Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mainiac]

So you feel that your words are being turned against you.  What part of the meaning of your words do you feel is being lost?

the part where they sound like good words

So I'm getting that you think his words sound "bad".  Could you try to help me understand what about those words is giving you trouble?

----------------------

One of the noted Warlock Nate Silver's apprentices gives us a very informative piece: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/voters-who-like-obama-like-clinton

I think this article shed a lot of light on the ways that the minority that supports Sanders differ from everyone else.  They are the ones who were ahead of the curve on gay rights but opposed mainstream politicians like Obama in the past.

Of course this sample can only look at Sanders supporters over the age of 26, and mostly those quite a few years older then that so it's very possible that younger Sanders supporters are different from that.

[Rolepgeek]

I didn't watch the debate, but am I to understand that she tried talking over Sanders, he told her "Excuse me, I'm talking", and now her camp is claiming that it's sexism?

It does disturb me how the Shillary campaign sounds, too often of late, similar to Social Justice Warriors.

Godwins Law, you lose.

Invoking Godwin's Law is also a cause for loss.

Social Justice Warriors are simultaneously real and not real depending on how you define the term. Nazis still exist in the sense of there being skinheads and white supremacists who tattoo swastikas on their arms and shit. There are people who abuse the social justice movement for their own ends, or who use it as an excuse to bully, torment, and harass other people while feeling like they're in the moral right. Liberals are people, conservatives are people, moderates are people.

And people are dicks.

There are still people who are nationalist-socialist without being all about white supremacist, who probably hate Nazis more than anyone for making their political views impossible to openly hold without being considered a psychopath. There are people who are genuinely interested in trying to help minority populations and groups that have been or are being oppressed.

So, MSH, which type of SJW are you talking about here?

[mainiac]

Invoking Godwin's Law is also a cause for loss.

I dont really get what you mean by this.  Can you explain it a little more?

[Rolepgeek]

Godwin's Law is nominally invoked so readily that it is just as much a means of dismissing an opponent's argument without addressing it as that which it was meant to forestall. Whether it occurs on this forum is another matter, but if you're going to call up Godwin without even so much as actual Nazis being mentioned, and then just say 'you lose' rather than use it as part of an argument, that is poor debatesmanship. Or whatever it would be called. Intellectual rigor or debate etiquette or something like that.

I mean, darkrider was also fucking up by not explicating what he meant by that, and I'm pretty sure it was a valid use of Godwin's Law when it was used, but given the follow-up on the subject of SJWs, I wanted to weigh in.

[mainiac]

but if you're going to call up Godwin without even so much as actual Nazis being mentioned,

The point of Godwins law is to have a convenient shorthand for pointing out something that blocks further rational discourse.   As I noted:

How even is that godwinning?

SJW dont actually exist the way they are talked about.  People just use them as a catchall for anything they consider bad.  They are being used exactly the same way as fascism got bandied about:

The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable’.

http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit/

Calling someone a SJW is exactly the same thing as calling them a Nazi.  Rather then discuss their views, you are using a label as an excuse to shut down conversation.

That is exactly what is being done with this comparison.  The phrase SJW is synonymous with Nazi in this circumstance.  It's not interchangeable.  It's not analogous.  It's perfectly synonymous to the usage of Nazi that godwins law exists for.

Godwins law is an observation, not a legal code.  The observation is perfectly valid in this case.  Just because they used a different word for "Nazi" doesn't reduce the validity one iota.

Where Godwin's law fails is where the comparison is being done for a non-pejorative reason that is in fact supposed to foster debate and understanding.  For instance if I was discussing military hardware I could point out how early german armored vehicles like the Panzer III were mediocre but highly successful.  When the Nazi ideology demanded a supertank to prove German superiority the result was the Panther tank which looked very impressive but was actually a turd.  This shows us how delusions of superiority can actually blind us to inadequacies of a design.

