The problem of SJWs

Post Reply New Topic

Well don't social justice warriors have some valid concerns when it comes to feminism and LGBT rights.

If you go to states such as Mississippi for instance, you are allowed to refuse employment and service to someone provided they are LGBT. If we ignore Social justice here what we are doing is allowing laws such as these to take place and not be changed. You act like the left is oppressing others but the thing is in so many states that is actually not the case it is the opposite. LGBT people are allowed to be denied basic human rights that are open to me and you.
Another example in the state of Alabama for instance, LGBT discrimination is unrecognized. Now consider for a moment what the effects of this might be, a gay person can be paid less on the grounds of their sexuality and not be allowed to file a complaint for discrimination against this. In many of these states there were unenforceable laws against Sodomy until the 2000s, if laws against sodomy were considered acceptable than it is clear many of these states have anti-homosexual beliefs.

I have to say the concerns of moderate feminists may be legitimate. Trump’s Vice President for instance, Mike Pence actually favours repealing Roe V Wade. The effect of this law is that women will no longer be able to have abortions, (Their reproductive right) nationwide and those that do risk legal repercussions in their own states. Feminism in this case we can say is justified as there is a legitimate concern over the rights of women being infringed on. Planned Parenthood is another example as well, this organization has been credited with giving women, the necessary health services they need. When Republicans take moves to defund the organization it can be said that a cause for advocating for women is justified as society is moving against a service women need.

I am not going to talk about the prevalence of certain attitudes. But look at this for instance, in the United States congress only twenty of the United States 100 senators are actually women. I am not here to rush to conclusions on why this is, but since women are so underrepresented it could be possible that there is a perception in society about women being less capable for leadership. The same can be shown in multiple countries in the Western World. Take Australia for instance, a bureau of statistics has reported that only around 15% of women in managerial positions are female. In some US states, we are even left with a case such as Mississippi’s where no female, governor, senator or US representative has ever been elected. If women in positions of power are so uneven then isn’t there something we need to change in society. Again this paragraph was to cite statistics; I am not going to point fingers at the reasons for this.

SJW is a strawman, used to dismiss possibly valid claims.

Exactly. If you want to look at the prevalence of certain attitudes just look at recent history. In the 1990s Republicans nominated a outspoken, Hitler apologist and segregationist, David Duke to be governor of Louisiana. How can people seriously say that racism is a dead issue when a large number of people are still willing to hand it support.

The same can be shown in Republican Primaries. Pat Buchanan for instance is a socially conservative, Holocaust denier. In the 1996 Republican Primaries he received over 20% of the vote. How can one say that the Alt-Right and other groups advocating racism don't exist to a large level when they have been influential in politics for decades.

Because it's an intentional and dishonest attempt at distraction. If you're too busy apologizing for or condemning strawman justice warriors you're not condemning social injustice and right-wing social injustice warriors. The white supremacist far-right is a myth, now start apologizing for your allies and their imagined crimes.

Okay which side do you more identify with?

Though the legislation and protests to said legislation will be irksome, I agree.



It describes behaviour, not an ideological position. It's sometimes used to inform a strawman, but it's not one in and of itself.

I think it is intrinsically a strawman. As a concept. Any behaviour that illustrates it is irrelevant because the concept is flawed.

Because you decree it so? You're presenting your opinions as facts again.

Social Justice Warrior does in fact describe an ideological position. I mean just look at the first two words "Social Justice" it shows that the person considers them-self a fighter for social justice. By the logic you are using an "Islamic Militant" has no ideological position it is just behavior they are showing.

Find a new tune.

By way of a reminder, I'm the one arguing that we should base abortion laws on sentience, not the statistical viability of live birth.

There are several ways to nullify personhood. Dead humans, humans in persistent vegetative states, and human yet to develop sentience all lack personhood.


Getting mistaken for a terrorist and shot is a consequence of going outside. When one chooses to engage in going outside, once accepts the possibility of getting mistaken for a terrorist and shot. Therefore, someone who gets mistaken for a terrorist and shot has it coming, unless of course they were forced to go outside.


Legally, sure. Morally? Nah. I'm talking about natural moral rights, not legal rights. Please try to avoid conflating the two.


This seems to be dealing with the legal realities of a hypothetical situation as things presently stand, rather than the moral question originally posed. I'm not sure there's any point in using legal arguments to deal with science-fiction hypotheticals. Presumably the law would be updated to reflect this new situation. I would guess that the interests of the organisations running the artificial wombs would be prioritised ahead of the "rights" of blastocysts.

I'm having trouble keeping up, but are you guys seriously debating which is worse, abortion or killing cats? Maybe I'm misunderstanding and that was a toss-out comparison. Because both things are pretty awful. Let's not choose either if we're choosing.

I don't think most people in these high up political positions, on either side, are rubbing their hands together waiting to make some major change in what we currently do. I don't mind the republicans bringing up adoption because that IS kind of a racket right now- it would be nice if people were supported more when they made that decision and they had more options for going into that. I used to work for a girl who adopted her first daughter in an open arrangement where the birth mom visited the daughter once or twice a year and the daughter always knew she was adopted. The girl was surprised to have a natural daughter she didn't know she could have when the adopted daughter was one. It all worked out very nicely for her family.

On the other hand, it's good for democrats to bring up that women are sometimes in very tough situations when they get pregnant. It would be cruel to tell a woman who has become pregnant as the result of some kind of sexual violence that she has to carry the child to term. And then that the kid has to live with knowing (s)he is her/is grandfather's daughter or whatever, because in a lot of cases it would be easy to eventually find out. We can't assume that just because it hasn't been reported it hasn't happened. And maybe there should be less of a stigma for women with families who do not want to keep their fifth or sixth child. There has to be better options for women in tough situations as well.

There are some good points being brought up in this thread, but let's remember that everyone is on the same side here-everyone is trying to protect quality and quantity of life. We all just have different ideas about what is best to achieve that.

Fourth or 5th child?! I don't know too many with more than 3.


I'm not trying to protect quantity; on the contrary, I think the population needs to be massively reduced.

Oh, yeah-I guess I was trying to say, the best quality for the most people. Not so much populate as much as possible. I don't think many people want that, lol.

If I had more time I would link to some articles, but for right now I'm just dealing with my memory.

There was obviously a population boom with the Baby Boomers. There are much fewer people in Generation X. There was another boom with the Millennials, which is why we hear about them all the time now that they are adults. My son's generation, which is upcoming, seems to be almost as much as the Millennials but not as big. We will see a dip in the population when the Boomers die but it may not be noticeable because the Millennials are close enough in age to Gen X to fill any gaps.

I think the ratio was something like 1:5 boomers and 1:5 millennials to 1 gen x and then something like 1:2 or 1:3 in the "gen z" or "post 9/11" generation.

This is why I chose medical transcription editing to study. I figure there's going to be a lot of health care going on in the next few years.

This isn't remotely true. There are two sides here, and neither is especially concerned with quality or quantity of life. One is arguing that foetuses have the right to life, one is arguing that they don't or that it is trumped by the right to bodily autonomy.

Perhaps you could argue that "everyone is trying to do the right thing", but frankly that's a truism.