Why do SJWs think I'm obligated to kiss their ass?

Post Reply New Topic

We get it, you're building a strawman and if your premise won't be accepted we 'just don't get it'.

I've already pointed out examples of people like this and the influence they have in this and other threads, and all I'm getting is the no true Scotsman fallacy: no true feminist is like this.

If you are that detached that you don't think anyone that believes this crap exists, you have some research to do. I'm a little busy right now, but later I'll be happy to post up a ton of examples of people who are exactly how I described.

I don't doubt that you can come up with a few examples, but you seem to be insistent that folks who throw the term 'SJW' around as though it's an insult don't have just as many of their own vile extremists who often engage in the exact same behaviours you're trying to pretend only your opponents engage in. You've been repeatedly making false claims - like that feminists have no concern about the status of women in the middle east, as well as flat-out ignoring the behaviours you condemn when they're done by people defending bigotry. Take your blinders off and you'll see the hypocrisy that your arguments are founded on. Or don't, but until you do expect your flawed arguments to be treated as such.

Maybe you can lecture us a little on how not accepting intolerance is intolerant or how criticizing people for expressing vile and demeaning opinions limits their ability to express those opinions. Maybe you can follow up by reiterating how bigotry has always existed so no efforts should be made to confront it. Your arguments so far remind me of a soiled diaper.

So I personally have a group of vile extremists that I pretend don't exist? Which group might that be? I didn't defend the actions of any group acting out in such a way. The thread is about SJWs, so I'm talking about SJWs. But here, I'll humor you: I don't like racists and bigots, and they should be criticized. Efforts should be made to prevent discrimination. The only one defending deplorable people is you.

By the way, being intolerant of people with DIFFERING IDEAS is intolerant, and breeds more intolerance. Criticizing people with differing ideas is fine. But censoring them, harassing them, getting them fired or forcing them to resign from a job, and assaulting them is not the way to go.

My arguments are s**t, but apparently you can't refute them. Instead you are trying to paint me as some kind of defender of racism and bigotry when I've said nothing that would indicate that. Come back when you can make an honest argument.

Good luck, Holmes. He and others like him just keep telling people their arguments are poor because of a moral position he fabricated for them, rather than disproving the points in the argument themselves.

I guess it's easier to defeat an imaginary enemy than sensibly discuss an opposing view.

Really Empire? A diaper? Come on... use some maturity here.

So criticize them instead of offering something empty like that statement.



I am intolerant of people whose ideas are morally reprehensible, and I make no apologies for it.



You should let the anti-feminist crowd know that, they don't appear to have been informed. While you're at it, how about you point out where in this thread that behavior is being advocated and condoned? You know, so you don't appear to be engaged in transparent intellectual dishonesty.

I really don't think we are in disagreement. I'm confused why I'm apparently supposed to come on a thread about SJWs and criticize non-SJWs. Nobody here is defending bigots and racists, so I figured there was no need to say anything about them.

However, there are some people here trying to say SJWs are not a problem, or even say they don't exist. I disagree. But I guess if I disagree with that it makes me a racist-defender, even though I have not said a kind word about racists.

Good for you for being intolerant. I don't care. I think it's hypocritical to act as though you're tolerant and accepting, but then be intolerant to somebody who simply disagrees with you. I'm not saying we should tolerate racist behavior, but somebody holding a sign that says "God hates fags" deserves to be laughed at and criticized, not harassed or attacked.

My goal here is simply to point out that SJWs often do morally reprehensible things and that people who are against intolerance, racism, sexism etc. should recognise those traits in SJWs. We see them in the KKK, but we let it slide with the feminists or BLM, because it comes under the flag of diversity and equality. The ends do not justify the means, and they are creating more hatred and intolerance.

Maybe nobody specifically condoned the behaviors I'm talking about, but they are pretending like they don't happen or matter, which is simply not true.

I also am enjoying this idea that, because I'm speaking against SJWs, I must also be ok with the bad behaviors of anyone who opposes them. Wrong. I'm an individual person, and I don't care what you're personal beliefs are, if you censor someone unlawfully, harass or attack them not in self-defense, I disagree with your behavior.

