The problem of SJWs

Post Reply New Topic

MY PRONOUNS ARE THEY!

Seriously, you cannot parody these people.

i'm filing him under "conspiracy nuts". just like the people and philosophy he's criticizing, he has his points but he uses those points to shift blame as he finds convenient:


it's almost like "the west" is (to this day!) a helpless victim of the commies, with no critical thinking or common sense of its own (and no accountability for the lack of those things). which... sounds familiar

i'm not even questioning the merits of the links he draws. i'm questioning what he's implying. which, let's be honest, is the whole point. it's not like he's talking maths

We very likely have members here who prefer "they/them/their" pronouns--are you mocking the choice of pronouns here? Because if so, that's pretty transphobic. The person in the video identifies as trans (as do many members here) and asked people to use they pronouns when speaking to them--how is that fodder for parody? Should we start mocking WP members who use pronouns other than he/she/him/her? Is that the kind of community you want to foster here?

That was very enlightening, Mr. D. Makes me glad that all of my classes are online and away from the campus.

Special cameo appearance by Dox at 1:15.

Dox, you're wrong. Turns out that you can !

As long as the preferred pronoun rule is being applied equally, I'm okay with it.

With that in mind, my preferred pronouns are either "your majesty" or simply "majesty". I shall consider any failure to use my preferred pronouns as a deeply offensive devaluation of my personal experience.

Kamiyu910, you are a breath of fresh air.

adifferentname is now adifferentpronoun.

I don't think I've ever seen an SJW bring this up except in response to a racist saying that lower scores for black students show that they are less intelligent. It's impressive to spin that as the SJW being racist.

Maybe it's not true, but it's definitely not racist. It's not anti-French to point out that the reason the French students did worse on the test was that it was in English.


There are a few different points tied up here.

Generally speaking, I think "what is a white person?" would get different answers from different people depending on who you asked, and conservative-progressive politics wouldn't have anything to do with them.

White privilege isn't anything to be ashamed of and anyone who tells you otherwise is an idiot. It's just a fact that goes along with being white in a society that is racist towards non-whites. You don't have to atone for the sins of other white people, that's plainly ridiculous.

Being rich doesn't suddenly stop someone from being black. There's the story of the woman who nearly got committed for saying she was rich, successful, and followed by Obama on Twitter, because the police assumed she was homeless and crazy based on the colour of her skin. Kanye West still gets "randomly" searched every time he goes through the airport.

It's true that some people don't focus enough on class - but I actually see lots of people on tumblr talking about the reality of poverty and such. I think economic class privilege is a mainstream idea in social justice circles.


There are definitely some places where being white is a disadvantage. Zimbabwe is the obvious one. I can't comment on Fontana, CA, but Hispanic is something of an umbrella term.

Even in non-white areas, white people often have white privilege. f**k, that's usually where it's most obvious that you're being treated differently. And if there are authority figures around, they're (usually) still going to favour the white person.


Again, I don't think that's what's really happening. Sometimes people create clubs where they can talk with people who are part of their group without needing to worry about the out-group. I don't think there are many cases of them asking authorities to physically segregate spaces.

You might have a problem with that, but you'd be a hypocrite - you're posting in one right now.


Again, these are straw SJWs. I don't think it's helpful to talk like this. Obviously it is easy, but so is saying "libertarians are against all law enforcement" - doesn't make it true or productive. Cite a specific example and criticise them, don't criticise a group of varied ideology.

In actuality, I see lots of discussion about different races. Discussions about the wage gap, for example, usually talk about white, black, and Latinx. Asians come up in discussions about stereotyping, but there aren't as many social issues associated with that group in America. Native Americans also come up, but they're such a small group that data is often a problem.


I agree with much of what I deleted - shaming culture and such are often ridiculous. I don't think they're destroying multiple countries by any stretch of the imagination, but damaging hundreds of lives, sure. On balance they're probably up on most ideologies.

