Print

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

[wierd]

And nobody listened.

[Lord Shonus]

I wasn't sure what weird said was aimed at.

It appears to mean that "a huge part of the left thinks any disagreement with someone is an attack on their identity." I think this is correct.

AKA all that safe space, microagression (is that the 'any disagreement' part?), and cultural appropriation stuff. Though that's the more extreme manifestation of it.

Quite. To use a personal example, I've seen people lose their jobs for "racial discrimination" - which in these cases meant things like "objecting to vulgar rap music being played at volumes that rival jet engines" or "blaming your low productivity on the fact that you're constantly running out of work material because the person that's supposed to bring it won't bother."

That's not nearly something limited to the left, sho, heh.

You're not incorrect (the left seems to be much more inclined to conflate identity with position, but it exists in the right and center as well), but I was focused more on trying to distill what wierd appeared to be saying than I was in trying to advance a thesis of my own.

[smjjames]

And nobody listened.

Nope, and that person is pretty damn prophetic, why didn't he run for president if he saw the problems way back then.

[Shadowlord]

You want to see farsighted?

The larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, a first-rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even the mob with him by force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second and third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most easily adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.

The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.

Citation: http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/whitehousemoron.asp

[Frumple]

You're not incorrect (the left seems to be much more inclined to conflate identity with position, but it exists in the right and center as well), but I was focused more on trying to distill what wierd appeared to be saying than I was in trying to advance a thesis of my own.

Get that. Still... I'd disagree pretty strongly about it being a notably left leaning phenomena. It's a very human thing, and pervasive on that front. People in general like to interpret disagreement as personal attacks.

Now, if you wanted to say that left-wing expressions of it are labeled as such a hell of a lot more often, that, I'd agree with handily.

Nope, and that person is pretty damn prophetic, why didn't he run for president if he saw the problems way back then.

Lots of people saw those (well, similar, anyway) problems way back then, as I've been repeating, and repeating, and repeating. Seeing the problem, trying to do something about it, and getting much actually done are three different things.

[wierd]

The labels people use are not harmless. Especially when those labels are loaded with toxic invictive.

Eg, it is not harmless to call somebody racist or misogynist, when in fact they just don't agree with your choice.

You breed actual racism and actual misogyny when you do.

[Lord Shonus]

You're not incorrect (the left seems to be much more inclined to conflate identity with position, but it exists in the right and center as well), but I was focused more on trying to distill what wierd appeared to be saying than I was in trying to advance a thesis of my own.

Get that. Still... I'd disagree pretty strongly about it being a notably left leaning phenomena. It's a very human thing, and pervasive on that front. People in general like to interpret disagreement as personal attacks.

Now, if you wanted to say that left-wing expressions of it are labeled as such a hell of a lot more often, that, I'd agree with handily.

The thing is that there seems to be a much greater tendency on the left to take it one step further and take disagreement as an attack not only on themselves but on the group that they're part of. It's not just "you disagree with me, you must be attacking me" but "you disagree with me, you must hate white people". I could easily be wrong, but it certainly looks that way.

[smjjames]

You want to see farsighted?

The larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, a first-rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even the mob with him by force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second and third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most easily adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.

The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.

Citation: http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/whitehousemoron.asp

We've had near moronic Presidents before, Zachary Taylor or Buchannan or something, so, it's a cycle maybe.

[wierd]

More, "a vote against Hillary, is a vote for misogyny!"

And associated fallacies.

See for instance, this early reactionary piece, where a female voter is devastated by Clinton's loss, because she wanted a mythic, figurative, group identity win for women, and views the loss as a complete refutation of that possible future.

http://nypost.com/2016/11/09/devastated-women-voters-disgusted-at-trumps-shocking-win/

Rather than take it in stride, and say "the first woman to really run for office almost won, and actually gained more popular votes! America really could get a woman president!", the narrative is " they must hate women!"

That is how you lose momentum.

