Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

The problem of SJWs

Page 28 of 108 [ 1723 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 ... 108  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

anagram
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Nov 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,433
Location: 4 Nov 2012

05 Oct 2016, 6:15 pm

AspE wrote:
I understand that, it's what founded the KKK.

lol

what else can i say, really


_________________
404


Drake
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,577

05 Oct 2016, 6:23 pm

anagram wrote:
there's a lot of pressure in "society" ("capitalist" society? "western" society? "american" society? "21st-century american" society? i don't know) for people to be the makers of their own destiny. there's a reason why "loser" is such a big term of abuse (though not [yet] in my language), and why people get so hung-up over it. it's because life is seen as a competition. and when life is a competition and you're taught either that your success is entirely up to you (which is utterly false) or that it's not up to you at all (also utterly false, obviously), then that's a big problem

and apparently large sections of "society" (again, i don't know for sure the scope of what "society" means here) are taught one extreme while other sections are taught the opposite extreme. and then they fight over it, while someone else profits from it. "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. fight over race and whatnot. or immigration. gender. whatever. doesn't matter. as long as you do not pay attention to the man behind the curtain. or woman, for that matter"

Well life is a competition. But it's not in such a way that everyone is expected the same of. And really I don't know what else to say. In terms of work, do you have a problem with meritocracy? Because if you don't, I don't see what problem you have with my comment.



AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

05 Oct 2016, 6:28 pm

adifferentname wrote:
Why? To what end? How is token diversity beneficial?

Token diversity is not all that beneficial. Real diversity which reflects our society will go a long way to curing our problems.

Quote:
They are, especially financially, but I don't see a problem with that. The NBA and NFL (like all sports) operate as a meritocracy. The best players rise to the top, regardless of demographics. If that means a disproportionately high or low number of black sportsmen in the NBA, why would it matter?

The only reason it doesn't matter very much is because there are very few professional athletes. So it's not the social problem that underemployed minorities are.

AspE wrote:
The phrase I used was "social justice dogma". It's right there, in the post you quoted. I'm finding it hard not to assume bad faith considering how swiftly you turned it into a strawman.

Or is it your desire to redirect the conversation towards the concept of social justice itself? If so, my question is simple enough.

What, to you, is social justice?

The elimination of injustice. The attempt to include all people in the wealth and power currently enjoyed disproportionately by rich white people.

Quote:
What inherent racism? Point it out - by which I mean genuine cases of actual racism that require attention. Which aspects of society are inherently racist?

College admissions, housing, hiring, wages, policing, criminal justice, nutrition, voting, ... do you want more?

Quote:
You have literally no idea how much racism someone has experienced by nature of the colour of their skin. The suggestion that you can make such distinctions, purely on the grounds of skin tone, is inescapably racist.

Um, what the hell? The idea that I can make a judgement on how racist our society is, is racist?



AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

05 Oct 2016, 6:36 pm

Drake wrote:
As for your question, it shouldn't be why not, it should be why. Because if I ever got turned down for something, lost out on something to an inferior person just because they didn't have a dick between their legs, or their skin was different to mine, or they were LGBTQ, I would raise more hell than I ever have in my life.

No one is suggesting that. But perhaps the advantages that made you seem superior were the result of your privilege. For instance you might have been part of a social network that connected you to powerful people and may have given you recommendations that led to you getting a prestigious degree. While an equally smart person may have had to make due with lesser institutions of learning. Superficially, your degree seems superior, but that other person might have done just as well given the opportunities you got. So maybe if they got the opportunity, for instance in a new job or graduate school, they would get a chance to prove themselves. Superior and inferior isn't always so clear cut.



sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

05 Oct 2016, 6:40 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
Facebook is not real life---because people use it to hide behind the anonymity of the Internet. People frequently become a cartoon version of themselves.

Because people don't hide behind masks out in public. Online I just as real as being in person. If anything people show. Ore of themselves online then in person



Drake
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,577

05 Oct 2016, 6:50 pm

AspE wrote:
Drake wrote:
As for your question, it shouldn't be why not, it should be why. Because if I ever got turned down for something, lost out on something to an inferior person just because they didn't have a dick between their legs, or their skin was different to mine, or they were LGBTQ, I would raise more hell than I ever have in my life.