Could you provide an example of someone focusing on mansplaining or microaggressions to the detriment of major problems?

Again, I think the people who talk about police violence are also those most likely to talk about inner city violence. BLM protestors sing Kendrick Lamar songs at rallies. I'm sure there are some who focus on police violence ahead of inner city violence, but in my experience they go together.

I'll start giving credit to the people who make this criticism when they actually do something to solve inner city violence, rather than just using it to bash people who want to solve another problem. One could just as easily say that you shouldn't go after SJWs when China has a totalitarian government but that's obviously ridiculous.

lol, i wonder how come anyone actually thinks that there is any objective truth when it comes to politics

more specifically:

truth is a compromise of perceptions that differ to varying degrees depending on context and subject matter. there is no ultimate truth, there's only interpretations. and in politics that does mean agendas. everybody's interests (collective and individual) conflict with everybody else's to some extent


history is told by the victors. that's no secret. that's the only thing that grants any "moral superiority". racism, colonialism, doesn't matter. no successful empire of any type would have come to be (and to win over historical competitors) without horrible atrocities. just think of hiroshima and nagasaki and imagine how the u.s. would be remembered if it hadn't won the war


that's actually true. all such standards have a cultural basis. morals don't exist in a vacuum. it all depends on cultural systems (some of which are completely incompatible with others)


but that's actually false. anyone who claims that there are such standards is probably ignorant (often willfully so, and that's usually the problem)


sort of. first off, "third world" sounds to me like just a euphemism for the euro- or more often american-centric idea of "rest of the world", which might as well be called "mexistan". it's not a meaningful expression, except as a loaded and conveniently vague term in political debate. "built on ruthless exploitation", well, maybe. but that exploitation is largely pacific (it's not like anybody is buying shoes and iphones made in afghanistan). how come?...


...simple. it's not "westerners" or "third-worlders". it's capitalists (and/or equivalent counterparts) on both sides. not that capitalists are the only brand of ruthlessly exploitative people on earth and in history. as far as i know, the british didn't really capture or enslave many people in africa. what they did instead was spark and stimulate a type of local economy where competing clans fought each other and then captured and sold prisoners as slaves to the british


it's both. but social issues should be addressed collectively (through governments and other representative/mediating institutions) and individual transgressions should be addressed individually


lol. obviously not. but (unlike what many people seem to assume in practice), that doesn't imply that people should be equated to groups and then automatically treated or considered as guilty of something until proven innocent. they may be statistically more likely to be (or more likely to be unfairly "disadvantaged" in society, for that matter), but then if you equate statistics to individuals (which seems to be an all-too-common practice in all types of "social justice"-related discussions and arguments), you perpetuate a self-fulfilling prophecy. it's a type of cultural determinism which resembles creationism


i think that's ww2 nukes and vietnam still haunting americans. think about how the whole "weapons of mass destruction" thing as the ultimate evil to be neutralized actually worked as a rationalization (and the whole thing was so bizarre. because if saddam would actually have had any wmd's, they would probably have been deliberately supplied by americans). and the vietnam war was just too senseless. it was too much cognitive dissonance to be resolved at once

on one hand you'll have people struggling to justify the rightfulness of heinous acts and policies (instead of just admitting that they were wrong in supporting those acts or policies), which tends to act as justification for more heinous acts and policies, and on the other hand you'll have people insisting that everybody is directly responsible for the personal suffering of everybody who was ever harmed by a group they belong to (regardless if they belong to it passively or actively). one is fuel, the other is oxygen

nazi germany lost their empire, but capitalist america never did. so there's an ongoing demand for aggressive justification. there may or may not be a marxist background to that incarnation of those ideas, but that doesn't matter. looking at it from the outside, all this ongoing polarization seems very much like "an american thing" to me. i don't think sjw's and "the commies" are a foreign element. they're just the other side of that same coin. to me, the real underpinning of it all seems to be a cultural fixation on moral superiority (which gets all the more conflicted as the country reaches the end of an era). a search for the "divine right" to rule the world, when in reality it has nothing to do with moral rights and it's all just power and economy as always

