Print

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

[Dorsidwarf]

Very nicely put, Reelya.


In general, your tribe doesn't include the worst actors, while the other guy's tribe includes every tangentially related loonie.

But his whole point was that his 'worst actors' were being demonised while the other guys 'worst actors' were said to be 'not our problem we don't like them that means they're nothing to do with us'

[uber pye]

the worst parts of the right are often demonized by the media. while the worst parts of left side often get cheered and patted on the back for the stuff they do.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Actually, I'm saying that the conservative extremists are much worse than, not equal to, SJWs.

But that's not what you asked. You asked "Why are SJWs liberal's problem"

And I made the point that it doesn't matter what the other side is doing. If you let douchebags take over your side, things aren't ok "because the other side are bigger douchebags". Like I said talking about the other side whenever the spotlight is on your own side is deflection, and doesn't come across as very self-aware.

And there's a strong line of reasoning that the self-refential smug and self-righteous echo-chamber of the current liberal consensus played a lot into the current election loss. So it is liberalism problem. Always being quick to jump to point out that the other side is worse when criticism points at liberalism is the same old self-destructive behavior that got you guys where you are right now. The time for soul-searching is after a big loss. It's not the time to double-down on the set of beliefs that got you there.

Oh FFS, how exactly is liberalism smug again? Give concrete examples this time.

Damn wrongthinkers. World would be perfect if everyone just listened to the right people.

Strife: YOU ARE THE VERY THING THAT I AM TALKING ABOUT

TBF says that conservatives are often wrong about climate change and teh gays and economics. You then respond with... this? Yes, some people are wrong. Is that bad to say? Does it make me a rightthinker?

I am just stunned, utterly stunned, that we are now so far down the rabbit hole that any dissent or disagreement is "smug snobbery" and "thought-plicing." How did we get here? THIS IS NOT A HYPOTHETICAL, PEOPLE, when I said that any disagreement was being called smug I actually meant it.

I could write a script and post it every few pages and be perfectly on topic. Hardcore righters are perfectly crazy, but so are hardcore lefties. And the lefties do a much better job at getting star chambers implemented these days.

Ugh, false equivalency and a non sequitur. How does "farright = farleft" even support your claim that we are being fascist thought-police?

the worst parts of the right are often demonized by the media. while the worst parts of left side often get cheered and patted on the back for the stuff they do.

By whom? Liberal media? Well no shit Sherlock, media is biased. Got anything else to say?

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Well of course people see liberals as "condescending" - liberals claim that people are wrong! They challenge people's beliefs! And as for "defensive", well when you attack with ridiculous claims of us being "snobby" of course we'll get defensive.
See? I'm not actually serious, I'm just pointing out how hypocritical arguments like these are. It's some guy saying "look, these liberals are totally snobbish badguys," no evidence or supporting arguments, and of course conservatives will listen and agree!

From my perspective,

From my perspective, the Jedi are evil!

immediately prior to you making this post there were peeps saying reality has a liberal bias

because it fucking does, ever read Conservapedia?

and only liberals are capable of reason or morality

STRAWMAN ALERT

Not really a ridiculous claim is it, seems liberals are very snobby.

There are loud and snobby pseudoliberals and then there are liberals.

As I write this I am having wonderful flashbacks to when urbanites bragged how all the rich and educated peeps voted Remain and all the destitute peasants voted Leave xD

Well that's snobs being snobby. How can you show that this is representative of liberals?

it's called TONGUE-IN-CHEEK and SELF-MOCKING HUMOR you british bastard

Self mocking humour mocks yourself

*sigh*

I am a liberal. I was pretending to be a liberal as seen from the ENEMY'S side. It mocked everybody, really, that's how comedy works though.

But if calling people wrong is "smug," how do we even do anything?

I do this thing where I disagree with someone and argue my case without calling them a mental invalid or making sarcastic references to how obviously right I am. I always assume no one agrees with me and that I have to demonstrate why my views are valid at all, and I do not assume moral superiority over most matters where a multiplicity of viewpoints is possible and there is no one objective truth

Works for me

C: "This is how things work."
LW: "No, it's like this."
C: "YOU SMUG LIBERAL BASTARD"

how would you respond

...how is this a rebuttal of smugness, though? "Sure, we're smug, but we're also the most right!" is a rather smug sentence, from the perspective of a conservative.

Not just the perspective of the conservative, the perspective of the centrist and the leftist
The USA lost millennial and working class people who voted Obama and the UK lost liberal strongholds in the EU referendum. Smugness has killed liberals

the perception of smugness killed us, it's those damn Russian propagandists /tic

"Yes, we are very privileged, and this is for totally good reasons, also you're wrong." See how anything can be twisted into smugness? REALITY IS ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE AND MUTABLE to these people. Oh wait, that's smug too.

