SJW and autism

Post Reply New Topic

I know. I was half joking but I've heard feminists make homophobic remarks. As for racism, it should be obvious that SJWs judge people by the colour of their skin.

(not the content of their character like MLK espoused)

I lumped feminism with homophobia and racism because all three are the promotion of one demographic above another. All three of them are antithetical to equality or egalitarianism.

Here's a fun video showing how Hollywood and the news media mainstream SJW views.

How by talking about racism and the inequality faced by African Americans, They help raise awareness for an important issue. You know their is a 1/3 chance that a Black male born today will go to prison, and in Mississippi 40% of African Americans live in poverty.

I recommend you read Religious restoration acts you will see their is a large level of LGBT discrimination nationwide.

Feminism is valid as if you look at statistics very few money are in the positions of CEOs and managers and in addition their representation in Congress is small.

Yes it's terrible that US prison population is mostly made up of black males. This is a serious issue.

While SJWs may highlight this issue I can't see that they've done anything to solve it.

Just spreading awareness of a problem doesn't actually solve it. This is what you call slacktivism. It is not only used by SJWs.

The reason why I think SJW is racist is because they take serious racial issues like black males being many times more likely to end up in prison and turn them women's issues.

Here's an example from everydayfeminism.com




So instead of talking about how black guys are more likely to end up in prison, they're talking about how black girls are more likely to end up in prison. More likely than white girls? Yes. More likely than black guys? No. There are vastly more black guys in prison than black girls.




I'm sure we know that "fastest growing" group doesn't mean "largest group" as they would like to imply. Again they're distracting from the way America's racist prison system mainly targets black men.




Now we come to a minority among minorities. Given that trans people are 0.3% if the general population I'm sure that "trans women of color" are much less than 1% of the prison population.

True that any minority group, no matter how small should be subject to discrimination but I'm more concerned for the millions of black men and boys in prison than for the scores of black trans women.

One of the reasons why I don't like feminists is because they think that serious issues facing impoverished black people should take a back seat to issues facing middle class white women.

Your example of the number of female CEOs is very much an issue affecting upper middle class white women. I'm sure the impoverished black women or the impoverished lower class white women who struggle to feed their kids on what Walmart pays them would not shed any tears for for a white female executive who didn't get promoted to CEO.

Nor would these impoverished women shed any tears for an upper middle class woman who gets paid $120,000 per year while her male colleague gets paid $140,000 per year.

One of the problems is that SJWs largely ignore issues of class. Yes, blacks, gays and trans people are all marginalised by society. And so are poor people.

SJWs never seem to mention the lower class as a marginalised group even though they certainly are.I get it. SJWs are the champions of gay rights. Until a gay man disagrees with them, then they physically attack him like they did to Milo Yiannopoulos.

They even insult women who disagree with them.

Yes, feminists can be homophobic. Here's a nice example of homophobia from feminist Donna Hilton, who tortured a man for two weeks before killing him and was also a speaker at the 2017 Women's March on DC.

Feminists get things done.

Self-identified "egalitarians" say "I'm in favour of equality, which is what we have, whoopee!", then ignore or rationalise any examples of inequality. From my experience, it is a term which is largely used by conservatives who know it is wrong to actively discriminate or call black people names.

Some present feminist issues in the "developed world": the wage gap(s), access to family planning services, affordable childcare, sexual assault (particularly wrt. sympathy for rapists), and straight-up discrimination, particularly in the creative arts.

So no given example can be ever disputed?

I interpreted this as something akin to "are you saying dissent is wrong?", although I can see several alternatives which are similarly plausible. If my interpretation is wrong then please tell me.

Disagreement is completely healthy and to be encouraged. What I find suspicious is someone who is convinced that true equality exists despite abundant evidence to the contrary, and who persistently ignores that evidence, while also claiming to be in favour of equality. I know confirmation bias is a powerful thing, so they're probably not malicious, but I can't help finding myself ascribing bad motives to these people.

