RetroGamer87
Veteran
Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,105
Location: Adelaide, Australia
10 Jan 2017, 4:43 am
Shahunshah wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
You seem like a very tolerant person. I have no doubt that you're smart, right and tolerant but imagine if some SJW accused you of not being tolerant enough and made you feel dumb, wrong and intolerant.
No one deserves that. Not me and not you.
But what I don't like is us confronting an individual who may be an SJW. The fact is people don't change their minds often and it can feel awful to have your opinions and insight undermined by someone else.
This doesn't mean we can't counteract SJWS other ways. We can try to stage counter protests. Present counterarguments through the media. But confronting individuals is not a good way. Opinions are a core part of someone they help give them a sense of purpose, righteousness and intelligence. If we undermine that we risk taking that all away. What about their feelings?
If I was wiser and more patient I'd just ignore them, even when they misuse statistics.
As we have seen in the media, SJWs sometimes confront other people. They sometimes invade other people's personal space without consent and shout abuse at them. They can make people feel awful by undermining their opinions and insight.
I agree that we should debunk them in the media, however, this presents a moral dilemma. Is it not wrong to debunk them behind their backs without giving them an opportunity to defend themselves?
I'd prefer to have a debate in the media because I believe all people have the right to defend their viewpoints, even people I disagree with. And I believe that the SJWs are not wrong 100% of the time. Let them debate and they'll sometimes make a good point.
I don't want to hurt their feelings. I believe that in a debate, we should treat our opponent with respect (even if they don't return the favour). I believe that in a debate, we should attack the argument and not our opponent. I.e. we should avoid the use of ad hominems even when your opponent does not avoid ad hominems. Most of all I believe that two wrongs don't make a right. While it's ok to demonstrate your opponents hypocrisy or inconsistency (double standards) if your opponent uses logical fallacies against you that does not justify your use of logical fallacies against him.
10 Jan 2017, 3:28 pm
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
You seem like a very tolerant person. I have no doubt that you're smart, right and tolerant but imagine if some SJW accused you of not being tolerant enough and made you feel dumb, wrong and intolerant.
No one deserves that. Not me and not you.
But what I don't like is us confronting an individual who may be an SJW. The fact is people don't change their minds often and it can feel awful to have your opinions and insight undermined by someone else.
This doesn't mean we can't counteract SJWS other ways. We can try to stage counter protests. Present counterarguments through the media. But confronting individuals is not a good way. Opinions are a core part of someone they help give them a sense of purpose, righteousness and intelligence. If we undermine that we risk taking that all away. What about their feelings?
If I was wiser and more patient I'd just ignore them, even when they misuse statistics.
As we have seen in the media, SJWs sometimes confront other people. They sometimes invade other people's personal space without consent and shout abuse at them. They can make people feel awful by undermining their opinions and insight.
I agree that we should debunk them in the media, however, this presents a moral dilemma. Is it not wrong to debunk them behind their backs without giving them an opportunity to defend themselves?
I'd prefer to have a debate in the media because I believe all people have the right to defend their viewpoints, even people I disagree with. And I believe that the SJWs are not wrong 100% of the time. Let them debate and they'll sometimes make a good point.
I don't want to hurt their feelings. I believe that in a debate, we should treat our opponent with respect (even if they don't return the favour). I believe that in a debate, we should attack the argument and not our opponent. I.e. we should avoid the use of ad hominems even when your opponent does not avoid ad hominems. Most of all I believe that two wrongs don't make a right. While it's ok to demonstrate your opponents hypocrisy or inconsistency (double standards) if your opponent uses logical fallacies against you that does not justify your use of logical fallacies against him.
If we don't debunk them from behind their backs we may end up humiliating SJWs. If they do things like invade our own personal space we can just ignore them but challenging one's viewpoints is different. It is undermining their insight and making them look stupid. I am in favour of letting SJWs debate through the media but they have got to be willing to do it. I do not like the thought of us confronting SJWs who simply want to express their voice and be part of a movement.
