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

Post Reply New Topic

The irony. I'm continually being accused of minimizing the actions of a few as*holes, yet when I bring up an example of leftists who are as*holes nobody can even admit that these people are deplorable pieces of s**t. Or if they do they won't admit they should be addressed. Regardless of whether you think it's a huge problem or a small one, it's still a problem. That is pretty much the only idea I'm trying to get across here.

If I didn't care about social justice, I wouldn't be trying to point out the cancerous morons who are giving social justice a bad name. Like I said, I don't think you guys are actually in disagreement with me, I think you are misinterpreting my arguments.

I will restate what I've said before: SJWs may have good intentions, but their specific ideas and methods are just giving more justification to the actions of radical right-wing idiots, like the Neo Nazis you think I'm defending or minimizing. No, I'm not saying they are literally justified, but if you attack white supremacists who are doing a peaceful protest, you are just fueling their hatred. Call me crazy, but I don't think that's helpful.

No one has expressed that they condone those behaviours and you're correct to point out that they exist and are an issue that should be reigned in. That said, only rarely do you encounter people with 'eyes in the back of their heads' ideologically speaking.

But here's the vicious circle: You state that militants/radicals advocating for social justice fuel/'give justification to' the militant white supremacists/MRAs/reactionaries who oppose them. But, aren't the militant 'SJWs' responding to those behaviours and therefore fuelled/'given justification' by the actions of those groups? This is what I was getting at earlier - not that the actions of the one group make the actions of the others acceptable, but that they're understandable reactions. Further, as much as it's one of the most childish defences out there, in this case they really did start it.

White supremacists for example have the same right to peacefully protest as anyone else. But if the Klan wants to march through a community that they've antagonized on an ongoing basis for many generations and have repeatedly committed acts of violence against and have been apologists for institutional discrimination against, it's understandable that that community may view their march as a provocative threat and not just people expressing a disagreeable opinion.

Yes, it is a vicious cycle that both parties are taking part in. You could reasonably argue that white racists started it, but who is going to end it? I just think it makes more sense to address the group that at least tries to promote equality, as they can be shown better ways to do so. But there's pretty much no convincing a KKK member that he's a hateful bastard, because he's actually starting out with a fundamentally bad idea, unlike SJWs.

But we can't ignore them, they will just fester and continue to grow. Advocates of social justice need to make it explicitly clear that SJWs are not representative of the social justice movement as a whole, and the way to do that is to address them directly and point out which behaviors are causing problems.

I'm not sure unilateral disarmament is the way to go, that's how the goalposts start to get pushed back in the wrong direction again. Further, when the 'unacceptable behaviours' aren't the same, it makes more sense to pursue the worse offenders first.

Doxxing someone for writing an essay you disagree with is quite a bit different from doxxing someone who's using threats of rape and murder to intimidate someone who expresses an opinion they don't agree with - for example. Even if the later case might involve someone who can be more easily persuaded to support the best position, the former is the bigger issue.

I'm more concerned about outcomes and potential for harm. When the 'extreme SJWs' start being as bad as the extremists within the groups they target, I'll be more inclined to give them more attention. Until then I'll settle for prodding them to focus on the worst within the groups they disagree with instead of just snagging whatever low-hanging fruit regardless of the severity of the indiscretion. If they're as bad as their opponents claim, it should be any day now that the pivot is needed - but so far that doesn't seem to be the case. Further, it's easier to persuade one's allies than to persuade one's opponents. Keeping them at arm's length makes it easier to talk sense to them. Yes, that would be true of the other opponents as well, but they already see anyone who speaks of decency as a 'liberal'/'cuck'/'SJW'/'race traitor' so keeping them at arm's length is already a lost cause.

Like how women are just automatically entitled to sex, and men aren't, or how men can't get raped or stalked because men always want sex, or that if your male friend asks you out on a date, it means that he is going to rape you if you say no, and you should go on your little tumblr blogs to make him look like a rapist, and if he ever finds your tumblr blog, justify it, by saying that he was only mad because you denied him sex, and make posts about how good guys are bad, because they're all being nice just to trick you into getting raped, and how bad boys are good, because they are "honest" about being rapists, and because bad boys rape you with "confidence" whereas good guys have consensual sex with you out of "desperation" and yadda, yadda, yadda.

Edit: ...and capitalism is wrong because Spock is logical, and logic is evil.