The number of times I've seen conversations like this...
"Women are paid less than men."
"Well, that's because they work shorter hours and take career breaks!"
"One of the most commonly cited reasons for reducing hours is to take care of children."
"Well that's a CHOICE. You can always choose to pay for childcare!"
"Childcare is prohibitively expensive. Could we get a government subsidy?"
"And take tax money from hard working men? I don't think so!"
"OK, what about allowing in immigrants to do the work for lower wages?"
"And steal our jobs? Can't you just ask your husband to help out?"
"Well, if I have a husband, then he'll get paid more because he has a family to support, whereas my opportunities will be restricted because I'm expected to worry more about my family, so economically..."
"AHA! A choice! True equality has been achieved!"

Yes there is evidence and evidence can be disputed. Evidence might be legit or it might not be. What bothers me is that saying anyone who disagrees with an idea is "rationalising" lacks falsifiability (yes I know that's a scientific term and we're not discussing science).

If someone presented faulty evidence and then someone else pointed out why the evidence is faulty, they could say they're "rationalising".

I've even seen people say "the fact that you disagree with me is further proof that I'm right". What kind of circular argument is that?

If Andrew disagrees with Bob and Bob is actually wrong, then Andrew's disagreement would not be evidence that Bob is right.

Bob might be genuinely wrong about something yet anyone who disagrees is "rationaling". Bob might present dubious evidence for his case and if someone calls his evidence into doubt they're "rationalising". Even if the evidence is actually doubtful.

The problem with Bob's tactic is that he doesn't allow for the possibility that he might be wrong. If Bob was actually wrong then Andrew wouldn't be "rationionalising".

Don't you mean mother's are paid less? That's not discrimination against women, that's discrimination against mothers.

Honestly childcare should be subsidised. But don't rely on it too heavily, I think children still need time with both of their parents.Married couples typically combine their income and their cost of living. Many of them even keep joint bank accounts.

Since both husband and wife have a shared income and a shared cost of living it makes little difference other than keeping score. Anyway as you suggested this could be solved by subsidising childcare.

The real victims are single parents who don't have a shared income. They need subsidised childcare the most of all.

Here's an example of SJW. Feel free to dispute it or argue against it.



So the new idea from SJW is that it's ok to use violence against people you disagree with. Not violence in self-defence but against people you disagree with.

Honestly Richard Spencer is a terrible person. His ultra right-wing ideas deserve to mocked and ridiculed. His ridiculous ideas should be disputed, debated and satirised.

But no one should be punched in any scenario that doesn't involve self-defence. Apparently SJWs are too lazy to come up with an actual argument to use against this easiest of ultra right-wing targets. These SJWs want to use brawn as a substitute for brains.

What bothers me most is how extremely entitled this sounds. That anyone who has the "wrong opinion" should be subject to acts of violence.

Who decides which opinion is the "wrong opinion"? Why the self-declared moral authority that is SJW of course.

The folks who think they can create new moral principles on a whim and if anyone disagrees they're objectively wrong because they say so.

If SJWs were right that it's morally acceptable to use violence on people you disagree with (and it isn't) then what's to stop their opponents from using violence against them? Nothing more than the SJW idea that they're always objectively right because they say so.

This is even worse than the old SJW tactic of silencing people with different opinions or shaming them through the use of labels.

It's quite appalling that in the 1960s Berkeley University was the center of the free speech movement and now they're the center of the SJW censorship movement. University students should be exposed to a broad range of ideas, not have them censored by the self-declared moral authority. Why can't diversity include diversity of thought?

Honestly, I don't want to live in a world where debates are settled through violence. I don't want to live in a world where people can be silenced for having a different opinion. I want to live in a world where debates are settled in a civil discussion. SJWs should have their ideas heard as well, but they shouldn't win the debate through force. I want to live in a world where everyone can have a civil discussion and be heard.