In short if they don't want a debate or look as though they lack knowledge don't confront them. Sometimes when people choose to confront they don't do it to debate they do it in order to feel good about standing up for their principles.
RetroGamer87
Veteran
Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,105
Location: Adelaide, Australia
10 Jan 2017, 3:59 pm
Shahunshah wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
You seem like a very tolerant person. I have no doubt that you're smart, right and tolerant but imagine if some SJW accused you of not being tolerant enough and made you feel dumb, wrong and intolerant.
No one deserves that. Not me and not you.
But what I don't like is us confronting an individual who may be an SJW. The fact is people don't change their minds often and it can feel awful to have your opinions and insight undermined by someone else.
This doesn't mean we can't counteract SJWS other ways. We can try to stage counter protests. Present counterarguments through the media. But confronting individuals is not a good way. Opinions are a core part of someone they help give them a sense of purpose, righteousness and intelligence. If we undermine that we risk taking that all away. What about their feelings?
If I was wiser and more patient I'd just ignore them, even when they misuse statistics.
As we have seen in the media, SJWs sometimes confront other people. They sometimes invade other people's personal space without consent and shout abuse at them. They can make people feel awful by undermining their opinions and insight.
I agree that we should debunk them in the media, however, this presents a moral dilemma. Is it not wrong to debunk them behind their backs without giving them an opportunity to defend themselves?
I'd prefer to have a debate in the media because I believe all people have the right to defend their viewpoints, even people I disagree with. And I believe that the SJWs are not wrong 100% of the time. Let them debate and they'll sometimes make a good point.
I don't want to hurt their feelings. I believe that in a debate, we should treat our opponent with respect (even if they don't return the favour). I believe that in a debate, we should attack the argument and not our opponent. I.e. we should avoid the use of ad hominems even when your opponent does not avoid ad hominems. Most of all I believe that two wrongs don't make a right. While it's ok to demonstrate your opponents hypocrisy or inconsistency (double standards) if your opponent uses logical fallacies against you that does not justify your use of logical fallacies against him.
In short if they don't want a debate or look as though they lack knowledge don't confront them. Sometimes when people choose to confront they don't do it to debate they do it in order to feel good about standing up for their principles.
Some of them look like they're deliberately trying to pick a fight in public places. They're trying to provoke a negative reaction just like the meatspace equivalent of internet trolls.
For example
10 Jan 2017, 4:05 pm
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
You seem like a very tolerant person. I have no doubt that you're smart, right and tolerant but imagine if some SJW accused you of not being tolerant enough and made you feel dumb, wrong and intolerant.
No one deserves that. Not me and not you.
But what I don't like is us confronting an individual who may be an SJW. The fact is people don't change their minds often and it can feel awful to have your opinions and insight undermined by someone else.
This doesn't mean we can't counteract SJWS other ways. We can try to stage counter protests. Present counterarguments through the media. But confronting individuals is not a good way. Opinions are a core part of someone they help give them a sense of purpose, righteousness and intelligence. If we undermine that we risk taking that all away. What about their feelings?
If I was wiser and more patient I'd just ignore them, even when they misuse statistics.
As we have seen in the media, SJWs sometimes confront other people. They sometimes invade other people's personal space without consent and shout abuse at them. They can make people feel awful by undermining their opinions and insight.
I agree that we should debunk them in the media, however, this presents a moral dilemma. Is it not wrong to debunk them behind their backs without giving them an opportunity to defend themselves?
I'd prefer to have a debate in the media because I believe all people have the right to defend their viewpoints, even people I disagree with. And I believe that the SJWs are not wrong 100% of the time. Let them debate and they'll sometimes make a good point.