even sjw types seem to believe that mexistan needs or wants to be fixed by the u.s. (or by "the west" or whatever). but in reality that's like a reverse-midas touch, and nobody wants that. someone wrote in a recent post in another thread that "trump has the best foreign policy". that's one of the most ludicrous things i've ever heard. if you want to vote for a nazionalist, then by all means, do it. but don't pretend he has any idea of foreign policy other than "murica rulz" (which can be translated into any other language as "make america hated again". that's like a jihadist's dream come true)

Last edited by anagram on 24 Sep 2016, 8:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I was very high at the time...

Actually, I'm mocking the over-reaction to a pretty common occurrence when you insist that anyone address you in a non-standard way, just as I would mock someone who, say, insists on being addressed as Doctor rather than Mister and gets indignant about it.



I prefer transfatigued.



Being trans provides some sort of "can't be made fun of for acting ridiculous" privilege? Because demanding to be addressed as "they", then throwing a hissy fit about it is pretty ridiculous.



I'd like to foster a community where people are free to speak openly without fear of being labeled "transphobic" because they're not up the latest gender studies vocabulary and theory, and where ridiculous behavior gets mocked regardless of who's doing it.

Asking to be addressed as they instead of he/she is not ridiculous, and neither is it "throwing a hissy fit" (the person got visibly upset when they asked nicely to be referred to as "they" and their request was ignored.) And no matter what you'd like to label it, it is transphobic to mock trans people for asking people to refer to them with they/them pronouns instead of he/she. Trans people are already a vulnerable population (being constantly attacked and mocked will do that to people--just do a google search on transgender suicide and depression statistics as well as violence against trans people if you doubt me) and you are contributing to a climate of transphobia here on WP for our transgender members that they already have to navigate through every day of their lives. Bullying and mocking a vulnerable population might make you feel cool and important or whatever, but it reflects very poorly on your character.

I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that WP exists as an "autism safe-space" of sorts. When people start pushing and preferencing other agendas and trying to enforce ideological perspectives and behaviours which are in total opposition to the open and accepting community that Dox is suggesting here, I start to consider alternative outlets. I'm sure the same is true of others.

We aren't all on board with so called "progressive" politics for a whole host of reasons. Anyone who is incapable of respecting this, of engaging in discourse with people whose ideology is not the same as their own without resorting to personal attacks and unqualified assessments of character, who would rather paint themselves as victims and police the language of others rather than exploring ideas on their merits, needs to take a good, long look at themselves.

Of course, if your dream is of a WP that is cleansed of those who don't fall into your in-group, which has a homogeneous ideological perspective and in which dissenters are verbally lynched for their non-conformity to the "party" line, feel free to engage in all the bigotry and intolerance you like.

As the old adage goes:

Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.

let's be honest though. why make yourself a target if you believe you're vulnerable. that doesn't make any sense

if someone wants to physically change their sex for whatever reason, that's none of my business. it they want the right to also change it legally, it's still none of my business. but if they want to invent new genders with new rules that don't exist yet, they can't simply expect everybody to conform to it. they didn't want to conform to existing genders. okay. but then why does anyone have the obligation to conform to theirs? they don't have the obligation to follow the general norms, but everybody else has the obligation to follow their individual norms? again, it doesn't make any sense

i think this actually has nothing to do with gender issues. gender is just one of the trendy vehicles nowadays for special-treatment mentality. like i said, if someone wants to change their sex, it's none of my business. if they're annoyed at how i address them as "the wrong gender" for no reason other than habit or convention or plain confusion, that's still none of my business. if they feel persecuted by me and want distance from me for that reason, it's still none of my business. if they politely ask me to change the way how i refer to them, that's a favor i probably i won't mind doing. but if they demand it in any way, i will refuse to do it