Caroline:

I only use the pejorative "sjw" for individuals who destructively erode any chance of a better future by spewing endless rivers of hate filled rhetoric, and ignoring the very people they claim to be fighting for. See the "white ribbon" derail from 2 days ago.

The representation of people for a fair and honest future is not a war, and requires no warriors. People advocating for equality are equal rights activists, not sjws. Their dialog is not tainted with invictive, and seeks inclusion, not exclusion.

[Frumple]

The thing is that there seems to be a much greater tendency on the left to take it one step further and take disagreement as an attack not only on themselves but on the group that they're part of. It's not just "you disagree with me, you must be attacking me" but "you disagree with me, you must hate white people". I could easily be wrong, but it certainly looks that way.

Eh, I see the same plenty from right wing folks. Disagree with them you're attacking their town/demographic/the military/whatever. They're just not called on it in the same way nearly as much.

Similarly, it is not harmless to call people SJWs or regressive leftists. Labeling is harmful no matter which side is doing it.

Should probably be said there's harm in not labeling, too, though. The only thing that'll breed that stuff, regardless of the political spectrum it tends to fall on, faster than hostility is the perception of acceptance, and all that takes is for folks to stop identifyin' unwanted stuff as a specific thing. 'Course, of the mentioned examples some are a lot more specific than others, heh.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Oh yeah, the White Ribbon thing. AVfM doesn't have clean hands by any measure, it's doxxed feminists before.

I'd say that SJW can mean four things:

1. The actual ones

I'm in this group obviously. People who care about discrimination and -isms, and who are working against it without becoming bad people themselves.

2. The angry ones

Geez, calm down, you're getting so worked up guys. And you're saying things like "all white people should feel guilty" or "all men are bad", stop it. You're giving us a bad name

Passion is a good driving force, but it needs to be steered by rationality.

3. The armchair ones

Share it on Facebook!

4. The trolls

Lol doods im totes a feminist, hate those men right?


People use SJW to mean any of these. The term doesn't really mean anything anymore. I propose:

1. SJW. Like, the actual ones.
2. I don't even know.
3. Armchair SJWs.
4. Trolling SJWs.

[smjjames]

I thought SJW meant a combination of 2 and 4? I'd call #1 activists, not SJWs.

[wierd]

Doze:

The march toward equality is not a war. It is a movement toward enlightenment, and away from ignorance. It does not need warriors, it needs advocates.

MLK was an advocate.

Malcolm X was a warrior.

MLK brought black people and white people together, in a charismatic, empassioned, and enlightened way that eschewed hate and violence in its totality.

Malcolm X fanned flames of race hatred, and embraced anger and resentment, as reasons to fight and make war.

I want more MLKs.
I want no Malcon Xs.

[smjjames]

I know SJW as Social Justice Worker though, not Warrior, but yes, you have a point.

I only use the pejorative "sjw" for individuals who destructively erode any chance of a better future by spewing endless rivers of hate filled rhetoric, and ignoring the very people they claim to be fighting for. See the "white ribbon" derail from 2 days ago.

The representation of people for a fair and honest future is not a war, and requires no warriors. People advocating for equality are equal rights activists, not sjws. Their dialog is not tainted with invictive, and seeks inclusion, not exclusion.

While you may not use it that way, it's still a word that is used by many to dismiss people for disagreeing with them, just like you mentioned racist and misogynist are used (I do agree that I've seen them used to dismiss people far too often). I was just pointing out that this kind of dismissal can be found from all sides.

I've usually seen it used to describe those who are trolling or use fallacies all over the place. I agree though, that term and 'racist' have been used so much that the meaning and usage have been muddled.

[Shadowlord]

Peaceful protests did not work against Putin, or Erdogan, or in Tiananmen Square, they did not save the Jews from Hitler, and they will not work against anyone else who does not care about or is willing to crush them* (unless someone else comes along and applies force, or the peaceful protesters stop being peaceful (Syria)).

* "Conan, what is best in life?"