I don't want to hurt their feelings. I believe that in a debate, we should treat our opponent with respect (even if they don't return the favour). I believe that in a debate, we should attack the argument and not our opponent. I.e. we should avoid the use of ad hominems even when your opponent does not avoid ad hominems. Most of all I believe that two wrongs don't make a right. While it's ok to demonstrate your opponents hypocrisy or inconsistency (double standards) if your opponent uses logical fallacies against you that does not justify your use of logical fallacies against him.
In short if they don't want a debate or look as though they lack knowledge don't confront them. Sometimes when people choose to confront they don't do it to debate they do it in order to feel good about standing up for their principles.
Some of them look like they're deliberately trying to pick a fight in public places. They're trying to provoke a negative reaction just like the meatspace equivalent of internet trolls.
For example
I don't think many people would really care about it. She probably likes being able to feel unashamed of the way she looks. If being an SJW makes someone feel good about themselves we should probably leave it. People like to have opinions and views.
RetroGamer87
Veteran
Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,105
Location: Adelaide, Australia
10 Jan 2017, 4:10 pm
Shahunshah wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
You seem like a very tolerant person. I have no doubt that you're smart, right and tolerant but imagine if some SJW accused you of not being tolerant enough and made you feel dumb, wrong and intolerant.
No one deserves that. Not me and not you.
But what I don't like is us confronting an individual who may be an SJW. The fact is people don't change their minds often and it can feel awful to have your opinions and insight undermined by someone else.
This doesn't mean we can't counteract SJWS other ways. We can try to stage counter protests. Present counterarguments through the media. But confronting individuals is not a good way. Opinions are a core part of someone they help give them a sense of purpose, righteousness and intelligence. If we undermine that we risk taking that all away. What about their feelings?
If I was wiser and more patient I'd just ignore them, even when they misuse statistics.
As we have seen in the media, SJWs sometimes confront other people. They sometimes invade other people's personal space without consent and shout abuse at them. They can make people feel awful by undermining their opinions and insight.
I agree that we should debunk them in the media, however, this presents a moral dilemma. Is it not wrong to debunk them behind their backs without giving them an opportunity to defend themselves?
I'd prefer to have a debate in the media because I believe all people have the right to defend their viewpoints, even people I disagree with. And I believe that the SJWs are not wrong 100% of the time. Let them debate and they'll sometimes make a good point.
I don't want to hurt their feelings. I believe that in a debate, we should treat our opponent with respect (even if they don't return the favour). I believe that in a debate, we should attack the argument and not our opponent. I.e. we should avoid the use of ad hominems even when your opponent does not avoid ad hominems. Most of all I believe that two wrongs don't make a right. While it's ok to demonstrate your opponents hypocrisy or inconsistency (double standards) if your opponent uses logical fallacies against you that does not justify your use of logical fallacies against him.
In short if they don't want a debate or look as though they lack knowledge don't confront them. Sometimes when people choose to confront they don't do it to debate they do it in order to feel good about standing up for their principles.
Some of them look like they're deliberately trying to pick a fight in public places. They're trying to provoke a negative reaction just like the meatspace equivalent of internet trolls.
For example
I don't think many people would really care about it. She probably likes being able to feel unashamed of the way she looks. If being an SJW makes someone feel good about themselves we should probably leave it. People like to have opinions and views.
I see her as the provocateur. If someone got mad at her, nothing could make her happier because then she could use this as evidence that the patriarchy is trying to oppress her.
Provoking your enemy and then claiming they attacked first is an age old tactic.
10 Jan 2017, 4:15 pm
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
You seem like a very tolerant person. I have no doubt that you're smart, right and tolerant but imagine if some SJW accused you of not being tolerant enough and made you feel dumb, wrong and intolerant.
No one deserves that. Not me and not you.
But what I don't like is us confronting an individual who may be an SJW. The fact is people don't change their minds often and it can feel awful to have your opinions and insight undermined by someone else.
