What I would like from the Progressives/SJW. Trggr Wrnng.

Post Reply New Topic

First, people claim strawman on s**t that's basically just descriptive metaphor all the time. The word itself has lost meaning due to overuse in the wrong situation, especially on these forums. My degree is in rhetoric, I would know, my field of expertise created the damn term.

Second, since you're so good at using search give me the argument you're complaining about because I'm not looking it up-- that was sooo yesterday.

First, people claim strawman on s**t that's basically just descriptive metaphor all the time. The word itself has lost meaning due to overuse in the wrong situation, especially on these forums. My degree is in rhetoric, I would know, my field of expertise created the damn term.

Second, since you're so good at using search give me the argument you're complaining about because I'm not looking it up-- that was sooo yesterday.

All you SJW apologists should read journalist Tom Wolfe's essay on so-called "radical chic"


My biggest objection to SJWs is that their altruism is fake and phoney. I noticed this back in the 1990s when political correctness kicked off and the left began to dominate politics and the media. They are all about social competition rather than getting things done and try to 1up other people with moral superiority and ideological purity.

So, you're not actually going to back up your claim, you're instead going to complain that other people overuse the term and therefore I'm wrong because guilt by association? That would be weak without then gratuitously tacking on your credentials, that just makes it embarrassing.

First, before somebody screams it let me say this is not hate speech. Also, see the trigger warning in the subject line. I'm not typing this to rag on you, or bully you, or make you feel bad. If I was going to do that it would be obvious to anyone. This is just me stating my views and asking for something.

I honest to god have a request. I dare say that many other Democrats and also a lot of Republicans would like this as well. I do honestly doubt the Tea Party does, but the Libertarians may be interested too. It's just a request, so if you could all get together and occupy somewhere with a laptop and some coffee so you're comfortable while doing this, Id appreciate it.

What those of us whose epidermis isn't made of single ply tissue would like is a list of everything offensive from now into perpetuity. This means think of everything, no matter how small, that could in any way be possibly offensive to even one person and write it down. Make sure you get everything because once it's done I'm having it carved into stone by a grandchild of a set director who used to work for Cecil B DeMille and its got to stay that way.

Of course if someone makes up a new insult that can be added, but no new things or thoughts or insinuations please. I said please. I don't want to hear in three years that 6385 people have been hospitalized due to being traumatized listening to a harpsichord, because harpsichords were only played by the rich and elite European patriarchy and it triggers somebody's flashback to what they think it might have been like to be a -insert here- back then.

I also want anything to do with animals. What we can call them, what we can name them, what we have to feed them. Also what we can eat and wear. Also what holidays can we celebrate? Can Christmas stay a national holiday or is knowing that the mail isn't running because of a patriarchal European holiday going to trigger someone? (Even though it's not European it might as well be, Jesus looks like a typical euro patriarch in all those paintings). What about Hannukah and Kwanza? Can they be mentioned? Is Ramadan still on? Has Festivus become offensive yet because Seinfeld cast was all white and they were selfish and sometimes downright mean? This could cause problems one day if mentioning Festivis causes a womyn with man hands to run from the room hyperventilating from the flashbacks of Jerry and them. You getting the idea now? Ok.

You're going to have to go over every single possible ridiculous thing that might upset someone, no matter how stupid you think it is. Because it's going to bother someone one day. I guarantee you that in 20 years time somebody is going to sue because there are no blind neurosurgeons or Samoan jockeys. So think and put it down.

I'm not making fun of you. Not really. I honest to god think you mean well. But I think you aren't looking around at the world and seeing how its changed and that a good bit of societies problems of discrimination are mainly solved. They will never be 100%, but I think you are so damned and determined to stamp it out in all forms that You have gone way over the limit. Rather than focusing on what is offensive to the majority or even half, you're focusing on anybody who says they are offended by something and sheds a tear, tells a story of emotional turmoil or just whines or screams the loudest. Because not everything you tout is that offensive or triggering to even a 10% of the population (except some of the younger generation who just have a Pavlovian response and "feel triggered" on command). Two words as an example. Jazz Hands. Really? Exactly how many people have a problem with clapping. If you find that out for me, and why they do, and if its even 1/3 of the country I will walk through every major city in the USA, naked, carrying a sign that says "clapping is offensive to them as my body is to you right now". Swear to god I'll do it. I'll get somebody to sponsor the travel and I won't say one art ass word.

But, if you do this, and put out this list, I promise I'll try to follow a good bit of them. I bet other people would try a little more too, IF WE KNEW THAT THIS WAS THE LAST THING YOU WOULD COME UP WITH ABOUT IT. I'm serious. It's the constant new crap that's made people laugh at you. And the jazz hands. And the safe rooms with kindergarten stuff for college kids. But mostly the jazz hands.