But come on, why should it stop now? You guys are on a roll. Somebody, quick, accuse me of supporting pedophilia. Maybe I do. I mean, I never spoke out AGAINST them, so it's probably pretty likely. I've probably touched some little boys myself.

I never outright claimed you were defending them, merely pretending them and their misdeeds don't exist when it suits your argument. Overstating the misdeeds of one faction while ignoring the misdeeds of other factions certainly appears to be defending but technically you haven't advocated in behalf of those groups, merely ignored their misdeeds in an attempt to present a skewed and distorted picture of reality. That's why your argument is full of s**t, because you have blinders on to anything but the misdeeds of a small number of zealots who so far no one in this thread have actually defended.

I guess now we can pretend all the wrong are exactly equal in value and that labelling someone a bigot or drawing an employers attention to one of their employees posting long rambling racist diatribes online on company time is the same as MRAs stalking 'uppity' women online and threatening to rape and murder them for daring to express an opinion critical of patriarchy are the same.



Seems to be working well for him.

You keep changing the subject to unspecified "other factions", even though the thread, and the argument, is clearly about SJWs. Then you say because I don't address this unspecified group instead of the topic of discussion, my argument is s**t. That's a red herring. Once again you are being dishonest.

Part of the problem is that people seem to have very different ideas about the definition of "SJW". Some people use it to describe those who have really fringe behavior/beliefs (such as believing all sex is rape). Others are happy to use the SJW label as a slur against any female who expresses a thought. For example, Spectrum believes I am an SJW, though I get the impression he flings this name around like a monkey flings turds.

I agree. That's why I tried to explain what I meant by SJW. I'm talking about extremes, though I think they are a lot more common than some of you might think. They're not just whiny girls on Tumblr. They actually teach their ideologies and unsupported claims at universities as if they were fact, and now we are seeing things like what happened at Mizzou.

If some of you weren't aware, a rich, privileged black guy went on a hunger strike protesting the university and calling for the resignation of the white male president, all because some random redneck supposedly shouted a racial slur at him one day as he drove by. How this is the university's fault I do not know, but the protests got so out of hand that the president of the school was forced to resign to keep the peace.

And what do you know, now nobody wants to go to Mizzou. I guess racists are still racists, whether they're shouting "white power" or "black power".

I can address some things that have been said since I last posted, but I'm too tired from work and probably won't be able to post anything like that for a few days. If anyone wishes to continue the discussion a bit later, please let me know.

I've found that it typically means whatever is most convenient at the time for the person using it. You'd be hard-pressed to get a clear definition.

I have seen some people self-applying the label as a joke, and have done this myself. It's effectively meaningless, anyway.

He rather clearly stated that he didn't see the need to attack a position no one here was supporting, no need for you to supply a sinister motive for him.

Also, you're using tu quoque more than a Trump apologist, and that's saying something.

Even though I actually did give a definition, and was subsequently accused of creating a strawman, when in fact there are many examples of people who fit the definition I gave. I know I've shared at least a couple specific ones here, and I could easily give more.

But then, when I do give these examples, I get lines like "It's just a few bad apples, they don't matter" (translated: "Yeah, just ignore this massive, festering pile of cancerous s**t in the corner, it isn't hurting anyone.") Or the classic no true Scotsman fallacy: "Yeah, but those aren't TRUE feminists! True feminists care about sexism in Super Mario AND in radically religious, patriarchal rape cultures!" Or, my favorite, the obvious red herring, "But white racists and bigots are the REAL problem, talk about them instead!"

And that's not all. According to you, AJisHere, I'm also engaged in "transparent intellectual dishonesty". Where was I dishonest or misleading? You wanna point that out for everyone and back up that talk? I'll be happy to clear it up. If I was somehow misleading or unclear it wasn't intentional.

But I suppose you probably won't, seeing as you're tired from work. That's just too bad.

Just a quick point.

I use SJW or variations in an attempt not to paint left wing social activism with too broad a brush, as the sting is in the warrior component, and clearly indicates someone who has pursued a good cause too far (paladin would be more appropriate, but doesn't have the same ring to it), thus excluding non-extremist activists. Acting as if the term is some horrible new slur really just serves to prove the point, and is a useful shibboleth too.