This doesn't mean we can't counteract SJWS other ways. We can try to stage counter protests. Present counterarguments through the media. But confronting individuals is not a good way. Opinions are a core part of someone they help give them a sense of purpose, righteousness and intelligence. If we undermine that we risk taking that all away. What about their feelings?
If I was wiser and more patient I'd just ignore them, even when they misuse statistics.
As we have seen in the media, SJWs sometimes confront other people. They sometimes invade other people's personal space without consent and shout abuse at them. They can make people feel awful by undermining their opinions and insight.
I agree that we should debunk them in the media, however, this presents a moral dilemma. Is it not wrong to debunk them behind their backs without giving them an opportunity to defend themselves?
I'd prefer to have a debate in the media because I believe all people have the right to defend their viewpoints, even people I disagree with. And I believe that the SJWs are not wrong 100% of the time. Let them debate and they'll sometimes make a good point.
I don't want to hurt their feelings. I believe that in a debate, we should treat our opponent with respect (even if they don't return the favour). I believe that in a debate, we should attack the argument and not our opponent. I.e. we should avoid the use of ad hominems even when your opponent does not avoid ad hominems. Most of all I believe that two wrongs don't make a right. While it's ok to demonstrate your opponents hypocrisy or inconsistency (double standards) if your opponent uses logical fallacies against you that does not justify your use of logical fallacies against him.
In short if they don't want a debate or look as though they lack knowledge don't confront them. Sometimes when people choose to confront they don't do it to debate they do it in order to feel good about standing up for their principles.
Some of them look like they're deliberately trying to pick a fight in public places. They're trying to provoke a negative reaction just like the meatspace equivalent of internet trolls.
For example
I don't think many people would really care about it. She probably likes being able to feel unashamed of the way she looks. If being an SJW makes someone feel good about themselves we should probably leave it. People like to have opinions and views.
I see her as the provocateur. If someone got mad at her, nothing could make her happier because then she could use this as evidence that the patriarchy is trying to oppress her.
Provoking your enemy and then claiming they attacked first is an age old tactic.
10 Jan 2017, 4:19 pm
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
You seem like a very tolerant person. I have no doubt that you're smart, right and tolerant but imagine if some SJW accused you of not being tolerant enough and made you feel dumb, wrong and intolerant.
No one deserves that. Not me and not you.
But what I don't like is us confronting an individual who may be an SJW. The fact is people don't change their minds often and it can feel awful to have your opinions and insight undermined by someone else.
This doesn't mean we can't counteract SJWS other ways. We can try to stage counter protests. Present counterarguments through the media. But confronting individuals is not a good way. Opinions are a core part of someone they help give them a sense of purpose, righteousness and intelligence. If we undermine that we risk taking that all away. What about their feelings?
If I was wiser and more patient I'd just ignore them, even when they misuse statistics.
As we have seen in the media, SJWs sometimes confront other people. They sometimes invade other people's personal space without consent and shout abuse at them. They can make people feel awful by undermining their opinions and insight.
I agree that we should debunk them in the media, however, this presents a moral dilemma. Is it not wrong to debunk them behind their backs without giving them an opportunity to defend themselves?
I'd prefer to have a debate in the media because I believe all people have the right to defend their viewpoints, even people I disagree with. And I believe that the SJWs are not wrong 100% of the time. Let them debate and they'll sometimes make a good point.
I don't want to hurt their feelings. I believe that in a debate, we should treat our opponent with respect (even if they don't return the favour). I believe that in a debate, we should attack the argument and not our opponent. I.e. we should avoid the use of ad hominems even when your opponent does not avoid ad hominems. Most of all I believe that two wrongs don't make a right. While it's ok to demonstrate your opponents hypocrisy or inconsistency (double standards) if your opponent uses logical fallacies against you that does not justify your use of logical fallacies against him.
In short if they don't want a debate or look as though they lack knowledge don't confront them. Sometimes when people choose to confront they don't do it to debate they do it in order to feel good about standing up for their principles.
