The problem of SJWs

Post Reply New Topic

Yeah, they should be referred to more as the Regressive Left, or Bolsheviks. There are still plenty of those on the left who disagree with the Bolshevik ideology.

The problem is that they don't support all human rights. Life is the first basic human right because without it, we wouldn't be here.

Look at Hillary Clinton for example. Look at what she believes in. She believes in abortion at all stages of pregnancy. If that's not bullying, what could it be? She's the modern day incarnation of Adolf Hitler in the sense that she doesn't believe that people with disabilities should be born.

regardless of your stance on abortion, and regardless of hers (and regardless of mine, which differs from both yours and hers), that says absolutely nothing about the universality of her stance among "the left"

The problem with SJW's is the lack of a fixed goal, or knowable destination, at which point, everyone can agree that they have succeeded and finally be happy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG4jhlPLVVs
SJW-ism is the siege mentality, to Bastiat's Broken Window.

They are iconoclasts, so are physically-endangered by a 'dictatorship of the proletariat', or purge, should they ever win.

They can have no established truth's, or they will become the establishment.

Then, they become subject to the same Allinksy tactics, they use on others.

She believes in choice, that's the opposite of bullying.

my opinion (and i admit that it may be a little too simplistic when i put it this way, but to me it still makes a lot of sense anyway) is that "sjw-ism" is the (partly literal, partly metaphorical) politicization and collectivization of borderline personality disorder patterns as a legitimate way of dealing with conflicts of interest, based on all-around wishful thinking and on the illusion that conflicts of interest aren't an inherent component of society and of human existence itself

going from an individual thing into a collective one. validating and encouraging what's supposed to be mitigated and modulated instead. rationalizing denial and rejection of responsibility for personal and interpersonal failures as if those are a consequence of martyrdom for a cause. and, while the cause may even be a real and worthy one at times, it is essentially shaped (and constantly reshaped) by the personal failures of self-proclaimed activists rather than the other way around

there's of course the question of why the phenomenon would take such proportions, assuming that it is really a reflection of individual issues. it's certainly a very complex thing, but i think this is a major part of the reason:

there's no way not to feel guilty when you grow up like that. and it's not surprising that kids (and eventually adults) who already have trouble with feelings of guilt for other reasons, and have trouble taking responsibility for their choices and actions, would blame some big and mighty but nebulous enemy ("western society", "conservatives", "white people", "men", "heteros" and so on) for their incurable feelings of guilt, and that they would be very often misguided at it when it comes down to who exactly does that abstract enemy translate to in reality and, maybe most importantly, why

You're right. Than again, I know nothing.

Abortion is murder, any way you look at it.

She believes in the choice of bullying.

Murder is the illegal killing of persons.

Abortion is the legal killing of non-persons.

Abortion isn't murder, any way you look at it.

You may as well say that soap is murder because it kills bacteria.

...because babies are not people right?

If you have a narrow perspective, perhaps.

There's no consensus of agreement as to what stage of in utero development we should consider eligible for the right to life. The limitations set by abortion laws are often informed only by medical opinion on the health of the mother, without consideration for that question "when do human rights apply?".

Further, considering you live in the UK, you should be aware that abortions remain illegal at any stage in Northern Ireland unless a doctor deems it necessary "only to save the life of the mother".

Whether or not abortion constitutes murder depends entirely upon whose soil you're currently standing.

Human rights apply to the woman, whom consensus determines to have the right to bodily autonomy. The fetus is not a person. Not a happy situation, but not an immoral one.

Hmm....no, once a fetus exhibits brain activity, then it's a person - sorry but I can't see how scientifically be other than that- at this stage it's not simply a group of cells. I don't believe in souls so I am talking entirely from biological point of view. Clinical death is often determined once the brain stops total activity.

I am not against abortion though, some cases really are better not to be born to life - I am just arguing against the idea that a fetus is not a person.

It might not be conscious - as much as a newborn isn't much conscious.

Last edited by The_Face_of_Boo on 11 Nov 2016, 5:22 am, edited 2 times in total.

The fetus is genetically human, the difference is self-consciousness. The fetus is not self-aware like a full grown human. Abortion is a case where two claims come into conflict; neither resolution is necessarily good, but to resolve it we have to compare the rights of the claimants. The fetus' are not strong enough to override the mother's. This issue is about women's right to bodily autonomy.