So, I said my piece, and I said it the way I say everything. It's to the point but I'm also trying to put a bit of humor in, at my expense and yes yours too, but only because writing it this way may get my point across better than if I said it the way I say it mumbling at home to the dogs about it, because then surely somebody would drop a house on me. Also it would be boring and just a rabid rant. Using some humor helps soften it, and softening it was my intention. We all have to laugh at ourselves now and then. Even you jazz handed bastions of political correctness. Yes I meant bastion, that wasn't spell check changing it.

So, please if you can decide once and for all what's upsetting. Then get it out there. I can't promise you that everyone will comply but you have a better chance at it this way than making everybody constantly looking around for what's going to upset someone like an emotional version of whack a mole. Making people do that is a sure way to drive them to a nervous breakdown, which would be hilariously ironic if it weren't so true. You. really do have some people on eggshells.

So get your stack on and please see if you can do this. The rest of us would appreciate it.

This was not meant to be offensive. I wrote an op-ed column in this exact style for years. This is just how I write.

All you SJW apologists should read journalist Tom Wolfe's essay on so-called "radical chic"


My biggest objection to SJWs is that their altruism is fake and phoney. I noticed this back in the 1990s when political correctness kicked off and the left began to dominate politics and the media. They are all about social competition rather than getting things done and try to 1up other people with moral superiority and ideological purity.

So, you're not actually going to back up your claim, you're instead going to complain that other people overuse the term and therefore I'm wrong because guilt by association?

That would be weak without then gratuitously tacking on your credentials, that just makes it embarrassing.

Oh, so you really didn't read the thread, and so you just attacked me without even knowing that I was talking about something that happened earlier in the thread? And now you expect me to do your work for you? I don't think you understand how this works...

You're the one making the claim, the burden of proof is on you. I'm not doing your job, if you're going to use some quote from 10 pages back, then quote it. My times valuable, I'm not wasting it on a wild goose chase.

Yes, credentials, they show I've actually studied something as opposed to just throwing out some random opinion that could have been thought up by a third grader.

My times valuable, I'm not wasting it on a wild goose chase.

Um, no it was the polite SJW way of saying you're absolutely completely full of s**t, you have absolutely no clue what a metaphor is and what a straw man is and your ignorance is showing in this regard.

Yes, credentials, they show I've actually studied something as opposed to just throwing out some random opinion that could have been thought up by a third grader. You'd be amazed at how powerful credentials are in an argument. Of all the rhetorical appeals, ethos (credibility) is the most powerful. That's why people on the opposing side hate it, they can't counter it unless they themselves brandish similar credentials.

You're the one making the claim, the burden of proof is on you. I'm not doing your job, if you're going to use some quote from 10 pages back, then quote it. My times valuable, I'm not wasting it on a wild goose chase.

that's a very shiny strawman. did you build it all yourself?

Who was I talking about? I wasn't talking about anybody. I didn't create any Strawman.

I was just saying, in general, that there are better things to do with our time than get offended all the time.

So in other words, you've got nothing.

You're objecting on the basis that Dox47 didn't use the correct formatting, using this as justification for "politely" claiming that he is "absolutely completely full of sh*t" and has "absolutely no clue" regarding logical fallacies?

And yet, here you are, absent the required context and information to take part in a conversation which you have blundered and blustered your way into. In the matter of what has and has not been stated in this conversation, your qualifications are precisely nil. Your credibility has been completely undermined by your own testimony that you are not qualified to comment on the accuracy of Dox's quotes.

If you lack sufficient interest in the conversation to educate yourself as to the facts, I suggest you refrain from further uninformed personal attacks and better utilise your time on something you are genuinely invested in.

Thank you for demonstrating an actual straw man.
Me: You're the one making the claim, the burden of proof is on you. It's very clear I'm asking for proof, not grammatical accuracy
You: You're objecting on the basis that Dox47 didn't use the correct formatting. This is about grammar, which no one is actually arguing, therefor an actual straw man for you to beat down.

*I have no problems sharing my expertise, even with opponents: it always helps to point out why the strawman is a strawman. Rhetorically, it serves two functions. 1. it brings the argument back to a place of stasis (arguing the same subject), and 2. gives ethos (credibility) with the audience.

I never said I didn't read the thread, nor did I give any indication I didn't know the argument, I merely asked for the quote in question, you know, the proof.

I'll give you the credentials point though, only because it's the internet and I'm not exactly going to throw my degree up online for everyone therefor there is no way you can verify it. Point given on that one.

Again, I'm not doing someone else's job. If someone makes a claim of evidence and then doesn't provide the evidence I'm in no way responsible for finding it myself. It has nothing to do with lack of interest, merely placing responsibility where it should be: the one making the claim.