing personal attack

Thanks for the insults. Was that necessary? Seriously though, get a grip.

Wikipedia is not a legitimate source. I have addressed you example of the college when I said these people are mainly relegated to the internet and college campuses. And I called people who engage in these misguided acts stupid and yes they're hypocritical. I can point you to statistics, which I have, that who the extent of damage caused by all these other corrosive groups. Show me some statistics that measure the impact of the rise of the "SJW's" pointing to a few incidents over and over does not show that these people are anything other than a few naive people and a**holes. You didn't just claim they exist you presented them as a legitimate force on the whole of our society when they are not. Also I stand by my assertion regarding the no true scotsman. Your example doesn't change anything. Christians are not a monolithic group so I wouldn't ask all of them to denounce somone who commits a violent act against an abortion provider. I would focus my attention on the small group outside the abortion clinics harassing women. Like I said I can show quantifiable proof of systematic racism and sexism that still exist in this country, and I have. Can you do the same for these "SJW's"? Can you give me some evidence that these are not just isolated incidents?

Do you even remember what you wrote in those earlier posts? Because I'm not sure if you do.

Wikipedia has sources linked in the articles, so it can be a perfectly legitimate source, or at least a place to find sources.

You addressed my example of "the college". No, that doesn't count. Do you agree with Melissa Click and Concerned Student 1950? Do you even admit they exist? What about the incidents with Milo, do you think that's ok or do you think people that do those sorts of things should be stopped? What about the rioting? Do you think that's a "random incident" that can be dismissed, or do you see it for what it is?

You say you'd focus your attention on the small group of Christians that commit heinous acts, but you've said no such thing of the "small" group of SJWs committing crimes. That seems a little hypocritical.

How are these "isolated incidents"? One of the videos I linked discusses the 2015 student uprisings, taking place at over 50 colleges. 50 is not isolated.

And anyway, even if it wasn't that many, how does that mean it's something that shouldn't even be discussed? This is the fundamental problem I have with what you are saying. I believe you that you don't agree with their actions, but you are acting as though they don't even deserve to be discussed. Yet you seem like you'd take the first opportunity to share an example of white racism, even if it was truly an isolated incident.

What about the Orlando shooting? Or really any mass shooting, take your pick. You could correctly say many of those were isolated incidents. Does that mean we should ignore it and not talk about it? Hell no.

I don't even know what you're talking about anymore. You are becoming incoherent. You're also mischaracterizing much of what I said. Just go back and reread the posts a little more carefully. It's all there.

And I don't know what Orlando has to do with anything we're discussing here.

Second post! Hi fellow neurodiverse

I must admit, I am not a fan of social justice, even in its more 'tolerable' forms. I am very much a liberal, but I am of a far more 'libertarian' leaning. I believe in free speech and democracy, and I find that feminism and various other Social Justice mouth pieces are incredibly misguided in their present form.

To be honest, I don't think anyone is obligated to 'kiss anyone's ass'. I feel a cultural libertarian world view is a healthy lens with which to see the world, and I feel that anyone who wants to have an echo chamber of ideas should potentially listen to different view points in order to at the very least understand that it takes many to make a world.

TL;DR - I felt like joining in here so yeah... rambles

~MeridianArchetype

Well pardon me for having a full-time job with a grueling schedule. Not all of us can sit in front of a keyboard whining all day.

Yeah, I'M the one whining.