No one is suggesting that. But perhaps the advantages that made you seem superior were the result of your privilege. For instance you might have been part of a social network that connected you to powerful people and may have given you recommendations that led to you getting a prestigious degree. While an equally smart person may have had to make due with lesser institutions of learning. Superficially, your degree seems superior, but that other person might have done just as well given the opportunities you got. So maybe if they got the opportunity, for instance in a new job or graduate school, they would get a chance to prove themselves. Superior and inferior isn't always so clear cut.

I wouldn't have a problem with someone choosing someone inferior in the moment if they thought they had greater potential. It's quite possible to be lacking on the CV but to still make a powerful impression in the interview. This kind of reasoning would not bother me.



anagram
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Nov 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,433
Location: 4 Nov 2012

05 Oct 2016, 6:58 pm

Drake wrote:
In terms of work, do you have a problem with meritocracy?

sort of. absolute meritocracy is obviously and inevitably a bad thing for a section of the population in any society (people with disabilities, in particular). how to address that issue is a complex matter though, with no obvious best solution. for example, should people with disabilities always be compensated by the state without having to work for their money? that seems unfair. but then, should they always be subjected to the exact same standards as everybody else? well, then they're screwed and there's nothing they can do about it. it sounds unfair too. such is life. absolute fairness is impossible. society is made of compromises (yep, i'll keep repeating it again and again)

Quote:
Because if you don't, I don't see what problem you have with my comment.

i don't really have a problem with it. it's just a very weak argument, and i guess today i'm in the mood for nitpicking :lol:. maybe you meant something more nuanced than what you actually said, but then that's another story

and i don't actually believe life is a competition. there's competition involved in it, but that's different


_________________
404


anagram
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Nov 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,433
Location: 4 Nov 2012

05 Oct 2016, 7:07 pm

AspE wrote:
But perhaps the advantages that made you seem superior were the result of your privilege. For instance you might have been part of a social network that connected you to powerful people and may have given you recommendations that led to you getting a prestigious degree. While an equally smart person may have had to make due with lesser institutions of learning. Superficially, your degree seems superior, but that other person might have done just as well given the opportunities you got. So maybe if they got the opportunity, for instance in a new job or graduate school, they would get a chance to prove themselves. Superior and inferior isn't always so clear cut.

despite all the things you say that i totally disagree with (and your kkk arguments and whatnot... lol), that ^ is actually very true and relevant


_________________
404


Drake
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,577

05 Oct 2016, 7:11 pm

anagram wrote:
Drake wrote:
In terms of work, do you have a problem with meritocracy?

sort of. absolute meritocracy is obviously and inevitably a bad thing for a section of the population in any society (people with disabilities, in particular). how to address that issue is a complex matter though, with no obvious best solution. for example, should people with disabilities always be compensated by the state without having to work for their money? that seems unfair. but then, should they always be subjected to the exact same standards as everybody else? well, then they're screwed and there's nothing they can do about it. it sounds unfair too. such is life. absolute fairness is impossible. society is made of compromises (yep, i'll keep repeating it again and again)

Quote:
Because if you don't, I don't see what problem you have with my comment.

i don't really have a problem with it. it's just a very weak argument, and i guess today i'm in the mood for nitpicking :lol:. maybe you meant something more nuanced than what you actually said, but then that's another story

and i don't actually believe life is a competition. there's competition involved in it, but that's different

Yes, perhaps you're just being precise while I'm relying on you to fill in some blanks. Like I don't believe all of life is a competition, and I'm not keen on overcompetitive people. But there are a plenty of cases where it is.



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

05 Oct 2016, 7:25 pm

AspE wrote:
Token diversity is not all that beneficial. Real diversity which reflects our society will go a long way to curing our problems.


"Real diversity" is diversity of opinion and ideas, not diversity of skin tone.

Quote:
The only reason it doesn't matter very much is because there are very few professional athletes. So it's not the social problem that underemployed minorities are.


So you would accept a decision by the NBA to disallow black competitors?

The reason it doesn't matter is because the NBA and its associated partners care primarily about results - both on the field of play and off it.

Quote:
The elimination of injustice. The attempt to include all people in the wealth and power currently enjoyed disproportionately by rich white people.


So you have an impossible goal, and your methodology necessitates violence? That doesn't seem like a very useful definition.

Quote:
Quote:
What inherent racism? Point it out - by which I mean genuine cases of actual racism that require attention. Which aspects of society are inherently racist?

College admissions, housing, hiring, wages, policing, criminal justice, nutrition, voting, ... do you want more?