I don't "identify as an egalitarian", it's a principle I hold to, and it's one found across the (arbitrary) left-right spectrum. Egalitarianism is equality under the law and equality of opportunity - period. It doesn't mean levelling the playing field for the poor (though I'm in favour of (e.g.) state subsidised education amongst other social policies). It doesn't mean chopping off your limbs because you have an advantage over the limbless.

So it's more "I'm in favour of equality under the law, which we have, and we can't do any more than this without heavy government intrusion".



Who is making the argument that "true equality" exists? How are they defining true equality? Are you arguing the semantic notion or the idea that's meant by it?



When and with whom? Here's how that conversation should actually go:

"Women are paid less than men."
"For doing the same work as men?"
"Well no, but they earn less on average"
"So what?"

You know as well as I that the 7x% figure is based on averaging out all wages across all full time jobs in all sectors. You likely know as well as I that men are more likely to work overtime, skip holidays and, in your typical nuclear family, become the primary earner (though this "gap" is closing). You're almost certainly aware that men do the majority of dangerous jobs, that despite a push to get women into STEM, they're making different choices.

You also presumably know full well that the outcomes for men and women in their 20's is the opposite, which is the result of larger numbers of women graduates and a gradual shift in social attitudes. There's nothing to fix here, it's a non-issue. So to the rest of the "conversation".

"One of the most commonly cited reasons for reducing hours is to take care of children."
"Yep. My hours were reduced to zero upon becoming a father, and they're not likely to rise until our child is in school. This is a choice that affects men and women in exactly the same way."

"Childcare is prohibitively expensive. Could we get a government subsidy?"
"What kind of childcare do you want the government to pay for that it doesn't already subsidise? Why not provide a private service yourself if you believe there's a gap in the market? Have you looked into the options available for financing your own business?"

"OK, what about allowing in immigrants to do the work for lower wages?"
"Why do you want to drive down wages by saturating the workforce with cheap labour? Isn't that just going to create more wage disparity? Are you not also in favour of a minimum wage?"

"Well, if I have a husband, then he'll get paid more because he has a family to support, whereas my opportunities will be restricted because I'm expected to worry more about my family, so economically..."
"Does your husband have a higher earning potential than you? If so, you've made a practical choice. If not, why isn't he at home changing dirty nappies and doing the housework, like me? Did you toss a coin?"



Technically it's discrimination against people who choose to have a gap in their employment. And as I hope I've made clear, it affects fathers too.



One of the main reasons I'm in favour of subsidised childcare is because it's far, far better to have single parents working than have them reliant upon benefits for years and all but destroying their employment options when they finally re-enter the workforce. That's a depressing trap that many (especially young) mothers fall into all too easily.

Which things are feminists getting done?

Remember that raising awareness of a problem doesn't actually solve it.

For SJWs it's all about what you "identify" as. They turn everything into identity politics.

When they say they think egalitarianism is wrong, they reveal their true colours.Yes it does. Who is raptor?

Indeed. Of course the partisan thinking prevalent in the US means you can often draw a lot of conclusions about someone when you know only a handful of the policies they support. That's an indictment of how politics is presented to the people, as much as it is of the people themselves.




Multi-tabbed and copy/pasted the wrong quotebox. Sorry about that, Retro, it's been a long weekend and it's only halfway done!



And now the site is deleting my edits, logging me out when I hit submit, etc. Clearly a sign I should go to bed.

I think they reveal their true colours as soon as they open their mouths, to be fair.

Yes. This is evidenced by they way some of them think that if someone supports Trump they're automatically a white supremacist.

I don't even like Trump but if someone states they support him I'm not going to infer anything else into their statement.



I wouldn't vote for Trump but I wouldn't deny anyone who voted for him their right to vote. I wouldn't say they're "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it" like Hillary did just because they didn't vote for the same person I did.


No worries.

Avoid Tumblr and Twitter.