Some of them look like they're deliberately trying to pick a fight in public places. They're trying to provoke a negative reaction just like the meatspace equivalent of internet trolls.
For example
I don't think many people would really care about it. She probably likes being able to feel unashamed of the way she looks. If being an SJW makes someone feel good about themselves we should probably leave it. People like to have opinions and views.
I see her as the provocateur. If someone got mad at her, nothing could make her happier because then she could use this as evidence that the patriarchy is trying to oppress her.
Provoking your enemy and then claiming they attacked first is an age old tactic.
I actually do see where you are coming from to be fair and i would be uncomfortable with any body shape of gender doing this when im on the train
10 Jan 2017, 4:21 pm
Alliekit wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
You seem like a very tolerant person. I have no doubt that you're smart, right and tolerant but imagine if some SJW accused you of not being tolerant enough and made you feel dumb, wrong and intolerant.
No one deserves that. Not me and not you.
But what I don't like is us confronting an individual who may be an SJW. The fact is people don't change their minds often and it can feel awful to have your opinions and insight undermined by someone else.
This doesn't mean we can't counteract SJWS other ways. We can try to stage counter protests. Present counterarguments through the media. But confronting individuals is not a good way. Opinions are a core part of someone they help give them a sense of purpose, righteousness and intelligence. If we undermine that we risk taking that all away. What about their feelings?
If I was wiser and more patient I'd just ignore them, even when they misuse statistics.
As we have seen in the media, SJWs sometimes confront other people. They sometimes invade other people's personal space without consent and shout abuse at them. They can make people feel awful by undermining their opinions and insight.
I agree that we should debunk them in the media, however, this presents a moral dilemma. Is it not wrong to debunk them behind their backs without giving them an opportunity to defend themselves?
I'd prefer to have a debate in the media because I believe all people have the right to defend their viewpoints, even people I disagree with. And I believe that the SJWs are not wrong 100% of the time. Let them debate and they'll sometimes make a good point.
I don't want to hurt their feelings. I believe that in a debate, we should treat our opponent with respect (even if they don't return the favour). I believe that in a debate, we should attack the argument and not our opponent. I.e. we should avoid the use of ad hominems even when your opponent does not avoid ad hominems. Most of all I believe that two wrongs don't make a right. While it's ok to demonstrate your opponents hypocrisy or inconsistency (double standards) if your opponent uses logical fallacies against you that does not justify your use of logical fallacies against him.
In short if they don't want a debate or look as though they lack knowledge don't confront them. Sometimes when people choose to confront they don't do it to debate they do it in order to feel good about standing up for their principles.
Some of them look like they're deliberately trying to pick a fight in public places. They're trying to provoke a negative reaction just like the meatspace equivalent of internet trolls.
For example
I don't think many people would really care about it. She probably likes being able to feel unashamed of the way she looks. If being an SJW makes someone feel good about themselves we should probably leave it. People like to have opinions and views.
I see her as the provocateur. If someone got mad at her, nothing could make her happier because then she could use this as evidence that the patriarchy is trying to oppress her.
Provoking your enemy and then claiming they attacked first is an age old tactic.
I actually do see where you are coming from to be fair and i would be uncomfortable with any body shape of gender doing this when im on the train
10 Jan 2017, 4:52 pm
10 Jan 2017, 5:11 pm
10 Jan 2017, 5:17 pm
RetroGamer87
Veteran
Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,105
Location: Adelaide, Australia
11 Jan 2017, 5:02 am
Shahunshah wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
You seem like a very tolerant person. I have no doubt that you're smart, right and tolerant but imagine if some SJW accused you of not being tolerant enough and made you feel dumb, wrong and intolerant.
No one deserves that. Not me and not you.
But what I don't like is us confronting an individual who may be an SJW. The fact is people don't change their minds often and it can feel awful to have your opinions and insight undermined by someone else.
