The problem of SJWs

Post Reply New Topic

Sergeant Carter accepts your apology

How did this go from being the anti-SJW thread to the pro-abortion thread?

Because most SJW's are "pro-choice."

I'm pretty "pro-choice" myself--especially when it involves rape or a terminal genetic condition.

But I'm not a SJW.

SJWs sometimes make me ashamed to be a leftist.

I saw them first-hand during the US primaries where they insulted Bernie Sanders supporters, calling us "brogressives" and "misogynists" because we didn't support a woman. To them, it's all about identity. They claim to be progressive, but to them being a woman trumped (no pun intended) being the most progressive candidate ever to run for the Democratic nomination.

And this isn't even getting into the shenanigans they get up to in the LGBT community. The "T" in particular. One of the reasons I'm scared to publicly admit I'm nonbinary is because they've taken it and ran with it. We (along with binary transgender people to an extent) now have trouble being taken seriously due to them. Be a woman who wears trousers? Nonbinary! Be a man who wears eyeliner? Nonbinary! Have a gender-neutral name? Nonbinary! They even go as far as to make up their own "aesthetic genders". Like purple? That's a gender. Like cute things? That's a gender. Like sweets? That's a gender. It's insulting to actual transgender and nonbinary people and appears to be a result of their own "no cisgender (not trans)/straight allies allowed" attitude.

Is there a definition of "rights" such that it is based on objective matters such as our biological or physical nature?

what biological or physical law dictates that we should not interfere with a person expressing an opinion, for example.

It doesn't matter to me if there's no "physical or biological" basis for peoples' "rights."

What matters, to me, is that there is a moral basis for "rights." Not a religious one. An ethical one.

That's what I go by.

I almost posted this over in the current Star Wars thread, but then I thought that would be unkind.

File this under, "SJWs Ruin Everything":

‘Star Wars’ Against Hate: ‘Rogue One’ Writers Get Political

Gary Whitta and Chris Weitz post image to show solidarity with those in fear of Trump presidency

Two of the writers who worked on “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story” jumped into the political fray on Friday with not-so subtle anti-Donald Trump messages.

“Please note that the Empire is a white supremacist (human) organization,” screenwriter Chris Weitz tweeted. Gary Whitta, who also worked on the film, followed up by adding, “Opposed by a multi-cultural group led by brave women.”

Both writers also changed their Twitter profile pictures to the symbol of the Rebel Alliance with a safety pin through it. The safety pin has become an anti-Trump symbol, with people wearing them to show minority groups and immigrants that they are safe with person wearing the pin.

http://www.thewrap.com/star-wars-agains ... political/



(Darth Vader didn't need a diaper pin.)

What gives rights their power? Is it the enforcement of those rights, or is it the claiming of those rights? If you believe people have to figure rights out, how on earth can you hold any opinion regarding rights with the assumption that you've arrived at the right conclusion? Who is the authority over said rights? When you divorce rights from human authority, that is when they become wholly arbitrary.

The only rights I'm interested in are those granted and enforced by law, as those are the only rights I am empowered to uphold and defend.



If you mean in the sense of "according to preference" then all rights are arbitrary. If you mean "capricious and poorly-considered" then no, they've been through a process of legal and moral refinement for thousands of years.



In what way are you fortunate? It took 20th century lawmakers to extend those rights universally. You should express your gratitude to SCOTUS.



"Inalienable" and "arbitrary" are not mutually exclusive. If the ideology of the Founding Fathers was sufficient authority, you wouldn't have required the 14th amendment. I'd also be wary of invoking the Founding Fathers if you're pro-choice. This is what that "most learned and profound legal scholar of his generation" James Wilson had to say:

"With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and in some cases, from every degree of danger."

By "stir in the womb" he's referring to "quickening", which occurs as early as 13 weeks into a pregnancy. If your go-to authority on human rights are the Founding Fathers, that's your marker.



There are no natural rights in UK law. Last I checked, we weren't running around in sackcloth rags and deferring all disputes to the local nobleman.

It took an armed redneck to bring down Palpatine and Vader. They would do well to remember that.

Yes I find it quite disgusting that SJWs speak for trans people even though they are themselves cisgender. I find it strange that they say it's immoral for a man to speak for a woman yet they think it's ok for a cisgender SJW to speak for all trans people.

I've heard SJWs say things like "I'm a girl but sometimes I identify as male because I like to wear pants and watch boy movies". In this, they trivialise trans and demonstrate their ignorance.

They say gender is a social construct, not biological, even though the actual trans people I've spoken with on the web say their gender identity is based on biological imperative, rather than social whims.

I used to be a leftist. Not anymore. I don't like what the left has become. I think the way the left analyses people with statistics and percentages is dehumanising. I prefer to analyse people as individuals.

I think that analysing people as a part of a group leads to stereotyping, ironic in that the New Left claims to be against stereotypes even as they think in stereotypes. I think the best way to defeat stereotypes is to consider people as individuals and judge them solely by their character.

Of course people fear Trump after the left built him up to be a monster. I think that people should not have to live in fear, therefor the left should stop fearmongering.

On one of the Kik groups I'm in, I saw young women panicking, saying that Trump would actually legalise rape and legalise lynching black people. They seriously believed he would do that.

I don't think Trump is the greatest of men.....but, obviously, he wouldn't legalize rape or lynching.

One has to realize that the Internet, frequently, is composed of personas, rather than people.

Most people don't think as drastically as those who vent on those websites.

I wouldn't base my worldview upon the rants of these personas. I would based them on people I actually meet in person.

The people I meet in person don't really have to worry about American politics.

Frankly, except maybe on college campuses, most people really don't care too much about politics. They have a vague dislike for both Trump and Hillary. It was definitely a case of the "lesser of two evils" when it came time to vote.

Like Australians, and like everybody else, all they care about is raising their families and raising themselves.

Well that's a relief.