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

Post Reply New Topic

Indeed. Like you already agreed - don't be a jerk.

If you don't know what /pol/ is, it's the "politically incorrect" board on 4chan; a place originally intended for discussion of politics, turned into a hive of mindless far-right groupthink.

Much like how fascism and communism are practically the same despite being at opposite ends of the political spectrum, left-wing "political correctness" and right-wing "family values" are practically the same as well. It's all horse s**t. f**k extremism.

AP: I think you misunderstood my intentions.

Do you think I'm uncaring? I just believe that one should live one's life thinking about being insulted. People who insult you don't have good intentions. Why listen to them?

What do you think I mean by saying that one should not let insults rule you?

By the way, I believe in answering people's insults, not denying that insults exist.

I think that people should try to be sensitive to others, but not go out of their way to avoid doing anything that could possibly offend anyone. It's impossible to always avoid offending anyone.

For instance:

A black woman that I was acquainted with once told me a story about when she moved to the area with her family. She's from the south originally, and there is supposedly more racism there, but I don't know personally whether that is true.

They were invited to a small gathering in the neighborhood in the summer time, I guess as a friendly way to get to know them. There was watermelon served at the house. Apparently she and some of her family were a little taken aback at first, and were worried that it might have been with racist intentions. But after spending time there and thinking about it, they realized it was just innocent. They didn't say anything to the family, or get excited about it. They just waited to see what these people were like before making a judgment.

Now, as a white person, I never even know that "black people like watermelon and fried chicken" was even a stereotype until I was in my late twenties. And when I found out, I thought it was a ridiculous stereotype. All the people I've ever seen eating watermelon were white people. Basically every summer picnic I went to on the one side of my family (all white people) had fried chicken and watermelon.

If I were ever going to have a summer gathering (in case someday I actually have friends, haha) and there were going to be guests there that were black, I would not change the menu to avoid offending them. The idea of not including certain foods just because of race seems racist in itself. I'd be assuming that they'd be offended, just because they were black, instead of treating them as I would anyone else. That seems wrong to me.

Now, if somebody came to me, and was offended by the menu options because they assumed the foods were served because of racial stereotypes, I'd correct them, and understand why they felt that way. But I would not apologize. I don't think I should apologize for treating people like people.

We should just let these stereotypes and prejudices die already, instead of continually opening up old wounds. I think sometimes people of other races know more racial stereotypes about themselves than many white people do. Most of the stereotypes I didn't find out about until I was an adult.

Just a few years ago, I had an east Asian guy tell me the "Asians are bad drivers" stereotype, because he told some joke about it and I totally didn't get it. WTF? Asians are bad drivers? Maybe foreign people are bad drivers, because they have different or more lax rules where they are from, but what does race have to do with it? I still don't get it.

My point is, that people should probably try to figure out what the intent is behind some action before they get offended, and give others the benefit of the doubt, unless it's really obvious prejudiced behavior.

^^^ QFT

Formatting falls under the branch of grammar. That's the point of writing 5-paragraph essays and research papers in English class, to learn formatting, attribution, and organization.



The first rule of rhetoric: you are irrelevant, your opponent is irrelevant, the audience is all that matters-- the hidden lurkers and other posters are my focus, not you, and not Dox. The fact you don't respect my expertise is a given, and of no concern to me, I only care about the audience, "the people"-- they're the ones that matter.


Can you recite all 17 pages of this thread verbatim? Probably not, and yet you still are aware of the arguments in place. When someone mentions a specific as part of their argument it's their responsibility to provide the evidence, not the person listening...that would make absolutely no sense. That's why you and I are both using quotes right now, however the initial claim was this:

The backdrop of the argument is extreme views on either side, but that's not hyperbole. Hyperbole is actually something not to be taken seriously by design of the person making the claim-- i.e. a joke. The people making the arguments here have been serious, there hasn't really been room to make a hyperbole since it's a form of joke. So yes, to give that point I'm gonna need a specific example.


No, I merely ignored that aspect because it was irrelevant. I've had several pages of discussion the audience at this point knows my credentials in the argument. I'm perfectly happy letting them be the judge.



I asked for attribution, that's all. That's a reasonable request and not a personal attack in the least. Again, he made the claim he can back it up.

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.

I'm not the one that started this, I'd much rather be arguing the case than going through the mechanics of rhetoric and how it operates. As for my comprehension, I'll let the audience decide my ethos (credentials, authority, what-have-you). Again, a good rhetor knows the two parties in an argument are not the focus, the greater audience is.

edit: quote formatting...to be expected with so many quotes. Also should be noted I'm done with this specific sub-argument in the thread, it's become tiresome and pointless. Although I like practicing rhetoric I don't really enjoy teaching it.

Rather than admitting that you made an unsound assumption, you've elected to double down and again attempt to tell me what I meant by formatting. I generously gave you the opportunity to seek clarification, but you've declined.

Tell you what, I'm feeling super generous today. I'll give you one last chance to climb out of that hole you've dug for yourself by asking you a simple question:

In which school might one study HTML formatting in English class?



If only you understood the importance of delivery, you might have had the slightest chance of persuading someone other than yourself. Might.



And we're back to the formatting issue. Along with what appears to be a demand for purity of etiquette where no such principles have been established.



The only necessary aspects of hyperbole are that it be figurative and/or an exaggeration. Whilst hyperbole may be frequently found within the framework of a joke, hyperbole does not require jocularity. A direct quote cannot, by definition, be hyperbole.



Hardly. The "audience" has witnessed your claim of authority, then further witnessed multiple demonstrations of its absence.



Your personal attack: "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."



The evidence exists within the very thread in which the discussion is taking place. It is patently absurd to demand something which is available to you with a few simple clicks.



Your audience has spoken.



The go-to excuse of those who find themselves woefully out of their depth.



And clearly you're rather averse to being schooled.

Political ideologies are basically secular religions. People join them because they have a need to believe in something(faith), and they have a desire to belong and be part of something larger than themselves.

Ideologists respond to criticism of their beliefs with a counterattack and will hit below the belt if necessary to discourage anyone from questioning what they believe in

Social Justice Warriors, Teabaggers, and Objectivists are fine examples of people in these categories.

I think you are very caring and have good intentions. And I agree with you that people should not let insults rule them. I'm not so much disagreeing with you, as adding on that that can sometimes be hard to do.

I completely agree with that analogy. In fact they're probably more important to a person than a religious faith, since they directly influence the world we actually live in. Most people would vote their personal interest before their religious ideology at the end of the day, so in a sense they transcend religion on a personal faith level. Let's put it this way, if push came to shove, would you choose your conscience or your personal interest?

Gotcha, AP

But many people do not vote in their personal interest! They often make decisions based on their emotional whims rather than what is reasonable? And yes I would go with my self-interest when push came to shove. Makes me with there really *was* a supreme being that would punish people for going against their conscience in a way that is harmful to others for their own selfishness.

But curiously, the pursuit of happiness is a much stronger drive in people than the pursuit of self-interest. People voted for Reagan even though his policies weren't favourable to them because he was extremely charismatic.

I agree there too, perhaps I should rephrase it: people follow what they *think* is their self-interest. That's how a con man works, he weasels into that *thinks* area and manipulates away.

SJWs are stupid facists that want to take freedom of speech away, Id say send them to Antarctica during winter so they can freeze to death, if this is triggerring you then thats too bad i don't care harden up. Life is cruel and unfair so deal with it.