This doesn't mean we can't counteract SJWS other ways. We can try to stage counter protests. Present counterarguments through the media. But confronting individuals is not a good way. Opinions are a core part of someone they help give them a sense of purpose, righteousness and intelligence. If we undermine that we risk taking that all away. What about their feelings?
If I was wiser and more patient I'd just ignore them, even when they misuse statistics.
As we have seen in the media, SJWs sometimes confront other people. They sometimes invade other people's personal space without consent and shout abuse at them. They can make people feel awful by undermining their opinions and insight.
I agree that we should debunk them in the media, however, this presents a moral dilemma. Is it not wrong to debunk them behind their backs without giving them an opportunity to defend themselves?
I'd prefer to have a debate in the media because I believe all people have the right to defend their viewpoints, even people I disagree with. And I believe that the SJWs are not wrong 100% of the time. Let them debate and they'll sometimes make a good point.
I don't want to hurt their feelings. I believe that in a debate, we should treat our opponent with respect (even if they don't return the favour). I believe that in a debate, we should attack the argument and not our opponent. I.e. we should avoid the use of ad hominems even when your opponent does not avoid ad hominems. Most of all I believe that two wrongs don't make a right. While it's ok to demonstrate your opponents hypocrisy or inconsistency (double standards) if your opponent uses logical fallacies against you that does not justify your use of logical fallacies against him.
In short if they don't want a debate or look as though they lack knowledge don't confront them. Sometimes when people choose to confront they don't do it to debate they do it in order to feel good about standing up for their principles.
Some of them look like they're deliberately trying to pick a fight in public places. They're trying to provoke a negative reaction just like the meatspace equivalent of internet trolls.
For example
I don't think many people would really care about it. She probably likes being able to feel unashamed of the way she looks. If being an SJW makes someone feel good about themselves we should probably leave it. People like to have opinions and views.
I see her as the provocateur. If someone got mad at her, nothing could make her happier because then she could use this as evidence that the patriarchy is trying to oppress her.
Provoking your enemy and then claiming they attacked first is an age old tactic.
11 Jan 2017, 5:06 am
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
You seem like a very tolerant person. I have no doubt that you're smart, right and tolerant but imagine if some SJW accused you of not being tolerant enough and made you feel dumb, wrong and intolerant.
No one deserves that. Not me and not you.
But what I don't like is us confronting an individual who may be an SJW. The fact is people don't change their minds often and it can feel awful to have your opinions and insight undermined by someone else.
This doesn't mean we can't counteract SJWS other ways. We can try to stage counter protests. Present counterarguments through the media. But confronting individuals is not a good way. Opinions are a core part of someone they help give them a sense of purpose, righteousness and intelligence. If we undermine that we risk taking that all away. What about their feelings?
If I was wiser and more patient I'd just ignore them, even when they misuse statistics.
As we have seen in the media, SJWs sometimes confront other people. They sometimes invade other people's personal space without consent and shout abuse at them. They can make people feel awful by undermining their opinions and insight.
I agree that we should debunk them in the media, however, this presents a moral dilemma. Is it not wrong to debunk them behind their backs without giving them an opportunity to defend themselves?
I'd prefer to have a debate in the media because I believe all people have the right to defend their viewpoints, even people I disagree with. And I believe that the SJWs are not wrong 100% of the time. Let them debate and they'll sometimes make a good point.
I don't want to hurt their feelings. I believe that in a debate, we should treat our opponent with respect (even if they don't return the favour). I believe that in a debate, we should attack the argument and not our opponent. I.e. we should avoid the use of ad hominems even when your opponent does not avoid ad hominems. Most of all I believe that two wrongs don't make a right. While it's ok to demonstrate your opponents hypocrisy or inconsistency (double standards) if your opponent uses logical fallacies against you that does not justify your use of logical fallacies against him.
In short if they don't want a debate or look as though they lack knowledge don't confront them. Sometimes when people choose to confront they don't do it to debate they do it in order to feel good about standing up for their principles.