"Reality has a liberal bias,"

read conservapedia for a few seconds, then reconsider

"because it's 2015,"

get with the times, dood, it's not the 15th century anymore

"are you kidding me?"

mrw when reading conservapedia

such things are smug, no twisting is needed.

[NEEDS_CITATION]

Stop being smug is very easy to do. Live amongst your political enemies for some years, learn how to tolerate them, talk with them, and not deride them.

Funny, I'm living in a purple state and have many conservative people to talk to, I can talk with them without having a fit or calling them stupid, and yet because I'm a liberal I'm "smug". This makes no fucking sense.

In time maybe you'll even learn from them

Some Cs are idiots. I have very little to learn from them.
Some Cs are utterly awful racists. I honestly don't want to learn why they're so awful.
Some, perhaps even most, Cs are open-minded and willing to explain their rationally-held beliefs and ideas, these are unfortunately not very easily found, as the loud Cs are the first two generally. I like talking with these people.

I've long since found that someone who's worked on the docks all their life has shown greater intelligence than someone capable of entertaining me with a discourse on postcolonial intertextual dialectics

Well isn't someone a good little anti-intellectualist, pulverize the Ivory Towers who criticize your government

[smjjames]

the worst parts of the right are often demonized by the media. while the worst parts of left side often get cheered and patted on the back for the stuff they do.

What would the worst parts of the left side be? Other than SJWs which really don't have a presence outside the internet.

Geeze, Doze, calm down a little. I get it, I get that you're frustrated at how conservatives attack liberals for being 'smug' without giving any concrete examples, and other things, but you do need to chill a bit.

[smjjames]

Actually, I'm saying that the conservative extremists are much worse than, not equal to, SJWs.

But that's not what you asked. You asked "Why are SJWs liberal's problem"

And I made the point that it doesn't matter what the other side is doing. If you let douchebags take over your side, things aren't ok "because the other side are bigger douchebags". Like I said talking about the other side whenever the spotlight is on your own side is deflection, and doesn't come across as very self-aware.

And there's a strong line of reasoning that the self-refential smug and self-righteous echo-chamber of the current liberal consensus played a lot into the current election loss. So it is liberalism problem. Always being quick to jump to point out that the other side is worse when criticism points at liberalism is the same old self-destructive behavior that got you guys where you are right now. The time for soul-searching is after a big loss. It's not the time to double-down on the set of beliefs that got you there.

Oh FFS, how exactly is liberalism smug again? Give concrete examples this time.

Yes, examples please....

[MetalSlimeHunt]

popcorn.wav

[PTTG??]

the worst parts of the right are often demonized by the media. while the worst parts of left side often get cheered and patted on the back for the stuff they do.

What would the worst parts of the left side be? Other than SJWs which really don't have a presence outside the internet.

Geeze, Doze, calm down a little. I get it, I get that you're frustrated at how conservatives attack liberals for being 'smug' without giving any concrete examples, and other things, but you do need to chill a bit.

Yeah, I've been waiting a long time for someone to explain how SJWs constitute the Liberals being Just As Bad.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Yeah, I've been waiting a long time for someone to explain how SJWs constitute the Liberals being Just As Bad.

Guess I might as well repost this in the actually relevant thread. Short addition: SJW/regressive left/whatever you want to call it typically has the worst impact of empowering the far-right, due to the cultural inertia of traditional attitudes compared to revolutionary ones. This is on top of all the other problems.

Spoiler: MetalSlimeHunt is #problematic, ban him from Twitter (click to show/hide)

I am assuming direct control of this line of discussion.

This sounds like an interesting discussion to have, however I'll have to ask you a question first: what is your definition of SJWs? It's a very vague term, and I don't want the discussion to die because we built up on different bases.

As another defender of the term SJW, I figure I should chime in. First thing: Politically charged terms are universally going to be maliciously misused by others, and so hopefully we can agree off the bat that it isn't a reason to stop using a political term. Some people assert that feminism is the belief that women should be able to tell men how to live their lives, and others assert that political religiosity means you think women deserve to be raped. Practically everything can and is given this treatment. Though there are not objective meanings to words and terms, there are functional ones, and I at least am coming into this with the idea that functionally determined definitions are more legitimate than purely rhetorical ones.