[hector13]

'cept the last page or so has been an argument about semantics, and perhaps a lack of noting irony. Something of an odd de-rail...

[darkrider2]

I mean, darkrider was also fucking up by not explicating what he meant by that.

My apologies. I meant that her campaign was crying oppression/racism/sexism without any real evidence of such, much the way the SJW movement has been known to do. Which is where I thought they were similar, at least in the instance Redking mentioned.

I didn't watch the debate, but am I to understand that she tried talking over Sanders, he told her "Excuse me, I'm talking", and now her camp is claiming that it's sexism?

It does disturb me how the Shillary campaign sounds, too often of late, similar to Social Justice Warriors.

[mainiac]

'cept the last page or so has been an argument about semantics, and perhaps a lack of noting irony. Something of an odd de-rail...

Well someone making the Reductio ad Hitlerum is well known for it's ability to do that.

My apologies. I meant that her campaign was crying oppression/racism/sexism without any real evidence of such, much the way the SJW movement has been known to do. Which is where I thought they were similar, at least in the instance Redking mentioned.

Okay, so you feel that way.  How would you feel if I said "I find that the Sanders camp immediately resorts to accusation of oppression/racism/sexism without any real evidence of such.  Which is where I find they are very similar to SJW"?

[Rolepgeek]

It wasn't, though. He didn't respond to someone saying 'Well, SJWs, so there'.

He brought it up in a context in which it was rather appropriate. His presumable opinion on social justice advocates not withstanding, the whole 'it's sexism because he didn't let her interrupt him' is, in fact, bullshit. And from what I could tell, giving him the benefit of the doubt here, he used it precisely as they're meant to be used; people who try to provoke outrage and indignant fury at things which deserve neither in order to get what they want within the progressive movement. That easily falls under the category of SJW, if we're using the negative connotations of the word.

Godwin's Law is also intimately associated with Nazis because of it's original purpose, which allows insinuation, and I don't know if you meant to, most likely not, that your opponent is equating [thing] with Hitler, which obviously makes him a terrible person and therefore his viewpoint is bad.

So, A, he didn't call anyone an SJW as far as I could tell, B, he was not shutting down a conversation with anyone, and C, he used it in an actually appropriate context if you argue in good faith.
If you define your opponent's terms, then call them out for using those terms in a context where your definition makes them look bad? I think it's obvious why that's poor practice.

Okay, so you feel that way.  How would you feel if I said "I find that the Sanders camp immediately resorts to accusation of oppression/racism/sexism without any real evidence of such.  Which is where I find they are very similar to SJW"?

I would believe you were wrong? Because as far as I'm aware, they haven't done that, or even really pulled those cards?

I mean, they might have and I could be wrong, but just saying 'what if I said that to you' doesn't really get anywhere if it doesn't hold true for your opposition. Like, either they disagree, or they agree. And I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. The whole 'you feel that way' bit seems somewhat patronizing, as well.

[darkrider2]

My apologies. I meant that her campaign was crying oppression/racism/sexism without any real evidence of such, much the way the SJW movement has been known to do. Which is where I thought they were similar, at least in the instance Redking mentioned.

Okay, so you feel that way.  How would you feel if I said "I find that the Sanders camp immediately resorts to accusation of oppression/racism/sexism without any real evidence of such.  Which is where I find they are very similar to SJW"?

When did they do that?

[mainiac]

When did they do that?

I feel that such an accusation would be very contentious and belittling.  I did not make that accusation for that reason.

My question was: How would you feel if I said "I find that the Sanders camp immediately resorts to accusation of oppression/racism/sexism without any real evidence of such.  Which is where I find they are very similar to SJW"?

[hector13]

Why does it matter so much?

[mainiac]

Why does it matter so much?

Well, what do you think the answer to the question is?  Keeping that in mind, why do you think I'm asking this?

[nenjin]

Shit is getting Socratic up in here.

[penguinofhonor]

Is it?