Some of them look like they're deliberately trying to pick a fight in public places. They're trying to provoke a negative reaction just like the meatspace equivalent of internet trolls.
For example
I don't think many people would really care about it. She probably likes being able to feel unashamed of the way she looks. If being an SJW makes someone feel good about themselves we should probably leave it. People like to have opinions and views.
I see her as the provocateur. If someone got mad at her, nothing could make her happier because then she could use this as evidence that the patriarchy is trying to oppress her.
Provoking your enemy and then claiming they attacked first is an age old tactic.
RetroGamer87
Veteran
Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,105
Location: Adelaide, Australia
11 Jan 2017, 5:11 am
Shahunshah wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
You seem like a very tolerant person. I have no doubt that you're smart, right and tolerant but imagine if some SJW accused you of not being tolerant enough and made you feel dumb, wrong and intolerant.
No one deserves that. Not me and not you.
But what I don't like is us confronting an individual who may be an SJW. The fact is people don't change their minds often and it can feel awful to have your opinions and insight undermined by someone else.
This doesn't mean we can't counteract SJWS other ways. We can try to stage counter protests. Present counterarguments through the media. But confronting individuals is not a good way. Opinions are a core part of someone they help give them a sense of purpose, righteousness and intelligence. If we undermine that we risk taking that all away. What about their feelings?
If I was wiser and more patient I'd just ignore them, even when they misuse statistics.
As we have seen in the media, SJWs sometimes confront other people. They sometimes invade other people's personal space without consent and shout abuse at them. They can make people feel awful by undermining their opinions and insight.
I agree that we should debunk them in the media, however, this presents a moral dilemma. Is it not wrong to debunk them behind their backs without giving them an opportunity to defend themselves?
I'd prefer to have a debate in the media because I believe all people have the right to defend their viewpoints, even people I disagree with. And I believe that the SJWs are not wrong 100% of the time. Let them debate and they'll sometimes make a good point.
I don't want to hurt their feelings. I believe that in a debate, we should treat our opponent with respect (even if they don't return the favour). I believe that in a debate, we should attack the argument and not our opponent. I.e. we should avoid the use of ad hominems even when your opponent does not avoid ad hominems. Most of all I believe that two wrongs don't make a right. While it's ok to demonstrate your opponents hypocrisy or inconsistency (double standards) if your opponent uses logical fallacies against you that does not justify your use of logical fallacies against him.
In short if they don't want a debate or look as though they lack knowledge don't confront them. Sometimes when people choose to confront they don't do it to debate they do it in order to feel good about standing up for their principles.
Some of them look like they're deliberately trying to pick a fight in public places. They're trying to provoke a negative reaction just like the meatspace equivalent of internet trolls.
For example
I don't think many people would really care about it. She probably likes being able to feel unashamed of the way she looks. If being an SJW makes someone feel good about themselves we should probably leave it. People like to have opinions and views.
I see her as the provocateur. If someone got mad at her, nothing could make her happier because then she could use this as evidence that the patriarchy is trying to oppress her.
Provoking your enemy and then claiming they attacked first is an age old tactic.
RetroGamer87
Veteran
Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,105
Location: Adelaide, Australia
11 Jan 2017, 5:32 am
Shahunshah wrote:
BuyerBeware wrote:
Yes, she is a very pretty lady.
She would be prettier if she put on some clothes.
I don't go out like that (even to the pool, where at least you expect to see people in underwear-like garb). I wouldn't do it if I was 30 pounds lighter, or 30 pounds heavier.
I don't agree with fat-shaming and the 10,000,000 other ways our culture gives both men and women both severe body-image issues and the idea that we need to have severe body-image issues. I think it's sick.
I also think showing up on the train in your undies is just antagonistic, and exactly the kind of thing that allows people to dismiss folks who have a lucid, intelligently stated, actual point about real issues as "stupid SJWs" and go on comfortably ignoring the problem.