Thus, we come to SJW. Social Justice Warrior. It's not just one thing, but a set of behaviors. I would classify as an SJW those who advance the concept of (small letters) social justice and human rights through such manners as: 1. Conflation of personal and political vitriol. 2. Divisive advocacy; i.e. "oppression olympics". 3. Any of the typical gamut of extremist behaviors including but not limited to cultish behavior, enforcement of ideological purity, advancement of self-serving etymologies or definitions, and committing or fantasizing about violence against others. 4. Gatekeeping and/or hierarchizing other people.

The issue I take is not typically with any perceived radicalism of the ideal being advocated, but rather the behavior and surrounding advocacy of the person acting in this way. It is one thing to engage the political sphere, engage in even disruptive activism, and try to enact utter turn-arounds of society. It is quite another to, say, smash someone's face in with a baseball bat for asking the hard questions and then post on the internet about how your perception of the whole thing means they were the aggressor for asking instead of obeying your advocacy. Or more commonly, seeing someone else do something similar and then justifying it, armchair internet people being what they are.

You have to understand where I come from. Almost all my life I've lived in ultra-conservative places surrounded by people who can afford to use facebook all day. US culture has a nasty tendency to spread, and most people around here act like whatever's happening over there is happening to them. This is amplified by the tendency of news sites, facebook, and extremely religious people in general to exaggerate stuff. So they get all riled up over the 'straight-hating pedophile gays' and those 'extreme feminists' and the 'war on religion' and 'trans bathroom predators' and shit, and act like they're personally getting attacked because a group of people four countries away is getting rights and double-down on their hatred.

In the United States, civil rights movements and stuff can take these hits, because they've been established for a while. Over here, though, a lot of this stuff is still being born, so this "anti-SJW" backlash causes these movements to get curb-stomped mercilessly due to imaginary threats. It's the worst fucking kind of echo-chamber, because it's a nationwide echo chamber. It's an echo chamber you can't get away from, physically or otherwise.

You hear stories about people getting the crap beaten out of them, or being activists being assassinated, or kids being horribly abused, and then later you see a teacher get lauded by being so brave and speaking about how it's those gays who're the intolerant ones for not letting her preach gospel in physics class. So I've sort of come to immediately associate phrases like "SJW" or "regressive left" or "extremist liberals" with that sort of attitudes, wherein people use an imaginary strawman as an excuse to kick someone when they're down (to say the least) and get praised for it.

You're being tempted by the dark side. Any movement needs to police itself for bad behavior or those behaviors will start to spiral out of control. Humans aren't built to do things the hard way, even when the hard way is more effective and all-around better. The mob instinct is born in our very blood, and it'll tend to win out unless noted and checked back for.

Not only that, but it might be literally addictive to shun criticism in favor of sanctimoniousness. It feels good to say "fuck you and yours, we're doing it like this from now on because it's the right thing to do and you can talk to the fist otherwise", but this is deception. Establishing meaningful changes can only be done either one person at a time or through utilizing societal structures to clear incongruity like "rights for me but not for thee" in a society that is based on the idea of being fair. This is the exact mistake the religious right in the United States made. They trusted in their own communities of conservative believers and God's prominence to advance their cause, and now they're fucked even amongst the right.

I don't want to see that happen to the idea of social justice because of people assuming they can do no wrong. The world doesn't owe us anything for believing in good things. To bring people over the aisle you've got to reach out in the first place. It isn't weakness to deny the impulse of rage over bad circumstances, but strength, because absent the wisdom to know better people will mostly always give into it. It has to be transformed into something good through effort.

Bigotry doesn't go away by being angry about it. Hell, that's willingly playing the same game as bigoted beliefs. A methodology of unity, of the and to demonstrate our common cause as human beings and thus the obligation to do something about bigotry and division, is the different way.

Same thing happens with the arguments that dismissing people as racist/sexist/xenophobic is bad. Part of me is aware that often people who say that are arguing is that the left should try not to alienate anyone and are making a really good point, but still every time I read something like that I get flashbacks to "I'm not racist/homophobic/sexist, but [extremely racist/homphobic/sexist assertion]" and people beating someone up because "he called me xenophobic and that insulted my sensibilities, even though I had been only harassing and shouting slurs at him".

This is where I believe the newest incarnation of this whole tendency started. People on the right use the fig leaf of "just asking questions", and people on the left eventually get so frustrated that we tear ourselves apart lashing out at people who are actually just asking questions. Stir and let simmer for ten years to get the Orange President.

@MSH: I definitely agree with you that the left should police itself to keep SJW ideology from spreading. However, I have a question: how do you think that should be done? If anyone else would like to answer, I'd also appreciate it 'cause it's honestly something I haven't considered until now. I don't think there's much precedent for extremism being quelled quickly, or for groups policing themselves (except in the cases where the extremist faction starts policing the rest of the group).