A list of things that you believe are racist is not pointing out racism. Explain what makes them racist.

Quote:
Quote:
You have literally no idea how much racism someone has experienced by nature of the colour of their skin. The suggestion that you can make such distinctions, purely on the grounds of skin tone, is inescapably racist.

Um, what the hell? The idea that I can make a judgement on how racist our society is, is racist?


Do you really need me to explain why what you said was racist, or is your ego wired in such a manner as to make acceptance of such impossible? I have zero appetite for Sisyphean tasks.



Darmok
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,030
Location: New England

05 Oct 2016, 7:58 pm

adifferentname wrote:
I have zero appetite for Sisyphean tasks.


That's why I never argue with either creationists or SJWs. :D :lol:


_________________
 
There Are Four Lights!


adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

05 Oct 2016, 8:16 pm

Darmok wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
I have zero appetite for Sisyphean tasks.


That's why I never argue with either creationists or SJWs. :D :lol:


A fair point, well made.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

05 Oct 2016, 8:19 pm

Nah...that rock is too heavy...Unless I was Atlas!



Farunel
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 6 Oct 2016
Age: 28
Gender: Female
Posts: 124
Location: Oregon

06 Oct 2016, 8:02 pm

I agree in a lot of ways to the main point. I've never really considered myself necessarily anti-swj. But I do consider myself anti-stupid. Which... happens to encompass a lot of people who are swj types(tumblr). There's compassion, and then there's compassion. SWJ's seem to think that everything about society is problematic, and that they need to defend everyone against some great evil.

The issue is, I find that many of them do not address real problems that we encounter, disregarding or simply completely ignoring real-world problems that actually hurt people. Rather than their so-called "micro-aggressions"; bearing down on non-issues.

I'm very far left in my views, but swj's... They are like the Alt-Left to the Alt-Right, if you get what I mean.



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

07 Oct 2016, 2:54 am

Farunel wrote:
I agree in a lot of ways to the main point. I've never really considered myself necessarily anti-swj. But I do consider myself anti-stupid. Which... happens to encompass a lot of people who are swj types(tumblr). There's compassion, and then there's compassion. SWJ's seem to think that everything about society is problematic, and that they need to defend everyone against some great evil.

The issue is, I find that many of them do not address real problems that we encounter, disregarding or simply completely ignoring real-world problems that actually hurt people. Rather than their so-called "micro-aggressions"; bearing down on non-issues.

I'm very far left in my views, but swj's... They are like the Alt-Left to the Alt-Right, if you get what I mean.


And you're not alone in that assessment. For anyone not paying attention, the vast majority of people whose political views fall between the extremes of "left" and "right" are utterly fed-up with extremists of any variety. We're especially fed-up of the pathetic tactic of painting moderate critics as belonging to an antagonistic extremist group, based solely on the extremists' inability to think outside a monochromatic dichotomy.



Farunel
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 6 Oct 2016
Age: 28
Gender: Female
Posts: 124
Location: Oregon

07 Oct 2016, 11:26 am

adifferentname wrote:
Farunel wrote:
I agree in a lot of ways to the main point. I've never really considered myself necessarily anti-swj. But I do consider myself anti-stupid. Which... happens to encompass a lot of people who are swj types(tumblr). There's compassion, and then there's compassion. SWJ's seem to think that everything about society is problematic, and that they need to defend everyone against some great evil.

The issue is, I find that many of them do not address real problems that we encounter, disregarding or simply completely ignoring real-world problems that actually hurt people. Rather than their so-called "micro-aggressions"; bearing down on non-issues.

I'm very far left in my views, but swj's... They are like the Alt-Left to the Alt-Right, if you get what I mean.


And you're not alone in that assessment. For anyone not paying attention, the vast majority of people whose political views fall between the extremes of "left" and "right" are utterly fed-up with extremists of any variety. We're especially fed-up of the pathetic tactic of painting moderate critics as belonging to an antagonistic extremist group, based solely on the extremists' inability to think outside a monochromatic dichotomy.


Pretty much just that. The whole "You're WITH us or you're AGAINST us!" black/white type of thought process is absolutely exhausting. And it seems to be what everyone is reverting to now... which is worrisome. I have a strong distaste for extremists of any variety; even people who share my views. Extremist atheists are just as annoying as extremist christians- and extremist lefties are just as annoying as the extremist right.

I don't really know why society has a hard time adapting to a middling world-view.