Last edited by Aaendi on 07 Jul 2016, 4:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

If you really think this is what feminists believe then I feel sorry for how hopelessly misguided and misinformed you are. I also doubt it would be possible to convince you that feminism is a good thing because you have already made up your mind that anyone who thinks women deserve equal rights is stupid and evil and is "out to get you" because you are male. This is some seriously unhinged paranoia. Also, aren't you the guy who thinks it's OK to make up stories and accuse women of stalking you as revenge for them not wanting to date you? Weren't you going on about that in another thread? Maybe you should talk to someone about your anger at women, it sounds like it is causing serious problems for you.

No one claims this, women are no more entitled to sex then men are. Men aren't vending machines you put nice tokens into until sex or romantic relationships fall out either.



Men most certainly can be victims of sexual violence, and can be at the hands of either other men or women. While it's far more rare for women to be sexual predators, it's not entirely unheard of.



While it's a risk that women have to consider, no one assumes a man will respond to rejection by attempting sexual assault, but men who feel they're owed romantic/sexual interest from a specific woman are more likely to try to 'take what they feel they're entitled to' than other people - both men and women. Not many women respond to reject with temper tantrums that they're owed interest.



Some more nonsense. 'Nice guys' are not the same as 'guys who are nice'. 'Nice guys' specifically are guys who behave like doormats in hopes that they can guilt an otherwise uninterested friend into 'giving them a chance' for a romantic or sexual relationship. They're big on insisting they're owed a chance, but often would be offended if you were to suggest that they owe someone they're uninterested in a chance. This doesn't mean that one shouldn't be nice and decent, only that that's the bare minimum, it doesn't entitle you to anything just like not breaking the law doesn't entitle you to any reward. Being friendly and decent makes it more likely that someone may find you to be of interest, just like being attractive and charismatic makes it more likely - neither are guarantees. 'But I'm a nice guy' is a BS argument for why someone should give you a chance if they don't have any interest - just like 'but I'm a hot guy' would be an obvious ridiculous reason.

PWNED!



PWNED!

You failed.

You certainly make a compelling case that your romantic failings are entirely the fault of women, feminists and society at large and not at all due to any sort of misogyny or glaring personality faults on your part. Since you've clearly got this all figured out I can only wish you the best of luck in your future endeavours.

Do I have to spell it out to you?

I DO NOT LIKE SEX!

That might also interfere with finding a romantic partner. Most of the people you might be interested in aren't asexual. Considering my last post didn't mention sex, I'm not sure why you feel the need to state that again.

No one owes you a relationship on disagreeable terms. If they don't reciprocate your interest it's not fair to insist they give it a chance anyways, just like it wouldn't be fair to expect you to agree to a relationship on disagreeable terms.

Everyone's still insisting that I was only mad because they didn't want to date me, when I keep explaining that wasn't the reason. They were bullying me.

You write like CryptoNerd.
What are your thoughts on CryptoNerd?

I personally found them to be quite creepy in spite of claiming to be Asexual.

[note; i am also asexual]

Nobody is advocating unilateral disarmament. I'm just saying that people who care about social justice should be actively and openly opposed to SJWs.

By what measurement are you saying that other groups are worse or cause more harm? Just because SJWs aren't out committing mass murder doesn't mean they're not a big problem.

I also don't understand why you can't address both. If I'm understanding what you're saying, until we get rid of white supremacists you think we shouldn't really care that much what SJWs are doing, even if it is wrong, because in a way it's justified. That's obviously a bad approach, as like I said they are fueling the fire. You can't only focus on one.

You also seem to think that SJWs exclusively target people who are true racists and bigots, when that is not the case at all. Not even close. The student uprisings were against the universities, and last time I checked, none of our universities are run by white supremacists. None of the examples I gave involved these kinds of people, and there are plenty more examples out there. SJWs target anyone that they label as a racist or sexist, and they think the term applies to anyone who disagrees with them.

Has anyone actually argued that SJWs are worse than the other groups who keep being brought up?

If no one is arguing that SJWs are worse than group X, why would anyone need to quantify the harm they cause, other than to deliberately waste their time?

If it's wrong to criticize SJWs while worse problems are out there, why does feminism get a pass for picking nits while virtually ignoring the plight of women in the middle east and Africa?

Does anyone actually think that being a jerk for a cause somehow negates the fact that you're being a jerk?

Does anyone thing that being a jerk is persuasive?

Why does this one thread have so many bad arguments in it?

For those unfamiliar with /pol/, it's the "politically incorrect" board on 4chan, essentially a neoconservative hivemind. As you can see here, there isn't really much of a difference between them and the SJW movement. They may be on opposing ends of the political spectrum, but they both represent repressive ideals.