Perhaps "police" is the wrong word, especially considering how I feel about the police.

Regardless, the best thing is to be as awesome as you can be and not stand for bullshit. I believe strongly in that one quote: "You begin saving the world by saving one person at a time; all else is grandiose romanticism or politics." I've nearly taken to describing myself as "anti-political" in opposition to the infectious madness that rigorous political focus brings out in people.

It's also a question of efficacy. South Africa legalized same-sex marriage through court fiat in spite of massive public opinion against it, and surprise, there's still massive amounts of anti-LGBT violence in that region (apologies to Arx). Not that they shouldn't have ruled that way, but common beliefs are from what all else stems. Unfortunately, the tendency is towards politics because that's comparatively easy.

I've gotten flack for this before, but I think a good guideline is pretending you're the hero. Of the Superman-esq variety. I've found that a large number of bad behaviors are ultimately based in trying to "dial down and be realistic" by turning yourself into an edgy jackoff. The irony is that it's totally an offshoot of machismo, which in the SJW political context is being engaged in by the kind of people who usually think that machismo is a Terrible Thing. "Do what you have to do." "The only justice is what you take with your own hands." "They'll never respect us unless we force them to." I should start a Edgy Comic Book or Edgy Politics game, now that I'm thinking about it. Taking universalism and humanism as the ideal state of the world and the uniting focus of the political sphere makes it harder to go astray.

Another problem is that a lot of arguments used by SJW-types are taken from the echelons of high academia. Unlike some, I don't think the bullshit of academic theorists is solvable, and for them it also isn't as much of an issue because they're basically off in a totally different world when talking about these kinds of things. The real problem are the sophomores and laymen absorbing all of this stuff bereft of context. It sounds crazy (because it kind of is), but when some postdoc says some shit like "All white people should kill themselves" they really are in a radically different context than everybody who absorbs that phrase second or third-hand.

There's a Realm of Ideas quality to these environments where entire arguments become almost like artistic statements that are meant to provoke and convey other elements through the speaker's past works and general context, and more importantly where the presence of all humanity is ignored in order to attain lighting pace argumentation and conveyance among other people on that level without constantly circling the drain on arguments everybody has heard a bajillion times and can be predicted ten steps ahead because of it.

However, then it gets popular among people who don't get a Masters or Doctorate in Philosophy, or who don't know a damn thing about all of this and are just pissed the hell off, and what they are seeing is respected and obviously intelligent figures saying that whites deserve whatever they get for their collective racial crimes. Thus cometh idiotic Facebook posts and a reinforcing hatred, and that's just a single example of all sorts of malformed ideas that leak into the (sigh) memeplex. Not only that, but because some of these args are disseminated verbatim from the original speaker they actually tend to be really smart and filled with logic traps, so it's hard for most people to argue against them and they end up attracted to the durability of the argument.

We need to break down the Ivory Tower or at least make it the Ivory Highway, is what I'm saying here.

Wait, what the fuck? MSH, do academicians actually say "all white people should kill themselves"? Because I've been through the equivalent of a year or two of college, and I've never heard anything that seems... SJW-ish.

Of course, that was GE, so it could be that I'd need to major in Fem-studies or such... but I still find that unlikely.

It's just an example of the process. I did see somebody say that verbatim though, but I forget what their role was. They had a big enough twitter that it blew up immediately, I remember that much.

A more typical example would be the badly truncated thesis statement of critical race theory's view on structural racism, that being the oft-heard "Racism is Prejudice plus Power, therefore only black and brown bodies experience racism because they have no power." A short list of what this ignores when it is repeated by the average Facebook poster:

1. The original context is about structural racism. As in, the kind perpetuated by structures, and not people. That would be interpersonal racism.

2. This version is immensely generalizing and says that, for example, if a black cop with a hate-on beats up a redneck, that doesn't count because it's not common.

3. That any individual person with power over the structure, like say a cop or a politician, can turn it to inflict on whomever they want.

4. That it relies on accepting specific definitions of racism, prejudice, and power that all have their own assorted arguments first.

5. That it also relies on the legitimacy of Critical Race Theory, which is ultimately just an idea like any other and could be wrong.

6. That the originator is sometimes just trying to make a point about something like "racism is over because blacks can vote" rather than advocating the idea as a universal principle.

7. That the originator, being an academic, is probably able to see and account for holes in the argument instead of doing stupid shit like saying "So if a black person beats up a white person for going into their neighborhood, that's only prejudice not racism, but the reverse is oppression and the government needs to make it stop."

8. That the power derived from the state is not in the hands of a monolithic entity, but a dynamic and ever-shifting group of people with a variety of motivations and applications when making use of their monopoly of violence, thus making the idea that black people have zero power kind of difficult to justify.