We are not denying these issues as a whole. But its just that if we constantly refer to White people as being in state of privilege like SJWs do we ignore real issues as well. 25 million white people are in poverty more than twice the amount for African Americans In Kentucky and West Virginia the median income for White people is 40,000 that's less than the income for a Hispanic American and only slightly more than African Americans.She would be prettier if she put on some clothes.
I don't go out like that (even to the pool, where at least you expect to see people in underwear-like garb). I wouldn't do it if I was 30 pounds lighter, or 30 pounds heavier.
I don't agree with fat-shaming and the 10,000,000 other ways our culture gives both men and women both severe body-image issues and the idea that we need to have severe body-image issues. I think it's sick.
I also think showing up on the train in your undies is just antagonistic, and exactly the kind of thing that allows people to dismiss folks who have a lucid, intelligently stated, actual point about real issues as "stupid SJWs" and go on comfortably ignoring the problem.
I mean, if there were a 100 million star-bellied sneetches living in poverty and only 10 thousand normal sneetches living in poverty, I'd say those ten thousand normal sneetches would also need just as much help per person.
I don't like the numbers game. It's dehumanising. We shouldn't be competing over which group has it worse. It doesn't matter to me which group has the most impoverished people. Impoverished people need help.
Racism was born out of an "us and them" mentality. The SJWs also have an "us and them" mentality which will only breed more animosity.
I don't like the new stories that try to end racism by pointing fingers, playing the blame game and teaching kids they have "white privilege". I prefer the old stories from the 1960s which were about ending racism by bringing people together.
12 Jan 2017, 3:43 am
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
BuyerBeware wrote:
Yes, she is a very pretty lady.
She would be prettier if she put on some clothes.
I don't go out like that (even to the pool, where at least you expect to see people in underwear-like garb). I wouldn't do it if I was 30 pounds lighter, or 30 pounds heavier.
I don't agree with fat-shaming and the 10,000,000 other ways our culture gives both men and women both severe body-image issues and the idea that we need to have severe body-image issues. I think it's sick.
I also think showing up on the train in your undies is just antagonistic, and exactly the kind of thing that allows people to dismiss folks who have a lucid, intelligently stated, actual point about real issues as "stupid SJWs" and go on comfortably ignoring the problem.
We are not denying these issues as a whole. But its just that if we constantly refer to White people as being in state of privilege like SJWs do we ignore real issues as well. 25 million white people are in poverty more than twice the amount for African Americans In Kentucky and West Virginia the median income for White people is 40,000 that's less than the income for a Hispanic American and only slightly more than African Americans.She would be prettier if she put on some clothes.
I don't go out like that (even to the pool, where at least you expect to see people in underwear-like garb). I wouldn't do it if I was 30 pounds lighter, or 30 pounds heavier.
I don't agree with fat-shaming and the 10,000,000 other ways our culture gives both men and women both severe body-image issues and the idea that we need to have severe body-image issues. I think it's sick.
I also think showing up on the train in your undies is just antagonistic, and exactly the kind of thing that allows people to dismiss folks who have a lucid, intelligently stated, actual point about real issues as "stupid SJWs" and go on comfortably ignoring the problem.
I mean, if there were a 100 million star-bellied sneetches living in poverty and only 10 thousand normal sneetches living in poverty, I'd say those ten thousand normal sneetches would also need just as much help per person.
I don't like the numbers game. It's dehumanising. We shouldn't be competing over which group has it worse. It doesn't matter to me which group has the most impoverished people. Impoverished people need help.
Racism was born out of an "us and them" mentality. The SJWs also have an "us and them" mentality which will only breed more animosity.
I don't like the new stories that try to end racism by pointing fingers, playing the blame game and teaching kids they have "white privilege". I prefer the old stories from the 1960s which were about ending racism by bringing people together.
