Print

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

[wierd]

Agreed, and that is what I strongly desire for today's SJWs to do.

[Reelya]

I always avoid using the term SJW etc because of the implication that it's condemning all people who care about social justice issues.

But I always thought that was missing the point of the term: the intent is very similar to calling a specific christian a "Bible Basher". Not all christians are Bible Bashers, it specifically refers to people who are up in your face about it all the time whether it's appropriate or not.

I mean, we're talking a "taking a dump and then some tree-hugger burst through the stall door and screamed at me to stop using toilet paper because of deforestation in the Amazon rainforest" level of inappropriate injection of causism into every activity and discussion.

e.g. when that white transgender woman killed herself and all a certain bunch could do was mock the outpouring of grief because she wasn't a black transgender woman, that's the type of behavior people are talking about. It's about blathering on about social justice issues constantly, or when it's not appropriate for the context. Or, in this case, it was about attacking people for actually trying to be progressive, but "not progressive enough" in a display of holier-than-thou fuck-waddery.

Naturally, when people start talking about black transgender women's issues these people will take it to the next level and cry about where's the love for black transgender wheelchair and/or amputee-women because all the ableist fuckwads only care about the physically healthy black transgender women. It's really about tumblr hipster douchebags who feel the need to be at least three "isms" ahead of everyone else and compete on how many "isms" they have badges for, despite 99% of them actually being white CIS college-age males. This is the reason they make up pretend "isms" they can apply to themselves.

But still, stop using SJW because it's not taken the way it's intended.

[wierd]

The neutral term is "Equal rights activist."

It lacks a negative, pejorative modality of use.

(I am actually grateful that SJW exists as a term. It protects this nice, neutral term from being colored with that filth. When you make words taboo, neutral terms like this one take on those colors, and you make it harder to communicate these differences.)


(Modern example:  Offensive words "Faggot" and "Faggotty" are now considered super taboo--- so, people stopped using it, and the then neutral term "Gay", now has the pejorative connotation stuck onto it. Now, when you say "Yeah, he's gay" in written language, people wonder if you mean in the pejorative way or not. Being called a faggot, or being described as being faggotty are not good things. But making the word taboo does not solve the problem. It makes new ones. Same with making SJW taboo. It wont solve the problem. It will only make new ones.)

[Loud Whispers]

Civil rights activist sounds sexier and is neutral as fuck

[RedKing]

(response to removed removed)

[Tiruin]

* Tiruin nudges RedKing to spoiler that or PM it (or edit some bits) ._. She does not want you to get banned, and recognizes that you don't have the intent to cause anything against the forum guidelines

But in that regard--it's her [Catmeat, since I mistook her as male before editing this] wording that's causing any response to be like such. It can be taken in a way that will be really really not nice (which was my first impression until I realized otherwise) because of how he formatted his sentences and...line spacing.

I believe she's only speaking like that because of a specific context, rather than forwarding a general statement. [but seriously. That wording of 'you make yourself the victim'. In that way. Nooooooot going to work to give the point you wanted, Catmeat.]

Edit: Saw that edit :O It's context-based here .-. (Thanks for the edit?)

[Dorsidwarf]

(response to removed removed)

[wierd]

(response to removed removed)

[Rose]

We need president Bern with VP trump.

[wierd]

How would that even be possible? The two would be clawing each others eyes out off camera.

[Loud Whispers]

Also Bern would unfortunate accident Trump into Presidency

[wierd]

If you are going for a WTF ticket--

Have Bernie with Clinton VP on one side, and Clinton with Bernie VP on the other.

Watch the democrat voting block have heart attacks.

[Bauglir]

Y'know, I always did wonder what would happen if two candidates got chummy enough to put their opponent in for VP after getting the nomination. I don't think there's anything technically preventing it other than all sense, decency, and logic. And, well, Trump seems to demonstrate that none of those are necessary.

[wierd]

Amusingly, Sanders and Clinton could pull it off.

The two are almost in harmony on their reasons for policy. They just differ in some aspects of implementation. Having BOTH in office would be a real boon to the democratic party.

[Rolan7]

Yeah I'd love having them on the same ticket.  Though having Elizabeth Warren as VP would be even cooler I think.