Etcetera, etcetera...

A good example of how easy it is to misunderstand can be found in the philosophical divide of Natalism vs. Antinatalism. In short, natalists think making more babies is either good or at least not a problem, while antinatalists think creating new humans is a problem or actually even evil.

Now, do natalists by and large think we should abuse our utility function and have as many babies as possible, ban contraception, and drown in the morass of humanity even if it kills us? Or do antinatalists think we should sterilize people whenever we can or stop having children and go extinct? Well, some do. Just like there's probably some idiot professor out there who thinks genocide is a form of restorative justice. But by and large they're just trying to understand a specific moral dimension of the world, and going so far into it amongst others who do the same can lead to some very, very strange and extreme-sounding conclusions.

If you look at the philosophy-based forums on ugh... *vomits slightly in mouth* reddit, it won't take long before you see a sentiment along the lines of "educated philosophers appreciate the interest of autodidacts, but don't want to talk to them because they never have anything meaningful to say". This is basically why.

So yes, that does mean that college philosophy departments are the meatspace equivalent of containment boards.

[Neonivek]

I kind of find the term "Regressive left" to be an odd one

It outright insinuates that the left is "Progressive" and that the right is "regressive"

Then again "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice" do the same thing (then again... I don't get involved in that because it is a lose-lose situation with no hypothetical "everyone wins" scenario)

[smjjames]

So, um, are there any politicians who fit the SJW category? I'm just trying to understand it further.

It also sounds like you're saying the far-right and far-left feed off of each other.

Also, while it's true that the parties do have to moderate (not that they actually DO it) and make sure that the bad elements don't take over, it's impossible for a politician to denounce every extreme left thing that some SJW says without being omnipresent and omnipotent.

[Teneb]

All I have to add to this is that with so much exposed fuel, people may want to add at least a /s in their sarcasm before we have a pyrokinetic incident.

[PTTG??]

So, um, are there any politicians who fit the SJW category? I'm just trying to understand it further.

It also sounds like you're saying the far-right and far-left feed off of each other.

Also, while it's true that the parties do have to moderate (not that they actually DO it) and make sure that the bad elements don't take over, it's impossible for a politician to denounce every extreme left thing that some SJW says without being omnipresent and omnipotent.

THANK YOU. Oh, and:

It also sounds like you're saying the far-right and far-left feed off of each other.

Makes me think. Does that mean the KKK is Abraham Lincoln's fault?

[GreatJustice]

I mean, if you want a really easy example of the left being totally wrong, there's the ridiculous claim that Trump was "openly racist", to the point where it seemed like this dumb idea was the biggest thing Trump opponents kept bringing up.

In terms of "who is more inaccurate more often", economics is generally a wash (it's worth noting that econ majors tend to lean towards the Republicans), most things religious are better for the left (albeit regardless of how dumb creationism is, it's really irrelevant to the vast majority of people whether they learn evolution or not in schools), and I find that whoever considers themselves to be "in power" or "the majority" tends to get a lot worse on civil liberties, free speech, centralization, etc. The left is better on some matters of basic scientific literacy, but again, whether their actual policies are any better is up in the air.

So far as examples of liberals being smug, the silliness immediately before the election (Hillary being predicted to be basically guaranteed the presidency + the racism silliness) and the claims made after the election ("Trump won because of RACIST WHITE PEOPLE") come to mind. I think it's gotten a lot worse since 2012, since Democrats just kind of assumed that the Obama coalition would last indefinitely and that demographics guaranteed them victory ("Those damn old white people are the only ones that vote Republican and they're a shrinking demographic so we can win easily no matter what"). Except this doesn't work out because

* This assumes the Democrats can win 60-70%+ of Hispanics and 90%+ of African Americans forever

* It also assumes that young voters trend Democrat and stay Democrat for the rest of their lives

* It forgets that the Obama coalition actually included a pretty large number of white voters (esp. union members)

These premises were proven to be false yet a lot of Democrats seem to want to grasp onto them for some reason. They also seem more interested in insulting and attacking the people that won Trump the election rather than try to figure out why they supported Trump. They're adopting the tried and true Bush tactic of saying "If you're not with us, you're with the insert distasteful group here" which worked so well for the Republicans that it lost them every branch of government back in 2008.

[smjjames]

You could post a respectable conservative link debunking the claims rather than that link. While it's true he wasn't being openly racist in the sense of using slurs and racist terms, he still went out of his way to insult practically every group imaginiable. Not using racist terms, but in a way that was clearly insensitive and anti-minority.